Reader comments · Video: Pastor tells Vicky Beeching she has ‘given in to a lie’ by coming out · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Video: Pastor tells Vicky Beeching she has ‘given in to a lie’ by coming out

  • Leonard Woodrow

    Good for Vicky! But trying to educate the victim of religious indoctrination is nigh on impossible … particularly in the case of fanatics like Lively.

  • DTNorth

    Lively is NOT a pastor.

    He is an international criminal, responsible for the deaths of many gay people by promulgating lies and disinformation whilst hiding behind a bible.

    • Mario

      I agree, I watched him on the this news episode and he is a vile, monstrous individual with a very cold soul. When you watch him, his eyes are so lifeless.

    • TampaZeke

      I’m pretty sure that being a criminal, or at least being criminally minded, is a prerequisite for becoming a pastor.

  • Lee W Dalgleish

    Scott Lively is a hateful human being. The only lie is pretending to be straight and hiding your true feelings as a gay person. I fail to see how he can claim to be a Christian when he has pushed for such awful laws against LGBT in other countries. Often you see religious people claim LGBT people have no morals due to their sexual identity. What I think is true is that those religious people are the ones that lack morals. What kind of moral person pushes for laws that can lad to imprisonment, stoning or even the death of innocent people? To me, those people have no morals. You don’t “overcome” lesbianism or being gay or bi or trans. It is just a part of who you are. It isn’t what defines you. It’s not something to be ashamed of.
    Sadly those who go through the “cure” treatments or turn to religion often end up bitter. They harbor hate for the rest of us because we are living happy well adjusted lives with fantastic families, friends and a loving partner.
    I feel sad for those people.

    I get angry at those who demonise and vilify us like we are monsters or sub human. Some people need to stop fixating on the lives of others and focus on their own sad existence.

    LGBT people have been around since the dawn of time. We aren’t going anywhere. It’s about time Scott was locked away for aiding in hate crimes against ordinary but often vulnerable people

    • DTNorth

      And the only reason they are vulnerable is because monsters like Lively make it so.

      The only reason, at least we in western countries, need to “come out” is because bigots like him and many before him built the closets that they expected us to dwell within because we upset their idiotic religious sensibilities.

      And at the heart of all that is the religions that lied to these people with there ludicrous promises of ever lasting life, goats, virgins etc etc etc.

      Well sorry.

      The closet door is open and THEY are welcome to crawl into it.

      • Lee W Dalgleish

        I agree. Gay people only have higher instances of depression and suicide etc because of the abuse and the attitudes inflicted on them by bigots and homophobes. If those people just shut their mouths and got on with their lives, there would be far fewer instances I think. But these people will never see that they are the problem. Instead they will claim that person knows they “live a sinful life”… Which frankly is a load of BS.

        What I see online is people degrading gay people and using insulting rude language. If you retaliate and get rude back, they claim they are the victim and the LGBT bullies are hurting them. They can’t see that they instigate the hate that is directed at them.

        I’d much rather live my life happy, with my partner than worry about a book that proves nothing. Want to believe in religion? That’s totally fine with me. I have no issue with someone being religious. It’s when it crosses that line where you start preaching intolerance and prejudice that I have a problem. Oddly it’s mostly in America that I see it or African countries. I don’t mean to generalise, it’s just that is where I have seen the sources come from. Granted we have a few in the UK too.

        It’s just a shame that humans can be so cruel to each other

        • DTNorth

          Well said….

      • “ludicrous promises of everlasting life” — well, it could be that all religions *and philosophies such as Platonism, Kantianism that assert “immortality”) are just a defence by a threatened species who cannot be reconciled to extinction and to ultimate meaningless. But I do not find convictions of immortality ludicrous because we do find immortal things in the midst of our lives. Something true today will still be true in umpteen trillion years time and a good deed done today will still have been good.

        • DTNorth

          What. Like physics. Not GODS.

          • The power of physics is a remarkable testimony not only to the universe but to the human mind. Physics itself cannot explain this phenomenon. A bit of philosophical thinking is needed too.

  • Harry

    I do hope that now Vicky has had the courage to come out she will now see Christian belief for the pointless irrational drivel that it is.

    • but Christianity has a long tradition of samesex love going back to David and Jonathan

      • Harry

        But the Christian churches in the UK are the prime enemy of LGBT rights.

        • they’ve left the benighted attitudes of people like Lively far behind even if they still get their knickers in a twist about marriage equality etc. There has been a huge sea-change in church attitudes to gays in the last twenty years or so, and it is ongoing.

          • Harry

            I see no reason why we should wait for the proponents of a silly superstition to catch up with ordinary educated opinion.

          • If you call Christianity or any other major religion a “silly superstition” you must consider how that reflects on your own vision. “Ordinary educated opinion” on the gay issues is about 5 years old, so it is unsurprising that churchfolk are somewhat behind. A bit of historical perspective would help all round.

          • esxste

            No, he doesn’t. They are silly superstitons. Even people who believe in them can’t fully agree on exactly what it is they’re supposed to believe. It’s not surprise church folk are behind, because they gave up on critical thinking and mindlessly swallow what their local preacher tells them to think.

          • Theology is a highly developed critical science, and entertains a vast plurality of opinions as all sciences do.

          • esxste

            Oh I agree with you that theology entertains a plurality of opinions, but then so does any major fictional writing. One only needs to immerse themselves in the fandoms of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings to get a sense of this. Calling it a critical science is absurd.

          • Theologians appreciate the imaginative and fictional elements in Scripture as vehicles of theological insight. Even mathematicians use a lot of imagination; there is no living science without it. Theologians who are major critical thinkers include Schleiermacher, Harnack, Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar — I don’t see any reason to call them idiots who have given up on critical thinking and mindlessly swallow stuff or to see them as sick in the head.
            All of these thinkers entered into deep, intelligent dialogue with the foremost critical philosophers of their time, with Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.

          • esxste

            Tell me, what parts of the Bible are the “imaginative and fictional elements” and which are truth and fact?

          • Such a dissection is impossible — which parts of Mathematics are imaginative constructions and which are simple truth? The reality of the presence of a God characterized by faithfulness and loving-kindness (aka truth and grace) is a true reality. That is what the Bible conveys, which is why it is regarded and used as a sacred book. Scott Lively does not understand the Bible at all.

          • esxste

            Also, tell me why does theology even exist? Why are there multiple opinions about scripture?

          • DTNorth

            I see. Sky daddy will make it all right. I don’t think so. Read other books will you. Ones that make sense.

          • You are very dogmatic — more so than any theologian I know!

          • esxste

            The reason perceptions of the divine are so difficult to cast off is that believers are encouraged to indoctrinate their children. Religions are fully aware of the need to indoctrinate children which is why they invest so heavily in childrens services, such as faith-based schools.

            Also patiently waiting for your response to my previous comments, I am most intrigued about the answers.

          • Christopher in Canada

            It’s hard to cast off Christianity for the very reason you state: it’s introduced to children along with fun songs about a baby in a manger surrounded by friendly animals and then lots of presents to unwrap, family to bounce on the knees of and chocolates to eat – twice a year! What sane child WOULDN’T want to consider him/herself a Christian? Or any other religion that indoctrinates using the same methods?
            This whole “divine” crap – which puts humanity down and assumed to be lesser, with the idea that we need to strive and sacrifice our own joy during our short lives in order to have Pie-in-the-sky… AFTER WE ARE DEAD!!!! Don’t forget – the Divine also created viruses, bacteria, mosquitos and those worms that crawl into your bloodstream and grow if you wade in the wrong streams in India! A divine that created a Tree of Knowledge yet forbade us eat from it… if we hadn’t. there’d be no eyeglasses, tooth brushing or open heart surgery! And yet, you have to die to join this plane – just not by suicide, as even though that hastens the trip, it disqualifies you!
            This Joseph reminds me of P.T. Barnum – there’s a sucker born every minute! A shame he didn’t spend his career and education studying medicine or the arts – or even social work! Think of what he could have done for people in their real lives, rather than perpetuating myth!
            As far as I know, the only “divine” is Bette Midler. If she’s God, then I’m a believer!!

          • Actually, though a Catholic theologian, I spent the last 27 years as a professor of English Literature — which like all the arts is steeped in the divine.

          • kane

            its not uncommon to entirely abandon religion in adulthood after years of indoctrination during childhood and its not uncommon to abandon religion and then years later come back to it. there is more to it than just the indoctrination of children.

          • esxste

            Talking of sky daddies, do you believe in Zeus? How about Thor? How about Ra?

          • Zeus, Thor, Ra were powerful imaginings of the divine and their worshippers had powerful experience of the divine presence.

        • David H

          I know – it’s pathetic. The bigots pick the bits from the Bible they like and ignore/paraphrase the stuff they don’t. It’s a book full of contradictions. It’s quite clear on the fact that Jesus and Lazarus are a couple (and, in that context makes perfect sense why Lazarus is the one he chooses to resurrect rather than anyone else) – but the bigots translate that into “Jesus loved all mankind” and “Jesus weeps over everyone’s death”.

          You have to question the intelligence of anyone who chooses to live their life by a book (I’m sure anyone attempting to base their every action on Bram Stoker’s Dracula would be sectioned within a wekk); but when they rewrite that book to fit their own distorted version of events they’re really sick in the head.

          • Jesus and Lazarus a couple? Maybe in some gnostic gospel but not in John 11 — “it’s quite clear”? Funny how no one noticed it before. You take John 11 as literal history, whereas it could just as easily be read as an allegory about Christ overcoming death.

            “It’s a book full of contradictions” — which trouble only fundamentalist — it is in fact a library of books composed over 1000 years — and inviting ongoing interpretation and reinterpretation at least as much as any literary classic or set of classics. New atheists seem to turn off their literary sensitivity when it comes to Scripture, if they ever had it in the first case. One longs for intelligent and informed critics like Feuerbach, Nietzsche or even Bertrand Russell; not for religious reasons but to save children from debasement of their minds.

          • DTNorth

            Despite flowery words. Its a book of bullsh!t and believed by idiots incapable of rational though. And quite frankly I am sick of it and those who use it to put me down.

          • David H

            I have to agree with you there. I read a lot of it to be able to hold my own against some of the right-wing conservative christian trolls that constantly slate us on FB and other forums. In those instances rational debate has little effect so you have to learn where to unpick their own arguments.

          • David H

            With respect, Joseph. The subject of Jesus and Lazarus as a same-sex couple has been raised many times by scholars over the centuries, and it’s only in newer versions that the references have been toned down (compare the New International version with the KJV and you’ll see the difference). There are also numerous subsequent references to “the Beloved Disciple”, whom some take to be John other to be Lazarus, again the references are very much in-keeping with a partner than a friend.

            I only take the book in a literary sense rather than a literal one. I am not religious although interested in theology. Christians are told not to change or reinterpret the Bible, but to accept every word as literal – but then they change the bits they don’t like (that’s gone back at least as far as Roman Catholicism attempting to integrate the pagan religions).

          • Well Jesus and the beloved disciple might well constitute a same-sex couple (compare a recent essay in the Journal of Biblical Studies on Paul’s “use” of the slave mentioned in the letter to Philemon) just as David and Jonathan did. That would confirm my point that there is a strong gay tradition within Christianity. It is not correct to say that Christians are not to reinterpret the Bible and are to accept every word as literal. That might describe some kinds of Fundamentalism but not mainstream biblical hermeneutics either in thh 3rd century or the 21st. You will find much to interest you on this point in the following document:

          • David H

            Thank you for the link. I will read it when I have more time.

            Of course you are right in that the non-reinterpretation aspect comes more from various doctrine (particularly among various evangelical churches) – which I suspect probably comes from the reference in Revelations – rather than being explicit (again going back to our other point about much being open to interpretation :-)

          • kane

            ‘…It’s quite clear on the fact that Jesus and Lazarus are a couple…’

            you what?

          • David H

            There are a number of references, kane, which I’m not going to bore anyone with, but the most direct come from John 11 (and I am going to cherry pick just the specific sentences):

            “Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.”

            “Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!”

            Read in context with the rest of the passages, it’s not explicit – but certainly difficult to interpret in any other way! There are then numerous subsequent references to a “beloved” disciple – whom different scholars debate could be John or Lazarus, but is only ever referenced following the introduction of Lazarus – who is introduced to Mary as her son (the traditional way of introducing in-laws). Some try to claim that the Beloved disciple is Mary Magdeline; but the book is very explicit on more than one occasion that all of the disciples are male, which demolishes that argument.

            Ultimately, it is just a book. BUT it is a book that certain individuals use to persecute us based on a handful of references that criticise/condemn homosexuality (although even they aren’t clear whether they “forbid” it in the population as a whole or just certain castes) when there are some clear references in there to same sex relationships between a number of key figures.

          • kane

            ‘…Read in context with the rest of the passages, it’s not explicit – but certainly difficult to interpret in any other way!…’

            i agree that the things that are not explicit can be construed to suit ones agenda.
            btw, its common, even now, in mid east culture for heterosexual men to call each other habibi

          • A loving male couple is not necessarily a gay couple. My own notion was that John and the whole Johannine literature inspired by the memory of John was gay while Jesus was straight — but I have nothing but a sort of gaydar to go on for this.

          • kane

            i was specifically referring to heterosexual men

          • I agree that fully heterosexual men can also love one another passionately. Of course this is used to airbrush out homosexual undertones in the David-Jonathan and John-Jesus relationships.

          • David H

            That’s the thing with the Bible (and other religious texts for that matter) in that much of it can be construed to suit ones own agenda. The key reason why some people point to that particular study is that the words and contexts used in relation to the Jesus/Lazarus relationship aren’t used in relation to other relationships Jesus has (with, for example, Peter who is, arguably, his closest friend) but the same words are used to describe relationships and affections between married people.

            It’s important in any discussion (which is why there is no right answer – even on a literary work) that the Bible was written over a significant period of time, by many authors, in different languages and has been translated many times.

            It has been pointed out many times that in the original untranslated version of Genesis, the world was created by gods (plural) rather than God singular – so there are numerous potential issues in interpretation all the way through.

          • kane

            ‘…That’s the thing with the Bible (and other religious texts for that matter) in that much of it can be construed to suit ones own agenda…’

            yes, on both sides.

            ‘…but the same words are used to describe relationships and affections between married people…’

            habbibi is the term men in mid east use to address their wives, girlfriends and close male friends. not even mention the fact that men greet each other with the kiss on both cheeks, something that their girlfriends can only dream of.

          • the popularity of male-male sodomy in Arab countries should also be noted

          • kane

            popularity of sodomy in arab countries is driven by the culture of segregation of sexes. similar popularity of sodomy can be observe in male only prisons.

          • David H

            “yes, on both sides.” – that’s exactly what my comment meant.

            On the second paragraph, I understand what you’re getting at, but my point is not the use of the word “habbibi” but the context of all those words used and in reference to other uses in the Bible.

            The point is that much of what Christians adhere to today comes from one set of people’s interpretation of the Bible (primarily, the early Roman Catholic church).

            Bear in mind that such Christian groups as the early Unitarian church were outlawed and deemed to be blasphemous for not adhering to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “trinity” despite the Unitarians pointing out that there is absolutely no mention of, nor even particularly implied reference (barring very obscure interpretation) to the concept of a trinity in the Bible.

            My comment is based on the observation of previous scholars that if you read John 11, exactly as it is written, without preconception of religious teaching/indoctrination – it reads as the story of a man grieving so much for his dead lover that he brings him back to life.

            I’m neither suggesting that it’s right or wrong as there’s no independently verifiable evidence that Jesus ever existed and, even if he did, I doubt after 2000 years that there would be any way of determining his sexuality (as Joseph correctly points out in his comment, bisexuality really isn’t uncommon in the Middle East, so the possibility of Jesus having a male lover really shouldn’t be shocking).

            Whether it’s interpreting the Bible or just life in general, the world really is a better place viewed with an open mind. Ignore what generations of Christians have brainwashed people with. Ignore what I tell you. Open your mind, look at things afresh and form YOUR own opinions.

            There’s no crime in ignorance. It’s choosing to remain in ignorance that is offensive.

          • kane

            its hardly about one’s ignorance. after all there is always room for a new interpretation of bible, new angle that can be explored etc. in end, as long as it is just another interpretation and not a fact it will prove nothing

          • David H

            But it’s impossible to have hard fact in relation to the Bible, so I don’t get your point.

          • kane

            with roman catholic church its more about theology then the bible and this is where hard facts can change established views, well eventually anyway (galileo springs to mind). but the reality is you cannot force a change just because there is another interpretation that negates existing dogma or just by calling your opponent ignorant. the multitude of denominations, incl. gay friendly ones, came about precisely because of inability to agree on certain aspects of faith.
            i can see long and rocky road to acceptance of homosexuality by religious

  • David H

    The Christian message of love and peace high on the agenda again…

    • Scott Lively is a freak, and not an exhibit of the average Christian == the folk here who are using him to bash Christianity in “new atheism” style are doing no service to anyone

      • Gay Soldier Of Gawd!

        Where does the list of Average Christian End? Please! Go fight amonst yourselves! We are over your rhetorical splooge!

  • nikkih777

    Scott Lively is an arrogant and ignorant jerk.

  • Alexander Kelso Shiels

    This man is not a man, but a piece of scum that has to be brushed of your shoes! The sooner all Relgions are outlawed the better.

  • Robert W. Pierce
    • john lyttle

      Scott Lively is Deadly.

  • Mikey

    Let’s be clear here: Scott Lively is NOT a “pastor”.
    He is a bigoted hate-mongering activist.
    A “pastor” serves his flock.
    Scott Lively spends every minute of his waking life fighting against equality. He doesn’t preach, he doesn’t minister to a congregation.

    Let’s call a spade a spade: Scott Lively is nothing more than a loud-mouthed hateful bigot.

  • Rob

    I feel very sorry for the torment Vicky Beeching has experienced. It’s awful. I do however think that this was irresponsible programming on the part of Channel 4, to allow someone like Scott Lively on the programme to spew religious hate with only Vicky Beeching to challenge him, who only seems capable of answering in the most banal theological terms. While it is good that there are people in the churches who are gay and/advocate for gay equality, I dread to think of Vicky Beeching being seen as some sort of spokesperson now for gay issues. Never once did she talk about, for example, human rights, secular equality, etc. If she becomes the new media darling on gay issues – which she will no doubt seek to do, given that she is a very skilled, experienced and well connected self publicist (just see her twitter feed) – then this is a very bad thing and means that we will be debating everything in religious terms and having more of these ‘theological’ debates on TV.

    • kane

      i think u read too much into it. she was defending being gay and religious and to be honest it wasnt just the theology that she relied on, she also brought up subject of psychology to defend her point. i dont think points made on human rights, secular equality, etc would made any impact on that idiot

      • DTNorth

        Only a coffin for this vile monster to step into will rectify what he has done.

  • Rodderz

    I’m really disappointed with many of these comments. We fight for acceptance or at the very least tolerance, but in the same breath we demonise our opponents for their beliefs. Where’s the tolerance? It has to be a two way street regardless of what has gone before. Extremists such as Scott Lively will fade away eventually. In the meantime we should continue to challenge them, but with a little grace and respect for what they believe in.

    And as someone who struggled for years with meshing my sense of me with my sexuality, even after I came out, I’m personally really happy that Vicky Beeching has been able to find that now, especially under such circumstances.

    • Lee W Dalgleish

      I find it very hard to show grace and respect towards people who would happily have you stoned to death or imprisoned. The problem is, these religious extremists have caused the friction and tension. Tolerance is a two way street but those religious people often refuse to show any. That’s the problem. You can be civil and reasonable… To a point but they often refuse to take on board what you are saying and instead continue with condescension and insulting remarks

    • Gay liberation used to be an intelligent and even an intellectual movement — it is disheartening that, now that there is no price to pay, it has been taken over by emotional ranters.

      • Gay Solidier Of GOD

        Emotional ranters? Or people that are just plain fed up with the Crap that religion in the name ogf God has tried again and again to prove valid. Get on with you and your bibel thumping, cherry picking ways and go preach to the choir because WE GAYS are Sick And Tired of it!

        • Odd that I and very many of my gay friends enjoy religion and cherry pick their way through it merrily — guess it takes all sorts.

          • DAVID MICHAEL

            Cherry picking a deeply sick religion is for the sloth-minded. Either you take it all or nothing. If you really want to help, you need to get out of your comfort zone and look at the very negative facts about religion, the devastating effects it has had on society, and take a stand. Do not gay kids hanging themselves over religious insanity have any effect on you? Are you that desensitized? Are you that careless? Or is your cup of tea just so much more attractive? Sounds to me like you’re just plain scared and lazy. Next time you drop dollars in that church basket, know it’s going to support the thrashing of gay people. That means you. Wake up Joseph, you could make a difference. Right now you’re just one of the lazy sheep in the straw chewing herd.

          • DAVID MICHAEL

            Even if your church is cherry picking gay friendly, if they have not denounced all the negs in the Bible publicly regarding gays, they are complicit in it’s public application and just as guilty for not standing up to the evils its “god” promotes, and need to get a backbone and vocalize opposition.

            Ah, another kid just went to the basement to get rope for his hanging, for his own desperate apathy driven suicide. I wonder how his parents will feel when they find him? Ever thought of that Joseph, while you sit lazily by singing Kumbaya?

            Have a great time at church there Joseph. May the sheep be with you.

          • I have thought of that and spoken about it thousands of times.

          • David Michael

            And what pray tell have you concluded from the effects directly rooted in the god fraud problem? Do we turn this thing, this thought form out to pasture along with all the other god frauds of ancient history? Or do we idly stand by sipping tea feeding cash to the golden calf it is, and watch the world crack as its demonology continues to rampantly ruin the lives of family and countrymen in untold millions?

          • “pray tell” — why the sarcasm? and why do you think atheism is a healing force? Stalin was as vicious against gays as any religious regime.

            You can glean my “conclusions” from my website — josephsoleary

          • DAVID MICHAEL

            I didn’t say atheism is a healing force, though I’m sure it is for some. I am an Authentic Christian, not a Judeo Christian based in Jewish edict with a fear based “god” that got thrown as framework around Jesus in the NT without Jesus’s consent. Jesus after all, was crucified by the Jews for slandering the Jewish “god” of which Jesus did not teach. He wasn’t a Jew by the time he was crucified, He was teaching an entirely different message that had to do with a loving God, the Real God of love and love only, of which the Jews became threatened, and hence, had Him crucified for fear of dollar drop in the outrageous taxes Jews were charging.
            Jesus was not a Christian or a Jew, the term “Christian” wasn’t coined until way after He departed. He was at best Essene, and even that is a stretch with their rules and regs.

            People get sucked into religion by pure love by Jesus, then are saddled with this thought form called “god” of which He was teaching against. What a mess. Messiahs come to liberate, which was fully needed from the tyranny of Judaism. Jesus exceeded in helping but for the most part we are barely better off now than then, with a false Judaic money god in place instead of the God of pure love only, the God of Jesus Christ which he wanted to establish.

            As a theologian, you must have reviewed the true reason for the crucifixion. It had NOTHING to do with the Prince of Peace being the Son of an evil judgmental murdering “god” sent to suffer and pay for sins man never committed. Pure money making conjecture on that part. The words “sin” and “hell” were not even coined until far far after the crucifixion.
            A Prince of Peace is not born of a Jackal of war, as one would assume with the current Jesus/god matrix in place. It is so illogical and insane, the only way to make it stick was through force death lies wars murder and radical intimidation, the very thing Lively stands for today. God knows Pagans had to go.
            It worked for some, but the gig is up due to the pure insanity of the current culture war thrashing natural man. This false freak show of a “god” is going down, and we need to stand tall in the truth.
            Jesus was murdered for fear of money and credibility loss to the Jews, and erroneously tried convicted and crucified for advocating a hostile corporate takeover and dissolution of the God/fear/money matrix called Judaism itself. And that dear Sir, if you do your Sherlock Holmes around the reason for Jesus’s crucifixion, is the truth of that scenario. One is the “stork story” of “dying for our sins”; the other is the real story.
            Are you still feeling comfortable in your cardigan?
            Have you had your cup of cherry tea yet today? ;)
            I do get a bit preturbed with people who call themseles theologians, who have done in depth study, and find it
            “comfortable” to cherry pick and arsenic laced orchard to fit their needs. You are not immune to the arsenic Joseph, you are effected, we all are. But there are some that need to stand up and dismantle false teachings. And it is those who study that we need the most, to do that.

          • David Michael

            No reply Joseph? I certainly hope you are not one of those that clam up at the first sign of a sensible debate. Religious leaders do it all the time, to the public’s chagrin.

      • john lyttle

        Go play with your imaginary friend. That cold and plain enough for you?

        • A cold and plain expression of intolerance and a closed mind, I’m sorry to say, is what it sounds like…

    • “we demonise our opponents for their beliefs. Where’s the tolerance?”

      When those beliefs actively attack and degrade millions of people on a daily basis, hold back Human evolution, assist in the spread of fatal diseases and are used to control and inflict the will of a religious minority on millions of others, those guilty of supporting it and propagating it deserve nothing but disdain.

      • You could demonize science for its evil side-effects with equal justice.

        • Science does not force me into anything. Science does not dictate from a pulpit that I be stoned to death, nor dictate who I can have a relationship with, nor does it inflict nonsensical rules on entire communities which then actively work to destroy the lives and minds of those in that community.

          And again, “Evil” is a Christian concept.

          • Good science does not force people, but there have been lots of mad scientists who used drugs, lobotomies, etc., and who built nuclear bombs. Lively is the religious equivalent of a mad scientist.

    • john lyttle

      I certainly don’t intend to be tolerant of intolerance. That would be nuts.

      • You are the only one expressing intolerance here.

  • CHBrighton

    My word, all these people claiming to know what an invisible, unknowable, indistinct, fantasy entity intends, Has the world gone mad?

    • and those claiming to know that there is nothing beyond the material universe

      • john lyttle

        Prove us wrong Joe.

        • “Truth and falsehood”, “good and evil” — these are meta-physical quantities — so there for a start is something beyond the material universe.

          • Hot and cold, light and dark, smooth and rough… we can all point out opposites in the natural world.
            Your example is nothing but a comparison. This proves absolutely nothing, especially given that “evil” is a Christian construct.

            You conveniently neglect the sociological aspect of what you claim to be something “otherworldly” when it’s really nothing more than another aspect of our natural reality expressed through language.

          • Hot and cold are equally good, but it is pure nihilism to say that good and evil or truth and falsehood are equally good. Why would it not then be good or indifferent to bash in an old lady’s brains to get money for your university education?

          • Christopher in Canada

            I`d like to know who raised you to even have a thought like that enter your head. You insinuate that only religion stops us from hurting that little old lady. So much for human intelligence and the love of family and community that we were all should have been exposed to as children. You are only attempting to defend your embrace of myth by throwing out red herrings – and in doing so, condemn and belittle us all. Shame on you.

          • The thought entered my head when I read CRIME AND PUNISHMENT when I was 15 or possibly earlier when I read a cartoon version of the same novel (by Dostoievsky). I did NOT say that only religion stops crime. I said that if you deny the reality of good/evil and truth/falsehood you have no argument to stop Raskolnikov in his tracks. Indeed “love of family and community” becomes just an expression of the “selfish gene” if there is no belief in anything beyond the merely material, and morality becomes just a matter of animal conditioning.

          • Christopher in Canada

            More bull, and more belittling of the human species. If the “selfish gene” (my, that’s a negatively loaded term!) means we all benefit, then what’s wrong with that??? To my mind, it strikes a balance between the needs of the group and the needs of the individual. Only a religious person would poison that philosophy with the idea that caring for the self is a “bad” thing. I can’t put the oxygen mask on my neighbour while in the airplane unless I put mine on first – I can’t care for another unless I care for myself as well. Mother Theresa did not go without food in her day as she made sure those around her ate. Again, your red herrings and what ifs are only designed to raise doubt, and the panacea for doubt, in your method, is the embrace of myth… sorry, I see through you.

          • The selfish gene, Richard Dawkins’ term, is what materialists believe rules the planet — of course Dostoyevsky believes in love, altruism, forgiveness, and all the gospel values. If Dawkins means a good moral caring for self I have no quarrel with him. But surely it is you who are serving up a supply of red herrings here. The point I basically make is that if you scoff at the reality of truth and the good you have no argument against the ego-madness of Raskolnikov.

          • DTNorth

            FFS. Your brainwashing was absolute.

            I feel so sorry for you, unable to formulate any thoughts outwith your religious indoctrination.

            Both your parents and pastors, were child abusers lying to you in your childhood, projecting their own indoctrination and ultimate insanity onto you.

          • So was I abused when I read Dostoevsky — Plato — Kant? Gosh, I could claim compensation!

          • DTNorth

            Some of us were brought up with morals by our parents and have no need for religious hellfire threats to keep us moral.

          • It is not enough to have children’s morals, you need to think morally throughout life.

          • DAVID MICHAEL

            No it’s not that. I’m just convinced with all the hate filled Christian wars slaughters guilt shaming and deaths spewed over the centuries on innocent people who have lives that don’t need god props, in the name of this fake freak called “god”, that the psychics who “channeled” the Bible were listening to exceptionally evil spirits, or to their own sick minds which is much more plausable, or they were just fully possessed. There is definitely something beyond the material, they just all got the wrong psychic hotline, and you dear sir, in your silence and hypnosis, SUPPORT IT ALL. Jesus tried to tell you not to obey that fake, but got killed and framed with the same freak, hence you try to mesh unconditional love with a “god” symbol of pure judgment control hate and hell. Oil and water don’t mix. Your religion is coming apart at the seems because, it’s all surfacing. i.e. The fact it is based in pure hate fear and judgment for financial gain of poor innocents who get fully duped into believing there is this thing called Hell, a total fraud. Own it buddy, it’s all yours. Every drop of blood. Religion is the scourge, the cancer society needs to cut out and throw in the sewer where it belongs so people can get on with happy lives in the general masses.

          • DTNorth

            Human concepts dear boy.

            The only thing that exist is growth and decay.

            Its all around us in plants, stars, galaxies, humans, dogs cats, ants.

            And none of your deity nonsense will make it any different.

          • The only thing that exists is animal processes? Not true at all. The truths of mathematics exist for starters. Do you see no alternative between a crazy fundamentalism and this sort of nihilism?

          • BeakerJo

            That doesn’t even make sense. There is no ‘truth’, or ‘good vs evil’! These are human concepts, constructs created by people in the business of pedaling doctrine and fear. And those people are material. Yes humans are multi-faceted and experience spirituality and there is likely to be more to life than we currently understand. But basing harmful teaching and rules on that is not appropriate, or moral.

          • “There is no “truth”” — what on earth do you mean??? If you intend to make a meaningful and true statement you must mean by “truth” something that claims to be truth but isn’t. The undeniable reality of truth — even as exemplified in the humblest true statements of fact — confutes at one stroke the idea that the universe can be explained in purely material terms. If you were to say that the truth of “3 and 3 equals 6” or “London is the capital of England” was just a human construct you might make sense if you meant that “London” or “3” are just human constructs, difficult as that would be to argue; but if you said the truth of those proposition as such was just a human construct such that we might equally meaningfully and validly say “3 and 3 equals 3” or “Paris is the capital of England” you would be in the world of dream, where reason does not apply, or of madness.

    • john lyttle

      After the age of five imaginary friends are unhealthy friends.

  • I have a great deal of sympathy for Vicky, because she’s clearly been brainwashed into this religious cult and it’s caused her immense psychological turmoil for so long. I think even she recognizes this, being a clearly intelligent woman and being so well educated. It’s hard for such an intelligent person to be able to abandon scientific logic in favor of indoctrinated religious delusion.

    I also think it’s remarkable to see the polar opposite in Lively, a man who utterly rejects science, reality, nature and facts in favor of “faith”. The man is clearly mentally ill, and I would even suggest he has such self-loathing he’s probably gay himself.

    Finally I have to admit that I find it incredibly difficult to listen to people talking about God, without imagining them talking to their sock-covered hand as if it’s a real person. My mind is far too logical to be able to comprehend how stupid I would have to be to abandon reality in favor of an invisible sky wizard.

    • john lyttle

      Lively believes the earth is less than 5000 years old and man and dinosaur co-existed. To us The Flintstones is a cartoon, to him it’s a documentary.

      • And in this Lively represents not modern Christianity but the plague of Fundamentalism.

  • john lyttle

    Thank you for sharing, Scott Deadly.

  • Guglielmo Marinaro

    Yes, of course she has given in to a lie. How? By contradicting what Scott Lively calls “truth”. The word “truth”, as used by Scott Lively, means what Scott Lively thinks OUGHT to be true, even if it isn’t.

  • TampaZeke

    The only lie that this woman has given into is the lie that the cult of Christianity, and the other desert cults, promote love, compassion and/or peace.

    She needs to wake up to the fact that you can’t “change” evil “from the inside”. Every day she spends excusing, supporting and promoting this scourge of humanity is one more day that she’s part of the problem and not the solution

    • If you think Lively is typical of Christianity I suggest you drop in on your local parish.

      • Christopher in Canada

        Stop proselytising. People have minds and valid belief systems of their own already – there is no need of ANYONE having to give up whatever method with which they choose to relate to the universe in order to embrace yours. Yours is not a superior approach – indeed, it is based upon the same fallacy as missionaries in ages past going forth to the continents to “save the heathens” (yeah, before giving them smallpox and sacking their civilizations!). You insult my intelligence by sitting there and implying that your religion is anything more than a crock used to control the masses. Lively, and your claims that you somehow differ from him, are both suspect. I suggest you henceforth do what Jesus instructed people to do, namely: shut up, get off the street corner, go home, get in a closet, turn off the light and think. You are scaring the children, and children, they say, are closer to what ends up in your heaven than any adult would ever hope to be.
        If only that would make you pipe down – but there is no reasoning with a drunk man… but rest assured, we’ve got your number. The sooner you realise that religion is something humanity does not need, the better for the world.
        Now, back to my Christopher Hitchens and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I want to learn about reality.

        • The point of my remark about the local parish was just to ask him to verify his image of Xty by looking at its on the ground reality. Actually Jesus, as described in the Gospels, was very keen on proselytism — “teach all nations” “do not hide your light under a bushel” — and I am not sure it is worse to be drunk on Jesus than on Hitchens.

          • Christopher in Canada

            Bull. You are not sure of anything. No other philosopher has ever produced any more proof than you can, you name-dropper, you! You do not know any more than anyone else that has ever lived on this planet about anything. yet sit there smug in your assumption that you have key information that no one else has. I can quote Superman comics, too – but that doesn`t make HIM real, either! Your worldview (or cosmosview) is one of hierarchy based upon class and wealth – nothing more. The whole religious parthenon reflects that system. Man is no less, nor no more, than any other species that has ever evolved on this planet. I’d like a Blue Whale’s opinion on religion, for all that it may be worth. As for you, Joseph, be gone, before someone drops a house on YOU!

          • I argue that our everyday awareness of truth and falsehood, good and evil, points to a dimension of reality that is absolute and immaterial and that many call divine. Why can you not address that calmly and civilly?

          • Christopher in Canada

            Au contraire, you assume I`m here all a-flutter. I`m not. I`m simply telling you that I have my own mind and thoughts, and after examining yours, have the self-respect to reject your whole package as a mess of myth that once held power over society. Thankfully, the public education system continues to produce generations of people that are encouraged to examine the world and think for themselves. Truth and falsehood are put to rest when Physics is applied. The voice of myth continues to be irrelevant in the modern age – in fact, the only religious voice that`s loud today IS the fundamentalist – whether Christian or Muslim or whatever else is shrieking into oblivion, and determined to kill as many of its neighbours as it can on its way out. You, Joseph, are yesterday`s man. I don`t need religion to know that it is better to care for my neighbour than it is to war upon him, in fact, the Canadian Medicare system is based on that notion. I too need help some days – and I don`t need to clutter the relationship with my community (whether local or global) by putting my needs ahead of others’, or by imposing some arbitrary superstitious moral code on the whole thing. People loved each other long before religion was ever dreamt up, and we don’t need religion to keep us from hating each other. Religion’s track record in THAT department is pretty poor.

          • Glad you believe in truth and falsehood. It’s a good basis for rational reflection on religious experiences and claims. Loud religious voices are always bad — God is in the gentle breeze, says Scripture. “It is better to care for my neighbor than to war on him” — indeed, and that too is a basis for calm and rational discussion of the religious doctrine of love — the Golden Rule that is at the centre of numerous religions. It is invoked to correct whatever is arbitrary and superstitious in moral codes — love is the fulfilling of the law. “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” I suggest, with Swift, that the answer to bad religion is good.

    • David Michael

      Very well said and spot on.

  • Lively is obnoxious and his fundamentalism is a dangerous disease which is weakening all countries that embrace it, especially the USA. I am sad that people have so little feeling for the authentic greatness and power of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, which are paths to truth, love, and justice, and to the gracious presence of the divine. Fundamentalists and antireligionists sometimes seem like mirror images of each other, raging in comboxes as in some draughty limbo.

  • LeeDorsey

    Thanks to Pink News… This is the only place I could find where ANY of what she said was transcribed… There are MANY deaf/hearing impaired LGBT LGBTQI and their friends and families WHO CANNOT DO VIDEOS… Please if anyone finds full transcript let me know..and or this lady needs a FULL TEXTUAL interview please.

  • A Christian

    Having read some of the comments here, I have to wonder how Vicky is going to be accepted within the gay community? Has she moved from one battleground, that of being gay within the church, to another, that of being a Christian in the gay community? If as Christians we could learn to at least be tolerant enough to accept differences of opinion on this issue, then that would be a good start. We should not codemn and when that has happened, I for one am sorry. We certainly need to learn from Vicky’s experience and consider how we respond to gay Christians and to the gay community. I ask the gay community to also consider how you respond to gay Christians. If you criticise them for being Christian then I don’t see how that’s different to Christians criticising gays.

    • LJ

      Yeah, there may be some minor intolerance of her faith and that is sh*tty, but I can tell you what won’t happen, nobody will call for her death, nobody will demand that a law is put in place to put her in prison for a ‘crime’ that hurts no-one, nobody will tell her that she is an abomination that needs to be cured with torture disguised as therapy. You can’t say the same about your bedfellows.

      • A Christian

        Actually, I can say the same about the majority of them (at least the ones that I mix with) Even if they don’t agree, most of “my bedfellows” to use your term will not take it to those extremes. Unfortunately some will and THAT is an abomination. Sadly the ones who are most condemining often have the biggest mouths! We have much to learn in the church and I’m in that learning process.

        • LJ

          Of course the majority are peaceful, but the problem is that they hide behind reasonable people like you. There is this notion in society that religious belief is inherently respectable. If somebody just decides that they want to treat gay people unequally for the sake of it they are widely condemned as bigots, but if it’s cloaked with religious belief it’s suddenly veiwed as a valid opinion.


    She is great, however, I do think science needs to go more center stage in these types of conversations above. DNA is DNA, and we have 96% of the same DNA as Monkeys. And though we may be God’s souls (IMO creative spark only), and may squirm at the following fact; we are souls that are inhabiting animalistic bodies which share the exact same matrix features as animals regardless of how an animal looks: Food water and sex, the basic three markers to describe an animal. We eat drink and f**k, just like monkeys.

    Monkeys are spectral sexual, meaning they are gay bi and straight, a carbon copy of us sexually. And we as humans, are sexually a carbon cop of them.

    Google and watch; Out in Nature: Homosexual Behavior In The Animal Kingdom. It’s the perfect documentary for understanding the parallels.

    It’s in the genes. We can’t change them. Not with judgment guilt desperate prayers or voodoo spells, i.e. psycho-based religion. So don’t even try. It’s in us, it’s in the blood, that’s it. Get over it. You’re IN an animal. And thoughest must obey thy animal genes while in occupancy, or get depressed dehydrate or starve sexually or otherwise. Our choice. Accept it or be sick in the head and lead a sick life. That’s THE REAL scientific bottom line about our sexual nature and all these asinine voodoo based conversations.

    We are right on Q with nature. That’s always a great thing.


      PS … There’s good reason some people call sex The Monkey Dance. Now
      get the hell out of your head and go f**k your balls off, it’s your
      nature. Drop the nonsensical retarded psycho drama, AND LIKE IT. Then
      …….. go do it again!

  • Joshua

    Listen to yourselves!!!! You claim to be all about love and tolerance and you are showing such hatred, venom and spite towards those who have a different world view – oh the irony. The LGBT army lobby for tolerance and yet are unable to show tolerance to those who disagree with their world view. The amount of ignorance about what the Bible actually teaches on homosexuality by many LGBT folk is also astounding. For Christians their identity is in Christ not who they sleep around with! – Just goes to show Christians aren’t the only hypocrites in this mad world…

    • David Michael

      I don’t know of anyone in the gay world saying they are “all about love and tolerance.” That’s hypocritical Christians. That’s a “Christian Value” Christians break every day by throwing irrational Christian witchcraft designed to infect minds and guilt trip the natural via that psycho man made god you stoop to. Soooo sick. No we don’t love and tolerate being victimized by cult freaks. LGBTs just want their rights. And we are attaining them AT lightening speed. Now go take a sex ed class, wash the religion out of your brain cells, then come back with a real conversation.

    • Last time I checked no one was claiming that Christians should be treated as second class citizens, that they don’t have a right to be with who they want to be with, there are no LGBT groups lobbying politicians and threatening businesses over Christian rights, there are no LGBT employers firing people based on their Christian beliefs, no Christian teachers being sacked after being outed as Christian, no LGBT radio hosts preaching violence and hatred toward Christians, not LGBT preachers helping to create murderous laws in foreign countries, and no LGBT campaigners facing charges for crimes against basic Human Rights… I could go on.

    • Brittany Smith

      I will agree with you that many LGBT people have gotten to the point of no return with their anger and retaliated in the same manner that Anti-Gay Christians have been their entire life, but the majority of gay Christians, including myself, usually point out the hypocriticalness more than anything. I don’t justify the actions of those that say things in hate – I try not be as hypocritical as those who condemn me – I more so try to show how ridiculous it is to call yourself a “Christian” when you are abusing me emotionally and physically with your words of hate. They will know we are Christians by our love…… sad how untrue this is, isn’t it?

    • ktah

      If “christians” are prejudiced and homophobic against other people it is grossly hypocritical that they would then be surprised or complain when their hatred and intolerance is met with hatred and intolerance. Why would you expect people to tolerate intolerance, love hatred or accept unacceptance??? In the same way that other people don’t interfere with how you apply your beliefs to your own life, you should try minding your own business about other peoples lives and relationships instead of having an intrusive, ignorant and obsessive view about lives and loves that are none of your business at the end of the day.

  • Somethings are worth repeating:

    That is the crux of it right Mr Lively?
    To turn people against themselves. To fool them into believing they are powerless.
    That some demonic spirit or devil controls them.
    But wait …
    Who is truly there to save them?
    Not themselves.
    Not their God.
    Just YOU.

    YOU claim people and even your very own sister turned to YOU.
    In your righteousness YOU are the saviour that points to YOUR God.
    YOU holler ‘Save your self’.
    Yet there YOU are taking the credit for turning those YOU point to as finding God because of YOU.
    YOU will go out into your Gods world and warn the misbegotten, the disavowed and the disdained.

    There can be no worse evil than those who purport to show others the way.

    Read YOUR bible.
    Or YOUR version of it.

    • That being said.
      I will always choose to believe in people.
      That they are born good.
      That life is not there to lead them astray.
      That love is the most powerful and freeing force there will ever be.
      That the simple act of listening and being there for those in a time of need
      changes everything.
      That just being human and being you is the path inherent.

  • wildseas

    I thought Scott Livel;y had been arrested and incarcerated? What is he still doing outside prison?

  • Geoff McLarney

    Scott Lively is not an ordained pastor or recognized authority of any Christian diocese, and PN does no one any favours by representing him as such. (And while we’re at it, we can stop referring to the Phelps family as Westboro Baptist “Church”: if I declare that all my relatives are our own religion, can I be in the paper too?)

  • It really is about time that straight people started having to “come out”. What the hell does it matter?! It’s 2014 and yet still such pressure is put on people who are not heterosexual to tell the world they are “different” and we are constantly having to justify why we should be allowed to live!

  • Brittany Smith

    You can repent too Scott! Your gluttony and choice to be fat is only leading those that follow you into the fiery pits of hell! Did you not read the Holy Bible where it clearly states that being fat is a sin!!! Philippians 3:19, Proverbs 23:2 “It’s better to put a knife in your throat then to succumb to your appetite!” Repent away your gluttony! ;)

    I swear – God must be having a good laugh at this interview.

  • Another strand in the Christian gay legacy is in place with the growing perception that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as martyr, was gay.

    • David Michael

      I checked out your web site. Quite nice and good helpful info. I take it all back. ;)

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.