Here’s Christian Post’s report of that fateful miracle service [mirrored] on 2 March 2009. The title truly deserves an “Epic WTF Award”. Christian Post has since removed the story from its website but I think it’s good that we archive this. Can there be any misunderstanding or misinterpreting of what Rony Tan said that evening at all?
Pastor Explores Paedophilic Roots of Homosexuality
by Edmond ChuaIs homosexuality an inborn genetic trait or is it an acquired behaviour? Proponents of homosexuality would seek to prove that it is nature while its opponents try to show that it is nurture.
Stepping into the fray, independent church Lighthouse Evangelism has dedicated a miracle service to the subject the video of which was recently uploaded on the church’s newly revamped website.
In his introduction LE’s Senior Pastor Rony Tan showed that homosexual behaviour could have been acquired as a result of child molestation, in addition to other causes – mostly relational – including abusiveness of parents sharing the same sex as the person in question.
For example, there could be those who as little children were sexually attacked by paedophiles thus confusing boys about what they should feel toward other males since their first sexual encounter and during their formative years was with a man, and in the case of the part-time LE staff, an ex-lesbian, who shared her testimony, developing in girls a repulsion and disgust toward males in general.
That said, the pastor emphasised that barring a very small percentage of the homosexual population all homosexuals are so by “acquired taste”, stating that many of the homosexuals are adults who turned to homosexuality only after marriage and having children.
“The homosexual urge could be developed especially when a person is very lonely and very disturbed and very confused,” he said, calling such cases perversions.
The well-known regional faith healer also warned against indifference to trends of homosexuality such as barrenness and a downward slide into different forms of bestiality.
“I tell you it is abnormal and if we don’t warn people against it then there will be more homosexuals,” he said. “Many of these people will be not all of them of course but many of these people will be harassing and seducing young boys and they in turn will become homosexuals because of confused sex orientation at such a very early age and very soon half the world is homosexual meaning that half the world will be barren. It’s a serious problem. Proper sex means life, it propagates life. Lesbianism and homosexuality simply mean death, barrenness.
“I want to declare to you two men or two women cannot make a family. That’s impossible, cannot be regarded as a family. You see man’s heart is so wicked that if you allow that next time people will get married to a monkey and they want rights they want to apply HDB flat with a donkey or a monkey or a dog.”
The mega-church founder also made it clear that while there would be some “loud-mouthed homosexuals” most of them are not fighting for rights as homosexuals but admit that homosexuality is an abnormality. And he urged those with such tendencies to be prayerful, revisit and examine their past and seek the Lord for a miraculous healing to set them free.
Outspoken opponent of homosexuality Church Of Our Saviour Senior Pastor Rev Canon Derek Hong ran a sermon series on the topic during the period of parliamentary discussion in which he clarified that homosexuality is viewed as a sin according to the Bible, highlighted that change is possible for homosexuals and showed through two live testimonies of his congregants that the behaviour could have developed due to the abusiveness of the parent with the same sex as the child and the indifference and absenteeism of the other parent.
And, oh, before we forget — Rony Tan still maintains that he said nothing wrong at all.
Tags: Christian Post, Christianism, Christianity, Lighthouse Evangelism, religion, Rony Tan, Singapore
If you read Christian Post Singapore regularly, you will discover the editor, Edmund, is a die-cut supporter of The Teos, Cornerstone, and COOS.
In fact, he quite frequently loses it and spouts all sorts of very vehement accuations, the likes of which includes condemning Archbishop John’s statement towards the Aware incident, propagating Thio Li Ann’s theories of the militant secularist, accusing The Straits Times of supporting the gay agenda, and insinuating that the couple jailed for the seditious tracts was being persecuted for being faithful Christians.
Very frequently, you see him removing his editorials within a few days too.
He is obvious a syncophant, or equivalent in stature to these Christian activists. That he so aggressively disseminating misinformation and accusations towards everything and everyone, I say he needs to be on the government’s watchlist. If he is not already.
I’ve been told Edmond is Bible Presbyterian. I wonder why he doesn’t heckle Rony Tan for not using KJV only. Or launch an investigation into the veracity of the miracles taking place at Lighthouse.
The Catholics take great care before pronouncing an event as a miracle and the charismatics can learn a thing or two from them I think.
As I’m sure you know, very similar quack psychology and lies of pastors is being used to justify the proposed death penalty against gays (and their friends and supporters – yes, you don’t even have to have gay sex or be gay to get hanged)in Uganda. The Psychological Society of South Africa has come out fighting and issued a statement:
An Open Statement from the Psychological Society of South Africa
to the People and Leaders of Uganda Concerning
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009
And addressed to:
President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
aak@statehouse.go.ug
Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Edward Ssekandi Kiwanuka
dnuwamanya@parliament.go.ug
Introduction
On the occasion of the proposed legislation in Uganda to greatly expand your country’s existing criminalisation of homosexual behaviour, as well as to criminalise those who fail to report even suspicion of it including family members, colleagues and health care professionals;
And given arguments made in the bill itself and from its proponents in numerous public statements that it is intended to achieve the laudable goal of protecting youth, families and communities;
And given that there has been ample critique by civil society including human rights, public health and faith communities addressing a range of serious concerns from those perspectives;
And given that it is good practice that legislation is based not on unsubstantiated opinions, but rather on recognised research findings;
And given that there has not yet been a scientific analysis of the core assumptions and arguments being made to justify the legislation;
And given that the considerable body of relevant international scientific research provides a context in which to assess the assumptions and issues presented by The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009;
It is therefore incumbent on representatives of organised psychology, as leaders in the field of mental health and well-being, to offer such an analysis and recommendations as follows[1]:
The Nature of Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation refers to one’s emotional, romantic and sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes. It can also refer to a person’s core sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviours, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.
Research and clinical experience have found no relationship between sexual orientation and someone’s ability to contribute to the community and to influence children to become responsible members of society.
Research and clinical experience further concludes that for most people sexual orientation is not “a choice” or “voluntary.” The core aspects of sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, typically emerge by early adolescence, even though the individual may not yet have become sexually active.
While “causes” for any of these sexual orientations remain unclear, they are highly resistant to change. Further, there is no reliable evidence that sexual orientation is subject to redirection, “conversion” or any significant influence from efforts by psychological or other interventions.
Research and clinical experience concludes that homosexual or bisexual orientations are naturally occurring minority variations of normal human sexuality. They are also documented widely throughout nature.
The Sexual Orientation of Adults Does Not Adversely Affect Children in Their Care
A common manifestation of prejudice against homosexual people has been the allegation that gay men in particular pose a danger to children. Yet, all available reliable research data and clinical experience concludes that gay men are not more likely than heterosexual men to sexually exploit and abuse children. Claims to the contrary seriously mischaracterise the research and rely on suspect sources. The presumption that homosexual men are paedophiles also is not supported by respected, peer reviewed research.
South African-based as well as other international research has found that there is no difference between children who are raised by homosexual versus heterosexual parents regarding matters such as sexual orientation, gender identity, sex-role behaviour, likelihood of being sexually abused, self-concept, intelligence, personality characteristics, behaviour problems, peer relations, parental separation and divorce, general adjustment and accomplishment of developmental tasks.
Effects of Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation
Both international and South African research has found significant negative effects of exclusion and other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation-based discrimination presents the same risks of psychological and other harms as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender.
Notably, among youth who identify as homosexual or bisexual or who think they may be, research concludes that family rejection and exclusion, as well as bullying by peers, correlates highly with a range of high risk behaviours and outcomes ranging from truancy to substance abuse to attempts at suicide.
In much of sub-Saharan Africa, homosexuality is firstly interpreted as “foreign,” portrayed as “un-African” and a “white import.” In some traditional African beliefs, those of a same-sex sexual orientation are considered cursed or bewitched; that is, damned by the forefathers and the gods. In primarily Christian and Muslim African countries alike, gay men and lesbian women are confronted with religious condemnation.
Much evidence points to this stigmatisation leading to deep-seated and widespread prejudice, discrimination and violence toward those who are not heterosexual. A session on homosexuality at the 2ndAfrica Conference on Sexual Health and Rights, hosted in Kenya in 2006, noted that fear, hatred and abuse at the hands of largely intolerant and unsympathetic peers and elders hampers the personal growth and well-being of African homosexuals.
Also widely documented among the outcomes of prejudice and discrimination are consistently high rates of anti-homosexual harassment and violence, both state sanctioned and extrajudicial. Furthermore, criminalisation on the basis of sexual orientation has been found to exacerbate social discrimination and, in particular, leads service providers to discount, ignore and neglect the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, thus compounding their vulnerability.
Conclusion
The scientific fields devoted to mental health and well-being, including psychiatry, psychology and sociology, do not consider homosexual orientation to be a disorder, but rather view it as a naturally occurring variation of normal human sexuality. Research and clinical practice indicates that homosexual people have an overall potential to contribute to society similar to that of heterosexual people and that they pose no greater risk to children than do heterosexual people.
While the proposed bill cites “…the need to protect the children and youths of Uganda…” as justification, there is no credible, reliable evidence that the measures contained in the bill will achieve that outcome. Research and clinical practice instead indicates that the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms embodied in the bill, and the state sponsored discrimination and affronts to basic human dignity it mandates, would instead result in profound physical and psychological harms to the already vulnerable lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in the very population the legislation claims to protect.
On the grounds outlined in this statement, the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) therefore joins the international community in strongly opposing the proposed anti-homosexuality legislation. The PsySSA joins in the call for Ugandan leaders to abandon or defeat the bill, and instead to join the trend in the international community of decriminalising homosexuality.
Call to Action
The Psychological Society of South Africa invites other organisations and professionals dedicated to mental health and well-being, particularly throughout the African continent, to join us by endorsing this statement and forwarding notification of endorsement to the President of the Republic of Uganda and the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament at the addresses above as we will do upon release of this statement. We further ask that organisations and individuals so doing also kindly copy their endorsement to PsySSA so that we can monitor the response.
* Psychological Society of South Africa notification address: nelja@unisa.ac.za
The Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) is the professional body representing psychologists in South Africa. PsySSA has since its inception been dedicated to making a significant contribution to solving the pressing human development problems in South Africa. PsySSA is committed to the transformation and development of South African Psychology to serve the needs and interests of all South Africa’s people. PsySSA advances psychology as a science, profession and as a means of promoting human well-being.
The Psychological Society of South Africa is a member of The International Network on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns and Transgender Issues in Psychology.
[...] Temasek Review: Clarification to misleading remarks Pastor Rony Tan made on Buddhism – Kennethism: Christian Post’s report of the Rony Tan ex-gay service in March 2009 [Thanks [...]
I had once filed a police report against christianpost for their seditious articles. apparently you need 85 people or mroe to make a police complaint that will get frontpage news
his two previous articles that made the blogosphere news
ashamed of the gospel and the offence of the offense were largely treasonous in which it implied that the people should rise up against the government.
such statements were “Much as anyone would like to believe that secularism is the ideal state of affairs in a
multi-religious context, it is not. Christianity among all world religions demands that
God and only God be worshipped and obeyed. A secular state that has displaced the
God of Christianity cannot help but be essentially hostile to the Christian faith.
This is why it is impossible for the believers of Christ to live out their witness without
being persecuted. A state that runs on the basis of preventing offense from being
caused to individuals and groups cannot help but persecute Christ and His followers,
since not everyone will take too kindly to His message.
“
Christian Post is essentially the cyber mouthpiece of people like Thio Li Ann. You can check how they literally worship her every theory and word.
And Christian Post is also openly linked to the US Christian left. Which always makes me wonder, why is the government not taking more action to control it?
The worst editorials/reports I’ve seen from Christian Post were about the couple distributing the offensive tracts. Throughout all the reports, Christian Post never for once mentioned that the tracts were highly provocative and insulting. Instead, it hinted heavily that the couple was just doing their duties as Christians, and were thus being persecuted. On top of that, Christian Post kept using the word, MAY. As in, what the tracts said MAY be true.
Is this considered as seditious? When you look at their adviser list and see all the flashy names from NCCS there, it really starts you thinking.