Troll in the Dungeon! (Troll in the comments section of an Ascension (Catholic) YouTube video on homosexuality)

To every person of goodwill whom it may concern,

I just had to make a "Harry Potter" reference since the topic of this blog post is a troll, even though it's a different kind of troll (an Internet troll). It's the fangirl in me. So that's why the title of the post is "Troll in the Dungeon!" It's a line in the books and the movies. If you're a Potterhead like me, you'll get the reference. Ascension has a wonderful video featuring Catholic speaker Jason Evert about the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality on YouTube. I encourage every Christian (at least every Christian who does not live a life of separation from the modern outside world) to watch it if they have not seen it.

Unfortunately, there is a troll lurking in the comments section. He told people that he is there to decry, debunk, and denounce the "nonsense" that is presented in the video. 

His name is Gavin Alexander. He is an atheist who claims to have been a Christian once and to have studied and read the Bible. Except for one problem...He has misinterpreted passages from Sacred Scripture or pulled them out of context multiple times. He is being extremely rude, condescending, patronizing, sarcastic, and snobbish to Christian users who leave positive comments about the video. He has been doing this for two years now, which is problematic.

While I understand that a fellow Catholic didn't respect Mr. Alexander's boundaries, I don't appreciate the fact that he has spent two years replying to people. 

At the same time, I've been where he is when it comes to boundaries being disrespected. I get upset when my boundaries are disrespected, too. 

  I am aware that he sees the Jason Evert Ascension Homosexuality video as mentally and pyschologically abusive. But I don't see it that way. I'll need to write a Part 2 to explain my position. 

I don't appreciate this attitude. I appreciate respect for other people's points of view and civil disagreement. 

I feel offended by this comment. It wasn't directed at me, but he has replied with this to other Christians. 

Again, I don't appreciate this attitude. I don't appreciate comments like this. 

The enclosed screenshots illustrate that Mr. Alexander's arrogant and condescending attitude is not just one occurrence, but a pattern of belittling people of faith for their religious convictions and  for praising the video and its message. 

I would also like to warn all of you that Mr. Alexander presents himself as a man who is reasonable and is only persuaded by evidence, not "bald-faced assertions." Mr. Alexander presents himself as someone who is willing to hear what Christians have to say.

And when Mr. Alexander uses the phrase "bald-faced assertions," he means the religion of Christianity and Catholicism.

Mr. Alexander presenting himself as a reasonable man who is persuaded by evidence and someone who is willing to hear Christians out is a blatant lie.

Here's why. He said evidence persuades him. He claims that the Bible makes some outright false claims and calls the Christian faith "a bunch of bald-faced assertions," and "an immoral myth."

But as another group of screenshots will prove, evidence does not persuade him, contrary to his claims that it does. 

So in his last statement, Paladin Christian makes it clear that he is ready to provide Mr. Alexander with evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  

 So as you can see in this screenshot, Mr. Alexander communicates that he is ready to receive the evidence. Mr. Paladin Christian then presents the evidence. But Mr. Alexander then accuses Mr. Paladin Christian of shirking his burden of proof and expresses that this tells him all he needs to know.

Read this now: Mr. Alexander's reply is full of baloney. 

Let's see the rest of the thread.

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely here. Giving directions to a series of videos containing evidence is tantamount to submitting evidence. It takes seconds to type "Inspiring Philosophy Resurrection" into the search bar at the top of the YouTube webpage and hit enter or the search button. And guess what? The Inspiring Philosophy YouTube Channel's playlist on the Resurrection of Jesus is literally the first item that pops up in the YouTube search results. It also takes a second to click the "View Full Playlist" button. I know this because I've done it.

And if "I know this because I've done it," isn't enough, here's a video of me doing it with a stopwatch widget.

See? It took me just 15 seconds  to type "Inspiring Philosophy Resurrection" into the search bar and click the search button and then, click on "View Full Playlist."

You don't need to "peruse the Inspiring Philosophy YouTube Channel's catalog for some unspecified videos." Providing directions to evidence is not Mr. Paladin Christian shirking his burden of proof. It is Mr. Paladin Christian providing with the proof Mr. Alexander asked for.

Claiming that evidence persuades you, asking for evidence, and then refusing to check that evidence out because it involves doing a quick YouTube search just doesn't fly.

Mr. Alexander's persistent refusal to go check out the evidence is infuriating. But what annoys me more than his refusal to go check out the evidence is his patronizing Mr. Paladin Christian by saying "Sweetie, that's not how it works."

The rest of the thread goes in circles for a while with Mr. Paladin Christian sticking with his evidence from the Inspiring Philosophy YouTube Channel and Mr. Alexander obstinately refusing to check out the evidence under the lousy excuse that giving directions to a YouTube Channel or a playlist full of videos containing the requested evidence from a YouTube Channel is not the presentation of evidence and with the absurd accusation that Mr. Paladin Christian cannot seem to provide evidence.

In conclusion, an individual who claims that evidence persuades them and then flat out refuses to check out the evidence they've been given is full of baloney. 

An individual cannot present themselves as willing to listen to what Christians have to say and then refuse to check out evidence when it is presented to them.

Mr. Alexander even called Mr. Paladin Christian a troll. That's really petty considering Mr. Paladin Christian is not the troll here. Mr. Alexander is.

He has made it clear that he is not interested in being preached to about our religion of choice and I respect that.

But when we try to communicate that we're not interested in changing our minds on homosexuality, he doesn't respect that, saying that he has the right to push back. And we have the right to set healthy boundaries. 

When we try to communicate that we're not interested in hearing how our religion is "silly," "false," "wrong," and "immoral," he doesn't respect that, either.

Respect goes both ways. He has a right to speak up against abuse. And we have the right to set healthy boundaries and be assertive about what we'll put up with and what we will not put up with.  Or just ignore him.  

It seems like he takes quite a few of the comments religious people have posted personally, even if those comments aren't addressed directly to him. Here are some screenshots in which he does precisely that.

Kaye Stover does not need to prove anything to Gavin Alexander. She was addressing Jason Evert and Ascension Presents. 

 Again, Gavin is taking this person's comment too personally. Theo was addressing Ascension Presents. He even says, "Thank you so much, Ascension Presents." I also don't like that Gavin wrote the word truth in quotes. 

Em does not need to prove anything to Gavin Alexander. She was addressing Ascension Presents and Christians who are watching the video. And part of the message in the video is that the Christian stance on homosexuality is not hate, prejudice, bigotry, or homophobia, contrary to Gavin's claims that it is.  

Again, the OP was addressing Jason Evert, Ascension Presents, and Christians who are watching the video. And for everyone's information, Bible scholars and Christian apologists have debunked the Biblical slavery objection multiple times. The kind of slavery in the Bible is not chattel slavery. It's more like indentured servitude. God allowed it, but He also regulated it.  

Again, the OP was addressing Jason Evert and Ascension Presents. 

There are several issues I have with Gavin's reply here. First, Robert was addressing Jason, Ascension Presents, and the Christian community. Second, Gavin's reply is rude and snobbish. Gavin can't know whether or not Robert's heart is breaking. Humans cannot read other humans' hearts. So to say "It doesn't break your heart one bit," is disgusting and dishonest. Also, to reply with "Stop. Just stop lying," is condescending and tone-deaf.

Again, I take issue with several things about Gavin's response. First is him calling the OP "Sweetie." It's patronizing. Second is his statement that the Bible condones slavery. THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONDONE SLAVERY! For more, see my previous comment on the subject of slavery in the Bible. Third is "so spare me if I don't care about the moral proclamations about that immoral book." It's extremely rude and disrespectful. So much so that I would politely like to know how Gavin would feel if I said, "Sweetie, books in favor of naturalism and atheism condone and encourage abortion so spare me if I don't care about the moral proclamations of those immoral books," in response to him hypothetically quoting a passage from "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality," or "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism," in the comments section of an atheist YouTube video. And I would not and do not seek out atheist YouTube videos. Someone would have to send me the link to an atheist YouTube video. And please don't take my previous statement as an invitation to send me atheist YouTube videos. I'm not interested.  

Again, the OP was addressing Christians who are watching the video. 

Again, the OP was addressing Jason Evert and Ascension Presents. This is clearly supported by the fact that the OP says, "Thank you for comforting and making us feel like welcoming back to home after driven away into the streets countless times for being born as LGBTQ+ individuals." 

There are two things I see wrong with this reply from Gavin. One, the OP is addressing Jason Evert and Ascension Presents, just like pretty much every case I've highlighted. I'm confused as to why Napoleon thinks Jason Evert and Ascension Presents are leading people to their eternal peril when everything Jason said is in alignment with the Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage. The Church's teaching is based on what Scripture has to say about this matter. So why is he saying that Jason and Ascension Presents will be held accountable for allegedly "leading sinners to their peril?" But let's get back to what's wrong with Gavin's reply. Second, the "*rolls eyes..." reply is extremely rude and disrespectful. Please do not indicate that you're rolling your eyes at a person of faith. It's rude.  

Once again, I take issue with several things when it comes to Gavin's reply. In other comments, he is very persnickety about other people's usage of Christ's name. He has corrected people when they refer to Christ by the name "Jesus." He has lost no time in telling people that Christ's name is actually Yeshua and according to Mr. Alexander, the name "Jesus" comes from a sloppy Greek translation of Yeshua. BTW, "Jesus" is not a sloppy Greek translation. "Jesus" comes from the Greek transliteration of Yeshua. Transliteration and translation are two different things. I don't care which version of Christ's name you prefer to use as long as you use it with respect and reverence. Yeshua, Jesus, Yehoshua, etc. In the end, they are all versions of the same name. Personally, I prefer to use "Jesus" because that's the one I'm familiar with. So please, respect other's peoples' choice to call him "Jesus" and don't correct them. And especially please do not correct/criticize a Christian regarding their preference to use "Jesus" instead of "Yeshua" with the assumption that we're ignorant about what Christ's name is.

Second, please don't refer to Christ as "the Christ character," or "the Yeshua character" as if he's a fictional character. I get that atheists don't think that deities exist. But for example, I don't go around referring to the various pagan deities as "the Zeus character," "the Poseidon character," "the Hades character," "the Odin character," "the Thor character," "the Loki character," or "the Pele character," even though I don't worship them. The extent of my belief in any of the pagan deities I mentioned is as follows: they exist in the cool stories called myths and the Marvel movies and TV shows that are based on Marvel comics. In other words, I believe in the existence of Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, and Loki simply because they're a source of entertainment for me and because I love Norse and Greek mythology. Greek and Norse mythology is just so fascinating to me. Yes, I love to learn.

Christianity and Catholicism are not myths. When I hear the words "myth" and "mythology," in reference to my religion, I think of Norse mythology and Greek mythology. My religion is not a bunch of fantasy tales about a bunch of false gods.

I know "myth" and "mythology" are not limited to the religious beliefs of Ancient Greece and Pre-Christian Scandinavia. I know the official definition of "myth" and "mythology" is not "a bunch of fantasy tales about a bunch of false gods." And sorry if I offended any Greek or Norse neo pagans. I know Zeus, Thor, Odin, Poseidon, Hades, and Loki are real to you. But to me, they're as real as Sleeping Beauty and Belle from Beauty and the Beast. That's to say, the pagan deities I just mentioned are no more than a figment of the imagination, nothing more. 

When I use the phrase "the _______ character," it's in reference to a specific character played by a specific actor, not in reference to a deity that people actually worship. So, for example, I'll say, "the Daniel Craig character" in reference to a character played by Daniel Craig or "the Sierra Boggess character" in reference to a character played by Sierra Boggess. And I usually use that phrase when I'm talking to someone about a movie, TV show, play or musical that I have seen, but the other person hasn't seen the movie, TV show, play, or musical. So instead of referring to the character by their name, I'll say "the Emmy Rossum character" or "the Daniel Craig character" instead.

Thirdly, Nick was addressing Jason, Ascension Presents, and Christians who are watching the video. Lastly, Nick is correct that temptation is not sin. For Gavin to refute this claim and contradict it by saying that temptation is actually sin and that Christ said thought is equal to action is fallacious and dishonest. Thoughts are only sinful when they are entertained.

And when Jesus talked about looking at someone lustfully being adultery, He didn't mean merely looking at them and thinking that they're physically attractive. Imagine you're walking down the street and you see a member of the opposite sex. This person is physically attractive so the following thought crosses your mind: "Oh, that person is so hot." And then, you redirect your attention back to going about your business. In this case, you only admired the person's physical beauty. Admiring someone's else physical beauty is not intrinsically sinful. Recognizing that someone is physically attractive and admiring someone's physical beauty is not adulterous by any stretch of the imagination. 

Now imagine that same scenario but you didn't redirect your attention back to going about your business. Instead, you keep looking at them and start to think about what it might be like to have sex with that person. In this second scenario, you chose not to redirect your attention. You chose to keep looking at the person. You chose to entertain thoughts about what it might be like to have sex with this person. Lusting after someone is a choice. Looking at someone lustfully is a choice. The second scenario is what Jesus meant when He said to look at someone lustfully is to commit adultery.

And Jesus never said being angry is equal to committing murder. Besides, Jesus Himself expressed anger. It was righteous anger, but it was still anger. Was Him being angry and driving merchants out of the Temple equal to committing murder? No, because as I said, it was righteous anger. Being angry is not intrinsically sinful. It's what you do with the anger that determines whether or not it's sinful.

I experience scrupulosity, which is also known as religious or moral OCD. Like many scrupulous people, one of the symptoms of scrupulosity/religious OCD that I experience are  intrusive thoughts. These thoughts are often sacrilegious mental flashes. But they are unwanted thoughts. They are ego-dystonic thoughts, which means they are at odds with my values and convictions. 

I don't appreciate Gavin saying that thoughts are equal to deed. Intrusive thoughts are not equal to deed. It's not even thought-policing because policing something that doesn't involve choice is an oxymoron. Sin always involves a choice. Temptation does not. 

Since I can only speak for myself, I will say this: All I want is for Mr. Alexander to respect our boundaries when we state what they are. And that includes when we state we are not obligated to explain ourselves. If he asks for proof in favor of the existence of your higher power, you are well within your rights to decline to provide him with it if you have determined that presenting evidence is not going to be productive. After all, I've shown you it's not because even when someone gave him proof, he refused to check it out because it wasn't given to him directly. And I've shown you that the proof in that situation was quickly accessible. It's not that hard to get to it. Spare yourself the frustration of trying to make a case for the existence of your higher power or the resurrection of Jesus to this guy.   

I am respecting Mr. Alexander's choice to be an atheist and practice no religion at all because the Constitution of the United States protects that right. But because one Catholic sent him the link to the Ascension Jason Evert Homosexuality video, he has refused to do the same to religious people and respect our choice to practice our religion of choice. He has lost no time in sneering at our beliefs and making it clear that we're ignorant fools for holding them. And yes, the "ignorant fools" bit was a Phantom of the Opera reference ("Insolent boy! This slave of fashion! Basking in your glory! Ignorant fool! This brave young suitor! Sharing in my triumph!"). I couldn't resist making another pop culture reference.

Mr. Alexander's dishonesty, rudeness, disrespect, snobbery, and condescension are both astonishing and disgusting at the same time.

He accuses the video, Jason Evert (the person in the video), Christianity, and Catholicism of being manipulative when in reality, he is the manipulative one here. He said evidence persuades him and then flat-out refused to check out evidence when it was given to him. 

I am not inclined to listen to claims that my religious convictions are nonsense or an immoral myth when archaeologists have been digging up evidence for years that corroborates the Bible. 

I am not inclined to listen to people who say "evidence persuades me," and then outright refuse to check out evidence when it is given to them. 

I am not inclined to listen to people who say that there are outright false claims about the natural world in the Bible when archaeologists continue to uncover evidence that prove the content in the Bible is true.

I am not inclined to listen to people who say there are outright false claims about the natural world in the Bible when even the most skeptical historians and Bible scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth actually walked this earth, was executed via crucifixion, and then rose from the dead after three days.

So my main message is this: If you are prepared and willing to state your boundaries to Gavin Alexander, do so. If you aren't, do not engage with him. 

I know what I am asking all of you to do is hard. Believe me, I've seen another one of his replies, particularly one in response to another user's comment asking if the Church's stance on abortion has changed. This reply of Gavin's reads: "It seems as if Catholics are obsessed with covering things up instead of owning up to their misdeeds and healing the harm."

It was so tempting to reply to him and retort that we can't apologize for adhering to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. It was so tempting to retort that we can't heal the "harm" he's referring to.

The "harm" he was referring to is that we "manipulate" gay people into becoming celibate and chaste and stop using LGTBQ+ labels to describe their experiences.

FYI, some Catholics who experience homosexual attractions do not identify as gay, and other Catholics with homosexual attractions do identify as gay.

In all honesty, YouTube should create a feature that allows you to post comments and also block certain users from replying to your comments. I know that my mental and emotional health would certainly thank me for being able to block this atheist troll and other trolls from replying to my comments.

All I want is for people to be able to leave positive comments on videos like this without having to experience other users belittling them and their beliefs. So if YouTube actually does create such a feature, I am advising everyone now to block Gavin Alexander from replying to their comments if they're not prepared to state their boundaries to him. 

The reason why is because even if people ignore this troll's replies to their comments, that will not stop him from replying to comments that praise the video and its message.

He has lost the right to be in the comments section of that video and denounce this so-called "nonsense" by insisting on being rude, disrespectful, condescending, and snobbish to others.

And Gavin, if you're reading this, I don't care about which logical fallacy I just employed so I don't want to hear it, man. Whether I employed a conflation fallacy, an equivocation fallacy, erected a strawman, or employed an Appeal To Emotion fallacy or not is beside the point. My point is that I know what I am asking everyone else who reads this blog post to do is hard. It's hard for me to ignore you and resist the temptation to reply to your petty comments.

In fact, this blog post wasn't meant for you to read. So you're probably wondering, why did I address this bit of the post to you?

My answer is just in case you didn't pick up on my cryptic hints that I addressed all people of goodwill in my comment with the directions to the accompanying video on D-Tube and "to all people good of goodwill" does not include you. It was in anticipation that you might click on the link anyway.

That's all I have to say to you.

He is nothing more than a troll. It does not matter if he is atheist, religious, white, a person of color, male, female, "intersex," gay, straight, trans, bi, pan, or whatever.

He is doing this because he sees the Christian stance on homosexuality as abusive. 

He has absolutely no right to come and try to rudely interact with Christians and disrespect their boundaries under the assertion that they have a false persecution complex and are feigning anger. 

If Mr. Alexander wants to share his views, a Christian YouTube channel is not the place to do it, and being rude and snobbish to people is not how to do it. An atheist coming onto a Christian YouTube channel to rudely and snobbishly tell Christians that they're being bamboozled and that their "immoral belief system has broken their moral compass" is akin to an atheist walking into a church while a religious service is going on and yelling at everyone in attendance, "You're being bamboozled by an immoral myth. Your immoral belief system has broken your moral compass. Your God character does not exist!"

While I understand YouTube is a public forum that invites comments, the YouTube Community Guidelines prohibit harassing protected groups. While sexual orientation is on the list of attributes that enjoy protected group status, religion is also one of the categories under protected group status, so every theist in the comments section of that video enjoys protected group status. Ascension Presents itself, under its identity and function as a Catholic YouTube channel, also enjoys protected group status.

He can share his views on a YouTube channel where Christians and atheists come together to have healthy and respectful/civil debates, but not on the Ascension YouTube channel.

Atheists who share their views respectfully, civilly, and politely are allowed to do so on the Ascension YouTube channel.

So why did I write an entire blog post telling people what to do and what to not do with Mr. Alexander instead of leaving individual comments saying "do not feed the troll?" Because Mr. Alexander has replied to such comments before, refuting them. It is better for me to write a blog post addressing everyone to remind them to not interact with Mr. Alexander.

And as tempting as it may be to ask for the name and contact info of the Catholic who sent Mr. Alexander the Ascension video, please don't.

To my fellow Catholics & Christians, I know it may be hard to resist the temptation to contact our brother or sister in Christ who sent the video link to Mr. Alexander.

As much as it might be appealing to let our brother or sister know that he or she unleashed a troll, we must not blame him or her for Mr. Alexander's choices. While it is true that our brother or sister sent the video in the hopes that it might have changed Mr. Alexander's perspective on such a touchy subject, Mr. Alexander's choice to belittle religious believers is his and his alone. As I've previously said, he could have chosen to pass on watching the video with a short and sweet "no thank you" and moved on with his life. If he's going to be rude to people, he has no business and no place in that comments section and the Ascension YouTube channel.

One Catholic tried to challenge his perspective and his worldview. The majority of us aren't even trying to sneer at his worldview and make it clear that he's an ignorant fool for holding that worldview. I'm sorry that a fellow Catholic disrespected his boundaries. When a non-believer communicates to me that they're not interested in being preached to, I personally respect that and back off.

As I said, I respect his choice to hold that worldview, even though it's a worldview and a choice I completely disagree with. If he won't extend the same courtesy to the religious people in that comments section, he needs to leave. And the only way he will leave is if we ignore him and block him from replying to our comments. That's why we need a feature that allows us to block certain people from replying to our comments on YouTube.

Note: I am not gay, lesbian, bi, or any other LGBTQ+ label. I am a woman. That is the gender identity I was assigned at birth and I embrace it. I do not feel like I am a man trapped in a woman's body. I do not feel uncomfortable in my own skin. I do not have gender dysphoria or anything like that. I am not romantically attracted to other women or people of other gender identities. I am romantically attracted to men only.

The "we" statements about expressing disinterest in living a so-called "better life" away from one's religion of choice so as to be free to marry a person of the same gender are in reference to my same-sex attracted brethren in that comments section who have communicated that they wish to keep practicing their religion of choice and live in accordance with their religion's teaching on homosexuality.

Folks, if you're interested in finding a YouTuber who is a non-believer and who likes discussing religion and the existence of God debate, then check out Joe Schmid. He's agnostic, but he's also polite and civil to those he has debates with. He's a philosophy major so he knows the ins and outs of having a good discussion as well as all the sound argument methods and logical fallacies. He doesn't resort to being condescending and telling people that their moral compass is broken by their religious beliefs. Am I biased towards Joe Schmid because he won't mock and belittle me because of my faith? Yes. I won't hesitate to say so.
But can you blame me for preferring a non-believer who doesn't use, in my view, arrogant faux reasonableness towards those he disagrees with?

 
It's why I'm more sympathetic towards Andrew Lloyd Webber than I am towards Richard Dawkins. Yes, I love Andrew Lloyd Webber because he's written the scores of so many great musicals, The Phantom of the Opera being my favorite musical, but he is also an agnostic who sees Jesus Christ as a historical figure who was decent, good, and just. I'll take Andrew Lloyd Webber and his perspective over Richard Dawkins's hostility any day.

 
I deeply appreciate Joe Schmid's patience with the scruples of others. I deeply appreciate that Joe doesn't look down his nose at those who aren't as learned and enlightened as he is. I'm grateful that Joe doesn't exhibit a "my way or the highway" attitude when interacting with those he disagrees.

 
But I'd also recommend Alain de Botton. De Botton is an atheist and a philosopher, but he has made it clear that he won't mock and belittle people of faith for what they believe. He also believes there are good elements of religion that atheists can use in their lives instead of dismissing religion as a whole.

 
A friendly reminder to everyone: We all have a different learning curve. Some of us learn at a faster pace while others learn at a slower pace. Let's all be patient with each other's learning curves.

 
Shout out to Juan Pablo Forero on Quora for advising me to remind people to ignore Internet trolls!