See Gay minister suspended for 20 days for the first announcement about the “penalty” for this “minister” conducting a “same-sex wedding” in 2009. Sorry for all the scare quotes, but she is obviously not a Christian and “same-sex wedding” is an oxymoron. And the penalty was less than a slap on the wrist, because it includes her being ordered to “draft a document outlining issues that harm United Methodist Church’s clergy covenant with help of church leaders.” That will obviously end up being a forum for her to advance her apostate views and isn’t a penalty at all. That’ll show her, right?
So she deceives by promising to uphold the rules of the church while having no intention of doing so, shakes her fist at God daily, finally gets called on it, and ends up with no punishment. Her conference needs to either quit calling themselves Christians or they need to grow a pair (uh, metaphorically speaking).
She should have been fired a long time ago. Her supervisors should be fired now for letting this go on. If an HP employee started selling Dell products, they’d be fired that day. She and her ilk are doing Satan’s business and have no place in church.
DeLong reminds me of Beth Stroud, another person who lied at her ordination vows and infiltrated the church, won people over, then came out on queue. These people either lied at their ordination vows or changed their minds later and didn’t have the integrity to quit, and that alone should disqualify them from ministry. This goes for the 100 or so Methodist “ministers” threatening to perform same-sex ceremonies. They should all be fired just for their conspiracy. They are plenty of apostate denominations for them to join.
I’m assured that the Texas conference of the Methodist church wouldn’t ordain a false teacher like her and definitely wouldn’t do a phony trial like that. I’m looking forward to visiting with the Methodist Church in Kenya later this year, as they are authentic Christians who actually submit to the word of God (what a concept!). The U.S. apostates hate that the international church is growing, so they tried unsuccessfully to minimize their voting power.
A jury suspended the Rev. Amy DeLong from ministerial duties for 20 days, beginning July 1, noting the time is to be used for “spiritual discernment.”
Uh, yeah, that’ll work. What makes them think that after her “seminary,” her 16 years in a lesbian relationship and all her years of false teaching will be fixed by 20 days in time-out?
“We’ve said all along that we have already been successful,” DeLong said. “We had a 100 percent chance of winning because our goal was to be faithful and to tell the truth. We have done that and we’ve broken the silence. We’ve opened the door a little bit so (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people can hear a good message from the church.”
You can tell how sad she is for “losing” at trial. What a sham.
These folks could hear a good message from the church, except that DeLong and company refuse to share it. Here’s the message: If you repent and believe, you’ll be saved. But you need to meet God on his terms. When you mock him, make up your own god and twist/ignore his word it does not qualify.
If you really love LGBTQX people you’ll share the truth with them and point them to ministries like this.
Church counsel proposed that DeLong should be suspended until she signs a pledge that she will not perform same-sex weddings in the future, as long as it remains church law.
. . .
Despite the ruling, DeLong said she would not treat an invitation to preside over a same sex marriage any differently than she would a traditional marriage.
“There’s no way I would categorically discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation,” she said.
Gee, can you see how repentant she is?
What utter cowards and fakes. She refused to sign an agreement saying she would follow the rules (which would have been redundant with the vows she already broke), and they let her off!
If John Wesley were alive he would never stop throwing up.
If you are a Methodist and are happy with this ruling, please leave the church. Christianity may not be your forte’. If you are unhappy with it, please fight it or leave. But don’t just sit on the sidelines while these people mock God and his word.
39 thoughts on “Not just a joke, but a bad joke.”
Men like Wesley and Asbury would have drop-kicked her out the door and bid her repent.
And they never would have let her in the door to begin with, other than to hear the real Gospel.
Jesus kept breaking the rules too. His Church said dont touch lepers – he did. They said dont enter Samaria. He did. They said dont talk to a Samaritan woman – he did. He let a woman who was bleeding from a menstrual disorder touch him – he healed on the Sabbath – every one of these things condemned in the scripture. And what was it that he said about homosexuality….. nix. I am sorry but you come across as one of the pharisees. When I posted an article on the in-built characteristics of homosexuals influenced both by heredity and environment I noticed it was the fundamentalists who came out with the legalistic responses. A shame about the lack of tolerance and understanding.
Jesus said marriage was for one man and one woman. He inspired all of scripture. He told the Pharisees that if they didn’t believe in him that they would die in their sins. He claimed to be God. I believe him. I trust in him. Do you? If so, then why do you teach the opposite of him?
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Yes, it is a shame that you don’t tolerate the word of God and don’t understand it.
Your argument from silence (“nix”) is one of the all-time bad pro-gay theology arguments. Jesus didn’t mention gay-bashing, either, but I assume you’ll agree with me that we shouldn’t condone that, eh?
Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. See http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-jesus-didnt-say-3/ for more.
I am sorry but , despite thousands of verses,there are only eight clear references to homosexuality and some of them in fact are ambiguous. The story of Lot turning down the crowd’s request to have sex with his two (angel?) guests and instead offering his daughter for gang rape. I would have thought this was anything but clear advice for today. If you think it is good advice I dont want anything to do with your faith. Nor do I for one moment accept your assertion that Jesus approved of all the laws in the Old Testament. Silly boy – if that really is your photo, you have shaved your sideboards and now I have to stone you to death. (Leviticus says so) Is next Tuesday OK. Have you ever eaten bacon? Boy are you going to cop it. Worn a mixed fibre suit? Got you again. Do you really approve of eating shell-fish. Dont you read your Bible? Nor do I actually believe the bits in the Bible that say that God approves of Genocide and that you should be happy when dashing babies brains out against the rock. Come to think of it I dont even believe in a flat earth. On pillars isn’t it? There are serious errors in the Bible because of the way it was written and assembled. I posted pages of these on my site under the heading “Shaping God”
Nice litany of lousy pro-gay theology arguments. As long as you don’t identify as a Christian then go ahead with all those sound bites. You have displayed not only biblical ignorance but an aversion to the truth.
Sent from my iPhone
Serious errors in the Bible? Oh noes! I’m so glad you are here to sit in judgment of God and to be his editor. So I guess that would make you the real God, eh?
For those of you willing to meet God on his terms, there are thorough answers to all of her sound bites. Here’s one for the shellfish bit, which is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument. http://tinyurl.com/l2qjtc
peddlebill, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Word of God. Perhaps you should try this one: “But to the wicked God says, ‘What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips? You hate My instruction and cast my words behind you.’” Psalms 50:16-17
So breaking rules is good? So I assume you are OK with adultery, spousal abuse, stealing, abortion, etc.? (Probably shouldn’t have included that last one, as most pro-gay theologians also bless the destruction of innocent but unwanted human life.)
Of course it is OK if compassion comes first and the rule leads to a failure in compassion. Jesus did break rules. And you too have broken the above mentioned rules. That’s what I said in the first place. You seem to think think that rule breaking is the main consideration in condeming Gays (and presumably the Christ) . That is why you give me the impression you are a legalist … and that in fact is why I suspect should Jesus appear again you you would be after him for that rule breaking.
You think Jesus disagreed with the OT. What a joke.
Sent from my iPhone
When he said – you were taught and eye for an eye – but I tell you…….
was that agreeing with the verse an eye for an eye?
Gee, you are God’s editor, why don’t you tell me what He “really” meant.
Sent from my iPhone
Abomination to the Lord!
There are lots of abominations mentioned in the Bible eg eating with Egyptians and having slanted eyes. Perhaps those assembling the Bible were partly racist.
You just make things up as you go along.
Sent from my iPhone
I honestly believe he was showing by such statements that while the rules are OK to begin with we need to move to a position where we tap into the spirit of Love which earlier they had only begun to feel their way towards in the Old Testament type teachings. I also think that many of the techings in the Old Testament were not so much inspired, as a way of defining the culture of the Jews. I suspect you think the same otherwise you too would have allowed your sideboards to be untrimmed (Like those of the orthodox Jews who unlike you and me still feel bound by what seem to us antiquated customs) – even if such a rule is presented as law in the Bible.
Jesus agreed with it all. It is obvious you’ve never studied the whole Bible or even attempted to read it in context. You don’t even understand the concept of civil and ceremonial laws that were only for the Israelites. Try reading the whole thing and not just liberal jumper stickers, and then come back and comment.
Sent from my iPhone
I know you probably like to think you’re “zinging” Neil right now but what you probably don’t realize is you sound like you’ve spent about 10 whole minutes out of your entire life flipping through the Bible, interpreting it however you choose.
It’s like talking to someone who watched the updated movie version of Romeo and Juliet and now acts like they know everything about Shakespeare’s life and complete works.
You should seriously give these issues some more thought. For example, what academic sources could you point to that would substantiate your claims regarding Old Testament laws?
I’ve never seen Peddiebill comment here before now. Obviously this person is unaware that each of those “points” have been addressed exhaustively, not only here, but in unknown numbers of other Christian sites, books, videos, etc. It’s astonishing that anyone actually still tries to put them forth. Tiresome as well.
Marshall, they live in echo chambers and have “pastors” like Amy DeLong.
Peddiebill’s pro-gay theology sound bites are easily answered, and she didn’t even bother to read my piece on the shellfish bit before she made the same mistake again. So it is obvious that she has no interest in the truth.
She is another in a long line of people who worship a god who is incapable of communicating accurately in the original writings of the Bible but who thinks she can tell us what he really meant to say. Again, that would make her the real god.
If she has a change of heart, here are some homework assignments:
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God — http://tinyurl.com/5w64e9r — this will address many of her misinterpretations of the Bible.
Problems with pro-gay theology http://tinyurl.com/5sgoqvv
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html
I hope Peddiebill proves me wrong and actually does some serious study.
Does this mean we shouldn’t be kind to homosexuals? Of course not. We should share the truth in love wherever we go. But God loves the truth, and these wolves teach the opposite.
Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do. God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who truly repent and believe in Jesus.
The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth. And Peddiebill & Co. hate the truth.
I especially recommend Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God — http://tinyurl.com/5w64e9r. I say without exaggeration that Peddiebill’s religious views are virtually indistinguishable from those of Richard Dawkins and other “New Atheists.”
Peddiebill said “A shame about the lack of tolerance and understanding.”
Oh, please. Name any behavior that you cannot apply that against as justification. It excuses anything. Honor killing? Check. Pederasty? Check. Anything goes as long as you have sufficient tolerance and understanding – right?
The question is one of relative v. absolute moral values. Amy DeLong is an unrepentant liar. How is that acceptable in any church? If she feels strongly enough about her beliefs, she should honor the vows she made before God or else quit her leadership position at the church. In her life, God is not te ultimate authority. Her feelings are. And that makes her dangerous in a church leadership position.
Well said, Jeff.
Sent from my iPhone
The way the UMC has “punished” DeLong and others of her ilk demonstrates that they aren’t serious about the Word of God either. Which brings me back to my question which I posted on my article about this: If your assembly is still affiliated with the UMC, why?
OK – before I slink off thoroughly discredited with even my time in New Guinea as a missionary instantly recognised as pathetic by people who have never met me or know anything about my life now labelled as an inadequate atheist…let me just check. When I quote Jesus as saying cast not the first stone and Paul as saying all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, these dont apply to the writers on this site. They are according to what I have just read, tiresome points which have been answered adequately in the past???? Well that is a load off my mind because here was me thinking you wanted de Long and her ilk judged without even wanting to hear her side of the case. Just as well your translation of the Bible doesnt include the verse about “judging not”.
You quoted those in the midst of a long list of horrible exegesis. And you didn’t even get those right. Let’s analyze:
1. Casting the first stone: You do know, of course, that the story of the woman caught in adultery isn’t found in the earliest manuscripts? Nearly every Bible notes that in the footnotes. That is why I would never teach on it. If someone drew the conclusion that Jesus was once again clever and outwitted the Pharisees who were trying to trap him, that would be fine. Or that He upheld the law on capital punishment (you must have two witnesses). Or that He outed their hypocrisy in not bringing the man. Those would all be good.
But your use of it not to criticize others is doubly wrong. First, he was referring to real stones that would kill the person. Real. Stones. We are merely saying that DeLong deliberately broke these rules that she knew about when she joined the church and she has promised to break them again. Therefore, she should be defrocked. That hardly rises to the level of killing her by stoning. Your comments are beyond hyperbole.
And even if He said the part about not casting the first stone, it wouldn’t mean He was saying, “Never say adultery is wrong!!”
Also, when you reflect on your comments here hopefully you’ll realize how hypocritical it is for you to use the “don’t judge” line. That’s all you’ve done!
2. Re. Romans 3:23: So what? No one is denying that. If your point is that since everyone sins that we shouldn’t point out sin, you are disagreeing with countless Bible verses and once again being hypocritical for judging us.
The problem is that we did hear her side of the case. She “proudly” broke the rules, lied at her ordination, etc. and her “punishment” is a bigger forum to spread her heresies.
Yes, my version includes Matthew 7:1. It also includes verses 2-5 which show that Jesus didn’t say never to judge, but not to judge hypocritically. But you’re the hypocrite here, not me! This is such irony. You judge me in comment after comment, all the while saying we shouldn’t judge at all. You ignore the context of the passage you are quoting, as well as passages that tell us to judge those in the church and verses like John 7:24 (“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”)
Although I have been slow to take the hint I now understand that anyone with a different view to yours is to be made unwelcome. I have been accused of Biblical ignorance, never studying the Bible or reading it in context,getting my understanding from liberal bumper stickers, excusing honour killing and pederasty, having identical beliefs to the atheists, etc not to mention being referred several times to as “she” which I am sure will come as somewhat as a surprise to my wife. In your part of the world you probably call this being loving for my own good, but in this part of the world it is a big “push off and dont come back!” It is true that I have been judgemental about what I saw as a judgemental set of comments, but on the other hand I am keenly aware that I am a sinner, which is precisely why I dont like watching people pretend they alone have the right to judge and self righteously pick on others for their sins. I have never quite understood how I can express this without as you correctly point out coming across as intolerant myself. I take small comfort in the fact that Jesus himself appeared to me to be intolerant of intolerance. On my site I have a range of visitors from all faiths and all viewpoints. In my Church and home I also have a range of Muslim, Buddhist (and gay) visitors. I hope it is the same for you. For the most part we learn from one another although I do get impatient with legalist Christians and legalist Muslims. I am sure that in real life you may well be loving and tolerant and friendly to tax collectors and sinners, it is just that is not what has been has been conveyed to me. Sorry to have bothered you.
We have many different views here. Some of the longest term commenters are atheists. But I do admit a particular disdain for theological Liberals. I don’t mind atheists who are candid about their beliefs. I do mind false teachers in the church.
You’re doing it again. Who says I was being self-righteous about pointing out these errors in the church? I’ve never claimed to be self-righteous. I’m the first to say that I’m not righteous and am a sinner in need of a Savior every day of my life. I just don’t put that in every post, nor should I have to. I think you are so conditioned to think that “don’t judge!” qualifies as an argument that you type it without thinking.
That’s progress, because you can’t. That’s why I encourage you to stick to the facts and not the name-calling about others being judgmental. It doesn’t advance the conversation. If you want to defend DeLong then do it based on the facts. But you’ll have a tough time, because she knowingly took the job and violated the rules. She doesn’t like the rules and infiltrated the church to change them without going through the process. Even those in the pro-gay camp should see the downside to that. It is like with Obama deciding not to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act. The Left loved that, but that sets a precedent for a Republican to not enforce Roe v. Wade because he or she thought it would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. If only people would think one step ahead.
If your church shares the truth of the Bible with them, that’s great. If they lie and tell them they are fine as they are then that’s horrific.
Again, I don’t mention this much at all and certainly not in every post, but among other things I do prison ministry and pregnancy center ministry. When people act like I’m judgmental, intolerant and un-loving I just want to laugh. I’d give them the list of murderers, drug dealers, drunk drivers, robbers, wife-beaters, people who’ve had abortions, gays, Hindus, Muslims, etc. that I’ve lovingly shared the Gospel with and ministered to, but the response would just be more sound bites and they would still parrot their stereotypes of Bible-believing Christians. Therefore, I don’t chase the wind and try to defend myself. I trust God to know the facts.
My apologies if we got off on the wrong foot. Feel free to try again on another post, but please focus on the facts at hand and not stereotypes. I think you’ll feel more welcome if you do that. I’ll do the same, but I don’t pull punches with theological liberalism. It is deadly, sending people to Hell just a little more comfortable.
Somewhat against my better judgment I will start again….very tentatively.I am aware of the Old Testament Story of Lot (in Genesis 19) where Lot protects his angel visitors from non-consensual rape by offering his two daughters to the crowd instead for non consensual rape. (Which I would have thought is hardly guidance for desirable behaviour today). Leviticus 18:22 is clearer. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” The writer of Leviticus was definitely against it. (Of course the word abomination is not necessarily the same as an outright sin since other Old Testament Writers use the same expression “to’abhah” for other antisocial activities like eating with Egyptians (Genesis43:32), sacrificing imperfect animals Deutreronomy 17:11(which I am not in the habit of doing – although our three legged cat annoys me from time to time), using unjust measures Deuteronomy 25:13 and having haughty eyes Proverbs 6:16. Leviticus 20:13 actually proscribes the death penalty of homosexuality (along of course with a whole raft of other crimes like adultery, incest, sorcery, witchcraft, idolatry and cursing one’s parents.
In the New Testament Romans 1:18-32 Paul condemns those who are heterosexuals who have turned to idols and homosexuality, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 there is homosexuality along with quite a list (including the haughty eyes example )
The two examples in 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 appear to be referring to male prostitutes (ie the Greek words used) 2nd Peter 2:10 is more concerned with defiling passion which is a bit ambiguous.
As it happens (and somewhat inconveniently for those amongst the gay bashers), the love between two men is frequently extolled. For example check out 1 Samuel 20:17, John 21:15-19,John 20:20
But there is actually a more subtle question. If Paul, with presumably a less than perfect knowledge of the science of the human body, and certainly no knowledge of our different culture today with its very different set of social needs, says that something is wrong, does it need to stay that way when we now know different stuff. Paul thought having slaves was OK. I personally think it is wrong for today. Paul said women should not talk in Church. I see no reason in a changed society why they should not do so. Is your position that if Paul said something was a sin – nothing remains to say?
What kind of rape? Homosexual. And did God judge Sodom because of the “non-consensual rape” (I didn’t realize there was a consensual kind)? No, He had already judged them and the angels were there to carry it out.
Side note: More and more I see the resemblance of the LGBTQX lobby to the original Sodomites, who aggressively persisted in their cause despite being literally blinded by God.
I have no idea what you meant by that. Of course it isn’t desirable. Who claimed that the Bible approved of the behavior described there? That’s the point: People violate God’s law over and over and need a Savior.
Your comment is full of “false teacher tips his hand” examples, and that is one of them. Yes, the writer is against it, and so is God, because the original writing had exactly what God wanted there. False teachers sit in judgment of scripture. Christians let scripture judge them.
Four legged cats annoy me, too.
Re. “abomination” — I see you didn’t read my post that I referred to twice — http://tinyurl.com/l2qjtc . There I noted the distinction between something being an abomination to the person (i.e., they couldn’t worship for a short period) or to God (i.e., Lev. 18). Big difference. Oh, and it isn’t always the same Hebrew word that is translated as abomination.
Yes, thanks for making my point that God considers homosexual behavior to be a serious sin. You make the common theological liberal mistake of judging God and his word and saying that capital punishment for those offenses means that they couldn’t have been what God meant. But you’re wrong: The punishments mean that God considered them serious offenses.
The penalty in Lev. 20 was Israelite-specific, while the context of Lev. 18 was clearly that of universal morality that God was judging the Canaanites for violating (unless you think bestiality and child sacrifice are OK). Just read the beginning and end of the chapter.
God was holding his chosen people to a higher standard, so those penalties are no longer required. That’s pretty basic biblical theology, but something the theological liberals try to use to attack the word of God.
Yes, Romans 1 is spectacularly clear about how people suppress the truth in unrighteousness and deny God. Paul then searches for an example. What does he use as exhibit A? Homosexual behavior — i.e., abandoning one’s natural function — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/romans-1-and-natural-desires-functions/ .
They made their sexuality an idol.
Yes, just as at the end of Romans 1 there are many serious sins in addition to homosexual behavior. But that doesn’t mean homosexual behavior isn’t a sin. It means we should call it what it is but not grandstand on it just because it isn’t a temptation for us. And before you say we grandstand on it, remember that it is the theological liberals who keep bringing it up. Go back to the original post and think about the Methodists who have fought the Book of Disciple for decades and won’t give up (again, I see the blind Sodomites). We would gladly drop the subject if the theological liberals (read: non-Christians) would stop blaspheming God and saying he “made them that way” and that the Bible is wrong.
I do appreciate you conceding those passages. Far too many people ignore them and pretend that God annihilated two whole cities full of people because of bad manners. Those texts indicate that it was their homosexual sins (“strange flesh”).
Oh noes, he called us gay-bashers! He must be right! Actually, we care about gays and want them to know the truth about God. You love the world and want it to love you, so you parrot its false teachings. You love yourself, not gays.
And yes, that love is extolled, but only perverts like you assume that the love described there was manifested as anal sex. Some of us realize that adding sex to a loving relationship doesn’t necessarily improve it — especially homosexual sex.
And by the way, you are a sick freak for implying that Jesus had gay sex with John or Peter. You are far worse off than I thought. (And don’t try to wiggle out of it now and deny your claim. If that isn’t what you meant then your reference made no sense.)
Re. 1 Samuel, in the event that you repent and believe and go to Heaven, rest assured that Jonathan and David will kick your ass as part of orientation. Just kidding! Probably!
Again, you completely tipped your hand in denying the inspiration of scripture. Just because Paul didn’t take 21st century science classes (as flawed as they are) doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know what He created. But you assume God wasn’t involved.
And just how much science training do you need to have to know what the natural sexual functions of males and females are?
Your statement slavery reveals more ignorance on your part. You don’t even understand the distinctions between Roman and U.S. slavery and the Israelite laws against kidnapping. Here’s a link for those interested — http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/What_God_Says_About_Slavery .
I appreciate that you are so willing to admit your non-Christian views. You are obviously an adherent of Dalmatian Theology, where they claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives. See http://tinyurl.com/ykury3s
I didn’t catch your accusation about Jesus having homosexual sex until I had already addressed most of your comment, otherwise I would have just deleted it. I’m not sure what the root cause is, but you have some serious problems. For starters you should be honest and stop claiming to be a Christian.
Again, Christians submit to scripture judging them, but non-Christians sit in judgment of scripture. I sincerely hope that you repent of your countless blasphemies and turn to the one true God. Only Jesus can save you, but as it is you mock him and his word.
Now let me get this right – you invited me to try again and I would get a fair hearing. Calling me a sick freak for implying something I never claimed, saying that I mock God and his word, telling me (with my PhD in Science education) that I need science training, telling me I am ignorant about slavery,mocking me as a follower of Dalmation theology,linking me with blind Sodomites not to mention calling me a pervert…this does absolutely nothing to convince me you are making valid points. If the gospel you follow makes you behave that way, then it is a gospel that does not attract me. It absolutely convinces me that you have no wish to give me a fair hearing. What it does however show me is that I would never be welcome.
One of the regular visitors to your site googled me, has decided my site is more balanced in terms of information and opinion and warned me that the treatment you have shown me is typical of the treatment you give everyone who does not agree with you.
As they say in the US. Have a nice day.
Ok, just for grins, tell me what you did mean by referring to when you said this
You wrote that in the midst of a series of bad exegesis on all the verses referring to homosexuality. The 1 Samuel passage is used by the pro-gay theology crowd to say David and Jonathan were gay (you forgot the passage in Ruth where they say she had a lesbian affair with her mother-in-law, btw). So if you weren’t implying those passages were about allegedly homosexual relationships, what was your point? Why would those passages be inconvenient for “gay bashers” if you meant them as simple examples of men having deep friendships?
Be honest and don’t try to wiggle out of your statements.
But you do. I make no apologies for saying that.
If you think that one needs a PhD to know the natural functions of male and female sexuality then you are mistaken.
You made typical misstatements about it.
That’s true, unless you are now going to claim that you think the whole Bible is inspired, or that none of it was. Otherwise, the label fits.
You are persistent.
I speak against false teachers and share the Gospel taught in the Bible.
A cursory glance at my commenting guidelines would tell you that false teachers won’t be welcomed.
Tell Blogstalker Dan Trabue (or whichever other banned SuperFan(TM) agrees with you) that I said, “Hi.” I’m guessing that if he’s still reading me years after I banned him that I haven’t lost him as a customer just yet. And if I have, who cares? Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Again, I encourage you to take the word of God seriously and repent and believe. Eternity is a mighty long time to proudly hold onto your false beliefs about human sexuality and the Bible.
For the record, I said to try again on another post — i.e., another topic. You are hopelessly lost on this one.
One other thought on that: Plenty of people disagree with me. We have non-believers here, we have Arminians and Calvinists, etc.
Or take Ray, for example, who commented a couple times today. He’s a non-believer and we’ve sparred on abortion and the like, but we agree on 2nd Amendment issues. We’re glad to find common ground.
His views on the Bible are much, much closer to yours than mine. But here’s the thing: He’s not claiming to be a Christian but you are. Big difference!
Neil, I am thoroughly enjoying you exposing peddlebill for the blatant false teacher he is.
Peddlebill, as with every other false teacher I’ve known or met through the ‘net, you immediately attack the person as being unkind, uncharitable, unbalanced, etc, etc, etc, as well as not giving a fair hearing.
Let’s hypothesize for just a moment and say that Neil is everything you say he is, and that his tone is mean-spirited, etc. Does that make what he says any less true? Absolutely not. You have proven above all the charges he has made against you.
Thanks, Glenn, I appreciate that. I wish he was the only one, but that is so typical of them.