Roundup

Methodist pastor fired for teaching false doctrines. Yea!

“The people at my church are good, decent people,” he told FoxNews.com. “They’re simply feeling a little threatened by a pastor who is asking questions that they don’t want to ask right now. I hope some seeds are planted and that God will bring some good about it.”

Here’s another angle, sport: These good, decent people aren’t stupid.  They aren’t threatened by your lack of belief in God, they just want a pastor who actually worships the one true God who inspired the original texts of the Bible.  God already did bring some good about it: He got rid of a false teacher.

I pray that many other churches will follow suit.  It would be better to be led by some authentic lay people than a false teacher with a seminary degree.

“We do these somersaults to justify the monster god we believe in,” he said. “But confronting my own sinfulness, that’s when things started to topple for me. Am I really going to be saved just because I believe something, when all these good people in the world aren’t?”

Gee, the “pastor” called the God of a the Bible a monster.  How could someone like that possibly offend the authentic Christians paying his salary?  And his assessment that all these other people are “good” (on God’s terms) is further proof of his bad theology.

Obama’s favorite CEO gets GE out from paying any U.S taxes – hope and change, baby!

A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

Apple Pulls Ex-’Gay’ iPhone App after Lobbying Campaign by Hateful Homosexual Activists – Yet they leave the Grindr gay hook-up app.  Considering that the rate of syphilis and HIV for gays is more than forty times the rest of us, it seems like the truly hateful thing would be giving people tools to indulge their fix of anonymous sex.

They are “grinding,” the latest verb in the gay lexicon, which refers to the new gay dating app for the iPhone called Grindr. A revolutionary way to meet gay men, Grindr has eliminated the need for “gay-dar”; it uses GPS technology to download hundreds of pictures of available men within walking distance.

Alex and Sean can click on a man’s picture to start a text conversation, send pictures and, if they so desire, make arrangements for a rendezvous. There’s a number on each man’s photo, indicating how many feet away they are at that instant.

Keep Grindr in mind when the mainstream media is telling you how most gays just want to have “traditional” marriages.

Apples’s rejection of Christian apps like the Manhattan Declaration and the Ex-Gay app is just another example of how thin-skinned the LGBTQ lobby is.  Deep down they know they are wrong, so they have to fight to silence every last criticism of their worldview.  But it still won’t work.

Another thorough review of Rob Bell’s false teachings on Hell in his book “Love Wins” – An Open Letter to Rob Bell – after noting the hypocrisy of Bell’s defenders, he explains how Bell cheats in saying the New Testament “only” mentions Hell 14 times.  Bell was being a literalist in only including passages where the word is mentioned while ignoring it when it was clearly described.

He wants a Weiner waiver (to Obamacare) – Could someone be more hypocritical than to take responsibility for the Obamacare debacle and then ask for a waiver to it?

An open letter to Brian McLaren (a Rob Bell-type false teacher)

Arizona Republicans ban race-selection and sex-selection abortions – Yea!  Elections count, people.  Abortions kill innocent but “unwanted” human beings and are a moral evil.  We need a three-pronged approach on the pro-life issue:

  1. Support Pregnancy Resource Centers – volunteer at, pray for or donate to them to help save lives today and for eternity.  They help women and families in their time of need, all for free.
  2. Educate people in the art of pro-life reasoning.
  3. Elect pro-life politicians who will reduce abortions, protect women and children (i.e., parental notification laws) and ultimately make them illegal.

Great – and accurate – send up of Liberal hypocrisy on Libya.  Hat tip: Ironic Surrealism

33 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Considering that the rate of syphilis and HIV for gays is more than forty times the rest of us, it seems like the truly hateful thing would be giving people tools to indulge their fix of anonymous sex…Keep Grindr in mind when the mainstream media is telling you how most gays just want to have “traditional” marriages.

    The statistic on syphilis and HIV is indeed worrying. Those are both horrible diseases, you wouldn’t wish them on anyone. But I’m not clear on what you’re saying here. Are you making a statement against tools which facilitate anonymous sex, or are you making a statement against tools to facilitate gays having sex?

    I’d be interested to know whether you’re implying the higher rate of these diseases makes a statement about homosexual people, and if so, what that statement is, in your opinion.

    As for the curing homosexuality app, and by implication the idea of curing homosexuality, I don’t think there’d be any point in arguing over that. I understand your point of view, that you believe being homosexual is a choice, one which can be unmade. I disagree, but this is one of those traps where all we’d accomplish debating the issue would be to waste an inordinate amount of time.

    This app was pulled after a petition to do so was signed by more than 150 000 people – this outweighed support for it. Apple is a private company, which needs to cater to the majority of its customers’ demands. They did.

    Surely if you don’t like the grindr app you’re free to start a pressure group similar to that which got the other one removed?

      • My opinion is that homosexual behaviour, like heterosexual behaviour, is a choice.

        I asked the following questions in my comment, from Neil, really, so I’m not sure if you can answer them:

        1. Is his problem with tools which facilitate anonymous (or casual) sex, or tools which facilitate gay sex?

        2. Did he quote the statistics with regards to the higher rate of syphilis among homosexuals to make a statement about homosexuals, and if so, what is that statement?

        I have no interest in speculating whether homosexual behaviour is or isn’t a choice, as I don’t see that as a useful discussion to have.

    • I’d be interested to know whether you’re implying the higher rate of these diseases makes a statement about homosexual people, and if so, what that statement is, in your opinion.

      I was reluctant to drag this out because my original post was pretty clear, but I’ll note this: They have a well documented problem of an unbelievably high number of sex partners. They actually have to be encouraged to use condoms, which is another sign of them giving themselves over to their sins. Seems to me that anyone participating in that behavior — even if there were no safety risks — would want to use at least 6 full body condoms. Anyone – hetero or homo — who has regular anonymous sex has some serious problems. Encouraging them to stay in that lifestyle is the opposite of love.

      • I’m sorry, Neil, I just didn’t want to jump to conclusions about what you were saying.

        The rate of STDs is higher among racial minority groups, among sexually active young adults (as opposed to sexually active older adults), women have a significantly higher rate of Chlamydia than men, Southerners are more likely to have Chlamyida than the rest of the USA, males are MUCH

      • …more likely to have syphillis than women.

        Lesbian women have, as far as I can find out, the lowest risk of STDs of all groups.

        What conclusions should we draw from all that?

        And sorry about accidentally posting the part-comment, I have a new laptop and managed to accidentally press something I shouldn’t have lol

      • Lesbian women have, as far as I can find out, the lowest risk of STDs of all groups.

        What conclusions should we draw from all that?

        I’m familiar with that sound bite. The obvious conclusion is that for you own safety you should get a divorce and become a lesbian. I should, too! Seriously, just because other groups in the LGBTQ alphabet soup of perversions don’t have as high a rate of disease doesn’t mean they are good. But how can people ignore the 40+ rate for gays? These are highly preventable but politically incorrect diseases. We live in a bizarre world where you are considered a homophobe to state the obvious about the disease rates and that they are “gay diseases,” and also a homophobe for reducing AIDS funding.

      • Neil, I’m not calling you a homophobe and I feel it’s unfair of you to jump to that conclusion (unless you were just making a general statement not aimed at me). I wasn’t about to say anything about divorcing and becoming a lesbian. I couldn’t do that if I tried, because I have never felt attracted to women. I would also not advise you to give it a try! lol

        I feel your response veers away from the crux of this discussion. You said: “Homosexuals have a much, much higher rate of STD infection than the straight population, therefore their lifestyle is sinful and should be condemned.”

        All I’m trying to point out is that the one doesn’t necessarily imply the other, otherwise we are forced to apply this logic to other groups at higher risk of disease, and that just doesn’t make sense.

        In the case of black people, we don’t automatically say “Being black is obviously sinful”, we frown and look into the reasons why black people engage in risky sexual behaviour, and then go on to think of how we (society) can change these risk factors and steer this population group away from the current state of affairs.

        My opinion is we should do the same for gays – you would then probably argue they need to be helped to abstain from practicing homosexuality or cured of it, I would argue… well, my thoughts on the matter would make for an even longer comment, so let’s not go there (I’ll blog about it on DA).

        I respect your right to feel homosexuality is wrong, and you thinking that doesn’t make you a bad person. I just question your logic in this specific instance.

      • Sorry, that was a general statement. I appreciate your tone and know you weren’t calling me that. And I was kidding about the lesbian thing.

        Skin color is morally neutral; sexual behavior is not.

        Thanks for the clarification.

      • I feel your response veers away from the crux of this discussion. You said: “Homosexuals have a much, much higher rate of STD infection than the straight population, therefore their lifestyle is sinful and should be condemned.”

        I’m confused. You put that in quotes so I assumed you copied and pasted it verbatim. But I couldn’t find it when I searched. If I said that then it wasn’t how I meant to word it, but now I’m not sure I actually said that.

        I did say this and stand behind it: Considering that the rate of syphilis and HIV for gays is more than forty times the rest of us, it seems like the truly hateful thing would be giving people tools to indulge their fix of anonymous sex.

      • Argh, forgive me, I’m new to this. I usually emphasise quotes, what I was trying to do was summarise what I understood you were saying.

        As for tools for anonymous sex, I don’t know if taking away the tools will solve the problem. To my mind, a better idea would be to focus on, for instance, education, which has been shown to increase the age at which people first have sex and to increase responsible behaviour once they did.

        Skin color is morally neutral; sexual behavior is not.

        I agree, but I’m not sure if you’re saying what I’m reading ((c¦ I suspect to you, homosexuality is sexual behaviour, while to me, homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I do not agree that homosexuality as an orientation is not morally neutral.

  2. Pingback: Saturday morning funny: Co-workers disuss Libya vs. Iraq « Wintery Knight

  3. I can’t believe a Methodist church had the guts to fire a false teacher! Now if all the Methodist churches would fire everyone who preached the social gospel, the homosexual agenda, and other liberal agenda……

  4. I was reluctant to drag this out because my original post was pretty clear, but I’ll note this: They have a well documented problem of an unbelievably high number of sex partners.

    Neil, can you give me some references? I’ve been searching the net for studies and statistics, and except for figures quoted without citations (which I’d be irresponsible to trust), I have been unable to find anything supporting the general assertion that homosexuals of either gender tend to be more promiscuous. The closest I can get to what sounds like a fair evaluation of the actual facts, is this, and while the studies examined support the conclusion that gay men are no more promiscuous than straight men, the point of the discussion was to show that in actual fact, the studies done have not been adequate to make a conclusion one way or the other.

    I kind of gather that the unbelievably high number of partners assertion comes from statistics reported by the Kinsey Institute, and Kinsey’s methodology and science has been hugely criticised, I myself would not trust a Kinsey statistic.

    This article quotes what looks like probably the largest and widest study done on the subject, and it shows a 1% difference between the amount of gay and straight people who have had 20 or more sexual partners.

    So I’m in fact somewhat confused about this gay promiscuity issue, as I had also believed they were more promiscuous. I only realised I’d never really looked at the actual studies or reliable reports of them when we started talking about this.

    • Kinsey = complete pervert who should have been in jail. Seriously. Glad you don’t trust him.

      I’ll post a link the next time I come across one.

      Sent from my iPhone

  5. I would say that neither the behavior nor “orientation” are morally neutral. One does have the ability to control one’s thoughts.

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Your two sentences seem to be completely unrelated to each other.

    • I suspect to you, homosexuality is sexual behaviour, while to me, homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I do not agree that homosexuality as an orientation is not morally neutral.

      I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Behavior is not morally neutral, and neither is “orientation.” One’s “orientation” can be controlled by their thoughts.

      • I disagree that orientation can be controlled by one’s thoughts. I disagree that this is worth arguing about. I therefore suggest we agree to disagree. Agreed? ((c¦

      • So are you saying one can’t control one’s thoughts and desires? Didn’t Jesus say that to even look upon a woman with lust was adultery? So wouldn’t a desire – i.e., “orientation” – for something not moral be a sin?

        I often have to “agree to disagree” with people who refuse to accept the truth.

    • This is my last comment on this, as it has fallen into the “I can’t believe I’m having this conversation” category: The U.S. Center for Disease Control (part of the vast orthodox Christian U.S. Gov’t) published the stats about the 40x plus rates of HIV and syphilis among gays. Forty times plus. If it isn’t promiscuity, then they just have really, really, bad luck.

      Thanks for the linkage.

      • Thanks for the stats reference, Neil, I found an article (finally) which linked to the source.

        Thanks also for having a conversation with me about something I only started researching now.

        If it isn’t promiscuity, then they just have really, really, bad luck.

        If that’s the way you approach an issue when someone questions your sources instead of just accepting your claims as gospel, then I agree with you that there’s no point in further comments on this particular issue between you and me.

        I realise you’re a very busy man, and won’t waste your time any longer.

      • Nadia,

        If you want to think that I am not persuaded by stats then go ahead. I almost didn’t respond after your first comment, especially when it noted things like this:

        This app was pulled after a petition to do so was signed by more than 150 000 people – this outweighed support for it. Apple is a private company, which needs to cater to the majority of its customers’ demands. They did.

        Surely if you don’t like the grindr app you’re free to start a pressure group similar to that which got the other one removed?

        Yeah, Apple will get right on it if Christian groups or the Catholic or Mormon religions petition them to remove gay apps.

        Then you “quoted” me as saying something I didn’t say and I had to search around to prove that out.

        And you continually missed the point of the post: If people really care about gays they won’t give them tools to make anonymous sex — you know, the anonymous sex that doesn’t really happen – much easier.

        So if you want to think I am an unthinking Christian and that’s how I approach issues, then feel free. Yes, after things like that my interest level in continuing a conversation is low.

        P.S. I hope you apply your same research skills to things written by Bart Ehrman. He is good at taking things orthodox Christians already know (e.g., the story of the woman caught in adultery not being in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible) and acting like it is a Da Vinci Code style scandal. Yeah, we’ve been hiding those things all along — right there in the footnotes of nearly every Bible. Bart is great at being sensationalist and milking his apostasy for all it is worth. People who leave Christianity must be irrefutable evidence of it being false, I suppose. They get to be NPR regulars whereas orthodox Christians don’t — because that basic Gospel stuff is so old. If only we could find some atheists who converted to our faith, that would be irrefutable proof!

        My study Bible notes the same arguments Ehrman uses and refutes them. It doesn’t pretend they don’t exist.

      • I didn’t intend to or realise that I was being difficult, and I apologise if this exchange has been unpleasant for you. I’m trying to have a civil conversation here, which will give both of us a chance to learn from each other. I love learning new things, but I know I can be like a dog with a bone, and that can be tedious. I suspect I’m frustrating you, and if that’s the case, I apologise.

        I’m also striving to not just work on assumptions – including the assumption I might make as an atheist that anything you assert is wrong. That is why I went to look into the various issues on hand here, the way I understood it, instead of just dismissing them as false:

        1. You asserted the rate of certain STDs is 40x as high among the gay population as among the rest:
        Considering that the rate of syphilis and HIV for gays is more than forty times the rest of us
        – I questioned that statement as I couldn’t find a source, you gave me a source, that’s dandy. I’m not arguing that, I just at first found it difficult to find the exact 40x figure and thought you could give me a more direct reference instead of me spending hours sifting through Google results trying to find it myself. Your clue helped me narrow down my search, I put in cdc hiv syphillis forty times and came across this. Thanks.

        Where I stop agreeing with you on this issue is what the higher rate of STDs implies, but that’s a matter of opinion and you’re as welcome to yours as I am to mine. It’s not a stupid or illogical conclusion to assume the high STD rate must mean many sex partners – but I don’t think it’s a correct one. I also disagree over the moral/not moral conclusion drawn from the stats, though granted, you didn’t make any direct statement about the morality of homosexuality – but that’s why I asked you to clarify, as I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say.

        2. You asserted that it’s a well documented fact that gays have a staggering amount of sexual partners:
        They have a well documented problem of an unbelievably high number of sex partners
        I went to go find out more about this the same way I did with the above issue, and found this statement is not necessarily true. I also asked you to help me by giving me your reference for this assertion, and I want to emphasise that I’m trying nothing more than to make sure I don’t just assume things. You said it’s well documented, I thought (assumed, haha) you said that because you have the references. If you don’t have them on hand, that’s fine, say so and I’ll go look for myself. Which is what I did, and I thought you’d be interested in what I found, I referred you to the post I did about my search as a courtesy.

        As for quoting you, I apologise again for that, I realise it came across as a direct quote, I didn’t intend for it to look like that and I will be careful to not make the same mistake again. As I clarified in my earlier response, I was trying to summarise what I understood your message to have been. Please bear in mind that though my English is probably better than many English-speaking people’s, it’s not my first language. I often get things wrong because I’m pedantic about the meaning of words, and I have tried to cultivate the habit of clarifying what i understand people to say. Yet it created a completely false impression for me to have posted my summary like I did, I should have preceded it with: “The way I understand you so far, it sounds as if you’re saying…” and I should have ended it with: “Is that a correct impression?”

        And as for thinking you are an unthinking Christian, I think exactly the opposite, which is why I presumed you’d be able to give me the sources for these claims so I can educate myself. And I mean that, I’m not being sarcastic. I wouldn’t have taken the leap of commenting on this issue if I thought you were anything but a thinking Christian.

        As for your original point, that’s a valid observation, though again I think the issue is not that cut-and-dried.

        I’ve never heard of Bart Ehrman, sorry. I’m not quite sure what to say about him next, as I am completely mystified what you’re trying to say to me about him, or what he has to do with the issue under discussion, and by now the last thing I want to do is annoy you even more ((c¦

        I apologise also for leaving this very long comment, and I’m more than happy for us to let the issue rest here now, as I feel both our points of view have been clarified. Are you satisfied that this is fair? I really do appreciate the time you’ve given to this, as I know you have a busy life. I’ll refrain from commenting again if you think that might be best, as the last thing I want to do is make your life difficult.

      • Oh, that article. I didn’t take note of the author. Now I see the light. (c:

        And thanks re the language compliment. I grew up speaking Afrikaans, but English has been my home language since 1995, so I’m now more comfortable in it than in my mother tongue. Even so, you never quite grasp the full nuances, and as I said, even after all these years I still often misunderstand what people are saying, so I try to always check I’m not mistaken. I often am.

      • I have a South African friend — I’ll have to see if he knows Afrikaans. I learned some key words / phrases before going on mission trips (Honduras, Kenya) which makes things go much better, but I don’t think I’ll ever study enough to be fluent. My youngest absolutely loves languages and is going to major in Spanish and Chinese in college.

  6. Well, male homophile promiscuity is well-known, and study after study has shown that male same-sex relationships are rarely what one would call “monogamous” – it is common for them to have multiple partners, open partnerships, etc. Much moreso than heterosexuals.

  7. Awesome news out of Arizona. I have always feared that eventually things as trivial as hair color would start being used as a basis for abortions. It amazes me that couples will risk the health of their child to have pre-birth genetic testing done.

    I would love to see this law expanded to include non-life threatening conditions like Downs Syndrome, etc.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s