Schadenfreude alert: Radical feminists blasted for being too conservative.

Yep. Apparently the radical Left is trans-phobic and insists on having female-only events — by which they mean real females and not just pretend ones.  It reminds me of the lesbian couple who complained to the Houston Chronicle about the family section of the gay pride parade being put near the S&M groups.  It is fascinating to watch people pull up the perversion drawbridge once they’ve crossed their favorite part.

Go read this entire post.  Yes, it can hard to follow with the alphabet soup of perversions that McCain describes, but you owe it to yourself.  Via The Rocky Horror Dating Game: Translesbians Encounter Queer Hate.  

Radical egalitarianism is a sort of philosophical insanity, premised as it is on the idea that everything is equal, even things that are fundamentally different. When you begin with an obvious falsehood as the premise of your argument, the conclusion will necessarily be madness.

Ten days ago, I brought you up-to-date about an emerging controversy on the extremist fringe. Radical feminists who wish to exclude trannies from their events are accused of “transphobia”:

RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.

How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates).

Brennan’s outspoken hostility to “transwomen” — including those she calls “Pretendbians” — takes it to a whole new level of crazy:

Basically, Cathy Brennan is the Fred Phelps of radical lesbian feminists. Brennan’s message seems to be, “Feminism is for man-hating socialist homosexual perverts and we don’t want to associate with a bunch of surgically mutilated psychotic freaks.”

Gosh, it’s kind of hard to choose sides here, isn’t it?

. . .

This is the logical consequence of mocking God’s created order.  If you feed lust and rebellion you don’t satisfy it, you make it grow.  And this is what it looks like as it grows.  This is a sad lot of horribly confused and/or evil people.  They need Jesus.

Favorite dish of the theological Left & skeptics: Shellfish

This is one of my all-time favorites bits, originally posted in 2007.  It addresses a very common argument used by atheists and those on the theological Left.  The argument they use is wildly illogical but never seems to go away.

I just added another response at the end that I can’t believe I didn’t put in the first time: The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they anyone claiming to be Christian who complained about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, gay-bashing, etc. would also be inconsistent if they didn’t obey the Jewish ceremonial laws.  That is transparently false.  You should use this counter-argument against “Christians” making the shellfish / mixed fiber / etc. claim: Unless you also follow the Jewish ceremonial laws, then you shouldn’t advocate for any of your [allegedly] biblical views about government, helping the poor, gays, abortion, etc.

—– 

shellfish.jpgAs always, this is about careful thinking and proper analysis of the Bible and not about picking on homosexuals.  We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

Many liberal theologians, skeptics and pro-gay lobbyists use the “shellfish” argument to undermine and/or dismiss parts of the Bible they disagree with, often mocking about how they love shrimp and such.  They use the same reasoning with other Old Testament restrictions such as not eating pork or mixing fibers in garments.  This video by Jack Black is a recent example.

Their argument goes like this:

  • Yes, Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
  • But Leviticus 11:10 says, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you
  • Therefore, the Bible cannot be the word of God and homosexual behavior must be moral because the Bible is an undependable, contradictory book that equates shrimp eating with sexual immorality.  And people who teach that homosexual behavior is a sin are bigoted hypocrites who only follow the parts of the Bible they like.

Here’s a sample of how they present their conclusions.  Search for Leviticus shellfish or see sites like God Hates Shrimp for more examples.

The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?

Actually, I find those questions to be ironic, because I think the facts will show which side is most likely to pre-judge, selectively quote the Bible and take it too literally.  I hope they take this analysis seriously and reconsider whether their premises and conclusions were sound.

On the one hand, their argument is effective because it is catchy and very few people know how to respond to it.  Many people can’t even articulate the simple Gospel.  When was the last time anyone read Leviticus?

On the other hand, their argument is ineffective because the facts do not support it.  Also, it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines confidence in the word of God.  I expect that from skeptics and non-believers, but I am always disappointed that those claiming to be Christians use it to attack the word of God.

The argument appeals to those who take passages literally when it suits them.  Both passages say abomination (or detestable, depending on what translation you read), don’t they?  And if eating shellfish is obviously a morally neutral act then homosexual behavior must be as well, right?

However, if you follow the basic principle of reading things in context and you attempt to understand the original languages better on difficult or controversial passages, then you’ll realize that the shellfish argument is not supported by the facts.

The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination.  They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.  The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.  

The longer version

1. The words translated abomination in the original Hebrew are different.  In Lev. 11:10, it means detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation.  This word is typically used in the Bible to describe unclean animals.

In Lev. 18:22 the Hebrew term תּוֹעֵבָה (toevah, rendered “detestable act”) refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners.  As noted below, the word is also used to describe bestiality, child sacrifice and incest.

Therefore, the whole “same word!” argument self-destructs immediately.

2. Even a plain reading of the passages shows that the homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God, whereas the shellfish are to be detestable to the Israelites because it made them ceremonially unclean.  Those are key differences.  Being detestable to God is quite a bit different than being detestable to a person.

3. The broader contexts show completely different types of regulations.  Read Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 yourself and note the contexts.  I’ll wait here.

The beginning and end of chapter 11 make it clear that this passage is about dietary rules just for the Israelites:

Leviticus 11:1-2 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

Leviticus 11:46-47 These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.

Now consider the beginning and end of chapter 18, where the Israelites are told not to be like the pagan Canaanites.  God expected the Canaanites to follow these moral laws and was about to vomit them out of the land for failing to do so.  Therefore, they obviously weren’t Jewish ceremonial laws.

Leviticus 18:1-3 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

Leviticus 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”

4. The punishments for eating shellfish and homosexual behavior were radically different.  There were about 15 things in the Israelite theocracy that could result in capital punishment, and homosexual behavior was one of them (And no, I’m not suggesting that should be the punishment today.  The punishments were for the Israelite theocracy, which is clear when you read the context of those passages.)  But eating shellfish just made one ceremonially unclean for a period of time.

Again, note how the moral laws with their steep punishments are tied to offenses God held the pagans responsible for, yet the unclean animal passages were for the Israelites only and were brief (It could have been for health reasons and/or symbolic reasons.  Animals on the ground were like the serpent and thus symbolized sin and pagan religions often sacrificed pigs).

 Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:22-26 Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

5. The ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned in the New Testament, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.   Also see Acts 15:28-29 (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.)

6. The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they anyone claiming to be Christian who complained about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, gay-bashing, etc. would also be inconsistent if they didn’t obey the Jewish ceremonial laws.  That is transparently false.  You should use this counter-argument against “Christians” making the shellfish / mixed fiber / etc. claim: Unless you also follow the Jewish ceremonial laws, then you shouldn’t advocate for any of your [allegedly] biblical views about government, helping the poor, gays, abortion, etc.

And if someone tries to play the “Leviticus is outdated” card, remind them of this verse and ask if it still counts: Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

Remember, anyone calling themselves a Christian should be seeking to hold the same views as Jesus.  And Jesus fully supported the Old Testament law — every last letter and mark.

Here’s another answer from Tektonics, a terrific apologetics website:

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

The point of this question – aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about – is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are “degrees” of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found “abominable”? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for “abomination” in both passages are different suggests that by itself. The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)

So if anyone uses the shellfish argument with you, ask a few questions to see if they have really thought it through.  Everyone I have ever seen use it was either unaware of these responses or deliberately ignoring them. 

Also see Problems with Pro-Gay Theology and Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.

The Methodists get one right

Via Defrocking of Minister Widens Split Over Gays:

The Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister, was stripped of his clerical credentials on Thursday for violating church law by presiding at his son’s same-sex wedding. The punishment, imposed by the United Methodist Church in Pennsylvania, was requested by the church prosecutor to deter other ministers from blessing same-sex marriages.

Good for them!  Hopefully that sets an example for others to obey the Bible and the Methodist Book of Discipline.

But far from intimidating others, the trial and defrocking of Mr. Schaefer have galvanized a wave of Methodist ministers to step forward to disobey church prohibitions against marrying and ordaining openly gay people.

Members of the United Methodist Church, the nation’s third-largest Christian denomination, have been battling bitterly over homosexuality for four decades. The church now faces an increasingly determined uprising by clergy members and laypeople who have refused to cede, even after losing the most recent votes, at the Methodist convention last year, on proposals to change church teaching.

Yeah, the men of Sodom were pretty stubborn too.  They groped for the door even when God blinded them.  Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door. Sound familiar?

“After 40 years of playing nice and attempting a legislative solution, we will not wait any longer,” said Matt Berryman, a former Methodist pastor who said he turned in his credentials because he is gay. He now serves as the executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, a Methodist gay rights group.

Maybe they should just leave altogether! They obviously have a different religion.

. . .

Church conservatives, however, say they have the momentum. About a half-dozen more ministers are facing church trials, and the defrocking of Mr. Schaefer proves to them that church juries have the courage of their convictions. In addition, they say the church is losing members in its liberal-leaning regions and growing in conservative regions.

Yep.  And growing in Africa, much to the chagrin of the Leftists in the U.S.

John Lomperis, the United Methodist director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious think tank, said the same-sex weddings performed by Methodist clergy were “publicity stunts” that were backfiring.

. . .

Mr. Schaefer is hardly the first Methodist minister to be defrocked for disobeying church teachings on homosexuality. Jimmy Creech was stripped of his credentials in 1999 for performing a same-sex ceremony. Irene Elizabeth Stroud, a lesbian living with her partner, was defrocked in 2005.

Stroud was another fraud, like Schaefer, who entered the clergy under false pretenses.

Mr. Schaefer said at a news conference on Thursday after his defrocking, “Here we are 10 years later, and they are doing the same thing.”

Yes!  The same thing!  Because the word of God doesn’t change!

He added, “The church needs to recognize that things have changed and times are changing and people are changing.”

Again, the real church recognizes that the word of God doesn’t change.

Mr. Schaefer has four children, three of whom are gay.

Whoa!  That might explain things.  Parents can’t control everything, but lots of them turn pro-gay after their kids come out.  It is almost as if they are rationalizing their bad parenting.  Three out of four is pretty bad!

. . .

The church’s Book of Discipline, which contains its law and doctrine, forbids same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay people, and says that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Efforts to amend the Book of Discipline have been defeated by increasingly wide margins at the church’s quadrennial conferences as delegates representing the church’s growing branch in Africa have bolstered the votes of conservative Methodists in the United States.

. . .

He said he would not consider leaving the Methodist Church for a denomination that has changed its teaching on homosexuality.

“It’s not that easy when a church is your spiritual home,” he said. “All my children have been baptized in the United Methodist Church. I don’t know how to be a minister out of the United Methodist Church.”

He doesn’t know how to be a real minister anywhere.

He said his lawyers had already filed an appeal with a judicial body akin to a church appellate court.

Those watching the trial were stunned when Bishop Peggy Johnson, who leads nearly 900 United Methodist churches in Pennsylvania and who is Mr. Schaefer’s superior, posted a note on her blog this week, saying that she believed the prohibitions on gay ordination and marriage in the Book of Discipline were “discriminatory.”

The prohibitions, Bishop Johnson continued, taken together with the church’s message of inclusion, “has led to confusion by many from the outside of the church wondering how we can talk out of two sides of our mouth.”

This “Bishop” should be fired as well, for disobeying the Bible and the Methodist Book of Discipline and for not understanding basic logic.  There should be no confusion at all.  Christianity is completely inclusive in the sense that everyone, regardless of age, past sins, race, ethnicity, gender, etc., is completely welcome if they repent and believe in Jesus.  But it is exclusive in the sense that it excludes those who continue to shake their fists at God — people like Schaefer and Johnson.  That isn’t talking out of both sides of your mouth, that is common sense.

Remember Arapahoe!

Seriously.  While the lone shooting at Arapahoe High School was tragic, the episode must be considered in its entire context.  Once a bad guy decides to take lives, whether by guns, knives, bombs or whatever, the key is to minimize the damage and subdue the criminal.  That’s what happened here.  In a high school near Columbine and only a year after Newtown, here was a school that actually protected children by having an armed guard.  Thank God for that!

As a VP for an Internal Audit group at a large company, I constantly think in terms of detecting and preventing problems.  We know that some people may be motivated to steal, but we want them to know that the odds are against them.  We put in controls to catch them if they do steal, but more importantly, we do things to prevent them from stealing in the first place.  They either need to not steal at all or at least not steal from us.

Believe it or not, criminals operate on a sophisticated risk/reward model just like the rest of us.  They want the optimal amount of gain relative to the risk of being caught.  In the case of protecting children, having armed guards prevents problems by scaring away the cowardly bad guys and it mitigates the damage if they show up to do their evil deeds.

Sadly for the Leftists, they had to gloss over this great news as quickly as possible and suppress the truth about the shooter.  Just one more case of media bias.  That’s why we need to remember the victories of the Arapahoe model and tell as many people as possible.  The gun grabbers certainly won’t do that.  Via Karl Pierson was a pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-war socialist Democrat:

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

Carl Schmidt and Brendon Mendelson, both seniors at Arapahoe High, knew Pierson. They said he had political views that were “outside the mainstream,” but they did not elaborate.

That might explain why the mainstream media in general didn’t want to get into his motivations too much. Makes their own ideology look bad. It’s hard for them to report on these things accurately, isn’t it? Can’t report on the armed guard. That makes self-defense look viable. Can’t report on the socialism, because that makes Democrats look bad. Let’s just say nothing and hope people think that he was a Tea Party person. That’s journalism! Whatever fits, they print.

In fact, these shooters are almost always secularists, leftists or secular leftists. See below for past stories.

The New Jersey issue is bigger than the Duck Dynasty issue

The Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson topic has received tons of attention, and deservedly so.  But the bigger issue is how the pro-LGBTQ groups aren’t satisfied with merely redefining marriage in an anti-biblical way, but how they won’t rest until they have completely stamped out religious freedom and forced churches to affirm their activities.  The A&E issue is a sad commentary on our society, but the New Jersey issue is about the power of Big Government to suppress religious freedom.

Via Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality:

Earlier this week state Senate Democrats in New Jersey pulled from consideration a bill that would write gay marriage, already legal in New Jersey by court order, into the law books. The reason: the bill contained religious exemptions.  Loretta Weinberg, the Senate Majority Leader, said she pulled the bill after pressure from an LGBTQ legal group, Lambda Legal.

“They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),” Weinberg said.

Re-read that carefully: They don’t want any kind of religious exemption.  None.  It isn’t about their freedom to do what they want.  They’ve had that for years.  No one is preventing their relationships and/or promiscuous sex, or even doing anything to stop 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive who have unprotected sex with men.  This is about silencing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

“There’s a disparate group of people and it’s hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.”

The decision by New Jersey Democrats and A&E are similar. When pressured by LGBTQ groups, organizations and politicians will choose to silence Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Many Christians have assumed that they would be allowed reasonable exemptions and accommodations based on religious liberty. But LGBTQ activists have made it clear (and have said so from the beginning) that unconditional acceptance of homosexuality is the only option. Normalization and public support, rather than mere legal recognition, is the end goal.

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

Make no mistake: Satan won’t rest until he has silenced Christians.  That will never happen completely, of course, but there is a rocky road coming up.  Many of us have warned of these logical consequences for years, but too many Christians thought they could sit on the fence.  There is no fence.

But be encouraged!  God always wins in the end.  Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth.

A&E shocked to find out that Phil Robertson, a Christian, believes the word of God.

Breaking news: ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks.

I think they picked on the wrong guy.  This should be interesting.  I’m pretty sure that the Duck Dynasty fans won’t take kindly to Phil Robertson being shelved for speaking his mind about what God says about human sexuality and sin.  I’m reminded of Esther 4:14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

My guess is that Phil won’t be back without an apology from A&E.  He already threatened to cancel the show for making it look like they were swearing with fake bleeps and for cutting out the prayers and mentions of Jesus.

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

Their problem is with God, not Phil Robertson.  Homosexual behavior and bestiality were condemned by God in subsequent verses in Leviticus 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.  

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine.

And he’s right.  That is part of the pathology.  Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.  How twisted is that to deliberately have sex with people knowing you could be giving them a deadly disease?  Why isn’t that front page news?

“That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

 

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Yep.  Note how he also included sleeping with lots of women as a sin.  Will the fornicators call him a hater as well?

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson WilsonCruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.

Uh, sure, because GLAAD is the go-to source for authentic Christian beliefs!  And note how they refer to allegedly popular opinion and not what the Bible says.

Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Robertson released his own statement in response: “I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

So Phil admits he was a sinner who needed a Savior, and now he wants to tell other sinners about that Savior.  Oh, the humanity!

Duck Dynasty has become a breakout hit for A&E, regularly luring 9 million-plus viewers.

A&E milks Duck Dynasty.  I started watching it last Summer.  Based on how quickly they fill up my Tivo, they seem to do daily DD marathons.  I hope that the rest of the cast backs Phil up and that A&E loses millions over this.

. . .

The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his remarks.

For starters, remember that the Human Rights Campaign people are pro-abortion extremists, which is rather odd considering that the ultimate human right should involve protection against being crushed and dismembered because you are unwanted.

“Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations,” president Chad Griffin said in a statement. “We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.

Those are lies.  The HRC knows about as much about the Bible as GLAAD, and the science is clear: People are not “born that way.”  Lots of people move in and out of those preferences.  Things change.

Yes, the show is corny and stiff at times and obviously staged.  But it is so refreshing to see positive family situations where dads are leaders in the house and not buffoons, and where people openly talk of faith and live it out.   It shows how far this society has fallen that someone could make such simple, biblical statements and have people go into full freak-out mode over it.

I’m cautiously optimistic that Phil won’t be the kind of guy to back down over this and that the media and entertainment elites won’t know what to do about it.  Hopefully it will inspire other people to stand up for the truth.  One day all believers will face God.  You’ll have all of eternity to remember whether you had the guts to call a sin a sin.  As Erick Erickson says, Ultimately There Will Be No Option for Silence or the Sidelines. You Will Be Made To Care.  If you can’t affirm the truth of God’s word then you should get out now.

Having said that, remember that we’re all sinners in need of a Savior.  You don’t have to “fix” LGBTQ people before sharing the Good News with them.  Here’s an example of how I handle situations like that.

——–

Further reading:

False teacher admits lying at his ordination vows and leaves Methodist church. Yea!

Gerry Hill | Love Prevails notes how a false teaching pastor left the United Methodist Church (eventually) after admitting that  he lied at his ordination vows.  Good for him!  Sort of.  He is still horribly wrong about the Bible, but at least he has ‘fessed up about his lies and is leaving the denomination.  If only other pastors and lay people with his beliefs would do the same!

I left this comment, but I don’t think it will make it out of moderation:

Thanks for admitting that you lied at your ordination vows. I wish other wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing clergy would leave like you did.

Your canard about people committing suicide because churches won’t marry them is another lie. Do some research. Their sexual preferences are often a consequence of other issues, not the cause.

I wish the pro-LGBTQ lay people would leave as well.

“I have always known, to the core of my soul, that Jesus loves and accepts all people.”

Statements like that betray a non-Christian worldview. Jesus accepts all who repent and believe. If you shake your fist at God, as you are doing, then you are not meeting God on his terms. He set very gracious terms, but you don’t get to sit in judgment of them.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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).planned

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 of any kind.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

If you really love people you won’t lie to them about this and more:

  1. That their behavior is rebellion against God, but forgiveness and and healing are possible through Jesus.
  2. They were not “born that way,” and even if they were that wouldn’t excuse them from acting on their impulses.  Things like sexual attraction can and do change.
  3. That gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.

Pro-abortion Wendy Davis promises to be generous — but with your wallet

Oh, and she claimed to have suffered mental health damage when a local newspaper dared criticize her when she ran for city council.  It sure looks like it was a frivolous lawsuit, but either way it reflects badly on her.

Back to the money thing.  Hopefully her run for being Texas Governor will be a big failure.  Abortion Barbie’s only claim to fame is fighting for late-term abortions and reducing the safety requirements for abortionists.  As you’d expect, Wendy Davis Will Be Charitable With Your Tax Dollars.

But that’s no surprise.  Studies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations – conservatives are more generous

What she is not hiding is that she is not a charitable person. She has demanded taxpayer dollars be used to fund her favorite causes, including aborting kids, but she herself refuses to put her personal dollars where her mouth and pink shoes are. Less than 1% of her income over the last three years — more like 0.6% of her income — has gone to charitable causes. But I’m sure she thinks happy thoughts toward charities. So typical of a liberal.

Attorney General Greg Abbott’s relatively paltry charitable giving generated a big news story. But Abbott still gave more than Davis. I wonder if the Dallas Morning News will write a story on Davis’s lack of charity or even investigate how many public sector clients her law firm has because of her position in the state legislature.

On Twitter earlier today, Wendy Davis tweeted, “As governor, I’ll always make investing in our Texas children my first priority.” Just remember, as a private citizen, she won’t invest in Texas children. But in the Cult of Wendy, all things are possible with your tax dollars — provided the kids are past 20 weeks.

Your future looks like that of Venezuela . . .

. . . unless we change our voting patterns in a hurry.  54% inflation, anyone?

It is sad that we even have to spell out how business owners just might stop producing and selling if they are forced to sell at lower prices than they paid.  This country needs a major dose of Junior Achievement classes.  Seriously, the basic elements of economics are accessible to 7th graders but most adults and politicians live in denial of them.

Via Government-Sanctioned Looting in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s democratically elected socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro shows us what we can look forward to after Democrats have finished with the health insurance industry:

National guardsmen, some of whom had assault rifles, were positioned around outlets of an electronics chain that Maduro has ordered to lower prices or face prosecution. Thousands of people lined up at the Daka stores hoping for a bargain after the government forced the companies to charge “fair” prices.

“I want a Sony plasma television for the house,” said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator who waited seven hours outside a Caracas Daka store, similar to Best Buy. “It’s going to be so cheap!”

Sure. Until they are all gone. When the looting spree is over, there won’t be any more. Who is going to make and distribute television sets that they know they will be forced to sell at a loss? But that doesn’t occur to collectivists.

. . .

Anyone see an essential difference between this approach to commerce and Obamunism? Me neither.

Just a few elections ago, socialists stood a chance of losing in Venezuela. Now Maduro barely bothers to mask his thuggery under even the thinnest veneer of sanctimony:

“This is for the good of the nation,” Maduro said, referring to the military’s occupation of Daka. “Leave nothing on the shelves, nothing in the warehouses … Let nothing remain in stock!”

Maduro said his seizures are the “tip of the iceberg” and that other stores would be next if they did not comply with his orders. Maduro is expected to win decree powers in Congress in the coming days that he says will be used to take over more businesses.

That is, he is doing to retail businesses what Venezuela’s government has already done to healthcare. The country’s prospects do not look bright. Yet America follows closely in its path.

It is all too easy to imagine this in our near future:

The assault against business comes amid a severe shortage of basic goods and extreme inflation, which is currently at an annual rate of 54.3%. Both are tied to policies of the government, which is boosting public spending and printing money in record amounts to pay for it.

That is what people voted for. Barring a miracle, that is what they will get.

 

From the “Try to look surprised” category: Cheaters more likely to want government jobs

Via Researchers Confirm: Government Draws Workers of Lower Moral Caliber.  Yet these are the people so many are content to have rule over them in an ever-expanding way.  As the saying goes, do you really want the same people who run the DMV to be in charge of your health care?!  I mean, other than being, on average, less competent and less ethical . . .

It takes a certain type of moral character to make a suitable government apparatchik. Recent research should make life easier for Big Government recruiters:

College students who cheated on a simple task were more likely to want government jobs, researchers from Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania found in a study of hundreds of students in Bangalore, India.

Their results, recently released as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that one of the contributing forces behind government corruption could be who gets into government work in the first place.

Honesty was tested by letting subjects roll dice and report the results; higher reported rolls resulted in higher payment. Aspiring bureauweenies unsurprisingly reported rolling lots of sixes.

“Overall, we find that dishonest individuals — as measured by the dice task — prefer to enter government service,” wrote Hanna and coauthor Shing-yi Wang, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

They added, “Importantly, we show that cheating on this task is also predictive of fraudulent behaviors by real government officials.”

Government workers who reported higher rolls were more likely to miss work. Government absenteeism is largely fraudulent.

Is the media blackout on the “Knockout Game” over?

I’ve been reading about this black-on-white mob violence on conservative sites for a long time.  The stories would sometimes get reported locally, but never nationally.  And even then they would leave out obvious relevant details.  I wondered if this would ever make national news.  Apparently it finally has: Black Mob Violence Breaching Media Barricades.

Some stories are so big, the establishment media has to report them, no matter how damaging they are to the liberal narrative. The total failure of ObamaCare is one example; the ongoing epidemic of racially targeted black mob violence is becoming another.

Until recently, the only reporter willing to touch the story has been WND’s Colin Flaherty. He documents the mayhem in his excellent book White Girl Bleed a Lot, in which he writes:

In hundreds of episodes across the country since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America, intimidating, stalking, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, raping, and killing.

Flaherty’s book includes QR codes throughout, linking to YouTube videos of the bloodshed. Otherwise, few readers would believe him. After all, if this were really happening, it would be in the news constantly, right?

Wrong — because nothing could be more diametrically at odds with the liberal narrative of saintly blacks oppressed by demonic whites than mobs of blacks attacking defenseless whites (as well as other ethnic groups, particularly Asians) throughout the country out of sheer malice.

For the past few years only local media would touch the epidemic, even then downplaying the significance and the size of the mobs, and often censoring racial information without which the attacks would make no sense.

But the story is too big to contain, if the national media wants to retain any credibility whatsoever.

An early crack in the dam occurred in Norfolk, after Virginian-Pilot reporters Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami were beaten by a black mob numbering at least 100 when they stopped for a red light.

Typically, the police wanted nothing to do with it. Not even the victims’ own paper reported the incident until it was mentioned in an editorial two weeks later. Bloggers ran with it. By some miracle, Bill O’Reilly picked it up.

The story was botched by leaving the impression that this highly typical event was an isolated incident, but at least the national media blockade had been breached.

When you hide crimes because of the the skin color of the perpetrators, that’s racism.  The Trayvon-palooza race-baiting done by “Christian” groups like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ Sojourners group and other false teachers helped the media fuel this racial animosity — as if the victims of the “Knockout Game” had anything to do with Trayvon’s death.

And remember, if you want your Constitutional right to defend yourself with a gun you are a racist.

Some good news: 60 Year Old Woman Blows Away Two Young Punks Playing the Knock Out game.  Hopefully that will deter others.  Remember that the Leftists think it should have been illegal for her to have been armed.

Freakonomics’ double fail on abortion

Freakonomics Rev Ed: (and Other Riddles of Modern Life) is a fascinating book that makes a lot of valid and interesting points, but the authors had a double fail on the topic of abortion and crime.  (See the Amazon review at the bottom for more about the book, and also see their blog.)

First, while seeming to have cleverly uncovered the reason behind the dramatic 1990′s crime drop (they thought it was because Roe v Wade had reduced the number of potential murderers), it turns out that they missed some obvious race-based statistics and the impact of the crack cocaine explosion and recession.

Second, and more importantly, they ignored what abortion is: The unjustified destruction of an innocent human life, aka murder.  Yes, the Roe v Wade decision made it legal, but the act itself was unchanged.  So using their logic, if we legalized unjustified killings outside the womb then the murder rate would decrease.  Technically they would be right, but would that really be an improvement?

One of the charts from the book shows that by standard measures, homicides have gone down dramatically over the centuries and we are seemingly safer than ever.  And that is true — for those outside the womb.  But pre-born human beings inside the womb live in the most dangerous place on the planet — far more dangerous than a Chicago ghetto.

Simply put, even if the authors had been correct, murders outside the womb decreased because murders inside the womb were made legal. But that didn’t reduce overall murders, it increased them!  All they had done, ironically enough, was murder the future murderers before they murdered. Oh, and they also killed a bunch of non-murderers — tens of millions of them.  At least the book did get one thing right: Legalized abortion dramatically increased abortions.

This brings to mind Bill Bennett’s comments on this theory, when he noted that killing black babies would reduce crime while simultaneously noting how evil the abortions would be.  Of course, the Left still tried to brand his comments as racist, even though they are a mostly white group supporting mostly rich, white, male abortionists who kill black babies at a rate three times that of whites.  But they definitely aren’t racists . . .

All murder statistics should include abortions.  The real murder rate was decreasing until the 1970′s, when it spiked up dramatically.  We’ve just played word games to make it appear otherwise.

———-

Amazon review:

Economics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don’t need to be so mysterious: they could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt traces the drop in violent crime rates to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from inner-city Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald’s, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don’t really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. These enlightening chapters are separated by effusive passages from Dubner’s 2003 profile of Levitt in The New York Times Magazine, which led to the book being written. In a book filled with bold logic, such back-patting veers Freakonomics, however briefly, away from what Levitt actually has to say. Although maybe there’s a good economic reason for that too, and we’re just not getting it yet. 

The JFK assassination — why all the conspiracy theories?

All you have to do is look at the well documented facts about who Lee Harvey Oswald was and what he believed to know that it wasn’t some Right-wing conspiracy.  It is tragic that Kennedy’s death was so ghoulishly used to deny the truth about Communism, shift the blame to the Left’s ideological foes and to try and divide the country.  Via James Piereson: JFK—Casualty of the Cold War – WSJ.com.

The facts are that President Kennedy was a martyr in the Cold War struggle against communism. The assassin was a communist and not a bigot or a right-winger. Oswald defected from the U.S. to the Soviet Union in 1959, vowing when he did so that he could no longer live under a capitalist system. He returned to the U.S. with his Russian wife in 1962, disappointed with life under Soviet communism but without giving up his Marxist beliefs or his hatred of the U.S. By 1963, Oswald had transferred his political allegiance to Castro\’s communist regime in Cuba.

In April 1963, Oswald attempted to shoot Edwin Walker, a retired U.S. Army general, as he sat at a desk in his dining room. Walker was the head of the Dallas chapter of the John Birch Society and a figure then in the news because of his opposition to school integration and his demand that the Castro regime be overthrown. The rifle Oswald used in the attempt at Walker\’s life was the one he used to shoot Kennedy.

Dallas police would not identify Oswald as Walker\’s would-be assassin until after the assassination of Kennedy, but Oswald, fearful that he would be identified for the Walker shooting, fled Dallas for New Orleans. In June 1963 he established a local chapter of Fair Play for Cuba, a national organization dedicated to gaining diplomatic recognition for Castro\’s regime. Oswald was filmed by a local television station in New Orleans circulating leaflets on behalf of the Castro government and was jailed briefly following a street altercation with anti-Castro Cubans. Soon thereafter he appeared on a local television program to debate U.S. policy toward Cuba.

In late September, Oswald left New Orleans to travel to Mexico City in pursuit of a visa that would permit him to travel to Cuba and then to the Soviet Union. As documented in the Warren Commission Report, he took along a dossier of news clippings on his pro-Castro activities to establish his revolutionary bona fides with personnel at the Cuban and Soviet embassies in the city.

Oswald returned to Dallas empty-handed after being told that his application would take months to process. He was still waiting on his application six weeks later when he read that President Kennedy\’s forthcoming visit to Texas would include a motorcade through downtown Dallas and past the building where he worked.

The assassin\’s motives for shooting Kennedy were undoubtedly linked to a wish to interfere with the president\’s campaign to overthrow Castro\’s government. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy pledged to abandon efforts to overthrow Castro\’s regime by force. But the war of words between the two governments continued, and so did clandestine plots by the Kennedy administration to eliminate Castro by assassination.

. . .

The JFK assassination was an event in the Cold War, but it was interpreted by America’s liberal leadership as an event in the civil-rights crusade. This interpretation sowed endless confusion about the motives of the assassin and the meaning of the event. The vacuum of meaning was filled by a host of conspiracy theories claiming that JFK was a victim of plots orchestrated by right-wing groups.

The widespread feeling that disreputable elements in American culture contributed to Kennedy’s death—fed by liberal media figures and politicians—encouraged an anti-American attitude that was a pronounced aspect of the radical and countercultural movements of the 1960s. In the process, the real assassin, his political coloration and likely motives were airbrushed from history.

Responding to the fallacious “Women’s Health Protection Act” rhetoric

BREAKING: Soon, Congressional Democrats plan to introduce the the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013.

This is a critically important piece of legislation that will take the offensive against extreme social conservatives who want to curb a woman’s right to make her OWN choices about her OWN body.

As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, this ignores the body of the unborn human being who gets crushed and dismembered during the abortion — just because she was unwanted. What about her rights?

And their offensive isn’t against extremists, it is against a significant majority of people opposed to late-term abortions.

And these same people aggressively fight to restrict your choices about guns, schools, food, healthcare, whether to fund abortions, etc.  And they don’t want medical workers to have a choice whether or not to participate in abortions.  

The new bill would prohibit states from passing laws that create financial, logistical, and emotional barriers to women seeking reproductive health services.

Stop. Right. There.  Never let them use the deadly euphemism of “reproductive health.”  It is a scientific fact – and basic common sense — that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization (check out any mainstream embryology textbook).  So abortions kill human beings who have already been reproduced.

Some of these attempts include forcing women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures before having an abortion, such as forcefully inserting vaginal probes and requiring an ultrasound.

Are they trying to outlaw other procedures requiring ultrasounds?  If not, why not?  Don’t those help make the procedure more safe?  And if the probes are “forcefully inserted” then aren’t the tools for the abortions forcefully inserted in the same place?

PLEASE, take a moment and call your Senators and Representatives and urge them to support this critical legislation!! Then, SHARE this story with a friend and have them call too.

Find your members of Congress here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

Yes, please contact them to save innocent human beings from being destroyed!

abort

The original link was from a Hillary Clinton Facebook page quoting her about the deceptive “safe, legal and rare” mantra. Hillary doesn’t want abortions to be rare. She thinks there aren’t enough of them, which is why she supports the Democrats’ platform of taxpayer-funded abortions: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

That’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice.

Hat tip: Marcia from Facebook

Detroit Baptist leader resigns after announcing she is not a Christian

The actual link says, “Detroit Baptist leader resigns after announcing she married a woman,” but I’ll stick with my title.

Facing a backlash from conservatives in her congregation, a noted Christian leader in Detroit resigned Friday from her church after announcing earlier this month she had married a woman.

Bishop Allyson D. Nelson Abrams stepped down from Zion Progress Baptist Church, where she had served for five years as its first female pastor. Her announcement from the pulpit earlier this month that she had married a woman stunned many local Baptists.

“Female pastor” is as oxymoronic as “same-sex marriage,” so I’m not sure why they were so stunned (though of course many male false teachers hold anti-biblical views on marriage as well).

. . .

Abrams, 43, used to be married to a man, but she told congregants Oct. 6 she was in love with Diana Williams, a bishop emeritus with the Imani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation in Washington, D.C., a church that broke off from the Catholic Church. The two married in March in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal.

So she actually got “married” much earlier after divorcing a man and didn’t tell her congregation.  Sounds like serial lying to me.

Given the conservative views of many Baptists on the issue of homosexuality and female pastors, Abrams’ announcement caused an intense debate among local Christians. She said many supported her decision to come out while others opposed her gay marriage. Some urged her to stay with the church, but Abrams said she resigned because she didn’t want to further create division. Some in the congregation had found out about her same-sex marriage before she made her Oct. 6 announcement and were making it an issue that was dividing the church.

“I know how important it is for congregations to stay together,” she told the Free Press. “I didn’t want to split the church any further over this issue.”

So she was surprised that it would be divisive?!

Abrams cited biblical verses to support the idea that same-sex relationships are allowable under Christian teachings, including Luke 7:1-10, which talks about the love a man has for his male servant.

Misinterpreting the passage that badly should even disqualify a man from preaching.  Read it yourself and ask if supports homosexual behavior.  Pro-LGBTQX “pastors” rely on biblical ignorance when making claims like that.  And since they are the church leaders, they obviously don’t want people reading the book for themselves.

Saying that love is a big part of Christianity, Abrams said: “We all know that we’ve been made in God’s image, and so no matter what you look like, no matter who you are, no matter what your orientation is,” we should be free to love whom we want.

Foolish statements like that are impossible to make if you actually read the Bible and take it seriously.  Using her logic, anything you want to do must be OK.  There would be no sins.

And she begs the question by assuming that love has to involve sex.

“Love is something that’s supposed to be unconditional,” she added. “And as Christians, if anybody is supposed to be loving, we are.”

Again, that doesn’t mean sex has to be part of the relationships.

Abrams, who has a doctorate degree in theology, said her views about love and orientation changed a “little over a year ago.”

A doctorate in theology?!  Wow.

So in less than a year she went from alleged Bible-believer to support “same-sex marriage” to “marrying” a woman?  I’m skeptical.

“I progressed in my theology and came to the point where I would love whichever came to me. I wasn’t just open to (a specific) gender, I was open to love in whatever way the Lord would bless me.”

Well, gee, since she blamed God for it she must be right . . .

That’s just blasphemy.

. . . The Rev. Charles C. Adams, the presiding pastor of one of Detroit’s biggest churches, Hartford Memorial Baptist Church, said he supports Abrams.

“Bishop Abrams is a very intelligent, conscientious and progressive minister,” he said. “She has done a lot to help people.

“She, herself did not seek to make this an issue,” he added. “It was an issue that from my understanding was ignited by rumors and innuendos … somebody looking up the marriage certificate on the Internet.”

Another false teacher weighs in. Yeah, it was someone else’s fault.  How dare they speak the truth that their pastor “married” a woman and didn’t tell them!

Adams, who supports gay marriage in terms of constitutional rights, said there needs to be more discussion of this issue in the African-American Christian community.

By denying gay marriage, “we are denying people equal protection under the law,” Adams said. “There is no justification for that. We have same-gender couples working in every sector of society and they are not being treated fairly.”

Wrong.  You don’t have a right to a square circle or to a “same-sex union of a man and a woman.”

Others disagree with Abrams, saying she is violating Christian doctrine. Elder Levon Yuille, pastor of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, said that gay marriage is “diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Bible.” Yuille said that unless Abrams stops being in a gay relationship, she should stop preaching.

“To be in accordance with scripture, she would have to give up that type of homosexual lifestyle,” he said.

 

Finally, some sanity!  Although she should stop preaching for a host of reasons.

. . .

Abrams said her interpretation of scripture is compatible with same-sex relationships. She said that Greek words used in the Bible,“entimos doulos pais, can be interpreted together to refer to a male lover.

That is a terrible analysis.  More here.  Why doesn’t she look at Romans 1?

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Back to the article . . .

She acknowledges there can be varying views on this issue.

“People have the right to interpret scripture whatever way they please,” she said. “I respect difference of opinions.”

As for what’s next for her, she said she’s considering joining two other denominations but would not say which ones. She said will continue to preach the gospel.

“I’m still going to preach and teach and do what God has called me to do,” she said.

More blasphemy.  God hasn’t called her to anything she’s done yet.  Why start now?

Democrat Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist “Church” is still a Democrat

I love pointing out that Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. The typical reaction from those on the Left is denial and disbelief. They just know that he must be a Republican, even though there is a good reason that the media never mentions his party affiliation.  After all, why would the Leftist media leave out such a key fact as his political affiliation (he actually ran for office) while they are trying to paint him as a right-winger? Oh, wait, I answered my own question.

Of course I’m not trying to imply that all Democrats are like Fred. I’m pointing to just another example of media bias and how they leave out key facts to distort the truth.

I encourage others to point out his official party affiliation every time that he or his Westboro Baptist “church” are mentioned.

Don’t just take my word for it or even that of (eek!) Wikipedia.  Go here and search for yourself – https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView/RegistrantSearch.do .

fred phelps

If you trust the mainstream media you are not using wisdom and discernment.

Hat tip for the link to the voter registration site: Sifting Reality