Overview: I view comment moderation to be somewhat like Caller ID. If profane or obnoxious people call then I screen them out, much the same way I would ignore boorish co-workers or neighbors who could not be reasoned with. Why should blogging be any different? Life’s too short to spend too much time with people who perpetuate non-stop fallacies. At some point it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.
This is not censorship in the political sense, of course. Anyone can start their own blog. If people don’t want to post my comments I don’t boo-hoo over it. I have only been irritated at two bloggers who distorted my comments. One deleted some benign comment then claimed I had made racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. statements. And that guy was a “Christian” pastor, believe it or not! The other guy was a philosophy professor who got frustrated and literally edited my comments to make them say the opposite of what I had written. When I pointed out that I had copied and pasted the comments he panicked and deleted the whole post.
——
I thought I would highlight this love note from a recent commenter as an example of why I am moderating comments more in 2009. In short, I’ve found that my discernment is remarkably accurate in determining when conversations won’t be productive. God has given me so many things and I need to be a good steward of them all, including my time.
Long time readers know that alternative views are welcomed here provided that they are communicated in an adult manner. I do hold those who claim to be Christians to a higher standard, and have borrowed Carlotta’s policy on that:
For Believers – An intentionally different standard applies to those who name themselves followers of Christ: persons who claim to be believers in Jesus Christ yet bring manifestly false teaching on basic doctrines of the faith, and/or promote evil acts are not welcomed into discussion here.
I didn’t let this guy’s first comment through because it included pointless insults. Then he added this second comment, which manages to cram in multiple logical fallacies and insults at the same time its very premise self-destructs. Sadly, this is pretty common from the pro-materialistic Darwinists. I expect these whenever I post anything on Intelligent Design or criticizing Darwinian evolution.
You like to delete postings that cut through your web of lies, don’t you?
No more need to prove that people who reject evolution in favour of creationism are among the biggest idiots in the world.
They are completely immune to fact and reason and dishonest to the bone. The scum of all religious believers.
First, he begs the question by stating that I have a “web of lies.” He should demonstrate that first, but of course he can’t. At worst, I could be mistaken on some points, but I have not lied about anything.
He has several ad hominem fallacies (attacking the person, not the content of their arguments). Those are always telling.
He claims I am immune to fact and reason but I welcome anyone to scan my hundreds of posts and come to their own conclusion. Christianity requires and applauds the use of reason. Or just consider this post. I have analyzed his views from various angles but haven’t called him a liar, an idiot or scum and haven’t said he was immune to fact and reason.
But here’s the fun part: If his worldview is true, then none of his comment makes any sense. It completely self-destructs.
After all, if he is correct that the universe came from nothing, life came from non-life, Darwinian evolution explains how we got here, etc., then there this process is responsible for my Christian worldview. Fancy that! Darwinian evolution led me to “imagine” that I see evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible. And not just any evidence – I see cosmological, teleological, moral, logical, historical, archaeological evidence and more (see the apologetics section to the right on the main page for more).
As always, his worldview can’t adequately explain the Christian worldview, but the Christian worldview can explain his:
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
And if his worldview is true, why would dishonesty be a bad thing? Where is his universal morality coming from? He obviously thinks there is such a thing as morality and that I should be held accountable to his version of it, but why?
And where does “reason” come into play? If everything in the universe has a material cause, then why would we think in terms of reason or logic, which are clearly immaterial?
And he makes the same mistake most Darwinists do: Even if Darwinian evolution were true, it still wouldn’t explain the start of the universe and the origin of life and it wouldn’t explain away God like its proponents want it to. I don’t think that theistic evolution is supported by the facts, but even if Darwinian evolution were true it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.
And then there’s the irony of him complaining about me not posting his comment. If it is a moral flaw on my part not to post his insulting comment on this little blog, I wonder how he reacted to the movie Expelled! Actually, I don’t wonder, as I’m pretty sure I know his reaction (based on the reaction of all the other Darwinists).
But of course deleting his comment merely cost him a few keystrokes. It wasn’t like I damaged his reputation or cost him his job or his tenure. So is censorship bad or not? If it is bad to delete a comment on a blog then what much of the scientific and academic community is doing is really, really bad, even by his standards.
So in conclusion, please save us all some time and don’t leave comments like that.
I really like your website!!! Thanks for commenting on my blog. I will have to come back and read the stuff you have in here more extensively. You have a lot of good resources.
Question: Can you please re-publish your section on sex-selection abortion? I received a notification from Google that you addressed the topic on this blog, but then the link did not work. thank you.
Hi J — I’ve mentioned it a couple places (you can search in the box just under the header), but here is one link — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/if-you-want-to-get-pro-choicers-wound-up/
All the best,
Neil
Neil, check out the debate I linked to on my blog:
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
Hi Neil,
I think a comment I made on your most recent roundup has been caught by a filter.
Hi Cameron,
That had a bunch of pro-Mormon apologetics data that I wasn’t interested in posting. I’ve seen the pros and cons and don’t have time to go through your links to respond to them, so I’m being my usual totalitarian self
. You are welcome to try to post it at the site I linked to.
Hmmm… I find that incredibly unfair, if not downright cowardly.
Boo-hoo. Watch me not care about you marketing your cult. You had so many links my filter caught it. If you really have some great responses, go to the site I linked to and pick a couple and spell it out.
Update: My apologies, my initial reply was too harsh. But I stand behind my decision not to permit loads of links advancing what I view as false belief systems.
Actually, I liked your initial reply… though I suppose that’s little surprise to those who know me.
Sometimes we find ourselves compelled to “use great plainness of speech,” as the Apostle Paul phrased it.
-Sirius Knott
That evolution might lead to this or that does not somehow cause it to self-destruct. If it caused us to believe we were all 40 feet tall and that we were all created spontaneously by invisible goats, that wouldn’t somehow invalidate it. In short, the Argument from Consequence often acts as a logical fallacy.
Because of his values, his culture, his upbringing, his natural tendencies, his empathy, his anger, his love, his sympathy, his ability to reason. Besides, even if we assume your source of morality is objective, you’re still coming to that conclusion through your own reasoning, interpreting that morality in your own way: you’re no less subjective. In short, anyone can ask you why we ought to be held to your ideas of morality and your answer must come down to the same thing as his: values, culture, upbringing, etc, etc. That you claim something as objective does not make it so.
I suspect you need to define your terms. As it stands, this makes no sense. You moved from saying everything has a material cause but then you declared reason and logic immaterial. Presumably our brains are material. And presumably they produce our reason and logic. But maybe you’re asserting that reason and logic exist independently of humanity. I would disagree since the appear to be direct products of our brains. It seems your assertion isn’t quite so clear.
It’s impossible to know whether or not that person argued any of that since I only see his one post, but I digress. It’s a common creationist error to demand evolution explain the origin of the Universe. But I digress again. You’re right that evolution doesn’t explain how everything began, including the relative recent event of abiogenesis. But we have a lot of other good hypotheses that have support, especially via RNA which holds enzymatic and replicating properties.
And you’re right that evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God. But it does show that life came about through a slow, natural process. If your particular, cultural god exists, he’s superfluous. But then it’s that conclusion that led me to atheism. I suspect you started with theism before rejecting science.
This is a red herring. His argument is that you’re being censorious; it doesn’t matter how he reacted to anything else.
Personally I don’t moderate comments until they become spam – “spam” being defined as copy & paste jobs, advertising, etc. As immature as insults without content can be, I think it’s just as immature to need to block them from view. Just don’t respond. But it’s your blog; I just wanted to point out your initial logical fallacy since you seem to rail against those so much.
That wasn’t my argument. Nor was my argument from incredulity, though the nothingness-to-“somethingness”-to-molecules-to-Angelina Jolie-to people debating the origins of life on blogs worldview is transparently ridiculous.
No, my argument was that you, like most atheists, don’t live consistently with your worldview. Not for three sentences. Not even close.
That didn’t answer the question, that’s just more relativism. And again, if your worldview is true, you have no foundation even for reason. After all, Darwinian evolution doesn’t select for truth but for survivability. If being ignorant helped you survive then that trait would be preserved. Hey, maybe you guys are right!
Yes, you did, and in a completely unsupported and illogical way. Pleases stay on topic.
Question begging. You assume Darwinian evolution is true then draw conclusions, but it is a farce. Fossil evidence = FAIL. Ability to explain large amounts of highly ordered information = FAIL. And on and on.
Hee hee. You’re cute when you are so childishly fallacious. Does that actually work on regular people?
1. I was an atheist long before becoming a Christian.
2. I don’t reject science, I embrace it as discovering how God put his universe together. I’m the one pointing out the scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception. You’re the moral freak trying to rationalize the killing of innocent human beings by looking for loopholes and ignoring science.
Also, there are dozens of branches of science. I don’t see the evidence for ONE part of ONE of those branches of science (ironically, the same branch where you deny the obvious about human creation). You play a pathetic little game where you pretend that because I don’t buy into the evidence-free macro-evolutionary theory that I reject all science. And you think that qualifies as an argument to dismiss all my views?! Heh. Thanks for the concession speech.
Thanks for the public service, but you still haven’t found one.
I don’t think that second paragraph was your argument either; in fact, you don’t seem to have particularly made one other than to say that some unidentified guy on the Internet has a self-destructing worldview, and then you associated that with Darwinism.
But if you want to present this new argument that atheism is self-destructive without giving reasons – and I wouldn’t expect you to do so here – then there is no point in discussing the point.
I told you several aspects of the basis he has for his morality; you, I, and every other human use the same tools. That you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer your question. Though I suspect when you dismiss relativism as being an answer (though it wasn’t the answer I gave), you don’t mean to talk about morality. You’re talking about objective morality, sans that necessary qualifier objective.
You implied that this random person on the Internet was arguing, as “most Darwinists do”, that evolution explains the origin of the Universe. Have you ever talked to an average creationist? It is exceedingly common for them to conflate the Big Bang and evolution. So while my point was only an assertion of fact, and therefore technically unsupported here, you made just the opposite assertion, equally unsupported. But we have the Internet at our hands. If you would like me to find a few creationists making the conflation you think Darwinists make, I can. Easily.
I understand that most people use “begging the question” to mean that an argument raises new questions, but for someone who prattles on and on about logical fallacies, I would expect you to use your terms correctly.
The fossil record shows exactly what we would expect, ordering species throughout the geological column in a way that can’t be explained by chance or a flood or some other such nonsense. As for “highly ordered information”, I suspect you’re just using science-y terms; this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered a creationist trying to gin a pseudo-scientific argument. That isn’t to say your terms aren’t scientific; they are. I just doubt you have much background or formal knowledge of what they mean.
I’m thoroughly convinced you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.
This doesn’t refute my statement. You can still reject science as a result of theism – even if you arrive at it later in life. So even if I did commit a logical fallacy – and I didn’t – you failed to refute what I said. (What’s more, if I stated a logical fallacy you wouldn’t need to refute the substance of what I said, but only the logic behind any statement. That you felt the need to give a point-to-point response is indicative that your understanding of what constitutes a logical fallacy is shaky.)
Great. You embrace science because it discovers how God did things. In other words, you believe God did things and science therefore will provide evidence to that fact; your theism comes before science.
As for the rest of what you said, that’s for your other post. However, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that just as you rail against logical fallacies and then fall prey to them, you railed against personal insults above, yet you have no problem using them.
Oh, I suspect you accept some science. If it doesn’t obviously conflict with your previously held conclusions, you probably don’t have a problem with it. Or if it’s applied science, you surely have to accept it. So, no, you don’t reject all science. But your view on the underlying theme of biology is certainly wrong. And that view is premised in religion, not science. So in the sense that I reject religion even though I readily accept some of its historical claims, you reject science even though you readily accept some of its more easily digestible (and theologically compatible) claims.
It was pointed out to you that you were being censorious. You responded by trying to call the person a hypocrite based upon your speculation of what he thinks about a movie. That doesn’t matter, is a red herring, and fails to answer the charge that you were wrong to censor.
It means assuming what you should be proving, which is exactly what you did. I know exactly what the fallacy is and that you committed it. I encourage you to try posting some facts instead of your fallacy-fest.
Word games. Of course I mean objective morality. Just look at the context. And when you make moral claims you obviously mean them in objective terms as well. If not, the burden is on you to say that these are just your opinions and personal preferences and that you obviously don’t expect others to care about them or adhere to them.
When I make moral claims like, “Don’t crush and dismember unborn human beings except to save the life of the mother,” then I’ll do so without qualifiers. On my blog, moral claims are assumed to be objective so any non-objective claims require the qualifiers.
For example, I’m not anti-science, but if you want to claim that again — or make any other claim about right and wrong — I insist that you be consistent and properly characterize it as “you’re anti-science, but of course there is nothing universally wrong with that, because it is just my opinion blah blah blah” or whatever your perception of “morality” is. Then we’ll be nice and clear. Because in your worldview there is either no such thing as morality (how do molecules in motion create morality?) or it is moral relativism. Both are nonsense.
You need to get our more. Start with “Signature in the Cell” by Meyers. And for someone whose blog is for “the sake of science” you should stop embarrassing yourself publicly with your anti-science views you use to prop up abortion.
Another evidence free assertion from your Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites. Again, I reject philosophical naturalism and I do so based on tons of evidence and logic. That isn’t even science, and its use to pervert one sub-branch one branch of science is sad. And even if I was wrong, opposing one sub-branch of one branch of science wouldn’t make me anti-science, expect in the ad hom worldview of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and who can’t go three sentences without contradicting their worldview. Remember, even if I reject science then your beloved Darwinism is the reason. So go be mad at that.
I also know human nature and how it can corrupt the scientific process, such as the global warming charade (Gee, people hid the decline to preserve money and power?! Shocking!) and Expelled!
My evidence comes before science. I see the evidence for God and the supernatural and I see evidence in the natural and how science sometimes gets it right.
And there is much more evidence than just science. The notion that you can only trust science can’t be proven with science. You rely on history, eye-witness accounts and more all day every day — even in science. Or have you created all your own test equipment and personally performed every single experiment you rely upon?
Whoa, I just read your blog. How morbidly ironic that you wanted prison time for the parents who didn’t seek medical attention for their child. For the record, I think parents should seek medical help for their children. There is nothing un-biblical about seeking medical care. But let’s examine your consistency.
1. You called them monsters. Uh, would that be in the objective sense, as in no one should do what they did, or in the subjective sense, as in “Michael thinks it is bad, but hey, it is just his opinion so who really cares?” Seems like the former. So why should we have your religious views (i.e., views about religion) forced on others? What is your grounding for the universal morality? They obviously disagreed, so who are you to tell them otherwise?
2. Your homework assignment is to watch this video and then ask yourself why you support the legal right to do that and why it isn’t monstrous — http://tinyurl.com/66csro9 .
3. You wrote, “I had very little confidence in our judicial system in sentencing faith healing parents who are responsible for the deaths of their own children.” But you are pro-abortion! You should have 100% confidence that our system is designed to let people destroy human beings they have created.
4. In your worldview, Darwinian evolution was 100.00000% responsible for the parents’ actions and the death of the child. Stop being so irrational and holding them accountable.
5. If the parents would have had this child destroyed in the womb you would have had no issue with it.
Really, try to follow your own worldview for just 3 minutes. When you realize you can’t I hope you revisit its foundations. Eternity is a might long time. Deep down you know there is right and wrong, and there is a reason for that. No lawgiver = no real laws. But there are moral laws at work, and they come from God. Repent and believe before it is too late.
BTW, those are all rhetorical. Just didn’t want you to waste any keystrokes.
Prove all things…
Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 by his words in the book of the knowledge of good and evil, the Bible Gen 3:22, 2 Cor 11:15
that have not been rightly divided 2 Tim 2:15.
The true word John 1:1 of God is now delivered Rev 12:5, 13 at the heel of time Gen 3:15 at http://minigoodtale.blogspot.com Please study this the truth sets all free to love.
Satans lies are exposed. Not even one child of God will be cast into a hell fire no matter what their sins. God is not a murderer. There is a punishment for the wicked but it is not death. Christ’s sacrifice took away the power of the devil. Love never fails.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess each in their own order Ps 82:6
Neil,Ive only today come upon your website and have to congratulate you for how its set up.Not allowing certain people who only come on here to use insults and misinformation is refreshing and I believe William Lane Craigs Reasonable Faith site falls down on this lacking your style of moderation.
Thanks, Frankie. I don’t go to WLCs site (nothing against it, I just subscribe to too many blogs already!), so I wasn’t aware of that. I know that Ray Comfort lets a lot of vicious comments through on his. That is their call. I just choose not to waste time with it. I think Jesus commanded us to use discernment (“don’t throw your pearls before swine”). That doesn’t mean I’ll never engage those hostile atheists, just that I do it on my terms and convenience, and for a purpose (i.e., to educate others on how to deal with those objections).
Hi, Mr. Simpson. Now that you’ve rearranged things, I’m reading your comment policy for the first time, and I noticed this:
“I see cosmological, teleological, moral, logical, historical, archaeological evidence and more (see the apologetics section to the right for more).”
The apologetics section is no longer to the right, and although I don’t even know that this format change is permanent, apparently I couldn’t resist pointing this out, in case it’s helpful.
Whether it’s helpful or not, and whether you change anything or not, I invite you to delete this comment after you’ve read it.
Keep up the good work, God bless, etc.,
Chillingworth
Hi Chillingworth,
Thanks so much for taking the time to point that out. I think I fixed it sometime between when you originally saw that and now. I was trying to switch to a more readable WordPress theme but there are lots of quirks when doing that. It should appear now right under the “Recent posts” section.
I appreciate you reading and writing here!
Right, but that whole right side bar appears only on the main page ( http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/ ), not on any particular post’s page, such as http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/comments/ . At least that’s how it’s displaying in my browser.
Oh, thanks, didn’t realize that. I tweaked the Comments tab to reflect that you need to go to the home page. Couldn’t find a fix for that!
There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire books and sections have been redacted over time.
I hope you realize you have just made a laundry list of assertions with no backup.
I don’t have time to refute every unfounded claim of yours, but if you really seek the truth then do some research on Luke and Acts. Critics used to claim that Luke had many errors in these books (he authored them both). Archaeology has proved him right and the critics wrong over and over. The Bible is highly accurate historically.
It has also been translated in a robust way. Ironically, even atheist textual critics like Bart Ehrman prove our point when they insist they know what some original passages said. When you have thousands of manuscripts from many locations from different centuries it is easy to discern what the originals said.
Blurtex, without disagreeing with eMatters or diminishing what he said, I would also like to offer a different kind of answer to your comment: I think you’re looking at things the wrong way around. Of course you won’t believe what the Bible says, unless you’re already Christian and so have some reason (outside of the text of the Bible) to believe that the Bible comes from God and is authoritative. In other words, I think you should convert to Christianity first, and then (and therefore) believe the Bible, not the other way around. (That’s not to say that it can’t happen in the reverse order, or some more complicated mixture of the two, for some people, but obviously that’s not working in your case. I don’t think you should expect it to.)
I do think Christianity makes more sense, logically, than any of the alternatives, including every form of atheism I’ve heard of so far. If you are seriously interested in trying to figure out what is true, using reason and logic, I strongly recommend C. S. Lewis. I recommend his book Mere Christianity, and possibly also The Problem of Pain and Miracles.
Hey, Neil, have I done something to offend you? I posted a comment on your blog about college loan programs; it looked like it was posted, but now is gone. If I posted something objectionable, I do apologize and hopefully you will tell me what I did, because I didn’t think I said anything out of line.
I’d also like to follow your other blog, but it looks like it’s by invitation only.
Anyway, have a great Christmas.
Hi James — I’m glad you checked, because I don’t see the comment and it didn’t show up in the sp*m filter (if people put in links sometimes the comments go there or to the Pending category). And I doubt that I’ll be offended by it!
The other blog will be back online and public soon, or I may merge it into this one — I haven’t posted anything lately. I sent you an invitation to it in the mean time.
Thanks for visiting and commenting!
Thanks, Neil. Always appreciate your work.
XXXX you you XXXX XXXX. GOD HATES XXXX. GOD HATES YOU! BUT WAIT GOD ISN’T REAL AHAHAHAHA LOLOLOL TROLOLOL
I X’d out the swearing but left the comment to show what kind of facts and logic I’m getting from the Darwinists.
Last year I was asked to be on the Church Growth Committee at my United Methodist Church.I accepted and began to study why our Church was not growing.Initially,I studied the demographics of our local area to determine what our target group ,so to speak, was and how we could bring the message of salvation to them. I first assumed that the greatest potential for growth would be among the unchurched.It proved to be an alarming study.Most of what I found was already known by our pastors,district superintendents and our bishops. Our leaders were aware of the aging of the Church membership, the movement of our youth away from mainline church membership,the lack of pastors under thirty-five years of age,the lack of men pastoral candidates in our seminaries,the number of second career candidates and unfortunately the overall quality of those answering the call to be pastors.However, my study lead to more then just changing “how we do church” by offering a traditional or contemporary service , starting a Saturday night service,combining with a minority church to share talent, ideas and resources, hiring a highly paid Youth Director or even paying our associate ministers a decent wage. No, I found out that our church has changed fundamentally from the Wesleyan tradition and has limited our evangelical target groups so severely that continued growth will be unachievable in the future. Why? A growing Church is a biblical.,Christ-centered Church. Now wait! Hear me out.
Over time our seminaries have become packed with very liberal,if not socialist, professors.The procedures for becoming tenured in our universities is flawed.The vetting of our potential pastors, district superintendents and bishops is inadequate. The oversight of the General Board of Global Ministries/General Board of the Church and Society/ Women’s Division has been totally lacking.
Here are a few of my findings, no my beliefs, after nearly a year of trying to answer, ” Why is our Church not growing?” I had to add another question ,”Why is the Church not retaining its membership?”. The fact that the death rate of Methodists is 33% greater than the national average only shows how aged the membership is.
A.Through our political activism we have we have limited our influence on many segments of society.
a.The Church’s inclusion and support of the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/communism.htm https://www.cal-pacmfsa.org/uploads/CalPacMFSA_Nwsltr_June2007.pdf alienates many of members and non-members of the Church.Personally, I am concerned with any organization that invites the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ,of the United Church of Christ, to be the keynote Speaker at its annual conference as the Iowa Conference did.The close association of our Church with the ultra- liberal United Church of Christ does help the Church. The United Church of Christ has offices in all our of the Church’s buildings in Washing DC and NYC.
United Church of Christ in US endorses same-sex marriage New York
(ENI) July 2005
The United Church of Christ has become the first major denomination in the United States to endorse same-sex marriage. In a move heralded as historic by gay-rights proponents and criticized by opponents of same sex relationships, the UCC’s General Synod, meeting in Atlanta, on 4 July voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution that “affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender”.
b. Our seemingly disregard of the Book of Resolutions and Social Principles in regard to the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle alienates another large segment of the population.having Bishops march with Soul Force at the 2008 General Assembly was upsetting to many potential members and members of our congregations.The retired Bishops that performed same-sex marriages did harm to the growth of the Church and caused many members to grieve .When Bishop Ough keynoted a Reconciling Church Celebration, as the Maynard Avenue United Methodist Church of Columbus, Ohio became a Reconciling Congregation, he was clearly in support of the homosexual lifestyle.Bishop Ough has served as the bishop of the Ohio West Area of the United Methodist Church since September 2000 and was reappointed to the same area for the 2009-2012 quadrennium. He was the president of the Church’s General Board of Global Ministries, having been elected to that office in 2008.
Northern Illinois United Methodist Conference Urges: Homosexuality/bisexuality “gift of God”
June 6, 2003
Highlights of text:
…human sexuality is a good gift of God…
…homosexuality, heterosexuality and bi-sexuality all share that gift…
…we commit to proclaim that homosexual orientation (no less or more than heterosexual orientation) can be compatible with Christian teaching
… We encourage clergy to preach this from our pulpits …
…we encourage lay people to teach it in our Sunday school classes and tell it to our children…
…we affirm that loving, monogamous, intimate relationships between persons of the same or opposite gender, are an expression of God’s love…
…we affirm that persons of all sexual orientations are equally called to ordained ministry…
…as lay persons we will similarly affirm that call and we will offer ourselves fully in mutual ministry with pastors of our churches regardless of that person’s sexual orientation…
The Sex and the Church series published at the General Board of Church and Society website is about as edifying as Sex and the City.
The latest article
discusses the “evils” of heterosexism. (One wonders if there are also such things as asexism, homosexism and bisexism.)
Did you know that if you assume that a little boy will like toy trucks and guns or that little girls will like dolls, you’re a heterosexist and a homophobe? You’re also a homophobe if you describe families as consisting of “mommies and daddies”. Sodom and Gomorrah’s big sin was a “failure of hospitality.” And yes, you’re a homophobe if you don’t consider this to be a valid interpretation. That’s what Audrey Krumbach says anyway.
Does the average United Methodist know that this kind of nonsense is being propagated by an official church agency? (Have we forgotten that the official view of the UMC is that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching”?) I attend a fairly liberal United Methodist church, but I’m betting that even in my congregation most of the people are in the dark about what’s going on.
It’s time to shine some light on some of these problems. A lot of shenanigans happen in our denomination because the average United Methodist either doesn’t know or doesn’t care.
Posted by Shane Raynor on February 09, 2010 at 10:00 AM
c.United Methodist Bishop Denies the Gospel on International Television
The Christian Sentinel – April 1, 2003{definition of religious pluralism added}
There he was — a representative of the second largest Protestant denomination on March 11 with a perfect opportunity to share his faith in Christ with the world watching him on “Larry King Live” on CNN. From the way the calls were coming in from from the U.S. and overseas during the show’s Q&A time period, the viewers were attentive — and on edge over the possibility of a U.S. coalition war with Iraq. Many callers were seeking guidance from the five Christian leaders gathered that evening for the telecast.
But retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, the ecumenical officer for the United Methodist Church, not only blew the opportunity to tell the world about God’s gift to humanity through Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross for their sins, but he preached a different gospel and he affirmed universalism. His comments may have helped some viewers move to an eternity apart from Christ, because what he clearly said was that other roads also lead to salvation, including those caught in the twisted world of Islam.This is Religious Pluralism- A response to the religious diversity inherent in 21st century Western culture which entails a belief that one’s own beliefs about God are self-sufficient but not universally applicable. In other words, it is the belief that “God is greater than any
one view of God.” Therefore, salvation, divine revelation, etc. are manifest and applicable to all people in diverse waysTo understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.
Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.
Moreover, Talbert seriously warped Scripture during his appearance and misrepresented it — declaring that it calls for things it does not, and in doing so he misrepresented the Christian faith and betrayed the Wesleyan tradition of his own denomination. This is heresy, folks. It is part of an increasing flood of apostasy, a falling away by so called Christian leaders in the Main Line denominations. Few leaders today represent the face of apostasy and the voice of treachery and treason within Christianity better than Bishop Talbert.
This latest controversy, however, is not new with Talbert. He has been brought up on discipline charges before the UMC in the past, with various evangelicals accusing him of lying and of deliberately defying church law. In more recent years he has angered many within Methodism for his promotion of homosexuality — even sanctioning gay marriages in direct defiance of his church, not to mention Scripture.
d. I think Methodist Churches has been duped by the socialist left and and radical Islam,.
.The Council for American-Islamic Relations( CAIR)http://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment , has offices in the Methodist Buildings in NYC.In NYC they share the suite with Columbia University Trustees.-Islamic radicals and the trustees of socialism. Bishop Bruce R Ough, West Ohio Conference United Methodist Church,issued a press conference statement vilifying the “Obsession” DVD,RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR AGAINST THE WEST. As president of the church’s North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops,he dismissed the complaints(essentially charges of heresy) filed against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of Chicago .I guess his not understanding the threat radical Islam should have been expected. He should read:Tablighi Jamaat: Recipe for an Islamic State,http://westminsterjournal.com/content/view/202/30/ , ,http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions
The Islamic Society Of North America(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6178 ),Nation Magazine(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation) , National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6177 ) all have offices in the Methodist Building located at 110 Maryland Ave NE in Washington, DC.The Methodist Building located at 475 Riverside Dr in NYC is the office of the CAIR-NY and the Imams Council Of New York.The Methodist building across from the United Nations at 777 united nations Plaza are the offices of Amnesty Internationalhttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6185, Caritas Internationalishttp://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=884 . The goals of the Communist Party,the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ,the United Nations and the GBGM/GBCS seem to closely parallel each other http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.htmlCORA WEISShttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1677 , President, Hague Appeal for Peacehttp://www.pfcmc.com/cyberschoolbus/peace/GlobalCampaignStatement.htm , and the SAMUEL RUBIN FOUNDATION,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5348&category=79 .
e. Again Bishop Bruce R Ough, West Ohio Conference United Methodist Church,issued a press conference statement vilifying the “Obsession” DVD,RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR AGAINST THE WEST. As president of the church’s North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops,he dismissed the complaints(essentially charges of heresy) filed against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of Chicago .I guess his not understanding the threat radical Islam should have been expected. He should read:Tablighi Jamaat: Recipe for an Islamic State http://www.tcunation.com/group/christiansstandingwithisrael/forum/topics/islam-lite-in-christian?commentId=2476373%3AComment%3A346638&xg_source=activity&groupId=2476373%3AGroup%3A343898
f. Our continued association with Socialist and lert wing groups as DSA, Sojourners, Code Pink, http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1833 ,http://www.philvalentine.com/TakingBackTheUMC.htm ,http://www.philvalentine.com/NashvillePeaceJusticeCenter.htm ,These kinds of shenanigans definitely mar the reputation of our Church and Church growth.http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_20_1_communism_article.php http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1348488/posts
The NCC has offices in the Methodist buildings in Washington DC and NYC. http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/apostasy.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wcc.htm
g. The following are concepts that are pervasive in today’s mainline Churches:
Religious Liberalism (Modernism) — A religious movement that elevates human reason
(as manifested in rationalism, science, humanism and empiricism) above divine
revelation in an attempt to make the Christian faith compatible with modern culture.
Religious liberalism originally stemmed from the theological and philosophical bases of
the Age of Reason, or the Enlightenment Period. The two pillars on which religious
liberalism rests are the higher criticism and the Darwinian theory of evolution. Religious
liberalism, or modernism, denies the supernatural and emphasizes the supposed inherent
goodness and progress of mankind.
Postmodernism — The natural end of modernism (religious liberalism). Postmodernism
is a recent philosophical and theological development that denies the reality of
transcendent, objective truth by claiming that all notions of truth are socially constructed.
Truth is not a transcendent reality but a social creation of human intellect and language.
Therefore, all beliefs are equally true and valid, and any claim to absolute, objective truth
is rejected since such a claim necessarily negates the “trueness” of any competing beliefs.
As one writer stated, “Everything can mean anything, so everything means nothing.” Key
tenets of postmodernism include moral, theological and linguistic relativism, religious
pluralism and tolerance.
Religious Pluralism — A response to the religious diversity inherent in 21st century
Western culture which entails a belief that one’s own beliefs about God are self-sufficient
but not universally applicable. In other words, it is the belief that “God is greater than any
one view of God.” Therefore, salvation, divine revelation, etc. are manifest and
applicable to all people in diverse ways.
These concepts are preventing mainline Churches from growing or retaining their membership as the laity begins to understand what their giving is supporting.
The Methodist Church has been consumed by the socialist United Nations ‘s agenda.So much so, even when the agenda embraces Anti-American or Anti- Israel, the General Board of Church and Society/General Board Of Global Ministries sign letters. petitions with the likes of Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace,ACLU, Sojourners, MoveOn.org, Oxfam America,Columbus Progressive Alliance, American Friends Service Committee,Fellowship of Reconciliation, Earth Charter ,Africa Action, IPS ,Tides Foundation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others.Why does it matter?The Church is losing its mission.Here are a few examples:
1. Kofi A. Annan, Past Secretary-General, the United Nations is adamantly supported by James Edward Winkler and of course Ret Bishop Melvin Talbert http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/UNAd.pdf
.Annan is for a global government and he could not hide his anti America sentiments even in his farewell speech.
2. So what is the GBCS’s definition of Social Justice? Let’s look how the UMC’s social justice agent responded to the recent attempt by activists to run the the blockage of Gaza:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) is condemning the deadly interception Monday (May 31) in international waters by Israeli troops that led to the deaths of nine persons on a humanitarian aid mission to Gaza. The nine persons were part of an international “Freedom Flotilla” of six vessels carrying nearly 10,000 tons of food and medicine to Gaza, which has been under an Israeli blockade for three years.
“We grieve the loss of life and injuries sustained in what became a tragic confrontation between the forces of peace and those of armed aggression,” said Jim Winkler, chief executive of the United Methodist social justice agency.
This is the typical of the GBCS.They never mention the need for the blockade, that out of five ships only one chose to fight the Israelis or the tons of aid and supplies that has been delivered to Gaza through Israel.The GBCS has long ago accepted the WCC, NCC, and the UN stance on Israel. I truly believe that all these organizations realize that the only sane player in the Middle East Conflict is Israel and hope of peace through compromise must be with the Israelis.
Let’s look at GBCS real issues:
A.GBCS is Anti-Israel http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_united_methodist_church_an.html
B.GBCS is Anti- War-Was Jesus a pacifist?http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-pacifist.html
How will the Church address the Carnage and Slaughter caused by these Sons of Satan? http://www.matrixbookstore.
biz/war_criminals.htm , http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictator, http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.D7FE/UN_Watch__Monitoring_the_UN_Promoting_Human_Rights.htm,http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142
C. GBCS is Pro- Abortion
D.GBCS supports the breaking of the laws of the United States-At an April rally in Washington, D.C., United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcaño addresses thousands of protesters calling for fair treatment of undocumented immigrants. She will be a featured speaker at ‘Welcoming the Sojourner’ Oct. 16-18, in Naperville, Ill.”Welcoming the Sojourner” is co-sponsored by the North Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church and the denomination’s General Board of Church & Society (GBCS). Without borders we have no Nation- Without borders we have no Sovereignty.
E. GBCS supports the premise that that capitalism has caused Global Warming an owes developing nations reparations for the damage.
F. GBCS supports radical environment justice
G.GBCS supports interfaith-not inter-denominational but interfaith(religious pluralism)
H. GBCS Supports disarmament -peace through weakness- to the glee of the socialists/communists dictators
I.GBCS supports the ban on all hand guns-The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms .[1] Justice Antonin Scalia , wrote that the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” was a just a controlling one and referred to it as a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny . The Hand Guns National Coalition to Ban is located in the Methodist Building( 100 Maryland Ave NW) in Washing DC.Again,to the glee to all who would want to harm.
J. GBCS is and was an avid supporter of Kofi Annan- enough said!
K. .GBGM/GBCS/Women’s Division continue to fund RCRC and Planned Parenthood
L. . Other tenants in Methodist Buildings include Nations Magazine( flag ship of the Left), Mother Jones Magazine,NCC Eco- Justice Programs Amnesty International.
Do I think the associations do harm? Yes!
The GBCS has become and active member of the socialist left in this country. Some examples are listed below:
a.Protests with radical organizations to change US foreign policy http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=339 , http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=695 ,
Prominent among those arrested in front of the White House include Father Joseph Nangle, co-director of Franciscan Missions, James Winkler, General Secretary of the the GBCS, and Leslie Cagan,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629 , national coordinator of the United for Peace and Justice activist group(UFPJ) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6166 .
b. The Women’s Division has marched with radicals groups (Code Pink http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=61490
ACLU,Golbal Exchange( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6151 ), DSA ( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6428 ).
c. The General Secretary of the GBCS serves on the Board of Africa Action with Emira Woods,( http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/ emira ,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6991 .
d. Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6991 ,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2147 ,co-authored Ending the US War in Afghanistan with
David Wildman.He is Executive Secretary for Human Rights and Racial Justice with the General Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church. He has regional responsibilities relating to the Middle East and Afghanistan and has in recent years traveled to Afghanistan four times.
e. The Board has accepted the socialist belief that all the injustices in the world have been caused by capitalism, racism ,colonialism,US imperialism and US foreign policies.
f. On February 22-23, thirty-two leaders from Central and South America gathered in Cancun to organize the new regional union of “Latin American and Caribbean States.” Communist rulers from Cuba and Venezuela were warmly welcomed. The United States and Canada were not invited.
Nor was Porfirio Lobo, Honduras’ new president. Instead, the leaders planned to discuss the issue of his legitimacy. Some still denied the unwanted facts
behind the legal removal of the corrupt former President Zelaya — a collaborator with Communist Hugo Chavez and the drug lords they both protected.The GBCS strongly supported the President Zelaya.
g. United Nations is entrenched within most Christian Denominations.( http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/united-nations-entrenched-within-most.html, http://www.camera.org/, http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/un.htm, http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/turfur12-98.html, http://www.crossroad.to/, http://mises.org/daily/2318
3 So, what is GBCS’s definition of “Social Justice”? It is political not religious.It combines economic justice,environmental justice,gender justice into a world view that systematically blames the world’s problems on apartheid,colonialism, imperialism, US foreign policy ,corporate irresponsibility and globalization.The Church has accepted the secular version of Social Gospel.gotquestions.org States:
Adherents of the Social Gospel believe that individuals could only leave their sinful lifestyle if the social and economic situations were changed that drove them into sin in the first place. As a result of this reasoning, individual salvation was important, but second to social reform, which would convert people into Gods kingdom. Salvation of the individual then, stood as an important byproduct of working for a literal kingdom of God on earth. Working for social improvement, the Kingdom of God on earth was the thrust of the Social gospel movement. This is now become Social Justice{not Christian Charity but government control to effect equality in all things ie Socialism}This type of gospel alienates many of the membership who still believe that our time on earth should be spent in glorifying GOD and making disciples of all nations.
When churches seek unity they accept unbiblical lifestyles and religions( Religious Pluralism because they have not recognized Christ as the head of the universal church (Colossians 1:18), and are preaching “another gospel” (Galatians 1:1-9).
The true Gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and John 3:16.
I can more easily explain what their definition is not. It is not biblical!
The best guide for Christians that I could find is contained in:
Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr.
Why Government Can’t Save You : An Alternative to Political Activism. Nashville, TN : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000
I first became appalled with what my Church was doing-no become- when I read about the Trinity United Methodist Church in Austin welcoming into its pulpit a pagan Wiccan priest of the Covenant of the Goddess.Have we become a Apostate Church?Bishop Whitaker , Pluralism might not have been a problematic in the first century but it is now in the 21th century.
WE will soon have only Red and Blue , Pro or Anti Israel and Pro and Anti Homosexuality,Pro illegal immigration or anti illegal immigration, Pro Gun control or anti Gun control CHURCHES.We will have forgotten That Jesus did got come to overthrow the very oppressive Roman government but to establish his heavenly kingdom.We have forgotten the great commission.The only thing that can change the evil and corruption on this earth is by the acceptance of Jesus as our savior and be transformed to live a Christian life.The Church must return to the Biblical Truths to Grow the Lords’ Church.We are alienating the very people we are wanting to bring to Christ.
Our relationship to the United Nations and its Anti-American,Anti- Israel ,Pro World Government stance is of special interest to me.I am concerned about the time and energy we spend on advancing the UN’s social agenda.I need for the Bishops to answer the following questions:
A.Should Christians be tolerant of other people’s beliefs? Is there another way to heaven besides through Jesus Christ?
B.In what countries do the displaced Palestinians live? How are they treated?Why are the Christians fleeing from PA controlled areas and cities?List the compromises make by the Israelis -the Palestinians.What would happen if the Israelis laid down their arms?What would happen if the Palestinians laid down their arms?List the demands of the Palestinians for a lasting peace. List the demands of the Israelis for a lasting peace?Do we believe the God’s Covenant with Abraham will be fulfilled or do we believe in the “replacement theology”?
C.Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Have we perverted the truth?Are we preaching an ambiguous gospel?Please tell me the scriptures in the Bible that the Methodist do not believe?
I do not believe in evolution.
I believe in capital punishment.
I am against abortion.
I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
I believe that through Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and salvation.
I believe that Peace on earth can only be maintained through strength.
I believe that we must obey the laws of our country or change the the laws by the ballet box.
I believe in Genesis 1 and Romans 1.
I believe God still has plans for Israel.
I believe in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
I am pro- Israel.
Who is left to join our Church that we have not alienated ?The illegal immigrants?We are not able to proselytize anyone! Why? Is it unbiblical?NO. It is against our politicized faith! That is also why we can not retain our members or our youth.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus said “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move”
Paul, in Philippians 4:13 is paraphrasing Jesus’ statement above. Also there are many more statements that support and confirm that with absolute and complete belief in Christ Jesus’ power we can do all things.
Hi Linda,
What evidence do you have that Phil. 4:13 is a paraphrase of Matthew 17:20? The context of the preceding verses is very clear: Paul says he has a secret for being content, whether in plenty or in want, then he gives the secret.
All done. Hope that helps!
MANDATORY ESSENTIALS and OPTIONAL NONESSENTIALS.
In 1Corinthians, St Paul’s guiding principles for Christian morality, charity, liberty and unity are derived from COMMANDS (7:10) CONCESSIONS (7:6) COUNSELS (7:12).
COMMANDS require unity and compliance,
CONCESSIONS require liberty and consideration, and
COUNSELS require charity and consecration.
“In essentials (commands) unity, in nonessentials (concessions) liberty, in all things (counsels) charity.”
Essentials and Nonessentials should be determined by what the Bible reveals or says is mandatory or optional. Thank God for almost uniform consensus derived from the Scriptures and summarised in the Nicene Creed as essentials for Christian faith and eternal salvation.
.
Whatsoever the Bible presents as absolutes and mandatory should be taken as “essentials”. For instance in paraphrase “Thou shall not commit adultery/fornication”. Or “no one comes to the father except by Christ”.
Whatsoever the Bible presents as alternatives or optional should be taken as “nonessentials”. For instance in paraphrase: “Thou may or may not marry as the situations demand”. Or “circumcision or uncircumcision does not enhance or diminish our standing with God”.
NUMBER ONE FALLACY: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST DOES NOT SAVE YOU! “I will have mercy but not sacrifice for you. I came to tell the sinners to repent.” (Matthew 9:13) The messiah’s job was to end all oblations and sacrifice not become a human sacrifice and make new oblations. (Daniel 9:27)
But how he put an end to all oblations and sacrifice was by the sacrifice of Himself [http://bible.cc/hebrews/9-26.htm] which took away sin. Sacrifice and oblation were made because of sin, to appease God, as a way for man to formally and outwardly recognize that he had sinned. We take on Christ’s righteousness, thus legally have no sin before God; therefore, we need not make sacrifice or oblation any more. Repentance is turning from our sin to Christ, and trusting in His righteousness instead of our own.
I’m a little concerned about your choice of translation of Matthew 9:13. Here are many translations [http://bible.cc/matthew/9-13.htm], and not one says, “I will have mercy but not sacrifice for you.” Instead, they all say that God would rather people show mercy towards their fellow man and not sacrifice, rather than to follow the strict formality of offering sacrifice while being hard towards others.
You’re just like the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees who opposed Jesus – judgemental, fundamentalist, unloving and ignorant – take that big straw out of your eye. You ‘ll understand one day just like we all will. You think God actually leaves people in some place of torture for all eternity ? You don’t know Jesus, his Father what love truly is.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for visiting and commenting. I encourage you to consider a few things:
1. Please re-read your comment and ask yourself if it contained any judging.
2. If you claim I am ignorant, perhaps you could point out something specific where I have erred. That would be the loving thing for you to do.
3. Hell is a place of torment, not torture. If you have Bible verses stating otherwise, please share them.
4. If you do know Jesus and the Father, please tell us how you know them. I know them through their word, the Bible. If I have misunderstood something from the Bible I am very correctable.
There is no evidence of Hell or Heaven. Please explain.
Sure there is. We have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and is divine. He spoke at length on Heaven and Hell.