This morning, Janet Hensley — a volunteer for Stephen Bennett Ministries and an online "researcher" for Yahoo’s exgaydiscussion board — resumed spamming Ex-Gay Watch with a half-dozen posts in a row, all blindly accusing all same-sex attracted individuals of every evil that she, Bennett, or James Dobson apparently could imagine.
Ex-Gay Watch is a place on the web where exgay activists are evaluated and discussed. It is not an appropriate place for someone who listens to no one while posting lengthy, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations and verbal tirades consisting mostly of cut-and-pasted, boilerplate religious-right hate propaganda. Nor is XGW intended as a soapbox for hate groups to blame forthcoming fundamentalist acts of mass destruction on the three to eight percent of the U.S. population who are same-sex-attracted. (Hensley’s sympathetic attitude toward satans who would destroy the United States is frightful.)
I believe people like Hensley have a right to air their runaway ignorance about same-sex-attracted people and their pro-apocalypse, pro-alQaeda distortions of the Bible — within reason. But this site is primarily about ex-gays, not about gay people. I want this web site to emphasize balanced, rational, (ideally) well-documented discussions about ex-gay programs and politics.
I wish to thank Hensley for inadvertently exposing serious problems in Stephen Bennett’s volunteer organization. If I could limit Hensley to commenting only on this page, I would do so. But that is not technically possible under TypePad. So, to prevent her from overwhelming the site as she did this morning, I have banned some of Hensley’s numerous IP addresses. I will consider readmitting Hensley in a couple weeks, after other XGW participants have had ample time to catch up with her accusations.
What follows is a record of her lectures against XGW participants. Tempers rise, and the language unfortunately gets ugly on both sides.
For those with the stomach to do so, I invite you to comment on Hensley’s propaganda (to the extent that this hasn’t already been done), point by point. Comparisons to paranoia, racism and cult behavior are not off-limits, but if they are made, I would prefer point-by-point comparisons between specific racist or cult activities and Bennett and Hensley’s activities.
— Mike A.
Originally posted to this page:
I’ve had my own share of fun with Stephen Bennett. I discovered his website years ago, and unlike most other anti-Gay organizations, his website had a bulletin board. So I, and other Gay people of faith, engaged Bennett and his minions in debates that became SO spirited that Stephen eventually shut down the boards. Later they were opened up again in a slightly different format, only to be shut down when they couldn’t refute our logic, just throw Bible verses at us. Today there’s a discussion board at SBMinistries.org, but it’s dull dull dull. Very little discussion from either side. He’s become completely inconsequential. And I wish he’d get rid of that ridiculous mullet!
Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz | August 10, 2004 09:19 AM
I’ve just posted photos taken by Paul Keith. It appears that the mullet is gone, but I thought he looked fine either way. I’m more concerned with people’s actions and beliefs than their hairstyles.
Posted by: Mike A. | August 10, 2004 12:32 PM
It looks like Stephen Bennett has updated his site with his own events of the weekend.
I’d be hard pressed to find a more negative piece of writing, in my opinion. He must have used negative remarks about gays over a dozen times in the recap of the events. Funny how he touted this as a trip of love. Using all of those names and negative remarks about many of the gay people in P-town doesn’t sound very loving (even if they were opposing Bennett’s efforts).
Posted by: TA | August 11, 2004 01:06 PM
The only recent online references to SBM I see currently are:
Christploitation.com notes SBM’s bulletin board
American Family Association’s blog links to the P-Town report (and had talked about it ahead of time)
Stacy Harp’s E-Involved blog quotes SBM
Kingston (NY) Daily Freeman reports Bennett is lending his face to an ex-gay billboard
So, who knows. Obviously Bennett has the option to cite his sources and respond calmly and rationally, but chooses other options.
Posted by: Bose | August 12, 2004 10:25 PM
It is sad when one see’s this Paul Keith so ashamed of Christ, who he claims to serve, use an ‘X’ in place of the name above all names. To me this proves there is no humility and certainly no respect for the diety of Christ.
I beg to differ in the subject of Stephen Bennett’s heart for the homosexual who is trapped in such an addiction. Stephen does love the homosexual and spent a very large amount of money to bring all of us to P-Town to tell you of that love. God loves you but will not condone any sin. You can twist bible scriptures all you want but this sexual perversion is sin.
Paul has tried to say that our outreach was a flop but it wasn’t. We accomplished exactly what God wanted.
The hurtful thing about what the homosexual activist did is using little kids as pawns to do the bidding of the homosexual agenda. These were too young to understand the magnitude of the words on their signs yet they were doing what they were led to do. Homosexuality is so selfish and abusive it uses it’s own children to further it’s cause which amounts to destruction.
In hiding the truth from homosexual men and women who may want to be set free from this behavior is a crime in itself. There are thousands of men and women who have broken free from it but the homosexual activist dosen’t want that part told. Homosexuals are heterophobic or they wouldn’t have to fear healthy debate.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 15, 2004 02:00 PM
Originally posted on this page:
First allow me to give Rick a clue. The rainbow was given to us by the God of Scriptures. It never belonged only to practicing homosexuals. And you forgot the nail that held Jesus on that cross it was our sins that nailed Him there. The pink triangle is the sign that stands for but one of many sins that are to blame.
The most abusive thing I saw was when children were made to wear stickers and carry signs about a perversion they know nothing about in their innocence. This is what the homosexual will stoop to in order to get their message out. Kids should never be made to fight such a cause as this.
Paul Keith really is a bit puffed up isn’t he?? I mean to think that he thought I was shocked at what he said, he just proved to me what I already knew. Here is a man who claims to be Christian but has his mind saturated with perverse thoughts.
All over P-Town flyers and cards were being given out advertising drag shows and a group "Naked Boyz" all of this to show the world the sick thinking that is present there. And all of this in the company of the children. They do not care for these little ones only about freedom to flaunt what they have embraced in the face of Christ who died for them. In the doing of that they work day and night to destroy any and all vestiges of God. This is the reason for Stephen’s seemingly negative rundown of P-Town. He has children and to think that one day his children may be required to go to diversity training, God help us.
Posted by: saltnlight | August 15, 2004 02:49 PM
Dear Ms. Saltnlight:
No one has ever said that the rainbow "belonged only" to GLBT people, only that in this day and age, the rainbow symbol is predominantly associated with GLBT people. There’s a difference. Paul’s point was that SBM’s use of the rainbow was a deliberate attempt to initially fool people into thinking that the SBM group was not an anti-gay group of folks… kind of like a radical Muslim group going to a Promise Keepers meeting wearing shirts with Christian fish on them in order to recruit converts to Islam. It’s inherently disingenuous, and real Christians don’t need to use those kinds of tactics.
Also, you make this statement:
"Paul Keith really is a bit puffed up isn’t he?? I mean to think that he thought I was shocked at what he said, he just proved to me what I already knew. Here is a man who claims to be Christian but has his mind saturated with perverse thoughts."
You complain that Paul inappropriately and inaccurately judged the motives of your heart, and your response is to… judge the motives in Paul’s heart. In two sentences, you’ve accused him of the sin of pride, claimed to know the content of the thoughts in his head, and admitted that you prejudged both before even speaking with him. Can’t you see the hypocrisy of your behavior? Or do you feel that’s okay in God’s eyes because the end justifies the means? Oh wait… that’s unscriptural behavior, too.
And as far as the "sick" flyers are concerned, have you ever been to a state fair? How many alcohol companies pass out promotional materials, sometimes with scantily clad women on them, like Old Milwaukee’s "Swedish Bikini Team?" And in a family environment, too! Shockers! Look… if you’re going to criticize hedonistic behavior, at least be even-handed about it.
Posted by: Christopher | August 15, 2004 10:27 PM
No I have not judged Paul Keith’ heart motives, God has to do that. I said what I saw in what he wrote. He made many judgements actually.
This is way off the wall, "admitted that you prejudged both before even speaking with him." Where and when did I do this??? The only time I made a mistake was in questioning the use of an ‘X’ in the place of Christ’s name and according to your friend Paul, this has been questioned on this very board before so don’t attack me with this garbage. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Paul is also guilty of leading thousands who read his poppycock down the road that God has already condemned.
This is not meant to hurt anyone but rather to open some eyes.
Most of what is writen here and other places is nothing more than lies when it comes to being Christian. anyone can call themselves "Christian" but that wont make them one. A Christian strives to live in harmony with God’s standards and homosexuality is not doing so. God has said it is an abomination along with other sins so why do you want to hear lies??
Malcolm Boyd said, "A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God." Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. There are many out here who claim to know the Lord but you need to study scripture for yourself. Have a personal relationship with Him and you will be led in the right direction, that not being homosexuality.
I accused Paul of sin and he is sinning because Stephens use of the Rainbow colors was not any such thing, the entire design was to depict how all sin nailed Jesus to the cross and it said so.
Paul and others here are being lied to about what the Bible has said concerning homosexuality, Thanks to him and the Mel Whites of this world many of your best friends will end up in hell if they do not repent. That is not my judgement but it is God’s.
Concerning sick flyers: Just because there is sin in one camp does there have to be in others?? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Sexual shows remind me of strip joints in porn districts. I do not want this nor do I frequent those places. I do not turn on TV because of the disgusting filth on it. What about you?? Why did this have to be brought in the faces of kids????
Get the message, I do not hate you and neither does anyone on our excursion to your eastern vegas, we want you to know that we will not lie to you either. We love you and want to see you saved and serving Christ not the lust of the flesh.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 16, 2004 05:19 PM
By the way Christopher, if you ever want to know the truth about what the bible has to say concerning homosexuality please feel free to write me or Stephen Bennett.
Jesus the Christ went to the cross as much for you as He did for me. In fact had you been the only person on earth He would have done it anyway.
Christopher, God was not surprised when the sexual practices that are involved in homosexuality came on the scene. Though the name changed in the last one hundred years, the actions are still the same. That is what God judges Chistopher, the actions not the name. So when people come off with that saying, you know the one,
"Homosexuality as we know it today". It’s the same perversion of the sexual gift He ordained and what God truly desires for the human race. It matters not what day and age we speak of either because God hasn’t a clock like we do. God is not bound by time.
In His time though we will be judged and it is very serious.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 16, 2004 05:36 PM
1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
I would like you all to note that it says, ‘WERE’
That is strong evidence for the possibility for change.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 16, 2004 05:43 PM
Actually, if you want the truth from Scripture, you are better off avoiding any source endorsed by Saltnlight (who appears to have come here only to spread vitriol and meanness) or Stephen Bennett.
Here is one site I recommend: Rembert Truluck’s Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.
Remember, the anti-GLBT side does not have the spiritual authority it claims unless you cede it to them. I, for one, do not and will not. I stand proudly alongside Mel White, who is one of the finest and most devout Christians I know.
Posted by: Natalie Davis | August 17, 2004 12:15 PM
The reason Stephen’s review of the weekend "seemed" so negative is because it was negative. For this man to call himself a Christian trying to help gay people and then calling groups of thems horrific names is saddening at best.
I hope one day you see the err of your arguments and your ways.
Posted by: TA | August 17, 2004 12:17 PM
Originally posted on this page:
Even the title of this is stupid. None of us were confounded. There is a need for whoever wrote that, to go back to school. Not a one of us were annoyed, that is what confounded means.
Some had never been face to face with the homosexual but were told what to expect. We even knew that the activists were at it making plans on how to react to us. We knew they planned to get the gifts back and then trash them. This was a very underhanded way to attack the people who came to bring good news. But, What can you expect.
I see Mel White and his anti-ex-gay and anti-Christian group is attacking Catholics. Shame on him. Jerry Falwell wrote White a letter telling him the truth about his version of scripture. They both studied from the same word of God. Even so Mel left his wife and family for another male. Sad. This is not at all what God wants and he knows it.
It takes a real man to put down the flesh and turn to Christ. That is what it’s all about, letting go of our wants and living for Him. We are not our own we have been bought with a price.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 16, 2004 08:21 PM
If you’re going to actually say that someone should go back to school because they don’t know what a word means, you should probably look it up in a dictionary before you define it.
1. Confused; befuddled: A crowd of confounded bystanders stared at the appalling wreckage.
2. Used as an intensive: a confounded fool.
You might not agree with these uses, either, but I assumed you’d want to have a correct definition. "Confused" and "befuddled" are clearly what Mike had in mind when he created the title.
Posted by: Rick | August 16, 2004 09:36 PM
The definition in the Oxford that I have is as follows:
confounded: adjective informal, dated used to express annoyance.
–DERIVATIVES confoundedly: adverb.
Also it is as you have said but, the facts are still the facts we were neither.
What annoys me and befuddles and confuses me is how anyone could think that they could call themselves Christians and live as though the verses about dying to self, crucified with Christ, being bought with a price, putting away the lust of the flesh, are there just to use up ink. I mean, to continue in a behavior that has been condemned by God and then try to say one is saved is ludicrous.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 17, 2004 09:09 AM
"What annoys me and befuddles and confuses me is how anyone could think that they could call themselves Christians and live as though the verses about dying to self, crucified with Christ, being bought with a price, putting away the lust of the flesh, are there just to use up ink. I mean, to continue in a behavior that has been condemned by God and then try to say one is saved is ludicrous."
That’s just willful ignorance on your part. If you’d do a little homework — like, read something that isn’t the bible or some commentary written by a conservative theocrat, you’d find there’s more than one way to read the scriptures. You may not like it and you may not agree, but other interpretations do exist and you’re just going to have to learn to live with that. You may know all you think you need to know already… good for you, but don’t kid yourself. What you’re working under isn’t anything but good old fashioned spiritual hubris.
Maybe you can answer this question that befuddles and confuses me… how is disrupting family vacations in the name of Jesus any kind of "witness" at all?
Posted by: Brett | August 17, 2004 10:20 AM
"What annoys me and befuddles and confuses me"…Is just about anything that doesn’t fit into your cult mantra.
After being a religious cult victims counselor for 14+ years, and that includes the victims of the "exgay" CULT, I can attest, just like my friend Wayne Besen. That all it takes is watching them for a small amount of time, to know there IS NO DIFFERENCE vetween the "Exgay" Cult and any other…aside from the asthetics.
Posted by: Rusty Morris | August 19, 2004 06:27 PM
Originally posted to this page:[Moderator’s note: Here, saltnlight protests a quote by Dale, who affiliates with pagan religious views:] [Dale said:] "As for the ‘putrid stench’, gay people are aware of it. It comes from the Christian faith, and for many gays and lesbians it is the only thing we ever encounter." The Gospels are from my extensive experience with those who believe them, a complete and total fraud. They reek."
This kind of statement is totally un-called for. Faith in the living Christ who died for you is sweet to the nostrils of a holy God. The writer of this blather again shows the hatred and obdurgate charcter of the homosexual and homosexualist.
Pederasty is foul and disgusting when it rises to God’s throne. As I have said before, you can live in a garage but that doesn’t make you a car, saying your are Christian doesn’t make you one of those either. There must be a show of fruit and I am not speaking in a derrogatory term for homosexuals. Fruit of the Spirit is what I’m talking about, that fruit that makes a real change in a person.
"The Gospels are from my extensive experience with those who believe them, a complete and total fraud. They reek."
This is just plain empty like the mind that spew it forth. Foolishness to you who have not the Spirit.
Observer has the right to call themself whoever or whatever they want.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 18, 2004 03:58 PM
Saltnlight (and Observer) — Although you, not to mention Mr. Bennett and a whole host of self-styled "pro-family" people, believe that you can "love the sinner, but hate the sin," please understand that it is nearly impossible for those of us who are gay to comprehend this.
When Mr. Bennett talks of others’ marriages as being "putrid stenches" to God, it is highly offensive, as it would be to anyone whose most important personal relationship had been so insulted. I personally have never understood how anyone could claim to love me, while at the same time rejecting my emotions, my personality, my relationships.
The truth is, Mr. Bennett does not know God’s reaction to the legal recognition of gay relationships around the world — none of us does. Anyone who claims to know the mind of God is committing a sin of hubris that is almost beyond comprehension. All of us are muddling through, trying to make the best way we can in this world, and be the best people we can.
You and Mr. Bennett apparently follow your version of a book called the "bible" to understand, as best you can, what God teaches and wants from us. There are others, myself included, who are more interested in the reality of the universe around us, and what that tells us about God — and we must all follow the method we feel is best.
The people on this board, for the most part, believe that gays and lesbians are normal, complete human beings who do not have to change at all — that we are the children of God just the way we are. You have the right to disagree with that belief, but you must respect our right to live according to it. After all, you may be wrong and we may be right.
As for who can call themselves "Christian" — I was taught in my Catholic school that ONLY Roman Catholics who followed the Pope’s leadership could be considered Christian. I didn’t think that was right then (after all, I had Protestant relatives), and I don’t think it’s right now. On the other hand, I don’t believe that, for instance, the Southern Baptist, Morman, or Jehovah’s Witness sects are Christian religions — but I would never argue they should be barred from using the word. And that belief does not stop me from honoring my uncle and aunt’s marriage, despite their membership in the SBC. I see their relationship and understand its value to them, their family and their community. In the same way, my aunt and uncle could see the worth and value of my great-uncle’s all-but-legal-marriage with his partner, Steve, despite their religious beliefs.
It is Mr. Bennett’s lack of ability to see the good even in those with whom he disagrees, the good of their lives as they are, not as he wants them to be, that I find most egregious in Mr. Bennett’s behavior. Your bible says "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (or something close to it). By insisting that gay peoples’ lives must be full of misery, by assuming gay people are somehow "using" their children (and their nieces and nephews) in some sordid fashion to promote an "agenda," by refusing to acknowledge the worth and value of any of our lives AS GAY PEOPLE, I believe Mr. Bennett and his cronies are violating that commandment.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 18, 2004 04:25 PM
"Let’s face it, the fact is that anyone who claims the name of Christ and yet walks in a sin that is clearly outlined in Scripture to be wrong, is being disobedient to the Father in Heaven."
This is true. The major difference is that sexual sin is sin against the entire body. 1CO 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?
17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple. (When you are born again that is.)
1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
"Does that include "Christians" Most certainly. The difference being again that we have honor with the Father and can come boldly before His throne to confess our sin and He is Faithful and just to forgive us. When you refuse to accept His /son, and stubbornly walk uncircumcised in your heart demanding to live like the devil and also be counted, you are in for a terrible surprise.
"whose entire career is based on spreading slander, inneundo, stereotypes and myths about gay people?"
The rest is totally lies. If not then prove it. Where did anyone who is Christian do this to you??? If you are homosexual, you live a slanderous behavior. Besides that, you obdurgately insist on staying that way.
Posted by: saltnlight | August 18, 2004 04:26 PM
Dale’s broad insults were out of line and I’ll delete them in due course. If Dale persists, I can ban him.
On the other hand, you said:
"The writer of this blather again shows the hatred and obdurgate charcter of the homosexual and homosexualist."
Based on one non-Christian’s comment, you smear all same-sex-attracted people regardless of their religious beliefs.
"Pederasty is foul and disgusting…."
This discussion has nothing to do with pederasty — another indication that you are speaking out of hate, not love or reason.
"Foolishness to you who have not the Spirit."
Your boastful and self-righteous smears demonstrate that you, too, are separated from the Holy Spirit. I find nothing charitable, constructive, or rational in your comment — just sweeping insults. If you persist in your irrational and paranoid character attacks upon all same-sex-attracted people, then I will ban you, too.
Posted by: Mike A. | August 18, 2004 04:31 PM
Saltnlight, you said, "The writer of this blather again shows the hatred and obdurgate charcter of the homosexual and homosexualist."
and later, "’whose entire career is based on spreading slander, inneundo, stereotypes and myths about gay people?’
The rest is totally lies. If not then prove it. Where did anyone who is Christian do this to you???"
You yourself have spread slander, stereotypes and myths about gay people in this one topic. You take the opinion of one non-Christian gay person, and then project that on to all gay people."
Because of an encouter, you then imply that all homosexuals are full of hatred. As I said earlier, it saddens me to see this from the mouth of a "loving" Christian. I fear your harsh words and stereotypes do more to ostrasize most gays than it does to compell them to to turn to God’s grace. Isn’t that something you should take into consideration?
Posted by: TA | August 18, 2004 04:55 PM
You wrote: ""love the sinner, but hate the sin," nearly impossible for those of us who are gay to comprehend this."
Those of you who are homosexual or not born again cannot comprehend the things of the Spirit. God loves you even though you are a sinner. Do you not realise that though Christians are born again, we are still sinners?? The difference is that the born again saved sinners are saved by God’s grace and not from something we did. God’s grace is only available to those who have not rejected His Son. By that I mean they have accepted what Jesus did for the world, Have allowed Him to heal their brokeness, in my case my sexual sin separated me from God.
Your sexual sin seperates you from God. When you continue in sexual sin, and God has made it very clear in His word as to what that is, you are not saved and made clean. God still loves you and wants you to come to Him and have a personal relationship with Him.
All sin is a putrid stench to God’s nostrils but He set sexual sin on a higher plateau. Why?? Because this gift of sex is God’s grandest gift to mankind and not to be perverted.
You speak of being insulted, "most important personal relationship", this insults my intelligence. In homosexuality, it is rare indeed to find anything that would not insult Creator God. The very fact that this behavior choses to use the filthy orifices it does in the way that tears and causes stretching that renders some unable to contain bowel function, tells me that there is nothing respectable about it.
"how anyone could claim to love me, while at the same time rejecting my emotions, my personality, my relationships." Because Stephen knows what will become of the homosexual in eternity. Again, the bible is very clear on that. Stephen Bennett has bravely reached out to pull you out of the fire and you all hate him. You hate what you do not understand.
That is my answer to a portion of what you wrote but it is too long for me to continue now. My answers to your railing on Stephen and other messengers of God is this, Read your bible and get on your knees before God He is your only hope.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 18, 2004 04:57 PM
Please tell me that there are no men who like young boys in the homosexual community??? Also that was a word used to define homosexuality long before the word came into being.
This comes from a site Known as Gayhistory.com
"In the 1860’s, Karl Maria Kertbeny coined "homosexual" in preference to "pederast," the derogatory term for men who had sex with each other that was in common use in the Germany of his time. According to Kertbeny, many homosexuals are more masculine than ordinary men and are often superior to run of the mill heterosexuals who tend, in his opinion, toward rape and mayhem because they are oversexed. Kertbeny hoped that his new word and his definition of it would help to eliminate Paragraph 175, Germany’s oppressive anti-pederasty law, but the strategy didn’t work. Instead, Richard von Krafft-Ebing and other doctors adopted it as a diagnosis for mental pathology."
So get off your high horse. This was not and is not indication that I hate anyone. Grow up.
"Your boastful and self-righteous smears demonstrate that you, too, are separated from the Holy Spirit. I find nothing charitable, constructive, or rational in your comment — just sweeping insults. If you persist in your irrational and paranoid character attacks upon all same-sex-attracted people, then I will ban you, too."
I have not boasted of anything, the problem with you is that you have learned all too well how to read into everything. You my friend are the one who is paranoid, your proving that homosexuals get into the kitchen but can’t stand the heat.
All you see are insults from me because you are being convicted. You are obdurgately willing to turn me off because you are bigoted and hardened to what you think is true. How sad. If it turns you on ban me. You will not stop the truth if you ban every Christian who comes here.
Trouble with your thinking is that unless everyone agrees with homosexuality they are against the homosexual themselves, nothing could be further from the truth. Now, if you want go ahead and ban away. It will only prove you have no starch in your backbone.
Been barred from better things.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 18, 2004 05:19 PM
Salt- the orifices used in heterosexual sex are also unclean. In fact, intercourse often causes infections, tears, and problems in the women’s "orifices" as well. So, I find that reasoning hard to follow.
As for your insistence and persistence that God is clear about homosexuality- I wonder how you have come to this conclusion, and why this clarity trumps the clarity of other sins (even sexual ones) often accepted by Christians. Divorce comes to mind as a huge sexual sin allowed by nearly all main stream Protestant religions. Jesus even speaks against them. Oddly, he doesn’t speak on homosexuality. Even more oddly, of the half a dozen or so scriptures that arguably speak of homosexuality, most of them were not believed to have spoken on the issue until the late 1800’s and early 1900s. Why all of the sudden did churches decide these scriptures spoke on the subject, when before they did not?
It all seems too convenient for you to rage against this sin while letting others go and to scream to the top of your lungs about a sin being "clear" when this clarity is just about 100 years old.
Posted by: TA | August 18, 2004 05:21 PM
By the way Mike, I have every right to defend the faith and am commanded to do so. If you think banning me is appropriate go for it. I will not sit back and allow others to slam my faith.
They cannot just hammer away on Stephen Bennett either especially when they don’t know him as I do.
Go ahead, discriminate against me because I hold opposite views. You people are the ones who whine and throw a hissy fit over intolerance now look who is intolerant. Go read your bible and see if what I have said is true.
Blather is not a bad word and fits very well with the comments that were made.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 18, 2004 05:26 PM
1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1CO 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
1CO 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1CO 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";
This is what I was referring to in my statement:
1CO 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The person who is going on in their homosexuality and not allowing for Christ to heal them is not saved and has not got the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they cannot comprehend the things of God.
1CO 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 18, 2004 05:37 PM
Salt, I actually happen to agree with you. I think the Christian deity happens to find homosexuality "putrid." I’m also fairly certain that the Muslim deity concurs, and that the Jewish deity votes the same way as well.
But so what?
All of those three faith traditions never had much of a problem with rape, slavery, genocide, and the murder of disobedient children. Matter of fact, depending on the chapter and verse, it tends to be recorded with a great deal of fondness and celebration.
I on the other hand, as well as say modern jurisprudence and ethics, has a great deal of problems with all of the above, as well as a great many ideas recorded when the sum total of Human existence was trying to keep a camel from crawling into the tent. We’ve moved on since then, wonderfully so.
Now, Stevie-B can talk about how much he believes the loving relationships between two people of the same gender upsets him, you, Aunt Bertha, Mr. Phelps down the street and the random White Supremacist who still holds a grudge over the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing who drops in for tea every alternate Thursday except in August when he takes the month off for the national Paramilitary Training Camp Ho-Down. It’s a free country, after all.
Yet that talk is going to be offensive — as well as down right backwards, primitive and idiotic — to all those of us who either believe whatever flavor of deity didn’t really mean all that homophobia when it first spoke millennia ago and try to get along in civil society today or those who recognize the whole idea of a deity is complete bunk and try to get along in civil society with those who do still believe. We’re more than willing to respect the other’s right to disagree and our right to call them on the silliness and hatred they preach.
I’m afraid, dear child, you are just going to have to deal with it.
Posted by: Jody | August 18, 2004 05:58 PM
"All sin is a putrid stench to God’s nostrils but He set sexual sin on a higher plateau. Why?? Because this gift of sex is God’s grandest gift to mankind and not to be perverted."
Where did you get that sex is God’s grandest gift to mankind? Where did you get that sexual sin is on a higher plateau than other sins?
Posted by: Brett | August 18, 2004 06:40 PM
You assume people who comment here or who challenge your thinking are unbelievers. Truthfully — some are and some aren’t. Personally, I enjoy and benefit from respectful, informed dialogue with people who readily acknowledge they are not Christians. But some of us are. Though we may differ from you in some respects, we still love Jesus and trust him for our eternity. And some of us have spent years — in my case, decades — in the center of the ex-gay movement. We know the verses you’ve shared inside out. We know the theological arguments against any form of homosexual practice. We proclaimed them with boldness from pulpits and journals as we shared our glowing testimonies of change. We’ve gotten married, had children, and lived the dream we always desired. For a time. Sometimes many years. But in the end, we found that the reality of who were were was stronger than our fondest wishes. We struggled to make sense of our lives and wondered if God had abandoned us. Some of us did turn away from God and chose a different path. Others saw God’s grace in the midst of the pain and discovered we are loved and fully accepted by God just as we are. We still love and trust Jesus — as we did before — but from the perspective of struggle and with the knowledge that life is filled with ambiguities and unanswered questions. Some of us have even found joy and a deeper experience of grace than we ever knew before.
You can condemn, disagree, challenge, quote, and ridicule. But that does not change the reality of what we have experienced. Who knows? Some day — with time — perhaps you will arrive at the same place. If so, you will understand why we ask ex-gay promoters to be accurate in what they proclaim and consider how their words and actions harm others.
Posted by: RIck | August 18, 2004 07:06 PM
Since this Salt person seems to know Steven well, I would love to know how much his non-profit pays him.
I’m still of the firm opinion that all of Salt and Steve’s "soul winning" endeavors have nothing to do with actually saving souls and everything to do with camera time and a healthy bottom line.
The term money changer in the temple comes to mind.
Gotta love that JE$U$…..bling bling.
And while we’re at it, I’d love to meet any of the "hundreds of men" Steven claims to have dated. I would also like to know the names of the "countless friends and boyfriends" he buried to AIDS. I’d like to verify their existence in the greater Provincetown area.
Surely Steven isn’t exaggerating his story in the name of building his ministry so since this Janet person claims "know him" better than we do, I would appreciate if she would please pass that request along to him?
I have never heard an "ex-gay" like Steven Bennett refer to a community he was a part of in such a clinical way, all of his testimony seems very mechanical and scripted to me so don’t think I’m entirely out of line if I ask for some backup to this story of his.
I’ve been enquiring about Steven’s clouded past for quite some time now without any luck on the back story so since I now have a personal pipeline I can continue my investigation into the "truth" of Steve’s miraculous transformation.
Posted by: Scott | August 18, 2004 07:42 PM
Hello, I was speaking from my heart. And from my long years of experience with conservative and evangelical Christians. My testimony, having known and dealt with dozens upon dozens of e/cC’s, is that if this is what the Gospels produce, then the Gospels are a fraud. What is overly broad about this?
This is beginning to sound like another board I am very familiar with where the whole activity of liberal Christians is jumping on those of us who are not impressed by conservative Christians. And loudly accusing us of not showing respect.
If that is bannable, well that says something. What I am not exactly sure, but something. There has got to be more about being for freedom than defending a bunch of bigots.
FWIW, I am probably the only poster here who has seen Fred Phelps in action. And seen the hero’s reception he receives from e/cC’s. So, ban away.
Posted by: Dalea | August 18, 2004 10:22 PM
Hmmm, on reflection, I would suggest a better response to this salt being would be something along these lines. What Dalea is saying here is something very common in the world of gay people. And those who speak as you do encourage this type of discourse by your behavior. If you were to extend the sort of respect you seem to expect for yourself to others, perhaps we could begin to talk. But if all you want to do is run about your hurt feelings while not looking at where others are coming from, that is not the path to mutual understanding.
Additonally, I do not think quoting a bunch of bible verses counts as communication. It seem more a form of speaking in tongues. And should be discouraged.
Both MikeA and I are familiar with another board where such complaints are taken very seriously. And one where communication has broken down because of taking it seriously. I would suggest ExGayWatch not go done this path.
Posted by: Dalea | August 19, 2004 02:30 AM
"Salt- the orifices used in heterosexual sex are also unclean. In fact, intercourse often causes infections, tears, and problems in the women’s "orifices" as well. So, I find that reasoning hard to follow."
Not to be compared with the rectum where sex was never meant to be practiced, I can see that you have an answer for everything and so it may be. The problem is that they are very wrong. It is non-sensical to argue biology with you for you are intent on having it your way.
You are not ignorant of what goes through the bowels and the urinary tract is comparitively sterile in comparison.
You are correct that Christians commit sin and sexual sin as well. However; my statement to this is; just because the other guy jumps off the empire state building are you going to jump too?? 2 wrongs do not make a right and since this board is discussing why Stephen has said what he did, and thereby defends sexual perversions, my concern is that you understand what God has said about them.
The Act of homosexuality is pitrid and a stench in the nostrils of a Holy God.
ALL SEXUAL SIN IS STENCH TO GOD.
It was not all of a sudden that homosexuality was considered by the churches to be spoken on in these passages "when before they did not?" It has always been thus. It was coined by different names and recognized as the "sin of Sodom", the last straw so to speak.
God had full intention of detroying Sodom due to the perverse sexuality within that city and others. Found in her was Lot and his family that God considered to save. The men of Sodom wanted to have intercourse with the angels that had come to destroy Sodom. This was not a new practice. It had been sexually perverted for a long time, long enough for God to say, "Enough".
How long do you think America has?? I venture to say, Not long at all. Homosexuality is going to be the straw. The selfish, narcissistic behavior and the pride of this will destroy along with the complacency of the church. Actually it is the churches fault we are in this mess because of her lack of watchmen.
I tell you now, Complacency is the root cause and it has been the greatest sin of the church. I call them "the frozen chosen".
Do you truly believe that God will allow into His Kingdom people who have scorned His ordinances?? He ordained the marriage as between one man and one woman, it was His from the beginning. Even Jesus in Matthew 19 confirms that, go and read it for yourself. But then you already know this because you are ‘Christians’.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 19, 2004 11:13 AM
"I am probably the only poster here who has seen Fred Phelps in action. And seen the hero’s reception he receives from e/cC’s. So, ban away."
There are not any true evangelicals who accept the hateful Fred Phelps. This is a stench in the nostrils of God as well. This ignorant bitter man and his cronies will have to be healed of their wickedness before they can claim the name of Christ.
What many of you here fail to realize is that I nor anyone else is out to harm you in any way. I come with what I truly believe is the word of God concerning sexual sin. God does not "hate fags" as is the motto of Phelps and his followers. And our message for P-Town was that God loves homosexual people just as He loves me. He mourns for the enslavement you have allowed yourself to be in. He hates the enemy of your souls.
Believe what you will I cannot change that but if you truly want Him to He can and will. Please don’t put Phelps in the same catagory with those who love Christ.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 19, 2004 11:25 AM
"Stephen Bennett is one of a few ex-gay activists who claim that change of sexual orientation is possible for everyone. Many ex-gay activists disagree with Bennett, and many disagree with his gaudy showman-style tactics as well: His stunts convey egotism, not humility or charity."
Anyone who knows the Almighty, knows this is true that it is possible for everyone, everyone whose motive is true desire to change.
What you fail to see or refuse to admit is, not everyone who says they want to change really does. Not all who says they want to be Christ’s really do. God knows the heart, and if that is right in His eyes He will change the person.
You have taken some people who have had a said desire and confused them with those who have a hearts desire.
There is another fact to be seen here and that is:
God not only sees the intentions of the heart of the one wanting out but He also sees the heart of the minister or the counselor who is helping the struggler.
If you go to someone who is not a bonefide man or woman of God that may halt the process, I say ‘may’ because God can will to work through anything if He choses. Remember Baalam’s Ass? (donkey).
Homosexuals here and everywhere are being led right into the fouler’s den through lies. Some of you know they are lies but the fear of change and difficult work scare you. Some of you are with someone you love and seem happy at this time but I ask you to consider the cost of momentary pleasure in light of eternity without God. Think of eternity in total darkness where you will recall the times when you yourself have wondered if this really was the right life for you. How many times you have heard the truth and settled for a lie. Please just think.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 19, 2004 11:39 AM
Welcome back Salt.
Why are you avoiding my questions regarding Steven. I’d love to see some proof of his background and I’d love to know exactly how much in his "non-profit" group pays him.
Lets have an honest debate about his motivation, shall we?
Posted by: Scott | August 19, 2004 12:37 PM
Well, it is clear that any rational discourse on this thread is pretty much at an end. Once again we have someone, in this case Saltnlight, who is no interested in hearing what we as gay people, and even some gay Christians, have to say. She is here to lecture us.
Saltnlight, we have heard it all before. I was raised Catholic myself, and learned from a very young age the admonitions against gay people. That is why I spent 20 YEARS trying to change who I was. Apparently I would have changed if only I had enough "faith." So now I am both cursed by God for being gay, and cursed for not having enough "faith." Oh well.
Those on this board who believe that being gay is a normal, natural part of being human for a spall percentage of the species, and who believe that God will not condemn us for living full and complete lives, understand that your religion teaches something very different. That is your right.
But we have the right and obligation to do what we feel is morally correct. If it is true that being gay is simply part of the natural order of things (again, for a small percentage of the population), then it is imperitive that we fight the bigotry that says there are no good gay relationships, no emotionally fulfilling gay relationships, no blessed gay relationships. If we are wrong, then that is between God and us — it is certainly not your duty to condemn us or try to change our moral and ethical beliefs.
Personally, I refuse to accept the notion of a God who would condemn someone for doing what he/she thought was truly the moral thing to do.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 19, 2004 01:04 PM
I have to agree with CPT’s last paragraph. Salt, if you and Stephen and others were not putting out blanket stereotypes about gays such as, "The writer of this blather again shows the hatred and obdurgate charcter of the homosexual and homosexualist," then maybe you could have more believability.
In this sentence, you have basically said all gays are hateful. Replace the word homosexual with Christian in that sentence, and you would be completely up in arms. The stereoptyes from others go much further.
In my view, you are trying to fight sin with sin, and it is doing way more harm than good.
And trust that I sin along with you. You deny your sin just as you blame us of doing. But, I don’t doubt your faith, and I take offense to you doubting mine.
Posted by: TA | August 19, 2004 02:05 PM
When XGW closed two of four Stephen Bennett discussions, Hensley assumed she was banned, and posted in an unrelated discussion about Focus on the Family.
Couldn’t take the truth huh??
Sad that you banned me from your board we were just getting aquainted but that is the way of evil it cannot stand the light.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 19, 2004 09:22 PM
Perhaps a bit of personal experience from me might show where I am coming from. When I was in High School and College, evangelical Christians, particularly in the South, were involved in protecting and promoting a Biblical mandate the government was intent on doing away with.
That was racial segregation, which is commanded by over 70 Bible verses. This is at least 10 times the number of verses that refer to homosexuality. Anyway, we heard this whole routine that Bennett is promoting back then. That the Holy Word of God, infallibly commands separate drinking fountains for the various races. This was presented to the public as the only possible understanding of God and His Will. To my mind, there is very little difference between protesting mixed race marriages and protesting same gender marriages. Both find their roots in the evangelical understanding of the Bible.
I think you should keep in mind, or more accurately research and discover, that evangelical Christianity changes constantly. It is never about the same things for any length of time. Bible ‘scholarship’ as far as I can tell lacks the intellectual sophistication and rigor of Tarot Card reading. It is a willynilly enterprise dominated by cultural and social conventions.
The fact that two of the leading segregationist Bible people, Falwell and Robertson, are leaders of the anti-gay movement says a lot to me.
Posted by: Dalea | August 20, 2004 01:59 AM
Salt- I am wondering how you typed if you were banned. Maybe you used another ip address. Either way, I had trouble getting on the website this morning, so maybe it was a board-wide issue.
Also- it is curious that you get angry that you are banned from this board when you board also bans people and deletes comments (even those that are faily innocuous). Does your board ban gay-positive comments because we speak the truth and you don’t want to hear the truth? If not, why do you demand that that is the only reason you were banned?
Posted by: TA | August 20, 2004 11:14 AM
Well if any of you would like to see Janet’s self delusional, cry baby rantings about supposedly being "banned" from this board, you can go and read her board.
I personally think she’s using this "banned" thing as an easy retreat from any rational discussion.
Posted by: Scott | August 20, 2004 01:06 PM
I just took at look at the discussion, and am so sad now. So many people "struggling" with being gay — admitting they still have strong same-sex attractions and then beating themselves up for it. I can’t believe I once felt that way, and thank God I never found the "ex-gay" community on the web, or I might never have come out.
My sincere wish is that all those who are gay finally come to the understanding that God has answered their prayers — and the answer is "No." God does not want them to change, He wants them just the way they are.
Imagine the amazing effect these "ex-gays" could have if they would just go back to their churches and refuse to try and "change" any more. If they would simply go on about their lives, find real love and fulfillment in a relationship with someone about whom they can really care. They could then show all the "Christians" who believe only negativity can come from being gay that life can actually be quite wonderful and fruitful if one lives an honest and authentic life.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 20, 2004 02:48 PM
Yes, that discussion board really gives you some insight into their warped sense of reality doesn’t it.
I really pity those poor people. There is a woman on there talking about her clinical depression and how sad she is over temptation, blah blah blah.
And that Janet person, I really don’t have any other description for her other than "nucking futs".
Posted by: Scott | August 20, 2004 02:54 PM
Actually, a better description of Janet would be Stephen Bennett’s personal Squeaky Fromme.
She buys his lies hook line and sinker and goes online to do his dirty work for him.
She’s obviously a robot who cannot put a rational idea forth that hasn’t been scripted for her either by the Bible or from Stephen directly. Its truly sad that any human being would toss their God given logic in favor of her cult like behavior.
Steven needs her because lies repeated loudly and often become truth.
What a sad woman.
Posted by: Scott | August 20, 2004 03:01 PM
Janet wasn’t banned. I simply closed two of the four current Stephen Bennett discussions.
I wrote to Janet via e-mail and advised her to talk with Stephen Bennett and other ex-gays of her choice about the nature of her comments, before she damages the ex-gay movement any further.
My intent was not to help put a friendly face on ex-gay extremists, but rather to spare myself and XGW a lot of pointless flamewarring. I want the discussion here to be more open and honest than the middle-ground forum that Dale referred to, which is simultaneously overmoderated and severely undermoderated. (In other words, moderated unwisely.) But I don’t want meaningful and tough discussions here to get trashed by flamewarriors either.
Unless Janet takes some initiative and seeks some help from others, she will emerge from this looking recklessly careless — at best.
Posted by: Mike A. | August 20, 2004 03:23 PM
I want to retract what I wrote here about being banned. Mike did contact me and explain, though his threat toward me on the other site concerning my being banned is what caused me to think he had followed through. I had attempted to post on the Stephen Bennett thing last night and could not. I did not know that he had locked the issue. There was no explanation that I could see.
This still does not excuse any of you for taking pot shots at me for my upset by calling me paranoid and etc.. I have seen my Lord’s Word trampled and those of us who follow Him trampled on exgaywatch as well. In fact at this very moment there are posts here that needn’t have been posted. One day you may be so sorry for what you have said.I believe that it is all due to your inability to see beyond what you have been led to think, that All Christians who oppose your behavior ‘hate’ you.
I do not "hate" anyone and especially not you even after the ugly things you have said here on this post. My love for you is very deep. Why??? Because I was there, where you are not so long ago. My anger then was as yours is now. No one could tell me, my feelings for the woman I loved, was wrong. Even though I knew deep down that this was not how it was meant to be.
Please, forgive me, I am sorry for offending you and I will forgive you for offending me, times are short and there is much to do. Do you think that if I hated you I would bother to say I’m sorry??
Posted by: Mike A. | August 20, 2004 06:14 PM
I thought my comments on segregation theology were rather to the point. And not flames. I have noticed that when this feature of evangelical Christian history is pointed out to people, the eC’s sort of evaporate. I have had educated, well meaning eC’s tell me that this never happened, that there never was a segregation theology. When I show them the proof, they just sort of go all quiet and disappear.
Posted by: Dalea | August 20, 2004 10:00 PM
I don’t have a problem with remarks about segregation, cults, or (obviously) paranoia. I’m primarily concerned with the retaliatory name-calling — "reek" and "nucking futs," for example.
Posted by: Mike A. | August 20, 2004 11:32 PM
I would like to suggest a topic for exgaywatch: Who is Stephen Bennett. Like others here, I have attempted to learn more about him. And I run into a brick wall. He graduates from High School and then disapers from the public record until he emerges as an exgay leader. I have tried searching for him during the period when he claims to have been an outgayman. I have found nothing. Scott and Rusty Morris (who first brought this up) have also done so with about the same results I had. Perhaps Exgaywatch with its large readership might include someone who remembers him when. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Dalea | August 21, 2004 12:13 AM
Just because I don’t know all that you claim you can’t find on Stephen Bennett about certain people who have come out of homosexuality, I don’t make it my purpose to denegrate and throw doubt on what they are doing today.
You ask, " Who is Stephen Bennett?" Why don’t you ask him?? I have sat in his and Irene’s living room with other people and met his mother-in-law and children and listened as he told of his other family members and many things of a personal nature. If you would put a bit of effort into being kind and polite he may tell you what you desire to know.
Stephen has nothing to hide but he deserves to protect his family. It has been the rule that in trusting the person who is a homosexual activist, with knowledge about your/my personal family and loved ones are not given the care I would want for them. Suddenly we all become the victims of public exposure over something taken out of context. That is not paranoia by the way it is being careful, in these days no one can do that enough.
For example, the oft repeated claim by some that Stephen is a fraud and is trying to pull a fast one on unsuspecting people such as myself. I got an email from someone on this board just yesterday claiming,
"As for your lovely friend Stephen none of us are going to rest until he is exposed as the profiteering fraud that he is. He is making money duping vulnerable people and I will see to it that he is exposed publicly. I will not allow Stephen Bennett to psychologically harm more people than he already has because I care about these people (including yourself)."
Why would anyone trust persons who say things like this??
Stephen nor I am that stupid. When anyone practices to do harm and then attempt to come off as gentle they look and feel to me like Satan. I wouldn’t trust that.
Also, I do not appreciate being refrred to as "Squeaky Fromme" that is about as evil as one gets Mike and yet they remain able to post all the unkind and hateful things they wish here.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 21, 2004 09:45 AM
An example of childish finger pointing: (And I am not calling you a child). I have to be careful what and how I speak now.
"If gay union is such a threat to God and the Family, how weak must the two of them be?
I thought God was all-powerful, and the family a strong and fundamental foundational of humanity."
I believe, (and so do you) this was meant to say that homosexual unions are and would be a threat to freedom of religion and would harm God’s ordaination which is marriage between one man and one woman. You nor anything on earth can harm God. He will show you that one day very soon.
God loves you and so do I.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 21, 2004 09:54 AM
Tell me this is not true:
"For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. The institution of marriage, along with an often weakened and impotent Church, is all that stands in the way of its achievement of every coveted aspiration. Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies."
Doctor Dobson’s statement about Blow’s inability to "get it" goes along with mine. You get it but you through it away and could care less. The harm that can be done to all of society will resound throughout the world and destroy the frmaework of society which is for the common good of all who live on planet earth. What is homosexuality concerned with? ME, MYSELF, and I. How it feels to ME, What it does for ME, The so called loving committed relationships that are claimed by this behavior is a farce that has been proven time and time again. Will you listen? NO. Will you care? NO. Why? because you are your own diety and God is an old man who is senile and of no real threat to you.
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 21, 2004 10:11 AM
To the church all over America:
"3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
Posted by: Saltnlight | August 21, 2004 10:24 AM