What To Do With the Truth

Those who love truth know what to do with it: they embrace it, champion it, promote it, and live by it. But what about those who hate the truth? What are they to do with it? Well, we already know the answer to that, because we have so many examples of it.

In fact, I predicted last year what the truth-haters would do when my new book appeared: they would deny it, and then, attack it. My thoroughly-documented book on homosexuality, Strained Relations, complete with 707 footnotes, is being treated exactly as I said it would be.

Back in early September of last year I confidently predicted that two responses would be forthcoming from the MSM and the homosexual activists in regards to my book. The first thing they would do would be to censor it completely. They would deal with the book and the truth contained in it by a complete wall of silence.

They would seek to block out the contents of the book by refusing to even mention it. Given that refuting all the evidence of this book – so much of it coming directly from homosexuals themselves, or from reputable medical, scientific and other sources – would be just too much for them, they would just pretend it does not exist, and hope that it just quietly goes away.

Well, I hate to break it to them, but that is just not happening. Not only did the original print run sell out in the first nine weeks, so that a second print run is now available, but various outlets which are not dominated by PC considerations and fear of the homosexual militants have been promoting the volume.

Just last week I did an hour-long interview with a national-wide radio program about the book. It occurred because the interviewer happened to be a Christian who had the courage to want to see truth exposed in the public arena. So despite the MSM and homosexual blackout, the word is getting out anyway.

But when the truth can no longer be quarantined and censored out, then the second strategy will be all-out attack. Once it becomes impossible to keep a lid on this book, then the attack dogs will be unleashed to do their vicious hatchet jobs. Indeed, I have already had ugly comments on my site by the militants who have clearly not even read a word of the book, but still feel qualified to rip into it.

An example of this very sort of assault was just recently publicised overseas. Militant homosexual activists in Spain tried to shout down a book which offered hope for homosexuals. The good news is their nasty attack seems to have backfired big time.

And there is good reason for the ferocity of this attack: if there is one thing the homosexual lobby hates more than anything else, it is when the truth about leaving homosexuality is publically proclaimed. They go absolutely ballistic whenever a former homosexual tells of his journey out of his dead-end lifestyle.

Thus they will mercilessly attack anyone or any organisation which offers help to those who choose to leave the homosexual lifestyle. This is how one press report covers the situation in Spain: “A campaign waged by homosexuals in Spain to suppress a book about reparative therapy for homosexuality has backfired, generating media coverage that has drawn new attention to the formerly ignored work.

“As a result, the publisher says that it has been overwhelmed by requests for the book and is now in the process of printing 7,000 more copies. ‘Understanding and Healing Homosexuality,’ which has been available since 2004 in Spanish, became the object of protest in Spain in December when the book was republished by Libros Libres and the new edition appeared in the catalogs of such online booksellers as Amazon, La Casa del Libro (the House of Books), and La Corte Inglés (The English Court).

“The book, written by therapist Richard Cohen, discusses Cohen’s own liberation from homosexual attraction, what he regards as the principal causes of the problem, and methods for bringing about the healing of same-sex desires. The appearance of the new edition sparked a protest on Twitter and other Internet media, including a petition that gathered tens of thousands of signatures demanding the removal of the book. Reporting on the campaign in the Spanish news media began on December 27th and has continued unabated.

“Although the campaign has achieved the removal of the book from the offerings of La Corte Inglés, it also led newspapers, including the leftist El Pais, to do interviews with Cohen, in which he was given ample space to discuss his experience of liberation from homosexuality and the success of his therapeutic methods.”

That is the very same fear the militants here have about my book. That is why they are seeking to keep it under wraps, because once it does get into the MSM, then the thing they most fear – having truth get out into the public arena – will then occur.

But there are other times when they simply go about their usual business of seeking to shout down, intimidate and harass anyone who dares to take a differing point of view than theirs. For all their talk about tolerance and acceptance, the radical homosexual lobby is the most intolerant and un-accepting group on earth – except maybe for the rabid misotheists. (Actually, membership of both groups overlaps to an amazing degree.)

Consider how these promoters of peace and tolerance have treated tennis star and pro-faith and pro-family champion Margaret Court. They plan to have noisy protests at the upcoming Australian Open to denounce her for daring to support heterosexual marriage. Here is how the story appeared in today’s press:

“Margaret Court has vowed to maintain her opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, undeterred by gay activists planning to use next week’s Australian Open tennis championships to protest against her views. Court, Australia’s greatest women’s tennis player and a senior pastor at Perth’s Victory Life Centre church, said she had never ‘run from anything’ and expected Australian Open organisers to prevent next week’s tournament from being hijacked by the gay rights agenda.

“‘Are they not wanting me to come to the Australian Open? Is that what they are trying to do? I don’t run from anything, Court told The Australian yesterday. ‘I have always been a champion and always loved what I do and love tennis. I think it is very sad they can bring it into that. It is hard that they can voice their opinions but I am not allowed to voice my opinion. There is something wrong somewhere. We live in a free society and I stand up for families between a husband and a wife. I won’t ever back down on that.’

“Court’s views on homosexuality, which she has publicly held for more than 20 years, have prompted gay activists to launch a ‘Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena’ Facebook site urging people to display gay pride colours at the stadium court named after her. Comments from Court published during last month’s highly charged debate on gay marriage at the ALP national conference were rebuked by two of the sport’s most celebrated women, Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King.

“Australian doubles player Rennae Stubbs, who is openly lesbian, accused Court of directing hate towards homosexuals. When contacted yesterday by The Australian, Court said she had never felt hatred towards gay people and was merely expressing God’s word, as taken literally from the Scriptures. ‘I have always said I have nothing against homosexual people,’ she said. ‘We have them in our church. I help them to overcome. We have people who have been homosexual who are now married.’

“‘When I spoke a month ago and stood for marriage, things came back from tennis players who probably didn’t read what I wrote. It had nothing to do with people personally or tennis players. I remember speaking to Navratilova 10 years ago on something she brought up with me and I said “Martina, I love you, God loves you, but a wrong doesn’t make a right”. I think I have a right, being a minister of the gospel, to say what it says from a scriptural side. I have been married for 44 years this year and, to me, marriage is something very special, wonderful, ordained by God. I look at the children of our next generation and think of the problems they are having in America with all this – we don’t need it in our nation’.”

A few things are crystal clear here. One, Margaret Court is a real hero. She is one of the few Christian leaders in the entire nation with enough courage to stand up and speak biblical truth. For that she deserves a medal. And her boldness simply condemns the majority of Christian leaders who are spineless wonders on this issue. Her bravery puts these others to shame.

The second clear lesson of this is the absolutely ugly and nasty nature of the militant homosexual lobby. They hate truth, they hate debate, and they hate anyone who dares to resist their sinister agenda. All they are good at is shouting down others, hounding others, and savagely attacking others – all in the name of tolerance of course.

What these various episodes demonstrate is that it is vitally important that truth gets out into the public arena, and that those who have the truth need to start showing some Holy Ghost boldness and start proclaiming it loud and clear. George Orwell had it right when he said years ago: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”


[1613 words]

81 Replies to “What To Do With the Truth”

  1. This is SO true, Bill. I’ve only just started being open about my views on homosexuality and all I have received back is abuse (one from one person admitting he drunk at the time of writing!), the usual pathetic baseless arguments about ‘rights’, labels denouncing me as ‘homphobic’, as well as scathing attacks on my christian faith before I even mention it. Thanks to brave people like Mrs Court and yourself, I’ve realised how the militant homosexual lobby works and am now confident in speaking out against it. It’s complete hypocrisy and also complete lies.
    Julie Lawson

  2. Many thanks Julie

    No one ever said that standing up for truth in the public arena would be easy, especially on hot topics like homosexuality, but it must be done. Thanks for your courage and your concern. We need more fearless warriors like you.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. Another great article Bill. I have today written the following letter to the West Australian (and if published probably be labelled a homophobic)

    Dear Sir

    “Tolerance”. What gay activists ferociously demand yet fail to give when it comes to views different to their own.

    I don’t always agree with Mrs Court but she is correct when she says there appears to be “something not quite right” when one group is allowed freedom of speech, when another (group) is not.

    Dave Billingham

  4. One of their well-known tactics is misuse of the language: ‘gay’ being the first and most obvious. Then came ‘homophobia’. A phobia is a fear, but they misuse it to mean hate. And they misuse ‘hate’ to represent disagreement. They refuse to consider that anyone could love homosexuals (in a godly way) but disagree with their lifestyle.
    John Bennett

  5. Imagine 50% of the church leaders and 20% of the believers going to that tennis match with banners and in support for Margret. I know, I’m a dreamer. Also I’ve just finished reading a book by Walid Shoebat (For God or for Tyranny). Yes bill I’ve ordered your book at my local Library.
    Daniel Kempton

  6. Before I read your book I already knew that homosexuality was wrong – as God has clearly warned us about it in the Bible. However, I didn’t know (until I read your book) about the horrendous problems people can suffer as a result of going ahead anyway. In your book you present the facts – so many studies, cases and surveys and I had no idea of the severity, nor the frequency of the damaging physical and emotional problems associated with this lifestyle. It’s no wonder God is against it and has warned people about it!

    And how is it that the people who shout down the ones who speak out against homosexuality think they are helping at all?

    Annette Nestor

  7. I agree with John about misuse of the word “gay”. That word should mean happy. The homosexual activists have distorted the English language for their own purposes. They wish to vilify Margaret Court while she wants to play tennis. That shows their mentality, and lack of tolerance. I have read some Muslim clerics in Pakistan want to ban some passages in the Bible. Some homosexual activists seem to want to exactly the same thing. Please keep up the good work.
    Regards Franklin Wood

  8. What do you make of the inconvenient truth that professional bodies of counsellors and psychotherapists claim that “reparative therapy” is ineffectual at best and dangerous at worst? Why no mention of the fact that various “counsellors” found practicing reparative therapy have been struck off for gross malpractice? I suppose you think that all these professional bodies have “bought into the homosexual agenda big time”?

    The idea that truth is on your side is pure fantasy. Why do you choose to ignore the millions of gay people, and the thousands of medical professionals who claim that sexuality is innate? They are all liars, I suppose?

    How many copies of your book have you sold, to the nearest thousand?

    David Eggs

  9. Thanks David

    As I fully document in my book, several “professional” bodies have been steamrolled and bullied by the militant homosexual lobby into changing their tune on this. They simply caved in to all the pressure from the militants. Entire books have been written which document all this. It is a pity you seem to be so ignorant about these matters.

    Why do you ignore all the homosexual activists, medical and scientific journals, and other professionals (whom I carefully document in my book) who admit that homosexuality is a choice? And why do you choose to ignore those countless former homosexuals who have fully left the lifestyle and been set free from it? Oh, yeah, those are inconvenient truths which you do not want to hear about. Better to just pretend these people don’t exist. Keeping your head in the sand is always so much easier than dealing with truth.

    And with zero MSM coverage of my book, 2000 copies in just over 3 months is not bad at all for sales, and they keep on being sold, with a third print run likely soon. Exactly how many books have you sold lately?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  10. The Truth sets people free. Your book, Bill, is Bible truth. The homosexuals do not want to know the truth.
    Thank God that we have Margaret Court who stands and speaks for Bible truth, she lives what she preaches, one man with one wife for LIFE.
    To Bill and Margaret, stand strong on God’s Word.
    Judith Bond

  11. Good job Bill and Margaret for standing up for the truth.
    Damien Spillane

  12. I wouldn’t hold your breath Dave! I’ve written many a civilised letter to the editor on such issues I’ve never been published. I encourage you to keep going though, someone is still reading them even if they aren’t getting into the populace.

    Margaret Court is a true Christian hero! Funny, I didn’t even know she was a Christian let alone a minister of the Gospel before reading your blog Bill. It seems the militant homosexuals do everything they can to hide well known celebrities’ pro family views. When they can’t censor it anymore, the launch ruthless attacks on the individuals. Much like they do with published works as seen in Spain and will do – eventually – with Bill’s book!

    Luke Belik

  13. I wonder if any of you saw the fascinating 2 part series on identical twins? (ABC TV). One of the things that came from it was the observation that if genes determined your sexual preference, identical twins would all have the same preference, but in fact that often does not happen. So gays can’t blame their genes.
    John Bennett

  14. To give in to the homosexual cry for marriage is to give homosexuals the whiphand over the rest of the Australian population and to change the social landscape forever. What will be sacrificed to the ‘gay’ monster will be freedom of religion – they would from their hateful exhibitions like to cut the tongues out of those who say there is any law which would inhibit sexual licence – freedom of speech, truth, the rights and welfare and safety of children, the destruction of marriage.

    Already as shown in the case of Margaret Court they imagine they have the whiphand already. The objective is not about the right to marriage but ultimately to wield tyrannical power and destroy institutions they do not like. Hopefully it never comes to us being forced to sing – ‘God save our gracious queens, long may they reign over us!’ God save Australia.

    Miss Anne-Marie Modra

  15. Yes quite right Anne-Marie. This actually has very little to do with marriage – most homosexuals do not want it or give a rip about it. What the militants are really after is forcing the rest of society to fully embrace their lifestyle, and to silence all opposition. They are not called the gaystapo for nothing. For that is what they really are.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. David wrote:
    “What do you make of the inconvenient truth that professional bodies of counsellors and psychotherapists claim that “reparative therapy” is ineffectual at best and dangerous at worst?”

    I have no idea how or why the embracing of the straightforward reality of human sexuality – either male or female – and its obvious compatibility, could ever be seriously argued to be harmful, let alone “dangerous”. The contention would almost be laughable if it didn’t condemn people to a 100% infertile, unhealthy and potentially deadly lifestyle unnecessarily. If so-called ‘professionals’ believe that, then I think they need to go back to school and learn about the birds and the bees.

    And if it’s raw numbers you want, David, try these:
    Over 7 billion people on the planet – how many a result of heterosexual behaviour compared to homosexual behaviour?

    As for the main topic, the activists are clearly engaging in the nasty and bigoted behaviour they claim to despise. How utterly disgraceful and hateful. But let the gaystapo come to the Australian Open and show their so-called ‘tolerance’. I’m sure the majority of the crowd – there just to watch tennis – will appreciate the education of what they really mean by that word. Let the ‘diversity’ be uploaded to YouTube in glorious high definition rainbow colour for all Australia to see.

    Honestly, the world has gone completely mad – up is down, and down is up. But God’s word stands true – and it will forever.

    “Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

    Mark Rabich

  17. OMG! SO much hate on this page!

    Call yourselves Christians? I’m so glad my denomination welcomes everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    This is just backward.

    Candy Merryweather

  18. Thanks Candy

    I am afraid you very nicely illustrate just what Orwell said which I quote at the end of my article. In your eyes, to speak truth is hateful. So what do you regard as loving? Telling lies? Just how exactly is it hateful to tell homosexuals that their dead-end and dangerous lifestyle can be turned around by new life in Christ?

    Also, please tell us more about your ‘denomination”. It welcomes everyone, despite their sexual orientation? So you have paedophiles and others with “alternative” sexualities all over the place, and you tell them they are just fine just the way they are, do you? After all, they claim they are born this way and cannot change as well

    And you regard the truths of the Bible as backward? So just what do you use in your services? The wit and wisdom of Oprah Winfrey? The latest Richard Dawkins volume?

    Sorry, but I am just not buying your confused version of events. Nor are all the tens of thousands of people who have been gloriously set free from their destructive lifestyle. It is a real pity you don’t love people enough to tell them the truth that real change is always possible. That is why Christ came after all – to set the captives free. But it seems your ‘denomination’ would rather they languish in their misery now, and also face a lost eternity. Some kind of love that is.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  19. I’d love Candy to show me exactly where in the bible “sexual orientation” trumps the biological reality of male and female. But I suppose the natural world must be “backward” too, to produce 7 billion of us humans with absolutely no involvement of homosexuality in that…

    It seems that Candy’s denomination has swallowed the lie of the world, in defiance of even the testimony of their own bodies. Ridiculous. Love is never in alliance with lies. She has blindly sided with hate.

    It’s actually not so much the attitude of the world that amazes me on this topic, but the attitude demonstrated by weak and likely ineffectual Christians such as her. God creates male and female, fully functional, without anybody’s help – yet some churchgoers have the chutzpa to effectively tell Him he has no idea about it; that His paradigm of heterosexuality is “backward”. That’s not remotely respectful of His authority, creativity or love.

    Romans 1:18-32 – especially the last verse of that – comes to mind. I don’t think some people really know what they are doing before God. It is not just what you do, but also what you endorse that matters to Him. This is not a game, this is life or death. And God has given us His word to avoid the latter. It would be profoundly unloving not to uphold God’s design.

    It would be good if Candy considered what God made male and female for and how that compares with what the world teaches.

    Mark Rabich

  20. In Genesis, chapter 1: 24-27 it talks about God creating everything according to its kind.
    And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds………” And God saw that it was good…… Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, …. in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
    We understand from Genesis 2:21-24 that the female was created from the male and not as a separate creation. This word ‘mankind’ describes a relationship made up of two constituent parts – not a single entity.
    ‘The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ ..for she was taken out of man.”
    ‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
    ‘Mankind’ denotes a binary relationship and not a mono one.
    Then we come to the Greek word “homo” which is not the same as the Latin, meaning man (although interestingly the word humus means the earth – the same material from which man was formed). Instead the Greek ‘homo’ means pure, complete, uniform, of the same kind, comparable, compatible, equal, same, homogenous, consistent, and dare I say complementary. One could therefore say that the relationship that a man has with his wife is homosexual and not heterosexual!! There you go.
    The antithetical Greek prefix, ‘hetero,’ means incompatible, unalike, impure, inconsistent, heterogeneous, disparate, conglomerate, discordant, diverse, incongruous, mongrel, odd – not of the same kind; in other words queer and strange as in the strange flesh of Jude 7. Well my oh my!!

    When Margaret Court is being accused of being a homophobic bigot, we have to point out that not only are her accusers using the wrong prefix but that they are slanderously describing her as an irrational person in need of clinical help. As for bigot, they are accusing her of being ignorant and prejudiced.
    We are not frightened of gays and neither do we hate them; so long as don’t try to force their sexual life-style onto others or abuse children – in which case our hatred is entirely rational and fear for the safety of our children is entirely reasonable.
    We accuse our accusers of being pedophobic, alatheiphobic, theso-phobic, hagio-tesphobic, morophobic and logophobic, narrow minded bigots. And when they ask us what these mean we ask them first to tell us the precise translation of the Greek word “homophobia” and who it was who taught them this dumb word designed to frighten children.

    David Skinner, UK

  21. Your last article on politics amassed a whopping 2 comments. This one already has 20.

    A quick trawl through the archives shows this is a common trend.

    No wonder most non-Christians think that Christianity is just about gay-bashing. You’ve written way more articles condemning gay people than you have about theology.

    The sad truth is that people like you give Christians a bad name. There’s more to being a Christian than railing against gay people, Bill. You should try it some day.

    Trevor Baxter.

  22. Thanks Trevor

    But let me call your bluff(s) here.
    -The government article is in two parts of course, so the total comments there are ten, not two.
    -Evidently your numerical skills are just as shoddy as your literacy skills. There are 330 theology articles on my site, and 272 homosexual articles.
    -People are free to comment on what they like here. If that is not to your liking, please go elsewhere.
    -People are of course writing a lot of comments here because most of them are incensed by the way the militant homosexuals are trying to steal away our freedoms, including freedom of speech.
    -You complain about people only commenting on homosexual issues – yet what exactly are you doing here except only commenting about homosexual issues? Isn’t there a word for this – hypocrisy maybe?
    -I am free to write on what I like here. If that is not to your liking, please go elsewhere.
    -If I wrote about the sin of theft, would not thieves think I was thief-bashing? If I wrote about the sin of racism, would not racists claim I was racist-bashing? The issue has nothing to do with gay-bashing as you so foolishly put it, but with truth. If homosexuality is a sin, and if homosexuals are in desperate need to be set free from their dead-end lifestyle, then of course the most Christlike and loving thing to do is tell them that Christ came to set them free. I will keep offering homosexuals that life-changing hope whether you like it or not.
    -I have written few articles on, say, the threat of Nazism or the dangers of polio for the simple reason that these are no longer the threats or dangers they once were. But in my eyes, the biggest threat today to faith, freedom and family comes from the militant homosexual lobby. Thus I will write about this threat as often as I like until I see the threat abated.
    -It was not me or my side that started this fight, but the other side. If you object to me writing what I do, then you should tell the militant homosexual campaigners to stop seeking to cram their agenda down the throats of the rest of society. As long as they insist on acting like thugs as they force their agenda on everyone, there will be people like me and others who will not just sit back and let them get away with it.
    -In free societies people like me and Margaret Court are allowed to voice their opinions. If you detest this so much, then why not go to somewhere like North Korea where you may feel more at home?
    -I have thousands of articles here on all sorts of topics. But as I say, where the threat is the greatest, I am duty-bound to meet that challenge. As Martin Luther rightly stated, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  23. If John the Evangelist were to comment on this issue he would probably refer us to his inspired remarks in Ch 8 of his gospel. But when are we going to hear from those who claim to be the current successors of John and the other apostles. If they were to accept leadership on this issue is would be easily defeated. Whether they like it or not the matter is of a spiritual nature and ‘spiritual’ is their business. Why do sometimes good men say nothing. Perhaps they have nothing to say or maybe they are not good men; but I don’t believe that. God bless you Margaret. Thank you Bill.
    B T Walters

  24. Thank you Bill for your stand. May our Lord bless you and strengthen you. All churches should welcome everyone into the church, just not become like them. We are to change the world around us, not the world change the church to become like the world. Truth is truth and there is no compromise in the Bible and there should be no compromise to truth with us, as Christians.
    Marianne Ryan

  25. Dear Candy.

    Yes, I dare to call myself Christian.

    Could you please explain the definition of a Christian in your church? And could you please tell us how you welcome people? Do you expect them to change for the better? How do they grow into the likeness of Jesus Christ the Glorious King?

    Could you also point out what you consider “hate” on this page? Specifically, please, not just by waving the word “hate” about.

    John Angelico

  26. Candy, whatever your denomination is, you shouldn’t be taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Think about it.
    Rachel Smith

  27. Yes that’s right Candy; Jesus just went around all day smiling at everyone. Sorry for the sarcasm but seriously, you must be kidding.
    Daniel Kempton

  28. At some point I will get your book Bill. I have too much to read at the moment.
    Carl Strehlow

  29. Trevor Baxter has it all wrong. Bill is not “gay-bashing”, he is mostly careful to not criticise people as much as the lifestyle – like Jesus, he is distinguishing between person and behaviour, something we should all do. But he doesn’t take rubbish or personal abuse, nor should he.
    John Bennett

  30. Hey Bill,

    I’m Church of England, an Anglican. I take great inspiration from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. You heard of him? He’s my kind of Christian. You just seem angry to me.

    BTW the only “orientations” are gay, straight and asexual. One of the vicars in our area is in a gay marriage, and he has a massive flock. You’re mixing up orientations with sexual behaviours or fetishes. You need to do some research.

    Candy Merryweather

  31. Thanks Candy

    Ah, so now the truth begins to creep out, at least just a little bit. Most appropriate, given that my article was about how the homosexual activists and their supporters are so happy to bend the truth to serve their purposes. You told us that your “denomination” welcomes these folks, and is by implication pro-homosexual. But in fact all we have now it seems is your particular renegade priest and his particular renegade parish thumbing their noses at Scripture and buying hook, line and sinker the blatant falsehoods of the homosexual lobby. The Anglican communion worldwide of course does not in the least promote the homosexual agenda, only a few small pockets of it in the West.

    Also, sadly, you are in fact the one who clearly needs to do some research here. If you are a biblical Christian who takes God and his word seriously instead of the latest leftist social activism trends, then you know there are two genders made by God, and only one sexuality – end of story. The fact that people now reject this is simply evidence of the fact that we live in a fallen world, where people shake their fists at God, and do their own thing, even in the area of sexuality. Paul of course speaks to all of this in Romans 1. You might try reading that chapter sometime.

    As to “orientations” you are woefully amiss here and not up to speed. There are, according to the secular gender benders, far more than just three. The list is as high as 18, and it is growing all the time. And paedophilia is certainly included among these orientations. You might need to do some more reading here to get caught up on where the debate is now at.

    And I am aware that your side ignores evidence and reason in your “arguments” and prefer name-calling instead. First I am accused of being “hateful” and now I am said to be “angry”. Any other bits of character assassination you care to indulge in? Maybe you can comment on my bad breath or something. But I realise that such mud-slinging is always so much easier to engage in than actually dealing with facts and logic.

    And BTW, what in the world does Tutu have to do with anything here? Spare us the red herrings please.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  32. in my opinion, a church should accept gay people, but not their behaviour. Bring them in, minister to them, don’t accept them into leadership until they deal with their sin. That doesn’t only apply to homosexuality, it applies to any wanton sin.
    John Bennett

  33. Thanks John

    Yes quite right. The church is all about sinners – which we all are. But it is also about challenging and changing sinners, and seeing them set free from their sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and the work of the cross. So of course we welcome sinners, but we do so to tell them the good news that Jesus died for their sins and is interested in transforming their lives.

    If that was all that these critics meant, then we would have no problems here. But sadly and tragically that is not what they mean. They have bought into the lies of the enemy that homosexuality is just fine, people are born that way, it is God’s gift to them, and we should just accept them as they are.

    We never do a sinner a favour if we just say that they are fine as they are and have no need to repent and change. That is condemning them to a life of misery now, and a life to come of eternal separation from God. And that is supposed to be a loving and Christlike thing? Just how confused and unbiblical can people get?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  34. Trevor seems to not know anything about the nature of this battle. The sustained attack on marriage and sexual health is demonstrably corrosive on society and there are many people who care about not seeing the final destination of that agenda take place.

    As for the proliferation of the lie that this is against who people are, that is 180 degrees from the truth. People are created male and female, this is just biological fact, and his argument is simply based on a false view of human sexuality. In no realm of sensible objective analysis can one affirm any sexual compatibility between two males or two females. To wish to remake a society to embrace such a dark and even evil paradigm is to condemn future generations to moral and legal morass where straightforward truths are ignored. I guess if people can just make up ‘truths’ for themselves, I think I’ll write myself a cheque for one hundred trillion dollars (in a suitable voice – bwahahaha) since that will be my ‘truth’ and it will deeply offensive to me if you do not recognise my ‘financial orientation’.

    If you want to further follow Trevor’s worldview, then Jesus Christ also possibly gave Christians a bad name since most of the world was happy to see Him crucified and obviously what the world thinks is his final criteria for determining truth!

    btw, Bill, as was pointed out to me some time ago – that quote is actually not from Martin Luther:
    but it is still relevant.

    Mark Rabich

  35. Candy, I have a challenge for you – but first you should watch this 26 second clip:

    …and then come back here and tell us all again about your versions of love and hate.

    As I wrote to you earlier, this is not a game, this is life or death.

    Mark Rabich

  36. Hello Bill,

    Whilst I didn’t “enjoy” your book (I don’t think anyone can on this topic), I felt it was so well researched and thorough in its approach that I sent copies of it to three state MP’s and one federal MP. I’m not sure if they will take the trouble to read it, but the more actual information placed in the right hands could turn the tide. I also placed a good review of it on the Koorong website, to counteract the obvious activists trying to shout it down. I posted this comment not in the desire of receiving praise but in the hope that others would do likewise.

    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton

  37. David, I looked up a document submitted to a court by the American Psychological Association that tried to prove that homosexuality was innate, because I became increasingly aware that the arguments presented for it are bizarre.

    For instance, “why would anyone choose to be gay if it causes so much abuse?” is easily adapted to paedophiles and serial killers or more benignly alcoholics and gambling addicts. Then there’s the very many cultures that account for most throughout human history, where “homosexuality” simply hasn’t existed. If it’s natural, why isn’t it universal, or at least widespread? And there’s the question of the many creatures whose sex (not sexuality!) is determined by environmental factors, such as temperature or the availability of members of the other sex. Why should Homo sapiens have developed an extremely complex and maladaptive “sexuality” separate from their “sex”? (I express this in evolutionary terms because people who subscribe to your hypothesis typically subscribe to evolution as well.) These are just some of the questions I had that motivated me to understand why people think it’s natural.

    Now, I couldn’t chase up all of the citations, but every time I could find a scientific work they cited to show that homosexuality is natural, the article was based on the presumption that it was natural, and therefore couldn’t actually support the conclusions they were put to.

    Furthermore, science is only reliable if you attempt to disprove hypotheses. But most of them were trying to prove a hypothesis! Many different theories could account for the evidence, not just the idea that homosexuality is innate; so while these works could be useful starting points for a scientific research program, they can’t be used to provide evidence or support a conclusion.

    If these are the centrepiece works presented to convince an American court they should ignore a lawful constitutional amendment, then how can I have any faith in any of the conclusions? The impartial observer has no choice but to completely disregard this so-called scientific evidence, because it’s based on a horrific departure from scientific process. Please don’t trust the works of human hands just because the people who produce them a “scientists”, because everyone has their agendas and their blind spots.

    I have not alas read Bill Muehlenberg’s book, but I very much doubt you’ve done anything to challenge his conclusions. And I suspect he was well aware of your arguments before he began!

    Felix Alexander

  38. Thanks guys

    The most amazing part of this debate is that today to simply defend marriage as between a man and a woman will land you in hot water. You will be accused of hate speech and all hell will break loose from the militant homosexual activists and their supporters. And some Christians are defending this? For another example of the gaystapo in action, see this:


    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  39. It is wonderful to hear of Margret Court’s courage.
    Because our federal politicians have been told to consult with there constituents regarding same sex marriage. I have emailed quite a few of them suggesting they obtain a copy of your book. I did hear back from one of them (Laborite in QLD) who promised she will look into your book. My local member Dr Sharman Stone as she often does sent me a very short letter acknowledging my families view and pointing out the coalitions policy but I have yet to ever get any personal conviction on anything from her. She always gives the impression of having a bob each way depending which way the wind is blowing. I find the lack of courage across the political spectrum very weak. Former premier Jeff Kennett’s recent change of mind under the slightest pressure typical.
    Rob Withall

  40. Here in Australia we’ve had the stolen generation where kids were taken from their parents to become part of our Western Vulture Culture and we had the children shipped out from the UK by the boat load never to see their parents again and we have also had the children of unwed mothers taken from them and farmed out to other families good and bad without any motherly or for that matter fatherly authorisation. Many now have fought long and hard to get a government to say sorry and acknowledge what they did as predominately wrong. Now of course we have the other experiment bound to failure and possible sexual corruption by allowing “Gay” I.e. homosexual couples to adopt children and bring them up according to their own lifestyle and that will involve a compensation payout of massive proportions previously unheard of. Who will then have the guts to stand up for such children and say we’re Sorry?
    Why do we never learn from the failures of the past and stop all this playing with other peoples future live. Seriously what will be next allowing experiment? Allowing hardened criminals or sexual perverts to adopt innocent children via some weird politically correct assumption or allowing them to claim compensation for being denied that opportunity.
    Christian leaders and their congregations seriously need to get some backbone whilst so-called Christians still have the majority.
    Dennis Newland

  41. Bill. Apart from being my initials, what does BTW mean here? Thanks
    B T Walters

  42. Desmond Tutu is fully supportive of gay people, acknowledges the trait is harmless and innate, and likens your kind of approach to racism. If you google “Desmond Tutu opinion homosexuality” you will find a host of quotes from the Archbishop the polar opposite of yours.

    So the Archbishop of Canterbury is a “renegade” is he? He wanted to appoint a gay bishop in the UK but was forced to back down by the bigots who only want freedom of speech and representation for themselves.

    Two archbishops vs you. What’s your theological rank again?

    Candy Merryweather

  43. Thanks Candy

    But to be honest I don’t really care what Tutu thinks, or what particular actions the Arch has done. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what God thinks. And what he thinks on this issue he has very clearly revealed to us in his Word.

    Indeed, since when does truth get determined by mere numbers? I don’t care if it’s two against one or two billion against one. In fact, what I think on this issue does not matter a hill of beans. What does matter is what God thinks. So if it is 2 or 2 billion renegades, they are pitting themselves against God and his revealed truth, not against me. So my theological rank, or anyone else’s, really means very little here. The only thing that really matters is that either we agree with God and obey his word, or we call him a liar and pretend we are the source of all truth and morality. I know which camp I want to belong to.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  44. Hello Candy,

    I can’t help but respond to your claim that “the trait is harmless and innate”. I gave you a link to a very short video that speaks specifically to this and I can only presume that you have not yet viewed it. Here is the link again:


    Mark Rabich

  45. To put another slant on things. In reality the gaystapo are feather dusters. If they had any backbone they would address the issue. I have found that when debating a homosexual, especially in my uni days, they usually wither on the vine because lies cannot conquer the truth.

    A well worn saying that empty vessels make the most sound. The gaystapo is one big empty vessel, not to be feared. A little courage and boldness is all that is needed on the part of everyone to defeat the SSM legistation.

    Everyone should let every Federal MP know that it is a resounding NO to SSM.

    Roger Marks

  46. Bill, you do realise that your obsession with homosexuality raises serious questions about your own sexuality.

    “Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much!”

    Your ‘so-called’ “Plain Truth” is actually not so plain. In fact all you are doing is spewing Roman Catholic Doctrine from your pages of trash.

    Maybe you should go back and re-read Rom 2:1 & 2 as you are so quick to judge.

    Graham Douglas-Meyer

  47. Thanks Graham

    Usually a comment such as this goes straight into the bin. But since it so nicely encapsulates how your side tends to “argue” it makes for a nice pedagogical tool – a great example of how not to enter a debate.

    If you ever get around to taking a course in basic logic, one of the first things you will learn about is the following: “An ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the man’ or ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.”

    Or again, “An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”

    But we realise that your side is basically incapable of stringing together any sort of sustained, intelligent, rational argument, so we quite understand your continuous use of name-calling and mud-slinging. It is always so much easier to call names than actually make an argument.

    And all my Catholic friends would be very surprised to learn that I as a Protestant am “spewing Roman Catholic Doctrine”

    We also understand that your side has a rather noted inability to read a basic passage of Scripture in a straight forward fashion. So after you have studied a bit about basic logic, perhaps an introductory course on biblical hermeneutics would be in order. There you will learn another very elementary exegetical truth: a text without a context is a mere pretext. Paul is of course there telling pagans that they are guilty before God because they do the same things they judge others of doing. That has nothing at all to do with speaking biblical truth about the homosexual lifestyle.

    Maybe you should go back and re-read 1 Thess 5:21-22. Or John 7:24 . Or 1 Tim 5:20. Or 1 John 4:1,2, for starters.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  48. ‘…(Homosexual) Activists are calling for people attending the year’s first grand slam event, starting Jan. 16, to unfurl “rainbow flags” at the Margaret Court Arena, the third show-court at Melbourne Park named after the Australian…’

    Shows a basic insecurity among homosexuals, I’d say, if they feel they need do that…as one of my FB friends commented after I’d posted about it on my profile: “It’s not like we need to wave flags or signs around saying we’re straight!” Looks like the activists may be spittin’ blood badly — but just leave the tennis alone, OK (we’ve had enough in the past with skirmishes between various ethnic groups such as Melbourne based Serbs and Croats)!

    David Cowley

  49. In response to Mark Rabich – you’re saying that only gay people can contract AIDS? Actually very insensitive of you because I know two people who died from AIDS complications neither of them were gay. Take a look what’s happening in the southern African countries. How much of the terrifying spread there is due to gay people? Educate yourself before speaking.

    Candy Merryweather

  50. Thanks Candy

    This is getting rather monotonous: yet more evasion of the issues and truth twisting. Let’s get a few issues straight here. The video is about an American homosexual dying because of his lifestyle choice – something you think is completely harmless. That simply reveals your complete ignorance of – or deliberate deception concerning – the dangerous and high-risk lifestyle, which even many in the homosexual community fully acknowledge.

    We are not talking about Africa, we are talking about America and Australia. And in both countries HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly due to male homosexual activity – perhaps as high as 85%. And we do not know anything about your two cases. They could have been contaminated by blood donated by HIV-infected homosexuals. Many innocent Australians have tragically died of this very thing in the past. They only other major means of getting the virus here or in the US is by sharing contaminated intravenous needles.

    While you continue to dissimulate and deceive about this high-risk lifestyle, at least some homosexuals are far more honest and informed about these matters. Consider just one homosexual doctor writing in a leading homosexual magazine who has no illusions about the dangerous lifestyle homosexuals are involved in, and how these dangerous sexual practices lead to HIV and a whole range of other diseases: http://www.advocate.com/Health_and_Fitness/Living_Well/Cruise_Control/

    I can also lead you to homosexual medical sites which document all this – but why do I suspect you are not the least bit interested in knowing the truth? It seems your mind is made up, and evidence is the last thing you want to consider.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  51. Hi Bill, (and Luke). Pleased to report that my letter to the West was in fact published in today’s edition. Credit to the West for publishing mine and others of the same viewpoint. I will now await the predictable response, ie accusations of spreading “hate” speech, homophobia etc etc. All the usual inane stuff…
    Dave Billingham

  52. Candy,

    With all due respect, you are not speaking to the video. And you are making the mistake of having no distinction between who people are sexually (male or female) and what they do with that sexuality (sex with the opposite sex, sex with multiple partners, sex with the same-sex, sex with children or animals, etc.) And there is no good reason why you think it would be “insensitive” of me to mention the connection between homosexual behaviour and HIV transmission. The risks are well known and I can in fact detail some of the biological reasons for the transmission of HIV – specifically the risks with anal sex as opposed to normal sex.

    The video contains a testimony of a man who in deep repentance rationally connects his awful situation with the consequences of having sex with other men. You just avoid this issue, and seek to demonise me (when I actually have nothing to do with it). You might pay more attention to the fact that those are his own words and how they refute your pathetically affirming position of risky sexual behaviour. To the best of my knowledge (it is some years since I read the background story which I can no longer find), that man died the following day.

    So I don’t think you hold any moral high ground as far as losing people to AIDS. The point is I want to warn people, and I submit you are prepared to see even more people die (some of them may even be more of your loved ones) – and even worse – you want to blame people like me for it. So you can cut short your attempt on emotional manipulation. It is my point that tens of thousands of people unnecessarily die of AIDS. Why else would I link the video?

    So let me spell it out to you on the health issue. Let’s refer to the common health service of blood donations. When people donate blood (here in Australia at least), prospective donors are asked questions about their recent sexual behaviour, whether they have had tattoos or body piercings, whether they have recently been overseas or in prison, or whether or not they have used drugs – among lots of others. (You may not know that some people with no history of homosexual behaviour whatsoever contract HIV for other things like shared needles and then have been used politically to claim that ‘AIDS can happen to anybody’ – without reference to the drug use.) The reality is that there is a range of risky behaviours that are entirely avoidable.

    Also, it bears mentioning here that normal, monogamous sex between a man and woman committed for life (ie. marriage) has zero risk. But somehow people still think that God knows less about what it good for us than we do. And then there are people such as you who will twist His message to suit whatever sexual behaviour can be imagined in flagrant disregard for its obvious functionality and then think the blame for the consequences can be shifted onto those who would actually want people to live.

    But what is also of interest to me in answer to you is what people are not asked before they donate:

    They are not asked:
    – what the stats on AIDS in southern African countries are.
    – whether or not they have a preference (what you call ‘orientation’) for certain sexual partners over others.
    – how many of their friends have died from AIDS.
    – what the sexual behaviour of those friends was.

    So stop buying into the lie that this is about people who have a certain identity – it is simply about certain behaviour which is bad for the human body and that God told us it was bad long before AIDS, or hepatitis, or syphilis, or rectal cancer, etc. was known or identified, Archbishop Tutu’s opinion notwithstanding. At the very least, it is 100% infertile.

    If blood donor services around the world don’t make any health distinction based on the counter arguments you make, I don’t see why I should consider them valid either. You have no case.

    So, you still haven’t answered why you think homosexuality is “harmless and innate” when clearly it is anything but and the man David just wanted to warn others. Instead, you decide to get angry at me for things I have had nothing to do with, and think you’ve addressed the argument.

    I think you should seriously consider that you have this issue entirely upside-down. I think you need to watch the video again, and imagine what you would say to David, and I also think you should buy and read Bill’s book.

    In the meantime, refer to this document from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services with which you can “educate yourself”.

    Mark Rabich

  53. Bill, ordered your book, sold out. Waiting on next run for delivery.
    For those who refuse to read (or listen to) what the Bible clearly teaches, the Bible repeats a phrase, “He who has ears, let him hear.”
    In John 8:47 Jesus says it clearly, “He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
    The ‘argument’ is not with Bill.
    It is God v Those Who Oppose God.
    I have encountered many people through the years coming into the church with sexual deviant behaviors.
    This has included paedophiles and homosexuals. They have been welcomed, but wisely chaperoned.
    They have been welcomed into homes and sat at dining tables with us and others.
    Inevitably they ‘spill the beans’, (sometimes we have known of their history) and when asked, “Why this church?” the furtive response has been along the lines of, “Because you have lots of kids, or, other churches won’t have me.”
    Further prodding elicits the fact that they see the church as the legitimate place to get away with what they know is sin.”
    When it has been suggested that they need some pastoral counseling, they have tried to find someone weak enough to be manipulated by them or left to find a church that will be permissive enough to allow paedophilia and homosexuality.
    In short, they have stubbornly refused God’s direction and pastoral counseling.
    Too many pastors have fallen into adulterous lust and destroyed their marriages, families and congregations.
    Margaret Court and Bill know and defend the truth of God’s word. They know they are accountable to God to do this faithfully, against much opposition.
    Because they have both endured trials, and do not depart from the truth, they are more ferociously and personally attacked by those who fear the Truth.
    Mike Evans

  54. I just read the above article about the homosexual doctor. I’m just shocked that there is such thing as a ‘gay day’ at Disneyland! This is supposed to be a ‘family’ theme park. Remind me never to take my kids to Disneyland!
    Luke Belik

  55. Mark Rabich, it isn’t “normal” or “healthy” to be a lifelong virgin in your 40s either, as you have admitted elsewhere on this site. So why is your lifestyle more commendable that that of a gay man’s? In what way is it less “dead end”? Who are you to lecture anyone on sexual ethics?
    Candy Merryweather

  56. Thanks again Candy

    But as each new comment of yours gets more bizarre, irrational, and unbiblical, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are simply attempting to justify your own lifestyle here. You can try to kid yourself and others, but none of this will wash before almighty God. It is him you will stand before one day to give an account of how your rejected his Word and disobeyed his clear commands.

    Incredibly, you actually now want us to believe that a chaste and pure lifestyle is “unhealthy” and on a par with the promiscuous, high-risk homosexual lifestyle, which so often results in premature death! I am almost speechless that you could say such rubbish.

    And by ‘dead-end lifestyles’ we do not primarily mean the utter inability of those engaging in homosexuality to have children, but the spiritual dead-end, as well as the physical dead-end. As already mentioned – and completly documented (but we are by now well aware that evidence means nothing to you) – homosexual life spans are generally far shorter than those of non-homosexuals. How anyone can claim to be on about biblical love as they seek to defend a lifestyle that shortens your life and greatly increases your chances of getting a whole range of diseases and medical problems is just incomprehensible.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  57. I was pleased to read of Margaret Courts’ response to the bullying tactics of the Gaystapo. She is to be commended for her stand against a lifestyle which is to say the least of it unhealthy, and is, of course, totally against the way God has planned for His people.
    Candy, if people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Desmond Tutu wish to alter the Word of God to suit their own ideas, I fail to understand why it is they still hold office in any denomination as they obviously do not believe in the Bible they are supposed to be upholding.
    Joan Davidson

  58. Hi Candy,

    It’s strange that your first comment effectively claims that you are a Christian, yet I doubt if you have ever fully considered that Christianity centres on the death and resurrection of a 33 year-old man who was a virgin. (33 is probably already beyond the pale for you.) I’m fairly certain that He was a “healthy” individual, and that, given the general corruption of mankind, He was the very definition of “normal”. So I think that in this respect, at least for now, I’m in extremely good company! Thanks for the reminder.

    Your disparagement of my personal life is completely laughable – I have many advantages that some can only dream of – no fear of sexually transmitted diseases, no fear of a teenager I’ve never met before knocking on my door to say “Hi Dad!”, no comparative memories with which to cloud the relationship of a potential future wife, and very limited scope for a broken heart. And also, no chance of any involvement in that blood money industry misleadingly called being ‘pro-choice’. Trade that for this world’s idea of fleeting pleasure? Not likely. Sure, things could change, but for now I just get on with life without having to navigate such obstacles. So again, thanks for the reminder.

    And I’m further amused because your attack has relevance to my previous topic – that of blood donation. I’ve donated blood 29 times now and each time I am asked the substantial list of questions, it doesn’t take very long for me to move on from them, to getting the haemoglobin test from the nurse. This would be in stark contrast to someone involved in the kind of lifestyle you’re championing.

    But let me take all this further again, to a different level for you.

    I happen to have O negative blood (about 9% of the Australian population do), which is the only blood group that can be used in an emergency on virtually any recipient, regardless of their blood group. As a result, this blood group also has a very special application:

    “As it can sometimes be difficult to provide newborns with blood that is exactly matched, O negative donations can also help babies who need immediate transfusions. Your donation can be crucial in saving a newborn or a baby in the womb.”


    Now, let’s say it was your newborn child who needed blood very quickly and there are two potential donors on hand – both O negative.

    One of them is me, the other is a man whose only difference with me is that he has never donated blood before and is involved in homosexual sex.

    Who do you decide who gets to donate the blood?

    You tell me what lifestyle is “more commendable”.

    (If you have trouble with that question, you many want to refer to the US document I linked in my previous comment for some of the statistics on the risks, paying particular attention to the very low risks associated with repeat blood donors…)


    Candy, there is a spiritual dimension to all this, and since I want to be known to be clearly on the side of life, love and truth for the benefit of others, not just myself – including sexual ethics in the face of hateful opposition which is prepared to engage in personal attacks and ignore facts – I don’t have to wonder where the source for your inspiration comes from.

    Mark Rabich

  59. Dear Bill with regard to Graham Douglas-Meyer’s accusation that you are a repressed homosexual, you know and I know that he knows that we know that this a vintage, standard ad hominem that homosexuals, like himself, just pluck out of their pink filing cabinet, intending to paralyse us into silence. Now for you and I to answer such pink people may be entertaining but the serious side of this is what happens to children in schools who show less than enthusiasm for homosexuality.
    The British Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove in an article in the Times, 2003, entitled, “When the Straight and Narrow is the Wrong Path,” used exactly the same pink paper. Pity any child in a school who dares to dissent from the party line. The teaching staff responsible for political correctness will immediately label him or her as a repressed gay and recommend gay affirming counseling or even medical procedure – with or without the knowledge or permission of the parents.


    David Skinner, UK

  60. Thanks David

    Yes the other side stoops to that sort of ugly idiocy all the time, and as a result you know full well that they don’t have a leg to stand on. They will present zippo evidence but just cast vicious aspersions on your character. The other side have become supreme experts at this. This simply demonstrates the complete and utter poverty of their position. As Margaret Thatcher once put it, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  61. Now let’s just get a sense of proportion into this: Desmond Tutu is a Marxist. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I read a statement of his some years ago (I am sorry I cannot find the reference) that he thought that all parents who don’t teach their children that homosexuality is just dandy are Nazis and should more or less have their children taken away.
    But maybe this article will give a better view of the Bish:


    David Skinner, UK

  62. “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

    Some wise words from Margaret Thatcher there Bill. Regarding all the pro-homosexual commentators, I am curious to know approximately what percentage of people do you find are able to hold a debate without all the vicious attacks? Or, what percentage of comments are binned because, having no reasonable argument, this is what these people have resorted to?

    Annette Nestor

  63. Thanks Annette

    There are some who are open, honest, teachable and worth engaging with. But they certainly tend to be in the minority. Probably a good 80 per cent just send in quite ugly and nasty comments which are completely void of reason, logic or common sense, but are loaded with nasty invective, hate and bitterness. So the public never sees the majority of comments the other side sends in. Because of this folks might be tempted to think they are fairly civilised, but that is not the case unfortunately. The intensity and ferociousness of the hate mail is really something else, reflecting, ultimately it seems, a demonic origin. How else does one explain such incredible hatred, rage and vileness?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  64. Because you’re an unreasonable, vile bigot with an unremitting campaign of hatred towards a minority?

    Just a hunch.

    Candy Merryweather

  65. As I say, usually the hate mail goes straight into the bin, but once and a while I will allow one through – at least the more mild, printable ones – to show the entire world just how loving, tolerant, accepting and peaceable these folks are, especially those who claim to be Christian. I will let readers decide just how Christlike she is being.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  66. Well perhaps some of this vile stuff should be published to demonstrate the nature of this correspondence? Or perhaps it would not be helpful.
    Anne-Marie Modra

  67. Thanks Anne-Marie

    Because it can be so disgusting, filthy, hate-filled and despicable, it all used to go right into the trash. But lately I have been saving all this putrid stuff. I may well turn it into a book one day to let the whole world know that these folks who shout the most about tolerance, acceptance and love are the most intolerant, un-accepting and unloving people I have ever come across.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  68. I think a book of the putrid stuff would be a good idea as a psychological profile may start to “grin through” between the lines and it should be possible to see more clearly where these people are at.
    Rachel Smith

  69. Candy,
    I have watched your exchanges from the sidelines with a mixture of impatience and sadness. First you bring up anecdotal “evidence” from a couple of cases that have come to your notice. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing!

    Then you indulge the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) by citing Desmond Tutu, as if his voice has some ex cathedra note about it. Well, read instead the Apostle Paul: “Let God be true, and every man a liar!” (Rom.3:4) That principle applies in all sorts of connections, not least the one in question, i.e. homosexuality. In short, as Christians we care nothing for man’s opinion.

    Otherwise, you engage in outright mudslinging, such as in your last post: “Because you’re an unreasonable, vile bigot with an unremitting campaign of hatred towards a minority?” As I remark so often in the face of such abuse, “Say that to a mirror!”

    There’s an old saying, “When arguments fail, throw mud. There’s always some that will stick.” Your whole approach conforms to that pattern. How do you expect that anyone will take you at all seriously?

    Murray R. Adamthwaite

  70. Thanks Murray

    Yes I am just now penning a piece on how the other side ‘argues’. I briefly note the various logical fallacies used so often, including the number one method of ‘argumentation’: a lavish use of mud.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  71. I have read this article a few days after it was written, but if Graham and Candy are still reading, especially Candy, as she quoted the bible.
    Of course, we as sinful human beings have no right to judge others. Even Jesus said more than once that he wasn’t judging any, but that he was offering a way of escape from or sinfulness. If he did not consider our sinfulness a fact, would he have died? But then in John 12:47-48 he makes it very clear that nobody can escape the truth and that the unchangeable truth will judge all at the end. God has established His creation on immutable principles, physical and moral and while he allows man for a time to exercise his god-given free will even in a rebellious and destructive way there is a day of judgement coming and God’s good and loving laws will be the standard, not our own arrogant thoughts of what is right.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  72. Candy, I hate to break it to you, but you’re not saved. On the path you are currently on, you will go to hell. You need to repent of being so prideful and highminded against God’s word and against his servants who actually stand for His truth.

    The Bible tells us to judge one who calls themselves a believer by their fruit, and yours have been found to be rotten.

    I hope that this message will at least send you to your knees in prayer to God so that even if you won’t believe any of those that have commented on this blog, you may believe the creator himself. Get saved!

    Mario Del Giudice

  73. I couldn’t find your book on Amazon. Any plans for selling as an e-book? Does your publisher support e-books?
    Jarrod W Carter

  74. Thanks Jarrod

    Actually we are working on both just now. So hopefully soonish it will be on amazon and available as an ebook. Stay tuned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  75. Put me on the list, if you have one. I will purchase it as soon as it comes out.

    I’ve been looking for a well documented book on this subject for some time. Considering that you wrote a book on the subject I’m assuming that you were looking for one as well. 😉

    Jarrod W Carter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *