Yep, I am Now a Terrorist

A leftist from the lamestream media thinks I am a terrorist and what I do is equivalent to IS beheading people. Yes, she actually said that. But then again, this gal may be in a contest to see who can make the most blatant bloopers, tell the most porkies, and massacre the truth as often as possible in a short opinion piece.

angry man 1If we simply went on the use of ad hominem attacks found here we could make this opinion piece a major discussion point in any sophomore class on logical fallacies. The piece could indeed keep such a class going for at least half a semester. But of course this is standard fare from the MSM, where lies, mud-slinging and distortion are everyday affairs.

Incredibly, we have an “architecture critic” waxing eloquent on all things theological and philosophical, as she attacks me big time. All because I have exercised my democratic right in a free country to stand up for biblical truth and critique false shepherds in our pulpits.

To do that means I engage in “coercion,” “threats” and “terrorism”. And of course I am a “hater”. Yes, I am now in the same league as an IS fanatic who beheads innocent people – maybe even worse. Yet a national columnist who tells one porkie after another and totally misrepresents the truth is somehow a paragon of virtue.

This appallingly bad hatchet job by one Elizabeth Farrelly starts off with a doozey: she informs us that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality, and that this is the normal understanding of “biblical scholars”. Um no, not even close, as I carefully document in my book Strained Relations.

But hey, if you are going to fill an entire column with falsehoods and malicious nonsense, then I guess you need to get into it straight away. She manages to get most things about me wrong. I must be evil because she thinks I am a “creationist,” whatever that means. But it must be really nasty.

She claims I am the “Secretary of The Family Council of Australia”. Um, there is no such organisation in existence. But hey, don’t let sloppy journalism and careless disregard for truth get in the way of a good attack piece. Also, I am an “anti-gay blogger”. Oh, so I have not written thousands of articles on all sorts of other topics?

I also must be really evil because she says I am an “occasional columnist for The Australian“. Wow, that puts me right up there with paedophiles and the KKK. And never mind that it has been ten or fifteen years since I last had a column in that newspaper. But hey, who needs facts when you are having such a good time with character assassination?

But for daring to speak as a Christian about an infamous Christian wolf in sheep’s clothing has really got Ms Farrelly bent out of shape. For calling him out on his pro-homosexual agenda, I am right up there with bin Laden and IS. Um, what was that logical fallacy about guilt by association?

Yes, for daring to state the biblical position on the issue of human sexuality, I am a hater and a bigot and a terrorist all rolled into one. Wow, I must be a really nasty piece of work. She also claims I ‘habitually represent Satan “rubbing his hands with glee” over homosexuality’.

Um, I do? You mean when I defend the biblical position on this topic? But hey, don’t let truth get in the way of a good story. But the real winner here is how I am using ‘coercion’ and ‘threats’ and ‘imposing’ my views to prevent people from speaking. Really? Wow, I have that much power? Amazing.

Most people would not have gathered that from anything I have said or written. I merely mention that this renegade pastor is speaking at a major Christian festival, and now I have God-like powers! Hey, I simply asked a few hard questions as to why this guy is appearing there.

I obviously have no power at all to prevent anyone from speaking, and as far as I know, he is still going to be speaking there. So much for my great powers of threats and coercion. Yet this all makes for a great attack piece: present me as a hate-filled bully who is preventing people from speaking.

Actually, it is Ms Farrelly who is seeking to do just that. And she uses the platform of the Fairfax press to attack anyone she disagrees with, launching into one insult and falsehood after another, knowing she can get away with murder here. She knows full well that any victim of her hatchet jobs will not likely take legal action against all this slander and defamation.

And even if the victims of such vicious attacks did do this, the league of lawyers at Fairfax would easily fight the case with all the money they need at their disposal. So here she uses her platform as an opportunity to attack, abuse, misrepresent and denigrate anyone she disagrees with. Yet somehow I am the bad guy, full of hate, and identical to an IS terrorist, while she is basically deity personified.

But of course this is what we expect from a secular left media which long ago has abandoned any pretence to truth, objectivity and neutrality. The MSM is now simply the most powerful organ of the worldview of the secular humanists and the radical left.

I have been getting this sort of treatment from the media activists for 25 years now. People like Fred Nile have been getting such treatment for at least 35 years now. So it goes with the territory. Dare to stand for truth, especially biblical truth, and the “tolerance brigade” will come out in force, doing everything they can to silence you.

Oh, and I will let you read her closing paragraphs, where she and the renegade pastor engage in some hardcore theological discussion. It is mind-blowing and frightening stuff – but of course not unexpected from the Fairfax press, and its host of secular left attack columnists.

[1024 words]

33 Replies to “Yep, I am Now a Terrorist”

  1. Oh my gosh this woman needs a dose of reality salts. Inhospitable indeed. Right, she might like to have a look at that part in the Bible. I have no recollections of God destroying a whole city because of not being hospitable.
    I’d like to see scripture and verse for that one Bill.

  2. To everything, there is a season. There is nothing new under the sun.
    ….Elizabeth Farrelly starts off with a doozey: she informs us that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality…..
    But I recall it was the sodomites who were killing one another off in Melbourne in the 80’s.
    And that my friend, is why Progressives do not allow the teaching of history; the Truth.

    As Christ said to the women on His way to Golgotha, “Weep not for Me, but for yourselves and your children.”
    The Judge Judy types at Fairfax have forgotten the children, but the “Truth shall set them free.”

    Thanks Bill and God Bless.

  3. Thanks Gerard. I certainly should be able to defend myself on their pages, but having dealt with the lamestream media for the last 25 years, I know there is almost zero chance of that happening. Even a mere letter seeking to rebut this idiocy will almost certainly not make it in. Which is why, in part, I have my own website – until the powers that be take it down!

  4. Well, I reckon you are doing a great job Bill. I wonder what her problem is? Keep up the good work.

  5. I’m pretty sure she was writing just with emotion – no logic, no theology, no sense. You’d be absolutely spot on to file suit for defamation against Elizabeth Farrelly and/or Fairfax, but I sense also there’d be no use.

  6. “Inhospitality” is deemed to be the sin of Sodom is it? Like ice-cream, the flavour of the month has changed, again. Last time I looked, it was gluttony- still, I guess -of the 7 “deadly sins” we’ve now used up lust, gluttony and I suppose inhospitality can be seen as greed (selfishness) had to be next. Maybe it’ll take a while for the “biblical scholars” to get through all seven, but I can’t wait till they get to “Pride”. Then we might be getting close what really went on in Sodom. What is that famous mantra of the homosexual set- gay pride isn’t it?
    I also see that recent revelations of hidden facts about Pompeii wold suggest too that the life of it’s citizenry was as debauched as any, which might help explain its sudden destruction also.

  7. The article from this woman is very poor, and it is tragic that she has an audience who will lap this up, and that they cheer her on and believe what she is saying.

    Its quality is severely lacking. It wobbles around Emma Watson, Bill Muehlenberg, Father Rod Bower, various name callings, and poor theology.

    “This was a non-theistic God, because “a verb can’t be used for purposes of power.” So the rest of the Old Testament narrative was spent running away from that idea, replacing it with the Classical Greek God-meme, the bearded, domineering Zeus.”

    When the Bible suits her, she uses it. When it doesn’t she cans it. She isn’t interested in Christianity, but in whatever tickles her ears and agrees with her beliefs. Priests who coincide with her views are good, and those who do not are bad.

    She then takes a very slim unsupported view of what the ‘sin of sodomy’ actually is; and then uses the wide view of what the ‘sin of sodomy’ actually is, as an insult which she smears over Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Poor form.

    Her conduct in her article is regrettable.

    I am glad she is using her Western Democratic freedoms to insult us who fight for its protection. As long as we continue to fight for its protection, she will be able to slur and slander us.

    Ain’t life grand 😀

    Be honoured that such elastic use of the word ‘terrorism’ has been applied to you, Bill. Name calling shows lack of arguments. It reminds me of ex-PM Gillard re-inventing what ‘misogyny’ means.
    Ms Gillard said to Ray Martin that her comment “landed heavily” – politician speech for a failure.

    Elizabeth Farrelly will regret her choices one day, be it on this side of the grave or the other. 🙂

  8. I think Dr Farrelly the Architect critic has used a very porch choice of “biblical scholars” if they advised her that the sin of sodomy was really inhospitality !

    All puns aside, she doesn’t seem to know what she is writing about with this article and is feeding the left wing trolls. Perhaps you are just getting too successful!

    To label you a terrorist is a technique of distraction rather than tackling the real problem — you are perceived as a soft target. If she attacked the Muslim terrorists or Muslim community in general she knows she would not get such a polite reception.

    Take heart, the SMH is starting to publish a lot of opinion pieces that back up your arguments that the non integration of Muslims in other cultures is a problem that must be discussed and addresses.


  9. The men of Sodom were offered hospitality by Lot. But Lot knew they wanted the men and not women even though he offered them his daughters they still wanted the men. Why? Well I should have thought that was obvious. Nevertheless let us remember that the disease of AIDS is still a Pandemic and the most prolific. Yet it is still openly transmitted predominately by homosexuality.

  10. I have sent a letter to The Age to challenge Farrelly’s view that biblical scholars claim for Sodom & Gomorrah is that it is not the sin of sexual sodomy but hospitality.

    That is not how the Hebrew scholars who translated the NIV saw it. Their translation of Gen 19:5 is that the men from every part of Sodom who ‘called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them”‘. That’s not hospitality but sexual perversion.

    While the Hebrew word, ‘yada’ (know) is not forced to be translated as ‘to have sex with’, in 10 of its 12 times in Genesis (see Gen 4:1, 25), it does mean that. We know from Gen 19:8 that it means sexual intercourse as Lot refers to his virgin daughters who had not ‘known’ a man, obviously meaning sexual intercourse.

    ‘Know’ cannot mean an hospitable getting acquainted with someone because it is associated with ‘a wicked thing’ in 19:7. In addition, God said he would be destroying Sodom & Gomorrah in Gen 18:16-33, before the evidence of Gen 19:5, 8, so it is reasonable to interpret the Gen 19 passages as referring to something other than the recommended virtue of hospitality.

  11. The really sad part of Farelly’s article is that it is the decadence of the west which has been created by the sorts of “freedoms” promoted by the progressives of our society which prompt the young Muslim male to feel “alienated” in our society.
    He sees “empowered” women engage in sexual freedoms unimagined in the Islamic world while all the time are unreachable to the son of a Middle-eastern immigrant.
    He sees the “in-your-face” parading of sexual immorality passing as an acceptable cultural event in the likes of the GAL Mardigras- a display sanctioned by the government of both persuasions.
    So he retreats into the “cloistered” world of Islamic fundamentalism whereby its indeed righteous to seek destruction of a society which allows such immorality.
    But, unlike the Christian who is peaceful in their protest, the radicalised Muslim follows the instructions of the Qu’ran to seek revenge on those who he believes have been responsible for his marginalisation.
    Its not Israel and its supporters in the west he’s fighting, its the immorality and decline of standards of our society he’s fighting- something promoted by Farelly. And when we start looking to 23 year-old actresses from occult movies as our prophets, what hope do we have?

  12. They were indeed inhospitable. They were also desperately wicked. They would rape and often murder the wayfarers coming though and would not tolerate an outside threat to their debauched and depraved lifestyle. The rulers and judges some of the worst. There are some very interesting quotes about Sodom that can be found from Jewish sources. There is a stark contrast between Job and the other Sodomites regarding hospitality, however Sodomy is indeed a sin. There seems to be an increasing number of so called Christian leaders that totally twist and contort scripture to suit there delusion. The rest of us that know God and the scriptures end up exhausted after the mental gymnastics needed to try and follow their interpretation. Jude is clear however……….
    4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
    5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
    6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
    7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
    8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. (Jud 1:4-8 NKJ)

  13. Gerard Calilhanna 25.9.14 / 4pm you asked

    Hi Bill,

    Is it worth seeking a right of reply?

    For an article posted by Fairfax today, they have already closed their comments at 37. Can’t take the heat obviously, so they don’t open up.

    The ones who jump in early are the supoprtive readers.

    Opponents like us only hear about it later, and then we can’t reply because comments have been closed.

  14. We’ll Bill, what more needs to be said? You are obviously a terrible person! But I have a solution. Simply convert to Islam. Then they will either completely ignore you or blame everyone else for your obvious radical hatred. What could be simpler? Just be careful not to convert back again or you’ll really be in trouble.

  15. My comment on the article is still “pending”, but comments are closed. My wisdom will have to be lost to posterity.

    Elizabeth sometimes writes sensible articles, but, where Christianity is concerned, sensible is never on the agenda.

  16. Phew! Having read through a whole column of Elizabeth Farrelly, I feel like I’ve just escaped from some sort of tween novel adventure mystery.

    In her extra-crankiness, Farrelly seems to be trying hard to get noticed by the editors. So our gutsy columnist-critic invents extra news from another world. Things that haven’t happened on this one.

    After all, who’s going to let a few facts get in the way of a good story?

    And what, pray tell, was on Farrelly’s mind as she attempts to pull her ramblings into some sort of conclusion…

    “At which we revert to my initial question. When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot relinquish his angel visitors, his asylum seekers, God punished Sodom for this breach of the sacred duty of welcome. A sodomite was a hard-heart, a jackboot, a repeller of blow-ins.”


    Wait. Farrelly does comedy! That’s what is is!
    A tween adventure slap-stick horror comedy essay by an architectural critic columnist from New-Zealand…

    No wonder it’s a slow read.

  17. Sad to see such calumny Bill. Naively I would have expected that in a democracy your passion for truth & basic morality would get a bit of balanced response.
    But, to quote Bob Dylan again “…fools they made a mock of sin…”
    And to quote his Hero: “…blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you & falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice & be glad, because great is your reward in heaven…”

  18. Perhaps this woman needs to read what Uni Abdullah a Muslim convert who took her son away from her Turkish Muslim husband and fled into IS territory for reasons she states below:

    Ummi Abduallah said her move to the militant group’s realm was in part to shield her three-year-old from the sex, crime, drugs and alcohol that she sees as rampant in largely secular Turkey…… “The children of that country see all this and become either murderers or delinquents or homosexuals or thieves,” she wrote…”The blood and goods of infidels are halal,” she said, meaning she believes that Islam sanctions the killing of unbelievers.
    The Islamic State group’s uncompromising interpretation of Islam promises parents the opportunity to raise their children free from any secular influence.

  19. Bill, it is unfair of you to use the word “porkies” in your opening paragraph – they don’t like pork, bacon, etc. 😉

  20. Sorry Bill, I read that ‘piece’ of Farrelly’s. I really couldn’t quite understand it. I understood the sentences but when putting them together all it seemed to say was that you are a terrorist and that in the latter section of the torah G’D was called Zeus? WT*?
    Hows does this woman get a payed to write? Does her father own the paper?

    Boy some lobby group must really want that guy to talk at the festival.

  21. I don’t have any trouble understanding the article. Elizabeth clearly shows that Bill is a hater and a terrorist (anyone showing love towards traditional families must be a hater, if not a terrorist), Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison are both sodomites (which some silly noodles assume has something to do with sex!), an Anglican rector shows love by denying much of what the Bible says, espousing theological nonsense and rejoicing in the destruction of the traditional (and biblical) family. Believing the Bible is obviously a very hateful thing. What a beautiful mind the columnist has. Love is hate and leading people to hell is love. What impeccable logic. Or should that be peccable?

  22. Hi Bill
    Re your comment about legal action. There is always the small claims court. In other Australian states this is up to $10,000. The small claims court is a way of limiting the involvement of lawyers. In the small claims court, a defendant cannot use a lawyer in court, without the approval of the plaintive (which invariably is never given). I assume the same applies in Victoria. It may be worth getting some advice on this. $10,000 is enough to cause significant pain, and may be a way of getting around the problems you raised.
    Cheers, Chris

  23. Both online and in face to face conversation, I only express opinions on issues that I understand properly. Frankly, I wish more of the commentariat would follow this ethic.

  24. Like others, it was an exercise in futility to try to figure out what Farrelly was on about, even in her own convoluted value system. The main thing I could deduce with assurance is that she has some kind of teenage-girl-crush on Rod Bower, for all the depth of analysis he got. And I do find it astonishing when people use the ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction was just about inhospitality’ argument. As many point out above, it only takes barely half a minute to render that absurd.

    So, they think that a ‘God’ who wipes out whole towns for just being rude one evening instead of ongoing sexual corruption after long-term escalation of sin is better? I’m sure I would not want to know this capricious divinity they are selling. But God – the real one, not this Elizabeth Farrelly and experts™ counterfeit – even gave the men a final chance when He struck them blind simultaneously (consider for a moment how they would’ve reacted to that), but still they wearied themselves looking for the door of Lot’s house. Even in judgement, there was opportunity for them to come to their senses. I would’ve thought that a God who offers second chances from anything even as the clock is just a second before midnight would appeal more to most people, but hey, I’m no so-called ‘expert™’. Apparently, the divine hand flattening a whole region without warning for saying hello a bit abrasively to some new folk is more appealing to some. That’s strangely a version of “coercion” they have no problem with. It also makes Farrelly’s appeal to “democracy” even weirder. If that article were a gymnast, she would be in hospital for all the contortions and baffling tangents it exhibits.

    If anybody thinks Elizabeth and her band of “biblical scholars©” have any credibility (along with the other twisted biblical teachings she tries to sell in that article – eg. the angels were “asylum seekers”?! Is she for real?), I have some great bridges I’d love to sell you.

    But all this gets further away from the original topic of Bower’s invitation to BlackStump. The sad truth is this: Rod Bower is no brother to a follower of Christ. Some have tried to confront him, but he enchews any meaningful biblical scrutiny of his litany of lies and just makes it up as he goes. Under his tutelage the gospels are not teachings that expose our desperate need of God to forgive our sins and point to Jesus as the solution, they are authorative tools to corrupt and abuse in affirming our every single selfish desire and no need for radical and sometimes extremely difficult personal changes. For example, Bower ignores the bits about denying yourself, applying Matthew 25 to the real least of these in our society (hint: who is the most voiceless?) and loving God first above your neighbour. Bower writes “Allah help Syria”, but Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Bower may say “”Dear Christians. Laugh at yourselves. I do. Love God”, but I can only wonder if that tone meshes with Jesus dying on the cross in agony offering eternal life both to the world collectively, and personally to one of the thieves next to Him.

    Of course it doesn’t. Bower is obviously interested in – as Paul spoke of in Romans 1 – suppressing truth. Fog is his speciality, just like Farrelly. And for some people fog is comforting because they won’t have to consider the precipice they are heading towards, or even other hazards along the way. In contrast, Jesus kept on talking about eternal destinies, either in heaven or hell, and ongoing repentance of sin.

    No wonder the world loves Bower – they hated the real Jesus and what He taught because it is too confronting. Read the entirety of John 6 – in only 24 hours Jesus manages to get the majority of people He miraculously fed to turn and reject Him. Despite the amazing ability to command physical elements well beyond what ordinary people can manage, Jesus was suprisingly bad at PR it seems. In contrast, Bower gets fawning rose-coloured write-ups in Fairfax for aligning with popular views so adolescent in tone (eg. “tweetable”, “endearingly ambiguous”) you might be mistaken for thinking he also has the ability to walk on water.

    The easiest way to hide your own hatred is to fervently accuse others of it. That article from Farrelly could’ve been a lot shorter, indeed, two sentences like this would’ve sufficed –
    “I’m reinforcing the emotion of hating certain people legitimately yet feeling better about yourselves for doing so. Also, you can assume any idea of God you like that doesn’t inconvenience your life because you are perfect.”
    That would’ve been a thousand times more direct and saved a fair amount of time. We can pray that the truth of God will shine in the confusing murkiness that the Elizabeth Farrellys and Rod Bowers of this world manufacture – and it will. And that article simply proves that most reject it – just as people walked away from Jesus full of anger, even as they had accepted a tangible miracle from Him the day before.

  25. I’d take it as a compliment that she had to stoop so low to try and denigrate you. It shows that she has no arguments against what you say so she had to attack you personally. Personal attacks are a win for the person being attacked because it shows you have won the argument and the loser tries to feel better about themselves.

  26. RE: “All because I have exercised my democratic right in a free country to stand up for biblical truth and critique false shepherds in our pulpits.”
    and … “The easiest way to hide your own hatred is to fervently accuse others of it” (Rabich)

    NOTE: It is VERY IMPORTANT to consider that even Peter Hitchens (a former atheist and a recent convert to Christianity) has said recently on a Q and A program (ABC TV) that he is “speaking out NOW — WHILE I STILL CAN!!!”

    – Peter Hitchens was clearly alluding to his anticipation of a coming era of “atheistic FASCISM” where ONLY atheists are allowed to speak.
    – Peter was also implying that ALL Christians MUST SPEAK OUT NOW – while time is still on our side – but in a well-informed, calm and civilised manner!

Leave a Reply

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