Considering his practice of editing and even deleting comments, then banning people from commenting on his blog altogether, to call me a gutless windbag actually made me laugh. He even gets points for "straw man!" alerts. See, he claims that I raised a straw man because I called him out for dissing Chuck Currie and the UCC for "getting the Gospel wrong" by wondering if by that Neil means that the UCC doesn't hate on gays and endorse the murder of the preborn. Neil insists this is "a straw man!" when, if you peruse his "discussion" you don't read a word about the grace of Jesus Christ crucified and risen (the totality of the Gospel according to some guy who wrote all those letters in the Bible and got a city in Minnesota named after him for his troubles). In fact, I'll let you read and be the judge for yourselves. Ahem.
Yes, but the UCC gets the Gospel wrong. The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and that by trusting in him we get forgiveness and eternal life
OK, this one mention of the Gospel is actually wrong (and attempting to cite 1 Corinthians 15 in defense of this position is a serious misreading of that chapter, but I digress).
That’s odd, because Chuck and the UCC are pro-abortion. They deny the human personhood of the unborn. They won’t protect the unborn from being crushed and dismembered but shake their fists at God in support of perverting his ideal for marriage. But they care so much about "human personhood" that they must bless what God has called sinful?
The Bible is very clear:
* 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
* 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
* 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Um, Gospel anyone? No?
I raised a point that Neil was upset because the UCC didn't mention hating on gays and worshipping the preborn, and he called that a "straw man" argument. Yet, well, here are his words.
He also references, at a point not linked, this year-and-a-half old discussion we had, ripping a comment out of context to show me up as (a) a hypocrite; and (b) a false teacher. As for hypocrisy, well, we all are to a certain extent, and if that is the worst thing I ever get called, well, I can live with it. The whole "false teacher" thing, though, considering his mischaracterization of the Gospel, and the attempt to draw 1 Corinthians 15 in to a defense of this misinterpretation, I think Neil might just need to think before he types.
The biggest thing, for me, is the point where Chuck Currie, managing far more magnanimity and grace than Neil could ever understand, comments, and Neil goes on to call him a serial liar.
Having his ego, I'm quite sure he'll show up here and show how wrong I am, etc., etc. I'll let him, because unlike him, I don't edit, delete, or ban comments or commenters. I guess that's because I'm gutless.
UPDATE: Alerted by Alan, I finally found Neil's other place where he pretty much farms out his whole "false teacher" schtick. And, may I say, the holy and blessed fetus has pride of place.
And the guy says the UCC gets the gospel wrong. Nowhere is the old saw about lies travel around the world before truth gets out the door more in evidence. At least I now know another place to avoid.
