423 thoughts on “Tony Hutson: Pink Ain’t for Boys”

  1. He claims the Worley is “standing against sodomites”; that may be true, but it isn’t Biblical; stand again SIN, yes. But not against the people; not against rounding ‘em up and putting them all in a big jail. That is what Worley advocated, and that is not standing against sin.

    The liberals say, ‘He shouldn’t have said that!’, but bless God, call sin sin!
    I beg to difer — he (Worley) should not have said that; it was NOTHING to do with the sin of sodomy.

    As others have noted, in American culture, men don’t kiss men (having been raised in this culture, I think it is weird/gross), but it is common in other cultures. What does he think the Bible means when it says “Greet one another with a holy kiss”.

    And the blue/pink thing; again, as has been pointed out, first, culture has changed about blue being for boys and pink for girls, and second, if the Bible is, as you claim, your only authority for matters of faith and practice, where are these colors called out in Scripture? Mayhaps, if Scripture is silent in an area, we should be too.

    1. I don’t know that you can find “standing against sin” in the Bible either. You can find the solution to sin, and it’s forgiveness.

      1. Well… that phrase isn’t in the Bible, but the OT command to lift up the voice as a trumpet and show the people their sin is. I’d say preaching against sin is certainly in the Bible in principle.

        1. If you’re a prophet, sure. And even then, only to those in Israel.
          I suppose if you want to do some fun stuff with historical context, you could potentially make an application for today that those in authority within the church can speak against sin WITHIN the church, but preaching against sin outside the church is, I think, difficult, if not impossible, to justify from the Bible.

        2. I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Sounds like ceremonial thing from sacrifice days. Paul in the NT makes it clear that the law is so that I can identify my sin & seek forgiveness.

          You can find lots of instances of prophets decrying sins of the nation & the leaders. Closest I can think of is Paul insisting on church discipline for sleeping with your mother in law, and lying to the Holy Ghost (although that one was again non human intervention).

          I’m fairly firm in my belief that old or new testament, sin is to be handled by God, and not something humans stand against or for.

          Just IMO, and by God, I’m standing for it! :)

  2. Ever notice how Pastor Hutson’s lisp at 1:25, about Ssssssweet lil’ Ssssstevie is a bit too good? :wink:
    As for getting involved with a woman wearing steel-toed boots, there’s probably a very good reason he wants to stay away from that! :mrgreen:

    1. If you can stomach it, look at the other SFL videos of Tony Hutson preaching (go to the “Search” box at the top of this page, type in “Tony Hutson,” and press “Enter”).

      His mannerisms, body language, and vocal style have never been exactly masculine. I think he’s overcompensating here.

  3. ‘Faithfulness’ used to mean willingness to die for Christ. Is this the same religion? How the mighty are fallen.

    Christian Socialist

  4. Whenever I see one of these bullies gleefully listing the ways in which his disciples can figure out who to beat up on his behalf, I want to introduce him to a lady knight from the SCA and see how long he would last in the lists. To non-members: SCA heavy combat is a martial sport that operates by the honor system. Opponents wear duplicates of real medieval armor that could stand up to real weapons, but use sticks of rattan wrapped in duct tape, which make an impact but generally do not wound. It’s the responsibility of the person struck in combat to acknowledge a blow that would have laid him out if the weapon had been live steel. Well, these pompous farts would either fold up whimpering the first time they took a blow to the help–they’re the hitters, after all, and lesser people are supposed to be the targets–or, more likely, they would turn out to be rhinohides. A rhinohide calls “Light!” after every blow, even if anybody watching can tell that a real blade would have put him in the hospital. It is a customary right of the rhinohide’s opponent to continue delivering heavier and heavier blows–short of actual broken bones!–until she finds one that he will acknowledge. :twisted:

    1. I know a number of SCA ladies who fight heavy weapons and a few rapier fighters. Any one of which has a bigger, better pair than Hudson ever had on his best day.

    2. JI: You nailed it when you said that they’re bullies. Hating gays and lesbians is an accepted form of bullying in fundamentalism. In evangelicalism it’s more muted, but it exists.

      I’m tired of bullying, hatred, and meanness regardless of how it’s packaged. When it comes in the name of God, such behavior is beyond reprehensible.

      1. Are you kidding? Do you even read the Bible? Bullying, hatred and meanness are key features of Christianity. They aren’t weird add-ons concocted by fundies. The recurring theme in the Bible is one of bullying. A superpowerful God constantly kills, maims and torments weak humans when they don’t obey commands or when they hold a mistaken belief. The Bible begins with God levying a death sentence on 2 people for disobeying God, even though they did so when they had no knowledge of right and wrong. And it ends with God sending almost all of humanity into a torture chamber. Where did you ever get the idea that bullying, hatred and meanness weren’t an inherent part of Christianity.

    3. Heh. I was suspecting that you’re SCAdian. :grin:

      I could make a similar argument from the other side- two of the finest men I know are Cooking Laurels, which is to say that they have achieved a level of skill equal to that of the fighting prowess of a knight. One of them is a chef in the real world, and has knife skills that would make Tony Hutson hide under the sofa and whimper. The other one is also a Duke, which means he can kick your ass in the kitchen *and* on the tourney field!

      Hutson and Worley neither one have the manhood to stand up to either of these men. Or to me, for that matter.

    4. Dear Jenny Islander:

      I wish you hadn’t made that post. Because of that, my behavior is more disturbing than usual. I’ve had bouts of laughter all afternoon. That image of Worley being hog-tied and branded by irate women just won’t quit. LOL! There I go again!

      Blessings!

      Christian Socialist

    5. That is certainly true, Jenny. And my wife, who has her carry permit, can put all 12 rounds in the circle at 21″. You are warned. That being said, I reject the premise behind Hutson’s attitude, which is that people – especially men – are to be graded by their ability to exercise power over other people. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the antithesis of the gospel and kingdom of Christ.

        1. its because at that distance an attacker with a contact weapon could reach you before you would realistically be able to draw and shoot your weapon. Its a zone within which you should always be situationally aware.

          there are many techniques for slowing down an attacker’s approach long enough to draw. Many of them can be rather fun to practice. Of course I would recommend you do so with a rubber practice gun or at a safe and supervised range like at an IDPA shoot or something.

          My wife is tiny, and just seeing her come around the corner carrying a 1911 would likely result in the loss of bowel control for a home invader, I crack up when I see her putting rounds through the ten ring with that cannon – she’s a more natural shot than I am, and I am a fairly good shot with a pistol.

          As far as my SCA friends, I reply with my sig from the forum…”hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side”

        2. Yes, but Captain Solo, the point of SCA combat isn’t to actually know how to kill people, it’s to have fun and recreate the good parts of the Middle Ages.

  5. I guess by this guys rationale I am a lesbian because a) I wear blue in the form of blue jeans and b) my class ring is (gasp!) blue!

    1. I wonder if denim jumper count as blue. I swear some of these people have bought stock in whatever company makes them. Or they probably make them themselves, my bad.

  6. I’d like to consider myself a VERY MASCULINE male, and it so happens that I like pink. (I wonder if this means I’ll burn in hell? :roll: )

    Oddly enough the BIBLE doesn’t mention the word pink. Where does he find that pink isn’t for boys. :?:

    The word Blue is mentioned seven times, but never says it’s for boys. :eek:

    The whole idea that pink is a girl color and blue is a boy color is an idea that MAN not GOD came up with, there goes his whole argument. :lol:

  7. I have to agree Pink ain’t for boys….

    She’s a smokin Hawt female and waaaaaayyyyyy too much woman for any boy… and most men! grrrrrrrowllll

  8. “I’m craving Chick-Fil-A praise God.”

    Yes, he seems to crave it a lot. A lot lot. He is a very expansive preacher.

    Call sin sin! Gluttony? Haymen?

    1. I have to ask — what’s up with this Chic-Fil-A? We don’t have them here in Michigan. Why is this place such a big deal?

      1. Sure, you have Chick-Fil-A in Michigan! There’s one in Rochester. :wink:

        Basically, Chick-Fil-A brines their chicken (they used to do it on-site with the dill pickle juice, but now it arrives brined), which creates a moist, delicious product. You will never have a dried-out, stringy piece of Chick-Fil-A chicken.

        You can duplicate it at home by brining a chicken breast overnight in pickle juice, then breading & frying it. Throw it in a bun with a couple dill pickle chips & enjoy!

        1. Rochester is the other side of Michigan for us. Pickle juice? What’s up with pickle juice? Our pastor’s wife used to collect jars of the pickle juice for her potato salad, too.

      2. Hutson was, I believe, making an allusion to recent events involving some comments on marriage by the founder of Chick-Fil-A (Truett Cathy, a professing Christian). The LGBT’s called for a boycott on Chick-Fil-A because Truett said in an interview.

        “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

        Some of his franchises also donate to pro-marriage and pro-family organizations who insist that Biblical marriage is only between a man and a woman.

        There was a “Chick-Fil-A Day,” where those who stood with/by Chick-Fil-A all went to eat there. From open till close, almost every store had standing room only.

        Since then, many extremely conservative Baptist preachers have begun alluding to these events in messages to show their support for Cathy’s stand(s).

        1. “Pro-marriage and pro-family”? If that’s what you call virulent anti-gay hate groups, then yes.

          Cathy didn’t stick to saying he was in favor of marriage. He said some extremely bigoted and hateful things about gay and lesbian people.

          So now whether or not you patronize Chick-Fil-A has become a litmus test about whether or not you support the company’s right-wing political activism (follow the money to see where it stands).

          Before this controversy started, I had never eaten anything from Chick-Fil-A because (1) I don’t like chicken all that much; and (2) I hate misspelled names. But now I have no desire to try it out.

        2. Ahhhh — thanks Just Baptist — ours never touched “delicate” issues unless he had to. The Michael Pearl one he addressed, and at one time he alluded to the 20/20 broadcasts and told us that it was the evil liberal media so basically don’t watch it.

        3. “Pro-marriage” as in “in favor of marriage being restricted to only a certain class of people; all you other consenting adults of sound mind can live without the protections of marriage because you don’t rub genitals correctly.” “Pro-family” as in “Our type of family is good and your type of family is evil, based purely on the number of penises among your parents (1 is good, all other numbers are bad).”

          Disgusting, is what it is.

  9. So you’re a political party, you’re a denomination, you’re a version of the bible , you’re an age of the earth, you’re a haircut…and now, you’re a color.

    When does a person get to just be a person?

    And to follow…how can a man make a living talking to people his beliefs won’t let exist?

  10. But – if real men don’t do laundry, real men do wear red shirts, and the real woman is sick, just had a baby, etc., forcing the real man to do his own laundry – the real man WILL end up with pink underwear, socks, and formerly white shirts! :mrgreen:

    1. That’s funny.

      It just so happens that my wife of twenty years just fired me from ever doing the laundry last night from my failed attempt at “helping” out with the laundry.

      Apparently, according to credible sources close to home, I put differing fabrics in the same load using the softener cup (though I did use the Tide detergent in said cup) which allegedly has adverse affects on some darker fabrics of some of the unmentionables (though no adverse affects were so noted).

      Quite frankly, I believe that separating clothing for washing is overrated, though I know not to put white shirts and red underwear together.

      Good grief, am I really writing this?

      :oops:

      1. “Quite frankly, I believe that separating clothing for washing is overrated, though I know not to put white shirts and red underwear together.”

        Now you see, don’t you, how deceived you wer! That God’s laws of separation even extend to doin’ the laundry! See what happens when you mix them all up in that laundry tub? Why, that’s just like us Christians…er…white…um…well, anyway, you’d better remember this as a life lesson…

        Now if I can just find my proof-text…

        1. Wow, Daylily, I’m speechless:

          It did not occur to me that my laundry woes were theological in nature, and that I was venturing on the path to heresy!

          I can see it now; Separation of the tighty whitey from the black stretchy unmentionable is paramount to the unity within the…uh…body?

          Very clever! :grin:

        2. When I do laundry, we have whites, darks and “pinks”. When my husband does laundry — we have whites, towels, jeans, darks, and “pinks”! He separates better than me! :wink:

        1. Ah, Semp, I discern that you are a man of grammatical and syntactical excellence!

          I used the softener cup to add the detergent to the load, thereby confusing my beloved. But I guess you already knew that!

          My Fundy U degrees have failed me again…

        2. BRO, I discern that you haven’t read the posts where I declare my sin of being one of those awful wimmin you read about. Complete with miniskirts and seven-fingers-below-the-collarbone shirts.

        3. LOL!!!

          It did cross my mind that I may misspeak in that regard. I knew I had a 50-50 chance and liked my odds. :smile:

          Wimmins are better at grammar and syntax fer sher.

  11. I don’t see that it has been noted here, but…

    Pink hasn’t always been a girls’ color. In fact, until 80-100 years ago, the preferred color for little BOYS has been PINK. It was seen so because it is a lighter shade of red- the color of strength, or war, of blood. Hence, a color for a manly man, doing manly things. The meek, weak light blue was for girls.

    Here endeth the history lesson.

    1. I wonder how they explain the pictures of Theodore Roosevelt as a child in a wig and dress? That’s how they took pictures back then, I know, but how would a Fundie explain that one?

      1. I don’t think it’s a wig. Back then, they didn’t cut a little boy’s hair until he was maybe 3-5 years old.

        The earliest picture of my father (who was born in 1927) has him in a long, lacy dress. That’s what they put on both boy and girl babies then– at least out in the country, where his family lived.

        1. Yeah, I know they dressed little boys up for pictures as little girls way back when — what I’m wondering is how guys like Trieber, Schaap, Sexton, and the lot explain that one — why at one time it was o.k., accepted, and expected that pictures of little boys were “frilly”.

  12. NEOIFB! Hilarious true story!
    True story. After I had a massive heart attack, about 5.5 years ago, I moved to
    a small town in northeast Georgia to take a break from pastoring. In the church
    I attended while living there, I witnessed the pastor excoriating a 40 year old “preacher boy” for wearing a tie that had a massive stripe. The next sermon, he dealt with the subject before the entire
    congregation. After church, I politely asked him where he got the conviction that men wearing pink
    was wrong from. He said in I corinthians, we are clearly told that the effeminate shall not inherit the
    kingdom of God! I told him that reference was speaking of those on the receiving end of
    the homosexual act. I shared with him that the phrase “answers of themselves with mankind”
    were those on the giving end. He said that if I wanted to get technical, he already knew that.
    He said it just process his point how wrong it is for men to wear pink. They are identifying with the
    sodomites and may be closet homosexuals themselves. The next sermon was about young
    whipper snappers who demand a scripture verse for every standard. Some things we
    don’t need a verse for, because God tells the preacher and he relays the message to
    The people! I didn’t stay long at that church.

    1. “Some things we
      don’t need a verse for, because God tells the preacher and he relays the message to
      The people! ”

      My former mannogawd said something very similar to this. How dare anyone question the mediator between gid and man.

      :roll:

      1. He was 67 years old at the time, too.
        When we discussed other subjects (such as his extreme views on dispensations, when the NT was first started), he said, he was right because he was the pastor. He said that unless I agreed with him, I couldn’t be right, because how could God tell me something different than what He had already told him! I was prepared to discuss Bible references and even historical books and essays written on these subjects (such as the church fathers) to enhance my understanding of these doctrines, but I wasn’t prepared to roll over and play dead just because he claimed God had personally told him about these doctrines (through the Holy Ghost).
        He also made sure to mention that in a sermon shortly thereafter. Truthfully, though, it didn’t hurt my feelings, because he was the one that actually looked bad, not me.

      1. Why is a young squirt a whippersnapper, anyway?
        Anybody know the etymology of that epithet?
        Did little kids formerly snap whips constantly?

  13. I witnessed this guy go on a rant once about how culottes were nothing more than glorified pants and how a godly woman wouldn’t be caught dead in culottes. He also ranted about men wearing pink. A very faithful, serves-on-a-few-ministries, manly man in our congregation was wearing a pink shirt with his suit. The man just laughed about it. I knew then I was done. I didn’t go back to any more of the services that week and tried to get out of as many I could in following years when he and others like him visited until we finally left. Does he just have a few sermons that he uses everywhere?

    1. Well, Schaap apparently preached the infamous polished shaft sermon on multiple occasions, so it seems like a thing with fundies.

      1. Yep, our pastor would “hint at” culottes were that “sliding scale” moving us closer to that edge of the cliff!

    2. Here’s the quote…
      “If you have to step into them one leg at a time, they are definitely men’s apparel!”
      I have called several preachers on the carpet for making that statement. I reminded them that their wives probably didn’t jump into their pantyhose or their underwear with both legs at the same time, so I reckon that was men’s apparel, too!
      IT didn’t gain me any friends or meetings, but it has made a couple of them evaluate their standards and scale back a little!

      1. I’m glad you said something. They SHOULD evaluate the words they say and the standards they uphold to see if they actually match with Scripture.

      2. There are only 2 ways to NOT step into a skirt one foot/leg at a time. 1 – over the head. 2 – sitting, probably with legs in the air (very unladylike). From a standing position, pulling the skirt on from below, it’s a jump to get both feet in at the same time. Since my shoulders are wider than my hips, and I’m not willing to risk life and limb jumping about and tangling my feet in my skirt, I have almost always put my skirts on one foot at a time, even from a seated position (standing on one foot still risks entanglement and falling over). And, of course, once both feet are in, I can pull it up the rest of the way, much the same way I put on pants, come to think of it.

        This is so ridiculous and shows a complete lack of anything to do with women… :evil:

      3. It makes you wonder if they ever watched their wives get dressed. Are they just going off old Sears lingerie ads in which the women sit demurely with their legs clamped together and both knees pointing off to one side?

  14. I certainly don’t like Tony Hutson, but the bible is very clear on the sin of homosexuality, with NO ambiguity whatsoever!

    1. I believe practicing the homosexual lifestyle is a sin, too, but what does a pink shirt or tie have to do with that?
      The word translated “effeminate” in the KJV means far more than colors, clothing, mannerisms, or speech patterns that are considered “girlish” or wimpy in a particular culture!

      1. “…but what does a pink shirt or tie have to do with that?”

        It doesn’t. It is just greg’s lonely cries from the closet.

    2. Many fundamentalists and other misguided conservatives think that being gay is a sin. The only defensible interpretation from scripture is that some or all acts of gay sex are sinful. Finding oneself emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex is at most a temptation, but clearly not sinful.

      That said, I never expect clarity on this matter from people for whom “homosexuality is a sin” functions as a form of political punditry to prove their Purity of Ideology.

      1. An excellent point, Josh. Nowhere in the Bible is any form of sexual (or other) attraction labeled sinful, unless one chooses to practice gross eisegesis.
        I’m personally less convinced of the all-homosexual-acts-are-sinful arguments than I used to be. I think the Bible is clear that promiscuous homosexual relationships are wrong, but then, I don’t think most people would disagree with that – or try to argue that it’s any different for heterosexual couples. But the mutually loving, nurturing, life-long relationships we see accepted in many Western societies today just were not around back then, so it’s hard to say the Bible speaks authoritatively about them.

        1. “Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered His people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home – these He has kept in darkness, bound with everlastiong chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 5-7

          God uses the perversions of homosexuality as an example to the rest of us!

          The bible could not be clearer regarding the sin of homosexuality~

        2. That’s assuming that what Jude is talking about there is homosexuality. Given the sparse nature of the Genesis account, we don’t know whether the people of Sodom were after the two visitors because they were men, or because they recognized them as something other. Their perversion could well have been angelsexuality.

        3. From Ezekiel 16:
          “49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

          So, the people of Sodom treated their angelic guests in a grossly inhospitable way by trying to gang rape them. And to compare that with, for example, a 15 year old girl who is frightened as she discovers that she’s turned on by girls rather than boys? May it never be!

          If you can’t understand the difference between being gay (not an action, and clearly not a sin), committed monogamous same-sex relationships (under debate, with people who take scriptures seriously on both sides), and gang raping angels, then we’ll just have to let you troll along all alone by yourself.

        4. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraed mind, to do what ought not to be done. they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righeous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Romans 1:26-32

          If you are unable to understand these very plain words of the bible, maybe you can find an illustrated one!

        5. I’m currently taking a graduate level course on Romans taught by one of the most respected Greek New Testament scholars in the world, who also happens to be a theologically conservative evangelical. We went over that passage in great detail. He said there is not enough conclusive evidence to make definite statements about monogamous homosexual relationships. He personally believes it does speak against that, but he admits that there is good textual and cultural evidence to support both sides. (not to suggest there are only two possible views of that passage – just painting with broad strokes for brevity’s sake)
          So, no thank you, I will decline your offer of an illustrated Bible.

        6. Trouble is, Greg, you can be perfectly straight and still commit all the other things, lying, disrespect, cruelty, injustice, etc.
          I’m still brooding on homosexuality, but it can’t be the worst thing on the list. :???:

        7. Greg, have you read chapter 2, talking to believers? Romans2 You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2 And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3 Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? 4 Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

        8. Recovering-I’m not judging or condemning anyone, where in the world are you getting that from? You said “when you say they are wicked and should be punished” I have said NO such thing. I think someone has not only been judging, but making stuff up out of thin air!

          Jeremy – Appreciate your studies, but this passage is very straight forward. I’m not painting with broad strokes, simply believing what I read “in context” with massive amounts of other Scripture!

          Panda Rose – Yes, people can and do commit all the other things on that list, and I realize fundies often make homosexuality the “worst” sin, but the main point I’m trying to make here, is to demonstrate that God’s word is crystal clear about the sin of homosexuality! That’s all! There seems to be a concerted effort by a few here to marginalize or “lessen” this obvious sin. So I’m just standing on God’s word, and pointing out the FACT that the bible is not ambiguous about this sin! Not that’s its the worst sin, or that all homosexuals are going straight to hell, or that all homosexuals mistreat their parents! Or that I’m any better than anyone, homosexual or straight.

          It’s neither kind, loving or Christian to pretend that homosexuality is not a wicked sin!

        9. What credentials do you have in New Testament exegesis, greg? In other words, why should anyone trust you over someone who has literally devoted his entire life to its study and has earned world-wide renowned for his prowess in the area?
          For those curious, I don’t want to come right out and say this scholar’s name, but if you’re at all familiar with Greek textbooks, it’s the author of the big blue one. Ya’ know, THE big blue one.

        10. Recovering-I’m not judging or condemning anyone, where in the world are you getting that from?

          That’s a pile of manure. If greg believes that of himself, he might be fooling himself, he’s not fooling anyone else.

        11. Jeremy – I have no credentials but the blood of Jesus which cleanses me from all sin. I neither venerate men with educations nor denigrate them, it would certainly seem that you are “venerating” this simple, sinful scholar! I would warn you that’s not a good path to follow.

          It’s because men followed other men that we get all sorts of un-biblical philosophies, like calvinism!

        12. So in other words, greg, you admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are relying on your own assumptions without any scholarship to back it up. Remember, Jesus commands us to worship God with our minds – he gave us brains, and he wants us to use them.
          For another thing – you say my professor is sinful. What are you? You’re not any less sinful, yes? So why should anyone follow your views, from a sinful non-scholar, as opposed to the one I’m sharing from a sinful scholar?

        13. As a scholar, admittedly a sinful one, I have to say that I rather choke on the arguments made against education.

          And as a note, there is no greater sign of a fundamentalist mindset than the willingness to eschew education and scholarship. “I don’t follow men” is a pat answer and a transparent lie. All of us follow quite a few people. We get our ideas from somewhere. And contrary to what some may claim, no, the Holy Spirit does not put *THE* Truth into our hearts. If He did, there would not be the great division within Christianity.

          “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” God complains.

          The fact is that there are *facts* that exist. You may have your own opinions. You may not have your own *facts*. If I, a person who does not know the Greek, make assertions about the Greek Text, then I am a fool.

          On the other hand, if I make assertions about mathematics, a subject I know a good deal about, it might be a good idea for other people to listen and learn.

          For Christians to make assertions about science, about history, or about any other subject which are not true is a shame to those thinking they are on the side of *THE TRUTH*. Truth is not supported by lies and ignorance.

          To be proud of being ignorant is perhaps the worst mark of a fundamentalist. And it is right and good that the gospel of the ignoramuses be ridiculed and ignored. Get the Gospel from those who are known to be honest and truthful, actually living a godly life and are not speaking evil about things they know nothing about.

          My experience is that those who shout “I just believe the Bible” know the least about it. Their ignorance is palpable.

          And yes, I cheerfully admit that ignorance so appalls me that had I been in the Garden with Adam and Eve, I would have beaten them both to the Tree of Knowledge.

        14. Greg, it is clear that you do not understand what “homosexuality” means in the modern context, and what the Greek words that were translated that way meant in the NT era, so why should I listen to you? People like you – not the Bible itself – are why several young people I know have rejected the faith. That is a fact.

        15. I’m often mystified how conservative Christians’s comments can get so turned around, and indeed, attacked at SFL. This was a thread about a nutty fundie talking about homosexuality. There were more than a few comments appearing to negate or lighten this perverse sin. My entry into the conversation was to establish to these particular folks that this perverse sin is clearly documented as sin, and that the bible was very clear in this regard.

        16. Except that it’s not nearly as clear as you make it out to be, greg. Yes, the Bible is clear that promiscuous homosexual activity is sin. But then, it’s clear that promiscuous heterosexual activity is sin. Whether or not monogamous homosexual activity is sinful or not is much, much less clear.

        17. And what is absolutely, 100% completely clear is that being gay (that is, finding oneself attracted to members of one’s own sex or gender) is not even mentioned in the Bible, and is clearly not something about which one should be ashamed.

        18. “I don’t follow men” is a pat answer and a transparent lie. All of us follow quite a few people. We get our ideas from somewhere. And contrary to what some may claim, no, the Holy Spirit does not put *THE* Truth into our hearts. If He did, there would not be the great division within Christianity.

          ^This

        19. Being gay and “acting on it” is a distinction without a difference. Just sophistry and BS to make believers feel better about their hatred.

  15. The best part of this video is the first guy on his right (that’s our left). His expressions through the whole thing was were cracking me up.

  16. And my Dad wears pink and I’d love to see him tell my dad that. My dad is more of a man than he would ever dream of being. He also said in an older video that preachers are to wear only white shirts. . .as in have white collars, Dr. Hutson?!

    1. Believe it or not, my former pastor started wearing only white shirts with his suits when he preached because some preacher he worshipped said that if you wear a shirt with any color other than white, you might offend visitors. (Or someone could find fault with you or something like that.) He heard it from Hyles or Trieber or someone from that circle of fundamentalism. I was still in the church and remember thinking how sad it was to be enslaved like that. But then, that’s what fundamentalism is all about.

    1. Most likely a pastors conference. Youth conferences have lots of theme backdrops/scenery. There’s only a sign behind him.

  17. Hey, Big Gary! If you can step into your lower apparel with both legs at the same time, it must be women’s apparel disguised as men’s clothing. How cunning of Satan! I believe the Bible deals with this wile of the devil when it says (and I paraphrase), “Even Satan himself transforms his preferred apparel into the apparel Of light so that even the very elect might be deceived, if it were possible.”
    Many today have been “corrupted from their simplicity which is in Christ (two legged garments in a manly color = men’s apparel / one rather wide legged garment in a more feminine color =women’s apparel!).”

  18. O.k. so I know this has NOTHING to do with the whole who wears pink and who wears blue thing, but a “thought” popped into my head.

    Our pastor would never dare preach a “prosperity Gospel” because churches that do are the big evangelical mega churches, and we wouldn’t want that “stigma”. [sarcasm]

    Looking back, what our pastor did was a twist on the prosperity Gospel. He didn’t dare stand up there and say that if you give, God will bless you, but what he DID say was that God would get his 10% one way or another — by you giving it joyfully or through the mechanic or the dentist or the roof repair. He didn’t dare try to preach prosperity, but what he preached was you better give or God’s gonna punish you!

    He even went as far as to say that even if your heart wasn’t in it, you still needed to be obedient and EVENTUALLY your heart would be in it — that God wanted a “joyful giver” but more importantly He wanted an “obedient giver”.

    1. Well, there goes the Bible. The Pastor needed to correct the Apostle Paul, I suppose. “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7 KJV)

      1. I just realized that I only ever heard the “God loveth a cheerful giver” part. I never heard it with the rest of the verse in context. Eye-opening!

    2. My former p(ass)tor said the same thing, as if he was threatening you to give. Plus, it made God look to be very inefficient. After all, making me pay the mechanic or plumber didn’t do anything for the church.

      You wouldn’t happen to be from Michigan? Maybe we had the same MOG.

      1. Pblawman:Y

        YES, I am from southwestern Michigan! Our p(ass)tor used to always say, “well, I’m just a dumb farm boy, but I’m dumb enough to believe the Bible.” He was always trying to convince us of his “impeccable reputation” too!

        1. “dumb enough to believe the Bible”… that might not come out the way he thought. I am no atheist, but I can just hear some of them smirking, Yeah, you believe in a collected series of stories written about a mythical Bronze Age god. :roll:
          Granted, the Bible is a pretty deep book, but I doubt that’s what he means.

        2. I’m not from Michigan but my dad is; he used to get ragged for having an “M Go Blue!” sticker with Ohio plates. :razz: :roll:

        3. “well, I’m just a dumb farm boy, but I’m dumb enough to believe the Bible.”

          Ahhhh, another Acts 4:13a qualified pulpiteer.

          Acts 4:13a
          Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned* and ignorant* men…

          *emphasis mine

        4. I tell ya, Don, for being a “dumb old farm boy”, he sure could think fast on his feet — just like a lawyer!

        5. Con Artistry 101: Bamboozlement tactics

          Play dumb and rule from feigned ignorance. It’s the “Aw, Shucks” ploy. “I may not know much, but ( because of the implied authority of the Pastoral Position) I am the mouthpiece of God….”

          I am more convinced than ever that pastoring in a single-ruler IFB Church is the greatest con-game on the face of the earth. It is a game of Egos, fueled by false humility in search of personal power and fame. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, (and I’ll be generous) I do not believe that 1 in a 1000 that populate IFB pulpits (or any Single ruler template administration) around the world are qualified to be there other than on their own personal say-so, a.k.a. The Call™.

        6. I may be totally naive here, and PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong — I was only in an IFB for 14 years so I’m still a novice — but it seems to me that over time, the devil finds whatever the weakness is in that pastor. In other words, I don’t believe that they start out corrupt — well, Schaap might be the exception to that rule, I’m not 100% convinced he was ever innocent — but the devil knows what they’re “chink in the armor is” and works on it — whether it be sexual as in the case of Hyles, Schaap and Greg Baker or greed in the case of the “dumb old farm boy” we sat under or the pride of Trieber saying to the missionaries — “do it my way or no support” — he works and works and works until that pastor either conquers their thorn in the flesh or they give in to their thorn in the flesh.

        7. Dragonwing, the way I see it, having unchecked power and no accountability amplifies anybody’s vices or character flaws.

          Which is probably another way of saying the same thing.

        8. Don’t you think, Dragonzwing14, that this problem might be solved, or at least kept in check, by accountability? My former pastor was accountable to no except God – at least that’s what he’d tell us. And his pride got the better of him, causing at least two major church splits.

        9. Oh, I agree 1,000% Daylily — the ENTIRE problem as to why the devil can prey on IFB pastors is because there is no hierarchy, there is no checks and balances; and if your IFB is anything like mine was the “old timers” just say, “Hay men Preacher — whatever you want, we’ll follow!” BLIND KOOL AID drinkers!

          When we first started going there, King Tommy used to always say to check everything against the Bible — to not just believe him; to search the Scriptures. Then somewhere, he stopped saying that, and his messages became more judgmental and less “loving” and more “intolerant” of others and differences. Then when the embezzlement broke out, he actually had visiting missionaries and pastors telling us that we had a bad spirit. At the couple’s retreat, Pastor Scott Souther actually preached, and I have the recording: “If you have a non-tither in your church that could be the reason someone gets cancer.” I am a 5-year survivor this October 21! This was preached in 2010, and this guy’s wife has had 2 flare ups with breast cancer and finally had a bilateral mastectomy!

        10. The guy who thinks not tithing causes cancer is the one whose wife had cancer?

          That is sad on so many levels I can’t even bear to think about it.

        11. YES! AND HE said that at our couple’s retreat KNOWING I was a 2-year survivor! His wife was actually still wearing at wig at this time after Bought #1 and treatments #1!

        12. This was the same time our pastor was dealing with all us “rebellious people” who wouldn’t just accept that the head Deacon’s daughter embezzled somewhere between $35,000 and 75,000!

          We were certain that the entire couple’s retreat was geared on getting us on board or out of the church!

        13. I so hate that whole “God will send you _________ if you don’t _________” mentality. What kind of petty god do these people serve?

          When my husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, several people told me not to “own” the cancer by speaking about it aloud. Huh? Someone even said that we needed to speak to the disease and command it to leave his body? Huh, again?

          We opted for surgery, chemo, & radiation. And yes, we are Christians who believe in prayer. But our prayers are directed toward God, not the cancer.

        14. Yeah! Exactly Daylily! When I was diagnosed with cancer, we prayed, and God answered our prayers — I was able to go through surgeries, chemo, radiation, more surgeries, and still continue my day-to-day life and be a true testimony to God. I just kept putting one foot in front of the other and just kept trusting God. There was no magic cure, the only “magic” was the doctors and surgeons God put in my path to help me through it!

        15. We have the same story. Our testimony is that you can trust God, even in the dark. And having cancer, or being married to someone with cancer is dark. You lose all control over your life; it is taken over by something eating you from the inside. It’s one thing to know that “someday” everyone dies. It’s quite another to have your mortality staring you in the face.

          So we prayed and committed our lives and the outcome of it all to God.

          I just don’t think God is a big sugar daddy in the sky handing out health & prosperity to the good little boys and girls and sickness to the disobedient ones.

          Sometimes life is hard. But you get up every day, brush your teeth, get dressed, and face it. With the help and courage of a sovereign, loving God.

        16. Daylily said:

          “When my husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, several people told me not to “own” the cancer by speaking about it aloud. Huh? Someone even said that we needed to speak to the disease and command it to leave his body? Huh, again?”

          :shock:

          That’s classic ‘Word of Faith’ theology, and it is HERESY.

  19. Just wondering…Who do you have to be or What do you to do to earn (what I’m sure is a coveted) seat on the platform looking at the backend of that.

        1. When MY teachers made someone sit up at the front of the classroom, it wasn’t for the honor of it.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>