380 thoughts on “Perfect Hatred”

  3. Ok, last comment and I will be good for a while. This guy is a nut. He had a “conversation” with James White, who was so patient with Steve even though Steve acted like a nut. James got so fed up with his nuttiness that he left before the interview ended.

    1. “…. acted like a nut”
      Steven Anderson doesn’t act. He is the real McCoy.

  4. Never heard of Bruce Jenner? Lie
    Wow – just burn the NT and be done

    2. if Steve does find the real Jesus, he might be surprised at what He is like. Personally I’m not sure Steve would recognise Him.

      1. I don’t think that Steven Anderson would like the real Jesus very much. The real Jesus said to love your enemies. The real Jesus taught us to forgive others as we want to be forgiven. If ever he prayed the Lord’s Prayer, this sermon has begged the Lord to send him, Steven Anderson, to hell as well.

        I suppose we need foolish people like Steven Anderson to remind us of what we could have been like had we remained in fundamentalism. I do believe I could have descended to the depths, as it were. Steven shows us that the depths are pretty scary.

        1. Maybe the reason most churches no longer recite the Lord’s Prayer anymore is that they don’t believe a word of it.

        2. I commented yesterday and I firmly believe that he is the modern day Lawyer Jesus mentioned who bind heavy burdens on men, and whom Jesus condemned in Matthew 7 saying “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

        3. @StuartB: No longer–

          I just–

          Which churches are even doing this?! Is there some stated reason for NOT praying as Jesus directed? If so, what is it?

        4. Jenny – I know we never said the Lord’s Prayer in my fundy church. The only mention of it that I recall was a sermon where the pastor supposedly proved (word-by-word) that the Catholics have it all wrong.
          And that was one of many things that at first bugged, and then pushed me out of the IFB; the Lord’s Prayer is Jesus’ direct response to his disciples’ question as to how should we pray? Fundies claim to believe every word of the Bible but they ignore so much of it. And in this case, because the Lord’s Prayer is always said at a Catholic Mass, the words are actually criticized.

        5. Jesus’ instruction to pray the Lord’s Prayer actually strikes me as one of the least ambiguous things in the whole Bible.

        8. Bob M: I firmly agree! Steve is diametrically opposed to the gospel. He’s a wolf without sheep’s clothing. See any fruit in his life? “… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.…” Galatains 5:22 & 23

        9. “Jesus’ instruction to pray the Lord’s Prayer actually strikes me as one of the least ambiguous things in the whole Bible.”

          Exactly. You can’t get much more clear than “When you pray, say:” Fundies don’t like it because it’s “too Catholic?” Fundies are wayyyy more Catholic than they realize. I find that rather comical.

      2. Hopefully in the right place this time:

        My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

        Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

        1. We did memorize the Lord’s prayer, but we rarely said it aloud in church, primarily, as you said, because of the antipathy toward rote prayer or liturgical worship.

          It was a little strange for me to go to Bob Jones University and hear a creed recited every day in chapel and the Lords prayer recited quite often, primarily before special events like a play.

          I’m only going to put this comment down once not after all your posts! 🙂

        2. We were told that the Lord’s Prayer was not for us. It was for people before Jesus died, not the Church. I just bought it. Now that I am actually thinking, that makes no sense. If the old testament was still valid, any bit of it, then surely the Lord’s Prayer was…..

        3. Dispensationalism. I remember it well. Nothing of what Christ said or did is relevant to the Church, only His death. The rest is Law, not Grace. I, too, bought it. Hook, line, and stinker.

          But if it was good enough for Jesus, then perhaps I’d better pay attention to it and not to those who would try to separate the sacrifice of Christ from His Life.

        4. My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

          Too Romish?

          Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there.

          Yes, you have to say the Incantation exactly word-for-word or the Magickal Working will fizzle or backfire.

        5. Miriam and rtgmath, yes! That was the reasoning: anything prior to Christ’s death and resurrection was kingdom-related; the Jews rejected the kingdom so God moved on to the church age, thus negating all the kingdom preaching. Once in a while I was uncomfortable with that when I realized that implications of what that meant — that we were discounting the very words of our Savior, the One Whom we were supposed to be following. However, since they DID usually quote Jesus’ words, I didn’t always notice that they also conveniently excused things He said that were difficult or challenging or contrary to our IFB separatist stance.

          It was only a couple of years ago that I realized that this statement from Jesus, made AFTER His resurrection, might have combated that mindset: “”Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Mt. 28:19-20)

          Now, of course, they could say that the church hadn’t begun yet, but that would mean that Jesus’ command was only valid for a couple weeks which doesn’t make sense, especially since He told them to go into all the world, which would definitely take a long time, meaning that He made no exception for ignoring His words.

      3. Hopefully in the right place this time:

        My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

        Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

      4. Hopefully in the right place this time:

        My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

        Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

      5. Hopefully in the right place this time:

        My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

        Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

      6. Hopefully in the right place this time:

        My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

        Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

        1. … Okay, I’m just going to step away from my browser in shame now and come back for my ridicule and public mocking later.

    3. Ditto! This was so disturbing. Clearly this is not a man who knows what grace and mercy are.

  7. The scariest thing for me about Steve Anderson, is he would have been the lunatic fringe back before the Internet. But now, with a worldwide audience, everyone gets to hear his “views.” He can’t just be written off as the nut job he is.

    1. He’s still a nut job.
      But it’s true that nut jobs now have larger megaphones.

    2. “…. He would have been part of the lunatic fringe….”

      Lunatic – certainly. Always was. Always will be. He seems to be getting worse.
      Fringe – where exactly is the “fringe” of Fundystan? Fringe and Mainstream seem curiously interchangeable a lot of the time.
      The Internet can be a double-edged sword. It can expose the lunacy of the Andersons of the world, to well-deserved mockery and ridicule. But it can also expose more people to the influence of that lunacy, and vulnerable or impressionable people may fall for it. Freedom of Speech is also double-edged. Anderson and others like him use it to spread their beliefs, but if they gained sufficient power, Freedom of Speech would cease to exist.

      1. The only difference is really rhetoric. The things that Al Mohler (for example) says about Jenner, The Gays, etc., are essentially what Anderson says, just couched in different language. I’m not really sure there is a fringe.

  8. You know, all I can think is that I hope Caitlyn Jenner gets saved, because man would that be awkward for Steve.

    Which is all the wrong reason to hope for somebody’s salvation, but still. I want to be the fly on the wall when he hears about it and a gigantic hole is punched in his idea that God is his personal hit man.

        1. It takes all kinds to make a complete body. While it’s difficult for me to understand the mindset of someone like Bruce/Caitlyn, I don’t remember God telling me that I should stop loving and/or praying for someone.

    2. I believe she is an evangelical Christian in the charistmatic tradition. She is also a Republican and a conservative. I don’t know people’s destiny, but I have no reason to believe she isn’t a Christian.

      1. That too. I just was picturing the scenario. Because watching Steve Anderson’s brain melt down would be so… Rewarding.

        2. It would also possibly break a fair number of minds if someone showed him that recent statistic of just how many LGBT people in the ‘millenials are fleeing the church’ generation end up staying.

          Turns out that if someone doesn’t internalize the ‘Jesus must hate you if he didn’t answer those prayers to change this about you’ message and doesn’t blame God for what men say or do, you can end up with someone for whom Jesus is the friend who knows about the darkest moments no one else gets told about and didn’t leave.

          Some of the most ‘I will follow Jesus wherever He leads me’ devout Christians I know are LGBT people who don’t currently believe God has a problem with that part of who they are.

        3. “Jesus is the friend who knows about the darkest moments no one else gets told about and didn’t leave.”
          This is so good <3

  11. Well, we can call Anderson out as a false preacher of Belial. And we can ridicule him for having the intellectual fortitude and ethical charisma of a particularly egregious garden snail. And we would be right in our observations. But at the end of the day, he is a small tin soldier screaming into the corner of the toy box while all the children play outside. He isn’t worth the attention.

    1. I feel like he represents fundamentalism on crack (metaphorically… probably). What he teaches would be fundamentalism taken to its logical conclusion, to its logical extreme. If his extremism helps anyone to see errors in fundamentalism as a whole, then something good has come out of something evil.

      1. Never mind “Fundamentalism on Crack”.

        Fundamentalism on BATH SALTS.

    2. “All the children here [in Stevo’s congregation]…

      Both the children here…

      I fixed that for him.

      1. Steve and Zsuzsana have eight kids (birth control is another thing he hates).
        I think they are the majority of his congregation.

        3. Zsuzsana.

          Indigo Child Trendy Name Spelling.
          Or Old School DC Superhero Comics fan parents.
          Do I need to say more?

  12. Paul addressed some in the Corinthian church who had been “perverts” and said, “…such were some of you, but now ye are washed, now ye are sanctified.”
    No matter how wicked the person, if we believe he/she doesn’t know Christ, it is our duty to pray for his/her salvation.
    That’s Bible, Mr Anderson!

    1. Dear Just Baptist:

      That is precisely the kind of question Mr. Anderson’s members ought to be asking…

      It is also worth nothing how the Romans passage to which he seemingly alludes functions within the canon. Paul’s burden is to show in Ro 1-2 that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, since all have done the same thing.

      Deplorable as are his screeds, it is because of heresy of the word for which Mr. Anderson ought to be censured and –unless he repents — excommunicated from the church.

      It is not the so-called ‘fundamentalism’ but the refusal to enact faithful, ecclesiastical discipline that marks such associations as no true church of Jesus Christ.

      Christian Socialist

    4. A person who believes both that there is a God, and that the scriptures, as properly translated and understood, are authoritative, could easily reach the following conclusions: Since both President Barack Obama and Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner are still alive,
      1.) Steve doesn’t have much power with God, and God is ignoring him and/or
      2.) God is infinitely more merciful than Steve.

  13. “The kids in this country are seeing this freak and having their minds ruined permanently…”?!? Really? Ruined permanently?

    *sees Caitlyn Jenner. IQ drops 50 points.*

    Oh, wait, that’s how I feel watching this video.

    Plus, unless Anderson has a trans individual in his congregation (I sincerely hope not and thankfully doubt it), this is utterly wasted sermon.
    Ultimate preaching to the choir.

    1. And anybody who supports Jenner is a danger to children, because they’ll grow up confused about their sexual orientation. Thank God at least Kim Kardashian escaped that horrible fate!

    2. What size is his congregation? I know that there are a lot of Christians who struggle with sexually/gender issues, same as non-christians (I know a few) and I would say that in any normal church congregation of more than a hundred and fifty there could be at least one person, probably Christian, who struggles. So how would Steve’s vile screeds make them feel? Would he draw them closer to Christ? Of course Fundy congregations are seldom normal. Steve’s congregation certainly is NOT, so I guess the concept of showing the Love of God to sinners doesn’t really apply.

      1. I’ve never been there in person, but my impression is that Steve Anderson’s congregation is his immediate family plus the occasional visitor.

  14. Five bucks says Steven Anderson puts on ladies’ clothes when he thinks no one is looking.

      1. . . . Um . . . Yep. And there’s the old saying, “The louder the protest, the weaker the argument.”

        1. Yup, he “doth protest too much”. (Not KJV, it’s Shakespeare of course.)

        2. And of course having eight kids is not in any way a pathetic attempt to prove how virile, masculine, and definitely not gay – not even a lititle bit – one is!

        1. I would ask the straight folks to take him back, because we LGBT folk sure as heck don’t want him, but nobody deserves that kind of punishment!

        5. So those who follow the Olde Paths should dress boys in pink and girls in blue.
          We might have guessed.

    6. I want to point something out in relation to your comment. It seems that “usually” when someone preaches with anger against homosexuality that someone in the comments wants to say that the preacher is a closet homo.
      I’m aware that you didn’t say homo. I’m also aware that transgender doesn’t mean gay.
      But by saying that someone is a closet homosexual or closet transgender isn’t a jab at these churches of hate. It’s a jab at the LGBT community as a whole.
      Here’s the scenario played out in short:
      Joe: “I hate homosexuals!”
      Fred: “Joe is probably a closet gay.”
      The conclusion is that people filled with hate are probably gay. Seriously, why can’t the credit of hatred be given to the group the person says they represent in the first place? Instead, I believe the deep-seeded predisposition is revealed when we mock someone by calling them a closet gay. And that predisposition is that we’re actually homophobes ourselves when we make comments like that.
      Now, feel free to gang up on me for expressing my opinion.

      1. Because on a number of well-publicized occasions, an outspokenly anti-gay preacher or politician turned out to be a little light in his loafers, if you’ll pardon the expression. Either they were deep in denial, or homophobia had become a kind of kink for them. Now I realize that this is not very statistically rigorous, and that Anderson’s eight children are a compelling argument for his heterosexuality (though who knows what kind of panties he’s wearing). But the possibility of karmic justice is too delicious to let go.

        1. Either they were deep in denial, or homophobia had become a kind of kink for them.

          Or they were, didn’t want to be, and were self-medicating by convincing themselves they weren’t and/or were attacking the part of them they opposed wherever they could see it. Like Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich being part-Jewish.

          And if that doesn’t work, Double Down and Scream Louder.

      2. I’m not going to shout you down for expressing your opinion, but I do want to point out that there is some science on the side of “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

        I wouldn’t say that it’s definitive, but the study discussed in this article is an example of what’s been observed:

        http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4040

        1. Wow, that report is really interesting.
          As Josh says, it’s far from being the last word on the subject, and I don’t know about the study’s methodology, but it’s an eye-opener nonetheless.

        1. Dear MiriamD:

          Thank you for this. ‘Miriam_D’ is the spouse of a cousin of mine and also resides in Canada [NB]. Since you posted some time ago that you are Canadian, I’ve been unable to shake the wondering if … well … you know. So, this helps. Thank you!

          Christian Socialist

        2. I know that feeling CS 🙂 I sometimes wonder if I am not related to some SFLer or another.

      4. “Now feel free to gang up on me for my opinion.”

        Now why should we do that? We may disagree with you — and I do — but that doesn’t mean I want to pummel you for it. After all, you expressed your opinion with a certain amount of respect and grace.

        So no. I am not inclined to hit at you. Your opinion is yours. Here’s mine.

        We tend to hate what we fear. Fear comes from several sources — not knowing what change will bring is one. Misunderstanding is another. And then there is unacknowledgeable attraction. That turns out to be a biggie.

        It isn’t that hatred indicates you are gay. But you might well wish to be able be or do what you are currently afraid of. I used to fear math. Really. Yes, really! I used to be very bad at it. But I took it because I was afraid and wanted to get over that fear.

        It turns out that lots and lots of times those who are making a big issue out of some sin others do are hiding some big sins of their own. By focusing on the sins of others they deflect focus on their own lives, or at least they think they do. People like to make themselves look good by tearing down others. Those who do that usually are hiding some major sins.

        So it may not be that hatred indicates they are gay. But it may indicate there is an aspect to their sexuality that they believe is sinful and they are trying hard to deny it. That Duggar fellow? He was so hopped up against LGBT people that finding out he has a pedophile not-too-distant past isn’t all that surprising!

        And when someone suggests that some anti-gay hatemonger is a closet gay, that isn’t suggesting it is somehow wrong for that person to *be* gay. What is wrong is for them to be condemning in others the very thing that in themselves. As is often the case, it isn’t the “crime,” it’s the coverup.

        I think Steven Anderson has something big, Big, BIG in his past or character that he is absolutely terrified someone will find out about. But that terror is winding up drawing attention to himself that he doesn’t like. So he is trying harder to deny it. Something is there. It will come out.

        So that is my explanation. That didn’t hurt too much, did it?

        1. And when someone suggests that some anti-gay hatemonger is a closet gay, that isn’t suggesting it is somehow wrong for that person to *be* gay. What is wrong is for them to be condemning in others the very thing that in themselves.

          This hits the nail on the head, in my view.

        2. Right. It’s not that it’s bad to be gay, it’s that it’s bad to be a hypocrite.

          Suppose I’m always ranting about how disgusting Canadians are, and then it turns out I’m a closeted Canadian. Same principle.

        3. Just put on your lumberjack shirt and own up to being a Canadian. It’s not that bad, lol.

        4. Interestingly, I’m currently working on applying for dual citizenship. My dad was born and raised in Canada, so legally I’m entitled. Not planning to emigrate- at the moment at least- but it will be nice to have the option.

        6. 🙂 I’m well aware of how awesome Canadians are. Most of Dad’s family are still up there. Awesome people, most of them still Mennonite. I adore my aunties. I love the overall reputation of Canadians as unfailingly polite, and would not mind being associated with it. 🙂

      5. Not necessarily. It’s fine to be gay, trans, or whatever. I’d put it somewhere on the same scale as being left handed, having red hair, or not liking cheese. But when people go on about how much they hate it, with so much passion and anger, it’s possible that they are hiding something – that they are the thing they despise, and that they are causing hurt because they are redirecting their own pain. That’s hypocrisy. But it’s also a tragedy, and calls for pity, love and forgiveness. Those who spew forth hatred like this probably, deep down, need a good cry and a cuddle from a burly father-figure. That might help them to accept themselves more, and so to be more accepting of others.

      2. I have just sent a link to the Email address on the Faithful Word Baptist Church website

        1. Dear Paul Best:

          Faithful Word Baptist Church
          Hateful Slurred Fascist Smirch

          Christian Socialist

      1. With Dr. Scott one could imagine that he was having us all on- spewing nonsensical crap while winking at the camera.

        This man of evil? I have no doubt he believes every word of the foul refuse that he says.

    3. Such an example of the love of God! Anderson seems so violently opposed to/afraid of things not exactly like himself, without making any effort to understand them. Why?

      1. Maybe it’s related to how he keeps yelling about the Bible without making any effort to understand it?

  17. Dear Steve:

    ‘..evangelist of sodomy and filth to the world…’

    At the risk of being profoundly misunderstood, that sounds eerily like the Savior of the world.

    ‘…evil, filthy animal that is destroying the morals of our country …’

    More or less so than bombing the hell out of Yemen? Oh, and how is bombing the hell out of one of the poorest countries on the planet ‘moral?’ And that animal thing — isn’t that contradicted by our creation in God’s image? Your ‘theology’ is rather shoddy, don’t you think, Steve?

    Were you trained to determine the gender of a true hermaphrodite … er … intersex individual? In either case, how would you make that determination?

    Since Scripture mentions neither Caitlyn nor Bruce, how did you learn of said person’s reprobation?

    When was Jesus ever lost to need finding? If saved, were you ever as lost as this person?

    Has anyone ever called you on your claim to be a loving person? If so, what did you do? If they stood their ground, were you angry? Did you want to hit that person?

    If people must achieve some level of righteousness before entering your church, on what ground do you deny preaching works?

    What if the good news is not that you get to receive Jesus into your life? What if the good news is that by Jesus’ incarnation, we are already accepted into the life of God? Could you live with that, Steve? Could you live with a religion that left you with no ground for gratifying fleshy, self-righteous indignation?

    Christian Socialist

    PS: Dear SFL Readers: Granting that we are not prophets, what future for Steve is easiest for you to see?

    A] Become a salesman on a used car lot?
    B] Be caught in some homoerotic act?
    C] Be treated for psychiatric illness?
    D] Be charged for physical assault?
    E] Stand trial for committing murder?
    F] ________________________ other?

      1. All except A if there was a chance that he would be asked to sell a car to Caitlin Jenner or any “homo”. All the rest are very possible, even probable

      1. Unfortunately, [C] should probably be happening already. But since mental illness is a sin to many fundamentalists, it’s unlikely to ever actually happen.

    3. Fundamentalism claims to preach Grace, but they deny Grace in their dealings with everyone but themselves. For all others they demand works.

      1. This ^^ is what wore me out in the IFB. The only time grace is extended is to the sinner who is just about to walk the aisle. “Come as you are.” Then you find out you’ve been duped into a religion that acts like we can stop sinning (It’s the least we could do for Jesus since he died on the cross for us). Above all, we must keep up appearances.

  18. Steve wants to see him die and go to hell? Looks like he forgot about his own sins against God, and made me think about
    Matthew 18:23-35

      1. It is odd, though. I am not one to “sin level”, but the bottom line is that if Caitlyn should be thrown into hell for her innocuous gender choice, then so should Anderson for the ten commandments he broke in that video above. I make fun of Anderson because he a foul beast and deserves to be mocked, but I also feel sorrow for him. There is not a shred of evidence that he is a follower of Christ.

    2. Actually fake trees seem appropriate for Steve’s brand of Fundamentalism. Replace real trees with real fruit for artificial trees and wax fruit.

  20. The more I see of people like Steven Anderson, the more I am unable to believe in the God they represent.

    No, I am not at a place of unbelief. I just can’t believe God is like the Conservatives and Fundamentalists imagine. Nor can I see God as being as the Bible describes Him, at least in a lot of areas.

    The problem is that the Bible, in recording how different people understood and interacted with God, imbued God with human flaws. “Perfect Hatred” certainly conflicts with “God so loved the world” and “God is not willing that any should perish.” But then there is the vision of John in the Revelation paired with Isaiah of Christ trodding on His enemies splattered with their blood.

    Why on earth should God need to indulge in *that* kind of barbarity to “judge” sinners?

    I don’t have a problem so much with God judging the world and judging sinners as the manner in which it is said to be done — and the fact that God seems perfectly content to let wicked people represent Him in the here and now.

    1. I don’t believe in Steven Anderson’s God, either.
      Nor does he believe in mine– the one who loves everyone.

      1. Well you’re ridiculous and you’ve made you’re own God. At least Anderson preaches out of the bibke . Hosea 9 clearly says that God HATES the edomites and that he would LOVE THEM NO MORE. Read it for yourself. But youvery made your own God that looks like you. Making God in your image. What a joke

        2. Dear Pete (I am almost certain you won’t read or respond to this),
          Your objection would be given more credibility if, instead of launching an attack, you asked questions. For example: “If you believe God doesn’t hate, then why does Hosea 9 reference his hatred toward the Edomites?”

          You have also made a god that looks like you, in your image – A Hater.

        5. “At least Anderson preaches out of the Bible.”Yep. The Old Testament.
          Steve, is that you?

        6. Pete, I’ve read Hosea 9 myself. No mention of edomites.

          Speaking of making our own god…

          How many times does your god allow us to sin before he stops loving us?

        7. I just re-read Hosea 9. It does not mention Edom or Edomites, nor does it mention hatred.
          It does contain some dire warnings, especially for the tribe of Ephraim, but I don’t really see what that has to do with transgendered people.

        8. And if we continue reading out of this delightfully incendiary Hosea 9, we find Hosea 11. From there to the end of the book, the text speaks of forgiveness and compassion. I would love to hear the Anderson crowd give a considered exegesis of the entire book, but I won’t hold my breath.

        9. Pete, while Hosea 9 says nothing about Edom, it did have something to say about Israel that I thought interesting.

          Verse 7
          The days of visitation are come,
          the days of recompense are come;
          Israel shall know it:
          the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad,
          for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.
          Verse 8
          The watchman of Ephraim was with my God:
          but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways,
          and hatred in the house of his God.
          Verse 9
          They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah:
          therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins.

          Did you recognize one of the Great Sins mentioned here? Hatred. Hatred corrupts.

          So thank you for the reference.

    2. Dear rtgmath:

      Mr. Anderson ‘remade’ [a] ‘god’ in Steve’s own image and then announced himself as god’s prophet.

      Wicked people don’t represent God; they misrepresent God.

      John created a symbolic world to refurbish Christian imagination with an alternative vision-message to that etched on minds by imperial; this may suggest a reading of various passages which allow elevated theological rumination for many parts of the Revelation.

      Fundamentalist Christology is inherently Gnostic. It pays the incarnation lip service but has no real grasp of its theological meaning to make that affirmation meaningfully correct.

      Christ did not embrace the world in the first place by his death on the cross; Christ’s embraced us first in his vicarious humanity by his conception-incarnation.

      Fundamentalism separates Jesus’ person from Jesus’ work. Fundamentalism created this schizophrenic savior to create a job for itself as the mediator of the ‘Mediator.’ Since fundamentalism itself is now the mediatorial bridge between Jesus’ person and his work, salvation is not found outside fundamentalism. Fundamentalism alone brings you to Christ, and to abandon it is to abandon faith in ‘Christ’ and obedience to God’s kingdom.

      Fundamentalism no longer believes the incarnation in any Biblical sense. Even if it articulates core parts of Chalcedonian theology, it seldom does so with understanding. Fundamentalism is based largely on the denial of the soteriological meaning of Jesus’ incarnation . Fundamentalism’s ‘plan of salvation’ is incongruent with the theology of Saint Athanasius. In fundamentalism, Jesus is mediator in name only; the real mediator is fundamentalism itself. This explains the experience of many people in ‘Christian’ fundamentalism.

      Christian Socialist

        1. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

          I’ll ask if I’m allowed … [Like you believe that] LOL!

          Blessings!

          Christian Socialist

        3. Wait a minute. PBR? Like there’s nothing better to sip in Louisville?

        4. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

          Will keep that in mind. I’m going to try to meet up with RevKev this week [Darrell’s recent ‘Fundy’ post]. But sure — Southern hospitality …

          Christian Socialist

          PS: You’ll need to get me outside plenty of beer before I crawl into anything associated with ‘King’ George! I may be a socialist, but I’ve got my standards … LOL!

        6. Not here it isn’t! In Portlandia, it’s microbrews- the more obscure the better. I drink local stuff when I can, and we have some fantastic brewpubs. PBR is only found among those we might label ‘white trash’. They’re not real hipsters.

        8. Dear His Name Wasn’t Henry Porter:

          You wrote: ‘Wait a minute. PBR? Like there’s nothing better to sip in Louisville?’

          I reply: ‘I decided against saying that…’ But the truth is, it’ll take better that that to get me out of Cleveland! LOL!

          Christian Socialist

      2. Dear SFL Reader:

        What was lost …

        John created a symbolic world to refurbish Christian imagination with an alternative vision-message to that etched on minds by imperial [ROME] …

        Sorry for the sloppy editing.

        Christian Socialist

      3. I remember almost literally waking up one day and realizing that BJU, my fundy U, doesn’t believe in Jesus. Or at least, not really. They trot him out when convenient. They believe in God, and rules, and sin, and judgement, and authority, and the Divinely Inspired Scriptures (well, sort of) but Jesus is conspicuous by his absence in most of what they talk about. There is no mercy and grace. None at all.

        1. Dear CaffeinatedSquirrel:

          Quite a revelation, wasn’t it. And since there is no mercy or grace, whatever ‘talk’ there is about Jesus is just that. Some time ago, I said that the fundamentalist movement was largely untouched by the gospel and in an unregenerate state. Several responses recorded shock to see such an up-front/in-the-face negation of fundamentalism’s claims. But no one really took issue with it.

          I find myself somewhat divided between never darkening fundamentalism’s doors again and on the other hand doing so in order to speak grace where there is none.

          God bless you, CaffeinatedSquirrel.

          Christian Socialist

    3. rtgmath:
      You and I have sparred about the same passage in the Revelations before and again I have to take issue, but not with your description of it. Instead, this time I think you are missing the context of the scenario portrayed.
      I don’t understand your problem with the concept of Jesus being splattered with blood. If you are in fierce battle, especially in a defensive posture, and your attackers continue the assault, for you to become bloody repelling an unjust attack would not be considered dishonorable.
      Assuming for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that the defenders of the Alamo were morally and legally just to defend it, why would it be unjust or evil for them to become covered in the blood of their enemies who were coming over the wall?
      Once again I think you are being completely biased against Jesus/ God and I don’t understand why. I don’t even think you are able to see your bias.

      the Admiral

      2. Once again I think you are being completely biased against Jesus/ God and I don’t understand why.

        Nope. Not biased against Jesus, just that description of Him.

        Yes, we have sparred. But your description of Him in a “defensive position” is rather silly, don’t you think? He will be the Aggressor, and the associated Scripture in Isaiah confirms it. He will be exercising His Wrath.

        I am likewise confused by your lack of ability or desire to see what the Scripture actually says. No. Not really. Because I did the same thing, reading it for what I wanted to see, not for what was actually there.

        He will be treading out the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God on His enemies. It will be the ultimate shock and awe. And in my mind, a completely unwarranted display of Temper against those who cannot in any way defend themselves.

        I also recognize another thing about you, quite commendable. You are afraid for me. You fear I will suffer at God’s hand for speaking this way. It shows a hidden distrust of God. “God won’t tolerate that kind of talk!” God only blesses if you flatter him. Straight talk is not what you give to God. You have to lie about the motives and fears of your heart so God won’t judge you.

        But I can’t lie any more. What I said is what the Scriptures say. Am I afraid? Sure. But isn’t God Big Enough to actually know me and be good anyway? If He wants to change my mind, I’m waiting.

        The fact is that people wrote about God as they saw Him. I don’t think the Bible is inerrant. I do think many of the writers were barbaric and vengeful. If John wrote the Gospel, I John and the Revelation, by the time he’d gotten to the last book he was fed up with loving others and ready for God to rescue him. You can see that with some comparative reading.

        Peace. And thanks for the concern.

        1. rtgmath :
          When I read the passages in the Revelation, the narrative describes armies joining together in an aggressive posture against Jesus and the army He leads. If you choose to paint those 10 armies as the victims, that is your choice, but it isn’t consistent with the way the prophecies are written.

          You are unnecessarily gracious in assuming I fear for you that you might provoke the wrath of God. But you are mistaken. I do not fear for you. There was a time, in my younger days, when
          that might have been the case, but now I am less concerned that God wants to strike down those who disagree with Him or who get angry with Him.

          My disagreement with you is very simply a difference in perspective about the meaning and intent of the text. My concern for you is multifaceted, as you have on numerous occasions shared struggles with us and I am concerned for you. It is true that I desire for you a renewed faith in God and I wish God would show His face to you. I think you have heard your share of a very loud silence and I wish for you to hear from Him. Peace back to you brother.

          the Admiral

        2. Interesting conversation. I do not agree that this is a “defensive” picture of Jesus. I also don’t have a problem with it. Admittedly, I see it as a symbol, like the rest of Revelation, and I believe it is symbolic largely because we can’t really come to terms with how God is and will be working to reconcile creation. On the other hand, if a bunch of dudes gather themselves to make war on the lamb, I don’t really care if he slaughters them. Seriously, if Jesus is a symbol for the poor, downtrodden, powerless, etc. (and he clearly is, re. Mat. 25:36), then these kingdoms arraying themselves against Jesus are the equivalent of ISIS or something. Should God give them a second chance? Maybe. But I actually prefer them to get slaughtered. Not because I take any joy in having to put a bad dog down, but because I want to prevent them from hurting and killing and destroying and tearing down. Plus, I would like to believe that what we do actually matters and that the choices we make actually have consequences. But if that is true, then it kind of means that Jesus is limited in his options if we choose to do war with him. I think I prefer a God who allows people to choose their own way and ends up having to destroy them (which seems to be a consistent theme in the Bible) to a God who limits the power and choices of people but gets to save everyone. Plus Jesus riding through a river of blood is so f*cking metal. It is just epic.

      3. Dear the Admiral, et. al.

        I already declared for the Ideal interpretation of the Revelation saying that largely, John wrote to create a symbolic world by which to refurbish the Christian’s imaginative response to the world. His vision report also serves as a ‘kingdom of God’ manifesto.

        The Revelation is an apocalypse, and as such it requires its own hermeneutical tools. Otherwise, we get it wrong every time. The Revelation is also a prophecy and an epistle. All three literary forms must be receive due justice.

        Also noteworthy, the Revelation makes hundreds of allusions to OT texts. But not one OT passage is quoted exactly. Ex: what is called ‘the Song of Moses’ is actually a version of the Song of Moses. The allusion to the Exodus version is clear; but so are the differences. This questions what many assume about issues of connection and fulfillment between OT texts and the Revelation.

        The Revelation also connects many motifs in ways that we would not otherwise do. I tend to think [when I think at all] that the Revelation functions as the capstone of the Scriptures, offering us insight into HOW we hold the Scriptures together, how John’ s vision report is to be used, and how the canon is to function in the church.

        John was a Jewish Christian prophet. As a Jew, his vision was inextricably linked to OT tradition, with which he was intimately familiar. But as a believer in Jesus following his resurrection, and as a Spirit-called prophet, John is able to and frequently does borrow OT material and ply it according to his OWN theological purposes in the Christian tradition.

        Most mistakes concerning the Revelation arise from misjudging the KIND of book it is, and from failing to see John’s theological and pastoral purpose. This is truly distressing, because I believe that until we get the Revelation right, we are not going to understand the kingdom vision which defines our place and our task in the word. We will continue to be suckered into earthly agendas, particularly earthly politics, which is ever driven by the four horsemen.

        But the greatest distress of all is that for tens – yea scores of thousands – of sermons, tracts, books, conferences, studies, seminars, courses, CDs, DVDs, films and more on the Revelation, it remains essentially a closed book.

        Deep in our hearts, we know that these things are true. Deep in our hearts, we know that WHEN we read this book aright, remember who we are and to whom we belong, we will have no choice but to engage the powers of this world. And THAT is what will precipitate on us the persecutions proclaimed in John’s report. Even so, Lord Jesus, Come!

        We project the theology of the Revelation into the future in order to AVOID this. I believe, however, that faithfulness to Jesus Christ requires that we see ourselves in the midst of the whole book of Revelation – right now. We always have been. But we have not always had the faith and discernment to perceive it.

        Christian Socialist

    2. To all readers Re: my comments on the modesty conversation we had on the above link…

      I repent of the fact that anyone might have misconstued my comments as in any way defending the people in this cult.

  22. A friend and I were having a discussion surrounding the hatred that is spewing (not just from Anderson), but from many other fellow believers.

    My friend said, “We have an tiny island of sin and a gigantic ocean of grace – so why is everyone stuck on the island?”

    I replied, “If you don’t know how to swim, why would you even THINK to leave the island.”

    My heart physically hurts when I hear/read hatred such as this.

    I hurt for his children – growing up and listening to that filth.

    I hurt for his wife, repressed and shut down by such an arrogant spirit.

    I hurt for people in his church who drink the Kool-Aid like it’s water.

    And last…. I hurt for him… Am I angered by his words? Absolutely.

    But the amount of energy it takes to HATE someone that much? It’s heartbreaking. What a discouraged, lost, ignorant man….

    Steve? Whether you decided to accept it or not…. “For GOD so loved the WORLD…” and that includes Caitlyn and that includes you.

    #micdrop

    1. He is seriously screwed up. This is the same guy who intentionally picked a fight with the border patrol so he could claim an apocalyptic militarized state and persecution. He is the person that Freud had nightmares about.

      1. As much as I disagree with practically everything that comes out of Steven Anderson’s mouth, I have to say he had a legitimate beef with the Border Patrol. No, it’s not some kind of apocalypse, but yes, it is an illegitimate establishment of a police state in the border region (the region where I live).

  23. While Anderson is often labeled as an extreme fundy, his viewpoints really aren’t much different from what many IFB’s believe and say – if not from the pulpit, then in personal conversation. I find this lack of love to be absolutely repugnant and I believe that if there is a god(s), Anderson and his kind will be very shocked in the afterlife.

    To counterbalance this video, allow me to introduce Calpernia Addams:

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKte7F0cO_8&w=420&h=315%5D

  24. So yelling and name calling directed toward people with gender dysmorphia is supposed to make their problems go away?

    1. Not to mention the elephant in the room – of all the things Mr. Anderson could have railed on, he chose one woman. My belief is that he (and others) have addressed this so hard because a star (male) athlete switching gender is a threat to them.

      1. Because now Anderson’s not sure if Jenner is allowed speak up in church, or should just cover himself modestly.

  25. A friend of mine wrote an article called ‘A christian’s response to jenner’. I didn’t read it. I don’t care. I don’t understand why I need a response. I don’t understand why anyone needs a response.
    We need to stop caring about every single thing the media wants us to care about.

    3. I’m pretty much in that camp, too.
      Why did Jenner decide to live as a woman? Because she wanted to.
      What should I do about it? Mind my own business.

    4. Also there’s the fact that I have a strong aversion to looking in the general direction of the Kardashians …

      2. Ditto. I have no particular opinion one way or another about Bruce’s transition to Caitlyn, that is a person’s private business. I didn’t have much use for him as a man, he was always a self-centered attention hog like some athletes are known to be. Now she is in the limelight, not to be outdone by the Kartrashians.

    5. That’s what I wanted to say. The only time you need to “respond” to an individual doing an individual thing is when that individual is standing in front of you. And unless they have asked your opinion, you need to hush.

      We don’t actually need to respond to this. Except to maybe tell our own to hush and choose their words wisely. You never know when you’re going to have a child born with a gender identity or sexuality outside the mainstream. And if you’re on record spewing hate or misunderstanding, you’re not going to be the one they come to.

      1. When I was substituting at a local high school, a student asked me how I felt about “those people” (he meant gays). This wasn’t in an open classroom setting, by the way, and I was rather surprised he asked me.

        The funny thing is that he was black. He should have understood about discrimination, and in fact he did. He’d felt the sting of it himself. When I mentioned this, he said, “But I was born this way.”

        “Ahuh. And your point?” “Well, it’s a choice, isn’t it?” “Did you have to ‘choose’?” “Well, no.”

        I told him such things are often a discovery more than a choice. But even if it is a choice, it is theirs to make, not ours.

        He objected that it was against God. I asked him, are you sure about that? and told him he needed to look up some issues on sexual identity at birth. I wasn’t about to get into it! But I told him there was enough information out there to cause any reasonable person to decide they didn’t have the answers. In any case, he should be careful to treat others as he wanted to be treated — with respect and dignity no matter what.

        He took it well.

        Young people are interested in these questions, I think, because they often have questions about themselves and are afraid to ask them. Perhaps I was asked because I wasn’t a regular teacher and perhaps “safer” to ask than his regular teachers.

    6. One one hand I can go, “Really? Caitlyn Jenner undergoes the difficult transition to her true gender and immediately begins pandering to the male gaze in one of the oldest, most cliched ways there is? She’s an athlete–more than that, she’s an older woman who’s active and healthy. Why not have herself photographed in hiking clothes on top of a mountain?” But on the other hand, there is only one boss of Caitlyn Jenner’s underpants, and that’s Caitlyn Jenner. I can call her decisions tacky, but I can’t deny her right to make them.

      Anyway, a Christian’s response to Caitlyn Jenner…let’s see…*flip flip* Well, there’s “Rejoice with those who rejoice.” That’s always a good one. So huzzah for Ms. Jenner, whose outside finally matches her inside! What a relief that must be.

  26. I feel sorry for Jenner and the problems he/she has. But I don’t regard those problems and the openness with which they are expressed as an attack on my Christian faith or on me personally.

  27. In the last book of Harry Potter, when Harry has sacrificed himself and enters the “after life” and meets his lost professor. He stumbles across small pitiful creature who is whining and crying. The explanation is this creature is Voldemort–pieces of him. Unlike those who have lived their lives for love who are whole people and able to interact with others, Voldemort is like a deformed baby in the after life. That is the picture I get of Anderson.
    C.S. Lewis stated that with every choice we make we are either becoming more heavenly or more hellish. If we saw each other for who we really are–we would either be in complete awe or complete terror. He is filling his life with so much hate and anger that he is becoming more and more hellish. There is nothing in how he speaks or lives that indicates he has a clue who Jesus is.

    3. I had been thinking that maybe one day I might read the HP series. Now I don’t need to. You forgot to say ‘Spoiler Alert’.

      Just kidding. I’ve no interest.

      1. Really, the Potter books are fun. They aren’t great literature, but they’re fun to read. Some of the minor characters, like Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, are people you’d like to spend more time with.

        1. I think the Potter books are more than fun.I read them at a point in my life (late 30s and early 40s)that I was going through a lot of very difficult stuff. There’s a lot of… humanity in those books. They were reassuring. They also were a big factor in some of my personal formation, rebuilding my life after some traumatic events. I’m a Gryffindor: being brave, standing up for the right thing, etc, is part of how I see myself. It really gave me a point of identification. And I identify heavily with Minerva McGonagal, and VERY MUCH with Molly Weasley. (My friends tease me and call me Molly. 🙂 ) In a way, it has given me a framework to understand myself.

          And there’s a LOT of Christian ethic in the books- caring for others being #1 and a major engine for the story arc.

          There’s lots of great characters. Some bits are hilarious (Guys- remember the amazing bouncing weasel?). Some bits made me sob. (Which is very unusual for me.) It really is worth the time. (At least see the movies- they actually did an excellent job with them. The first two are fairly light, but the really good stuff starts in the third movie, _Prisoner of Azkaban_.)

        3. Dear Liutgard:

          Friends who know me well would identify me with Gryffindor on the ground you state. One of the closest said of me more than once that when cut, ‘you bleed justice.’ In self-perception – reflective process, how I strategize, etc., definitely Ravenclaw. But once I know my own mind [when I can find it], it’s anyone’s guess HOW I will proceed in things practical. My world is one of quiet, careful reflection, sometimes unconventional [disruptive/inappropriate – ‘disrespectful’] action seeking efficacy and unconcerned with consequences, pursued deliberately and governed [hopefully] only by the mind of Christ. I’m not sure where this leave me, but I’d guess I register somewhere along a Ravenclaw/Slytherin axis across which runs a strong Gryffindor streak.

          Christian Socialist

        5. Let’s see if I remember the house traits:
          Gryffindors are brave.
          Ravenclaws are clever.
          Hufflepuffs are hard-working.
          Slytherins are devious.
          (Someone please correct me if I’ve gotten it wrong.)

          By those standards, I’m probably in Ravenclaw.

        6. Dear Big Gary:

          You’re too gracious! I’m actually much worse than you suggest. LOL!

          Christian Socialist

        7. Dr. Fundystan squeezed his eyes shut with all his might. The might of his eyelid muscles, that is, not his fingers. Those muscles were employed gripping the stool and wondering why sorting couldn’t be done with something slightly less sinister than a hat.
          “Not Slytherin!” He wished with all his might.
          “Well,” Said the hat pensively. “He says not Slytherin. Which is such an obvious wish that it basically outlaws him from Ravenclaw – have to have brains to get in there, and that was about the least clever wish I’ve ever scanned in my sorting days. Well, except for the one about granny’s pantyhose. Those Longbottoms. Anyway, he sure is putting effort into keeping his eyes closed, which is kind of weird since there isn’t really anything visual about this whole process. Definitely not Ravenclaw. Maybe Hufflepuff. On the other hand, this is probably all some devious reverse psychology trick, in which case… SLYTHERIN!!!!”
          Dr. Fundystan slumped to the floor, having outwitted himself once again.

        8. The British are good at that sort of thing. Tolkein, Lewis, Chesterton, Dream of the Rood.

  28. “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott

    This is perhaps Anderson’s greatest sin and from this all the other garbage flows.

  29. My parents were very careful to shelter me against the things of the world that were not age-appropriate.

    But then they would take me to church to hear evangelists such as B.R. Lakin, Paul Vanaman, John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, et al. It was there I learned about murder, hatred, lust, greed, prostitution, etc, etc. straight from the pulpit of my IFB church.

  30. It seems a lot of preachers are better connected to current events than I am. A former minister described how after he preached revival for another pastor, he went back to the other pastor’s private in-home theatre to watch Jack Bauer in 24. So, for him to claim no knowledge of Bruce (as his mother still calls him) is dubious.
    Second, I am against any social commentary from the pulpit. That’s what podcasts and shortwave radios are for.
    Third, describing sin in lurid terms is wrong. You aren’t to speak of those things especially from the pulpit to a mixed audience. I always shudder and start looking for another church when I hear preachers describe in excruciating detail David’s or someone else’s sexual sin. Their heart isn’t right if they do that

    1. Third, describing sin in lurid terms is wrong. … I always shudder and start looking for another church when I hear preachers describe in excruciating detail David’s or someone else’s sexual sin.

      How else can Respectable Church Ladies get their porn fix (and indulge vicariously in all that Forbidden JUICY Sin) and still remain RESPECTABLE?

      1. Fundy churches are not appealing to the brain’s higher functions, so they have to work on the limbic system and the reptilian brain.
        In other words, they keep the emotions aroused, or fundamentalism disappears.

        1. Dear Big Gary:

          The same seems to be true of political campaigns. That may explain why so many IFB pastors make such outstanding partisan cheerleaders …

          Christian Socialist

  31. I don’t want to say that notions of gender identity cross 2000 years of history unchanged. However, I don’t think Steve Anderson can preach Acts chapter 8.

  32. 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

    1. Then Philip opened his mouth and said, “Get thee hence, thoud doer of iniquity! Wouldst that thine hermaphrodite body be cast into hell!”
      And the eunuch went away sore sorrowful, and started an atheist blog.

    2. Dear His Name Wasn’t Henry Porter:

      Thank you for this gift from God. Our Lord bless you richly!

      Christian Socialist

  33. I like to think of Anderson as the most dedicated troll on earth. Really, everything he believes is not much different from your usual fundamentalist and even evangelical Christianity. But instead of sugarcoating it, he dips it in shit and wants you to eat it without hesitation.

  34. Mr. Anderson reminds me of Jonah. He hates the sinners in Ninevah (Jenner) and refuses to go. But when he finally goes, he preaches a simple, and heartless message, and Ninevah repents and shows more love toward God than Jonah himself.

    Maybe if Mr. Anderson would get off the ship to Ninevah (preaching to the people under his control in his church), and preach the gospel to every creature, then there would be one less person in the world who doesn’t know his right hand from his left.

    I truly believe Anderson is an unstable man and should stop preaching. A better occupation for him would be to knit modest swimsuits that hide 8 yr. old midriffs.

      1. By the way, how long will it take until an IFB preacher decides the real talking points about the problems in McKinney, TX, are the girls wearing bikinis?

  36. So, how will it take until Dr. Phil Kidd says essentially the same thing about Jenner.

    1. I’m sure he has by now, if he isn’t too busy shopping for luxury sports cars.

      1. Unfortunately, the Jag dealership was fresh out, and anyway, Kidd was stung by my industry-insider remark that Jaguars are designed for and marketed to women (not that he will admit it, mind you), so he is deciding to go with an F-450 Super Duty King Ranch on 20″ Bilsteins and 20″ rims with monster truck tires. And hitch balls. Chrome plated hitch balls. I am not making this up.

    2. I get the impression Kiddy does not like Stevie very much. Mainly because Stevie says what Kiddy believes, stevie says it first and steals Kiddy’s thunder

  37. I am appalled. I have seen and heard a lot of wrong things, but this actually made my mouth drop open. May God help this preacher (and Bruce Jenner).

    1. My church just had a thing against rote prayer. It didn’t officially apply to the Lord’s Prayer, but we just never used it. I had to learn it as a adult.

      Now, the expectation that you HAD to have been led repeat-after-me word-for-word in the Sinner’s Prayer by an adult or nearly-adult Christian, that was there. There wasn’t a 100% set as if holy writ official version, but if your personal path of faith didn’t exactly match that story you learned to keep your mouth shut. (I was led by the Holy Spirit at 8 during VBS and it was a lot more feeling than words, so I kept my mouth shut a lot.)

      1. And that was supposed to post somewhere completely different.

        George appears to be playing games with the reply buttons on the comment emails.

      2. There’s more than one version of the Paternoster, you know. (Matthew vs. Luke) Unlike your 5 posts! ; D

    2. One definition of blasphemy: The crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God. So, steve is praying the former Bruce Jenner goes to hell. He also prayed(s) President Obama will go to hell. Is that his right?! This is what God says: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. II Peter 3:9 Steve is a deluded, legalistic pharisee and Jesus said they’re like white washed tombs, full of dead man’s bones. You can’t be dead spiritually and alive in Christ! Pharisees have never experience the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ and are unable to extend it to others.

      2. So, steve is praying the former Bruce Jenner goes to hell. He also prayed(s) President Obama will go to hell. Is that his right?!

        It’s Christianese for “Avara Kedvara”.

  38. When will people figure out that people like Jenner are not leading our culture? He isn’t pushing any envelope, he is basking in the adoration of where the culture already is.

    3. Maybe we should be complaining about trannie lookism. He wouldn’t have gotten on Vanity Fair if he looked more like the average American girlyboy.

    4. APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE! I’m copying this to Zsu’s blog. Of course she posted her husband’s ridiculous rant. I’m agree with the others who have expressed remorse for their children. Sad. Just sad.

      1. Please Google the research done by the Family Acceptance Project, for your children’s sake. As a trans woman, I would be in a lot less emotional, physical, and arguably spiritual danger right now if my parents had.

    1. Ok, I took the bait and read the post. You have no clue about gender identity issues. No. Clue.

      Oh, and I think we all need Jesus. So why single out Caitlyn Jenner for your post?

      1. Because Jenner is Celebrity-du-Jour in all the media. You can’t get away from it.

    2. Michael – and I say this kindly – your post is at best odd. I will tell you this; you will probably be able to communicate better if you lose the mindless hell-in-a-handbasket opening soliloquy. You can’t make those kinds of extreme claims without present at least a modest differential equation to show how culture is somehow getting worse. Of course, being able to tie that in causally with a single senior citizen’s gender identity choice is a herculean task that I recommend you forgo in the interest redeeming the time for something more profitable, like a Sudoku puzzle or something. However, I find your willingness to make up whole-cloth judgments against Jenner to be in poor taste and bad judgment. Perhaps you should put effort into having an informed and well-formed opinion before sharing your thoughts with the world. Just some friendly advice, for what it’s worth.

    3. Michael, (how to say this politely?) I read your article. Your attempt to be “scientific” in your article simply shows how very ignorant you are of the whole matter.

      I have no problem with you believing the Flood of Noah to be literal — by faith. But I am a person who was hoodwinked by Creationism and their science lies, who discovered the lies and has studied science avidly ever since. There is no such thing as “scientific creationism.” Any creationist source you use to try to justify the Flood of Noah on a sciencey basis is lying to you (and to themselves). Yes, I have “The Genesis Flood” at home. I have the book “Scientific Creationism,” the premier document, as well. Lots of others. I know them well. I believed them. The authors are feeding you a bunch of shit. Yes, I said it. Lies, gussied up for poor gullible fools like you and me.

      The fact is that there is no physical evidence for a single, world-wide, all-encompassing flood event. None.

      I have often wished there was. I wish that my faith hadn’t been torn to shreds by the discovery of creationism’s lies. Or rather, I am glad I found out that they were lies, but the damage to my faith was incalculable.

      Don’t pretend you know anything about science or can speak to any scientific fact. You can’t. Your attempts to do so show you don’t know what you are talking about and are only parroting what someone else has said.

      And I apologize. It turned out I couldn’t say it politely. But I felt I had to say it.

    4. Ahhh, I was responding to your “The Common Mans Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 7.” I will read your Jenner article. But if it is the same quality as the one I just read, it will be pretty bad.

      As someone wisely said, “If you don’t want to invite criticism, don’t put it out there.”

      If you do get them cleaned up, refined, and want me to take a second look, please let me know. I will look at it. I believe in second chances.

  40. I can’t even begin to form a response to that.

    Even the ultra-reactionary fundy response, I would think, would be that Jenner can’t possibly be saved, and is going to hell. As horrid as that response is, there’s at least room there for sorrow and genuine hope that things might be different. But to want someone to go to hell, and actively pray for it?

    What would you have to do to someone to make them actively pray for your eternal damnation? That’s just – I can’t even…

    2. They would probably point to Bible verses showing that God has hated / willed the destruction or damnation of whoever, and then say that it’s righteous to pray for what God wants.

      2. Everything Anderson says makes me wonder, did Jesus actually achieve anything by going to the cross, or was it a complete waste of time?

    3. Why would there be eternal damnation in the first place? How does that equal a God of love, mercy, and grace? I suffer forever because I didn’t make the right decision? Or because I was born into a 3rd world country where they’ve never heard of Jesus so I never even had an opportunity to make a choice? Somehow this doesn’t seem like a god that I want to serve.

  41. Isn’t this the same guy who was tasered at the border? What a knob…I hope he is cursed by every god that walks the earth with one of his worst fears coming to life. Whatever it may be. Traditional religion and ultra right wing people….bah humbug.

  42. I personally know a number of Christians who would say there is no way that Jenner could be a Christian, but have no problem excepting Anderson. To them, it’s obvious.

    1. “Excepting Anderson?”

      Please explain.

      Accepting anyone except Anderson?

      Or that Anderson is exceptionally bad, or good, or (gasp!) intelligent?

      1. Otto Koreckt struck again, I personally know a lot of Christians would not agree with the tone of that sermon but would still accept Steven Anderson as a good Christian because he” Preaches the Trurh against Sin” whereas they would condemn Jenner to hell as a “Sodomite”

        1. You know according to one of the prophets the “Sin of Sodom” was oppression and abuse of the poor by the rich?

          Sodomy as Homosexuality is only mentioned in the context of the attempted gang-rape in Genesis. Of those who were extended Hospitality by an inhabitant of the city. That’s Red Wedding Country right there.

  43. Christ Jesus came into the world, to save sinners of whom I am chief….also, check this out….a convicted child sex offender can “get saved” and go to any IBF college in the nation the next day and enroll in a course of pastoral study, become a pastor, have sunday school bus ministries and junior church and love the kiddies with NO problem..no background checks, no fingerprints, etc because “it’s all under the Blood”…same thing for murderers, rapists, thieves…but somehow a Godly man with a true conversion and clean as a whistle history, except for a divorce 30 years ago, cannot be considered for a pastor or deacon because the Bible says a Bishop must be the husband of ONE WIFE…

    2. A bishop is not normally a youth minister, although I know some bishops who are very good with children.

      And so long as it’s one wife at a time, that’s all right.

    3. ….also, check this out….a convicted child sex offender can “get saved” and go to any IBF college in the nation the next day and enroll in a course of pastoral study, become a pastor, have sunday school bus ministries and junior church and love the kiddies with NO problem..no background checks, no fingerprints, etc because “it’s all under the Blood”…

      A little momento from classic Dr Demento:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ofTGGurgCk

  45. I think we’re being to hard on him, I mean, at one point he shows us he can count from 5-10. That’s a big achievement for Anderson!

    This man…

    Is an idiot

    1. I find doctrinal statements/statements of faith fascinating.
      ~Baptists who, overall, do not consider themselves creedal in that they have to say a specific creed to join, love to make doctrinal statements. There was a conservative baptist church in one area that I served the Methodist church. They use to be part of the ecumenical VBS but then they got a new pastor who decided we all had to sign his doctrinal statement in order to be part of the ecumenical VBS. The American Baptist pastor was so angry at him.
      ~I find it interesting what churches mention first in their statements of faith. The Creeds always begin with God. I find most IFB and even other Baptist churches to begin with the Bible. I have wondered if that is because their god is the Bible.

      1. “I find doctrinal statements/statements of faith fascinating.”

        Dear Leanne,
        I’m fascinated that doctrinal statements fascinate you. They bore me beyond tears.
        BJg

        2. Hello, My name is Leanne and I am a nerd. I have gone 5 hours without saying a creed or reading a theological statement.

    2. Anderson’s doctrinal statement would classify Caitlyn Jenner as Christian and saved. According to materials already cited by others here, she believes in Jesus, goes to church, etc. According his assertion of eternal security, anyone who ever did that is saved. So even if he believes (as he said) that Jenner should die, it’s odd that he thinks she will go to hell.

      1. exactly. That is the hypocrisy of the IFB and many who say you cannot be homosexual and saved. The way to salvation is one way for all us sinners and a different way for homosexuals.

        1. Precisely. The belief is effectively that straight people need to accept Jesus, and gay people need to accept Jesus and stop being gay (i.e. become straight, preferably with an opposite-sex marriage to prove it). I would say that they also believe that trans* people need to become cisgender, but they wouldn’t have a darn clue what that meant, because most of them probably think that trans* is just a really strong form of gay.

        2. Josh, I’m a pathetic enough Nerd to get you trans-gender and cis-gender references. Maybe it’s IS all about biochemistry.

      2. What gets me is that they reject Calvinism because God wants EVERYONE to be saved.

        Ummm… So why are you praying for someone to die and burn in hell contrary to God’s will?

  47. If you want a creed or doctrinal statement or whatever, on steroids, here’s the Athanasian Creed:

    WHOSOEVER WILL BE SAVED,
    before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
    Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
    without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

    And the Catholic Faith is this:
    That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
    neither confounding the Persons,
    nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
    another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
    But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
    Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
    Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

    The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
    The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
    and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
    The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

    And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
    As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
    but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

    So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
    and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three
    Almighties, but one Almighty.

    So the Father is God, the Son is God,
    and the Holy Ghost is God.
    And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
    So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
    and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

    For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
    every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
    So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say,
    There be three Gods, or three Lords.
    The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
    The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
    The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
    neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

    So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
    one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
    And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
    none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
    are co-eternal together and co-equal.
    So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
    the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
    He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

    Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
    believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
    God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
    and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
    Perfect God and perfect Man,
    of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

    Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
    Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man,
    yet he is not two, but one Christ;
    One, not by conversion of the Godhead
    into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
    One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
    but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul
    and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
    Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
    rose again the third day from the dead.
    He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
    God Almighty, from whence he will come
    to judge the quick and the dead.
    At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
    and shall give account for their own works.
    And they that have done good shall go into life
    everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

    This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
    he cannot be saved.

    1. Athanasius was quite driven in his holding to doctrine. I believe he was called the “black dwarf” and known for his stubborn hold to doctrine. If I recall, when Constantine decided the council of Nicea might have been wrong in their assessment of Jesus’ divinity and went with the Arian belief–It is said Athanasius jumped in front of the emperor’s chariot, grabbed hold of the horses and preached the Divinity of Christ to the emperor.

    3. I believe in Bob the Senior, Bob the Junior, and Bob the Triplestix. For us and for our education he came down from Tennessee and moved his University to Greenville.

      2. “Bob from Bob, white from white, true Bob from true Bob…” Think I’ll stick with the Nicene Creed.

      3. Dear rtgmath:

        Best since — I believe in the inspiration of the Syllabus, both the first and the second semisters ….

        Christian Socialist

    4. Yup. Old Athanasius was certainly certain in his uncertainty, specific in his ambiguity, and exclusive in his community. I think he wound up excluding everyone but himself for salvation.

  48. As I sit here on my porch drinking coffee and contemplating life and the world around us it occurs to me that nature brings a balance to everything. There is balance between plants, herbivores, and carnivores. There is balance in politics between liberals and conservatives. There is balance between struggle and rest. These balances are always shifting, getting to far to one side, then moving in the other direction. Perhaps Anderson is a part of this great equation and the universe uses him to unknowingly maintain the balance of our culture.

    So I drink my coffee, look at the beauty of creation around me and think “nope, he’s just a whack job”.

  49. Okay, this Caitlyn Jenner thing and all the uproar over it has me realizing something.

    The Fundamentalist reaction to Caitlyn Jenner is *just like* the fundamentalist reaction to children’s questions or explorations regarding sex.

    “Stop That!”

    “That’s Nasty!” “That’s dirty.”

    “We don’t do that. We don’t talk about that. This is just the way things are.”

    “You don’t do that or you will go blind.”

    “God hates that.”

    “IF I EVER SEE OR HEAR OF THAT AGAIN ….”

    “People who do those things go to hell.”

    Today, sexuality in the church is forbidden except for condemnation. Children are supposed to remain “innocent.” Innocent means without any knowledge or experience. Then you marry them off and they are supposed to immediately know what’s what and how and why and all that. Questions about sexual feelings are not allowed. Sex is dirty. Sex is even dirty between married people, if they do anything more than wham bam thank you maam in the missionary position.

    We don’t teach our children about sex. How many people actually give their children “the talk”? I never actually got one, only a bumbling, “be gentle” from my dad (whatever that meant). My attempts to bring up any such topics of discussion with our kids (to make them more aware and feel less awkward) were quickly squashed by my wife. My daughter (15) doesn’t even want to see me kiss my wife because she has been taught it is nasty and too intimate for public.

    So all sexuality is perverse and perverted. All sexual feelings are something to be ashamed of and squashed. All love must be “pure and holy.” Oh, and Christian families are supposed to have lots of kids. Abuse is carefully hidden and ignored, especially if it is by a church leader. The person abused is made to feel ashamed and guilty. And religious and political leaders come out to support molesters and abusers while denying that other people have the right to explore and understand their own sexuality.

    It is all insane. Frankly, most societal attitudes about sex are so mixed up that no one could sort them out. We make laws so strict that normal experimentation and play can brand a young person as a sex offender for life. And the only are in which it is criminal for an adult to teach a child something is in the area of sex.

    We say we are against sex trafficking, but we make the ones who are trafficked to be the criminals, brand them with a criminal record so that they can never get an education or a good job ever again. We prosecute teachers who have sex with their students (as we should), but we protect sexual predators in sororities on college campuses (primarily because their parents are rich contributors to the school’s athletic coffers!). We say that rape is a crime, but we treat women who are raped as if they are the criminals, and states that push the hardest to keep women from having abortions (including in cases of rape and incest) also give parental rights to the rapist!

    And now that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, she gets to be judged not on the basis of her competence, but on the basis of her looks.

    I don’t know how to change the system, but it seems to me that the “system” is broken. But even talking about change, much less how or what to change can get you labeled as a pervert. It is a self-perpetuating mess, guaranteed to cause ever deepening pain and anguish as it guarantees the wages of ignorance and misinformation on all around.

    1. People who profoundly fear sex and sexuality are very uncomfortable dealing with any expressions of sexuality or even any gender identity different from what they consider normative.

      But the fact that someone makes me uncomfortable does not give me a right to supress that person.

      I hear people saying about gay/bi/transgendered/etc. people, “How do I explain that to kids?”
      It’s actually very easy to have a five-minute conversation with kids about it. Kids adjust to such knowledge much faster than older people do. And if you disapprove, you can tell your kids that, too.
      So no, you don’t get to ban something just to avoid explaining to your children.

      1. I grew up in a large city famous for its LGBT movement, so even in the 60s it was not a secret to most of the inhabitants. 50 years ago I was on the bus with my mom, and there were two transvestites in the seat in front of us.

        I thought they were quite pretty, and definitely interesting in their sparkly outfits, fishnets, heels and hats.

        My wise mom’s response to my question about “who are they”-
        “Some men think it’s fun to wear ladies’ clothes.” That simple explanation lasted well into my early teens when I started understanding many things better. But it was enough, and not derogatory to the transvestites or my five year old mind.

        1. Nope. Not for that reason, anyway.

          Child: Why does that man say those things?
          Adult: Some people hurt so much that they go crazy and they are angry at everything and hate everyone.
          We hope they get better, but we try not to let them make us crazy, too.

      3. Yeah, it took me about 5 minutes. “Sometimes people are born in between, and when they’re older they can go to the doctor to get surgery so their outside matches their inside if they want.” My 5-year-old, who is trying to figure this whole boy and girl thing out, still occasionally checks back with me to see that I really said that about in-between people. His tween sisters took in in stride.

        1. I love this. And I am stealing it to say to my kids! Thank you!! I didn’t want to say something like “broken” or “backwards” but wasn’t sure how to say it and this is perfect.

    2. The system is broken….and the only answer I have found to the brokenness of the system is really really hard. Its that following the teachings of Jesus closely–the being meek (not giving into the power structure and the materialism), the being a peacemaker, love being the motivation and the standard and the goal of all that I am and do…..
      I cannot even begin to dream what that all looks like but its the only answer Christ has really given me in my studies.

      2. oops, it posted early….
        I have heard time and time again that fundies won’t let their children believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny because that would be lying to the child and how would the child ever believe them about things of faith…
        but it is ok to lie to them about sex. SMH

      3. Or, it’s like that joke I heard Gilbert Gottfried tell… A dad pokes his head into his son’s room and says, “Son, you’d better stop masturbating, or you’ll go blind!” The son says, “I’m over here, dad!”

      1. Sometimes it takes more than 3 sentences, or a 1.3 second soundbite, to present an idea and properly support it.

      2. Ahhhh, I am sorry you are reading challenged. It must be difficult. I imagine chapter books are especially difficult to get through, not that my “screeds” approach anything of that length.

        But in your case, you might well decide simply to not read them if they are too long or tedious.

        3. So you’re pretty sensitive, huh? You must be a ton of fun to be around.
          If I was terribly concerned with your opinion, I would defend my reading habits (there’s a part of me that really, really wants to but I know it’s a losing battle).
          I am amazed at how quickly you’re ready to “fight.” Truthfully, I’m marginally interested in what you have to say and a distillation of your thoughts might make me want to make time to read your longer writings. But you just go on being a tremendous jerk, ok. Because you’ve been hurt (like the rest of us), that gives you the right to belittle and attack anyone who dares say something a little snarky in your general direction.

        4. Well, it just struck me wrong last night. Who knows how it might have struck me today, had I seen it fresh. Yes, my thoughts are not just throw-away one-liners.

          I showed my irritation, which was me not at my best reacting to you not at your best either. I will apologize for my response — not because I think your initial broadside nor your subsequent response warrants it. But I shouldn’t have reacted how I did.

          So where I was a “jerk,” I apologize. I responded in kind to what I perceived was a jerk comment. The ball is in your court.

          As for how you view my writings — I am what I am, and I present it honestly. I show my thought processes. I am not going to distill it down to sound bites, provide summaries, or any other such thing. If you are interested, read me. If not, do what you want. We all have our priorities.

          In any case, peace to you.

        5. RTG, I would say you don’t have anything to apologize for. Someone made an unnecessary and derogatory comment then tried to make you out to be the jerk when you reacted. Where I from that’s called feeding the troll.

          With that being said, this site has been a beneficial form of therapy for many (including myself) and sometimes that includes stating your disagreements and frustrations about the IFB movement. I, and I’m sure many others, have benefited from your posts if for no other reason that knowing there are others out there that have had the same frustrations and thoughts. One of the weapons of the IFB movement is to isolate you, making you think you are the only one having these problems, and so there must be something wrong with you. Don’t believe it, and don’t feed the troll.

        7. Yeah, rubicon was way out of line. Says something that was borderline “jerkish” and then becomes a total tool when called out for it.

          Keep up with the posts rtg. I appreciate what you have to say.

      2. He says 41% of the population of Dearborn, Mi. is Islamic?

        We are going to be having a soul-winning marathon in Dearborn, Michigan, on Friday, June 26th. In addition to winning souls, we will also be handing out hundreds of copies of the Arabic dubbed version of Marching To Zion on DVD.

        Over 41% of the population are Arabs, which means that there are over 40,000 Arabs living in Dearborn. The mission field is right here in America!

        Why? Why do these people lie when the facts are so easily looked up?

        White alone – 85,171 (87.3%)
        Hispanic – 4,079 (4.2%)
        Black alone – 3,305 (3.4%)
        Two or more races – 2,774 (2.8%)
        Asian alone – 1,841 (1.9%)
        American Indian alone – 190 (0.2%)
        Other race alone – 104 (0.1%)
        Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone – 45 (0.05%)

        Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Dearborn-Michigan.html#ixzz3d5pdh3oA

        3. According to the above-cited Dearborn site, about 6% of the people in Dearborn are Muslims. Of course, not all the Muslims are Arabs. But even if we assume that all of them are Arabs, that’s only about 15% of the local Arabs who identify as Muslim.

        4. The largest predominantly Muslim country is Indonesia (pop. 230+ million, 80% Muslim.)

        5. Yes.
          Indonesia, Pakistan, and India combined are home to the majority of Muslims in the world.
          Note that none of those are “Arab” countries.

        6. Oh– also Bangladesh, with somewhere around 170 million people, over 90% of whom are Muslims.

        7. I never thought I would say this, but Steve Anderson is right…..well, sort of, but not really—-ok, he’s wrong. Of the 87% who are white, 41% are Arab (who are classified as white) but not necessarily Islamic.

          the Admiral

        8. Source? Not to doubt you, dear sir, but I won’t believe it without adequate sources. Census references will suffice.

        9. rtg:
          I went to your link, but didn’t see your statistics. So I Googled it which took me back to your linked source which is when I noticed the explanation that Arabs are classified as white and make up 41.7%.

          Granted, SA made the standard assumption that most/all Arabs are Islamic.

          the Admiral

        10. Thank you for the correction. You are right, and I should have looked further to more detail on the racial data, particularly ancestry.

        11. The Census only has a few categories for “Race” and “Arab” is not one of them. So Arab-Americans typically (but not always) get counted as “white.” The same is true of Latino people– there is no “Latino” (or anything similar) category on the Census form, so most people of Hispanic origin are also counted as “white,” even though they may not think of themselves as “white.” There is a separate question asking “Are you Hispanic (of any race)?” which is where the count of Hispanic people in the U.S. comes from.

          The short form for the Census, which is all most people get, does not ask people’s national origin, either.

          (I worked for the Census Bureau during the last decennial census.)

    2. Do you think he knows that the majority of Arabs in the Dearborn area are Christians?

      1. Not a chance do they know that . . . though I didn’t know it either.

        1. Yep. Earlier waves of Arab immigration to the U.S. (including Michigan, where many of them worked in Ford plants) consisted largely of Chrisitans from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. That’s the stock that predominates in the greater Detroit area.

    3. There is a wicked corner of my mind that has, for some time, wanted to make up a fake city in Wyoming or one of those square states, complete with Wikipedia page and city website, and start a rumor that it had been overtaken by Muslims and was being run according to Sharia law. If it wouldn’t be completely unfair to my Muslim friends, I might actually do it…

      3. Call it Beerborn, after the local beverage. Then talk about the Islandic penchant for alcoholic beverages — another reason for good sober Christians to be afraid of them, seeing that they are all drunk all the time. Even the kids! That’s why the writing looks so funny. It started out as KJV English, but they were so inebriated that they couldn’t draw the letters right.

        I am sure that people like Anderson would reference the site right away to “prove” how bad Muslins are. You have to be careful of men of the cloth! All it would prove is gullibility of some people.

        And all this proves is that it is late, and I am too tired to make sense.

        1. Did you say “Islandic” or “Icelandic” or “Islamic”? I wasn’t aware if large numbers of Muslims in the Land of Fire and Ice? not that it would matter to Anderson. I wonder if he ever passed a Geography exam?

Comments are closed.