Feminism, homosexism, and veganism: The Grand Conspiracy

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it? (Jeremiah 5:30, 31)

You may want to dismiss it as looniness, but this assault against God's Order of Creation is rebellion against the God Who made us. It's not naive or misguided. It's evil. Attacks on God's Creation Order are all around us and we must recognize that each of them is a part of Satan's conspiracy to grease the descent to Hell.

Feminism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God made Adam first, then Eve. Thus those who conspire to place woman in positions where she teaches and exercises authority over man are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.

Homosexism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God made Eve--not Steve--for Adam. Thus those who conspire to legalize sodomy and promote sodomitic unions are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.

Veganism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God created adam alone--both Adam and Eve--in His Own Image. He did not create animals in His Image. Thus those whose morality has descended to Veganism and the claim of personhood and legal standing for animals are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.

Satan has conspired to paint each of these revolutions a pretty face. Feminism is a long-overdue correction of patriarchal oppression. Homsexism is a long overdue correction of homophobic oppression. Veganism is a long-overdue correction of speciest oppression.

Satan has also conspired to silence the Church of Jesus Christ... 

Feminsim is fine in Congress and the White House as long as it stays out of my home, our pulpit Sunday morning, and our session's formal votes of disciplinary action. Homosexism is fine on Craig's List, in the bedrooms of my rental properties, and in our choir rooms and organ lofts as long as it stays away from me, my wife, and my children. Veganism is fine as long as it doesn't try to take the burgers or brats off my grill.

In fact, it's all fine as long as we private Christians are allowed to live and preach and pray our private consciences in private peace. We recognize that humans of good conscience can disagree over the laws holding our civil compact together and clearly the Bible teaches that it's not the Church's responsibility to make godless man good. We are not to force our neighbor to abide by Christian's private standards of right and wrong. Such intolerance is contrary to Christian charity. The New Testament calls us to preach the Gospel--not our own private view of what is and isn't moral. Anyhow, unbelievers simply can't live morally until they come to faith by confessing the Westminster Standards after receiving Trinitarian baptism. (Or is it Trinitarian Baptism?)

As I said, Satan has conspired to silence the witness of the Church to God's Creation Order. He uses Escondido theologians to privatize it, CBMW exegetes mince it, a Covenant ethicist to legalize it, Calvin profs to shrink from it, Redeemer ecclesiastics to equivocate, ETS academics to discuss it, and Bible translators to silence it.

American Christians love it so, but what will they do in the end? 

(TB, w/thanks to Scott)

Comments

Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.

The question of whether vegetarianism is compatible with Christianity is interesting. It is all about motivations; someone who can't afford meat is not a vegetarian. There are two distinct motives:

1. People who think it's healthy to avoid meat.

2. People who think it's cruelty to animals to eat meat.

Both are rejecting God's gifts, and both have a relation to undeniably good motives (health, avoiding cruelty), and both can sink into undeniably non-Christian religions (self-body worship and nature-worship).

It's sad to realize that some women in apologetics are now shills for the false gospel of health, coming in various forms of veganism and vegetarianism (animal meat is KILLING US!!!!!)

It's discouraging that I had to pull my connections to one woman who was promoting juicing with far more fervor than she was promoting the cause of Christ.

Wow. Thanks for not being cool, Tim. :)

I see your point, but IMHO many vegetarians and vegans have the motivations you mention above but don't end up following non-Christian religions. Some vegans already practice a non-Christian religion (like a Hindu who I once worked with), or go through a vegan phase (like a Christian manager I once had).

And while I personally know only a small sample of vegetarians, my niece is typical of those that I know. She has been a lacto-ovo vegetarian since the age of 14; she's now 26, still a practicing Lutheran and newly married. She is happy to cook meat for her husband as long as she doesn't have to eat it!

Finally, most Americans probably eat more meat than is necessary for good health. Many mainstream nutritionists have been saying this for years. Moderation not deprivation in our diets...

"Thus those who conspire to place woman in positions where she teaches and exercises authority over man are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell."

Wow...

>>many vegetarians and vegans have the motivations you mention above but don't end up following non-Christian religions.

The danger is not simply that feminists, homosexists, and vegans will start worshipping at their local Hindu temple, but that their worship in the Christian temple is false. If the man who says he loves God while hating his brother is a liar, the woman who says she obeys God while rebelling against her husband is a liar.

>>Wow...

Wow that you say wow. It's elementary, dear brother. Fundamental. Foundational. Creation orderly. Authority is no small thing. It flows from God the Father and rebellion against His order is rebellion against Him. This is why the Apostle Paul hits the subject over and over again. Peter also.

Love,

Sue, the danger can be a subtle one. Usually, vegetarianism has a strong element of morals-- either "we ought to take care of our bodies" or "we shouldn't kill animals". I like morals, but someone who is Christian should ask where these moral ideas come from. I wonder what to do about Christian women who obsess about the nutrition of themselves and their families, usually with respect to worries with weak scientific basis rather than counting calories, the real problem for Americans. It is close to the obsession of a gourmet or a glutton. I think there's a good passage in Screwtape Letters about that--- about some lady who always says she needs very little, justsome very thin toast--but not too thin--- with the right amount of butter.

Another interesting element of vegetarianism is how it can hurt community. This works the same way as kosher rules. Modern devout Jews do not have rules against eating with gentiles, but they do have kosher rules which means they can't eat at gentile restaurants or houses. Even the dishes have to be just right--- it isn't a matter of just skipping some foods. And so in effect they have a rule against socializing too much with gentiles.

erasmuse,

While the vegetarians that I know don't behave like what you've described, ISTM that those with a tendency toward obsessions or compulsions could be drawn into what you are talking about.

So many people (largely women, but some men too) are so obsessed with the size/shape/weight of their bodies that they feel they have committed a cardinal sin by sticking to a very strict diet that leaves no room for an occasional dessert, glass of wine, fried chicken, etc.

While vegetarianism is not my cup of tea, I understand the obsession with food/weight firsthand. I joined Weight Watchers in the late '80s when it was more rigid than it is now. It required members to count how many servings of bread, meat, milk, fruits and vegetables they ate daily. Counting how many servings in each category I had left and what I could eat became an obsession; I'd think about it at least 1-1/2 dozen times a day. Yes, I lost weight but as a slave to my food obsession.

After gaining my weight back and more several times, I decided Weight Watchers was not the way for me to lose weight -- ever. It fed into my obsessive tendencies. I'm finally about 10 lbs. over normal weight for my age and frame size. Maintaining this will be a lifelong struggle but I thank God frequently that he freed me from an eating plan that was destructive to me.

Sorry if I wandered off-topic, but wanted to illustrate that I know what you mean by vegetarianism becoming an unhealthy and even sometimes sinful bondage and not refraining from eating meat.

P.S. I'm not dissing Weight Watchers, especially after the recent improvements in the program. It has helped several people I know to lose and keep off excess weight.

What would you say to a vegetarian/ vegan who does not claim the personhood/ "equal standing" of animals? My girlfriend is a vegetarian, and when we talked about this, she told me that she just doesn't really feel comfortable eating animals. It doesn't bother her that others do, she just doesn't. So I have a hard time seeing the satanic conspiracy angle in her dieting habits.

Roger,

Perhaps it lies in her discomfort with food God has declared good.

Kamilla

Romans 14:2 comes to mind here (admittedly outside of its original context). Some thoughts, on which comment/criticism is welcome:

* I am hardly a vegetarian, but doesn't that part of the issue come under the rubric of Christian liberty? (Veganism is different, much more ideological). Or have I missed something?

* I have had Christian friends who were vegetarian, for what in their cases were perfectly good health reasons.

* In Biblical times, you didn't often eat meat anyway, unless you were quite rich, and you didn't eat it daily unless you were very rich.

So animal cruelty is a christian value?

What we have here is a war on reality. I'm not a vegan, but you are clearly addicted to cult-like religion. While you are under the influence of said religion, you will of course believe you are receiving telepathic commands from your Invisible Friend and know 100% that you are right and I am wrong. Like ALL religious addicts while under the influence, whether JW, Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, etc. They are all equally deluded but of course all unable to hear these words.

Of course animal "cruelty" is wrong, but that is not what this post seems to be about. Killing an animal, for the purpose of eating, is not animal cruelty.

Shannon,
Christians understand that animals are not made in the image of God, and also that God, in his covenant with Noah, and later in the NT in Peter's vision of the sheet being lowered from heaven, gave the animals to mankind as food.

To take this boringly Biblical and unremarkable statement, and turn it into "animal cruelty is a Christian value" is simply foolish and obstinate. Not one person here said what you've just claimed.

The Bible contains many commands and instructions that specifically deal with the welfare and treatment of animals. However, the modern cult of animal rights is simply a demonic religion, clearly visible in the context of Romans 1. They worship the creature rather than the creator.

Animals should be treated as humanely as possible, not because they are equal to man, but because God, in the Garden, gave Adam the responsibility to tend and care for the land and all the living creatures. Caring for and cultivating God's creation is our work.

John,

Your assertions are so general I'm not sure what you're talking about. What is the war on reality?

And if being convinced that your beliefs are true is evidence of being at war against reality, why do you speak with so much certainty yourself?

"Your assertions are so general I'm not sure what you're talking about. What is the war on reality?"
YOURS is the war on reality. They are not general assertions - it's not my problem if you choose to make yourself ignorant. You have made yourself blind, and now you claim there is no sun because you can't see it. That's all.

"And if being convinced that your beliefs are true is evidence of being at war against reality"
I never said that. Obviously you have reading comprehension issues.

"why do you speak with so much certainty yourself?"
You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

BTW I am not an atheist and have only respect for people who are spiritual and seek WISDOM from their religion. But the variety that wastes their time finding satanic conspiracies in say, arial font design, have mental problems IMO. If you want to find evil, look no further than your mirror.

Kamilla, really? There aren't any foods that you don't like? I know plenty of vegetarians who don't eat meat simply because they don't have a taste for it. Similarly, I don't eat squash or spinach because I don't like them, even though I'm fully aware that they are foods that God declared good. I fail to see a difference.

I thought about that, but I have no doubt that a good many people would feel uncomfortable with eating roast labrador retriever or a grilled gorilla- in our dominion over the creatures of the earth, our culture, just like every other one, has decided that some animals are ok to eat and others aren't, and the reason we eat a pig but not a poodle is not based on anything but our own preferences. After all, in Acts 10:14, I don't really see any animals being specifically included or excluded there. What is wrong with us using our dominion over animals to choose to eat some/ all and not others?

In Romans, Acts, and 1 Corinthians, when God talks to us about food, he seems to make a couple of key points- all food is clean, and some discrepancies in diet are within the bounds of Christian liberty. The sin of a vegan/ vegetarian would be in saying "it is WRONG of me to eat this meat, because it is cruel to animals." That is denying the truth of God's word, which teaches that animals were given to man to exercise dominion over, and all foods are clean. It would also be a sin to abstain from meat for Jewish dietary reasons. But for the vegetarian to say "I prefer not to eat meat" seems to me to be an expression of personal preference within the bounds of Christian liberty.

i guess we should only have male teachers, cops, doctors etc. gee i'll get back in the kitchen....NOT

I don't know too many vegans...but I know people who just "have to eat" certain things. Each year what they "have to eat" changes.

John said: "YOURS is the war on reality. They are not general assertions - it's not my problem if you choose to make yourself ignorant. You have made yourself blind, and now you claim there is no sun because you can't see it. That's all."

I won't lecture you about what constitutes a bare assertion or empty generalizations. I'll just point out that you're employing crypto-spiritual language. You forgot to end it properly, however: "And all not-God's-people say: 'amen!'".

John also said: "But the variety that wastes their time finding satanic conspiracies in say, arial font design, have mental problems IMO. If you want to find evil, look no further than your mirror."

One wonders what is less conspiratorial about your search for evil. While I'm not conspiratorial, per se, I am wary of wingdings. Again, it's not like I think they're conspiring, but I do think they're quite adept at strategic planning.

The solution lies in the distinction between personal matters of taste (I don't I'll ever try Tako again, I don't like the texture) and dismissing an entire category of food as in, "she just doesn't really feel comfortable eating animals".

You don't like spinach. That's one vegetable, but I don't see anyone here espousing an eating pattern which abstains from all vegetables because they're not comfortable eating carrots.

A similar distinction can be made with roast Labrador Retriever - we don't eat them because we consider them pets, not because we have a general abhorance of eating animal meat. I am sure similar distinction would be made between the Thanksgiving Turkey and your sister's pet cockatiel.

Vegetarianism is the dismissal of an entire class of food which not only has God declared good, but which are the best source for some nutrients. Sure, you can get some iron from spinach or frying your potatoes in a cast iron skillet, but the iron your body derives from the meat you eat is already in heme form and, therefore, much more efficiently used.

We must ask "why" to distinguish between a legalist and one exercising their Christian liberty.

Kamilla - thanx for clarifying that the issue at hand is someone adopting vegetarianism, because it is "cruel to animals", or that they "don't feel comfortable doing so". That having this perspective is a denial of Genesis 9:3, had not been clear earlier in the thread. At least not to me.

That said, though, I don't think that if I was a pastor I would have overmuch need to raise this as an issue, unless someone was telling my flock that they *ought* to be vegetarian. But what does need addressing, is the issue of gluttony, and specifically the gluttony of excess.

I think we would all agree about that. As usual, comments and criticisms welcome.

I would think, though, that an individual not wanting to eat meat because of his personal discomfort would qualify under "personal taste." Roger's example was probably the best. If a sensitive person says he can't eat a mammal without thinking about, say, a cute young calf or a baby lamb, then I wouldn't hold it against him. At least, I wouldn't hold it against him as long as he didn't get sanctimonious about it. If someone has an unpleasant psychological experience while eating certain foods, well, why should it matter if they eat it or not?

Choosing not to eat cows doesn't mean you want to give cows personhood. Besides, there are plenty of concerns about the modern meat industry that would cause even I to consider limiting my consumption of certain meat products. God did say that they were good, but the ways we raise them, and the excess with which we eat them, don't necessarily fall under that category.

I'm not going to even begin to tackle your issues concerning feminism and homosexuality, but let's look at the veganism/vegetarianism, shall we?

I'm a vegetarian, not because I have a moral objection to eating animals in general (If one were to raise and then humanely kill and eat livestock, I would find no issue with that). However, the meat industry in the United States is abound with animal cruelty. Take chickens, for example. We've been selecting for larger chickens as well as treating them with hormones, and as a result they get so large so fast that many are not even able to support their own body. The conditions of many feedlots are deplorable, and the livestock is fed exclusively on corn (a staple they would not naturally subsist on) which has shown to cause greater incidences of e. coli. Young cows raised for veal are never allowed to walk, and the industry often uses undocumented immigrants in its lower-tier positions (menial jobs at feedlots, livestock transportation, etc.). As a result, the workers often have terrible working conditions, and have no qualms about rough handling animals if need be (every year countless pigs are bludgeoned to death). Raising livestock for meat in the quantities that the US does takes a huge toll on the environment and utilizes an incredibly large amount of natural resources like water, land, etc.

So IMO, if you eat meat in the US you are supporting animal cruelty as well as a host of other issues. Humans are not meant to eat meat everyday at nearly every meal, they certainly did not do so in biblical times.

"Anyhow, unbelievers simply can't live morally until they come to faith by confessing the Westminster Standards after receiving Trinitarian baptism. (Or is it Trinitarian Baptism?)"

Aside from everything else you are talking about there, this statement shows that you are either a horrible writer or have not bothered to read the Scriptures. Unbelievers are justified by faith alone in the crucified and risen Christ. No one, and I mean no one, comes to saving faith through confession of any standard or baptism.

You can rant against cultural practices until you are blue in the face but until you understand and communicate a Biblical Gospel then you are the false prophets leading unbelievers to the pit of Hell.

I don't think the author is a horrible writer. I think you, Mr. Gates, might be a terrible reader. That line is clearly meant as sarcasm towards Christians who excuse the immoral behavior of unbelievers because they are unbelievers.

Brian, it might not have come across clear as a bell, but Pastor Bayly was being sarcastic in that paragraph. If you've read much of what he has written then you would know that he doesn't believe that salvation is through confession of the Westminster Standards or through the act of baptism. The comparison of "Trinitarian baptism" with "Trinitarian Baptism" is a jab at sacramentalists, who DO believe that the very act of baptism saves. Many of those same sacramentalists also preach that Christians should keep their Christianity private and let the feminist/sodomitical/vegan pagans go to hell. The whole thrust of the sarcasm is that such isolationism is ludicrous when compared to the examples given in Scripture of the Prophets, the Apostles and Jesus Himself.

Ross, you're right that many congregations need to have their gluttony rebuked, but veganism and gluttony are just flip-sides of the same coin. They're both an idolatry of food, just idolatry that veers to opposite extremes. In the same way, the drunk and the teetotaler both idolize alcohol, just in opposite extremes. If a congregation is enslaved to gluttony then it is only a matter of time before veganism--or some other extremely-abstaining idolatry of food--enters that congregation, because the congregants are all already slaves to the idol of food. In order to preach the whole counsel of God we must rebuke both: over-indulgence is idolatry, and veganism is also idolatry.

>>What would you say to a vegetarian/ vegan who does not claim the personhood/ "equal standing" of animals? My girlfriend is a vegetarian, and when we talked about this, she told me that she just doesn't really feel comfortable eating animals. It doesn't bother her that others do, she just doesn't.

There are some people who have diet restrictions due to health problems. There are many more people who have diet restrictions because they prefer to have diet restrictions. As Eric pointed out, this is an obstacle to Christian community. People will no longer eat what their hostess has cooked and offers from her Christian love. Lactose intolerance is a real deal. Other things people trot out to explain their selfish demands that hostesses cook a custom meal just for them often are not a real deal. And the selfish people give a bad name to the real deal people.

Why would someone go through life parading their moral preferences in front of others and inconveniencing those who are serving them?

"Lord, is that towel you're washing my feet with made of synthetic fabric or is it one hundred percent cotton? Here let me look at the label before you wash my feet. Synthetic fibers make me itch."

Let me be clear. This post was written to warn us that God's Order of Creation is good and that those who commit themselves to an ideology that defies His Order are deying Him--not simply making a lifestyle choice. So no, I was not saying that everyone should eat as much meat as possible, nor was I saying that how the meat is killed and how the animals are treated prior to butchering is an indifferent matter. Man is not to be cruel to animals, as other readers have done a good job pointing out above. When I spoke of Veganism, I was referring to the moral superiority folks who look down their noses at others who eat meat and jump at opportunities presenting themselves to call attention to their moral superiority by, for instance, working at restaurants where, when asked for a recommendation from the menu, they can answer, "I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat meat."

As for those who say they're uncomfortable eating meat themselves, but make no judgment against others eating meat, I'm having my doubts. But again, please understand that dietary choices that are moralism writ small are not the subject of this post. It's ideological commitments contrary to God's Order of Creation I was warning against, pointing out that such foundational attacks upon God's authority are part of Satans Grand Conspiracy.

>>this statement shows that you are either a horrible writer or have not bothered to read the Scriptures. Unbelievers are justified by faith alone in the crucified and risen Christ.

You're right, so maybe I was not doing a good job with my writing. I'm comforted that College Jay and Abram both got my point exactly right.

>>You can rant against cultural practices until you are blue in the face...

Why bother reading a rant? Go read someone else. Life is too short to waste time reading anyone's rant.

Love,

Guys, you really need to switch to decaf.

#32 - Abram; yep, fair point, on the basis that every truth will be accompanied by two equal and opposite errors. And sometimes error #b is a reaction to error #a.

#34 - :-)

@Abram and College Jay-You are right. I missed the theological sarcasm and jab at sacramentalists. They forgot to use the sarcasm button. Maybe it was the vegan BS that threw me off. Anyhow, I am not fluent in my Presbynese yet.

@David and Tim Bayly-You are right as well. Life is too short to worry myself with ranting. I apparently missed your theological sarcasm. I apologize for the strong public response.

PETA continues to humiliate itsELF with these stupid stunts.

Can you imagine if abortion opponents openly endorsed terrorist groups like the ALF/ELF Axis of Evil?

A representative of PETA said this of the ALF:

"Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher morality."

Does this not sound like something Osama bin Laden would say?

>>So, IMO if you eat meat in the US you are supporting animal cruelty as well as a host of other issues.

Not everyone eating meat in the U.S. gets their meat from the sources that you describe. You have to work harder (or pay more) for the other kind, but there is the other kind.

I am quite fascinated that among the three options -- feminism, homosexism, veganism -- that the latter (and its cousin, vegetarianism) is getting the most attention (comments). Was this post a purposeful experiment?? :)

In seriousness, I have to say that this is one of the most convicting posts I have read in awhile. To be at all a friend of the world is to be an enemy of God. (James 4:4)
That enticing "friendship" keeps creeping in, often unnoticed, everywhere! Thank you for giving us these warnings.

I think that veganism is getting the most attention because it's the most controversial among the readers of this blog. Most of us who post here would be standing right there with the authors on feminism and homosexism. Now, I happen to think that they need to nuance their criticisms of vegans/ vegetarians, and I disagree with my brother Tim here, but it's true that a lot of the time we get our hackles up on the one point we've compromised on. However, if I may offer a criticism of this post- in love, as this blog has ministered to me in many ways, not the least of which by forcing me to confront more direct, clear, talk- it would be this: There is often an assumption made here that because someone is offended, a mark must have been hit- that because people are annoyed, or upset, or get their hackles up over a post, that is proof that the post is correct. All it really proves is that when tone is abrasive, people get angry. I suppose I'm getting off topic- but it's at the heart of how I respond to Tim and David's work here. It's the conflict between the desire to be honest and direct, and not tone down the truth for the sake of manners, and the need to not overstate, distort, or needlessly insult.

Roger - you nailed it. This post illustrates the problem with this blog in general. The Baylys have some good things to say now and then, but often the nugget of truth is obscured by the surrounding abrasiveness, rudeness, hyperbole, and overreaching. It's a classic case of their writing being edifying when their words aren't screwing it up.

Mason, I'd respectfully disagree. While I at times think our hosts give unnecessary offense, I'd say nine times out of ten that we need the bluntness and I am grateful for it- rather than being the problem with the blog, I'd say it is an occasional issue that results from courageous preaching of the word, which Tim and David give us and I am grateful for. This whole line of comments has reminded me how grateful I am that in our fallen state, God has given us repentance and forgiveness as a mechanism for dealing with the ways our words grind against each other. May you have a new year of great service to and blessing from our God!

>>The Baylys have some good things to say now and then, but often the nugget of truth is obscured by the surrounding abrasiveness, rudeness, hyperbole, and overreaching.

It is a tribute to the general effeminacy of our discourse that people find this to be true.

I try to give the Baylys, who have taken on the difficult task of managing and moderating such a blog, as much grace as possible. Can anyone else 'not' imagine what Pastor Tim's email inbox looks like on any given day?!

I tend to agree with Roger here and have found, myself, that most of the time when I am angry about a post it is because of my own sin struggles peeping their heads. However, does this mean that I always agree? No. They are fallible men and have made mistakes and have often admitted them right here on the blog.

Also, I would note that I used to attend Pastor Tim's church in Bloomington (we moved in '09) so having known him personally helps -- when you know the writer behind the blog's life, sin struggles (admitted during church service) and also see his fruits, the words take on all new meaning.

Another thing that puts things into perspective, for me, is some time I spent living in Europe -- Americans are far too sensitive (I learned) in debate. Europeans can typically have a heated debate with their friend and still go out for pints of beer together afterwards. In America (at least in the midwest where I grew up) any kind of conflict was deemed bad and avoidable. I have learned to appreciate the Baylys' bluntness on topics that my flesh would rather sugar coat and be "Minnesota" nicer about. Just my $.02.

Jessica,

About arguments and friends - I used to pity the folks sitting near an old friend and I. We used to have what I am sure sounded like knock-down arguments every time we went out to lunch together. We also laughed at ourselves a great deal.

I wish there were more folks like that. "Minnesota nice" has it's place, but so do "lover's quarrels".

Mamilla

That's it. My typing is bad, but nothing's as embarrassing as being told by auto-correct you don't know how to spell your own name.

I'm a southerner, so my people are even worse- we'll just say it behind your back after we say "now, bless his heart." :)

Ha! I had just assumed it was some type of inside joke that I was in the dark about. Now curiosity just got the best of me and I looked up the definition of Mamilla -- all I found is "a neighborhood outside the walls of Jerusalem."

I was hoping someone would get around to quoting Scripture; specifically this text:

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Doctrines of demons fellas. Demons.

Love,

Pages

Add new comment