Man Tries to Burn Lesbian Couple and Children to Death

A Florida man has been arrested for attempting to burn to death a lesbian couple and their 8 children while they were sleeping. During police questioning, he said he despises their lesbian relationship and especially hates to see them kiss. So naturally, he tried to kill them.

Detectives said their neighbor, 73-year-old Braulio Valenzuela intended to burn down the home that belongs to two women, who lived next door, because they are lesbians.

Security cameras show Valenzuela exiting his home around 4:30 a.m. Saturday. In the video, he disappears behind Dansey’s home, and moments later, the video shows a globe of fire.

Detective said that while out of the camera’s sight, Valenzuela set ablaze a mattress that was right outside Dansey’s trailer. “I saw flashing light. Then I heard crackling,” said Dansey.

The flames were extinguished before they could burn down Dansey’s home.

Police believe Valenzuela set the fire because he was disgusted by Dansey’s lesbian relationship.

Valenzuela never admitted to sparking the fire, but he did confess that he hates seeing the two female neighbors kiss and does not think they deserve to have children.

I’m sure Scott Lively will be along soon to tell everyone how this is really the fault of gay people.

64 comments on this post.
  1. martinc:

    I’m so glad we have Christians like this guy around to be moral exemplars to the rest of us.

  2. tbp1:

    Well, of course it’s the fault of gay people. If only they had the common courtesy not to exist, this guy wouldn’t have been forced to try to burn down their house.

  3. Raging Bee:

    SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE UNHOLY EVER-LOVING FUCK IS WRONG WITH AFRI — oh wait…

  4. bbgunn:

    Not enough usable stones for this trailer park’s arbiter of morality, I suppose.

  5. Alverant:

    I saw this on RawStory and someone was saying this didn’t deserve to be called a hate crime.

  6. matty1:

    Most reports say he is himself a registered sex offender yet he is passing moral judgement on a consensual adult relationship.

    There. Are. No. Words.

  7. quiddity42:

    Don’t leave out the fun bit about him being a registered sex offender, Ed.

  8. raven:

    Well at least he isn’t very competent. What’s worse than trying to murder 10 people, 8 of them children is actually murdering them.

    News for Oregon woman kills 4 year old gay son

    Oregon mom found guilty of murdering 4-year-old son she thought was gay
    New York Daily News ‎- by Carol Kuruvilla ‎- 1 day ago

    Oregon mom found guilty of murdering 4-year-old son she thought … by his mother Jessica Dutro-Boggess because she thought he was gay, … An Oregon mom was convicted on Wednesday of killing her 4-year-old son by …

    I do hope murdering little kids because they might be gay doesn’t catch on.

  9. eric:

    ‘Love the sinner, burn the sinner.’
    Or is it ‘burn the sinner, hate the sin?’
    ‘Burn the sinner, love the flames?’
    I get so confused.

  10. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @5. Alverant : “I saw this on RawStory and someone was saying this didn’t deserve to be called a hate crime.”

    Did that person give any hint of a reason for such a ridiculous statement because .really? Dafuck!?

    That’s almost as absurd as this sickening homophobic hate crime itself.

  11. heddle:

    martinc, #1

    I’m so glad we have Christians like this guy around to be moral exemplars to the rest of us.

    How do you know he is a Christian and that he did this for religious reasons? I don’t see that in any of the reports. Do you have a link?

  12. somnus:

    Se, now this is how a psychopath behaves.

  13. colnago80:

    Re Heddle @ #11

    And even if he claimed to be a Christian, the blogs resident physics professor and math department chairman would trot out his patented no true Scotsman shtick.

  14. reddiaperbaby1942:

    Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown. (Or, in this case, Florida.)

  15. heddle:

    colnago80 #13,

    You’re an asshole and a troll, you know that?

  16. Michael Heath:

    martinc writes:

    I’m so glad we have Christians like this guy around to be moral exemplars to the rest of us.

    heddle responds:

    How do you know he is a Christian and that he did this for religious reasons? I don’t see that in any of the reports. Do you have a link?

    Well this yahoo is mimicing what the Bible claims God will do. Except in this case the harm here would be evil and horrendous yes, but insignificantly so relative to what the god of the Bible’s threatens.

    You are of course correct we have no evidence this bigot is a Christian. But let’s be clear, Hell-believing Christians such as yourself celebrate a supposed entity that supposedly promises infinitely more evil than the actions we observe here.

    heddle, do you still attend a church that abuses gay children by treating their emerging sexuality as sinful relative to the emerging sexuality of heterosexual children?

  17. moarscienceplz:

    Florida Department of Law Enforcement records show Valenzuela-Villanueva, 73, is no stranger to police. Monday’s arrest was at least his 10th since 1994. Other charges include burglary, grand theft and retail theft. The state records also show he was first arrested for fondling a child in 1994, but the charges were dropped.

    Then in September 1999, Valenzuela-Villanueva was charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment and indecent exposure to a child under 13. He was later charged with molesting a child in 2006, and arrested again in 2011 for failing to register as a sex offender.

    Just what does it take for the authorities decide this guy just cannot be allowed out among normal society?

  18. Gvlgeologist, FCD:

    This is a predictable consequence of the villification of gays by the Religious Rightwingers. This is extreme, but of course anti-gay violence is far from uncommon.

  19. Alverant:

    @10 SteveR

    His logic was that if everyone is equal then the motivation behind the crime shouldn’t count. To him killing someone because they are homosexual should be considered exactly the same as killing someone for any other reason.

  20. Larry:

    Stand your Ground defense?

    Hell, its Florida. It would probably work. Just find a hoodie or some skittles in the house and your halfway there.

  21. Pierce R. Butler:

    moarscienceplz @ # 17: Just what does it take for the authorities decide this guy just cannot be allowed out among normal society?

    Whaddya mean, “normal society”? This is Florida!

  22. d.c.wilson:

    10 bucks says this guy has a stack of porn in his trailer that includes numerous lesbian scenes.

  23. grumpyoldfart:

    He faces ten counts of attempted second-degree murder

    After the plea bargain he’ll probably be charged with nothing more than trespassing.

  24. heddle:

    Michael Heath,

    heddle, do you still attend a church that abuses gay children by treating their emerging sexuality as sinful relative to the emerging sexuality of heterosexual children?

    Really Michael. You are supposed to be one of the more rational thinkers on here. Do you not see a question-begging “are you still beating your wife” problem with the way you asked this question?
    The still assumes that, at a minimum, I did this horrible thing in the past, and the abuses indicates that, whatever it is, you get to define it as such–game over, no discussion.

  25. sinned34:

    I have to agree with Heddle on this one: anti-gay bigotry doesn’t require one be a Christian. Although these days, in the many areas of the United States (not to mention Uganda, and Russia) they tend to be highly correlated.

  26. WMDKitty -- Survivor:

    Florida. *shakes head*

  27. colnago80:

    Re Heddle @ #24

    Hey Davie boy, how about just answering the question. If the church in question doesn’t do what Heath says it does, just say so. If it does, just inform us why you still attend services there. By the way, I would ask the same question of Andrew Sullivan as to why he still belongs to the Raping Children Church which considers homosexuals like him to be subhuman.

  28. Die Anyway:

    I see that on the same news web page is an article about a mega-church pastor who has resigned due to a “moral failure”. Surprise, surprise.

  29. Michael Heath:

    Me earlier:

    heddle, do you still attend a church that abuses gay children by treating their emerging sexuality as sinful relative to the emerging sexuality of heterosexual children?

    heddle responds:

    Really Michael. You are supposed to be one of the more rational thinkers on here. Do you not see a question-begging “are you still beating your wife” problem with the way you asked this question?
    The still assumes that, at a minimum, I did this horrible thing in the past, and the abuses indicates that, whatever it is, you get to define it as such–game over, no discussion.

    Your comparison is not analogous. The husband beating wife analogy is flawed because there’s no evidence a man beat his wife; instead it does beg the question as you correctly note. But in your case, you’ve previously admitted you are a congregant at a church that abuses gay children and discriminates against gay adults by refusing them the same rights within the church as heterosexuals; so, not analogous.

    Therefore the question remains, do you continue to associate yourself with a church that abuses gay children? A question I see you avoid responding to once again.

    I agree martinc’s point is invalid. But the far more troubling issue here is that people continue to enable and even promote discrimination against gay people, in your case that’s in private associations.

    Discrimination against gay people in private venues probably isn’t as bad as those who also promote government bigotry. But conservative Christianity, especially from their churches, continues to be the primary wellspring that promotes and justifies bigotry, mistreatment, and discrimination against gay people in the U.S. So merely supporting gay civil marriage does not provide a free moral pass for those who continue to abuse gay children like we encounter from your church and similar ones. Discrimination that is a predominate policy within conservative Christian denominations and even still, some mainline ones as well.

    So heddle, if a gay teenager in your congregation came to you for advice about growing up gay in a household that attends a church who discriminates against people and seems them as fundamentally defective relative to heterosexuals; what advice would you give? Fix yourself and become a hetero? Suck it up and be celibate for your entire life even if the person yearns for a life-long mate?

    Mine would be simple; leave when you get to be 18. Also, watch the “It gets better” YouTube videos, the world is filled with non-conservative Christians. In this country they predominately don’t hate gay people and don’t consider them something less than a full human being as conservative Christianity continues to falsely proclaim. There is no sanctuary there; only abuse for from those who care not about humans relative to their ideology.

  30. heddle:

    Heath,

    You are an ass for being a bigot. An ass for asking a stupid question. An ass going off topic like a common troll. But I’ll answer your ill-formed question:

    heddle, do you still attend a church that abuses gay children by treating their emerging sexuality as sinful relative to the emerging sexuality of heterosexual children?

    It is utterly fatuous to ask if I am still in such a church because I never have been in a such a church. So the answer is no. Flat-out no.

    You think you know something about my church, but you know nothing.

  31. martinc:

    heddle @ 11:

    How do you know he is a Christian and that he did this for religious reasons?

    Sorry I took so long responding that others have jumped in – I’m in a different time zone.

    Fair point, I DON’T have any evidence that his motivation for burning homosexuals to death comes from religious conviction. The possibility DOES exist that he has arrived at hatred of homosexuality – to the point of attempted murder – completely independently of the tide of religious hatred of homosexuality that bombards poorly-educated people from pulpits all across the nation. I guess we will all have to make our own estimates about just how likely that is, however.

  32. Michael Heath:

    heddle writes:

    It is utterly fatuous to ask if I am still in such a church because I never have been in a such a church. So the answer is no. Flat-out no.

    You think you know something about my church, but you know nothing.

    Actually you’ve previously admitted you’re a congregant of a church that discriminates against gay adults, and therefore by definition, that church abuses gay children.

    Your fatally flawed rationalization when admitting this was that such discrimination was fine. That it analogous to Muslims not being welcome to become members of Christian churches and vice versa. But again, gay children have a choice; they’re victims by way of their parents. Such children are held captive in a congregation that holds them in contempt for their sexual identification, that demands behavior from them that is predominately ruinous to the individual and not demanded from heterosexuals.

    I understand why you avoid the questions I ask and have yet to demonstrate the moral courage necessary to directly consider and respond rather than avoid, deny, and deflect. Because what you do is morally reprehensible, but you don’t have the capability, yet, to adapt to a moral position. Where you deny your indefensible position by falsely claiming my pointing out your immorality makes me a bigot. It doesn’t, it makes me a defender of gay people by pointing out practiced bigotry like what you do. So, psychological projection of your own bigotry for my revealing your bigotry and that of conservative Christians; that in order to reduce cognitive dissonance.

    So I’ll ask again. heddle, if a gay teenager in your congregation came to you for advice about growing up gay in a household that attends a church that discriminates against people and sees them as fundamentally defective relative to heterosexuals; what advice would you give? Fix yourself and become a hetero? Suck it up and be celibate for your entire life even if this gay child yearns for a life-long mate? Or figure out how to get your parents to stop forcing you to attend a bigoted institution that harms gay people like the church you attend?

    Show some courage heddle. Quit lying about what I’m doing here and confront my questions. If I were what you claim, then you’d be able to handle my questions. But to date, all we’ve seen is an inability to even confront what I note.

  33. heddle:

    Heath, #32

    It was exactly as I claimed. You simply equate the fact that, say, my church would not marry same sex couples* (nor would it have married me since I was an atheist) as abuse. You have equated, by assertion of His Worshipfullness Michael Heath, without nuance or discussion, what is manifestly a form of discrimination** as abuse*** and in doing so, among other things, completely diluted the meaning of the word abuse.

    In doing so you willfully and smugly send a message, without knowing, that we discuss sin as a list of do’s and don’ts with the consequence of hell looming in the background, and that we teach (with sadistic pleasure I assume) such doctrine to children—perhaps having them color such pictures in Sunday school.****

    I have given ample evidence over the years that we do not teach (and I’m one of the teachers) in that manner. Rather we teach that sin, as taught by Jesus in the NT, is not “oops I violated rule 83c” (even to the point where I repeated argued on here that the 10 commandments are nullified) but rather rebellion against god, and furthermore a rebellion that we all are born into, we don’t learn it, and we can never completely overcome it. To use your language, we do not teach that homosexuals are defective relative to heterosexuals, but rather that all are hopelessly defective. (See the T in TULIP.)

    You also think, I suspect, that we discuss homosexuality frequently. In fact, I am certain that it has never been the subject of any sermon in my church. ***** The only time I have mentioned it in Sunday School is again to mention that whether it is legal or not in our state is not the church’s concern.

    What I would do with such a teenager? I would first of all tell him (although he would already know, unless he wasn’t paying attention) that it is not the doctrine of our church that homosexuals go to hell. I would in fact remind him that we teach a doctrine that states you cannot lose your salvation. And I would give the advice that we all suffer a form of cognitive dissonance between what we want and desire and even what we think is right and some of what we read in the bible. I would remind him that if he is gay the doctrine of our church would not be that he is making a “choice” but that his being born that way is more consistent with what we teach. If there are signs of emotional stress, I would advise him to see our pastor who is also a licensed therapist. I would offer to spend as much time as he wanted to discuss this and to be his friend. I might do more but I haven’t thought about it much—it is a situation that has never happened in my experience.
    I suspect you have the simple notion that if I do not tell him: “It’s OK, it’s perfectly acceptable” that I am party to abuse. You should have the courage to admit. When it comes to religion, your comments are as repetitive and simpleminded as raven’s—you simply wrap them in more flowery language.
    —————————————–
    *I feel compelled to point out that it is taught at my church that we are not called to enact laws that codify into the civil statutes our beliefs. And, as I pointed out before and provided the link, affirmation of separation of church and state is our Articles of Faith—our doctrinal statement—that all members agree to.

    ** In this case, the same type of discrimination that you’d find in virtually any church, e.g., neither a Catholic Church, Synagogue, Mosque, or indeed my current church would have married me when I got married.

    *** You are, of course, simply defining religious indoctrination of children as a form of abuse. I can see that argument, and certainly some cases I even agree, but I have never seen anyone make a reasonable argument as to why other forms of indoctrination are not abuse. I submit that you cannot find very many parents who do not indoctrinate their beliefs—be they religious, political, socio-economical or otherwise on their children.

    **** Before someone trods out the “heddle claims to speak for all Christians” comment please note that Michael has asked me specifically about my church.

    ***** I get the impression that you (and others on here) think that we (and we are a conservative Baptist church in the south) talk mostly about evolution, homosexuality, liberal politics, Obama and atheists. We virtually never talk about any of that (which is why I smile when atheists think they scare us–when in fact they are not even on our radar) except for science. I have taught entire courses on a pro-science position (and at the conclusion of last week’s unrelated class, invited the church to this.

  34. busterggi:

    heddle, “I would first of all tell him (although he would already know, unless he wasn’t paying attention) that it is not the doctrine of our church that homosexuals go to hell. ”

    True, the doctrine of your church, Calvinists – the ‘only true Christians’ – is that the few chosen to be saved and the majority who are damned is predetermined by Jesus (who loves them all equally) and that one can be a wonderful caring person and spend eternity in Hell or go through life being a total shit and be saved. And all because of how Jesus was feeling when he created them, no reason need be given for his arbitrary decision.

    Might as well worship a bad pair of dice.

  35. heddle:

    busterggi,

    True, the doctrine of your church, Calvinists – the ‘only true Christians’ – is that the few chosen to be saved and the majority who are damned is predetermined by Jesus

    No that is not our doctrine. As I have stated many times on here, heaven, in Revelation, is described as having an enormous number of residents:

    After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. (Rev 7:9)

    Beings saved is, I suspect, the majority position–possibly the overwhelming majority position.

    But feel free to continue to imagine you know our doctrine (or the bible) better than we do.

  36. dingojack:

    “…. even to the point where I repeated argued on here that the 10 commandments are nullified….”

    You teach children that it’s moral to kill each other?!? Sheer depravity!

    :) Dingo

  37. busterggi:

    heddle, heddle, heddle – you left out most of that section you quoted!

    Revelation 7

    7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
    7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
    7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
    7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
    7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
    7:6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
    7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
    7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
    7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, ofall nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    The great multitude is a whole 144,000 people – that is not the majority of the billions of people alive today let alone throughout the existence of humanity.

    If you’re going to cherry-pick at least pick a whole cherry.

  38. heddle:

    busterggi, #37

    Umm, no. Whatever the 144,000 represents (I won’t bother telling you what I think) you will note that they are in fact numbered (presumably for the benefit of the modern American high school student who might not be able to do 12*12,000) in v4. Plus, they are all Jews. The great multitude John reports seeing (v9) cannot, he writes, be numbered (so it cannot refer to what was, in fact, just numbered, duh) and they are all peoples, not just Jews. They do not (it is friggin’ obvious) refer to the same group.

    My interpretation that the majority of people will be saved is subject to debate. But not on the basis of your comment. A 1st grader could refute your attempt to refute my claim.

  39. busterggi:

    In case you hadn’t noticed heddle, Jesus supposedly said many times that he was the JEWISH messiah, not the messiah of all peoples – that was Paul & a lot of later authors & editors distancing themselves from those rebelious Jews around 70 CE and then even more so a few decades later.

  40. heddle:

    busterggi,

    In case you hadn’t noticed heddle, Jesus supposedly said many times that he was the JEWISH messiah, not the messiah of all peoples – that was Paul & a lot of later authors & editors distancing themselves from those rebelious Jews around 70 CE and then even more so a few decades later.

    Oh, yeah, how could I forget that? Thank’s for reminding me. I forgot that it is well established that Paul (who likely didn’t exist and also didn’t write most of the letters attributed to him) usurped the Christianity of Jesus (who likely didn’t exist). And I keep forgetting that there is an implied “Not!” after passages like Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4, where he promises that salvation is coming to people everywhere.

    It’s good that you are here to correct my faulty exegesis with such insightful analysis.

  41. busterggi:

    heddle @ 40 – well you’re welcome, we just keep hoping you’ll learn something someday.

    Interesting that you are saying Paul didn’t exist though. I know I’ve never said that.

  42. leonardschneider:

    @ d.c. wilson (#22):

    “10 bucks says this guy has a stack of porn in his trailer that includes numerous lesbian scenes.”

    Naw. Probably plenty of girl-on-girl shoots, but no lesbian scenes.

    I know: I’m being a little bitch about semantics…. But actually, I’m not. There’s a world of difference between the girl-on-girl stuff that’s aimed at straight males, and actual lesbian porn. (It’s nothing to do with the number of flannel shirts and mullets in view, either.) Both stylistically and the physical appearance of the performers set lesbian porn apart from the fake “lesbian” scenes in straight porn…. and the lesbians I know get absolutely no jollies out of the straight girl-on-girl stuff, even if they think the girls are hot. The best analogy would be saying lesbians should enjoy girl-on-girl scenes, just like gay men should enjoy straight hardcore porn. Why wouldn’t the gay men like it, there’s plenty of footage of large erect penises, right?

    Riiiiight. Correct equipment, but how the equipment is being used has no appeal to those particular viewers.

    You’re probably right, though. Our Florida Firebug probably did have a shitload of porn with girl-on-girl scenes, and you know what? The lesbian couple most certainly ruined his fantasies. The two women probably didn’t constantly glisten with baby oil, wear skimpy halter tops, and not once did they ask him to come over so they could experiment with heterosexuality. And his complaint about their kissing? They weren’t using any tongue, at all. Just the chaste, passing kisses every long-term couple have, a momentary gesture of love, commitment, and affection. They also had the gall to not massage each other’s nipples in the driveway while leaving for work: he thought he understood lesbians, and they had to go and demonstrate that they’re normal people, not living masturbatory aids.

    And for that, they had to pay.
    ___________________________________________

    – Between doing camera work for an adult film production company, working in a porn shop, and having a very wide variety of friends in San Francisco and Oakland, you pick up a far-ranging scope of information.

    – Shooting girl-on-girl scenes — not three-ways, but pure girl-on-girl — could be a logistical nightmare for the director and producer. Some girls really, really dug them. Some girls were fine with it: “Hey, I don’t mind women, and it’s part of the job. I’ll work it.” Some girls, well, they were happy to do girl-on-girl, enthusiastic even…. So long as you got them high first, preferably on Ecstasy. If no Ecstasy could located, meth would do, so long as it was the real thing. They could work for a year straight, totally clean, but ask ‘em to do girl-on-girl, you’d better come across with some dope.
    And some girls flatly refused. No way, no how, and no amount of money would get them to go down on another girl, or even be on the receiving end. There was no homophobia involved, they were just completely turned off by it. Just like you can be a straight guy who fully supports gay rights, maybe you even have gone to some rallies. Doesn’t mean you want to fuck another guy, and it doesn’t mean you’re wrong for thinking, “Eeeewww….” when thinking about the graphic details. Some female performers wouldn’t do anal, others wouldn’t do girl-on-girl. So you miss one day’s work, oh well.

  43. dingojack:

    Leonard – I was going to ask about your involvement in the industry (as you’ve posted with a detailed knowledge several times before), but I didn’t know if I really wanted to know the details. :)
    Dingo

  44. Raging Bee:

    How do you know he is a Christian and that he did this for religious reasons?

    He acted out the very same hatred that millions of Christians have been using their Bible to rationalize for CENTURIES. And I haven’t seen any mention that this person is a Muslim, Pagan or atheist (something the media would have gladly shouted from every front page, if there was any evidence to support it). What more evidence do you need?

    It really says something about heddle’s character when an insane and outrageous hate-crime is reported, and his only response is to furiously deny any connection between his religion and the hate-crime. Something that wouldn’t be a problem if his religion wasn’t so full of hateful nonsense in the first place.

  45. ildi:

    we discuss sin as a list of do’s and don’ts with the consequence of hell looming in the background, and that we teach (with sadistic pleasure I assume) such doctrine to children

    Good to know.

    Beings saved is, I suspect, the majority position–possibly the overwhelming majority position.

    That’s like saying a father only tortured and killed two of his twelve children for no reason, so it’s all good! (That this makes it ok in the eyes of the other children is the Stockholm syndrome part.)

    I forgot that it is well established that Paul (who likely didn’t exist and also didn’t write most of the letters attributed to him) usurped the Christianity of Jesus (who likely didn’t exist).

    I think heddle is going through an existential crisis.

  46. Michael Heath:

    heddle @ 33,

    You almost completely avoided my questions to you, as always. You instead create an imagined false strawman of what I think, creating whole scenarios I’ve never expressed about your church and what I’ve repeatedly challenged you on, and then beat on them.

    I never claimed your church’s abuse of gay teens is the threat of Hell worse than the threat presented to heterosexual children. Instead I’ve repeatedly, ad nauseam, charged your church with abuse of gay children for demanding adherence to doctrine that doesn’t allow them to develop and behave in a manner that’s allowed for heterosexual children in your church when it comes to forming social relationships with other individuals.

    And your theoretical advice to a gay teen in your church has you expecting that teen to continue to submit to behavior that keeps them subjugated to the discrimination practiced on them that is not practiced on heterosexual teens. You are effectively condoning such abuse. And by being a leader in this church you go beyond being merely an enabler, but complicit in such abuse.

  47. Michael Heath:

    busterggi writes to heddle:

    The great multitude is a whole 144,000 people – that is not the majority of the billions of people alive today let alone throughout the existence of humanity.

    If you’re going to cherry-pick at least pick a whole cherry.

    Your own reference falsifies your claim. In this passage the predicted number is way beyond 144,000 people.

  48. Michael Heath:

    heddle writes:

    My interpretation that the majority of people will be saved [avoid eternal suffering in Hell] is subject to debate.

    But if you believe God will condemn at least one person to eternal suffering, then the nature of that god is infinitely evil. Where Hell-believing Christians celebrate the existence and nature of a god who would do such an infinitely evil act.

    I conclude such celebrations are themselves either evil, or practiced by people who are delusional in their thinking when it comes to religion (and I bet, their politics as well).

    I’ve yet to encounter even one Hell-believing Christian, including you, that would confront the implications of celebrating a god who would commit some to an eternity of suffering.

    They may struggle with their celebration of a genocidal god who supposedly wiped out the earth’s population in Noah’s flood, or mass slaughtered a non-Jewish tribe, or demands his favored tribe turn others’ children into sexual slaves, with all the attendant defective avoidance/denial/rationalizations that accompany their considerations. But weigh the moral implications of a god who causes eternal suffering to humans and then celebrate this very god? No, I’ve not seen such consideration.

  49. Nick Gotts:

    Beings saved is, I suspect, the majority position–possibly the overwhelming majority position. – heddle

    As for the minority who get to suffer unendurable agony for ever and ever and ever and ever, and were chosen for that role before they even existed… well, that just glorifies God all the more gloriously, eh?

  50. heddle:

    ildi.

    That’s like saying a father only tortured and killed two of his twelve children for no reason, so it’s all good! (That this makes it ok in the eyes of the other children is the Stockholm syndrome part.)

    It would be like that if I was making a “so it is all good” argument, when in fact I was doing nothing more than addressing the inaccuracy of claim that my doctrine teaches that only a small minority are saved. It doesn’t teach that, which I pointed out, nothing more. Try not to be so dense.

    RB,

    And I haven’t seen any mention that this person is a Muslim, Pagan or atheist (something the media would have gladly shouted from every front page, if there was any evidence to support it). What more evidence do you need?

    That way comment is too stupid to reply to, beyond this meta-reply.

  51. heddle:

    Michael Heath,

    I’ve yet to encounter even one Hell-believing Christian, including you, that would confront the implications of celebrating a god who would commit some to an eternity of suffering.

    That is simply not true, I have encountered it honestly (and with difficulty.) Your argument, evident in the question-begging “have you stopped beating your wife?” manner that you pose your assertion masquerading (poorly) as as question, is this:

    1) I, Michael Heath, have declared the Christian God to be infinitely immoral.
    2) Now, do you agree with me or not?
    3) If you fail to agree with (1), no matter how many times you explain your position, I shall dismiss you as having not confronted the infallible claim (1).
    4) In failing to agree, I will also indict you as immoral and an abuser of children. This assertion is as infallible as (1).
    5) Rinse and repeat.

  52. democommie:

    This:

    “Before the typical haters do their usual – this is neither a Christian act or anything that any God would want done. This guy is a sicko, and should have had a fatal accident on the way to the police station.”

    is from the WaTimes* (and what a fucking cesspool that comments thread is!). Now, this person isn’t saying that they are a Christian but I’m thinking that they prolly consider themselves to be one. I doubt that he/she understands the meaning of “irony”.

    *http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/fla-man-sets-fire-home-8-children-inside-because-p/

  53. dingojack:

    Said one—”Folk of a surly Tapster tell

    “And daub his Visage with the Smoke of Hell;

    “They talk of some strict Testing of us—Pish!

    “He’s a Good Fellow, and ‘t will all be well.”

    KUZA-NAMA. Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. (as Translated by Fitzgerald)

    Dingo

  54. colnago80:

    Re Michael Heath @ #48

    But if you believe God will condemn at least one person to eternal suffering, then the nature of that god is infinitely evil.

    I presume that you would not object too loudly if Vlad the Impaler, Schickelgruber, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. were so condemned.

  55. ildi:

    heddle:

    It would be like that if I was making a “so it is all good” argument, when in fact I was doing nothing more than addressing the inaccuracy of claim that my doctrine teaches that only a small minority are saved. It doesn’t teach that, which I pointed out, nothing more.

    As someone who, you know, actually believes this doctrine, yes, yes, you are. You even say you find it a difficult thing to own. Why lie about it now? What drives you to keep coming here and hear people say how amoral at best and evil at worst this is?

    1) I, Michael Heath, have declared the Christian God to be infinitely immoral.
    2) Now, do you agree with me or not?
    3) If you fail to agree with (1), no matter how many times you explain your position, I shall dismiss you as having not confronted the infallible claim (1).
    4) In failing to agree, I will also indict you as immoral and an abuser of children. This assertion is as infallible as (1).
    5) Rinse and repeat.

    If you were Catholic, there would be some confessional time in your near future. You are most lying-est Christian I have come across in a long time. I think you’re starting to compete for the title with William Lane Craig. That’s some high bar. Here’s a new list:

    1)Ed writes a post about yet another evil, sick or just deluded thing a member of one or another of the myriad Christian sects has done and commenters comment on this.
    2) heddle rushes in to say that these are not the behaviors of most or even many typical Christians, so don’t keep tarring the good Christians with this brush.
    3) People point out the twisted, amoral and evil behaviors of heddle’s god, so no risk of tarring.
    4) heddle throws down a bunch of logical fallacies and gratuitous insults and runs away.
    5) yada yada yada.

    I have an inspirational thought in the style of Stuart Smalley you can repeat to yourself whenever you have the urge to comment and show even more clearly your desperation to justify why you worship an abusive tyrant:

    My god is not good enough, I’m smart enough to know better, and doggone it, people pity me for it!

  56. Nick Gotts:

    I have encountered it honestly – heddle

    No, you have not. The only honest way for you to “encounter” the doctrine of eternal punishement would be to admit that you worship infinite evil.

    I presume that you would not object too loudly if Vlad the Impaler, Schickelgruber, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. were so condemned. – colnago80

    You have no grounds whatever for this presumption. Causing infinite suffering would be infinitely evil, whoever or whatever it was caused to.

  57. heddle:

    ildi,

    You are most lying-est Christian I have come across in a long time. I think you’re starting to compete for the title with William Lane Craig

    Oh brother. Please, if you are going to insult, at least try to be original and/or clever.

    heddle throws down a bunch of logical fallacies

    I am not surprised that you are one of those who thinks: If I simply charge someone with a logical fallacy (or, better yet, a plurality of ‘em!) then I win the argument!

    Nick Gotts,

    The only honest way for you to “encounter” the doctrine of eternal punishement would be to admit that you worship infinite evil.

    Here we have the perfect example of Pharynguloid “free thinking and uber rationalism”. Your only two choices are: agree with our dogma or be {dishonest, a cupcake, …} There is no other way. Well done.

  58. Nick Gotts:

    Heddle@57,

    More dishonesty from you: you can’t answer the charge satisfactorily, so you lash out in irrelevant fashion, in a transparent attempt to divert attention from your church’s disgusting doctrines and your own worship of evil. It won’t wash, heddle, it really won’t wash.

  59. ildi:

    In lieu of working on my taxes, I wandered around the interwebs to see what other Christians think of Calvinism. It appears that conservative evangelicals, and Southern Baptists in particular, are none too pleased with the Calvinist infestation – particularly by new pastors who are not informing the selection committees of their orientation until they start preaching, and then the congregation goes wut? Sneaky Calvinists! It seems that they are the Tea Party of the conservative evangelical movement: a dogmatic, divisive minority.

    Calvinists also consider themselves the intellectuals of the evangelical movement, unlike those emotional charismatics, but Augustinian/Calvinist theology is actually an unpopular minority among Christian philosophers – burn!

    Any-hoo, Roger E. Olson at Baylor University sums it up best:

    What’s Wrong With Calvinism

    If strong, five-point Calvinism is true, then God is monstrous and barely distinguishable from the devil. The only difference in character is that the devil wants everyone to go to hell and God only wants some, many, to go to hell.

    …most Calvinists agree, that God does not sin in decreeing that someone sin because God’s intention is good whereas the murderer’s intention is evil. God intends the murder he decrees and renders certain for his glory. The murderer, who could not do otherwise than God decrees, is guilty because his intention is hateful. Not only is this hairsplitting; it also raises the question of the origin of the murderer’s evil intention. If every twist and turn of every thought and intention is under the direct control of God, then even the murderer’s intention cannot escape the all-determining sovereignty of Calvinism’s God. This is why Arminius stated that if Calvinism is true, not only is sin not really sin, but God is the only sinner.

    Ooh, snap!

    I also came across another odious doctrine heddle may be claiming; his mentor, R.C. Sproul is a complementarian: men and women are equal, except when they’re not. Nurturing and singing and bringing the alter flowers are womanly activities; teaching or exercising authority over men (being ordained), not so much. Women have to submit to their husbands, because otherwise, think of the chaos and power struggles! How’s that part working out for you, heddle?

    In related news, Sproul is all for the Head Covering Movement. On their front page:

    The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…? – R.C. Sproul

    Great role model, heddle!

  60. leni:

    Oh brother. Please, if you are going to insult, at least try to be original and/or clever.

    Why? You aren’t.

    With either your insults or your creepy apologetics.

  61. Nick Gotts:

    Sneaky Calvinists! It seems that they are the Tea Party of the conservative evangelical movement: a dogmatic, divisive minority. – ildi@59

    Yes, but you have to realise that they can’t help it: Calvinists are predetermined to be tedious, obnoxious, self-important, self-righteous arseholes!

  62. Raging Bee:

    That is simply not true, I have encountered it honestly (and with difficulty.)

    Heddle, your failure to elaborate does not inspire confidence.

  63. Raging Bee:

    Here we have the perfect example of Pharynguloid “free thinking and uber rationalism”. Your only two choices are: agree with our dogma or be {dishonest, a cupcake, …} There is no other way. Well done.

    Well, yeah, when something is objectively true and obvious, you really do have only two choices: admit the obvious, or be dishonest. Heddle, you’re sounding like the creationists, flat-earthers, and all the other denialists who cry about “dogmatism” whenever they’re asked to accept an objective fact.

    The OP was about someone who tried to commit murder — and heddle cares more about attacking those who condemn the crime than attacking the one who actually committed it. That speaks volumes about his ethics.

  64. Michael Heath:

    Me earlier:

    I’ve yet to encounter even one Hell-believing Christian, including you, that would confront the implications of celebrating a god who would commit some to an eternity of suffering.

    heddle responds:

    That is simply not true, I have encountered it honestly (and with difficulty.)

    I do not recall your ever doing so. Do you have a link where you do? You certainly do not here, but instead go right in to avoidance mode as I reveal below.

    heddle continues:

    Your argument, evident in the question-begging “have you stopped beating your wife?”

    As I noted before, this is a failed analogy. Asking someone whether they’ve stopped beating their wife is absurd when there’s no evidence the husband has beat his wife. But in this case, we both know the Bible asserts that God will punish some for all eternity. So I’m not criticizing reprehensible behavior not claimed by the protagonist, but instead criticizing objectively evil behavior promised by the protagonist. Where that behavior is the promise to punish some for all eternity.

    heddle continues:

    1) I, Michael Heath, have declared the Christian God to be infinitely immoral.
    2) Now, do you agree with me or not?
    3) If you fail to agree with (1), no matter how many times you explain your position, I shall dismiss you as having not confronted the infallible claim (1).

    This is a perfect example not of confronting my point, but avoiding it and depending on some major logical fallacies instead. And then having the gall to complain about my repeating a point you avoid.

    First as noted earlier, I don’t recall your defending how a person can justifiably celebrate a god who promises to cause some humans to suffer for all of eternity while still claiming to be moral. So again, please support your claim here that you’ve confronted this point.

    Secondly, I don’t recall your ever claiming it’s not evil, that it’s not immoral, for any entity, including the supposed gods or God, to cause a human to suffer for all eternity. You claim you’ve confronted this challenge? Where? And if you can’t find your link, please make your case here. Please heddle, make the case that it’s not immoral, that it’s not evil, to cause some humans to suffer unimaginably for all of eternity.

    And then, please explain how it’s not immoral for clear-thinking people to celebrate the nature of a supposed god who has powers asserted in the Bible that would cause some humans to suffer unimaginably for all of eternity. Please make your case. I’ve yet to see it, contra your claim above you have.

    heddle continues:

    4) In failing to agree, I will also indict you as immoral and an abuser of children. This assertion is as infallible as (1).
    5) Rinse and repeat.

    This is a really juvenile ending. My criticism of you and other conservative Christians abusing gay children is independent of my criticism of Hell-believing Christians celebrating a god who would punish some for all eternity.

    I criticize the anti-gay bigots who enable, promote, and repress gay children in their church by discriminating against them simply for being gay and denying them a life of love and companionship celebrated by those churches for heterosexuals. Bigots who treat gayness like a flaw relative to heterosexuality, which demands the church infringe on these children’s rights in a way they don’t with heterosexual children.

    These gay children are being mistreated, they’re being abused. As long as you belong to a church who discriminates against gays you’re one of the abusers. That unless you’re fighting for all gays to be treated equally in your church relative to heterosexuals, in which case you’d be a hero rather than an abuser. But as you noted in a previous thread we debated this matter, you won’t go to bat for gay people in your church – even children.

    And you certainly won’t even deal with this behavior here, you just avoid and deflect as you do here, once again, and then deny you’ve avoided these points. I wonder if you can’t, yet must lie to yourself you confront such challenges all the time.

Leave a comment

You must be