The Newsweek piece, written by Jason Murdock about my article published on numerous websites, was filled with errors. Even the first word of the headline was wrong! It yelled, REPUBLICAN PREACHER RUNS SHOCKING BLOG POST ABOUT PETE BUTTIGIEG, CLAIMS GAY PEOPLE DIE YOUNGER THAN ‘NORMAL PEOPLE.’ I have not been a Republican for decades, although I admit to voting Republican most of the time, I’m as independent as a hog on ice.

Journalists should try that sometime.

A quick phone call or email from Jason would have kept him from adding to the accelerating charges of fake news. All journalists are taught to verify the facts; maybe Jason was sleeping during that class.

Jason called my article “Pete Since You Brought it Up, How ‘Gay’ Are You?” offensive, and of course, it was. It is impossible to deal with perversion without being offensive; however, if we got into the details, it would be disgusting.

The author suggests I was offensive because I mentioned that homosexuals don’t live as long as normal people. Well, that may be offensive, but it is also a fact. However, most mainstream journalists deal in fantasy, falsehood, and fiction—not facts. They have an agenda that must be disseminated without regard for reality.

Homosexuals die about 20 years earlier than normal people because their lifestyle is actually a deathstyle. The human body was not made to endure violent attacks—their use of illegal drugs; their autoerotic playtime; their bondage and sadomasochism; their fisting; ad nauseam—all shorten lives. After all, if eating fried foods will shorten your life, living the dangerous, diseased, and depraved life many homosexuals live will be more deadly than eating fried chicken.

The hit piece charged, “The former lawmaker said it was his right as a voter to ask ‘how gay Pete is’ and if his medical records would be made public. Boys, asserting that ‘homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous,’ made a series of baseless claims and suggested Buttigieg should address them.”

It is interesting but common that Newsweek did not list any baseless claims, and they rejected my well-documented charges knowing few readers would discover their deception. And, yes, a politician must answer questions, but then maybe Pete has been given a No Obligation to Answer Card. That isn’t surprising since homosexuals have demanded and received numerous special rights from cowardly judges, legislators, college presidents, media personalities, and Hollywood.

The word claims suggest that my assertion about the promiscuity of homosexuals is not true when everyone with an I.Q. equivalent to his ring size knows it is true. It’s like saying some people claim the earth is round.

The hit piece suggested that homosexual promiscuity is dubious, so let me be clear: no honest, informed, and sane person disagrees, debates, or even sees a need to discuss the issue—homosexuals change partners as often as they change socks—almost.

A 2006 study of 2,294 homosexuals in the homosexual magazine The Advocate reported that 248 men admitted to having more than 300 sexual partners with fewer partners for the others.

The classic Bell and Weinberg study, produced with the help of the American National Institute of Mental Health, consisted of about 1100 men. That pre-AIDS report revealed 83% of the homosexual men in their survey said it was likely they had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, while 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners. But it gets worse because 28% had sex with 1,000 or more partners!

Even if they are “married,” male homosexuals set aside a “night with the boys.” Of course, there are exceptions, but let’s say it all together now, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.”

However, the Bell et al. study discredited theories “claiming that sexual orientation is caused by family dynamics or trauma.” That basically supported the “born that way” defense, but no informed person believes that anymore.

The above claim that homosexuality is not influenced by family or trauma was shot down by Neil E. Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality: “It is simply a myth that there are no sociological data showing influence on adult sexual orientation.”

Jason reproduced significant points of my column, which added some much-needed juice to his article: “Purporting to cite ‘the largest study ever conducted,’ he said 23 percent of homosexuals ‘participate in golden showers.’” Jason was careless in his use of purporting. He used the wrong word because I did not purport—to claim or assert or allege to cite “the largest study ever conducted” that revealed that 23% of homosexuals “participate in golden showers.” I cited the report and received no rebuttal.

He was trying to denigrate the study without dealing with it, which is common among desperate people. The Gay Report was done by Karla Jay and Allen Young and involved 4,400 respondents. Homosexuals admitted to their usual vile practices, and homosexual leaders criticized it from its publication. Critics never reveal that Jay and Young were “gay!”

It is much worse today. In a 2006 study of a group of “male S&M practitioners,” 47.3% admitted participation in “watersports” according to The Health Hazards of Homosexually.

Since Pete said: “I’m gay as a… I don’t know, think of something really gay, that’s how gay I am.” I want to know what he meant. No doubt some homosexuals are fairly strait-laced compared to others but just how “gay” is Pete? We know he won’t go into details, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most degraded, diseased, and dangerous, where is Pete?

Most people expect a national magazine to produce quality work but not this time. Newsweek’s source, the Friendly Atheist, is so embarrassing it would make any honest reader run for a barf bag.

My article appeared on May 15, and was picked up by Joe.My.God. on the 17th, the Friendly Atheist on May 18, and was critiqued by Newsweek on May 21. Newsweek did not do any original reporting, just some ramblings from the Friendly Atheist and some of my brilliant comments. So, it was not a total loss.

The Friendly Atheist piece supports the would-be censors out there who want to eliminate bad writing. The blogger is Hemant Mehta, whose claim to fame is “selling his soul on eBay.” He titled his blog “Christian Bigot: Pete Buttigieg Can’t Be President Because Gay People Die Young.” Hemant is right in calling me a Christian but completely wrong using the B-word. Evidently, he is infected with the virus that makes leftists lash out rather than support their position. Accusations are much easier to make than answers and argumentation. Hemant probably doesn’t even know he is infected.

Tragic.

He then accuses me of declaring that Pete would not be a good president, but I never suggested that. Far leftists have a difficult time reading or comprehending or telling the truth.

In response to my demand that Pete release his medical records, Hemant seems to run off the rails. He charged, “His bigotry isn’t worthy of a response, but it should be noted that Donald Trump never released his proper medical records.” However, the president is examined annually, and his medical reports are released.

After many embarrassing gaffes, Hemant dug a deeper hole by writing, “The rest of the article is no better, with Boys arguing that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life.” I did not write that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life. As a voter, I want to know if his “gay” lifestyle will affect his effectiveness as president.

Hemant continues with his convoluted tirade by charging, “Boys doesn’t bring up how Donald Trump had an affair with a porn star (without protection),” although Hemant failed (again) to research the facts. Had he not been so lazy or incompetent, he would have discovered many of my critical articles about Trump. I voted for him because the alternative was Horrific Hillary. Trump’s affairs were despicable, deplorable, and dumb (and without protection, super dumb), just as homosexual perversions are disgusting.

Finally, Hemant runs out of steam, takes a deep breath, wipes the foam from his quivering lips, and writes, “This is conservative Christian ‘logic’ for you. A gay guy in a monogamous marriage is somehow a threat to family values, but President P****grabber is somehow a man of virtue.” I wrote nothing about Pete’s “monogamous marriage,” and neither Hemant nor I know if Pete’s “marriage” is monogamous or not, although many studies do not reflect faithful homosexual “marriages.”

The national homosexual magazine, The Advocate reported in 2006 that less than half of homosexual “couples” were monogamous, a fact supported by the Male Couples Study and others.

Moreover, it is a fact that homosexual “marriages” or live-in arrangements last two to three years, according to Male and Female Homosexuality, by Saghir and Robins and other studies.

Moreover, I made no reference to family values nor referred to Trump as “a man of virtue.” I doubt if Trump can spell virtue, but he is at least doing what he promised, something few presidents have done in a hundred years.

Is Pete traveling in the homosexual fast lane that always comes to a dead-end?

Just how “gay’ is Pete?

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys wrote 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! and is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.

Eichenwald would be a little less offensive, obnoxious, overbearing, and outlandish and almost likable if he showed even a small dose of humility. Alas, he does not. He is at war with me and my kind. Worse, he is at war with God.

He charges that there were “no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian,” a statement that is embarrassingly false. From the early days of the church they recognized their manuscripts as the New Testament that we have today. The churches did not vote on it but generally accepted the use of manuscripts that make up our present canon. But Kurt is an unbeliever using his influence to try to dig out the foundations of the Christian church. He attacks the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, declares that Paul did not write I Timothy, and II Peter is a forgery, “an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today.” No, that is only true of most unbelieving scholars.

Kurt declares that Constantine determined what books made it into the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; however there is no historical support for such a charge, a charge made by many with an axe to grind. I have all the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church leaders and none support that popular fiction.

One of Eichenwald’s sycophants wrote, “Nearly everyone who’s studied the matter agrees the canonical gospels were written no earlier than the early 70s CE (i.e. Mark) making it impossible for them to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.” Not so. Remember, Matthew and John?

One of the main reasons for confidence for the New Testament being completed before 70 A.D. (except the Revelation) is that no New Testament writer refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (and hundreds of villages burned to ashes) and the Temple in 70 A.D. That was one of the most horrific, shocking events in history with the destruction of the famous city and at least a million, one hundred thousand people killed. Plus, the most famous place of worship in the world was destroyed, yet not a word mentioned by the Bible authors! Sure, it is the argument from silence, but it is a silence that is deafening.

Kurt declares that the incident in John 7 and 8 of the woman taken in adultery “simply never happened.” However, Jerome reported on this passage after 400 A.D. and he declares that the Latin and Greek manuscripts did contain the disputed passage, so some manuscripts recorded it and some did not. That is not unusual. Believers believe that God kept His promise and preserved His words.

Many manuscript experts tell us that the passage does not belong there but if that is true why do most modern translations use it? Modern translators know that removing the disputed story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in the Bible market. They use the passage because of cowardice and cash. They knowingly use a passage that practically all their experts agree should not be in the Bible! Modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their convictions), they should do the principled thing. Most liberals can’t spell principle but they can spell principal–money!

Conversely, scholars focused on preservation, find the passage in the oldest trusted manuscripts and believe it belongs there. Since God promised to preserve His Words, I believe He did just that. The manuscript issue is about “words.” Jesus said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” And Jeremiah 23:30 says, “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.”

Kurt then takes his knife and cuts the last 12 verses from Mark 19. He says they were wrongly added much later by an interpolator; however, Dr. C. I. Scofield tells us, “The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., used these verses in his writings. Since a preacher that close to the Disciples quoted those verses, don’t you think he would have objected if he read corrupt verses in Mark? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna). Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years, was martyred in 156 A.D., and was a disciple of John the Apostle. No, the last twelve verses belong in Mark as the Bible shows. Bible haters are wrong.

Furthermore, it would be very strange for Mark to end his Gospel of good news without mentioning any of Christ’s post resurrection appearances or His ascension; and to close his book with “for they were afraid” is unimaginable. The Good News of the Gospel is to expel our fears!

Daniel B. Wallace is a New Testament professor at Dallas and during a debate with unbeliever Bart Ehrman, Wallace reported that a first century fragment of Mark had been found in Egypt. The same as our common Mark! The traditional ending of Mark is the true ending.

Eichenwald attacks I John 5:7 telling us that the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture and that verse is an interpolation–added by a fanatical scribe wanting to add the Trinity to the teaching of Scripture. However, this verse is in the oldest manuscripts going back to Vaudois or “Waldensians” in northern Italy who were visited by missionaries from Antioch in the 120s. They translated the Bible into Old Latin in 157 and would not change a letter of their manuscript. There is little doubt that the manuscript used was at least a first generation copy of the original, if not the original, and the Waldensian translation was passed down from generation to generation until the Reformation. When Erasmus added I John 5:7 to his third edition of the Greek New Testament it appeared in the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

Moreover, leading early church leaders such as Tertullian wrote “which three are one” in 200 AD and Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.” Sounds as if they were quoting I John 5:7.

Kurt makes the silly assertion that “The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God.” He wrote that statement to deflect from sodomy, known today as homosexuality or by those unconcerned with accuracy as “being gay.” Kurt declares that homosexuality is no worse sin than lying, greed, and other sins thereby making perversion, pride, prejudice, and prayerlessness the same in God’s eyes! What insanity! He did not get that from Scripture even with his ability to twist Bible verses like a pretzel. Another thought: while this is no defense of pride, you won’t get AIDS from pride.

Yes, sin is sin as far as eternity is concerned; however, there are present life consequences that are deadly. Non thinkers say that one might as well commit adultery as to think about committing it but that is stupid. Thinking about adultery does not impact others while physical adultery divides families, devastates children, and may destroy health.

The pitiful prose of Eichenwald easily demonstrates a writer who is desperate to prove the impossible. His writing screams desperation: “I have to find some of those Bible contradictions, after all I have to crank out 8,539 words for Newsweek.” He even says the Bible forbids debates so Congress is disobeying God! Christians can’t wear pearls or gold. Public prayer is wrong. He equates criticism of government to resistance to government. The writer evidently knows nothing about proper research, especially biblical research: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances? There are many more examples of his egregious perversion of Scripture.

Eichenwald declares that his missive was not an attack upon the Bible or Christians but it is exactly that. A poor attack to be sure but an attack without any doubt. And to think they killed a bunch of trees to print such tripe!

An honest, liberal journalist should be willing to look at all sides of an issue. Kurt refused to do so as do most radical leftists.

But then, it’s in their genes!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Wiping the foam from his lips he wrote his first paragraph depicting evangelical Christians as nuts, jerks, and flakes comparing us to the Westboro Baptists in Kansas. From this inauspicious beginning it is obvious that he is dishonest or totally uninformed; either reason would be justification for yanking his journalist credentials.

Eichenwald’s untrue, unfair, unkind characterization of Christians would be like my suggesting that all journalists are wild, woozy, and wicked people who get to work at 10:00, have a three hour lunch break consisting of three shots of cheap gin, stagger back to the office to work a couple hours then buy a quart of wine from the local grocery and go home where they cause havoc in the neighborhood, beat their wives and knock their children around until bed time. Now, I’m sure that is true of a few journalists but it is irresponsible to suggest that is true of most of them. Kurt was irresponsible.

He spends much ink dealing with snake handling as if that is normal in real Christianity! Some leftists are dumb as a box of rocks or are so short of arguments that they depict Christians as carrying a sack of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday.

Eichenwald makes a very silly statement when he declares that “evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an “impediment to reaching God.” He took that position because of a naïve misinterpretation of Matthew 19:29 where Christ spoke about forsaking father, mother, brother, and sister for His sake and their inheritance of eternal life. Of course even Christian neophytes are aware that the Bible clearly commands us to love and support family and to honor father and mother.

Kurt further shows his immaturity or dishonesty when he charges that all female Christians in political life should quit (or remain hypocrites!) because of 1 Timothy 2:12 that commands a woman not to teach and have authority over a man. This is a much discussed verse and theologians in various denominational groups take various interpretations but everyone knows it specifically deals with women in the local church. Kurt doesn’t know that.

There is no way Eichenwald could have done any research without knowing about I Timothy 2:12 yet he was way out in left field and gave no indication of objectivity. Of course, true objectivity is as hard to find in Newsweek and all liberal media as white dinosaurs in Kentucky.

Eichenwald is out of his league in this article. In paragraph after paragraph I cringed in embarrassment for him and Newsweek. He was like a 12-year old kid making an appearance at the Major League Training Camp in Florida with a desire to play in the big leagues. The kid would be told to come back in a few years. I’m afraid it would be many years before Eichenwald could qualify for the Theological Big League. Mainly because Kurt seems to be blind (or keeps his eyes shut) therefore can’t read the Bible he accuses us of not reading!

He continues to prove his lack of knowledge (or honesty) when he charges that fundamentalists “twist phrases and modify translations” to prove some of our “biases and beliefs.” The fact is most fundamentalists may be guilty of a little twisting (always wrong) now and then but we never “modify translations.” We would rather be caught naked in subzero weather on Fifth Avenue  during rush hour than mess with the King James Bible. We take it as it is–inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Kurt then charges that Christians believe “Mosaic law from the Old Testament directs American government.” Gasp, does he mean that we believe that our basic judicial system is based on the original Ten Commandants? If so, then everyone knows that is true: From Israel, to Rome, to England to America. You know, don’t bare false witness, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery.

He further charges us with Bible illiteracy but with his litany of mistakes, mishmash, and misrepresentation, that is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath. Our “illiteracy” allegedly causes parents to “banish children from their homes.” No doubt this refers to parents who require children to live decently, get a job, not fornicate, not use vile language and no pornography if they want to live at home. How dare they!

Because of our alleged “Biblical illiteracy” he charges that we believe that climate change (remember when it used to be global warming?) is impossible because of God’s promise to Noah! Hey, only an uninformed fool would use such an argument when there is no evidence of man-made climate change. Of course, the climate changes every day!

His also charges us with “imped[ing] science” and undermining “intellectual advancement” which, of course, refers to the creation/evolution controversy. He and others will discuss how evolution happened but not if it happened. Such people talk about being open minded but their minds are as closed as a miser’s wallet.

His diatribe is based on “scores of theologians and scholars” but he did not interview or quote one evangelical, let alone a fundamentalist, but three–count them, one, two, three leftists. And he only names one–Bart Ehrman, an apostate New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina. Bart grew up a fundamentalist, went to Moody (after me), then to Princeton where he lost whatever faith he had. Kurt calls him a “groundbreaking Biblical scholar” when he is really an apostate. I could have chosen a kinder term but I’m committed to honesty and accuracy.

Dr. Michael Kruger, an expert in early Christianity wrote of Eichenwald’s “jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.” Kruger declared that Eichenwald’s article “is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.” Right!

Dr. Daniel Wallace, commented on Eichenwald’s “numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his uber-confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints.” Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary.

Eichenwald charges that none of us have ever read a reliable Bible–that we have translations of translations of translations of bad translations that have been altered hundreds of times. The fact is that we have over 6,000 good Greek manuscripts going back as far as the second century! When Kurt writes about corrupt manuscripts he gives the impression that he knows what is corrupt and what is not corrupt. Neither he nor anyone else has read the original autographs. Kurt is a charlatan.

Kurt shows his shallowness with his antiquated charges: there are two (or even four) creation stories; Christ’s geologies are contradictory; the events around His birth are in conflict; the resurrection stories are in conflict; Moses did not write Deuteronomy; Noah taking two or seven kinds of animals on the ark and the number of days the water was upon the earth; the question of David killing Goliath and many others.

Kurt tells us that unicorns did not exist even though the Bible mentions them ten times. It is really humorous to hear liberals deal with this subject. They seem to be clueless about the extinction of species since the beginning of time and all evolutionists agree with that. Unicorns could have existed and like the dodo bird disappeared long ago. Furthermore, a whole herd of unicorns could be found tomorrow grazing on a Peruvian mountainside!

Eichenwald may not believe much of the Bible but like all humanists, hedonists, and homosexuals he believes Jesus when He said, “Don’t judge” in Matt. 7:1. However, we are not to judge unfairly or without judging ourselves first. In fact, we are commanded to judge righteous judgment in John 7:24. Kurt is very careless with the context of his criticism.

Wonder if Eichenwald, in all fairness, will do a hatchet job on the Koran as he has the Bible. No, because he is a coward. He knows Christians are taught to turn the other cheek while Koranic Muslims are taught to behead critics.

(Next column: “Newsweek’s Hatchet Job on the Bible!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”