You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Todd Bentley, the evangelist who has led the Florida Outpouring revival here in Lakeland since April 2, has filed for separation from his wife and might not return to the revival, according to his former local spokesperson, Lynne Breidenbach. She said Bentley made the announcement to his staff this afternoon. Bentley and his wife, Shonnah, have two daughters and a son and are Canadian citizens. Under Canadian law, separation is a first step in divorce proceedings and takes nine months. Bentley and his wife have been in marriage counseling for several months, Breidenbach said. She called the situation "very sad" but insisted it "doesn't invalidate what Todd did" at the revival.
Breidenbach, who said her contract with Bentley's Fresh Fire ended today, said it is not clear whether Bentley will make further appearances at the revival. About two weeks ago, Bentley announced he would leave the revival on Aug. 23 in order to resume his traveling evangelistic work. The Fresh Fire Ministries Web site indicates that a September appearance by Bentley in England has been postponed. Stay tuned for further information.
36 Comments:
What a shame. Now his wife will be an adultress for the rest of her life. At least until she says "lord forgive me". Then all is OK. presto chango
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 4:16 PM
Actually, not true completely since we do not know anything about their sex lives. Does anyone know the reason for the divorce? (Kind of makes you wonder though?)
I know it doesn't matter to some people what the facts are before making assumptions - but it does remind me of some right wingers who do the same thing.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 4:22 PM
Sound's like the Bentley's might need some Fresh Fire in their sex life. If he's a true republican fundamentalist he probably prefers tap dancing in the men's room stall like Larry Craig anyway.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 4:41 PM
You don't know what's happening in their life. Why do you accuse someone of the same tings that others accuse you of?
Short of being flippant, get informed before the attack. Would you want people discussing your break up with your partner in the same way? Good show of decency on your part.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 4:48 PM
This minister is a fraud and moral scum. He and his harlot wife can rot in hell with the money they stole from religious suckers.
On second thought, good for them. Every dollar they ripped off from these dumb ass right wing red necks, can't be used to support the anti-gay constitutional amendment in Florida.
Some people deserve to be duped and screwed over. It is in their trailr park DNA.
So Sam, if you're duped into giving money to an ADIS fundraiser and find out that the person or person's involved absconded with the donations that it serves you right for being duped, and that ability to be duped is in your tailer trash DNA?
I think it would surprise you to find out how little of our donations actually go to AIDS research.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 6:03 PM
Todd Bentley is a heretic and an apostate. Any self-proclaimed "Christian" who supports in any way or defends this deceiver will answer to the LORD and be partaker of his evil deeds.
His so-called "revivals" are a complete travesty. They create a phenomenon and make it look like things are happening and clueless idiots flock. It's a simple formula and hucksters know it - perhaps they are literal Satanists.
After listening to and watching Todd Bentley for several hours, the discerning Christian finds that he is simply telling stories. And they are preposterous. The crowd just laughs and goes along with anything he says because of the alleged "signs and wonders" he is (not) doing. It seems that the gullible just drink in anything that he says. How foolish.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." - Romans 16:17-18
To deceive some people, all a person has to do is have a stage act, to have something to say and sound like they know what they are talking about.
This whole movement, like Brownsville and Toronto, is guided and controlled by subjective experiences. This is not reconcilable with Biblical Christianity.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 7:30 PM
The job qualifications to be a charlatan preacher are few. You need only stand at the pulpet and tell everyone that they are going to hell and not divorce your wife. It is not that hard. If they can't do it imagine how difficult it must be for a post gay guy who can't stand the poon tang to stay married.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72092
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 10:26 PM
Has anyone seen that guy on TV who sends you a prayer cloth if you "donate" to the church???
Charlatan - all the way. Unfortunately, many politicians are doing the same thing. So called community leaders are twisting their story as much as the relgious charlatans are twisting the bible. It's too bad.
We all claim or think we can spot a fraud, but I'm afraid we've all been taken in one time or another. Or worse, when we've knowingly not told the whole truth to protect something personal. We have all done it. It just really hurts when someone does it about something we hold sacred like the bible or our lives.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 10:33 PM
That's right! Where is Wayne's coverage of the Edwards affair? Waiting...
...Well, it's no wonder that newspapers and the mainstream media are dying off...and deservedly so. They're not interested in doing the very thing for which they're trying to get people to pay them. The Lewinsky story only came out thanks to Drudge, while Craig, Vitter and Spitzer were all matters of public record and didn't require any reporting or editorial thumbs-up.
"Hey, it turns out the governor of New York is being investigated by the IRS and the FBI, and he's going to have to resign. Do you think maybe we should find some space for that?"
A very relevant comparison is the big story about McCain's non-affair with Vicki Iseman that was published by the New York Times in February. How can that possibly be news when John Edwards's actual affair isn't?
Watching the mainstream media fade away is like watching a cancer patient die without going through the five stages of grief; they're stuck firmly in denial.
Now, it's true that Fox News is the house organ of the Republican Party, but in like manner, the ABCNNBCBS cabal, the AP, the major newspapers, and waynebesen.com are the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 10:34 PM
I know it. Consider the Los Angeles Times.
Now, the fact that The Los Angeles Times favors homosexual "marriage" is not a new revelation. The paper has positioned itself in support of that oxymoronical perversion for some time.
Furthermore, no informed reader will be surprised to find that the paper's editorial position is quite leftist. But given America's cherished commitment to the freedom of the press, the paper obviously has every right to position itself this way. Intelligent readers are responsible to be aware of this fact, and take this editorial posture into account when considering the paper's coverage of controversial issues - such as homosexual "marriage" and "Proposition 8."
Proposition 8 will appear on the November ballot in California. The proposition - put on the ballot by overwhelming public support - is an attempt to return the state's marriage law to where it stood earlier this year, with marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman.
Keep in mind that California's state constitution does not mention homosexual "marriage." And on March 7, 2000, the people of California voted by an overwhelming margin to pass "Proposition 22" which stated:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That is where the matter stood until May 15 of this year, when California's Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 that homosexual "marriages" must be legalized and recognized in the state. Thus, Proposition 22 and all similar laws were struck down by the court, and the court ordered that the state must allow and recognize homosexual "marriages" effective June 17, 2008.
Proposition 8 is a citizen-initiated response to that Supreme Court decision and an effort to return marriage in California to the legal definition effective as recently as May 14 of this year. The language of Proposition 8 mirrors that of Proposition 22, but differs in that it would amend the state constitution to define marriage.
Now, the editors of The Los Angeles Times want voters to defeat Proposition 8 and, in effect, to confirm the action of California's Supreme Court that overturned the will of voters expressed in 2000. The fact that the paper wants to see Proposition 8 defeated is not surprising, but the arguments employed by the paper's editors are nothing less than breathtaking.
The paper speaks to the issue in an editorial published on August 8. The editors argue that Proposition 8 would "rescind an existing constitutional right to marry." The California constitution still does not mention homosexual "marriage." No such right existed before May 15. The right exists now only by judicial action, not by any amendment to the constitution.
But, even after referring to the marriage of homosexual couples as "an existing constitutional right," the editors went even further to declare homosexual "marriage" a "fundamental right."
Indeed, the court did rule that the right of homosexual couples to "marry" is a "fundamental right" - a right that is either enshrined within the constitution, drawn from the notion of natural rights, or a necessary implication of the constitution. The court also defined homosexuals as a protected group and thus deserving of a special attention in questions of rights.
But the California Supreme Court is not the final authority in such matters - the people are. The court and its decisions are ultimately accountable to the people, who can, when motivated by great concern or outrage, change the court's composition or amend the constitution itself.
The editors of the LA Times write as if the May 15, 2008 decision of the California Supreme Court is unassailable, unchangeable, and irreversible. None of these things is true. The court did declare homosexual "marriage" to be a fundamental right, but that decision is now, by definition, tentative and potentially temporary. California's voters must keep this firmly in mind. The voters of California now have the opportunity to define and defend marriage and to return the state's definition of marriage to where it stood just three months ago.
This entire controversy, illustrated by the paper's editorial, is an illustration of the legal, cultural, and moral breakdown described by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as "rights talk." In her 1991 book Glendon defined the problem as "our increasing tendency to speak of what is most important to us in terms of rights, and to frame nearly every social controversy as a clash of rights."
"Rights talk" is what remains when deeper questions of right and wrong are taken off the table. The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right - and the responsibility - of California voters to define and defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 11:08 PM
anonymous 8/12/2008 7:30 PM
I beseech you, get yourself a tin cup and a ten pound bible and find the nearest street corner to preach from. tell then, shut the fcuk up
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 11:31 PM
Oh Wow - Anon! You ought to live in a muslim country. There they tell you how to live, too. Except if you're an out and proud christian they might be inclined to kill you (which is Qu'ranically correct in their world)
Tsk, tsk, you should be voting against such measures that make divorce easy, courts that allow women to recieve child support if you "accuse" her of adultery, and against McCain since he is considered an adulterer by the strictist use of the word (even non-strictist)
But then why would you do that? You have so many more important things to be concerned about that have nothing to do with your family - like two men or two women being legally and fincailly married. Yeah, that's the biggest issue in your own life.
I know I have more pertinent items on my list of to do's such as: ask for forgiveness for those thoughts and deeds I've committed that have contributed to mine and others' sinfulness, to ask forgiveness when I have shown none, to spend more time helping the poor and needy (btw, the largest population of homeless people in this country are children), etc...
Just a few of my thoughts.
By no means am I perfect. But really, children who are hungry, homeless, and have no hope are in greater need of our efforts.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 12:25 AM
you said:
The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right - and the responsibility - of California voters to define and defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
If you really believe that prop 8 should decide the matter your statement should read:
The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right - of California voters to decide whether marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.
but this is not what you want. and if the prop fails you will go crying to the halls of congress to pass a federal amendment. You are trying to frame your argument as as federalist defense. but you don't think for one second that this should be a states rights issue.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 12:35 AM
And they say marriage equality for LGB people is a threat to marriage. Hmmmm, seems Bentley et al are themselves the real threat along with every other straight involved in a divorce. They've lost the argument on marriage equality for sure, they're running out of excuses and nothing in their book of fairy tales can support their ridiculous claims any longer.
Its all very well beating up on Edwards, Spitzer, but then we had Gingrich, Hyde, Vitter, Fossella too. Hyde called for Clinton's impeachment while committing adultery, Gingrich was committing adultery while his wife was lying in a hospital bed, ill with cancer. All a bunch of hypocrites and bigots.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 6:36 AM
What?!?! Democrats and Republicans (i.e., politicians) are hypocrites??? C'mon!
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 9:02 AM
Proposition 8 will FAIL in California. We will move on while the likes of the hate mongers will be left in the dust. They need to get their own lives in order, especially their broken marriages, unsatisfactory sex lives, their adultery and their penchant for escort services and sex trafficking etc. Using their religion based cultist beliefs to influence the outcome of legislation has no place in politics. Theirs is learned behavior, a chosen "lifestyle". Let it remain where it should be, within the confines of their homes. They should mind their own business and stop interfering in ours and get a life. Tax-exempt status for any "religious" business meddling in the affairs of state should be revoked.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 11:26 AM
it's just annoymous/theo/AJ yet again. don't feed the trolls!!!!
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 11:34 AM
Anonymous, marriage between two gay men or lesbian women is not a "perversion." It is your thinking which is the true perversion ... a perversion of our common humanity and of the knowledge that we all have much more in common than that which divides us. How sad that you fail to accept that gay people too fall in love with each other and marry, just like everyone else.
Whether or not same-sex marriage is sanctioned by the state, the fact is that gay people have always "married" their lives together as have most people who fall in love. And how offensive it is to witness you claiming that your spirit of division and prejudice is somehow holy or sacred. Your soul has been darkened.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 12:21 PM
"A very relevant comparison is the big story about McCain's non-affair with Vicki Iseman that was published by the New York Times in February. How can that possibly be news when John Edwards's actual affair isn't?"
Well, John McCain is an ongoing and notorious adulterer - you may have seen pictures of him standing next to the whore (Cindy "McCain")he cheated on his real wife with. He dumped his actual wife, the only one who counts according to the bible, in order to "marry" this rich slut.
So it makes sense that someone who has a history of unrepented adultery would be suspected of it again, while someone with no such history would be given the benefit of the doubt until there is actual evidence.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 3:31 PM
By now everyone has heard the news that John Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.
I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff:
"I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one...happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."
As Edwards knows, if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."
With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards can boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.
Edwards aggressively offered to take a paternity test, knowing that the New Age hippie chick who still thinks she's going to marry him would not hurt him by allowing a paternity test. Edwards certainly is adept at reading stupid women, or as his campaign called them, "the base."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 7:46 PM
There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by Unknown, at
12/28/2009 4:11 PM
