A Letter to the Assemblies of God Church

A response to General Superintendent George Wood and Pastor John Lindell.
Later Wood responded with a letter of his own starting it with saying Snider comes from the 'revisionists' viewpoint of the Bible with homosexuality while Wood makes the argument he's upholding the 'traditionalists' view. I went to Wood's blog and responded with this comment that's waiting to be moderated (All of the Biblical points Wood brings up are thoroughly covered by this blog):

In reading your response to Snider, you believes you espouse the traditionalist view of Scripture while Snider is an advocate of the revisionist view. My contention is that it’s you who is advocating a revisionism view of the Bible with homosexuality. The primary reason homosexuality was believed to have been the judgment of God with the cities on the plains called Sodom and Gomorrah was an 11th century invention, lesbianism was never read into Romans 1 until the 4th century and we see the word evolution of “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” from having a non-homosexual meaning to a homosexual current one with the witness of past Bible translations (Malakoi was simply translated as “weaklings” until 1902 when it, strangely, transformed into “effeminados” (effeminate).

To read Jesus prohibiting homosexual unions because He brings up the first example of human pairing with Adam and Eve is putting words in the mouth of Christ He never spoke, reading prohibition into omission. To even bring up the selective laws you believe we are to follow in Leviticus is going contrary to Christ who says ALL the laws are summed up in; “Loving your neighbor as yourself” and goes contrary to Paul who states the law is dead to us who are under a New Covenant.

It pains me to see the AoG churches (of which I am a member) refusing to even have a simple dialogue with others of the faith who might have a differing stance than the one held by the AoG on homosexuality and I put that squarely on your shoulders Mr. Wood.

Wood ended up deleting my comment. Disappointing, but no surprise. What's scary is a man in his position showing a total disregard for stated facts (easily proven) because it goes against his dogma.