Just how morally bankrupt is @pastormark?

Seattle’s Mars Hill Church paid a California-based marketing company at least $210,000 in 2011 and 2012 to ensure that Real Marriage, a book written by Mark Driscoll, the church’s founding pastor, and his wife Grace, made the New York Times best-seller list….

….The details of the agreement between Mars Hill and Result Source are complicated. Result Source received a fee of $25,000 to coordinate a nationwide network of book buyers who would purchase Real Marriage at locations likely to generate reportable sales for various best-seller lists, including the New York Times list. Mars Hill also paid for the purchase of at least 11,000 books ranging in price from $18.62 to $20.70…

via WORLD Mobile | Unreal sales for Driscoll’s Real Marriage | March 5, 2014.

To be fair, this tactic is used by others – such as Sarah Palin. Driscoll, as of late, has been involved in several instances that should prevent him from pastoring. He has lied, plagiarized, and now it appears attempted to manipulate the system with phony book sales made with money from tithes and offerings.

Wow.

Open Borders? Think Again.

Often I ran into well-meaning, warm-hearts filled with nothing but good intentions who defend and propose that the USA is big enough for everybody and that we should not shun the poor and that would be a great benefit to us if we had open borders, that is, according to their own definition, anyone from any country should be able to walk here first, then get documents later, and attempt to find fulfillment for whatever they could not achieve in their own country of birth.

Many people have a sort of self-righteous stance on the matter and often will use the poor as a reinforcement for their arguments.

Well, Saints, these very same people also have a list of preferences for other causes that are dear to their hearts. Often I have to dialogue with these people in a way that they understand that, if they are really faithful to the other causes along with the poor, gays, minorities, etc. as it relates to the open boarder issue, the very last thing in the world that they should wish for is an open boarder. I reproduced on Facebook a recent dialogue that I had with an open boarder advocate who is also an advocate for gay rights and the conversation went this way:

Person to me: I wish we had open boarders, I am in favor of open boarders. The USA should open their boarder to anyone who wants to come in and work here. We should be taking care of the poor.

Me: Good, I really admire your good heart. But allow me to bring a few thoughts to you especially considering the fact that you are a gay issue advocate. Is that okay?

Person: Yes.

Me: Let us suppose we open the borders. No more immigration and that documents should be issued once a person is here. Consider the possibility that a great number of these people are from a region of the world and grew up thinking that gays should be hunted and killed and at a minimum outlawed; Also let’s suppose that the other group that also enters the gates of the USA with no need for processing and immigration rules, is from a Latin American country dominated by the Roman Catholic Church from the most extreme wing of it, that teaches that gays are “right down there” in rank with the devil on things to avoid.

Continue in that thought and another question is raised: How laws in the USA are enacted? You know, by the legislator which is voted by the people. If these foreigners that came here receive all the benefits of an American Citizenship eventually they will vote. Voting they will elect like minded politicians; Politicians will then legislate according to their constituents. So, naturally it would be expected that these politicians would not only outlaw gays but perhaps even promote persecution against them. Would you like this kind of country?

Person: I don’t think so.

Me: Do you still want to be an advocate for open boarder?

Person: (after a moment of silence) Now that you mentioned, I don’t think so.

This is not a straw-man argument! If you have not witnessed what is going on today in America and Europe with cultural shock as being the background of all sorts of conflict and even riots, you are not paying attention; these things are almost already here! This can happen and would happen if we would allow anyone to come to the USA with their own culture, own outlooks, on world vision. As bad as it is, let us allow to USA to remain as it is and let the laws as they are, and let those already acclimated with its culture and tradition to have a say as to whether we should enact laws to oppress one group or another, for any reason whatsoever. Laws will be vetoed; the minority will have a say, and no one group will be able to change the Constitution on its own.

We can change in my dialogue above the word “gays” to ” blacks, the poor, Jews, Christians, Muslims, women, the physically disabled” and pretty much all of them can be in danger depending on the dominant culture or ethnicity that predominates our country. That without mentioning that they will war against each other!

Oh, someone is already raising the banner of racism on me (which doesn’t work for me) accusing me of suggesting that foreigners that enter our culture will somehow attempt to take over our society with their laws and cultures and that I prejudge certain cultures as bad. No I don’t, I just prejudge them as different and a difference that may not be desirable to many. If you think I am wrong, do yourself a favor: Go to Oklahoma where Muslims are in court battling for the acceptance of Sharia Law; Check the good and faithful Muslims truck drivers that refused to deliver alcohol (good for them, by the way) and were fired, then sued their company and won the lawsuit forcing their employer to make accommodations and maintain employees who will not do their jobs; think about all the Skin-Heads that enjoy Free Speech in this country as it is today. Now imagine for a second if these people become majority. Unless you are one of them, it would not be the prettiest of all pictures for many of us! I not going to apologize for stating a fact!

If you are an open border defender, think again! Be careful for that which you wish! (I hate prepositions in the end of the sentences. If ever have a majority one day I will outlaw it!) :)

Don’t Check Your Brains At The Door!

Who is really lying to you?

I tell you the truth!

I tell you the truth!

Every Sunday morning from various pulpits in America you will hear a minister saying: “Don’t believe the devil’s lies”. Then they begin to list all the things that the devil said that are indeed lies and some that the poor devil really never said. It is very easy to impress people stating that something is not true therefore don’t believe it expecting that everyone in the audience will be so mentally dormant that they will not notice exactly what is the real intention of the one behind the pulpit in delineating what people should reject as a lie.

Recently I have been saying a few things in small Christian gatherings (I am not one to exaggerate my audience to match my ego; my ego is big, but my audiences are not always big although they were in a remote past), that people ponder and wonder if I have changed at all from my previous positions. No, I really have not changed, I just believe that even Jesus found that certain things have a proper time to be said and expounded (John 16:12) and now is the time, I believe, for me to say such things. One of them is that one of the big lies that the devil never said but the same preachers who charge the devil for lying are guilty themselves of saying is: “ignore historical facts, ignore theology, shun textual criticism, because that is (again) “of the devil”. No it is not! Our faith cannot or should not be shaken by the fact that scientists, historians, theologians, archaeologists, and other who work in similar fields, have to say about facts of the Bible. Furthermore, we should not “run for cover” every time some theologian say that we should be careful with the interpretation of certain texts because they were written for a certain time, to deal with a certain problem and although the core message of the text may be a lesson for our daily living today, the methods may be not! Take for example Paul telling Timothy in 1 Tim 5:23 “no longer to drink water but also to drink wine” The King James Version says it clearly: No longer drink water μηκέτιv (mēketi), the Greek term used here means “no longer” or “from now on, hereafter”! Well, we can take from that message Paul’s care and interest on his “son in the faith” health and welfare, but please, don’t obey it the “no longer drink water” today! Ask any doctor the harms of dehydrating your body and, worse, in a state of dehydration, to drink wine… adding alcohol to a dehydrated body!

This is merely one example that not using an analytic mind, checking your brains at the door. Not using those who make a living out of being analytic may be dangerous to you. Lie the preacher who says you are not to listen to textual analyses or criticism, history, rules of hermeneutics, and things of this nature, and even attribute some sinfulness to any act that discusses any aspect of the text. Even if it is out of ignorance, it is not true; if it is not true it is a lie. No gray area!

brain check

Check Brains Here

Reasoning out a text, questioning and criticizing it in light of everyday knowledge or common sense is neither inappropriate or sinful. As a matter of fact God Himself calls us to reason together with Him (Isaiah 1:8).God is not afraid of dissidents neither is He afraid of questioning, and we should not be either.

When listening to a minister keep thinking! Some preachers will lie to you because they can’t deal with the issues that will arise from a good session of questioning certain things!

So, don’t check your brains at your church’s foyer!

Wedding cakes and flowers

wedding cakeAllow me to be the “contrarian”, but before labeling the author of this article and its main thrust, “anti-gay” or “homophobic”, fundamentalist or a “fun the mentalist”, please, please consider his proposition. Then, call it whatever your emotion prompt you to call him.

Read here. “Of Consciences and Cakes: A Response to Kirsten Powers”

Nothing, not even God

Click to Order

Peter Enns has linked to and then offered some thoughts on this video.

The views expressed in the video about evolution and those who hold to some form of evolutionary life are simply poor caricatures. They offer diesem as my belief, but in reality, the only Deists are Young Earth Creationists, when God suddenly stopped creating. Their need for absolutes, as expressed by Ken Ham, shows a deep psychological issue that denies real faith, real morality, and a real God.

Further, prayer is not basic to Christianity. How he got that, I don’t know. Why he thinks those who allow evolution and belief in God do not pray, I don’t know.

Hear their words. They cannot imagine anything else but their own view. This is the theory of motivated reasoning in action. Hear the reasons why they believe. It is not based on the positive, but on the negative. What happens to them and their belief if they believe in evolution? Their fear, not their faith, shows. Then… at the end, they somehow confuse the mockery due their superstition with those who have died and who die because of their belief in Christ. I don’t even.

As discussed in my co-edited volume by various authors, evolution, science, and doubt all are allowed. Why? Because Christianity is not anti-science or anti-doubt. And our faith must include doubt.

In watching that video, I remember that stance and I realize just how faithless I really was.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is there really a war against Christianity?

Some people firmly believe that there is a war on Christianity going on in America today. Many will even present what they consider evidence related to “Christian holidays” and “Symbols” that are not necessarily either essential for Christian living or even doctrine. But they still argue that although these holidays and symbols are not prescribed in the Bible they are recognized as things which have elicited Christian sentiments for ages, thus, any position that prohibits their public display is a a direct war on Christianity. Others believe that there it isn’t enough Christianity in America against which to wage a war and that actually the war is against “churchianity” and/or fundamentalism.

I believe that growing up as a Baptist boy in a former Roman Catholic Country, (as it today is either Mystical Pentecostal or Mystical Spiritualist, especially of the African cult influence) – something the RCC refuses to recognize, I know how uncomfortable it is not to “fit in”. Those who decry too much Christian exposure on the account of their discomfort, may be right! If we write the story of Christianity as it is presented today, with all its symbols and holidays, a honest historian will have to admit and write that these symbols and holidays have probably worked better against the propagation of the message of the Gospel than in favor. If one is not ignorant of the devil and his devices (II Cor 2:11), the trivialization of the message of the Gospel is really one of his favorite works; “Make it into a nursery rhyme” kind of work. My conclusion will shock you but that may not be so bad: Perhaps those who allegedly war against Christianity are in a strange way serving as puny servants of God to fight against the devil and his devices! Reflect on it! Perhaps these guys are God’s servants whereas the whiners and those who decry and proclaim an imaginary war against Christianity, aka, the “fundamentalists”, are working as the devil’s vassals!

How is @PastorMark connected to the Church of Satan and Rand Paul?

Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan us...

Anton LaVey also stole his look from Ming the Merciless

Some accuse LaVey of paraphrasing the Nine Satanic Statements from Rand’s Atlas Shrugged without acknowledgement. LaVey later affirmed the connection with Rand’s ideas by stating that LaVeyan Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added”.

via Greed Prompted The Writing and Publishing Of The Satanic Bible | David Paul Kirkpatrick’s Living In The Metaverse.

David Kirkpatrick posted an eye-opening read today.

And of course, my mind took a devilish turn. It seems greed and haste to make money more money produces plagiarism. We all know of Mark Driscoll’s plagiarism… well, we do but Tyndale House is still standing by their golden calf… and we know of Rand Paul’s plagiarism as well. And we know of others who use ghost writers.

Why is it that people are simply allowed to get away with this?

Enhanced by Zemanta

22 images that will make your head explode

That’s a better title, right?

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution.

Remember Joshua 10:13

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION HERE?

Did Bill Nye Win? Did Ken Ham destroy science or Christianity?

Found on Reddit

I must admit, I didn’t watch much, but followed it on Twitter and Facebook. I’ve read several takes on it, as well as some transcripts. In the end, Nye comes off looking like a scientist who respects his field and allows for others to hold religious/spiritual beliefs. Nye did not provide any ammunition to the New Atheists crowd who often times trumpet the belief science and religion are irreconcilable. Oddly enough, Ham comes off looking more like a New Atheists and a toddler than Nye did.

For a really, really good play by play, see here:

Bill Nye Ken Ham Debate In Depth Recap Synopsis and Who Won.

Essentially, those of us who said Ham could refer to nothing but “the bible” were proved correct. He has no evidence, no theories, but can only appeal either to himself or those (even scientists) who support him. The very few scientists who maintain a poor theological reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. Ham’s argument puts the ph in logical fallacy.

found on reddit

There are plenty of different reactions and play-by-plays as well. Even Albert Mohler, a YECer himself, has weighed in. I suspect his response was mostly written pre-game since it doesn’t really fit the facts. In the end, it comes down to this: your guy won. No seriously, that guy you know was going to win won because that other guy was clearly not speaking the truth and denied facts, the very same facts you already knew to be true. You won last night and the other side looks pitiful.

In my opinion, I thought Nye held up well, much better than expected. Ham showed why presuppositional apologetics is so minding-blowing stupid that only a complete and utter faithless soul could believe it and be forced to rely upon it. Unfortunately, Nye is not a theologian (neither is Ham) and missed several chances to correct Ham on his First Church of the Faith House of Cards. Nye could have presented a better understanding of the Gospel had he known just a bit about theology. Of course, when you come to discuss science, you believe you are going to discuss actual science and not Ham’s intellectual poverty.

The next debate should be between Ham and John Walton. Of course, Ham would look just as silly but hey, his supporters would still think he won.

So, again, congrats. Your guy won.

BTW, the Christian Post has a poll. Looks like Nye is winning handedly. Must be time for the Rapture.

Enhanced by Zemanta