Who really wrote this puffpiece on how beleaguered Mark Driscoll is being attacked by “the enemy within” (AKA Janet Mefferd and the former members and leaders of Mars Hill Church). Is it Bill Roberts or Russ Jones or did Lyall Mercer really write it?
I hate to tell the 3 people who attend Joppa Church, but Pastor Roy is selling snake oil.
First, the Gospel of John was not written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. I seriously doubt even Aramaic was a concern of the original author.
Second, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have backwards translated the Gospel of John from the Greek to the Hebrew and back again.
Third, what’s up with the overly sexualized Fabio-Jesus on the front cover? What is Pastor Roy trying to tell us by picking that cover? What’s he trying to get his hands on?
Anyway, if you do go to the Amazon author page, you’ll note some gems. Not only has he reviewed his own book (with some garbage about tacos) but he trumpets his “250 graduate hours in various areas of study such as Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Jewish Studies, Bible, Archeology, and Geology.”
Seriously, this guy and Little Honey Tee Tee should team up and write a book.
“Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.”
Read more here - this is only one web site that quotes her on that. If you are interested in the issue through her perspective you will have to check for yourself!
My point in publishing this here is, to my self-acknowledged ignorance of her work, and knowing that many of you are aware of her writings on the issue, and perhaps other articles are published about her in this and many other blogs, I didn’t know that within the “gay” campsite there was someone as “not so fond” of gay activist as I am. Note: I object to gay activism! All the accusations that I receive for saying this are a violation of the 9th Commandment and pure slander! I have stopped defending myself for my view both to the fundamentalist as well as to the activists, including some academics, since I get it from both sides. I just submit this for perhaps you will find that what activists proclaim (again, including some academics) about gays is still open for discussion; at least is still in the realm of theories, which is not and should never be a reason for Christians simply to bash a gay person whereas still debating the issue as they see through the perspective of their faith.
Refrain form primarily drawing and posting conclusions about my views in your comments. I pride in having a good record in dealing with persons and the issue. Deal with her view here as quoted in this doctor’s Web Site, which I used because I founded to be the less clouded and cluttered one. Comment at length but don’t kill the messenger just yet…
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…
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.
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?
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!)
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!
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!
Allow 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”
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.
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!
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”.
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?