Friday, September 11, 2015

Doug Wilson's Other Protected Pedophile

I guess Wilson has a special place in his heart for Pedophiles. He works so hard to protect them and keep them safe. He believes their lies and false repentances. He minimizes their sins while magnifying every small imperfection of the victims and, in some cases, the parents of the victims.

Perhaps Wilson should back away from doing church and open a foster home for poor, down-trodden, unloved pedophiles. This home could include a dating service or courtship service so he can find those pedophiles young virgins to exploit in marriage because those pedophiles obviously don't have the gift of celibacy and must marry so they don't burn with passion.

Joking aside, I am appalled at Wilson's actions in the Sitler case.

Now I'm appalled all over again as I'm finding out about Wilson's deep involvement in the Jamin Wight case.

I have two links concerning this case to share.
First the letter Wilson sent the father of Wight's  victim.

Letter on Christ Church Stationary

Next, Wight's victim's reflections in light of the latest news on Sitler case.

When Doug Wrote My Father

I have not read all the way through the second. One of the reasons I have a blog is so that I can find these things later and look at them more thoroughly. But at first glance I see a young lady who is trying to love God and live right in spite of the being abused first by a pedophile and then by Doug Wilson.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Doug Wilson Thinks Marriage Saves You

Nope. Jesus is simply not enough in his world.

Well, let me rephrase that. He thinks marriage sanctifies you. So Jesus + Marriage saves and sanctifies you.

I'm sure the Apostle Paul would have something to say about that.

In case you are confused, here is Katie Botkin to explain it to you.

Doug Wilson on Marriage.

You go girl. Expose Wilson's false doctrine. Men like him need to stop having power over other people's lives.

Monday, September 7, 2015

The Patriarchs' Second Lie to Women

The first lie of the patriarchs is that patriarchy is the prescribed biblical way of doing families. This simply is not true. Jesus actually spoke against it. I pointed this out back in 2011 with the post I Heard It Said Once in which I gave scriptural proof that Jesus did not support patriarchy as the biblical model.

The second lie of patriarchy is that patriarchy protects women and children.

One of my top ten posts links to the story of Doug Phillips, formerly respected patriarch and patriarchy pusher. Katie Botkin's post In Which Lourdes Petitions for a Lifeboat, points out that Doug Phillips was the founder of something called The Christian Men and Boys Titanic Society. This society would commemorate the sinking of the Titanic every year "praising the patriarchal Christian men who sacrificed their lives in favor of putting “women and children first."

But as was seen Phillips was far more concerned with the perks of being a patriarch than any protection it was suppose to offer. He liked having the perk of a live-in nanny that he could sexually abuse rather than protect. When the story broke concerning this nanny he abused, he and his wife were ready to throw the nanny under the bus, or shall we say, push her out of the lifeboat so they could get in it.

This was over a year ago.

Now we have another patriarch who has proven that patriarchs are, indeed, not concerned for women and children, but rather are concerned with themselves, their positions, and their reputations.
Doug Wilson married a gullible young lady to a known pedophile. When it turned out that this pedophile abuse a son born from this marriage Wilson expressed concern for his own reputation and the pedophile. No mention of any concern for either the mother or child is expressed in his response to the criticism he has incurred for promoting and blessing the marriage.

Sarah Korchinski has created a lovely Maury Lie Detector meme that I what to share concerning the second lie of patriarchy.

So, no, Virginia. Not only is Patriarchy not biblical, it also does not protect women and children. It makes them vulnerable to the abuse of patriarchs, mere men who want to be worshiped as gods in their homes and churches.

Friday, September 4, 2015

SHAME on Doug Wilson!

And I say it again. In bold. Large font.


The man is NOT a pastor though he parades around as one.

The man is NOT wise though he fancies himself thus.

The man does NOT represent Christ or the Gospel though he thinks no one understands either as well as himself

And the man should NOT be revered by those who consider themselves leaders in the body of Christ.

Wilson's foolish, unpastoral, anti-Christian actions led to the molestation of an infant.

He should leave his pastorate and go far away into the wilderness in repentance and for penitence of what he has done as a supposed Christian leader.

I say it again.


Proclaiming yourself wise, you truly are a fool.

Everybody else, follow the link for details

Pedophile Supported by Doug Wilson Molests a Baby.

May God have mercy on his misguided and errant soul.

For further reading on Doug Wilson see:
Doug Wilson is a Misogynist
Doug Wilson is a Misogynist part II
Where I link a post by WTH showing where Doug Wilson almost channels Eric Cartman

The man does not love people. He loves himself and his doctrine.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Scapegoating and the Modern Molech

"Molech was an Ammonite deity who represented masculinity and the part that man played in reproduction to bring about life."

So says Cynthia Kunsman in her very good article about the worship of Masculinity in the Duggar version of Christianity.

Will Anna Duggar be offered as the next living sacrifice to save the Duggar family Brand? Scapegoating, Spread your Legs Theology, and the Modern Molech

Cynthia has done a good job of pointing out how far people will go to prop up their false version of the Gospel.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

How Bible Women Are Blamed or Ignored

A good article by Retha on how the women of the Bible are treated by modern day teachers and commentaries. And quite frankly their treatment of the feminine is nothing short of shameful.

How Church Sexism Colours Your View of Bible Women

Good job, Retha

Thursday, February 26, 2015

A Gem Lost in the Comment Section

I have moderation turned on for my comments.
When my life gets too busy, I don't get here often enough to check the comments in moderation. For this I am truly sorry.

So anyway, I've missed a comment that contained a poem I want others to see.
It is was left under a 2009 post called:
Manipulating Scripture for Personal Benefit.

Here is the poem

The "wife creed"
Distorted Faith - Distorted Love 
© Saina Veigel 

I met a pastor and he said that I am so very right: 
My wife truly needs to serve me day and night. 
She needs to be sweet and she needs to be kind.
And she has to be my sunshine. 

Regardless of my conduct, my sins and my shame. 
I am entitled to give her the blame. 
I rightfully posess power over her.
I am her husband, her lover. 
Whenever I want her to please me, she must.
I resent it when she calls my desires dirty lust. 

How dare she argue with me? For who is she? 
Don't argue! Don't upset me! Just serve me! 
She cries, "You don't love me!"
I want her. That's love. What else could it be?

But she resents my love, and I am confused.
I blow a fuse. 

No. I am not an angry man. 
I don't want to do her any harm. 
But I can't handle that she doesn't want to submit, 
and that's SHIT!
She's sinful not to meet my every wish.
She brings it all on herself: unhappiness and anquish.

She deserves to be rebuked and put in her place.
But if she behaves - she will find grace.
She has to obey me and love me and serve me. 
I am going to let her be 
as long as she is nice to me. 

That's my crede. That's what I believe. 
I'm so much like Jesus, don't you see? 

Thank you Saina for leaving this gem even though I found it a bit late.

Saina also left a message to men who have drunk deeply of deceptive doctrine that puffs them up. Go see what is said:
Saina's comment

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Far Graver Issue Than Driscoll

At least this is what a commentor on Throckmorton's claims.
Someone commenting under the name "Win" has brought up the issue of the ESV and it's false rise to success. He/She claims that it "is a far graver issue than the geographically isolated Driscoll situation." While I disagree with the thinking that the Driscoll situation is 'geographically isolated', I agree that the ESV situation is graver.

Here is a link to the comment: Win's words on the ESV

(note: posting this mostly so I can find it myself later)
(note #2: yes, still planning on finishing my critique of the Songs study guide.)

Monday, January 5, 2015

My Apologies

The Holidays are always very busy, energy zapping, and disorienting at my house.
But this year they hit even harder than usual.
I haven't forgotten about my critique of the Song of Songs study guide. I'm still not done shining the light of truth on it in order to expose  it for what it is, a worthless piece of tripe.
The problem is that with such a convoluted and misleading piece, it takes a bit more time that what I have to expose the layers of fraud and deceit involved in making it.
I hope to get back to this soon. But alas, I'm still recovering from the Holidays.
So here's to hoping that I can wrap this critique up sometime in the near future.

Monday, November 24, 2014

SoS SGC 2, The Lulling to Sleep

As I mentioned in the intro to this series, I am aware of Driscoll's tactic of front loading his messages with innocuous info to give his audience a false sense of security. He uses many words, with references and word studies at the beginning and middle of his messages to fool people into thinking that what he throws in here and there and then asserts at the end is also well researched, documented, supported and should be accepted. I saw him do this in the Peasant Princess series. I see this in the "Study Guide" as well. (Note: cn0te1 never did get back to me on where this study guide came from, even though he claimed that he copied and pasted it for my benefit, to educate me. He just thought throwing all those words with no footnotes, references, or sources should somehow be enough to shut me up.)

I started off counting paragraphs to keep track, but there are so many I've changed it to sections with paragraphs numbered in those sections.

The question is, does Song of Songs 6:13 refer to the Beloved doing a strip tease or some other sort of provocative dance?
Driscoll and cn0te1 claim that is does.
Here is the verse in question:
Songs 6:13 Come back, come back, O Shulammite;
Come back, come back, that we may gaze at you!"
Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
As at the dance of the two companies?

Part one of the study guide goes into the Beloved's name used in the verse. That the name used, "Shulammite" is about where she comes from rather than her personal name. And the study guide asserts that she is Abishag, mentioned in I and II Kings. There is no proof or disproof of this. Some traditions believe this. Others don't. Then part one goes on more about names. It gets pretty long and confusing. But for the most part, seemingly harmless.

Part two gets into the dance of the Manahaaim which I touched on in my comment to cn0te1. The first two and a half paragraphs of part two go into the meaning of this word. But about three fourths of the way down in the third paragraph, an assertion is made. The author asserts that "the daughters of Jerusalem wish to see the Shulamite dance."
This assertion cannot be derived by reading the text, nor is there any supporting documentation that is so prevalent in the everything that led up to this assertion. It is just stated as fact, as though the text says so, itself. But it doesn't. All the text does is question why people are staring at her like at some angelic dance.
Don't get me wrong. She may very well have been dancing. That is neither provable nor un-provable. The word 'dance' is mentioned in the verse. But it is not certain that anyone was dancing, going to dance, or being requested to dance. There is simply mentioned "the dance of the two companies" which refers back to Genesis 32:2. And that dance had to do with angels. Not sex.

Paragraph 4 of part 2 gets into German words and Indian mythology, which I suppose the author found interesting. But one has to wonder why it is brought up here since it has absolutely no bearing on the verse in question. It seems to appear because the author likes to fancy himself intelligent or well-read. Or perhaps it is thrown in to further confuse people so that their defenses are down and they accept what comes next.

Paragraph 5 makes unsupported assertions concerning the verses that follow Song 6:13 in Songs Chapter 7. The word 'undeniably' is used in this assertion to try to give it credibility. Again. The verse may or may not be about dancing. And if it is about dancing, it still isn't proven that this dance is in anyway meant to be provocative.

Much is said to try to prove that there is dancing, which may or may not have been going on. And much is asserted as to what people meant or intended or implied by their words. The problem is that these things can be found in neither the plain reading of the text nor in any supporting work or documentation.

So here are a lot of words that seem to be legit (again, none of this is footnoted and given sources but enough is given a person could conceivably look them up themselves) ... anyway, there seems to be a lot of legit discourse on names and angels. But toward the end of several blocks of info there are little bits of unsupportable sex leaven sprinkled in. These little suggestions in the study are part of a sales tactic. The tactic is to plant little sex seeds in order to build up to the final flight of fantasy promoted by Driscoll (or whoever the author is) at the end of the whole spiel.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

SoS SGC Break

I will resume with the study guide critique on Monday.

But here is a good post from WTH concerning Driscoll's relationship with his wife, Grace. WTH pulls several things together to point out what most of us have already known. Putting it mildly, their relationship is not healthy.

Driscoll's policy on who can be friends with Grace?

Oh, Grace. If only you knew who you were in Christ. Then you would know when you were being abused and you wouldn't keep going along with your shyster husband's lame-brain plans.

Dear Grace, you really need to read my friend's open letter to you. You are so confused and clueless.