Christians Go After a Popular Pastor Over His Sexism, Too

Can I just say I love the name of Ms. Dianna Anderson’s site – ‘Jesus Needs New PR’

Well, I suppose it’s pretty hard to be manly when your trying to inherit the Earth by being meek, or turning the other cheek, or not resisting evil, or loving your neighbor.

Science to the rescue!

Males have female hormones in them, and females have male hormones in them.

God Nature made us that way.

Wowsers – Not sure why it initially surprised me. I suppose part of me hangs on to the optimism that things like sexism and racism are a thing of the past. Silly, naive me 😉

And this wonderful, enlightening introduction to the concept of “othering” and hating the feminine that could potentially change the way he views gender for the rest of his life will probably bounce right off his ideological bubble as “propaganda”. From some demonic source no doubt.

This is funny, because as I child, growing up in Catholic schools/church, I always imagined Jesus to be gay. He was kind and loving. He turned the other cheek. He had facial hair and a pony tail, just like my parents’ gay friends. I also thought that the priests at my church modeled themselves after Jesus, and they were all certainly gay. When I first heard someone say that maybe Jesus had a thing for Mary Magdalene, my first response was, “But isn’t he gay?” This wasn’t a problem for me. As a kid, I liked Jesus more because he was gay. I’m not sure why, I just did. So I can’t even begin to wrap my brain around Driscoll’s macho talk. Just can’t.

Mark Driscoll is the WORST type of person, and it’s a damn shame there isn’t a hell for him to go to.

This just makes my blood boil. It’s this kind of backwards, despicable attitude that keeps us back from accomplishing so much as the human race. I know that people have right to their own opinions but this loser is hateful and bigoted. I, for one, hope for day that this behaviour will no longer be even tolerated.

It is a certainly a poor comment. I wonder if he wasn’t trying to be light-hearted the SCL was about metro-sexual worship leaders: http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchristianslike/2008/06/269-understanding-how-metrosexual-your-worship-leader-is-a-handy-guide/

AndrewFinden:

No there aren’t. You have the right to think whatever you please, but if you think something we find reprehensible then we’ll just think you’re a complete dick (as is within our rights).

I am not going to enter the philosophical conundrums of bigotry against bigots, or intolerance towards intolerance. Suffice to say I think this does not qualify.

wiki:

“The predominant usage [of “bigot”] in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing […]”

Bigotry, thus, is hostility to anything “NOT x” rather than a specific group. Intolerance of bigotry, on the other hand, does refer to a specific group (bigots).

tldr: “You suck” is a very different statement to “everyone that isn’t me sucks”

No Youtube video?

Maybe Driscoll should get together with Ted Haggard so the two of them can share a meth addicted male prostitute.

Every time I hear another preacher go off on the homosexuals, I wonder how long before he’s outed. That may not be entirely logical, in a formal sense, but history seems to indicate there’s some chance of its happening to homophobes.

There’s no real parallels to draw between Christian sexism and the atheist movement. The difference is atheists don’t have any doctrines at all let alone ones that actively support sexism.

@Alise – I agree that Driscoll’s comment is out of line appeal to gossip and that he ought to repent for it.

AndrewFinden: I personally fail to see how it’s bigoted to hope that people can move beyond their prejudices someday, to the point where they will not accept or tolerate vitriol such as that religionist’s perspective. There is a difference between ‘I hate this person’s views because said values are harmful and wrong’ and ‘I hate this person because they’re Christian’. The second is bigotry, the first (which is what Drakk’s comment meant, from what I can tell) is not.

@Emburii

There is a difference between ‘I hate this person’s views because said values are harmful and wrong’ and ‘I hate this person because they’re Christian’. The second is bigotry, the first … is not.

Not quite. Bigotry is not the same as hate – you can hate something and still tolerate it. Bigotry is not tolerating a view that is different from your own. So by definition, saying that Driscoll’s views should not be tolerated is a case of bigotry. By all means, hate the guy’s views, hope that he moves beyond whatever prejudices you see, but don’t be a hypocrite and be intolerant of his views. He has a right to hold them just as much as you have to yours.

Oh, hi, husband…didn’t know you were on the interwebs!

Man, I watched that youtube video, and it was tough. In the first 30 seconds, he quotes Russell and then says “the great atheistic philosopher…well, I say “great” in quotes”.

Apparently, given the inherent superiority of his worldview, atheism is not something Driscoll (or any of the people he is preaching to) needs to take seriously or listen to. Beyond his ridiculous misinterpretation of both Russell and Dawkin’s thoughts, this man has no motivation whatsoever to even attempt to understand a differing viewpoint. He already thinks he’s right, so might as well look down on other belief systems with contempt.

Another quote from Driscoll:

Driscoll tried to stay away from the fray by not naming names, but he makes a strong case against Bell’s alleged universalistic view and the argument that God cannot be loving and send people to hell at the same time.

The Seattle pastor calls on people to look at what Jesus did on the cross and how he suffered for the ungodly sinners and his enemies.

“Or, to say it another way, Jesus suffered and died for mean people. A God who will suffer and die for mean people is not mean,” asserts Driscoll. “In fact, such a God alone is altogether loving; to be condemned by a God of perfect love shows how damnable our sin truly is.”

In his post, Driscoll also answers the argument that eternal torment in hell is unjust punishment for people who sin only for a few decades. He responds by referring to Daniel 12:2 as well as what Jesus says in the Bible in making the case that hell is unending.

“Today, though, it is becoming popular to hope that sinners will eventually repent and everyone will end up in heaven,” writes Driscoll. “This is universal reconciliation, the ancient view of Origen. However, there is not a shred of evidence for post-mortem repentance.”*

Conservative evangelical Christians are the worst people in the world. They are the worst people in all of human history. I’m tired of the progressive and secular communities pretending they aren’t, and that better education is all that is necessary to wean them from their hateful delusions. There is no reaching people like this. I’m convinced it’s a neurologically-based criminal psychopathy; they meet the DSM’s current requirements for being classified as suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder – lack of empathy, and willingness (even eagerness) to see people suffer.

With rare exception (and please, I have no interest in hearing from those of you who can’t wait to tell me, “I was once one of them and I got out!”), there is no reaching these people. Quarantine them and breed this cognitive and ethical deficit out of the genome. It’s the only way to ensure human survival.

Go ahead, Libertarians – start your engines.

* http://www.christianpost.com/news/mark-driscoll-responds-to-rob-bell-controversy-on-hell-49406/

Yikes. Godwin much? Sieg heil.

I didn’t use the word “Nazi”. Grow up.

Also, I was once one of them and got out. We exist, no matter how much you have no interest in acknowledging it.

It’s a phenomenon so rare that in terms of sheer number, it’s almost nonexistent, regardless of your disinterest in acknowledging it.

I’m not going to argue with you. You’re wrong, and there’s an end to it. I won’t respond to you again.

“… kind of like that one story in the Bible where Jesus sees an effeminate man and then points and laughs at him.”

Not sure which story you are talking about but the one I’m thinking of he out of the blue cold cocks some pretty-boy in the face and breaks his nose. Presumably to improve his character. To me it sounds like something out of Kurt Vonnegut, handicapping the more fortunate to make things more even.

I am a Jew, asshole.

Richard, Hemant, this is part of what I’ve tried to tell you in the past. As much as I despise fundamentalists, they aren’t wrong about everything, and one of the things about which they’re correct is that the atheist community, as a whole, is nothing to write home about.

Seriously? You advocate quarantine of fundamentalists?

I’ve said this here before, repeatedly, but I haven’t said it in a while (I don’t come around much anymore, precisely because I no longer have the patience for this sort of thing), so I’ll say it again. There is a small but growing body of evidence indicating a strong neurological foundation for fundamentalism/authoritarianism. As experimental results come in, it indicates that these people are, for the most part, hardwired to see reality in terms of rigid hierarchical structures, defined for them by the authority figures in whom they become completely invested. The reason so few fundies get out isn’t a matter of education or opportunity; it’s because they’re innately incapable of doing so.

Also, as I said above, I’ve recently become convinced that these people are suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. They are what used to be called “psychopaths”. They manifest the symptoms specified by the DSM – lack of empathy and willingness to see others suffer. These are people who genuinely believe that the large part of their “heavenly reward” will consist of hanging around a mezzanine in heaven, chugging beer with Jesus and Dubya, peering over the balcony into the bowels of hell, watching the vast majority of their human siblings, including members of their own families (often their own children) being tortured unimaginably for all of eternity, while they point and giggle like schoolchildren. This isn’t solely the result of early childhood indoctrination; this is a biologically-based criminal psychopathology. How many of us have heard them say, time and again, that if they didn’t fear God and divine retribution, they’d be raping, pillaging and plundering? The indigenous peoples who first encountered them during the era of colonialism thought they were insane – as indeed they were.

Tragically, their psychosis has become not merely the norm, but the guiding ethos of our society. The inmates have quite literally taken over the asylum. Over the past thirty years, since Reagan and his cronies organized and empowered them, these people have been voting into office the criminals and lunatics chiefly responsible for our current socioeconomic debacle. America is finished; we aren’t coming back from this, and due to the interconnected nature of the global economy, as we continue to go down, we’ll be taking everyone else down with us. We’re facing, within the next few years, the end of our global civilization – quite possibly the end of humanity. Ultimately, the Christians will turn out to be far more toxic to humanity as a whole than the Islamic fundamentalists have yet had the opportunity to be. Of course, they will never admit this. As the lights go out, the last fundie, on his deathbed, will still be cursing those whom he knows to be the real culprits (because his pastor told him so) – the Liberals, the atheists and the gays, aided and abetted by their allies, the godless secular Jews who control the media and the banks. At least he’ll be able to comfort himself with lurid fantasies involving our eternal torment.

I know that of the few of you who managed to get out (not because you succumbed to reason, but because you were lucky enough to win the genetic lottery), many cling desperately to the hope that your family and friends will one day follow you. Sorry – it ain’t happening. I should probably be more compassionate about this and find a gentler way of saying it, but after over half a century of dealing with this crap, I find that I just can’t. I’ve had it up to here with them, and with those of you who can’t seem to fucking let go.

If there is any hope at all for our survival (and it’s probably already too late), it lies in nullifying their influence. We need mandatory testing of intelligence, sanity and developmental level as a prerequisite for reproduction, or at the very least, for voting. The Western Europeans seem to be able to handle representative democracy; we’ve never really developed the knack. We need to run this place as a republic for a while (which I understand was the preference of some of the founders), in which power is wielded by an elite on behalf of the majority of the populace – except that in my version, the elite would be comprised not of members of a landed aristocracy, but of people with a few neurons to rub together. Naturally, this will never be done. This is the reason we’re screwed.

So, yes, I advocate the quarantining of fundamentalists. I make absolutely no apology for it.

Fundies say that atheists should be locked up. That gay people should be sent to prison. Are you seriously advocating the same kind of treatment?

No – I think they should be made comfortable while we wait a generation or two for them to fade out of the genome.

I’d probably clear out a few of the Southern states – they seem to have an affinity for that neck of the woods – and hold them there. I’d tell them they can have their little theocracy while they wait for Jesus to come and collect them from their play date – they just can’t reproduce and they can’t influence the rest of society in any way.

You are an atheist fundie.

Not at all. Firstly, a fundamentalist bases his/her opinions on what s/he he wants to believe, and discounts evidence. My arguments are based upon evidence; it’s just evidence that makes most people uncomfortable.

In fact, I’d suggest that those of you who cling desperately to the belief that the family and friends you left behind in fundieland could join you, if only they could be made to see reason, may still be behaving as fundamentalists, because you hold that belief out of desire, not as a result of evidence.

Secondly, I don’t advocate this treatment for liberal theists. Unitarians, Reform Jews, Liberal Muslims et. al. are welcome to join the rest of us in Sane Reality. I’m not even completely convinced they’re wrong. I think they are, but I’m not absolutely convinced of it. I’m not even a radical materialist.

Now, if you want to say I’m a mean-spirited son of a bitch, that’s another matter. Guilty.

You’re behaving like a fundie (although I don’t know whether or not you were one) – you think if you say something over and over, that makes it true.

I’ve explained myself enough. I’m done.

“The most effeminate anatomically male worship leader” … sounds like Jesus (as depicted since the Spanish Inquisition, which eradicated his semitic features) to me.
 

driscoll is not saying that being a woman is a bad thing – quite the contrary. He’s saying that the design for man is to be manly – i.e.  protector, leader, provider. i’m not saying that a woman cant do these things – however as a single, divorced woman who, while waiting for my spouse, embodies all of the aforementioned characteristics, is in turn, a little rough around the edges. which is not the full embodiment of our feminine design.

I don’t get it. Driscoll has always struck me as an effeminate metrosexual who doth protest too much.