Christopher Peterman DRBJU Posts Blasphemous Convo, Denigrates Women

Posted: February 13, 2013 in Homosexuality, The "Do Right" Cults, Uncategorized

Christopher Peterman, the claimed founder of the Do Right BJU Facebook, whose Facebook status avows that he is agnostic,  posted a conversation attributed to God that reads as follows:

Bros before hoes — from the Facebook page of God himself
NEW COMMANDMENT: Thou shalt understand that the Bible was written by man and it is silly.
Photo: NEW COMMANDMENT: Thou shalt understand that the Bible was written by man and it is silly.
Above this comment, he writes “Bros before hoes”, ( which is a common slang term for “whores” that degrades women) and that the conversation comes from the Facebook page of God himself.
The content claims that the Bible is silly, and that God said it was written by monks and sheepherders, and that the Bible is irrelevant.
The Do Right Hyles Anderson Facebook group recently undertook a controversy over a similar blasphemous picture which lead to an exodus of members towards other groups that were more conservative or Christian in nature.
This is just one more example of the Godlessness of the “Do Right” groups from their leaders.
Advertisements
Comments
  1. bobwh says:

    Men have been putting words in God’s mouth for a few millennia. The vast majority of them are religious. Many of those do so simply to exert power over other people. They fool their charges to think that it is God who is speaking.

    Now which is worse? This obvious fake used as satire, or those who pretend to speak for God in order to fool others?

    • drjamesa says:

      I think you forgot a third option to your question, “which is worse”. How about someone that uses satire to disguise how they really think and feel, and then when confronted with their blasphemy and hypocrisy, claim “oh it was just ‘satire'”!

      And what about the “bros before hoes”, was that “satire” too?

      If you posted “satire” about killing the president, you’d be arrested.
      If you posted “satire” about your wife being fat and ugly, you’d get slapped.
      If you posted “satire” about feeding your kids to wolves, you’d get a visit from CPS.
      If post “satire” about Mohommad being a pedophile, you get a prison sentence.

      Some satire is not acceptable, at least to those who have a sense of Godly morality and common sense.

      • bobwh says:

        Let’s define what satire is first.

        “[a] Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts,

        [b] in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule,

        [c] ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.”

        Now your analysis and my response:

        “How about someone that uses satire to [1] disguise how they really think and feel, and [2] then when confronted with their [3] blasphemy and hypocrisy, [4] claim “oh it was just ‘satire’”!

        1. I can’t speak for Mr. Peterman about his true motives. Neither can you. I don’t think that he is actually disguising how he really thinks and feels in this particular instance, as satire as a device is specifically made to be glaringly obvious.

        2. Did you actually confront Mr. Peterman in email, PM, or on this specific FB post itself?

        3. Blasphemy and hypocrisy are again, quite open to interpretation. Jesus himself was constantly accused of the former, usually by those he was criticising. He was also quite fond of using satire himself (basically all of Matthew 23) and was condemned to death under the pretence of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-6).

        My point is NOT to compare Mr. Peterman to Jesus. The point here is that accusations of blasphemy are almost universally made against a person not by God, but by man, with specific motivations of personal offence and intentions to destroy (Just look at how blasphemy laws are abused in places like Pakistan).

        Besides, Jesus was constantly verbally abusing the religious leaders of the day, people who had an appearance of godliness but were dead inside (Matthew 23:27), which supports fully my first comment (“Now which is worse? This obvious fake used as satire, or those who pretend to speak for God in order to fool others?”). But I digress.

        4. Satire is obvious, therefore there is no need to explain it away as something it obviously is.

        “And what about the “bros before hoes”, was that “satire” too?”

        Yes. See the definition of satire.

        ” [1] If you posted “satire” about killing the president, you’d be arrested.
        [2] If you posted “satire” about your wife being fat and ugly, you’d get slapped.
        [3] If you posted “satire” about feeding your kids to wolves, you’d get a visit from CPS.
        [4] If post “satire” about Mohommad being a pedophile, you get a prison sentence.”

        1. You would get arrested for making threats, not for making satire. This is because of a real and present danger of assassination. However, everything about the president, his policies, politics, physical appearance, funny voice, etc., are all available as funny fodder, at least in more free societies.

        2. You would get slapped for being insensitive, not for being right. Besides, so what? Truth hurts sometimes.

        3. Feeding your own kids to wolves? Probably. Feeding children to wolves as an image to illustrate some point, no.

        4. Only in Islamic societies and western societies that lick Islam’s feet. (see what I did there?)

        ” [1] Some satire is not acceptable, at least to those who have a sense of [2] Godly morality and [3] common sense.”

        1. I agree. Most satire is not socially acceptable, and this precisely why it is used and is more effective than other rhetorical devices in making a point.

        2. This is totally open to interpretation, and the Holy Spirit that talks to me apparently has different standards then the one that talks to you.

        3. This really has nothing to do with anything, but perhaps you mean people who are polite?

        *Satire is not polite*

        ———————-

        Look, if you are so offended by such words “hoes” or “whores” I suggest you take a black marker to your KJV, as it is so full of offensive adult words that your eyes will probably burst into flames just from reading your Holy Book.

        The satire in question might need some interpretation. I’ll try.

        The cartoon above is satirising the apparent inconsistency in Biblical interpretation and making the point that ALL people “read into” the Bible and find it to mean what they wish it to mean, not what it actually means (as if discovering what it actually means is possible).

      • drjamesa says:

        Bob writes:
        “Let’s define what satire is first.
        “[a] Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts,
        [b] in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule,
        [c] ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.”
        Now your analysis and my response:”

        The only definition I actually agree with is [b] in part (without the “in” connecting it to [a]). A and C have been reworded from the Merriam defintion in a way that alters the definition of the word and where [c] infuses intent (to shame…society..into improvement. There is no reason to believe that satire is used to cause improvement unless context specifically clarifies the intent of the satire. But by definition, intent can not be presumed absent content confirming such).

        Bob:
        ““How about someone that uses satire to [1] disguise how they really think and feel, and [2] then when confronted with their [3] blasphemy and hypocrisy, [4] claim “oh it was just ‘satire’”!

        1. I can’t speak for Mr. Peterman about his true motives. Neither can you. I don’t think that he is actually disguising how he really thinks and feels in this particular instance, as satire as a device is specifically made to be glaringly obvious.”

        I can speak to Mr. Peterman’s motives because he made them pretty clear. Carolyn Root stated that “This smacks of sacrilege, any way you look at it”, to which Christopher replied, “Smack smack smack-what a nice sound”. Not only did Carolyn recognize it for what many others did, but Christopher confirmed that the sacrilege implied was “nice”

        Furthermore, the excerpt itself was taken from a Facebook page that declares to be from God Himself, and any casual perusal of that page can see that any satire contained on the page is clearly meant to mock God, certainly not with the idea or intent to shame society into improvement. Moreover, the satire is directed AT God. If such satire were intended to produce anything, it would be to produce unbelief in God as there is nothing on that page that would indicate the authors intent is to encourage society to practice what they preach (which would be the “improvement” premise) but rather to mock Christians for their belief in God and the Bible.

        “2. Did you actually confront Mr. Peterman in email, PM, or on this specific FB post itself?”

        How many of the IFB did Christopher confront before he wrote about them? When a person claims to be agnostic and mocks God, there is no need for me to “confront” him prior to publishing my opinion on the matter.

        3. Blasphemy and hypocrisy are again, quite open to interpretation. Jesus himself was constantly accused of the former, usually by those he was criticising. He was also quite fond of using satire himself (basically all of Matthew 23) and was condemned to death under the pretence of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-6).

        Whether blasphemy is open to interpretation or not depends on the content which appears a matter that you have skipped over entirely.
        What you are missing is that even though Jesus was accused of blasphemy, somebody was wrong, and it wasn’t Jesus. In this matter, if blasphemy is open to interpretation, then what is left is determining if the content is itself blasphemous.

        Blasphemy: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.

        The content insults God and insults the Bible, and showing a complete lack of respect or reverence for both. It is therefore totally appropriate and accurate to label the content as blasphemous.

        4. Satire is obvious, therefore there is no need to explain it away as something it obviously is.

        Yes, the satire is obvious, but being obvious does not eliminate its evil.

        **********
        Bob writes:
        “1. You would get arrested for making threats, not for making satire. This is because of a real and present danger of assassination. However, everything about the president, his policies, politics, physical appearance, funny voice, etc., are all available as funny fodder, at least in more free societies.”

        You are missing the point. Yes you would be arrested for making a threat, but the argument was a person justifying his threat by claiming that it was/is satire, and the satirical intention of the content does not excuse the threat that was conveyed in the satire any more than mocking God is excusable merely because the author claims the content is satire.

        The above response covers 2-3.

        Number 4 was a reference to a video that was made that incited the ire of the Muslim community with the support of the liberal media. The video was obviously satire, but the creator was condemned for it by not only Muslims, but by our own government, thus demonstrating again that even non-believers at times agree that satire is offensive and it this case the satirical video was accused of blaspheming Islam’s “prophet”.

        ***************

        Bob writes:
        “1. I agree. Most satire is not socially acceptable, and this precisely why it is used and is more effective than other rhetorical devices in making a point.”

        Effective according to who? and to what end? Sticking a feather in your hat does not make it macaroni, and using inflammatory content in literature that incites violence or ridicule or blasphemy and then excusing it as satire is irresponsible when it is clearly intended for those effects.

        2. This is totally open to interpretation, and the Holy Spirit that talks to me apparently has different standards then the one that talks to you.

        The Holy Spirit that talks to me talks through the Word of God. In Revelation 13, the beast is given a mouth to blaspheme God, His temple and them that dwell in heaven. Rev 13:5-6. If the Holy Spirit that speaks to (as you claim), and that spirit is telling you that the same level of speech that is similar to that of the beast in Revelation 13 is acceptable to utter by men, then your acoustics need adjusted.

        “Look, if you are so offended by such words “hoes” or “whores” I suggest you take a black marker to your KJV, as it is so full of offensive adult words that your eyes will probably burst into flames just from reading your Holy Book.”

        I have a right and sometimes a duty to publish whatever I want. Calling women hoes is certainly inappropriate, and I am surprised that you appear to support it (since you are defending its usage).

        And the words found in the King James (“he that pisseth against the wall”, or the use of “ass” for donkey, etc..) were not offensive when they were penned. To take those words of context and apply them to definitions that have been reinvented is an erroneous anachronism, and a very poor argument at best. Even the term “God” and “Christ” have taken on different meanings today, so does that mean that because a cussing sailor uses the word “Christ” in a negative manner that all references to the word Christ in the Bible must fit the current usage?

        “The cartoon above is satirising the apparent inconsistency in Biblical interpretation and making the point that ALL people “read into” the Bible and find it to mean what they wish it to mean, not what it actually means (as if discovering what it actually means is possible).”

        I see no place where the satire is making a reference to interpretation of the Bible at all. Not only does it ascribe authors to the Bible that are inaccurate (monks) but claims that the Bible itself is silly. This is directed at those who believe the Bible itself, not how it is interpreted.

        And again, when one has seen where the excerpt came from, it was clearly the intent of the author to mock God as the same author does with anything that resembles Christianity.

        If discovering what the Bible means isn’t possible, then Jesus wasted His time in telling us that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” Matt 4:4. The Bereans studied the word and were praised for doing so because they expected to understand what they studied. (Acts 17:11). Paul admonishes Christians to “preach the word” which would be pointless if it wasn’t possible to “discover what is actually means”.

        And in conclusion, I stand on my original premise that anyone with common sense and dignity would be offended by the excerpt in addition to being able to see the clear intention of not only the author, but the admitted intention of Peterman in reposting it with his added commentary.

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s