info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Wayne Jacobsen "fails to show God's love" - sues another Christian author
30 views
Skip to first unread message
waynejac...@gmail.com
Nov 4, 2014, 2:29:51 PM11/4/14
to
Is any one aware of why there is a huge censorship around the Sydney Anglicans and Wayne Jacobsen Wikipedia article?
Source: http://anglicancensorship.wordpress.com/
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney&diff=632445158&oldid=632416273
== CONTROVERSIES relating to this diocese ==
-
If you look at the archive page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney/Archive_1#liberal.2C_charismatic.2C_Anglo-Catholic_and_traditionalist_Anglican_churches_in_Sydney.) you will also find criticisms of the church based upon its narrow-minded acceptance of conservatives - I haven't included this because this is a breach of my own personal conservatism, so I will let someone who is more liberal to include (or re-include this). Nonetheless, I'll just note one of the authors did note "Let's not pretend that the presence of such churches is welcome. Diversity it NOT welcome. And in this, Sydney markedly differs from England". Remember guys, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT an evangelical tool to make your diocese look good... Yes, you and I we may be conservative but let's be honest and transparent about this. If there are comparative differences between Sydney Anglicans and those in England, make it clear. I see that the article indicates Sydney Anglicans are LOW CHURCH which is very unique because in places like England it is quite a HIGH CHURCH - perhaps these factors could be expounded upon, because it causes particular differences in Sydney as supposed to other dioceses [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===War against Pentecostalism, esp Hillsong church===
-
As I've already indicated on the [[Talk: Brian Farran|Talk page for Brian Farran]], the Sydney diocese is involved with a number of controversies that has NOT been accurately depicted, or at least not as critical as they themselves has been of Hillsong.
-
-
There seems to be a general rhetoric amongst Anglicans that Hillsong is "all about the money", "prosperity doctrine", etc, but when asked if they had ever attended a service, most Anglican priests will admit they have never, or if they have, it was only one event - and not even the Life Groups where most of the bible teaching actually occurs.
-
-
There is also this generalization Sydney Anglicans have of charismatics (although they tend to try and leave out those of the Baptist church in particular who are pentecostal, instead pointing to the fact they have grown out of another Christian tradition), that they are stupid and dumb, and biblically inept, perhaps analogous to the "dumb blonde" reasoning where a good looking woman with blonde hair must be academically inept. They are unable to point to a particular study, but just base it upon anecdotal evidence, IF even that, given most of them haven't even stepped into a Pentecostal church! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Gnostic heresy===
-
Perhaps relating to the Anglican war against Hillsong seems to be this pervading "Gnostic heresy" amongst Sydney Anglicans, which is unsurprising given heresies seem to repeat themselves, and whereas the Pentecostals are a close analogy with the Pharisees, Sydney Anglicans are a close analogy with the Saduccees - who had all the political power, but did not believe in the miraculous. The Gnostic heresy was the first church heresy to arise, and they believed the more Godly you are the less worldly you are, and the more worldly you are the less Godly you are. Thus they believed Jesus was not "human" at all, but only appeared so, because he was fully God. And if he was human even a bit, he would be less God than he should be. (The correct theology is Jesus was fully human and fully God)
-
-
And as you can see this heresy is their foundation of much of their criticism - if it is not just a psychological thing where they are having their Market share entirely RIPPED from them from the Pentecostals because of the church's IRRELEVANCE - e.g. they say Hillsong talks about money, and they shouldn't talk about money in church, as you can see it is clearly based upon the heretical idea that money=worldly, and God=godly, so money and god don't go together. Or music, good music=worldly, and God=godly, so good music and God don't go together - it's almost as if they believe bad music=godly
-
-
So even though Anglicans may not PUBLICLY espouse these heresies, particular this heresy, you can see it CLEARLY inbuilt into their thinking [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Involvement with the court===
-
Again moving with the Sadducee analogy, Sydney Anglicans also seem to be heavily involved with the courts, which as I enlisted on the Farran talk page, seems to be a breach of 1 Cor 6:1, which states "How DARE you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!", and the reason, just like the saduccees in the New Testament, is because of the "canon law" that pervades the Anglican church [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Tax avoidance===
-
So this relates to income tax, fringe benefits tax, GST, from which churches are generally free from, although Sydney Anglicans have institutionalized policies to abuse it - Although they have criticized the Pentecostals for "taking a lot of money from the people", the National Church Life Survey has shown that on a per capita basis, Anglican churches and Pentecostal churches receive the same amount of donation per capita. However, Anglican churches have ADITIONALLY been implicated in media for their SYSTEMIC abuse of the tax system (it is partially to do with the Anglican system where it is run like a chained store - sort of like Coles, whereas Pentecostal churches are more like a franchise - so therefore Anglican churches could argue it is a problem with the church system which FORCES them to mis-classify tax). But anyway, Anglican Churches have been notable in media, for even despite average wages ($70k), abusing the tax incentives provided by the government (capital gains), and especially on an individual basis, abuse of the FRINGE BENEFITS, and also even priests bragging about being able to send their kids to the Anglican schools for a fraction of the cost
-
-
This is NOT an exclusive listing, and people are free to add other controversies. Analogies are useful to use to exclude [[WP:BIAS]], but what is clear is that if Hillsong Church has a "Controversies" section, that the Sydney Anglicans section can only but also be filled with that too [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Calvinism as a "mystery"===
-
The Sydney Anglicans as the article indicates have been strongly calvinistic, and as you can read in this [[William Lane Craig]] article (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism) - who actually spoke at AFES, which although they deny it, are deceptively entrenched with the Sydney Anglicans. Anyway, Calvinism has been described by Lane Craig as:
-
* cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture
-
* cannot be rationally affirmed, Lane Craig describes it as "self-defeating"
-
* makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility
-
* nullifies human agency
-
* makes reality into a farce
-
-
The priests have often accept Calvinism as a "mystery", pointing to particular verses, which could be solved with Lane Craig's "Molinism" view anyway. And this is particularly surprising, given the Sydney Anglicans often espouse themselves as being somehow intellectually superior, yet nonetheless accept Calvinism simply as a "mystery" - and the reason is bibliolatry (see below) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Bibliolatry===
-
Probably one of the most problematic aspects of the Sydney Anglicans, which you don't see in other jurisdictions, for example in African Anglicanism, is their total hatred for the charismatics, and one of the strong reasons for doing so is their strong Bibliolatry perspective, where they idolize "the bible", which is historically a "rebelling" against their Catholic background, where there was too much tradition/precedence, and not enough Sola scriptura. Nonetheless, like Muslims, the Sydney Anglicans have taken "God's word" to actually be each-and-every-word accurate, precluding any use of storytelling devices, historical inaccuracies, even propoganda that you would expect in historical texts. The issue is that this is another HERESY believed by this church.
-
-
As indicated in John 5:39 (You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you REFUSE to come to me to have life"
-
-
Perhaps it isn't surprising that John starts his book indicating that for Christians the Word=Jesus, and NOT a bunch of text that was magically written.
-
-
One of William Lane Craig's colleagues, JP Moreland, has written an excellent thesis on Bibliolatry (http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf) His thesis in short is that for Christians, unlike Muslims, the Word is a living, breathing thing - it's Jesus! And there are lots of spiritual realities that are not found in the bible - e.g. the experience of angels, demons, even God! And for that reason experience MUST come into play. And again, this is because this article lacks the historical accuracy reflecting the Anglican relationship with Catholacism - i.e. that it was a rebellion movement that came out of Catholacism, and thus took advantage of Martin Luther's protestant movement, and anything that was remotely Catholac [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Deceptive undisclosed link with AFES===
-
It is known as public knowledge throughout all of Australia that the Anglican church has very deceptively marketed AFES as being "'non-denominational"', but yet AFES ministers are almost entirely picked from the Anglican church, and is the first point of contact. There are also news articles about students being forced out of their churches (Anglicans particularly target Pentecostal churches), into their own Anglican churches, which one can only but think there may be some sort of financial reason for this too, because this is the University crowd who have their entire live's income in front of them [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Prolific institutional child paedophelia===
-
Child paedophelia is essentially synonymous with the Anglican Church, because of their structure, and this problem isn't found in linked churches (e.g. franchises like the Baptist church don't have this issue), because what is happening is someone found out to be a paedophile is CONVENIENTLY shifted from one diocese into another so they can reoffend, or even worse - shifted within the diocese to another another church [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Lack of ecumenical activity with other churches===
-
Perhaps reflected in the Anglican Church's "competition" and "war" against the most fastest growing Christian sect, the Pentecostal Church, is that the Anglican Church, because it is a self contained chain (like Coles), and the Dioceses own and control EVERYTHING, that it is very self contained, i.e. Anglicans are "'NOT ecumenical"'. This of course reflects the church structure, but nonetheless, authorization is required at the Diocese level for joint activity with other churches, and so they often do not like to mingle with other churches - i.e. rather than saying "THE BODY of Jesus Christ", they refer to only the local Anglican church (sort of like how the Catholics have tried to exclude other churches by adopting "the CATHOLIC church" in doctrinal statements [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Neglecting the 3rd person of the Trinity (i.e. the Holy Spirit)===
-
I would've included this, but haven't to the disappointment probably of some Pentecostals, because of the Sydney Anglicans shifting position on this. In their 2020 mission statement (again... obviously an influence by Hillsong) (http://sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/mission_2020.pdf), you will notice a very obvious "dependnece on the Holy Spirit" statement in the "Mission" clause, essentially neglecting to include discussion on the Father! Nonetheless, this seems like a slow progression that started when [[Phillip Jensen]] was accused by - you won't believe this - but the now-controversial [[Mark Driscoll]], who accused the Sydney Anglicans of believing in "Father, Son, and Holy Bible" as part of their "Ministry Intensive Conference" (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus). Again, a Conference - Hillsong influence? As Jensen correctly identifies, the insult was intended to offend, to gain awareness of spiritual lethargy and to correct error [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: This is a question regarding a potentially "'heretical trinity"' which I found a reference for. This article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) states: "The Sydney Anglicans' "'Trinity has God the Father ruling over Jesus and the Holy Spirit"'. Why? Because if Father is boss in heaven, then father is boss on Earth". This is TOTALLY heretical. Now I won't include it yet (at least not after some discussion) because that is found on some extremist Greens website, but it may be useful to reflect on [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: Here by the way is a quote from Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney Anglicans) who ADMITS that the Anglicans have FAILED on the subject of teaching on the H/S - ""'Dr Jensen admitted that Sydney Anglican churches haven't been as active in teaching about the Holy Spirit as they could be"'" - and this is coming from the OFFICIAL Sydney Anglicans propaganda machine (http://sydneyanglicans.net/news/holy_spirit_draws_crowd_to_jensen) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Ripping funds away from Anglicare to fund Moore College===
-
Continuing from above, this article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) alleges that the church has ripped funds away from Anglicare, the church's welfare arm, causing it to be "financially troubled", by funding its theological "factory" which produces 10,000 part-time pastoral workers, and 1,000 full-timers, at a cost of $500 million. Hillsong's total revenue in 2012 was $55m (up from $28m in 2013) (http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/hillsong-under-fire-on-channel-nine-but-was-it-fair). This figure is TEN TIMES GREATER!!! (Notable is that that article also notes that a comparable geographical reach of Sydney Anglicans with 65,000 Sydney Anglicans gave $89m in offerings in 2011, more than 3 times the amount at $28m by Hillsong in 2011... So much for the criticism that Hillsong's all about $$$.. the FACTS and statistics actually show that the Anglicans are 3x more about $$$$ than Hillsong is hmmm....) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Other issues pertaining to the Anglican church in general===
-
====Church started because of King Henry 8th's sexual appetite====
-
Although most Anglicans want to proudly announce they have nothing to do with Catholacism, little is usually brought up about the fact that Anglican church=Church of England, and the entire church was started based on the fact King Henry 8th wanted to shag his brother's wife and the Catholic pope wouldn't let him. Yes, there have been the 39 articles since, but ORIGINALLY the Anglican church was Catholic, and so their remnant theologies (which have not been replaced) can be highly heretical [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
====The Queen being the "pope" of the church====
-
Given that the Queen is not a particularly good theologian, or, well, for that matter... has ANY theological depth, it is an evident controversy that she has become the "pope" of the entire Anglican church. There is also the self-contradictory fact that the HEAD of the entire Anglican Church is a woman - yet they do not let women become priests! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
====Lack of separation of Church and State====
-
By making himself the self-proclaimed pope of the Church of England/Anglican Church, what King Henry 8th essentially did was to join Church and State. This is a theological error, because Jesus did not call his kingdom a political kingdom. And this is one of the reasons why a good analogy of the social standing of Anglicans is the Sadduccees, and their reliance on lawyers, etc - The entire church has a difficulty separating church from state - and this is perhaps a good place to insert how the Australian Anglican church differs in the USA. The USA was the FIRST country, as it was not apart of the "Commonwealth", to have a place where Catholics could FINALLY be free to practice their religion. This is why it could also be argued that the Church of England is actually "'unconstitutional"' because it forces people of England to go to the Church of England. When you think of how HORRENDOUS this is, it is "'even worse"' than the Chinese [[Three-Self Patriotic Movement]] which at least allows you to join one of 3 protestant churches in China. The English have only permitted you to join a SINGLE church - of which you have to bow down to the King of England... far out! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
==Cessationism (?) - this is a BIG question mark==
-
Continuing from my prose above, Jensen indicates in this article (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus), and criticizes Driscoll, saying:
-
:""It is not his fault that in his short visit to Sydney he did not learn that "'Cessationism has NEVER had much of a foothold here"'. It is much more common in the USA"."
-
This comment by the former ARCHBISHOP of Sydney (i.e. the VERY HIGHEST figure) is in STARK contrast with probably some High Church Anglican extremist who has written in the Wiki page:
-
:"""'Charismatic" manifestations"' of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, are "'considered to have ceased"' after the apostles"
-
As indicated by the Archbishop's comment, this statement is "'FALSE"' - perhaps it's time to look up at the statements of ecclesiastical authority, if not your bible...........
-
-
Other statements by Jensen in that same article include
-
* In the coming sermons we will be looking at how we are sanctified, sealed, led and "'filled by the Spirit"' as well as the meaning of the "'gifts"' and fruit "'of the Spirit"'
-
* The person and work of the Holy Spirit is far too important a topic to... be defensive
-
-
There is also an author at Sydney Anglicans propaganda media department, who has issued like statements here (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/missionthinking/do_sydney_anglicans_know_the_holy_spirit):
-
* We have certainty about the person of the Spirit Himself, who is revealed progressively through the Scriptures. He is certainly not merely an impersonal force... We can be sure that... the Spirit is fully God
-
* The Spirit is involved in creation, directs history, reveals God's messages through His prophets, teaches what it means to be faithful and righteous, and equips His leaders. In the New Testament, the Spirit reveals Jesus' reality, unites believers in Christ, gives assurance of our sonship, transforms our lives, gives gifts for service, and moves us to mission
-
-
Evidently, as an Anglican, he stops there, but [[William Lane Craig]] nicely provides a full listing, most impactingly of course, stating "Jesus Himself was a charismatic - as His fully-man component relied so heavily on the Holy Spirit through His ministry - and if our Saviour required the H/S, how much more do we?!". Lane Craig discusses it in his Defenders Podcast transcript is here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s7-2). Quotes include (there are a LOT - I've just included those relating to the impact of the H/S on Jesus):
-
* It is very interesting to see how intimately connected with the life and ministry of Jesus the person of the Holy Spirit is
-
* Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit in Mary (Luke 1:35)
-
* Jesus did not begin his ministry until he was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (Luke 3:21-22)
-
* Jesus' miracles and exorcisms are said to have been performed through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28 , Acts 10:38)
-
* Jesus' preaching is attributed in its power to the Holy Spirit. (Luke 4:14-21)
-
* The continuance of Jesus' ministry after his death is also attributed to the Holy Spirit. (John 16:7, 13-14)
-
* I say all of that simply to say that it was his ("'Jesus"") "'human nature that was in need of"' being infused with the power of "'the Holy Spirit"' and that was anointed by the Holy Spirit. "'Jesus was"', if you will, "'a charismatic"'. He was a man who depended upon and was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit to carry out his ministry
-
-
So to the HERETIC who is writing statements on the Wiki page contradicting the former head of Sydney Anglicans, please stop it, or at least include references! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
== Notable news stories that seem to be "censored" from the article==
-
=== Sensationalism used to try to "increase following" ===
-
An excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald from Elizabeth Farrelly (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sydney-anglicans-reject-the-sacred-feminine-20140604-zrx3t.html) which talks about an Anglican use of a "pretext for faux porn", "graphic focus is... her barely concealed crotch", "naked thighs", "S&M". "Anglicanism is just so desperate for congregation and coffer-fill that its cover strategy is reduced to whatever it takes. Desperate times, desperate measure". "Massive hole left by the diocese's avid stockmarket overreach" "While the world's Anglicans have moved on to debate female bishops, Sydney's lots - leaders in backwardness - join with Africa in staunchly refusing women even as priests". Here is the censored image (http://anglicanink.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_article/public/field/image/Southern%20Cross%20June%202014.jpg?itok=64d3njrv). This is how the post-censored publication looks like (http://sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/SC0614.pdf). And this is the spin king Russell Powell (who before being the Archbishop of Sydney's "Media adviser", was a "pioneer" at the ABC network)(http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/ministrythinking/when-we-get-it-wrong) in his full unadultered "apology" [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Borrowed money to invest in share market===
-
The Sydney Anglicans lost $160 million in the financial share markets because it was "highly geared", Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney) admits. He believed the loss "could be a warning to the wealtheist Anglican diocese in Australia not to rely on its wealth". It has caused loss of 4 archdeacons, some of the church's most senior clerics, impact on the budget of St Andrew's Cathedral and youthworks (diocese's youth mission) (http://www.smh.com.au/national/jesus-saves-but-shattered-anglicans-regret-not-having-that-luxury-20091019-h4zn.html) [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Phillip Jensen: Blaming Islam for ISIS, described Mother Teresa as "instrument of the devil", Prince Charles as "adulterer", Muslims as "slaves"===
-
Phillip Jensen (Anglican Dean of Sydney, brother of Peter Jensen Archbishop of Sydney) has attacked Islam, blaming it for the rise of ISIS. "It's time to face the truth that Islam itself is part to blame", he said. He also criticised Barack Obama for his decision to separate his criticism of ISIS from a critique of Islam. "They wish to create a Caliphate. Their commitment is more than a power grab for land, it is a religious zeal, and if we ignore it, we will seriously underestimate them". He has previously "'described Mother Teresa as an "instrument of the devil""', and "'Prince Charles as an "adulterer""'. He also described Muslims as ""'loved slaves of Allah"'" (http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-dean-blames-islam-for-rise-of-islamic-state-20140918-10iu1v.html) [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wayne_Jacobsen&diff=632445239&oldid=632444113
== "God loves me!" = So I can sue others ==
-
-
So the story goes like this, William P Young fails to sell book. But Pastors Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings discover book, create start-up "Windblown Media" to publish it, and it becomes a bestseller. Now a bestseller, Hachette Book Group becomes involved, in a distribution agreement, to make it even bigger. The problem has been Young has had to file in the State Court a lawsuit against Jacobsen and Cummings, Windblown Media, and Hachette, that he is "'owed $8 million"' in lost royalties, because Windblown media had ripped him off by $8m, and asked that the relationship be "terminated". Young was meant to receive 50c for every paperback, and $1 for every hardcover, plus "'33% of net profits"'. Windblown/Hachette later entered into separate agreement, where Windblown would receive 17% of net profits, and Hachette taking 83%, leaving Young with "'no net profits"' ("cf. 33% of net profits bolded previously"). Apart from no profit share, Windblown/Hachette got "more and more creative" in determiing royalties, excluding 40% of sales by designating them as "high discount sales", 10% distribution fee, a "return reserve". "'Jacobsen"' (representing Windblown Media) "'then COUNTERSUED for $5m"' in Federal Court, in what is "'clear retaliation"' for the $8m lawsuit that Young had launched. Jacobsen argued that since Young's statement "'assumed there was NO contract"' with Windblown (as you can see, attempts of using "'legal loopholes"'), they sued him to have their "'names as co-authors"' because they had transformed an unpublishable manuscript into a bestseller, and even claim full authorship over the book. Windblown's legal representative Martin Singer then said Young's lawsuit was a complete misrepresentation of the author's "financial state". Jacobsen's law responded that "[The federal court] action is a belated "'attempt by"' ['''Jacobsen''' and Cummings] "'to take credit for a book they didn't write"'. Back "'before the work was known to be a bestseller"', "'both parties filed"' a "'copyright notice indicating that Young was the sole author"'. For "'3 years Windblown"' has been "'publishing the book under Young's name"'. They "'agreed in a written contract that Young was the sole author"' of The Shack". On his website, Jacobsen says he spent 16 months rewriting the book, in what was evidently a "'public relations blogosphere war promulgated by Wayne Jacobsen"'. Later, "'Jacobsen's lawsuit was dismissed"' in a document that can be found here ([https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2010cv03246/471401/57/0.pdf 1]). Other sources also attached ([http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/entertainment/la-et-the-shack-20100713 2], [http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/for-law-students/the-shack-lawsuits-raise-a-law-school-exams-worth-of-federal-courts-issues/ 3], [http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2012/12/the_shack_houses_a_multitude_o.html 4]).
-
-
You see this is the problem with authors like Wayne Jacobsen and [[Mark Driscoll]], they are "'excellent preachers"', but "'bad at doing the very things they preach"'. So Jacobsen: "'God loves you, but do you love others?"' Or do you just take them to court? This is the problem with God's love. It's not that people don't understand it. It's that people like "'you abuse God's love"'. It's the pedophile priests who say ""'God loves me, even if I touch little kiddies"'", or the wife beater who says "God loves me, even if I bash my wife". Do you think that kiddie predators fail to understand God's love for them? Of course NOT! That's why they go on abusing others, because they think they can get away with it, because they can do whatever they like, and God will still "love" them. That's the problem with the the book which Jacobsen describes as his "favourite" amongst those he's written (""He loves me""), it's "'NOT that people don't understand God's love"', it's that "'you Christians abuse God's love, and fail to love others"'! The key thing Jesus taught was not about beliefs (e.g. that God loves you), but about fruits (i.e. actually loving others).
-
-
As a user has nicely portrayed here ([http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/19/introducing-paul-young-author-of-the-shack/ 5]): ""It seems that, though settled out of court, there is "'no reconciliation"' of those involved. I have listened to Wayne... His "'messages are full of love, grace and Christ"'. Perhaps questions could be asked... It's "'hard to receive a message from someone who has"' a broken relationship with brothers in Christ. I have no idea exactly what happened, and who was at fault, but how can men who both claim to love Christ and His grace not be reconciled? Perhaps the out of court settlement doesn't allow for the true facts to come out? Or have I missed something in all this?"" [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: I think in his writing, Jacobsen really misses the point. For instance, in his response to criticism made about the book [https://windblownmedia.com/about-wbm/is-the-shack-heresy.html 1] he states, ""This is not the angry and tyrannical God that religion has been using for 2000 years to beat people into conformity"". This is absolute preposterous! Why? Because apart from those with [[avoidant personality disorder]], "'no Christian is honestly "scared of God""'. If they were truly "scared of God", would they touch little kiddies in God's house? I would more likely think that many Christians have insufficient reverence for God! Rather, after having being "abused" by the clergy, they then become abusers of others. More like the person with [[narcissistic personality disorder]], these "'Christians now become the angry and tyrannical leader"', who God has sent, "'to beat others into conformity"'. Perhaps even "'just like what Jacobsen is trying to do with these books"'. Beat others into conformity! Say what they are doing is "wrong" (i.e. feeling like what they do sways God's opinion of them", and that only his way of thinking is "right" (i.e. not to be swayed by what you do on God's love). This is Jacobsen's own intellectual "'arrogance"'. But like his books say, it "'doesn't really matter"'. "'God loves you anyway"'. So then why beat people into submission to your way of thinking?? [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Source: http://anglicancensorship.wordpress.com/
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney&diff=632445158&oldid=632416273
== CONTROVERSIES relating to this diocese ==
-
If you look at the archive page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney/Archive_1#liberal.2C_charismatic.2C_Anglo-Catholic_and_traditionalist_Anglican_churches_in_Sydney.) you will also find criticisms of the church based upon its narrow-minded acceptance of conservatives - I haven't included this because this is a breach of my own personal conservatism, so I will let someone who is more liberal to include (or re-include this). Nonetheless, I'll just note one of the authors did note "Let's not pretend that the presence of such churches is welcome. Diversity it NOT welcome. And in this, Sydney markedly differs from England". Remember guys, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT an evangelical tool to make your diocese look good... Yes, you and I we may be conservative but let's be honest and transparent about this. If there are comparative differences between Sydney Anglicans and those in England, make it clear. I see that the article indicates Sydney Anglicans are LOW CHURCH which is very unique because in places like England it is quite a HIGH CHURCH - perhaps these factors could be expounded upon, because it causes particular differences in Sydney as supposed to other dioceses [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===War against Pentecostalism, esp Hillsong church===
-
As I've already indicated on the [[Talk: Brian Farran|Talk page for Brian Farran]], the Sydney diocese is involved with a number of controversies that has NOT been accurately depicted, or at least not as critical as they themselves has been of Hillsong.
-
-
There seems to be a general rhetoric amongst Anglicans that Hillsong is "all about the money", "prosperity doctrine", etc, but when asked if they had ever attended a service, most Anglican priests will admit they have never, or if they have, it was only one event - and not even the Life Groups where most of the bible teaching actually occurs.
-
-
There is also this generalization Sydney Anglicans have of charismatics (although they tend to try and leave out those of the Baptist church in particular who are pentecostal, instead pointing to the fact they have grown out of another Christian tradition), that they are stupid and dumb, and biblically inept, perhaps analogous to the "dumb blonde" reasoning where a good looking woman with blonde hair must be academically inept. They are unable to point to a particular study, but just base it upon anecdotal evidence, IF even that, given most of them haven't even stepped into a Pentecostal church! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Gnostic heresy===
-
Perhaps relating to the Anglican war against Hillsong seems to be this pervading "Gnostic heresy" amongst Sydney Anglicans, which is unsurprising given heresies seem to repeat themselves, and whereas the Pentecostals are a close analogy with the Pharisees, Sydney Anglicans are a close analogy with the Saduccees - who had all the political power, but did not believe in the miraculous. The Gnostic heresy was the first church heresy to arise, and they believed the more Godly you are the less worldly you are, and the more worldly you are the less Godly you are. Thus they believed Jesus was not "human" at all, but only appeared so, because he was fully God. And if he was human even a bit, he would be less God than he should be. (The correct theology is Jesus was fully human and fully God)
-
-
And as you can see this heresy is their foundation of much of their criticism - if it is not just a psychological thing where they are having their Market share entirely RIPPED from them from the Pentecostals because of the church's IRRELEVANCE - e.g. they say Hillsong talks about money, and they shouldn't talk about money in church, as you can see it is clearly based upon the heretical idea that money=worldly, and God=godly, so money and god don't go together. Or music, good music=worldly, and God=godly, so good music and God don't go together - it's almost as if they believe bad music=godly
-
-
So even though Anglicans may not PUBLICLY espouse these heresies, particular this heresy, you can see it CLEARLY inbuilt into their thinking [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Involvement with the court===
-
Again moving with the Sadducee analogy, Sydney Anglicans also seem to be heavily involved with the courts, which as I enlisted on the Farran talk page, seems to be a breach of 1 Cor 6:1, which states "How DARE you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!", and the reason, just like the saduccees in the New Testament, is because of the "canon law" that pervades the Anglican church [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Tax avoidance===
-
So this relates to income tax, fringe benefits tax, GST, from which churches are generally free from, although Sydney Anglicans have institutionalized policies to abuse it - Although they have criticized the Pentecostals for "taking a lot of money from the people", the National Church Life Survey has shown that on a per capita basis, Anglican churches and Pentecostal churches receive the same amount of donation per capita. However, Anglican churches have ADITIONALLY been implicated in media for their SYSTEMIC abuse of the tax system (it is partially to do with the Anglican system where it is run like a chained store - sort of like Coles, whereas Pentecostal churches are more like a franchise - so therefore Anglican churches could argue it is a problem with the church system which FORCES them to mis-classify tax). But anyway, Anglican Churches have been notable in media, for even despite average wages ($70k), abusing the tax incentives provided by the government (capital gains), and especially on an individual basis, abuse of the FRINGE BENEFITS, and also even priests bragging about being able to send their kids to the Anglican schools for a fraction of the cost
-
-
This is NOT an exclusive listing, and people are free to add other controversies. Analogies are useful to use to exclude [[WP:BIAS]], but what is clear is that if Hillsong Church has a "Controversies" section, that the Sydney Anglicans section can only but also be filled with that too [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Calvinism as a "mystery"===
-
The Sydney Anglicans as the article indicates have been strongly calvinistic, and as you can read in this [[William Lane Craig]] article (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism) - who actually spoke at AFES, which although they deny it, are deceptively entrenched with the Sydney Anglicans. Anyway, Calvinism has been described by Lane Craig as:
-
* cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture
-
* cannot be rationally affirmed, Lane Craig describes it as "self-defeating"
-
* makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility
-
* nullifies human agency
-
* makes reality into a farce
-
-
The priests have often accept Calvinism as a "mystery", pointing to particular verses, which could be solved with Lane Craig's "Molinism" view anyway. And this is particularly surprising, given the Sydney Anglicans often espouse themselves as being somehow intellectually superior, yet nonetheless accept Calvinism simply as a "mystery" - and the reason is bibliolatry (see below) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Bibliolatry===
-
Probably one of the most problematic aspects of the Sydney Anglicans, which you don't see in other jurisdictions, for example in African Anglicanism, is their total hatred for the charismatics, and one of the strong reasons for doing so is their strong Bibliolatry perspective, where they idolize "the bible", which is historically a "rebelling" against their Catholic background, where there was too much tradition/precedence, and not enough Sola scriptura. Nonetheless, like Muslims, the Sydney Anglicans have taken "God's word" to actually be each-and-every-word accurate, precluding any use of storytelling devices, historical inaccuracies, even propoganda that you would expect in historical texts. The issue is that this is another HERESY believed by this church.
-
-
As indicated in John 5:39 (You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you REFUSE to come to me to have life"
-
-
Perhaps it isn't surprising that John starts his book indicating that for Christians the Word=Jesus, and NOT a bunch of text that was magically written.
-
-
One of William Lane Craig's colleagues, JP Moreland, has written an excellent thesis on Bibliolatry (http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf) His thesis in short is that for Christians, unlike Muslims, the Word is a living, breathing thing - it's Jesus! And there are lots of spiritual realities that are not found in the bible - e.g. the experience of angels, demons, even God! And for that reason experience MUST come into play. And again, this is because this article lacks the historical accuracy reflecting the Anglican relationship with Catholacism - i.e. that it was a rebellion movement that came out of Catholacism, and thus took advantage of Martin Luther's protestant movement, and anything that was remotely Catholac [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Deceptive undisclosed link with AFES===
-
It is known as public knowledge throughout all of Australia that the Anglican church has very deceptively marketed AFES as being "'non-denominational"', but yet AFES ministers are almost entirely picked from the Anglican church, and is the first point of contact. There are also news articles about students being forced out of their churches (Anglicans particularly target Pentecostal churches), into their own Anglican churches, which one can only but think there may be some sort of financial reason for this too, because this is the University crowd who have their entire live's income in front of them [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Prolific institutional child paedophelia===
-
Child paedophelia is essentially synonymous with the Anglican Church, because of their structure, and this problem isn't found in linked churches (e.g. franchises like the Baptist church don't have this issue), because what is happening is someone found out to be a paedophile is CONVENIENTLY shifted from one diocese into another so they can reoffend, or even worse - shifted within the diocese to another another church [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Lack of ecumenical activity with other churches===
-
Perhaps reflected in the Anglican Church's "competition" and "war" against the most fastest growing Christian sect, the Pentecostal Church, is that the Anglican Church, because it is a self contained chain (like Coles), and the Dioceses own and control EVERYTHING, that it is very self contained, i.e. Anglicans are "'NOT ecumenical"'. This of course reflects the church structure, but nonetheless, authorization is required at the Diocese level for joint activity with other churches, and so they often do not like to mingle with other churches - i.e. rather than saying "THE BODY of Jesus Christ", they refer to only the local Anglican church (sort of like how the Catholics have tried to exclude other churches by adopting "the CATHOLIC church" in doctrinal statements [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Neglecting the 3rd person of the Trinity (i.e. the Holy Spirit)===
-
I would've included this, but haven't to the disappointment probably of some Pentecostals, because of the Sydney Anglicans shifting position on this. In their 2020 mission statement (again... obviously an influence by Hillsong) (http://sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/mission_2020.pdf), you will notice a very obvious "dependnece on the Holy Spirit" statement in the "Mission" clause, essentially neglecting to include discussion on the Father! Nonetheless, this seems like a slow progression that started when [[Phillip Jensen]] was accused by - you won't believe this - but the now-controversial [[Mark Driscoll]], who accused the Sydney Anglicans of believing in "Father, Son, and Holy Bible" as part of their "Ministry Intensive Conference" (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus). Again, a Conference - Hillsong influence? As Jensen correctly identifies, the insult was intended to offend, to gain awareness of spiritual lethargy and to correct error [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: This is a question regarding a potentially "'heretical trinity"' which I found a reference for. This article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) states: "The Sydney Anglicans' "'Trinity has God the Father ruling over Jesus and the Holy Spirit"'. Why? Because if Father is boss in heaven, then father is boss on Earth". This is TOTALLY heretical. Now I won't include it yet (at least not after some discussion) because that is found on some extremist Greens website, but it may be useful to reflect on [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: Here by the way is a quote from Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney Anglicans) who ADMITS that the Anglicans have FAILED on the subject of teaching on the H/S - ""'Dr Jensen admitted that Sydney Anglican churches haven't been as active in teaching about the Holy Spirit as they could be"'" - and this is coming from the OFFICIAL Sydney Anglicans propaganda machine (http://sydneyanglicans.net/news/holy_spirit_draws_crowd_to_jensen) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Ripping funds away from Anglicare to fund Moore College===
-
Continuing from above, this article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) alleges that the church has ripped funds away from Anglicare, the church's welfare arm, causing it to be "financially troubled", by funding its theological "factory" which produces 10,000 part-time pastoral workers, and 1,000 full-timers, at a cost of $500 million. Hillsong's total revenue in 2012 was $55m (up from $28m in 2013) (http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/hillsong-under-fire-on-channel-nine-but-was-it-fair). This figure is TEN TIMES GREATER!!! (Notable is that that article also notes that a comparable geographical reach of Sydney Anglicans with 65,000 Sydney Anglicans gave $89m in offerings in 2011, more than 3 times the amount at $28m by Hillsong in 2011... So much for the criticism that Hillsong's all about $$$.. the FACTS and statistics actually show that the Anglicans are 3x more about $$$$ than Hillsong is hmmm....) [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Other issues pertaining to the Anglican church in general===
-
====Church started because of King Henry 8th's sexual appetite====
-
Although most Anglicans want to proudly announce they have nothing to do with Catholacism, little is usually brought up about the fact that Anglican church=Church of England, and the entire church was started based on the fact King Henry 8th wanted to shag his brother's wife and the Catholic pope wouldn't let him. Yes, there have been the 39 articles since, but ORIGINALLY the Anglican church was Catholic, and so their remnant theologies (which have not been replaced) can be highly heretical [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
====The Queen being the "pope" of the church====
-
Given that the Queen is not a particularly good theologian, or, well, for that matter... has ANY theological depth, it is an evident controversy that she has become the "pope" of the entire Anglican church. There is also the self-contradictory fact that the HEAD of the entire Anglican Church is a woman - yet they do not let women become priests! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
====Lack of separation of Church and State====
-
By making himself the self-proclaimed pope of the Church of England/Anglican Church, what King Henry 8th essentially did was to join Church and State. This is a theological error, because Jesus did not call his kingdom a political kingdom. And this is one of the reasons why a good analogy of the social standing of Anglicans is the Sadduccees, and their reliance on lawyers, etc - The entire church has a difficulty separating church from state - and this is perhaps a good place to insert how the Australian Anglican church differs in the USA. The USA was the FIRST country, as it was not apart of the "Commonwealth", to have a place where Catholics could FINALLY be free to practice their religion. This is why it could also be argued that the Church of England is actually "'unconstitutional"' because it forces people of England to go to the Church of England. When you think of how HORRENDOUS this is, it is "'even worse"' than the Chinese [[Three-Self Patriotic Movement]] which at least allows you to join one of 3 protestant churches in China. The English have only permitted you to join a SINGLE church - of which you have to bow down to the King of England... far out! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
==Cessationism (?) - this is a BIG question mark==
-
Continuing from my prose above, Jensen indicates in this article (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus), and criticizes Driscoll, saying:
-
:""It is not his fault that in his short visit to Sydney he did not learn that "'Cessationism has NEVER had much of a foothold here"'. It is much more common in the USA"."
-
This comment by the former ARCHBISHOP of Sydney (i.e. the VERY HIGHEST figure) is in STARK contrast with probably some High Church Anglican extremist who has written in the Wiki page:
-
:"""'Charismatic" manifestations"' of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, are "'considered to have ceased"' after the apostles"
-
As indicated by the Archbishop's comment, this statement is "'FALSE"' - perhaps it's time to look up at the statements of ecclesiastical authority, if not your bible...........
-
-
Other statements by Jensen in that same article include
-
* In the coming sermons we will be looking at how we are sanctified, sealed, led and "'filled by the Spirit"' as well as the meaning of the "'gifts"' and fruit "'of the Spirit"'
-
* The person and work of the Holy Spirit is far too important a topic to... be defensive
-
-
There is also an author at Sydney Anglicans propaganda media department, who has issued like statements here (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/missionthinking/do_sydney_anglicans_know_the_holy_spirit):
-
* We have certainty about the person of the Spirit Himself, who is revealed progressively through the Scriptures. He is certainly not merely an impersonal force... We can be sure that... the Spirit is fully God
-
* The Spirit is involved in creation, directs history, reveals God's messages through His prophets, teaches what it means to be faithful and righteous, and equips His leaders. In the New Testament, the Spirit reveals Jesus' reality, unites believers in Christ, gives assurance of our sonship, transforms our lives, gives gifts for service, and moves us to mission
-
-
Evidently, as an Anglican, he stops there, but [[William Lane Craig]] nicely provides a full listing, most impactingly of course, stating "Jesus Himself was a charismatic - as His fully-man component relied so heavily on the Holy Spirit through His ministry - and if our Saviour required the H/S, how much more do we?!". Lane Craig discusses it in his Defenders Podcast transcript is here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s7-2). Quotes include (there are a LOT - I've just included those relating to the impact of the H/S on Jesus):
-
* It is very interesting to see how intimately connected with the life and ministry of Jesus the person of the Holy Spirit is
-
* Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit in Mary (Luke 1:35)
-
* Jesus did not begin his ministry until he was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (Luke 3:21-22)
-
* Jesus' miracles and exorcisms are said to have been performed through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28 , Acts 10:38)
-
* Jesus' preaching is attributed in its power to the Holy Spirit. (Luke 4:14-21)
-
* The continuance of Jesus' ministry after his death is also attributed to the Holy Spirit. (John 16:7, 13-14)
-
* I say all of that simply to say that it was his ("'Jesus"") "'human nature that was in need of"' being infused with the power of "'the Holy Spirit"' and that was anointed by the Holy Spirit. "'Jesus was"', if you will, "'a charismatic"'. He was a man who depended upon and was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit to carry out his ministry
-
-
So to the HERETIC who is writing statements on the Wiki page contradicting the former head of Sydney Anglicans, please stop it, or at least include references! [[Special:Contributions/110.33.120.196|110.33.120.196]] ([[User talk:110.33.120.196|talk]]) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
== Notable news stories that seem to be "censored" from the article==
-
=== Sensationalism used to try to "increase following" ===
-
An excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald from Elizabeth Farrelly (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sydney-anglicans-reject-the-sacred-feminine-20140604-zrx3t.html) which talks about an Anglican use of a "pretext for faux porn", "graphic focus is... her barely concealed crotch", "naked thighs", "S&M". "Anglicanism is just so desperate for congregation and coffer-fill that its cover strategy is reduced to whatever it takes. Desperate times, desperate measure". "Massive hole left by the diocese's avid stockmarket overreach" "While the world's Anglicans have moved on to debate female bishops, Sydney's lots - leaders in backwardness - join with Africa in staunchly refusing women even as priests". Here is the censored image (http://anglicanink.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_article/public/field/image/Southern%20Cross%20June%202014.jpg?itok=64d3njrv). This is how the post-censored publication looks like (http://sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/SC0614.pdf). And this is the spin king Russell Powell (who before being the Archbishop of Sydney's "Media adviser", was a "pioneer" at the ABC network)(http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/ministrythinking/when-we-get-it-wrong) in his full unadultered "apology" [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Borrowed money to invest in share market===
-
The Sydney Anglicans lost $160 million in the financial share markets because it was "highly geared", Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney) admits. He believed the loss "could be a warning to the wealtheist Anglican diocese in Australia not to rely on its wealth". It has caused loss of 4 archdeacons, some of the church's most senior clerics, impact on the budget of St Andrew's Cathedral and youthworks (diocese's youth mission) (http://www.smh.com.au/national/jesus-saves-but-shattered-anglicans-regret-not-having-that-luxury-20091019-h4zn.html) [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
===Phillip Jensen: Blaming Islam for ISIS, described Mother Teresa as "instrument of the devil", Prince Charles as "adulterer", Muslims as "slaves"===
-
Phillip Jensen (Anglican Dean of Sydney, brother of Peter Jensen Archbishop of Sydney) has attacked Islam, blaming it for the rise of ISIS. "It's time to face the truth that Islam itself is part to blame", he said. He also criticised Barack Obama for his decision to separate his criticism of ISIS from a critique of Islam. "They wish to create a Caliphate. Their commitment is more than a power grab for land, it is a religious zeal, and if we ignore it, we will seriously underestimate them". He has previously "'described Mother Teresa as an "instrument of the devil""', and "'Prince Charles as an "adulterer""'. He also described Muslims as ""'loved slaves of Allah"'" (http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-dean-blames-islam-for-rise-of-islamic-state-20140918-10iu1v.html) [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 13:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wayne_Jacobsen&diff=632445239&oldid=632444113
== "God loves me!" = So I can sue others ==
-
-
So the story goes like this, William P Young fails to sell book. But Pastors Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings discover book, create start-up "Windblown Media" to publish it, and it becomes a bestseller. Now a bestseller, Hachette Book Group becomes involved, in a distribution agreement, to make it even bigger. The problem has been Young has had to file in the State Court a lawsuit against Jacobsen and Cummings, Windblown Media, and Hachette, that he is "'owed $8 million"' in lost royalties, because Windblown media had ripped him off by $8m, and asked that the relationship be "terminated". Young was meant to receive 50c for every paperback, and $1 for every hardcover, plus "'33% of net profits"'. Windblown/Hachette later entered into separate agreement, where Windblown would receive 17% of net profits, and Hachette taking 83%, leaving Young with "'no net profits"' ("cf. 33% of net profits bolded previously"). Apart from no profit share, Windblown/Hachette got "more and more creative" in determiing royalties, excluding 40% of sales by designating them as "high discount sales", 10% distribution fee, a "return reserve". "'Jacobsen"' (representing Windblown Media) "'then COUNTERSUED for $5m"' in Federal Court, in what is "'clear retaliation"' for the $8m lawsuit that Young had launched. Jacobsen argued that since Young's statement "'assumed there was NO contract"' with Windblown (as you can see, attempts of using "'legal loopholes"'), they sued him to have their "'names as co-authors"' because they had transformed an unpublishable manuscript into a bestseller, and even claim full authorship over the book. Windblown's legal representative Martin Singer then said Young's lawsuit was a complete misrepresentation of the author's "financial state". Jacobsen's law responded that "[The federal court] action is a belated "'attempt by"' ['''Jacobsen''' and Cummings] "'to take credit for a book they didn't write"'. Back "'before the work was known to be a bestseller"', "'both parties filed"' a "'copyright notice indicating that Young was the sole author"'. For "'3 years Windblown"' has been "'publishing the book under Young's name"'. They "'agreed in a written contract that Young was the sole author"' of The Shack". On his website, Jacobsen says he spent 16 months rewriting the book, in what was evidently a "'public relations blogosphere war promulgated by Wayne Jacobsen"'. Later, "'Jacobsen's lawsuit was dismissed"' in a document that can be found here ([https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2010cv03246/471401/57/0.pdf 1]). Other sources also attached ([http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/entertainment/la-et-the-shack-20100713 2], [http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/for-law-students/the-shack-lawsuits-raise-a-law-school-exams-worth-of-federal-courts-issues/ 3], [http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2012/12/the_shack_houses_a_multitude_o.html 4]).
-
-
You see this is the problem with authors like Wayne Jacobsen and [[Mark Driscoll]], they are "'excellent preachers"', but "'bad at doing the very things they preach"'. So Jacobsen: "'God loves you, but do you love others?"' Or do you just take them to court? This is the problem with God's love. It's not that people don't understand it. It's that people like "'you abuse God's love"'. It's the pedophile priests who say ""'God loves me, even if I touch little kiddies"'", or the wife beater who says "God loves me, even if I bash my wife". Do you think that kiddie predators fail to understand God's love for them? Of course NOT! That's why they go on abusing others, because they think they can get away with it, because they can do whatever they like, and God will still "love" them. That's the problem with the the book which Jacobsen describes as his "favourite" amongst those he's written (""He loves me""), it's "'NOT that people don't understand God's love"', it's that "'you Christians abuse God's love, and fail to love others"'! The key thing Jesus taught was not about beliefs (e.g. that God loves you), but about fruits (i.e. actually loving others).
-
-
As a user has nicely portrayed here ([http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/19/introducing-paul-young-author-of-the-shack/ 5]): ""It seems that, though settled out of court, there is "'no reconciliation"' of those involved. I have listened to Wayne... His "'messages are full of love, grace and Christ"'. Perhaps questions could be asked... It's "'hard to receive a message from someone who has"' a broken relationship with brothers in Christ. I have no idea exactly what happened, and who was at fault, but how can men who both claim to love Christ and His grace not be reconciled? Perhaps the out of court settlement doesn't allow for the true facts to come out? Or have I missed something in all this?"" [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
: I think in his writing, Jacobsen really misses the point. For instance, in his response to criticism made about the book [https://windblownmedia.com/about-wbm/is-the-shack-heresy.html 1] he states, ""This is not the angry and tyrannical God that religion has been using for 2000 years to beat people into conformity"". This is absolute preposterous! Why? Because apart from those with [[avoidant personality disorder]], "'no Christian is honestly "scared of God""'. If they were truly "scared of God", would they touch little kiddies in God's house? I would more likely think that many Christians have insufficient reverence for God! Rather, after having being "abused" by the clergy, they then become abusers of others. More like the person with [[narcissistic personality disorder]], these "'Christians now become the angry and tyrannical leader"', who God has sent, "'to beat others into conformity"'. Perhaps even "'just like what Jacobsen is trying to do with these books"'. Beat others into conformity! Say what they are doing is "wrong" (i.e. feeling like what they do sways God's opinion of them", and that only his way of thinking is "right" (i.e. not to be swayed by what you do on God's love). This is Jacobsen's own intellectual "'arrogance"'. But like his books say, it "'doesn't really matter"'. "'God loves you anyway"'. So then why beat people into submission to your way of thinking?? [[User:Atheist3500|Atheist3500]] ([[User talk:Atheist3500|talk]]) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
0 new messages