Evil
This video contains some of the most evil twisting of Scripture that I have ever heard. When you can with a straight face say that abuse victims are unloving and selfish because they don’t just get over their injuries — when you can say that and then try to use Scripture to try to prove your point — I doubt that you know Jesus at all.
It’s worth noting that Bob refuses to use the word “rape” but rather talks about “offense” — a term that he uses both for consensual and non-consensual sex. Apparently Bob doesn’t really think that rape is any different than consensual intercourse. He also doesn’t think that what happens to our bodies is important since our bodies are just the “throw-away part” of us. Therefore we shouldn’t be too concerned about what other people do to it. One assumes that this rule does not apply if that other person is giving us a tattoo instead of raping us. Tattoos count. Rape doesn’t.
Bob Wood’s attempts to cast guilt and shame up on those who have already been wounded has the spirit of antichrist. It is an abomination. If Bob believes that God is a just God then Bob should be very afraid.
Posted by Darrell
339 Comments.
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks and Pingbacks:
- queenknitter - Trackback on 2013/03/01/ 08:57
I don’t get the problem. He’s not excusing the abuser, and he’s not saying that the victim deserved the abuse, or that they should excuse the abuse. It isn’t their fault that they were abused, but they do have to live with it. It isn’t easy I’m sure, but it doesn’t ruin them. God doesn’t think less of them because of they have been abused, and we shouldn’t either. I also didn’t hear him saying that the abuser shouldn’t be prosecuted or punished. He is addressing the perspective of the victim. One could assume that for the victim to love their abuser means that the victim should not accuse their abuser. He actually says that victims will turn in an abuser out of love for a younger sibling who’s “next in line”. I’ve heard of many things said at the university which are heinous, but I don’t think this is one of them.
I didn’t watch the whole video, only a minute or two. I did hear him make a valid point or two, and I suspect that a lot of people here are reading more into what he said than is warranted.
But what I heard is fairly representative of the problem the church has. They preach on anger and forgiveness in a simplistic fashion. That’s fine for fairly mundane issues, like getting cut off in traffic or someone taking your ice cream out of the break room freezer. However, I didn’t hear him give too much room for people to experience a grieving process. It seemed to jump straight to the idea that you can’t be angry and be saved. There wasn’t much (or any) nuance, no distinguishing between a person who *has* anger and a person who *is* anger.
You only listened to a minute or two; I listened to the last forty minutes, often pausing and going back and replaying it so I could type out what was said word for word. I hardly think I was reading into it.
A question only marginally related to the post: What is a fundamentalist production of a Shakespeare play? I have become rather curious about those Shakespeare videos at the bju site. What on earth are they putting forward? I have a hard time imagining how they can do a Shakespeare play. What do they do with the bawdy parts? With, well, any parts for that matter? Someone enlighten me please. From a Shakespeare professor.
It removes any references to alcohol or drunkeness.
I was actually thinking about this last night, too. Beyond alcohol and drunkenness, there is quite a bit of sexual innuendo in Shakespeare. I’m thinking of a scene from Twelfth Night that we did in college that made me blush, and I wasn’t even fundy anymore
Do they edit out those lines, and if so, doesn’t that completely change the experience?
Many times acting companies shorten or otherwise edit Shakespeare. Often their purpose is just to shorten it or simplify it not necessarily to clean it up. I think the impact of an edited version depends on the function those parts played in the original. If it was just some bawdy humor to entertain the groundlings, I don’t think leaving it out harms the feel of the play. If, however, you were to leave out some of the things Iago says in Othello because they’re offensive, you lose some of the power of his evil.
A Romeo and Juliet without the bawdiness is a play without its point.
Shakespeare was a contemporary of James I; therefore he was an Independent Fundamental Baptist; therefore whatever he wrote was inspired and perfect. Problem solved.
The drinking passages are about overindulging on Coca-Cola. The bawdy parts? What bawdy parts? We don’t see any bawdy parts, hay-men?
The bawdy hand of the dial is upon the prick of noon.
Romeo=pop’rin pear; Juliet, open arse.
No Mercutio in a Fundy version.
What fundies do to the Bard is what they do to the Bible. They remove or ignore the essential parts that they don’t like and deprive the work of its soul.
Say, do students at fundamentalist colleges use the Thomas Bowdler edition of Shakespeare’s plays? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler
At the IFB K-12 school my kids went to briefly, the Shakespeare texts were censored with black markers. Which is a pretty good indication of the quality of the school’s education.
Ewwww. And I’d better get back to reading MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR, Friday’s text.
One other question: do IFB claim that Shakespeare was one of the KJB translators? He wasn’t, of course, but the idea is out there.
I’ve never heard that tale.
But Shakespeare was alive when the King James translation was in preparation.
No they don’t. There is a book out there, I forget the name, with stories of all the men who translated it. It was put together by a Fundy, and it is horrible.
The idea is based upon a weird reading of Psalm 46. It’s fairly obviously a ridiculous idea, but I get asked about it sometimes.
For a good book on the translation of the KJB, see Adam Nicholson’s GOD’S SECRETARIES.
This web page lists them.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/The%20King%20James%20Bible/Translators/translators.htm
The possibility of his assisting with the translation was mentioned when I took Shakespeare at PCC. Apparently, there’s a Psalm that has both “shake” and “spear” in it. . . Wishful thinking!
That would have been the ONE thing, the ONLY thing to make the KJV the infallible standard, to have had the Bard Of Avon himself in on the translation and writing of it. After all, if William Shakespeare isn’t good enough for Jesus Christ, than what is?
Most of my life, I seem to have been around fundies who 1) were uneducated and thought Shakespeare was hifalutin’ or 2) were really strict and thought Shakespeare was worldly and a waste of time better spent reading the Bible.
Little respect for or interest in Shakespeare among a lot of people I know (which may be why this English major feels often out of place).
A car ran a red light and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road. That pedestrian was lucky enough to escape with just a badly broken leg. Unfortunately, the pedestrian is a student, and considered to be an essential member of the school’s football team. The student must miss the season’s remaining games, and the team that had previously been doing well, began to lose.
The coach gathered the members of the team together. He explained that he was a good person and did not blame the accident on that student at all. However, it was now weeks after the accident, yet that student was still wearing a cast and refusing to run on with the team. This was clearly wilful disobedience on the student’s part. That student was not a team player. The team’s losses could be blamed on that student, and he wouldn’t be allowed to play the next year as a result.
Please note, the student was not blamed for being the victim of a car crash, but merely for wearing a cast and not immediately playing football.
Oh, that is a very good analogy. Well said.
nailed it.
Bingo. Well put.
If this is not a true story I demand to know why.
Because nobody would be dumb enough to blame someone who’d been in a car accident for their broken leg. But the long-term damage done by rape is hidden inside.
Very well put. I’m gonna have to remember that one. Thanks for helping to really clarify the issue. Well-done
We ushed to do impershonations of Dr. Bob Wood. It was always something like:
“There are sheven shneaky shinsh that Shatan wantsh ta shtick you weeith.” “Shixty reashons why alliterashon ish beublical!” “Numbered lishtsh are mentioned sheven hundred sheventy thoushand tahmsh in the Bahble.”
Great fundy fun!
Yes, he pronounced the word lust as “lusht”. I thought it was just a weird southern accent???
When I was at BJU, Bob Wood was speaking one Sunday morning. For those of you who don’t know, BJU’s Sunday “worship” service was what we called “Mass.”—iow, very formal.
No talking, and definitely no giggling allowed.
Bob Wood get’s up to the podium after the hymn and tells us…”Ya’all may please schiiitttt.”
I nearly fell out.
“‘…a more excellent way.’ In the greek, it says “THE most excellent way.’”
Did he just correct the infallible KJV with the flawed original text?!
BJU’s dirty little secret: they’re not kvjo. (some of the profs prefer the NASB, shhhhhh!)
Dirty secret? BJU has been perverting the Scriptures ever since the Old Man died.
They may be “fundy” (and as a King James only Bible Believer I unfortunately get lumped in with that term), but they’re definitely not KJB-only.
Sweet Fancy Moses!! What a whack job!
This guy is so full of himself, he can’t decide whether to pronounce the letter ‘s’ with or without a trailing ‘h’.
I would not be surprised if God reckons this man’s whole ministry as the “throw away part”. Saints preserve us!!
if the body is just the throw away part of who we are – why is it going to be resurrected? #christoplatonism
Ah, those pesky questions.
Doctor Bob Wood. I remember him well from my days at Bob Jones University.
He often made some very good points. Occasionally I would hear him say something I did not agree with. But at that time in my life I was very impressed with him. He obviously prepares to the extreme so that the listener is bowled over by his presentation and knowledge of Scripture (and his interpretation).
In this sermon he made some valid points. Some valid points does not make for a good message. Bob Wood is a good preacher, but he makes a bad counselor. He pretends that there is nothing that is beyond a person’s ability to “confess to the Lord, receive forgiveness, and be given a cleansed conscience.”
Imagine saying to a soldier home from Afghanistan that his PTSD can be cured by taking it to the Lord and believing that the Lord can heal his conscience! After all, one only has to believe that what was offended (the body) is the least important part of you! He sees body, soul and spirit as completely separable.
He treats rape victims as if they could simply pray away the impact and import of the rape. If I remember correctly, he blames depression on people yielding to demonic forces and discounts medication.
And of course, he attributes everything that happens as being controlled by God. That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.
So are rape victims supposed to believe that God was “in control”? What does that say about God? And if they cannot just forgive and forget and live happily ever after, are they just “catering to the flesh”?
Life is never as uncomplicated as fundamentalists want to make it. The choices made for us, the things we endure — all these things are inscribed permanently in our psyche. They do not just disappear.
The more I think about his arguments, the sicker I feel. “All you have to do is believe!”
No more.
“And of course, he attributes everything that happens as being controlled by God. That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.”
There’s a big gap between those two statements, and God doesn’t look good in either of them.
“That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.”
Dear sweet Jesus, this is on the level of “It’s better to pull out all your teeth now, or they will all get cavities and be disgusting!” How can such a wingnut be allowed to run around loose?
“He obviously prepares to the extreme so that the listener is bowled over by his presentation and knowledge of Scripture (and his interpretation).”
I hope you mean that ironically. That talk contained precious little scripture, and what was there was badly twisted.
I take the conclusion of rtgmath’s comment to be a main point. I don’t see an endorsement of Wood’s video there.
I’m sure that part was entirely sarcastic. Wood is well known for not preparing and not having anything studied to say about the Bible. All his sermons are pretty much like you describe.
I’m so curious to see this video for myself but I can’t. Because I’m at BJU and all the links and embedded videos are blocked. I just…I don’t even… WHY.
You are a BJU “student” not an adult. You are not yet properly trained in what to think yet so you cannot be allowed to be exposed to any information that would be contrary to the Ministry of Information’s indoctrination standards.