UPDATE: June 3, 2009: CHURCH CRUNCH DISHONORING ITS OWN UNSOLICITED PLEDGE
UPDATE: June 2, 2009
UPDATE: June 1, 2009:
I may have further updates.
Check it out: http://www.blogcatalog.com/broadcast/view/30323
One of the Top Bloggers in the World is a Christian
Posted by mister2mike on Thursday May 21st, 2009 at 14:28
Remove mister2mike From Friends [That's link-text provided to all users on all BlogCatalog Broadcasts. It doesn't mean that I deleted Mikes as a friend on BlogCatalog. I just pasted it as text and not as the link BlogCatalog offered me on Mikes's Broadcast.]
Read it here from my favorite blogs:
Praise the Lord!
5/21/09 8:00 PM
A person blogging who is fairly privately (Internetwise) professing Christianity — not a "Christian" blog, per se
Of course, your title, "One of the Top Bloggers in the World is a Christian," doesn't claim the blog is "Christian."
Why though does anyone have to figure out that he's a Christian? Why doesn't he proclaim it right on his front page? Would traffic fall off and revenue decrease? What are his priorities?
These are real questions and not condemnations.
As you know Mikes, I have a problem with people posing as one thing and claiming something else — I AM referring to a certain atheist we both "know."
I did not (yet) leave a comment on the churchcrunch site post.
P.S. Why did you not do a post on this?
5/21/09 8:30 PM
I added the following comment over on the churchcrunch post:
Pardon me if this ends up a duplicate comment post since my first effort didn't seem to go through properly.
A person blogging who is fairly privately (Internet-wise) professing Christianity — not a "Christian" blog, per se
Why does anyone have to figure out that he's a Christian? Why doesn't he proclaim it right on his front page? Would traffic fall off and revenue decrease? What are his priorities? These are real questions and not condemnations.
I have a problem with people posing as one thing and claiming something else. I had a huge run-in with a certain atheist over it and was banned from Entrecard on account of it. Please don't take it that I'm putting this fellow, Darren Rowse, into the same category.
What does Arianna Huffington profess? Her blog is rated number 1 by Technorati.
For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
Tom [last name deleted due to BlogCatalog TOS]
5/21/09 10:30 PM
you are dear to me. You're one Christian Brother that i respect in this blogosphere. But here's my take on this. We have gifting. We have skills and talents where God can use us mightily. Business owners handle their businesses, celebrities do their stuff, singers sing and they remain to be Christians and they praise the Lord with their talents. I have written something similar about this here: http://your-dailyword.blogspot.com/2009/05/kris-allen-will-be-next-american-idol.html. darren's gift is in helping other bloggers and that's what he's doing and that's his way of being a blessing.
5/22/09 10:36 PM
I love how Darren expresses his Christianity. He is very clear. He is a Christian. His business is based on Christian values yet he has a business to run.
He doesnt use Christianity as a business tool which I respect.
5/24/09 9:05 PM
Well, Mikes, I did write, "These are real questions and not condemnations." I also wrote, "Please don't take it that I'm putting this fellow, Darren Rowse, into the same category [as the atheist]." Now, how were my comment and questions received?
Rather than honest responses to flesh out the post author's positions, they were received with censorship (twice). Obviously, churchcrunch.com is for those who will not raise questions. If you hold with them, so be it. I don't. I don't close the door on you in saying it either. I leave it to you to ponder with the Holy Spirit of truth.
Also, my question about Arianna Huffington was to suggest that one would have to actually ask all the higher-ranked bloggers on Technorati before ruling them out for purposes of making the statement made by the post.
Frankly my friend, there's much more going on here than is meeting your eye.
5/24/09 9:19 PM
By the way, I still haven't received an answer to my specific questions. Was it a conscious decision to keep his profession of Christianity separate from his business? Where I wanted to go with it is, "Why?" My knowledge includes that people who are against Christianity are out to marginalize it in a huge way and would definitely stop visiting his site if he even remotely were to suggest his faith in the open there. I would also not consider such a suggestion as necessarily "using" his Christianity to gain the business of others professing Christianity. So you see, by censoring me, Church Crunch has actually worked against what is best for Christianity and itself, unless it has another agenda and is not simply confused in the mundane on this issue.
Okay, as the author wrote, this gets curiouser and curiouser.
Mikes knows John of Church Crunch. How well he knows him only Mikes and John can say in the mundane (God knows). I don't know their history or connections. Mikes has been acting a bit as an arbiter you might say.
Now John has made clear that he is dropping this issue, which is his prerogative. He did that before explaining why my comment showed and then disappeared. Now, the same thing has happened on Mikes's site, which also happens to be using Intense Debate.
In keeping with my comment below that I would endeavor to make contact where my comments don't show up or disappear or whatever (which I have often done — I won't belabor it here), I contacted Mikes as follows:
I followed your post to: http://joyfulchristianwife.blogspot.com/2009/05/finding-mercy-in-why.html
I left a comment there and then duplicated it on your post:
It showed up.
Then, I discovered that my impression that Perez Hilton was a female was incorrect. When I went to return to add a clarification, I saw that my comment was no longer on your post.
Now, considering what I just went through with Church Crunch, did you delete my comment or what? If you did delete it, was it because of referring to Perez as "she"? Anyway, I'd like to know why the comment isn't there.
Here's the comment less the little intro language I had added:
Hi Marlo and All,
I was led here by Mikes of "Your Daily Word." I see he's already provided a link above, so I won't duplicate it here.
First, I don't have a TV and haven't seen the "surfing" photos. Whether that adds to my objectivity or not, I leave to you. I will say that if she posed in a way she shouldn't have, that was an unchristian moment. It doesn't resign her to everlasting damnation, especially provided she has repented. God is merciful and forgiving. So we are to be also. Now, that also applies to Perez Hilton.
Perez though has yet to repent. She's busy creating a different world from the kingdom, and she knows it full well. Even still, we are to forgive her as well but in a qualified sense, meaning we aren't to condone her errors but be always ready to receive her into the body if she comes in earnest.
The whole culture puts pressure on both of them to look and act a certain way: to be sexy to some but sluttish to others. I like wholesomeness. I wish I had never been introduced to contrivance. Where's that leave me vis-a-vis the Miss California spectacle? Not interested is the real answer.
If the young woman is heterosexual and believes that homosexuality is an error, harmful, and unchristian and says so, how can she be held up to the purest standard before even knowing what that is? The contest contains others who don't even hold that homosexuality is harmful at all but rather a great thing? The purest of the pure won't even be in such a contest. Let's be honest.
The whole thing is surreal. It's all make believe. It's a fake world.
Society needs to stop promoting the fake. We need people to be real.
Real Liberal Christian Church
Now, I won't duplicate Mikes's reply since I didn't ask him if that would be alright. I will say though that he says he doesn't know why the comment is gone. I have asked him some more questions and commented as follows:
I'm going to add this info to the Church Crunch post for the sake of openness and getting to the bottom of things.
Did you know that I had submitted the comment and that it was there on your post for a while?
Of course, I assume you've checked, or are going to check, on your end concerning Intense Debate.
I can't see much on my side of the issue. When I log in at Intense Debate, I can't even see or access my comments anywhere that I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something. It seems weak that they don't show a history of a users comments including those that were deleted or sent to spam or whatever.
The timing of this, what with what happened over on Church Crunch, seems to indicate that it's possible there's something about me such that my comments are being handle by Intense Debate in a different manner than the comments of at least the vast majority of other Intense Debate users. Whether that's deliberate on Intense Debates' part remains to be seen.
It's not the only possibility though.
This reminds me of when I was apparently the only (or one of just a few) on Entrecard whose ads weren't running. I never did receive an explanation from them before I was banned.
What are the odds concerning all of this — including all the other places where my comments and articles, etc., have been censored and/or banned (dozens)?
You and I both know that there is spirit at work. Things don't just happen.
Some will say I'm being paranoid, but they are naive about the lengths some souls will go to, to suppress the options I put forth: Total pacifism, giving and sharing all as one fold, and sexual harmlessness.
There are definitely people who conspire to suppress and persecute on account of their opposition to the Christian Commons Project.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)