Over at Meerkat Musing when we saw this little tidbit on one of their web pages
If you’re an author and you would like me to review your book, you can contact me at ____________and I’ll review your material
We see those words as a promise and while we made it a challenge, we mentioned the word promise, and the owner of that site, someone we have known for years, said he did not see it that way.
Since he said those words we challenged him to review our 4 most recent books. He decided to review our Much To talk About vol.2 work instead. Which is fine, not a problem with us as it was the exposure we wanted.
Keep in mind that that website owner holds vastly different views than we do and speaks to a very different audience than we do. So we were not expecting too much from his review but we did appreciate his candor and honesty
Between the dotted lines, we will post the unedited review and we got permission to post it. We will make a few comments after the quote is done. Knowing how the unbelieving world thinks, helps evangelism, apologetics as well as just getting along with those who do not believe.
———————————————————————–
Allow me to preface this review with a statement – I have sparred on many occasions with the author of this book, across a range of subjects, many of which are covered in his book. As such, I freely admit that I may be biased in my appraisal of his work. I cannot guarantee this review is neutral, so to speak. I can only offer my honest thoughts and opinions on what David has written.
I will confess that the style of the book is not what I expected, but it appears to be a series of website articles brought together in one place, with bits of original material added here and there. I may be mistaken about that, however that is my early impression. As such, I’m not sure as to the structure of the book. It lifts a series of links to websites but if reading a physical copy, you’d not be able to use those links to gain more context for David’s arguments; some of the arguments are critiques of other websites and I can’t help but feel a lot of context is missing.
Make no mistake, I have a measure of respect for anyone who is prepared to put their work (and by extension themselves) out into the world for scrutiny. It’s clear that David has confidence in his arguments (is faith a better term?!), and he doesn’t waver from his positions, which points to conviction. I do not agree with many of his positions (I’ve made that clear over the last few years), but I respect his right to share them.
My chief issue is that David takes the Bible as inerrant, an absolute truth, and everything else, from society to politics to science, is filtered through this lens. In taking this approach the book feels like it’s taken a conclusion as the premise, and everything else must either bend to that conclusion or be rejected and denounced as sinful and evil. I’ve found myself considering what I view as several ironic claims from David in respect of fairness and ‘evil’, and this book has not persuaded me to reconsider those claims.
There are elements to David’s writings that I find to be hypocritical. When speaking about the apparent selfishness of the LGBT community, David suggests their desire for equality is unreasonable. He suggests they force their wishes for society upon everyone, which to me is a falsehood. The desire to be treated equally does not equate to forcing views upon others. Expecting to receive service from public-facing businesses (who have agreed to obey laws and regulations regarding equal treatment) is not ‘forcing beliefs’ upon others. Civil marriage ceremonies do not infringe upon anyone else. Pushing to be able to get a job (or keep a job), or to be able to rent or buy a home without the threat of dismissal is not forcing values upon others, but merely a desire to be treated equally.
Contrast with the conservative religious right, that have long desired to establish greater influence over others, regardless of what others may wish. In some parts of the world this involves using considerable financial influence to lobby institutions towards their way of thinking. It may involve door-to-door canvassing and even open defiance of laws. In some parts of the world being gay can mean imprisonment or even death. To suggest that wishing for the same freedoms as anyone else is ‘selfish’ isn’t a reasonable position to take.
David also indulges in the Slippery Slope Fallacy. We are led to believe that the LGBT community’s wish for equality is hypocritical, as no one is campaigning for bestiality or as David puts it, other forms of sexual perversion’. As always that argument is largely resolved by the position of consent. What two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is entirely up to them. The Church or the state has no right to interfere, yet this appears to be David’s wish, whilst simultaneously decrying the allegedly pushy agenda of the LGBT community. Naturally any non-consensual form of sexual activity sit sits outside the realm of what’s acceptable.
I’m digressing here, turning this review into something of a detailed analysis, which isn’t my intention but it feels inevitable, given the subject matter. Suffice to say, I don’t share David’s views on science and the application of it, nor do I share his views on society. I can only say, once again, that I appreciate David is willing to present his ideas in a manner that leaves them open to criticism and counterpoints. I cannot agree with the claims David makes about science, archaeology and society.
In many ways it feels like David has written this book to appeal to people who already believe in his interpretation of the Bible. That is his right.
In the end, if I am to rate this book, it scores 3/5, which is actually generous in some respects, if only because I am fully aware of my own bias and trying to reign it in.
——————————————————-
The author of that review does make several mistakes.
In taking this approach the book feels like it’s taken a conclusion as the premise, and everything else must either bend to that conclusion or be rejected and denounced as sinful and evil.
At some point, unbelievers have to stop demanding that Christians must begin at the same position as the unbeliever sits and recognize that the Christian has already been in his position but has had Christ revealed to them and they made a decision to accept salvation.
We are not starting with a conclusion but revealing the truth to others so they can participate in the same life as we enjoy. We have already been where they sat, and we do not have to start all over again and travel the same road more than once.
He also makes the mistake of thinking that good and evil are subjective and anyone is capable of declaring what is sinful and evil. That is not so, and many pastors and church leaders need to stop adding to God’s list, only God declares what is good, evil, sinful, holy, and so on.
Nothing is being bent by the Christian, they are merely telling others the reality. God created this world and he gets to set the rules, not unbelievers.
Contrast with the conservative religious right, that have long desired to establish greater influence over others, regardless of what others may wish.
To a point this is true and many Christians in some very strict church congregations have experienced this as well. This is one of the mistakes the evangelical world has done over the years.
They are forcing their views in the form of passing laws to mandate certain behavior. But then, so is the unbelieving world doing the exact same thing through legislation called zero tolerance, political correctness, cancel culture, and many more.
A fact that escapes the unbelievers’ thinking is that the Christian is part of the public and have the same rights as they do as to what laws can be passed. They have the right to try to pattern the society they live in to fit their preferences just like the unbeliever has.
Society is not just for the unbeliever. There is also no law stating that the government has to be secular only. The concept of the separation of church and state is not found in the American constitution and although it is said to be implied, in the First Amendment that is not so.
The keyword in that amendment is ‘establishment’ and that usually is taken to mean creating a national religion like some other countries in this world have. It does not mean that Christians cannot be president, etc., and help create laws that follow biblical principles.
If it did, then almost all the laws of America must be scrapped as they were built on biblical principles. This is a discussion for another day. The important fact is that Christians have the right to see their society be governed in a manner that is safe for everyone even if that means passing certain laws that prohibit specific behaviors like abortion, drug use, sexual preferences, same-sex marriage, and so on.
Society does not belong solely to the unbeliever and their evil or sinful ways.
As always that argument is largely resolved by the position of consent. What two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is entirely up to them. The Church or the state has no right to interfere
This argument always comes up and it is based on a misconception of the role of government. basically, governments have the right to rule and govern every aspect of life within their borders.
They are the government, they set the laws, and so on. And no, what 2 consenting adults do in their own home is not up to them. It is also up to God and he has set the rules for relationships very clearly.
The LGBTQ issue is not about personal preference but obedience to God and his rules. That means that both the Church and the State have a right to tell people what is the right way and the wrong way to conduct a relationship.
Also, since society belongs to the Christian as well as the non-Christian, Christians still get a say in what laws should or should not be passed. If they do not want LGBTQ preferences conducted openly, in public and in movies, television shows, and so on, then they have the right to create laws banning those actions.
If they do not like those preferences, then by all means they also have the right through free speech to advocate for laws that fit their beliefs. if the unbeliever doesn’t like this then too bad.
They do not care if the church does not like the laws that they get passed so they cannot expect anything different in return.
We are led to believe that the LGBT community’s wish for equality is hypocritical, as no one is campaigning for bestiality or as David puts it, other forms of sexual perversion’
It is hypocritical and selfish of the LGBTQ community to force their views and preferences upon those who disagree with them. Their preferences are sin and evil and the only lead to the destruction of society and a nation.
Remember, God makes the rules, and only his rules matter. While man has been given permission to rule, that permission does not mean they are free to rule outside of God’s instructions immune from God’s punishment and judgment.
If they listen to evil and pursue their own path, then they can expect to be judged by God as the Bible has laid out. Those governments are not going to get any rewards for their following evil and establishing secular governments that allow sin to destroy nations.
LGBTQ preferences are not normal, natural, right, or even good. There is no place in any society for such practices. Forcing their views on others is selfish, arrogant, and sinful.
It is also hypocritical as the LGBTQ community and individuals do not treat others in the same manner as they wish to be treated. Where they were once the abused, etc., they are now the abuser, etc. That is not correct behavior in any society.
If LGBTQ preferences and attitudes are so good and of God why are they not treating others like the bible says to do? That is one of the key signs of being hypocritical- not doing as you claim to believe.
The key for the believer is when they want to change society, do it God’s way to be successful.
theologyarchaeology 