Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014
If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,
- this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.
This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.
I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.
In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.
Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.
In this post, I will be discussing,
- 1. The Bitter Lady
- 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
- 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
- 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll
1. THE BITTER LADY
About a month ago, some lady (judging by her personal profile photo, it was a woman, but her photo was small enough that I couldn’t quite make out her age), left me a long, long response under this post:
- (Link): Candice Watters and Boundless Blog Gets It Wrong / Christian prolonged singlehood singleness singles ignored
The only thing I recall from the woman’s response was a comment similar to,
“Honestly, this just sounds bitter to me.”
If I recall correctly, she claimed to also be an adult single.
If she is, she is among…
I mean, seriously, lady? You are going to toss the “Bitter” word bomb at me, a fellow adult single?
The word “bitter” is usually tossed at adult singles by long term married Christian couples who are condescending as hell to unhappy adult singles, so it’s very disappointing when an adult single uses that term to clobber another single with.
Referring to adult singles who call out mistreatment of singles by churches, (as well as being less than thrilled with being single at times), often results in the “bitter” accusation, which led me to make this post over a year ago:
- (Link): Unmarried / Single People Are Supposedly Bitter & Have Too Much Baggage – and that’s why you’re still single they say
And so what if I were bitter? It did not make the observations I made in the post about Christian mistreatment of adult singles any less true even I were bitter.
I also have to say Christians over-use the word “bitter” any time another Christian (or an ex Christian) has a legitimate complaint or concern about Christians or churches.
The term “bitter” is so over-used by mal-contents who show up to abuse women who run one spiritual abuse blog that exposes abusive preachers, that the women who own the blog have banned the use of the word from their blog.
That is how cliched the word “bitter” has become in Christian culture.
The moment you critique or criticize anything about Christians, preachers, or churches, even if that criticism is deserved and needed – it could be spiritual abuse, rude pastors, churches covering up for pedophiles in the pews, calling out how churches ignore adult singles, or whatever the issue is – and sure enough, some weenie will leave you a post saying, “You just sound bitter to me.”
As if calling someone “bitter” automatically invalidates the very points they were just making (it doesn’t).
Yes, there are Christian jackholes who associate telling the truth about American Christianity and all its flaws, such as exposing preachers who molest children, or people such as me, who point out how churches discriminate against singles, with “bitterness.”
I’m not bitter. I’m angry. In my view, there is a difference.
I’m tired of the church environment I grew up in telling me they respect virginity (and hence, by implication, singles) – but as an adult, I can see that was a lie.
I’m not okay with churches or Christian talking heads such as Candace Watters of Boundless glossing over Christian mistreatment of adult singles when brought to their attention by saying, “No, churches should not preach about singleness, but should preach about marriage even more than they already do.”
Christian groups and people such as Watters refuse to budge, even after they have been told why adult singles are leaving, and that the continued marginalization (via the over emphasis on marriage) puts them off.
I can only guess the woman who left me that comment telling me I sound “bitter” is somewhere between the age of 20 and 35.
When you’re single between those ages, it’s much easier to be more shiny, hopeful and optimistic about Christianity, church, and singleness. By the time you’re my age (early 40s), you see the stark, hard truths: most churches and Christian culture at large does not give a rat’s ass about you or about adult singleness.
She (or some other poster, I may be getting her confused with another crank who came by this blog) also told me they think it sounds immature or wrong to drop out of a church simply because it’s a marriage-centric environment that alienates adult singles, which I mentioned in one or more posts.
I do advocate that adult singles vote with their feet: if a church you are attending is not meeting your needs, especially if you have made them aware of the fact they are marginalizing the singles, but they make no effort to change, you need to stop going to that church.
In most posts, I don’t advocate that approach, I simply repeat findings I have come across in books and blogs that show many adult singles are tired of being ignored, they are tired of sermons and ministries that cater to the marrieds, so they stop showing up to church.
That is simply me repeating what I am reading on other sites, in books, and magazine articles.
You can accuse me of being bitter all day long, but telling me I am bitter does not change the fact that a hella lot of adult singles over 25 or 30 years of age are dropping out of church because they feel unwanted or ignored.
Casting stones at the person bearing the message of the reality by calling her “bitter” does nothing to fix the problem you have in your churches.
I am suggesting that if churches want to increase their members, here are strategies they can use to attract new members: 1. stop ignoring adult singles and start meeting their needs.
Preachers are constantly complaining and moaning about “the nones” and how they can never get volunteers or fill up their pews. (You can read more about the “nones” here.)
Adults singles make up to 44% of the US population (some sources now say it’s closer to 50%).Churches consistently ignore this big piece of demographic pie.
Churches ignore singles to chase after the small percentage of married with children at home families, which last I heard, comprised 20% of the US population (the remaining 30% is composed of married couples with NO children, among other groups).
It does not make sense to me that if churches want more butts in the pews – and they constantly say they do, read blogs and articles out there with interviews by members of SBC, T4G, Gospel Coalition, and others that whine constantly how church attendance is down – that they would NOT want to appeal to and attract 50% of the US population (ie, the adult singles and married without kids demo) but keep ignoring them to fixate on the itty bitty 20%.
It’s also not biblical for a church to lavish attention and elevate only one part of the body of Christ (i.e., the married with kids couples) above all other groups. It’s actually anti-biblical to show favoritism like that, but churches keep doing it.
That’s not “bitterness” – my views on this are based on concepts that are based on what the Bible says, and most of you Christians claim to be sola scriptura and to respect the Bible. But I guess you don’t really believe in the Bible or care about what it says.
I have met or come across a small minority of people who I would classify as truly bitter, but not every critic of the church is “bitter.”
2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
About five or six days ago, some lady left a reply to me under this post (at least I assume it was a lady, because the profile photo was of a woman):
- (Link): More Awful and Crap-tastic Marriage and Sex Advice from Christians – specifically from Ososami and Delzell
Out of the small portion I glanced at of her post before I trashed it, I remember she was ranting about (this is my paraphrase of her comments, not an exact quote):
- “Oh so you think it’s okay for a Christian woman to marry a Non Christian… I hope you realize that Non Christian men will not tolerate virginity before marriage, they all expect sex prior to marriage.”
I think she also got into something about how if you marry a NC (Non Christian) man and have kids with him, he won’t want to take the kids to church, and so on and so forth.
It’s the old Christian saw that a NC man will drag you down spiritually if you are a Christian woman.
Some people aren’t very bright. I never said or claimed on this blog or that specific post that all NC men are saintly, or that marriage to one would be easy.
I’m sure there are plenty of jerky, abusive, cheating NC men out there. I don’t dispute that for a moment.
My point is that so many Christian men are dogs that it doesn’t matter on a practical level if a woman marries a Christian or a NC.
There is also a Christian man shortage: even should a C woman hold out for a C man, there are no C men who exist for her to marry. Her only choice is therefore to die single. Or, she can marry an atheist or agnostic.
I’ve read posts by Christian women married to Christian men and the men don’t want to take the kids to church – the menfolk stay at home watching the NFL while the wife takes the rug rats to church.
So, even if you are a C woman married to a C man, it does not mean that the C husband will take up the stupid, un-biblical gender complemenarian position of “spiritual leader of the home.”
Even in my own family, my mother, who was a Christian and quite traditional and believed in that “man is head of the house” crap, was still the spiritual motivator in the household. If things had been left up to my dad, we never would have gone to church.
My Mom was the one who forced us to dress up early and head off to church each Sunday and then go out again each Wednesday night.
My father would have been fine with all of us sitting at home, never going to church. He would have been fine remaining seated in his recliner watching football all day.
So spare me the bullshit that having a C (Christian) husband automatically means you won’t have issues getting the husband’s ass to church, or getting him to read Bible stories to the kids, and such.
See also (Link): this thread which is chock full of news stories about good, godly Christian men who have been arrested for wife abuse, pedophilia, soliciting to have sex with dogs on Craigslist, and so forth.
See also (Link): this thread and (Link): this thread which have links to news stories and polls that demonstrate that Christian men also expect Christian women to have pre-martial sex.
There are tons of single Christian men out there who do not honor a woman’s wish to remain chaste until marriage. Good luck finding one, sweet pea.
Married Christian men also feel fine cheating on their wives,
- see (Link): this thread (Link): this thread and (Link): this thread
– for examples of Christian married men who feel perfectly okay about having affairs on their Christian wives.
3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
I assume this person showed up to my blog because Steph Drury of SCCL tweeted or posted about my blog page that had a few critiques of her group. (See that post here).
I assume that because he showed up to my blog shortly after Drury tweeted a link to my blog post, and/or I think he posted under that particular post, or some other one where I mentioned SCCL.
I don’t really care about 1. homosexuality or 2. homosexual marriage per se.
I have have opinions about 1., but am rather wishy washy on point 2.
My views on point 2 change on any give week on how the homosexual supporters behave towards their opponents.
But neither 1 or 2 are hot button topics for me, that get me hot under the collar.
I find both sides of the homosexual debate annoying, both the people who rant against it voraciously, and those who argue in favor of.
I am right wing and socially conservative, but I think other right wingers and some Christians harp on those topics too much.
I don’t agree with homosexuality, and I would probably be more “meh” about the legalization of homosexual marriage topic, if not for the fact that the zealous homosexual supporters and their zealot hetero / transgender / bisexual buddies weren’t such freaking Neo Nazis about anyone who does not share their views.
Just because someone disagrees with you on a social or political topic does not automatically mean that person is a jerk, or that the person hates the entire group whose behavior they disagree with.
But I regularly see the militants suing or harassing people who even so much as politely say they don’t consider homosexuality moral, or the bakers and wedding photographers who, due to religious convictions, don’t feel comfortable offering their services in the context of a homosexual marriage ceremony.
People who insist on calling me, or people such as myself, intolerant are the intolerant, bigoted ones.
They refuse to be civil to others who don’t share their views. They refuse to accept that others don’t agree with them on every last topic.
They feel they have a right to demonize and assume the worse of anyone who doesn’t share their opinions on every single topic, or their pet topic of choice, and homosexuality seems to be the common one for a lot of people these days.
One of the very reasons I will not post to a group such as SCCL is that most members are left wing on social issues.
A person who is critical of some aspects of Christian culture yet who remains pretty right wing on social topics would be flamed there.
YOU WERE MARKETED TO AND FELL FOR IT
Homosexuality did not really gain ground in American culture until the last 5 – 10 years, and at that, only because homosexuals, or hetero liberals in Hollywood who were sympathetic to them, began, around the mid to late 1990s in particular, a marketing campaign via TV shows and movies to present homosexuality as normal and morally acceptable.
Homosexuality did not suddenly become acceptable to the majority of Americans on moral grounds.
Nope. Americans have caved into homosexuality because they were sold on it and had it crammed down their throats every time they opened a magazine, or flipped on the TV, starting especially in the 1990s, though some of the groundwork was being set in the 1980s.
During the 1990s, television producers began inserting sympathetic homosexual characters in every other TV show that aired, especially ones aimed at teens or college students, such as “Dawson’s Creek” back in the mid 1990s.
Over the years, other shows came on with sympathetic homosexual characters, such as “Will and Grace” and other programs. Now we have almost entire casts of homosexual characters, with shows such as “Glee.”
Most of these shows, especially the earlier ones, also tended to insert at least one stereotyped conservative or Christian character who was depicted as being a narrow minded meanie for not supporting homosexuality.
So, the message one got from this entertainment is that all homosexuals are the good, likable guys, and anyone who disagreed with homosexuality was a narrow minded, hateful jerk.
It was nothing more than propaganda.
During all this time (ie, the 1990s, when the homosexual agenda was gearing up in large scale), I recognized I was being brainwashed by a liberal media that wanted me to accept homosexuality. I could see I was being preached at in the entertainment. I didn’t buy into it and still don’t.
The 20 somethings today were fed a snow job, and the folks currently in their early or mid 30s as I write this now also don’t realize they were on the receiving end of it, either.
The Millennials (today’s current 20 somethings), I keep reading, often pride themselves in being able to see through being marketed to, but they are completely blind to the marketing job they’ve been fed by the homosexual community, who started the large push in the 1990s, when these Millennials were little kids.
See also: (Link): After the Ball.
The guy who left me a post referring to me as a homophobe and intolerant ~ is a hetero-phobe, a traditional-values-phobe, and is intolerant. See how easy it is to slap labels on people like that?
I do think he is naive, as he’s been brainwashed by an entertainment industry who wanted him to accept homosexuality, an entertainment culture that spent the last 15 to 20 years of actively shaping how they wanted Americans to view homosexuality – and he doesn’t even realize it.
Guys like the one who left me a comment on my blog telling me I am a homophobe and intolerant are, in my view, no better than Fred Phelps / Westboro Church. He’s merely on the opposite side of the issue. (And no, I don’t support the tactics of Westboro.)
I would not want to spend any time on a desert island with Fred Phelps any more than I would want to be stuck on a desert island with The “You’re An Intolerant Homophobe” Guy.
They are both mirror images of one another, only on opposite sides of an issue. No thank you.
4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll
I think he may be a troll. He wrote a very long post, I only skimmed the first few lines.
He showed up shortly after Drury posted about my blog, so I assume that is what drew this moron here. He’s probably a 20 year old frat boy who giggled as he typed up his sexist, vulgar post.
He claimed to be a 40 year old man who prefers banging 20 year old girls because their “bodies are tight” or whatever terminology he used.
The bodies of 40 year old women are tight too, especially the ones who don’t sleep around (like me), who don’t have children (I’ve never had kids) and who work out at the gym and who stay in shape (like me).
Even sexist doof wads like this idiot agree that 40 something women are attractive:
- (Link): Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up
Most 20 something women find men in their 40s creepy and unattractive, not sexy.
The few 20 somethings who will bed a 40 year old man are in it for the man’s money, not the man.
Hell, most women of any age prefer men their own age, not a guy ten year or more their senior.
Some women like to go younger, though. (Link): Online Dating: Women Want Younger Men (article)
If I can think of any other cranks, jerks, or idiots who have left me negative posts the last few months, I’ll amend this post to add them.
(Link): Liberal Christian Gal Throws Fit Over My Post About Celibacy / Dissent
(Link): Men Become ‘Invisible’ And Lose Sex Appeal At 39 – Article from Daily Caller
(Link): Creepy, wrong, immature and pathetic: older men chasing after much younger women
(Link): Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric