Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home.

Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home.

I cannot believe we are in the year 2017, and Christians are still asking about this sort of thing and pontificating about it. To even ask and muse about this in 2017 is just sexist.

In regards to this story linked to below, Dee of Wartburg Watch asked on Twitter, something along the lines of, how much money does preacher Todd Wagner earn so that his wife (assuming he has a wife and kids) is able to stay at home all day to watch their kids?

How many of the women in Wagner’s church congregation (who may even be mothers themselves) have jobs outside the home, part of whose job income are paid to him in tithes, so that he can afford to have his wife stay at home and be a stay at home mother?

(Link): Does the Bible Say It’s OK for Moms to Work?

Excerpts:

July 28, 2017

by Sheryl Lynn

The pastor of a multi-site church in Texas [Watermark Community Church] recently responded to a question on whether the Bible says it’s OK for moms to work.

While it’s not forbidden, Todd Wagner questioned the motive behind a mother choosing to work over being at home with her children.

// end excerpt

“While it’s not forbidden.” – Yes, you can end it right there. Anything beyond this is Wagner’s opinion.

Continue reading “Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home.”

Advertisements

Woman Says She is Lonely in Marriage to Husband Who Ignores Her in Favor of His Job, Watching TV, etc.

Woman Says She is Lonely in Marriage to Husband Who Ignores Her in Favor of His Job, Watching TV, etc.

A woman named San wrote to Christian program “The 700 Club” to say she’s in a marriage where her husband is ignoring her in favor of TV shows and his job and so forth. Pat Robertson’s son Gordon answered her letter.

Here is her letter to The 700 Club:

I have been very lonely in my marriage.

My husband’s priorities fall in this order: work, television, and then his phone. I have brought it to his attention so many times. I find myself only relying on God and Him being my true friend but I am still lonely.

Yes, I have God to turn to and I talk to God all day, every day, but it would be nice to have a husband in my life who I can truly share my life with. What should I do?

[signed] San

I didn’t completely agree with the host’s answer.

Continue reading “Woman Says She is Lonely in Marriage to Husband Who Ignores Her in Favor of His Job, Watching TV, etc.”

Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

(Link):   Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

(Link): Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God by A. Cone

Excerpts:

May 16, 2017

Fewer than one in four Americans believe the Bible is “the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word” — a record low in 40 years of surveys conducted by Gallup.

The 24 percent of literal believers is a 4 percentage point drop from the last (Link): Gallup survey in 2014.

Among respondents, 26 percent believe the Bible is “a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man” — the first time that the biblical literalism view is not greater than biblical skepticism. In 2014, 21 percent were non-literal believers.

Continue reading “Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God”

Pat Robertson Basically Tells Woman Married to Lazy, Dead Beet, Idiot, Jerk-Face Man That Her Only Option is Separation (Not Divorce)

(The 700 Club episode I am discussing in this post: Air date Feb 21, 2017)

Women of America are STILL writing Pat Robertson for relationship advice. A phenomenon which prompted me to write this months ago:

(Link):  Women: Stop Asking Pat Robertson For Romantic Relationship Advice – Whether You Are Divorced or Single 

For the love of pickles, people of America, stop sending this guy your questions about dating, love, marriage, and divorce! Anyway.

Regarding the first letter on the video: Contra Pat Robertson, the Bible does NOT teach that the “husband is the head of the household.”

Don’t believe me? Then please check out the resources at (Link): this site, (Link): this site, or (Link): this site

But I am writing this post in regards to the second or third letter on this video (embedded below; Link to Video, You Tube).

Additional commentary by me is below this letter:

[Dear Pat]

My husband and I have been married for 21 years but have been together for 28.

We have two children, ages 26 and 25. Our 25 year old son is autistic and mentally disabled and needs constant care.

I alone care for our son.

My husband does not work or help in anyway. I struggle to make ends meet.

Continue reading “Pat Robertson Basically Tells Woman Married to Lazy, Dead Beet, Idiot, Jerk-Face Man That Her Only Option is Separation (Not Divorce)”

Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck – Also: How Liberals Can Avoid Turning Off Right Wingers

Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck

I agree with some of this guy’s points, but maybe not all.

He mentions Rachel Held Evans in his post – I think she’s right, for the most part, in her opposition to gender complementarianism, but I think she’s incorrect on other topics.

I have several more things to say below this link and long excerpt:

(Link): Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P Heck

Excerpts:

… There is a reason that liberal Christian movements like those championed by Jim Wallis, Rachel Held Evans, Shane Claiborne and others are so ineffective and unpersuasive in American culture.

Rather than seeking to glorify and build the Kingdom of God, they regularly appropriate the language of Scripture to advocate for earthly, largely political causes that never address the principal need of humanity: redemption from sin.

Continue reading “Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck – Also: How Liberals Can Avoid Turning Off Right Wingers”

Critique of Pastor Groeschel’s “I Want to Believe But…” Sermon Series (Re: Unanswered Prayer, etc)

Critique of Pastor Groeschel’s “I Want to Believe But…” Sermon Series

Christian Post recently published this summary of Groeschel’s sermons, and I take strong issue with it, which I will explain below the long excerpts from the page – but if I didn’t blog my criticisms of this guy’s sermon, I was going to go nuts -several of his points or assumptions annoyed me up the wall:

(Link): God Is Not Your Puppet, Says Pastor Craig Groeschel by A. Kumar

Here are some excerpts from that page, and I will comment on this below the excerpts, which is pretty long, so please bear with me:

Pastor Craig Groeschel, senior pastor of Life.Church, has started a new series, “I Want to Believe, But…,” to address difficulties some have in believing in God.

In the series’ first sermon on Sunday, the megachurch pastor dealt with the notion that God should give us exactly what we want and when we want it.
“God is too big to be a puppet of mine,” he stressed.

Some believe in God and others don’t, but there’s “a newer category of people that are saying, ‘I wanna believe in God but I’m struggling to,'” the popular pastor said as he introduced the (Link): series to the congregation on Sunday, the 21st anniversary of the church.

Continue reading “Critique of Pastor Groeschel’s “I Want to Believe But…” Sermon Series (Re: Unanswered Prayer, etc)”

Preacher Robert Morris Horrible Eisegesis and Mangling of the Book of Job – Having a Penis Does Not Make One Immune From Bungling Biblical Interpretation

Preacher Robert Morris’ Horrible Eisegesis and Mangling of the Book of Job

Edit (Jan 26, 2017): I received a tweet from someone on Twitter in regards to this post who assumes that preacher Morris was referencing some verse from the book of Job where God spoke to Job and asked Job if Job intended to defend himself by putting God down.

However, that was NOT the verse Morris brought up in his sermon – at least not the portion I listened to.

In his sermon, Morris referred to, I believe, Job Chapter 33 (Link) or later, where Elihu (or another person in Job) makes an appearance and judges Job.

Elihu, son of Barakel the Buzite, said that Job was seeking to justify himself in his own eyes or by his own righteousness (see Job 34 – 37). I may be getting the verses or character name wrong, but my point is, Morris pointed to a “friend” in the story who told Job (paraphrase), “You seek to justify yourself based on your own righteousness, and that is wrong.”

Morris agreed with this take on Job by Elihu (or by whomever in the text spoke it) – but the text itself does not say this this was true of Job.

The text does not say that Elihu (or whomever it was in the text who said this) was correct about Job or about God on this.

God shows up at the end of the book of Job to say Job had God right all along, but that Job’s “friends” (such as Elihu) spoke falsely of God – and I think God said the “friends” also spoke falsely of Job, if memory serves.

It makes no sense to me, why, when God says the “friends” (including Elihu) got things wrong, Morris goes against God’s own interpretation to say that Elihu (or which ever friend it was) was correct – very bad biblical exegesis on Morris’ part.

The guy (or woman?) who tweeted me cited Job 42:6 as saying Job repented – but the text does not say Job repented of “self righteousness,” which is what Morris was citing Job for.

Here is what that section of Job says (Link):

Then Job replied to the Lord:

“I know that you can do all things;
    no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
    Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me to know.

“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.’
My ears had heard of you
    but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
    and repent in dust and ashes.”

(end quote)

It looks to me like one of the only things Job was repenting of in v.6 was:

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me to know.

(end quote)

I do not see Job confessing in that section that he was relying on his own righteousness to be right with God and was also repenting of that.


One wonders why so many gender complementarians argue that women should not be preachers themselves but only listen to male preachers, when so many male preachers are heretics who get the Bible so horribly wrong on so many subjects.

This brings me to the topic of preacher Robert Morris and his sermon about the book of Job. (You can read the book of Job online (Link): here.)

I was watching Texas-based preacher Robert Morris (who is awful, for a lot of reasons I don’t want to get into in the here and now) of Gateway Church sermonizing about the Old Testament book of Job on TV a few days ago.

In the book of Job, God Himself refers to Job as a “righteous man” or communicates that concept.

As a matter of fact, God thinks Job is so great, godly, and righteous, he brags on Job to Satan. From the book of Job:

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

— end Bible verse quote–

Here are a few more excerpts from the book of Job itself:

 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

— end Bible verse quote —

That sure sounds like a righteous man to me. If Job wanted to point to his righteousness to defend himself from the slander of his accusatory friends who show up later in the story, he would not be in the wrong for doing do.

If God Himself conveys that you are an upstanding kind of guy, it’s not bragging, or a sin of self-righteousness, for you to be in agreement with God on this, and to mention to your buddies you are righteous, godly, upstanding, what have you.

Continue reading “Preacher Robert Morris Horrible Eisegesis and Mangling of the Book of Job – Having a Penis Does Not Make One Immune From Bungling Biblical Interpretation”

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)


For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.

I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being  Christian.

In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.

bakecake
Above: Accurate Visual Representation of How Some Pro-LGBT Groups Treat Christians. (Artist Unknown.)

I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.

However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.

The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.

I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.

It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.

If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?

I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.

The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.

Continue reading “American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution”

One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism – In a Faith Crisis

One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism  – In a Faith Crisis

November 2016. (There is a moderate amount of swear words in the post below)

Some of the points in the post, in brief (the long explanation is below):

  • I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior before I was ten years old
  • I have read the entire Bible.
  • I spent many years reading books ABOUT the Bible (e.g., books about its formation and history)
  • I spent years reading Christian apologetic literature
    – so do NOT tell me that I “do not understand Christianity” or that I was “never a REAL Christian to start with”
  • I currently have doubts about the Christian faith and/or aspects of the Bible
  • I have not rejected Jesus Christ Himself
    (he’s pretty much Christianity’s only good feature or selling point, as far as I can see at this point)
  • I am not an atheist
  • I am not a Charismatic
  • I am not a “Word of Faither”
  • I was brought up under conservative, Southern Baptist and evangelical teachings and churches
  • Even though conservative Christians claim to believe in the Bible, they
    • cannot agree on what the Bible means or how to apply it – this is a huge problem as I see it in the faith
    • they diminish the role of the Holy Spirit or deny Him and that He can work for Christians today, because they are “hyper sola scriptura” and have reduced the Trinity to “Father, Son, and Holy Bible,” (this is also problematic),
      they usually do this because they are hyper-cessationist and paranoid or hateful of Charismatic teachings or practices
    • they teach that most to all of the biblical promises are not for Christians today but are only for the Jews of 5,000 years ago, there-by teaching that the Bible is NOT relevant for people today  (this is also problematic)
  • If you are a Christian, do not act like a smug dick about any of this and immediately disregard any points I have to make about God, the Bible, or other topics, because in your view, I am a “Non-Christian who was ‘never’ really saved” -not to mention, that is not even true.
    I was in fact “truly” saved, and I am / was, a “real” Christian.
  • No, I don’t want to enumerate a detailed list of reasons why I have doubts about God, the Bible, or the faith.If I were to provide such a list or explanation, your average Christian would only want to debate each and every point to argue me back into fully believing. (A witnessing tip to Christians: doing that sort of thing is NOT an effective way of “winning back a lost sheep to Jesus.”)

DETAILED EXPLANATION

I find that people who are both Christian and Non-Christian (and several other categories of people I bump into on Twitter and other sites) get frustrated when they cannot easily box me in.

People seem to be more comfortable with labels, but I’m not sure what label I would give myself these days.

I have briefly tried to explain my current religious beliefs on my Twitter bio, and I explain them a little more on my blog’s “About” page and have mentioned them in a post or two over the course of the last few years I’ve been blogging here.

Here is my background:

I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior prior to turning the age of ten.

That means: I believed that Jesus took my sins upon himself, he was without sin, he paid the price for my sins, and was raised from the dead three days after having been crucified – and if I believe in all that, if I put “saving faith in” Jesus (as opposed to mere intellectual assent), my sins have been forgiven by God, and I go to heaven when I die.

I read the entire Bible through when I was 18 years old, and afterwards, I read a lot of the Bible in the years after. Prior to that age, I had read portions of the Bible when younger.

Continue reading “One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism – In a Faith Crisis”

Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative

Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative

I was once a gender complementarian. ‘Tis true.

My old-fashioned Christian parents were gender complementarians and brought me up to assume that comp (gender complementarianism) is true.

The churches we went to were complementarian; the man was supposed to be “head of the household,” the wife was supposed to be passive and submissive; women were not supposed to hold “authoritative” or leadership positions within a church.

The Christian books and articles we had around the house were written from a comp perspective.

I was thoroughly indoctrinated in complementarianism from the time I was a kid.

I know complementarianism very well. I understand complementarianism.

I do not intend for this post to be an in-depth response, biblical or otherwise, to gender complementarianism. This is just a general response.

If you are a gender complementarian – as I once was – you are likely a conservative who takes the Bible literally, and you want to please God.

Furthermore, you have probably been told or taught…

-in or by complementarian materials, churches, preachers, or family members, that any other way of interpreting the Bible concerning passages about gender, gender roles, headship, submission, and marriage, are all “liberal” or are “playing loose with the Scripture.”

-There is only one “right” way to interpret the Bible, and by golly, it is the gender complementarian way, which is the only true “conservative” method, and hence, it’s the more “godly,” or “God Honoring,” method, and which takes the Scripture at “face value”

-Further, this reasoning goes, if you reject the comp hermeneutical method of the Bible, you will slide into secular, left wing, feminism and begin doing things that would make most any conservative recoil, such as start supporting abortion on demand and stop shaving your armpits; you will burn your bras.
You will join a liberal denomination that ordains openly lesbian lady preachers. You will want to grow a mustache because you want to be “just like a man.”
You may even start punching helpless, weak, defenseless kittens for fun.

Now, as a woman who is more than likely right wing, conservative, and adheres to traditional values, you are horrified or in deep disagreement with left wingers, the Democratic Party, and liberal social values (such as support of LGBT causes, abortion being legal, etc).

I get all that because I used to be just like you. In some ways, I still am very much like you, only minus a belief in complementarianism.

Continue reading “Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative”

Teen-Raping Texas Pastor Gets life in Prison After using the Bible to Justify Abusing Women – Equally Yoked is BUNK

Teen-Raping Texas Pastor Gets life in Prison After using the Bible to Justify Abusing Women – Equally Yoked is BUNK

Far below is a link to a page about a pastor who raped girls in and from a church. Notice in the article how other church-goers who went to church with this guy described him as being “very nice” or as being a “good Christian.”

My Christian parents brought me up to think if I wanted to marry, that the best place for me to meet potential spouses would be at a church. I suppose the assumption with that is that the type of men who attend church regularly are going to be “safer” or better moral choices than the type of dude you might meet at a bar.

However, in the last few years of running this blog, I have seen (Link): so many news stories of church-going Christian men who get arrested for abuse or perversion, I now have my doubts about that.

Secondly, single women out-number single men in churches. I know that every church I’ve been to in person, I’ve been one of the few singles there. The only men in attendance and 80 years old, which would be fine if I were 80 too, but I’m not, and May December relationships (Link): make me want to barf. (I do not want to date or marry dudes who are over 5 or 10 years my age.)

I’ve done blog posts before about Pat Robertson, who has criticized women on his Christian TV show, for having married jerks, perverts, or abusers. Robertson seems to think women should be able to instantly spot if a man is a jerk, creep, loser, or abuser from the start. He’s wrong and an idiot about this.

The fact is, as this article below shows, even other adults who go to church with these kinds of deviant men are not aware of what a creep or pervert these guys are.

These are not people who are dating the guy – they are simply sitting next to him in church every week. If they cannot spot the perverts among them easily, why do Christian conservative men like Robertson think women who date men should be any better?

Continue reading “Teen-Raping Texas Pastor Gets life in Prison After using the Bible to Justify Abusing Women – Equally Yoked is BUNK”

On Not Filtering Every Choice Through the Bible

On Not Filtering Every Choice Through the Bible

This is one of those topics I’m working my way through right now. Maybe a year from now, my opinion will flip on it. But here is where I am now.

I was first made aware of this post from John Piper’s “Desiring God” web site via someone posting to SCCL Facebook group.

Here it is:

(Link):  How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God by John Piper

Excerpts:

  • I said that one of my reasons for believing this comes from 1 Corinthians 10:31. “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” I asked, “Is it sin to disobey this Biblical commandment?” Yes.
  • …Some of you then asked the practical question: Well, how do you “eat and drink” to the glory of God? Say, orange juice for breakfast?
  • ….Orange juice was “created to be received with thanksgiving by those whobelieve the truth.” Therefore, unbelievers cannot use orange juice for the purpose God intended—namely, as an occasion for heartfelt gratitude to God from a truth heart of faith.
  • But believers can, and this is how they glorify God. Their drinking orange juice is “sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.”

Yes, it’s an entire post explaining why and how Christians may drink Orange Juice to the glory of God.

This is a part of Christianity that I am glad to leave behind. In my faith crisis of the last few years, there have been some advantages to ceasing turning to the Bible as an authority in decision-making in life in every area.

Continue reading “On Not Filtering Every Choice Through the Bible”

Christian Publisher: ‘Women are Losing their Salvation Because They Masturbate’

Christian Publisher: ‘Women are Losing their Salvation Because They Masturbate’

The chuckle-head espousing this view specifically cites the use of sex toys in his equation. I’m not sure if he realizes that women do not need to use any sex toys to masturbate.

I can’t figure out if this guy is against all female masturbation per se, or only women using sex toys on themselves, or what.

The Bible doesn’t even discuss masturbation (no, the story about Onan in the Old Testament is not about masturbation – it was about a guy’s failure to fulfill familial duties).

The Bible doesn’t say anything about masturbation forfeiting a person’s salvation. Even if a person wants to consider masturbation a sin, adultery, fornication and other sexual sins do not forfeit a person’s salvation, either. The Bible says God will forgive those sexual sins.

I sometimes wonder what these types of Christians expect randy, unmarried Christians to do – the ones who do experience strong sexual desire.

These types of wacko Christians – the ones who think masturbation is satanic – tell you (adult single) that you should not have sex with another person, but then they also tell you not to masturbate, either.

And so, how are randy Christian singles supposed to get that itch scratched, exactly? People are staying single longer than they were decades ago. Meditating on Jesus or singing a hymn or some Bible reading is not going to work.

The only positive take away I can leave with here is that this guy, as wacked as he is, at least realizes that Christian women experience sexual desire. Most Christians pretend as though most women (especially married ones) totally lack a libido.

In Christian-Land, only men are “visually stimulated” and want sex and experience sexual desire. Meanwhile, women in Christian-Land are mistakenly assumed to only care about emotional needs and only want to pursue non-sexual hobbies, like knitting scarves.

(Link):  Christian Author Mack Major Says Female Masturbation Is ‘Direct Path To Satan’ – Huffington Post

(Link): Christian Publisher: ‘Women are losing their Salvation because they Masturbate’ by D. Edwards

  • Christian author and publisher Mack Major warned over the weekend that “Christian women are losing their salvation” by using dildos, which he called a “direct path to Satan.”

Continue reading “Christian Publisher: ‘Women are Losing their Salvation Because They Masturbate’”

Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Biblical Intepretation (podcasts)

Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine (podcasts)

I was going over some of the other broadcasts of the Christian apologetics show “Unbelieveable” when I saw at least two topics that I’ve addressed on my own blog before.

A couple of problems I’ve been having with the Christian faith, among several, are unanswered prayer and the fact that Christians cannot agree on what the Bible says, how to implement what it says.

I wonder what the point is in having a book that is supposedly written by God, if those who say they believe in that book (and who say that they believe in that same God) never- the- less do not agree on what the book teaches, and that some of them use that book to justify abusing people (financially, sexually, emotionally, physically).

You would think if God wrote a book (through men or otherwise) that he would make all of that book’s points abundantly clear so that his followers would not mess things up and get into prolonged disagreements about what the book means or how to carry out that book’s teachings.

I also note that Christians who defend prayer try to “explain away” what the biblical text says about prayer.

Jesus does in fact say in one or more of the Gospels that what ever you ask for in his name he will do – but as quasi-Christians like myself point out to the true believers, many times, your prayers will go unanswered, to which they reply, well, Jesus did not REALLY mean to say that whatever you ask for his name will come to pass.

Here are the links to the podcasts:

(Link):  Does prayer make sense? David Wilkinson vs Ed Atkinson – PODCAST

(Link):   Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine? Andrew Whyte vs Nabeel Qureshi – PODCAST

The ex-Christian guy who is on that show who argues that the conflicting interpretations of the faith and the Bible are problematic for Christianity, or may imply that Christianity is false, has a You Tube channel where he makes videos on this topic. Here it is:

After listening to both those podcasts a couple of days ago, I was not completely satisfied with the responses given to the skeptics by the Christians.

It seems to me that some Christians really under-estimate how damaging some of these particular doubts or criticisms of the faith really are.

Despite that, both shows were still interesting to listen to, and I related to what the ex-Christians or the skeptics were saying.

—–

Here are previous posts I’ve blogged about these subjects before:

Diversity of Interpretation:

(Link): Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link): More Musings about Applicability of the Old Testament, Via One Man’s Testimony About Jeremiah 29:11

(Link): Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

(Link): Pat Robertson Contradicts Himself On Healing and God’s Will

Unanswered Prayer:

(Link): Critique of Pastor Groeschel’s “I Want to Believe But…” Sermon Series

(Link):  How to Deal with Unanswered Prayers via Pastor Bil Cornelius 

(Link): Christian Viewer Expresses Disappointment in God, Wants To Know Why, In Spite of Years of Service, God is Not Helping Him

(Link):   When All We Hear from God is Silence by Diane Markins

(Link):   Gordon Robertson’s Quasi Insensitive or Lacking Advice to Cancer Patient / Unanswered Prayer / Christians should just sometimes admit They Do Not Know

(Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link): Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

(Link):  When you show God you don’t want it, that’s when God will give it to you – according to Joel Osteen – I disagree

Additional:

(Link):  Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (May 2017)

When Christians Love Theology More Than People by S. Mattson

When Christians Love Theology More Than People by S. Mattson

I first saw this mentioned on Defend The Sheep’s Twitter account.

I’ve been thinking the last few months of writing a similar essay. The guy who wrote this arrived at some of the same conclusions I have.

(Link):  When Christians Love Theology More Than People by S Mattson

Here is how the introduction starts:

  • Beyond the realm of churches, religious blogs, and bible colleges, nobody really cares about theology. What does matter is the way you treat other people.

Continue reading “When Christians Love Theology More Than People by S. Mattson”

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages 

Before we get to the post by J D Hall:

Background:

  • The Village Church (TVC) of Texas has placed Karen, who was once a member of theirs, under church discipline because she did not, according to them, abide by the church covenant she signed.
  • Instead of conferring with the church on what to do, Karen, on her own, sought an annulment from the state of Texas, once she discovered her then-spouse, Jordan, was a pedophile.
  • Karen said she spent about 50 days conferring with other Christians (not from the TVC), and in prayer, mulling over what to do, before seeking the annulment.
  • This action of hers has ticked off TVC leadership, because Karen did not get their permission to get the annulment.
  • Matt Chandler is the lead preacher of TVC.

You can read additional reporting of this situation here (additional material is at the bottom of this post):

Here is the page I am responding to:

(Link, off site): A Rational Response to the Criticism of Village Church  by  J D Hall, Pulpit and Pen blog

The covenant that Hall is so rigorously defending – TVC’s membership covenant – here does not even mention annulments.

As Karen explains (off site Link, Source):

  • …it is worth noting here that although The Village Church claims [in their e-mail] that “We see an annulment as a subcategory of what Scripture defines as a divorce in Mark 10:9” …, this cannot be found anywhere in their Membership Covenant or Bylaws.
  • In signing their Membership Covenant shortly after my 24th birthday, I had agreed to nothing in regards to the possibility of annulment should I come to realize that my marriage had been a complete sham from the beginning.
  • There is a vast difference between a divorce and a marriage that is voided on the grounds of fraud, and I had no way of knowing that the leadership of The Village Church would respond to it in this fashion.

Continue reading “A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages”

Gary Habermas joins Janet Mefferd to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer – other issues)

Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

Audio / podcast.

I have found that Janet Mefferd’s show does not work in Google Chrome (browser), sometimes does not work in FireFox, but DOES work in IE (Microsoft Internet Explorer browser). I loathe IE, but it’s the only browser that will play her show.

Habermas has recently written a book about faith and doubt or something, and he is interviewed by Janet Mefferd about it, as well as related questions, such as unanswered prayer, Christians who walk away from church because they have been hurt by other Christias, or they lost a loved one (to death), or they don’t feel Christianity is meeting their needs, etc.

You can listen to the interview here:
(I think this is hour 3 – there appears to be an hour 1 and hour 2):
(Fixed the link)

(Link): Podcast: Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life. (mentions unanswered prayer, other topics)

———————————
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link):  Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Interpretation (podcasts)

(Link):  How to Deal with Unanswered Prayers via Pastor Bil Cornelius 

(Link):   When All We Hear from God is Silence by Diane Markins

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link): Church Is Not Important, 51 Percent of US Adults Say

(Link): Guilt Tripping or Shaming the Hurt Sheep to Return to Church

(Link): Quitting Church – why single Christians aren’t going to church – church has failed Christian singles

(Link): Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link): Why People Don’t Go To Church (various links and testimonies March 2014)

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

✮ From the liberal corner:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

✮ The conservative reaction:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

✮ My reaction:
This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

    Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
    by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

    Unsavoury custom

    … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

    I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

    As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

    … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

    … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

    …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

As to this:

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

Continue reading “The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off”

Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
——————————-
REMINDER

If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.

(Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)

Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.

I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.

(However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)

If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”

No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.

You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
——————————-
Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric

Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”

Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.

If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
(Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.

(Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)

Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.

I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.

(Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.

I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.

After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)

On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.

On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.

Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.

#NOT ALL MUSLIMS

For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-

Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
“But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”

Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.

#NOT ALL ATHEISTS

When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.

Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
“How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”

Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.

However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).

You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).

Let us review.

Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.

Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.

Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.

We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.

Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.

See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

#NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.

One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.

Here is a link to the letter:
(Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room

Here is the letter:

DEAR AMY:

    My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.

The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.

I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.

I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!

By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.

What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom

Here is part of Amy’s reply:

DEAR CONCERNED:

    …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.

You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.

Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.

— (end Amy letter)—

First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.

Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.

That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.

When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”

It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.

Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

    “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”

there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.

However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.

Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

I’m not necessarily in agreement with all views of the guy behind this blog, the OTSB (Old Testament Studies Blog).

For one, he seems to be a Calvinist, and I disagree with Calvinism.

OTSB guy discusses some of the same issues at his blog that I discuss here on mine. It looks as though he has not made a new blog entry since October 2013.

Blog’s Main Page:
(Link): Old Testament Studies

(Link): The Dark Side of Evangelicalism-A Response to Accusations on the Boundless Blog
(Re: Christians denigrating singlehood and idolizing marriage)

Excerpts:

    The case in point is a recent radio podcast put out by the folks over at Boundless. Steve and Candice Watters were in Louisville, Kentucky for the Give me an Answer conference at Southern Seminary.

    While they were there, they interviewed Albert Mohler for their podcast.

    During the podcast, the following dicussion took place. I want you to read this carefully, and ask yourself if what Dr. Mohler says in the bold portion is consistent with scripture! It begins at 24:15:

    Candice- Are you encouraged by Mark Regnerus and others who are encouraging early marriage, and do you think that this movement will gain traction?

    Dr. Mohler- Well, I’ve been at that a long time, and I can tell you its extremely controversial whereas throughout most of human history that would be the mormal expectation.

    I am encouraged…It’s going to be a counter-revolution. We are literally going to have to stand against the kind of demographic tide that is coming at us, and say…you know, here is the question.

    I just want to ask you this honestly. I talk to young guys about this more than probably any other subject when they bring it up and say, you know, here is the issue: How are you going to be holy without marriage?

    And that’s a tough question to answer, unless, you know, if God has called you to missions, if God’s called you to special service and deployment in this area, then the word is going to compensate for that, but, for most guys, the big issue is just this now long wait.

(Link): Kristin and Ted Kluck Write of the Familiolatry in the Modern Church

(Link): Famliolatry on Display Again

(Link): Why Getting Married Early Will Not Stop Sexual Sin

(Link): Marital Gnosticism in Evangelicalism

Excerpts:

    I think we as a church have boughten into a form of gnosticism which I will call “marital gnosticism.” We seem to think that the way to the higher Christian life is through marriage, and, although single people are a part of the church, they simply are not as “enlightened” as those who are married.

    Hence, we need to encourage, and even shame single people into getting married, so that they will become “enlightened” like the rest of the married people. It is gross, ridiculous, gnostic thinking.

    Not only does it not work [marriage cannot change the heart; only Christ can], even worse, it alienates singles. Singles who see this kind of behavior know that they are not part of the “enlightened” gnostic group, and thus, they are pushed further and further away.

(Link): Another “Marriage is a Cure All” Message

(Link): Horrendus Eisegesis from Evangelicals in the Culture War

(Link): Challenging the Challenge to the “Unnecessary” Delay of Marriage

Continue reading “Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc”