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’”

Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage

Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage

Holy guacamole did I ever find a post by a Christian guy who really knows how to slam never-married or “single again” adults.

I was astounded by parts of this guy’s post.

I almost re-tweeted a link to his blog post about divorce from my Twitter page (I saw someone else share it on Twitter), thinking someone may find it helpful (judging from the title alone, it sounded like it might be a good page) but thankfully, I skimmed it first.

I left a reply under the guy’s post, and his blog says my post is awaiting moderation. Who knows if he will approve it to appear or not.

(August 2016 update: my comment on his blog, that I made in April 2016, is STILL tagged with the “awaiting moderation” comment on his blog. Unreal.)

I have copied in my reply farther below. I tried to be civil in my reply.

I’m going to try to be charitable here on my own blog: maybe this guy does not realize how deeply insulting his blog post is – the parts where he talks about divorced people or the never-married.

This guy should realize that upholding marriage or discouraging divorce does not necessitate INSULTING SINGLE PEOPLE.

You do not have to scare married people out of divorce by suggesting that all “single again” or never-married adults out there are great big, scary losers who have a lot of baggage, so if married people divorce, they won’t be able to find a great partner.

Continue reading “Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage”

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 in 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): Joanne The Widow Lady Wants to Know Why God Didn’t Answer Her Prayer to Keep her Husband With Her

(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”

When Sex Becomes Abusive in Marriage by J. Slattery

When Sex Becomes Abusive in Marriage by J. Slattery

There are men who identify as Christian who think the Bible teaches they are owed sex by their wives. They cherry pick and distort one or two Bible verses to try to prove this point (although the Bible says 1. the husband’s body is not his own but belongs to his wife and 2. though it is fine for a couple to abstain from sex).

There’s this guy who runs a very sexist blog where he claims that wives owe men sex, and if they don’t “put out” that the husband should punish the wife. This guy claims to be a Christian, and his blog posts are so “over the top” that people can’t figure out if he’s serious or a troll or a Poe.

You can read about him on SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) group (Link): here or (Link): here. I don’t want to directly link to the guy’s blog from mine, at least not at this time.

I have read Christian men online who claim there is no such thing as “marital rape,” though there is such a thing (laws in our nation even recognize it and outlaw it), and God does not condone of marital rape, of men taking a wife forcefully, or guilt tripping or manipulating her into sex, or threatening to punish her financially or in some other manner to get sex.

There is a lot of male entitlement among Christian men, and in certain denominations, theologies, or churches. Some preachers actually encourage this male entitlement. They twist the Scriptures to tell women that it’s God’s design for their spouse to rule over them, to get every whim and need satisfied when and how he wants it, and so on.

Many men – and this includes a lot of Christian ones – mistakenly believe that woman’s only role is to serve men, cater to men, whether that be sexually, to do nothing but cook and clean for a spouse, to bolster a man’s ego, to give them encouragement.

Never do these selfish, sexist male oafs consider how they can pamper the women around them, give encouragement to women, or meet a woman’s sexual needs and desires.

One of my disagreements in this otherwise fine piece I link you to below and offer a few excperts is where the author says that the Bible calls the husband to be “the leader” in the home – actually, no, it does not. That is a traditionalist, or complementarian type of interpretation of certain passages.

Here are off-site links to pages by Christians who have interpretations that dispute the traditional or complementarian view of marriage:

Without further ado, here are excerpts from “When Sex Becomes Abusive in Marriage” by J. Slattery.

(I don’t want to copy the entire article, so be sure to use the link here to visit their page to read the entire article, if this sort of topic interests you – I have placed portions of the article I found especially pertinent in bold face):

(Link):  When Sex Becomes Abusive in Marriage by J. Slattery

  • Sexual abuse can happen in marriage. Here are a few ways to identify it.
  • Sexual abuse within marriage can be quite a confusing concept. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach that a wife’s body belongs to her husband, and her husband’s body belongs to her?

  • Specifically, it says, “The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4). Husbands have been known to quote such biblical teaching as a justification for sexually abusing their wives or demanding sex as a God-given right, but this verse seems to leave both a woman and man open to unwanted sex.

  • The recent popularity of BDSM (which stands for Bondage, Dominance, Sadism, and Masochism) has blurred the lines of consensual sex even more. A couple that may begin by consensually experimenting with one person dominating the other in the bedroom may end up violating the will of the “submissive” spouse. This is simply sexual abuse by a chic name.
  • It’s critical to be able to recognize when your marriage has become abusive in the bedroom.
  • The dictionary defines the verb abuse as “to use something to a bad effect or for a bad purpose.” God did not create sex to be a weapon used to harm, manipulate, or coerce.

Continue reading “When Sex Becomes Abusive in Marriage by J. Slattery”

A Prayer for When You Are Waiting on the Lord by C. Fox

A Prayer for When You Are Waiting on the Lord by C. Fox

Minor Blog Update:

  • I am not sure how much blogging I will be doing from here on out. I have some things going on.
  • I had something kind of crummy and stressful happen a few days ago, and something stressful may be coming up for me in a few months time, though I’m not sure about that.
  • I am not sure how often I will be on my Twitter page ((Link): About My Twitter Page). I might be able to Tweet more than I blog, I don’t know, since Tweeting doesn’t usually involve as much effort as posting a blog page.

Anyway. I just saw this page.  Most of this was pretty good.

(Link): A Prayer for When You Are Waiting on the Lord by C. Fox

Here are some excerpts:

  • Are you currently in a place of waiting? Perhaps you are waiting for a job, for healing, for restoration in a relationship, or for wisdom to know where you should go next.That place of waiting is a place we are all familiar with.
  • It’s a place we find ourselves in often over the course of our lives.
  • Though it’s a familiar place and one we know well, we can often grow wearing in our waiting. Sometimes our hearts grow heavy with worry and doubt. Sometimes we might wonder if God has forgotten about us or given up on us.
  • The Psalmist knew that place of waiting as well. His cry of “How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? (13:1) is one that resonates with our own heart. The Psalmist cried out to God in (Link): prayer and so should we. If you are in a place of waiting, this prayer is for you.
  • Father in Heaven,
  • I come before you with my heart filled with so many different thoughts and feelings. I am tense and uncertain about what I should be doing and where I should go. I feel weak and helpless. Powerless. I am worried about what happens next and whether I have the strength to handle it. Deep down I wonder, how long will I be here? Will I be stuck in this place of waiting forever?
  • And why am I here to begin with? What’s happening, Lord? But most of all, I wonder, where are you? Why haven’t you responded to my cries for help?
  • But even as I pray that, I know you are right where you’ve always said you would be. You’ve never left me and you will never forsake me.

Continue reading “A Prayer for When You Are Waiting on the Lord by C. Fox”

The Anti Christian Bias of Ignorant and Hypocritical Kelsie the Transgender Supporter

The Anti Christian Bias of Ignorant and Hypocritical Kelsie the Transgender Supporter

I was on Twitter today and tweeted a link by a secular feminist to an article with a critique of transgenderism.

Here is a link to that critique:

(Link): What Makes A Woman? by E. Burkett (on the New York Times) – or, read excerpts from that NYT op/ed (Link): here on this blog

(another, from May 2016, on another site:(Link): Caitlyn Jenner’s Nude SI Cover is an Offense to Women Everywhere )

I do not usually cover transgender topics on Twitter or here on my blog that much, but I thought this was a very good critique. I will place in a few excerpts from it below.

Today, when I was on Twitter, some lady named Kelsie started tweeting me. Her Twitter handle is

She tweeted some link about gender on Huffington Post at me, and I only glanced at the headline.

Kelsie assumes I am 100% Christian. She does not like Christians.

There are some Non-Christian critics of transgenderism, but Kelsie automatically assumes that any critic of Trans is a Christian. She just assumes this.

The editorial I linked to that she was so offended by was written apparently by a secular, left wing feminist, NOT by a right wing Christian.

Continue reading “The Anti Christian Bias of Ignorant and Hypocritical Kelsie the Transgender Supporter”

People Really Hack Me Off (Part 1) The Hypocritical, Constantly Angry, Christian Ingrate (ex friend of mine)

People Really Hack Me Off  (Part 1) The Hypocritical, Constantly Angry, Christian Ingrate (ex friend of mine)

I normally post about marriage, dating, and similar topics on this blog, but I wanted to talk about something else for now.

This post, and maybe future ones in this series, may contain strong language (expletives).

I don’t want any Christians reading this to leave complaints about the language. You are being forewarned there will be some strong language in this post, and probably any Part 2 or 3 I write.

It might be easier for me to divvy up the people and types of people I am angry at instead of tackling it all in one post.

The wider, common theme of this post (and perhaps future ones I do on this) has to do with people abandoning me in my time of greatest need, or people who treat me like trash and take from me, even though I spent years giving to them, and showing them compassion and was there for them in their time of crisis, but they did not return these gestures.

There’s been indifference and apathy to me and my situation, by church people, extended family, and some of these friends I am talking about in this post or in possible future posts.

To keep my anonymity intact, I will change around some details and names in the examples or stories I am telling.

Here is my first story.

I know this post will be very long, so you may get the feeling that this is a super huge deal in my life, but oddly, it’s not.

It’s rather minor, actually, it just takes me a long time to explain it. And to VENT about it.

But it does have me pissed off, still, months later.

It’s not that this incident or two alone in this post is huge and is what has me upset, it’s that it is a part of the smaller “drip – drip – drip” comprising the torrent of rain, and the ocean, and the sea, of consistent betrayal and pain other people have caused me the last few years.

I have – or had – an online friend.

We don’t really stay in touch anymore, our relationship is kind of vague and undefined at the moment.

We met in a forum several years ago. She is several years younger than I am. I think I may have mentioned her on this blog in a very old post or two.

I’m going to call her “Ellen.”

I have an older sister. I’ll call my older sister “Shirley,” which is not her real name.

I may do a separate post about Shirley in a future post.

All I will say for now is that Ellen and Shirley are very similar people. They have similar personalities.

So, when you read about “Ellen” here, just remember I’ve been dealing with this from an older sibling since childhood as well.

And good lord am I ever tired of both of them. I have had my fill.

Ellen and I became friends several years ago on a forum. We exchanged e-mail addresses and sometimes e-mailed each other.

Ellen would confide in me at times about her problems.

I was supportive of her. I would give her words of encouragement and just let her know I was listening and cared.

Ellen turned down my offer to give her a phone call once, when she was going through a very stressful time. I volunteered to phone her and just listen if she needed to vent or cry.

Ellen had financial problems for a few years, she shared with me that she is obese (she weighs 200 or more pounds).

Ellen also told me that she quit her one, old professional, full time, job in a fit of anger and regretted it.

Ellen says she wants a boyfriend, has never had a boyfriend, and worries she will never get one because of her excess weight.

Ellen told me she had student loan debts, and creditors kept hounding her all the time, and this went on for 2 or more years.

I was sympathetic to her during this time.

Ellen has a temper. She is almost always angry at someone or something.

If you visit this blog, recall you are not seeing a full picture of me. I may come across perpetually angry on my blog to you, but that is because I use this blog for the express purpose of venting about how singles are treated so poorly by churches.

Most often when I make blog posts here, I am not angry. I just come on to post a link and leave.

I’m not an angry person all the time.

As I crawl out of codependency the last couple of years, there has been some anger.

I have read content by psychologists who say it’s normal for someone coming out of codependency, like I am, to be intensely angry for a year or more as they work through their repressed anger.

But even in spite of that, and in spite of my ranty blog posts about singles and the church, I’m not an angry person at the core.

If I default to any negative emotions at all (when I am not on this blog), I am more inclined to become depressed or suffer anxiety, than I am to get angry or to act angry.

But my friend Ellen’s default emotional state and way of dealing with life  – and this is so true of my sister “Shirley” as well – is to stay angry and to explode in absolute rages from time to time.

Ellen is an angry person at her core. That is one of her defining qualities.

Continue reading “People Really Hack Me Off (Part 1) The Hypocritical, Constantly Angry, Christian Ingrate (ex friend of mine)”

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”

Regarding: Discrediting the Bible on the Misinterpretation of Its Text

Discrediting the Bible on the Misinterpretation of Its Text

The title of this post comes from the comments of a guy named Dan Musick on the SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) group.

Drury, who is the moderator of the SCCL group, linked to this:

(Link): “Bible believing” pastors and the enabling of domestic violence

Dan Musick left this comment in that thread on SCCL (link to Musick’s comment):

  • Anyone using “fundamental Christianity” as an excuse for spousal abuse only shows that they have no actual clue what the fundamentals of Christianity are…..and to try to discredit the Bible based on misinterpretations of its text is not a productive exercise.

I used to believe that way myself. To an extent, that view has some validity.

On the other hand, one reason of 567 billion I now take issue with the Christian faith, after having been a conservative Christian since youth, is that so many Christians have in fact been misinterpreting the Bible for  so many centuries.

American Christians in the 19th century used biblical passages mentioning slavery as justification to keep black people as slaves. Christians today use one or two cherry picked verses to keep women out of preaching and leadership roles, and to insist that husbands have authority over wives. So, the Bible has been misinterpreted in many ways by many people for years, and it still is.

Even Christians who are conservative, who say they believe in “sola scriptura” sometimes arrive at totally opposing views about what the biblical text means, and when and how to apply what it says.

I don’t for the life of me understand why, if the text was written under the guidance of a deity, why that deity has allowed the text to be so unclear on some points, or to be so flexible, that anyone can twist it to mean anything they want it to, and at that, to hurt entire groups of people, such as 19th century black Americans or women today.

This is not something I care to discuss too much more in this post, because I’ve written about it on older posts, like here:

The fact is that physically and verbally abusive husbands can, do, and have, used the Bible to justify why they feel it is acceptable for them to beat or control their wives.

Often times, the same Bible verses these abusers point to as proof to justify their spousal abuse are the very same ones that gender complementarian Christians use to refuse women to serve as preachers, leaders, and in other such roles.

Who is to say which interpretations of the Bible are right and wrong? Christians cannot agree on baptism, transubstantiation, eternal security vs conditional security, etc.

What is the point in having a book supposedly written by a deity if nobody can agree on much of what that book says, or if some of them cherry pick and proof text that book, and do so in order to discriminate against groups of people, or to take advantage of people? And that is exactly what has been going on with the Bible for many centuries.

There may be some concepts in the Bible that are pretty clear – I am not a fan of liberal Christians who behave like the entire text is silly putty and can and should be interpreted in any old way one wishes – but I’m not as in line with the conservatives any more either, who act like the Bible is so clear on every topic there is, or who take it lightly that the Bible has been abused and wielded like a weapon to harm people.

—————————-

Related Posts:

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

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

(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):   Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11 and Its Application

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

(Link): Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry – from New Life Blog

Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry

I have done many blog posts about topics mentioned in this other blog post from New Life Blog, which I have linked to farther below.

A lot of conservative Christians sound no different than the secular culture they criticize in terms of the subjects of sex, a woman’s physical appearance, marriage, and so on.

For example, conservative Christians will tell single women who desire marriage that they shouldn’t be too wrapped up in their looks, that any man worth his salt will value you based on your character and brains, remember that Jesus loves you for who you are, not what you look like, so don’t burn yourself out on dieting…

Yet, these same Christians will turn around a moment later and tell Christian single women something like, “But remember, God created men to be visually oriented, so you MUST stay thin, pretty, and attractive, and wear make-up all the time, if you hope to attract and keep a man, and here are some dieting tips for you.”

Yes, Christians often speak out of both sides of their mouths on this topic.

Another annoying tendency I have seen from male Christian speakers, authors, and pastors is to refer to a biblical woman character’s physical appearance, even if it’s a tangent to the text at hand.

Male Christians will sometimes pause in the middle of a sermon or discussion on Adam and Eve, for example, to go on and on about how surely, since Eve was the only woman created directly by God, she must have been a sexy, babe-a-licious fox, yum yum.

Seriously, one Christian guy – a famous author who has his own weekly TV show – I’ve seen who brings this topic up about every time he discusses Adam and Eve practically starts to salivate when thinking about how hot and sexy Eve must have been.

I suspect this guy must have a porn addiction problem, or something of that nature; his extreme fixation on Eve’s appearance makes him seem creepy, perverted, and sexist.

I notice these male idiots never mention that Adam must have been a smoking hot, sexy, hunk of man. And believe you me, most women, even Christian ones, are also “visually oriented” and prefer a hot, good looking, buff man, to an ugly, scrawny, obese, or bald one.

At any rate, I present to you a link  to another blog page which discusses some of these topics and other ones:

(Link): Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry from New Life Blog

This blog starts out by describing how women are frequently depicted in the Old Testament: often, women’s physical beauty or virginity is mentioned, and women are usually identified in relation to a man, such as their father, brother, or husband.

Here are excerpts:

  • Women in the New Testament
  • So, how many New Testament (NT) women are described as being beautiful? None. Not one.
  •   Moreover, Paul and Peter dissuaded women from concentrating on their appearance; instead they encouraged women to focus on their character and good works. Admittedly these instructions were given mainly to wealthy married women, and not to potential brides.
  • [cut pertinent Bible verses the blog author cites]
  • Women in the New Testament are mentioned primarily in reference to their Christian faith and ministry, and not in terms of their beauty or marriageability.  We simply do not know whether any NT woman was particularly good looking, or not.
  • Also, many NT women are not mentioned in connection with a male relative. This is unlike OT women who were (Link):  typically identified as either a wife, daughter, mother or sister of a certain man.
  • We don’t even know the marital status of several NT women.

Continue reading “Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry – from New Life Blog”

Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

Yep, another fine example of why I gave up on the “be equally yoked” teaching, because even Bible using, Bible believing Christian men rape little children.

(Link): Man arrested for sex crimes on juveniles

(Link): Bible Study Teacher Arrested On Multiple Counts Of Sexual Molestation

(Link): Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

  • A man has been arrested in Corona, California, for allegedly teaching Bible study as an excuse to lure children into his private home and molest them.
  •  According to CBS Local Los Angeles, 54-year-old Bible study teacher Shawn Edward Shaffer of Corona was taken into custody on Monday on suspicion of sexually molesting juveniles under the age of 16. Police say the man was possibly conducting Bible studies for youths in his home, and using that opportunity to take sexual advantage of minors. The Bible study teacher has not been officially charged, but authorities are investigating the truth behind his peculiar private Bible classes.
  • The Bible teacher is being detained at Robert Presley Detention Center in Corona on $3 million bail, according to police officials. He is facing multiple accounts of sexual molestation of minors, which could mean Shaffer was regularly using Bible study as a trick to continually bring victims into his home.
  • It’s unclear how many children were victimized by Shaffer’s Bible class ruse, because detectives were only recently made aware of the man’s crimes by fully grown men. Several adult males have come forward with allegations about the Bible teacher, claiming that they were sexually abused as children within the city of Corona. Authorities haven’t confirmed yet if these men are claiming to have attended Shaffer’s Bible study, but the implication seems to be that the man were victims of the Bible teacher.
  • According to Inland News Today, Shaffer not only used Bible lessons as a method to lure children into his home. He would also hang around local skate parks, presumably to speak to the juveniles and advertise his Bible class.
  • ———–

Related

(Link): Married Preacher With Two Kids of His Own Accused of 37 Sex Acts With Two Kids – According to News Story, He Also Sexually Harassed Female Co-Worker

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

(Link): Youth Pastor Molests Daughter, Lead Pastor Dedicates Children to Satan

(Link): Married Youth Pastor Father of Four Caught Raping and Molesting Several Little Boys claims the molesting kept the boys sexually pure and cures them of homosexuality

(Link): Married Father Who Worked as Police Officer Raped Wife After Drugging Her and Murdered Her and Their Children

(Link): Father Has Sex With His Own Children, Forces Them to Have Sex with Dog, His Wife and Ex Wife Participate

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

I don’t have a link for this. I was watching Christian show “700 Club” about a week ago. There was a testimony by a guy on there who said he grew up with his family taking him to church and presenting an image of God as a violent jerk who predestines for you to suffer and have misery.

As this guy grew older, he had some tough times. I don’t recall his exact life story – I think he became a hard core drug addict, robbed little old ladies, was in a gang, and so on. I don’t remember the specifics.

I also don’t recall the exact context of how he heard Jeremiah 29:11 for the first time – I think he said he was invited to church by a friend, and the preacher quoted Jer 29.11 from the pulpit.

This guy had never heard Jer 29:11 before, but this verse really clicked for him.

He said for the first time in his life, he said he understood God’s character better: that the God he had been taught (probably in Calvinist or Reformed churches) is not the God of the Bible.

That is, when bad things happened to him in his life, he realized that those bad things were not God’s plan for him or his life (which is what he had been taught at a previous church in boyhood).

Here is Jeremiah 29:11:

  • 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Reading or hearing that verse for the first time revoluntionized that guy’s life. It shifted his whole paradigm of who God is and gave him a sense of hope for the future. He became a Christian.

I am bringing this up because I keep seeing Christians online yell and scream that Old Testament verses are not, in their opinions, meant for Christians today – a view that does not completely make sense to me.

If they don’t get cranky about it, some of these Christians mock and ridicule Christians who use such Old Testament promises for themselves today. And these are usually the Christians who claim to be “sola scriptura.”

Assuming God exists: who is to say that God does not harken a certain Old Testament verse written specifically for Joe- Bob- the- Jew back in the year 3,245 B.C. for a Christian reading that verse today? I believe some Christians call this a “Rhema” word?

Just because a verse was written in first context for Edna the Hittite back in 4,893 BC does not necessarily mean that God does not think it cannot or does not apply it to a Christian today who is going through a particular circumstance.

It’s strange how hyper sola scripturaists continue to limit the Bible and its applicability; they make half the Bible null and void for anyone who is a Christian today.

Hyper Sola Scripturists, biblicists, whatever term they should be nailed with, tend to think that the Holy Spirit does not do miraculous works today (such as healings), and they think that the Old Testament is only for ancient Jews. Which leaves them with what, a weak, Deist God who refuses to intervene directly in his creation today and half a Bible that is dead, largely irrelevant, and moot?

I find it fascinating that a man who was lost said it took hearing Jeremiah 29.11 to turn his life around today, in 2015 or 2014, or whenever this pivotal point happened.

Some Christians will argue that Jer 29.11 (which is in the Old Testament) applies only to ancient Jews in their particular historical context of the time and not to Gentile believers today, but a man today, in or around 2015, found healing in that very verse. So, is Jeremiah 29:11 really only for ancient Jews when God (if he exists) is using it to reach Gentiles in 2015?

———————-

October 6, 2015  Update.

And I just saw this in my Twitter feed, via Crosswalk:

(Link): Stop Taking Jeremiah 29:11 Out of Context!

See? Christians are still debating if Jer 29.11 is applicable for Christians today or not. I can guarantee you that in several months time, there will either be a Christian on TV or in a blog post arguing the opposite of this Cross walk page – that Jer 29.11 is in fact applicable for believers today.

———————————-

Related posts:

(Link):  Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11

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

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

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

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

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account Sometimes

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account

(Link): My Twitter Page

I don’t care how many followers I have on Twitter.

This post is not about driving up my Twitter followers.

You can book mark my Twitter page and visit it every so often (that is, you don’t have to follow me, if you bookmark the page and visit it, it will not drive up my follower numbers).

Why would you want to visit my Twitter page?

Because I sometimes come across a lot of news stories there that I do not have the time or interest in blogging about here.

I come across many stories about child abuse by parents, married people who commit crimes, new trends in dating and marriage, why people quit church, articles about sexism (I basically tweet about the same stuff I blog about here), etc, and I simply cannot keep up with it all.

It’s much easier for me to re-tweet news stories I see on twitter than to fire up this blog, and make a post about everything.

One of the annoying things about this blog is I have to not just write up the material, but I have to add categories or tags to each post, which I tire of doing. It’s ten times faster and easier to send a tweet to an article than to write it up here.

So, you may want to consider visiting my Twitter page. The right side of this blog, towards the bottom, shows my latest tweets, but it only goes up to the last 15 or 20 and does not show them all.

You don’t have to join Twitter and “follow” me on there – you can just bookmark the page and visit once in a while. There may be links to articles on there that I do not blog about here.

(Link): My Twitter Page

At some point in the future, I may not be able to Tweet or blog as much as before.

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

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

Christians can’t seem to agree on when or if the promises in the Bible – especially Old Testament ones – apply to Christians today.

Here is another example of writers on another Christian site attempting to explain which promises are meant for Christians today and which are not:

(Link): Which Promises Are For Me? on The Gospel Coalition site, written by Jen Wilkin

I have more comments below this.

Excerpts:

  • Not many things are more comforting than a promise made and kept. And not many things are more hurtful than a promise broken. Knowing we worship a God who keeps his promises is a source of deep joy. But misapplied, this knowledge can also lead us to treasure-hunt Scripture for promises in problematic ways.
  • How can we know which promises are for us? How can we lay claim to the promises of the Bible without overstepping their application? Here are some common pitfalls to keep in mind as you study.
  • Common Mistakes

    Confusing a promise with a principle. Promises are always fulfilled 100 percent of the time. Principles state general truths.

  • The book of Proverbs is often mistaken for a book of promises, when in fact it is a book of principles. The principle of “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6) is generally true and wise to heed. But it is not a guarantee that every child raised with godly instruction will become a believer in Jesus.
  • Ignoring the context. We often apply a promise to ourselves before considering its original audience or its historical, cultural, or textual context. In some cases, a promise was made to a specific person for a specific reason and has no further application beyond its immediate context. In other cases, the application can only be properly made after the promise is understood in its original context.
  • God’s promise to Abram of land and offspring (Gen. 12:1–3) cannot be taken to mean God will give me a house or children. It can, however, be applied to mean he will give me a spiritual inheritance through Christ.
  • Overlooking the “if.” Promises that contain an “If” require some form of obedience before we can expect them to come to pass in our lives. They are conditional.
  • Limiting a promise to your own understanding. Even when we rightly recognize a promise as intended for us, we often impose our own understanding of exactly how it will be fulfilled. Or we are tempted to impose our own timeline on its fulfillment.
  • Yes, God does have a plan to prosper you and not to harm you (Jer. 29:11), but as in the case of the people to whom those words were originally written, that “you” is more likely a collective reference to the body of believers, and that plan may play out across centuries in ways we can’t possibly predict.
  • To recognize this intent does not diminish the beauty of the promise at all. It actually enhances it.
  • Do your homework. Before you write it on a note card for your fridge, before you post it on Instagram or shop for it on a coffee mug or declare it your life verse, make a thorough study of where your promise lives in Scripture and in biblical history. Make sure it’s a general promise, not a specific promise to someone else or just a general principle to observe. Check for any “ifs” that might change its application.

The page goes on and on like that; click the link at top if you’re interested in seeing the full article.

Perhaps some Christians needed to be made aware of these things, but I’m over 40 years of age, have been a Christian since before I hit age ten, have read the entire Bible as well as many books about Christian theology and apologetics.

I don’t think I really need a basic primer on these things at this stage.

I find a lot of the points in the article are rather basic and based on common sense.

Even under her “Do Your Homework” section, I’m sorry, but Christians to this day still debate and fuss over if Jeremiah 29.11 is for believers only today (she mentions that passage in her article).

She seems to feel that Jer 29.11 is for ancient Israelites only, but I still find other Christians who believe it’s equally applicable to Christians in America in 2015.

Her article only adds to the confusion, in my view. That Christians have to keep explaining and teaching which biblical promises and verses apply to whom does not clarify the situation, but piles on.

I can guarantee you if Christians of other denominations read this page (I refer again to (Link): Which Promises Are For Me? ) that this lady wrote, they will each have their own particular objections or areas of disagreement.

—————–

Related Posts:

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

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

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

(Link):   Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11 and Its Application

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

(Link): Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything

Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

This is a page that touches on a topic I’ve brought up on my blog a time or two.

(Link):  Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant

The author of that ‘Unpublished’ page mentions Roman Catholicism.

As much as I consider the constant Protestant and Baptist disagreement over certain things in the Bible problematic, I don’t think the solution is becoming Roman Catholic and accepting that their Pope’s ex cathedra statements or their Magisterium is the answer.

Catholics, for one, get all sorts of things wrong – they believe that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven; they believe that praying to or for the dead is acceptable; they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary; they believe in Transubstantiation; they reject that salvation is by faith alone – all sorts of wrong things.

Then Roman Catholics tack on 3 or 4 books (called the Apocrypha) to the Jewish and Protestant canon to “prove” to the Protestants that yes, they have “biblical” support for some of their weird doctrines.

Although the Vatican tells Catholics that birth control is wrong and bad, and that pro-life is the way to go, I have seen many news reports that American Roman Catholic women get abortions and use birth control.

Several years ago, I even saw websites by American Roman Catholics who say they support the legalization of abortion. Catholics are not in unity – not even in doctrine, so I do wish they’d stop lobbing this accusation at Protestants, as though the RC is any better.

Their Pope and Magisterium can sit there all day long and claim that the official Roman Catholic stance on Topic X is “blah blah whatever,” but that doesn’t mean the rank and file Catholics are going to agree with it, or follow that doctrine or rule. Because sometimes they don’t.

I do by and large still believe the Bible should be taken literally – as opposed to the liberal Christians who treat the Bible with extreme skepticism or who act like it’s okay to treat the Bible as though it’s silly putty and warp it any way they want – but I do acknowledge some of the points raised in this page:

(Link):  Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant

Excerpts:

  • People who claim to literally interpret the inspired and inerrant Word of God do not agree on what the bible says.
  • Christian Smith calls this “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” And this pervasive interpretive pluralism isn’t just found among progressives and liberals. It is found among evangelicals and fundamentalists, among the very people who claim that they are reading the bible very, very literally.
  • Pervasive interpretive pluralism exists among biblical literalists.
  • Which brings us to the problem at the heart of Protestantism.
  • The problem at the heart of Protestantism is that the bible is unable to produce consensus. This isn’t a theological claim. This is an empirical fact.
  • Sola scriptura produces pluralism. The “bible alone” creates doctrinal diversity. Biblical literalism proliferates churches.
  • The alternative is to be delusional, pretending that opening the bible brings everyone to a consensus. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t happen.

Continue reading “Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything”

Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan

Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan 

I actually already addressed this briefly in an older post from a few days ago, but I really feel this needs its own post.

That guy who used to post to this blog, who has his own blog about Christianity and celibacy (his name is John Morgan, and he blogs (Link): here), who I banned from my blog several months ago, keeps asserting in some of his recent blog posts that two people having sex (which he limits to a man having sex with a woman, if I am understanding his views correctly) constitutes marriage.

Here are some of the posts where he equates having sex to being married:

I disagree, for a few different reasons, but right off I want to say that this teaching can be damaging to sexual assault victims.

Do you really expect me to believe that a woman who is raped by a man makes the two married, and particularly in our day and age?

We are living in the year 2015 in the United States.

We are not living in the same setting and time in which the Old Testament was written, a patriarchal, Middle Eastern culture of 5,000 or 2,000 BC, when women had few rights and we’re looking to keep the family tree pure to be able to trace the Messiah.

Women today are simply not expected to marry their rapists, if they are raped.

One of my family members was raped prior to the age of ten by another family member of hers.

I had an online friend for a few years who is about the same age as me. She confided with me that she has never had consensual sex (she is waiting until marriage for sex), but she was raped by one of her uncles when she was a teen.

While I realize that rape is considered less about sex than it is about power and control on the part of the rapist, it still involves a man placing his penis in a woman’s vagina, or possibly other sex acts.

For John Morgan to run around insisting that sexual intercourse between two people is the basis for marriage is troubling and insensitive – because not everyone who engages in this is doing so of his or her own choice or volition.

In some parts of the world, little girls (and sometimes boys) are sold into the human sex trafficking business, where they are forced to have sex with adults all day. Don’t tell me these horribly abused little kids are “married” to their “clients,” that is deranged and sick.

There are some marriages – like with asexuals – where the marriage is not consummated. There are also marriages that become “sexless” after so many months or years because one or both partners have mental or physical health problems.

Paul in the New Testament tells Christians not to step too far out of bounds with whatever culture they are living in, because it could cause harm to the testimony of the faith.

That is, if you are needlessly refusing to go along with culture on some disputable matter or another – say, for example, riding a plaid ostrich to work, when all other Americans are riding horses to work, and the horse-riders think you a fool or odd-ball for riding an ostrich- you are making all Christians and the Gospel by association look like wacko, weirdo, fruit cakes, and Paul said to Knock That Off.

Paul was saying if something is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, if God does not condemn it, such as what mode of transportation to take, he said, go ahead and ride a horse in your culture, if that is what all your neighbors are using. Don’t be an ass and go against the grain.

You can argue, well, there is a single verse in the Old Testament that says some guy rode an ostrich to his job. Okay, but unless that verse specifically said, “Thus saith the LORD, I hate humans riding horses and forbid all believers from riding horses for all time,” don’t assume that the ostrich thing is a prescriptive for Americans in the year 2015.

Ditto on the how to get married angle.

The Old Testament is chock full of kings having 300 or more concubines, or 20 wives. Abraham had sex with his handmaiden as well as with his wife Sarah, and rapists were commanded to marry their rape victims. Do you really want Americans in 2015 emulating those types of marriages?

Just because Adam and Eve in the Garden as mentioned in the book of Genesis did not have to go to a courthouse and sign papers to make things legal with a government in Year One B.C. does not mean that Christians in 2015 can or should disregard going through governmental channels and get a marriage license.

Adam and Eve were under the direct supervision with God prior to the fall. As an American today, I don’t have that face to face contact with God. So I cannot get God to validate a marriage of mine.

My parents were very old fashioned, traditional, Christian people.

My parents always said that when two people live together – when a man and woman live under the same roof, are having sex with one another, they do not go to the courthouse, don’t sign on the legal papers – they are not married, they are “shacking up.” This was regarded as a sin by them and many other Christians for the past few decades.

If an American couple in 2015 is living together and having sex without the government license that recognizes their union as being a marriage, they are NOT MARRIED.

(There is such a thing as common law marriage, but that is neither here nor there.)

The sex act alone is not sufficient to say a couple is “married.”  ~ Not in the USA in the year 2015.

For all the couples who are married but asexual (there is no sexual intercourse), they are still married. They would probably be pretty offended for John Morgan to insist their marriage is not really a marriage because of absence of sex.

What if a husband who is serving in the Marines gets deployed to serve in Afghanistan and hence is not having sex with his wife for a year or more? Does their marriage cease to be a marriage just because there’s no sex?

What if the husband gets into an auto accident, and remains a vegetable or very brain damaged, is like an infant, until he dies five years later (this actually happened to an aunt of mine)?

Are you going to tell me that because there is no longer any sex in that marriage it suddenly makes it a non-marriage? What bunk.

How does John Morgan define “sex,” anyway?

Many Christians cannot even agree on what constitutes sex.

Many evangelicals, who are brought up in “purity culture,” are taught that only penis-in-the-vagina action is “sex,” so, to get around this limitation, they engage in anal sex, oral sex, petting prior to marriage – the get involved in anything and everything short of P in V sex.

You have lesbians who get angry at Christians over discussing the importance of virginity (seriously, yes, see this old post), because, they recognize that many Christians define sex as being only or predominantly “penis-in-the-vagina action,” which lifelong lesbian women may never experience, yet, those lesbian women are performing oral sex on each other, or what have you.

From the lesbian perspective, from what I’ve read, they consider oral sex or scissoring, or whatever else, to be equally valid to P in V sex.

So, these lesbians are having sex with each other – but according to John Morgan, that means these women are “married” to each other. (Or is he going to define sex to mean only P in the V?)

Yet Morgan seems to feel that “homosexual marriage” is not “real,” and he also (and this is very strange) feels that celibacy is only for HETERO-sexuals (see this post for more on that). He definitely believes that (Link): Are Homosexual Thoughts Sinful [Yes, he says] .

Er… according to Morgan, homosexual thoughts are sinful, but homosexuals should not practice celibacy? His views are really mixed up.

In the Gospels, Jesus said to even “look at in lust” another person was seen as God as being as wrong as actually having sex with that person….

Does that mean every time a person fantasizes about “doing the nasty” with their favorite celebrity or their crush (that is, they just think about it, they don’t actually DO IT), they are “married” to that person? According to John Morgan logic, yes, but I don’t think so.

Are all the porn stars who have sex with each other for the sake of making a naughty movie, are they  “married” to each other, even in God’s eyes? I doubt it.

How about this pervert mentioned in an (Link): older blog post of mine: he sticks his penis into a horse’s vagina at least once a month and has sex with the horse, or sometimes performs oral sex on the horse.

Do you really expect me to believe God would think this sicko is “married” to that horse? And does the horse get a say in any of this?

If your only criteria as to what makes a marriage a marriage is Penis In the Vagina (or any other sex act), you really need to re-examine your views.

I don’t have the perfect all encompassing definition of marriage myself, but I know a true marriage when I see it, AND I think I know what IT IS NOT, and it’s not merely penis in the vagina activity. I think it takes more for one person to be married to another than sex.

As to this, in (Link): one of his posts,

Yeah, I blogged about that and tweeted about it weeks before he mentioned it there on his blog,

By the way, unless I overlooked it in the reporting, the stories said ALL single adults are banned, not just men. That would mean unaccompanied WOMEN singles are also barred.

Yep, the (Link): NY Daily News said,

  • A British theme park has banned unaccompanied adults from entry — in case they are pedophiles.Bosses at Puxton Park, in Somerset, forbid men and women from visiting the attraction on their own just in case they are child sex predators, reports the Western Daily Press. The rule came to light Thursday after a bird-watcher was barred from visiting a falconry display.

Why, one wonders, does Morgan keep laser focusing on MEN?

Morgan keeps painting this picture on his blog of celibate / single males having life ten times worse than celibate / single women. I don’t think so, bub. That article says unmarried men AND women are banned, NOT JUST MEN.

Do I think single men have life tough in some regards? Absolutely – especially in a Christian environment, where most Christians worship marriage.

However, I don’t think single men necessarily have life more difficult than single women. Women actually have it a bit worse because they are expected to reproduce and make babies. Men don’t get near as much pressure to reproduce.

Single men past the age of 40 are often called “confirmed bachelors,” while single women my age get more derogatory terms thrown their way, such as “spinster,” “crazy cat lady,” or “old maid.”

Women my age or older who desire marriage are often automatically (Link): pegged as “being desperate,” by some people, including Christians, but I don’t see men my age (or older) who want marriage get tarred with the same terminology or assumptions.

(But, I would say that older single men get pegged with the (Link): “You Must Be A Pedophile” view  more often than the single ladies do. Thank Dog that is one less stereotype I have to deal with.)

I still wonder if Morgan visits my blog or Twitter feed and takes material or story ideas? If he does, the polite thing to do is cite his source – in the blogging community, it’s common to give hat tips to one’s sources.

I also find it funny because Morgan thinks I am untrustworthy because I don’t give my real name. I’m trustworthy enough to take news story ideas from, apparently.  If you think I am untrustworthy please stop visiting my blog and/or Twitter and taking news links or story ideas from me!

But Morgan really, really needs to realize how much his equation of “Sex = Marriage” harms some people (such as rape victims), and it’s a view that makes no sense, and opens the door for homosexuals (the ones having sex with others of their own gender) to argue they can consider themselves “married.”

—————————–

Related posts:

(Link):  Blogger Guy John Hugh Morgan Who Accused Me Of Being Untrustworthy Finds My Blog Trustworthy Enough to Use as Resource

(Link): True Love Waits . . . and Waits . . . and Waits – editorial about delayed marriage and related issues – and a rebuttal to John Morgan’s comment on the page

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Dan Navin [written by a homosexual celibate]

(Link):  Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

(Link):  Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female? John Morgan Says Men Are, I Say He’s Full of Crap on That

(Link):  Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

(Link):  Why I Post Anonymously ( Part 2 – the John Hugh Morgan Fiasco )

(Link):  “Marriage is the closest you can come to being like Christ.” ~ says an obnoxious married Christian man to an unmarried woman

(Link):  Regnerus’ Misplaced Blame – Blame the Wimmins! Common male refrain, even from Christian men

(Link): Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog

(Link): Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

(Link):  The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity

Hypocrisy Among Christians and how it leads some to question or leave the Christian faith

Hypocrisy Among Christians and how it leads some to question or leave the Christian faith

I have a few other topics or news stories I wanted to blog about today and the other day, but I find myself getting sidetracked to discuss these other issues. Maybe I’ll blog about the rest tomorrow or next weekend.

This topic is (for me anyhow) rather complex. I don’t want to spend a lot of time explaining it, but it’s one I’ve seen crop up recently on other sites or in my personal life, and this will probably be another one of my long posts. Even though I have other things I wanted to do today, like bake a batch of cookies.

Whether Christians like it or not, some Christians, including lifelong Christians such as myself, are either considering leaving the faith, or have done so already, and all because the hypocrisy they see in self professing Christians.

Continue reading “Hypocrisy Among Christians and how it leads some to question or leave the Christian faith”

Christians Can Never Agree On Anything – even minute, trivial stuff

Christians Can Never Agree On Anything – even minute, trivial stuff

Christians can almost never agree on anything.

And no, the Roman Catholics aren’t right, either, they have some screwed up theology, too.

The typical Roman Catholic response to “Protestants disagree a lot” is to say, “Hey, yeah, tell me something I don’t already know, but gosh golly, the RC is in total unity on everything, so convert to Catholicism” (and no, Roman Catholics are not in unity on everything, either, despite their claim to the contrary).

But anyway. This is one of many, many reasons I don’t really want to stay a Christian anymore.

Christians cannot agree on anything, whether big, important topics, or smaller ones, or anything inbetween.

Such as:

(Link): Why Making a New Year’s Resolution Is a Good Idea

  • BY RICK MCDANIEL, CP GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
  • January 2, 2015|10:49 am
  • The start of a new year is always an opportunity. It is a fresh beginning, a new chapter, another chance to get it right. Why would anyone not take advantage of such a moment? Some will say it is not good to make resolutions because no one ever keeps resolutions. But that is not true.
  • …John Norcross, professor at the University of Scranton, has written on change and is an expert on new year’s resolutions. He says that at the six-month period of a resolution, 40 percent of people are still keeping their resolutions. Furthermore, other research shows if you make the same resolution three years in a row, there is a high probability it will actually happen.

So McDaniel believes it’s a good idea for people to make NYR (New Years Resolutions), or, at the very least, it’s not wrong to make NYRs.

Edit, Jan 3, 2014, here is a new link I just found (John Piper is a preacher and Christian book author):

(Link): John Piper: Christians Should Make New Year’s Resolutions; God Wants to Fulfill Them

  • Preacher and teacher John Piper asked, “Should we make resolutions? Should we do this?” in a recent video on the DesiringGod.org website.
  • “The answer is a resounding yes indeed we should,” he answered. Piper went on to explain that Christians should make 2015 resolutions because God has the power to fulfill them and wants to do so for His and our glorification.

Compare that to some other story I saw on Christian sites the day before warning Christians NOT to make New Year’s resolutions, such as….

(Link): Billy Graham’s grandson warns against New Year’s resolutions 

(Link):  Tullian Tchividjian on How New Year’s Resolutions Can Be Spiritually Damaging

(Link):  Tullian Tchividjian on How New Year’s Resolutions Can Be Spiritually Damaging

  • TT: When it’s up to you to go out and get the love you crave, create your own worth, or work at becoming acceptable to those you want to impress, life gets heavy.
  • New Year’s Resolutions are a burdening attempt to fix ourselves and make ourselves more lovable. But here’s the good news: God loves us as we are, not as we should be.

This Christian disagreement over New Years resolutions reminds me of all the food news over the years.

When I was in my 20s, I heard the news report that scientists and nutritionists tell the public NOT to eat apples, because apples have Alar on them.

Then they said Eggs are bad for  you, so don’t eat eggs.

They also said butter and fats are bad for your weight, so avoid those, but bread was OK.

Since that time, they have totally reversed course, and I now see news reports saying Eggs are good for you, low fat is BAD, bread is BAD, and apples are safe to eat.

It’s so bad – the contradictions about diet and food that come out every few years – that I now totally ignore what the scientists, nutritionists, and doctors say and eat whatever I want.

One minute, the scientists are saying, “Don’t eat X, X is bad for you” but then two years later, they say to the public, “We were wrong about X, we now believe X is safe to eat and even good for you.”

It’s the same thing in Christianity, or very similar.

If you ask ten different Christians for their opinion on topic “X,” especially if it’s a topic about morality or biblical interpretation or doctrine, you will get ten different answers.

If nobody who claims Christ can agree on much of the faith or the Bible, what is the point?

They all have their different interpretations. They each insist THEIR interpretation is the only RIGHT, CORRECT one.

Then you have the problem of evil and suffering caused by self professing Christians who use and twist the Bible, or pluck Bible verses out of context, to mistreat other people – and some of these people sincerely think they are doing the right thing, or are following God; they do not honestly believe they are hurting anyone else with their (mis)understanding of the Scriptures.

Even if the Bible is truly the Word of God, much abuse has been done from that same book by people who sincerely think they are doing as it says.

——————————

Related posts:

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

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

(Link):   Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11 and Its Application

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

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post site: “Rethinking Date Rape”

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post: “Rethinking Date Rape”

I am surprised I have not seen more Christians tweet or write in criticism of this page:

(Link): Rethinking Date Rape by Hope Ferguson – on The Christian Post

Here are some excerpts:

  • … Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?
  • According to the latest statistics, one in five women on American campuses has been subject to acquaintance rape. Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.
  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”
  • ….If a woman decides that a consensual encounter is now not to her liking, and she tells the man to stop, but in a frenzy of testosterone and pleasure, he refuses, is that rape? Does her later no cancel out her earlier yes?If a young woman, such as one profiled in the New York Times recently, gets stinking drunk at a frat party with equally drunk young men, and finds herself “taken advantage of,” is that rape?
  • …While the young men, every bit as immature and drunk as the young women, are excoriated and raked across society’s collective coals, the young women are absolved from all liability and responsibility for their behavior.
  • We are not talking about mature adults preying on kids.
  • We are talking about peers and how they think about, negotiate, and act on their sexual desires.The Columbia student who was so outraged about being “raped” by her date, had already had consensual sex with the same young man previously. Rather than dismissing the incident as sexual communication gone wrong, instead, the young man, a student at Columbia as well, is labeled as a rapist on national TV, with no opportunity to defend himself without exposing his identity.
  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.
  • Are women really helpless victims?In the latest controversy over Jackie’s story in Rolling Stone, the writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, admittedly began her quest with an agenda to expose acquaintance rape on a prestigious college campus; to show how the charge is not taken seriously by college administrators (who frequently do not report the cases to police, either for fear of sullying their institution’s reputations, or in recognition of the murkiness of many of the charges) and to show how young women are therefore victimized all over again.
  • Now I am not defending rape, acquaintance rape, date rape nor any other kind. I am saying, as Roiphe did in her piece, that cases of heterosexual miscommunication may end up as “rape,” if the woman later regrets what she did; doesn’t remember what she did; can’t recall consenting; or did something under the influence of alcohol that she wouldn’t normally do, with the attendant shame.However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do.
  • Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women? Why isn’t there more education on college campuses about the dangers of binge drinking? Nearly 2,000 young people a year die on American campuses of alcohol-related circumstances.
  • …Why aren’t young women taught to protect themselves and to avoid being caught in avoidable situations that could end badly, like being drunk to the point of passing out in a frat house full of horny young men suffering from TMT (too much testosterone).

I personally do not find it victim-blaming to tell women of preventative measures they can take to lessen their chances of being raped; I wrote about it earlier, here:

(Link):  Suggesting Preventive Measures Is Not Necessarily Victim Blaming

So far on that score, I’m in partial agreement with Ferguson, but I am astounded at how much victim blaming is in this article.

Where Ferguson writes,

  • However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do. Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women?

Because a woman getting drunk is not the same thing as a man attacking a woman.

It doesn’t matter if the man in question is inebriated or not when he attacks a woman. Rape remains rape, and a crime that one human does against another.

A woman who is getting drunk in a frat house is only doing harm to herself (she may get liver problems if she continues drinking).

And that is one reason of several why society should hold young men “more accountable” in a situation where he rapes a woman, whether he is drunk or sober at the time. This isn’t rocket science, and I’m shocked that Ferguson doesn’t understand any of this.

Men who kill people while drunk driving face legal penalties, why should they not also do so in cases of sexual assault, if they rape a woman while they are drunk?

Ferguson writes,

  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”

For those of you not familiar with the story of the rape victim who carried her mattress around campus, here are a few articles about it (all off site links):

I find it very troubling that this author, Ferguson, shows no understanding or concern for the young woman carrying the mattress, but chooses to view this as the woman “infantilizing” herself.

The young woman’s mattress was symbolic of her attack, and of seeking justice.

To compare the mattress of this story to a child’s “security blankie” belies deep ignorance on the part of the author (and I’m betting this is willful ignorance) and a lack of compassion for sexual assault victims.

Ferguson writes,

  • Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.

While I have no problem educating and cautioning women from drinking too much around men, especially at frat houses and at bars, it is immoral to blame women for being raped because they were drunk at the time of the assault.

Would Ferguson say that children who follow a child molester into his van for a promise of candy are to blame for being raped by the molester in the van?

Would she, Ferguson, shame those child victims and say, “It was their own fault they were assaulted, because they should have known better than to believe a stranger’s promise about candy?”

Probably not, so why blame a grown woman for being raped?

Ferguson writes,

  • Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?

Any time a woman says no or protests, or does not give her consent to have sex (the woman may be drugged or knocked out and incapable of accepting or declining), the situation is rape.

It does not matter if the man who rapes the woman is a man she has had consensual sex with 100 times in the past, only one time, or ten times, or zero times.

Marital rape was legal in the United States even up into the last half of the 20th century or earlier, because cultural and legal views were such that people believed that a husband had a right to have sex any time with his wife, even if the wife said “no” and did not want to have sex.

It looks as though Ferguson subscribes to this view that women have no agency, that they are forever the property of other men, and that their decisions about their own bodies or lives do not matter.

I also find it very odd and sexist that Ferguson acts as though because a woman may have had consensual sex with a man at one point in time that the man is forever entitled to that woman and her body any time he pleases in the future.

To argue in that manner would be to argue also that because I let the plumber into my house once five years ago to un-clog my kitchen pipes, with my consent, now means that same  plumber can just waltz into my house any time he wants to now and touch my pipes.

Just because I consented to let the auto mechanic down the street change the oil in my car six months ago at the local garage does not give that guy the right to get into my car today, change the oil, or drive the car around.

A one time “yes” of two days ago or ten years ago, does not equate to a lifetime “yes.”

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the essay was this:

  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.

If anything or anyone is guilty of infantilizing women, it’s conservative Christian teachings about gender roles, dating, and marriage.

Under the rubric of “biblical womanhood,” “traditional gender role” or “gender complementarian” teachings, Christians tell Christian women to behave and think like little girls – though advocates of these positions may deny it, this is what their teachings boil down to in practice.

Christian women, in particular from evangelical, Reformed, fundamentalist, and Baptist backgrounds, get the repeated message from parents, churches, Christian material (such as books, blogs, etc) that a woman’s only  acceptable or suitable role in life is to be a wife and mother.

As a wife, they are told, their husband has authority over them, and they are to “graciously submit” to that husband. Christian women in abusive marriages are counseled by preachers to stay with abusive husband and to continually submit to him.

For examples of that, see these off site links:

(Link): Preacher John Piper: Wives should “endure” abuse “for a season”

(Link): Paige Patterson has never retracted his words on wife beating

Those are common views among conservative Christians concerning women in abusive marriages. I said COMMON, those are not rare, those are not exceptions.

Christian women are taught from the time they are young that they are always to put the needs and feelings of other people before their own.

Christian women are taught and pressured from the time they are girls and as adults that they are always to say “yes” to other people’s requests, no matter what.

Christian women are taught by most other Christians and conservative Christian culture that conflict is bad or wrong and to be avoided.

Therefore, many Christian women raised in such families or environments never get any practice at developing assertive life skills, disagreeing with others, standing up to people, defending themselves.

Conservative Christians raise females with the expectation that a good, biblical female is one who is constantly quiet, sweet, un-assertive, doesn’t make choices for herself, doesn’t challenge or disagree with people, especially never men.

Christian women are, in other words, fed a steady diet of Codependency, and they taught that being Codependent is God’s will for every woman’s life.

Women who are raised like this are incapable of making decisions for themselves. They tend to cave in quickly when they are too afraid to stand up to a person who is demanding something of them. The word “no” gets caught in their throat.

This puts Christian women in a dangerous position, from the time she is a kid, teen, and into her adult years, unless and until she visits therapists and reads books by doctors who explain it’s not mean, uh-Christ-like, bitchy, or selfish for a woman to say “no” and to have boundaries.

Here’s an example that happens to a lot of women a lot as they grow up and even into their adulthoods (this happened to me a lot):

If a strange man approaches a woman on the street asking for help, the woman’s instinct or gut tells her this man is possibly a mugger or a rapist, but she don’t want to hurt his feelings, offend the man, or appear as a bitch.

After all, their mothers, Christian pastors, and books about men and dating, raised them that Christian girls are ALWAYS sweet, helpful, and nice, and should not put even their own safety ahead of a stranger in need – so instead of running away or making an otherwise quick exit, which they should do, they let the strange man approach them and talk to them.

And all the while, they have butterflies in their stomach, worried if this man is going to harm them or not.

By the way, a lot of rapists prey on women using this as a tactic and use this to exploit women.

Ted Bundy, the serial killer, used to put a cast on his arm, and approach young women asking them for help, to carry things to his car. He knew they did not want to appear bitchy or mean, so they would help him out. Once they were by his car, he wound knock them out, toss their bodies in his car, drive away, and kill them.

Rapists, muggers, etc, count on women caring more about others than their own safety, they rely on women caring more about appearing nice, sweet, and “Christian” then they do about their own safety, and they exploit these traits to get female victims.

And Christians keep right on teaching women to be easy targets for rapists, con artists, abusive boyfriends, and muggers.

Yes indeed, it’s conservative Christian teaching itself which causes some Christian women to be raped, mugged, or killed.

It’s not always the fault of secular feminism, university campus parties, or alcohol drinking that is to blame for rape, but the cultural and Christian pressure on women from the time they are young, to always be compliant, lack boundaries, and afraid to say No to anyone.

The ideal biblical, Christian woman to most Christians is a passive, wimpy, sweet, subservient, woman who will never stand up for herself, never utter a negative comment.

And it’s precisely those kinds of women abusive men and rapists love to choose as their victims.

Christian gender role teachings set women up to be enticing, easy targets for con artists, rapists, abusive husbands, but then Christians – such as Ferguson – who write those awful articles, blame the women for being raped.

Christians who pressure girls and women to abide by gender complementarian teachings (which is nothing but codependency) set women up to be rape victims, conditions them to act and think like victims, but then they turn around and blame them if they are raped.

It’s demonic, evil, and very deplorable to set women up to be assaulted, and then blame them if or when they are assaulted. The Christian Post really should delete that article.

————————-

Related posts:

(Link):  How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link):  Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

(Link): Population Decline and Bay-bee Obsession – Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Traditional Family, Christian Gender Complementarian Nuts