Brief Critique of the J. Daly editorial: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?

Brief Critique of the J. Daly ed: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?

In the midst of looking up Jim Daly’s contact information (so I could tweet him a link of my previous page), I found this linked to on his Twitter page (he wrote it):

(Link) Does Casual Sex Empower Women? by Daly

Here is the part that caught my attention:

    The cultural impact of casual sex

    Sadly, the cheapening of sex is having a long-term impact on marriage… which, in turn, negatively impacts parenting. It’s a tragic chain-reaction of events that work together to undermine the institution of family.

I know that Focus on the Family has a new family-centric film to promote ((Link): unfortunately), and I see the heading there says “cultural impact,” but Mr. Daly, the fact is, some women never marry and never have children, including Christian women.

The Bible does not say God promises all women a marriage partner not even the ones who pray for one and who want one.

If you see my previous post (link), you can see the stats on the number of singles in America.

Many women today are staying single these days, some against their wishes.

(That’s right, the typical conservative Christian canard that women are choosing to stay single because they hate marriage, hate men, or put career above marriage, or had tons of marriage proposals but turned them all down because they were too picky, are false).

There are plenty of Christian women such as myself (though I am half-agnostic now), who were raised in church and by Christian parents to expect, plan for, and count on marriage.

I had hoped for marriage. I still find myself single. I did not plan on being never-married into my 40s. I may never marry.

I am still a virgin. I have never had children.

The church does not support adult virginity – they ignore or shame adult celibate singles (a few links with examples of that can be found at the end of this post, and all over this blog if you search).

It makes no sense, and I see no biblical support, to suggest the only or main reason to argue against casual sex is on the basis of how it may “impact marriage and family.”

Continue reading “Brief Critique of the J. Daly editorial: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?”

Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism vis a vis Pneumatology

Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism
———————–
Edited / I found a couple of pages with views about the Holy Spirit, and related topics, that seem similar to my own.

The authors of the following recognize the errors of “Pentecostal/charismatic/Third Wave tradition” in regards to their views and beliefs of the Holy Spirit and how, if, or when the Holy Spirit speaks to believers today, but they also feel that “hard cessationism is inadequate.”

The pages are:

(Link): Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? Preface and Abstracts

(Link): Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today

(Link): Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures? by M. James Sawyer
————————————————-
I exchanged a few Tweets with Pirate Radio (a.k.a. Fighting for the Faith) host guy Chris Rosebrough earlier today.

This is rather a follow up of sorts to my previous post:

I do appreciate Rosebrough tweeting me back, and told him so in a Tweet. He must be very busy, so it’s nice of him to take time out of his day to reply.

I hate debating with folks on Twitter, for one reason being, I have always been terrible at condensing my thoughts.

I suck rocks at bantering back and forth in a 140 letter per post format especially.

That is one reason I kept giving Rosebrough a link to a previous post on this blog about this issue (link is above). It would take me 243,567 Tweets to explain to him on Twitter what it took me a page to write on this blog.

Rosebrough asked me once or twice to cite specific verses or passages to prove my point that God speaks to people today.

CLARIFICATIONS

First, I’d like to clarify that I mean I believe that God speaks inwardly to people today in the form of personal warnings and the like.

I am not Charismatic or a Word of Faith person. I disagree with their views.

I do not believe that God issues prophetical views to people today, such as what we see in the book of Revelation, where it is described how the world will end.

Rosebrough used the word “prophecy” several times in his tweets to me, but my understanding of that may be different from his.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit, for example, warning a Christian woman today to not go down an alley alone – knowing she is will be mugged if she does so – is the same thing as “biblical prophecy,” that personal revelation (say about someone’s safety) is in the same category of God telling John in Revelation to “write what you see and hear” about the end times, the entire fate of the whole world.

I am not saying that all inward guidance of the Holy Spirit, or all visions, are on par with Scriptural (written) authority.

That would be a quasi-Roman Catholic view (Roman Catholics place their church tradition and Pope’s ex cathedra on the same level of authority as the written word, which I disagree with).

I do agree with sola scriptura.

But I also believe some Christians carry sola scriptura (and how they choose to carry out, or defend, “doctrine” whether they perceive it to be sound or not) to an un-biblical, even absurd, too-narrow level. (I refer to this as “hyper sola scriptura” in previous posts.)

I have gone on record in previous posts here on this blog as saying if someone feels they got a vision or a message from God, that if their impression, vision, word (whatever term) contradicts what God has already said in the Bible, their claim, word, etc, is wrong.

I do not believe that a personal word from the Holy Spirit to a certain individual for a specific situation is binding on all believers.

Rosebrough kept asking me to give him one single, lone verse that supports the notion that the Holy Spirit speaks to Christians today.

I do not recall there being any one, lone single verse that says that the Holy Spirit speaking to Christians would end with the first believers.

(The faith being delivered once for all to the saints, or 2 Tim. 3.16 is not addressing the topic on whether or not the Spirit speaks to people today. I discussed that a bit more in previous posts, so I won’t get into that here.)

As I told Rosebrough on Twitter, there is no such one verse or passage for my position. But, his position also lacks a single “gotcha” verse or passage.

There are plenty of examples in the Bible of the Holy Spirit speaking to believers (see citations in previous post).

I see no passage in the Bible that says that would be a phenomenon only for early Christians and not for Christians today.

DEMAND FOR LONE VERSE – Unrealistic Criteria

That Rosebrough keeps demanding a single passage for my position is something I feel is disingenuous, and that it is a somewhat intellectually dishonest technique.

Continue reading “Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism vis a vis Pneumatology”

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

I listened to this Rosebrough critique of Osteen’s sermon:
(Link): Osteen Proves That God is NOT Speaking to Him

I sometimes agree with Pirate Radio / Fighting for the Faith host Chris Rosebrough, but this is one of those times where I’m not in total agreement.

In the Osteen sermon portions aired on Rosebrough’s show (see link above), Osteen describes how, years ago, he got an inner feeling, or message, to start preaching at his father’s church. Osteen feels that this was God speaking to him.

That Osteen preaches in a style that Rosebrough disagrees with, or that Rosebrough believes that Osteen does not rail against sin and Hell enough, is proof enough for Rosebrough that Osteen’s inner prompting was not of God but of Satan – which I first of all find to be overstating one’s case.

I do not always agree with Osteen’s preaching style or focus of his messages, but I think it’s going overboard to attribute his ministry, or all his views, to Satan.

(As a side note, does Rosebrough grasp or not that two people can be sincere Christians but still have legitimate disagreements on some matters?

Sometimes I listen to Rosebrough’s show, or read his writings, and he makes it seem as though unless you agree with him 100% of the time on 100% of topics that you are an anti-Christ, or unsaved heretic.

Nobody but nobody (including Mr. Rosebrough) has across- the- board absolutely perfect biblically- related opinions, positions, or doctrine on everything – and that does not mean that person is unsaved, a pagan, or an anti-christ.)

Getting back to Rosebrough’s insistence that Osteen heard a prompting from Satan and not God:
I can see how a man can be a false teacher without necessarily being under direct Satanic control.

Some preachers are motivated by greed, control or power, not Satanic influence. Or maybe Osteen only thought he was hearing from God but was simply mistaken. Maybe Osteen’s inner prompting was due to emotions, feelings, and not from God. But Satan?

I mean goodness, Satan? We’re really going to go there? That’s pretty drastic.

I think Rosebrough is totally wrong on gender complementarianism (ie, women should not be preachers, etc).

How charitable would it be for me to accuse Rosebrough of being under Satanic influence, since his views on gender roles is so obviously wrong and unbiblical, and he is in error on this?

Secondly, whether Osteen’s claim that God prompted him to preach or not does not really prove or disprove if such a thing – God speaking to folks outside the Bible – is possible.

I also am not seeing a connection between these points:

1. Some Christians claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to them inwardly

2. Osteen is supposedly a Satanic or false teacher who believes the Holy Spirit speaks to him inwardly

3. Ergo, claim number one is supposedly false

That’s a bit like saying,

1. Some Christians say that two plus two equals four

2. Christian church piano player Mr. Hank Smith beats puppies for fun and says that two plus two equals four

3. Ergo, point one, that two plus two equals four, is incorrect

Sorry, but I don’t see how point 2 contradicts or disproves 1.

One point does not necessarily cause or lead to another, or the guy in point 2 being a heretic or puppy beater does not necessarily negate or disprove the claims, beliefs, and experiences of people in point 1.

What if I could find a Christian preacher who agrees with Rosebrough almost 100% on doctrinal matters, who preachers in a manner that Rosebrough approves of, EXCEPT for in this one area: that the preacher in question believes that God does speak to people today outside of Scripture?

This would make Rosebrough’s argument against Osteen rather moot, it seems to me.

As the Bible says, God did in fact communicate with people outside of the written word – sometimes audibly, through jackasses (literally; see Numbers 22:30), in or through burning bushes, and via angelic messengers in the Old Testament, and God spoke to humans via angels in the New as well.

God also spoke to people in dreams and visions – on record in both Old and New Testaments. Samuel heard God’s voice; Paul and John claimed to be taken up to Heaven and heard God.

Where is your verse saying these things are applicable to ONLY John and Paul? Where’s your one single verse or passage?

Bearing in mind that the first Christians already had the Scriptures: they had the OLD TESTAMENT. However, the New Testament records that the Holy Spirit spoke to them inwardly.

These first Christians did not always consult the written Old Testament to figure out what God wanted them to do.

The Holy Spirit spoke to some of the earliest believers; for example,

“2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

And,

“4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. (Acts 13:4)”

And,

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements… (Acts 15:28)”

And,

“I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. (Acts 20:23)”

And,

“Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” (acts 21:11)”

And,

“I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit … (Romans (9:1)”

He did not have his conscience confirmed by reading the written word of God, but by God speaking to him in his conscience.

Regarding the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts Ch 5),

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

(— end quote —)

Now, how did Peter deduce that this couple had lied, if the Holy Spirit did not tell Peter in his spirit or mind about it?

There is no Old Testament passage that explicitly says, “Ananias will lie to Peter about the money.” It’s not as though Peter could consult the written word of God (for his era, the Old Testament) to figure this stuff out.

Rosebrough kept asking for an explicit passage of Scripture that says that God can or will or does speak to Christians today, outside of the Bible, or in addition to.

I want to see the opposite: where does the Bible clearly state that God never, ever will, can, or does speak to believers outside the Bible today?

As far as I can recall, there is no single passage or verse that says, “After the time of Acts (early church), God will never speak to believers outside the written word, not ever.”

Because I don’t see any such passage.

I see no indication that God limited any of this only to Peter or Old Testament believers only.

2 Tim 3.16 only supports the importance of Scripture but does not say, “And God will never speak to people outside the written word.”

Continue reading “Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit”

Is Jesus Too Sexy? Too Sexy for His Hat, Too Sexy for His Shirt? And What About Salome in Movies? / Re: Actor Diogo Morgado and Depictions of Jesus in Movies – Including Son of God

Is Jesus Too Sexy? Too Sexy for His Hat, Too Sexy for His Shirt? And What About Salome in Movies?

Some Christians think that the actor, Diogo Morgado, who plays Jesus in the movie “Son of God” is too smokin’ hot and that this will distract audiences from the movie itself.

Some of them apparently caught on to the fact that females find the man attractive after a female journalist interviewed the actor in the past couple of weeks and kept gushing about what a sexy sex pot he is. One wonders, had this female journalist not harped on the actor’s looks, would Christian and Fighting for the Faith pod cast host Chris Rosebrough have noticed, or would preacher and Christian blogger Wade Burleson have noticed?

Usually (as I’ve blogged about a MILLION times before) males, especially Christian males, live in fairy tale land where they believe only men are “visually oriented” and only men like sex and want sex. Rarely is female libido and the female gaze acknowledged or even assumed to exist.

(Link): Audio: Fighting for the Faith: Vidal Sassoon Jesus is an International Sex Symbol? (Feb 24, 2014)

(Link): The Ugly Side of the Son of God by Wade Burleson

Excerpt:

    by Wade Burleson

    Isaiah the prophet says Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God was physically unattractive. There is no mistake in what the inspired prophet meant when he described the physical looks of the Son of God. Listen to the prophet’s words:

    “…like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” (Isaiah 53:2).

    The new Hollywood motion picture entitled Son of God is definitely not faithful to the Scriptures in the physical presentation of the Son of God. Jesus on the screen looks like a cross between Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Watching “Son of God” in a theater might make young ladies wish to “Kiss the Son” (Psalm 12:2) physically, rather than to embrace Him in faith. In our literal society, where the visual visceral always seems to trump eternal realities, one might walk away from the move Son of God being more enraptured with the good looks of Jesus than the good news of Jesus’ Kingdom.

How often, I wonder, do male Christian pundits worry that the actresses who played Salome in various screen adaptations of the life of Jesus were too sexy and come hither?

Salome
Salome

The Salome character, in her thick eye liner, harem costume, and sexy dance routine, has been in two or three of the TV or movie productions about Jesus Christ, including the 1970s mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth,” (directed by Zeffirelli) and 1961’s King of Kings, and I don’t ever recall a Christian male writing concerns about the Salome character being too attractive. Why is that?

(Link): IMDB: Son of God

(Link): #HotJesus: Must He be sexy?

(Link): Diogo Morgado Inspires Hot Jesus Hashtag; Actor Playing ‘Son Of God’, May Be Too Sexy

    Have depictions of Jesus gotten too sexy over the years?

    The actor playing Jesus in the new ‘Son of God’ movie has inspired the #HotJesus hashtag that is taking Twitter by storm and causing some to wonder: Why does Jesus have to be sexy?

    In a witty op-ed, CNN anchor Carol Costello raised the issue of why a divine but still incarnate historical figure must be portrayed as handsome, buff or “physically perfect.”

    We actually don’t know what Jesus looked like. We do know he was a carpenter, so perhaps Jesus was buff. But, I don’t think when the Biblical Nathaniel asked, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” and Phillip answered, “Come and see,” they were talking about Jesus’ beautiful face or chiseled abs.

(Link): CNN’s Carol Costello Has a Problem with ‘Sexy’ Jesus

(Link): CNN’s Carol Costello Skeezed Out By Sexy Jesus In ‘Son Of God’ (Video)

    “’Son of God’ is generating a lot of heat because Jesus is, um, so sexy!” Costello exclaimed. “He looks like Brad Pitt… The question for me became must Jesus be sexy too?”

(Link): Jesus: I’m too sexy for my cross

(Link): Diogo Morgado Puts the Carnal in Incarnate, But Was Jesus Really A Babe?

    Hollywood gives the son of god chiseled cheekbones and buns of steel. But what if—based on anthropological study of first-century Galilean males—Jesus had the build of a teenage girl?

Below the Right Said Fred video below, see some more links about how Christians – yes Christians – sometimes sexualize Jesus Christ and friendship and infant girls.

Right Said Fred singing “Too Sexy”

—————————————
Related posts this blog:

(Link): The Sexualization of God and Jesus

(Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Article: My Savior My Spouse? – Is God or Jesus Your Husband Isaiah 54:5

(Link): Dating Jesus / Oh No I’m Single! (videos) – for single unmarried Christians

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Christians Who Sexualize Female Infants and Who Have Wacko, Weird, Unbiblical Gender Role Views They Actually Believe are Biblical / Re Botkins

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Self Professing Christian Guy, Closeted Homosexual, Apparently Killed His Wife (or had her killed) – Also: Christian Group IHOP Sexualizes Jesus Christ and God

(Link): Researchers measure increasing sexualization of images in magazines

(Link): Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site

This is one of the few times I have heard a preacher remind his church members that Jesus Christ put Himself above nuclear family, and spiritual family (other believers in Christ) before flesh and blood relations.

I only listened to this sermon one time, last night, and on Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting For the Faith show, so my memory may not be the greatest, but if I remember correctly, preacher Hamel quotes Christ’s words of (Link): Matthew 12:46-50.

Hamel reminded his congregants to include people in their families who may be lonely, who may be widowed, or so forth. In other words, Hamel was asking them to do what God asks of them in the Bible.

I am surprised that Chris Rosebrough ripped this Hamel guy to shreds over it.

You can listen to Rosebrough pulverize Hamel here (after the commentary about Furtick, Rick Warren, and so on):

(Link): Fighting for the Faith podcast, DECEMBER 16, 2013, Chris Rosebrough, host

    Sermon Review: Netflixmas — Christmas Vacation by Dan Hamel of Southland Christian Church

I like Rosebrough on a personal level. He seems to be a nice guy, and while I do agree with him that a lot of seeker friendly sermons tend to be fluff and light on substance, I do not share his conviction that unless a sermon explicitly mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus and repentance that it is an un-biblical, stupid one worthy of ridicule or condemnation.

Not even Jesus Christ sermonized on repentance every single time he opened his mouth – please see the Gospels for examples.

Sometimes Jesus spoke about people’s earthly concerns, such as divorce, religious hypocrisy, anger, politics, hatred, sexual sin, physical sickness, worry, financial matters, and so forth.

If Rosebrough were to be consistent, he would need to get into a time machine, go back to tell Jesus after hearing Jesus deliver, say, for example, (Link): Matthew 6:33-34,

    “Jesus! Shame on you! You need to repent!
    You did not mention yourself ONCE in that discussion! You did not talk about repentance, salvation, propitiation, or hell!

    All you talked about was God meeting people’s needs! Repent, Jesus! Talk more about yourself next time!

    More soteriology, less pragmatic, earthly concerns discussions! You’re being too seeker-friendly, Jesus, repent!”

If it’s peachy fine acceptable for Jesus to occasionally veer off the ol’ “repent and be saved” sermonizing path, why is it suddenly wrong for a preacher today to do so?

And I can tell you that the church needs MORE of these Hamel-type sermons where they are reminded to stop worshipping their relatives. There are a lot of Christians who are widowed, divorced, never married, who are childless, and their relatives are dead or estranged, and such people should be invited over by the married couples of the churches for dinner, for fellowship.

I have tweeted Rosebrough before about how a lot of churches today have turned marriage (and having children) into an idol.

Some churches teach that marriage is another sort of “gospel,” while some Christian preachers teach that unmarried Christians are not fully in God’s image, while some surveys revealed that a large chunk of Christian women consider their family more important than the Gospel.

There are many un-bibical, weird, awful things Christians are teaching about marriage and singleness out there. I would hope at some point Rosebrough starts to discuss this on his show and/or blog once in a while.

Here are some links from previous blog entries I’ve made (I have many more blog posts about it, these are only a few):

(Link): Creepy: ‘Barna: [Christian] Women Value Family Over Faith’

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Conservative Christian Think Tank Says: “Preach the Gospel of Marriage”

If Rosebrough is upset over Drisocll’s plagairism (and he was, and he called Driscoll to repent over it), I would think he would also be upset, and want to devote some time, to discussing the new trend in Christianity: attacking virginity / celibacy/ singleness, such as (and again these are just a few posts, I have many others on this blog):

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Southern Baptist Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

All those people need to be told to repent of their nuclear family, pro-creation, and marriage idolatry. They need to be told to repent of marginalizing singleness and of putting nuclear family ahead of the Gospel and ahead of helping non-relatives.

So, please, give that Hamel guy a break.
Hamel was reminding Christians to follow Christ’s words of (I mean, dude, a butt load of Christians today are regularly in GROSS VIOLATION of these teachings of Christ, it is NOT legalism to remind them of this),

    (Matthew 10:37) [Jesus speaking],
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

and

    (Matthew 12:46-50)
    He [Jesus] replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
    49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
    50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus said,

    Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6.46)

And (this is Jesus speaking),

    “If you love me, obey my commandments.” (John 14:15)

If you are an unmarried person reading this, you might find Hamel’s sermon a refreshing change of pace from the usual “marriage is so teriffic, you’re less than whole if you are a single!” sermons we hear all the time, so consider giving it a listen.

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site