Regarding Tacky or Inappropriate Christian Themed Jokes, Signs, or Art by Christians or By Non-Christians

Regarding Tacky or Inappropriate Christian Themed Jokes, Signs, or Art by Christians or By Non-Christians

About a week ago, Facebook group owner of SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) did a post with a photo of a sign celebrating Easter season in front of a church with the words “Nailed It.”

You can view that particular Facebook post (Link): here.

Many in the comments section found the church “Nailed It” sign to be tacky, as did the guy who runs the “Friendly Atheist” blog (see here).

In turn, a Christian guy wrote a post about this whole thing here.

I don’t care for this kind of cheap marketing, either. I think it makes light of the crucifixion of Jesus.

However, there may be a tiny bit of hypocrisy going on here.

Continue reading “Regarding Tacky or Inappropriate Christian Themed Jokes, Signs, or Art by Christians or By Non-Christians”

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

(I have edited this post a few times to add additional thoughts – there is also a December 2016 update below in regards to the left wing BuzzFeed and ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ witch hunt story about HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines)


Among some progressive Christians or progressive Christian groups, this news story was quite the controversy about a week ago when it was first published.

I read in another news source that IV (InterVarsity) says that their position on these issues has been misunderstood.

I have some more comments to make under the excerpts here:

(Link): Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples

Excerpts:

A Christian organization that leads student religious groups on more than 600 college campuses will fire any of its 1,300 employees who say they do not agree with the organization’s theological interpretation on sex: that it is only appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

That means that any InterVarsity Christian Fellowship employees who believe that churches should perform gay weddings, who endorse sex before marriage, who condone pornography or who hold any number of other beliefs might be included in what the evangelical organization calls “involuntary termination.”

Coming from a major evangelical institution, the policy revives debate about how churches should handle questions of sexuality and who can define themselves as evangelicals.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, the ministry’s vice president Greg Jao said that since InterVarsity employees teach college students about biblical views, it is imperative that they share the same beliefs. Four or five people have been fired so far, and he expects more to follow in the next month.

Continue reading “Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples””

A Dating Video in Light of Being Equally Yoked Teaching

A Dating Video in Light of Being Equally Yoked Teaching

Facebook group  SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) posted a link to this video a few days back

I’ve watched the video, but I didn’t pay close attention to it. Several of the guys mentioned they wanted a “girl” who would be servant-minded – what, so they can serve these guys, bring them their beer and slippers when they get home from work? Bleh and puke.

Some of the guys in the video also mentioned wanting a girl who “dresses modestly.”

Someone on SCCL named, Elizabeth Burger, typed up a transcript of the video:

Transcript complete (typed by E. Burger):
[Three or Four Young Christian men speaking:]
I define a godly girl as a girl who is wholeheartedly pursuing God with her life.
A godly girl, to me, really understands that being a wife and a mother is an extremely high calling.

So to me, a godly girl is a girl who loves the Lord with all her heart and wants to serve Him.
To me, a godly girl is someone who is patient.

To me the most attractive thing about a girl is that she is really selfless.
I really admire when girls dress modestly.

I really admire a girl who is content with where God has her in life.
I admire a girl who has love for people.
I really admire a girl who is respectful towards her parents and is kind to her siblings.
Some character qualities that I really appreciate in a girl are selflessness, and a girl who is kind.

I admire a girl who gets outside of herself and invests in the lives of others.
I know a girl who really prioritizes God in her life. Every morning she talks with the Lord through prayer and reads her Bible and really just yearns to hear from the Lord.

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014

If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,

  • this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.

This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.

I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.

In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.

Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.

In this post, I will be discussing,

  • 1. The Bitter Lady
  • 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
  • 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
  • 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll

-among others

Continue reading “Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014”

General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

This is kind of a follow up to my previous post about SCCL (link at bottom – the group was recently mocking the T. Burpo book).

I found at least one blog post chronicling some of the abusive tendencies within the SCCL group (see link below) – this is so odd.

The SCCL like group members depict themselves as champions of the hurt and abused, but they sometimes bully and abuse other people themselves.

In addition, Drury (who is the owner and maintainer of the SCCL like groups, Twitter account, and blog), who tries to present herself as a feminist, and who also tries to come off as sensitive to homosexuals and more recently, transgendered people and their concerns, has made comments some of them have found offensive on several occasions on Twitter and/or Facebook, but she was reluctant to apologize.

You can read examples here:

(Link): For Surivivors of Christian Fundamentalism seeking refuge in Stuff Christian Culture Likes (group / blog)

A person (Shelly) on that blog left this comment (excerpt from her comment):

Another couple of people [at SCCL] were triggery for me, as they did shit that reminded me of the abuse I received when I was younger, and I no longer felt safe staying there, knowing that

she was perfectly fine to call out the abuse within the church system but wouldn’t call it out within the page that was supposed to be a safe place for the abused.

So I unliked the page, unfollowed her SCCL Twitter (I had unfollowed her personal one after t-gate), and stopped following the blog.

(end excerpts)

I’ve noticed the same thing.

It’s a group that scolds churches or Christian culture for perpetuating certain damaging views, or for allowing or committing abuse, but pretty much allows the regular members to bash the new-comers to the group who may speak up and disagree with whatever topic is under discussion.

I never joined the SCCL Facebook group. I may have left one post at one SCCL blog page once a long time ago (I don’t recall), but something never sat quite right with me about the types of people who post at either the group or blog, so I didn’t join.

The majority of SCCL members can seem kind-hearted and supportive most of the time, but then turn like sharks the next instant on an individual who isn’t keeping with the group think.

I once read a blog post about how even blogs / groups intended for survivors (survivors of church abuse or whatever) can turn out to be just as abusive as the church or cult the person has left. (That post may have also been on Blog on the Way, I can’t remember where I saw it).

If you have been hurt by a Christian, a denomination, or a church, be very, very careful which other groups you choose to align yourself with in the aftermath, or for support or healing.

The group you choose to make your “new home” or support system just may turn on you in the future.

I have seen some people post perfectly polite, fine questions or comments on SCCL Facebook page and get rudely ripped to shreds, ganged up on, by several SCCL members at once over it.

It’s not pretty, and some of the SCCL members, at times, act just as horribly as the fundamentalists, evangelicals, sexists and “homophobes” (what a stupid, inaccurate word, by the way) they complain about.

There are also some hard-core atheists who sporadically show up to SCCL to bitterly complain about theism, the Bible and Christians, and they are some of the most condescending, obnoxious jerks I’ve come across. They usually get shouted down by other SCCL members, but they do post there on occasion.

There is a Christian guy, an older gentlemen (his personal profile photo shows a white-haired guy) named “Warren” who participates at SCCL.

I’d say the guy makes good sense about 95% of the time, but he still gets shouted down and treated rudely by the SCCL regulars – because, in knee jerk reaction, they recoil at anything that smacks of Christian or traditional values.

Continue reading “General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog”

Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Yukking It Up By Mocking Todd Burpo’s Book

Mocking Todd Burpo’s Book

Sometimes I agree with the posters at SCCL Facebook group, sometimes not. This evening, the lady who runs the group published a graphic someone made, changing Burpo’s book cover to ridicule the kid and/or the concept of faith or Heaven. So far, all the responders below the doctored image are yukking it up, declaring it’s the hee haw damn funniest thing they’ve seen all week.

Me? 1. Who knows, maybe the kid did die, go to Heaven, and is telling the truth about it all
2. I think making that graphic and laughing at it is a shitty thing to do.

You can view the image I’m talking about here, (Link): (Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group) Doctored Todd Burpo Book “Heaven Is For Real”

Even me, in my half Christian, half agnostic stage of faith right now thinks that is a mean-spirited thing to do. Not funny, not even remotely. At least one or two juveniles in the thread were also making fun of the kid’s last name, “Burpo.” Real mature.

SCCL is usually a group where I can agree on some of their views or enjoy some of their pot shots at evangelicalism, but they occasionally pull nonsense like this that is disappointing.

Related Content (off site):

(Link): There is Life After Death Scientists Reveal Shock Findings From Groundbreaking Study
———————-
Related posts:

(Link):  Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

(Link): Contemporary American Christianity’s Fascination with NDE Stories

(Link): General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

(Link): Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

Lame Advice from Christian Publication “Relevant” on What To Do When You Are Single

Lame Advice from Christian Publication “Relevant” on What To Do When You Are Single

First of all, the sub heading of this article from Relevant is something like, “A bucket list of things to do before you marry.” Who says everyone is going to get married? I’m in my early 40s, heading into my mid 40s, and I may never marry.

Christians: stop assuming everyone will marry, even the Christian women who desire marriage and pray for a husband daily – some Christians go to the grave never having married because God never sent them a spouse.

Shut up with the “Things to do until you are married,” or “tips on how to live life while you are single,” type editorials, since they have the underlying assumption that everyone will get married, or married by age 30. Some people never, ever marry, even including the women who seek marriage, go on dating sites, and pray for a spouse.

Here is an excerpt from that page on Relevant:

    4. Get Involved With Church

    Along with the time with friends, connecting at church is much easier to commit to when you’re single. I’m currently helping out with my church’s children’s ministry and love that I can dedicate as much time to it as I do. I’m usually free for the extracurricular events outside of Sunday mornings, too, so I try to help out with those as often as possible.

    It can be easy to feel down about how open your schedule may seem without weekly romantic dates to go on, but it’s so fulfilling to use this season of life to invest in others.

Gee, fellow adult single (who must only be about, what, 22 years old, see me again when you’re 40 years old), thanks for upholding a stereotype that all singles have loads of free time – we don’t.

If anything, we adult singles have less free time than the marrieds do because we don’t have a partner to split up chores with.

As to this writer’s suggestion to go work in the church’s kid ministry?

I do not like being around babies, kids, and teens, but churches won’t let me, a single childless woman, to serve in any other area.

Church members often incorrectly assume that ALL women are CRAZY FOR and WILD ABOUT and CAN’T GET ENOUGH OF babies and children.

Churches almost always “shoe horn” single, childless ladies into baby ministry. I am a single, childless woman, and I emphatically do not want to work around or for babies, toddlers, kids or teens, or college aged kids.

One clear proof that marriage and motherhood are NOT God’s “only” or “best” role for women is the fact that some women totally lack an interest in either or both!

I have never been “kid crazy.” I never really cared strongly if I had a kid or not (if I did, it would have to be after marriage and by age 35.)

I just do not care about kids, in that, I see baby photos, and 99% of the time, I don’t feel anything about the kid or the photo of the kid.

Most women will look at a baby photo and the maternal side kicks in: ‘Awww, what a cutie!’

-Me? Nope. Nothing. There are some child free women who are even less interested in children and babies than I am.

If it were true that God’s “best” role for women was to be mothers, I would guess that he would have clearly instilled a huge maternal instinct and longing into every woman ever born, but that’s not the case.

Go hang out on forums, Twitter accounts, and blogs for Child Free women, and you will see many women (and men too) who are just not the least interested in children, and some down right loathe and despise babies and kids.

I tagged this post with the word “infertile” because a lot of these same churches that assume all women are wild for babies forget that some women desperately longed to have a baby of their own, but are infertile, continually had miscarriages, married a guy who didn’t want kids, or did not marry until much later in life and their fertile years had passed. Even these women get brow beat into serving in the kid’s section at church, which has to feel like a knife to the gut to them.

Reader reaction to the lame Christian advice for singles, from the Facebook group SCCL:

Link: Source

Samples:

Re: Relevant Magazine, “9 Things to Do While You’re Still Single, A Bucket List For Before You Tie The Knot”

Comment by…

Cori Slepp
as a single 24 year old woman, i honestly found this article/list super lame. or maybe i’m just already “good enough” at being single. but either way, i try to be open minded when reading this kind of stuff but nope. this was useless

Mike George
Get involved with the church because you are single. Single people tend to have more time ??? Boo, this is one is one of the reasons I left the church

Amber McCullough
Sounds good in theory, till you get there and all the married people treat you like you have the plague. At least the single women. Any other single women visit a church and as soon as you spoke to a man, his wife would appear at his elbow and white-knuckle his biceps?
[see meme at bottom of this post]

Continue reading “Lame Advice from Christian Publication “Relevant” on What To Do When You Are Single”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#NOT ALL MUSLIMS

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

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

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

#NOT ALL ATHEISTS

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

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

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

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

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

Let us review.

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

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

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

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

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

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

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

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

#NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

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

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

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

Here is the letter:

DEAR AMY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is part of Amy’s reply:

DEAR CONCERNED:

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

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

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

— (end Amy letter)—

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

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

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

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

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

Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

Sometimes, I enjoy and agree with some of the views as expressed by S. Drury’s SCCL (“Stuff Christian Culture Likes”) Facebook group, but not always.

Folks who frequent the SCCL group generally despise Christian sexual purity teachings.

Me? Nope.

My position is that the church needs to start upholding sexual purity teachings more, rather than the SCCL group’s preferred option of backing off or halting.

Very few churches and Christians today condemn sexual sin, nor do many Christians support virginity or sexual purity, something I have blogged about on a recurring basis (see links at the bottom of this post for more).

One of the things that caught my attention were a couple of posts at the SCCL group this week.

Continue reading “Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All”

Las Vegas Police message to young girls: Have premarital sex and risk death or become a prostitute

Las Vegas Police message to young girls: Have premarital sex and risk death or become a prostitute

h/t SCCL Facebook group for this story, where there is some gnashing of teeth, incredulity, and chortling at this story ((Link): in this thread).

As someone who thinks the Bible teaches one should remain a virgin until marriage, I do think this story is a little strange.

At first glance, some of this group’s claims sound a wee bit far fetched, but the majority of Christian testimonies I’ve seen on TV sound similar to what the story is saying: some girl says she started having pre-marital sex while a teen and ended up getting into prostitution later, or stripping at clubs, or appearing in pornography.

I’ve seen C.D.C. reports that sexually transmitted infections are on the rise, so for some people, extra-marital sex does have consequences.

So I don’t think it’s entirely “out there” to suggest that women can and do end up as hookers or in porn, if they start out having consensual pre-marital sex.

Some women go that route because they were neglected as kids – that is one common theme these women mention who give these sex testimonies.

The typical testimony is that Mom and Dad divorced, or Dad was there but was constantly critical or ignored the daughter, so the young lady looked to other men for confirmation beginning in her teens or possibly 20s, and they used sex to get that attention.

I also note that apparently, male virginity and male purity were not discussed in these stories, the implication being that these are things only that females need to be concerned about.

I’m not sure if the proposed “Choose Courage” thing planned for males mentioned below is about sexual purity, or what. The article seems to suggest that it is, but I’m not sure.

(Link): Metro Police message to young girls: Have premarital sex, risk death

    By Bethany Barnes (contact) Bethany Barnes
    Sunday, May 4, 2014 | 2 a.m.

    Girls who “get promiscuous” can wind up dead.

    That was the message behind the Metro Police co-sponsored “Choose Purity” event Saturday at the William Pearson Center in North Las Vegas.

    “Choose Purity” aimed to show young girls what can happen when they don’t wait until marriage to have sex, according to Officer Regina Coward, president of the Nevada Black Police Association, who said she’d been asked by her church, Victory Outreach Church, to create a community event to go along with its abstinence message.

    So what does Coward say happens? Typically four things: sexual assault, gangs, drugs and prostitution.

    Avoid sex and avoid those perils, Coward said.

    Continue reading “Las Vegas Police message to young girls: Have premarital sex and risk death or become a prostitute”

Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage – their marketing has been jeered by ex Christians, atheists, liberal Christians, and secular left wingers / Re: Day of Purity Campaign

Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage – their marketing has been jeered by ex Christians, atheists, liberal Christians, and secular left wingers

A few ex Christian, atheist, and liberal Christian sites, which tend to frown on the concept of staying a virgin until marriage, yukked it up over this story, which seems to have first been reported by a secular left wing site; here is the story from that left wing site (I have several observations below the long excerpt):

(Link): Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage

    SUBMITTED BY Brian Tashman on Monday, 2/3/2014 12:45 pm

    As Valentine’s Day approaches, the conservative activists at Liberty Counsel are once again promoting the competing “Day of Purity,” an opportunity for those “who strive for sexual purity an opportunity to stand together in opposition to a culture of moral decline.”

    Liberty Counsel’s previous attempt to make the Day of Purity cool for kids, a video featuring “Purity Bear,” has unfortunately been removed from YouTube following widespread Internet mockery (but can still be found on (Link): Vimeo).

    Now, the group is trying to make abstinence-only-before-marriage hip by calling it the “politically incorrect” (Link): [PDF] thing to do. In a handout (Link): [PDF] about the event, Liberty Counsel even makes the absurd claim that supporters of abstinence before marriage are losing their “right to speak and be heard.”

    [ ———- START of LIBERTY COUNSEL QUOTE ——- ]

    Defending your rights and the rights of others to express their beliefs and act in accordance with those rights.

    There are those in today’s culture that are trying to silence those who believe that sex should be saved until marriage between a husband and a wife.

    They say they want tolerance and diversity, but what they really want is to silence anyone who believes in traditional values and traditional family. You have the right to speak and be heard.

    Be mature and speak out for what you know is right and true.

    [ ———- END of LIBERTY COUNSEL QUOTE ——- ]

We are not exactly sure where it is now a criminal act to be abstinent or to encourage others to be abstinent.

Maybe in the same jurisdictions where Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber fears he may soon be forced to choose between participating in gay marriage and death.

Liberty Counsel has more fun tips for the Day of Purity, including a “True Friend” guide [PDF] that warns against maintaining friendships with people who do “not share the same value system.” The group also offers great some great prom theme ideas (Link): [PDF], such as “Chlamydia”:

[photo of couple holding hands with the words “Chlamydia. It Ruins Prom.” in big letters]

[ ———- END of LEFT WING EDITORIAL ——- ] The post also included a few images, which this left wing site made fun of, such as this one (to the right):

"Day of Purity" Prom Ad
“Day of Purity” Prom Ad, click to view larger image

I am of two minds about this.

I do think that a lot of Christians and social conservatives are heavy-handed or ridiculous in how they market their message of sexual purity.

I also think a lot of conservative Christians over-play the supposed benefits of marriage and married sex, such as frequently making claims such as, “married sex will be mind blowing, so wait for marriage to have sex!,” or, “married sex keeps you from other sexual sin.”

Obviously, neither claim is true. See examples (Link): here or (Link): here.

I also think some Christian propaganda, which promises stuff like lasting emotional scars, herpes, HIV, and genital crabs, etc, for having pre- marital sex, can be bunk (see (Link): this post). Sometimes, yes, people do get emotional damage or diseases from pre marital sex, but not always.

I also think sometimes it can be bunk to teach, as Christians do, that having pre-marital sex will keep you from nabbing a great spouse later in life (see (Link): this post). Goodness knows being a virgin past your 30s is not a guarantee God will send you a spouse – it didn’t work for me.

Which is not to say that every one gets away with pre- marital sex or casual sex scot-free, because they don’t always (see (Link): this post for examples).

On the other hand, I wonder about the atheist, liberal, emergent, and ex Christian sites (such as the (Link): Friendly Atheist blog, (Link): SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes), etc) which made fun of the message behind the hammy Liberty Counsel purity advertisements.

I did see at least one or two people in the SCCL thread on Facebook (link above) remark they see nothing wrong with staying abstinent, if one chooses to.

Okay, so far, so good.

But at least one or two people on that same thread (or a previous, similar one) said, “People still do that? Who does that?!?!?!? [that = staying a virgin until marriage]”

Yes, some people “still do that.”

There are people who are indeed Christians who are virgins who are over 30, 35, 40 years of age, and these are Baptists and Protestants, not Catholics who took a vow of celibacy.

It’s remarkable, really; many of the types of people who post on SCCL, just like feminist site “Jezebel,” as I have written of before, expect people to respect all manner of sexuality, from homosexuality to transgenderism, but very few of them support the choice by people, especially heteros, to abstain from sexual activity until marriage.

Continue reading “Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage – their marketing has been jeered by ex Christians, atheists, liberal Christians, and secular left wingers / Re: Day of Purity Campaign”

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll

Hats off to Stephanie Drury who must have a stomach made of iron. I am guessing she visits the Mars Hill (Driscoll’s) blog daily? I don’t have the fortitude to do that.

Anyway, I found this link via Drury’s Facebook group, Stuff Christian Culture Likes (link)

Here is the link to Driscoll’s page, which I will dissect momentarily:
(Link): Two Mistakes Singles Make

Driscoll actually lists, under point 1,
MISTAKE #1: IDOLIZE MARRIAGE

Remember, Driscoll is directing this advice at the UN-married.

And I say: No, no, no (I sound like Amy Winehouse there, sorry).

It’s not singles who idolize marriage, it’s Christian culture, primarily the Christians who are already married, such as Driscoll himself.

Driscoll actually wrote an editorial idolizing parenthood a few weeks ago, called “Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women.” You can read it here:
(Link): Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women, by Driscoll.
Driscoll’s editorial was similar to the one I wrote about here, one by Hemingway:
(Link): Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical.

Both pieces, the one by Driscoll, and the one by Hemingway, idolize pro-creation and leave no room for the New Testament’s position that lifelong childless-ness and singlehood are fine with God.

It’s hypocritical for Driscoll to shame Christian singles who either desire marriage and parenting for themselves, or who choose to forgo one or both, when he is in fact upholding marriage and parenting in editorials, blogs, and sermons as being laudable goals all should aspire to, especially women.

Not only do married Christians idealize and idolize marriage and parenting, and hold both up as benchmarks a Christian needs to prove success in life, but if a childless or unmarried Christian actively pursues both or either, they will be guilted and shamed for it by these marriage- and parenting- idolizing married Christians, even as Driscoll did in (Link): his previous posts about singles.

If you, a single, admit to wanting marriage, or ask for prayer from another believer that God send you a spouse, or you admit to using a dating site to try to find a marital partner, these pro-marriage married Christians will accuse you of lacking faith, worshipping marriage, trying to fill Jesus’ place with a spouse ((Link): see Driscoll again), not being content in your singleness, and all manner of other negative accusations.

Marriage does not happen magically, folks.

If you were not fortunate enough to meet your sweetie while in college and find yourself still single at age 30 or older, you have no choice but to actively pursue a mate via bars, night clubs, dating sites, and so forth.

From the time I was a pre-teen up until my mid or late 30s, I sincerely believed the Christian propaganda that if only I prayed for a spouse, stayed sexually pure, put God first in my life, trusted God, etc, that God would send me a spouse.

And yet, I find myself still not-married at age 40+.

Obviously, being passive about getting a husband (ie, using prayer, faith, etc) does not work.

(I am not saying that being active is a guarantee, either: sadly, even though some people chase after a spouse and join many dating sites, they sill remain single.
But in my view, your chances of getting married are bound to increase if you do go out and look, and not simply sit about praying and waiting.)

In his introduction, Driscoll gets it wrong:

    For the first time in American history, the majority of adults are single rather than married. Nine out of ten people eventually marry. The average man is about 30 years old for his first marriage, and the average woman is in her late 20s for her first marriage. This is nearly a decade later than was the case 60 years ago, which has contributed to such things as fornication and cohabitation.

Later age of marriage does not necessarily increase, or contribute to, fornication. I’m in my 40s and still a virgin, hello.

It’s both a Christian and Non Christian myth that no human being can go without sex past one’s early or mid twenties, so to stave off fornication, it is assumed one must marry by age 18 or 21.

By the way: I may be a virgin at age 40+, but I have a normal libido.

It’s another false assumption by married Christians and married Non Christians that a 40 year old virgin must:
1. have a medical problem leading to low libido
2. be fat and ugly (not true, I was engaged and have been “hit on’ by both Christian and Non-Christian men)

One reason of several I am still a virgin in my 40s is due to SELF CONTROL and CHOICE.

God did not magically “gift” me or “call me to” virginity, celibacy, or singleness.

Truths:
1a. People CAN CONTROL THEIR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
1b. Just because you get horny does NOT mean you HAVE TO HAVE SEX.

These (points 1a and 1b) are points that continue to sail over the heads of the Mark Driscolls of the world, due in part to secular influences in their thinking and a misunderstanding of the Bible’s teachings on celibacy, singlehood, and sex.

Also, marriage does not preclude or prevent sexual sin:
I have many, many blog posts on my blog here where I have linked to many news stories of MARRIED CHRISTIANS, some of whom are preachers, who have been caught, or arrested for, among other things, rape, pornography, spousal abuse, drug abuse, running prostitution rings, or for raping children.

It is simply naive or false to depict singleness as being a position where in one is more apt to commit sexual sin, when there are so many married couples who are having affairs, using porn, visiting prostitutes, or molesting children.

I could be wrong, but since Driscoll cites the information about age of first marriage being late twenties for most people these days, as opposed to a few decades ago, when many people got married early/ mid 20s, that he seems to be an advocate for “early marriage.” I have links below refuting the “early marriage” view that so many Christians are currently advocating.

Driscoll’s point two is MISTAKE #2: DEMONIZE MARRIAGE, where Driscoll writes,

    Your greatest joy is being alone. You like your freedom and don’t want anyone else to encroach upon your life because you’d be forced to consider them, accommodate them, or serve them.

This view is not biblical, so I have no idea why he’s putting contentment with being alone down, as though it is a negative thing.

The Bible does not command all to marry but rather presents life time singleness as being perfectly acceptable to God.

The Bible does not condemn preferring solitude, introversion, or singleness to being married or wanting companionship.

I’d also have to point out to this guy that as my dream of marriage fades, I’ve had no choice but to learn to accept my singleness. I’ve grown to enjoy my time alone (it also doesn’t hurt that I am naturally an introvert and prefer being alone, yay me).

Would this Driscoll guy rather I cry into my pillow nightly over being single, or just enjoy living my life as-is?

Driscoll just said in his (Link): previous post about single women that single females should not put their lives on hold and mope about over not being married.

Now, however, Driscoll seems to be saying if you have mostly made peace with your alone-ness, that is wrong too.

Well, FFS, which is it?

Does Driscoll want singles mooning, moping away, and pining for marriage, or coming to terms with being mostly okay with singlehood?

That’s one thing I hate about these articles by Christians about singles: they are chock full of double standards and contradictions, and this is but one:
Married Christians want you to be happy being single but not TOO happy.

You, as an adult single, according to married Christians, are supposed to find just the right balance of hankering for marriage, but not be so okay with being single that you’re not spazzing out and worrying over being single.

Married Christians claim they want you to be “content” with your singleness, yet, if you truly are content with it (at least part of the time, or most of the time), they disapprove of your contentment.

It seems to piss off some married Christians that you, the single, feel fine with being single, if not all the time, at least most of the time. Some married Christians want you, the single, to pine and hanker for marriage, at least a little bit, and if you do not, they assume you are selfish or unChristian in some capacity.

Continue reading “More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)”

Regarding the post “Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned” at The Matt Walsh Blog vis a vis Stuff Christian Culture Likes group

Regarding the post “Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned” at The Matt Walsh Blog vis a vis Stuff Christian Culture Likes group

This blog post originally came to my attention via the ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ Facebook group, which is maintained by Stephanie Drury.

I do at times agree with some of Drury’s views, but not always.

Based on Drury’s introductory comments of this Matt guy’s post on her Facebook group page (which are, “I’d be really interested to see how this guy’s marriage is doing in, say, five or ten years.”), she seems to take a dim view of the Christian stance on teachings of celibacy and sexual purity, which is what Matt Walsh is promoting on his blog.

It’s interesting and a bit hypocritical that Drury would assume Walsh’s marriage will suck eggs and come to a crashing, fiery end in ten years time due to his belief in biblical sexual purity teachings but that she also bristles at the guy’s view that pre-marital sex can damage a person, or damage a future marriage.

As I’ve noted before in other posts on this blog, a lot of ex-Christians, or feminist or liberal Christians, throw the baby out with the bathwater on issues pertaining to sexual purity, celibacy and virginity – because some churches have dealt with sexual purity teachings in a harsh manner, some of these ex Christians or liberals feel churches should scrap such teachings altogether.

The end result is that liberal, emergent, and ex Christians engage in something I refer to as “Virgin Shaming” or “Celibacy / Celibate Shaming.”

So keen are these folks to make sure everyone tip toes around the feelings of people who have had pre-marital sex so as not to offend them or hurt their feelings, that anyone who actually is still a virgin past their 30s, or who is celibate after divorce or widowhood and/or who still believes celibacy should be taught and encouraged, is depicted as being judgmental or out of touch; the people who are living out the Bible’s teachings on sexual purity are made out to be the ones in the wrong.

The people in these dialogues do not care about offending or hurting the feelings of Christians who have stayed virgins into their 30s and older.

Continue reading “Regarding the post “Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned” at The Matt Walsh Blog vis a vis Stuff Christian Culture Likes group”