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”

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

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

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

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

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

DETAILED EXPLANATION

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

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

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

Here is my background:

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

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

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

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

Editorialist Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate – Re: Good Christian Sex Book by Bromleigh McCleneghan

Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate

Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).


I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.

I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.

I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.

I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.

I have more comments below this long excerpt:

(Link): Sex and the single Christian: Why celibacy isn’t the only option

Excerpts:

August 22 at 6:00 AM

…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.

…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.

Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.

.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.

Continue reading “Editorialist Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate – Re: Good Christian Sex Book by Bromleigh McCleneghan”

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): 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

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”

Marketing Companies Offering ‘Sexy Jesus’ Calendar, Selfies With Jesus

Marketing Companies Offering ‘Sexy Jesus’ Calendar, Selfies With Jesus

Do you know what I think is weird? People so obsessed with sex, they sexualize anything and everything. But these people – and a lot of others – would find me weird, because I’m still a virgin past the age of 40 – and yes, I had opportunities to have sex, including with a fiance’ but I said “no” to that. I find the refusal to be sexually self controlled weird, and things like this…

By the way, this web page has samples from the calendar, if you want to see what this company’s idea of a “sexy Jesus” looks like.

(Link): Marketing Companies Offering ‘Sexy Jesus’ Calendar, Selfies With Jesus

  • Two London ad agencies may just be crossing the line by using Jesus Christ as a marketing ploy.
  •  In what is sure to be a controversial move, Anomaly London is offering a “Sexy Jesus” (link):  calendar. The calendar features 13 images – one on the cover and one for each month – of a bare-chested, buff model with a beard and flowing hair.
  • Although most of the images show Jesus in various provocative poses and wearing in a robe or cloth slung low on his waist, there are also images of Christ dressed as a fireman and lifeguard. All of the pictures feature “cheeky” captions, such as the one below.
  • he Inquisitr recently reported the (Link): backlash from Christians to a Family Guy episode’s depiction of Jesus tying to lose his virginity, but some may find this calendar even more offensive. The calendar was just posted for sale on the web earlier this week, and so far there have been no negative reactions to it, but it remains to be seen what will happen when people find out it is available.
  •  According to the (Link): Independent, Mother flew Kevin Lee Light, a Jesus impersonator who walks the streets of L.A., to London as a “Christmas stunt.” The agency then sent out a video and (Link): press release announcing they had acquired Jesus Christ as a client.

    “MOTHER SIGNS CULT CHRISTMAS FIGURE, JESUS AS CLIENT”

    “Jesus has flown in this week from his home in Los Angeles, where he is a cult figure and celebrity. He has been a regular feature on TMZ for the last five years and a chance encounter with him inspired Aerosmith’s Steve Tyler to write the song Street Jesus. Snoop Dogg is also a massive fan.”

————————————

Related posts:

(Link):  The Sexualization of God and Jesus

(Link):  Preacher: ‘They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Hot SEX Lives’ – and once more, never-married celibate adults and their experiences, wisdom, and input are ignored

(Link):  Patriarchy tends to sexualize all male/female relationships

(Link):  Brotherly Love: Christians and Male-Female Friendships

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

(Link):  Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

(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

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

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

(Link):  Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

(Link):  Prof Says There is Something Homo-Erotic About Christian Men Who Say They Love Jesus

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

(Link): Let Us Prey: Big Trouble at First Baptist Church – article about sexual abuse in Baptist churches -article mentions how Baptist preacher sexualized Jesus

(Link): 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

(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

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

Hungry ISIS Fighters (Muslim Extremists) Just Want Their Wives To Cook Pancakes – When Islam Sounds Like Christianity

Hungry ISIS Fighters (Muslim Extremists) Just Want Their Wives To Cook Pancakes – When Islam Sounds Like Christianity

(Link):  Hungry ISIS fighters just want their wives to cook pancakes (excerpts from this article much farther below) No, the heading of this blog post,

  •  Hungry ISIS Fighters (Muslim Extremists) Just Want Their Wives To Cook Pancakes – When Islam Sounds Like Christianity 

is not a strawman.

I can just imagine Christians wanting to tell me that Christianity is nothing like Islam.

But it is, in some regards.

Despite the fact that no conservative Christian group I am aware of would “honor kill” a woman for being a rape victim or decapitate a woman as some Muslims do, both groups never the less share some similar views about women, which happen to be restrictive towards women.

Understand that I was brought up in this culture. I was raised as a Christian gender complementarian, though I later rejected this teaching in adulthood. I realized that the Bible does not teach it.

Despite the fact that Gender Complementarians (Christians who believe that the Bible teaches strict gender roles for men and women, and they sometimes use the label ‘biblical manhood and womanhood’) will sometimes state in their literature that they do not believe that all women must or should marry, have children, and be “stay at home mothers” who bake cookies all day, they actually do quite strongly teach this, and it’s always implied.

Christian gender complementarians frequently publish articles to women in their blogs and books that tell women how to be good wives and mothers – which sometimes include tips on how to look pretty for one’s husband, recipes for casseroles, and so on.

See for example(Link): this post of mine for more on that.

ASIDE: FOLKS WHO MOCK SECULAR FEMINIST ARGUMENTS ABOUT TRADITIONAL GENDER ROLES

By the way, there is one conservative guy I follow on Twitter who regularly mocks secular feminists for disputing traditional gender roles. (I also sometimes see one or two well known Christian or politically conservative women on Twitter who also quibble with secular feminists about this.)

While I happen to be right wing myself (I’m a conservative too, and do not always agree with feminists), I do think secular feminists are partially correct on some of these points involving gender roles.

I am conservative and heterosexual, but I for one do not neatly fit the “traditional gender role” views as put forth by evangelical Christians and social conservatives, which is one reason of several I am considering leaving the Christian faith, or keeping a very basic belief in Christ but jettisoning the rest of it.

Regarding this right wing guy I follow on Twitter who consistently mocks feminists who dispute gender roles:

It’s beyond me why a guy who has traditional values (concerning his religious views and spirituality, I’m not sure if he’s a Christian, atheist, or what) would mock folks who object to traditional gender roles, since stubbornly sticking to them is causing so many conservative women (and maybe some men) to leave the Republican Party and/or to leave social conservativism and/or the Christian faith.

Traditional gender roles force people into boxes that they do not fit in and do not want to live in, which can create problems for them.

I was feminine enough growing up and as an adult, but was not an “uber girly girl” that Christians told me that I ‘should’ be.

Never mind that the Bible does not explicitly spell out what “being a woman” is “supposed” to look like in American culture in the 20th or 21st centuries.

I was taught by my mother, by Christian (and secular) material I read or saw on TV, that because I was a girl, I was supposed to be maternal, I was supposed to want to have babies some day, that I should always want to wear frilly, pink, flowered covered clothing.

The fact is, I never cared for any of those things.

I’ve often found babies annoying and never really cared if I had one myself or not. If other people want to have children, good on them, but it’s something that was not terribly appealing to me personally.

Conversely, I was also taught by parents, culture, and church, that because I was a girl, I was NOT supposed to wear jeans, sneakers, nor was I supposed to want to do things like run, climb trees, watch Bat Man reruns on TV, be a Ghost Rider comic fan, nor was I supposed to enjoy any of those things.

But I was in fact, as a kid, a Bat Man and Ghost Rider fan, liked to watch Bat Man on tv, wear jeans and sneakers and climb trees. That’s who I was, and I got really tired of being shamed or criticized for it.

In adulthood, I see fellow conservatives shaming other adults for not playing out these traditional gender roles – or for merely questioning them to start with – and I do not comprehend this.

If you are a conservative, I would think you would be supportive of people’s freedom to choose.

If a man wants to dance in the ballet, or write sensitive poetry, rather than become a quarterback for the NFL, rather than mock him, why wouldn’t you just respect the fact that he’s an adult who wants to chose for himself what he wants to do with his life?

I sometimes see news stories of liberal, Democrat mayors who try to make laws that prevent adults from choosing to drink soda because they think soda is not healthy. Isn’t that a form of “nanny stating?”

How is a liberal wanting to prevent adults from drinking Coke or Pepsi any different than Republicans and social conservatives wanting to shame adults from pursuing non-gender-stereotypical hobbies?

Jesus Christ did not fit today’s American, evangelical, social conservative, Christian traditional gender roles, either. Continue reading “Hungry ISIS Fighters (Muslim Extremists) Just Want Their Wives To Cook Pancakes – When Islam Sounds Like Christianity”

Is A “Carnal Christian” Saved? excerpts from page by R Olson

Is A “Carnal Christian” Saved?  excerpts from page by R Olson

This post by Olson resonated with me (link to it is below).

I keep seeing progressive Christians and some ex-Christians declare on the internet on various blogs and forums that most evangelicals are too legalistic and judgmental. They must be kidding.

I see the exact opposite problem: churches and denominations, both evangelical and others, who look too much like secular culture, too unwilling to condemn sin, and redefining some behaviors to the point those behaviors are no longer considered sinful, though the Bible does.

I agree with Olson that many Christians have abandoned the idea of using outward signs of holy living as a barometer to judge if a person is truly saved or not, so that, as a result, people proclaiming the name of Jesus are not expected by other Christians to live much differently from your average, hedonistic, moral relativistic, Non-Christian.

I do think that actual Christians can and are guilty of some pretty heinous things at times, but other Christians are reluctant to speak out against blatant, recurring sin when they see it in other self professing believers.

I would guess that in part 3  of Olson’s series (which he has not posted yet if I am not mistaken) that he may claim that people who appear to live in constant, unrepentant sin are not “real” Christians – I’m not so sure I would agree with that. Maybe I’ll be wrong and he’ll arrive at another conclusion.

I really have to scratch my head in befuddlement at people who take issue with Christians who do still take a stand against behavior the Bible condemns (though this is not happening as much as it used to). I’m the direct opposite.

The more and more I see a larger percentage of American Christians refusing to call out things like hetero fornication as sinful (and other immoral behaviors as sinful), the less respect I have for the entire Christian faith, for churches, and for Christians in general.

I see no point in being a follower of Christ if everything the man taught (and this includes the rest of the Bible, not merely the content of the Gospels) is considered irrelevant, or if Christians today are going to call good evil and evil good, or to shrug evil off as though it’s no big deal.

When not totally ignoring or arguing away the parts they do not like, Christians today treat the Bible as though it is silly putty, and they can bend and stretch it however they please.

I see little to no point at continuing in a faith whose adherents do not even bother to live up to the minimal rules its founder, and that his book set out (his book = the entire Bible – Jesus is not just in the Gospels: he is present from Genesis to the Pauline letters to Revelation).

(Link):  Is A “Carnal Christian” Saved? by R Olson (part 2)

Excerpts:

  • …. Today, unfortunately, even many evangelicals have nearly totally abandoned such expectations of holiness, or even avoidance of scandalous behavior, and church discipline.
  • We have succumbed to American individualism and interpreted authentic Christianity and salvation itself as totally and exclusively a matter between the individual and God. I cannot tell how many times I have heard evangelicals (including Baptists who don’t call themselves that) say about a church member engaging in sinful conduct “That’s between them and God.”
  • ….But once a person “comes to Christ by faith” we often overlook their spiritual growth or lack of it—except to encourage spiritual growth.
  • … The result, so it seems to me, is that many even “mature Christians” live lives hardly different from non-Christians with little or no intervention from their own Christian community.
  • ….Both in the New Testament and in historical Christianity of most traditions, assurance of salvation is and was based at least in part on “signs of grace,” visible Christianity, dedication to the cause of Christ, even at least inward moral transformation over time into a godly personality. Today, I fear, perhaps out of fear of legalism and harshness, we have by and large abandoned that whole idea.
  • ((read the entire page))

——————————————-

Related posts:

(Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners

(Link): Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them

(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

(Link): Christians Not Only Accept Pre Marital Sex Among Adults But Are Also Now Accepting “Shacking Up” as The New Norm

(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards

“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site

“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site

(Link): “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – from CBE site, by Carrie A. Miles

As I wrote in a much older posts, Christian single men need to strongly reconsider supporting gender complementarianism, if they do so already, because GC (gender complementarianism, as espoused by Christian groups such as “Council for Biblical Womanhood and Manhood” and by people such as preacher Mark Driscoll and many other male pastors, as well as entire denominations, such as Southern Bapists), discriminate against single, childless men.

These groups not only promote sexism against women, and limit women, but they do so against MEN as well, especially un-married, childless men.

Under patriarchy beliefs, or even standard GC (gender complementarian) teachings, Christian men are told that they are demanded or expected to marry, marry young, and to have lots of children, and it’s argued that the Bible itself supports those propositions (though it does not).

If men do not marry, do not marry young, and do not have children, they are told, they are in disobedience to God, breaking biblical rules, defrauding women, and are displeasing God.

Depending on the particular GC preacher or organization, men will further be told that they are not “real” men if they don’t have a career with a paycheck that enables their wife to stay at home and raise children.

If you are a man who has a wife, and she must work to help pay bills, you are considered a “man fail” by these groups.

Also depending on the particular GC preacher or church, men who are artistic, creative, sensitive (I don’t mean homosexual, all I mean are men who are not as into “manly men” stereotypes as others), men who are not into MMA or NFL, men who do not fit stereotypical he-man American pursuits and interests, are derided for being wimps and “pussified” (their word) by male, GC preachers (see this link for some examples).

If you are a conservative, Christian man and want to read opposing views to GC by other conservative Christians who interpret the Bible literally, you need to start researching Christian gender egalitarianism books and sites.

One such site is CBE, Christians for Biblical Equality.

CBE is not a group of man-hating, liberal feminists who allegorize the Bible. They are conservative Christians, and sometimes have male authors write their articles and blog posts, in addition to female authors.

The following editorial supporting adult celibates and refuting the Christian obsession with family, marriage, and procreation is from CBE. Even if you are a gender complementarian, you shouldn’t see anything, or not too much, in this that you disagree with in this article on an egalitarian site.

(Link):  “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”

Here are some excerpts.

by Carrie A. Miles

On issues of the family and scripture, Christians are in a bit of a pickle. It is not always clear how our convictions about “family values” mesh with what the Bible teaches, especially the Gospels.

Jesus, for example, did not assign the great spiritual and sentimental significance to family life that many Christians do today. How then do we reconcile the expectation that all good Christians should marry with his example of lifelong celibacy?

Or our championship of family with Jesus’ warning that following him will set sibling against sibling and parent against child?

Endorsing family values poses particularly interesting issues for biblical egalitarians, since many of our fellow Bible-believers hold that these values should include a hierarchical model of marriage.

In order to understand Jesus’ attitude toward the family, we must understand that family practices in the first century were not based on emotion as they are today, but rather on material, economic interests.

In my book, The Redemption of Love,1 I show that the family values prevalent in Jesus’ day were the economic consequences of the Fall. These family practices, now known as patriarchy, were corrupted by the human decision to have our own way and live outside of God’s abundance.

I join New Testament historian S. Scott Bartchy in arguing that rather than support patriarchy, Jesus and other New Testament writers (especially Paul) intended to over- throw it. Thus, Jesus’ teachings, which seem anti-family today, reflect his intent to dissolve the materialistic motives for family and replace them with relationships based on doing the will of God.2

Singleness

In this passage Jesus challenged another ancient family value—the expectation that every respectable person should marry. He noted several reasons why people might choose not to marry, including the decision to devote themselves entirely to the kingdom of heaven (v. 12). Between this teaching and his own example of celibacy, Jesus made it clear that it was acceptable for godly people to remain single.This was a radical claim, since singleness had rarely been an option before. Historically, most marriages were arranged by families to further their own interests, often with little consideration for the preferences of the bride and groom.

Continue reading ““Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site”

‘Jesus’ wife’ fragment (papyrus) is not a fake, scientists claim – Jesus Was Not Married

‘Jesus’ wife’ fragment is not a fake, scientists claim – Jesus Was Not Married

Several years ago, when The DaVinci Code book, and later film based on the book, was released, there was a great big hulabaloo over it and its claims. The book claimed that Jesus snuck off to France, got married, and had a kid or something.

Many conservative Christians were in an uproar that an author dared to suggest that Jesus was married and a literal father of biological children.

It is true that Jesus never married and never had children. But, as I’ve written before, I notice the only time Christians care to defend adult virginity and singlehood is anytime Hollywood or a group of scholars suggest that perhaps Jesus was married and had sex.

It’s bad enough that the present-day American group of Christians tends to forget that Jesus was single and a virgin – they have turned marriage and parenthood into idols – but it’s also infuriating when the seculars, the Non Christians, try to take away one of the main never-married and lifelong celibates in the Bible from also-never-married, lifelong celibate Christians.

This story has been in the news lately (more links about this below):
(Link): ‘Jesus’ wife’ fragment is not a fake, scientists claim

If you’ve read anything about the Gnostic Gospels and similar issues, you know this stuff is bunk. Just because something is very old does not necessarily mean that the contents are trustworthy or accurate.

Even within a few decades of Jesus’ death and resurrection, false teachers were already infiltrating the church and they made up bizarre, untrue things about Jesus or issues pertaining to soteriology, so no, one should not be surprised that in the 500, 600 years after the death of Christ, that scholars can and will find ancient papyri from that era stating all manner of things about Jesus, including the idea that he was married.

I have some more comments below this following excerpt. Notice the part in bold face type, where it says Christians used to respect and revere virginity and celibacy to the point people wondered if married women and mothers were saved or could serve God. How times have changed.

We have now reversed course in much of Christianity in America and other parts of the world: virginity (and celibacy) is not only (Link): not valued, but it is (Link): viewed as an impediment or inconvenience, (Link): virginity is attacked, even by (Link): famous Christians, all due to the fact that (Link): fornicators say their feelings get hurt when they hear Christians support virginity and sexual purity.

I wonder about people – Christian and Non – who have this burning passion or desire to believe Jesus was married and a parent.

I wonder if it’s due in part to the very deep bias contemporary cultures have against celibacy, adult virginity, and adult singleness? Does it make them feel more validated to believe Jesus was married with a kid because they are?

Here are some links about the papyrus fragment.

(Link): Study: ‘Jesus’ wife’ fragment not a fake

Excerpts

    Though she [Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School historian] dubbed the fragment, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” King said that the papyrus does not prove that Jesus was actually married – just that ancient Christians discussed the possibility.

    “This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus’s marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family,” King said.

    Continue reading “‘Jesus’ wife’ fragment (papyrus) is not a fake, scientists claim – Jesus Was Not Married”

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?

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?
————–
Have you ever noticed how many conservative Christians ignore the unmarried, or treat them like trash? Because they either don’t stop to even think about single people or singleness at all, or they seem to regard singleness as a flawed state….however

Whenever a Non-Christian author or liberal scholar speculates that perhaps Jesus was married with children, O the scandal! The pearl- clutching! The fainting that goes on! Someone break out the smelling salts!

When Non Christian author Dan Brown released “The DaVinci Code” book, and it was made into a movie starring Tom Hanks, American Christians went into an uproar: how dare anyone suggest Jesus was not unmarried, had kids, and was not celibate!

I couldn’t help think of all that when I saw this article this morning:

(Link): Apologetics: Why the Singleness of Jesus Makes the Best Sense of the Historical Evidence by T P Jones

You see, most Christians do not respect singleness and they generally treat it like the plague, or else don’t give it a second thought, but, like good hypocrites they are, singlehood becomes of preeminent importance to them concerning Jesus of Nazareth specifically, when His celibacy or marital state is called into question.

Here are a few excerpts from the article “Apologetics: Why the Singleness of Jesus Makes the Best Sense of the Historical Evidence” by Jones:

:: What Early Christians Had to Say About the Singleness of Jesus ::

Dr. King has presented the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” as evidence that arguments over the singleness of Jesus were a pressing issue among second-century Christians. The fragment provides “direct evidence,” according to King, “that claims about Jesus’s marital status first arose over a century after the death of Jesus in the context of intra-Christian controversies over sexuality, marriage, and discipleship.”

In other words, second-century Christians were arguing about issues related to sex and marriage. In the midst of these arguments, some Christians claimed Jesus was married while others said he wasn’t.

The second- and third-century sources do not, however, support this supposition. In the first place, while certainly possible, it’s far from certain whether the fourth-century fragment known as The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife was translated from any second-century text. More likely than not, this fragment is a modern forgery.

Even if we assume for a moment that the fragment is authentic, Coptic texts of this sort did not emerge in the context of “intra-Christian controversies” but from breakaway Gnostic sects, groups that had already rejected the witness of the apostolic eyewitnesses. The primary concern of the Gnostics would not have been whether Jesus was actually married but how they might portray Jesus in a way that would illustrate their own myths and rituals.

Yet what of the earliest Christian mentions of Jesus and marriage? Do they suggest intense “intra-Christian controversies” that resulted in competing “claims about Jesus’s marital status”?

Not really.

In fact, in the first Christian references to Jesus’s marital status, I find no hint of competing claims about whether Jesus was married or single.

Continue reading “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?”