Update on Married Father Who Worked as Christian Radio Host And Who Rapes Children

Update on Married Father Who Worked as Christian Radio Host And Who Rapes Children

Previous post about this perverted loser:
(Link): Christian radio show host John Balyo arrested on child rape charge

UPDATES:

Moser is the guy who was into naked kiddie photos and who was approached by the first pervert to help him get kids for sex:

(Link): Federal Investigators Find “Bondage Kit” in Storage Unit Of Radio Host Accused of Child Molestation

    Investigators also found Moser had an account on OKCupid.com with his photo and the same email address connected to the child-porn website.

    … Moser is also being held in jail for sex crimes.

Other info from that same page:

    PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP, Mich. (June 25, 2014) – Federal investigators say Former Christian Radio Host, John Balyo, told them about a “bondage kit” he kept in a storage unit during an interview following his arrest for allegedly having oral sex with an 11-year-old boy in a Battle Creek Hotel Room.

    According to a spokesperson with Homeland Security, investigators say they found duct tape, handcuffs, rope, zip-ties, and children socks inside the so-called “bondage kit.”

    In addition, investigators say they also found a file containing reports of missing children along with sexually explicit photographs.

    Continue reading

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single Forever: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter”

The dude who wrote this, Miano, is sexist. He is a gender complementarian and thinks it is sin for a woman to teach the Gospel to men in public.

Based on other sites I have visited, he does not have a paying job, but his wife does, yet he teaches that a man is head of the house and actually lists this quality as being one he insists a man must have if a man wants to marry his daughter:

    “[a man must] …be able to provide, financially, for his wife and family (1 Timothy 5:8) “

Miano himself is incapable or unwilling to financially support his own family (this is according to information I have read on other sites), so I have no idea why he makes that a requirement for a man who would want to date his daughter.

He also, based upon what others have said on other blogs, goes on his Facebook ministry’s page and begs for people to send him Wal-Mart gift cards and to buy him vans and stuff. If he was financially supporting himself, he would not have to beg funds and for cars from other people.

This blog posting by Miano, by the way, came to my attention via (Link): Stuff Christian Culture Likes. (I would encourage you to click that link and read visitor comments.)

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

You’ll notice in this essay that this guy does not view his daughters as fully functioning, independent adults capable of making their own choices in life.

Miano has infantilized his daughters, who range in age at the time of this writing of about 17 years of age to age 26 or 27, which is a very huge mistake. It is not his duty to choose boyfriends or husbands for his daughters.

A father is certainly welcome to offer his daughter his advice or views on aspects of her life, including whom she is romantically involved with, but not to act as final arbiter of whom she marries.

I completely object to the “dating is sin” or “dating is wrong” mindset this guy has.

Notice also that Miano assumes each daughter will be married and that God “chooses” spouses for them – this is totally unbiblical.

The Bible nowhere states that God will send a spouse to someone; God makes no statement in the Scriptures that he promises that he will send you, or anyone else, a spouse.

Let me also use myself as an example of why this belief that everyone is destined for marriage and God “sends” them a spouse, or chooses a spouse for them, is a falsehood.

I am over 40 years of age, a woman, had expected to marry, was a Christian from girlhood, and prayed daily from childhood onwards for God to send me a husband, and I never got a husband.

It is simply not true that God “sends” or “chooses” spouses for people. If that were true, I would have been married years ago, but I am still single to this day.

It may be that even if you are a Christian and want to marry that God will never send you a spouse, no matter how long you pray for it, and no matter how much faith you have.

You may be single your entire life. Miano’s daughters may never marry.

Here, a bit below, are some excerpts from the page by Miano – please understand that his list is pretty long.

I am not going to reproduce the entire list here; this is only a portion of it (I have additional comments below this excerpt):

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

    by Tony Miano

    Godly, manly young Christian men are harder to find these days.

    But I will not lower my standards for my future son-in-laws.

    I will answer to God, not the culture, for to whom I give my daughters.

    Since our daughters were very young, Mahria and I have instilled in them a family commitment to courtship.

    Our girls will not “date” before they are married.

    We see no biblical precedence for “trying people on for size” or being in relationship with a member of the opposite sex because it is pleasurable or “something to do.” Courtship is a family affair.

    … Mahria and I understand that the day will come, probably soon, when three godly men (one for each daughter) will seek our daughters’ hands in marriage.

    … (Note to any potential candidate who may read this: if this first essential quality is not true in your life, you need not bother reading the rest of the list. You may be a wonderful young man, but you are not the one my Lord and Savior has chosen for my daughter.)

    … not be an adulterer in any form, including pornography (Matthew 5:27-28).

    … open car and building doors for women whenever given the opportunity. Chivalry is not dead (1 Peter 3:7).

    … understand and accept his biblical role as head of the home and his wife (Ephesians 5:25-32).

    Continue reading

Christian radio show host John Balyo arrested on child rape charge

Christian radio show host arrested on child rape charge

And once again: I think the Christian teaching that Christians should only marry other Christians (the “be equally yoked” teaching) is a CROCK.

As so many self-professing Christian men are pedophiles, serial killers, porn addicts, wife abusers, etc. and so forth, you stand just as good a chance dating and marrying Non-Christians as you would a Christian male.

I am of course not suggesting that each and every self professing Christian man is a pervert, adulterer, porn addict and what have you, but I have seen enough examples of them that I no longer take the “be yoked” teaching seriously (see some examples here).

I’m not sure if this Baylo guy was married or had children of his own – which would be relevant for the purposes of this blog, because many conservative Christians like to shame and insult childfree, childless, and adult singles and make them out to be losers, freaks, or weirdos for not marrying and/or for not pro-creating.

(Many Christians often assume, and quite wrongly, that marriage and parenthood automatically makes a person more responsible, grown up, godly, ethical, and loving, as I have explained on this blog time and again.)

(Link): Christian radio show host arrested on child rape charge

    John Balyo, 35, of Caledonia was arrested in Gaylord as part of a joint investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Battle Creek Police Department and Michigan State Police.

    Balyo, an on-air personality at WCSG-FM, a Christian radio station associated with Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, was arrested on a state charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, according to Khaalid Walls, a spokesman for ICE.

    Walls said Friday investigators are alleging that Balyo had sexual encounters with minors in Battle Creek.

    ICE said in a statement that Balyo paid a Battle Creek man, Ronald Moser, 42, to arrange sexual encounters with underage children.

    Continue reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Link): Famliolatry on Display Again

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

(Link): Marital Gnosticism in Evangelicalism

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs
—————————————–
Don’t forget, I may not be blogging as much or as often in the future, if at all.
See this link (Link): [Blog Break] for more info.

—————————————–
There has been an uproar the last day or so, ever since Christianity Today published a long page by a jailed sex offender who preyed on a teen girl.

I don’t know the man’s name because the piece was published anonymously. I shall here after refer to the author, the convicted sex offender, as “Mr. Perverted Youth Pastor,” or “Mr. PYP” for short.

The author of the piece, Mr. PYP, is in his 30s, and he worked as a youth pastor. He was jailed for statutory rape of one of his female church students under his charge, a young lady he began to groom for exploitation when she was around 11 or 12 years old.

Mr. PYP said in his piece published by Christianity Today that he found the attention from the young lady flattering and intoxicating, and felt his wife was not paying him enough attention, and IIRC, I think he mentioned that the wife was not putting out enough (sexually), or whatever. (I only skimmed the guy’s story, I did not read all of it closely.)

The thing is, a grown man of age 30 should not be seeking validation from an 11 or 16 year old girl – that is not only morally wrong, perverted, and gross, but absolutely pathetic.

I think the editors at Christianity Today intended for this pervert’s essay to be a helpful warning to Christian men not to get too close to women (or something along those lines), and which unfortunately also plays into false stereotypes about the genders, but the guy who wrote the page, Mr. PYP, never fully and unambiguously owns his sin, moral failing, and crime, so it comes across as though he’s excusing and justifying his behavior.

There’s a bit of “victim blaming” in the piece on Mr. PYP’s part, where he uses terminology such as,
“When WE [he and the young lady he was victimizing] decided to end the affair, I felt that…”

I don’t feel like summarizing the guy’s entire story and situation on my blog, so click here to read his page (“My Easy Trip from Youth Minister to Felon”) and read it for yourself.

The aspect of this story I am interested in for the purpose of this blog is that here he is, he is a married adult (with, IIRC, a kid of his own), he worked as a pastor, and yet he also sexually exploited a young lady, and I will explain further below why this interests me.

Another aspect I am interested in regarding this story is that Mr. PYP does not take full responsibility for his actions in the piece, and he classifies his sexual exploitation of the young lady as an “extra martial affair.”

Now, I, to a point, do regard his actions towards her as an “extra marital affair” because he was a MARRIED man who was sleeping with this girl – he was in fact sleeping around on his wife, but of course, his actions are more than just a standard extra-martial affair, because he was taking advantage of a young lady.

In my opinion, his actions contain traits of both situations, sexual abuse as well as an extra-marital affair.

There are a few other writers online who disagree with my view on this; they think his actions were 100% sexual abuse and that the phrase “extra marital affair” should not even be used when discussing this case, but I never- the- less see a tinge of extra-marital affair in the situation as well (but on the man’s part only; I am not blaming the girl at all).

I am simply saying that yes, while Mr. PYP did sexually abuse a teen girl, that in doing so, he also violated his marital vows to his wife to remain faithful to the wife – which to me can categorize his actions as being an affair as well as being sexual abuse.

Why I am interested in this story:

As I have pointed out time and time again on the blog, Christians have several falsehoods and fairy tales and stereotypes about marriage, sex, dating, gender relations, and whom they feel a Christian should marry.

Many conservative Christians believe that married people are immune from sexual sin. Christians falsely believe if a man is married, he must be getting steady, regular, hot sexy sex from his wife, and he therefore will not use porn, fondle kids, or have mistresses. This is of course naive and incorrect, because even men married to sexy wives, who get regular, great sex from the wife, still use porn and have affairs.

Continue reading

According to John Piper, all you gotta do to have pre-marital sex is…

According to John Piper, all you gotta do to have pre-marital sex is…

Off the top, I do not like Piper or most of his theology.

The guy is weird and highly sexist and issues crap advice to abused wives (off site link: John Piper: Wives should “endure” abuse “for a season”).

So, some guy called in to Piper’s podcast or radio show or whatever, and Piper’s “Desiring God” site typed up a transcript.

Guy writes in and says he plans on marrying his girlfriend, but he’s not a virgin, what to do, what to do, he inquires of Piper.

Like Tim Challies, and most conservative Christians, Piper pays lip service to the idea of virginity, (“I think the main thing I want to say is this: Virginity is a precious gift that you cannot give to your fiancé, nor she you. That is a great sadness and a great loss.”), but Piper goes on to tell the guy to tell his fiance this:

Excerpts (source (Link): Walking the Wedding Aisle Without Your Virginity)

    So what is the gift you do have to give to this fiancé with whom you have had sexual relations? What gift can you give her that God might be pleased to make so wonderful, the gift you can’t give her will not destroy?

    And here it is. You can look your fiancé in the eye and say this:

    I failed you. I failed God. And I am deeply, deeply sorry. I hate what I did. I hate the hurt it caused you and me. I hate the dishonor that I brought upon the Lord. I hate the disrespect I showed you in not caring for you better. And I repent.

    I turn away from that sin, and sinful forces that drove it. I renounce them. And I turn to Jesus Christ my Lord and my Redeemer and I receive from him his full and blood-bought forgiveness and I cherish it with all my heart.

    I tremble at the thought of despising his blood now. And by the Spirit that he has given me, I resolve in his strength never, never, never to betray him or to give my body to any woman but to my wife.

    I offer you my forgiven, redeemed, cleansed soul and body in marriage to cherish you and honor you and be faithful to you.

    I invite you into this new forgiven, redeemed, cleansed union with me. I know there will always be scars and the memories.

    But God is merciful, and in his time and his wisdom and his way he will make these scars of sin the emblem of his mercy and the signs of his cross.

Oh, okay. That’s all there is to it.

I am a single woman. Now I can start having sex before marriage, and then, if I get a marriage proposal, tell my spouse to be,
“Honey, I failed you. I renounce that sin. Jesus forgives me of my sexual past, so should you. I know there will be scars of sin, but hey, let’s go and get married.”

I don’t agree with some of Piper’s other views on the page. He gets into a thing about how an unmarried person’s body belongs to God, and a married woman’s body belongs to her spouse. I do not agree.
————————
Related posts:

(Link): A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls

(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

(Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

(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): After Pastor’s Son Comes Out as Homosexual, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality – Once More Christians Allow Their Feelings To Cancel Out What God Says In The Bible on Sexual Morality – Christians worship feelings now, not God

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Pat Robertson says ‘Virginity Has Nothing To Do With Marriage’ and Says (Paraphrasing) ‘Virginity Was Fine For Mary But Not Applicable For Any Other Christians’

Duggar Family Visits Fertility Specialist To Have Another Baby

Duggar Family Visits Fertility Specialist To Have Another Baby

The mind boggles. I do believe this is nuclear family and baby worship taken to an insane degree.

The Duggars, if I remember correctly, are part of the “Quiverfull” movement. They already have 19, or 20 kids.

(Link): Duggars visit fertility doctor to explore having 20th kid

(Link): ‘Am I ready to catch another baby?’ Mother-of-19 Michelle Duggar visits ‘high-risk’ fertility doctor in hopes of having MORE children aged 47

    Her chances of conceiving are less than five per cent and her odds of having a child with down syndrome are ‘one in four or five’

    This marks the longest time in 27 years that Mrs Duggar has not been pregnant

    The strictly Christian family does not believe in birth control
    By ANNABEL FENWICK ELLIOTT

    PUBLISHED: 10:34 EST, 20 May 2014 | UPDATED: 12:07 EST, 20 May 2014

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

—————–
Related posts:

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

(Link): Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Loving the child-free people in your church by S. Burden

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Widows and Childless and Childfree Have Better Well Being Than Married Couples and Parents says new study

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

(Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Married Preacher, Father of Eight Kids (and promoter of “Family Values” and Leader of wacko Quiverfull- and- Patriarchy type groups that promotes idolatry of “the family” and Marriage and of Having Lots of Children), Used Nanny as Sex Object – update on Phillips story

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

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

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

I have a few observations below this long excerpt by Stetzer:

(Link): Ed Stetzer’s Advice: Avoid Any Hint

Snip the intro:

    by Ed Stetzer

    It might seem silly to you, but let me encourage you not to see it as such. Many of you who read this are young pastors. I know too many pastors who have lost great credibility because of an accusation (let alone an indiscretion).

    I am not irresistible. I have a great face for radio. I do not think that anyone will swoon over me. But I do not know the stability, morality and disposition of people that I meet.

    When I told my wife, I thought she might slap me. She has been excited about my recent health plans. However, she was the opposite. She felt protected and affirmed. She knew I would not put our family in jeopardy.

    I remember Danny Akin once saying that he would not pick up a woman on the side of the road in the rain if her car broke down. He would never be alone with a woman not his wife. It seemed a bit selfish until he told the rest of the story. He would pull over and give her the keys and let her drive to where she needed to be.

    Guarding yourself takes work, can be awkward and is often inconvenient. But one problem averted makes it a good stewardship of your life, ministry and family.

    At the churches I planted, we always used something like Saddleback’s Ten Commandments:

    1. Thou shalt not go to lunch alone with the opposite sex.
    2. Thou shalt not have the opposite sex pick you up or drive you places when it is just the two of you.
    3. Thou shalt not kiss any attendee of the opposite sex or show affection that could be questioned.
    4. Thou shalt not visit the opposite sex alone at home.
    5. Thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office, and thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex more than once without that person’s mate. Refer them.
    6. Thou shalt not discuss detailed sexual problems with the opposite sex in counseling. Refer them.
    7. Thou shalt not discuss your marriage problems with an attendee of the opposite sex.
    8. Thou shalt be careful in answering e-mails, instant messages, chat rooms, cards or letters from the opposite sex.
    9. Thou shalt make your co-worker your protective ally.
    10. Thou shalt pray for the integrity of other staff members.
    (The first four do not apply to unmarried staff.)
    I hope you have a list like this for your own life and ministry.
    “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality…” (Ephesians 5:3)

Here we have Ed Stetzer maintaining the usual conservative Christian misunderstandings and stereotypes, some that prove to be quite harmful to women and to single ones in particular, and maintaining stereotypes about the genders, sex, marriage, singles and all the rest.

Stetzer’s views on this matter are actually anti-biblical. He is advising men to behave in the exact opposite way that Jesus Christ treated women, that Jesus role modeled for men in the Bible.

I cannot find any biblical examples of God telling men in the Bible to avoid women, nor do I see examples of Jesus running away from women or refusing to meet with prostitutes, to avoid being alone with women, – and no, my dear, “fleeing temptation” does not count, for it has been skewed by Christians to mean something it does not: isolate women and treat all women as temptresses.

A citation of Ephesians 5:3 (the “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality” verse) has been carried to absurd lengths by Stetzer in his “thou shalt not list.”

As Jesus said of the mis-interpretations and too-rigid interpretation and application of some Old Testament laws of the religious groups of his day,

    You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. (Matthew 23:24)

Jesus had to remind the Pharisees that they followed the letter of the law rather than its spirit, which defeated its purpose and intent on some matters. And that is what guys like Stetzer do with Ephesians 5:3.

Your Bible mentions that you, if you are a Christian, are capable of SELF CONTROL. It is not inevitable that if a Christian man and woman meet alone or become emotionally close that it will always end in SEX.

As I said on a previous post, re-read the account of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, and you will see that Joe’s FIRST reaction was NOT to “flee.” Nope. After the wife hit on Joe, he reasoned with her several times.

It was not until later in the story that he then fled. Christians often assume that the very first time the wife made a pass at him that Joe fled, but that is incorrect. Read it yourself ((Link): Genesis ch 39):

    And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her.

Yeah, it says, “day after day” the chick hit on him, and he refused her.

It does not say, “Joe refused to be alone with her in the first place,” or, “the first time she made a pass he fled.”

I think that contemporary American Christian views about men not being around women lest they be tempted to pork them mirrors those of the Pharisees, which Jesus contested.

Here are some examples:

    An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites:
    (1) “the shoulder Pharisee,” who wears, as it were, his good actions. ostentatiously upon his shoulder;
    (2) “the wait-a-little Pharisee,” who ever says, “Wait a little, until I have performed the good act awaiting me”;
    (3), “the bruised Pharisee,” who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed…
    (Source)

From (Link): Jesus And Women

    No rabbi of Jesus’ day that I know about included women among his disciples.

    But Luke said that Jesus included women in His circle of followers– even women from questionable backgrounds

    …. Jesus then did five things that are astonishing because what He did broke through the cultural mold of that day.

    First, He called this woman [the woman bent over in the synagogue in Capernaum] forward from the place of the women (the back of the room) to the place of the men (the front of the room).

    He interrupted the teaching of the Word of God–the most sacred time in Jewish life–to minister to a woman.

    …. Second, Jesus broke culture by speaking to her [the woman bent over in the synagogue in Capernaum].

    The Jewish writer Alfred Eidersheim wrote that there were rabbis who prayed every day: “I thank Thee, God, that I was not born a Gentile, a dog, or a woman.”

    Isn’t that a great prayer? (Do you notice the word order?) No wonder everyone was shocked as Jesus spoke to this woman.

    Jesus broke culture a third way: He laid hands on her.

    Eidersheim explains that in Jesus’ day some Pharisees were called “the black-and-blue Pharisees.”

    Why? Because they were so strict in their observance of the Law they would not even look at a woman. If they sensed that a woman was going to cross their path, they would close their eyes tightly and walk straight ahead.

    Sometimes they would smack into a wall or fall over an ox cart and receive their bruises. Here, in contrast to the example of the “black-and-blue Pharisees,” Jesus laid His hands on a woman.

    Fourth, Jesus affirmed her worth in society. These men in the synagogue were probably thinking, What is she doing in here? What is He doing? He’s touching her. Look at what He’s doing in God’s holy place.

    Jesus knew their hearts and said to them, “Don’t you loose your ox or donkey and take it to be watered on the Sabbath?” (Luke 13:15).

    They all knew they broke the Sabbath by watering their animals.

    Jesus continued, “This woman is worth far more than any animal you have. This woman is not an animal; she is a ‘daughter of Abraham’ ” (Luke 13:16). By saying this, He restored her rightful position.2

    This episode is especially important because Jesus willingly risked His life for the sake of a woman. He humiliated His opponents in their own synagogue by ministering sensitivity, kindness, and mercy to a woman. It is for this act of kindness and divine love, and many others like them, that these men sent Him to the Cross.

Of course, if you know anything about Islam, you know that some forms of it require women to wear partial or full head- to- body coverings, otherwise men may look upon them and lust.

Basically, you have some branches of Islam and other world religions teach the same thing about male gaze, female sexuality, etc, that some Christians do, a few similarities include:

    -They over-hype that men are visually stimulated (ignoring that women are as well),
    -they assume men are rapey rapers who can’t keep their penises in their pants (ie, they assume and teach that men lack sexual self-control),
    -they teach and believe that all women are easy tarts and harlots who will bed any man in sight, even fat, balding middle aged evangelical doof wads,
    -that women are responsible for men’s sexual behavior by their own or by how they dress (hence puerile Christian modesty teachings or the extreme of Islamic burkas)

By the way, contrary to the sexist crud Christians continue to spew in their marriage sermons and blogs, women are visually oriented, not just men.

Continue reading

Christian Mouthpiece – Russell Moore – Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Christian Mouthpiece Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Russell Moore is being a hypocrite on this topic. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth about it.

(Link): Can We Trade Sexual Morality for Church Growth? by Russell Moore, hosted on TGC site

Here is an excerpt or two from that page with observations by me below the excerpts:

    by Russell Moore

    From time to time we hear some telling us that evangelical Christianity must retool our sexual ethic if we’re ever going to reach the next generation.

    Some say that Millennials, particularly, are leaving the church because of our “obsession” with sexual morality. The next generation needs a more flexible ethic, they say, on premarital sex, homosexuality, and so on. We’ll either adapt, the line goes, or we’ll die.

    …Always Difficult

    The same is true with a Christian sexual ethic. Sexual morality didn’t become difficult with the onset of the sexual revolution. It always has been. Walking away from our own lordship, or from the tyranny of our desires, has always been a narrow way. The rich young ruler wanted a religion that would promise him his best life now, extended out into eternity. But Jesus knew that such an existence isn’t life at all, just the zombie corpse of the way of the flesh. He came to give us something else, to join us to his own life.

    …But even if it “worked” to negotiate away sexual morality for church growth, we wouldn’t do it. We can only reach Millennials, and anyone else, by reaching them with the gospel, good news for repentant sinners through the shed blood and empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

    If we have to choose between Millennials and Jesus, we choose Jesus.

    …No Amendment

    Some think the Christian sexual ethic is akin to our congregation’s constitution and by-laws, that it can be amended by a two-thirds vote. But this isn’t the case. Sexuality isn’t ancillary to the gospel but is itself an embodied icon of the gospel, pointing us to the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:29-32).

    This is why the Bible speaks of sexual immorality as having profound spiritual consequences (1 Cor. 6:17-20), ultimately leading, if not repented of, to exile from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

    Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place.

And Moore’s editorial goes on like that for several additional paragraphs.

I don’t think a guy who advises Christian virgins that they are “idolizing” virginity if they are upset or disappointed that their betrothed is a non-virgin – as Moore has done preivously (see link below) – is really in a place to opine about how churches should not “trade sexual morality for church growth.”

Even sadder is that a well-known Christian apologetics group was tweeting a link to this Moore editorial yesterday, as though they approve of it.

I tweeted them a link to my rebuttal:
(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

A person who claims to represent Christian sexual ethics and who scolds a virgin Christian for wanting, or hoping, to marry another Christian virgin, and accusing her of “idolizing virginity” or “being prideful” about it, has no place to write

    “Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place”

and similar things.

Continue reading

Kirk Cameron (Christian actor): ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than homosexual marriage.

Kirk Cameron (Christian actor): ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than homosexual marriage.

Left wing sites are flipping out because actor Kirk Cameron said (to summarize), “‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than gay marriage.”

Not only are some in shock, but some of the other left wingers are angry that Cameron is discussing the topic at all. They don’t think the guy should have any opinions about sex or publicize them.

Even though Cameron is criticizing other Christians for obsessing about being against homosexual marriage – which should make some of these die hard, liberal yea-hoo’s happy – they are still complaining. You can’t make everyone happy, no matter what you do.

Said one commentator at Huffington Post, “why is Cameron discussing other people’s sex lives, why is he so interested in who other people screw” or something.

Well, genius, it’s because everyone else is, including guys like you.

Liberals, atheists, ex Christians, and emergents claim to be non-judgmental about sex, but they are in fact very judgemental – many of them ridicule abstinence and the idea of staying a virgin until marriage, and those groups never. shut. up. about. sex, even if it’s to sit back and criticize how Christians feel about sex.

It’s on their (ie, liberal, ex-Christian, atheist, liberal Christian) blogs all the time, from how they feel Christians and Republicans are too preoccupied about sexual purity, to when they themselves make every fourth story on their forums and blogs about sex.

And liberals and ex-Christians won’t STFU already about homosexuals, homosexuality, and homosexual marriage.

Cameron is on the right track to aim at the church and call them out for THEIR sexual sin, instead of lambasting a bunch of Non-Christians who are into homosexuality.

If the church starts taking a stronger stance against hetero sexual sin (especially as taking place among self professing Christians), that will make it ten times easier to combat the unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality in churches these days.

(Link): Kirk Cameron: ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than gay marriage

I’ve pretty much been saying the same thing as Cameron there for the last few years on this blog, and I tweeted this to Cameron a few months ago (I have no idea if he saw it):

I’ve also said time and again in previous threads that the Bible does not call Christians to fight secular culture.

I am not against Christians speaking their minds, voting in politicians who are anti- abortion and so on and so forth.

I’m not saying Christians should totally toss in the towel and completely halt writing editorials against homosexuality, homosexual marriage, abortion, and other social issues that are near to their hearts, but maybe dial it back several notches.

I get very annoyed by militant atheists and secularists who pretty much want to force or intimidate Christians into keeping their values and opinions to themselves.

If Christians want to write editorials or books arguing against abortion and homosexuality, or supporting theism and traditional marriage, that is their right.

My problem with Christians on this topic is largely the amount of emphasis.

Continue reading

Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

One fallacy about marriage that sometimes pops up by Christians is that you have to obtain sinless perfection before God will gift you with a spouse.

However, the man below managed to get married, even though he says he is a Christian and he steals from people. He obviously is not godly or perfect, yet he still managed to get a spouse.

A woman wrote a question to the show The 700 Club asking Christian host Pat Robertson if she is morally bound to stay married to a man who “presented himself as a Christian” but who has had four DUIs (driving while intoxicated), went on to swindle a church out of $10,000 and who did a bunch of other bad things.

I usually embed the video or link to the video of Robertson responding to these questions but this particular video has not been uploaded to the 700 Club’s Bring It On page yet. ((Link): Bring It On page below.)

(Edit. This might be the video:
(Link): Bring It On – Pat Robertson Answers Questions – also, it’s embedded )

In his reply, Robertson talks about “fraud of inducement” but opened his comments by insulting the woman and telling her she has the “discernment of a slug.” He also calls her “crazy” and “blind.”

As I’ve said time and before on this blog, a lot of Christians unnecessarily limit a Christian single woman’s dating pool, and hence chances of marriage, by quoting “be not yoked” at her, as if to say they think this verse teaches that a Christian may only marry another Christian.

As I’ve also said, I see no point in a Christian woman limiting herself to dating only Christian males, when I have example after example on this blog of news stories or reports of Christian men who turn out to use prostitutes, they turn out to be pedophiles, serial rapists, and killers (such as at this link)

On top of that, there are online communities, support groups, for Christian women who explain they had to divorce their Christian husband because he was physically or verbally abusive, or, he was a serial cheater (adulterer).

I have said before an unmarried Christian woman needs to cast off the “be not yoked, only marry another Christian” mantra to judge a man based on his character.

A man claiming to be a Christian, a man going to church every week, a man reading his Bible daily, and so on, is not a guarantee that he will treat a woman well.

A man can be a professing Christian, daily Bible reader, and faithful church attendee, and still be an abusive jerk or dirt ball.

You need to look past what claims a man makes about his religious beliefs and judge him based on his character.

In addition, you need to look at behavior, not what the guy says about himself.

What gets my goat about this woman’s letter to the Christian 700 Club show, which is hosted by Robertson, is that despite following the Christian propaganda to marry only another Christian – someone who claims to be Christian – she gets insulted and mocked by another Christian, in this case, Robertson, for it.

Robertson tells this woman she must “have the discernment of a slug” for marrying this guy.

This Christian woman follows the common Christian idea that a Christian should only marry another Christian, and when she does, and the guy turns out to be a lying thief scum bag, she gets raked over the coals by a Christian who ridicules her mate selection criteria, which was, I remind you, based on the “be not yoked to a Non-Christian” philosophy.

By the way, this is common. In my reading over the years about relationships, dating, and marriage, I have seen too many testimonies about how women married a guy who seemed caring and compassionate at first only to turn into an abusive rat after marriage.

Some abusive men are very crafty and cunning at hiding their controlling, abusive natures when dating a woman.

I don’t have the time to get into it here, but in books and blogs by counselors who are experts on abusive men, they explain that it is entirely possible for a woman to be blindsided by a man, not knowing he’s abusive until she’s deeper into the relationship, because a lot of abusive men do not become overly controlling and mean spirited until certain thresh holds have been reached in a relationship, and it differs from man to man. For some abusive men, that thresh hold is marriage.

They keep their loving mask on until marriage, where they toss it aside to reveal their true nature.

Go look at forums for Christian women who divorced their husbands.

Many of these ladies swear up and down that their husband was a born again believer who loved Jesus, read his Bible, “knew” his Bible well, and some of these men even worked as preachers. Yet, these men were still abusive towards their wives.

It’s just remarkable to me and another kind of fraud that in a day and age that so many adult, single Christian women who want marriage but find themselves single, that other Christians artificially limit their chances at marriage by telling them to cross all Non Christian males off the list, which can keep these ladies single indefinitely, but, if they do marry a self professing Christian, and he turns out to be an abusive, loser of a cad, they get shamed for it by Christian personalities.

Christian women are damned if they do by Christian culture and damned if they do not.

Edit.
Pat Robertson telling woman with troubled marriage she has discernment of a slug, embedded from You Tube (aired May 5, 2014)
The woman’s question is the second or third topic discussed by Roberston, after discussion of Islam, and a question about being married in a court vs being married in church:

Edit 2.
A couple days after I made this blog post, this other site ran this story:

(Link): Pat Robertson berates woman for ungodly husband: You have ‘the discernment of a slug’

    Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday castigated a woman for marrying a man who later turned out not to be a “born again” Christian.

    In a letter to The 700 Club, a viewer named Patty explained that she had “married a man who presented himself as a born again believer.”

    But she later found out that he was not what he seemed.

    “In the 7 years we have been together he has had 4 DUIs, been convicted of receiving stolen property, and recently deceived a ministry out of $15,000,” Patty wrote. “Am I morally bound to this marriage?”

    “You must have been crazy or you must have been blinded to get into [that] relationship,” Robertson told the viewer. “He — quote — presented himself [as a born again Christian]. I mean, give me a break. You got about the discernment of a slug.”

—————————-
Related links:

(Link): Post with numerous examples of links to news stories about Christian married men who raped people, abused their wives, were drug addicts, etc

(Link): On Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

(Link): Forget About Being ‘Equally Yoked’ – Article: ‘My Abusive ‘Christian’ Marriage’

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Married Female Christian Blogger Whose Mate Hunting Criteria is Guaranteed to Keep Marriage Minded Single Christian Men Single Perpetually

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Christian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb!

(Link): Another Example of Why the Equally Yoked Teaching is A Joke for Single Christian Women : Baptist Preacher Arrested for Allegedly Fire Bombing Ex Girlfriend’s House While She Was In It

(Link): Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(I just got a notification from Word Press that today is my four year anniversary of registering with them for this blog. Yay, four year anniversary.)
_______________________________________
Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

I am no secular feminist. I’m not left wing or a Democrat or a liberal (“progressive”), but I find some of my fellow right wingers to be odd balls on occasion, and this is one of those occasions.

It’s bad enough that some conservative Christians defend sexism under the guise of it being “biblical” (the terms they slap on church sanctioned sexism is sometimes referred to as ‘gender complementarianism’ or ‘biblical womanhood’) –

But to see a well-known Christian personality such as Barton defend the sexist notion that women should not vote, or it was good that at one time they were not permitted, because it makes for “stronger families” is another indication that some Christians have turned the nuclear family, marriage, and parenthood into idols.

Views such as this also do not take into account that some women never marry and never have children.

Some women who do marry are infertile, or their husband is, so they never have children.

Yet other women are widowed or divorced.

You will notice in Christian gender complementarian views, women who “fall between the cracks,” ones who are unmarried or childless, are not recognized.

This Barton guy has crack pot views about marriage and coffee and PTSD as well (see links at bottom of this post).

I think keeping women from voting on the basis of their gender alone, and supposedly that it’s due to keeping families together, is sexism.

Please, some Christian, try to defend the idea that being sexist is okay with God and oppressing women in this way is justified to “defend the family” or “defend culture.” (This is a rhetorical proposition.)

Although I am socially conservative and a right winger, I think other so cons and right wingers need to keep things in perspective.

Sacrificing equality of women in the name of “the family” – when it comes to this particular case (voting) – is unjust and shows just how much some Christian conservatives have turned “family” into an idol.

(Link): David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

(Link): David Barton Invents Reasons Founding Fathers Did Not Grant Women the Vote

(Link): Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ by David Edwards

Excerpts

    A so-called “historian” who Glenn Beck hired to teach at his online university insisted this week that women had originally been denied the right to vote “to keep the family together,” and for the good of “the entire culture and society.”

    On the Thursday broadcast of Wallbuilders Live, David Barton explained that biblical principles — and not sexism — were behind not allowing women to vote prior to 1920.

    “So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families,” he said. “And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept… That is a family, that is voting. And so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so.”

    Barton argued that in the time since the women’s suffrage movement succeeded in the United States, “we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing.”

    Continue reading

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

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

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

(Link) Does Casual Sex Empower Women? by Daly

Here is the part that caught my attention:

    The cultural impact of casual sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

Guest on Christian Radio Show, Focus on the Family’s Mr. Daly, Claims Churches and Culture Don’t Spend Enough Money and Attention on Marriage and Family – Should I Laugh or Cry?

Guest on Christian Radio Show, Focus on the Family’s. Mr. Daly, Claims Churches and Culture Don’t Spend Enough Money and Attention on Marriage and Family – Should I Laugh or Cry?

I was listening to the Janet Mefferd radio program a few days ago, and she interviewed a Christian man from some family values group, I think Focus on the Family.

Mr. Daly sounds like a nice gentleman, but he is living in an alternate reality.

I meant to blog on this earlier but pushed it aside. I think this was the show:
(Link): Janet Mefferd – Jim Daly as guest, “The Good Dad”

Daly – if I heard correctly and understood correctly said that marriage or married couples do not get enough support from churches and/or the culture.

Daly (if I recall correctly) said churches/society need to devote more time and more resources to marriage and married couples.

I just re-listened to the show.

Yes, starting at the 18:50 mark, Daly tells Ms. Mefferd (this is a paraphrase),

    Why should society cater to the one to two percent of the culture? 80 to 90% of us will marry and have children. We are the core of culture. What about us?

I’m not sure what he means by the “one or two percent.”

Does he mean never married adults? Does he mean childless married couples? Or widowers? The divorced? Homosexuals, especially the ones insisting on the legalization of homosexual marriage?

As to his 80 to 90 percent figure: I don’t think that is correct. I don’t know where he is getting that from.

Even if 80% of the American population gets married at some point, they are bound to be single again via our high divorce rates or via widowhood. But I don’t think the 80% number is correct.

Here’s why I think his figures may be incorrect:

    According to census data released in 2005, only 23.7 percent of all Americans households are married couples with children.

    “Faith and Family in America,” a 2005 analysis by University of Akron sociologist John C. Green, says only 18.5 percent of all families meet the traditional nuclear family ideal: married, never divorced, with children at home.

    The largest demographic (25.6 percent) is childless couples.

    Church leaders uphold the former model as the ideal Christian family, but the statistics indicate they are chasing the wind.

    In some denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, fully half of the members are single. (p 93)
    ____________________________
    Source: Duin, Juila. Quitting Church.

And from census.gov,

    Single Life
    103 million

    Number of unmarried people in America 18 and older in 2012.

    This group made up 44.1 percent of all U.S. residents 18 and older.

    Source: America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012
    (Link): Source

See also
(Link): The Changing American Family (article)

(Link): Single? You’re Not Alone (date of article: 2010)

Excerpt:

    There are 96 million people in the United States who have no spouse.

    That means 43 percent of all Americans over the age of 18 are single, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Continue reading

‘Inside Edition’ correspondent: Why I waited until marriage to have sex

‘Inside Edition’ correspondent: Why I waited until marriage to have sex

(Link): ‘Inside Edition’ correspondent: Why I waited until marriage to have sex

    BY DUSTIN SIGGINS
    Thu May 01, 2014 15:28 EST
    Tags: Celibacy, Chastity, Megan Alexander, Premarital Sex

    NEW YORK, NY, May 1, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Megan Alexander is known for being the New York City Correspondent for the gossip tabloid show and website Inside Edition. This week, Alexander decided to open up a little about her personal life, explaining how she “accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in about 7th grade and made” the decision to be sexually abstinent until marriage.

    Alexander told Fox News that she wants people to know that “it’s okay to wait [to have sex] if you want to.” A narrator also says that Alexander opened up “to provide an alternative view of sex in a world where sex before marriage is almost expected.”

    Her decision contrasts with the often public sexcapades of much of her industry. “I don’t think it’s so uncommon around the world and around America in everyday life” to abstain from sex until marriage, she said, “but in the entertainment industry it’s definitely not popular.”

    Alexander, who has been with Inside Edition since 2007, married husband Brian Cournoyer in 2008. She said that they set boundaries for their relationship, and that helped keep her celibate until their wedding day.

    Alexander’s views on abstinence came to light after she wrote for WHOAwomen Magazine on why “Marriage Still Matters.” In it, she says modern young people “live for ourselves, not each other, and we wonder why there are so many broken homes and broken lives in our culture.”

    She also wrote that keeping busy, “setting goals,” and having a boyfriend who shared her views on chastity really helped. While Cournoyer was not a virgin when they began dating, he willingly sought “a ‘second virginity'” with Alexander.

    … In addition to telling young people “don’t look to Hollywood for advice on marriage,” Alexander said things weren’t exactly perfect on their wedding night. “We put way too much pressure on ourselves to have the sexual aspect of our marriage all figured out.” She wrote that her husband said, “Well, honey, we have the rest of our lives to work on it!” on the honeymoon, which was part of the communication she calls “essential.”

————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Celebrities who waited until marriage to have sex

(Link): Celebrity Deems Herself A Born Again Virgin And Vows to Stay Celibate “For A Year” – Oh Puh-leaze

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(Link): ‘Mad Men’ TV Actress Christina Hendricks doesn’t want children

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

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

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

The pages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLARIFICATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do agree with sola scriptura.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMAND FOR LONE VERSE – Unrealistic Criteria

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

Continue reading

Kook Christian Groups / Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on Pro Creation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

Kook Christian Groups/Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on ProCreation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

Here is another post or two with more quotes by people who claim to be Christian but who teach the thoroughly un-biblical view that God’s kingdom is to be spread by married couples pro-creating (making babies).

The Bible in fact teaches that the kingdom is to be spread and enlarged by Christians- whether married, single, divorced, with children or childless – telling the un-saved about Jesus Christ, not by marrying and having children.

As to this first link. I tend to lump all these categories together myself – patriarchy, quiverfull, complementarianism – because to me, they are all just a bunch of men teaching that men should control females.

The author of this piece below might kind of disagree with me, because he (or she?) seems very keen on people following very specific definitions of each term.

I do not agree with some of the sharp criticisms of this piece. I for one don’t see the problem with someone proclaiming that “Christian patriarchy is two steps away from making women wear a burka.”

Because you know what? It is. Some of the rhetoric and reasoning is very similar in “Christian modesty ” teachings as it is in Islamic teaching on how they feel women should cover their bodies and faces.

I actually think that comment is pretty dang accurate, in that many of these groups do advocate “modesty” teaching, which frowns on Christian women showing so much as an ankle.

Both groups – Muslims and pro-modesty Christians – tell women that they should cover their bodies because men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges and that men get instantly turned on beyond their control at the site of an attractive female. So, responsibility is placed upon women in both schools of thought to “dress modestly.”

Regardless of those issues, note the quote below about how this person believes that Christian women should “out breed” their opponents:

From the page, (Link): WHAT “CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHY” IS NOT , by R.L. Stollar

    Quiverfull is, more or less, a specifically Christian form of natalism — the idea of employing procreation as a tool of sociopolitical dominion and categorizing birth control as rebellion against God.

    Michael Pearl gave us a perfect embodiment of Quiverfull’s dominionist streak, when (Link): he recently stated,

      “If you can’t out-vote them today, out-breed them for tomorrow.”

    That is Quiverfull (albeit a distilled, intense version of it).

    … Yes, there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are Quiverfull.

    And by all means, speak out against the dehumanizing and toxic idea that your children are your weapons, and a woman’s vagina is a weapons-building factory.

    But remember these are distinct, especially considering there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are not Quiverfull.

    Take Doug Wilson, for example.

    Doug Wilson is considered one of the pillars of Christian Patriarchy but believes birth control can be useful to ensure you’re actually taking care of your current children. That’s outright heresy to the Quiverfull crowd.

From this site:
(Link): Not On Your Side, Debi

Excerpts (emphasis added by me):

    …. Several of the Pearl children’s spouses were raised in Gothard’s ATI program. (I say “spouses”, but Michael Pearl made it clear years ago that his children do not need any such thing as marriage licenses. A ceremony and their parents’ blessing is apparently good enough.*)

    … Besides being given to racist and homophobic remarks, the Pearls are somewhat obsessed with sex. It gives Michael [Pearl] hope to envision homeschoolers “outbreeding” progressives.

    He counsels the wife of an angry man to “make love” to improve her husband’s mood.

    Debi often suggests that being sexually available is a wife’s primary responsibility.

    Michael even wrote a book on erotic pleasure for fundamentalist Christian couples.

I can’t remember where I saw it – if on one of the pages above, but some page I read earlier today referenced quotes by Debi Pearl about being “equally yoked.”

Perhaps these comments can be found on her and her husband’s site, No Greater Joy, I am not sure.

Someone on another site quoted Pearl as having said that if you are a Christian, and you marry another Christian in a state that permits homosexual marriage, that your marriage – yes YOUR marriage to another Christian – is “unequally yoked.”

The argument seems to be that if you, a Christian, marry an opposite gender to yourself Christian in a state that also has legalized homosexual marriage, that a marriage performed in such a state taints yours, or makes yours invalid.

To put it yet another way (according to the Pearls): your marriage to another Christian is “unequally yoked” all because your next door neighbors, Fred and Stan the homosexual couple, are legally married by the same state too.

Please let that sink in and roll around in your brain for several moments: two Christians, one a man, one a woman, married to each other in a state where homosexual marriage is legal are said by the Pearls to be “unequally yoked”.

I’ve thought on it for awhile and still cannot make sense of it. What nuts these people are.

I ventured on over to the Pearl NGJ (No Greater Joy) site and see they have a page for singles ((Link): NGJ: Singles), and with pages on advice on how to find a mate, LOL, no thanks, won’t take advice from crackpots like them. The Pearls advise in their books on parenting that parents should beat their infant children with pipes.

There is much more nuttiness by them, but I don’t want to make this a huge post about the Pearls and every crazy thing they’ve ever taught.

On the main page for NGJ Singles is this:

    PreparingToBeAHelpMeet.com
    Shalom (Pearl) Brand
    This is from the Preparing blog site. The girls are discussing Shalom’s article in the Sept/Oct 2012 NGJ magazine, “Where A

This page at NGJ Singles actually recommends that parents allow a brother to pick out husbands for their sisters:

(Link): NGJ site: Need a Spouse…ANYONE? By Debi Pearl

I’m in my 40s now and still not married.

My one brother is married to an atheist heroin addict. Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be going to my big brother for martial partner selection or input, thanks but no, Debi.

By the way, does it never occur to these Christian parents that their daughter may choose to stay single, a choice which God respects (see 1 Corinthians 7)?

Excerpt from Debi’s page:

    Scores of young men asked for Shalom [one of Debi’s daughters].

    She was gentle, cute, hard-working, and always cheerful, in addition to being the most compliant girl you have ever met.

    But before they ever made it to our door to talk to Daddy Mike, most of them were already discounted as possibilities. Gabe or Nathan had seen to that with their reports.

    Big brothers were watching out for their sisters, especially the sweet one.

How skin crawling is that, for so many reasons.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, but some Christian views on gender roles – whether we are talking patriarchy, gender complementarianims, or using the term “biblical womanhood” – is nothing but CODEPENDENCY under religious terminology, and is, therefore, un-biblical.

Codependent women are sweet, gentle, shy, compliant, soft spoken – they have poor- to- no- boundaries. Codependents are afraid or reluctant to be assertive, say no to people, and express anger.

Note too, that these are the same exact characteristics that are held up by Christians as being marks of biblical womanhood, or desirable for a Christian man to look for in a Christian wife: sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

Further note in books by experts on spousal abuse the sorts of traits abusive men intentionally look for in a mate:
sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

Seeing a pattern yet?

Yeah, Debi Pearl is (and I find this sad and chilling) totally thrilled that her daughter is prime pickings for an abusive man.

More excerpts from the page (advice to older brothers with younger single sisters):

    Talk to your guy friends. Say something like this,
    “Hey, you looking for a bride? I got four sisters and would consider it a privilege for you to drop in and take your pick. My parents trust my judgment and I’m giving you high marks. Of course, my sisters are picky, and they have the last word, but I’ll throw in a good word for you with them, too.

    Now, the oldest sister is kinda bossy, but she always gives in after a little persuasion. She’s the smartest. So if you think you would enjoy a little challenge but get a good mate for the extra effort…she’s your gal.

    My next sister is not so cute, but she is the nicest of the bunch.

    …So how about it…wanta check out the fam? I got four other guys coming Sunday for brunch, so you better hurry if you want the pick of the litter.”

That whole excerpt is so horrifying and sexist, I hardly know where to begin.

I would not want my brother approaching his male friends and blurting out, “So, you lookin’ for a bride?” My god, that would scare away every man on the planet.

Not that I object to friends and family setting me up with eligible guys my age, but what Pearl is suggesting sounds almost more like arranged marriage, where the woman is playing a very passive role.

Pearl also makes it sound like the brother is supposed to “market” the sister to men, as though she is not a human being, but a brand of shampoo, a car, or a tube of toothpaste.

She is kind of asking the brother to play the role of a pimp.

This remark: “My next sister is not so cute”

If your own mother is basically advising your brother to tell his pals you are ugly, that is pretty damn insensitive.

At any rate, here we see above yet more examples fringe, wacko groups, or persons, passing themselves off as Christian, but who are teaching some bizarre, un-biblical things about marriage, having children, and re-defining what “equally yoked” means (or has been traditionally understood by most Christians to mean).

It’s bad enough when Christians are telling Christian singles to only marry other Christian singles

    (there are not as many single adult Christian males as therer are females, so you are in effect asking single females to die alone and single)

but the Pearl family is basically telling Christian singles not to even marry another Christian single if they live in a state where homosexual marriage is permitted, as that would make their marriage “unequally yoked” (sorry I do not have a source for that, it is a quote someone pasted in at another blog without a link, I have no reason to believe he or she was lying about it).

I am really creeped out and appalled by these views of marrying, what constitutes being un-equally yoked, and pro-creation these groups are advocating. Their views are totally un-biblical. They have given themselves over to the worship of marriage, parenthood, and family.

Instead of worshipping the God of the Bible, they are worshipping their own peculiar ideas of culture, family, and marriage.

If Moses came down from the mountain today, he’d see most of the contemporary, American “Christian” people bowing down before a statue made of gold, of a figure of a man, woman, and child holding hands (a statue of “nuclear family”), with a “Focus on the Family” broadcast playing on a radio in the background, with a mountain of books with titles such as, “Ten Steps to a Great Marriage” and “How to Raise Godly Children.”
——————————————–
Related posts:

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

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

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): Decent Secular Relationship Advice: How to Pick Your Life Partner

(Link): Being Unequally Yoked – should Christians marry Non Christians or only marry Christians

(Link): Married Female Christian Blogger Whose Mate Hunting Criteria is Guaranteed to Keep Marriage Minded Single Christian Men Single Perpetually

(Link): On Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

(Link): Are Fundamentalists Aiming to Out-Breed Secular America?

(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

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

(Link): Why Unmarried and Childless or Childfree – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy

(Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Xtian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb! Also: Marriage and Parenthood do not make people more godly or mature or loving or ethical

(Link): Christian Single Women: Another Example of Why You Should Abandon the “Be Equally Yoked” Teaching: 21-Y-O Christianity Student, Children’s Minister Charged With Murdering Fiancée He Was to Wed in August; Made It Look Like Suicide

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Leader of Hyper Family Focused, Fertility Cult (Vision Forum Ministries) Steps Down After Admitting to Having an “Emotional Affair”

(Link): Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what say some Christians

(Link): Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also am not seeing a connection between these points:

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

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

    3. Ergo, claim number one is supposedly false

That’s a bit like saying,

    1. Some Christians say that two plus two equals four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And,

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

And,

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

And,

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

And,

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

And,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I don’t see any such passage.

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

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

Continue reading

Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

I forget exactly where I first saw this on Twitter, but here it is:
(Link): Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

I don’t like to post solely about homosexuality on my blog. Some of the only times I blog about the topic is how it reflects upon, or intersects with, issues pertaining to hetero celibacy, or how Christians today are dealing with discussing sexual sin.

As I’ve pointed out previously on this blog the last couple years, the vast majority of Christians – not just Non-Christians, but conservative Christians now – are now attacking sexual purity, celibacy, and virginity.

Some of them do this on the basis that teaching about those topics causes fornicators, that is, those who willingly had sex before marriage, to feel guilty, offended, or ashamed.

This page by Idleman points out that some of the same strategies being used to excuse or downplay heterosexual sex sins are also being used to excuse, condone, or downplay homosexual sexual sins.

Here are some excerpts:

    Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

    Dan Haseltine (singer for Jars of Clay) used Twitter recently to support gay-marriage; stating,

    “Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong. I don’t think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality.”

Many say that we cannot take a position on homosexuality because all positions will hurt someone.

Here’s my question: “Are those who defend homosexuality, or who say nothing, truly loving the homosexual, or are they simply seeking to avoid conflict?” If they are more worried about being liked than being truthful, do they really care for homosexuals more than the person who is willing to risk their reputation, and quite possibly their safety, in order to speak the truth in love?

Continue reading