It’s Almost Always “Mary” on The 700 Club Show – What Is Up With That?

It’s Almost Always “Mary” on The 700 Club Show

I watch The 700 Club TV almost every single day. I don’t know why. I just do.

There’s this part on the show where Pat Robertson and his co-host will pray for people in the audience.

Pat Robertson will sometimes call the person by name.

He might say, “And Hank… there is a ‘Hank’ out there asking for a healing from cancer.”

I’ve noticed that almost any time Robertson prays for a woman or a girl, he almost always says her name is “Mary” (or occasionally “Marie” or “Maria”), but it’s almost always “Mary.”

Today’s show was no exception.

When he prayed for someone in the audience, he said something like, “There is a five year old girl watching, I think her name is Mary, and she is upset that blah blah blah and is praying that God will help her with yada yada yada….”

I stopped listening closely after he mentioned her name.

About a week ago, Robertson was praying for someone in the audience, this time, it was an adult woman.

I can’t remember what the prayer was about, if it was for a healing or financial help, or whatever, but he said, “And there’s a woman named Mary, and she is praying for blah blah…”

In the past few years, I’ve heard him use “Mary” as the name of the person on his show.

I realize that “Mary” is a popular name, or once was at some point, but it seems almost every time I watch this show and Robertson prays for a woman (or a girl), he always says her name is “Mary.”

What is up with that?

Why does he never direct the prayer to women or girls named

  • Hannah, Becky, Tiffany, Amber, Britney, Sandra, Julia, Roberta, Peg, Marge, Christine, Rosa, Teresa, Eva, Patricia, Gabriela, Susanna, Katie, Robin, Heather, Sam, Nicole, Linda, Jackie, Bonnie, Edith, Ellen, Monica, Paige, Lois, Jill, Erin, Alicia, Geraldine, Clara, Rhonda, Gail, Wanda, Lisa, Gloria, Joyce, Ruth, Janet, Kathleen, Amy, Melissa, Brenda,

and I could go on and on?

Then you have more unusual names, like parents naming their daughters “Nutella” or “Shanequa.”

There are other names besides “Mary.” But Robertson almost always goes for “Mary” at prayer time on his show.

Christian Personality David Barton Thinks USA Needs Missionaries To Proselytize Marriage, Equates Adult Singlness to Sins Such as Violent Crime, Promiscuity

Christian Personality David Barton Thinks USA Needs Missionaries To Proselytize Marriage

Please do not get hung up on whether or not Barton is lying about visiting Russia, speaking Russian, or smuggling Bibles, as the story below focuses on, because that is not why I am blogging about this story.

I am blogging about this because Barton apparently thinks being single is a sin, which is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches; the Bible nowhere states that being married is preferable or better than being single, or that being single is a sin, or that it is sinful or wrong to not get married until thus- and- so an age.

Check out the excerpts.

(Link): Experts Dispute David Barton’s Claims About Translating for the Russian National Gymnastics Team

Excerpts:

  • April 10, 2015
  • by Warren Throckmorton
  • Earlier this week, (Link): David Barton told his Wallbuilders Live co-host Rick Green that he once was fluent in Russian, was asked to translate for the Russian National Gymnastics Team in 1976 and smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union “back in the day.”  Here is the audio followed by the transcript:
  • Transcript:

    Barton: That’s right, and South Korea. South Korea, Nigeria, they’re sending missionaries to America like crazy. And of course, if I looked at the stats on America, yeah we’re number one in the world on violent crimes, yeah and promiscuity, sexuality yeah and out of wedlock births yeah and and lack of marriage yeah we need some missionaries here. We need somebody who can point us to the Bible…

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Barton’s comments, but it sounds to me as though he is equating adult singleness (“lack of marriage”) to being sinful, like violent crime is sinful, or promiscuity is sinful.

Please, David Barton, provide me with a Bible verse or teaching of Christ’s that says adult singleness, whether lifetime or not, is a sin.

You cannot find a single verse or teaching in the Bible where God frowns upon a person staying single, whether due to deliberate choice, or due to circumstance.

As a matter of fact, God moved the apostle Paul to write these words (link to Bible site) -that is,  that Bible Barton thinks people need “pointing to” explains that singleness is actually superior to marriage:

  •   Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
  • …28  But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Apostle Paul was apparently single. Are you saying that Paul is just as bad as a violent criminal or a promiscuous fornicator?

Jesus Christ never married, never had sex, and never had children. Were Jesus and Paul in sin for staying single?

No? Then why do you apply another set of standards to other Christians, and insist or imply other Christians are in sin if they stay single? Why are you equating adult singleness to promiscuity and violent crime?

And, by the way, there is no such thing as a “gift of singleness” or a “calling to singleness.”

Such teachings imply that God chooses and foreordains who will marry and who will not, when the New Testament explains marriage or singleness are personal decisions that God leaves up to each person, and God is fine with whatever choice a person goes with in this area.

I am insulted that this Christian writer and speaker dares to equate adult singleness to sexual promiscuity and other sins – God says in the Bible that he respects singleness and is fine with it. Who is Barton to teach otherwise?

Being married does not keep a person immune from sexual sin, nor will higher rates of marriage cut down on sexual sin.

I have many examples on my blog (link to my page of examples) of married people who commit adultery, married people who are into “wife swapping,” married men who are porn addicts, married men who have sex with horses, and married people who rape children – and many of these examples are of church-going, self-professing CHRISTIANS.

There is nothing inherent in being married that keeps a person safe from sexual sin.

The Bible does not say that people need to have missionaries speak to them to encourage them to get married, as though singles are in error for being single and need to be persuaded to “see the light” and convert to “marriage-ism”.

This Barton guy needs to apologize to adult singles everywhere for implying -and perhaps it was unintentional on his part, a poor choice of words – for equating celibate single adults to fornicators and violent criminals.

The Bible does not condemn singleness or celibacy; it celebrates both.

——————————

Related Posts:

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

(Link):  Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

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

(Link): The Myth of the Gift – Regarding Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

(Link):  The Holy Spirit Sanctifies a Person Not A Spouse – Weekly Christian Marriage Advice Column Pokes Holes in Christian Stereotype that Marriage Automatically Sanctifies People

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

(Link): Statistics Show Single Adults Now Outnumber Married Adults in the United States (as of 2014)

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): The Gift of Singleness – A Mistranslation and a Poorly Used Cliche’

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): A Response by Colon to Regnerus Re: Misguided Early Marriage Propaganda

(Link): Gift of Singleness Gift of Celibacy Unbiblical – Those Terms and Teachings Contribute to Fornication / Editorial About Sex Surrogates

(Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One

(Link): Singleness Is Not A Gift

(Link):  False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): “God’s gifting of singleness is rare” 

(Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

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

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

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re Single

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

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

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link):  Singles Shaming at The Vintage church in Raleigh – Singlehood Shaming / Celibate and Virgin Shaming

(Link): P.T.S.D. is Not Biblical Says K. Copeland and Barton

(Link): Famous Evangelical (David Barton) Says Drinking Coffee is Destroying Marriage

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

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

(Link): Husband Lying to Wife About Video Game Console Purchase Another Example of How Being Married Does Not Make A Person More Mature or Ethical

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re Single

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

(Link):  Perverted Christian Married Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): Sex and Alzheimer’s – Selfish, Perverted Husband Rapes His Alzheimer’s Wife

(Link): According to Pastor – Jimmy Evans – It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ?

According to Some Christians, Russell Moore Drops Ball on how Christians Should Respond to Homosexual Marriage

According to Some Christians, Russell Moore Drops Ball on how Christians Should Respond to Homosexual Marriage

From the description of Hour 1 of Janet Mefferd’s radio program (LINK):

  • And Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has come under fire for saying government employees who have religious objections to so-called same-sex marriage should resign, rather than stand against an unjust law imposed upon their states. But is that even the right American response, based upon our history and constitutional framework? Paul Blair, chairman of Reclaiming America for Christ, has written an open-letter response to Moore and joins Janet to offer his thoughts.

(Link): Southern Baptist ethicist says Alabama judges must uphold gay marriage law or resign

  • by W Hall
  • NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Christian Examiner) — The head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm says Alabama judges who in good conscience cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, should resign instead of fighting the law while in office.
  • Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and no relation to Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, was (Link): quoted in the Baptist Press, the SBC’s official news service, as being in conflict with approximately 44 of 67 Alabama probate judges who have refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. These jurists are acting in defiance of an order by U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade who invalidated an Alabama constitutional amendment, passed by 81 percent of voters, defining marriage in the state as only between one man and one woman.
  • ….RUSSELL MOORE
  • Russell Moore, a national official charged with representing Southern Baptists’ beliefs with regard to culture and public policy, told Baptist Press any judge who “could not discharge the duties of his office required by law” because of objections of conscience “would need to resign and protest it as a citizen.”

    He said that there is a role for civil disobedience, but not for “judges and state Supreme Court justices … in their roles as agents of the state.”

  • …BIBLICAL GUIDANCE
  • Russell Moore cited familiar biblical passages to justify his position that Chief Justice Roy Moore and the defiant probate judges are wrong.

    “As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land,” Russell Moore wrote, according to Baptist Press.

    “Religious freedom and conscience objections must be balanced with a state’s obligation to discharge the law,” the Southern Baptists’ ethicist said.

  • …OTHER VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE
  • Others have a different take than Russell Moore on the biblical responsibilities of Christian judges facing objections of conscience.

    Southern Baptist Rick Burgess, an overwhelmingly popular Christian radio personality throughout the South and an Alabama native, sent a strongly worded tweet to encourage probate judges who “claim to follow Christ” to “make a stand and refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses.”

If you will recall, homosexuality is not a topic I care to discuss at my blog. I only bring it up sometimes if it intersects with heterosexual celibacy and singleness or something of that nature.

Russell Moore is a well known putz and leader of SBC’s ethics group. He has, in the past, screwed the pooch on hetero virginity.

Now it appears he is being criticized by some evangelicals for how he feels Christians should handle homosexual marriage.

Given that Moore is a doofus putz concerning hetero sexual sin and purity, don’t be surprised that (from the standard evangelical view) he’s mis-handling homosexuality as well.

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account Sometimes

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account

(Link): My Twitter Page

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

This post is not about driving up my Twitter followers.

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

Why would you want to visit my Twitter page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Link): My Twitter Page

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

Hypocritical Preacher Ed Young Jr Throws Tantrum About 50 Shades Of Grey Book And Tries To Make Buck Off It At Same Time

Hypocrite Rev Ed Young Jr Throws Tantrum About 50 Shades Of Grey Book

(Link):  Megachurch Pastor Ed Young to Baptize Copies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey;’ Calls Book a ‘Perverted Attempt to Trap Readers’

I cannot figure out why so many Christians get themselves in a bother over whatever the current hot topic is in culture.

I remember when Christians had a fit about 10 or 15 years ago when the Harry Potter books exploded in popularity. A few years after that, I saw preachers frequently warn parents about how Potter books were demonic and evil.

Anyway, this is the same Ed Young Jr. who had a sermon series several years ago called “Sexperiment,” where he put a bed on the roof of his church, and he and his wife climbed in that bed to deliver a sermon.

Young Jr. also did something several months after that, where he challenged his married congregation to have sex every single day for 30 days in a row, or something. Never no mind that half of his congregation consists of single adults, which would be like Rev. Assh_e doing a sermon on the deliciousness of chocolate cake for a congregation half made up of diabetics.

Where does someone who promotes and pushes sex from the pulpit and to make a profit and in front of a room of 50% singles get off criticizing Hollywood over a sex movie? He’s a hypocrite.

Also, given America’s short attention span, two months from now, nobody will be talking about “50 Shades of Grey,” so there’s no point in getting worked up over it anyway.

Megachurch Pastor Ed Young to Baptize Copies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey;’ Calls Book a ‘Perverted Attempt to Trap Readers’

Excerpts:

  • BY LEONARDO BLAIR , CP REPORTER
  • February 5, 2015|4:40 pm
  • Just over a week before the steamy “Fifty Shades of Grey” movie opens on Valentine’s weekend, controversial founding pastor of the popular Fellowship Church in Dallas, Texas, Ed Young, says he will baptize copies of the book on which the movie is based, calling it a “perverted attempt to trap readers.”

    “There is a cultural epidemic out there that is wrapped up in complete fantasy. The book, Fifty Shades of Grey, is a perverted attempt to trap readers and leads them to a misunderstanding of what intimacy and connection are all about,” said Young in a press statement Wednesday.

  • “It is a pathetic distortion of a more powerful reality about relationships. God is not anti-sex, and he isn’t grey when it comes to relationships. I want to wake people up to the reality that God’s purpose and plan for their lives is so much greater!” he added.

    Young, who’s a New York Times best-selling author who wrote the book Sexperiment, addresses the power of healthy relationships in his latest book, Fifty Shades of They.

  • ..The megachurch pastor says he’ll be raising awareness about the perversion of Fifty Shades of Grey by baptizing copies of the book at locations in Dallas, Miami, Florida and London, England.

How about shutting up already? How about not trying to make a buck off a Christianized version of whatever secular culture is selling these days? That is so greedy and LAME.

———————–

Related posts

(Link):  The Odd Evangelical Obsession With Sex and Its Ramifications: article from The Atlantic: The Warrior Wives of Evangelical Christianity 

A Critique of the post “Is It Sexist That Women Twirl?” by Matt Reagan at Desiring God Site

A Critique of the post “Is It Sexist That Women Twirl?” by Matt Reagan 

Someone on my Twitter feed linked to this post by Matt Regan at the Desiring God site a few weeks ago. Apparently, the original title was “Is It Sexist That Women Twirl,” and was later changed to, “Do Little Girls Outgrow the Twirl?”

Original post,

(Link): Is It Sexist that Women Twirl (via Way Back Machine / Internet Archive, January 23, 2015)

The URL to that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150123215444/http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-it-sexist-that-women-twirl

Newer(?) post,

(Link): Do Little Girls Outgrow the Twirl? by Matt Reagan, January 23, 2015

A woman, Eugenie Bouchard, won an international tennis match. A journalist asked her after her win to twirl for him and/or for the audience.

Several media outlets characterized this as being sexist.

Here is some of what MR, Reagan, has to say about the incident; I will quote him, then offer my observations below each quote:

  • Therein lies the problem. When Roger Federer was a little boy, he didn’t run into the living room, call for his parents’ attention, and twirl his outfit in front of them (he wasn’t wearing something twirlable to begin with).
  • But Serena did. Eugenie did. They were little girls, who were made to display the beauty they were given and to have that beauty honored. My daughters are perpetual twirlers, even to the extent that they are searching out the most twirlable skirts and dresses.

My response:

First of all, if a woman or girl of her own accord chooses to “twirl” around in a dress for her daddy in the privacy of their home, that is HER choice.

For a grown man, a so-called professional, to ask a grown woman to “twirl” around in her tennis outfit before a stadium of people after she wins a match, is not treating that woman as another professional. It is not the man’s place to ask a woman in public to “twirl.”

Continue reading “A Critique of the post “Is It Sexist That Women Twirl?” by Matt Reagan at Desiring God Site”

Christian Leader of Pro Family Group Complains About Sexualization of U.S. Culture Makes No Mention Of Supporting Hetero Single Adult Celibates

Christian Leader of Pro Family Group Complains About Sexualization of U.S. Culture Makes No Mention Of Supporting Hetero Single Adult Celibates

From Jan 20, 2015:

(Link): ‘Darkness’ of Sexual Culture ‘Gone Mad’ Threatens America’s Future, Says Evangelical Leader Tony Perkins

This is not a post I intend to spend a lot of time on. I just wanted to shoot off a quick observation or two.

This Tony Perkins guy is a leader of the group FRC (Family Research Council). The FRC is obsessed with the culture wars, and stereotypical evangelical concerns of fighting abortion, homosexuality, and so forth.

First, I will include a few excerpts then discuss them below:

(Link): ‘Darkness’ of Sexual Culture ‘Gone Mad’ Threatens America’s Future, Says Evangelical Leader Tony Perkins

Excerpts

  • WASHINGTON — Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called on Congress to protect the religious freedom of those affected by the “darkness of unrestricted sexual license … gone mad.”
  • While America previously faced the threats of Nazism and Communism, today’s threats emanate from the Sexual Revolution, Perkins said Monday in his “State of the Family” address.

    “The threats America face are not potential — they are clear, present and dangerous,” he said. “And ironically they come most sharply today not from the radical economic doctrines of Karl Marx, nor from the lights of what Winston Churchill called ‘perverted science,’ but from the darkness of unrestricted sexual license — a new Cultural Revolution — gone mad.”

Continue reading “Christian Leader of Pro Family Group Complains About Sexualization of U.S. Culture Makes No Mention Of Supporting Hetero Single Adult Celibates”

Christian Personality Uses Lame, Unbiblical Excuse to Rationalize His Adultery – He Calls His Mistress His Spiritual Wife

Christian Personality Tony Jones Uses Lame, Unbiblical Excuse to Rationalize His Adultery – He Calls His Mistress His Spiritual Wife, According to Various Online Blogs and Sites

Sometime in the last few weeks especially, a story broke out on various liberal or Christian or ex Christian type groups and blogs about a guy in the emerging church by the name of Tony Jones.

I am uncertain if Jones works as a pastor or is simply an author or blogger. I’m not terribly interested in the myriad, minute details of this situation for the purposes of this post. His bio which popped up in a search on Google returns this:

  • Tony Jones is an American theologian, author, blogger, and speaker who is a leading figure in the emerging church movement and postmodern Christianity.

As you should be aware, if you’ve bothered to so much as glance over other content at my blog, I often discuss issues pertaining to singleness and marriage, and how Christians do a terrible job teaching about these things, or in supporting celibacy.

From the Christian blog The Wartburg Watch, (link to TWW Home Page), which usually specializes in reporting about spiritual abuse by Christians in churches, here is an excerpt from a post they did in January 19, 2015:

  • Tony Jones divorced his wife in 2009. Julie discovered the affair in 2008
  • His BFF, Doug Pagitt, knew Tony was having an affair and came up with a theological argument to justify Jones’ actions. Jones allegedly told Julie that he had a spiritual™ wife  which took precedence over their marriage because their marriage was simply a legal matter. (2009- one month before official divorce).
  • Julie claims she was assaulted by Jones.
  • Rumors circulated amongst their Emergent group that Julie was mentally ill. She claims that the leaders tried to get her committed to a mental institution.
  • Julie was awarded custody of the children and Jones was given visitation rights.
  • Tony Jones sacramentally (his term) married his new wife in 2011 and legally married her in 2013. They refused to get legally married until gays could get married.

The ex wife, Julie, claims that Tony physically abused her, including throwing her up against a wall, which dislocated her shoulder.

There is much bickering about this whole thing on other sites as to who to believe, Tony (who claims his ex wife is a trouble- making, crack- pot), or Julie (for the record, based on what I’ve seen so far, I tend to believe Julie’s side of things, and she says that Jones was diagnosed as having NPD – link about NPD on health site).

There are other aspects about this I don’t want to get into in my post, such as a conference involving Christian blogger Rachel Held Evans, and how, when, or if Christians in positions of authority use that influence to silence victims, etc etc.

You can go google the rest of the story if you’d like to read more about all this. There are other blogs, Facebook groups, and forums who are discussing this story from multiple angles.

The point most all accounts I’ve seen agree upon is that this Tony guy had an affair, and Tony refers to his mistress (who I believe he is now legally wed to?) as his “spiritual wife.”

This “spiritual wife” line was used to justify or rationalize his extra-marital affair and divorce.

The Bible teaches no such thing as a “spiritual wife.”

Jones is a piss-poor “theologian” if he thinks the Bible teaches the concept of spiritual wives.

That this Jones guy still gets speaking engagements or book deals, in spite of being widely known as an adulterer, speaks quite poorly to the state of affairs or discernment among Christians today.

Continue reading “Christian Personality Uses Lame, Unbiblical Excuse to Rationalize His Adultery – He Calls His Mistress His Spiritual Wife”

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

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

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

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

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

I have more comments below this.

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————–

Related Posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

Male Entitlement In Dating and In Marriage – Single Christian Men Who Feel Entitled – Part 1

Male Entitlement In Dating and In Marriage  – Single Christian Men Who Feel Entitled – Part 1

Stay tuned for a Part 2 to this post [August 2016: I did intend on doing a Part 2, but now, I’m not sure if I’ll get around to it or not. I might. I don’t know]. This is Part 1, and it’s pretty long.

I have been meaning to do a post about this topic for a long time.

First, here are a couple of pages about a newly released dating advice book, aimed at single women and written by a couple of men who are in their early 30s.

These authors think male entitlement is a given, and women should go along with it if they want a husband:

(Link):  ‘You should prepare his meals and massage his feet’: New dating guide written by men offers women brutally honest advice on how to snag a husband 

  • “Single Man, Married Man” was penned by seven New York-based men who are single, engaged, married and divorced
  • It argues ‘all men’ who say they don’t want to get married are ‘lying’
  • According to one author, men lie to ‘get their women to listen’ and insists telling the truth is ‘risky’
  • Another suggests men are more likely to feel guilty about changing their barber than cheating on their partner
  •  
  • A new book written by a panel of men seeks to advise women on the ‘do’s and don’ts’ of dating from a brutally honest male perspective.
  • Single Man, Married Man was compiled by childhood friends Jean Alerte, a 33-year-old married businessman who owns a Brooklyn yogurt shop, and Frank Gateau, a 32-year-old ‘serial dater’ who works in PR.
  • …Mr Alerte and Mr Gateau [who wrote the book] – who claim that when men say they don’t want to get married, they’re ‘lying’ – spent three years surveying more than 300 male subjects online and in person to arrive at their conclusions.

    One contributor described as single mentions the song ‘Cater 2 U’ by Destiny’s Child as being an anthem that ‘should be on every woman’s playlist and kept on repeat.’

    He advises: ‘Prepare his meals, draw him a bath and massage his feet every now and then.’

No, let me tell you how it really is.

If a man wants to be with me, he will massage MY feet every now and then, prepare meals FOR ME, and draw ME a bath.

I am not going to “cater” to his behind. I’ve been down that road before, and it is unrewarding and so not worth it (more on that below).

Continue reading “Male Entitlement In Dating and In Marriage – Single Christian Men Who Feel Entitled – Part 1”

Update on Born Again Virgin Reality Star TV Guy – and Christians and Their Smokin’ Hot Wives

Update on Born Again Virgin Reality Star TV Guy – and Christians and Their Smokin’ Hot Wives

I’m pretty sure this is the same guy I blogged about here:

For what it’s worth, I am opposed to anyone using phrases such as “Born Again Virgin,” “Spiritual Virgin,” etc. You can click that link above to see why.

If we’re going by penis in the vagina standards to define sex, either one is a virgin or is not a virgin; there is no such thing as a “born again virgin” or “spiritual virgin.”

This comes from SCCL’s Facebook page:

(Link): Sean Loweksu Status – where he refers to his wife as being “smokin’ hot”

Comment by Ariella Tuttle on that thread,

  • He was all about that purity stuff on the show…while he was tonguing like 15 different girls. I think 2 at the same time?

That thread attracted the attention of a few male sexist assh-les who think it’s okay for men to refer to their partners as “smokin’ hot.”

In his facebook status (which is pictured in the SCCL thread), Loweksu refers to his wife as “smoking hot.” Christian men often like to refer to their wives as being “smoking hot,” which is sexist.

Men need to get over valuing women purely, primarily, or only based on their looks.

I was engaged to a man who, for years, would go on and on about how “beautiful” I was, even after I told him that while I appreciated the sentiment, but it had none the less worn thin, and I’d prefer him to praise me on my career, and so on. I actually felt de-valued that he kept harping on my looks.

He never took an interest in my intellect, my opinions about politics or whatever else,/ With my ex, my greatest virtue or asset in his view always came down to how sexy I looked in skirts.

Some of the people in the SCCL Facebook thread are making a distinction between a man who does refers to his wife or sweetie as “smokin hot” in private vs one who does so on social media, in public.

My ex mostly complimented me on my Smokin’ Hot looks in private, but it still grated on my last nerve, I still found it insulting, and it was sexist and rude.

It is NOT “nice” or complimentary to a woman to pay attention to her looks or clothing, but so many men think it is. It’s not. Knock it off.

Women want to be noticed for their brains, hobbies, talents, and career, NOT their weight, hair, manner of dress, sexy legs, bust size, whatever.

Some of the only women who do enjoy this sort of compliment are generally insecure ones – the ones who were once ugly ducklings and the acne cleared up one day, they dropped the weight, and suddenly, they find themselves getting male attention.

I was actually in that group myself – used to have frizzy hair, weight problems – but turned into the beautiful swan; however, I detest it when the only thing men focus on is a woman’s looks, or only my looks in particular. It’s probably one of my top ten pet peeves in life.

If you are a man who is a FATHER, and your dear daughter is dating some guy or marries some guy, would it not bother you in the least if the only quality her husband or BF ever praised her over was her looks?

Wouldn’t you want that ass-clown noticing she’s funny, smart, and accomplished, and for him to tell her so?

How about if your parents divorce, your mother remarries, would it not turn your stomach for your stepfather to ONLY notice and care about your mother’s looks, and never notice or care about her brains, talents, etc?

That’s how women feel when men go on and on judging us for our looks, rating us on scales of one to ten, but don’t bother to take an interest in us as human beings.

Edit. although one idiot posting to the SCCL thread claims to be a father actually wrote,

  • post by Buzz Suplita
  • I have three daughters, no sons. I hope each of their future husbands “disrespects” them and all women in just this way.

And what if your DAUGHTERS do not want to be reduced to their looks and body parts, you’d still be fine with men objectifying them? Buzz is one creepy father.

Being objectified for one’s looks is something that happens to the female gender far more often and consistently than it does the male gender. 

Some of the men chiming in on that thread are either trolling or are being deliberately obtuse. Despite the fact they’ve had it explained to them six ways from Sunday why men publicly referring to their wife as “smokin’ hot” is sexist, they keep saying, “I don’t get it,” “how is this wrong,” or “how is this sexist.”

Here is one comment to some of them, by Annie Dotes, that I agree with:

  • Mike- you’re floating freely between talking about the specific dude [“The Bachelor” reality TV star guy] and talking about the cultural phenomenon. Every time someone addresses one of those you counter with the other. I have repeatedly taken great pains to distinguish between the two. (See my comment 3 above yours).
  • What you are doing is called moving the goalposts, it is a logical fallacy. If you’re being disingenuous on purpose, then knock it off. If you’re actually not keeping up then slow down and read through it again.

    This pic and caption [the photo posted by The Bachelor guy referring to his wife as being “Smokin Hot”], regardless of Mr Bachelor’s intentions, reflects a cultural misogyny where women are primarily valued for the sexual feelings they give men, and their status as conquests. He is participating in that cultural misogyny regardless of his intentions.

Anyway, here are links on other blogs about the annoying, sexist habit of men to objectify all women, or their wives in particular, by referring to them as Smokin Hot.

(Link):  I’m Sick of Hearing About Your Smoking Hot Wife

(Link):  Smokin’ Hot Wives and Water to the Soul

(Link):  Pastor, Your Wife Might Be “Smokin’ Hot,” But …

—————

Related posts on this blog:

(Link):  The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Many Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ditto on the how to get married angle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does John Morgan define “sex,” anyway?

Many Christians cannot even agree on what constitutes sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————————–

Related posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Link):  The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In light of this recent information, which says that male usage of porn may be what is leading to declining marriage rates, I’d like to say that Christian sociologist Mark Regnerus’ post from a month or two is flawed in yet another way.

Here is part 1 of my criticisms of Regnerus’ opinion, if you need or want some background on this current post:

Here is the recent study I posted about a few moments ago:

Regnerus surmises that part of the reason for faltering marriage rates is that lots and lots of un-married Christian women refuse to marry male Christian porn users or porn addicts.

That may be true in some cases. I know if I discovered a man I was dating was a porn user, I’d likely break up with him.

That is my prerogative. I’m an adult, I get to make choices I want for me and my life. And screw Christians who try to guilt trip or shame women like me out of those choices, all to “save” marriage by telling us we ought to marry porn users.

Regnerus’ blame is misplaced, if the recent study on men and porn habits is true.

Regnerus is apparently assuming that single, Christian women are getting approached by single, Christian men for dates or marriage proposals regularly, and that the women are turning these men down because these men are porn users.

The fact is, though, a lot of single, Christian women cannot even get to “first base.” Single, Christian women cannot even meet single men in their age bracket.

Continue reading “Regnerus’ Misplaced Blame – Blame the Wimmins! Common male refrain, even from Christian men”

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

Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage

This is a critique of the following post, and related ideas:

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

The guy that wrote that post has a tendency to make his blog temporarily private once he sees I’ve linked to one of his posts, then he makes it public again after so many weeks. You can read more about that wacko situation (Link): here, here, and here.

Lately, on other sites, there has been discussion on whether or not Christian preachers should stop holding weddings altogether, or if Christian preachers should only perform weddings for Christians…

In other words, some Christians are so upset over the possibility of Christians being forced to perform same-sex marriage, some are thinking that maybe Christians should not have anything to do with the government or secular groups in regards to marriage.

Here are a few links about the situation:

(Link):  Separating Civil and Christian Marriage: Should We Sign the Pledge?

(Link):  Should Pastors Disengage Civil and Christian Marriage?

(Link):  Pastors Sign Pledge to Separate Christian, Civil Marriage – via CBN site

Excerpt, from CBN article::

  • A new LifeWay Research survey on marriage and an online pledge drive shows support for a movement to further separate church and state roles in marriage.
  • Six in 10 responding to the survey said the government should not define or regulate marriage. More than a third also said that clergy should get out of the civil marriage business. 

I am not necessarily in agreement with all views by this blogger or this particular page, but it’s a critique of the Marriage Pledge position by Protestant Christians:

(Link):  The Marriage Pledge: Why You Should Not Sign It

Excerpt:

  • Their heirs, especially the Puritans and later the neo-Reformers, knew that all of life must be Christian, and to be Christian, it must be biblical.
  • The Bible provides the guidelines on what all of life, including the state, should look like. If the state is anti-biblical, you need to work to make it biblical, just as you would do in the family and church. You don’t get to opt out of them.
  • …But this option of cultural withdrawal isn’t available to the neo-Reformers. Douglas Wilson has offered several excellent practical, pastoral objections to The Marriage Pledge.
  • I would add that The Marriage Pledge is flawed at its root.The state, no matter how perverse, has a vested interest in marriage (will the church enforce disposition of children and property in the case of divorce? Hardly. And if she did, who would enforce the enforcement?). Should the church “disentangle” itself from the family since the family, too, is being redefined?
  • To be sure: the state can and does act unjustly (“no-fault divorce,” etc.). But the alternative isn’t anarchy, which despite its best intentions, is what The MArriage Pledge is suggesting. The state, even an apostate one, has a legitimate vested interest in marriage and the welfare of children springing from it.

Some Christians have a weirdo, odd ball view point that Christians marrying HETERO couples in today’s climate somehow is associated with the marriage of HOMOsexual couples.

I have written of this topic before, like here:

Yes, there are some Christian kooks who are teaching other Christians that if you, a hetero Christian, gets married in a state that has legalized homosexual marriage, this somehow invalidates YOUR (hetero) marriage.

These Christian kooks are teaching if you are a HETERO, Christian VIRGIN, yet marry your spouse in a state where homosexual marriage is also legal, this means you are NOT EQUALLY YOKED to your spouse because your entire marriage is invalidated, and they seem to imply you are sexually impure by extension.

And doesn’t the God of the Bible say he does not hold the sins of the father against the sons, that each person is responsible only for his or her own sins?

So what gives with Christians who are teaching this heresy that a hetero, Christian marriage magically becomes improper or sinfully tainted if it was held in a state where homosexuals are permitted to marry? God does not hold the sins of homosexuals against hetero Christians.

Anyway, this John Morgan guy seems to argue along a similar line in his post,

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

My intent here is not to copy tons and tons of this guy’s post, but it’s so hard to find just one or two paragraphs that summarize his thoughts here, I’m not sure what parts to excerpt.

Excerpts.

  • …We hear euphemisms everyday: Correctional facility instead of prison, collateral damage instead of accidental deaths, enhanced interrogation techniques instead of torture, pregnancy termination instead of abortion, etc.
  • We can add one more – marriage. Turning to the Oxford Dictionary again, we see that marriage is: “The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.” In short, it’s a legal sexual relationship recognized by the state you live in.

Continue reading “Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign”

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

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

I will start this post out in general terms and then proceed to offer a critique of a post by John Morgan, so excerpts from his post will be much farther below.

It appears to me that the Bible says that sex is reserved for married couples, with marriage being defined by Jesus Christ as being between one man and one woman.

When responding to a question about marriage by religious critics, Jesus referred back to Adam and Eve in the Garden, pointing out that it was God’s original intent for marriage to be comprised of one man, one woman.

However, it appears that many people associate the practice of, or the word, “Celibacy” with only homosexual singles these days, and for hundreds of years, with Roman Catholic priests.

I’ve seen several articles where some Roman Catholics are asking their church to repeal the celibacy requirement from priests.

Here are some examples of the recent discussion of celibacy in regards to homosexuality:

(Link):  Number of celibate gay Christians rises in traditional churches

(Link): Growing movement of gay Christians choosing celibacy

(Link):  Gay Christians choosing celibacy

(Link): Gay, Celibate, Christian?

(Link):  FDA Favors Year Of Celibacy Rule For Gay Male Donors

I follow the conservative blog “Hot Air” on Twitter. Hot Air moderators recently posted a blog page about celibate homosexuals. Here it is,

(Link): Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows – from Hot Air’s blog

I have more to say about this Hot Air article farther below.

At any rate. Since so many homosexuals claim they were born homosexual and cannot change their sexual orientation, I proposed over a year ago, before the “celibacy” topic became popular in various news outlets, that homosexual Christians practice celibacy.

I think it is a workable compromise: if you have homosexual leanings, feel attracted to the same gender, I don’t think that means you have to act upon sexual urges.

I have no idea why this idea would be considered controversial, but according to several news articles I have read, it is in fact considered a controversial idea among Christians, heterosexuals, and homosexuals.

I do not see why, as HETEROsexuals are also commanded by the Bible to remain celibate, unless they are married to an opposite gender person; people are permitted, by God, teaches the Bible, to have sex with their opposite gender partner, but in no other circumstances.

Lifelong celibacy is NOT impossible.

For example, see this post on this blog:

(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals” (ie, it’s supposedly an impossible feat for any human being to achieve)

Lifelong celibacy can be difficult at times, yes, but not impossible, yet many Christians keep depicting a life without sex as being a Herculean task only a tiny few are capable of, because, they wrongly assume, God sprinkles magic dust on celibate singles to remove sexual desire. This is false.

Celibates still experience sexual urges and desires and attraction, they simply choose not to act upon those feelings or attractions.

When married people are apart, they are expected, by the Bible, to abstain from sex.

Continue reading “Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “MOTHER SIGNS CULT CHRISTMAS FIGURE, JESUS AS CLIENT”

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

————————————

Related posts:

(Link):  The Sexualization of God and Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divorce Rates Are Dropping. But Are We Saving Marriage? by S Jones (Also discusses how Christians have turned marriage and family into idols)

This post, “Divorce Rates Are Dropping. But Are We Saving Marriage?,” on Faith Street, is essentially a rehash about two blog posts I made earlier this week and the last, here is one of the two:

(Link): Some Guy Ticked off At Recent NY Times Article about Declining Divorce Rate Declares that Marriage Still Doing Crummy and the Fam-bly Still Endangered

I still think this is worth reading because the author throws in a few of her own thoughts

(Link): Divorce Rates Are Dropping. But Are We Saving Marriage? by S Jones

Excerpts.

  • As with all demographic shifts, a number of factors are in play. The Times notes that lower divorce rates still don’t correspond to a higher number of marriages. Fewer people are getting married, a fact that’s long been a source of ire for marriage-minded Christians.
  • But those that do are still finding themselves in more stable unions, and as the Times indicates, that’s because people are marrying later than ever before.
  • The idea that later marriage can contribute to the institution’s stability is rather at odds with conservative rhetoric on the subject.

Continue reading “Divorce Rates Are Dropping. But Are We Saving Marriage? by S Jones (Also discusses how Christians have turned marriage and family into idols)”

Kirk Cameron – Like Some Other Shallow Christians – Is Selling Christian Family Values To Make A Buck – Cameron’s Christmas Movie Ranked Worst Movie Ever on IMDB – Cameron Selling Jesus Coffee to Make A Buck

Kirk Cameron – Like Some Other Shallow Christians – Is Selling Christian Family Values To Make A Buck – Cameron’s Christmas Movie Ranked Worst Movie Ever on IMDB

Yes, actor Kirk Cameron released a movie a few weeks ago called “Saving Christmas.” He went on his Facebook page to implore his fans or followers to inflate the scores of the movie at the Rotten Tomatoes site. Here is an article about it:

(Link): Kirk Cameron’s ‘Saving Christmas’ Ranked Worst Movie Ever By IMDB

  • Congratulations, Kirk Cameron. You’ve officially made a terrible movie. The former Growing Pain star’s latest movie, Saving Christmas, is now ranked at the top (bottom?) of (Link): IMDB’s 100 worst movies.
  • IMDB users clearly didn’t like Kirk Cameron’s new movie and either did the people at Rotten Tomatoes. The movie is currently sitting at a solid 0% at the movie review site.

    Kirk Cameron is hoping to change some of those negative reviews. He took to Facebook this week to beg his fans for more positive reviews.

    (Link): Cameron writes: “All of you who love Saving Christmas – go rate it at Rotten Tomatoes right now and send the message to all the critics that WE decide what movies we want our families see … If 2,000 of you (out of almost 2 million on this page) take a minute to rate Saving Christmas, it will give the film a huge boost and more will see it as a result! Thank you for all your help and support in putting the joy of Christ back in Christmas!”

I disagree with Christians who have made marriage, the nuclear family, and natalism into idols. And they have indeed made those things into idols.

Even worse, in a way, are the self-professing believers who claim to be in support of mom, apple pie and the family, but who are apparently using this stuff to make a buck.

I suspect this is true of Kirk Cameron.

I’ve seen screen captures of his Facebook posts, and they read like marketing shill pieces, not heartfelt pleas to save the family (see one example above).

Continue reading “Kirk Cameron – Like Some Other Shallow Christians – Is Selling Christian Family Values To Make A Buck – Cameron’s Christmas Movie Ranked Worst Movie Ever on IMDB – Cameron Selling Jesus Coffee to Make A Buck”