TBN Airing Special on Founder Paul Crouch Sr – Why?

TBN Airing Special on Founder Paul Crouch Sr – Why?

My online TV Guide says that TBN (Christian channel) is airing a 2 and a half or three hour special on founder Paul Crouch Sr. today, starting at 3:00 PM.

I cannot fathom why. Outside of his family, I cannot imagine many people who are that fascinated with Crouch Sr that they’d want to watch.

As I’ve noted before on the blog, in some very old posts, the folks who own TBN sometimes make the channel more about themselves than they do Jesus Christ, which I don’t understand.

I would assume this two or three hour program will be a snooze fest and will not be tuning in to watch. This being TBN, I can only assume they will either air this Paul Crouch special at least once a year, or as much as a few times a week over the next few months.

And on a commercial break promoting this special, TBN just showed a painting of Jesus hugging Paul Crouch.  It looked rather cheesy. Perhaps I can find a copy of it. Okay. This is a screen cap from the TBN site.

Weird painting of Paul Crouch being hugged by Jesus

Weird painting of Paul Crouch being hugged by Jesus

Weirdness. Total weirdness.

Pro-Life, Christian Sites that Flirt With Denigrating Singleness and Childlessness In Their Quest to Argue Against Abortion / Re Eric Metaxas etc

Pro-Life, Christian Sites that Flirt With Denigrating Singleness and Childlessness In Their Quest to Argue Against Abortion / Re Eric Metaxas etc

If you are new to this blog: I am pro-life. I do not support abortion.

I have traditional values, and was completely a Christian up until a couple years ago; I currently reside somewhere between being a Christian and being agnostic. I am not hostile towards traditional marriage or “the family.”

I do, however, object to the fact that many conservative Christians have turned marriage and family into deity, and they marginalize and shame anyone who has not married or had children.

One troubling aspect I see in Christian sites or blogs that champion traditional values, or ones that argue against abortion, is a propensity to equate adult singleness, celibacy, and remaining childless to being selfish, to being opposed to God, the Bible, or biblical values.

Many times, these sites that argue for the nuclear family and against abortion do not take into account that many adult singles are remaining single not by choice, but due to circumstance.

See, for example, this post on this blog:

(Link):  Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians Re: Marriage

I myself had wanted to marry, but my relationship with my fiance did not work out so I had to break up with him, and I have not met anyone suitable since.

I cannot put a gun to a man’s head and force him to marry me, nor do I want to order a male-order mail groom, nor do I have a magic wand where I can wave it about and make a man appear out of thin air.

I don’t think Christians who obsessively advocate for marriage, natalism, and the nuclear family, appreciate that getting married is not as simple or easy as they seem to think it is.

For more on that typical mindset among Christians, please see this post at this blog: (Link):  Typical Conservative Assumption: If you want marriage bad enough (or at all), Mr. Right will magically appear

I follow the site “Life News” on Twitter, and I tend to agree with many, though not all, of their views. I am not sure, but I think Life News is a Roman Catholic based organization, but many of their view points sound similar to Protestant or Baptist positions on marriage, abortion, and other topics.

Life News is a very pro-life site, which I am fine with. However, today, they tweeted a link to this page, and I do have some misgivings by how they have represented singleness and the state of being childless, via this editorial by Eric Metaxas:

(Link): “Choice,” Abortion Behind Worldwide Demographic Spiral by Eric Metaxas

I’m not sure, but I believe that Metaxas is Protestant. At any rate, here are some excerpts:

  • by Eric Metaxas
  • As you might suspect, this pro-choice “age of possibility” has room for almost anything—except children. Brooks notes: “The number of Americans who are living alone has shot up from 9 percent in 1950 to 28 percent today. In 1990, 65 percent of Americans said that children are very important to a successful marriage. Now, only 41 percent of Americans say they believe that.
  • And here’s the kicker: “There are now more American houses with dogs than with children.”

Continue reading

Christian Host Pat Robertson Blames, Shames Woman Who Was Laid Off from Her Job (Post Updated)

Pat Robertson Blames, Shames Woman Who Was Laid Off from Employment


On today’s episode of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club show, a woman wrote in saying she was laid off from one job, then a second one.

The woman said she feels that God sent her Job 2, but she doesn’t understand why God would send her something, only to yank it away. She asked Robertson why would God remove something he seemingly gave her to start with? (If I can find the video to this, I will add it to this post later.)

True to form, as Robertson’s standard operating procedure is to Blame the Victim, depending on the topic (see links bottom of this post for such examples), he told this woman she was laid off from her job due to her own lousy job performance and to stop blaming God for this. The thing is, the woman did not mention the particulars of her lay off (so far as I can remember. I don’t think it was mentioned.)

We have no idea WHY she was laid off, and neither does Robertson.

Robertson just ASSUMED negative things about this woman’s job performance. Sometimes companies lay off workers because the company is in a bind, below regular profits, or they decide to base operations in another nation, as that is cheaper.

There are any number of reasons why someone may be laid off from a job, and none of those reasons have anything to do with the person’s job performance.

Shame, shame on Pat Robertson for beating up on this woman who wrote in about this.

She is likely worried about making her mortgage payment or rent, or buying grocereries, and she’s wondering where God is, why has God let her down… here she is probably hurting, confused, afraid, and Robertson just bashed her and told her to brush up on her job skills. What a heartless jerk he was about this.

He is also missing the mark in that the woman was not looking for practical job tips, but she seems to be hurt that God doesn’t care about her. She wants to know why God has let her down – she’s in a spiritual funk, she isn’t needing resume’ advice at this time.

Time for CBN / 700 Club to kick the 80-something Robertson off the show and have his more tactful, sensitive son Gordon take over hosting duties.

I also find it very hypocritical that a man who makes his millions begging for money off gullible TV viewers is biting some woman viewer’s head off over her supposed job performance.

Also: (Link):  ‘Mission Congo’ Alleges Pat Robertson Exploited Post-Genocide Rwandans For Diamonds

  • The documentary ‘Mission Congo,’ which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, alleges that televangelist Pat Robertson’s charity in Zaire to help refugees that fled from post-genocide Rwanda, Operation Blessing, really served as an elaborate front for his diamond mining operation. Marlow Stern reports.

Anyway, I will edit this post to add a link to the video where Robertson shames and blames that lady who was laid off from her job, assuming I can find the video. These videos are usually either posted on You Tube or on the 700 Club’s site.

Robertson is such an insensitive jerk. I am not a fan of the “tip toe around people feelings” types, but I don’t like the Pat Robertson or Mark Driscoll extremes, either.

Edit. This might be the Bring It On segment where the woman wrote Robertson. Edit 2. Yes, this is the correct video.

NOV 20 2014 UPDATE

At some point after I uploaded the video below, the people at The 700 Club replaced the video!

That’s right. The original version had Robertson telling the woman she must be performing horribly at her job to be laid off twice.

Well, in the replaced video (which is below – they removed the original one), supposedly, the same woman wrote back to clarify her situation. She says she is 52 years old and was laid off by her employer because she reported to them that a male co-worker was harassing her on the job.

Armed with that information, to paraphrase him, Robertson says he is now sympathetic with this woman and thinks she should consider suing them because she was terminated unfairly.

At no time, though, did he reply to the woman’s original question: why did God send her this second job only for God to permit the job to be taken away? Robertson never did answer that.

The first time he attempted to reply to that inquiry, he rudely and insensitively assumed the woman was at fault for having been laid off.

I also find it telling that this Christian television program edits or removes original videos and replaces them without telling viewers – I only caught this substitution because I went back and re-watched the video.

I do not see a notice on the page that the original video was removed, edited, and/or replaced. In my opinion, it’s a bit dishonest, in a way, for a Christian show to fiddle with, edit, or remove an original video after the fact – and not inform people that this was done.

The letter from the laid off woman is the second or third letter in the video

(which has now been replaced with new video, supposedly from the same woman who wrote the original letter – the original, insensitive commentary by Robertson has been removed, because I can only assume the folks at 700 Club realized he looked rude.

I tweeted about this video a few days ago, I provided a link to this post on Twitter, several times on Twitter over 3 or 4 days, using the Pat Robertson and 700 Club hash tags. Perhaps someone from their show saw this post and decided to rework the video?):

(Link): You Tube Video / Pat Robertson responds to letter woman laid off from job – video has been altered – they removed original content and replaced it to make Robertson look like less of an insensitive jackass



(Link): Don’t Be Pat Robertson: Learn That, Yes, Abusive Jerks Masquerade As Nice Guys Until They Marry the Woman Then They Abuse Her – Pat Blames A Woman Again For Marrying A Jerk

(Link): Pat Robertson Says 44 Year old Never Married Woman Who Wants Marriage is “Desperate”

(Link): 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

(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’

(Link): Pat Robertson Expects Men to Commit Sexual Sin (and it’s not the first time)

(Link): Pat Robertson: (basically): Pre Marital Sex is Okay (or to be totally expected) Because People are “Sexual Beings”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Related posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One such site is CBE, Christians for Biblical Equality.

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts.

  • by Carrie A. Miles
  • On issues of the family and scripture, Christians are in a bit of a pickle. It is not always clear how our convictions about “family values” mesh with what the Bible teaches, especially the Gospels.
  • Jesus, for example, did not assign the great spiritual and sentimental significance to family life that many Christians do today. How then do we reconcile the expectation that all good Christians should marry with his example of lifelong celibacy?
  • Or our championship of family with Jesus’ warning that following him will set sibling against sibling and parent against child?
  • Endorsing family values poses particularly interesting issues for biblical egalitarians, since many of our fellow Bible-believers hold that these values should include a hierarchical model of marriage.
  • In order to understand Jesus’ attitude toward the family, we must understand that family practices in the first century were not based on emotion as they are today, but rather on material, economic interests.
  • In my book, The Redemption of Love,1 I show that the family values prevalent in Jesus’ day were the economic consequences of the Fall. These family practices, now known as patriarchy, were corrupted by the human decision to have our own way and live outside of God’s abundance.
  • I join New Testament historian S. Scott Bartchy in arguing that rather than support patriarchy, Jesus and other New Testament writers (especially Paul) intended to over- throw it. Thus, Jesus’ teachings, which seem anti-family today, reflect his intent to dissolve the materialistic motives for family and replace them with relationships based on doing the will of God.2
  • Singleness
  • In this passage Jesus challenged another ancient family value—the expectation that every respectable person should marry. He noted several reasons why people might choose not to marry, including the decision to devote themselves entirely to the kingdom of heaven (v. 12). Between this teaching and his own example of celibacy, Jesus made it clear that it was acceptable for godly people to remain single.This was a radical claim, since singleness had rarely been an option before. Historically, most marriages were arranged by families to further their own interests, often with little consideration for the preferences of the bride and groom.

Continue reading

Southern Baptist Russell Moore Admits That Christians Have Sexless Marriages

Southern Baptist Russell Moore Admits That Christians Have Sexless Marriages

I first saw this at (Link): Spiritual Sounding Board blog. I find this funny. Christians often sell the notion of virginity to people by telling them if they wait until marriage to have sex that the sex will be “Mind Blowing” (their favorite phrase of choice to describe things).

You may also recall that Russell Moore places no value on a person waiting until marriage to have sex, please see (Link): this previous post.

I think this letter to Moore about this sexless marriage where the husband does not want to have sex also shows how false some Christian sexual views are about gender.

Many Christians like to repeat the falsehood that only men want and like sex, while (married) women supposedly hate sex, don’t want sex, and don’t need sex.

Here you have a marriage where the couple is not having sex because the male says he thinks that sex is “gross.” This does not fit the stereotype held and taught by Christians that all men are horn dogs who fantasize about sex constantly, can’t get enough sex, and that their wives don’t want sex and that women hate sex, ergo, the pastor must cajole and guilt trip the wives in sermons or in blogs and books into “putting out” more.

(Link): Questions & Ethics: We haven’t consummated our marriage.

  • Russell Moore counsels a woman who has been married 8 months, but has yet to consummate their marriage. Moore shares ways a pastor should approach this, as well as the importance of sex within marriage. Read the full transcript here.
  • [From the transcript – some guy asks Moore the following]:
  • There’s a couple, married, they’ve been married for eight months, and they have yet to consummate the marriage. At issue is the husband. The young man is unwilling to consummate the marriage. There is no medical problem. I have investigated asking him if maybe there is a sexual orientation issue. He says, no. He is not attracted to men at all. He loves his wife, but he finds sex to be “gross,” in his words
  • [Excerpts of Moore’s response – click here to see the entire reply]
  • Well, pastor, that is a difficult one, and it is something that—you know, I find myself getting this question more and more these days. It seems that I am finding more and more young couples having sexual difficulties.
  • And a lot of times what people tend to think about are older couples, whether medical problems, or they’ve been married a long time and kind of the romantic energy is lagging in the marriage. But I am finding this situation with young couples.
  • …Now, if this is simply just someone who says I don’t want to have sex with my wife. I refuse to carry out my responsibilities to love and to care for me wife including in the area of sexual intimacy, well, yeah, I think that would constitute an abandonment of her, and that would mean that the leaders of the church should come in and deal with it.

Continue reading

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

I think conservative writer Ann Coulter’s editorial about Christians who shuffle off to assist ebola patients in Africa – which got her all sorts of vitriol by both left and right wingers, Christians and Non Christians – has been proven right.

I first wrote about that in another post or two:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

(Link): Strawman Argument: “You’re Creating a False Dichotomy” – No, I’m Not (Re: Coulter editorial and U.S. Christians aiding foreigners)

After American, caucasian movie actor Robin Williams died from suicide a few days ago, on the one hand, there was, yes, a lot of sympathy and sadness expressed for him and his family online in the days that followed, as it should be.

But there were also some very insulting, unsympathetic views published, and at that, based on William’s skin color or his mental health problems, not only by guys like Bill McNorris and Christian Matt Walsh, but by atheist writer P Z Myers.

As far as I can tell, the Bible does not adhere to the concept of “privilege” as believed by liberals. The American progressives harping on “privilege” causes them to refuse to show care and concern for the groups they believe to be in power.

Jesus Christ taught that people’s sins comes from their hearts (from within), not from their environment, and he did not endorse the view that because you or your group has been systematically mistreated or oppressed at the hands of another group, that this excuses your sin, or makes it acceptable for you to hate your oppressor, or for you to refuse to show compassion to that group.

In Jesus’ day, ancient Israel was ruled first and foremost by the ancient Romans, and on a lesser level, by the religious ruling class (the priests and Pharisees).

A lot of American liberals will say it’s impossible for an American woman to be considered sexist, or for female dislike of men to be considered sexist, because men in American society hold all the power. They will say that because whites held all the power in the USA, that one cannot consider a black person’s prejudices against whites a form of racism.

Then we also get into the identity politics and hate crime laws, where liberals believe that someone should receive a harsher, or specific charge of hate, for, say, mugging someone in a certain group that they consider unprivileged.

For example, a crime that is motivated by hatred of skin color, where a white guy punches a black guy in the face, is supposed to be worse than, say, a white guy punching another white guy. A guy murdering someone who happens to be homosexual is supposed to be a hate crime, but the same act is not considered a hate crime if a homosexual or heterosexual murders a heterosexual guy.

I have never understood these positions, because, for one reason of a few, it doesn’t square with the Bible.

Jesus never once taught the Jews of his day that it’s okay for them to hate the Romans, nor did he excuse their dislike of the Romans, on the premise that the Romans held all the “privilege” or “power.”

Continue reading

A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression and Suicide

A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression

Before I address Matt Walsh’s post about depression specifically:

For anyone who wants to read a compassionate, balanced view about mental health problems, including depression, by a Christian author, please read a copy of the book,

Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded?: Helping (Not Hurting) Those with Emotional Difficulties – by Dwight L. Carlson.

Carlson is a Christian doctor who explains how much, if at all, personal sin, choice, or biology play in issues such as depression.

An excerpt from the book’s page on Amazon reads,

  • It’s no sin to hurt. Thousands of Christians suffer real emotional pain– such as depression, anxiety, obsessiveness.

Many other Christians, including prominent leaders, believe emotional problems are the result of sin or bad choices. These attitudes often only add to the suffering of those who hurt.

In this book Dwight Carlson marshals recent scientific evidence that demonstrates many emotional problems are just as physical or biological as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

While he never discounts personal responsibility, Carlson shows from both the Bible and up-to-date medicine why it really is no sin to hurt.

Understandably and compellingly, Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded? brings profound help for those who hurt and those who counsel. For those who suffer, here is a powerful liberation from guilt. For those who care for the suffering, here is vivid proof that those in emotional pain deserve compassion, not condemnation.


In the day or two after it was announced that movie actor Robin Williams died by suicide, Christian blogger Matt Walsh wrote a blog post about it called “Robin Williams didn’t die from a disease, he died from his choice” (url: themattwalshblog.com). A copy of Walsh’s first post appears (Link): here on Barbwire (the link will open in a new window).

The very title of the post suggests, or assumes, that Williams was wholly in his right mind, capable of making rational decisions, and was therefore totally responsible for his own death, that he could have easily avoided his death (if only he had “chosen” joy and/or read a Bible more, etc), and, by extension, deserves no compassion.

Walsh would probably counter, “But I never specficially said he didn’t deserve compassion, or that he should just read his Bible more!”

Well, no, you didn’t say that exactly, but the wording of your blog post heading alone certainly implies it. The rambling in the post itself, which was intended to bolster the claims implied in the title, further suggests these views as well.

Walsh got so much negative feedback from that post, he wrote a follow-up post to it the other day.

I don’t know at this point if I intend on writing a full-scale rebuttal to Walsh’s post here – or, if I do, I may do it in the days or weeks ahead. I’m undecided.

I found Walsh’s commentary so revolting, I can’t bring myself to go back and re-read the piece again. Once was enough. I’ll try to re-visit the pages to grab some quotes, if I can.

I skimmed the Part 2 earlier today. Part 2 is entitled, “Depression isn’t a choice but suicide is: my detailed response to the critics”

The attitude of Walsh’s primary post was very victim-blaming, in spite of his protestations to the contrary.

Walsh evidently feels post # 1 was very loving and supportive of Robin Williams or anyone who deals with depression.

Perhaps Walsh is merely a very poor writer and failed to accurately convey his views in the first place, so that they came out as insensitive as they did, and now he’s upset so many people have taken his post the “wrong way.”

That has happened to me a time or two online – I fail to clearly explain my position on a sensitive issue, and folks take it the wrong way, and assume I’m a heartless jerk. (On the other hand, people are sometimes guilty of reading things into posts I’ve written that I never said or felt.)

If I am not mistaken, Walsh implied in part 1, and admitted in part 2 (again, I cannot bring myself at this time to re-read both to double check this) that he has had depression in the past, or some sort of problem.

Okay, I shall wade into the post again to find the exact quote. Here is what Walsh said in part 2 about his own experiences:

    I actually found myself getting emotional as I wrote it. I’m not suicidal but I have demons of my own, so I submitted that post to the public, praying others would find the same solace in the promise of hope and the power of free will.

From part 1, Walsh says,

    And before I’m accused of being someone who “doesn’t understand,” let me assure you that I have struggled with this my entire life.

I want to pause here to say I find that wording odd, from the quote from part 2. Walsh says he hopes people can find hope in “the power of free will.”

Christians usually feed depressed people the cliché’ that they can be freed of depression in “Jesus alone.”

Just as believing in Jesus alone cannot free a person from depression, neither can celebrating “free will,” or a “pick yourself up by your bootstraps and solider on” mentality.

I’d say often, a lot of people with clinical depression operate under one or both those paradigms for years to start with anyway, along with psychiatric visits or medications, until they realize none of it is working, they get mentally exhausted and want to stop fighting to live.

It is exhausting to live another day when all you want to do is stay in bed all day long with the sheets over your head, or take your own life.

That is, people with depression already have tried to “choose joy” and so on; they don’t need a Matt Walsh telling them to give that a go.

Having severe depression is not an automatic death sentence. There can be a way out, but it might vary from one person to the next.

But the vast majority of people I’ve seen who have made it through depression and lived to tell about it usually do not credit their survival with pure choice (ie, choosing to be joyful), Bible reading, attending church, or Jesus alone.

As a matter of fact, many of these recovering folks will tell you that one thing that made their journey MORE difficult was receiving well intentioned, yet hurtful advice, such as the very things Walsh was writing about and which is common among Christians: believe more in Jesus, attend church, choose to be joyful, etc.

Continue reading

Christian Ladies: Be Equally Yoked to Christian Men Who Like To Have Sex With Dogs! (Re: Jerald Hill news story)

Christian Ladies: Be Equally Yoked to Christian Men Who Like To Have Sex With Dogs! (Re: Jerald Hill news story)

Christians who lecture or shame Christian single women into marrying only other Christians are… full of, you know.

When you have CHRISTIAN men jailed for rape, murder, or initiating dog sex, you have nothing to lose by dating or marrying Non-Christian men.

Why settle for a Non-Christian pagan dude when you, fine Christian single woman, can get a gem like this: a Baptist guy who gets hot and bothered thinking of doing it with Fido. (gag)

I haven’t yet seen in these articles if this guy is married or is a father (see this link for why I mention that).

(Link): [Baptist] Church Leader Jerald Hill Suspected Of Attempted Dog Sex

    A church leader in Roach, Missouri, is out of a job after being arrested for allegedly trying to arrange a sexual encounter with a dog.

    Jerald Hill, 56, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of attempted unlawful sex with an animal and attempted animal abuse.

(Link): Missouri Baptist leader arrested for attempted bestiality

(Link): Missouri Baptist leader arrested for allegedly seeking sex with a dog

(Link): Missouri Baptist church leader arrested for seeking sex with dog

    by Joe Kemp
    August 2014

    Jerald Hill, 56 — the head of the Windermere Baptist Conference Center — was collared after he turned to Craigslist to arrange sex with a dog and the ad was answered by an undercover police officer.

    A Missouri church leader was arrested after he turned to Craigslist to arrange sex with a dog, authorities said.

    Jerald Hill, 56 — the head of the Windermere Baptist Conference Center — was collared after a police officer spotted the online ad and offered to unite the man with a pooch at a Columbia park, local media reported.

    The undercover cop, an officer with the Boone County Sheriff Department’s Cyber Crimes Task Force, charged Hill with soliciting sex with an animal.

    He was released after posting a $1,000 bond.

    The conference center will likely choose a new president and CEO after Hill’s arrest.

    “We are concerned for the well-being of Jerry…and we are also concerned with the well-being of Windermere,” Chairman Arthur Mallory said.

    “Windermere will continue to function in a good way…It is a significant piece of God’s kingdom’s work.”

h/t to SCCL Facebook Group, which is where I think I first saw this story

(Link): Married Southern Baptist and Calvinist Preacher and Father of Boy Exposes His Naked Penis to Teen Girl in Store

(Link): Married Couple Charged With Making Dog Porn (wife had sex with dogs while husband filmed it)

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

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

(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): Lists of More Married Preachers Arrested for Being Rapists or Child Molesters

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

(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): American Teen Missionary Raped Several Orphan Children in Africa, One As Young As Four – Being Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): 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

(Link): Wife of Preacher Shoots, Kills Him, Recounts Years of Physical and Sexual Abuse– So Much for the Equally Yoked Teaching and the Notion that Christian married sex is Mind Blowing

(Link): Preachers Arrested For, or Accused of, Promoting Prostitution, Rape, Spreading HIV, Child Molesting etc – And Christian Single Women Should Only Consider Marrying So Called Christian Men Why?

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

(There is an update at the bottom of this post).

This involves a lot of back story I don’t want to get into because this blog post would be ten pages long.

I am blogging this primarily for adult singles who have felt marginalized or hurt by Christian denominations or churches that treat adult singles as though they have cooties.

I have a somewhat different motivation for blogging about this than other blogs do. There were a few other blogs who addressed the child abuse aspect of the story, that we have an adult (Hall) badgering a teen kid (Braxton Caner) on the internet.

J D Hall is a Calvinist preacher with a blog called “Pulpit and Pen,” a Twitter account, and a group of fan boys who follow him around online who actually refer to themselves as “Pulpiteers.”

At one time, Hall’s groupies were using the #pulpiteer (or “pulpiteers”) hash to follow each other around Twitter. I’m not sure if they still use the “Pulpiteer” label or not. I will continue to refer to them as such.

This group, and a few other people, have a long standing hatred of another guy named Ergun Caner.

Continue reading

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Below you will find a link to, and excerpts from, an editorial by S. Harris I agree with.

One of the most annoying things about the backlash against the Coulter piece is how Christians arguing against it were tone-deaf or had tunnel vision. They totally mis-read her piece, or assumed things about it that she did not say.

Most of the criticisms I read were operating under the erroneous belief that Coulter said, “Americans should never, ever help foreigners.” -When she said no such thing.

Another variation on that were the idiots who thought Coulter was saying, “Americans should only help Americans, screw the world!” She also wasn’t saying that.

Look, if you are an American living in the USA and you have “Grandpa Joe” living under your roof, you’ve taken him in because he can no longer care for himself….

And good old Grandpa Joe has dementia and is in a wheelchair, and you’re not getting him proper medication, nursing visits, bathing him, -BUT- you are flying to Africa on a plane every four months to go build one room huts for Africans (and you pride yourself in taking these trips to help orphans in Africa), you are the selfish jerk with messed up priorities, not Ann Coulter for calling you out on that hypocrisy.

And sad to say, most Americans do indeed ignore Grandpa Joe, or guys and women like him, to go on humanitarian trips to places like Africa.

And they think this is so compassionate and loving. They cannot see the hypocrisy or insensitivity of it. If God wanted you to go help in Africa, he would have had you born there.

It makes no sense for the Africans to fly to the USA to help Americans, the French to fly to Brazil to help Brazilians, the Saudis to fly to France to help the French, the Russians to fly to Canada to help the Canadians, the Aussies to fly to Russia to help the Russians.

In an extreme situation, in a natural disaster type thing (which to me is different than an on-going disease outbreak that has a 90% fatality rate), I’m seeing a stronger rationale for action.

Where a nation gets blown off the map by a typhoon, or what not, by all means, let’s see the world come together and all nations mail food and fly in equipment and blankets, but the rest of the year, no, it’s a waste of time and resources for everyone everywhere to do these things.

According to several news reports I’ve read, the ebola disease is 60 – 90% fatal (depending on medical treatment), and the whole thing that kicked off the Coulter piece in the first place were these naive, American, evangelical do-gooder doctor and missionaries who flew down there to “lend a hand.”

Now these do-gooders have ebola and were flown back to the United States, and which potentionally exposes other Americans to this.

Someone on another site raised what I felt was a decent analogy – how people voluntarily go on mountain-hiking trips but then get stranded on the mountain, so that other emergency respondents have to risk their lives, and spend a buttload of money, to fly helicopters and what all to rescue them. It’s a similar scenario.

Here is the editorial I agree with:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally by S. Harris


    Ann Coulter’s recent article “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to Idiotic” really hit home — if you’ll excuse the pun.

    Coulter makes a good argument as she questions why American missionaries don’t stay home and help a country in the violent throes of spiritual decay. She accuses them of slinking off to Third World countries (and coming back with Ebola), while they abandon the most consequential nation on earth — their own.

    It’s a thought I’ve often had as I’ve watched church after church suck their congregations dry for overseas missionary work while the old lady in the house next-door struggles for food — physically and financially.

    These same missionaries are lauded as heroes for going to Africa when their hometowns are awash in drugs, pornography, murders, domestic abuse, pedophilia, and a thousand other byproducts of spiritual darkness.

    I would go even farther and liken the situation to child adoption in the U.S. Couples, often citing impossible U.S. adoption laws and red tape, have been going overseas to adopt children for years while nearly 400,000 American children remain in foster care.

    Roughly 102,000 of those are waiting to be adopted at any given time, and another 58,000 become available for adoption after their parents’ rights are terminated.

    I know a Christian couple who recently adopted five siblings from Bhutan. Another couple, misled about the health of a newborn, adopted a Russian baby who needed so many operations they nearly went bankrupt and ended up divorcing.

    All of this happens while a little boy or girl from Nebraska or Kentucky grows up in the uncertain love and insecurity of foster care. I’ve rarely met a couple who adopted an American-born child.

    The truth is, instead of staying and fighting, Americans developed a pattern of running to other countries — whether for missionary work, adoption, or cheaper labor and smaller overhead.

    …Ann Coulters article was harsh, but it needed to be said.

    … Still, Ann Coulter was right to raise such relevant questions: “…Why do we have to deal with this at all? Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?”

I encourage you to visit the author’s editorial and read the whole thing, because in it, in a part I did not quote above here, she even has an example in there of a time she brought her India- born- and- raised friend to an American church with her as a guest.

Harris said she was a Christian wanting to find a home church. She said she invited her India-born friend to attend with her one day at a new church she was checking out, so he did.

Harris said that when the church people noticed her friend was from India and was a Hindu, that they swarmed around him to welcome him but they blew her off (she was, to them, an obvious American).

Harris said the next day, the church ladies visited the guy at his home – they had obtained his address the day before – and brought him baked cakes and other goodies, but they brought nothing to Harris.

And Harris was the Christian looking for a church – her Hindu friend did not give a rat’s ass about joining Christianity at all. He was delighted to get free cookies from the Christians but thought the church ladies naive (that was how I understood what she wrote).

I could be mistaken, but I would assume that Harris’ Hindu friend probably had brown skin, probably spoke with a heavy accent – so it was obvious to the church people he was foreign.

I have noticed that U.S. Christians are in fact inclined to do missionary work toward, or help, only certain groups of people – among them, dark skinned people, and especially ones who are pagan in religious beliefs (ie, Hindu, Muslim).

(Though evangelicals will at times make narrow exceptions in America to help suffering Americans, but usually only the most severe, “down and out” cases, such as homeless crack addicts and women who work as strippers in night clubs.)

There seems to be little to no concern by white Christians for white skinned, middle class, “average Joe” people in America.

It’s weird, revolting, and not at all biblical to play “pick and choose” in who you will show compassion to. Everyone is supposed to be your neighbor, not just orphan kids or ebola patients in Africa, or homeless crack addicts.

And no, I’m not a “white pride” person or “white nationalist” or whatever they call themselves. I don’t mind if whites help dark skinned people.

What I am saying is I am sort of turned off by how so many American white Christians view dark-skinned foreigners as exotic pets and/or as being more “worthy” to save or help than their white, native neighbors (and we also have dark skinned Americans in America who could use help). It’s kind of a form of reverse-racism, and Christians should have no part in it, but they do.

Years ago, during what seemed to be a trend of white Americans adopting black children from Africa (and greasing the wheels by throwing their money at charities in those nations), I saw editorials by dark skinned Africans* who wrote they found the white American do-gooder mentality towards Africans offensive and condescending – they say they don’t want or need a “white savior” to fly in and rescue them. You would think white Americans would get a clue.

*(some of the journalists either self-identified as being black people, and/or they had a staff photo of themselves accompanying their editorials.)
Related posts:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate

(Link): White Evangelicals, White Fundamentalists, and White Baptists: White Americans Don’t Need the Gospel or Compassion, especially not the affluent or middle class

(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

(Link): Radical Christianity – New Trend That Guilt Trips American Christians For Living Average Lives

(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

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

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

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

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

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

You can read examples here:

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

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

    Another couple of people [at SCCL] were triggery for me, as they did shit that reminded me of the abuse I received when I was younger, and I no longer felt safe staying there, knowing that
  • she was perfectly fine to call out the abuse within the church system but wouldn’t call it out within the page that was supposed to be a safe place for the abused.
  • So I unliked the page, unfollowed her SCCL Twitter (I had unfollowed her personal one after t-gate), and stopped following the blog.
  • I’ve noticed the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Continue reading

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

    Mocking Todd Burpo’s Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Skeevy, Sexist, Pastor John Piper Response to “Is Oral Sex Okay” And His Commentary on Teens Who Make Out At Night

    Skeevy, Sexist, Pastor John Piper Response to “Is Oral Sex Okay”

    Oh gross. This comes from sexist wacko John Piper (he was a preacher at one point, I think, but retired a few years ago, unless I am mistaken, but he still writes books and blogs, etc.) who gives permission to women to use the bathroom without getting a man’s permission, and who says women being abused should endure the abuse “for a season.” Go google for it, my friend. I’m not in the mood to back it all up with citations in this post. Google is your friend.

    (Link): Is Oral Sex Okay? From John Piper’s Desiring God site

    As the Bible does not specifically mention oral sex, and does not even allude to it (unless one wants to get into Rev. Driscoll’s pervy Song of Songs treatment), go ahead and have oral sex.

    It’s like the masturbation debate; the Bible is totally silent on the matter, it doesn’t usually involve another person, so go for it, and without guilt.

    I mean geeze, people. Some of you who write these preachers are ADULTS.

    You are ADULTS and can read the Bible for yourself and make your own decisions about life. Why in the hell are you writing an over the hill (retired?) preacher and weirdo like Piper for sex advice?

    Here is part of how Piper responded to the question “Is Oral Sex Okay?”

      I think it is wrong outside marriage. And we can talk about that another time more extensively. But here is the short answer. Why? Oral sex is even more intimate and delicate, it seems, then copulation. And we know this because even married couples are wondering if they should go there. It is as if it is a stage of intimacy that may not even be proper for married people. And so to think it can be an innocent substitute for copulation so people can obey the letter of the law outside marriage is a mirage. That is the first observation.

    Read the rest here (if you have the stomach for it).

    Where in the holy hell does he get this from,

      Oral sex is even more intimate and delicate, it seems, then copulation.

    The Bible does not teach that, by the way. That is entirely Piper’s view or speculation.

    In my opinion (and yes, this is only my opinion), I can see the argument that oral sex is EQUALLY intimate to penetration, or that penetration is MORE intimate to. I can see either of those arguments. What I cannot see is how oral sex is “more” intimate than penetration, which is what he’s arguing.

    Piper does admit that “I don’t think oral sex is explicitly prohibited in any biblical command. If the Bible pro-scribes it, it would have to be by principle and not by an explicit command.”

    I didn’t see too much objectionable in the remainder of his advice, but it’s beyond me why anyone would ask him for advice anymore than (Link): some Americans keep asking Pat Robertson for advice.

    Then there was this Piper tweet (link to Tweet):

      Down by the river the teenagers would go to make out. I watched them drive back. They never looked happy. Especially she.


    Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board blog (link to blog) reproduced a Tweeted reply to that, which I found to be a good come back:

      by Emily T.
      Maybe they weren’t happy because a creepy old man was watching them.


    This was also good:

      Cindy Kunsman
      @JohnPiper Is a perv.
      I knew he was a perv, but this just adds to the confirmations. Does he wear ADIDAS? #AllDayPiperDreamsAboutSex

    Parody (hat tip, Julie Anne of Spiritual Sounding Board blog):
    (Link): Down By The River music parody

    Christians are not obsessed with sexual purity. They are obsessed with sex. Maybe if they actually stood behind sexual purity, we’d not see so many odd ball pronouncements in public from them about… sex.
    Related posts:

    (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

    Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate

    Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive Part 2, a follow-up to this post (there are further updates much farther below, too):

    (Link): Strawman Argument: “You’re Creating a False Dichotomy” – No, I’m Not (Re: Coulter editorial and U.S. Christians aiding foreigners)


    Updates much farther below – volunteers, including Red Cross workers, are being murdered by doofuses in Africa – volunteers who are there to help bury ebola dead or help ebola patients.

    And, as of Sept 30, 2014, the C.D.C. reports that some American guy who went to Africa and is back in Texas is confirmed as having ebola. There are also now (as of Oct 2), reports of possible ebola infected people in Hawaii and Kentucky. And, as of Oct 3, in Washington.

    Ann Coulter is proved right time and again with every new news story about this.

    Oct 10, 2014: I am keeping updates at the bottom of the post. More and more people are testing positive for ebola around the world.

    I am sorry people are getting sick and dying of ebola overseas, but I don’t see how Americans (or Europeans) flying down to Africa is going to help – looks to me as though non-African involvement is making things WORSE.

    Oct 23, 2014: more “doctors without borders” physician volunteers have caught ebola in Africa, one is being treated in New York. Then there’s this headline: “Machete-wielding mob kills 2 over Ebola testing”


    I was skimming my Twitter feed yesterday when I saw this editorial by Ann Coulter mentioned, and a series of tweets and RTs, criticizing it:


    I’ll include some excerpts from it below.

    The criticisms I saw of it were depicting her observations as though they are totally heartless. I disagree.

    I think she made a lot of sense and pointed out some common flaws in American Christians. I think her criticisms are true, and the truth hurts – I saw Christians on Twitter accusing her of being mean or cruel. I think the truth hurts.

    I don’t think American Christians like being confronted with their total hypocrisy on this issue.

    Here are a few excerpts from Ann Coulter’s editorial, with additional comments by me below it:

      August 8, 2014
      by A. Coulter
  • I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered.
  • What was the point?
  • Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities Samaritan’s Purse and SIM USA just to fly him and his nurse home in separate Gulfstream jets, specially equipped with medical tents, and to care for them at one of America’s premier hospitals….
  • … why do we have to deal with this at all?
  • Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first “risk factor” listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola — an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate — is: “Travel to Africa.”
  • Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?
  • Continue reading

    Gary Habermas joins Janet Mefferd to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer – other issues)

    Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

    Audio / podcast.

    I have found that Janet Mefferd’s show does not work in Google Chrome (browser), sometimes does not work in FireFox, but DOES work in IE (Microsoft Internet Explorer browser). I loathe IE, but it’s the only browser that will play her show.

    Habermas has recently written a book about faith and doubt or something, and he is interviewed by Janet Mefferd about it, as well as related questions, such as unanswered prayer, Christians who walk away from church because they have been hurt by other Christias, or they lost a loved one (to death), or they don’t feel Christianity is meeting their needs, etc.

    You can listen to the interview here:
    (I think this is hour 3 – there appears to be an hour 1 and hour 2):
    (Fixed the link)

    (Link): Podcast: Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life. (mentions unanswered prayer, other topics)

    Related posts, this blog:

    (Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

    (Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

    (Link): Church Is Not Important, 51 Percent of US Adults Say

    (Link): Guilt Tripping or Shaming the Hurt Sheep to Return to Church

    (Link): Quitting Church – why single Christians aren’t going to church – church has failed Christian singles

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

    (Link): Why People Don’t Go To Church (various links and testimonies March 2014)

    Sexual Purity, Virginity, and Celibacy As Product – and: Christian Myths That Are Keeping Marriage Minded Single Women Single Courtesy Dannah Gresh

    Sexual Purity, Virginity, and Celibacy As Product

    I didn’t intend on blogging anything more tonight, but I just made a post about modesty (this one, (Link): “Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose”). I noticed in the Right Wing Watch article linked to in that post that it mentioned Dannah Gresh.

    Dannah Gresh does guest posts at The Christian Post about sexuality, where she promotes abstinence/ celibacy / chastity/ virginity, and talks about the dangers of pre-marital sex.

    If I am remembering rightly, I think the first post I saw that mentioned her discussed how she had sex as a teenager but now goes around as a guest speaker at churches and schools promoting sexual purity. I believe that was what prompted me to come up with the tag for this blog of “fornicators used as sexual role models.”

    I find it so absurd that Christians appear to have a preference for fornicators acting as role models for virgin youth (hiring them as speakers for youth groups about the importance of sexual purity), rather than getting an actual, literal, adult virgin who is over age 30, to give advice, write books on the topic, or act as speaker.

    It is not that I am against Christians speaking up in defense of celibacy or virginity, or in pointing out that pre marital or casual sex can have negative outcomes, but this Gresh woman seems to be making a living off the entire thing, and that bothers me (like the TV preachers who pimp the Gospel for a buck).

    There seems to be something a little unsavory about making a cottage industry, making profit, off promoting celibacy/ virginity/ sexual purity.

    I’ve blogged about this Gresh woman before, such as:


    Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial by Gresh, discusses slut shaming, rape culture, modesty – has points I agree and disagree with

    (Link): Sexual Purity Under Attack in Nation’s Schools, Says Christian Author Dannah Gresh

    (Link): Christians Blaming the Woman – again: Regarding: How Women Can Make Church a Safe Place for Men by D. Gresh

    (Link): How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)

    I think I have one or two other posts about Gresh, or that mention her, but I cannot find them at the moment.

    According to my previous post, (Link): “Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose”), Gresh now has an entire web site devoted to the topic of sexual purity and/or modesty, here:

    (Link): Secret Keeper Girl

    That “Secret Keeper Girl” site has a link to a “store” page on it, where merchandise is being sold (as I skim the page today, there are several books by Gresh for sale).

    Here is a screen cap for one of her books from that page:

    Screen shot of Book Advertisement

    Screen shot of Book Advertisement

    According to (Link): the page of that site selling that book:

      Discover how to get so lost in God that a guy has to seek Him to find you.

    Dannah Gresh traces God’s language of love through Scripture to help you pursue your heart’s deepest desires and seek love the way God designed it to be. Because once you identify your true longings and let God answer them, you’ll know just how to respond when romantic love comes along.

    With a guided ten-day Love Feast Challenge, Get Lost will help you see for yourself how getting lost in God opens the door to lifelong fulfillment.

    Sigh. This is similar to the sort of thing I read and often heard as a teen-aged Christian girl and into my twenties (in no particular order, and some Christians imply it more than state it out right): be such a faithful, good, sexually pure Christian girl, put God first in your life, put other people first, and in due time, God will send a Christian Mr. Right your way.

    And, if you have followed this blog, you already know my story: I’m over 40, was engaged, still a virgin, and never married, though I had wanted to be.

    I certainly did all the things Christians advise young ladies to do who hope for marriage: I put God first, lived a clean life style, prayed to God for a spouse, waited, attended church, etc. etc. etc. And yet, I am still single.

    Upon reflection, I think I should have pursued marriage. Not sat back, crossing my fingers, hoping God would act and send me Mr. Right.

    Continue reading

    Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

    Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

    Before I get to the main heart of this post, here is a long introduction.

    First of all, I think the modesty debate re-enforces one Christian and secular stereotype: that only men are visually oriented, and women are not. That is, women are thought to hate sex, or not be very interested in sex, and that women prefer “emotional bonding,” knitting tea cozies, and reading poetry, to sex.

    The truth is, a lot of women (even Christian ones) are visually oriented and get “turned on” by looking at a good looking man (especially if he’s in great shape and shirtless).

    These modesty teachings almost never, ever take into account that women have sex drives, sexual desires, and sexual preferences – and I get so tired of that aspect of it. These modesty teachings only take into account that MEN are sexual and have sex drives and so forth.

    I am really not totally on either side of this modesty debate.

    Concerning this issue, like several others I regularly discuss on this blog, I’m neither fully on Team (secular or Christian) Feminist, nor am I fully on Team Conservative (or Team Christian).

    My views would probably hack off people on either side of the debate, both the anti-modesty types and the pro-modesty ones.

    I think both sides make some really good points on some things, but both sides also get a few things wrong.

    Where I might agree with the anti-modesty guys on “point X”, I might find that the pro-modesty guys are right about “point Z.”

    Where I Agree with the Pro Modesty Side

    As far as the pro-modesty side is concerned, I do agree that some teen-aged girls and women dress slutty, and this is not good, right, or cool.

    I’m tired of secular feminists shaming pro-modesty types and trying to intimidate them into silence by screaming “slut shamer” at them, or about them, in every other tweet or blog post.

    There are some women who do in fact want to use their looks, body, or sexuality to get attention. I saw these sorts of girls and women when I was a teen, in my 20s, and older. We’ve all known them.

    They’re not satisfied wearing plain old blue jeans with a normal shirt, no.

    They have to wear mini-skirts with fish net stockings and stiletto heels, or daisy duke shorts with their ass cheeks barely hanging out.

    There may be a minority of women who dress that way because they genuinely find such fashions cute or flattering on their figure, but you damn well know the majority are wearing such ensembles to look “hot,” and at that, because they want male attention.

    Personally, I find that look -the barely dressed, or stilettos with mini skirts types of sexy looks – rather trampy, and I think most women who dress like that are in fact seeking sexual attention from males – and no, I’m not fine with that.

    I don’t have to agree with other women’s choices all the time in clothing or how they choose to attract men.

      Side Note:

      (Seriously, this is one odd-ball aspect I’ve seen crop up on secular feminist blogs frequently: by sheer fact that I am a woman, I am expected to always agree with other women and all their choices and political and moral views all. the. time, and to deny my own personal, political, or religious values and opinions in the process.

      Yes, just because I am a woman, and they are a woman. Me supporting all other women all the time on every topic under the sun (and it seems especially true in regards to sexuality, modesty, sex, abortion, and birth control) is considered obligatory, all because I’m a woman too.

      I don’t support all males all the time on every topic, so why would I be expected to support all women all the time, about everything? It makes no sense.)

    Some women do in fact make a conscious choice to showcase their sexuality (e.g., by wearing tiny skirts and so forth) because their self esteem and self respect is so low, they don’t think they have anything else to offer a man, or they don’t think they have anything to offer the world but their looks, body, and sexuality.

    Or, some women who dress in revealing clothing may assume 99% of men are indeed visually-oriented cave men, sexist swine, who only want “one thing” from women, and if these women are in the market to pick up a boyfriend, yes, they will don the fishnet stockings and mini-skirts.

    There is a difference between Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus. There is a difference between Madonna Ciccone and Whitney Houston.

    Some women do in fact choose character, talent, and/or brains to make their place in the world, to gain success, or to get attention, while other women opt to go the sexual and titillation route (which may include dressing in a provocative manner).

    And we (women) all know it. We know this is true. But a lot of the anti-modesty squad I see online seems to deny this.

    Or, maybe they realize it, and their argument is they feel a Miley Cyrus should be able to act or dress like a harlot in public and nobody should make any negative judgments what-so-ever about it.

    I’ve seen secular feminist blogs whose writers get upset with companies who objectify women by portraying women as sexy things in advertisements, or with companies who make too much out of a woman’s looks…

    But these same feminists turn around, and quite inconsistently, feel it’s okay for a woman to objectify herself – and nobody is supposed to say anything critical about it (because that would be “slut shaming”).

    But to me, that is a double standard.

    Where I Agree With the Anti Modesty Side

    Too often, as anti-modesty advocates point out, religious “modesty teachings” or modesty propaganda, tell girls and women they ought to dress in a conservative manner so as not to cause men to stumble.

    The fact is that men are responsible for their behavior. It does not matter if a woman is fully clothed or wearing a thong bikini in the presence of a man, it is up to a man to control his thoughts and actions.

    Continue reading

    Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

    Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

    I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

    But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

    I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

    Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

    My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

    Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

    I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

    According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

    (As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

    My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

    Continue reading

    A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No. (from NR, by Russell Moore)

    A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No.

    Moore is at it again. And he’s flip flopping in a way.

    Moore goes from bashing the concept of virginity until marriage ((Link): see this post) to now sort of arguing in favor of, or thinking it’s great that more Christians are supposedly remaining sexually pure. He also (like the rest of Christendom) seems to assume there are no virgins past the age of 30 (but there are).

    (Link): A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No.

      Defying the secular culture, churchgoing Christians are sticking to Biblical teaching.

      By Russell D. Moore and Andrew Walker

      In any discussion about the future of religion in America, especially as it relates to stalled growth in churches and denominations, those outside our religious communities find one theory especially compelling.

      This is the idea: that young Evangelicals are frustrated with Christian orthodoxy’s strict standards of sexual morality.

      We’re told that these young Evangelicals will soon revolutionize our churches with liberalized views on same-sex marriage, premarital sex, gender identity, and so on. But a new study by a University of Texas sociologist finds that Evangelical Christians ages 18 to 39 are resisting liberalizing trends in the culture.

      Continue reading