Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

This politician, Hastert, is now in his 70s and is in poor health. Some of his victims have stepped forward to say he sexually assaulted them when they were kids.

I’ve seen several articles say that he was a “family values” type of Republican.

Below is a report about it – probably by a left winger. I am right wing, but in the last few years, I’ve had some changing feelings about the Republican Party, conservative Christians, and how much they push this “family values” rhetoric.

This author does spend part of her report taking Bill Clinton to task for taking advantage of Lewinsky.

I will be placing more articles about this story below this first link and excerpt.

I’m not terribly fond of how so many right-wing “Family Values” spokespersons and figure heads later turn out to be hypocrites.

On the other hand, I’m not a supporter of the left wing – many of them not only participate in sexually immoral activity or champion sexual hedonism, but they have few to no sexual standards in the first place. And they don’t want any.

Maybe there is something positive to be said in having sexual standards in the first place, even if it means a person (or group of persons) who claim to believe in them occasionally violates them.

Continue reading “Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this post, I will be discussing,

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

-among others

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

Lesbian Upset that ObamaCare Forcing Her to Purchase Birth Control

Lesbian Upset that ObamaCare Forcing Her to Purchase Birth Control

Lesbians being forced to buy birth control, and they’re not happy about it.

This was taken from a Fox News Tweet, and the quote is from a Susan Price:

Obama care
Lesbian upset that Obamacare is forcing her to purchase birth control

“Tune in for more stories from the first year of ObamaCare on ‘Fox News Reporting: Live Free or Die’ tonight at 8p ET.”
————————–
Related links (kind of related):

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

More anti-singlness and anti-virginity commentary from perverted, sexist douche bag and pastor Mark Driscoll has come to light. I have blogged about this creep before (see links at the conclusion of this post for more).

I am not a fan of tip toeing around people’s feelings and the extreme political correctness in today’s culture, (as I wrote of in a (Link): previous blog post here), but, I am not a supporter of this other extreme, the one Driscoll presents in the post I excerpt below.

It’s one thing to speak your mind – in a firm but respectful way, even if the majority of popular culture does not like your beliefs – but Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be unnecessarily rude, condescending, and hateful, or as obnoxious as he can be.

In the year 2000, Neo-Calvinist preacher Mark Driscoll, writing under the name “William Wallace II,” I think, wrote a bunch of inflammatory commentary on his church’s forum “Midrash.” In a book he wrote, Driscoll admitted to posting as “William Wallace II” on that forum (some sites linked to below have screen captures taken from online versions of the book that you can view).

In a series of very long posts, Driscoll ranted against women, feminists, homosexuals, men who are not manly-man enough in his view, and all this has drawn the ire and attention of many netizens after this was blogged about recently.

However, the portion of Driscoll’s post that caught my eye seems to subtly mock or ridicule adult singleness, singles ministries, and adult virginity.

Before I get to that, I wanted to mention this:

According to one source ((Link): source) in a Tweet:

    Driscoll through Wallace says women need a man to help them select a husband (p. 78). Eastern culture > Biblical example incl Ruth, then.

As I replied on Twtter in regards to that view by Driscoll:

    I’m a never married lady over 40, would still like to marry some day – Driscoll can eat my shorts

Yes, Driscoll can take his outdated, sexist views about single women and cram them up his butt.

There was also this (Willam Wallace parody account is quoting Driscoll (Link): Source):

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s Pussified Nation… – Matthew Paul Turner’s blog –
If Turner’s blog becomes unavailable for viewing (which it did earlier today apparently due to a stampede of traffic), you can read the Driscoll penned posts here:
(Link): Posts by Driscoll

Here are excerpts of what Driscoll wrote in 2000, under the name “William Wallace II” – with comments by me below this long excerpt (and additional links by other people about this Driscoll rant):

    We live in a completely pussified nation.

    We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth.

    It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.

    As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

    Continue reading “Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )”

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

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

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

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

Me? Nope.

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

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

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

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

Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan

    Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

    It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).

    This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.

    One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”

    It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.

    I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.

    Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.

    But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).

    Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.

    Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.

    And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”

    This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.

    These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.

    Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”

    This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.

    Continue reading “Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)”

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY

Another common thread I see on forums for spiritual recovery sites (or ones by ex Christians, liberal Christians, etc), is a rejection of

1. Biblical literalism
2. Biblical inerrancy

This is all so much intellectual dishonesty in another form it makes me want to throw up.

I spent years studying about the history of the Bible, Bible translation, and so forth.

I came away realizing that the Bible is inerrant and yes, we can trust the copies we have today; the Bible is not filled with historic blunders and mistakes, and all the other tripe atheists like to claim.

It is not entirely accurate for critics to paint the Bible as a purely man-made document, that contains mistakes because it was copied and re-copied numerous times over the centuries.

While there is an aspect of truth to that description, the end conclusion, or how that description, impacts the NIV or NASB Bible version you have sitting on your coffee table right now, is not how critics of the Bible paint it.

Atheists and ex-Christians who are critical of the Bible are disingenuous and duplicitous in how they paint some of their arguments against the Bible, and they should be ashamed for it, as some of them claim to be truth lovers.

Not too long ago, an ex-Christian woman at another site was declaring that Christians cannot “trust” the Bible because the originals (called the Autographa) do not exist.

Oh please! I pointed out to her that is not so: as far as the New Testament is concerned, scholars have many thousands of copies of the Autographa (some dating within decades of the originals), and by use of lower textual criticism, they can reconstruct the READINGS of the Autographa.

It is not necessary to have “the biblical originals” themselves to know what they said, as she was dishonestly arguing (but she later accused me of being dishonest!).

I pointed this FACT out to her (about it not being necessary to have the autographa to know what the autographa said), where upon she shot back the falsity that one cannot trust the translations anyway because they are done by “conservatives.”

Oh, but she is willing to grant liberal scholars or liberal theologians the title of un-biased, as though they do not have an ax to grind against the Bible and dating its documents and so forth?

Because the liberal scholars do in fact start out their examinations of the Bible from an anti- Christian bias.

The woman with whom I was corresponding on this matter doesn’t seem to understand that the practice of lower textual criticism is a science – a liberal who uses that methodology would come to the same conclusion as the conservative who uses it.

So here we have an example of one type of ex-Christian I am talking about:

This woman claims she was a Christian at one time, now fancies herself atheist or agnostic (and some kind of expert on the Bible), but who now spews inaccurate or untrue things about the Bible, because she disdains all of Christianity in general.

My view: Do not lie about the Bible’s history, accuracy, and textual evidence just because “Preacher Fred” at your old church was a big meanie to you X years ago (or insert whatever other emotional baggage you carry against Christians that now colors all your other views about the faith and Bible here) – please!

Give me a freaking break.

I am genuinely compassionate towards people who have been hurt by churches, but not to the point I cover for their dishonesty about how they discuss church history, the biblical documents, etc.

Because some of these folks claim to have been hurt by Christians in general, or a particular denomination, or what have you, they feel fine now rejecting biblical literalism and inerrancy.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings”

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (PART 1)

This will be a series of posts where my thoughts wander in and out and all over, and it rambles, but there is a point or two behind it.

Since I’ve been in a faith crisis the last couple of years, somewhere between being an agnostic and a Christian, I have noticed I don’t fit in anywhere. I reside in No Man’s Land.

(Even before then, when I was a total, committed Christian, and politically, I was, and am, right wing, I still didn’t fit in at most blogs and forums, including political ones, and including ones for right wingers!

I tend to be one of those personalities who annoys or angers everyone, even those on “my side” of an issue, except a small number of people, who are either on my side of a topic or not, who “get me” or who appreciate where I’m coming from – again, this is true for even the ones who disagree with me on whatever topic we are discussing.)

I am in this really weird place now, where I am critical of some aspects of conservative Christianity, and see where conservative Christians get some doctrines and other things wrong, but, too, I am not fully on board with militant atheism (I find the New Atheists to be arrogant, vile, hateful and rude), and I don’t even care for lukewarm atheism.

Nor am I in the camp of anything and all things liberal Christianity, except where I think they get the occasional point correct (such as their rejection of gender complementarianism).

Since drifting away from the Christian faith more the last few years, I more often began frequenting forums or blogs for and by atheists, ones by liberal Christians, ones by ex Christians, or by Christians who were abused by a former church who remain Christian but who dropped out of Church, or who now are on a crusade to expose abuse by preachers or the absurdity and harm of current evangelical gimmicks.

THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

A clarification: when I say I have been visiting atheist forums and blogs more often, I am very picky about which ones I regularly visit.

I do not like the frothing- at- the- mouth, extremely bitter, biased- against- Christians- type atheistic communities.

The bitter atheist groups sound like a bunch of irrational, hate-filled loons who reject Christianity for emotional reasons, but who lie to others and themselves and say, “Oh no, it’s purely intellectual.”

But their unrelenting, insane amount of hatred at any and all things God and Christian, is just a total turn-off to me, so I try to avoid such sites.

These angry, always-ranting atheists are really nothing more than Fundamentalist Atheists or Taliban Atheists. They are just as dogmatic about their atheism as Muslims are in their Wasabi Islam or Baptists are in their Neo Fundamentalism.

Really, those types of atheists are just as bad as the religious groups they claim they hate, but they don’t seem to spot that they are. It’s ironic – and it’s hard to stomach the day in, day out anger and hatred, so I try to avoid their sites.

HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

Also, you have to be honest with yourself, which I do not find militant atheists to be, by and large: not every single Christian is a hypocrite, jerk, idiot, dullard, or complete jackhole.

I say this as someone who is very fed up with Christianity and Christian persons myself these days.

But your average militant atheist will never admit that some Christians are in fact okay and not being hypocrites.

I have known and met a few Christians who were sincerely trying to live the Christian faith out, such as my mother, who is now deceased, and her mother before her (my grandmother).

I’ve met a few honest, sincere Christians online who do help people and show compassion to the wounded.

So it’s not fair to completely dismiss the entirety of Christians and their faith or treat them all like jerks because some are liars, mean, or abusive.

Which is not easy for me personally, because at the same time, I do keep noticing that a lot of self-professing believers do NOT live out what the Bible says.

Many self professing Christians today, for example, do not protect victims, such as young church members who have been sexually molested by preachers.

Nor do many church goers today hold accountable preachers who bilk their church goers out of millions to buy big mansions and jets.

These idiots, these lemmings, actually defend their greedy pastors online, which I’ve written about here: (Link): Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why.

Then you have a conservative or evangelical culture, which claims to care deeply that people preserve sex until marriage, but if you actually find yourself 40 years of age and still single – and therefore still a virgin, such as myself – these same churches and Christians do not offer you any support.

You either go ignored, or preachers and talking heads of such groups “run down” and insult celibacy as well as older, celibate adults. Churches treat single (and especially celibate) adults as though they are flawed, lepers, weirdos, or losers.

Churches wrongly counsel abused wives to return to their spouses – this is particularly true, again, of churches or Christian groups who buy into “biblical womanhood” (aka “gender complementariansm”) or “patriarchy.”

Churches and average Christians also remain ignorant or callous about matters pertaining to mental health issues, from P.T.S.D. to depression and anxiety attacks.

Some Christians wrongly and insensitively teach that “real Christians” can never get depression or other mental health maladies.

Or, some Christians believe and teach that prayer, faith, service to the poor, or Bible reading alone can cure one of mental illness.

Still other Christians (or the same type) will shame and guilt suffering Christians for using anti-depressant medications, or for seeing secular or Christian psychiatrists and therapists (see this link for more, “Over 50 Percent of Christians Believe Prayer, Bible Reading Alone Can Cure Mental Illness (article) – In Other Words Half of Christians are Ignorant Idiots Regarding Mental Illness”).

Yet other Christians are incompetent at, or unwilling, to provide more ordinary, “every day,” run- of- the- mill comfort to other Christians who are hurting, such as a Christian who is stressed out over a job loss, someone who is in mourning for a deceased loved one, etc.

Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

And this failure, this huge failure, causes life long Christians like me to look long and hard at the faith and wonder if it’s true at all.

It causes even someone such as myself to ask if the faith is true, because

  • it doesn’t appear to be working,
  • it doesn’t make a difference in people’s life who profess it,
  • most who claim to follow Christ don’t actually do what he taught,
  • and some Christians refuse to hold Christians caught in bald faced sin accountable but excuse them for the sin,

~ and it makes you wonder “what is the point, then.”

I find this discrepancy between confessed belief and actual practice shocking, because I myself sincerely tried living out the faith since childhood.

Also, my Christian mother was a role model for me, and she genuinely, consistently lived out and by biblical teachings, including getting up off her ass and actually HELPING people (giving them money if they were in a bind, cleaning their homes for them when they were sick, listening to them cry and rant about their problems for hours without judging them or interrupting them, etc).

I am not seeing most other Christians do any of this. They say they believe in those things but then they do not do them.

BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

Before I actually get into this topic (which I discuss more in Posts 2 and 3), here is some background leading up to it.

As far as the sites I have visited by liberal Christians, ex Christians, atheists, as well as sites by Christians for the spiritually abused:

By and large, these have been wonderful, supportive sites and groups to visit (the ones run by Christians for hurting Christians).

I have noticed, though, that there are problems even within these types of communities, and I don’t entirely fit in at them, either.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)”

Christian World Vision Charity Okay and Dandy With Homosexual Marriage But Not Okay With Singles Fornicating

Christian World Vision Charity Okay and Dandy With Homosexual Marriage But Not Okay With Singles Fornicating

A few days ago, the news reported that charity World Vision, which is apparently Christian-based, announced that they would not prohibit the hiring of homosexual married couples to work for their organization. I have included a few links about this much farther below.

World Vision later reversed this decision when evangelicals had a collective heart attack and threatened to pull funding.

So your emergents, liberal Christians, and ex-Christians then went online to complain and cry about the reversal with chants of “Homophobes!” and so on.

I find both sides of the homosexuality debate annoying, frankly.

While I don’t support homosexuality (or homosexual marriage), I think too many evangelicals and other types of conservatives make much too much of it and should perhaps pipe down about it.

On the other hand, the homosexual rights groups and their hetero fan club can be vicious, hate-filled, Gestapo, running about persecuting and harassing anyone who does not enthusiastically jump aboard the Big Gay Train. So both sides can go take a long walk off a short pier as far as I am concerned.

Now, concerning this World Vision bruhaha, I don’t have a big opinion in and of itself.

The one aspect of this that caught my attention is that initially, World Vision said that while they were (at the time) open to hiring homosexual married people, that they never the less still expected all their staff and employees who were single to remain abstinent.

I assume they meant all singles, not just hetero singles, but who knows?

I really tire of this. I really do. I understand that the Non Christian world will be fine and dandy with all manner of behavior the Bible condemns, such as homosexuality, but I am beyond fed up with a church or groups who claim to be Christian who hold double standards on sexuality.

If you are a Christian who expects me to remain celibate because I am unmarried (I happen to be Hetero), then how can you then turn around and in effect give a stamp of approval to homosexuality vis a vis a nod of approval towards homosexual marriage? Every time Christians take a step towards basically embracing homosexuality, they are chipping away yet some more at any reasons as to why a HETERO adult should remain celibate.

If you are going to let the homosexuals trollop around, you have no grounds upon which to tell hetero singles they must still refrain from sex.

(Link): World Vision’s Gay Compromise

Excerpts:

    by Brad Kramer

    World Vision, a global Christian anti-poverty nonprofit and one of America’s top ten largest charities, announced yesterday it has changed its policy and will now hire gay employees who are in legal same-sex marriages.

    The billion-dollar-a-year organization already requires employees to agree to an evangelical lifestyle code, including abstinence outside of marriage. In an interview with Christianity Today World Vision president Richard Stearns justified the policy shift as an acknowledgement of the diversity of opinions on homosexuality inside the American church.

    Stearns argued that World Vision has historically removed itself from contentious theological debates in favor of unity around their core focus on poverty. He also strongly urged supporters not to interpret the change in hiring policy as a salvo in war over gay marriage. With naiveté that boggles the imagination, Stearns hoped that the evangelical world, and in particular the organization’s large evangelical donor base, would also look past this “minor” policy shift and continue their support.

    The conservative evangelical blogosphere immediately exploded with condemnation. A who’s-who list of influential conservatives like Franklin Graham (son of Billy) and Russell Moore (political voice for the Southern Baptists) excommunicated World Vision for its capitulation to the dark side. Other notable figures made it clear that the entire Christian faith, and perhaps even Western Civilization itself, is threatened by World Vision and others who profess to be Christian and tolerate gay relationships. Many urged Christians to stop their monthly financial support of third-world children through World Vision (even if it means breaking off relationships between sponsor and child) and supporting alternative organizations who do not employ “unrepentant homosexuals.”

    World Vision is arguably the biggest and broadest “parachurch” organization in America, and thus has the unenviable role of trying to please everyone.

(Link): World Vision to recognize gay marriage of employees

(Link): Special Report World Vision Goes Liberal

(Link): Famous Christian charity hiring married ‘gays’

    In an effort to encourage “unity” among its church partners, the highly influential evangelical Christian relief and development ministry World Vision has announced it will permit Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed.

    In an interview with Christianity Today, Richard Stearns, president of the U.S. branch, called it a “very narrow policy change” that should be regarded as “symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity.”

    The U.S. branch, based in Federal Way, Wash., has about 1,100 workers. In 2012, Washington became one of the first states to legalize same-sex marriage by a popular vote.

    Stearns said the policy still will require employees to confine their sexual activities to within a marriage.

    “Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues,” Stearns told the evangelical magazine. “It also allows us to treat all of our employees in the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”

    The announcement drew strong criticism from other evangelical groups.

    “World Vision president Richards Stearns said they will leave the debate over same-sex ‘marriage’ to the churches where he acknowledges it is tearing them apart,” said Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania. “However, the only reason there is any debate among churches on this issue is because those who accept ‘gay’ pastors or allow same-sex ‘marriage’ or blessings cannot read the plain language of Scripture.

    Gramley noted that in Matthew 19, Jesus “defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, and I Corinthians 6:9 includes homosexuals in the list of wrongdoers who will not share in the Kingdom of God.”

    “One cannot be a true Christian and be involved in a so-called same-sex marriage, thus World Vision has already wavered on its resolve that all employees be followers of Jesus Christ. Compromise and creating division are at the center of this decision,” she said.

    Worse, she said, the decision by World Vision to “empower” the homosexual movement will “continue misleading many who turn to the world, rather than the truth of the Gospel, for answers.”

(Link): World Vision Reverses Decision to Hire Gays

(Link): The apostasy of World Vision

(Link): World Vision will hire those in same-sex marriages

Continue reading “Christian World Vision Charity Okay and Dandy With Homosexual Marriage But Not Okay With Singles Fornicating”

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

Why People Don’t Go To Church

I’m fed up not just with church, but about most of Christianity itself, with many Christians, and with American Christian culture.

I find myself relating to posts about why people have stopped going to church, or why they are reluctant to return, as well as posts by people who used to be Christians who are either considering leaving the faith or who already have.

Here is a selection of such posts.

(Link): I Don’t Worship God by Singing. I Connect With Him Elsewhere.

(Link): Why I Don’t Go to Church Very Often, a Follow Up Blog

(Link): The Other Side of the Donald Miller Post: Church PTSD

(Link): Christian Identity and the Church as Family (by Sara Barton)

(Link): Leaving church to save our souls by Kathy Escobar

Here are excerpts or comments from some of those pages:

(Link): Christian Identity and the Church as Family (by Sara Barton)

    So, if people are leaving the church, perhaps we need to avoid defensiveness and ask some hard questions about family. Sometimes individuals leave families of origin because of abuse, because of dysfunction that threatens to overtake the entire family system.

    Could it be that many of our friends and neighbors are leaving church because of dysfunction that needs deep introspection?

    We can easily cite stories of people for whom the church is functioning.

    We should celebrate those stories. But, the church is not functioning for others, to such an extent that they are leaving. Instead of being defensive, maybe what we should do for a while is merely listen.

The author of that also wrote this, and I disagree with this part:

    If departure is based on our personal likes and dislikes, personal lifestyle choices such as how to spend our weekends, the idol of busyness, conflict avoidance, or aversion to submission to authority, perhaps our culture is informing identity more than identity in Christ.

I don’t have an issue with people who leave a church for any of those reasons.

Comments by other people on that blog:

    by Al Cruise • 8 days ago

    “If people are leaving” ” ask some hard questions” The bottom line is, whether it’s being said or not, is the implication that you need to call yourself a Christian and be attending Church in order to be saved, if not, you are going to hell or “Left Behind”.

    People can see through this, especially young people. What about all the people born before Christian theology. Born in countries were Christian theology is not present.

    According to american evangelicals over a billion Chinese and many other nationalities are consigned to hell simply by their location of birth. The Church doesn’t want to talk about this.

    People are leaving, so their playing a new guilt trip card ” you can’t be spiritually healthy unless your in a community of “OUR” definition. People are seeing that this is false and are leaving and will continue to leave.
    ———-
    by Lori Michelle • 10 days ago

    I appreciate the thoughts that maybe sometimes people leave church because the church family is abusive.

    I appreciate the idea that instead of being defensive and placing blame on the people who leave…saying they are making excuses or being selfish or falling prey to our secular culture…they listen to what the people who are leaving are saying.

    I didn’t want to leave [my] church…I feel that my church left me. I was an active member. I volunteered, I served, I participated, I worked. I felt that I was really connected to the “family” and I loved so many of the people. I knew that we weren’t perfect, but I was willing to forgive and continue.

    But then I went through a divorce and all of the sudden my children and I were a pariah. We were ignored, gossiped about, and even called names. Even after each of my three children began refusing to go to church, I persevered faithfully.

    Then, a couple of years later, a 17 yo girl in our youth group was raped by one of the youth group dads. She was called a liar, and worse, and eventually asked not to participate in youth group anymore. At the time in her life when she needed the most support and love, she was rejected and blamed. As was I…rejected and blamed during the worst time of my life.

    So, this is what a family is??

    I have no interest in ever submitting myself to that kind of abuse ever again. I won’t. I didn’t leave my church because I was too busy, or because I “fell away” or because I couldn’t deal with conflict. I left because I wasn’t safe, my daughters weren’t safe, and a 17 year old girl in the youth group was not safe in environment of control, and manipulation, and silence.
    ——————-
    by Steve Johnson • 11 days ago

    I absolutely believe that the church is a family. Unfortunately, we’ve lost that in so many local expressions of the church.

    When our gospel, as Scot talks about often, is how to get into heaven, our church becomes a machine driving to draw people in so that they can be saved. Families are not machines. So much church energy is given to building a vision and conveying the purpose that the leaders chose to market so as to draw more people.

    Instead, the church must be the context for the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a loving family that bears the message of the hope. The purpose come through the faith that grows out of this message of hope.

    So, yes. People are leaving because the church is dysfunctional. A few years ago, the Willow Creek Leadership Conference featured an interview with Jack Welsh. In the interview he talked about how he turn GE around by, in part, making a habit of firing the bottom 10% of the companies employees.

    I witness more than one case where church leader returned home and tried to apply this principle. Staff members lost jobs, church leaders were asked to step down, congregants weren’t fired, but were told if you don’t agree with the leaders’ vision, it would be OK for them to leave.

    If that’s the kind of commitment that churches have to one another, no wonder Don Miller and others are leaving.

Excerpts from

(Link): The Other Side of the Donald Miller Post: Church PTSD, written by a female friend of Scot McKnight’s

    …. Something that doesn’t seem to be getting addressed at all is this: what if I KNOW I need it, but it has become such a painful, scary, uncomfortable place that I am no longer able to even attempt to participate? What if I WANT the community and the bumping up against different people with different opinions, but I CAN’T, I mean physically CAN’T go? I have usually discovered in life that if I have a feeling, I’m not the only one. So it makes me think there must be others out there like me.

    What do I mean by “physically unable”? I shake, I cry uncontrollably, my skin crawls, I am unable to speak. It’s pretty difficult to be a part of a community, broken or not, with all of that going on.

    …. A number of years into our time at our third church my husband was diagnosed with depression. After carefully letting the elders know, we were pleasantly surprised at their compassion and understanding.

    But the church was in the process of hiring a new senior pastor, and a few months later when he was brought on, I witnessed an unbelievable turn of events that still makes me cringe today.

    Two years later, I am left with the memory of so many people I thought were friends telling me to “let it go” since this is “what’s best for the church” and all part of “God’s will”.

    ….What I think I’m looking for and not finding is something that will give me hope.

    At this point, I won’t be persuaded by guilt or by empty platitudes. “You just need to do it because it’s what we all need to do” just isn’t cutting it. Having people tell me that it’s a broken place and I shouldn’t expect anything else from a group of flawed human beings doesn’t make me want to run for the entrance of the nearest church. What happened to me, what happens to a lot of people, shouldn’t happen.

    What I’m trying to say is that there is a culture of acceptance in the church today that allows for people to be treated terribly under the umbrella of it being what is “best for the church”.

    Continue reading “Why People Don’t Go To Church (various links and testimonies March 2014)”

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage
—————————————————————–
✦ This is one of those posts on my blog that contains strong, adult language. As in the “F” word is used several times, so if you are a dainty, wilting Christian flower who faints at the sight or sound of cuss words, have your smelling salts handy. I do not always issue warnings like this when strong language is in the content.
—————————————————————–
The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

It seems like once every year, or every other year or two, a right wing, conservative type of writer comes up with an editorial explaining to women about the sex economy, and why the expression “why buy the cow when the milk is free” still rings true.

Then your secular feminists get angry and write rebuttals to those editorials. I’m not quite sure why secular feminists so deeply object to the concept (though I do have a theory or two), but mainly, I find their objections vague and unmemorable, and I’ve read several of their anti-sex-economy editorials over the years. Despite having read some of their rebuttals, I’ve yet to make sense of why they object.

Here are the links:

✦ 1. The liberal / left wing/ secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise from the Jezebel site (author unknown; possibly Lindy West)

✦ 2. The conservative position ✦

2A  (Link): The economics of sex: Has the price gotten too cheap? by Naomi Schaefer Riley

2b (Link): Cheap Dates and How the ‘price’ of sex has dropped to record lows

EXCERPTS

✦ 1. The liberal / left wing / secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise

It’s hard to know what sections of what to excerpt from this liberal essay from Jezebel, because its author (who is perhaps Lindy West?) largely engages in ad hominem and a lot of snark.

For example, after quoting a long portion of conservative Riley’s piece where Riley says:

The “price” [of sex] varies widely. But if women are the gatekeepers, why don’t very many women “charge more” so to speak?

Because pricing is not entirely up to women. The “market value” of sex is part of a social system of exchange, an “economy” if you will, wherein men and women learn from each other—and from others—what they ought to expect from each other sexually.

So sex is not entirely a private matter between two consenting adults. Think of it as basic supply and demand.

When supplies are high, prices drop, since people won’t pay more for something that’s easy to find. But if it’s hard to find, people will pay a premium.

—[end excerpt]—

The Jezebel writer’s response to that view consists only of these words:

Oh, shut the fuck up.

—[end excerpt]—

Seriously. That is all the writer had to say in response.

Go click the link I gave to the page and read it if yourself you don’t believe me.

Much of the rest of the page consists of that sort of rebuttal. Which might be fine on a casual blog such as mine, but Jezebel is a main stream publication which I presume has a wide readership, and if the Jezebel writer is trying to change minds, she is not going to have much success by saying, “fuck you” and not much else.

Here I am, still pretty conservative in regards to sexual ethics, or pretty sympathetic to conservative views about sex, and I’m really, honestly trying to understand her liberal, feminist objections to why she is opposed to the conservative “sex economics” genre of editorial, but how can I arrive at an understanding of her view, when it consists of nothing but a “fuck you” to her ideological opponent?

Here are more excerpts from the Jezebel page (and the only name I see associated with this page is Lindy West, so I assume she is the author, but I may be mistaken about that):

If anything, sex is less commodified now than when my great-grandparents were courting. Before divorce; before reliable, effective birth control; before women’s advancements into the higher levels of the workforce; marriage was ALL about economics.

Now that women are able to leave abusive and unhappy relationships, support themselves financially, and choose when/if to have children, we don’t need marriage anymore.

It’s no longer an economic imperative, which means that people are free to be choosy about who they marry. So you’re damn right marriage rates are dropping and people are marrying later. It’s because we’re getting better at it.

[conservative Riley wrote:]
We now have a split mating market: One corner where people are largely interested in sex, and one corner where people are largely pursuing marriage. And there are more men looking for sex than women, and more women looking to marry than men.

[Jezebel author responds:]
Okay. Wait. So women are banging dudes willy-nilly on the singles scene and it’s lowering their “market value,” but women are also “vastly” outnumbering men “in the marriage market”? Which is it? I’m confused.

—[end excerpt]—

My response to the Jezebel author’s supposed confusion on this point: there are some women, who are celibate and waiting until marriage to have sex, such as me.

And yes, women such as myself, find it harder to get married, as we are virgins and are (or were) waiting until marriage to have sex. We find it more difficult meeting men who respect our celibacy- until- marriage lifestyle.

Many men these days (even a lot of Christian ones) now expect or demand sex prior to marriage, because a lot of other women, women such as yourself, have been too happy to have sex before marriage, which gives the men little incentive to respect my wishes (i.e., no sex before marriage, and I’d like to marry).

A lot of people – the ones who scoff at virginity and sexual purity – have this weird-ass view that you should “test drive” your partner prior to marriage to make sure the two of you are “sexually compatible,” see this post,

(Link): Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

And yes, views such as that make it very difficult for people who believe in staying a virgin until marriage to get many marital prospects.

Continue reading “The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am of two minds about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so far, so good.

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

Yes, some people “still do that.”

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

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

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

Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

As I’ve said on prior occasions, far from Christians idolizing virginity, as some liberal, emergent, and even some conservative Christian bloggers and magazine writers claim, the biblical standards of celibacy and virginity have been under unrelenting attack by Christians over the past few years.

Most Christians these days no longer respect or value virginity but are seeking to diminish it if not do away with it altogether.

You can tell Christian thinking on the topic has gone downhill when we go from the 1980s message that says virginity is important and to strive for it, to the 2010 and onwards attack – by Christians – that says virginity is no big deal, so don’t beat yourself up when you have pre-marital sex.

Sometimes, Christians re-examining a view, teaching, or how they present it, can be a good thing, but I wonder about things when they start trying to downplay a standard that is taught in the Bible (ie, virginity and celibacy).

Christian culture has disturbingly gone from “Hooray for virginity!,” when I was a teen, to “boo, hiss, virginity, and everyone fornicate if you feel like it, because you are justified by Jesus, not your sexual choices, don’t feel any shame!” now.

It is now trendy in Christian culture to question virginity, and to shame adult Christians who are still virgins.

It is now standard by some Christians to say that virgins are either being “prideful” about their virginity, or are “worshipping” it, or to remind them they are not perfect, or to condescendingly remind them that it is Jesus who saves, not one’s “external sexual behavior.”

Case in point, this latest Virgin- and Celibate- Shaming editorial by Joshua Rogers at the Focus on the Family blog for 20 something singles, “Boundless” (yes, you will note that Focus on the Family ignores that there are many singles over the age of 30, 40, 50):

(Link): Stop Worshiping Your Virginity by Joshua Rogers

Excerpt 1:

    … The problem with female non-virgins going public with their sexual sins was that they ran the risk of being seen as damaged goods — I mean, if true love really did wait, then it was impossible for them to truly love the man who would be their husband.
    Apparently, they had already given away the truest expression of their love.
    So the best they could hope for was an understanding non-virgin or a “sexually pure” man who was very, very forgiving. For these women, the message was clear: God can forgive you, but you will be sexually disfigured for the rest of your life. Too bad. You shouldn’t have had sex with someone who wasn’t your husband.

    Now on the other hand, the male non-virgins didn’t seem to be quite as ashamed of themselves. They often talked quite frankly and openly about their sexual histories when giving their “testimonies” — especially if they were talking with other guys.
    In fact, if you didn’t know better, you might get the impression that they were even bragging about what they had done. But for some reason, these guys weren’t disqualified as marriage material — no way. It was actually endearing that these worldly men had made such a brave decision to walk away from the lusts of their flesh. You. Go. Boys.

    …If you’re a Christian virgin, you are no more righteous than anyone else (regardless of how long you’ve been wearing that promise ring). And if you’re not a virgin, you are no less righteous than anyone else — the only thing that makes you righteous is faith in the perfect blood of Jesus.
    Whatever you did (or didn’t do) in the past simply isn’t part of the Christian equation when it comes to your worth, so you can go ahead and stop obsessing over your virginity now.

    … People of Planet Evangelicalism, I have good news: This is not the Gospel.

    … Remember, Jesus “saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5, ESV).

Call me kooky here, but I have never once heard any Christian imply that one is saved via being a virgin.

There might be some fringe, barely Christian group somewhere that teaches this perspective, but it’s not a view I’ve seen in my many years of reading about Christian teachings on sex. So I call “straw man” argument on that.

I’ve never once heard a Christian claim that one is made righteous and right before God by being a virgin, or that virginity was a component in the Gospel message.

Continue reading “Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage”

Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Rachel Held Evans recently wrote this post:
(Link): The Bible was ‘Clear’

Her position is that the Bible is not always clear as Christians think or say or believe it to be.

Sometimes I agree with Mrs. Evans, sometimes I don’t. This is one of those “in between” times where I am sympathetic to her overall point but feel she’s in danger of tipping over, too.

Let me start with giving you an excerpt from her post that she published last night or today, so you can see what her motives are:

    In 1982:
    “The Bible clearly teaches, starting in the tenth chapter of Genesis and going all the way through, that God has put differences among people on the earth to keep the earth divided.” – Bob Jones III, defending Bob Jones University’s policy banning interracial dating/marriage. The policy was changed in 2000.

Mrs. Evans goes on to list several more examples, where some Christian or another from 100 or more years ago wrote a statement that most Christians today would likely agree is wrong, scientifically incorrect, or racist, or what have you, a comment that said Christian insisted the Bible was “clear on.”

As someone who was raised in a home and church that taught gender complementarianism, and I used to be gender complmenetarian myself but am no longer one, I can see how, yes, sometimes a person can believe the Bible is very clear on a topic, even though there may be other Bible verses or passages that negate or contradict one’s views.

For example, a lot of Christian gender complmentarians only pay attention to two or three verses in the New Testament – the ones that talk about a woman being silent in church, the one where Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach, and so on – and not only do gender complementarians ignore key words within such favored verses, but they have a nasty tendency to ignore the examples that contradict their views – such as the existence of Junia the female apostle in the New Testament; Deborah, who was a leader over the nation Israel; and that Paul elsewhere says that women may prophesy – which requires women to open their mouth and speak, and not remain silent in church, or anywhere else.

Your average gender complementarian, however, will bang a fist on a desk and insist vehemently that the Bible is abundantly clear that no woman may ever teach, lead, or be a preacher or apostle, despite the fact the Bible contains examples of women doing those very things, and with God’s approval.

(For more on those particular gender complementarian issues, please see:
(Link): LOST IN TRANSLATION Part 2 – A Look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (off site link; hosted on Junia Project)
(Link): Why I’m an Egalitarian (off site link) )

Contrary to what gender complementarians think, the Bible is not clear or cut- and- dried, once- for- all about whether women can and should be preachers and so on.

I think Christians such as Evans need to be equally aware that it can be problematic and sloppy, however, to make the Bible out to be completely fuzzy and vague on any and all topics, as though the entirety of the Bible is up for grabs and can be defined in any old way.

That the Bible can be hard to understand on some points is true does not mean that one cannot figure out what God thinks or believes about other topics.

When people approach the Bible with a pet doctrine in mind, or with an agenda, they will not take the biblical text for what it really says, but attempt to find “loop holes” that negate the verses they do not like, or to give alternate interpretations that fit their pre-made conclusions of what they WISH the text said.

Continue reading “Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post”

Not that I agree with it, but here’s an editorial by some lady entitled: Why plural marriages make sense

Not that I agree with it, but here’s an editorial by some lady entitled: Why plural marriages make sense

I do think conservative Christians idolize the traditional, nuclear family, which results in ostracizing singles, the childless, and the divorced and that is wrong and bad, but I’m not fully on board with this view proposed in this piece by Janet Hardy that say, two lions, a panda, two lesbians, a transgender and a scooter all equals to “family.”

(Link): Why plural marriages make sense

    By Janet W. Hardy

    STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    – Janet Hardy: It is tempting to think of nuclear family as an ideal and universal norm

    – Hardy: Plural marriage and “alternative families” based on love and mutual consent work

    – She says nuclear family is an uncomfortable fit for many, an impossible dream for others

    – Hardy: We should not expect all to conform to an unrealistic standard for the rest of history

    I grew up in the early 1960s in an affluent suburb on the East Coast. Every child I knew went home to a family that looked like mine: a mom at home waiting for us, and a dad who showed up a few hours later in time for dinner.

    How tempting it is to remember such households as an ideal and universal norm. But they were rarely ideal, and they were never universal.

    Let’s not discuss the stresses that affected those nuclear families. Let’s just talk about the innumerable people who, by virtue of race, background, health or circumstance, could not — or did not want to — live in such families.

    Instead, they lived in single-parent households, in households with two men or two women, in extended families of grandparents and aunts and grown siblings, in households where multiple adults pooled money and skills to make ends meet, and in many other configurations.

    Back then, it never occurred to the people I knew to call those configurations “families.”

    Today, in a more tolerant era, that old standard of the nuclear family is still encoded in our laws and our tax code, as well as in the antiquated and judgmental phrase “family values.”

    Among my own circle of acquaintances, I hold many “alternative families” close to my heart:

    — A man and two women who have been raising their two children together from infancy through high school.

    — Three men who have shared a loving household for nearly 20 years.

    — A “core couple,” married for many decades, who have consistently surrounded themselves with long-term, live-in lovers.

Click the link at the top to read the rest.
————————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville

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

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

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

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

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

I have blogged on here the past couple years of how morality in the American church has fallen so far, that fornication (pre-marital sex) is now pretty much accepted.

Now, being an actual virgin past the age of 25 or 30 (as opposed to being a “spiritual virgin” or “born again virgin”) is considered, by evangelicals, Neo Reformed, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Non Demoninational members, and Baptists, to be weird or very rare.

Evangelicals and Baptists have no expectation that anyone can or will possess sexual self control and abstain from sex past one’s mid 20s.

Now, it looks like evangelicals and other types of Christians, are caving in to the new trend in secular society: couples living together without being married.

(Link): ‘Preachers of LA’ Puts Spotlight on ‘Shacking Up’ – Can Christian Couples Live Together Before Marriage?

Here is an excerpt, with further comments by me below this excerpt:

    BY NICOLA MENZIE , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
    December 4, 2013|3:35 pm

One topic in particular featured in the docu-series that elicited strong responses is “shacking up,” or the state of an unmarried couple living together as if they are husband and wife. The situation suggests that a shacking couple is a couple having sex, or facing the temptation to have sex. But is “shacking” even mentioned in the Bible?

In the Oct. 16 airing of episode 2 of “Preachers of L.A.” (“Acceptance”), gospel recording artist and former pastor Deitrick Haddon and his fiancée, Dominique dine with Bishop Ron Gibson and his wife, LaVette, for the purposes, according to Haddon, of getting wisdom from the long-time married couple.

Despite beginning amicably, the meeting quickly turns south as Bishop Gibson states that “a shaky suspect engagement is indicative of a shaky and suspect marriage.”

Cutting to the chase, Gibson asks Haddon, “Are you guys shacking?” Haddon, offended by Gibson’s question, declares that shacking up isn’t in the Bible.

The issue of intimacy involving the Haddons, who have since married, was overshadowed by the fact that Dominique was impregnated by Haddon before his divorce to his first wife was finalized. Haddon, 40, also appeared impatient in early episodes of “Preachers of L.A.” to have his wife, 29, and their two-year-old daughter living together with him under one roof, as opposed to Dominique and their child residing with her mother until the wedding ceremony.

(end quote)

I’m not exactly sure what a “bishop” is especially as opposed to a preacher, but at least the bishop guy was willing to lay it out there and point out to the shacked up couple that couples living together (suggesting sexual involvement) is a sin.

Most preachers today are reluctant to refer to sexual sin as sin; see for example my previous post:
(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among some Christians today – usually the liberals, feminists, and emergents – to redefine what sexual sin is, to criticize the practice of being a virgin until marriage, or to claim that the Bible is so murky and vague about what sexual sin is, that by golly, we all might as well have sex anytime, anywhere, and with whomever we want, because who is to say exactly how God feels about sex?

Which brings me to very good observations made by another writer in an editorial about the bruhaha over Phil Robertson’s (Duck Dynasty Star’s) comments about homosexuality (the most pertinent parts for my purposes are in bold face):

(Link): The Anus Monologues

    by Ann Coulter | Dec 31, 2013

… There’s absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures.

But liberals [and feminist and emergent Christians] can’t grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)

So they blamed Robertson for Holy Scripture. True, God created the universe and every living thing, but liberals think they can improve on His work.

Since Robertson’s interview appeared, I haven’t heard as much sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication since I was a teenager in the backseat of a car.

Continue reading “Christians Not Only Accept Pre Marital Sex Among Adults But Are Also Now Accepting “Shacking Up” as The New Norm”

Old School Cheesy ‘True Love Waits’ Video and Non-Christian Reaction (Christian video about Virginity and Sex)

Old School Cheesy ‘True Love Waits’ Video and Non-Christian Reaction

The reason I have stayed a virgin, and I’m past 40, is due to several reasons, but one of them is not due to cheesy videos such as the one below, which appears to have been filmed in the 1990s, or possibly the 1980s, judging upon the appearance of the clothing, music, and bands interviewed.

TLW (“True Love Waits”) is a little after my time. I was in my twenties when TLW started. I found it a little odd at the time and still do.

Support for celibacy/virginity comes by treating singles (celibates) as equals, and doing things such as inviting lonely, adult singles over for holiday dinners, permitting them equal leadership positions in churches, and not by gimmicky, schlocky TLW videos.

If you look at the comments left by visitors below the video on the You Tube page, most people are scoffing at the video for one reason or another.

I first became aware of this video on a page that found it via the CN -“Christian Nightmares” – blog.

It’s been a while since I’ve read about the CN blog, but if memory serves, the person behind it is either an atheist who never was a believer, or is an ex Christian (I don’t remember which).

But the point is that this video below is on a blog conducted and usually visited by people who are hostile towards Christianity or towards Christians, who feel that most Christians are unloving, hypocritical, or judgmental.

Sometimes I do think that critics of Christianity have valid complaints about the faith or how Christians in general behave, and at other times, I find their complaints unfair or exaggerated.

Most people leaving comments under the video on the video’s You Tube page make fun of the clothing of the people in the video or what have you, but there are attitudes such as this:

    MisterInfide
    l8 months ago

    Brilliant scam for controlling people. First, go after teenagers because their mental faculties aren’t fully formed yet and they long for acceptance and approval. Then take one of their natural impulses and build all kinds of taboos around it. Then force it into a tiny, restrictive box and heap guilt and shame upon any expression that falls outside the box. Then use that guilt and shame to coerce them into a lifetime of unthinking conformity and, incidentally, ten percent of their income.

Granted, having a cheese-ball video like this TLW video may not do much to foster positive attitudes towards virginity and celibacy, but I feel “MisterIndidel8” and those like him toss the baby out with the bathwater.

I am so tired of living in a culture that holds certain attitudes, such as, all Christian kids (or adults) who abstain from sex are only doing so because they were brainwashed or are too ignorant to know better.

I made a decision for me when I was a kid to wait until marriage, largely based upon reading what the Bible had to say about sexual morality, so it’s not entirely true that I was “brainwashed.”

I do think Christian culture left me with some warped ideas and broken promises, though, which I’ve mentioned in previous posts.

Those warped ideas (about sex, marriage, dating) I was presented with as a teen and early 20 something have played a partial role in why I have now reconsidered some of my views pertaining to Christianity in general and sexuality in particular, now that I am over age 40.

The fact that this TLW video was even on a site such as “Christian Nightmares” tells me that more than likely, some ex- Christians (or atheists) think the concepts of virginity and celibacy are naive, stupid, and idiotic.

It also teels me that there is possibly a lack of respect for an individual having strong sexual boundaries and choosing to abstain, which I find hypocritical, since often times, Non Christian society expects every one not only to tolerate the sexual choices and behaviors of Non Christians, but to CELEBRATE those choices and behaviors, or risk being thought a homophobe, repressed, or a prude.

While I am not necessarily a supporter of phenomenons such as “True Love Waits,” or gimmicks shown in the video, such as having teenagers drive pegs into the lawn as a gesture representing their commitment to hold on to their virginity, I also can’t get on board with people who would ridicule or joke about those people’s decisions to abstain.

Non-Christians, and some Christians (such as liberals, anti virginity conservatives, feminist Christians, and emergents), do not want to be judged for their sexual actions and sexual choices, or those of their friends, but they sure as hell have no qualms about mocking or judging the sexual choices of virgins or celibates. This is a double standard I see time and again.

My one other criticism of the video or entire TLW movement is that you’ll notice that it is youth-focused. Not that I’m saying I’m in agreement with the TLW approach (eg, making videos), but it’s another bit of evidence of ageism in the church that there are no similar programs or videos giving encouragement for adults past 30 who are holding on to their virginity.

It is always assumed by the majority of Christians that everyone will marry by the age of 25 or 30 and start having sex, when some adults find ourselves unwillingly still single past our mid 30s, and yes, some of us are still virgins.

In the video, I heard several comments by various adults that sounded suspiciously close to the usual propaganda and platitudes Christians give teens about sex (ones which I’ve blogged about before), such as one adult in the video who says something such as, “waiting for marriage is worth it!,” which is a variation on the Christian line, “married sex is mind blowing, so wait until you get married, kids!” As I’ve posted about several times, people who are virgins until marriage don’t always have a spectacular sex life.

(Link): True Love Waits video, Million Virgin March (on You Tube)


——————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

(Link): The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity

(Link): Discouraging the Virtuous by Julia Duin – Sex and Never Married Single Christians

(Link): Famous Historical Christian Figure Expects Everyone To Fail At Sexual Purity

(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 Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

(Link): Resident Christian Marriage Advice Writer at Christian Mag Admits Some Christian Marriages are Sexless

(Link): Singles and the Church: Why It Sucks to be Unintentionally Overlooked (from The Sexy Celibate blog)

(Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

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

(Link): Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts

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

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

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

(Link): Preachers and Christian Media Personalities: Re: Marriage – You’re missing the point stop trying to argue or shame singles into getting married

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

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

(Link): Sex is Always the Solution – supposedly, according to Christian writers and preachers. (Also: Christian married men feel entitled to sex, contra 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

(Link): Her Marriage is Sexless While She Cares For Sick Elderly Father

(Link): Wife Writes to Ask Amy About Her Sexless Marriage October 2013

(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

Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

In this podcast (see link below), beginning around 17 minutes, Chris Rosebrough, the host, starts reviewing a video or podcast by some woman of a show called “Religish,” who is telling people how to get over the feelings of shame their conservative churches instilled in them about their sexual sin.

I have seen mostly the opposite problem in Christianity these days: people who have watered down the fact that sexual sin is bad and is, in fact, sin.

I too often see preachers on TV and every day Christians on blogs, and emergent / liberal Christians on their blogs (and even some supposed conservative Christians), take an attitude of “oh, everyone sexually sins, it’s not that bad, just forgive yourself for it, God does!”

Christian attitudes toward pre-marital sex, adultery, and homosexual sex is very laissez-faire to the point these people sometimes mock or ridicule sexual purity, and virginity (well, I suppose that is redundant, as I regard them as being one and the same).

There may be some quarters of the faith that are very legalistic and damming about sexual sins, but most churches and Christians these days are the total opposite, they are too, too laid back and accepting.

Some Christians today, especially the feminist Christians and emergents / liberals (and a few conservatives – makes me want to puke), argue that because teaching Biblical standards about sex – i.e., that pre-marital or homosexal sex is sinful – hurts the feelings or shames fornicators (or of homosexuals), that Christians should either deny these teachings, or stop mentioning them.

The woman on this “Religish” show also seems to take the position that you should not feel shamed over sexual sin if you have committed it, or, she seems to feel that there is not even such a thing as sexual sin.

Chris Rosebrough addresses those topics on this pod cast (starting at around 17 minutes into the show).

He also discusses how people who have been hurt by legalistic, conservative churches usually end up drifting into liberal theology or self made, cafeteria styled (pick your own beliefs) religion:

(Link): Attack of the Liberals (discusses how Christians and Non Christians address sexual sin)

    • Relig-ish Advice for Recovering Conservatives

I on occasion disagree with Rosebrough on some issues, but I think he’s pretty much on the money with that segement of the show.
————————-
Related posts on this blog:

(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): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link):  Some Researchers Argue that Shame Should Be Used to Treat Sexual Compulsions

(Link): Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – Easy Forgivism

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): Married Christian Couples and Sexual Sin, More Examples – and Women and Porn

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

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Dude Arguing for Legalization of Prostitution Uses Same Rationale as Christians Concerning Celibacy and Sexual Purity

(Link): Married (Christian) People Aren’t More Virtuous Than Christian Singles

(Link): How Christian Teachings on Marriage/ Singleness/ Gender Roles/ Dating Are Keeping Christian Singles Single

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

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

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): Gotta Maintain that Propaganda that Married Christian Sex is “Mind Blowing”

(Link): Book Review at CP: Sex, Dating, and Relationships: The Dating Friendships Alternative

(Link): Critique of Christianity Today Article: The Real Value of Sex

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Criticism of Purity Teachings by Christians via a Woman’s Personal Testimony

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites * Irony Alert *

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing

If I see one more “Christian” writer blogging or podcasting about how Christians need to abandon virginity- until- marriage (a.k.a. sexual purity or celibacy) teachings and standards, which are biblical, I may puke.

It has become quite de rigueur in some Christian circles to bash virginity and celibacy these days.

Oddly, Christian emergents, such as Rachel Held Evans, post-Evangelical or ex-Christian writers, and some spiritual abuse bloggers, who usually try to be hyper-sensitive to people’s feelings, who will twist themselves into pretzels to defend homosexuals or homosexuality, will hypocritically often give no thought to trampling on the feelings of adult, Christian hetero virgins.

I would imagine that adult, Christian homosexual virgins might be offended by some of this same rhetoric aimed against celibacy sexual purity, and virginity as well; there are some Christians who have S.S.A., same sex attraction [homosexual leanings], but who have chosen to stay celibate.

How do you suppose the rants against sexual purity teachings and the whole-scale acceptance of homosexual behavior by fellow Christians makes them feel? I guess their feelings do not matter because they don’t neatly fit into the little politically correct box of the Christian homosexual agenda pushers?

I have a lot of respect for Christian homosexuals/SSA who are abstaining from sexual activity, who are celibate, due to allegiance to biblical teachings about sex. (And they do exist. I periodically come across an interview with Christian homosexual/SSA celibates on Christian podcast shows or in blogs.)

Some emergents and theologically/doctrinally liberal Christians go so far as to defend fornication (both homo and hetero varieties) and to advocate it, never mind bashing virginity and celibacy, such as:
(Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

I recall reading a small article several years ago in a secular paper about secular culture. The author (and I’ve no idea what her religious views were), said part of the problem with American (secular) culture is that we have lost our sense of shame. I agree with this assessment.

The author said one reason we see so much trash and vulgarity in the media, why we see pop singers dancing around half naked on music shows, is that people have lost their sense of shame – and that is not always a good thing.

I portend the same thing has happened in Christian culture the last five or more years, especially when it comes to sex related sin.

Some Christians have been arguing on their blogs, books, magazine articles, in pod casts, and on radio shows, that Christians should cease from upholding biblical teachings on celibacy and virginity because such teachings (and the standards themselves) make people who have engaged in pre-marital sex (aka fornication) feel ashamed, guilty, bad, or flawed.

As a 40 something, hetero virgin -I chose to remain a virgin until marriage- I find this most puzzling.

I have managed to do what most Christians assume is the impossible: stayed a virgin into my 40s; obviously, I prove a person can live without sex.

No, I do not have a low libido; no I am not fat and ugly; yes I have been engaged to a man; yes, I have been flirted with and hit on by men (I am not ugly and fat).

I’m having a hard time seeing why Biblical teachings on sexual ethics should be tossed aside or ignored, merely because some have not lived up to those ethics, or that some who fornicated feel shameful or guilty when they hear such ethics taught.

I can just imagine if people who claim to be Christ followers used that criteria in other areas of life and sin:

    “Hi, my name is John Doe. I enjoy being a serial killer! I love strangling women to death. Every time I hear a Christian preacher mention that murder of humans is a sin, it makes me feel so guilty and ashamed. I think we should all just accept that some people like to murder, they cannot help it, and well, you Christians should drop that teaching to accomodate me and my feelings. I was born with these urges to kill. I have a need to kill. Respect my inclination to murder, and don’t judge me or make me feel ashamed for it.”

If your guilt or shame over murdering another person – or stealing, or having sex before marriage- compels you to cease such behavior, then I think that is a plus, not a minus.

God, if He exists, says in the Bible that He gave humanity consciences, so that when and if you do something wrong, yes, you will feel guilty and ashamed over it.

(Disclaimer: I am not saying someone who commits a sin and repents should feel guilt indefinitely. I’m not talking about “false guilt,” and that carried over a lifetime. These days, I see the opposite: people, including Christians, sadly, who try to hide away from feelings of guilt, shame, and condemnation at all costs.)

Instead of telling homo and hetero singles to go right ahead and feed their sexual desires, why not encourage them to hold on and remain virgins or celibate?

The Bible talks about Christians encouraging other Christians to hold on, hang in there, and complete the race.

The Bible does not tell Christians to tell other Christians, “When the going gets tough, just give up, and give in. Stop the race, go sit on the sideline. Being a virgin is so hard, so cave in, stop fighting it! Everyone else is having sex, so join them.”

However, many emergent Christians are basically carrying the banner for this “Just cave in and do it, then don’t feel guilty or shamed for it!” approach, which seems to be nothing more than the Least Common Denominator Approach, the Low Expectations Approach, or the Quitter Approach, rather than the the Over-comer, or Winner, or I Know You Can Do It approach.

Here is an editorial on the topic of shame:

(Link): Shame Can be Healthy When We Violate God’s Standards

by Trace Embry

There is a common belief among the politically correct “intelligentsia” that shame is not something our kids–or anyone else for that matter–ought to experience.

Even many Christians have bought into this idea.

Scripture; however, seems to make a different case. God has made us, and our kids, with the capacity for many emotions– shame being just one of them.

Confusion about this subject comes when someone attempts to force someone else to feel shame for something that God did not call shameful–like when a young child spills his milk or fails to control his bladder.

Even then, there comes a time and age when even these acts become inappropriate–perhaps even shameful– particularly if done with reckless frequency and without legitimate excuse, i.e., such as a physical or mental condition.

To remind an unrepentant child that he ought to be ashamed of himself for committing some blatant act of foolishness, abuse or other sinful activity can often be just good parenting. Or in the case of two adults, just being a good friend.

Proverbs 27: 6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted; but, an enemy multiplies kisses.” Besides, aren’t there things that we should be ashamed of? The Bible doesn’t have much positive to say about a generation that does not even know how to blush.

Shame is often a component of true conviction which is fundamental to repentance. Shame is a legitimate emotion when God’s standards are violated. We need not be ashamed of who we are, but rather for what we do.

Confusion can also come in when we are made to be ashamed of who we are. Knowing that we are created by God in the image of God should remind us that we should never be ashamed of who we are. As the saying goes, “God does not make junk!” What God has created; however, can create junk–junk that we should be ashamed of creating. And sometimes it takes someone else to remind us that we should feel ashamed for creating it.

When Nathan the prophet told King David, “You are the man.” I doubt he expected David to feel like a winner in that moment. David’s emotions were completely appropriate for that moment.

Shame is actually a good emotion; for, like pain, it is an alarm that tells us something is not right.

And, like pain, it is also a motivator to start heading in the right direction. Feeling no shame is how our society has arrived at its current moral condition.

Pop psychology–not Scripture–is where this notion of shame being a naughty word came from. Views on psychology are continually changing, while God’s Word remains trustworthy through the ages. So, remember that anyone who shames you into believing that shame is a shame is a sham.

————————-
Related posts this blog:

(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):  Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck – Also: How Liberals Can Avoid Turning Off Right Wingers

(Link):  Some Researchers Argue that Shame Should Be Used to Treat Sexual Compulsions

(Link): Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

(Link):  CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

(Link): Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

(Link):  Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

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

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

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

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

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

(Link): Dude Arguing for Legalization of Prostitution Uses Same Rationale as Christians Concerning Celibacy and Sexual Purity

(Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): Students Discuss Dissatisfaction with “Hookup Culture” [Casual Sex, Fornication, Pre Marital Sex]

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link): Rare Reminders from Christians on Recent Broadcasts that Fornication is Wrong and That Older Celibates Exist

(Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

(Link): Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article) – and related info

(Link): CDC Reports Rare Lesbian HIV Transmission Case

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming
———————————————
Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.