Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).

Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.

So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.

(Link):   Millennial Sex Panic! Why are we so worried they aren’t getting enough action? by R K Bussel

Excerpts:

Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”

….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cut touted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”

Continue reading “Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex”

Advertisements

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.


I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.

The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.

I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.

I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.

On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.

With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):

(Link): “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ told me to stay pure until marriage. I still have a stain on my heart

Excerpts:

July 27, 2016

In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.

At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.

…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.

…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.

…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.

The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.

Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.

Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.

This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.

I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)

I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.

I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.

As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.

I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.

I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.

I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.

The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.

And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.

The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.

What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.

Continue reading “WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This”

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories

I actually have a long list of such examples in a  (Link): previous post of mine on the blog, but because some pro-Trans activists on Twitter are so lazy or stupid (they are incapable of finding those links in that post), here is a stand-alone on the topic.

I will continue to amend this post to add new links as I come across them. Should this post become way too long, I may make a part 2.

As an aside, out of my last 2 and a half or so years on Twitter under the “Solo Loner” account, the rudest, most intolerant, hateful, and vitriolic groups I have encountered on Twitter have been militant atheists(*) and pro-Transgender activists.

(*Please note I said “militant” atheists – I’ve run across a few non-militant atheists who were polite and agreeable.)

It doesn’t matter how non-inflammatory or polite my Tweet is in regards to atheism or transgenderism (even if all I am doing is re-tweeting a link without comments of my own), both those groups over-react and will send nasty, hate-filled rants. They are doing more damage to their respective causes than good.

Anyway, here is the collection of links to news stories about pro-Trans laws and regulations making it easier for CIS men to rape or otherwise sexually harass women and girls:

Examples of CIS Men Taking Advantage of Pro Trans Policies to Sexually Harass or Assault CIS Women and Girls

(Link): Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children 

Continue reading “Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies”

Teenagers Given Condoms at School Likelier to Become Pregnant and get STDs / STIs: 2016 Study

Teenagers Given Condoms at School Likelier to Become Pregnant and Get STDs / STIs: 2016 Study

(Link): New Study Shows ’90s Era Condom Programs Increased Teen Fertility Rates

Excerpt:

  • by MICHAEL J. NEW
  • June 17, 2016
  • A new study by a pair of Notre Dame economists received some media attention this week. It found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate [as well as an increase in sexually transmitted diseases].

Continue reading “Teenagers Given Condoms at School Likelier to Become Pregnant and get STDs / STIs: 2016 Study”

Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

(Link): Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

Excerpts

  • But more interesting is the question of whether criticism of economic libertarianism will be broadened to encompass the (Link): moral libertarianism that both underlies it and inspires the parallel drive toward the liberation of sexuality from moral judgment.
  • Understood in this wider sense, we’ve been living through an extended libertarian moment since the early 1960s.
  • Moral libertarianism presumes that no authority — political, legal, or religious — is competent to pronounce judgment on an individual’s decisions, provided that they don’t negatively effect other people. Thanks to this assumption, a grand edifice of inherited moral and legal strictures on sexuality have crumbled over the past half century, leaving individuals free to live and love as they wish, as long as everyone involved gives their consent.

Continue reading “Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker”

I Waited to Have Sex Until I Was 26, And Now I Can’t Have an Orgasm (by a Woman Raised in Christian Purity Culture) – Provides Yet Another Reason to Ditch the Equally Yoked Teaching

I Waited to Have Sex Until I Was 26, And Now I Can’t Have an Orgasm (by a Woman Raised in Christian Purity Culture) – Provides Yet Another Reason to Ditch the Equally Yoked Teaching

—————————————

  • I would not be surprised if (Link): my Blog Stalker, John Morgan, still visits my blog (and sometimes my Twitter account) and steals links and story ideas to blog on at his blog. He’ll probably swipe the following story I found and feature it on his own blog.

—————————————–

I did not see an author’s name on this. It just says “Anonymous”

I have a few comments below this long excerpt:

(Link): I Waited to Have Sex Until I Was 26, And Now I Can’t Have an Orgasm (by a Woman Raised in Christian Purity Culture)

  • by Anonymous
  • May 27, 2016
  • I can’t even talk to my sister or some of my closest friends about it because they all still think I’m a virgin, living my life of purity for the Lord.
  •  ——–
  • I was raised in an almost cult-like Southern Reformed Baptist church. I was told that sex was wrong, lustful thinking was wrong, and basically anything that involved sex before marriage would send me straight to hell. It wasn’t until last year that I had the first physical step of courage to go against my upbringing and risk losing everyone around me to do what I thought was right and okay as a woman — not what I was told by evangelical men.

  • ….The church taught us that sex was one of the cardinal sins. Once defiled, always defiled. Women could not make decisions without a father or husband to do it for them, and how would we earn a husband if we were not pure?
  • They trained the young girls in our church, myself included, that we should live and die to find a husband. Education was fine, as long as it contributed to getting a husband. “Be fruitful and multiply” was the mantra.

  • I went along with this. It was all I knew, and I had no mother figure to tell me otherwise. As I grew older, though, I grew indignant of my small amount of options.

  • They told us to find a husband within the church, one who was “equally yolked,” but no man in the church chose from the church. They left the church to find wives and left a congregation of deserted and bewildered home-schooled hearts. Yet they were applauded for their fine, godly choices in women. Meanwhile, the women of the church were left to rot.

Continue reading “I Waited to Have Sex Until I Was 26, And Now I Can’t Have an Orgasm (by a Woman Raised in Christian Purity Culture) – Provides Yet Another Reason to Ditch the Equally Yoked Teaching”

Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices

Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices

I saw this paragraph or so in (Link): an article on Jezebel’s site (by S. Edwards; title: “xoJane Publishes Terrible Article By a Woman Who’s Glad Her Friend Died, Then Deletes Her Byline“):

  • It’s a well-known fact that outrageous confessionals—the kind that populate xoJane’s section, It Happened to Me — garner traffic. Outrage, disgust and anger are the stuff of going viral (a phrase that conjures up disease as much as anything else). Yet xoJane seems to consistently cross an unspoken line, confusing any woman’s opinion as one inherently worth publishing, no matter the opinion, or its costs.

Continue reading “Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices”

Woman Realizes Having Open Relationship Bothers Her / Married Couple Confront Each Other About Their Other Sexual Partners via Cosmo Magazine

Woman Realizes Having Open Relationship Bothers Her / Married Couple Confront Each Other About Their Other Sexual Partners via Cosmo Magazine 

I do have some problems with how conservatives (including conservative Christians not just secular social conservatives) deal with the topic of sex (hey, about 65% of my blog posts are about that topic). However, your liberals can be problematic in this area as well.

Liberals like to believe sex has no consequences, not physical nor emotional.

However, at the same time, they scream on their blogs against abstinence-only public school sex education and yell that women should receive tax-payer funded birth control, abortion should be legally and widely available, and so on.

Liberals tend to downplay the possible physical ramifications of sex, especially for women, when speaking or writing for women (ie, sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy), to teach women that being trampy is not shameful but is feminist and empowering. I find that liberals sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouth on this topic.

Secular feminists also like to tell women (especially the younger, naive ones) that they won’t have any emotional fall-out from having sex.

I’ve known women (in person) and read of too many testimonies by women online and in magazines to know that is not always so.

Plenty of people do have issues accepting that their partner has a sexual history or has cheated on them with another person.

Here is another example  or two of this being the case (I have not watched the video on the page with the video.)

I will also link to a page I saw recently by a woman who said she was initially fine and accepting of her poly-whatever boyfriend but after so many months of dating the guy, knowing he was emotionally growing attached to the other women he was dating and having sex with disturbed her.

(Link): I Tried an Open Relationship—and It Was a Disaster 

Excerpts:

  • by Sophie S. Thomas
  • Three ways I’m better at being monogamous now.
  • …Jack [the writer’s boyfriend] was polyamorous. And because I was in love with him, I wanted to go with the flow and make it work. I tried for three years to do things his way — I’d sometimes sleep with other people while he sometimes went on dates with potential new partners.

Continue reading “Woman Realizes Having Open Relationship Bothers Her / Married Couple Confront Each Other About Their Other Sexual Partners via Cosmo Magazine”

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”

Various Editorials Defending Tim Tebow’s Celibacy – Because Some Secular Media Are Ridiculing It

Various Editorials Defending Tim Tebow’s Celibacy – Because Some Secular Media Are Ridiculing It

(Link):   Tebow’s Choice to Stay Chaste – He sets a rare, refreshing example in an overly sexualized culture

Excerpts:

  •  by Elisa Cipollone
  • … Tebow is fascinating to people partly because the culture cannot accept the fact that a professional athlete does not indulge in a wild, partying lifestyle, or at least a sexually active one.
  • It’s almost as if the public (and particularly the media) don’t believe that people who believe in God and actively, honestly live out their faith even exist anymore.
  • The Rev. Michael Sliney, a Catholic priest and the New York chaplain of the Lumen Institute, an association of business and cultural leaderssaid, “I deeply admire Tim Tebow for persevering in this noble ideal — a true witness of self-mastery and respect for the sacredness of the sexual act.”
  • It’s an interesting point, particularly when it comes to respect. And despite what either side of this argument believes, shouldn’t Tebow have the right to make his own decisions when it comes to what he feels is respecting himself and others?
  • …. There are multiple viable reasons people, religious or not, choose to remain chaste until marriage. Tebow should not be publicly ridiculed for his decision to do so, and his example is rare but refreshing in an overly sexualized culture.

(Link):  Leave Tim Tebow Alone

(Link):   Tim Tebow Dumped by Fmr. Miss Universe Olivia Culpo Over Sex?

(Link):  Sports media mocks Tim Tebow over abstinence pledge

Excerpts:

  • by D. Gwinn
  • So long story short, it’s a report that should have come as no surprise since Tebow has (Link): already had one relationship end because of his moral stand and maybe, just maybe, God-forbid engender some sense of begrudging respect from the media elite for at least having the courage of his convictions, has instead triggered a few juvenile headlines and one-liners from a legion of sports reporters who would never be allowed in the same room as a Miss USA, current or former. Unless they bought a ticket.

Continue reading “Various Editorials Defending Tim Tebow’s Celibacy – Because Some Secular Media Are Ridiculing It”

White Christians No Longer Majority in U.S.A. (2015 Pew Study)

White Christians No Longer Majority in U.S.A. (2015 Pew Study)

Possibly one good thing about white Christians being in the minority is that perhaps they will re-evaluate how they treat marginalized groups, such as adult singles.

(Link): Pew: White Christians No Longer in Majority

  • by Nick Glasss, November 2015
  • White Christians now make up less than half of the U.S. population, largely receding from the majorities of most demographic groups, with one notable exception: the Republican Party.
  • According to the latest results from Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape survey published Monday by (Link): National Journal’s Next America project, just 46 percent of American adults are white Christians, down from 55 percent in 2007.

Continue reading “White Christians No Longer Majority in U.S.A. (2015 Pew Study)”

Hypocrisy: Secular Pundits Judge Christian Sexuality: Josh Duggar’s So-Called Vanilla Sexual Preferences Deemed Dull

Hypocrisy: Secular Pundits Judge Christian Sexuality: Josh Duggar’s So-Called Vanilla Sexual Preferences Deemed Dull

—————–

Notice: The following post contains obscene language as excerpted from other sites. I may toss in one or two of my own expletives.

—————————–

I usually critique Christian views and commentary about sex and related matters here on this blog. And I end up not having flattering things to say about quite a bunch of it.

However, every so often, I see an incredibly outlandish, stupid, inflammatory, or hypocritical editorial or report by secular left wing, liberal Christian, ex Christian, or atheistic sources that unfairly and inaccurately skewer Christians, Christianity, or certain Christian beliefs or practices, and I feel the need to discuss it. This is another one of those times.

Unless you have been living under a rock that last few months, you should already be familiar with Josh Duggar, raised in the infamous Christian patriarchal Duggar family of the reality television series “19 Kids And Counting.”

A story broke a few months ago that Josh molested some of his sisters and a babysitter when he was a teenager, and his parents did not get him proper treatment for it, and they and the sisters continue to diminish the gravity of that entire ordeal.

More recently, Josh Duggar, who is 27 years old and is married with about three or four small children, has been in the news for apparently having signed up for the Ashley Madison site, a site where married people can find willing partners to have extra marital flings. I blogged about that (Link): here.

A bit after that story broke, a porn actress and stripper claims that Josh paid her over $1,000 for a sexual encounter that she said was scary and a little violent. She also said, I think, that Duggar had been following her on social media for awhile and had sent her messages.

As far as Josh Duggar’s leaked Ashley Madison information is concerned, his sexual preferences in a woman partner were revealed by several web sites.

Here is that list of Duggar’s sexual preferences taken from the Ashley Madison leak, as they appear on a site called “Preen.” (More on Preen’s coverage in a moment. For now, here’s Duggar’s list):

  • – conventional sex
  • – experimenting with sex toys
  • – one-night stands
  • – open to experimentation
  • – gentleness
  • – good with your hands
  • – sensual massage
  • – extended foreplay/teasing
  • – bubble bath for two
  • – likes to give oral sex
  • – likes to receive oral sex
  • – someone I can teach
  • – someone who can teach me
  • – kissing
  • – cuddling and hugging
  • – sharing fantasies
  • – sex talk

Continue reading “Hypocrisy: Secular Pundits Judge Christian Sexuality: Josh Duggar’s So-Called Vanilla Sexual Preferences Deemed Dull”

I Hate to Defend Pat Robertson, However. Raw Story News Site Double Standard on Atheism and Christian Pat Robertson / Also: Brief Word about Atheist Richard Dawkins

I Hate to Defend Pat Robertson, However. Raw Story News Site Double Standard on Atheism and Christian Pat Robertson / Also: Brief Word about Atheist Richard Dawkins

It’s kind of an odd day on my blog when I come to the defense of Christian television host Pat Robertson. Thank you, liberal site Raw Story for putting me in this awkward position.

I have numerous old posts criticizing Robertson on several issues going back a a year or more, if you care to do a search for the name “Pat Robertson” on my blog to see those critical posts.

If you are new to my blog:

I am right wing, and I adhere to traditional values most of the time, but I sometimes disagree with how my fellow right wingers handle some situations.

I disagree with conservatives on their over-emphasis on marriage and the nuclear family. Ditto on conservative Christians on that, on topics like those.

However, that I disagree with these groups (right wingers and conservative Christians) at times does not mean I hate right wingers or Christians, nor do I reject most of their values or views.

Your left wingers and Non-Christians occasionally, in my opinion, have a valid criticism of right wingers every once so often.

So I sometimes follow left-wing news sites on Twitter. I sometimes visit progressive Christian or atheist sites, even though I don’t usually agree with progressives (liberals) or atheists.

I disagree with liberals and atheists more often than I disagree with right wingers.

You’ll see me on Twitter or here on my blog criticizing both sides all the time, or defending one or the other on particular issues, depending on what issue it is, or how it’s being discussed or defended by whatever side.

I was raised a Christian and marginally hold to the Christian faith to this day but have been veering into Agnosticism the past two or three years.

I saw left wing site Raw Story tweet about a link to a story today about Pat Robertson.

Robertson is the host of a Christian television program that accepts viewer questions, where people write in asking for advice about their marriage, career, finances, or what have you.

I can’t recall the details exactly, but some lady wrote in saying her grandson is being told by another family member (the father if I remember correctly, who I think is an atheist) that Jesus and God are not real.

This lady was asking for advice on what to do about this, because she is a Christian and does not want her grandchild rejecting God.

Robertson told her to “take the child away from this person,” or something to that effect.

Raw Story published this Tweet about it: (Link): Raw Story Tweet

Their Tweet reads:

Pat Robertson to grandparents: Take grandkids ‘away’ from atheist parents

— end Tweet—

From their page:

(Link – off site link, to Raw Story site): Pat Robertson to grandparents: Take grandkids ‘away’ from atheist parents and send them to a Christian school 

Excerpts (they describe what Robertson said, with the Robertson video embedded on the page):

by David Edwards

Aug 10 2015

“You should be,” Robertson agreed. “If there’s any way you can get that child away from that… His father telling him that. I don’t know, but if there’s any way you can get him enrolled in a Christian school or get him into some, you know, they have daily vacation Bible school and things.”

“There’s all kinds of things you could do to kind of get him into some positive influences,” he noted.

— end excerpt—

First of all, I don’t think Robertson meant this in quite the way Raw Story is putting it in the headline. I think Robertson was arguing that the kid should have limited contact with the atheist family member in question.

I don’t think Robertson was arguing that the CPS (Child Protective Services) or some other authority should come in and remove children from their atheist parents, or anything that drastic.

Robertson is talking about influences on the kid’s life, or how to influence the kid and have a positive impact on him, which is different than the notion of sending in CPS to remove the kid from the home, which is what the Raw Story site seems to be hinting at in its choice of headline, which I feel is a tad misleading.

On another note, I find it hypocritical for this left wing site to pick on Robertson for the perceived offense of advocating a child be separated from his atheist father (which is not what he was trying to say in the first place) in light of the fact that atheist Richard Dawkins advocated for something similar a few years ago, but in the reverse:

(Link):  Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, claims atheist professor Richard Dawkins

by Rob Cooper, April 2013

He [Richard Dawkins] said children should be taught ‘religion exists’ but not taught it as fact

Prof Dawkins repeating claims that sex abuse does ‘arguably less long-term psychological damage’ than being brought up a Catholic

Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse’.

Continue reading “I Hate to Defend Pat Robertson, However. Raw Story News Site Double Standard on Atheism and Christian Pat Robertson / Also: Brief Word about Atheist Richard Dawkins”

Rom Com Movie on Women Allowing Themselves To Be Used By Men – And A Leading Man Disappointment

Rom Com Movie on Women Allowing Themselves To Be Used By Men – And A Leading Man Disappointment

(This post has been edited farther below, over August 8 – 10, with more observations based on some new interviews or links I saw.

This post covers several topics, including but not limited to: how feminist characters are depicted in movies, the impact of sexism on dating, to actors who publicly express their religious and political views in an obnoxious manner.)

———————-

I am normally not a fan of “Rom Com” (romantic comedy) movies.

But I heard some good things about this particular one.

I don’t know if I want to say what it is, if I want to say what its title is.

I’ll call it “Rom Com X.”

(If you have seen this movie you may be able to guess what it is, even from my vague description below.)

One reason I don’t want to just come right out and say the title of this movie is because farther in this post I have some mild criticisms of one of its actors, and I do not want any of his fans coming here and leaving me hostile posts. I am not going to name the name of the actor I discuss below.

Rom Com X has been on cable TV a few times. I’ve seen it about twice so far, maybe three times.

I find the MC (main character) sympathetic. Well, usually. There are a few scenes in the movie where she did or said things I never would have, where she unnecessarily was hostile to a person or two.

But of course, to balance that out, she was going through a very difficult time in her life, so to a degree, you do understand she is lashing out on occasion at others and being cranky because her life is in a tail spin.

This movie was interesting on several levels to me.

I related to some of the plights of the MC (main character) in a very big way.

She and I do differ on a few points, but I have some things in common with her, if not in the details, but in the overall scheme of things.

There is an actor who plays MC’s (Main Character’s) eventual love interest in the movie. I’m going to call this guy “Actor X.” I will refer to his character’s name as “Roger.”

Continue reading “Rom Com Movie on Women Allowing Themselves To Be Used By Men – And A Leading Man Disappointment”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

——————————————-

Related posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

Singles / Childless / Childfree Humor – cartoons, comics

Cartoons, comics and stuff that relate to topics I regularly cover at this blog…

Don't Need A Man
Don’t Need A Man When You Have A Cat

Facebook Status

Marriage is like a deck of cards
Marriage is like a deck of cards

(( click here to view more comics ))

Continue reading “Singles / Childless / Childfree Humor – cartoons, comics”

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

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

Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

(Link):  Pastors avoid Biblical positions on today’s issues to keep tithes up

(Link): Barna: Many pastors wary of raising ‘controversy’

(Link): Study: Pastors avoid controversy to keep tithes up

I linked to this same article in my previous post and discussed it from another angle,

This time, I am bringing this story up for another reason.

(Link):  Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

I’m not surprised. Every time I see the progressive Christians, the ex Christians, and left wing secular feminists complain that Christians over value a woman’s virginity, I want to laugh. I see the total opposite.

Virginity for men and woman is being attacked by Christians, not upheld, defended, respected or esteemed.

(Usually, the entire subject is ignored FOR MEN. Men are not expected to be virgins by anyone on either side of the debate. Men get a pass, even from progressive Christians and secular feminists; ironic.)

Virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity are being written off even by most conservative Christians as being unrealistic, impossible standards for any man or woman to meet, so they have reversed course and say fornication is really not such a big deal.

Further, Christians have sanctioned phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” to console sexual sinners.

With the exception of a tiny minority of far, far out fringe kook groups, like the weirdos who want to see the USA governed by Old Testament laws and penalties, I am not seeing Christians who are demanding that people stay virgins until marriage, speaking out against pre-marital sex, or making sexual purity an idol that they insist Christian girls pursue.

Here are some excerpts from:

(Link):  Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

  • by Tom Fontaine
  • Aug 24,  2014
  • Few pastors preach about today’s most challenging political and social issues because they worry about losing members of their flocks and the money they donate, according to a researcher who focuses on issues of Christianity.
  • “Controversy keeps people from being in the seats. Controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs,” California-based researcher George Barna said this month in an American Family Radio interview.

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

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

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

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

I first wrote about that in another post or two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans”