The New Minority: Why as a Gay Christian Man I Stand with Tim Farron by David Bennett

The New Minority: Why as a Gay Christian Man I Stand with Tim Farron by David Bennett

Interesting editorial.  I agree with him when he writes of how anyone who opposes certain beliefs of secularists (and I’d add liberals) is painted as an enemy.

(Link): The New Minority: Why as a Gay Christian Man I Stand with Tim Farron by David Bennett

Excerpts:

In a post-Christian, secular society in Britain which now supports gay marriage and gay sexuality, the LGBQ (not speaking for I or T) movement no longer sits as the true minority. The angry persecution of people of faith is fundamentalist secularism exposed for all to see.

….I am all for secularity, but not secularism; the ideology that says you are accepted in our value of diversity as long as you agree with me. True secularity says I might not agree with you but I support you in my value for diversity, a value Tim Farron embodied so graciously.

Instead, affirmative views on gay marriage within and outside the walls of the church have such political power that anyone who disagrees has been made the new minority. The Church is so petrified to represent its view, it hides in cowardice. Tim Farron is one of those who didn’t hide and was honest. Tim, I stand with you.

I happen to represent the thousands of British Christians who are gay and celibate.

We, like Farron, often experience vitriolic backlash, not just from secuarlists but now from our own churches.

We don’t belong in all of the ‘happy’ activist Christian societies that are ramming down the walls of the Church for marriage equality. We simply want Jesus Christ to be Lord of the Church, and his Word to be trusted and his Spirit welcomed.

Continue reading “The New Minority: Why as a Gay Christian Man I Stand with Tim Farron by David Bennett”

Advertisements

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)


For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.

I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being  Christian.

In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.

bakecake
Above: Accurate Visual Representation of How Some Pro-LGBT Groups Treat Christians. (Artist Unknown.)

I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.

However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.

The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.

I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.

It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.

If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?

I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.

The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.

Continue reading “American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution”

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

(I have edited this post a few times to add additional thoughts – there is also a December 2016 update below in regards to the left wing BuzzFeed and ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ witch hunt story about HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines)


Among some progressive Christians or progressive Christian groups, this news story was quite the controversy about a week ago when it was first published.

I read in another news source that IV (InterVarsity) says that their position on these issues has been misunderstood.

I have some more comments to make under the excerpts here:

(Link): Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples

Excerpts:

A Christian organization that leads student religious groups on more than 600 college campuses will fire any of its 1,300 employees who say they do not agree with the organization’s theological interpretation on sex: that it is only appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

That means that any InterVarsity Christian Fellowship employees who believe that churches should perform gay weddings, who endorse sex before marriage, who condone pornography or who hold any number of other beliefs might be included in what the evangelical organization calls “involuntary termination.”

Coming from a major evangelical institution, the policy revives debate about how churches should handle questions of sexuality and who can define themselves as evangelicals.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, the ministry’s vice president Greg Jao said that since InterVarsity employees teach college students about biblical views, it is imperative that they share the same beliefs. Four or five people have been fired so far, and he expects more to follow in the next month.

Continue reading “Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples””

Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women

Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women

(This post has been edited a few times to add a few more thoughts or new links)

The “Arguments by Liberals” Section is located about one-fourth down this page; look for the sub-heading “Arguments by Liberals”


(Link): Transgender Activism Has Produced a Legal Absurdity

by E. Whelan

But the Obama administration and transgender activists have shown no interest in sensible compromises that give any weight to the privacy or safety interests of others.

Never mind that the transgender policy on restrooms and showers makes it much easier for any man or boy with nefarious or mischievous purposes to gain access to the girls’ facilities. // end quotes

I have a friend on Twitter who I sometimes have private conversations with via Direct Messaging on Twitter.

One very disturbing and annoying tendency among liberals has grabbed her attention and mine, that we’ve discussed privately:

messyToilet
“Coming Soon To Women’s Restrooms Everywhere” – (image first discovered on James D. Nichols Twitter)

Many Liberals not only build a hierarchy of which groups of people they believe are more worthy of protection, consideration, and respect than other groups (which I find odd and troubling), but they further go on to almost always place hetero, cisgender (and ones who happen to be caucasian) women at the very bottom of this hierarchy.

Women in general seem to go at the bottom of this liberal pyramid, regardless of ethnic group, skin color, or nationality – I guess it can depend on the specific context under consideration.

Continue reading “Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women”

Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable

Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable 

The other day, I posted this (part 1 to this post):

I have re-listened to the podcast this evening and wanted to comment on some of what I heard.

In the program, there is a guy named Rodney who was once a conservative Christian, who drifted into liberal theology, and who now says he has a “deistic philosophy” and he says he is “agnostic about most religious questions.”

He says he has same sex attraction, and was put off to Christianity for (among other reasons):

How American conservative Christianity tends to over-identify with, or promote, the Republican Party (right wing American party), and that some preachers are too condemning of homosexual persons.

Rodney also says he does not accept the notion of an eternal Hell.

A few times, Rodney mentions that he has a deist- like view of God. He thinks all of us humans are rats, the earth is a big laboratory, and God is a scientist in a white lab coat observing us all but not intervening.

Rodney thinks if God is involved with human life, that God should do things like cause all members of ISIS (terrorist group) to drop dead of heart attacks. He does not believe that God helps people to pass school tests, find parking spaces, or cures diseases.

The show had a Christian author and guest on named Os, who replied to some of Rodney’s points.

_Some of my thoughts on the show and the topics Rodney raised._

1.) Politics and Liberal Vs Conservative Christianity

I am right wing politically and have been a Republican (GOP) my entire life.

I have very large misgivings about the GOP the last few years, though, so I’m not totally sure where I stand politically, though I do not ever see myself becoming a liberal or a Democrat.

I do agree with Rodney that too many conservative Christians conflate Christianity with the Republican party.

But then, a lot of liberal Christians or liberal Christian denominations entwine a lot of liberal beliefs and causes with the faith too, (such as support of abortion, the Democratic Party, liberalism, and homosexual marriage).

Continue reading “Some of My Thoughts Regarding ‘Why do evangelicals lose their faith?’ – Podcast by Unbelievable”

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”

TV Already Has Enough Token Homosexuals – Daryl Dixon Should Remain a Celibate Hetero Single – and Not All Older Single Men Are Homosexual

TV Already Has Enough Token Homosexuals – Daryl Dixon Should Remain a Celibate Hetero Single – and Not All Older Single Men Are Homosexual

Oh brother. I seriously doubt that The Walking Dead writers are going to actually make fan favorite Daryl Dixon a homosexual, but it sure makes for good publicity.

I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any television show that has an adult single over the age of 30 who is a virgin and who is living a celibate life.

I cannot think of many progressive Christian or secular writers who support adult virgins, celibates, or asexuals. They will sit around blogging in support of every form of sexuality or sexual deviancy under the sun but for people who chose to abstain from sex.

About the entire cast of the GLEE television series was homosexual. The television series “Modern Family” has a homosexual couple who adopted a child. “Will and Grace” featured two homosexual guys as their main characters. “Faking It” is an MTV show about a girl who thinks she might be a lesbian.

There have been several other shows over the years that have featured homosexuals and lesbians. The world does not need anymore homosexual or lesbian characters, any more than the world needs another marriage sermon (see this page).

If folks are going to insist that each and every form of sexuality get equal screen time, I want to see more adult single, hetero virgin/celibate characters. Maybe also include some adult celibate homosexual characters, too.

It is so cliched’ for every character on a show to date, sex it up, or marry – there’s nothing special or interesting about it. One of the reasons I like the Daryl Dixon character is precisely due to the fact he seemingly lacks a love life and sex. It’s just him and his crossbow, shooting zombies in their faces.

No, Daryl Dixon should not be made into a homosexual character who dates. I also don’t want to see him get a girlfriend. Him getting into any sort of sexual or romantic relationship would ruin the character to a degree, maybe totally.

I also want to say that one common view that pops up on pages that report this story is damaging to hetero virgin men who are over 25 or so years of age: the assumption is that if people do not see a man over 25, 30 or older with a woman, he MUST be a homosexual.

This knee-jerk reflection is very insulting and offensive to hetero males who are single into adulthood, ones with Christian or traditional values who don’t believe that homosexual behavior is moral. Just because a man is not dating a woman, has never dated, or has never married or never had sex with a woman, does NOT necessarily mean he is a closeted homosexual or is one in practice.

There are asexual and celibate older HETERO men out there (just as there are asexual and celibate older HETERO women too).

Continue reading “TV Already Has Enough Token Homosexuals – Daryl Dixon Should Remain a Celibate Hetero Single – and Not All Older Single Men Are Homosexual”

They’re Gay, They’re Christian And They’re Celibate! (by S. Bailey)

(Link): They’re Gay, They’re Christian And They’re Celibate!

    Religion News Service | By Sarah Pulliam Bailey
    Posted: 08/04/2014 6:27 pm EDT

…Rodgers [self identified lesbian] spent several years in Exodus, the now-defunct ex-gay ministry, before deciding she couldn’t become straight after trying to date men. Instead, she has chosen celibacy.

… For years, those who were gay or struggled with homosexuality felt like they had few good options: leave their faith, ignore their sexuality or try to change.

But as groups like Exodus have become increasingly unpopular, Rodgers is among those who embrace a different model: celibate gay Christians, who seek to be true to both their sexuality and their faith.

Straddling one of America’s deepest cultural divides, Vanessa Vitiello Urquhart wrote in a recent piece for Slate that celibate gay Christians present a challenge to the tolerance of both their churches and the secular LGBT community. Those celibate gay Christians often find themselves trying to translate one side for the other.

But frequently, neither side really understands what it’s hearing.

“We can be easily misunderstood, to put it nicely, by both sides of the culture war,” Rodgers said. “For those who have a more affirming position, it’s as if we’re repressed, self-hated homophobes, encouraging the church to stand in its position on sexuality. And conservative Christians think that those who shift on sexuality are being rebellious.”

Continue reading “They’re Gay, They’re Christian And They’re Celibate! (by S. Bailey)”

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

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

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
          ——————————-
          REMINDER

          If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.

          (Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)

          Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.

          I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.

          (However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)

          If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”

          No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

          Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.

          You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
          ——————————-
          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric

          Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”

          Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.

          If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
          (Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.

          (Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)

          Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.

          I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.

          (Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.

          I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.

          After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)

          On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.

          On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.

          Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.

          #NOT ALL MUSLIMS

          For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-

          Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
          “But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”

          Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.

          #NOT ALL ATHEISTS

          When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.

          Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
          “How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”

          Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.

          However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).

          You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).

          Let us review.

          Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.

          Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.

          Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.

          We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.

          NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

          I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.

          Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.

          See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

          #NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

          I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.

          One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.

          Here is a link to the letter:
          (Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room

          Here is the letter:

          DEAR AMY:

            My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.

          The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.

          I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.

          I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!

          By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.

          What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom

          Here is part of Amy’s reply:

          DEAR CONCERNED:

            …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.

          You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.

          Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.

          — (end Amy letter)—

          First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.

          Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.

          That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.

          When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”

          It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.

          Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

            “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”

          there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.

          However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.

          Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”

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

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

          I actually tire of hearing about homosexuality from secular and Christian sources.

          My interest in mentioning the topic at all is not so much homosexuality itself but how Christians deal with it, because I think it shows how sloppy and un-biblical Christians have become towards HETERO sexual sins.

          First, I will include a few links about this story with some excerpts, followed underneath these links and excepts with some of my commentary about the situation:

          (Link): Southern Baptist ‘Church’ Votes to Keep Pro-Homosexual Minister Danny Cortez, Go ‘Third Way’

            By Garrett Haley, Christian News Network On June 5, 2014

            The leaders of a Southern Baptist congregation in southern California have voted to not dismiss their ‘pastor,’ despite recently stunning his congregation in announcing from the pulpit that he believes homosexual behavior is not a sin.

            Danny Cortez leads New Heart Community Church-a small congregation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Last year, Cortez concluded that he no longer agreed with the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and was instead “gay affirming.”

          (Link): Baptist Pastor Abandons Scripture on Homosexuality After His Son’s Stunning Revelation

          This is from the Huff. Post site, which is usually liberal and hostile towards traditional values and Christianity:
          (Link): California Baptist Church Changes Views On Homosexuality After Pastor’s Gay Son Comes Out

          (Link): After Pastor’s Son Comes Out, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality

            BY MORGAN LEE , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
            June 5, 2014|12:40 pm

            A Southern Baptist church in California has broken with the denomination’s stance on homosexuality and has decided to accept the LGBT community without judgment. The church made the change after its lead pastor announced that he no longer holds to the teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

            Danny Cortez, who leads New Heart Community Church in La Mirada, explained his journey in a letter to progressive Christian blogger John Shore, founder of Unfundam

          Here are my thoughts, which are nothing new, because I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

          Because the church has been so obsessed with traditional (hetero) marriage and catering to the 1950s ideal of the “nuclear family” the past several decades, they ceased supporting adult singleness and adult celibacy for hetero-sexuals.

          In recent years, even conservative Christians (some who are Southern Baptist, some are Reformed or Calvinist) have even been criticizing and mocking (hetero) adult singleness, (hetero) adult singles, (hetero) virginity, and (hetero) celibacy (see for instance my posts on Al Mohler and Tim Challies for examples).

          Such Christians have been trying to ease the guilty consciences of (hetero) fornicators by downplaying the Bible’s teaching and insistence on sexual purity, including remaining a virgin until marriage.

          Because Southern Baptists (and other Christian groups) have failed to support the concept of adult virginity and adult singleness, as well as failed to actually support adult virgins themselves, naturally homosexuality and transgenderism and other issues have taken over and cropped up in and among churches.

          All this comes back round in a circle, however.

          First, the church emphasizes hetero marriage out the ying yang, talks smack against (hetero) virginity and (hetero) singleness, so that homosexuality of course makes inroads in churches. Churches left themselves wide open to this situation.

          Then, as homosexuality becomes viewed as the norm in churches, HETERO adult singles such as myself see churches not only excusing HETERO sexual sin but HOMO sexual sin as well and wonder, “why should I remain chaste when the church is not only not criticizing and correcting sexual sin, both homo and hetero, but giving such un-biblical behavior a stamp of approval.”

          I an not the only individual to pick up on this.

          Several months ago, a celibate adult HETERO single woman argued in an editorial on Christianity Today that as churches become more and more accepting of homosexual sin, they are eroding reasons for HETERO single adults to remain sexually pure. (I have a copy of that editorial somewhere on this blog.)

          My other observation is that I am tired of Christians defining their theology based upon emotion or feelings.

          I do think it’s important to treat all people with respect and consideration, please do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with church members who show kindness and compassion to homosexual people. That is all well and good.

          But to step from treating people with compassion and politeness to going against the Bible and telling these people (and from the pulpit) that their behavior is not sin is beyond wrong. I actually consider that evil. To flatly contradict what God plainly says in the Bible is not only evil it is dishonest.

          My position is if people are going to have hetero pre-martial sex or engage in homosexual sex, that is their prerogative, but it is not their right to insist that the Bible is vague on these topics, or that God or the Bible is fine and accepting of sexual sin (whether hetero or homo).

          I’ve also posted links to this blog before to stories of preachers who have admitted in public that they refrain from preaching against sexual sin, for fear they may hurt the feelings of, or anger, fornicators and adulterers and homosexuals.

          Where does the Bible teach that “feelings” cancel out sound doctrine?

          Yes, there are numerous teachings directing Christians to love other people, and to “teach the truth in love,” but where does the Bible say that God is fine with Christians shutting up about the truth – in changing what God has condemned to say God now approves?

          I am not aware of a single concept in the entire Bible where God says his views on morals change, or that God is fine with Christians declaring sanctified and acceptable what God says is wrong, sin, evil, or an abomination.

          As a matter of fact, the Bible says, things like,

            “I am the LORD, and I do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)

            “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrew 13:8)

            “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

          No, there is not a single Bible verse which says anything remotely such as,

            “And if your son admits to being a child molester, start teaching from the pulpit that child rape is no longer a sin”

            or,
            “And if your son admits to being a thief, start teaching from the pulpit that stealing is no longer a sin”

            or,

            “And if your son admits to being a hetero fornicatior who has sex with prostitutes, start teaching from the pulpit that fornication and prostitution are no longer sins.”

          By the same token, there is no verse or concept in the Bible that teaches if your own beloved son is guilty of X behavior (which God condemns) it’s okay to stand at the pulpit and declare God is fine with “X” and “X” is no longer a sin. Your feelings for your son do not get to over-ride the Bible’s authority on topics.

          As a matter of fact, there is a story in the Old Testament of a temple priest who allowed his two sons to repeatedly defile the temple, and God killed the guy off. God doesn’t care how much you love your son, if you keep permitting the son to sin, God will deal with it.

          This is from (Link): 1 Samuel Chapter 2:

            Eli’s Wicked Sons

            12 Eli’s [temple priest] sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord.

            …. 17 This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.

            …. 22 Now Eli [temple priest], who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

            23 So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. 24 No, my sons; the report I hear spreading among the Lord’s people is not good. 25 If one person sins against another, God may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?”

            His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death.

            … 27 Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him,

            …34 “‘And what happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign to you—they will both die on the same day.

            35 I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one always.

            36 Then everyone left in your family line will come and bow down before him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread and plead, “Appoint me to some priestly office so I can have food to eat.”’”

          As we can see from that story, God does not excuse, pardon, or overlook the sins of adult children just because they have daddies who love them and are willing to tolerate the sin themselves.

          I’m also tired of hetero singles being expected by some quarters to remain celibate, but homosexuals are getting permission from some churches to have sex.

          I am fine with people being friendly, polite, and compassionate towards people – there is no need for Christians to browbeat or scream hateful messages at sinners for their sin – but I am also tired, and repulsed by, Christians allowing sentimentality and their feelings to guide their judgement on moral matters or to cancel out what God has declared in the Bible.

          I suppose one of the main points of my post is that so long as churches and preachers keep tripping all over themselves to act accepting of homosexual behavior, they have removed any reasons for heterosexual singles to remain celibate, and I see no reason why married hetero couples should stay sexually faithful to their partners, given that churches are now adopting an “anything goes” sort of view.
          —————————————–
          Related posts, this blog:

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

          (Link): More Anti (Hetero) Singleness Bias From Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

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

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

          (Link): Why Do Christians Ask if Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation – Why Not Explain that Celibacy is an Option?

          (Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

          (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): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals”

          (Link): New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction / Editorial about Celibacy by Ed Shaw

          (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

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

          (Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity (they attack both concepts)

          (Link): Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

          (Link): Southern Baptists open to reaching out to LGBT – but still don’t give a flying leap about HETERO CELIBATE UNMARRIED ADULTS

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

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

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

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

          (Link): More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody

          (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): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

          First Openly Homosexual Bishop to Divorce

          First Openly Gay Bishop Gene Robinson Announces Divorce From Partner of 25 Years

          They badger society about being permitted to be married, to turn around and divorce later. Hmm.

          (Link): First Openly Homosexual Bishop to Divorce

            V. Gene Robinson, who became the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal in 2003, said his coming divorce was just another sign that same-sex marriages are no different than any other, and he said he would get through the painful period with his faith as a source of strength

            The first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church announced Sunday that he and his husband of over 25 years are planning to get divorced.

            Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who was the head of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire until his retirement last year, wrote in an op-ed on the Daily Beast that he and his husband Mark have decided to split, adding that divorce is just another thing gay couples have in common with straight couples.

          ——————————
          Related posts:

          (Link): New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction / Editorial about Celibacy by Ed Shaw

          Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

          Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

          This was an interesting interview by Janet Mefferd with Robert Reilly,
          (Link): Hour 3- Robert Reilly discusses his book “Making Gay Okay.”

          Reilly unfortunately does get into the perspective that heterosexuality is so necessary and awesome because it is the basis for families, with families supposedly being the basis for society – a view that I don’t totally agree with, see: (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

          Other than that, I pretty much agree with what all else Reilly had to say.

          The points Reilly raises brings to mind a point I too recognized years ago but never thought to blog about before.

          Reilly starts out mentioning that not only do homosexuals rationalize homosexuality, but later he also gets into how heterosexuals have also been helping to rationalize homosexuality.

          Around the 10.25 mark, Reilly tells Mefferd in the interview (link above) that one reason a lot of heterosexual people are jumping up to defend homosexuality now is that they don’t want anyone judging their (hetero) sexual sin (such as adultery or pre-marital sex).

          Continue reading “Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

          Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

          Sex After Christianity

          This starts out discussing homosexuality or homosexual marriage and moves on to broader sexual topics, and how Christianity impacts societal views of sex and so forth. Very interesting read.

          (Link): Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

          Excerpts:

            Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.

            By ROD DREHER • April 11, 2013

            … In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations.

            This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.

            It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.

            This raises a critically important question: is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave— Christianity its power as a social force?

            Though he might not have put it quite that way, the eminent sociologist Philip Rieff would probably have said yes. Rieff’s landmark 1966 book The Triumph Of the Therapeutic analyzes what he calls the “deconversion” of the West from Christianity.

            Nearly everyone recognizes that this process has been underway since the Enlightenment, but Rieff showed that it had reached a more advanced stage than most people—least of all Christians—recognized.

            Rieff, who died in 2006, was an unbeliever, but he understood that religion is the key to understanding any culture.

            For Rieff, the essence of any and every culture can be identified by what it forbids.

            Each imposes a series of moral demands on its members, for the sake of serving communal purposes, and helps them cope with these demands. A culture requires a cultus—a sense of sacred order, a cosmology that roots these moral demands within a metaphysical framework.

            … Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force.

            In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct.

            That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

            It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People.

            Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

            In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure.

            Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

            Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.”

            The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms.

            Continue reading “Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher”

          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”

          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”

          Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin

          Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin

          Isn’t this like saying being a hetero fornicator is a gift? Or, a little like Christian blogger Tim Challies insisting (Link): “all fornicators are virgins now”?

          (Link): Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin

            BY ERYN SUN, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
            April 27, 2011 |9:47 pm

            Being gay is a gift from God, asserts one church in Ohio.

            That’s the message that Central United Methodist Church is spreading throughout their community via a digital billboard, launched on Monday.

            This “simple statement,” the church announced, is “intended to be a gift to those who have experienced hurt and discrimination because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.”

            …. Jeff Buchanan, the director of Exodus Church Equipping & Student Ministries, agrees that the Church must display love and compassion for those in the LGBT community. But he opposes the message that CUMC is sending through their “Being Gay is a Gift from God” campaign.

            “Why would God bestow this ‘gift’ only to condemn it throughout the Bible? This would seemingly contradict His character as a God who is loving and just.”

            The Toledo church’s controversial billboard ad is directly connected to a long month-long sermon series by its new pastor, Bill Barnard. The church is hoping that the ad will move the public towards tolerance, reported ABC 13, and not perpetuate anti-gay attitudes and behaviors, which were harming the LGBT community.

            Continue reading “Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin”

          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

          Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of Hetero Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

          Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of HETERO Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

          Duck Dynasty is not a show I watch. I’ve only seen a few moments of it while channel surfing. It’s a reality show on cable channel A&E.

          One of the show’s members, a Phil Robertson, got into hot water a few days ago when comments he made about sin in an interview for a magazine were published on the internet.

          Here are some of Robertson’s quotes (Link): Source: LA TIMES

            “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary.

            “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers— they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

            He also muses rather colorfully about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina —as a man— would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

          Despite the fact the man named numerous sins, including sexual sins committed by HETERO-sexuals, as well as idolatry, greed, and swindling, most people have for some odd reason, decided to get selectively outraged primarily over his views about HOMOsexuality (a lesser number are upset over his comments about race relations, which I won’t be discussing).

          Nobody seems to care that Robertson called out HETERO fornication or HETERO adultery as being sins. They’re only flipping out over his mention of homosexuality. I think that speaks volumes more about people making the criticisms and the overall culture than it does Robertson himself or his views.

          I wonder if acceptance of hetero sexual sins has become so ingrained in our nation, that is why people can’t be bothered to get worked up over Robertson’s saying the Bible condemns hetero sins of the sexual variety?

          Why do people only go up in arms over homosexuality being referred to as a sin, but nobody gets angry or offended over him mentioning that lying, greed, and idolatry, or hetero affairs are wrong?

          It’s also interesting that homosexuals, and their hetero supporters, are choosing to perceive his comments as him equating homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism.

          I am a HETERO myself, but despite the fact Robertson named greed, idolatry and bestiality along with HETERO sexual sins does not mean I choose to interpret that as meaning he was saying that all hetero sexuals have sex with animals, are greedy, or are idolaters.

          Why do homosexuals choose to include homosexuals with bestiality, idolatry, drunkenness, and the other behaviors Robertson mentioned?

          I think it may say something about your world view or morality that you mentally include yourself with others on a list of unrelated behaviors, or automatically assume that was what the commentator was doing.

          Continue reading “Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of Hetero Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy”