Model Says Fiancé Dumped Her Days Before Wedding After Cancer Made her Gain Weight by James Somper

Model Says Fiancé Dumped Her Days Before Wedding After Cancer Made her Gain Weight by James Somper

According to one site I visited, Five stone converts to 70 pounds.

(Link): Model claims fiancé dumped her days before wedding after cancer made her gain five stone

Emily Nicholson, 24, from York, ballooned five dress sizes in six weeks due to the steroids she was taking to fight the disease and claims ex Jamie Smith called off the wedding over Facebook – and still went on his stag do

A model claims her fiancé dumped her days before their wedding after medication for her terminal brain tumour caused her to gain five stone.

Continue reading “Model Says Fiancé Dumped Her Days Before Wedding After Cancer Made her Gain Weight by James Somper”

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

(and related issues)

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 

(Link): Mother of Gender Fluid Biological Male Who Used Trans Friendly Bathroom School Policies to Rape Biological Girl Blames Rape Victim for being Raped

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

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”

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members (Re: Driscoll and Mars Hill Church)

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members

(Link): The Storm at Mars Hill Church: Mark Driscoll Explains It All

In that page, there is a description of how Driscoll claims the reason he came down hard on his church members was to save his marriage. He says he and his wife Grace were going through a tough time in their marriage.

Here is an excerpt:

    • “For me [Mark Driscoll] to recover, for you [Grace Driscoll] to recover, for us to build our friendship, I feel like we’re kind of at that watershed moment where our marriage is gonna get better or it’s gonna get colder,…
  • I told Grace, I said “I’m going to give it one year, and if it doesn’t get fixed, I’m going to quit, because you’re more important to me than ministry, and I feel like if I quit right now, the church will probably die, and there’s all these thousands of people that met Jesus.” I said “So we’re either going to change it or I’m going to quit, but we’re not going to do this forever and you’re my priority,” and that led to everything that I feared, quite frankly.
  • It was really brutal, and I couldn’t tell the story at the time of and here’s why- because Grace is really hurting, and I love her….

This is an example of what secular researchers call a “greedy marriage.” See this post:

(Link): Do Married Couples Slight Their Family Members as Well as Their Friends? / “Greedy Marriages”

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

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

As Throckmorton surmises,

    • What is striking about this narrative [by Mark Driscoll explaining why he abused people at his church] is the self-focus.
  • Instead of “men stepping up” perhaps this video should be named “men stepping on” others. The implication is that the damage to others (culture of fear, lay-offs, firings, shunnings, the pile of dead bodies under the Mars Hill bus) was necessary because Mark and Grace Driscoll needed time to repair themselves and their marriage.

So, part of Driscoll’s rationalization of why it was acceptable for him to bulldoze over people at his church was to save his marriage.

Even if Driscoll is lying, and his marital troubles are being used as an excuse only to cover his misbehavior, that doesn’t change the thrust of my criticisms.

And yet many conservative Christians think un-married men and women should not serve as preachers?

Let me tell you something, if you had a single (as in, un-marrred) man or woman serve as pastor of your church, there would be no on-going marital stress and strife that would cause them to terrorize and abuse the people of your church.

You would not have an unmarried person stressing out over his or her marriage (because their is no marriage), and abusing church members to work on his or her relationship with his or her spouse – because there would be no spouse.

Evangelical Christians, Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and some Neo Calvinists, often believe or teach that marriage and parenthood mature or sanctify a person (though the Bible does not teach either concept), and they often portray the never married or childless or childfree as being selfish, but here we have an example of a married preacher who selfishly put his marriage and children above people at his church.

Being married and a parent sure as hell did not mature Mark Driscoll, nor did it make him more loving, godly, or considerate. Far from it.


Related posts:

(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

(Link): The Dear Driscoll Site – Re: Mark Driscoll – Christians: Stop Supporting Driscoll, any church Driscoll runs, and Stop Supporting Guys Like Him!

(Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers – Also: More Hypocrisy – Christians Teach You Need A Spouse to Be Purified, But Also Teach God Won’t Send You a Spouse Until You Become Purified

(Link): Male Preacher Marries For First Time At Age 44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link)

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

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

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

    • We live in a completely pussified nation.

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

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

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

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

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

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

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

BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY

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

1. Biblical literalism
2. Biblical inerrancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a freaking break.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

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

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

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

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

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

Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why

Your Preacher Sucks

Did you know that your preacher is not God?

Did you know that the New Testament says that Satan poses as an angel of light?

Did you know that the New Testament makes reference to wolves in sheeps’ clothing, that is, false teachers who infiltrate the pulpit and churches, for the express purpose of fleecing the flock, getting rich, or taking sexual advantage of the ladies, or for pushing their false doctrines? Yeah? You were aware of all that?

There are sure a lot of Christians on the internet who don’t act like they are aware of any of this.

Because as soon as anyone says anything critical about a preacher or that preacher’s theology, no matter how politely said criticism is stated, sooner or later, a follower of that preacher will show up on that forum, blog, or site to leave a message – varying from very nasty, downright hateful, to a more chiding tone of, “You’re being such a meanie, Pastor John Doe is such a gawdly man, how dare you criticize Pastor Doe! Who do you think you are?”

It makes me want to barf.

No man – NO MAN – is above criticism, and I don’t care if it’s a famous preacher or who it is.

By the way, this blog post also serves as as reminder about internet safety.

Continue reading “Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why”

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – not for you. Not to get your approval.

Pertinent links:

—- I BLOG FOR ME, NOT YOU —–

I’ve already made note of this in other blog pages, but here it is again:
I use this blog for me.

I blog predominantly for me, not you.

I’m not interested in pleasing other people. I’m not looking to get a large, regular audience with this blog. If I do, okay. But that is not my goal.

I use this blog to vent publicly. I use it as a journal of sorts.

I’m not here to get other people’s approval.

I am not here to get other people’s input on how they think I should blog or express my views about anything.

This is why I don’t appreciate these condescending morons

    (note: I don’t mind so much the folks who express concern and sympathy for me who are polite. I am talking about the ones who chew me out and who are condescending)

, who stop by this blog and lecture me on how I may “come across” to other people, or,
(and these are some of the sorts of comments I get in the blog posts by visitors that I delete, and they later leave new posts complaining about being deleted, which I only skim the first sentence, then delete, and block them)…
I don’t appreciate these condescending morons …

    who say they think I should change my approach on the blog;

    that they will stop following this blog unless I change quality “X” about the blog or my behavior; e.g.,

    they object to the language I use on the blog lately (ie, cuss words); or,

    they make repeated nutty, crazy, unreasonable, rude demands and threats, such as they will un-follow the blog unless they get my real name (see (Link): this post for more on that); or,

    that they are not happy with my “attitude”

If you go back to the blog archives, for the first year or two I had this blog, I was “Little Miss Sunshine and Sweetness.”

If you don’t like the newer version of me and how I blog in 2013 / 2014, go back and read the blog posts from 2010, 2011.

My 2010 – 2011 posts are very genteel, G-rated, and relatively snark-free.

I’ve noticed since becoming more agnostic – oh hell, even when I was a full blown Christian – that many Christians are uncomfortable with snark, sarcasm, brashness, assertiveness, and people (especially WOMEN) who say it like it is (and I’ve admitted many a time to being a woman on this blog, so you know my gender).

Many Christians seem to be more comfortable with Christians (especially females) who never utter a cross, negative word about anything or anyone, and who are sweetness and light all the time about everything.

I didn’t understand that view, or like it, even when I was a complete Christian.

I’ve always had a biting sense of humor and a negative bent to my nature but had to hide it while a Christian because other Christians frown on it, or act uncomfortable about it.

Most Christians are codependent, by the way – that is why many of you Christians are ill at ease with sarcasm, bluntness, directness, assertiveness, and confrontation.

Some of my views on some topics have changed since I first started blogging with this blog in 2010.

People have a tendency to only read newer posts (from 2013 / 2014), or to react to only the ones that they find most offensive.

Once more, let this fact sink in:
I am not blogging for YOU.

I am primarily blogging FOR ME.

I figure if preachers get wind of some of the blog posts here and change their habits from being marriage-centric as a result of seeing my views, that’s great.

If marriage obsessed preachers don’t see the blog at all, or do and yet remain unchanged, oh well, c’est la vie.

But again, I blog primarily FOR ME.

You are only getting a SLICE of my life, views, and my personality on THIS PARTICULAR blog.

Continue reading “I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.”

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

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

The Year Long Soap Opera of Being Pressured and Harassed Into Giving My Real Name

I wold advise you to read this whole post to get the full picture, but there is a kind of TL;DR thing at the bottom.

Here is part 1:
(Link): Why I Post Anonymously (Part 1)

——————————————-

Aug 2014 update:

(Link): Blogger Guy,  John H. Morgan, Who Accused Me Of Being Untrustworthy Apparently Finds My Blog Trustworthy Enough to Use As A Resource

(Link):  John Hugh Morgan Still Lurking At My Blog as of summer 2015 – What Nerve

There is also an October 2014 Update much farther below.

———————————————–

I originally had much of the following content in ‘Part 1,’ but it was getting out of hand, making that post too long, and going off on a tangent, so here is that material in its own post.

What I will do is give some history and background first.

About a year or two ago, I got a new blog visitor, a guy who posts under the name John Hugh Morgan (aka johnhughmorgan3 ~ Twitter handle = @JohnMor13413450. He has a blog on Word Press, (Link): Christian Virtue in the 21st Century).

January 4, 2014 update:

Morgan has now set his “Christian Virtue in the 21st Century Blog” to private.

One must have his permission to view his blog.

However, you can still view and read the blog via Google Cache. For example:
A copy of this “Maidens” post that I make a reference to in this post can be viewed
(Link): here – cached version of “Maiden” post

I don’t know if Morgan did this today or yesterday, but one thing is certain: he continues to visit this blog and reads it. 😆

The dude scolds me about not posting under my real name, in that he apparently feels people should post under their real names to be considered “credible” (and transparent and the like), but then goes and sets his whole blog to private.

What is it this guy is trying to hide? I thought the whole purpose of blogging under one’s real name (according to him) was to be open and viewed as trustworthy?

I may be blogging under a “pen name” here, but my blog is open and visible to anyone who drops by.

It’s quite the double standard to lecture someone for not blogging under their real name, implying they are untrustworthy, deceptive or shady, but then pretty much acts shady and dishonest, or suspicious and odd, while blogging under their real name. 😆

—-Update Jan. 21, 2014.—-

Morgan has since set his blog back to public:
(Link): Christian Virtue in the 21st Century

Morgan seems to mirror the stuff I discuss on my blog, after I blog about it first.

I do believe I was blogging about feminist “slut shaming” rhetoric and its effect on views of virginity and celibacy, and how such views have seeped into Christian culture, before he was, but he feels fine borrowing that topic to use at his own blog, with no hat tip to this blog.

How someone can criticize me for not blogging under my real name but feel just spiffy fine about using ideas I blog on first is beyond me.

I have no idea how long his blog will remain publicly visible. Probably until he sees I can see it again, in which case it might go back to hidden mode for a few days again. 😆

–end of Jan 21 update—

In his “Maidens” post (view post), Morgan states:

    In order to affirm something, you must be willing to defend it.

  • At one time in history, knights defended maidens at all costs. It was known as chivalry.
  • So every chance we get, let’s show the world what it is missing.
  • Show men with dignity and self control that they are worth more than a distrustful glance, an anonymous email, or adolescent games.
  • There really is no gray area here. You either build a guy up to what he can be or you tear him down to what he used to be. It’s your choice.

Several points:

1. Vis a vis the “chivalry” type comments, of knights defending women.

Women should defend themselves. Women expecting or hoping for other people to defend them, especially men, is a form of codependency.

When I was cyber stalked previously, I had no man to defend me. I had to defend myself.

Brow-beating or shaming a woman for caring about her personal safety as expressed by her using a pen name when writing sensitive, personal information, as I do on this blog, is bullying.

It is not ‘chivalry.’ It is quite the opposite of “chivalry.”

2. Regarding the “anonymous e mail” comment.

I’m not sure if that is a veiled reference to me or not; if it is:
Morgan contacted me here. He sent me e-mails. I did not contact him first. I did not e-mail him. He initiated contact with me.

3. Re: ‘adolescent games’ phrase.

That would be him, there again, who is being adolescent.

A mature man stops at a woman’s first or second “no” when asking her for something and does not try to shame her or harass her out of her “no.”

But it goes beyond “adolescent games” to keep harassing a woman online who has made it more than clear on one occasion she does not want you bothering her for her real name.

Again, this guy does not understand or appreciate how scary it is for women on line, or how dangerous it can be, when we get death threats or rape threats from men we do not know, and it’s made ten times more frightening if the man in question knows where we live and what our real name is.

4. Re: ‘Building a guy up’.
Sorry, no. A man’s behavior or emotional state is not a woman’s responsibility.

By the same token, a man’s sexual actions and sexual thought life is not a woman’s responsibility, either, so it is in error (as many Christian men do) to tell women to “dress modestly.”

That view is identical to what some branches of Islam teach, by the way, and which is why some practitioners of Islam force women to dress in head to toe outfits called burkas.

Muslims hold females responsible for male behavior and for male sexual sin.

If you find yourself parroting Islamic views, or agreeing with them, and yet claim to be a Christian, you need to re-examine your “Christian” beliefs.

5. Regarding Morgan’s comment:

  • “In order to affirm something, you must be willing to defend it.”

Er, yeah, which is what I was doing on this blog for two or more years, but got beaten up for it merely for not providing all the world with my real name.

A person can defend a belief under a “pen name.” Using one’s real name is not necessary.

And as if I want a bunch of horny, mal-adjusted sexual sickos e-mailing me about sex. No thank you.

And trust me, if you are a woman and you post under your real name (and with a photo) you WILL get sleaze-oids responding to you with sick, perverted comments and requests, especially if you mention anything about your personal sex life or history, as I do on this blog.

Morgan does not have to live with a fear of, or possibility of rape, because he is a man and not a woman (assuming he is in fact telling the truth about himself and posting his true name).

Morgan keeps wanting to portray the situation of posting about sexually related stuff under one’s real name as only slightly risky and no big deal… but again, he is not a female. He doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to.

(PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG)

I shifted views on pre-marital sex since I first began this blog a few years ago.

I no longer defend the concept of staying a virgin until marriage per se, only that I see a lot of Christians who profess to believe in it do not really practice it or believe it, and some of them, like hypocrites, even attack the very teaching.

I’m now more speaking out against the Christian hypocrisy and idiocy of sexual teachings I see, more so than defending celibacy or virginity.

end Jan 4, 2014 update

Morgan would occasionally leave comments under some of my posts. Not a problem. He was polite, did not make any trouble at that point.

But at some point early on, Morgan began pressuring me A LOT to give him my real name, to friend him on Facebook, etc.

I politely explained that, no, I did not wish to give him my real name or friend him on social media.

Morgan backed off after a little while, so I thought the matter was dropped.

Boy, was I wrong! Morgan began pressuring me again after some time (days or weeks, I can’t recall) once more for my real name and other personal identification. I again declined.

It seems to me we danced this dance several times within the space of weeks or months, and I had to keep telling him NO.

At one point back then, he apologized. Things calmed down for a while, I considered the matter over and done.

Morgan claimed early on that his pressuring me over me giving him my real name was due to some sort of mental health issue he suffers from, if I remember rightly.

I think at one point Morgan did not drop by my blog for a few weeks, so I figured he was gone for good, but no, he started leaving the occasional post again.

I was on edge thinking, “Oh no, it’s that guy who hounds me over wanting my real name. Geeze, I hope he does not bring THAT up again.”

But, he did not hound me at that time for my name or anything. So I thought it was a done deal.

Wrong again. He began hassling me again to reveal my real name.

It’s quite common on the internet for people to use screen names. I don’t think he understands that or appreciates it.

Anyway, I called Morgan out on it once more, and I think he told me back then he was sorry, that he ‘forgot’ that he had previously asked me for my real name.

A few months went by without incident. He was just a visitor who would drop in, leave a few posts, and go.

Sometime around August, September, or October 2013, I decided to make a Twitter account for this blog.

A few weeks after I was using that Twitter account to tweet links to some of my blog posts about singleness, Morgan started sending me tweets.

Morgan was again hounding me to give him my real name, but this time, he was doing so on Twitter.

Lord almighty, what is the obsession with getting my real name?

I am no less ‘credible’ for using a pseudonym.

My posts are no less true because I am not posting under my real name of “Mary Smith, located at 123 Elm Street, Any City, USA.”

(Here is where I pick up with the comments that were originally in Part 1 of “Why I Post Anonymously” with a little bit of editing so that it flows better.)

A (now former) regular reader of this blog ( johnhughmorgan3 ~ Twitter handle = @JohnMor13413450 ) suggested recently on Twitter that my not posting under my real name damages my credibility. I don’t see how.

——- Edit. January 2, 2014 update:

This individual, ( johnhughmorgan3 ), has since, as of late Jan. 1, 2014, or early Jan. 2, 2014, deleted all tweets he made to me on my Twitter account from his Twitter account (the ones where he was again bugging me to give him my real name, etc). 😆

Those Tweets are no longer appearing in my Twitter “contact” area, which notifies you of replies or comments you receive.

However, my replies to him remain on Twitter. I was not talking to myself.

I sent him about 4 or 5 tweets, in reply to his tweets to me, where I made it clear AGAIN that I would not be giving him my real name, after he once more bugged me about about stating my real name.

Then I logged out after posting a few links to news stories about singles.

When I logged back in to Twitter a day or so later, I checked my “contact” area on Twitter.

Even after I had logged off, in the time since then, he had sent me several tweets, again harping on me about me remaining anonymous.

In one tweet, Morgan claimed he knew of people who would want to post at my blog here, if only I would state my real name. I ignored that tweet and the others. I did not reply to those.

As far as the first batch of tweets are concerned, the ones I did reply to-

Here is one Tweet I sent him, after he began badgering me to reveal my real name AGAIN:

(Link): My Tweet Reply

That Tweet to him reads:

@JohnMor13413450

    Why would my being anon damage my “credibility?” I useMyBlog2 rant so I guess it doesn’tBug me if ppl dn’t find me credible

————————————-
But some time last night or today (January 2, 2014), the dude has deleted any tweets he sent me.

Why? He claims to be a Christian guy.

What is he trying to hide? I thought Christians were supposed to be honest, upfront, and transparent, etc.

It looks like a person posting under his real name (or what he claims to be his real name) does not necessarily make him any more upstanding, “credible,” and honest than a person who uses a screen name to blog.

I had a hunch last night that he would delete all his Tweets to me. I had him pegged for that kind of person. I find it odd, though.

So there you have it.

– Dude harasses me for my real name for over a year (though he took a break from this behavior mid year for a few months),

– then sends me an e-mail or two late Nov. 2013 saying he’s fine with me staying anonymous, then

-stalks me over on Twitter in December 2013, once again hassling me and pressuring me for my real name, getting upset when I once more decline to reveal my true identity;

– then has a melt down / tantrum (Jan 1 or 2, 2014) and deletes all his tracks (ie, previous Tweets to me) and demanding I make more changes to my blog.

And this is why I blog anonymously, folks.

Goodness only knows what this sort of person would do if he had my real name.

(The last stalker I had DID have my real name, and the weirdo would harass me at my job, in addition to my private life.)

— Edit 2, January 2, 2014 —
DAMAGE CONTROL

I just visited the dude’s blog page recently (hosted on johnhughmorgan3.wordpress.com), and the blog has the post stamped as Dec 31, 2013:

(Link): Maidens Waiting For Marriage
(* A copy of this “Maidens” post can be viewed (Link): here)

You know WHY he made that post and why he chose that day to post it?
Look at the timing: it is stamped December 31, 2013.

Morgan made that post when he did because of his recent negative interactions with me from November and December 2013, where he was once more hounding me to give him my personal information and was doing so on my blog and on Twitter. He also sent me some e-mails in Nov. 2013.

This guy, Morgan, who pestered me for about over a year (via my blog, e- mail, and Twitter) for me to give my real name goes on and on in that post ((Link): Maidens Waiting For Marriage) about how much he admires women for posting under their real names “publicly.”

I have no idea why women writing about their experiences under “pen names” rather than their real names “publicly” magically do not count for anything.

Morgan also goes on and on (in his “Maidens” post) about how he totally understands about female concerns for online safety – NO, NO, HE REALLY DOES NOT; read this entire post for an explanation of why (as well as (Link): Part 1).

Also observe my comments above how this Morgan guy deleted previous tweets he sent me, tweets where-in he was once more shaming me and hounding me for not giving my real name to him.

Why would he do that unless he feels he has something to hide?

Morgan was, I can only assume, deleting those tweets, probably so he can claim I’m making the whole thing up, or how he really is Mr. Trustworthy, or can appear to be so to other ladies online.

Men simply do NOT face the same kind of, and amount of, danger online, or in real life, that women do (see links farther below for more on that).

Continue reading “Why I Post Anonymously ( Part 2 – the John Hugh Morgan Fiasco )”