Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls and The Liberals Who Look the Other Way

Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls & The Liberals Who Look the Other Way 

I intended on making this blog post the other day but forgot. As I noted in one of my (Link): last posts, I have not visited SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) Facebook group since early June 2017 for reasons that are explained in that post.

A couple of weeks ago, someone in my Twitter shared a link to (Link): this page titled, “Jodi Heckert Pledged to Protect His Daughter’s Virginity, Now in Prison For Child Molestation”

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, there is a line that reads:

“H/T Stuff Christian Culture Likes.”

[Hat Tip to Stuff Christian Culture Likes]

So, I take it that Stephanie Drury, maintainer of SCCL Facebook group, posted a link to that news story on her group for her members to mock and cluck in worry over. This same, group, though, which is largely comprised of liberals, does not like for Islam to be called out for infractions against girls, women, or for anyone, really.

When I mentioned in one of (Link): my other posts critical of SCCL that about any time I see a terrorist mentioned on the news, the terrorist almost always turns out to be a Muslim (yes, it’s true, (Link): most of them are), several of Drury’s SCCL readers had temper tantrums.

Before I continue, allow me to quote from liberal, atheist, and Democrat Camille Paglia here:

But today’s liberalism has become grotesquely mechanistic and authoritarian: It’s all about reducing individuals to a group identity, defining that group in permanent victim terms, and denying others their democratic right to challenge that group and its ideology.

… The reluctance or inability of Western liberals to candidly confront jihadism has been catastrophically counterproductive insofar as it has inspired an ongoing upsurge in right-wing politics in Europe and the United States.

Citizens have an absolute right to demand basic security from their government. The contortions to which so many liberals resort to avoid connecting bombings, massacres, persecutions, and cultural vandalism to Islamic jihadism is remarkable, given their usual animosity to religion, above all Christianity.

…Right now, too many secular Western liberals treat Islam with paternalistic condescension…

Source:

(Link): Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror

Paglia is one of the few left wingers I’ve seen who comprehends.

Islam is notorious for sexism. Many of their Imams teach it is acceptable for husbands to beat wives. Honor killings, where Muslim families will stone girls or women to death for being rape victims, are not uncommon.

In some Islamic nations or cultures, women are not allowed to ride bicycles, wear skirts, or obtain educations. (Examples with links to news stories of all those mentioned (Link): here)

Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka, and the SCCL Push-Back

Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka – via Relevant Magazine, and the SCCL Push-Back

The essay “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex” by Rachel Pietka was discussed over at Facebook group SCCL (Link): here a few days ago.

The consensus by the SCCL readership is that the page – by R. Pietka – is that it’s awful. Many in the SCCL thread did not approve of it or agree with it.

I don’t know why the SCCL readership largely condemned the page, because some of it is right in line with the ex-Christian, or liberal Christian views, about sex and sexual purity.

I’ll give you a long excerpt from the page before discussing it a bit more below:

(Link):  Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka

What Christians need to remember about God’s design for sex.

…While the [Christian based sexual abstinence] movement is great at detailing— and exaggerating—the benefits of saving sex for marriage, it is dishonest about the challenges abstinence presents to couples who eventually tie the knot.

…Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, (Link): “My Virginity Mistake.”

Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Looking back, Henriquez states if she had not insisted on waiting for sex until marriage, she could have prevented her divorce.

Henriquez’s story is important because it highlights an issue the abstinence movement rarely acknowledges: sexual incompatibility within marriage.

While this issue may seem irrelevant, it is actually fundamental to traditional Christian beliefs about sex. The fact that sexual compatibility does not matter to Christians when choosing a spouse makes the shocking and countercultural statement that sex is not our God.

Regarding Tacky or Inappropriate Christian Themed Jokes, Signs, or Art by Christians or By Non-Christians

Regarding Tacky or Inappropriate Christian Themed Jokes, Signs, or Art by Christians or By Non-Christians

About a week ago, Facebook group owner of SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) did a post with a photo of a sign celebrating Easter season in front of a church with the words “Nailed It.”

You can view that particular Facebook post (Link): here.

Many in the comments section found the church “Nailed It” sign to be tacky, as did the guy who runs the “Friendly Atheist” blog (see here).

In turn, a Christian guy wrote a post about this whole thing here.

I don’t care for this kind of cheap marketing, either. I think it makes light of the crucifixion of Jesus.

However, there may be a tiny bit of hypocrisy going on here.

Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

This post contains some vulgar language.

edited to add: I’ve already been told by two different people that this post is too long. Sorry, being concise has never been a talent of mine.

Someone also informed me that this blog post of mine has been linked to at a sub thread on Reddit (Link): here / on (Link): Reason and Faith on Reddit

Someone in that Reddit thread thinks my title of this post is “an atrocity,” but I feel it pretty much accurately sums up what I’ve seen online the last decade or more

---

In my faith crisis of the last few years, I’ve visited more sites, blogs, groups, and forums that are critical of Christians or Christianity. I sometimes find myself agreeing with some of their criticisms of evangelical, Protestant Christianity (sometimes not).

One of the recurrent tendencies that crops up in such blogs, forums, and groups that disturbs or annoys me  (or has me doing a lot of eye rolls) are that many of the people who post to these types of groups act as though they are Too Cool for School.

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 – which is similar to the 2019 attack on actor Chris Pratt by actress Ellen Page)

---

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.

Blogger Declares That Adult Singles Who Desire Marriage Yet Are Still Single in Early Middle Age And Upset By It Are Being Petty

Blogger Declares That Adult Singles Who Desire Marriage Yet Are Still Single in Early Middle Age And Upset By It Are Being Petty

There are additional updates at the bottom of this post: I spoke with the blogger, S. Field, and she apologized, so we’re all good.

When I first wrote this post you see below, I was feeling rather cranky, I do admit (but even then, I did not hate Field, I was just upset with the “petty” remark). Since we had our chat (see bottom of this post), I’m okay with her.

———————-

Original Post:

Oh the irony. Someone at the Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group, in a thread ((Link): located here) about people who have been hurt by churches, suggested the following blog page to another reader:

(Link):  “LIES WOMEN BELIEVE” REVIEW: 45-62 from Samantha Field’s blog

This is the blogger’s blurb on her blog’s main page:

• I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist cult, but escaped as a young adult. Now, I write about being a bisexual woman and abuse survivor, exploring intersectional feminism and liberation theology.

Remember, this is a blog – by Samantha Field – that was recommended in a thread discussing how Christians and churches hurt people.

I would presume that Samantha Field would perhaps consider herself an advocate or some kind of spokesperson for (or at least sympathetic to)  those who have been hurt by God, churches, the Christian faith, or what have you.

So imagine my surprise at seeing the following statement in Field’s “Lies Women Believe” book review, where she criticizes the author of the book, Nancy:

• [Quote by Fields] Event this book enforces those notions. She gives the following in a list of problems we run into:
• [quote by Nancy]… a loveless marriage, rejection by an ex-mate, grown children who won’t call home, approaching forty, and not a suitor in sight … (50)
• [Quote by Fields] I’m sorry, those things aren’t fun, but they just seem so petty. Really, Nancy? This is your standard for talking about the possible reasons why women might feel that God doesn’t love them?

Here’s a brief recap of myself, for anyone who may be new to my blog:

I am a woman who was raised in a conservative Christian household. I accepted Christ as my savior as a kid. I have been having doubts about the faith the last two, three years, based on several reasons.

After the death of my mother a few years ago, I discovered much to my shock that most self professing Christians don’t really care. None were willing to help me through the grief or with other problems I had afterwards, some of which were not related to the death some of which were.

Those factors and others started me on a journey a little bit away from the Christian faith.

I have not totally left the faith, but am on a scale somewhere between the faith and agnosticism right now.

And one of those very reasons for my faith crisis (among several) is, yes, I am over 40 and still have never married (and with no suitors in sight), in spite of the fact I spent youth and on-wards, following Christian advice on how to get married: praying to God for a spouse and trusting in God for a spouse. I even tried some dating sites, to no avail.

But according to blogger Field, my pain and disappointment and faith crisis over this means nothing – I am just a whiny, First World Problems shallow doofus. Gee, thanks, Field!

Apparently, according to the reasoning I am seeing on Field’s blog page, I can only have doubts about the goodness of God if I am a black girl living in poverty in Africa, or something of that nature.

This Is Why Being a Nice Guy Just Isn’t Enough by E. Tatum / Double Standards By The Anti-Celibacy Crowd About Friendships and Sexualization of Everything

This Is Why Being a Nice Guy Just Isn’t Enough by E. Tatum / Double Standards By The Anti-Celibacy Crowd About Friendships and Sexualization of Everything

You’ll have to use the link below to read the entire page entitled, “This Is Why Being a Nice Guy Just Isn’t Enough”, because I don’t want to copy their entire post here on my blog.

One thing I want to point out is a bit of a double standard going on here.

First of all, I first became aware of this “Nice Guys” article by way of Facebook group SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes). Sometimes I agree with some of this group’s views on some issues, sometimes I do not.

SCCL is a group that regularly mocks or criticizes the traditional Christian position of upholding or defending the notions of celibacy, or of being a virgin until marriage – sometimes these concepts are all lumped together by them, and by others elsewhere on the internet, under the term “purity culture”.

I have argued on my blog the last few years that it is possible to be celibate, to refrain from having sex, and for men and women to be platonic friends.

I have also argued that it is society, both secular culture, as well as conservative and progressive Christian culture, and most secular feminism, which perpetuates the sexualization all male-female relationships (or even male-male, or female-female relationships).

For doing all this, for defending my choice, or the choice of others to be celibate, and for pointing out that not everything in life has to be sexual or is about sex, I sometimes get insulted or mocked by other people on the internet.

Everyone from secular feminists, to ex-Christians, to conservative Christians, to atheists (yes, ’tis so, click here to read), to political liberals, to political conservatives insult me or ridicule me for all this.

All these groups, who normally loathe each other – the atheists cannot stand conservative Christians, the liberals don’t like the conservatives and so on- all never- the- less totally agree that there is something bad, wrong, or weird about adults who choose to stay celibate, whatever their reason.

All these disparate groups fight like cats on dogs on many other topics, but they all come into agreement on this: they despise and ridicule celibacy (and sometimes, asexuality).

Do these people in these groups ever stop to consider, “Hey, other groups I normally disagree with on fundamental life choices happen to share with me a suspicion, dislike, or fear of celibacy, does this mean something, like maybe I’ve been wrong in my views about celibacy?”

I think it does. That your arch enemy chooses to fight with you on all other issues yet mocks celibacy right along with you might indicate that both of you are either misinformed about celibacy or terribly biased against celibates. Yeah, you might want to ponder that one for awhile.

There are more comments by me below this long excerpt:

(Link): This Is Why Being a Nice Guy Just Isn’t Enough by E. Tatum

Excerpts:

• There are a lot of really wonderful, well-intentioned men who have a difficult time understanding the difference between being nice to women and being an ally to women and women’s causes.
• Then there are other men who pretend to be nice in order to validate their manipulation of women for sex and romance. These are the people who I like to refer to as Nice Guys™.
• While this article is dedicated to helping nice men become better feminist allies, I want to take a second to clarify the difference between an authentically nice guy and a Nice Guy™.
• (Link): Nice Guys™, as many of you know, have become the object of  (Link): much loathing in feminist circles and among women and girls in general.Online, this is the guy who posts hashtags like #NotAllMen and (Link): #ReverseSexism, whenever we publish articles about (Link): street harassment,  (Link): rape culture, and (Link): male privilege.
• He is the exaggeratedly faux timid (read: passive aggressive) dude who still complains about the girls that didn’t date him in high school on message boards and in every other status update.
• Though the most stereotypical incarnation of the Nice Guy™ is a fedora-clad dudebro who spends too much time on Reddit and would probably push a six-year-old girl out of the way to get his hands on My Little Pony merchandise, the more garden-variety Nice Guy™ can be more difficult to spot. 
• Basically, he’s anyone who regards sex as the ultimate goal of interacting with women, and in turn views the idea of a nonsexual friendship with a woman as an abysmal failure.
• Trademarks of a Nice Guy™ include trying to guilt trip women into having sex, claiming that sex should be the inevitable reward for basic acts of friendship, and only being interested in building a friendship until the woman in question rejects them romantically.
• When he gets rejected, he cites every single time they did something nice for her, repeatedly asks her out (as in stalks her), and calls her a coldhearted bitch if she refuses to magically reciprocate his feelings within an almost instantaneous period of time.
• A Nice Guy™ truly cements his status as soon as he begins to complain that (Link): “women only date assholes.”

Christian Video Asks: Can A Christian Date A Non-Christian

If you are new to this blog, I would encourage you to use this blog’s search box or tags to look up the phrase “do not be unequally yoked” or “be equally yoked” to figure out my position on this issue.

Originally spotted on SCCL Facebook group, under the post, (Link): Ask a douchebro a theological question, get a remedial, two-dimensional, meritocratic answer.

I’d encourage you also to click that link, visit that thread, and read the replies under it.

That SCCL Facebook group post is about this Christian video

(Link): 516. Can A Christian Date A Nonbeliever?

Here were a few comments by some of the visitors of the SCCL group, in case you find yourself too lazy to visit there:

comment by Leah Thomason

• That was special…. I’m a Christian and I’m actually married to an Atheist. I can not stand the constant vilification of ‘unbelievers’ as defined by ‘spiritual leaders’ based on nothing. Is out marriage perfect? Nope, but I’m pretty sure it’s less messed up than a lot of equally yoked marriages out there! My husband and I love SCCL by the way!

by Daniel Jakob Eager

• I was a nonbeliever (even aggressively atheistic) when my wife (a Christian) and I started our relationship, now I am a minister.
• Jesus 1-Douchebro 0

comment by Curt Story

• I once bought into the so-called “equally yoked” trope. So I ended up dating “Christians” who were intellectually uncurious or emotionally unavailable. That was the default, and I admit my own issues played as well.
• The biggest problem I see with this whole idea…the “Christian identity” has very little to do with a person’s compatibility in a relationship.
• A couple that “prays together” or recites Bible verses at each other are engaging in a pre-programmed ritual established by evangelicals as some “cure-all” to real human needs. Good luck finding a real connection when plain emotional honesty is discouraged at a basic level.

by Nathan Kotter

• I wrote a post about the “unequally yoked” thing a long while back and I still refer to it to this day when the discussion comes up. I’m not a biblical scholar nor do I know Greek, and my statements could be way off base and there could be more to it. But this is how I always looked at it:

  What do the verses directly before the “unequally yoked” verse say?

  11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. 13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.

  So Paul is talking directly to the Corinthians. He says he’s spoken freely and his heart is wide open, but their hearts are restricted, and he’s telling them to be more open towards him.

  Now, Paul says the stuff about being unequally yoked. Okay, maybe he decided he’d said his piece about the Corinthians being shut off from him and switched gears to marriage. But what does he say after that?

  2 Make room in your hearts for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. 3 I do not say this to condemn you, for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together. 4 I am acting with great boldness toward you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with comfort. In all our affliction, I am overflowing with joy.

  Wait, what? Now he’s once again urging the Corinthians to make room in their hearts for him, and reiterates that they are in his heart.

  So to me, saying the “unequally yoked” verse is about marriage or dating doesn’t make any sense. You’d have to believe Paul was talking to the Corinthians, saying to open their hearts to him, then makes a completely off-topic comment about marriage, then goes back to saying to open their hearts to him? That’s not a logical flow of topics and wouldn’t make any sense in a letter. None of the context of the surrounding verses talks about marriage, the context of the surrounding verses is Paul telling the Corinthians that their hearts are closed to him.