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”

Single, Adult Woman Lies on Church Employment Form About Pre-Marital Sex and Sexual Orientation, Says Friend – Letter to Ask Amy Advice Column

Single, Adult Woman Lies on Church Employment Form About Pre-Marital Sex and Sexual Orientation, Says Friend – Letter to Ask Amy Advice Column

I’ll paste in the letter below, and probably Amy’s response. I think Amy dropped the ball on her reply, for the most part.

I’m using this letter not so much as it pertains to homosexuality, but the phenomenon of singles (or anyone, I guess) lying about their sexual habits or pasts, especially in a church context.

When I was growing up, my parents encouraged me to seek a marital partner at church. The thought being that I could meet a decent, kind, stable man at a church and marry the guy.

The problem is (as I’ve detailed on this blog time and again) is that churches attract all sorts of weirdos, perverts, and losers (and liars).

If you are a single Christian woman who insists on meeting a single man at a church, you better be well aware that just because a guy is attending church, works at said church, or says he loves Jesus and is a Christian, does not mean he is a nice guy or is honest. He might be a child rapist, a woman abuser, or have a raging pornography addiction.

The letter below is about a lesbian woman who misrepresented herself (her sexual nature / sexual history) to a church to get hired, contra to  Ask Amy’s spin on it (you can read a copy of this letter here):

  • Dear Amy:
  • I have a huge dilemma. “Jane” and I have been good friends since middle school. I love her like a sister.
  • Recently, Jane accepted a job at a church as the youth director in the town where we attend college. She is good with youth and is very outgoing.
  • However, Jane was not fully truthful when applying for this job.
  • The church asked all applicants to affirm its faith statement and a code of behavior that prohibits premarital sex. Jane signed the code of behavior, indicating that she would not have premarital sex.
  • To further confuse the issue, she told them that she did not have a boyfriend. In truth, Jane does have sex. However, she is a (quiet) lesbian.

Continue reading “Single, Adult Woman Lies on Church Employment Form About Pre-Marital Sex and Sexual Orientation, Says Friend – Letter to Ask Amy Advice Column”

Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

I saw this conversation on twitter earlier today. Someone I follow on Twitter re-tweeted one of the tweets, which is how I saw this.

Other than one of the people who re-tweeted this, I don’t think I know any of the participants in this conversation, or who is involved (not at first glance):

I do follow several left wing persons and news sites on my Twitter account.

I sometimes visit left wing sites that discuss politics, feminism, entertainment, and other subjects, so I am partially aware of some left wing causes, views, and so forth.

However, I don’t keep up with the minutia of it and all the nit picky details of all liberal pet causes. Therefore, I do not completely understand their rationale for some views, or all the jargon they use.

Nor do I think I care to learn it all in-depth, as I only have one life to live and would rather spend it doing things like watching repeats of Zombieland on cable and new episodes of Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives.

Apparently, the woman who started out that thread (named Claire) is a lesbian, if I am understanding things correctly.

Here is one of her tweets (link to tweet):

“Not taking transwomen as sexual partners doesn’t mean lesbians don’t consider TW worthy of respect, safety, kindness, friendship, etc.”

—end quote—

Claire went on to Tweet this in the same thread:

“And it is pressure. This insidious idea that if a lesbian won’t consider sleeping with someone, she must be a bigot, is insidious & coercive”

—end quote—

If I am understanding this correctly, she is saying that some people who support transgenderism are demanding that lesbians should date men who underwent some kind of sex change surgery or what have you to appear to be women (I think these persons are called transwomen? As I said, I don’t care to keep up with all the rhetoric of liberal causes and their terminology.)

I cannot agree with a view that says you should date or marry people with whom you are not the least attracted or that you have moral qualms about.

I covered this topic on a previous post on my blog:

I have never felt very attracted to white guys with red hair. According to liberal logic, however, this somehow means I hate gingers, and they would lecture me and insist I date red headed men, even though I really do not want to.

Now you understand I’m not in favor of people who are overly picky in other regards. Like this guy:

Continue reading “Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)”

FDA: Only Celibate Homosexuals May Donate Blood

FDA: Only Celibate Homosexuals May Donate Blood

This is somewhat funny to me. The FDA has lifted bans on homosexuals donating blood, provided they abstain from homosexual sex for 12 months in a row prior to donating. In other words, they have to practice celibacy.

Now, I find this rather amusing because although I know for a fact that people can damn well go without sex for a lifetime, let alone 12 months, the rest of society – including many conservative Christians, sadly – run about assuming that nobody, no hetero or homosexual, can possibly go without sex, not even for ten minutes in a row.

Why, they teach, people just cannot refrain from sex! Sooner or later everyone is gonna do it, even Christians.

The truth is, everyone is capable of self control and does not have to cave in and have sex – but people choose to have sex.

One troubling aspect of this is that liberals are more concerned about being politically correct than in keeping the blood supply safe.

Some of these liberals even complain about even having a 12 month waiting period in effect (I’ve seen some of them complain about this in some of their blog posts or news articles, such as (Link): this ridiculous page by a Joe Durbin, and this (Link): other ridiculous page at The Daily Beast by Tim Teeman).

(Link):  Blood Donation Ban From Gay Men Ends, Criticism Starts As 1-Year Abstinence Policy Established

(Link):  FDA Keeps Ban on Active Homosexuals Donating Blood

  • by Austin Ruse, December 21, 2015
  • Even though the (Link):  FDA announced this week that homosexuals may give blood, overturning a 30-year-old blanket ban, the government will still not let sexually active homosexuals donate. Any man who identifies as homosexual may only give blood if he stipulates he has not had sexual contact with another man in the previous 12 months.

Continue reading “FDA: Only Celibate Homosexuals May Donate Blood”

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)”

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

✮ From the liberal corner:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

✮ The conservative reaction:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

✮ My reaction:
This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

    Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
    by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

    Unsavoury custom

    … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

    I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

    As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

    … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

    … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

    …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

As to this:

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

Continue reading “The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off”

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

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

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

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

Me? Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

Kirk Cameron (Christian actor): ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than homosexual marriage.

Kirk Cameron (Christian actor): ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than homosexual marriage.

Left wing sites are flipping out because actor Kirk Cameron said (to summarize), “‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than gay marriage.”

Not only are some in shock, but some of the other left wingers are angry that Cameron is discussing the topic at all. They don’t think the guy should have any opinions about sex or publicize them.

Even though Cameron is criticizing other Christians for obsessing about being against homosexual marriage – which should make some of these die hard, liberal yea-hoo’s happy – they are still complaining. You can’t make everyone happy, no matter what you do.

Said one commentator at Huffington Post, “why is Cameron discussing other people’s sex lives, why is he so interested in who other people screw” or something.

Well, genius, it’s because everyone else is, including guys like you.

Liberals, atheists, ex Christians, and emergents claim to be non-judgmental about sex, but they are in fact very judgemental – many of them ridicule abstinence and the idea of staying a virgin until marriage, and those groups never. shut. up. about. sex, even if it’s to sit back and criticize how Christians feel about sex.

It’s on their (ie, liberal, ex-Christian, atheist, liberal Christian) blogs all the time, from how they feel Christians and Republicans are too preoccupied about sexual purity, to when they themselves make every fourth story on their forums and blogs about sex.

And liberals and ex-Christians won’t STFU already about homosexuals, homosexuality, and homosexual marriage.

Cameron is on the right track to aim at the church and call them out for THEIR sexual sin, instead of lambasting a bunch of Non-Christians who are into homosexuality.

If the church starts taking a stronger stance against hetero sexual sin (especially as taking place among self professing Christians), that will make it ten times easier to combat the unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality in churches these days.

(Link): Kirk Cameron: ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than gay marriage

I’ve pretty much been saying the same thing as Cameron there for the last few years on this blog, and I tweeted this to Cameron a few months ago (I have no idea if he saw it):

I’ve also said time and again in previous threads that the Bible does not call Christians to fight secular culture.

I am not against Christians speaking their minds, voting in politicians who are anti- abortion and so on and so forth.

I’m not saying Christians should totally toss in the towel and completely halt writing editorials against homosexuality, homosexual marriage, abortion, and other social issues that are near to their hearts, but maybe dial it back several notches.

I get very annoyed by militant atheists and secularists who pretty much want to force or intimidate Christians into keeping their values and opinions to themselves.

If Christians want to write editorials or books arguing against abortion and homosexuality, or supporting theism and traditional marriage, that is their right.

My problem with Christians on this topic is largely the amount of emphasis.

Continue reading “Kirk Cameron (Christian actor): ‘Fornicators and adulterers’ worse than homosexual marriage.”

Preacher: ‘They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Hot SEX Lives’ – and once more, never-married celibate adults and their experiences, wisdom, and input are ignored

Preacher: They Will Know We Are Christians By Our SEX

Below: link to a video of a preacher saying Non Christians should realize that Christians have better sex than they do, and he seems to think maybe this will persuade the Non Christians to consider the faith.

Hmm. So, if you’re a Christian virgin because you have never married – you know, you’re staying faithful to biblical sexual principles and such – nobody can ever learn anything about Christianity from you. Okay. You big weirdo failure.

Hang your head in shame for making it past 30, 40, or older, and doing what the Bible commands: not having sex because you’re not married.

Pfft, what could YOU possibly know about Christianity, freak?

Non-Christians cannot be jealous of your non-sex! So, Christian singles, get out there and starting porking around so you can make Non-Christians jealous of your awesome sex lives!!

By the way. I don’t get this dude’s strategy. If I were a married lady, I would not necessarily be broadcasting to random Non Christians about my married sex life… that’s a private thing.

I don’t think homosexual Non-Christian couples are going to be persuaded to give the faith a try based upon boastful HETERO Christian couples telling them what smokin’ hot sex lives they have.

The Bible nowhere teaches that Christians are to preach about their sex lives to convert the unsaved, but about Christ and Him crucified for their sins. (It’s so sad that even I know this and a preacher does not, and I have one foot in agnosticism.)

This dude’s teaching also makes the incorrect assumption that most Christians will marry, when the fact is, a ton of us are over age 30 and still single.

It’s a myth that Christians have great sex lives, by the way… see (Link): this post as one example. Or (Link): this one. Or (Link): this one.

Then, of course, you have Christians who are asexual. They have no desire to have sex, and while some want to have companionship, they don’t want to have sex with their partner. I guess they are excluded from representing Christ, too?

What of homosexual celibates, Christians who have S.S.A. who believe the Bible forbids homosexual behavior, so they abstain sexually, how do you think a sermon like this affects them?

What of Christian divorced, widows, and widowers? They should be abstaining sexually to stay true to biblical teachings on sex. I guess they’re up crap creek too in the witnessing department?

Wasn’t Paul the Apostle, who wrote like around 4/5ths of the New Testament a celibate, single adult? How on earth did Paul expect any Non Christians to buy into anything he wrote since he didn’t have hot sex to brag about in his epistles???

‘By their hot sex they shall know you are my followers’? Is that in the New Testament?

No, wait, Jesus said something about, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another,” and the New Testament writer was probably using “agape” for love in the Greek there in that verse, not “eros.”

Oh Jesus, you are so silly! You should have known that SEX SELLS. What were you thinking? Tsk, tsk.

From The Museum of Idolatry blog:

(Link): Idolatry Classic: They Will Know We Are Christians By Our SEX??

      Here is Linn Winters of Cornerstone explaining his dream to the folks in his Church that the world would know we are Christians by how much better our sex is. The name of the sermon series was “Greatest Sex Ever.”

We hate to ask, but how exactly are Christians supposed to demonstrate these superior skills to their unsaved friends?

Truth be told, we never considered sex to be an evangelistic “selling point” until now…

———————
Related posts:

(Link): Duggar pastor to married couples: Have lots of sex or lose your spouse to the ‘sexual revolution’

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

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

(Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy”

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

(Link): Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

(Link): Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by S. Hamaker

(Link): Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

(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): Perverted Christian Married Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

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”

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” (ie, it’s supposedly an impossible feat for any human being to achieve)

The Bible not only demands celibacy from homosexuals, but from un-married HETEROs as well, (or, in the case of married HETEROs, when the married couple is apart, or one is too sick and cannot have sex, etc).

I am over 40, was engaged, have a normal libido, and am still a virgin mainly because I believe the Bible teaches that pre-marital sex is sinful.

It is a fallacy that lifelong celibacy is impossible. It can be difficult at times, but not impossible, nor is it necessarily a cruel teaching, as both secular Non Christians and some Christians continually maintain. A human being can live without sex; sex is not a necessity.

This actually proves a point I’ve raised before on the blog. And here it is:
So many hetero Christians, when they write of sex and celibacy, assume that lifelong celibacy is a special superpower that only a few tiny amount of people are capable of (because God supposedly grants them the ability, or removes their sex drive).

When the fact is, God does not gift of choose anyone to be single and celibate, nor give them a special grace, gift, or power to abstain.

Remaining celibate all comes down to WILL POWER, SELF DISCIPLINE, and SELF CONTROL, and it is something anyone and everyone can accomplish. *(As to the role of “personal conviction” please see the note at the conclusion of this post)

With some celibate adults, particularly Christians, there may be other factors at play that aid them in abstaining, such as wishing to avoid contracting a sexually transmitted disease, being obedient to Jesus Christ out of love and devotion, etc.

There is no magical solution that keeps me celibate this long.

The problem is, most people are selfish, lazy, and undisciplined. They get horny, cave in, and have sex.

This comes from an article at Slate:
(Link): The Collapse of Anti-Gay Religion

Excerpts:

    By William Saletan

….For 15 years, the Ethics and Public Policy Center has hosted the Faith Angle Forum, a regular conference on religion and public life. Several weeks ago, the group met again to discuss current issues. Transcripts of the conference have just been posted on EPPC’s website. They underscore the extent of the anti-gay collapse.

…. During the Q-and-A, Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, a former senior aide to President George W. Bush, raised his hand to ask about “the idea of strong genetic predisposition” to homosexuality. This belief, he testified,

      is changing the way not just liberal Christians, but conservative Christians think about this issue, particularly homosexuality.

If there’s a strong genetic disposition, then you have a situation with an expectation—pastoral expectation—of lifelong celibacy, which is a heroic ethical standard that’s not applied to heterosexuals.

    That seems unfair according to Christian ethical principles.

Yes, lifelong celibacy most certainly is applied to heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals get the same exact Bible as the Homosexuals, and that Bible says sex outside of marriage, with marriage being understood as one man, one woman, is a sin.
____________________________________
* RE PERSONAL CONVICTION and Sexual Behavior

(*A brief word about convictions:
personal conviction, in regards to sex, without self control, self discipline, will power means nothing, no matter how strongly held your conviction is.
You can be personally and deeply convicted all day long that pre-marital sex is immoral, but if you lack self control, will power, and self discipline to not engage in said behavior, you will cave in and commit fornication. Personal conviction alone does didley squat when it comes to sexual sin.)
—————————
Related posts this blog:

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

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

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

(Link): Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

(Link):  Newlyweds Forced to Be Celibate After Bride Diagnosed With Cervical Cancer Just Days After Honeymoon

(Link): Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate

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

(Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Christian Author Dan Navin

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

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

(Link): Christian World Vision Charity Okay and Dandy With Homosexual Marriage But Not Okay With Singles Fornicating

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

(Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

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

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

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

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

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

(Link): Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Homophobe (editorial by a homosexual man)

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”

Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

I forget exactly where I first saw this on Twitter, but here it is:
(Link): Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

I don’t like to post solely about homosexuality on my blog. Some of the only times I blog about the topic is how it reflects upon, or intersects with, issues pertaining to hetero celibacy, or how Christians today are dealing with discussing sexual sin.

As I’ve pointed out previously on this blog the last couple years, the vast majority of Christians – not just Non-Christians, but conservative Christians now – are now attacking sexual purity, celibacy, and virginity.

Some of them do this on the basis that teaching about those topics causes fornicators, that is, those who willingly had sex before marriage, to feel guilty, offended, or ashamed.

This page by Idleman points out that some of the same strategies being used to excuse or downplay heterosexual sex sins are also being used to excuse, condone, or downplay homosexual sexual sins.

Here are some excerpts:

    Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

    Dan Haseltine (singer for Jars of Clay) used Twitter recently to support gay-marriage; stating,

    “Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong. I don’t think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality.”

Many say that we cannot take a position on homosexuality because all positions will hurt someone.

Here’s my question: “Are those who defend homosexuality, or who say nothing, truly loving the homosexual, or are they simply seeking to avoid conflict?” If they are more worried about being liked than being truthful, do they really care for homosexuals more than the person who is willing to risk their reputation, and quite possibly their safety, in order to speak the truth in love?

Continue reading “Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy”

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

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

Hat tip to radio host Janet Mefferd (I first saw this link tweeted by her earlier today).

(Link): Southern Baptists open to reaching out to LGBT community

    Leaders at the Southern Baptist Convention are slowly appearing to embrace the idea of a new conversation on gay rights.

    The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, an entity of the SBC, met this week in Nashville for its first-ever conference on sexuality. The gathering brought together more than 200 pastors and religious leaders to discuss “sexual brokenness,” in addition to divorce and pornography.

    Homosexuality dominated the 3-day meeting, with some pastors pushing colleagues for a new tone on reaching out to the LGBT community. “I just think we have to reject redneck theology in all of its forms,” Pastor Jimmy Scroggins told the group Monday night. “Let’s stop telling Adam and Steve jokes.”

Oh, okay, they’re open “to reaching LGBT,” and we all know they expect married women to “graciously submit” to their husbands, they are discussing divorce, and even their (Link): new site about biblical womanhood is mostly about married mothers, but I guess never-married, celibate / childless women past the age of 30 can go take a hike.

I don’t have much more to say about any of this here, just please see my previous posts:

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

(Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

(Link): Southern Baptists – Still Majoring in the Minors and ignoring the never married (singles) – Why Church Membership is Down

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

(Link): Southern Baptists Perpetuate Myths About Genders, Sex, and Adult Singles at 2014 ERLC Summit – All Women Are harlots, men cannot control themselves

(Link): Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists
—————————————-
Related links this blog:

(Link): What Churches Should Do for Singles by T. Campolo

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

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

(Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

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

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

(Link): Christian World Vision Charity Okay and Dandy With Homosexual Marriage But Not Okay With Singles Fornicating

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

(Link): Are Christian Singles The New Second Class Christian? by Duke Taber

(Link): Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by S. Hamaker

(Link): Isn’t It Time the Church Gave Singles a Break? (editorial from another blog)

(Link): How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both – [both = marriage, having kids] (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)

Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God – (which in effect leading to: ) Teaches Single / Unmarried Do Not Reflect God That Singles Are Sub Human or Only One Half A Person / This Is An Anti Singles View and Is Unbiblical

Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God

If you are a Christian who is opposed to homosexual marriage, I understand trying to come up with apologetics to defend traditional (hetero) marriage, but it should not be done at the expense of un-married, celibate adulthood, which is what some Christians do.

Here is another example of that situation (though, and I’m sorry if I offend any Roman Catholic readers, I don’t usually view Popes as being actual Christians, unless it is known that they believe in sola fide and accepted Christ on those grounds (see my previous post, under “Mistake 3”)).

Considering that Paul said it is better to stay single than to marry (see this link), and that, if I remember rightly, nowhere does the Bible state that it takes a man married to a woman to reflect God’s image, I contend that Pope Francis is incorrect.

(Link): POPE FRANCIS: ‘THE IMAGE OF GOD IS THE MARRIED COUPLE: THE MAN AND THE WOMAN’

    By Michael W. Chapman

    CNSNews.com – Although the national gay magazine The Advocate named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” in December 2013, the Pope repeated on Apr. 2 the Catholic Church’s teaching that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, adding that this is part of “God’s design” and that “the image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman ….”

    During his General Audience speech at St. Peter’s Square on Apr. 2, before a crowd estimated at 45,000, Pope Francis first cited Genesis, saying, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. … Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

    “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together,” said the Pope. “God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful.”

    “When a man and a woman celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony, God as it were ‘is mirrored’ in them; He impresses in them his own features and the indelible character of his love,” said Pope Francis. “Marriage is the icon of God’s love for us.”

    He continued, “Indeed, God is communion too: the three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit live eternally in perfect unity. And this is precisely the mystery of matrimony: God makes of the two spouses one single life. The Bible uses a powerful expression and says ‘one flesh,’ so intimate is the union between man and woman in marriage. And this is precisely the mystery of marriage: the love of God which is reflected in the couple that decides to live together.”

Pope Francis is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

(Link): Pope Francis calls traditional marriage an icon of God’s love

(Link): Pope Francis Says Marriage Between Man And Woman As Icon Of God’s Love
——————–
Related posts:

(Link): Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy – evangelicals, Southern Baptists and other Christians are teaching that an unmarried woman or unmarried man is not fully human, does not fully reflect God

(Link): ‘God’s Purpose for Women,’ by Matthew Hagee – Hagee Teaches that Single Unmarried Women Do Not Have a Purpose in Life God has no purpose for singles

(Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors

(Link): Divorced From My Husband, and My Faith by Tova Mirvis – Also: Why It May Be Wiser For Women to Enter First Marriage At Age 40+

(Link): Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists

(Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Roman Catholic meetings focus concern on marriage, family – also, remarriage and divorce

(Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Bias / Prejudice – Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview)

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host (Pat Robertson) Says

(Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

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”

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

Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

The over-riding point I wanted to make in my post from yesterday, but I do not think I was clear enough about it (I was half asleep when I wrote the last blog page) is that Christians speak out of both sides of their mouth on the sexual sins front, but then, ironically, have the nerve to complain about sexual sins.

On the one hand, a lot of American, socially conservative Christians complain, whine, and cry about the high rates of fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex and homosexual marriage in American culture, but then turn around and downplay, ridicule, or water down the Bible’s teachings about sexual purity, virginity, and celibacy in their blogs, magazines, sermons, television appearances, and pod casts.

If you want to know one reason homosexuality has taken off or received an embrace among evangelicals to the degree it has, and why there is more fornication now, even among Christians, it’s because the church does not esteem, defend, and respect adult singleness, virginity, and celibacy.

Good lord knows churches either insult adult singles or refuse to help them, something I’ve written of before in several posts, including this one:

Ignoring adult singles and their needs, a respectable amount of whom are staying celibate, or insulting adult singles, and treating them like second class citizens, acting as though singleness and celibacy are not as good and worthy as marriage, or acting as though adult singles are failures (and many married Christians do in fact behave in these ways or adhere to these stereotypes), is contributing to the rise of sexual sin in the church.

Even socially conservative Christians have taken it upon themselves within the last several years to be influenced by emergents, liberal Christians, and post-evangelicals to water-down virginity and celibacy, if not ceasing to preach about the worth of both altogether.

These groups – no longer the post-evangelicals and liberal Christians only, but also the conservatives now – are attempting to re-define terms and words, as well.

Some want to do away with the word “fornication,” for example, because they feel it is too old-fashioned or too judgmental.

Starting around ten years ago, I started hearing Christians on Christian talk shows use phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” which are phrases that are applied to Christians who have committed sexual sin, to make them feel less guilty about having sexual failings.

I do believe that the terms “sexual purity” and “virginity” are inter-changable, but I am seeing more and more Christians try to divide the two, by explaining that sexual purity is not tantamount to virginity – and I disagree.

That is not to say that a fornicator cannot cease having pre-marital sex, because a fornicator can make a change and stop fornicating. That is true.

But, it is also true that virginity is a form of sexual purity. But more and more Christians today are denying that “virginity = sexual purity,” because a lot of self professing Christians have failed to keep their virginity intact until marriage.

It’s so strange to me, and an abject travesty, that Christians are seeking to change biblical teachings, to move the goal posts on what constitutes acceptable and un-acceptable behavior, all based upon people’s failings, sins, and feelings.

It seems to me that robbery is on the increase in the last several years.

Why are we not seeing these same Christians, who are so willing to pardon sexual sin and downplay celibacy – saying things like,

    “Let’s not refer to robbery as “stealing” anymore, let’s call it by a euphemism, so as not to hurt the feelings of bank robbers. Let’s stop sermonizing against theft, because if we keep insisting the God of the Bible is opposed to theft, it might hurt the feelings of all the kleptomaniacs out there. Let’s not positively teach about, or encourage, honesty and holding down an honest day’s labor at a 9- to- 5 job.”

Why would you re-define standards and rules, all to spare the feelings of people who fail to keep those rules and standards, who do not even attempt to keep the rules?

If a person keeps failing at something (as in sexual abstinence), rather than encourage that person to buck up and improve, the majority of the Christian culture very oddly has decided a winning strategy is to go the opposite direction, which is quite un-biblical, and say, “hey, we get it – you cannot help but fail in this area, so don’t even try. Just give up, cave in, and later call yourself a ‘born again virgin.'”

FFS, Christian people. You cannot sit there and say virginity, sexual purity, and celibacy are really not all that important, as is your habit, and tell people you expect them to fail at biblical sexual ethics, then turn around and complain that homosexual and hetero fornication rates are sky rocketing.

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

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

Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

This is one of those pieces that seems to seek, at least on some level, to affirm virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity, but in the end scheme of things, somewhat undermines all of it to say Christians need to soften their stance on all these issues, because, gosh durn it, don’t you know that some women (who have engaged in consensual pre-marital sex) get really hurt feelings when they hear that the Bible condemns sexual sin, and such teachings makes them doubt their self-worth?

Sexual abuse victims are also tossed into the mix, which is one of my huge pet peeves in these discussions about sexual purity and virginity.

Folks need to keep these issues separate.

Bringing up rape and sexual abuse in conversations about the Bible’s standards on consensual sexual activities unnecessarily muddies the waters, and has the effect of Christians saying,

    “These purity and virginity discussions make abuse and rape victims feel just awful, so let’s just water the Bible’s sexual standards down, and even pretend like the Bible does not demand that all people remain virgins until marriage. This will spare the feelings of so many sexual abuse victims.”

The Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics in regards to consensual sex become negated, in other words.

It’s really kind-hearted, nice, and considerate to care about people’s feelings, but to the point where one’s sense of compassion and kindness over-rides definite standards of right and wrong as laid out in the Bible, and to say, “Aw shucks, let’s just explain away or ignore the Bible’s teachings on ‘Topic X!’,” to spare that person’s feelings, no. At that stage, I think you have tip-toed over into heresy.

Notice, too, that even in the headline that the notion of even defending the Bible’s view on sexuality is termed in a derogatory manner: if you are someone who defends the Bible’s position on sex, you are referred to as a “purity pusher.”

Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position”

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”