The False Teachings Regarding Celibacy from City Church of San Francisco

The False Teachings Regarding Celibacy from City Church of San Francisco

Here we go again. I’ve seen this issue come up before with other Christians, other churches, who hold all sorts of falsehoods about celibacy.  I will be offering comments and criticisms of the views presented in this letter from a San Francisco Church – a link, with excerpts from the page, is below.

The Bible teaches that abstaining from sexual behavior is for all single persons, regardless if they are hetero, bi-sexual, or homosexual, or of some other orientation.

Furthermore, the Bible does (Link): not teach that God “gifts” people with celibacy or that only some, only a few, will be celibate, or that (Link): life long celibacy is an heroic feat possible for only a minority.

Review a bit of my life story: I am over the age of 45, a hetero-sexual woman who long desired marriage, marriage did not happen for me (and it may never), yet I am a virgin, but God did not remove my sexual desire. I still have a desire for marriage, and also a libido.

If I can remain celibate this long, and I have in fact done so, there is no reason for this San Francisco church to imply it is cruel, impossible, or unrealistic for LGBT persons to remain celibate over a life time.

While being celibate over a lifetime is not always easy, it is in fact possible.

Remaining celibate for a long time comes down to self-control and choice, not some magical rare gifting where-in God only zaps a few people with celibacy and removes a sexual drive. The Bible says all believers in Christ (Link): have self-control but churches such as this one operates under the assumption that this is not so.

(Link): A Letter from the Elder Board of San Francisco

Excerpts:

A Letter From The Elder Board

…..WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW?

1. God is bringing LGBT Christians through the doors of City Church.
As you read this perhaps you, your friend, or family member are one of them. They desire to follow Jesus, and are eager to live faithfully to the gospel and desire spiritual growth. Some have been living celibate lives and want to know if we can talk out loud about this.
Others report they have become Christians at City Church. Some report that while they were raised in the church, they left it, but have returned and experienced great renewal.
And many hope for a life long partnership one day that will fulfill their basic human need of belonging, companionship, and intimacy.
Others are already married or partnered and know this is a safe place for them to grow in their relationship.

2. Our pastoral practice of demanding life-long “celibacy”, by which we meant that for the rest of your life you would not engage your sexual orientation in any way, was causing obvious harm and has not led to human flourishing.
(It’s unfortunate that we used the word “celibacy” to describe a demand placed on others, as in Scripture it is, according to both Jesus and Paul, a special gift or calling by God, not an option for everyone). In fact, over the years, the stories of harm caused by this pastoral practice began to accumulate.
Our pastoral conversations and social science research indicate skyrocketing rates of depression, suicide, and addiction among those who identify as LGBT. The generally unintended consequence has been to leave many people feeling deeply damaged, distorted, unlovable, unacceptable, and perverted. Imagine feeling this from your family or religious community:
“If you stay, you must accept celibacy with no hope that you too might one day enjoy the fullness of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical companionship. If you pursue a lifelong partnership, you are rejected.” This is simply not working and people are being hurt. We must listen and respond.

3. We feel a growing sense that this counsel is not necessarily the way of the gospel.
While members of the LGBT community have always been welcome at City Church, we prevented people from joining our church if they were unwilling or unable to practice lifelong celibacy. ….

..SUMMARY: WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED HERE?

…On the other hand, we want to be clear what this now means. We will no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation and demand lifelong celibacy as a precondition for joining. For all members, regardless of sexual orientation, we will continue to expect chastity in singleness until marriage.

/// end excerpts from City Church web page

If your church position is that any and all sexual behavior is fine and peachy, so long as the person is married, AND you’re arguing you are now hunky dory with homosexuality, that would mean, I take it, that you are saying  you are fine with LGBT marriage, and are saying LGBT persons may have same-sex relations so long as they are married to their same-sex partner?

And what if marriage never happens?

I’ll tell you what happens and what should happen:

The person has to remain celibate, if they claim to be a Christian who wants to respect God, God’s morals, and what the Bible has to say about it.

Look, guys at San Fran church, I would dearly love to marry, but no “Mr. Right” is materializing on my front door step.

I may never marry.

If I were still completely a Christian (I am quasi agnostic currently), I’d have to sexually abstain. And I am HETERO. You should expect no less from LGBT persons.

In my time blogging or Tweeting about being a hetero celibate, I have heard from other other HETERO celibates, some in their 40s, 50s, and older, all of them to date have been Christians, I believe.

These heterosexuals are still abstaining – many of them wanted to marry, but they never met the right person, so they remain single.

Please stop acting as though life long, or decades-long, celibacy is so very difficult that it’s this impossible standard nobody can achieve, so you drop it as a biblical sexual ethic.

Just because something is difficult does not mean it stops being right or possible.

Just because it seems that everyone else is doing something (i.e., sex outside of marriage) does not mean you should just say, “Aw, screw it, nobody is living this celibacy stuff out any more, let’s just drop this expectation!”

Where does the Bible say to base morality on popularity or on how many people are doing or not doing something?

If everyone began robbing banks tomorrow, would your church start saying,

“We no longer demand our members to be honest, and work for a living to pay their bills, but it’s okay if they rob banks.”

If you wouldn’t slack off on other biblical mores such as stealing and robbing, why would you do so in the area of sexuality? Why is sexuality an exception here?

Due to liberal political correctness, is that it? That’s not a solid reason, either.

I have to laugh at all the liberal Christian and ex-Christian accounts, blogs, and groups I follow on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere, who keep arguing that Christians have turned virginity (or celibacy) into idols – oh no they don’t. This post serves as another example of that.

Christians are ditching and dumping celibacy and virginity teachings faster than you can blink and eye.

There is no so-called Christian “idolizing of virginity” going on, as liberal and ex Christians proclaim – spare me.

Christians should be among the forefront of society defending sexual abstinence, but here they are, acquiescing to culture. Or they (Link): don’t want people to be angry with them, nor do they be perceived as “mean”

They are fine with fudging on biblical ethics in the process.

I have to say, every time I see these types of web pages – such as the one published by this San Francisco church – all I can think is that they are robbing some Christian celibates of a motivation to continue sexually abstaining, since they continue to chip away at a basis or rationale for anyone to remain a virgin or celibate.

Churches like this one are sapping hetero celibates of the the strength to keep going and holding on. Churches such as “City Church” are supporting LGBT persons at the expense of hetero celibate adults – enough of that! They should knock that off.


By the way (and I’ve already tweeted them a link to this blog post)…

the (Link): San Fran City Church Twitter account

@CityChurchSF


Related Posts:

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

(Link):   False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): “God’s gifting of singleness is rare” – More Accurate: God calls only a few to marriage -and- God gifts only the rare the exceptions the few with the gift of Marriage

(Link):  Self Control – everyone has it, is capable of it, but most choose not to use it

(Link): The Gift of Singleness – A Mistranslation and a Poorly Used Cliche’

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

(Link): Singleness Is Not a Gift

(Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One

(Link):  The Myth of the Gift – Re Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

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

(Link): Theology of Convenience, Expediency, and Borne of Culture – Christian Preachers and Writers Diminishing Seriousness of Sexual Sin

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

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

(Link): No, Christians Do NOT Support or Idolize Virginity and Celibacy, they attack both)

(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): 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): 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)

(Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?

Advertisements

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”

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

Mother and Daughter Arrested for Alleged Incestuous Marriage, Woman Previously Married Son

Mother and Daughter Arrested for Alleged Incestuous Marriage, Woman Previously Married Son

Many Christians (especially the conservative ones who are totally consumed by culture wars and marriage idolatry) like to insist it is necessary for a person to marry and have children, because supposedly, being married and a parent bestows character, godliness, and responsibility to a person.

Clearly, this is not the case, when we see news stories like this one, of a biological mother involved in an incestuous relationship with her daughter.

(Link):   Oklahoma Mother Charged with Incest Allegedly ‘Looked Into’ Laws Before Marrying Daughter

(Link): Incest charges for Oklahoma mother and biological daughter

(Link):  Oklahoma woman and daughter arrested for incestuous marriage 

Puke
Puke

(Link):  Mother who married daughter faces jail for incest… 8 years after she married her son

Patricia Spann, 43, married 25-year-old Misty Spann in March 2016 in Comanche County. Six years previously, she had annulled her previous marriage – to her son Jody.

In August this year, Patricia and Misty’s relationship was discovered by the Department of Human Services during a child welfare investigation. Under state law, the marriage of close relatives is considered incestuous whether or not they also have a sexual relationship.

Continue reading “Mother and Daughter Arrested for Alleged Incestuous Marriage, Woman Previously Married Son”

Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller

Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller

I am right wing, somewhat Christian, and believe that many Christians and secular conservatives have made the nuclear family and marriage into idols, which is wrong.

I am not opposed out-right to the traditional family, marriage, or to motherhood, and so forth, in and of themselves, but I am in disagreement at how so many right wingers and Christians elevate all those things to the point that they end up marginalizing anyone who does not fit the mould of “married with children.”

Anyone who is infertile, child free, divorced, never married, widowed, and what have you, is excluded or treated shabbily by the majority of “family values” obsessed right wingers and Christians, which again, in my view, is terribly wrong and unfair.

Here is an article explaining how and why the religious right elevated “the family” in their rhetoric:

(Link): Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why Religious Liberty has Replaced It) by E C Miller

Excerpts:

  • From about 1970 until about 2000, American politics was largely driven by concern about the nuclear family. As established social hierarchies came under fire from the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, second-wave feminism, and others, conservative advocacy groups and their political allies demanded a return to the idealized family of the past. “Family values” became the rallying cry of a countermovement bent on holding the traditional line.
  • Seth Dowland is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University. His book, Family Values and the Rise of the Christian Right, charts the influence of Christian “family values” advocacy across three decades and a variety of issues.
  • RD’s Eric C. Miller spoke with Dowland about the project, the politics, and the significance of family in the United States.
  • You introduce “family values” as the key term of the Christian Right in the late twentieth-century United States. Why was this term so influential for this group in this place and time? 
  • Many of the political reforms enacted from the 1930s through the 1960s—particularly the expansion of the welfare state and the passage of civil rights legislation—attempted to expand equal rights to all people.
  • Political liberals celebrated these developments, while conservatives looked around the nation at the beginning of the 1970s and saw economic stagnation, riots, sexual revolution, a decline in patriotism, and an increase in crime and drug use. Ministers and political conservatives argued that America was in decline. They believed that decline happened because of the demise of the “traditional family.”

Continue reading “Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) Politics and Liberal Vs Conservative Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, Justice Kennedy: You don’t need to shame singles to uphold marriage by L. Bonos

Hey, Justice Kennedy: You don’t need to shame singles to uphold marriage by L. Bonos

The following secular editorial responding to the recent SCOTUS decision in favor of homosexual marriage (which I don’t agree with), is the same situation that occurs among conservative Christians in regards to heterosexual marriage and singleness.

Even putting homosexual marriage aside, a lot of conservative Christians get upset by things like the high rate of divorce among heterosexuals, and they lament that heteros are not marrying anymore or not until later in life.

Therefore, you will find these incredibly rude and obnoxious blog posts, radio commentary, or magazine articles by Christians who seek to defend and encourage marriage by insulting singleness. (I would encourage you to scroll down to the bottom of this post, under the “Related Posts” section to see links to examples of that.)

There are Christians, preachers, and churches who think they can make singleness sound so horrible that they can scare singles into getting married.

Part of the problem with this odious approach is that it misses the problem – a lot of people would like to get married, they are simply unable to find the right partner. Such singles are not “anti marriage.” They want to get married but cannot.

Then you have Christians, preachers, and churches who think the way to encourage singles to marry is to say all manner of disrespectful, awful, or fear-provoking things about singleness, and to repeat bogus studies (which have been refuted by Bella DePaulo – see (Link): this page (off site link) for but one example; she has many other pages debunking anti-singleness studies ) stating that singles get sick more often, are unhappier than, or die sooner than their married counter parts.

There is really no need to defend or build up marriage by slighting singleness. For a Christian to do so is even more insulting, since the Bible fully supports singleness (see 1 Corinthians 7), and Jesus Christ never married and never had children.

Regarding the discussion below about singles being lonely: some singles are. I find myself lonely at times. However, I was also in a long term serious relationship years ago for several years, and I was lonely while IN that relationship. There were times I sat in the same room as my fiance’ and felt all alone anyway.

So, being in a relationship is not going to make loneliness totally disappear. There are a lot of boyfriends or husbands who emotionally neglect their sweethearts, which leaves those women feeling lonely.

It’s not necessary to defend marriage by insulting singleness.

(Link): Hey, Justice Kennedy: You don’t need to shame singles to uphold marriage by L. Bonos

  • You’ve probably read the (Link): last paragraph of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion holding that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. It’s a beautiful description of the love and companionship that can be found in a happy, thriving marriage. It also contains a sentence that insults unmarried Americans ( (Link): about 44 percent of U.S. adults [update by Christian Pundit: the figure, as of 2014, is actually (Link): about 51%]]) of all sexual orientations.
  • [Kennedy’s comment]:
  • “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.” This plus another line, about midway through Kennedy’s opinion, casts the unmarried as lonely: “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”
  • …Yes, loneliness is a universal fear, but marriage isn’t the only cure — nor is it always a cure. If it were, (Link): the divorce rate would be a lot closer to zero.
  • The word “lonely” isn’t what’s so hurtful in here. Everyone — married or single, gay or straight, celibate or the opposite — has pangs of loneliness. The offensive part is that it casts marriage as a full life and singles’ lives as doomed to sadness.

Continue reading “Hey, Justice Kennedy: You don’t need to shame singles to uphold marriage by L. Bonos”

Self Control – everyone has it, is capable of it, but most choose not to use it (New Study Says Conservatives Have Better Self Control Than Liberals)

Self Control – everyone has it, is capable of it, but most choose not to use it

There was a Tom Hanks movie where he played a guy whose plane crashes, and he ends up alone on an island for a year or more. I think it was called “Cast Away.” His only “friend” is a volleyball who washes ashore from the same plane crash. He names the ball “Wilson.”

Hank’s character was by himself on this island for a year, or maybe longer, with only Wilson the volleyball for company. There were no women for him to have sex with. There was nobody there. And yet, Hanks (his character) made it just fine without sex for a year.

If you were to end up on a desert island by yourself for a year or more, you would have no choice but to go without sex with another person.

There are military couples where one gets deployed and serves overseas for a year or longer, and neither spouse cheats. They remain celibate for a year or more.

In spite of there being plenty of examples demonstrating that even people who have normal sexual desires can go without sex, people who are left of center politically, morally, and theologically continue to insist it is impossible for anyone to go without sex for more than a few months, let alone a year or decades.

I ran into a few such Christians on another site awhile back.

When I pointed out to them, again, for the 100th time I’ve visited their site that I’m a virgin past my 40s, one who has a normal sex drive, they still retort with, “But that’s just you! Not everyone can do that!”

And they both claim to be Christ followers – the same Christ who teaches in the Bible that sex is for hetero married couples only, not for adult singles.

One of these Christians shot back, “But Paul said if you burn with lust, you should marry.”

I replied, “Why yes, but that does not negate that the same New Testament which makes that statement also says that self-control is a trait believers possess. Further, I burn with lust and desire but am single and currently unable to find a husband. Are you therefore basically telling me to cave in and have pre-marital sex?”

Both Christians remained silent on that question. Neither one had a response. They want to keep pushing the “virginity and celibacy is impossible for all but a few people” outlook.

Continue reading “Self Control – everyone has it, is capable of it, but most choose not to use it (New Study Says Conservatives Have Better Self Control Than Liberals)”

Christians Consumed With Ranting Against Homosexual Marriage or Homosexuality But Continually Turn Blind Eye to Hetero Sins – Franklin Graham Boycotts Pro Homosexuality Businesses

Christians Consumed With Ranting Against Homosexual Marriage or Homosexuality But Continually Turn Blind Eye to Hetero Sins of Sexual Nature

I don’t support homosexual behavior. I am hetero. I have traditional morals. I am sympathetic to conservative Christian concerns on some subjects.

However, I am angered and perplexed by the never-ending fixation by conservative Christians to crusade against homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage, yet they seldom address the large amount of sexual sin going on among HETERO Christians.

I have done blog post after blog post linking to articles about unmarried Christians (conservatives no less) who are engaging in pre-marital sex, preachers who admit to having porn addictions, married Christian men who are having affairs on their wives. Where is the conservative Christian outcry against all these sins?

At the same time there is seldom criticism of hetero sin by Christians, there is no support for Christian singles who remain celibate.

The fixation by evangelicals and Baptists seems to be upon homosexuals, homosexuality, and homosexual marriage.

Here is yet another (and recent) example.

(Link):   WHOOPS: Franklin Graham’s New Bank Is LGBT-Friendly, Too

  • Evangelist Franklin Graham may want to look a little more closely at the financial institutions he patronizes.
  • Graham, who is president and CEO of his father’s Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, announced last week that the group would no longer use Wells Fargo because the bank had run an ad featuring a lesbian couple. He also urged Christians to boycott other LGBT-friendly companies.
  • But Graham failed to take his own advice, choosing a new bank that’s also supportive of LGBT causes.

Continue reading “Christians Consumed With Ranting Against Homosexual Marriage or Homosexuality But Continually Turn Blind Eye to Hetero Sins – Franklin Graham Boycotts Pro Homosexuality Businesses”

Hetero Couple Forced to Divorce Because They Say Homosexuals Are Ruining Their Marriage

Hetero Couple Forced to Divorce Because They Say Homosexuals Are Ruining Their Marriage

This follow story actually reminds me of a few posts I’ve done on my own blog before.

My (Link): one-time stalker, John Morgan, makes a similar argument as this couple does in the story below.

That somehow, if government permits the legalization of homosexual marriage, it some how tarnishes or invalidates hetero marriage, and, ergo, Christians should not look to government to legitimize their unions (a view that I think is rather ridiculous).

I think I wrote about that (Link): here.

I don’t agree with homosexual behavior and am somewhat opposed to homosexual marriage in theory but also rather indifferent about it in actual practice – but – I think it’s a very odd ball view to say that homosexual marriage invalidates hetero marriages.

I also saw the same attitude from a patriarchal Christian couple who taught that even if you are a hetero married couple that if you live in a state that permits homo marriage, it makes your marriage invalid.I posted about it here:

Here is the new story:

(Link): Couple Forced to Divorce Because Gays Are Ruining Their Marriage

Excerpt (this is from a left wing rag that is hostile to Christianity and traditional morals, so I don’t agree with all their views on every topic):

    • by Mark Shrayber
    • Well, the rumors are true: Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of straight marriage.

    • Need proof? Meet an Australian couple who are threatening to divorce if gays get the right to marry.

    • Nick and Sarah Jensen believe that once those heathen gays can vow everlasting love to each other (and get equal rights), their own marriage becomes null, void and useless in the eyes of God—and thus, their own selves.
    • The Jensens appeared on (Link): the cover of the Canberra CityNews recently to make their very important proclamation: If the current climate of same-sex acceptance continues to grow in Australia and the federal parliament changes the official definition of the institution, the couple will be forced to divorce.
    • Forced! Why? No one knows. It makes very little sense.
    • Here’s what Nick Jensen (who is the leader of a prominent anti-gay group, (Link): something The Advocate reveals the CityNews failed to disclose) had to say about the couple’s decision:

      “Why do this?” Jensen rhetorically asked the question many readers are likely wondering. “The reason is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention,” he answered in the OpEd, later adding that “This is what we have to do as Christians who believe in a Biblical definition of marriage, that we can’t see that definition change in a way that no longer reflects God’s truth.”

  • In case you were worried about how the Jensens’ decision will affect their relationship and their children, the couple has stated that they will divorce legally but not emotionally.
  • So while they’ll happily pull the stunt of getting divorced and blaming homosexuals for their choice (I did not know we had that kind of realultimatepower.net, but apparently we do), they’ll continue living together, loving together, and raising their children together. They’ll also still call each other husband and wife. The only difference is that they’ll do so as single people who have decided to pull a publicity stunt.

————————-

Related Posts:

(Link):  Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

(Link): Kook Christian Groups/Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on ProCreation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

According to Some Christians, Russell Moore Drops Ball on how Christians Should Respond to Homosexual Marriage

According to Some Christians, Russell Moore Drops Ball on how Christians Should Respond to Homosexual Marriage

From the description of Hour 1 of Janet Mefferd’s radio program (LINK):

  • And Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has come under fire for saying government employees who have religious objections to so-called same-sex marriage should resign, rather than stand against an unjust law imposed upon their states. But is that even the right American response, based upon our history and constitutional framework? Paul Blair, chairman of Reclaiming America for Christ, has written an open-letter response to Moore and joins Janet to offer his thoughts.

(Link): Southern Baptist ethicist says Alabama judges must uphold gay marriage law or resign

  • by W Hall
  • NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Christian Examiner) — The head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm says Alabama judges who in good conscience cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, should resign instead of fighting the law while in office.
  • Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and no relation to Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, was (Link): quoted in the Baptist Press, the SBC’s official news service, as being in conflict with approximately 44 of 67 Alabama probate judges who have refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. These jurists are acting in defiance of an order by U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade who invalidated an Alabama constitutional amendment, passed by 81 percent of voters, defining marriage in the state as only between one man and one woman.
  • ….RUSSELL MOORE
  • Russell Moore, a national official charged with representing Southern Baptists’ beliefs with regard to culture and public policy, told Baptist Press any judge who “could not discharge the duties of his office required by law” because of objections of conscience “would need to resign and protest it as a citizen.”

    He said that there is a role for civil disobedience, but not for “judges and state Supreme Court justices … in their roles as agents of the state.”

  • …BIBLICAL GUIDANCE
  • Russell Moore cited familiar biblical passages to justify his position that Chief Justice Roy Moore and the defiant probate judges are wrong.

    “As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land,” Russell Moore wrote, according to Baptist Press.

    “Religious freedom and conscience objections must be balanced with a state’s obligation to discharge the law,” the Southern Baptists’ ethicist said.

  • …OTHER VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE
  • Others have a different take than Russell Moore on the biblical responsibilities of Christian judges facing objections of conscience.

    Southern Baptist Rick Burgess, an overwhelmingly popular Christian radio personality throughout the South and an Alabama native, sent a strongly worded tweet to encourage probate judges who “claim to follow Christ” to “make a stand and refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses.”

If you will recall, homosexuality is not a topic I care to discuss at my blog. I only bring it up sometimes if it intersects with heterosexual celibacy and singleness or something of that nature.

Russell Moore is a well known putz and leader of SBC’s ethics group. He has, in the past, screwed the pooch on hetero virginity.

Now it appears he is being criticized by some evangelicals for how he feels Christians should handle homosexual marriage.

Given that Moore is a doofus putz concerning hetero sexual sin and purity, don’t be surprised that (from the standard evangelical view) he’s mis-handling homosexuality as well.

Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan

Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan 

I actually already addressed this briefly in an older post from a few days ago, but I really feel this needs its own post.

That guy who used to post to this blog, who has his own blog about Christianity and celibacy (his name is John Morgan, and he blogs (Link): here), who I banned from my blog several months ago, keeps asserting in some of his recent blog posts that two people having sex (which he limits to a man having sex with a woman, if I am understanding his views correctly) constitutes marriage.

Here are some of the posts where he equates having sex to being married:

I disagree, for a few different reasons, but right off I want to say that this teaching can be damaging to sexual assault victims.

Do you really expect me to believe that a woman who is raped by a man makes the two married, and particularly in our day and age?

We are living in the year 2015 in the United States.

We are not living in the same setting and time in which the Old Testament was written, a patriarchal, Middle Eastern culture of 5,000 or 2,000 BC, when women had few rights and we’re looking to keep the family tree pure to be able to trace the Messiah.

Women today are simply not expected to marry their rapists, if they are raped.

One of my family members was raped prior to the age of ten by another family member of hers.

I had an online friend for a few years who is about the same age as me. She confided with me that she has never had consensual sex (she is waiting until marriage for sex), but she was raped by one of her uncles when she was a teen.

While I realize that rape is considered less about sex than it is about power and control on the part of the rapist, it still involves a man placing his penis in a woman’s vagina, or possibly other sex acts.

For John Morgan to run around insisting that sexual intercourse between two people is the basis for marriage is troubling and insensitive – because not everyone who engages in this is doing so of his or her own choice or volition.

In some parts of the world, little girls (and sometimes boys) are sold into the human sex trafficking business, where they are forced to have sex with adults all day. Don’t tell me these horribly abused little kids are “married” to their “clients,” that is deranged and sick.

There are some marriages – like with asexuals – where the marriage is not consummated. There are also marriages that become “sexless” after so many months or years because one or both partners have mental or physical health problems.

Paul in the New Testament tells Christians not to step too far out of bounds with whatever culture they are living in, because it could cause harm to the testimony of the faith.

That is, if you are needlessly refusing to go along with culture on some disputable matter or another – say, for example, riding a plaid ostrich to work, when all other Americans are riding horses to work, and the horse-riders think you a fool or odd-ball for riding an ostrich- you are making all Christians and the Gospel by association look like wacko, weirdo, fruit cakes, and Paul said to Knock That Off.

Paul was saying if something is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, if God does not condemn it, such as what mode of transportation to take, he said, go ahead and ride a horse in your culture, if that is what all your neighbors are using. Don’t be an ass and go against the grain.

You can argue, well, there is a single verse in the Old Testament that says some guy rode an ostrich to his job. Okay, but unless that verse specifically said, “Thus saith the LORD, I hate humans riding horses and forbid all believers from riding horses for all time,” don’t assume that the ostrich thing is a prescriptive for Americans in the year 2015.

Ditto on the how to get married angle.

The Old Testament is chock full of kings having 300 or more concubines, or 20 wives. Abraham had sex with his handmaiden as well as with his wife Sarah, and rapists were commanded to marry their rape victims. Do you really want Americans in 2015 emulating those types of marriages?

Just because Adam and Eve in the Garden as mentioned in the book of Genesis did not have to go to a courthouse and sign papers to make things legal with a government in Year One B.C. does not mean that Christians in 2015 can or should disregard going through governmental channels and get a marriage license.

Adam and Eve were under the direct supervision with God prior to the fall. As an American today, I don’t have that face to face contact with God. So I cannot get God to validate a marriage of mine.

My parents were very old fashioned, traditional, Christian people.

My parents always said that when two people live together – when a man and woman live under the same roof, are having sex with one another, they do not go to the courthouse, don’t sign on the legal papers – they are not married, they are “shacking up.” This was regarded as a sin by them and many other Christians for the past few decades.

If an American couple in 2015 is living together and having sex without the government license that recognizes their union as being a marriage, they are NOT MARRIED.

(There is such a thing as common law marriage, but that is neither here nor there.)

The sex act alone is not sufficient to say a couple is “married.”  ~ Not in the USA in the year 2015.

For all the couples who are married but asexual (there is no sexual intercourse), they are still married. They would probably be pretty offended for John Morgan to insist their marriage is not really a marriage because of absence of sex.

What if a husband who is serving in the Marines gets deployed to serve in Afghanistan and hence is not having sex with his wife for a year or more? Does their marriage cease to be a marriage just because there’s no sex?

What if the husband gets into an auto accident, and remains a vegetable or very brain damaged, is like an infant, until he dies five years later (this actually happened to an aunt of mine)?

Are you going to tell me that because there is no longer any sex in that marriage it suddenly makes it a non-marriage? What bunk.

How does John Morgan define “sex,” anyway?

Many Christians cannot even agree on what constitutes sex.

Many evangelicals, who are brought up in “purity culture,” are taught that only penis-in-the-vagina action is “sex,” so, to get around this limitation, they engage in anal sex, oral sex, petting prior to marriage – the get involved in anything and everything short of P in V sex.

You have lesbians who get angry at Christians over discussing the importance of virginity (seriously, yes, see this old post), because, they recognize that many Christians define sex as being only or predominantly “penis-in-the-vagina action,” which lifelong lesbian women may never experience, yet, those lesbian women are performing oral sex on each other, or what have you.

From the lesbian perspective, from what I’ve read, they consider oral sex or scissoring, or whatever else, to be equally valid to P in V sex.

So, these lesbians are having sex with each other – but according to John Morgan, that means these women are “married” to each other. (Or is he going to define sex to mean only P in the V?)

Yet Morgan seems to feel that “homosexual marriage” is not “real,” and he also (and this is very strange) feels that celibacy is only for HETERO-sexuals (see this post for more on that). He definitely believes that (Link): Are Homosexual Thoughts Sinful [Yes, he says] .

Er… according to Morgan, homosexual thoughts are sinful, but homosexuals should not practice celibacy? His views are really mixed up.

In the Gospels, Jesus said to even “look at in lust” another person was seen as God as being as wrong as actually having sex with that person….

Does that mean every time a person fantasizes about “doing the nasty” with their favorite celebrity or their crush (that is, they just think about it, they don’t actually DO IT), they are “married” to that person? According to John Morgan logic, yes, but I don’t think so.

Are all the porn stars who have sex with each other for the sake of making a naughty movie, are they  “married” to each other, even in God’s eyes? I doubt it.

How about this pervert mentioned in an (Link): older blog post of mine: he sticks his penis into a horse’s vagina at least once a month and has sex with the horse, or sometimes performs oral sex on the horse.

Do you really expect me to believe God would think this sicko is “married” to that horse? And does the horse get a say in any of this?

If your only criteria as to what makes a marriage a marriage is Penis In the Vagina (or any other sex act), you really need to re-examine your views.

I don’t have the perfect all encompassing definition of marriage myself, but I know a true marriage when I see it, AND I think I know what IT IS NOT, and it’s not merely penis in the vagina activity. I think it takes more for one person to be married to another than sex.

As to this, in (Link): one of his posts,

Yeah, I blogged about that and tweeted about it weeks before he mentioned it there on his blog,

By the way, unless I overlooked it in the reporting, the stories said ALL single adults are banned, not just men. That would mean unaccompanied WOMEN singles are also barred.

Yep, the (Link): NY Daily News said,

  • A British theme park has banned unaccompanied adults from entry — in case they are pedophiles.Bosses at Puxton Park, in Somerset, forbid men and women from visiting the attraction on their own just in case they are child sex predators, reports the Western Daily Press. The rule came to light Thursday after a bird-watcher was barred from visiting a falconry display.

Why, one wonders, does Morgan keep laser focusing on MEN?

Morgan keeps painting this picture on his blog of celibate / single males having life ten times worse than celibate / single women. I don’t think so, bub. That article says unmarried men AND women are banned, NOT JUST MEN.

Do I think single men have life tough in some regards? Absolutely – especially in a Christian environment, where most Christians worship marriage.

However, I don’t think single men necessarily have life more difficult than single women. Women actually have it a bit worse because they are expected to reproduce and make babies. Men don’t get near as much pressure to reproduce.

Single men past the age of 40 are often called “confirmed bachelors,” while single women my age get more derogatory terms thrown their way, such as “spinster,” “crazy cat lady,” or “old maid.”

Women my age or older who desire marriage are often automatically (Link): pegged as “being desperate,” by some people, including Christians, but I don’t see men my age (or older) who want marriage get tarred with the same terminology or assumptions.

(But, I would say that older single men get pegged with the (Link): “You Must Be A Pedophile” view  more often than the single ladies do. Thank Dog that is one less stereotype I have to deal with.)

I still wonder if Morgan visits my blog or Twitter feed and takes material or story ideas? If he does, the polite thing to do is cite his source – in the blogging community, it’s common to give hat tips to one’s sources.

I also find it funny because Morgan thinks I am untrustworthy because I don’t give my real name. I’m trustworthy enough to take news story ideas from, apparently.  If you think I am untrustworthy please stop visiting my blog and/or Twitter and taking news links or story ideas from me!

But Morgan really, really needs to realize how much his equation of “Sex = Marriage” harms some people (such as rape victims), and it’s a view that makes no sense, and opens the door for homosexuals (the ones having sex with others of their own gender) to argue they can consider themselves “married.”

—————————–

Related posts:

(Link):  Blogger Guy John Hugh Morgan Who Accused Me Of Being Untrustworthy Finds My Blog Trustworthy Enough to Use as Resource

(Link): True Love Waits . . . and Waits . . . and Waits – editorial about delayed marriage and related issues – and a rebuttal to John Morgan’s comment on the page

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

(Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Dan Navin [written by a homosexual celibate]

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

(Link):  Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female? John Morgan Says Men Are, I Say He’s Full of Crap on That

(Link):  Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

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

(Link):  “Marriage is the closest you can come to being like Christ.” ~ says an obnoxious married Christian man to an unmarried woman

(Link):  Regnerus’ Misplaced Blame – Blame the Wimmins! Common male refrain, even from Christian men

(Link): Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog

(Link): Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

(Link):  The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity

Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage

This is a critique of the following post, and related ideas:

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

The guy that wrote that post has a tendency to make his blog temporarily private once he sees I’ve linked to one of his posts, then he makes it public again after so many weeks. You can read more about that wacko situation (Link): here, here, and here.

Lately, on other sites, there has been discussion on whether or not Christian preachers should stop holding weddings altogether, or if Christian preachers should only perform weddings for Christians…

In other words, some Christians are so upset over the possibility of Christians being forced to perform same-sex marriage, some are thinking that maybe Christians should not have anything to do with the government or secular groups in regards to marriage.

Here are a few links about the situation:

(Link):  Separating Civil and Christian Marriage: Should We Sign the Pledge?

(Link):  Should Pastors Disengage Civil and Christian Marriage?

(Link):  Pastors Sign Pledge to Separate Christian, Civil Marriage – via CBN site

Excerpt, from CBN article::

  • A new LifeWay Research survey on marriage and an online pledge drive shows support for a movement to further separate church and state roles in marriage.
  • Six in 10 responding to the survey said the government should not define or regulate marriage. More than a third also said that clergy should get out of the civil marriage business. 

I am not necessarily in agreement with all views by this blogger or this particular page, but it’s a critique of the Marriage Pledge position by Protestant Christians:

(Link):  The Marriage Pledge: Why You Should Not Sign It

Excerpt:

  • Their heirs, especially the Puritans and later the neo-Reformers, knew that all of life must be Christian, and to be Christian, it must be biblical.
  • The Bible provides the guidelines on what all of life, including the state, should look like. If the state is anti-biblical, you need to work to make it biblical, just as you would do in the family and church. You don’t get to opt out of them.
  • …But this option of cultural withdrawal isn’t available to the neo-Reformers. Douglas Wilson has offered several excellent practical, pastoral objections to The Marriage Pledge.
  • I would add that The Marriage Pledge is flawed at its root.The state, no matter how perverse, has a vested interest in marriage (will the church enforce disposition of children and property in the case of divorce? Hardly. And if she did, who would enforce the enforcement?). Should the church “disentangle” itself from the family since the family, too, is being redefined?
  • To be sure: the state can and does act unjustly (“no-fault divorce,” etc.). But the alternative isn’t anarchy, which despite its best intentions, is what The MArriage Pledge is suggesting. The state, even an apostate one, has a legitimate vested interest in marriage and the welfare of children springing from it.

Some Christians have a weirdo, odd ball view point that Christians marrying HETERO couples in today’s climate somehow is associated with the marriage of HOMOsexual couples.

I have written of this topic before, like here:

Yes, there are some Christian kooks who are teaching other Christians that if you, a hetero Christian, gets married in a state that has legalized homosexual marriage, this somehow invalidates YOUR (hetero) marriage.

These Christian kooks are teaching if you are a HETERO, Christian VIRGIN, yet marry your spouse in a state where homosexual marriage is also legal, this means you are NOT EQUALLY YOKED to your spouse because your entire marriage is invalidated, and they seem to imply you are sexually impure by extension.

And doesn’t the God of the Bible say he does not hold the sins of the father against the sons, that each person is responsible only for his or her own sins?

So what gives with Christians who are teaching this heresy that a hetero, Christian marriage magically becomes improper or sinfully tainted if it was held in a state where homosexuals are permitted to marry? God does not hold the sins of homosexuals against hetero Christians.

Anyway, this John Morgan guy seems to argue along a similar line in his post,

(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan

My intent here is not to copy tons and tons of this guy’s post, but it’s so hard to find just one or two paragraphs that summarize his thoughts here, I’m not sure what parts to excerpt.

Excerpts.

  • …We hear euphemisms everyday: Correctional facility instead of prison, collateral damage instead of accidental deaths, enhanced interrogation techniques instead of torture, pregnancy termination instead of abortion, etc.
  • We can add one more – marriage. Turning to the Oxford Dictionary again, we see that marriage is: “The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.” In short, it’s a legal sexual relationship recognized by the state you live in.

Continue reading “Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign”

Conservative Christians Are Now Blaming Homosexual Marriage on Heterosexual Single Adults

Conservative Christians Are Now Blaming Homosexual Marriage on Heterosexual Single Adults

I have a link much farther below from a recent post by a Christian magazine where there are quotes by a conservative Christian group spokesperson that seems to be blaming adult, hetero singles or singleness itself, for the spread of homosexual marriage.

In years past, I have seen a segment of conservative Christians moan, gripe, and complain about the fact that heterosexual people are either not marrying at all, or are delaying age of first marriage until late 20s or older, and hence, a minority of these Christians (such as Southern Baptist Al Mohler and others) is screeching at 15 year old kids to marry by the time they are 25 years of age (this is called “early marriage”).

In the past few months though, I’ve started to see a few articles here and there where Christian writers are blaming the spread or support of homosexual marriage on HETERO adult singleness.

This is coming from conservative Christians, who claim to believe sola scriptura, to claim to believe in the authority and truth of Scripture, to claim to have the utmost respect for the Bible, who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, written by God through men.

And yet, by blaming hetero adult singles for homosexual marriage, they are denying some of the very teachings of the very Bible they claim to believe in.

So, if you are a never married, hetero, adult over the age of 30, many conservative Christians either assume you yourself are a homosexual (one of many negative assumptions they make about singles), but now, here they are assuming YOU, the hetero single, are to blame for homosexuality.

The problem as I see it is that homosexuality has gained ground in many churches because churches ONLY preach or support hetero marriage, rather than the whole counsel of God regarding relationships, which includes support for HETERO adult singleness and celibacy.

Never do I hear of Protestant or Baptist churches offering regular sermons or ministries about or for adult singles, the topic of singlehood and adult celibacy. Most all content, sermons, etc, are geared towards MARRIED COUPLES WHO HAVE CHILDREN.

Conservative Christians are loathe to defend adult (hetero) celibacy because they are oddly preoccupied with baby making, and this due to two reasons (or possibly more, but these are two that jump to mind as I write this):

1. Christian Gender Complementarianism.

Yes, a stubborn refusal to seriously consider the claims of Christian gender egalitarianiasm continually has most Christians prescribing very narrow roles and views for women.

Most comps (Christian gender complementarians) assume a woman’s only role or purpose in life is to crank out children.

You, as a woman, are reduced in Christian gender complementarianism to the level of a broodmare.

Comps do this because they think it will ward off an encroachment of secular feminists; so, they dig their heels in even harder to defend rigid gender roles which forever casts women into “Wife and Mommy” positions.

(I do not object to women being wives and mothers if they freely choose to do so. I do not support it if done so out of guilt, feeling of obligation, church or Christian brainwashing, or fear.)

Comps will claim in their material they do not feel that women can be only a “Wife And Mommy,” but their conferences, books, sermons, speeches, and blogs on women belie this, for 99% of the topics they address routinely consists of headings such as,

-“How To Be a More Submissive Wife,”

-“How to bake healthy peanut butter cookies for your children while reading Bible stories to them,” or

-“Remember to stay thin with long hair, because God wired your husband to be visually oriented”

(Yes, seriously, Christian gender complementarian material contains such dreck (one minor example here), and it gets worse and worse the more fringe the group is, if they are into “quivering” like the Duggars, for example, or into Reconstructionism.)

(Plus, their sexist views of women underlie much of these assumptions, and they find misinterpreting Bible verses a handy way of keeping women down and out.)

Complementarians have no clue what other purpose or role to assign women in churches or in life in general – it’s either baby making or casserole baking. They have no idea what to tell women who never marry, women who are celibate, women whose husbands die, or what to say to a woman who is infertile or who willingly chooses to forgo procreation.

2. Using babies to “out breed” opponents.

I have written of this subject before, so I shall not write of it here – search my blog to find posts about Christians who think Christian women should breed like rabbits for the sole or primary purpose to out produce Muslims and other peoples.

Here is one example of this new trend in reporting I am referring to:

(Link): We Can’t Blame the Gay Agenda for This Troubling Marriage Trend

Excerpts.

  • 11:00AM EDT 10/23/2014
  • by DEBORAH HAMILTON
  • More and more Americans are staying single longer, or choosing not to wed at all, and American Family Association says the trend is alarming and harmful to the bedrock of the American institution of the family—the cornerstone of any society.New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more young people are waiting to marry, and the percentage of adults who have never been married has hit an all-time high. For example, in 1960, about one in 10 adults over the age of 25 were single; in 2012, that same statistic jumped to one in five.

    “This disturbing trend works against the family,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “It has negative implications for adults because God designed marriage for companionship and as a way to show His love to our spouses. And it’s detrimental for kids, as God created marriage and family so that we could raise children in godly, loving homes. On a cultural level, numerous studies have shown that those in traditional, healthy marriages and families fare far better that those who are not.”

    Researchers and experts don’t know exactly what’s driving the declining marriage numbers, though many have theories, including economical reasons, financial security and the fact that out-of-wedlock cohabitation and childbearing are more accepted today.

Notice the many un-biblical, insulting views that the AFA spokesperson, Wildmon, has about the purpose of marriage, the body of Christ, and singleness.

Here is the reply I left on the page – I could have written more, but it was already getting pretty long:

  • This editorial gets a few things wrong. Be careful that in defending “traditional marriage” that you do not do so at the expense of adult singles or singleness. Jesus Christ remained single and celibate his whole life – he did not marry or have children. Your editorial would accuse Jesus himself of “working against the family.”Jesus Christ died on the cross over sin, not to defend traditional marriage or the nuclear family. How often conservative evangelical Christians and fundamentalists forget that, or choose to ignore it.

    The Bible shows a great deal of respect for adult singleness and celibacy, see for instance 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 where apostle Paul says remaining single is in some ways easier and more beneficial than in marrying.

    Marriage is fine if someone wants to marry, but the Bible also presents lifelong singleness as a viable, godly option, and shame on Christian writers like the one on this page saying singleness is wrong.

    The church body is supposed to provide companionship for all believers, marriage is not supposed to be the basis of that. See Jesus’ remarks on who is his brother, who is his mother in Matthew chapter 12 verse 47-50,

  • “Someone said to Him [Jesus], “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
  • 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 4
  • 9 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
  • 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.””

EDIT. Oct 28, 2014.

Here is yet another conservative editorial blaming hetero singles for cultural issues, vis a vis delayed marriage or no-marriage:

(Link): How the Decline in Marriage Is Fueling Inequality – from the Daily Signal site, and tweeted by The Heritage Foundation

The problem with editorials such as that is they assume that many or most singles do not want to be married.

There are plenty of single women, ages 30 and older, such as myself, who would like to marry, but we cannot find partners our own ages – dating sites have not worked, attending singles classes at churches have not worked.

Telling us that marriage confers wonderful benefits or advantages is preaching to the choir. Stop telling me I should be married, and start publishing pointers on how to get to the altar, and I don’t mean insulting tips that assume I am still single because I am flawed (see (Link): this page for more on that).

See also:

(Link): Preachers and Christian Media Personalities: Re: Marriage – You’re missing the point stop trying to argue or shame singles into getting married

——————————

Related posts:

(Link): “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site

(Link): Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians | Re: Marriage Not Happening for Hetero-sexual Christians Over the Age of 30

(Link): Statistics Show Single Adults Now Outnumber Married Adults in the United States (2014)

(Link):  Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?

(Link): A Response by Colon to Regnerus Re: Misguided Early Marriage Propaganda

(Link): A Case Against Early Marriage by Ashley Moore (editorial)

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): Rush to early marriage feeds Utah’s higher-than-average divorce rate (article)

(Link): Christian Early Marriage Position Advocates A Low View of Celibacy and Virginity and Adult Singleness – another example: Justin Deeter Blog about Early Marriage

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

(Link):  Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

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

(Link):  Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

(Link) Have we made an idol of families? by A. Stirrup (copy)

(Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

(Link): Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership by L. Ferguson

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

(Link):  The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

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

(Link): A Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical

(Link):  Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

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

(Link):  When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link):  Family as “The” Backbone of Society?

(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):  Are Single People the Lepers of Today’s Church? by Gina Dalfonzo

(Link):  Southern Baptists Pushing Early Marriage, Baby Making – Iranians Pushing Mandatory Motherhood – When Christians Sound Like Muslims

(Link):  Singles Shaming at The Vintage church in Raleigh – Singlehood Shaming / Celibate and Virgin Shaming

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage (and “family”) by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

(Link):  The Changing American Family (article)

(Link): Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville

A Critique of the Post: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect Friendships – from STR

A Critique of: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect Friendships – from STR (Stand To Reason apologetics)

I think this editorial from STR misses the mark, or it comes too late, or, it overlooks the damage typical Christian stereotypes about HETERO relationships and sexual proclivities has had upon friendship.

That is, paranoid Christian teaching that is intended to keep hetero singles from committing fornication ALSO sexualizes all relationships, even friendship.

However, this paper from STR, this post by a woman named Amy Hall, is claiming the normalization of homosexuality and acceptance of homosexual marriage is doing that, that it is sexualizing same gender friendships – which maybe it is, to a degree, but I am not going to let the Christian hypocrisy go on this one.

Christians do not believe it is possible for a man and woman to be friends.

Evangelicals, Baptists, and a lot of Reformed material I’ve seen, wrongly assume there is always sexual attraction between a man and a woman, or that any sexual attraction (if it does exist) will always end in sex, no exceptions, and it is further assumed that people lack sexual self control.

According to mainstream Christian thinking, you cannot expect a man and woman left alone NOT to end up getting naked and doing the sex. It’s a rather immature, junior highish, juvenile view of sex and genders, if you ask me. If you are an adult, you can damn well control yourself.

These Christian assumptions that men and women cannot be friends is so deeply ingrained, it’s to the point that even one of the women who posted this STR blog page – who is named Amy  (at least I think this is the same Amy as the one who posted the blog page, it may be a different Amy) – said this in a comment she left so a reader on the page:

  • Sam, I don’t think it’s so much about a fear that people will think you’re gay. I think it’s more that when the theoretical possibility of a sexual relationship is always culturally there, you keep a certain distance.
  • Think about friendships between men and women. I hold friendships with men at a certain distance, not wanting to signal that the friendship is heading towards a sexual relationship (doubly true for married men), so I have closer friendships with good women friends where emotional intimacy is safe.

The only reason you feel a need, or feel shamed to “hold friendships with men at a certain distance, especially married ones” is because Christians have sexualized all people and all relationships.

I see no reason why hetero Amy cannot have a close relationship with a married man. She has simply been conditioned by secular and Christian culture to think such is impossible, because her getting close to a married dude will either end in sex, or busy-bodies in her church will assume the two are boinking (even if they are not).

There is no biblical reason why a single woman cannot be friends with a married guy.

And the “don’t even fall for the appearance of evil” Bible verse is not applicable here, folks. Nope.

Verses and teachings like that get abused and stretched to a point by Christians they were never intended to, and they nullify other teachings of God in the Bible, like this:

  •  [Jesus Christ speaking],
  • “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”… (source)

One factor I’ve raised on this blog time and again (with links to prove it, you can start here) is that often times, married men seek out affairs with married women (and vice versa). See also this link. And this link.

It’s not that single women are more prone to sleep with a married guy than a married woman is. Plenty of time, married people have affairs with other married people. Sometimes, married men hit on single women – the single women are not initiating (see this link for example).

There is nothing about marriage that makes a person immune from sexual sin, or that being married gives married persons stronger character – it’s not that single women prey on married men, or that they are more apt to stalk married guys, or that single women have weaker constitutions that make them more likely to engage in sexual sin.

I will also add here that the basis for these stereotypes – that men and women cannot be friends, etc – usually comes from a traditional gender role view, which is actually sexist in nature against women – Christian gender complementarians are often the ones guilty of pushing these views.

Gender complementarians are notorious for making all manner of unfounded, unbiblical assumptions about men and women, and erecting tight, small boxes for men and women, and in related matters, such as how to date. I have touched on those issues (Link): here and here. See also this post.

(Link): How Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect Friendships

Here are some excerpts:

  • In a review of Anthony Esolen’s new book, Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity, Matthew Franck explains the unintended effect same-sex marriage will have on friendships in our society:

The fallout from the destruction and redefinition of marriage spreads still more widely, even beyond the immediate territory of the family. Deep friendship between members of the same sex is now in grave danger.

To show us why, Esolen asks us to imagine a world in which the incest taboo is erased (and that is a world that may not be far off). In such a place, “You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flashes before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it.”

So too, in the world that is rapidly embracing and recognizing homosexual relationships as normal and normative, the space for deep and meaningful male-male or female-female friendships among the young is rapidly shrinking to the vanishing point.

[// end quote]

…. I’ve already seen a change happening in interpretations of friendships, most recently in the discussion over Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s friendship with Eberhard Bethge, and it’s upsetting to me that people might shy away from close friendships for this reason. –

[//end blog excerpt by Amy Hall]

Here is a comment I left on their page (I see now it contains a few typing errors):

  • Actually, Christians have been doing this for ages now. I blog about it often.
  • I have a blog on Word Press called “Christian Pundit” (not to be confused with another Word Press blog of a very similar name, “THE Christian Pundit”) where I explain how mainstream evangelical and other conservative Christian teaching about the genders, dating, and sex carry the same exact attitudes you are discussing in your post.
  • In a lot of Christian material on the genders, marriage, sex, dating, etc, Christians make the same (incorrect) assumptions as secular society does about these topics, with the result that everything is sexualized.
  • A few examples of what I mean:

Continue reading “A Critique of the Post: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect Friendships – from STR”

Homosexual Rights Groups Angered After Two Hetero Men Marry to Win Sports Tickets

Homosexual Rights Groups Angered After Two Hetero Men Marry to Win Sports Tickets

It’s not too often I discuss homosexual marriage on my blog. If I do, I usually try to limit my discussion of the topic to how it inter-sects with Christian views about fornication and stuff like that.

But I saw this last night and thought it was odd and amusing. I do sometimes post about weird marriages on this blog, and I feel this one fits.

(Link):  Fury of gay community after two heterosexual men marry in New Zealand… so they can win tickets to Rugby World Cup

I think homosexual marriage in and of itself makes a mockery out of traditional marriage, so I find it rather rich some of the homosexual rights groups are screaming about two heteros marrying being a mockery of homosexual marriage.

Excerpts

  • By HEATHER MCNAB FOR DAILYMAIL AUSTRALIA
  • Got engaged for a radio competition to win Rugby tickets
  • Married this morning under New Zealand’s liberal marriage laws
  • Gay rights groups have spoken out against the couple
  • Gay host of radio show supports the couple
  • Insist life won’t change too much now they’re married 
  • |
  • Two heterosexual men have tied the knot on Friday morning under New Zealand’s liberal marriage laws.

    Marrying not for love, but for Rugby World Cup Tickets, the two men from Dunedin in the South Island of New Zealand officially said ‘I do’ in front of 60 family and friends.

    The ceremony was live broadcast by Edge Radio, who’s ‘I Love You, Man’ competition was launched earlier this year in a bid to find two straight men willing to wed for the sought after tickets.

    ‘It’s official folks, Travis and Matt have just said ‘I do’! Congrats to the happy couple!,’ the station tweeted.

  • Travis McIntosh, 23, and Matt McCormick, 24, won the ‘bromantic’ radio contest in August and are over the moon- not for a life together, but for the opportunity to head to the Rugby World Cup in England next year.

    While some gay rights groups in New Zealand have voiced objections to the nuptials, the pair are content with their reasons for the wedding.

    McIntosh, an engineer, and McCormick, a teacher, have known each other for nearly 20 years, and see the wedding as a celebration of their friendship rather than a political statement.

  • …A spokesperson from The Edge explained that as with any event that pushes boundaries, there was bound to be a bit of backlash.

    Local gay rights groups have condemned the wedding, protesting that it ‘trivializes what we’ve fought for,’ according to the New Zealand Herald.

    LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood said the competition made clear that men marrying each other was ‘something they think is worth having a laugh at.’

    However, McCormick and McIntosh have explained that their friendship was one of the main motivators in the process, and that it has been strengthened through the trials and challenges which lead them to their big day.

————————————–

Related posts:

(Link):  Weird Marriages – Male Solider is Britain’s first transgender Muslim woman and is now MARRIED (to a male Muslim)

(Link):  Not that I agree with it, but here’s an editorial by some lady entitled: Why plural marriages make sense

(Link): Aussie Woman Marries Bridge in France

(Link):  Groom Forgets Bride at Gas Station On Way Home from Honeymoon

(Link):  Wienermobile serves as Cinderella’s carriage at wedding

Adult Singles Do Not Need A Marital Partner to Be Whole or Complete

Adult Singles Do Not Need A Marital Partner to Be Whole or Complete

I only wanted to offer a very brief commentary on this editorial at The Christian Post,

(Link): Message to Vicky Beeching: The Logic of Creation, Not ‘Psychoanalysis by a Stranger’

Here is the portion of the editorial I wished to address:

  • BY ROBERT A. J. GAGNON
  • It doesn’t require individual knowledge of Ms. Beeching [lesbian singer] to know that she errs when she regards another woman as her “other half,” as her sexual complement or counterpart since obviously she is whole as a woman and is not in need of joining herself to another woman to supplement whatever she may falsely perceive to be lacking in her femaleness.
  • That is a given, so long as her existence as a woman is not questioned (and I, for one, do not question it). It is obvious that, sexually speaking, the appropriate counterpart to a woman (anatomically, physiologically, psychologically) is a man, not another woman.
  • ….And yet the image of marriage in Genesis 2 is that the two halves of the sexual spectrum, man and woman, reunite into a single, integrated sexual whole. She is already intact in relation to her own sex; it’s the other half of the sexual spectrum that she doesn’t have covered.

Depending on how this author is meaning to use this argumentation, it can be damaging to never-married, divorced, or widowed adults.

I am unaware of any Bible passage that teaches that a person, in an un-married state, needs a partner of the opposite gender to “complete” them or “compliment” them.

The Bible seems to teach that adult singles, such as Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, are whole and complete on their own.

If you want to argue against lesbianism, that is your right, but I’d be very careful of framing the debate in terms that lay the groundwork for the notion that adult singles – who are complete in Jesus alone – need a husband to be fulfilled, whole, or serving God’s purpose.

Paul wrote,

  • Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
  • But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
  • (1 Corinthians 7)

The author does go on to say,

  • And yet a homosexual union violates directly the very foundation of “male and female God made them” upon which Jesus bases a limitation of two persons to a sexual union, since it disposes altogether with a male-female requirement.

If the author is arguing along the context of gender roles and sexuality vis a vis the marriage debate, that only a male spouse can “complete” a female partner in some sense, rather than another female, I don’t have much to quibble with there.

But sometimes, I have seen other authors, or preachers, maintain the false idea that a person is not truly whole, complete, or a mature adult until and unless she marries a man – and this is simply not in the Bible at all.

A person does not need to be having sex, or pro-creating, to be sexual or to be whole or complete, either. Celibate adults are not “less than” their married counterparts.


Related posts:

(Link):  According to Pastor – Jimmy Evans – It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ?

(Link):  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

(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): Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy – because some Christians are teaching that unmarried people are not fully human or not “whole” – preachers who teach that single people are not fully in God’s image unless they get married

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014

If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,

  • this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.

This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.

I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.

In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.

Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.

In this post, I will be discussing,

  • 1. The Bitter Lady
  • 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
  • 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
  • 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll

-among others

Continue reading “Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts from:

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

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

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