Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW

Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW

The Bible does teach that people should remain virgins until marriage, but oddly, some Christians do things like omit men from this teaching (as though virginity applies only to women).

In this case, they seem to be conflating being single, and a virgin, with receiving salvation, as though there’s some other standard by which others are saved. Christians also frequently make much too much out of the marriage analogy, in which they pretty much seem to suggest that a person has to be married (and having sex) to truly know God or be in relationship with God.

Via the Biblical Personhood blog:

(Link): Is “Biblical” manhood and womanhood compatible with the gospel of Christ?

The Biblical Personhood blog reproduces this quote from a Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood resource:

[from complementarian, CBMW, material:]

48. How can a Christian single woman enter into the mystery of Christ and the Church if she never experiences marriage?
[Their answer promotes offering your virginity to God. Nothing about becoming a Christian.] – CBMW, “Fifty Crucial Questions, Question 48

… The mystery of Christ and the church, likewise, is not about marriage or celibacy. Jesus loved you – male or female, single or married or divorced or widowed – first. Know you are loved by God, love God back, experience God’s love, and see how it never ends, and how it changes you to live for Him.

Continue reading “Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW”

Death, Grief, Marriage, Single Again, Soul Sleep, Christianity, Obnoxious Male Fixation on Female Looks

Death, Grief, Marriage, Single Again, Soul Sleep, Christianity, Obnoxious Male Fixation on Female Looks

I have several topics I’d like to address here. I’m going to discuss death, grief, dating, how men are too fixated on women’s looks, etc, and so on, all in the same post.

I learned from watching the Christian program “It is Written” today (Feb 2017) that the wife of Christian TV host Mike Tucker, Gayle, died. I’m not sure when the episode was first filmed or first aired.

You can read a transcript of that episode, “From Grief To Hope” (Link, off site): here.

You might be able to watch that very episode or one like it here: (Link, off site): Coping with Grief.

I see from an online obit that Gayle Tucker passed away in April 2016.

I am sorry for his loss.

I lost my mother, and it hurt a lot.

(Link, off site):  Gayle Tucker, Beloved Marriage Counselor on Faith For Today TV, Dead at 60

April 2016 –  The prominent Adventist television personality dies after a brief struggle with pancreatic cancer.

(Link, off site):   Beloved Christian TV Host, Couples’ Counselor Dead at 60

I learned a few years ago that the hosts and backers of “It Is Written” are SDAs (Seventh Day Adventists).

I also learned from a glance over google search results that Mike Tucker is a Seventh Day Adventist.

Part of SDA theology is something called “Soul Sleep,” a view that I totally disagree with and find discouraging and cruel.

Continue reading “Death, Grief, Marriage, Single Again, Soul Sleep, Christianity, Obnoxious Male Fixation on Female Looks”

Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Well this is a switch.

Usually, we find right wing Christians saying that every natural disaster in the United States is due to homosexuality or abandonment of support to Israel, but here we have liberals saying that the wildfires in TN are due to people voting for Trump.

(Link) : Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Excerpt:

Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy

Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy 

Before I present you with the links to the news reports about this story (which are much farther down the page), I wanted to make some introductory comments in general, and a few specific comments refuting a few points from a pro-Quivering page about celibacy.

In regards to the specific news story I am blogging about today, this Quivering group is completely overlooking Apostle Paul’s comments in (Link): 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better for people to remain single than it is to marry – and Paul does not say that this teaching is in regards only to “a few,” or only a “minority” of people.

The Bible nowhere states that marriage is “a norm,” or that God expects or wants all, or most, people to marry.

It just so happens that in other cultures thousands of years ago, most people did happen to marry – one should not deduce from this cultural situation that God supported it or wanted it to be so. It just was what it was.

If the Bible said that all or most ancient Jews painted their bodies green once a year and balanced weasels on their heads while jumping up and down on a watermelon one week out of a year, one should not assume from this that

  • 1. God created that cultural practice and/or that
  • 2. God wanted Americans in the year 2016 to practice these things as well.

The Quivering group’s position on marriage, celibacy, and singleness is unbiblical, not to mention disturbing.

According to this article (linked to much farther below), the Quivering group was going to call this event, (where they set up marriages for little girls to marry), “Get Them Married.”

Why not have an event called, per 1 Corinthians 7, “It Is Better To Stay Unmarried”?

Am I opposed to marriage? No.

Is the God of the Bible against marriage? No.

But the Bible does not say that being married is better or more holy for girls, women, or culture, than being single, but a lot of Christian groups, and these wacky Christian cults, insist otherwise.

Christians need to do a better job of recognizing adult singleness and celibacy as legitimate, godly, biblical lifestyles and choices for all persons (and not only meant for a small minority of people who were supposedly “gifted” with it), instead of promoting marriage and natalism as the only legitimate avenues or as ways of fixing culture, the nation, or as pleasing God.

Continue reading “Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy”

James Dobson’s Flawed Take on Population Decline (no.1: We’re Not in Decline) by T. Grant

James Dobson’s Flawed Take on Population Decline (no.1: We’re Not in Decline) by T. Grant

As this report notes (link is much farther down this blog page), more pressure is placed on WOMEN to marry and have children than is placed on MEN.

I know that culture and Christians can treat single / celibate / childless men like trash, but they are TEN TIMES worse on Christian WOMEN in these regards.

Women get far more pressured to marry and have kids than men do or ever will.

Women get more shamed and insulted by Christians (and at times, secular culture) for staying single, celibate, and childless than males ever are.

Just because most women are capable of carrying a baby inside them, society and churches think it’s their DUTY to have a baby (as though women serve no other purpose in life), and if they choose to opt out (or cannot have a kid), they are still marginalized or insulted for it.

Men don’t face nearly as much insult or pressure to have kids as women do.

I am right of center – but I agree with this left wing (liberal) guy that other right wingers such as Dobson’s real goal is to be against what he perceives as liberal threats to the church or culture. That is one very real motivator some right wingers have, in why they do things like harass women to have children.

I also want to say how utterly moronic I find this approach by Dobson.

Continue reading “James Dobson’s Flawed Take on Population Decline (no.1: We’re Not in Decline) by T. Grant”

Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Biblical Intepretation (podcasts)

Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine (podcasts)

I was going over some of the other broadcasts of the Christian apologetics show “Unbelieveable” when I saw at least two topics that I’ve addressed on my own blog before.

A couple of problems I’ve been having with the Christian faith, among several, are unanswered prayer and the fact that Christians cannot agree on what the Bible says, how to implement what it says.

I wonder what the point is in having a book that is supposedly written by God, if those who say they believe in that book (and who say that they believe in that same God) never- the- less do not agree on what the book teaches, and that some of them use that book to justify abusing people (financially, sexually, emotionally, physically).

You would think if God wrote a book (through men or otherwise) that he would make all of that book’s points abundantly clear so that his followers would not mess things up and get into prolonged disagreements about what the book means or how to carry out that book’s teachings.

I also note that Christians who defend prayer try to “explain away” what the biblical text says about prayer.

Jesus does in fact say in one or more of the Gospels that what ever you ask for in his name he will do – but as quasi-Christians like myself point out to the true believers, many times, your prayers will go unanswered, to which they reply, well, Jesus did not REALLY mean to say that whatever you ask for his name will come to pass.

Here are the links to the podcasts:

(Link):  Does prayer make sense? David Wilkinson vs Ed Atkinson – PODCAST

(Link):   Can Christianity be true if Christians can’t agree on doctrine? Andrew Whyte vs Nabeel Qureshi – PODCAST

The ex-Christian guy who is on that show who argues that the conflicting interpretations of the faith and the Bible are problematic for Christianity, or may imply that Christianity is false, has a You Tube channel where he makes videos on this topic. Here it is:

After listening to both those podcasts a couple of days ago, I was not completely satisfied with the responses given to the skeptics by the Christians.

It seems to me that some Christians really under-estimate how damaging some of these particular doubts or criticisms of the faith really are.

Despite that, both shows were still interesting to listen to, and I related to what the ex-Christians or the skeptics were saying.

—–

Here are previous posts I’ve blogged about these subjects before:

Diversity of Interpretation:

(Link): Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link): More Musings about Applicability of the Old Testament, Via One Man’s Testimony About Jeremiah 29:11

(Link): Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

(Link): Pat Robertson Contradicts Himself On Healing and God’s Will

Unanswered Prayer:

(Link): Critique of Pastor Groeschel’s “I Want to Believe But…” Sermon Series

(Link):  How to Deal with Unanswered Prayers via Pastor Bil Cornelius 

(Link): Christian Viewer Expresses Disappointment in God, Wants To Know Why, In Spite of Years of Service, God is Not Helping Him

(Link):   When All We Hear from God is Silence by Diane Markins

(Link):   Gordon Robertson’s Quasi Insensitive or Lacking Advice to Cancer Patient / Unanswered Prayer / Christians should just sometimes admit They Do Not Know

(Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link): Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

(Link):  When you show God you don’t want it, that’s when God will give it to you – according to Joel Osteen – I disagree

Additional:

(Link):  Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (May 2017)

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”

Christian Patriarchalists and Gender Complementarians Sexualizing the Trinity and Insisting Sexual Activity and Marriage Are Necessary to Fully Know God (via Under Much Grace blog)

Christian Patriarchalists and Gender Complementarians Sexualizing the Trinity and Insisting Sexual Activity is Necessary to Fully Know God (via Under Much Grace blog)

There was actually a book by some Christian authors some time ago who quoted works by other Christian authors who suggest that to truly and completely know God, a person has to be married and having sex with a spouse. Of course, if you are a virgin into your 30s and older, this is a problematic view – as well as being bizarre, unbiblical, and ridiculous.

At Under Much Grace blog, Cynthia Kunsman wrote a series of blog posts about that issue as well, and related ones, such as the Christian gender complementarian tendency to sexualize the Trinity – yes, God Himself.

I will only copy a portion or two from Under Much Grace blog; please click the link below to visit Mrs. Kunsman’s blog to read the entire thing.

On the blog page I am linking you to here, there are links to five more pages on her blog. She has broken up her writing on this topic into a series of posts.

(Link):  Tim Keller, Sex, and Eternal Submission Doctrine: Summing up the Sexualization of the Trinity with Shirley Taylor (the introductory post), by Cynthia Kunsman

Excerpts:

 Further down that (Link): main page, Mrs. Kunsman has a handy-dandy chart you might want to check out, and she introduces it by saying,
  • Here’s a chart of the development of these doctrines which are further explored in the posts in this series

Here is are just a handful of excerpts from a few of the other pages in the series:

  • Shirley Taylor responds to this statement in her book Dethroning Male Headship in the discussion of the “Sexualization of the Trinity”:

Salvation by faith has been replaced

They have made the marriage bed into God’s grand design and demoted salvation by faith into a secondary design. But salvation for the Church Body was God’s grand design, not the marriage bed. Procreation was part of God’s grand design in marriage, and the Bible does not shy away from sex. However, God’s command to be fruitful and multiply does not indicate that the sex act reflects God Himself. Sex is procreational and recreational, but it is not symbolic of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

(Source for above)

  • As we established in (Link): previous posts, Tim Keller’s writings (along with those of his like-minded ideologues) claim that marital relationships as well as sex itself gives us the best insight into the social nature of the Trinity and the personalities within it.  Along with thinking about our spouse as we are in the throes of passion, we are are told that we Christians should be thinking about the relationship between the Father and the Son.
  • ….Keller says in Chapter 8 of his book that marriage is a “commitment apparatus” after explaining that sex is not dirty and it is more than a physical act.  But then, he goes on to say that we need the “spousal love of Jesus” in our lives.  I find this to be a profane (unholy) statement and nauseating.  I need God’s sacrificial love, and I need the love of my husband, along with the love of family and friends, too.
  • He [Tim Keller] then says that we all need the “cosmic need for closure that our souls find in romance.”  WHAT???  That means that if you are single, you can’t know God which is why Keller claims that if single, you must have a very large peer group community of singles who are all seeking marriage. 

Continue reading “Christian Patriarchalists and Gender Complementarians Sexualizing the Trinity and Insisting Sexual Activity and Marriage Are Necessary to Fully Know God (via Under Much Grace blog)”

Idiot Christian Husband Claims He Cannot Stop Visiting Prostitutes

Idiot Christian Husband Claims He Cannot Stop Visiting Prostitutes

Some married Christian guy wrote in to Christian TV show “The 700 Club” to tell host Pat Robertson he’s been seeing hookers and cannot stop. He wants advice on how to stop. Of course, moron boy can stop any time he wants.

Let this be a lesson to you, single Christian ladies who want marriage:

Christians will tell you that you can only be married to another Christian (they base this on only one or two Bible verses that are open to interpretation), but even if the Bible did teach this be equally yoked crap, if you want marriage, you may have to marry a Non Christian because Christian females out number the males. Other than that, some Christian men are pigs.

Here you have a guy who says he’s a Christian, but he regularly visits hookers, and I think he said he’s been doing so for years.

You, single Christian woman, are just as well off marrying a Non-Christian man, because the Non Christian man just may live a cleaner life style than a Christian one. You may find a Non Christian husband who would not even dream of seeing a hooker.

I also wonder what this sort of story says about God.

If the God of the Bible exists, why would he permit well meaning, devout, sincere Christian women to end up marrying abusive men, or perverts, like this one, who visits hookers?

If this man’s wife is anything like I was growing up, she probably prayed daily for years that God send her a Christian Mr. Right who would be a kind-hearted, decent guy. I can bet you dollars to doughnuts she did not pray, “Dear Lord, one day, please send me a Christian husband who will cheat on me, and by using prostitutes.”

No, she probably petitioned God for a clean cut guy who has decent morals. So why on earth did God send this woman a man who is a serial cheater?

God is not keeping up his end of the promise, for Jesus said God will only send “good gifts” to his children. Who among you reading this thinks that a serial cheater is a “good gift?” Me neither.

To refresh your memory, from Matthew 7:

  • Or if he [your child] asks for a fish, he [the parent] will not give him a snake, will he? 11 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

So what is the point in praying to God, or relying on him to meet needs?

God has utterly failed the wife this guy is married to, just as he has failed the many Christian women I have read about in books and other blogs who had to divorce their abusive Christian husbands.

Let this be another example as well that marriage or parenthood do not make a person more godly or mature.

Many Christians teach that singles are immature or are sexual perverts, and teach that marriage is necessary to make a person mature or ethical. Clearly, marriage or parenthood do not make anyone more mature, godly, or loving, since we have a Christian married man (who I think is a father too), who uses hookers.

The man’s letter is the 3rd or 4th one on this video:

(Link): 700 Club Video: Christian Married Man Uses Prostitutes – You Tube

(Link):  Bring It On-Line: Existence In Heaven / Married Christian Man Visits Hookers – hosted on 700 Club site

————————————-

Related Posts:

(Link): Forget About Being Equally Yoked: “My Abusive Christian Marriage”

(Link): Update on Christian Rapist Man Who Used Christian Mingle Site To Pick His Victims (he liked to discuss Jesus and the Bible with them before raping them – other details in update) Equally Yoked Teaching IS A FARCE

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link):  Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link):  Depressing Testimony: “I Was A Stripper but Jesus Sent Me A Great Christian Husband”

(Link):   Shocking Porn ‘Epidemic’ Stats Reveal Details About Christian Consumption (2014 Study) / Nearly Two-Thirds of Christian Men View Porn Monthly; They Are Watching It at Same Rate as Secular Men, Says Study – Christian Single Women: More Proof “Be Equally Yoked” Teachings Are Pointless

(Link):  Florida Youth Pastor Is Behind Bars After Child Porn Discovery – Be Equally Yoked: What A Joke

(Link): Life in prison for Satanist who dismembered and ate mother-of-three after taking her back to his house for sex – The Flip Side to Be Equally Yoked

(Link): Conservative Jews question notions on dating, marrying only Jews

(Link): Pro Ball Player Convicted for Kid Diddling Three Kids Claims to be an Outstanding Christian (and he’s married with a kid of his own) – again, why should Christian single gals limit themselves to only marrying Christian men? The Whole “Being Yoked Equally” thing is irrelevant and unduly limiting for singles

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages 

Before we get to the post by J D Hall:

Background:

  • The Village Church (TVC) of Texas has placed Karen, who was once a member of theirs, under church discipline because she did not, according to them, abide by the church covenant she signed.
  • Instead of conferring with the church on what to do, Karen, on her own, sought an annulment from the state of Texas, once she discovered her then-spouse, Jordan, was a pedophile.
  • Karen said she spent about 50 days conferring with other Christians (not from the TVC), and in prayer, mulling over what to do, before seeking the annulment.
  • This action of hers has ticked off TVC leadership, because Karen did not get their permission to get the annulment.
  • Matt Chandler is the lead preacher of TVC.

You can read additional reporting of this situation here (additional material is at the bottom of this post):

Here is the page I am responding to:

(Link, off site): A Rational Response to the Criticism of Village Church  by  J D Hall, Pulpit and Pen blog

The covenant that Hall is so rigorously defending – TVC’s membership covenant – here does not even mention annulments.

As Karen explains (off site Link, Source):

  • …it is worth noting here that although The Village Church claims [in their e-mail] that “We see an annulment as a subcategory of what Scripture defines as a divorce in Mark 10:9” …, this cannot be found anywhere in their Membership Covenant or Bylaws.
  • In signing their Membership Covenant shortly after my 24th birthday, I had agreed to nothing in regards to the possibility of annulment should I come to realize that my marriage had been a complete sham from the beginning.
  • There is a vast difference between a divorce and a marriage that is voided on the grounds of fraud, and I had no way of knowing that the leadership of The Village Church would respond to it in this fashion.

Continue reading “A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages”

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account Sometimes

One Reason You May Want to Visit My Twitter Account

(Link): My Twitter Page

I don’t care how many followers I have on Twitter.

This post is not about driving up my Twitter followers.

You can book mark my Twitter page and visit it every so often (that is, you don’t have to follow me, if you bookmark the page and visit it, it will not drive up my follower numbers).

Why would you want to visit my Twitter page?

Because I sometimes come across a lot of news stories there that I do not have the time or interest in blogging about here.

I come across many stories about child abuse by parents, married people who commit crimes, new trends in dating and marriage, why people quit church, articles about sexism (I basically tweet about the same stuff I blog about here), etc, and I simply cannot keep up with it all.

It’s much easier for me to re-tweet news stories I see on twitter than to fire up this blog, and make a post about everything.

One of the annoying things about this blog is I have to not just write up the material, but I have to add categories or tags to each post, which I tire of doing. It’s ten times faster and easier to send a tweet to an article than to write it up here.

So, you may want to consider visiting my Twitter page. The right side of this blog, towards the bottom, shows my latest tweets, but it only goes up to the last 15 or 20 and does not show them all.

You don’t have to join Twitter and “follow” me on there – you can just bookmark the page and visit once in a while. There may be links to articles on there that I do not blog about here.

(Link): My Twitter Page

At some point in the future, I may not be able to Tweet or blog as much as before.

Life in prison for Satanist who dismembered and ate mother-of-three after taking her back to his house for sex – The Flip Side to Be Equally Yoked

Life in prison for Tennessee satanist who dismembered and ate mother-of-three after taking her back to his house for sex

(Link): Life in prison for Tennessee Satanist who dismembered and ate mother-of-three after taking her back to his house for sex

For all my pontificating on this blog about how stupid, unnecessary, possibly dangerous and limiting the “Be Equally Yoked” teaching is for and among single Christians, I do NOT mean to otherwise imply that any and every NON-Christian man is a safe bet for dating, companionship, or marriage.

If you are a single Christian woman, you need to be careful about the men you associate with regardless of that man’s religious beliefs.

There is no “safe bet.”

Continue reading “Life in prison for Satanist who dismembered and ate mother-of-three after taking her back to his house for sex – The Flip Side to Be Equally Yoked”

Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

Christians can’t seem to agree on when or if the promises in the Bible – especially Old Testament ones – apply to Christians today.

Here is another example of writers on another Christian site attempting to explain which promises are meant for Christians today and which are not:

(Link): Which Promises Are For Me? on The Gospel Coalition site, written by Jen Wilkin

I have more comments below this.

Excerpts:

  • Not many things are more comforting than a promise made and kept. And not many things are more hurtful than a promise broken. Knowing we worship a God who keeps his promises is a source of deep joy. But misapplied, this knowledge can also lead us to treasure-hunt Scripture for promises in problematic ways.
  • How can we know which promises are for us? How can we lay claim to the promises of the Bible without overstepping their application? Here are some common pitfalls to keep in mind as you study.
  • Common Mistakes

    Confusing a promise with a principle. Promises are always fulfilled 100 percent of the time. Principles state general truths.

  • The book of Proverbs is often mistaken for a book of promises, when in fact it is a book of principles. The principle of “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6) is generally true and wise to heed. But it is not a guarantee that every child raised with godly instruction will become a believer in Jesus.
  • Ignoring the context. We often apply a promise to ourselves before considering its original audience or its historical, cultural, or textual context. In some cases, a promise was made to a specific person for a specific reason and has no further application beyond its immediate context. In other cases, the application can only be properly made after the promise is understood in its original context.
  • God’s promise to Abram of land and offspring (Gen. 12:1–3) cannot be taken to mean God will give me a house or children. It can, however, be applied to mean he will give me a spiritual inheritance through Christ.
  • Overlooking the “if.” Promises that contain an “If” require some form of obedience before we can expect them to come to pass in our lives. They are conditional.
  • Limiting a promise to your own understanding. Even when we rightly recognize a promise as intended for us, we often impose our own understanding of exactly how it will be fulfilled. Or we are tempted to impose our own timeline on its fulfillment.
  • Yes, God does have a plan to prosper you and not to harm you (Jer. 29:11), but as in the case of the people to whom those words were originally written, that “you” is more likely a collective reference to the body of believers, and that plan may play out across centuries in ways we can’t possibly predict.
  • To recognize this intent does not diminish the beauty of the promise at all. It actually enhances it.
  • Do your homework. Before you write it on a note card for your fridge, before you post it on Instagram or shop for it on a coffee mug or declare it your life verse, make a thorough study of where your promise lives in Scripture and in biblical history. Make sure it’s a general promise, not a specific promise to someone else or just a general principle to observe. Check for any “ifs” that might change its application.

The page goes on and on like that; click the link at top if you’re interested in seeing the full article.

Perhaps some Christians needed to be made aware of these things, but I’m over 40 years of age, have been a Christian since before I hit age ten, have read the entire Bible as well as many books about Christian theology and apologetics.

I don’t think I really need a basic primer on these things at this stage.

I find a lot of the points in the article are rather basic and based on common sense.

Even under her “Do Your Homework” section, I’m sorry, but Christians to this day still debate and fuss over if Jeremiah 29.11 is for believers only today (she mentions that passage in her article).

She seems to feel that Jer 29.11 is for ancient Israelites only, but I still find other Christians who believe it’s equally applicable to Christians in America in 2015.

Her article only adds to the confusion, in my view. That Christians have to keep explaining and teaching which biblical promises and verses apply to whom does not clarify the situation, but piles on.

I can guarantee you if Christians of other denominations read this page (I refer again to (Link): Which Promises Are For Me? ) that this lady wrote, they will each have their own particular objections or areas of disagreement.

—————–

Related Posts:

(Link):  Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link):  Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (May 2017)

(Link): More Musings about Applicability of the Old Testament, Via One Man’s Testimony About Jeremiah 29:11

(Link):   Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11 and Its Application

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

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

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post site: “Rethinking Date Rape”

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post: “Rethinking Date Rape”

I am surprised I have not seen more Christians tweet or write in criticism of this page:

(Link): Rethinking Date Rape by Hope Ferguson – on The Christian Post

Here are some excerpts:

  • … Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?
  • According to the latest statistics, one in five women on American campuses has been subject to acquaintance rape. Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.
  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”
  • ….If a woman decides that a consensual encounter is now not to her liking, and she tells the man to stop, but in a frenzy of testosterone and pleasure, he refuses, is that rape? Does her later no cancel out her earlier yes?If a young woman, such as one profiled in the New York Times recently, gets stinking drunk at a frat party with equally drunk young men, and finds herself “taken advantage of,” is that rape?
  • …While the young men, every bit as immature and drunk as the young women, are excoriated and raked across society’s collective coals, the young women are absolved from all liability and responsibility for their behavior.
  • We are not talking about mature adults preying on kids.
  • We are talking about peers and how they think about, negotiate, and act on their sexual desires.The Columbia student who was so outraged about being “raped” by her date, had already had consensual sex with the same young man previously. Rather than dismissing the incident as sexual communication gone wrong, instead, the young man, a student at Columbia as well, is labeled as a rapist on national TV, with no opportunity to defend himself without exposing his identity.
  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.
  • Are women really helpless victims?In the latest controversy over Jackie’s story in Rolling Stone, the writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, admittedly began her quest with an agenda to expose acquaintance rape on a prestigious college campus; to show how the charge is not taken seriously by college administrators (who frequently do not report the cases to police, either for fear of sullying their institution’s reputations, or in recognition of the murkiness of many of the charges) and to show how young women are therefore victimized all over again.
  • Now I am not defending rape, acquaintance rape, date rape nor any other kind. I am saying, as Roiphe did in her piece, that cases of heterosexual miscommunication may end up as “rape,” if the woman later regrets what she did; doesn’t remember what she did; can’t recall consenting; or did something under the influence of alcohol that she wouldn’t normally do, with the attendant shame.However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do.
  • Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women? Why isn’t there more education on college campuses about the dangers of binge drinking? Nearly 2,000 young people a year die on American campuses of alcohol-related circumstances.
  • …Why aren’t young women taught to protect themselves and to avoid being caught in avoidable situations that could end badly, like being drunk to the point of passing out in a frat house full of horny young men suffering from TMT (too much testosterone).

I personally do not find it victim-blaming to tell women of preventative measures they can take to lessen their chances of being raped; I wrote about it earlier, here:

(Link):  Suggesting Preventive Measures Is Not Necessarily Victim Blaming

So far on that score, I’m in partial agreement with Ferguson, but I am astounded at how much victim blaming is in this article.

Where Ferguson writes,

  • However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do. Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women?

Because a woman getting drunk is not the same thing as a man attacking a woman.

It doesn’t matter if the man in question is inebriated or not when he attacks a woman. Rape remains rape, and a crime that one human does against another.

A woman who is getting drunk in a frat house is only doing harm to herself (she may get liver problems if she continues drinking).

And that is one reason of several why society should hold young men “more accountable” in a situation where he rapes a woman, whether he is drunk or sober at the time. This isn’t rocket science, and I’m shocked that Ferguson doesn’t understand any of this.

Men who kill people while drunk driving face legal penalties, why should they not also do so in cases of sexual assault, if they rape a woman while they are drunk?

Ferguson writes,

  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”

For those of you not familiar with the story of the rape victim who carried her mattress around campus, here are a few articles about it (all off site links):

I find it very troubling that this author, Ferguson, shows no understanding or concern for the young woman carrying the mattress, but chooses to view this as the woman “infantilizing” herself.

The young woman’s mattress was symbolic of her attack, and of seeking justice.

To compare the mattress of this story to a child’s “security blankie” belies deep ignorance on the part of the author (and I’m betting this is willful ignorance) and a lack of compassion for sexual assault victims.

Ferguson writes,

  • Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.

While I have no problem educating and cautioning women from drinking too much around men, especially at frat houses and at bars, it is immoral to blame women for being raped because they were drunk at the time of the assault.

Would Ferguson say that children who follow a child molester into his van for a promise of candy are to blame for being raped by the molester in the van?

Would she, Ferguson, shame those child victims and say, “It was their own fault they were assaulted, because they should have known better than to believe a stranger’s promise about candy?”

Probably not, so why blame a grown woman for being raped?

Ferguson writes,

  • Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?

Any time a woman says no or protests, or does not give her consent to have sex (the woman may be drugged or knocked out and incapable of accepting or declining), the situation is rape.

It does not matter if the man who rapes the woman is a man she has had consensual sex with 100 times in the past, only one time, or ten times, or zero times.

Marital rape was legal in the United States even up into the last half of the 20th century or earlier, because cultural and legal views were such that people believed that a husband had a right to have sex any time with his wife, even if the wife said “no” and did not want to have sex.

It looks as though Ferguson subscribes to this view that women have no agency, that they are forever the property of other men, and that their decisions about their own bodies or lives do not matter.

I also find it very odd and sexist that Ferguson acts as though because a woman may have had consensual sex with a man at one point in time that the man is forever entitled to that woman and her body any time he pleases in the future.

To argue in that manner would be to argue also that because I let the plumber into my house once five years ago to un-clog my kitchen pipes, with my consent, now means that same  plumber can just waltz into my house any time he wants to now and touch my pipes.

Just because I consented to let the auto mechanic down the street change the oil in my car six months ago at the local garage does not give that guy the right to get into my car today, change the oil, or drive the car around.

A one time “yes” of two days ago or ten years ago, does not equate to a lifetime “yes.”

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the essay was this:

  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.

If anything or anyone is guilty of infantilizing women, it’s conservative Christian teachings about gender roles, dating, and marriage.

Under the rubric of “biblical womanhood,” “traditional gender role” or “gender complementarian” teachings, Christians tell Christian women to behave and think like little girls – though advocates of these positions may deny it, this is what their teachings boil down to in practice.

Christian women, in particular from evangelical, Reformed, fundamentalist, and Baptist backgrounds, get the repeated message from parents, churches, Christian material (such as books, blogs, etc) that a woman’s only  acceptable or suitable role in life is to be a wife and mother.

As a wife, they are told, their husband has authority over them, and they are to “graciously submit” to that husband. Christian women in abusive marriages are counseled by preachers to stay with abusive husband and to continually submit to him.

For examples of that, see these off site links:

(Link): Preacher John Piper: Wives should “endure” abuse “for a season”

(Link): Paige Patterson has never retracted his words on wife beating

Those are common views among conservative Christians concerning women in abusive marriages. I said COMMON, those are not rare, those are not exceptions.

Christian women are taught from the time they are young that they are always to put the needs and feelings of other people before their own.

Christian women are taught and pressured from the time they are girls and as adults that they are always to say “yes” to other people’s requests, no matter what.

Christian women are taught by most other Christians and conservative Christian culture that conflict is bad or wrong and to be avoided.

Therefore, many Christian women raised in such families or environments never get any practice at developing assertive life skills, disagreeing with others, standing up to people, defending themselves.

Conservative Christians raise females with the expectation that a good, biblical female is one who is constantly quiet, sweet, un-assertive, doesn’t make choices for herself, doesn’t challenge or disagree with people, especially never men.

Christian women are, in other words, fed a steady diet of Codependency, and they taught that being Codependent is God’s will for every woman’s life.

Women who are raised like this are incapable of making decisions for themselves. They tend to cave in quickly when they are too afraid to stand up to a person who is demanding something of them. The word “no” gets caught in their throat.

This puts Christian women in a dangerous position, from the time she is a kid, teen, and into her adult years, unless and until she visits therapists and reads books by doctors who explain it’s not mean, uh-Christ-like, bitchy, or selfish for a woman to say “no” and to have boundaries.

Here’s an example that happens to a lot of women a lot as they grow up and even into their adulthoods (this happened to me a lot):

If a strange man approaches a woman on the street asking for help, the woman’s instinct or gut tells her this man is possibly a mugger or a rapist, but she don’t want to hurt his feelings, offend the man, or appear as a bitch.

After all, their mothers, Christian pastors, and books about men and dating, raised them that Christian girls are ALWAYS sweet, helpful, and nice, and should not put even their own safety ahead of a stranger in need – so instead of running away or making an otherwise quick exit, which they should do, they let the strange man approach them and talk to them.

And all the while, they have butterflies in their stomach, worried if this man is going to harm them or not.

By the way, a lot of rapists prey on women using this as a tactic and use this to exploit women.

Ted Bundy, the serial killer, used to put a cast on his arm, and approach young women asking them for help, to carry things to his car. He knew they did not want to appear bitchy or mean, so they would help him out. Once they were by his car, he wound knock them out, toss their bodies in his car, drive away, and kill them.

Rapists, muggers, etc, count on women caring more about others than their own safety, they rely on women caring more about appearing nice, sweet, and “Christian” then they do about their own safety, and they exploit these traits to get female victims.

And Christians keep right on teaching women to be easy targets for rapists, con artists, abusive boyfriends, and muggers.

Yes indeed, it’s conservative Christian teaching itself which causes some Christian women to be raped, mugged, or killed.

It’s not always the fault of secular feminism, university campus parties, or alcohol drinking that is to blame for rape, but the cultural and Christian pressure on women from the time they are young, to always be compliant, lack boundaries, and afraid to say No to anyone.

The ideal biblical, Christian woman to most Christians is a passive, wimpy, sweet, subservient, woman who will never stand up for herself, never utter a negative comment.

And it’s precisely those kinds of women abusive men and rapists love to choose as their victims.

Christian gender role teachings set women up to be enticing, easy targets for con artists, rapists, abusive husbands, but then Christians – such as Ferguson – who write those awful articles, blame the women for being raped.

Christians who pressure girls and women to abide by gender complementarian teachings (which is nothing but codependency) set women up to be rape victims, conditions them to act and think like victims, but then they turn around and blame them if they are raped.

It’s demonic, evil, and very deplorable to set women up to be assaulted, and then blame them if or when they are assaulted. The Christian Post really should delete that article.

————————-

Related posts:

(Link):  How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

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

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

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

(Link): Population Decline and Bay-bee Obsession – Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Traditional Family, Christian Gender Complementarian Nuts

Pervert Who Regularly Has Sex With Horses is Married to Human Woman

Pervert Who Regularly Has Sex With Horses is Married to Human Woman

Evangelicals and other types of Christians frequently like to teach or assume that being married makes a person impervious to sexual sin (they assume singles are harlots), and that being married makes a person more mature and responsible.

Apparently, the pervert featured in this story is married to a woman, and he also had sexual contact with men at one time. He said his sexual orientation changed – he used to consider himself homosexual but says he is now “90% hetero.”

My feelings about people who have sex with animals: Anyone who has sex with animals should be hanged. Ditto for people who fondle or rape children, or who sexually assault adults.

I’d also like to mention this story points to another flaw in Christian teachings about marriage.

Often times, Christians will present marriage as though it’s only conferred by God on to people who achieve some sort of standard in life – which may be holiness, selfless-ness, maturity, whatever.

Some Christians will teach if you want marriage but are still single, you must be “making marriage into an idol,” and until you want God more than you want marriage, God will with-hold marriage from you.

None of these teachings are biblical. But other than that, they do not fit reality. I constantly see people who do not deserve to be married who are married. I have posted time and again on this blog news stories of married people who murder their spouses, who view child pornography, whatever.

You cannot possibly expect me to believe that God only rewards the holy and upright with marriage when I see news items like the one below about perverts who are married despite being absolute deviants.

(Link):  Horse Genitals Taste of Hay and More Curious Delights from a Horsef*cker WARNING: page has very graphic content (no photos, only text of sexual acts described in graphic detail)

That page is on Gawker, which in turn references this page (which I assume also has graphic content)

(Link): What It’s Like to Date A Horse – GRAPHIC SEXUAL CONTENT (TEXT NO PHOTOS) From “Science of Us” site.

I feel a more adequate headline for that page would be: “What it’s like to Rape an animal and how I am disgracing myself by performing an evil, unnatural sex act”

You’ll notice that this sicko’s narrative is very similar to that of homosexuals and child molestors – he claims he was always attracted to horses sexually; he feels he was “born that way.”

I’ve often read in online news stories and seen on TV shows that many homosexuals claim they always knew they were homosexual, and believe they were “born that way,” and I’ve read interviews with child molesters online who say they’ve always felt attracted to children and feel they were born that way.

Excerpts from Science of Us site (I’ve omitted some of the more tawdry quotes from the interview):

  • Here, a 42-year-old man from Canada describes his life as a zoophile attracted to female horses.
  • So the  [horse] book aroused you? Did you masturbate over the images of horses?
    Oh, yes. And later I’d go to pre-internet online dial-up forums and that’s where I came across bestiality porn. And I didn’t realize it was abnormal at that time, but the comments attached to those pictures were all going on about how disgusting it was. I was 13. So that would be when I was first aware that I was different.
  • ..When was your first kiss?
    My first kiss was from a man named Mark. He was aware of my sexual preference and interested himself in dogs after a fashion. That was about two months after I lost my virginity, so I was about 22. In all honesty, I’ve never liked kissing men; rough beards do not turn me on.
  • So you had your first kiss after you lost your virginity? Did you lose your virginity to a horse or a human?
    A horse.

As to this next bit – these doctors and vets, who are aiding this sicko to rape horses, and who are okay with this – should be hanged. I’m completely serious. Anyone who condones this, covers for people who do this, who are involved in any way, should be hanged, or shot in the face.

Continuing:

  • Are there health and safety concerns? How did you know how to do it [sexually assault an animal] safely — did you educate yourself first?
    There are a lot of things to think about. I’ve had the luck and the privilege to know two veterinarians and a doctor who were open to the idea, so I talked to them and I investigated zoonosis — the transference of diseases from animals to people.

Continue reading “Pervert Who Regularly Has Sex With Horses is Married to Human Woman”

A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James (Driscoll The Bully Portrayed as Victim)

A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James

(Link): To Christian Bloggers, from a Pastor’s Kid: Don’t Follow Mark Driscoll Around by Samuel James.

Christian Radio host, personality, and occasional blogger Janet Mefferd tweeted a link today to this opinion piece by Samuel James, which reads like a big Driscoll apology.

Here are some of my observations or critiques of the post. I’ll quote the comments by James and then remark below them.

By Samuel James:

  • Christian bloggers, please don’t report on the movements of Mark Driscoll. I’ll give you four reasons:
  • 1) It really serves no good purpose. Driscoll has been publicly rebuked and has lost his ministry. As bad as Driscoll may have been in leadership, as potentially disqualified as he was from the pastorate

As has been noted on another blog or two:

Driscoll has not truly lost his ministry, and he left his former church before he could be rebuked or disciplined by the elders, or the group they referred to as the BOAA (Board of Advisors and Accountability), for years of misbehavior and misconduct.

Driscoll was dodging responsibility on that point, which is not a sign of growth, maturity, or even trustworthiness.

Driscoll is no longer a part of Acts 29 and Mars Hill specifically, but he apparently is making a move to open shop as a preacher, or some kind of Christian talking head, either in California or Texas (for more on that, see (Link – off site): here).

In Driscoll’s faux apology or letter of resignation, he framed his situation as not having been disqualified from ministry by the BOAA. I suspect he did that to lay the groundwork to become preacher at another church in the future because that is his intent.

For more on that, if you would like, please see:

(Link – off site): Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll Resigns, Claims He Is Not “Disqualified From Future Ministry”

Excerpt:

  • However, (Link): in his resignation letter, Driscoll appeared to leave open the possibility of his return to public ministry by stating that he was thankful to the Mars Hill church oversight committee for making it clear that he (Driscoll) has not been disqualified from future ministry. His basis for making such a claim seems to rest on the fact that the oversight committee had stated that Driscoll had not been charged with “criminal activity, immorality or heresy.”

But then there’s this:

(Link – off site):  Current Mars Hill Pastor Says Investigation Findings Showed Mark Driscoll Not Qualified as Elder

Quote by James:

  • …there is no godly or compelling reason to keep tabs on where he goes.

Says Samuel James. That is the author’s opinion, and he is certainly welcome to it, but it’s subjective.

Continue reading “A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James (Driscoll The Bully Portrayed as Victim)”