Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture

***

 

Who is Fred Butler?

I saw this tweet the other day. Long-time blog readers will recognize the name, Fred Butler, an employee of Grace to You, the radio ministry of Pastor John MacArthur. Butler’s tweet references another tweet from the @9Marks Twitter account which quotes from an article recently posted on their site. The article is about the church’s response to the #MeToo movement.

***

***

The Problems

I have a number of problems with Fred’s tweet.

Firstly, in general, I believe the “worldly culture” has done a better job of addressing the issue of sexual abuse than the Church. Having attended many churches over the years, I don’t recall any that dealt specifically with the topic of sexual abuse in an ongoing fashion. I don’t recall hearing about churches that have a ministry focused on this topic since blogging, either.

In full confession, I have difficulty with 9Marks because of hyper-authoritarian teachings which can lead to spiritual abuse, but I wanted to see what Fred Butler was reading when he tweeted his criticism of the article, What the Church Can and Should Bring to the #MeToo Movement. What problem did Fred find?

The article was written by a woman, so there’s that. Did Butler have difficulty because the author is “teaching” a man as he reads it? I’m not sure, but whatever it is, at the time of this screenshot, 28 people “liked” and 4 people retweeted Fred’s tweet.

Here is the author’s bio:

Whitney Woollard is a writer, speaker, and women’s Bible teacher in Portland, Oregon, where she and her husband Neal attend Hinson Baptist Church. She holds her M.A. in biblical and theological studies from Western Seminary and loves sharing her passion for the Bible and good theology with others.

Back to the Butler’s tweet – the world may hate God, but there are a lot of people in the world who hate abuse as well. God also hates abuse (Ezekiel 34). So, because many in the world hate abuse, we must dismiss #MeToo because it’s now a cultural thing? I can’t buy that logic.

So, what did Ms. Woollard say in her article that Fred Butler would find difficult to stomach? I’ll share some quotes which give the overall gist of the article, which by the way, I found quite good.

Like any movement, #MeToo is imperfect, but that shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating it as an expression of God’s common grace. He restrains evil and pours out graciousness on all people, enabling even those outside of Christ to do good, carry out justice, and promote human flourishing. It’s not salvific, but it is good.  

I agree with this overall thought. Evil is evil, and it is not only Christians who can identify it. I believe that Christians should be leading the way on shining the light on evil, but sadly, this has not happened; and thus, we have the #MeToo movement. This should be a wake-up call for the Church.

Ms. Woollard discusses the following topics:

  1. #MeToo is dragging wickedness into the light.
  2. #MeToo is forcing a conversation everyone would rather not have.
  3. #MeToo is teaching women that abuse and harassment is real and wrong.

***

Once again, I found myself agreeing with Ms. Woollard. I appreciate how Ms. Woollard shared a recent personal experience she had. Women are regularly gawked at sexually, and I do not think men understand how pervasive this is for women. Many women cannot walk anywhere in public without fear of receiving some sort of sexual comment or catcall.

Don’t believe me? Yesterday I left my house for one hour and encountered a man in a semi-isolated spot who told me “if women don’t watch out, white men are going to start fighting back against #MeToo” and we should “fear the force with which their wave would hit us.” Then I was cornered at a crosswalk by a man who yelled sexual obscenities at me, saying, “I’m sorry but I have to because, God, you’re so (bleeping) hot.” (I was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and loose jeans.) I felt uncomfortable and unsafe, yet unsure of how to respond without calling more attention to myself. I grew up thinking you just smiled and laughed that stuff off. But now I rejoice in a new era where that speech and behavior are unacceptable and where women are taught to stop inappropriate comments or “playful” touches and say, “Stop right now. This is making me uncomfortable.” This is common grace at work.

See?  One hour. She got all of that in one hour! Ugh!!

***

 

Healthy Churches

Further, in the article, Ms. Woollard describes what happens in healthy churches. Again, I have yet to see this for myself, but it is my heart’s desire to see this take place:

THE CHURCH HAS ANSWERS THE CULTURE NEEDS

They need hope, healing, and restoration. In other words, they need the church.

Assuming we’re talking about a healthy church with good structures and policies in place, what does the church have to bring to #MeToo

  1. The church has the gospel.
  2. The church has a biblical bias.
  3. The church has member care.
  4. The church has corrective and formative discipline.
  5. The church has a theology of imago Dei.

 

***

Sadly, here’s a tweet I sent out nearly 3 weeks ago before the article was posted. If Twitter had an edit feature, I probably would have added the words “in general.”

***

Rachael Denhollander and Unhealthy Churches

Back to Fred Butler – he is wrong. The world is exposing sexual abuse and harassment. It’s here and it is now in all places/business/industries. The world is ahead of the Church in drawing attention to the problem and forcing a response. The Church now has a responsibility to deal with it, not play theological word games about collecting “action points” from the world. This is not about action points, this is about the hearts of women who need healing, and most likely, their souls do as well if they were harmed by someone in the Church.

The mishandling of sex abuse cases in the Church is not only causing survivors emotional harm, but I strongly suspect it has led to many abandoning their faith. That’s why I would rather survivors seek secular mental health help from trained and licensed professionals who understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. I’m not alone in this thought. Read the words from Rachael Denhollander, the brave woman who took down Dr. Larry Nasser, the pedophile who sexually assaulted hundreds of young girls while “treating” their injuries:


When asked, “How can people trust the church and Christianity?” in the wake of sexual abuse, Denhollander simply said, “Don’t.” ~Rachael Denhollander


***

In case you hadn’t heard, Rachael Denhollander was selected as one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the year 2018. She is a conservative Christian. Big names in Christendom talked about Rachael, even wrote blog posts about her and her victim’s impact statement. Because along with sharing how the abuse affected her, she offered her evil perpetrator forgiveness and presented the Gospel to him. But even Rachael cannot recommend that sexual abuse survivors get help from the Church.

Denhollander said that while she is a “very conservative evangelical,” she believes the Church has a long way to go when it comes to dealing with victims of sexual abuse.

“That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth,” she said. “There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the Church.”

Fred Butler and his “liking” buddies need to read this article from Dr. Diane Langberg before spouting off on Twitter about the #MeToo subject. #MeToo is not just a “worldly cultural” issue, it’s an issue prevalent in evangelical churches.

***

***

I will close with part of Dr. Langberg’s letter to the Church:

God calls us to the truth and light of transparency. Transparency protects both alleged victims and alleged predators from the horrific burden of lies. A transparent process protects truth for all. When those in power attempt to dissemble in order to protect an institution they are no longer accomplishing damage control. They are causing damage – damage to God’s precious sheep and damage to the name of our God –this, in the name of protecting the house of the Lord. That is what the Israelites said in Jeremiah – “the Temple of the Lord” – all the while throwing their children, the vulnerable ones, into the fire of Moloch.

 

***


Fred Butler, #MeToo, Rachael Denhollander, Sex Abuse, Worldly Culture

197 comments on “Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture

  1. JA – I know you have a history with Fred, whereas I am ‘Fred neutral’, neither a fan nor a detractor. I have though finally rejected the Calvinism of the MacArthur camp, in part because of its fruit (breeds hardness of heart and an unapproachable God).

    I hope you two are not talking at cross-purposes. Fred is right as far as it goes in that the genuine church cannot take a cue from the world around it, because that world is hostile to God and his revelation. It is hostile to the sex ethic of the bible, it doesn’t want it kept to a man and the women to whom he is married and committed. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. I would include ‘churches’ that systematically cover up abuse that has gone in in their midst in this.

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences. The corruption that abuse represents. Alpha males evolved to dominate. Patriarchy is the problem. It’s not, it’s sin that is the problem.

    I read recently of a homosexual discussing with a porn star about Trump’s alleged immorality. The irony is beyond the belief. His immorality is only a variation of theirs!

    I have in my time attempted to discuss this with feminists, and you will have to forgive me if I seem to have a lack of sympathy for what is going on in modern society. There is a lot of mockery if you say you believe in marriage. It’s not that I think abuse isn’t awful, but what do we expect if we suppress the truth about God by our wickedness? And in turn, God reacts by handing us and our society over to sin and its consequences.

    And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.

    They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

    The result of this being given up by God could be summed up in you get a breakdown in normal, loving human relationships, typified by the last four sad adjectives above. In short, you get an abusive society with debased thinking.

    Like

  2. Agreed that the Church should not take action points from the worldly that hates the Lord. The question though remains: Is Fred Butler and MacArthurism part of that hateful worldly culture? It’s a fair question.

    Like

  3. Agreed that the Church should not take action points from the worldly that hates the Lord. The question though remains: Is Fred Butler and MacArthurism part of that hateful worldly culture? It’s a fair question.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture | Speakingtruthinlove's Blog

  5. JA – my apologies for the first sentence above, which may seem critical of you, which was not my intention. All I mean is I don’t blame you for putting Butler’s pronouncements under the spotlight in view of the way he has treated you in the past. He’s fair game for criticism.

    Like

  6. This mindset of MacArthur and his disciples is a great example of why I don’t trust them with the care of human beings. If someone were to be victimized in a Macarthurized setting, it would be so much more difficult to get help than it would be in most other cultures of Christianity. The tiny sliver of acceptable interpretation of the word of God, coupled with the demonization of anyone who dares to step a foot out of that “Grace”-approved interpretation has created an atmosphere where someone being hurt or victimized in that arena would not only be unlikely to find help from within, they’d be treated with that tone of rebuke so prevalent among him and his men.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. If Fred Butler is so concerned about “worldly” culture, why does he have as his avatar a make believe creature from Star Wars which uses eastern religions as it’s base? What a big hypocrite.

    Like

  8. If Mr. Butler can’t recognize instances of common grace, I wonder if he knows how to recognize any of God’s grace at all.

    Like

  9. So, because many in the world hate abuse, we must dismiss #MeToo because it’s now a cultural thing? I can’t buy that logic.

    Because it is dumb logic.

    The ‘world’ hates murder, so let’s embrace it! No. That’s not a thing.

    Like

  10. What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    KAS, all of the issues present today that are complained about were present in the past. They are not new by any stretch! It is hard hearted of you to not care about men forcing things without consent because you think people aren’t agreeing with you on aspects of marriage. You have causality wrong, anyways.

    Patriarchy is the problem. It’s not, it’s sin that is the problem.

    ‘Sin’ is too vague a term. This is a particular sin, committed mainly by men. Patriarchy enables it, and allows it to flourish and to hide. Whatever the metoo movement is, what it doesn’t do is allow things to hide. And that IS biblical! Dragging things from the darkness into the light. I would question anyone who doesn’t embrace that.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Brilliant article Julie Anne! And I particularly don’t care if you have a “history” with Frank Butler…..who ever he is, I really don’t care as he doesn’t affect my salvation in Jesus Christ one single bit.

    I did have a good heartfelt laugh over the “worldly issue.” I just can’t help but laugh when I see so called Christians call out the rest of Jesus’ sheep in being “worldly,” especially when I observe some pretty bizarre behavioral patterns within their own households!

    Some of those “worldly” Christians sure do use the Name of the LORD our Holy GOD in vain for there own personal gain, fame, glory, and pride. How much money has this Fred Butler earned off of the gullible sheep of our LORD Jesus Christ?

    Interesting how that “worldly” picture is painted on so many, like a scarlet letter, within the visible church…….sorry Fred, but I don’t know who you are and your penned words don’t affect my faith in Christ alone for my eternal salvation…..unworldly speaking of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Times are changing for women for the positive and it is about time whether through Godly or “ungodly” causes IMO.

    Like

  13. I must say that the whole idea of “common grace” makes me cringe. That was Calvin’s unbiblical invention to justify his equally unbiblical concepts of Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Double Predestination. (If people are really “totally depraved,” then how come so many unbelievers do Good Things? Presto! – “common grace”! Problem solved, supposedly. [rolleyes])

    Leaving all that aside, though, brava, Ms. Woollard, and thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “you will have to forgive me if I seem to have a lack of sympathy for what is going on in modern society.”

    @KAS. Did Jesus not have sympathy for his society when he was here? Was it not modern to him at his time?

    I grew up in ultra-conservative hardcore Christian patriarchy and have thankfully washed my hands of the toxic loser-male-serving slop. It nearly killed me. It did damage me very much. Because of it my mother and I both wished we had been aborted. Still today I wish my poor mother had aborted me and saved her self and me from my patriarchy scum bag father.

    “biblical morality,” As someone who grew up with a father who preached biblical morality I will tell everyone; Keith Raniere arranged for his odious unattractive self what conservative Christian fathers and husbands try to arrange for themselves. And Nxivm reminds me a lot of Christianity.

    Since leaving the misery that is Christianity I see that none Christians hate child rape, sexual abuse, and slavery much more than any Christian I grew up knowing ever did.

    When I was born all four of my great-grandmothers were still alive.
    Wife rape, wife beating, and little girl rape was rampant long before nineteen fifty.
    My grandmothers had no choice but to take it. They could not speak out against it like I can. That was how my father and grandfathers liked it. As conservative Christian men they wanted to go back before the 60s were they could beat their wives and rape their trapped little girls and no one would care. If there is anything I learned growing up in Christianity it is conservative Christian fathers hate and abhor any female having and choices.

    I don’t believe Christianity is moral. Just like I don’t believe Islam or Nxivm is moral. Biblical morality made my childhood worse; not better.

    Like

  15. KAS “What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.”

    I think this deserves a detailed response. At first, it smacks of the genetic fallacy, in which we offhandedly discount anything that originates from secular society simply because it didn’t originate in the church.

    However, we need to understand that the law is written on all hearts – everyone has a sense of right and wrong, and the #metoo movement comes from this understanding. We also need to understand (c.f. #churchtoo) that the church’s rejection of the #metoo movement does not come from a proper evaluation of the good and bad traits of the movement, but comes from the fact that the patriarchy and its descendant “rape culture” are well-established in the institutional church.

    So, what we have is not what KAS says is some specifically secular issue that has arisen because of (presumably) the sexualizing of everything, but is instead a reaction to the pervasive patriarchy that is prevalent in both the church and the world. As such I think this is a movement of the Holy Spirit that is awakening society – not just the church – to the evils of our present rape culture. We honestly don’t know whether the #metoo movement came from the church or came from secular society. It can often be a confusing combination of both. For example, the civil rights movement – did it arise out of the church (e.g. REV. Martin Luther King Jr.) or did it arise out of oppressed minorities having their fill of racism?

    I guess the question for you, KAS, is what alternative you offer? If #metoo and society’s response to sexual harassment and sexual violence is inappropriate, then what do you offer? The church, for millennia has offered the “#suckitup” and “#moveon” movement,”#forgiveandforget” which is straight from Satan’s playbook, and that seems to be what the church continues to offer.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “Grace to You”

    What is it about the most Pharisaical and Legalistic arms of Christianity that they want to cling to the word “Grace”.

    Like

  17. “I must say that the whole idea of “common grace” makes me cringe.”

    This is one of the areas where the alternative seems worse.

    Also, be careful that these things are not caricatured. Reformed pastors like to use “Total Depravity” as a spiritually abusive buzzword. Somehow the fallen human condition turns into a reason for us to question our own judgment, and again, somehow our elders and pastors are spiritually “gifted” to not suffer this ill.

    For these pastors, “Total Depravity” means that I must submit and obey my husband/father/deacon/elder/pastor, because while I might think that “all have sinned” and that “our righteousness is as filthy rags”, I must also recognize that God somehow creates an environment where those authority figures in my life have the supernatural ability to teach the “WORD OF GAWD(TM)” to me without error when they are acting in their “office”.

    For some (such as KAS) “common grace” doesn’t mean that those around us have the ability to discern good and evil, but instead, that God somehow physically restrains their hands so that they can’t knife/strangle/shoot/hang/whatever us Christians. When Christians believe that about common grace, it makes perfect sense that they would never see any “good” in a movement like #metoo, and they would assume that underlying that movement is some sort of demonic force and not simply enough people with a natural ability to see what is wrong and want to do something about it.

    Like

  18. “Biblical morality made my childhood worse; not better.”

    I’ve recently started digging into the stark contrast between “Biblical morality” and what Jesus practiced. If Jesus came today the same way he did 2000 years ago, he would be rejected by institutional Christianity just as he was rejected back then by institutional Judaism.

    Like

  19. Mark For some (such as KAS) “common grace” doesn’t mean that those around us have the ability to discern good and evil

    You don’t know what I think about common grace, I haven’t mentioned it.

    To go back to your other post, I was talking about the 60’s sexual revolution that dramatically abandonned a reasonably widespread acceptance of Christian morality that preceeded it, if sometimes only in theory. The permissive society, where consent could be ever increasingly assumed, leading to a rule-free sex ethic – number of partners, sex of the partners, age of the partners. ‘Rule free’ is the antithesis of what the bible has to say.

    Now once you have got rid of the old, repressive, stuffy religious values, when this leads to the things that #metoo is complaining about as it must, how do you reinstate some kind of order, some kind of restraint? On what basis? If sex only in marriage is got rid of, how do you try to stop men from blatantly abusing women, where do you attempt to draw the line? If you do try to draw a line, why should anyone obey it, morals are relative, a matter of opinion.

    I am not denying the problem of abuse that #metoo may be revealing. What I do think is the secular culture in general, and some brands of feminism in particular, have helped bring about the very situation they are now complaining about. If you want a sexual free for all for yourself, you have to grant it to everybody else.

    The secular culture has been systematically trying to undermine the family, and fatherhood in particular, for a couple of generations now, leading to the mess we are currently in – characterised by irresponsible men.

    My answer to the problem is repentance – a change of mind. Going back to where everything went so horribly wrong, where the West rejected much of its Christian heritage. Now it is possible that #metoo just might cause a re-think though I doubt it, but without a return to a structured and secure family life with responsible men and fathers (can you imagine any feminists arguing for that?) who don’t abandon wives and children, the problem will not be reduced.

    Like

  20. Isn’t it actually “the redemption the world calls for” and didn’t receive from the church? Maybe the starting point should be to acknowledge the failure of churches to address this issue in a responsible, redemptive, obedient manner, instead of morphing it into an evangelistic strategy! Yeesh.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. “If sex only in marriage is got rid of, how do you try to stop men from blatantly abusing women, where do you attempt to draw the line? ”

    KAS! I grew up in conservative Christianity. I had a bible reading church going father and submissive mother; so did my mother and grandmother. We were all beat and sexually abused.Child rape and wife beating is rampant in Christianity and always has been. But, maybe you are saying it is okay if the father and husband does it to his wife and daughters.

    In Christianity, there is no line. Christian husband and Christian daddy can do anything and everything he wants to his property (his wife and daughters) and they have to keep their mouths shut about it and kiss his @ss.

    Christianity was not good for my mother, my grandmothers, or me. I wish I never knew my cretin Christian father.

    Like

  22. Fred states that the church should not take action points from the #metoo movement because it is “worldly.” Fred doesn’t offer what the church is doing to address sexual assault. Does Fred acknowledge that sexual assault happens in churches, by Christians, and has been covered up for years?

    Should the church learn from the #metoo movement? Hell yes! The church could have been the leader in addressing the problem of sexual assault. Instead, they are scrambling to catch up.

    I see nothing “worldly” in the #metoo movement. The movement has provided women and men who have been sexually assaulted a voice. Their voices have been squelched for too long. They are tired of continued instances of perpetrators getting away with their heinous crimes for so long and they want action. The church should be behind these victims and holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes. The church should be the loudest supporter of victims, but Fred wants the church to keep on doing business as usual. Well, Fred, your argument is only going to keep people out of church instead of making them feel welcome.

    Like

  23. Kas: When you talk about “feminists:, I am not sure what you mean?

    I wonder what he means when he talks about “the family”, which the secular culture has supposedly been trying to undermine.

    Which “family” do you mean in particular, KAS? I can’t see how the secular culture has done anything to hurt my family, at least.

    Like

  24. KAS, there are so many things wrong with your statements, I don’t even know where to begin…

    …how do you reinstate some kind of order, some kind of restraint? On what basis? If sex only in marriage is got rid of, how do you try to stop men from blatantly abusing women, where do you attempt to draw the line?

    How about on the basis on basic human decency and respect? How about drawing the line at not doing to others what you wouldn’t want done to you? These are not distinctly Christian ideas, KAS. They’ve been accepted by just about all people at all times, and the concept of sexual consent is based upon them. If consent is simple enough to be summed up by a video like this, it should be easy for all of us to draw the line. The fact that it isn’t in our society is largely due to assumed (mostly male) entitlement and privilege.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. What I do think is the secular culture in general, and some brands of feminism in particular, have helped bring about the very situation they are now complaining about. If you want a sexual free for all for yourself, you have to grant it to everybody else.

    Again, KAS, you’re making a number of assumptions here that I find highly doubtful.

    a) That feminism has somehow brought about rape culture and male entitlement, or made them worse. I don’t see how that’s so. Men have been taking advantage of women and girls for a long, long time — long before modern feminism even existed.

    (Question for JA: I vaguely remember seeing an article dealing with this subject on your Twitter feed. As I recall, it summarily disproved the notion that feminists have created rape culture or the conditions for rampant sexual harassment and abuse. It was a while ago, but can you remember the article offhand? I think it would be worth linking to it again.)

    b) You also seem to be assuming that all non-Christians want nothing but a “sexual free-for-all”. That’s hardly true. The vast majority of people, even outside the church, want to find someone special to share their lives with. They’re not interested in hurting people, or breaking the law, or finding pleasure at the expense of others’ well-being or dignity, so they won’t grant those privileges to anyone else. They simply don’t agree that Christianity offers the best way of finding happiness. And based on the stories coming out the “True Love Waits” and “IKDG” movements, it’s a bit hard to blame them.

    No doubt there are some out there who simply want to do away with all restraint and common sense when it comes to sex, but they’re in the minority. Your broadbrushing of all non-believers is an insult to law-abiding and good-hearted people everywhere.

    Like

  26. Christianity hurts – I’ve seen your testimony to the kind of Christianity you grew up with before, and thought to myself this is a caricature of Christianity. But I am not sure even that is true, a caricature usually bears some resemblance to the thing being caricatured, like a newspaper cartoon; but what you are describing is the virtual opposite of anything that could remotely be called Christian.

    Christianity could be summed up as ‘love God, and love your neighbour as yourself’. Marriage is a specific example of loving your neighbour. The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex. This latter rules out abuse – although I suppose everything else in the list does as well.

    A Christian husband who is indifferent to trying to live out these instructions can forget any blessing from God in the form of answered prayer. Someone who does the opposite isn’t a Christian at all, but somone who loves himself, and therefore in effect hates God and his neighbour. He will make God his deadliest enemy.

    I hope you won’t take offence at this, but may I point you in the direction of my late mother? She grew up in a poverty-stricken, unloving, uncaring, broken family, with her life chances in education squashed. By rights she ought to have reproduced this abusive upbringing in her own family: how can someone love who has never been shown love? Yet she embraced conservative Christianity (thoughtful Anglican), put her faith in Christ, and God changed her, so I can testify of her that all the time she was alive, I simply never knew what it is not to be loved.

    I don’t blame you at all for rejecting the pseudo-Christianity of your upbringing, but there is a Christianity – a Christ – that, if sincerely embraced and lived out, heals.

    Like

  27. KAS,

    Jesus said there would be people who profess him as “Lord Lord” and do “many wonderful works” and yet do not know Him.

    Christian religion enables and facilitates this behaviour.

    The genuine love which overflows in the heart of a born again saint has nothing to do with adherence to the religious system bearing Christ’s name.

    I am talking about Christianity.

    It is a religion.

    It hurts people. The system is designed to stifle spiritual gifts, quench the spirit and elevate men (primarily) to positions Christ never intended. “It shall not be so among you”.

    When you say that Christianity is about “loving God and your neighbour” I would disagree and say that Christianity is about building clubhouses on earth (in Jesus’ name) and empires which are possessed by the one in charge who profits financially from club activities.

    It is very easy to love your neighbour apart from the system.

    It is very easy to do wonderful works at your local clubhouse (in Jesus’ name) and yet never know Jesus Christ.

    Like

  28. If sex only in marriage is got rid of, how do you try to stop men from blatantly abusing women, where do you attempt to draw the line?

    AT F’ing Consent, KAS.

    This perfect past world you imagine did not exist. Men have ALWAYS abused women. It’s just now we can actually do something about it.

    Like

  29. Fred doesn’t offer what the church is doing to address sexual assault.

    Kathi, that’s because the church isn’t doing bupkis, except arguing that feminists are bad and women should be under the thumb of men. And then people like KAS come along and show how blind that perspective is.

    Do they simply ignore that these problems aren’t new? I think so. They feel better if they are all covered up. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. If they ever talked to, or maybe actually listened to and believed, women they might catch a clue.

    Like

  30. a) That feminism has somehow brought about rape culture and male entitlement, or made them worse. I don’t see how that’s so. Men have been taking advantage of women and girls for a long, long time — long before modern feminism even existed.

    SKIJ, it seems to me that a lot of these arguments with men began to take on the character of a threat. Agree with us about marriage, or gender roles, or what have you, and you won’t get hurt. Men won’t leave, abuse, or rape, if women would just stay in their lane.

    Women know this isn’t true. We have all of history to tell us otherwise.

    Like

  31. @KAS

    To go back to your other post, I was talking about the 60’s sexual revolution that dramatically abandonned a reasonably widespread acceptance of Christian morality that preceeded it, if sometimes only in theory. The permissive society, where consent could be ever increasingly assumed, leading to a rule-free sex ethic – number of partners, sex of the partners, age of the partners. ‘Rule free’ is the antithesis of what the bible has to say.

    First, yes, the 60’s did abandon morality, at least on the part of women. However, you fail to recognize that it was preceded by men having already long abandoned their morality. Women in the 60’s were responding to the fact that men could read Playboy, sleep around, etc., with impunity and no harm to their reputations. Meanwhile, women were sluttified if they did the same. It was ultimately a protest against a double standard. Recall that Playboy rose to fame in the 1950s. Prostitution was a thing well before the 60’s. Obviously, the reaction of the women in the 60’s was the wrong one. While they were right to call out the double standard, they were wrong to throw away all standards for themselves. Instead, they should have held men to the same standards to which women were being held.

    Now, wind the clock back even further. Say, to the 1800s. In supposedly Christian western nations, you had sex slave trade with brothels filled with enslaved women, and supposedly Christian men raping them. Britain’s “Christian” soldiers set up more brothels in India for themselves and enslaved more women the same. All because, you know, men can’t keep their pants zipped, the poor things. I am specifically referring to the work of Katherine Bushnell in exposing these types in the 19th century. Look her up. In her works, she recalls the time when she heard the story in Britain of British, “Christian” soldiers gang raping an elderly woman in broad daylight, with even more soldiers standing by watching, doing nothing to help her. Nothing happened to any of the soldiers involved. Welcome to the “Christian” nations of the 19th century. Immorality has been among us a long time.

    You are so worried about feminism, that you fail to recognize you’ve brought this on yourselves by holding to a double standard for men and women. You didn’t think women wouldn’t want to live by the same loose rules that you live by, did you? I would personally love it if both men and women would live by God’s standards, and love one another, respect one another. Until that day, you first, buddy. It takes two to tango, and I see men more than benefiting from the 1960’s breakdown of the facade of morality. All the 1960’s did was bring the skeletons out of the closet and parade them. I can’t help but wonder how many “Christian” men really just want them to go back into the closet so they can continue on being white-washed tombs. There is nothing stopping you from living rightly before God despite whatever other people are doing. You can’t blame “feminism” for your own actions, nor for the actions of other men, who have their own personal responsibility.

    Like

  32. Serving Kids – the family unit has been under attack for decades now in the West.

    About half of all births in London are, I believe, outside of wedlock. There is the problem of mass fatherlessness. Divorce law has been changed so that, as far as I know uniquely, a person who wants to break the contract is enabled to do so. Long working hours, an economic system that means married couples or partners both have to work to have any chance of being able to afford a house. The notion that children are a lifestyle choice, leading to potentially a very serious demographic deficit in much of western Europe.

    Regarding your other points, of course I am talking in generalities. I know Rom 1 is not everything the NT has to say on man and his society in relation to God. But it is extremely pertinent to what has happened in much of the formerly christianised West, where as the church retreats and declines, precisely the kind of things that Paul lists get worse again.

    It’s not Christians who cannot think and have reason, it’s secular man who has futile, debased thinking.

    I’ve spent 40 years in the secular workplace, mostly with people who were fairly decent. I know what you mean by that. Yet you could not call them righteous – skiving and pilfering by employees, a bullying management culture in place with little empires being built and their ethics certainly did not, on the whole, derive from anything Christian, although I believe there is still an amount of Christian capital from previous generations exercising a restraining influence. It’s nearly been used up though.

    The devastation this causes especially in the family just occasionally cannot remain hidden even at work, and you experience people opening up a little on what goes on at home behind the vaneer.

    If your phrase The vast majority of people, even outside the church, want to find someone special to share their lives with. They’re not interested in hurting people, or breaking the law, or finding pleasure at the expense of others’ well-being or dignity … were really true, there would be no need for a #metoo campaign.

    Like

  33. I apologize in advance if this comment comes across as too depressing. Julie Anne, please remove this post if you think it is out of line here.

    Regarding the #MeToo movement… it’s worth attempting to remind ourselves, in general, the many ways men have mistreated women over the centuries. In my opinion the #MeToo movement is a bright spot in the harsh reality of history.

    The pervasive and unabated abuse of females in this world is very, very real. Women have always been treated poorly. Yes, some men and boys are terribly abused and harmed by predators. I recognize that, and they deserve justice. But let’s note what females have had to endure throughout many cultures and time (no particular order):

    Domestic abuse (terrorizing & control, verbally, financially, emotionally, etc.)
    Domestic violence (assault, bare handed or with weapons)
    Rape (married, dating, acquaintance or stranger)
    Murder (married, dating, acquaintance or stranger)
    Serial rape and murder sprees
    “Honor” killings
    Pedophilia
    Child brides, arranged marriages
    Concubines, forced sex with slaves (i.e. rape again)
    Harems and polygamy
    Adultery and mistresses (men’s adulteries expected by society, winked at and covered up)
    Female genital mutilation
    Binding feet, chastity belts, locking up in rooms
    Selective abortion, selective infanticide (females aborted, males desired)
    Pornography
    Voyeurism (men violating girls and women through invasion of privacy)
    Exhibitionism (men violating girls and women through exposing their genitals)
    Sex trade proliferation, johns and pimps
    Stalking, threats
    Harassment (men violating women via ogling, sexual insults or comments, grabbing, pressure for sex acts in return for keeping job/children/situation or getting a job, etc.)
    Revenge porn, sadism, humiliating acts
    Women not allowed to work, low status low income jobs, pay far below males when employed at same level
    Patriarchy (no freedom under male authority in families and governments)
    Women not allowed to vote
    Women not allowed to be educated at all, or sons are given education preference
    Women’s talent and achievements primarily ignored in culture (men’s accomplishments lauded)
    Women’s worth measured by physical beauty and youth
    A woman alone is treated with dismissiveness, a man alone is treated respectfully
    A woman’s testimony has no legal weight, or in cultures that recognize women legally, the woman’s testimony is give far less credence than a man’s
    Women want peace, but men want to control the world, and send their sons to die in wars (ok a lot of men don’t want wars either, I’ll give them that).

    My point is that women have been treated shamefully and disgracefully throughout history. There is no difference today, as seen in the Larry Nassar debacle, where ONE male doctor’s reputation and livelihood were far more important than the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of girls.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Kas: I would argue that it is not the family that is under attack, but that women have been under attack by men and the system in place that favors men over women for too many years to say. Women are starting to stand up against this and for that i salute them.

    Like

  35. If we take 1 Timothy 3’s requirement that an elder have a good reputation among outsiders, that presumes that at times, the outside world does indeed have something to say to the church, no? In the same way, Paul shames the Corinthian church in 1 Cor. 5 by noting they’ve tolerated sin not even named among the pagans, and that also uses the world to shame the church. He also makes repeated comments about the created order and “the very nature of things” indicating a point. Finally, what about Balaam’s donkey?

    Now Butler would have been correct to say that when learning from the world and general revelation, we need to make sure that we’re actually learning truth and not a sinful worldly pattern, but to discard what we can learn from the world altogether is something I cannot reconcile with Scripture.

    Like

  36. “Kas: I would argue that it is not the family that is under attack, but that women have been under attack by men and the system in place that favors men over women for too many years to say.”

    Yes! Would families be fracturing if women were treated as men’s equals?

    Like

  37. “Which “family” do you mean in particular, KAS? I can’t see how the secular culture has done anything to hurt my family, at least.”

    Yea, I’m puzzled by this, too. The only thing outside that has really hurt my family has been an abusive pastor/church. Culture hasn’t done a thing.

    Like

  38. I just wanted to say is that I think the “Me Too Movement” is a well-meaning cause and shouldn’t be ignored by the Christian community simply because it was started by the church. I agree that their are many important issues that the secular society is better at addressing and dealing with including the “Me Too” cause. Shunning them simply because it was started by the “world” and not by the church or Christian community isn’t the answer. How about the Christians should start addressing these issues as among church how these issues are harming/affecting fellow believers. Another problem is what is considered “worldly” has been taken out of context among Christians. It doesn’t mean to shut out anything in the secular society. In the bible, the word was referring to the corrupted sinful things of the fallen world. But there are plenty of positive things of the world too like philanthropy, charity causes, humanity, gallantry, protests for positive change for the better etc. I agree that Mr. Butler was wrong in what he said. Any worthy and positive cause that could benefit society rather than harm shouldn’t be overlooked simply because i’ts wasn’t started by the church. Instead, the church should see that these causes could be helpful within the Christian circles too.

    Like

  39. Thanks, JA. I’ve recently had the opportunity to think through the over-expansive doctrine of autonomy of the local church–elders/deacons answer to members and God alone–and had the thought that this makes little sense in light of how God used prophets, apostles, donkeys, general revelation, and Christ Himself to rebuke His people through the centuries. Refusing to heed things because they are outside the church simply provides an excellent way of draining the church’s resources billable hour by billable hour, and judgment by judgment.

    I like lawyers, but I don’t know that this is how I want my tithes spent!

    Like

  40. “There is the problem of mass fatherlessness. Divorce law has been changed so that, as far as I know uniquely, a person who wants to break the contract is enabled to do so.”

    Kas

    Christianity is the worst thing that has ever happened to my mother and me.
    My four great-grandfathers made their wives and children lives worse, not better.
    My two grandfathers made their wives and children’s lives worse, not better.
    My father made my mothers and my life worse, not better.

    Feminism is the best thing that has ever happened to my mother and me. I am so grateful I was not born before 1960.

    I learned from Christian men that there is no god. God was created by loser men women did not want to have sex with, stay married to, or have children with. These bottom of the barrel unwanted men needed a tyrant to force women to have sex with them, continue having sex with them and give them children to rule over and make miserable. So they created a god, now god takes the blame for Christian and Muslim men’s sadistic actions, selfishness, and perversion. “Well, I did not decide I get a trapped female slave, God did. The things I want and do are God’s fault.”

    My mother should have divorced my father and she should have aborted me. She should not have been forced or manipulated to stay married to my father or give birth to me against her will. Even if forced birth and forced marriage turned my father and grandfather own. They did not have to do it.

    My father and the man who sexually abused me as a little girl loved to complain; women are not being pregnant against their will, women are not giving birth against their will, women are not getting married against their will, women are not being submissive to their fathers and husbands. Women were telling creatin thugs like my father and rapist, no, you are not worth it, and these two men hated that. They were unwanted men who needed trapped female slaves.

    I looked forward to and dreamed of one day being free; not have to live like a slave and being able to tell men, any man, no.

    After September 11 I saw on the news girls in Afghanistan set themselves on fire to avoid marriage. I know how that feels, because I decided at sixteen after watching the way the men in my Bible reading church-going family treated their wives I would rather die and go to hell than ever be married to a Christian man.

    The MeToo movement. The church-going bible reading men in my family often said demeaning sexual things about girls. Their favorite age group of females to harass were underage girls. My father sexually harassed my best friend on our way to church, she was twelve, he had known her since she was five and was friends with her parents.

    Christianity does not make families good or men good. I believe it makes them worse. And as someone who grew up with a stay at home mom and went to homeschool; I tell everybody. Christianity and Islam are the two worst things that have ever happen to the female race.

    Like

  41. You surprise me, JA. I would have thought the things I listed above were common to the Anglo-Saxon world.

    Lifelong marriage as a place to bring up children with love and security has been steadily undermined in the increasingly post-Christian culture. This is I suppose logical – if your society gives up on the faith, why should it keep to the ethics that the faith underwrites. But my own experience with colleagues and friends shows the damage this is doing. It enables men in particular to avoid commitment that would formerly have been expected of them. Eternal adolescents who want an easy life or to continue ‘playing the field’ no strings attached.

    Jesus forbade his followers as a rule from getting divorced (‘put asunder’), but modern western law has the concept of no fault divorce, you are allowed to get out of what ought to be a binding contract simply because you want to.

    For all the talk of ‘family values’, nothing is done to support the family, and much done to undermine it. Especially where corporate profit is at stake!

    Does it really need saying that this does not mean you still don’t get healthy family life amongst a section of the population?

    Like

  42. KAS, re: 60’s culture

    I think this is the sort of problem that existed in Jesus’s culture. There were the Pharisees who were the hard core religious fanatics of the day, and there were the Sadducees who were the religious liberals. Jesus angered both of them. Those cultures persisted such that Paul had to reprimand the Galatian church for being in danger of leaving the gospel to adopt the rules of the Judaizers (converted Pharisees), and he had to reprimand the Corinthian church for being a cesspool of “grace”. But, I believe that in both of those church cultures, the real Christians were being oppressed and victimized. I think in the same way, women get oppressed between the “free love” culture of grace and no consequences, and the “patriarchal” culture of strict rules and authoritarian sins being swept under the rug.

    So, I reject that the #metoo movement was only a result of the free loving 60’s. If that were the case, then why have studies shown extensive rape and molestation within the Amish and Mennonite cultures?

    I think this is the same sort of false dichotomy that is preached from the pulpits in patriarchal churches – as if I have to choose between being complementarian or a feminist liberal. Jesus was neither, yet he told both the patriarchs and the liberals of the day that they were completely off base.

    Like

  43. Kas: Why are you so hung up with the word “feminist.” That word has as broad and wide a meaning as the Mississippi river. I could say the very same thing about the word “liberal.”

    Like

  44. (part 1)
    I’ve seen Fred Butler in action on social media. He’s sexist and won’t listen.

    To KAS: above saying they/ he agreed with Butler.

    I’m in my 40s and still a virgin, because I was committed to staying a virgin until marriage, but I never got married. So I am not “anti marriage,” so I do not “mock”marriage, nor am I against traditional values….
    However, I support the “Me Too” movement for its purpose of bringing sexual abuse (especially in workplaces) to light.

    I don’t think you really understand what the MeToo movement is about.

    By the way, even sexually pure women such as myself with “godly” Biblical values have been sexually harassed at parties, at jobs, etc. Sexual harassment does not only occur to only wicked, immoral, women of ill repute. And guess what? No matter a woman’s behavior or manner of dress or religious beliefs, she does NOT deserve to be sexually harassed.

    I’ve done many blog posts about the “Me Too” movement on my Daisy blog in the last few months. I’ve found that its critics misunderstand the movement and attribute all sorts of views to those who support it, even though they do not support those views.

    Here’s just one post at my blog about it:

    _Anti- ‘Me Too’ Hash Trend Advocates Seeking to Minimize Sexual Harassment Against Women; Tag Was Never About Rape Only – ‘Me Too’ Trend Is Not Suggesting that All Women are Weak, All Men are Sexual Abusers – Me Too Is Not a Witch Hunt_

    I also do not wear the “feminist” label because too many Christians, such as KAS, wrongfully equate it too all manner of things (e.g, assuming all feminists hate all men, hate marriage, support abortion, etc).
    Though I do not use the “feminist” label on myself, I can see where feminists get some topics correct and Christians get those same topics totally wrong.

    Like

  45. (part 2)
    And I agree with the OP that most Christians and churches today are not dealing with sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or sexism effectively or with compassion.

    Views such as the one by the Fred Butlers of the world are only contributing to the problem.

    When Christians don’t step up to the plate to address societal ills (such as sexual harassment), then those in the secular culture can and will do so.

    There are times and subjects where the church should take a cue from the culture not vice versa…
    And sexual abuse is one of those areas, because time and again, Christians have proven to be utter, complete failures at dealing with sexual abuse and sexual harassment.

    Most churches (and Christians such as Fred Butler) diminish or downplay sexism and sexual abuse that takes place in culture and in churches.

    Christians such as Fred Butler want to cover it up, pretend sexual harassment or sexual abuse of women does not exist, or, if they deign to admit that it does exist, they will often victim-blame the child or woman who steps forward to say they were exploited.

    Or, someone like KAS will come along and actually suggest and imply if a woman is sexually harassed, she was “asking for it” or deserved it in some way, merely because she is not a conservative Christian who “respects” marriage.

    There is no excuse for sexual harassment of women, none, nada.

    No woman asks to be, or deserves to be, sexually harassed, regardless of her religious or political views.

    Like

  46. (part 3)
    KAS said,

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences. The corruption that abuse represents. Alpha males evolved to dominate. Patriarchy is the problem. It’s not, it’s sin that is the problem.

    Patriarchy is a type of sin. The sin is expressed as Patriarchy (male rule over women).

    Re: KAS said :

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    So what of it?

    Even if I grant you the premise of your argument, the conclusion does not follow, which is:
    “Because secularists are so smutty to start with and don’t follow my understanding of biblical sexual ethics, I do not feel sorry for them when they get raped or harassed on a job by a male boss.”

    Really? That’s your view?

    I don’t care if a woman is a stone cold atheist who totally disagrees with “sexual mores” as taught in the Bible (the same Bible which records men raping women, chopping up their dead bodies, a father offering his virgin daughter to be raped by men all night, kings of Israel with hundreds of concubines, women being forced into sex harems (e.g, Esther), etc) – that woman has every right to complain if she is sexually molested by a man on a job (or anywhere).

    Just because secular culture loosened up regarding CONSENSUAL sex does not make non-consensual acts (eg a boss forcing a female subordinate into a sex act) acceptable or moral, KAS.

    And to reiterate: though I am a female over age 40 who lived a squeaky clean, godly, life, and am still a Virgin at my age, I have been sexually harassed by men, I’ve been on the receiving end of inappropriate sexual comments or actions by men.

    Being a Christian “good girl,” following “biblical sexual ethics,” and “respecting marriage” (as I have done), does not make a woman immune from being sexually abused or harassed, because it’s happened to me.

    KAS /b> said,

    It’s not that I think abuse isn’t awful, but what do we expect if we suppress the truth about God by our wickedness? And in turn, God reacts by handing us and our society over to sin and its consequences.

    And you think the solution to culture rejecting God’s teaching about sexual ethics is to…

    … NOT have a “Me Too” movement that seeks to redress and correct women being raped, molested, cat called, groped, or sexually harassed on their jobs?

    You think culture, including Non-Christians who don’t care about your biblical ethics, should just ignore sexual abuse and sexual harassment and not do a thing about it? Just pretend as though our culture does not have a rape or sexual harassment problem?

    (I have been ignoring KAS’ posts here for months, but his post was the first in the comment box above, making it a little harder to overlook.)

    On my Daisy blog (fairly pertinent to what KAS wrote):

    _Let’s Say Good-Bye To The Straw-Feminist by Cordelia Fine_

    Like

  47. Christianity Hurts wrote,

    I grew up in ultra-conservative hardcore Christian patriarchy and have thankfully washed my hands of the toxic loser-male-serving slop. It nearly killed me. It did damage me very much. Because of it my mother and I both wished we had been aborted. Still today I wish my poor mother had aborted me and saved her self and me from my patriarchy scum bag father.

    …Since leaving the misery that is Christianity I see that none Christians hate child rape, sexual abuse, and slavery much more than any Christian I grew up knowing ever did.

    I’ve been sharing my story on some of these blogs and other social media accounts the last few years, discussing how Christian gender complementarianism hurt me – it’s played one small role in why I’ve partially (though not totally) left the Christian faith.

    The thing I’ve noticed is that some self- professing Christians, such as Fred Butler, do not care about the ramifications that their cherished doctrines (such as male headship, etc) have on real people.

    They prefer to defend their doctrines in blog posts and on twitter, not caring how their views, doctrines, teachings cause problems and pain for real life human beings.
    They always place allegiance to doctrine above the welfare of people, something the Pharisees did often, and Jesus of Nazareth had to correct them on that many times.

    You may see guys such as Fred Butler and KAS tell you how sorry they are you were sexually abused by professing Christians, but they will still refuse to take responsibility for the doctrines (e.g., gender complementarianism, male headship) that they defend, teach, and espouse, and will refuse to re-think them, and consider, maybe they have been wrong on these subjects.

    They will tell you that no “real” Christian, no “real” complementarian would ever actually rape or molest a child or a woman (I beg to differ).
    _Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_ (on the Daisy blog)

    Like

  48. Hey, the “Church Too” movement was, as far as I’m aware, begun by Christians so that Christians could discuss sexual abuse they received at the hands of other Christians…

    Would KAS like to dismiss the “Church Too” movement, as well? It did not have secular origins.

    (Not that I think the secular vs. Christian aspect necessarily matters myself.)

    Like

  49. (Re Mark’s post, Part 1)
    Mark said (to KAS),

    So, what we have is not what KAS says is some specifically secular issue that has arisen because of (presumably) the sexualizing of everything, but is instead a reaction to the pervasive patriarchy that is prevalent in both the church and the world.

    As such I think this is a movement of the Holy Spirit that is awakening society – not just the church – to the evils of our present rape culture.

    We honestly don’t know whether the #metoo movement came from the church or came from secular society.
    It can often be a confusing combination of both. For example, the civil rights movement – did it arise out of the church (e.g. REV. Martin Luther King Jr.) or did it arise out of oppressed minorities having their fill of racism?

    All very good points.
    Something you said jogged my memory.
    Even if one wants to chalk up the MeToo movement as being totally worldly and secular, I recall places in the Bible (the Old Testament especially) where the text says God specifically used a Non-Believer to accomplish some task or another.

    The OT is filled with examples of God’s people (in those days, the ancient Jews) failing to follow and obey God, so God used a Non-Jewish person – a pagan – to correct things.

    I thought one reason some evangelicals were so keen to vote for Trump is that they compared Trump to some pagan OT guy who God used to restore Israel?

    (Disclaimer: I for one do not care who anyone voted for. I’m not trying to denigrate Trump voters; I am using that as an example of how many conservative or evangelical Christians are inconsistent or hypocritical in their moral reasoning.)

    It’s funny how some conservative Christians will pick and choose like that, they become Cafeteria Christians:
    In one case, they will say, when it suits their purposes,
    “God can and does use pagans to accomplish his purposes,” but in others (where it does not suit their purposes), they say,
    “Nope, this “worldly” thing or person cannot be of God, so we must condemn it because it’s not “biblical” or not “godly!””

    And how does KAS know? Maybe God is using the ‘MeToo’ movement because His people have fallen down on protecting women from sexism and sexual harassment.

    Like

  50. (Re Mark’s post, Part 2)
    Mark asked KAS

    I guess the question for you, KAS, is what alternative you offer? If #metoo and society’s response to sexual harassment and sexual violence is inappropriate, then what do you offer? The church, for millennia has offered the “#suckitup” and “#moveon” movement,”#forgiveandforget” which is straight from Satan’s playbook, and that seems to be what the church continues to offer.

    I was saying something similar above in a post to KAS (which I wrote before reading your post).

    KAS complains about the “MeToo” movement supposedly being all worldly (and who says worldly or the secular is always incompatible with the Bible or godly values?), but KAS offered no solutions or remedies.

    What does KAS want, for the MeToo movement to just go away, and so that Christians and others can just keep ignoring sexual harassment and sexual abuse?

    Christians have been already been ignoring (or else down-playing) sexual harassment and sexual abuse for decades now (or else victim-blaming children and women who step forward to say they were sexually abused or harassed).

    _PERHAPS FEMINISM IS NOT THE ENEMY_, from Marg Mowczko’s blog

    Like

  51. -Sorry all for making so many comments in a row!-
    Mark said,

    I’ve recently started digging into the stark contrast between “Biblical morality” and what Jesus practiced.
    If Jesus came today the same way he did 2000 years ago, he would be rejected by institutional Christianity just as he was rejected back then by institutional Judaism.

    Sometimes I’m tired and leery of the word “biblical” when used by many Christians in debates or discussions about moral issues.

    First off, Christians cannot always agree with each other on this teaching or another, so what one Christian may say is “biblical” becomes meaningless, because another Christian holds a totally different understanding of that same exact doctrine or Bible verse.

    Also – and I kind of touched on this in a post above to KAS – while I understand that not everything in the Bible is prescriptive, some of it is merely descriptive –
    There are, IMO, some subjects that the Bible is rather murky on, because the Bible does not record God offering a stark,
    “Hey, No, I do NOT support thus and so, knock that off!”

    For example. There are certain actions recorded in the Old Testament that would make most people want to gag or puke.
    There’s the story of the guy who was going to allow some randy towns folk rape his daughter all night, and I do not recall the text saying, “And Lo, the Lord God saw this and was greatly displeased.”
    -Nope. The Bible does not flatly condemn that father’s choice, which to this day, disturbs me.

    Look at all the polygamy in the Old Testament.
    I do not remember off hand a single biblical passage where God comes straight out and says, “Only one wife per husband, anything else is forbidden!”

    You can try to establish this precept by pointing out one Eve for one Adam, leaving one to have to ASSUME that God’s intent was one chick for one dude, but the fact remains (again if I recall correctly) that the Bible does not strictly come right out and prohibit a man from having more than one spouse, nor does the Bible say God disagrees with men having concubines.

    So, it looks on the surface of things that Polygamy is “biblical” and is a “biblical form of marriage.” One can legitimately make that argument.

    Guys like KAS should perhaps be a bit careful about tossing around the word “biblical” as an adjective or argument in some of these discussions.

    Like

  52. KAS said

    To go back to your other post, I was talking about the 60’s sexual revolution that dramatically abandonned a reasonably widespread acceptance of Christian morality that preceeded it, if sometimes only in theory.

    Sexual immorality existed before any so-called 1960s feminist revolution.

    Some guy in the Old Testament raped his half-sister, for example, and that was recorded, what, around 3,000 – 5,000 or more years ago?

    And see this (this guy believed in traditional, biblical sexual values and respected marriage, and taught male headship):

    _Christian giant sued for ‘using nanny as sex object’_

    Also do a Google for “Josh Duggar” of the so-called wholesome, goody goody Christian, home-schoolling, Duggar Family, who believed in Christian patriarchy, biblical sexual ethics, Jesus Christ, and whose parents taught the daughters to yell, “Nikes!” at their son Josh every time a comely, shapely woman walked past, so that he could avert his gaze and not fall into sexual temptation.

    Guess what, KAS?

    Even though the Duggar family rejected 1960s feminism and embraced biblical sexual ethics, their son Josh still went on to molest some of his own sisters as well as his baby sitter. It was in the news a couple years back.

    Secular feminism has actually sought to fight against disgusting sexual sins such as un-consensual sex (e.g., rape). That should be applauded and encouraged, not bad-mouthed and discouraged.

    Most churches are too busy brow-beating women with that sexist Male Headship swill, and trying to brain wash them in unilateral female submission to men, rather than in actually fighting against sexism and sexual abuse against girls and women (and against boys and men).

    _Sexism Existed Before Liberal Secular 1960s Feminism, Before the Me Too Twitter Trend, and Before Trump Was Elected President_

    I am a conservative and sure don’t agree with secular liberal feminists on every topic, but please, KAS, and guys like KAS, stop using liberal secular feminism as a “boogey man” on which to blame all societal ills.

    It’s tiresome, and I also believe, incorrect.

    Like

  53. KAS said,

    I am not denying the problem of abuse that #metoo may be revealing. What I do think is the secular culture in general, and some brands of feminism in particular, have helped bring about the very situation they are now complaining about. If you want a sexual free for all for yourself, you have to grant it to everybody else.

    I sometimes watch a reality program on TV about obese people. They get to 600 pounds or more.

    As their doctor on the show mentions to them, they can die young if they don’t lose the weight, because the human body is not meant to sustain that sort of weight. (Many of the obese on that show say they over-eat to cope with the psychological scars of having been sexually abused as kids.)

    Going by your reasoning, KAS, I suppose nobody should intervene and try to get those obese people help because they wanted a “food free for all.”

    My understanding of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died for humanity yet while we were sinners.

    Jesus didn’t sit there and say,
    “Well, Father God, humanity got themselves into this sin mess, they choose to have a sexual revolution in the 1960s, or to drink beer and get drunk to cope with life, or become obese by eating too many Twinkies, so I’ll just high tail it on out of here and leave them to their fate. They don’t deserve my help.”

    Like

  54. KAS said,

    If you want a sexual free for all for yourself, you have to grant it to everybody else.

    I’m not entirely sure what this comment means.

    I never wanted or asked for a “sexual free for all.”

    I’m over the age of 40 and still a virgin. I do not deserve or ask for being groped by men, being sexually harassed by men. No woman, virgin or no, deserves that.

    Also, part of the 1960s sexual revolution was about consensual sex, KAS. Women back then (and some men too I suppose) wanted to have consensual sex without being judged for it harshly.

    Wanting to have consensual sex (or actually having it) does not mean a person forfeits a right to safety, to be un-molested on the job, or while walking down a city street.

    The MeToo movement is addressing un-wanted sexual behavior or un-wanted sexual commentary. You are trying to confuse apple with oranges.

    A woman wanting consensual sex with a man outside of marriage does not make it acceptable for her to be raped, groped, or cat-called.

    I’ll also argue that prostitutes do not deserve to be raped. They get paid by men to have sex with them, but they are sometimes raped (and beaten) by their clientele. And that is wrong.

    You, KAS, have some very messed up morals, which is ironic, considering you seem to think of yourself as a very godly, biblical, goody two shoes.

    Like

  55. KAS said,

    <

    blockquote>The secular culture has been systematically trying to undermine the family, and fatherhood in particular, for a couple of generations now, leading to the mess we are currently in – characterised by irresponsible men.
    I’d say no, that’s not so.

    Again, I’m a right winger here, and I don’t see this as being true of most feminists or liberals.

    I actually spend time visiting left wing / feminist sites reading their material first-hand, not regurgitated via right wingers such as Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, or whatever your favorite Christian ministry is.

    Often those right wing guys will pick the fringe, kook feminists and liberals to quote, in order to make all feminists and liberals look like anti-family crack pots.
    (The left sometimes does this to the right wing as well – they will cherry pick the “nuts” from the right.)

    When I visit left wing or feminist sites, most of the feminist / liberal women I see leaving comments are married to men, and they have children. They are not the “fatherhood-hating” or “nuclear family hating,” monsters you, and a lot of other conservatives, depict them as being!

    As a never-married, child-less woman myself, I am actually denigrated by guys like you and other conservative Christians, who continually falsely claim that a woman’s only, or most, godly calling in life is to be a “wife and mother.” (The Bible does not teach this at all.), so a woman such as myself is portrayed as failing God, or betraying “biblical values,” when I’ve done no such thing.

    You, KAS, and guys like you, have made Marriage, Wives, Husbands, Children, and The Family, into Golden Calves you worship; the family unit has turned into a False Idol by many Christians.

    You even have para-church ministries such as “Focus on the Family” and “Family Research Council” to spread more “Family Values / Nuclear Family” propaganda, as if this stuff is not already promoted constantly in churches as it is.

    Society has gotten to the point now where a lot of women would LOVE to marry and have a baby with the baby daddy, but the men are not marrying – some by choice, some because they sit at home until they are 32 years old, playing video games in their Mom’s den all day. They don’t have a job, no money, and they cannot support a family.

    So, women who are single, the bio clock is ticking, go to sperm banks now. (And no, feminism is not to blame for falling marriage rates.) Most of these women would love to be married to a financially secure, or at least financially responsible, mature guy, but there are none to be found.

    Like

  56. KAS said,

    My answer to the problem is repentance – a change of mind. Going back to where everything went so horribly wrong, where the West rejected much of its Christian heritage.
    Now it is possible that #metoo just might cause a re-think though I doubt it, but without a return to a structured and secure family life with responsible men and fathers (can you imagine any feminists arguing for that?) who don’t abandon wives and children, the problem will not be reduced.

    There are stories of rape and sexism in the Far Eastern cultures that the Bible was recorded in. Sexism, sexual sin, and sexual assault and harassment have existed since about the dawn of time, in every culture and time period.

    Feminists (even liberal ones) are not opposed to “secure family life” or “responsible men and fathers.” That you are suggesting otherwise is a straw man that conservatives often raise. The majority of feminists are not “anti family.” They typically argue for choice.

    Not all people want to marry and have a family – some people want to marry or have kids, but they cannot because they are infertile. Feminists are asking you to treat those people and their choices or circumstances with respect.

    Not everyone can have a “nuclear family,” nor does everyone want to have one, which is okay. Even the Bible says as much (see 1 Corinthians chapter 7).

    By the way, there are plenty of stories out there of Christian, family loving men who work as preachers who leave their wives, beat their wives, and who molest their own children. You heard from one of them above, “Christianity Hurts,” and I also gave you a link above to the Christian guy, Phillips, who sexually harassed his nanny.

    Here’s another example – a married Christian man, a preacher, who wanted to murder his wife so he could run off with his male lover:
    _Pastor, 53, arrested at the airport after ‘stabbing his wife to death was heading to Europe to marry his boyfriend’_ (link is to Daily Mail site)

    There are many more examples out there.

    BTW, the “Me Too” movement is a secular form of Repentance: men and women saying, “Men pressuring women for sexual acts to advance at work is wrong and unjust.”
    As such, one would think KAS would support it, but no.

    Like

  57. Above I said,

    “There are stories of rape and sexism in the Far Eastern cultures that the Bible was recorded in”

    Sorry I meant Ancient Near Eastern cultures….

    Like

  58. Most excellent comment:
    by Ken Garrett

    APRIL 24, 2018 @ 3:43 PM
    Isn’t it actually “the redemption the world calls for” and didn’t receive from the church? Maybe the starting point should be to acknowledge the failure of churches to address this issue in a responsible, redemptive, obedient manner, instead of morphing it into an evangelistic strategy! Yeesh.

    Yes, secular culture is trying to correct a problem the church either tends to ignore or handle terribly.

    Like

  59. Christianity Hurts quoting KAS (I must have overlooked this first time down the page)

    “If sex only in marriage is got rid of, how do you try to stop men from blatantly abusing women, where do you attempt to draw the line? ”

    KAS, teaching biblical sexual ethics is not going to stop some men from raping, any more than teaching them that stealing is wrong is going to stop all men from stealing and robbing gas stations.

    I am not necessarily against schools or people teaching people about consent and other topics pertaining to sex, but I think you’re going about things the wrong way.

    You seem to be living under this weird view that marriage stops rape.

    It does not.

    Some married men rape their wives – it’s called “Marital Rape,” and only became illegal in some states in the last few decades, because for hundreds of years in many cultures, lots of people felt that married men are “entitled” to sex from their wives, no matter what, whenever and however they wanted it.

    You’re talking to a 40-something year old virgin here, and I am telling you that you are woefully ignorant about sexual mores vis a vis marriage.

    I’m a virgin living in a sex saturated culture. I was born AFTER your dreaded 1960s decade.
    Despite the fact I believed in the Bible for years, am a conservative, and am not and was not having sex, I was still never- the- less treated to un-asked-for sexual remarks and behavior from men I did not know.

    And again you are confusing non-consensual sex with consensual sex.

    A woman wanting to have consensual sex with a man does not make it okay for another man (or the same one) to take sex from her against her will, or to grope her, cat-call her, or tell her to put out or else lose her job.

    Only the dumbest, sexist, or most sociopathic of men would not grasp what consent is.

    And teaching about, “save sex for marriage!” is not necessary to grasp the concept of consent.

    Next thing, KAS will be arguing that any woman who wears Yoga pants in public, who goes out shopping at 2 a.m., or who goes to a bar, or who passes out drunk at a party, deserves to be raped.

    On You Tube:
    _Tea and Consent_, video

    Christian men who have heard the “sexually abstain until marriage” message from their Christian churches and families have still been found guilty of molesting or raping other people. I’ve already cited you several examples above, with a few links to such news stories.

    I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad for churches to teach about sexual abstinence from the pulpit, but, I don’t think teaching it is some magical talisman that will instantly prevent any and all sexual harassment and sexual abuse, either.

    Like

  60. Kathi said,

    I see nothing “worldly” in the #metoo movement. The movement has provided women and men who have been sexually assaulted a voice.

    Yes. That’s all it is.

    But some people continue to misrepresent or misunderstand what the MeToo movement means…

    Including a woman I used to chat with on these blogs and social media (though I’ve not seen her post to this blog in ages). She takes great pride in not following or joining movements or groups. So frustrating to talk to.

    What is the point in being proud of yourself for not joining groups or movements when you (as she does) misunderstand what those groups or movements are about?

    The “me too” movement is not a single entity or group controlled by any one person. It’s just a means for various women of various backgrounds to share their stories of having been sexually abused – and how or why that one woman I was chatting with can oppose that, I will never understand.

    And no, the ‘Me Too’ movement does not, contrary to what she kept saying on other blogs or social media, in any way diminish rape, or mean to suggest that groping oc cat-calling is “as bad as rape” – what a terribly inaccurate portrayal and straw man argument that is, but she kept making it.
    The Me Too movement was never supposed to be only about rape, but about any sort of unwanted sexual behaviors women endured (especially in the workplace).

    Like

  61. Kathi said,

    The church should be behind these victims and holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes. The church should be the loudest supporter of victims, but Fred wants the church to keep on doing business as usual. Well, Fred, your argument is only going to keep people out of church instead of making them feel welcome.

    I was asking this above in regards to KAS, but I guess it’s applicable to Fred Butler as well.

    Is Fred also in opposition to the “Church Too” twitter hash tag?

    If he is, I think that would indicate that Fred flat out does not care about sexual abuse against women. He’s just using the argument – “the MeToo hash is secular, ergo it’s false, so let’s ignore it” – as a smoke screen or diversion.

    My impression is that Fred Butler, like a lot of other Christian men, simply do not want to address sexism, sexual abuse against girls and women –

    For various reason, one of which being they would have to seriously take a hard look at how their stupid, sexist, un-biblical “gender complementarian” garbage supports or feeds that very sexism, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, etc., that has been under scrutiny.

    It’s much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and claim not to hear a thing, and stick to the status quo, than doing the hard work of examining your beliefs, changing them and fixing the problem.

    Easier to pretend that all these women blogging and Tweeting about sexual harassment are just irrational, crazy dames, broads, and harpies.

    Like

  62. Serving Kids said

    Which “family” do you mean in particular, KAS? I can’t see how the secular culture has done anything to hurt my family, at least.

    As a conservative who used to buy into some of the same arguments KAS is making in this thread, I think I know what he means by that.

    Anyway. LOL. That same secular culture that my fellow conservatives swear is against Motherhood, the Family, etc, is the SAME secular culture that produced a secular MOTHER”S DAY holiday!!, a Hallmark Greeting Card company that for years promoted “the family” in marketing their greeting cards, and a secular Disney corp. that bills it’s theme parks as mostly, most of the year, as Family Fun zones.

    Think of the “It’s A Wonderful Life” movie put out years ago by Hollywood – it promoted The Family and Family Values.

    Even newer, raunchier movies with bawdy jokes (such as featuring actors such as Adam Sandler) have strong pro- Family messages in them, (in – between flatulence and ‘big cleavage on women’ jokes and gags), such as, it’s important for fatherrs to spend time with their children, like teaching them how to throw a ball, attend their dance recitals.

    The “family” is revered in secular culture, not put down!

    Yes, there may be a fringe element of kooky liberals or feminists out there who have said some “anti family” stuff, but most of them are not “anti family.”

    It’s only been in the last decade or so that secular Hollywood has been making films teaching there’s nothing wrong with being single.

    For years, Hollywood – secular Hollywood- actually promoted “Pro- Marriage” messages, pro- “be a part of a romantic couple” messages. Remember the Tom Cruise character telling his wife in that movie, “You complete me!”

    As a never-married woman, I get pretty tired of never seeing single people such as myself represented in movies, or, if we are, we are depicted as “incomplete.”

    Not only did Hollywood used to perpetuate that message, but churches still do!

    My fellow conservatives are wrong about secular culture being “anti marriage” or “anti family.” Secular culture for a good, long time actually used to (and still does sometimes) perpetuate the same same “family values” message that Christians do.

    Like

  63. Serving Kids in Japan wrote,
    “KAS, there are so many things wrong with your statements, I don’t even know where to begin…”

    LOL. This is one reason of a few I stopped replying to his posts on here months ago.

    Like

  64. Oh, oh, I called it, before I even saw KAS’ reply to CH (Christianity Hurts)!

    I was telling CH above that the typical response from guys like KAS is to diminish our true life stories of how some Christian person or doctrine hurt us. Yep. And I’m still scrolling down the comment box, when I just saw this remark by KAS to CH:

    Christianity hurts – I’ve seen your testimony to the kind of Christianity you grew up with before, and thought to myself this is a caricature of Christianity.
    But I am not sure even that is true, a caricature usually bears some resemblance to the thing being caricatured, like a newspaper cartoon; but what you are describing is the virtual opposite of anything that could remotely be called Christian.

    Yes, KAS, real, actual Christians – or men professing to being Bible believing Christians – hurt CH deeply.

    KAS said

    A Christian husband who is indifferent to trying to live out these instructions can forget any blessing from God in the form of answered prayer.

    And yet, that did not stop the Christian men in her life from hurting her.

    And I’m sure they were familiar with those verses, or had heard them one time or another sitting in a church service.

    KAS said,

    A Christian husband who is indifferent to trying to live out these instructions can forget any blessing from God in the form of answered prayer.

    This is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and it falls flat to people who have been wounded by Christians or by Christian doctrines.

    “I know that man who raped and beat you said he was a Christian, but he was not a “real” Christian.” – that just does not come across well.

    See this post on another blog:
    _John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    _

    Like

  65. Oh, I pasted in the wrong quote.
    I meant to quote this part of KAS’ post in my post right above:

    KAS said,

    I don’t blame you at all for rejecting the pseudo-Christianity of your upbringing, but there is a Christianity – a Christ – that, if sincerely embraced and lived out, heals.

    This is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and it falls flat to people who have been wounded by Christians or by Christian doctrines.

    Like

  66. KAS said,

    “Serving Kids – the family unit has been under attack for decades now in the West.”

    By whom or what?

    (BTW I disagree that the “family” is under attack, specifically in the United States, and that it began in the 60s with feminism and/or the sexual revolution.

    As I just explained up thread, our secular culture actually worships romance, The Family, and marriage every bit as much as churches do.

    Actually as a never married, virgin (and hence childless woman) let me tell you that churches and Christians have made The Family into a bigger idol that the secular culture has.)

    I saw an article or two somewhere a few years ago filled with information of married Christian men who helm the Christian “Focus On The Family” organization, and those articles talked about how those men had many affairs on their wives and others got divorces.

    Being in a nuclear family or believing in Family Values doesn’t make a person immune from sinning.

    Like

  67. KAS said,

    “Divorce law has been changed so that, as far as I know uniquely, a person who wants to break the contract is enabled to do so”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    It’s good. If the marriage goes loveless, or the husband is physically or abusing the wife, it is good that the laws have changed so that women are not trapped in such marriages.

    I’ve seen articles that say the biggest divorce rate in the U.S.A. is among conservative, evangelical Christians. Southern Baptists also have high divorce rates. LOL.

    On Wade’s Blog:
    _The Increasing Divorce Rate Among Southern Baptists_

    And if anyone believes in The Family and Marriage and Male Headship and is anti-Feminism, it’s the Southern Baptists (of which I was raised. Brought up in SB churches.)

    Like

  68. KAS said,

    I’ve spent 40 years in the secular workplace, mostly with people who were fairly decent. I know what you mean by that.

    Yet you could not call them righteous – skiving and pilfering by employees, a bullying management culture in place with little empires being built and their ethics certainly did not, on the whole, derive from anything Christian, although I believe there is still an amount of Christian capital from previous generations exercising a restraining influence. It’s nearly been used up though.

    And all you just said applies to bible-believing Christians, too.

    CH just told you above her male family members were devout Christians – but being Christian didn’t stop them from abusing her.

    Look up Mark Driscoll sometime. That guy works as a preacher, he’s sexist, he’s a bully, he’s a narcissist, uses church money to promote his books on the NY Times best seller list, etc etc etc.

    Do a Google search for Driscoll’s name, and you will find page after page of examples of his abhorrent behavior, but the man claims to be a Christian, a bible believing Christian who rails against the deterioriation of the family, he hates feminism, etc.

    He’s your kind of guy, KAS, but he’s also a sexist, bullying, money grubbing weasel.

    Like

  69. KAS said,

    “Lifelong marriage as a place to bring up children with love and security has been steadily undermined in the increasingly post-Christian culture”

    Re:
    “has been steadily undermined in the increasingly post-Christian culture”

    By whom or what? To whom or what are you attributing these developments?

    Christians do a marvelous job of undermining marriage and the family all on their own, when there are so many news articles out there every week or every month of Christian married men (including ones who work as preachers!) who are reported committing adultery, sexually preying on their parishoners, beating their wives.

    I’ve seen some studies saying as much as 80% of Christian men say they are addicted to naughty sites (don’t want to use the “P” word in there, as I suspect that may force this post to go into mod).

    Christians are ruining Marriage and The Family with no help at all from those icky 1960s liberal feminists, KAS. Christians are ruining their families all on their own.

    KAS said,

    Jesus forbade his followers as a rule from getting divorced (‘put asunder’), but modern western law has the concept of no fault divorce, you are allowed to get out of what ought to be a binding contract simply because you want to.

    No. The Bible actually allows for divorce in some situations. God even says he permits it due to the “hardness of men’s hearts.”
    See also:
    What does the Bible say about Divorce? – Crying Out for Justice Blog

    Like

  70. Mark said,

    But, I believe that in both of those church cultures, the real Christians were being oppressed and victimized. I think in the same way, women get oppressed between the “free love” culture of grace and no consequences, and the “patriarchal” culture of strict rules and authoritarian sins being swept under the rug.

    Good points.

    Very similar (or same?) to my views on these subjects, which explains why I tee off both conservatives and liberal feminists, depending on which site I’m posting on or what topic is up for discussion.

    Like

  71. Mot – Kas: Why are you so hung up with the word “feminist.”

    I’m not! There are two types of feminist as I see it. Those who rightly protested against women being discrimiated against simply because they are women. Equal pay, that sort of thing. Fairness. I can’t imagine many people these days having a problem with that.

    The other sort are those whom, for example, I have been interacting with on secular sports site with politics and current affairs section for years. Ideologues. With humour and tact it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with them, and by and large I have got on with them despite polar opposite views many times.

    Yet I could not but notice over the years the underlying rejection of and hostitlity to anything that would impede their personal autonomy. It’s not just they don’t want abstinance before marriage giving as an option, they positively don’t want abstinance. They see no need of marriage. They denigrate motherhood as second best to a career. They want a sexual free for all. Sex devoid of love.

    Yet – and this is relevant to metoo – they fulminate against rape and sexual abuse. I have been seriously mocked for suggesting keeping sex for marriage, yet they have enless discussions as to how you can improve the conviction rate for rape revolving around how you decide whether consent was given or not, for example with a drunken one-night stand. Some want to reduce the assumption of innocence of the accused in court.

    The christian worldview entails a standing assumption that consent has not been given, it is only publically given in a marriage service. It’s hands off until then.

    Their worldview is that consent may be assumed. At the very least there is nothing wrong with fornication – or adultery. They are attempting the impossible – to keep a sexual free for all for themselves and stop men from sexually abusing women.

    One thing everyone still agrees on is that paedophilia is wrong. Yet I have to point out to them that this is arbitrary, they have no basis on which to hang their objections to it. You cannot embrace moral relativism and then arbitrarily make a moral absolute against peadophilia. At least Christians know why it is wrong.

    Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption

    Unless society stops mocking God and his standards, this law of reaping and sowing will continue to apply. Time will tell, but without a serious rethink, #metoo may prove a fad. There is plenty of anger, but it will not work the righteousness of God.

    Like

  72. Kas: You said:”Unless society stops mocking God and his standards, this law of reaping and sowing will continue to apply. Time will tell, but without a serious rethink, #metoo may prove a fad. There is plenty of anger, but it will not work the righteousness of God.”

    You write in such generalizations IMO, that I’m just not sure who you are speaking of that are mocking God and his standards. This has been true since the beginning of time.

    Like

  73. Hi Daisy!

    Sexual harassment does not only occur to only wicked, immoral, women of ill repute.

    Indeed. Nor are women of today responsible for whatever happened in the 60’s.

    You seem to be living under this weird view that marriage stops rape. It does not. Some married men rape their wives

    And some rape other women and children as well. The most extreme anti-divorce folks would say their wives should stay married to them. And when they do divorce, would count stats about these women filing as ‘women file X% of the time, ergo women hate marriage and blahblahblah’. Which is nuts.

    I said above, but there is an element, to me, of threat in many of the ways these things are discussed. Oh, so you want to be treated as a person? Then men will just sit at home and never marry. Well, many women have decided that’s just fine.

    Although I do disagree that there aren’t decent men out there. There are, it’s just hard wading through the others to get to them.

    Like

  74. Kathi said,I see nothing “worldly” in the #metoo movement. The movement has provided women and men who have been sexually assaulted a voice.

    Daisy – Yes. That’s all it is. But some people continue to misrepresent or misunderstand what the MeToo movement means…

    Daisy, I see many people who don’t like this movement sort of jumping ahead to ‘what if’s’, and asking about people being falsely accused. It’s almost as if no one should be allowed to tell their story, because what if one person lies? We don’t treat anything else in society that way! (not to mention, that many if not most of the stories I have seen have not had names attached, so there could be no possible harm there).

    So rather I say, tell the truth and shame the devil 😉

    Like

  75. The christian worldview entails a standing assumption that consent has not been given, it is only publically given in a marriage service. It’s hands off until then.

    Much as I am loathe to respond to KAS, I have to call this out. This is a TERRIBLE view of consent! No wonder Christianity is a mess if this is what is being taught.

    Like

  76. “You cannot embrace moral relativism and then arbitrarily make a moral absolute against peadophilia.”

    You were not arguing moral relativism. You were arguing the “free love” culture of the ’60’s. And that culture was based on not that I can victimize whomever I choose, but that two people could “consent” outside the bounds of the cultural norms. I think, in one sense, this is a pendulum swing away from the Evangelical ‘marriage = consent’ culture which seems to encourage marital rape.

    My problem with the 60’s culture is not consent, but that it is simply the mirror image of the church culture. In the church culture, a woman is pressured into marriage where her husband gets sex whenever he wants it, regardless of her needs and desires.

    The counter-cultural argument is that women get to consent, but what is pushed in the media is not really consent, but that women should be sleeping around regularly, and if they are not, then they are not attractive enough, or perhaps they are victims of Victorian-era morality.

    Neither is correct, but it’s pointless for us (i.e. KAS) to say that it’s either-or. Either women agree to marital rape, or they agree to give themselves up as a reward for a good date. That’s a false dichotomy. We can say that marriage is not a consent to rape, and giving women the ability to consent doesn’t mean they are obligated to do so regularly whether inside or outside the bounds of marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. Daisy, as always, you have made some amazing points here, especially when you drew a line between the 1960s loosening of morals regarding consensual sex vs. rape/harassment.

    However, I fear it’s all falling on deaf ears when it comes to KAS. People like KAS who are against the #MeToo movement are against it precisely because they don’t like women working outside the home in the first place. Hence, women like us who work outside the home, whether married or single (single in both our cases), deserve to be sexually harassed and/or raped. It’s our just deserts for not staying home and starving and going homeless due to refusing to marry the first slob who came along and daring to hold out for someone worthwhile. And married women need to just stay home, even if their kids starve because their husbands don’t earn enough, or are lazy, etc. They and their families can just hole up in a cardboard box for all they care. So long as the wife/mother is at home in her cardboard box. Otherwise, she deserves to be sexually harassed/raped, because only men should be in the workforce.

    Liked by 1 person

  78. KAS, I cannot believe for the life of me that you wrote this:

    It’s not Christians who cannot think and have reason, it’s secular man who has futile, debased thinking.

    Yet again, you’ve insulted all non-believers with these words, and you seem not to have any idea how arrogant you sound. All the thinking of secular people is “futile”!? No one has any ability to think or figure things out without becoming Christian?

    Bike Bubba’s earlier comment reminded me of something Jesus said: That the Queen of Sheba and the people of ancient Nineveh would condemn the Jews of His generation. Just picture that: Heathens allowed to testify against the wickedness of the people of God. Now, how could that possibly happen, unless those unbelievers were capable of some level of ethical and moral sense, and without becoming proselytes?

    P.S. I remember reading about someone who was arrogant enough to refer to those outside of his religion as “Debased Beings”. His name: L. Ron Hubbard. That’s not good company to be in, KAS. Please watch how you talk about those who are different from you.

    Like

  79. @KAS

    The christian worldview entails a standing assumption that consent has not been given, it is only publically given in a marriage service. It’s hands off until then.

    I, too, wanted to respond to this little gem. Did you know that only until recent times, that marital rape was legal? You could be puking sick and your husband could rape you. You could have just delivered a baby and your husband could rape you. You could have just come out of surgery, and your husband could rape you. Do you have any idea what you sound like? All of this because of a gross over-exaggeration of a “one flesh union” that legally made women’s identity disappear into their husbands’. It was under English Common Law that a woman gave her consent forever once she spoke her wedding vows. The husband had full authority over his wife’s body from then on. And yes, some husbands did (and still do) rape their wives, forcing them to have sex even when it’s harmful to their health. Even when she is perfectly healthy, it’s still rape! It still hurts! There is no love there!

    How is non-consensual sex in marriage a husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church? It isn’t, and you well know it. Now we see what your “Christian world view” is really about. The actual Christian world view states that women have equal authority over their husbands’ bodies. That would include saying no.

    You, KAS, have a Satanic world view, not a Christian one.

    Liked by 1 person

  80. People like KAS who are against the #MeToo movement are against it precisely because they don’t like women working outside the home in the first place. Hence, women like us who work outside the home, whether married or single (single in both our cases), deserve to be sexually harassed and/or raped.

    Angel, I don’t think KAS’s beliefs go this far, or that he’s even against the #MeToo movement per se. As far as I recall, he hasn’t stated anything you’ve written in your comment (although he has said more wrongheaded and bizarre things than I can hope to address).

    From what I can tell, KAS supports women being able to tell their stories. He just seems bewildered that anyone outside the Christian creed is capable of telling right from wrong, and sees it as contradictory that non-believers should be outraged at vile, immoral behaviour. That view of his is horribly arrogant, but I think that’s as far as he goes.

    Like

  81. The christian worldview entails a standing assumption that consent has not been given, it is only publically given in a marriage service. It’s hands off until then. Their worldview is that consent may be assumed.

    Impressive, KAS. Everything you just wrote was wrong.

    (Apologies to Mark Hamill for poaching his line. 😉 )

    Did you not even see the video that I posted upthread? That is the definition of consent. That is what all decent, law-abiding people hold to in sexual relations, whether Christian or not. Any assumption of consent — regardless of whether it’s within marriage or not — is simply wrong and evil.

    One thing everyone still agrees on is that paedophilia is wrong. Yet I have to point out to them that this is arbitrary, they have no basis on which to hang their objections to it.

    You mean, apart from the fact that it’s obviously vile, and harmful to children?

    At least Christians know why it is wrong.

    So does everyone else with a shred of common human decency. Why do you insist on denying that nonbelievers are capable of being decent or moral?

    Have you given any thought to how Christianity Hurts might view these words of yours, KAS? Based on your reasoning, she has “no basis” to object to rape, incest or child molestation, because she rejects the Christian faith. This in spite of the fact that she has suffered all of these crimes, and continues to suffer from their effects.

    Are you seriously attempting to share Christ’s love with her, while at the same time demeaning her intelligence and sense of morality? Somehow, I don’t think she’s going to appreciate it.

    Like

  82. Regarding feminism and marriage/family values and the like, it’s worth noting that the first huge spike in divorce occurred about 20 years before Betty Friedan released her first book–it was the implosion of “act in haste, repent at leisure” wartime marriages, really. That postwar drop in marriage and increase in divorce also predates most states getting no fault divorce. So a correlation to 1960s feminism and no fault divorce simply is anti-causal.

    Like

  83. Clockwork Angel, thank you for the kind words about my post.

    I’ve not yet read every post in this thread since I was last on here, I may do that later. I also have to run out the door in a moment, but I’ll try to get back online later.

    Anyway, you said,

    However, I fear it’s all falling on deaf ears when it comes to KAS.

    People like KAS who are against the #MeToo movement are against it precisely because they don’t like women working outside the home in the first place.

    Hence, women like us who work outside the home, whether married or single (single in both our cases), deserve to be sexually harassed and/or raped.

    It’s our just deserts for not staying home and starving and going homeless due to refusing to marry the first slob who came along and daring to hold out for someone worthwhile.
    And married women need to just stay home, even if their kids starve because their husbands don’t earn enough, or are lazy, etc.

    They and their families can just hole up in a cardboard box for all they care. So long as the wife/mother is at home in her cardboard box. Otherwise, she deserves to be sexually harassed/raped, because only men should be in the workforce.

    As I wrote on my Daisy blog months before:
    _Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_

    In my early 30s, I was engaged, for several years, to an uneducated, irresponsible, selfish, dim-witted man who took financial advantage of me.
    During the years I was dating him / engaged to him, I sometimes had to take over problems he created himself, and take care of his problems. Which sometimes included fixing broken things around his apartment, paying for groceries, paying his truck payments, his rent on several occasions, etc.

    Had I married that doofus, I would’ve been broke, poor, and evicted, and living in a card board box under a bridge somewhere.

    Many women today don’t have a choice but to work outside the home. Then you have married ones who are bored sitting around home all day, with nothing to do but dust furniture, and who enjoy getting out of the house and working at a job outside the home.

    Women – all women, not just liberal feminist ones – just do not fit the boxes that complementarians such as KAS keep wanting to stick them in.

    Like

  84. KAS said,

    Yet I could not but notice over the years the underlying rejection of and hostitlity to anything that would impede their personal autonomy. It’s not just they don’t want abstinance before marriage giving as an option, they positively don’t want abstinance. They see no need of marriage. They denigrate motherhood as second best to a career. They want a sexual free for all. Sex devoid of love.

    I have been hanging out on secular blogs and forums, some of which discuss various topics, some of which specifically deal with topics that are important to feminists, for the last few years.

    Secular, liberal feminists sometimes disagree amongst themselves on all the subjects you raised, and ones you did not.

    Not all feminists are anti-abstinence (though most seem to be). Not all of them are anti marriage, etc. As a matter of fact, many of the ones I’ve talked to or come across on other sites are married to men and they have children of their own.

    Most of them do not denigrate motherhood and place career above motherhood.

    And by the way, even if any of this were true – if there are women (and men) out there who don’t want to abstain before marriage, or don’t want to marry, or don’t want to be children, that is fine. Some of that is actually Biblical. Paul wrote it is better to remain single than to marry (which implies no children, and hence no motherhood).

    Secular culture over-venerates motherhood, as I said above.

    (For pete’s sake, “Mother’s Day” was started as a SECULAR HOLIDAY.)

    You and other Christians have turned motherhood, marriage, “the family” into idols.

    You are so consumed with defending Motherhood and Marriage from imaginary attacks by secular culture and feminists that you’ve swung the pendulum too far in the other direction and worship The Nuclear Family and shame or criticize any woman for not marrying, not having kids.

    I’m a virgin over the age of 40, never married – not from choice, but due to circumstance. Yet, my singleness if often denigrated by conservative Christians (such as Al Mohler and secular/ religious conservatives such as Brad Wilcox) in the service of defending marriage.

    And again, as I said above, believing in Jesus, the Bible, sexual abstinence, marriage and all the other syrupy, sentimental stuff you keep citing has…

    Not kept married Christian men (including preachers) from appearing in my news feed on social media for having been arrested, or being forced to resign, due to things such as using sites to solicit sex with animals, for molesting children, using pro- adultery site “Ashley Madison,” hiring prostitutes, and so on.

    As an adult virgin, let me tell you KAS, the real problem is with the Christian church.

    There are some churches or denominations that “over promote” sexual purity culture, that is true. However, I have found there is a huge number of Christians who do NOT want to teach even basic Christian sexual mores to Christians.

    Most Christians are loathe to preach pro-celibacy messages from the pulpit.

    Most preachers are afraid of offending the fornicating Christians who are sitting in their pews weekly.

    Pastors assume that being celibate or a virgin at my age is either impossible, or that God magically wiped away my libido (he did not) making being celibate at my age easy peasy, so they don’t bother to condemn Christian sexual sin and promote sexual abstinence.

    Paul said that the Church should consume itself with policing its own, not incessantly running around pointing out the sin in secular culture, and blaming the un-saved secular feminists and the liberals for everything.

    Like

  85. KAS said,

    Yet – and this is relevant to metoo – they fulminate against rape and sexual abuse. I have been seriously mocked for suggesting keeping sex for marriage, yet they have enless discussions as to how you can improve the conviction rate for rape revolving around how you decide whether consent was given or not, for example with a drunken one-night stand. Some want to reduce the assumption of innocence of the accused in court.

    “Keeping sex for marriage” (which I have done, reminder yet again: I am over 45 and still a virgin) does not prevent sexual harassment, rape, groping, or generally, sexist attitudes or sexist actions against women by some men.

    You are again confusing consensual sex acts with non-consensual ones.

    Jesus Christ taught in the Bible that sin comes from within the heart.

    Jesus said whomever looks at a woman in lust has committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Jesus also said if looking at a woman in that manner causes you to sin, pluck your eye out. Jesus did not put the responsibility on women to police men on their sins and behavior and attitudes, or tell women to “save sex for marriage” or to “dress more modestly” in order to prevent rape or sexual harassment.

    Jesus Christ also taught that the OT dietary rules were beside the point: what goes into a person does not make him un-clean, for the food enters the belly and later exits the body.

    Jesus Christ said what makes a person sin is his heart.

    So, the root of the problem is not women (or men) having pre-marital sex, not will encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage solve anything, because the issue are men have sinful, wrong attitudes about women and sex.

    Some men feel entitled to sex, even if that means forcing a woman into sex, plying her with drugs or booze to render her wonky so they can take advantage of her, etc.

    Also, there is such a thing as Marital Rape, where some married men feel that their wife always owes them sex, no matter how sick or tired she is. So, I don’t see how teaching “wait until marriage” will prevent all rape.

    By the way, not all MeToo issues revolve around rape.

    Some employers tell a woman worker,
    “If you do not do sex act ‘X’ with me, or watch me disrobe and do sex act ‘Z’ in front of you, I will fire you.” (Or I won’t promote you, or I won’t give you a raise.)

    Telling women (and/or men) to sexually abstain prior to marriage does not stop women from being groped or sexually assaulted by perverted male bosses, or even from being cat-called and threatened by men who walk past them on city streets, KAS.

    Like

  86. I just raised an interesting point or two with Lea on the other blog about some of this. I wanted to mention it here as well.

    Okay, so a lot of conservative Christians make a big deal about marriage, and how it’s sooo important (witness KAS in these threads as an example), but I’ve noticed that a lot of Christians offer either

    1- far-too stringent mate picking criteria or
    2- too laissez faire mate picking criteria

    Number 1 results in even marriage-desiring single adults not being able to find or get a mate, because the standards are so high and unrealistic, that no man meets them.

    Number 2 results in bad matches, and the marriage – should it occur – will take place within months, because the people in the marriage are not a good match.

    I’ve seen Christian marriage expert Mark Gungor, who has been on Christian TV shows giving marital advice, actually tell single Christian adults that all they need in common with a potential life partner is Jesus.

    Eh, wrong! It takes a lot more in common than Jesus for two Christians to make a long term relationship to work. We don’t have arranged marriages in the USA, we marry for love and by choice.

    Also, as I’ve brought up on the other blog before, gender complementarians don’t make marriage look appealing to Christian single women, though they sometimes try.

    I am sorry, but telling single adult women that should they marry that their husband is a “head” (as in authority or boss) over them who gets the “final say so” in marital disputes makes staying single for life look far more appealing.

    3- Complementarians also tell married women that divorce is always wrong, even in cases of being physically (or consistently verbally) abused by a husband.

    Some complementarians also teach married women that they are obligated to give sex to their husband whenever and however he wants it, even if she is sick (IOW, they support marital rape).

    As a single woman hearing that sort of horrible rhetoric, do you really think I am going to,
    1. take any relationship advice you care to give?
    (The answer is No, since you do not have my well being, safety and health in mind)
    2. marry a gender complementarian man, join a comp church, knowing that should the spouse start abusing me after the wedding, the church won’t lift a finger to help me leave my abuser? (Again, the answer is NO WAY).

    So, you are a Christian who says you think marriage is important, but your teachings sure don’t bear this out.
    Your teachings are actually discouraging, or act as obstacles, to (Christian) singles who would like to marry.

    Forget feminism, loose secular sexual mores, etc. and so on, Christians are creating some of their very own anti-marriage problems all on their own.

    Like

  87. I said,
    “Number 2 results in bad matches, and the marriage – should it occur – will take place within months, because the people in the marriage are not a good match.”

    I meant, in such a marriage, a DIVORCE will likely take place soon, or eventually.

    Like

  88. KAS said,

    The christian worldview entails a standing assumption that consent has not been given, it is only publically given in a marriage service. It’s hands off until then.

    Consent is only given (within or outside of a marriage) when a person agrees to have sex.

    Consent is not givenn in a marriage service.

    Even after marriage, if, say, one of the spouses does not want to have sex, they are not granting consent, and ergo, the other spouse needs to back off.

    Like

  89. KAS said,

    Their worldview is that consent may be assumed. At the very least there is nothing wrong with fornication – or adultery. They are attempting the impossible – to keep a sexual free for all for themselves and stop men from sexually abusing women.

    This is also the Christian practice.

    Witness D. Phillips, who sexually assaulted his teen-aged nanny, Lourdes. I left you a link up thread. Also note Josh Duggar, Christian boy, who fondled his own sisters and one of his babysitters.

    Consensual sex and sexual abuse are not the same thing. Women having agency to decide when or if to have sex with a man (or with a woman) does not give any man a right to sexually assault or harass her. Not even the Bible teaches that one.

    Like

  90. KAS said,

    Their worldview is that consent may be assumed.

    Who is the “their” you mention there?

    The only ones who think consent may be “assumed” are randy, single (or married) men who coerce or pressure women into having sex, because they feel entitled to sex with a woman, and do not care about the woman’s choice, or about her boundaries.

    Like

  91. KAS said,

    One thing everyone still agrees on is that paedophilia is wrong..

    They do? Are you sure? Some adults advocate for child-adult sex (see NAMBLA). Some adults advocate for animal-human sex.

    KAS said,

    Yet I have to point out to them that this is arbitrary, they have no basis on which to hang their objections to it. You cannot embrace moral relativism and then arbitrarily make a moral absolute against peadophilia. At least Christians know why it is wrong.

    Knowing why something is wrong does not mean people, even Christians, won’t do it.

    I see many, many news stories go through my various social media accounts of Christian married men who are arrested, or caught, for doing things like soliciting sex with animals on Craig’s List site, using Ashley Madison adultery site, hiring prostitutes, molesting young teens under their care at their church, etc.

    Christian views about sex are sometimes arbitrary, and Christians don’t all agree with each other.

    For example, you are basically arguing for and defending marital rape, while other Christians acknowledge there is such a thing as marital rape and that it is immoral.

    Julie Anne has blog posts on this blog about perverted married Christian men who force “Christian Domestic Discipline” on their wives (e.g., wife spanking, etc).

    These guys obviously feel that S & M acts against a spouse is biblical and acceptable, while other Christians say no, it’s gross and wrong.

    I don’t see what is morally relative about the topic of consent.

    If a woman tells a man no, she does not want to have sex with him when he comes on to her or asks for sex, that is unambiguous.

    There is nothing morally relative about a person exercising her or his right and boundaries to say to someone else, “no, I do not want to engage in behavior X, Y, or Z.”

    Even the God of the Bible recognizes that people have a “right” to disagree with him, disobey and reject not only him, but his moral laws as well.

    Like

  92. KAS said,

    Unless society stops mocking God and his standards, this law of reaping and sowing will continue to apply. Time will tell, but without a serious rethink, #metoo may prove a fad. There is plenty of anger, but it will not work the righteousness of God.

    Bible- believing Christians don’t follow God’s standards, KAS.

    Even some Christian preachers are constantly having affairs with other women, or molesting children in their churches, or are using p0rn sites.

    Jesus in the New Testament tells Christians to stop trying to remove the speck from their secular neighbor’s eye and instead remove the beam from their own.

    Paul tells you in the NT to let God judge those outside the church (feminists, liberals, and secular culture), while you should be more concerned with policing those who say they are Christians.

    The “Me Too” movement sure seems to be way more effective at making changes in society and bringing some men to account (such as movie producer Harvey Weinstein) than Christianity, Christians, or “God’s righteousness.”

    Maybe God is using the “MeToo” movement to accomplish his purposes.

    The “Me Too” equivalent for Christians is called “Church Too” (and I think there is another one, “Silence is not spiritual”). That has also shown to be helpful in bringing attention to sexual harassment and sexism as practiced by Christians.

    Like

  93. Lea said,

    And some rape other women and children as well. The most extreme anti-divorce folks would say their wives should stay married to them.
    And when they do divorce, would count stats about these women filing as ‘women file X% of the time, ergo women hate marriage and blahblahblah’. Which is nuts.

    Oh jeeze, yes, one of my pet peeves.

    One usually sees embittered, misogynistic men – especially ones who hang out at “Men’s Rights” or “Incel” reddits, and/or angry divorced guys – who bring that point up.

    They always say, “In X percent of cases, women initiate divorce, see, women hate marriage!”

    And you see there the total lack of introspection and self awareness from those men.

    Hmm, maybe (in those sorts of marriages), if your wife divorces you, it’s because you’re a selfish or abusive jerk-face.
    Could that possibly be it? Could you and your behavior maybe have driven your wife to seek divorce? Did you not play a role at all in her choice to leave, maybe? rolls eyes

    The men who complain about women initiating divorce never seem to think that the women doing so have good reasons (or good enough) for wanting to break things off.

    From what I’ve seen in discussions about such topics, what typically happens is that the woman expresses dis-satisfaction to her spouse for weeks and weeks or months on end, warning him she may be packing her bags and leaving for good…

    But the man does not want to change anything, so he changes nothing, or maybe promises to change to placate the angry wife, but makes no actual changes.

    He is happy as a pig in a mud puddle with the status quo of the marriage. He likes to sit in his boxer shorts drinking beer watching NFL all day, ignoring his wife and her needs…

    Then he has the nerve to run to Reddit forums, blogs, or MRA groups, and cry into his beer about he just cannot understand how his wife just up and divorced him, he never saw it coming, by golly (even though she warned him for months she was unhappy).

    Like

  94. Lea said,

    I said above, but there is an element, to me, of threat in many of the ways these things are discussed. Oh, so you want to be treated as a person? Then men will just sit at home and never marry.

    Yes, I’ve seen that awful attitude in many people’s posts or comments – as in, how dare women expect or ask to be treated with respect, or not to follow legalistic or sexist rules?

    Like

  95. Lea said,

    Daisy, I see many people who don’t like this movement sort of jumping ahead to ‘what if’s’, and asking about people being falsely accused. It’s almost as if no one should be allowed to tell their story, because what if one person lies?
    We don’t treat anything else in society that way! (not to mention, that many if not most of the stories I have seen have not had names attached, so there could be no possible harm there).

    Yes. Many of the anti – Me Too-ists continue to bring up all those points (and other criticisms), and paint the movement as a “witch hunt.”

    I blogged about this over on my Daisy blog at least once, but I am miffed at how critics of the Me Too movement are wanting to take a hash tag started by women for women to discuss abuse of women have tried to hi-jack “Me Too” to turn it into a “Pity Poor Men and their Problems in Life” discussion.

    I kept running into one “Me Too” critic on Twitter who sometimes posts at T.W.W blog and used to post here.

    She was also big on defending James Damore’s horrid, sexist ‘Tech Bro Meme’ that suggested that women are born too stupid or bored by tech to be hired at tech companies (I’ve blogged about the Damore meme on my Daisy blog a few times). I had to ask her to stop tweeting me to argue about all that.

    Like

  96. Mark said,

    The counter-cultural argument is that women get to consent, but what is pushed in the media is not really consent, but that women should be sleeping around regularly, and if they are not, then they are not attractive enough, or perhaps they are victims of Victorian-era morality.

    Yep, that is a good summary of the situation.

    As a lifelong celibate, I can testify that many – not all, but it seems a majority – of secular feminists respect, embrace, and celebrate consensual fornication, and they demand others to do so as well, but they do not respect the choice of any woman, such as myself, to remain sexually abstinent.

    I’ve actually seen, from time to time, a few editorials, here and there, on liberal, secular sites by liberal, secular feminists who mock a woman’s choice to stay a virgin until marriage.

    Making this even odder is that in the last approx. five years, I’ve seen a shift or trend where secular feminists have come to defend or embrace Asexuality, but they will NOT respect or defend or accept a woman’s choice to voluntarily abstain (i.e., be celibate or remain a virgin until marriage).

    (For anyone reading: asexuality is not the same thing as celibacy or virginity.)

    I have no idea how it is so many secular / liberal feminists are fine accepting or defending adults not having sex in one capacity (i.e., asexuality) but not in another (i.e., celibacy or virginity).

    But yes, many secular, liberal feminists (and the secular culture) do promote fornication quite a bit, they make anyone who chooses to opt out of rampant sex or casual sex, out to be a repressed freak or an odd-ball.

    (And, btw, a lot of Christians, even the conservatives, do this very thing as well – they act as though anyone who is still a virgin past age of 25 is a freak, weirdo, or odd ball, or is not obeying or following God enough.)

    Like

  97. Mark said,

    Neither is correct, but it’s pointless for us (i.e. KAS) to say that it’s either-or. Either women agree to marital rape, or they agree to give themselves up as a reward for a good date. That’s a false dichotomy. We can say that marriage is not a consent to rape, and giving women the ability to consent doesn’t mean they are obligated to do so regularly whether inside or outside the bounds of marriage.

    This is spot on, and I felt it was worth repeating.

    I find KAS’ attitude about all this very disturbing.

    KAS acts as though because some women (and let’s not forget, some men) promoted casual sex in decades past, that somehow, this means that women deserve to be raped or groped at a job, and it’s their fault if they are.

    Meanwhile, you have women like me who were born after the 1960s, I’ve never been a liberal feminist, and I’m still a virgin over 45 yrs of age, yet KAS is seemingly saying I do not have a right to make choices about my sexual behavior, other men get to rape or grope me if they so choose, and I am to blame for the choices or arguments made by men and women in the 1960s. All very troubling and weird views.

    Like

  98. Serving Kids in Japan said,

    KAS, I cannot believe for the life of me that you wrote this:
    – – –
    It’s not Christians who cannot think and have reason, it’s secular man who has futile, debased thinking.
    – (KAS quote)
    – – –
    Yet again, you’ve insulted all non-believers with these words, and you seem not to have any idea how arrogant you sound. All the thinking of secular people is “futile”!? No one has any ability to think or figure things out without becoming Christian?

    Doesn’t the Bible say that God granted humanity with a conscience?

    I recently finished re-reading the book “The Sociopath Next Door.”

    That book discusses how at least four percent of the American population is sociopathic (born without a conscience, or at least, these individuals are born with a 50% hereditary predisposition to developing it).

    Anyway, I don’t see evidence that the Bible says all humanity is devoid of any and all moral reasoning.

    My understanding is only that it says that un-saved persons remain spiritually ignorant, because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them spiritual life – which does not mean that un-saved persons lack an understanding of moral right and wrong.

    Most Non-Christians know that robbing a store is wrong and bad, that mugging a person is wrong, that having affairs is wrong, etc. And they know this instinctively, or they were taught as such by a parent or teacher growing up.

    And I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but so why if Christians have reasoning and know right from wrong, when this blog (among other sources) has daily or weekly examples of self professing, church attending, Bible believing Christians, who have been arrested or outed for adultery, using child pr0n, beating their wives, or stealing money from congregants?

    Here’s one such recent news story from NBC news:
    _Former Cape Coral pastor accused of stealing church funds_

    There you go, KAS. A Christian preacher who stole money from his church. Look at where his higher moral reasoning got him. There are probably some atheists out there who are more honest than that Christian.

    Like

  99. Serving Kids in Japan said,

    Impressive, KAS. Everything you just wrote was wrong.

    (Apologies to Mark Hamill for poaching his line. 😉 )

    Would that be a quote from Last Jedi? I like Star Wars, honestly I do, but that movie had a few scenes that were un-Star Warsy and made me cringe. Luke milking the alien cow on his island planet was one such scene, and the other was the shirtless Kylo Ren.

    Hey, I appreciate seeing a shirtless guy who’s in shape as much as the next woman, but I don’t want to see that in a Star Wars movie!!

    Here’s to hoping the third SW installment will be better than Last Jedi, and I may be seeing “Solo: A Star Wars Story” after it comes out next month.

    Like

  100. SKIJ said,

    Have you given any thought to how Christianity Hurts might view these words of yours, KAS? Based on your reasoning, she has “no basis” to object to rape, incest or child molestation, because she rejects the Christian faith. This in spite of the fact that she has suffered all of these crimes, and continues to suffer from their effects.

    Are you seriously attempting to share Christ’s love with her, while at the same time demeaning her intelligence and sense of morality? Somehow, I don’t think she’s going to appreciate it.

    That has me concerned as well.

    If CH is still reading this thread, I can only imagine how insensitive, hurtful, and/or infuriating KAS’ obtuse commentary must be. KAS is doing a fine job of driving CH away from the Christian faith, not towards it. I only hope that CH will focus more on the positive comments from the more supportive commentators….

    Like

  101. Serving Kids: in a spirit hopefully of a soft answer turning away wrath, may I briefly respond to your comments?

    You object to my criticism of secular man’s futile, debased thinking. In Rom 1 Paul discusses the pagan society of his day under God’s wrath because they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness. He goes on to say they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened … And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. Some versions say debased mind.

    This is the language of the apostle Paul in his diagnosis of the human condition. It applies just as much today in a society turning back to paganism as it did then. I think it fair to use it. It’s not flattering to us, but the bible is at least honest in what it says.

    You cannot possibly not have seen discussions on TV where highly educated intelligent people come out with utter foolishness in what they say, especially over religious or moral issues.

    Do I really have to repeat that this is not everything the apostle has to say on man and sin though? He deals with the moral man and the religious man too, culminating in all have sinned.

    Like

  102. Secondly, you object to my saying secular man cannot make moral judgements.

    I been here before with this on my secular forum, where an atheist got very angry with me accusing me of accusing him of having no morals. I wasn’t, I had to spell out that atheism provides no basis for morals, it cannot account for them. It cannot underwrite human rights or morals, certainly you can only base absolute morals on religious grounds. Dawkins agrees. He writes “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”. No evil, no good.

    Most atheists baulk at this, but that’s because they have a God-given conscience that informs them of right and wrong as they see it the world around them. If atheism is true or you embrace it as true, it comes with a price tag. You cannot declare anything to be absolutely wrong, and there is no justice. Every abuser and tyrant and criminal who is never tried in this life just plain gets away with it at death. This doesn’t mean God exists or Christianity is true, but it does show the reality of where atheism takes you.

    Dawkins virtually acknowledges you cannot say rape is absolutely wrong if you are an atheist, whereas the Christian can. The Christian knows the wrongs will be put right. After death, the judgment.

    Like

  103. Thirdly, you think my views in number 2 could be hurtful to Christianity hurts. They were not addressed to her, and she is free to argue against them.

    I specifically addressed on post to her, and if there is anything hurtful in it, please highlight it. I made every effort not to be hurtful or personal, and certainly not to make a bad situation worse.

    I stand by what I wrote about how husbands should treat wives if they are followers of Jesus, are biblical Christians: The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex

    This is what I aim to do in my own life and marriage. Most believers I am familiar with would do the same. I am painfully aware of my weaknesses and failures. I would like, however, and explanation from those who have heaped criticism on me as just how you get abuse from this. How I could be tolerant in any way of mistreatment of women. In particular, how you can get ‘biblical Christianity’ as being a source of abuse, so that you can simultaneously be a believer and abuse wife or children. You can’t. It is the enemies of the faith who claim following Jesus entails this, and it is moral wickedness to say so. Neither Jesus, his apostles or his word in the bible ever leads anyone into doing evil.

    I’ll add something: growing boys will learn how to treat women with respect and love when they see their father doing this with their mother to whom he is faithful. For better for worse, for richer for poorer, till death do us part. They won’t learn it from men who abandon them for someone else through easy divorce, nor from Hollywood films and TV.

    I hope Christianity hurts will continue to reject the false, the abusers, the fakes, but not the Jesus of the bible or those who try to follow him in sincerity. She needs her own sins to be forgiven, by faith, just like the rest of us, and I have no doubt he would want to heal her as well. If he did this for my mother, he can do it for her, give her a hope and a future.

    Like

  104. Kas: You said:”I stand by what I wrote about how husbands should treat wives if they are followers of Jesus, are biblical Christians: The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex.”
    I would love to hear your explanation of–her as the weaker sex.

    Liked by 1 person

  105. Sorry to keep you waiting, KAS. Saturday was one busy day at work, and I finally have a bit of time to respond to you. It’ll require a few comments, though.

    …in a spirit hopefully of a soft answer turning away wrath…

    Soft answers are all well and good. But it’ll take more than politeness to lower my temperature, I’m afraid.

    In Rom 1 Paul discusses the pagan society of his day under God’s wrath because they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness. He goes on to say “they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened … And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” Some versions say debased mind. This is the language of the apostle Paul in his diagnosis of the human condition.

    I don’t see it that way. To my mind, this is Paul’s commentary on the wicked and depraved individuals in pagan society, not on that society as a whole. If he had wanted to write off all non-Christians (and non-Jews) in the world as senseless and debased, he wouldn’t have commended those Gentiles who live according to the law. In fact, he does so in the very next chapter:

    “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

    How can the law possibly be “written on the hearts” of any Gentiles “by nature”, if their minds are hopelessly debased and they’re incapable of rational thought?

    The psalmist says that the thoughts of the wicked are futile. Not the thoughts of people who are upright and decent, regardless of what they know about God.

    You cannot possibly not have seen discussions on TV where highly educated intelligent people come out with utter foolishness in what they say, especially over religious or moral issues.

    Sure, I’ve seen some. But it doesn’t follow that all educated non-believers are utterly senseless on moral issues, or that they have nothing to say that’s worth listening to. After all, I’ve heard nonsense aplenty from the likes of Piper, Grudem and Wilson, who paint themselves as the cream of educated christendom. D’you think I’d like for everyone to assume that I’m just as foolish as they are, just because I call myself a Christian?

    Like

  106. I had to spell out that atheism provides no basis for morals, it cannot account for them…If atheism is true or you embrace it as true, it comes with a price tag. You cannot declare anything to be absolutely wrong…

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so. Some might have suffered terrible crimes, or know others who have, and have seen the horror they bring to human lives. Some might simply be capable of great empathy, and can imagine such crimes being committed against themselves. Belief in God isn’t necessary to “underwrite” moral certainty.

    You seem to think that the only possible valid reason for any moral judgement is, “Because God sez so”. I don’t see it that way. From what I can tell, we’ve always known, at least on a basic level, what the words “right” and “wrong” mean, since long before God chose Moses or Abraham. C.S. Lewis pointed out on more than one occasion that, although systems of morality might differ somewhat in the details, they’ve always been broadly alike, even between cultures and between eras. I also agree with Lewis that things aren’t right or wrong simply because “God saith”. Our Lord doesn’t decree what righteousness and sin are, as though by pure fiat; He knows what they are in His perfect wisdom, and passes that knowledge along to us. And on the most basic level, we already agree with Him.

    Judgements of right and wrong don’t come to human beings as a series of conclusions, based on the accepted theological doctrines of any one religion. They are the premises — the axioms of Practical Reason, as Lewis called it. And the majority of the human race knows what those axioms are, regardless of whom or whether they worship.

    Dawkins agrees. He writes “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.

    Meh. Dawkins was a geologist and biologist. It’s probably worth remembering that, when he talked philosophy and metaphysics, he was straying into subjects in which he was an amateur. On those topics, I take him with a grain of salt.

    Though I’d like to note: Even though Darwin wrote that the natural universe provides no basis for judging anything good or evil, I’ve heard of no reports that this idea ever caused him to beat his children, abuse his wife, or molest any women.

    Like

  107. Thirdly, you think my views in number 2 could be hurtful to Christianity hurts. They were not addressed to her, and she is free to argue against them.

    Yes, they were addressed to her — indirectly. She isn’t a Christian, and you specifically said that no unbeliever has any basis for moral outrage towards pedophilia. Which means, by extension, that she has no basis for calling pedophilia morally wrong, regardless of how much she has suffered as a victim of precisely this crime. I’m still disgusted that you’d say such a thing, even if you didn’t say it directly to her.

    And of course, Christianity Hurts is perfectly free to tell you how or whether your thoughtless words have affected her, if she so chooses. I’m not trying to speak for her, KAS, and I doubt I’m a good enough man to do so anyway. God knows I’ve never experienced anything like the house of horrors that her childhood must have been. But I will stand up for her, if I suspect you’re forgetting that this blog is meant primarily for people like her. If she thinks I’m overstepping myself, I hope she’ll tell me so. (Or that Julie Anne will, for that matter.)

    I’d like to take on your other points as well, but it’ll have to wait. I’m worn out from this week, and it’s already well past midnight here. If JA doesn’t decide to cut this thread short, I’ll try to continue sometime tomorrow.

    Liked by 2 people

  108. (part 1)
    I actually dropped by to link to an article I found, but I skimmed SKIJ’s responses to KAS’ latest posts (which I’ve not read myself, because if I do, I may get sucked into making more replied, which I’m kind of trying to avoid).

    So, going by SKIJ’s quotes of what KAS said…

    Serving Kids in Japan replying to KAS:

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    The Bible says God gave all humans a conscience, so it is false for KAS to argue that non-believers don’t know right from wrong.

    However… KAS should read the book “The Sociopath Next Door.”

    That book discusses how up to four percent of the American population is comprised of Sociopaths, and one characteristic of sociopaths is that they lack consciences.

    The book spends a few pages discussing how even centuries ago, theologians noted that some people seem to lack a conscience, and they had a hard time explaining that away.

    I find it interesting that if a God exists, and He created people, that he would permit some of them to be born with a condition (sociopathy) that may make it impossible for them to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior…

    Unless, that is, the Judeo-Christian God would permit someone (a sociopath) to accept Jesus as Savior on mere intellectual assent, and not due to any emotional sensation or sorrow or remorse involved with repenting from sin (sociopaths are incapable of feeling sorrow, remorse, empathy, compassion).

    Like

  109. (part 2)
    I actually dropped by to link to an article I found, but I skimmed SKIJ’s responses to KAS’ latest posts (which I’ve not read myself, because if I do, I may get sucked into making more replied, which I’m kind of trying to avoid).

    So, going by SKIJ’s quotes of what KAS said…
    Serving Kids in Japan replying to KAS:

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    One point I raised numerous times above that I don’t think KAS ever addressed (if he’s read any of my posts, I do not know), is that there are plenty of Christians who commit adultery, molest children, using adultery web sites to find affair partners, etc and so forth.

    The “Bind Torture Kill” serial killer was a long-time elder or deacon at his church, as a matter of fact.

    Police caught the BTK killer because they traced the fonts or inks or what not on his printed letters to them to the computer at the church where he attended.

    I could cite example after example (with links) to news articles about Christian preachers who have been arrested and/or forced to step down for things ranging from rape, using child pr0n, having affairs, for soliciting sex with animals in online advertisements, molesting children, being busted in prostitution rings, selling illicit drugs, to treating their wives like sex slaves.

    Being a Christian or believing that God is the final arbiter or creator of morals is not a guarantee that the person who believes this will behave morally or compassionately.

    There are some Non-Believers, including atheists, who live more “godly” lives than some Christians I’ve read about or have met.

    In years past, in my time lurking at various Christian forums, I’ve seen any number of Christian women saythat they divorced their Bible-believing, church attending Christian husband because the Christian husband was abusive.

    These same women say that when they married again, their second husband was an atheist. These women say their Atheist husband treats them more kindly and more “godly” than their Christian husbands ever did.

    Jesus acknowledged this sort of situation when he said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ but do not do as I say.”

    A person can believe in a God and have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and even live a life of outward piety (known to be a regular church goer, etc), and yet, in private, be having affairs, sexually abusing children, etc.

    So I have no idea why some Christians, such as KAS, keeping harping on the apologetic point that Atheists do not have an objective standard by which to determine morality. Christians claim to have one, but some of them do not live by it.

    Like

  110. SKIJ said,

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    One need only to visit sites known to attract a lot of atheists or other Non-Christians – such as the comment box under any _‘Raw Story’_ article – to see how the atheists sometimes show way more sense than Christians do on some subjects.

    Visit Raw Story any time, find articles about things on that site, such as stories about churches who fail to deal with child sex abusers in their midst in a responsible manner, and the atheists point out how morally depraved and incompetent the average church or Christian is on those matters, and they’d be absolutely correct.

    Most Christians and churches, when they are made aware of child sex abuse or domestic violence by someone on their staff or membership, rather than help the victim, they will attempt to cover-up the crime, make excuses for the abuser, and they will sometimes victim-blame the afflicted.

    Some Christians get tripped up in wanting to support doctrine, so they twist the concepts of grace and forgiveness to defend the perverts (e.g., the pastors who are caught molesting kids in their churches).

    Of course, your average Atheist on those sites see how horrible and ridiculous that is, and they won’t have it. They are disgusted (and rightly so) to see how some Christians support perverts but shun victims, when it should be the other way around.

    Like

  111. I thought this was relevant to some of the conversations in this thread.

    The root of the matter, which the article explains, are attitudes by some men that involved an entitled attitude towards women. The men have misogynistic hearts and beliefs.

    The problem with gender- based violence is not “free love,” promiscuity, consensual casual sex, or “feminism” or whatever else KAS was going on about above.

    _Canada’s ‘Incel Attack’ and Its Gender-Based Violence Problem_

    … Alek Minassian, the 25-year-old suspect in the van attack, has been charged with murdering 10 people—mostly women— and injuring several others.
    In a Facebook post published shortly before the attack, he lauded “incels,” or involuntary celibates, and declared, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!”

    The so-called rebellion aims to punish women for denying incels sex, which they view as a basic right for men.

    On online platforms like 4Chan, some of the group’s more extreme members discuss the desirability of carrying out gruesome misogynistic crimes, including mass rapes. Several quickly celebrated Minassian’s rampage, with one user on the site “incels.me” saying he could be their “next new saint.”

    …. “And Canada’s law is based on British common law, which was very permissive about violence against women and girls,” Bourgeois continued, pointing out that marital rape was legal as late as 1983.

    Nowadays, some critics say that Canadian law is still not equitable when it comes to sexual violence, arguing that the courts often go too easy on men accused of it.

    …The Canadian government has poured money into supporting those who have experienced gender-based violence (for example, by funding rape crisis centers), but its efforts don’t seem to be doing much good when it comes to prevention.

    Bourgeois said that’s because they haven’t targeted the root cause: misogynistic thinking, and the persistent belief among some that men should dominate over women.

    Like

  112. Serving Kids: Thanks for the reply. I don’t think, however, there is any real disagreement going on between us. I don’t want to get bogged down in this by writing war and peace replies, but let me give two example from your replies.

    You complain I am saying atheists cannot call things morally wrong. The atheist on my forum who got angry with me thinking I was saying he had no morals, if you look at what I wrote, I replied I’m not. Surely for the sake of brevity I don’t have to spell out what that means: I don’t think atheists have no morals – and by extension cannot say and mean something is morally wrong.

    Secondly, you say not all of Roman society was covered by Rom chapter one. I already agreed: Do I really have to repeat that this is not everything the apostle has to say on man and sin though? He deals with the moral man and the religious man too, culminating in all have sinned. Chapter 2 deals with the moral man who would be aghast at being included in Romans 1, and later the religious man, the Jew, who has God’s law yet doesn’t keep it. The latter is particularly relevant to evangelicals!

    I’m no fan of Dawkins – he’s actually a bit of a gift to Christian apologists, isn’t he. But I have to grant him he does take his atheism to its logical conclusion when it comes to moral issues, which is at best moral relativism. He is, incidentally, a serial adulterer (doesn’t believe then in ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’), but when Christians point this out it makes me uneasy that they are judging those outside the church. He does, though, live out his unbelief.

    Like

  113. @KAS

    Christians most definitely do not think pedophilia is wrong. Some do many do not.

    Conservative Christian preacher Matt Chandler protected a pedophile while getting p*ssed with the pedophile’s wife for divorcing him. No one who hates child sex could live in the same house with, have sex with, or be married to a pedophile.

    Conservative Christians far and wide took up for poor sicko pervert Josh Dugger.

    Doug Wilson is so pro-pedophile and misogynistic he arranged for a pedophile to get married and have a baby. The pedophile then proceeded to no intelligent informed persons surprise to be sexually aroused by his own newborn son.

    Doug Wilson also protected and defended a child sexual abuser while throwing the sexually abused teenage girl under the bus.

    Prominent and celebrated by conservative Christians Paul Pressler is a serial pedophile and many conservative Christians have known about it for decades.

    The conservative Christian pedophile is so special to other conservative Christians they made a stained glass window of him in the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s new chapel. More proof conservative Christians do not worship Jesus Christ but do worship misogynistic child raping pedophiles.

    It is conservative Christians that fight against laws that say a man cannot marry an underage girl.

    Conservative Christian misogynistic pervert Phil Roberts promotes men marrying underage girls.

    C.J. Mahaney consistently proved that he did not have a problem with pedophilia the way he protected child rapist and pedophiles and the way he pooped all over every raped child he heard about. The POS deserves to spend the rest of his evil vile life in prison. But, the huge conservative Southern Baptist Convention has his back. They too prove they do not have a problem with pedophilia

    My Conservative misogynistic Christian father married an underage girl he was too big of a loser to marry an informed impowered grown woman. But, at least the man was happy and got what he wanted. And that is what conservative Christianity is about; abusive, selfish, sadistic, unwanted men getting what they want and it always involves having trapped miserable women and children under his selfish thug thumb.

    Kas you have proven with what you complain about up and down this board what I already think about conservative Christian men. Conservative Christianity is not about Jesus, God, or love. it is about unwanted, selfish, heartless, hateful, sadistic, sexually-abusive “men” You give it away talking about women not breeding as much as you want them to, women being able to divorce and escape their jerk husbands, women having sex that makes them feel good physically and emotionally instead of toxic miserable married conservative Christian sex.

    The two men from my childhood that convinced me there is no God; my father and the man who sexually abused me hated and complained about the same things as you. Women not being pregnant against their will, women not being married against their will, women being able to divorce their husbands, and feminism.

    If you were a good person (which I do not believe you are) you would be concerned that you sound like and hate all the same things as such evil child marrying, teenage new mother beating, child raping men.

    Like

  114. “I’ll add something: growing boys will learn how to treat women with respect and love when they see their father doing this with their mother to whom he is faithful. For better for worse, for richer for poorer, till death do us part. They won’t learn it from men who abandon them for someone else through easy divorce, nor from Hollywood films and TV.”

    KAS you sound like a cult member. You repeat repeat repeat lies that have been being told by conservative Christian men( very bad child raping wife beating conservative Christian men) at least since the early nineties.

    Like the conservative Christian men I grew up with you don’t seem to be able to think, care, or listen. You hear or read something that does not flatter your ego or benefit your agenda and you pretend it wasn’t said or heard.

    In my thorough experience with Conservative Christin fathers and conservative Christian husbands, everything is about THEM. What they think, what they want, how they feel, what they need, their fears, their insecurities. Their wives and childrens needs, fears, wants, thoughts, and insecurities, are irrelevant.

    I have seen much nicer loving fathers on TV then I ever did at any church. All but two church going, bible reading, bible verse quoting churchmen I have known were selfish dumb lying sexually sadistic thugs. No, they did not love their wives or their children. They used them to feel more important, more powerful, more manly. They were just misery spreading thugs.

    My father never listened, he was too spoiled like a child and dumb to think and care when he heard another person talk. I never respected him.

    Delta Force listens to old people, women, and say they get some of their best intelligence from children, but Delta Force has been trained to get over themselves and not many of them need to disrespect women and children to feel more manly.

    Conservative Christian families remind me of North Korea. Women and children are trapped minions who do not matter except to make the embarrassing selfish unattractive dictator feel better about himself; everything is about Kim Jong-un- Christian father-Christian husband. Your Christianity is about men being worshiped and never having to feel bad. No, feeling bad is for women and children.

    As someone who grew up watching the way conservative Christian men treat their wives and children I strongly believe any woman who marries a conservative Christian man hates her self and hates her children.

    You can keep lying and pretending your selfish ideology is good while survivors of your ideology tell the world how miserable, toxic, and sexually abusive it is. And that it is all about “MEN” (not Jesus) women and little girls want to escape.

    Like

  115. @Serving Kids in Japan

    Have you seen the movie Memoirs of a Geisha? The story is very depressing but it is the most beautiful movie I have ever seen. Asian gardens are my favorite and I wish my yard was saturated with cherry blossom trees.

    KAS doesn’t say anything I have not heard a million times from my father and a child rapist.

    Your post are always thoughtful and compassionate. Atheist cant say you are a dumb hateful Christian. Much Love.

    Like

  116. Thanks, Julie Anne. I have a few more thoughts to share.

    And Christianity Hurts, thank you so much for your kind words. It’s a relief to me that I haven’t added to your pain.

    I haven’t seen “Memoirs” yet. I’ve no doubt that Spielburg made a beautiful movie, even if the story is sad.

    Like

  117. P.S. The cherry blossom season has ended just last week in my part of Japan. They don’t last long, but they are indeed gorgeous while they’re in bloom. Spring is my favourite time of year, especially in this country.

    Like

  118. I would like, however, an explanation from those who have heaped criticism on me as just how you get abuse from this. How I could be tolerant in any way of mistreatment of women? In particular, how you can get ‘biblical Christianity’ as being a source of abuse…

    I don’t think that believing in the Bible, or attempting to obey it, is abusive in and of itself. If I thought that way, I wouldn’t be a Christian. However, the kind of doctrine for gender relations which you consistently promote here as being required of all believers, can very often be used as a means for abusive men to mistreat women and girls, and to claim that God condones their behaviour.

    Remember, KAS, in the gender comp framework, husbands are supposed to instruct their wives and lead them. Also, parishioners are supposed to obey their pastors and elders (all men, of course) and abide by their teachings and their interpretations of the Bible. In such a system, there’s nothing to keep all the men from teaming up to keep their wives in “godly submission” to them, by supporting each other in abusive behaviour. And there’s nothing to help the women get out of such a system, except by disobeying their husbands and pastors.

    Personally, I find nothing wrong with the kind of husband you describe above. (i.e. “loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her… bestowing honour on her…”) Unfortunately, all too many churches and husbands that call themselves gender comp will redefine “a husband’s love” to include controlling and domineering behaviour. But the pastors and husbands will claim that they have their interpretations are “biblical”, and that women have no right at all to gainsay them. And even if pastors of such couples admit that husbands aren’t loving their wives, many will insist that the Bible doesn’t acknowledge as valid grounds for divorce. Their only counsel will be for the wives to “submit more”. This keeps women trapped in marriages that are harmful to them and their children, being told all the while that God wants them to suffer for the sake of that marriage.

    And apparently, this is exactly the kind of closed, toxic system that Christianity Hurts grew up in, and from which neither her nor her mother had any chance to escape. It’s all well and good to realize that husbands and pastors in such an environment are “enemies of the faith”. But that acknowledgement does very little to help wives and daughters trapped there, or to heal the trauma they endure.

    I hope Christianity Hurts will continue to reject the false, the abusers, the fakes, but not the Jesus of the bible or those who try to follow him in sincerity.

    In that case, she’ll have to reject most of those who are call themselves leaders in modern American christendom. She has given numerous examples of modern gender comp leaders who have either supported or enabled abusive men, and I can think of many more. And they all claim to follow Jesus “in sincerity”. (Her own childhood experience, though, probably leaves them all in the dust.) So if these are the leaders in Christianity, where is she supposed to learn of “the Jesus of the Bible”?

    Like

  119. Thank you for responding, KAS.

    I don’t want to get bogged down in this by writing war and peace replies…

    Fine by me. But remember, you started it.

    You complain I am saying atheists cannot call things morally wrong… I don’t think atheists have no morals – and by extension cannot say and mean something is morally wrong.

    Well, thanks for clarifying that, but I got that message. My complaint was your claim that atheists (and homosexuals and feminists) have no basis for protesting abusive and vile deeds. (Direct quotation from you: “One thing everyone still agrees on is that paedophilia is wrong. Yet I have to point out to them that this is arbitrary, they have no basis on which to hang their objections to it.”) This is patently false and ridiculous.

    Also, I should apologize for my mistakes in talking about Dawkins. I misread your comment, and thought you were talking about Charles Darwin. (In my defence, I haven’t read enough of Richard Dawkins to be familiar with his quotations, and I was very tired at the time.) What I wrote in my reply to you was what I read about Darwin’s life, not Dawkins’. Sorry for the confusion.

    Like

  120. In a Facebook post published shortly before the attack, he lauded “incels,” or involuntary celibates, and declared, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!”

    Daisy, I have been reading up on this subject but hadn’t heard that. Misogyny and entitlement like this kills. All the time, through domestic violence or something more dramatic like this. Rodgers had somewhat similar thought processes…he thought women should throw themselves at him and ended up murdering a bunch of people because they didn’t. People who promote these views about women are encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence and I have no patience for it anymore.

    Like

  121. Christians most definitely do not think pedophilia is wrong. Some do many do not.

    I want to disagree with you, but you laid out a very convincing case that some prominent men in a certain subset of Christianity certainly do not view pedophilia, and the abuse of children, with anything like the seriousness I would expect from a decent person, let alone a Christian.

    Many do, of course. But maybe they aren’t being listened too by the people who have put themselves in positions of power in these organizations. This is something this site and others similar have been examining. I wonder why anyone would act this way, and I think your conclusion is as reasonable as any other.

    Like

  122. I wish my yard was saturated with cherry blossom trees.

    CH (and SKIJ), I used to live in DC and the cherry blossoms are one of the things I miss most about it.

    Like

  123. My complaint was your claim that atheists (and homosexuals and feminists) have no basis for protesting abusive and vile deeds.

    It is almost as if he believes atheists can have morals but all of those morals are irrational? Which is not the case obviously, although I don’t feel like getting into an extended discussion about it, especially as I don’t believe KAS listens to anything, let alone anything a woman would say. Perhaps if you said it he would listen, but continue not to hear, which would be equally useless.

    in the gender comp framework, husbands are supposed to instruct their wives and lead them. Also, parishioners are supposed to obey their pastors and elders (all men, of course) and abide by their teachings and their interpretations of the Bible. In such a system, there’s nothing to keep all the men from teaming up to keep their wives in “godly submission” to them, by supporting each other in abusive behaviour. And there’s nothing to help the women get out of such a system, except by disobeying their husbands and pastors.

    Indeed. One of the great failings of this system is that it has NO answer to men behaving any other way than loving. And as you pointed out, it redefines loving in many cases into controlling and abusive behavior, in a way that is not biblical, but is proclaimed as such.

    In the face of terrible behavior, and many, many examples of ways in which this type of teaching leaves women trapped, proponents of comp go back to all manner of ‘no true scotsman’ fallacies (those men are ‘not christian’), combined with the ‘thou shalt not divorce no matter what’, and in many cases combined with some sort of ‘don’t even tell him what’s wrong because you are supposed to be winning him without a word’. All of which encourages abuse and leaves women trapped in it, if they want to be a good Christian.

    If I thought that was what Christianity was, I would pass, just as CH has passed. As it is, I have left anything the patriarchal side of things and have no interest in going back. Women are full adults, fully human, and should be treated as such. I will accept no less from men or from church.

    Like

  124. KAS, I think you misunderstand the Romans passage.

    In the new covenant, the law is written on the hearts of all – all understand right and wrong, rather than the Spirit being poured out on select few. For example, when the elders prophesied and Joshua asked Moses if he should forbid those outside the tent of meeting from prophesying, Moses said, “I wish all could prophesy”. Joel later prophesied that the Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” – not just the elect. Jeremiah prophesied that in the new covenant, all would know God.

    So, what Paul is talking about isn’t that non-Christians are without any moral direction, like what happened in the old covenant, but that they have a moral compass that they are actively suppressing. However, that suppression is progressive, so we see that the world often has a good sense of right and wrong, especially when it is 3rd party. More often, when people suppress right and wrong, it is about refusing to feel guilty for their own actions and rationalizing them instead.

    So, in light of that, it makes sense that the “world” correctly understands the right and wrong of #metoo, that is those who are observers rather than the perpetrators – the Weinsteins and Cosbys will perhaps never see anything wrong with what they did. Where we have to be careful is that the world will often turn to inadequate and incomplete solutions – the quick fix so they can call it solved and move on to the next crisis, but we as Christians know that there is a much deeper issue going on.

    As I said, you misunderstand Total Depravity. That misunderstanding leads you to condemn everything coming from the “world” as another skirmish of God-haters. It leads you to assume that every last non-believer Paul is talking about has progressed through every stage of depravity in Romans 1.

    I still have the emotional scars of that viewpoint from the conservative evangelical church. I won’t ask for help because everyone is just waiting to beat me up and rob me. I used to think that every “liberal” politician was trying to maliciously rob from the rich and keep the poor in a constant state of poverty. I used to think that there was no such thing as a “competent” non-Christian, or an “incompetent” Christian (boy was I wrong!). All because the church taught such a bastardized, one-sided view of the human condition.

    Like

  125. “Indeed. One of the great failings of this system is that it has NO answer to men behaving any other way than loving. And as you pointed out, it redefines loving in many cases into controlling and abusive behavior, in a way that is not biblical, but is proclaimed as such.”

    So true. As I commented in a later post, this is because the theological framework of most conservative, evangelical churches (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) ignores abuse of authority. Then, when a member complains or presses charges stemming from abuse of authority, the church, at a minimum, has no grounds for charges against the authority, and at worse, based on the lack of theological framework, turns it into something that IS chargeable, namely lack of obedience.

    A former elder claimed that virtually all excommunications he was aware of were based on the charge of “insubordination”. I wonder how many of those charges stemmed from church leaders overstepping their bounds.

    Like

  126. As I commented in a later post, this is because the theological framework of most conservative, evangelical churches (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) ignores abuse of authority.

    I don’t agree that this is the reason. Many churches that reference the Westminster confession seem to have avoided this issue. I don’t have time to dig through my book of confessions right now to get into it though.

    I think these men try to make god like them. And when they are not good men, we see the results.

    Like

  127. Lea, “Many churches that reference the Westminster confession seem to have avoided this issue.”

    I haven’t found one yet. I’ve been to multiple NAPARC churches including OPC and PCA and other related Westminster and three forms churches, and it seems pretty consistent that they elevate the pastor and elders to some sort of quasi-papal-infallibility position, and lower the members to essentially babies who can’t be expected to understand right from wrong and must take any and all direction from the church leadership.

    When I was looking for a church after leaving an abusive one, I listened to sermons from pretty much every Calvinistic Presbyterian church within 20 miles and I heard the same thing in each one. Of course, I knew which sermons to look for to hear that view. Like one church that apparently was having an elder election and preached a series on the role of elders in the church. Very EYE OPENING to say the least. Not much about protecting the sheep from the wolves, but a lot about telling the sheep what they need to do and beating them when they don’t do it.

    But, I’m amazed at churches/elders that I thought “avoided the issue” when I had a disagreement with an elder, I found that instead of saying, “well, this is my interpretation and…” they resorted to “I’m the authority and…” I think that is a huge red flag that when these men are challenged on their interpretation on some Biblical text that neither the Confession nor the church have taken any official position on, they resort to “obey my authority or else”.

    That said, I did find a Reformed church that is not abusive in that way, so they do exist, just questioning how common they are.

    Like

  128. “And when they are not good men, we see the results.”

    I really have struggled with this. Are these “evil” elders who have found themselves in positions of authority, or are these “good” men who have been raised and cultivated in a culture of authoritarian leadership.

    Three specific examples I can think of are men who are really amazing people when they are not in an ecclesiastical position. However, when they put their “elder” hat on, then the pointer finger comes out and all the sudden the conversation is not about having a rational discussion about why a passage may mean one thing or the other, but about what how I must submit to the “truth” of the passage (i.e. their opinion). They stop listening and they start preaching.

    Like

  129. MOT – I would love to hear your explanation of–her as the weaker sex.

    Sorry for the delay in replying to your fair question.

    The average man is about one and a half times as strong physically as the average woman. There is a reason why the Olympic games has men’s and women’s events. The downside of this for women doesn’t need spelling out. It places a responsibility on men not to abuse their strength.

    It is also true women are more emotional than men. It may not be politically correct to say so, but I think it obviously true. I would suggest, but put it no more strongly than that, that women may be more prone to being manipulated by unscrupulous men as a result. I’ve certainly seen that happen more than once.

    I also think women are vulnerable during and shortly after pregnancy. It is a time imo when husbands should step up and take off more of the load. Go the extra mile.

    Bestowing honour on wives means no husband should think of his wife as second class in the kingdom of God, let alone treat her that way. Husband and wife are joint heirs of the grace of life.

    Husbands who do not treat their wives in this way will find God ceases to hear their prayers, and will turn away from them. They lose fellowship with God. Disobedience always comes at a price.

    Like

  130. “It is also true women are more emotional than men. … I would suggest, but put it no more strongly than that, that women may be more prone to being manipulated by unscrupulous men as a result.”

    I think one of the biggest failures of the modern church is to push men and women to suppress their emotions, both positive and negative. As such, it is the “rationality” of men and women that is a bigger path to manipulation than being emotional. For example, Jimmy Hinton talks about people who had a “gut feeling” about a child sexual predator, but who suppressed that feeling because rationality suggested that an elder, pastor, church leader or another faithful member would never do that sort of thing to a child.

    I had a spat with my former church that ended up with me leaving. The disagreement was in the role of negative emotions. For me, anger is an emotion that tells me that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with. For my old church, anger is an emotion that no one can have, except if you’re Jesus or a church leader.

    I also think that it is hard to truly discern whether emotional differences between men and women are as significant as they appear, or whether it is driven primarily by the fact that men in our culture who show emotion are considered weak or effeminate. Whereas women who show leadership and other “masculine” traits are considered to be mean and vindictive.

    Like

  131. Pingback: Wednesday Connect | Thinking Out Loud

  132. Interesting comment thread here with respect to the last few posts. For what it’s worth, here’s three cents from my world/worldview/experiences regarding stereotyping genders.

    KAS, “The average man is about one and a half times as strong physically as the average woman………It places a responsibility on men not to abuse their strength.”
    Clear, concise, I appreciate this observation, and for the most part I believe this is true. There are always exceptions to this belief system, for in the natural, there are a few women here and there that are actually stronger, physically speaking, than some men. From my agricultural perspective/experiences, my husband and sons, ARE much stronger than me physically and I witness this day to day during the working season. They are able to lift heavier objects, apply more pressure when working with machine tools, and most days, have a longer endurance level than I. This is a fact I have accepted as the “weaker vessel” physically, allowing me the freedom and liberty to know my limitations and embrace them. I do not consider myself to be the “weaker vessel,” however, when I ask for one of them to help lift that flattened chisel plow tire into the pickup for a quick trip to town to get it “fixed in a hurry.” Nope. The guys are more than happy to do that for me (I always say a hearty “Thank-You for the help!) and we don’t even think about the Biblical words of “the weaker vessel.” Our main goal is “getting the job done,” whoever does it.

    KAS, “It is also true women are more emotional than men.” This is where I will disagree with you until the cows come home. Well, we don’t have cows anymore, so I will reiterate, until my precious dog turns into a cat…..will never happen! Smile! In my Biblical studies, I don’t see any Scriptures where Jesus states this stereotypical observation. In fact, before my surgery, I cherished those Scriptures where Jesus was in the Garden, literally weeping to His/our Father Who art in Heaven, before His crucifixion. Jesus’ “emotionalism” gave me such comfort, for I was scolded/corrected by my former Baptist woman prayer chain leader for beginning to share with her, my fears of having cancer. So I turned to the Scriptures instead of wicked folks like her, the hardened religious hearts (Baptist men and women leadership), for comfort, strength, and peace in my life during a very trying time. And He was merciful unto me.

    To stereotype “emotions” as a gender issue, I believe, is a blatant lie used against women. I don’t buy into it for one single minute and frankly, never heard of this until I entered the charismatic/Pentecostal/Baptist plan of religion during my married years. It is in these sects, I was told of the gender gospel, thus pitting men and women against each other through “role” theology. Never heard any of this garbage growing up in a poorer, rural Lutheran church……..every body pitched in to get jobs done within our church system……and I had the privilege of playing softball on our church “co-ed” team…..good and wholesome days within our church……and “the gender thing was NEVER, ever preached on because we were/are all “one” in Christ Jesus. This is where that unity thing amongst believers comes into play….and I praise our LORD that I had never heard the “gender bender false gospel” growing up, for it would have stereotyped my faith into apostasy.

    Jesus was full to overflowing with emotions, was He not? And He was a man as well as God in the flesh. Pretty profound if you would ask me. And in my life experiences, I have to admit, KAS, that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE with regards to “gender emotions” in my neck of the woods. I cannot even begin to share with you of the times that I have on the receiving end of a “man’s” anger with regards to water rights, property rights, gun rights, religious issues (including the topic of “should a woman be a pastor), etc. It’s no fun to have a perfectly wonderful day, until the farmer “man” down the road shows up and royally YELLS at me for close to an hour because he is flooding from “our water” running across his land. Yep…….this has happened many times in my farm wife life……and these cowards never have the guts to approach my husband in such a way……must be easier for them to take out their frustrations on the “weaker vessel.” This is only one example for I could easily write a book regarding “The Emotionalism of a Man 101…….even for dummies!)

    So nope, no siree, KAS. I don’t buy into the emotionalism thing and thus I don’t consider myself “the weaker vessel” with regards to me mind and me soul. I am just as strong as a man in those areas of me life and find that liberating. I am not greater nor the lesser vessel there. So after receiving the vengeance/raw negative emotionalism of men in our farming community…..when they are done blowing off their anger onto me…….I can now calmly state, “are you done now?,” and actually have a rational conversation (in most cases) after their “emotionalism” has calmed down a bit.

    And as far as the “tear” thing goes……I have the privilege of witnessing my “boy” grandchildren cry just as much as my “girl” grandchildren…..and I love it/them to pieces. And both Granny and Grandpa experience the emotion of “great joy” in being a part of their precious lives…..so much for the gender bender “emotionalism” thing.

    And Mark, you make some reasonable points in your comment thread. Thank-you both KAS and Mark for your input. Appreciate that!

    Like

  133. And for the record, speaking the truth in love of course, it would be telling if you, KAS, could be on hand here, walking alongside of my work boots, regarding the concept of “emotionalism.” Conservative Christian (?) men burst into anger/temper tantrums when little women like myself, disagree with their unscriptural viewpoints. I witness the phenomenon of “red faced man syndrome” quite often (all too often 😦 )within our rural community ……and most of them are “c’hurched” men :(.

    ’nuff said.

    Like

  134. To stereotype “emotions” as a gender issue, I believe, is a blatant lie used against women

    Absolutely. Although I expect nothing less from kas.

    Expression of emotions is a cultural thing anyways, but the emotion themselves are there no matter how they are expressed. I read an interesting thing about there only being four emotions that have been identified but I will have to look it up…

    Like

  135. In agreement with you, Lea. It has been my observation throughout the years that the 501c. church has digressed into apostasy with their men verses women, women verses men philosophies disguised as Biblical teachings (depending which on which side of the political conundrum the institutional church supports, ie,, liberal or conservative, for politics plays a huge “role” in their version of a jesus of sorts). No longer are institutional churches about the Jesus of our Holy Scriptures, for that would make them truly “radical” as John the Baptist was in his day, or even far, far greater, as Jesus was in His Day. Now churches are into how “women are built…….especially the sixteen year olds”…….coming from a man disguised as a pastor/theologian……out of the heart the mouth speaks…..Scripture speaks truth on these matters. Wow…..wonder what kind of “emotion” was going on inside that human body?????

    Preaching jibberish concerning “emotionalism amongst the genders” has transformed many a church into prostitution against women, religious prostitution, from a harlot religious system. Indoctrination into these false belief systems, actually cripples women into believing they are the lesser/weaker of the genders (in every area of this earthly life) and cannot function without the “religious instruction of a man.” For God, the Holy Spirit, has now been reduced to indwelling only in men, emotionally driven ones at that, and not women, as the apostate church seeks to create division amongst the genders…….and actually “loves it so.”

    This is precisely why it is so important for the Ecclesia to focus on the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, for He speaks truth, with great “emotion” I might add. His teachings lead us into all truth and more freedom than we have been led to believe by lordship leaders, for both women and men. It is when I read His words, that I can experience great “joy,” spoken with resounding “emotionalism.”

    Like

  136. I have the privilege of witnessing my “boy” grandchildren cry just as much as my “girl” grandchildren

    Yes. Because children are still learning the way they are allowed/expected to express their emotions and they are not nearly as good at hiding them as adults.

    Anyone who has been around small children would realize these things are not gendered.

    Like

  137. Katy – thanks for your reply. In saying women are more emotional than men, the word ‘more’ means that men are emotional too. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with emotion as such, nor do I think men need to suppress their emotions.

    Your point about men getting angry is well made, and very telling! There is of course a righteous anger in the face of evil, but I assume you have in mind men who explode when they can’t get their own way.

    There is a balance to be had here. Not showing emotion for example during a bereavement because of how others would think is silly, yet can put unnecessary pressure on men. Jesus wept: if it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

    On the other hand, bursting into tears when the letter arrives telling you you haven’t got the job you wanted or you don’t win the talent competition does show a certain weakness in the face of everyday life.

    You won’t find any problem with me if you don’t agree with me and say so. If you don’t expose your thinking to other viewpoints, you are unlikely to learn anything. But that cuts both ways!

    There is, incidentally, a fascinating amount of criticism of me on this thead for views I don’t actually hold, which I think I have made clear I don’t hold.

    Like

  138. Mark – regarding total depravity. I do believe in this (although the term is not used in the NT), understanding it to mean no part of us in our unregenerate state has not been affected by sin. This includes our thinking as well as actions. It does not mean were are all as bad as we could be, nor that we never do anything good. That is patently false, yet a common misunderstanding of the phrase.

    Worse than this, there is a heresy abroad I think confined to the US that total depravity continues after conversion. If it did, then it would mean no conversion has ever taken place. It is a complete denial of the gospel. If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

    A faith that doesn’t change is a dead faith. Bogus. This is not instant sinless perfection, but just as there is a minimum amount of doctrine to be accepted to be authentically Christain (such as the apostles’ creed?) there is a minimum change in behaviour to show authentic faith and conversion. New birth. Law of God written on their hearts, now flesh and not stone.

    The mark of a Christian is not that he doesn’t sin but that he can no longer be happy doing so. Has to confess it sooner or later and deal with it.

    In the end, God alone knows those who are really his, but from our perspective ‘sound’ doctrine is not enough without a life that reflects it, even if the doctrine comes from a Big Name supposedly evangelical or ‘charismatic’ celebrity, or is even found in the MacArthur constituency …..

    Like

  139. “It is also true women are more emotional than men.

    It makes feeble inadequate men feel better about themselves to say this about women. You do a lot of repeating misogynistic slop conservative Christian men have been peddling for decades to make themselves feel superior to women. It speaks volumes about them that the number one thing that makes them feel good is belittling women and girls.

    My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and he was always having meltdowns; hysterical, emotional, irrational, temper tantrums. He would throw stuff, kick stuff, hit stuff, tear stuff up. My grandmother would have to go behind him and clean up his juvenile mess. His idiot son, my father, would also have outrageous meltdowns. He was a church-going, bible quoting, bible reading, conservative men.
    If the restaurant did not put lettuce on his burger he would holler at the top of his lungs making sure everyone looked at him and knew he was not getting his way.
    Is this not emotional?

    If someone cut him off in traffic he would try to run them off the road. Is that not emotional?

    My church-going, comp, conservative, Christian father beat his teenage wife in her face because his sick baby was crying and it got on his nerves; he is the one who forced the teen girl to get pregnant. Was he not being emotional?

    My teenage male cousins punch trees when their girlfriends’ breakup with them; breaking their fist in the process. They punch their truck windows breaking the window because their parents won’t let them stay out all night.
    Is that not hysterical, emotional, and irrational?

    I have a male cousin who trains people in gun safety and martial arts; he has trained with the IDF. His friends tell him if World War Three starts they are coming to his house because they know he can keep them alive. He cries when he sees something awful happening to children on the news. He is trained in EMT and took perfect care of our two great-grandmothers when they were dying. He is a tough fighter, skilled shooter, phenomenal hunter and he gets emotional over bad things happening to children and over sick seniors.

    KAS, you are peddling insecure misogynistic man’s lies. My father said all the same things you say. He would like you.

    Like

  140. KAS: “It is also true women are more emotional than men.
    CH: It makes feeble inadequate men feel better about themselves to say this about women.

    I think you bring up something I have been thinking about here…these claims are all about pride. Men like to say that women are more emotional, because they are proud for some reason that they think they are less emotional.

    There is not a shred of evidence for this belief, and when you bring up men’s emotional expressions like displays of anger they turn it around to ‘righteous’ anger. I guarantee the random dude who got angry that a teenage girl passed him and tried to fight at the intersection was not ‘righteously’ angry. That dude that murdered a bunch of people was not ‘righteously’ angry.

    The truth is that they are proud of their own emotional expressions and belittle women’s. This is not about anyone being ‘more’ emotional. Katy rightly pointed out that that is nonsense, even if KAS ignored her point entirely.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s