▶ Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil - YouTube

I came across this video on YouTube and in it Ann Bardhardt gives a lecture on what role sexuality has in Islam. I don't agree with all she has to say. For instance I don't think she describes the thoughts and motivations of every single Muslim male the world over. However, she does bring up some valid and thought provoking points that deserve consideration. More important she points out that we, as American, must stand ready to protect our rights from people who would take them from us.


▶ Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil - YouTube

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

John Loftus posted an article written by J.M. Green. Green starts out with a good unavoidable point that must be accepted in terms in light of scripture and then violently faceplants into error born from a desire to deny scripture and hold on to his atheism.

Johnnie Moore, vice president at Liberty University, writes of how he astounded his colleagues by suggesting that Jesus may have stopped to take a crap by the side of the road, on the way to Jerusalem. Granted, he didn’t use the word ‘crap’ but more provocatively, he also posited that Jesus may even have suffered the ravages of diarrhea. His article goes on to point out that Christians often don’t think of Jesus as fully human. I would heartily agree.

This is true. We often do not remember that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. However we must also see the truth that Jesus' humanity is not the same as our humanity. Jesus was not tainted by sin. None of us know what that feels like or what it is like to live like that.  Think about it. Every thought pure. Every action the right one. Jesus is perfect and without flaw. 

Now I suppose that Professor Moore’s musings might seem edgy and possibly even blasphemous to the average evangelical fundamentalist, but I would like to suggest that he is playing it way too safe. 

When Jesus took on human flesh, He submitted himself to the same biological limitations all of humanity have. Jesus got tired. Jesus had to sleep. Jesus had to eat. If a person has to eat, they most certainly have to excrete biological waste. No problem. 

If Christians truly believe that Jesus was 100% human (never mind that combining this with 100% God seems like somewhat sketchy math) then they must consider his sexuality. And there, believers find themselves skating on dangerously thin ice. So much fundy fervor is devoted to repressing and controlling sexuality that to think of their blessed Jesus as having a sex drive is simply too awful to bear.

Yes, let's discuss Jesus' sexuality. Nothing in the Bible is about repressing sexuality. The Bible does not teach that sex is evil and should be avoided. That was what stodgy old men and women did who wanted to control others. Anyone who reads the Song of Solomon and still thinks that God doesn't want humans to enjoy sex, they are an idiot. The issue is that God, who created sex, wants us to use His gift to us properly.  

If the good Professor wanted to truly be daring, then he should have asked: “Did Jesus ever have wet dreams?” Did he masturbate? Imagine Mary finding a soiled tunic and cornering Joseph. “Joe, he’s been at it again. You really need to have a talk with him about purity and not yielding to lustful thoughts.” 

Not getting into whether or not masturbation or having wet dreams are sins, I think Green is really asking a different question. Green thinks that they are sins. Therefore the Bible answers Green's questions.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God - 2 Corinthians 5:21

So in case you are missing the argument: Jesus had no sin so he would never sin sexually. 

And that’s just for starters. Did the Savior of the World ever play childhood games of doctor with the little girl who lived in the house next door? As an adolescent, did he ever get erections at embarrassingly inopportune moments? Did the woman at the well catch Jesus checking out her cleavage? Now it’s true that Jesus preached against looking at women lustfully, but, as we all know, many of those who publically rail against certain ‘sins’ often are privately indulging in those very things.

So if you want to know if Jesus would have done a certain action, you need to first figure out if that action is a sin. If so, then Jesus did not do it. The teaching of the Bible is not that sin is definitional of being human. Jesus came to free us from sin so we can be at our at our optimum. 

About now, any True Believers reading this probably have their eyes rolled back in their heads and are fainting like the heroine of a Victorian novel, but buckle your seatbelts, I’m not nearly done.

Green overestimates his arguments. 

When sexuality is such an integral part of the human experience, why is it that Jesus is portrayed in a sterile, sexless manner? What was his orientation - straight, gay, or bisexual? Was he asexual, or is that just the image presented to us because the gospel accounts have been neutered and sanitized?

Jesus is everything we are not. Jesus is not limited or controlled by lusts and passion.  That is what being a sinner is. Jesus was not married and fulfilled the Law perfectly.  This means that Jesus never sinned in His thoughts  or deeds. This isn't being neutered or unnatural. We  are the ones who are broken and messed up - not Jesus. That doesn't not mean that sex is evil but must be enjoyed in the correct the context. Jesus was not in that context so He did not. 

If anything, the evidence would point to a gay Jesus. It’s amazing how those who claim to take the Bible as literal and factual skip right past references to ‘the disciple who Jesus loved’ (John 20:2) and the fact that at the Last Supper, Jesus and John appeared to have had a bit of a cuddle party (John 13:23). Not to mention Judas kissing Jesus tenderly (Matthew 26:49 ISV). Could Judas have been a spurned lover who betrayed Jesus as an act of revenge? 

And here is the faceplant. Given that Jesus was a a first century Jew who observed and taught  Torah, all of Green's speculation is pointless. The text does not say that Judas kissed Jesus tenderly and Jesus and John were not cuddling at the table! The text does not give that. 

It is a curious thing that evangelicals who are so stridently anti-gay, sing the sappiest romantic love songs to Jesus in their worship services. Odder still, manly men of God are instructed by the Apostle Paul to view themselves as part of the ‘Bride of Christ.’ Hardly traditional marriage, but I digress…

The church is the "Bride of Christ" not or a single individual and there is no sexual  connotations implied or stated. 

So here’s a thought I pose to my Christian readers: If you want to ignore the evidence pointing towards a man-loving Jesus, then perhaps the ‘lost’ years of Jesus are your salvation. Maybe the portion of his life which is so conspicuously absent from the gospels has been censored because Jesus was in fact a skirt-chasing, card-carrying member of the hetero tribe. Were his juvenile records sealed by some ecclesiastical court? What if instead of being ‘about his Father’s business’, he was getting busy with Galilean hotties in the back seat of a chariot? As horrific as this idea might be to you, surely it is less traumatic than the idea that Jesus might have been… gay!

No, a gay lifestyle is no better or worse than a fornicating lifestyle. Adultery is just as bad as homosexuality. Having sex with anyone besides your heterosexual spouse is sin. Period. End of story. Premarital sex is not in God's good and perfect will. This is what scripture teaches. Jesus is without sin. Issue solved.

Now I know dear Christian reader that you will object to this lifeline I am holding out to you. 

Indignantly you will cry, “Jesus wasn’t a fornicator!” 

To which I will reply:

“Oh yeah? Prove that he didn’t have sex!”

I just did. You are welcomed. 

What’s that? Not a valid argument? Can’t prove a negative? Thanks, I’ll remember that next time I hear “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.”

Green's verbage is not a valid argument. It's a faceplant. 

Written for DC by J.M. Green

I'll be praying for J.M. Green. Is Jesus better him, you, and me? Yup!

Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

Ken has posted an awesome summary post on a couple of lectures Pastor Douglas Wilson gave on human sexuality and it's place as God has designed reality. It give links to all of the videos, Dr James White's comments on his Podcasts, and links to Wilson's debate against James White and Wilson's debates against Christopher Hitchens. A virtual treasure trove in a single blog post!

The comments Ken makes on the material, as well as Dr White's comments on his web cast or well worth considering! Get the material at the following link

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

FacePalm of the Day #101 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

thegrandverbalizer is at it again. This time he attacks what Christianity has to say about human sexuality and instead of showing what the Bible actually says, he twists scripture into a pretzel  to get what he wants out of the text.

It truly is unfortunate when one reflects upon early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It reflects an almost Gnostic (anti-human) and (pro being) stance.

I'd be one of the first to admit that the Christian church has historically done a poor job in it's attitude towards sexuality. I find little of the idea that something is wrong with sexuality in the Bible but it's all over church history. Sexuality is a gift from God to humanity. And like any gift it's awesome when properly used and respected. Too bad we, as people, have really screwed that up

Islam is a reflection of the reality of what the Creator actually made. Allah has made us as Human/Beings.

We are animals (human) with a soul (being). In Islam you do not nurture or neglect one aspect of your reality to the detriment of the other.

Um, denying sexual feelings and desire is not a part of what the Bible teaches either. The Bible does not say we are animals either. Animals don't have souls. Animals have spirits. I realize that some people a long time ago got it into their heads that denying themselves the joy of sex within marriage somehow brought them closer to God. They didn't get this idea from the Bible so basing a polemic on it is dishonest.

The Noble Prophet Muhammed said, "Who ever does not marry is not of us." He is talking about people who have taken upon themselves monasticism; of which Allah says was never ordained for human beings.

"Whomever marries has completed half their faith now let them complete the other half by fearing Allah and doing what is right" -Noble Prophet Muhammed.

"Then We caused Our Messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers." ( Holy Qur'an 57:27)

Notice the difference between what God inspired Muhammad to say and what He inspired Paul to say:

²⁶ Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ²⁷ Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. ²⁸ But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
 ²⁹ What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; ³⁰ those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; ³¹ those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
 ³² I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. ³³ But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— ³⁴ and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. ³⁵ I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

 ³⁶ If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. ³⁷ But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. ³⁸ So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. - 1 Corinthians 7:26-38 

The Bible says that you can be married or not be married and still be righteous in the eyes of God. Now grant it, if you ain't married you will be celibate, but that does not make one better worse than the other. Look at how thegrandverbalizer twists Jesus' words.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

No doubt this is a continuation of an earlier admonishment reported to have been given by Jesus where he is to have said,

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Um, no. And these are in two different contexts at two different times. 
Matthew 5 came before Matthew 19. The quotation in Matthew 19, Jesus was talking about why you should not divorce your wife for any reason other than adultery. Beats "hitting her lightly in the face" like Muhammad commanded right? Matthew 5: 29-30 is about avoiding sin.

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:18)

Matthew 18:18 is  the wrong reference. Matthew 18:8-9 is what was quoted and it is in reference to avoiding sin..

So we can see here it was not necessary for Jesus to say "If your penis offends you, if your ears offend you etc... people pretty much got the ideal.
 
 I find it hard to believe that Jesus would say the same thing in two different passages in the same book, by the same author but  means something different. IT's not at all obvious that Jesus is expecting anyone to castrate themselves either physically, emotionally, or in anyway. Jesus came to make us whole. I don't think anyone who was listening to Jesus at the time got that idea. Can anyone name a single follower who knew Jesus personally do that?.

Of course this can become quite morbid when one reflects upon 'The City of God' -Augustine. I mean after all didn't God say to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28)

 Which is why the Bible can't mean thegrandverbalizer thinks that the Bible is saying.

Now it should be clear that NO WHERE is there an explicit text in the Bible that says 'There will be NO SEX' in heaven! Again your going to have to go into the warped thinking of Augustine to come up with this kind of nonsense. Even though the Creator says that the creation 'is good' these people can only see it as evil! A legacy from earlier gnostic influence rest assured.

Before we move further through thegrandverbalizer's "argument" it would make sense that he would want to prove that there is sex in heaven because many Muslims believe heaven is a place were pious men get 70 virgins

So let us look at the text that are most often used to try and conclude that there is no sex in marriage.

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)

Note the above says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage. 

 In order for the argument to fly, we have to ask: "Do angels have sex?" Jesus tells us that we will be like the angels and angels do not get married. By in large, I have no problem with sex being in heaven, but if sex outside of marriage is a sin on earth, I don't know why it'll be okay in the afterlife.


Remember asking your Priest/Deacon/Pastor/Bishop how Adam and Eve were married? Remember hearing those cool little stories about how they were 'married in the sight of God'?

Alright, here comes the Nephilim. 

"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen."(Genesis 6:2 Young's Literal Translation).

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)

Now notice that the Young's Literal Translation basically says that the Sons of God 'took the women'. While the other translations say that the 'married' the women. So how actually did they get married? Was it in the 'sight of God' as well? If these beings 'angels' are law breakers and transgressors why get married?

Looks like someone has been reading the Book of Enoch! Easy the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were not supernatural angels they were men.  Much has been written about who these "sons of God" were but  given that we see no other examples of angels taking human form  apart from doing God's business and we don't see any demons in the Bible doing it either I don't think it's plausible to think that that angles married women.  Nice try though. .

Furthermore note that it says 'SONS of God' and I already mentioned the Christian heaven is not for FEMALES! It is for men only, any woman deemed worthy enough will be turned into a SON OF GOD. Never ever a daughter of God! Note it doesn't say 'The Daughters of God' saw the sons of men were beautiful. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html) < Article entitled "Does the Christian Heaven Have A Place For Women"?

And I completely disagreed with him.  http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html


Mark 12 and Luke 20 basically have the same story as the one above.

Remember in the Bible resurrected beings enjoy all kinds of sensual pleasure!

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) Apparently Jesus was able to eat some tasty tidbits as the 'firstborn' of the resurrection.

Eating fish and honeycomb is not the same thing as having sex.  Of course we will be able to eat in heaven. Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to that. 

We also have this curious vision.

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine--the best of meats and the finest of wines." (Isaiah 25:6)

So move over Augustine looks like fine dining and great wine will be on the menu in heaven but no sex!

And what is so unbelievable about that? You can sin using food just as well as you can via sex. Sex isn't a sin.. Squandering sex is a sin - abusing the gifts God gave us.

Now even though the passages in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20 do not explicitly say there is no sex in heaven some Christians reason that only by way of analogical deduction. They don't stop and ponder that maybe the whole idea of marriage (with it's laws and ordinances) will no longer be a necessity in heaven.

Why does thegrandverbalizer think that sex will be a necessity in heaven? Near as we can tell, no one will be born and no one will ever die.

Another passage that Christians especially those who have an Augustine slant could use is the following:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins (parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Now this text is probably the strongest AGAINST the idea of having sex in heaven. Because if the translation is rendered correct these men remained VIRGINS and they did not DEFILE themselves with women (outside of marriage or INSIDE of marriage). Now think about that for a moment especially if your a woman! Also it's quite sad that not a single woman out of all of Earth's women will be singled out to be among the privileged 144,000 that get to learn this special song! 

Only if you are Jehovah's Witness would you even consider such an argument  as strong. 

I guess there will be no sex in heaven after all, in fact it's kind of hard for that to happen when THERE ARE ONLY MEN IN HEAVEN.. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html)....unless...wait... I better not go there!

Good news is thegrandverbalizer is wrong. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

I find it amazing that we now live in a culture that not only condones extra-marital sexual activity but literally glories in it. Part of the problem is that for centuries, the Christian church taught people to be ashamed of their sexuality while there is no Biblical teaching that endorses such a view. It seems that in protesting that, people have gone to the other extreme of thinking that almost everything is permissible and correct. Like everything else, why would there not be inadvisable sexual behavior? The Bible does not condemn sex. Sex inside of monogamous relationships between a single man and a single woman in a life-long commitment under-girded by mutual respect and love is what is commanded. The amazing thing is that most people admit that these Biblical relationship are the most healthy sexual relationships and what most people seem to crave no matter what culture or time they are from. Women are best protected and have the most control over their lives in these kinds of relationships. People live longer and more fulfilled lives. When people turn their backs on keeping sex within marriage, they turn their backs on what is best for them. God is not trying to be a kill-joy or ruin our fun or keep us from pleasure. God has revealed what is best for us. Considering that God made us and gave us the gift of sex, would God not know how to get the most out of it? Yes, God would. And given that God has revealed this as God's desire for us, it follows that God will give you a spouse suitable for you so that you can live the way God has commanded.

Everyone sins and falls short of the ideal standard God has given us - in multiple ways. This is why forgiveness is given to us. God knows that the standards for how we exercise our sexuality is steep and God does not expect us to view sexual desire as sin - in and of itself. Desiring sex is not an evil thing. The problem is what people do to fulfill those desires. We can fall into sinful action to satisfy those feelings. Thank God, for giving us all the tools and things we need to live the lives He has purposed for us.




Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

Related articles

• On Monogamy, Happiness, and Adultery (psychologytoday.com)
• The Aftermath of Childhood Sexual Abuse (everydayhealth.com)
• What Is Asexuality? (brainz.org)
• Crushable Books: 'Sometimes I Feel Like A Nut' By Jill Kargman (Pt. 2) (crushable.com)
• Bridges to Sexual Desire (psychologytoday.com)
• Guidelines for Revitalizing and Maintaining Sexual Desire (psychologytoday.com)
• Society for Human Sexuality (socyberty.com)

Great Message From Focus on the Family

God is love, and He dwells in loving intimacy

Christians have a beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality. And we shouldn't be shy about telling it:

• We tell it to the world when we make decisions to protect our sexual health and wholeness from the ravaging wolves of premarital and extramarital sex.
• We tell it to our spouses when we give our total selves exclusively to them.
• We tell it to our spouses and children when we honor our spouses with our fidelity. read more

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)

I don't understand why John Loftus thinks that enjoying sex is antithetical to Christianity. I mean really? Why?

Such a guilt producing message! Okay, Okay, sexual addictions can be very serious, but WTF is this! What's wrong with masturbation? Anyone? Anyone? Will it make you go blind or something? And what's wrong with lust? It's biology baby. Christians will forever have problems with sex. They don't know what to do with it except deny, deny, deny. I've written about this before.

Looking at history, yes, the church has denied sexual fulfillment of people and making it seem that God does not want people to be sexual fulfilled although he gave us those desires. This is not the same thing as "lust". Isn't sex supposed to be more than just fulfilling biology? Although the church has done a disservice on teaching on sex for years - making it seem like sex is dirty and immoral in and of itself, this is not the picture that the Bible gives us for the place sex should be in our lives. God isn't against sex, he just wants us to truly enjoy it in its fullness. Since he gave them to us, wouldn't it make sense that God would know what we should do our feelings so we don't destroy ourselves and each other? All I am calling for is some common sense applied consistently.

Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Repression is not Morality: The Consequences of Sexual Suppression

I read this interesting article. It makes some good points but I think some mistakes have been made in that it puts the blame for sexual moral problems at sexual repression (which is true) but it makes the claim that its because of the Bible and the Qur'an and the great patristic monotheistic religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and this I think is a mistake. The problem with sexual repression isn't ethic or moral standards. The problem is lack of them. I can't talk about Islam nor Judaism because I'm neither Muslim nor Jew. As a Christian, I blame the church for not teaching what God has said regarding sexuality. Sex was never meant to bring condemnation but joy and closeness. The only catch is that it has to be in a monogamous married relationship between a man and woman. Within these parameters we can truly be free and not repressed. If you want God's best you have to follow God and not your own way. We can trust Him.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Repression is not Morality: The Consequences of Sexual Suppression

Bishop Eddie Long | Minute-by-minute recap of Long's comments Sunday | ajc.com

Thanks to the Black Snob blog I got this link for the full transcript and video of Bishop Eddie Long's comments to his congregation today regarding the scandal that broke earlier this week. IT was not what I was hoping for. He made no apology nor did he plead his innocence. What we want to know is did he use his power and influence to force young men to have sex with him - thereby sinning against his wife, the children, and their families, and worse against God? This is sexual abuse in the extreme. This is the answer he did not give. I'm definitely going to be following this story.


Bishop Eddie Long | Minute-by-minute recap of Long's comments Sunday | ajc.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bishop Eddie Long to step down? (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Bishop Eddie Long Denies 'False Allegations,' Plans To Address Church (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bishop Eddie Long Accused of Sexual Abuse (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
• Alleged sex predator "Bishop" Eddie Long will 'fight this thing' as 'David vs. Goliath.' (pamshouseblend.com)
• Ga. megachurch pastor pledges to fight accusations (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable

Here is a blog post where a young woman asks for advice on loosing her virginity because she doesn't want it any more. I don't like the advice given. It's not the advice I'd want my children to have. I'd want know why does she want to give up her virginity. What's wrong with it? I know what it's like to have urges and what we would consider needs, but is it a real necessity. I measn people don't die because they don't have sex but they can die because of it. I mean with all the sexually transmitted diseases, it's a risk. Unwanted pregnancy is a concern. Even with protection there is no guarantee that she won't catch something or get something that she had not planned on. Then what about the emotional and psychological ramifications. Should she just find a guy and use him for her own sexual ramification? What does it say about her if she knowingly allows herself to be used even if she is using him that way? Two things that the advice giver wrote that really bugged me we were:

First things first: if there’s one pervasive myth about sex that I’d like to completely eradicate from the face of the earth, it’s that your virginity is SUCH A BIG DEAL that if you lose it to the WRONG PERSON it will RUIN YOU FOREVER.
It isn’t, and it won’t.

I mean she's right that it doesn't have to ruin your life and we should not let it. But can you really argue that if you never had sex with the wrong person that living without that regret would not make your life better? I think it would.

Sex is something you’ll do over and over again. You’ve got plenty of time to practice. And since you’re interested in having sex – and, presumably, not planning on marrying the first dude you sleep with – you can afford to be a little more cavalier.

Can anyone be really cavalier about what they do with their body and who they let into their body? I don't think so.

But while you can certainly hope to find a Prince Charming with a magic peen who’ll make your inaugural romp a thrilling night of whimsy and wonder, just be aware that you’re much more likely to get a variation on the same theme that pretty much everyone experiences during first-time sex: a fair amount of confusion, a bit of pain, and, eventually, a wet spot.

Not a very rosey picture. While that is a theme the advice giver may be used to, it's not what anyone has to settle for. God promises much better for us if we just obey him and treat sex as a sacred gift only for your spouse whom you love and who loves you. No confusion. No guilt. No psychological pain.

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable

Homosexuality, Christianity, the Bible, Larry King, Jennifer Knapp, Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford, part 1 | True Freethinker

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano has posted a transcript that shows the controversy of homosexuality in the Christian church.  Here is introduction.

An interesting conversation took place between Larry King, Jennifer Knapp, Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford on CNN’s Larry King Live (April 23, 2010) on a show titled, “Christian Singer Comes Out As Lesbian.”

You can read the transcript and Mariano's comments on his blob. It's extremely important.

Homosexuality, Christianity, the Bible, Larry King, Jennifer Knapp, Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford, part 1 | True Freethinker

Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, Part 1 (John Piper)

John Piper recently gave the following sermon about the sexuality and it's place in life. He makes great points and can't be ignored. I really never thought about his point that the Old Testament allusions to Israel being like a young woman who has found her soul mate who loves and protects her is just like us whom God saved us from sin and hell.






Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, Part 1 (John Piper)

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

I watched the following exchange on HBO. I intended to make mention of it but John W. Loftus beat me to it - posting it on his own blog. It's basically Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens gloating that the sexual misconduct of priests in the Roman Catholic Church was more wide-spread than was previously thought. I'm not surprise. This became inevitable as soon as celibacy for priests and nuns was made policy. I wouldn't be surprise if there was something similar in convents. I agree with these guys that it's horrible. Terrible. And the pope and all clergy should be held accountable for allowing it in those cases that they could have done something.

However, isn't it interesting that atheists who are crying foul and using this as a platform for attacking all Christians are making flawed assumptions. They say that this scandal is made possible because of how churches view sex as evil and teach unpractical and silly teachings. They contend that there is nothing wrong with extra-marital sex as long as all involved parties are okay with it. They claim homosexuality is good and that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

I've got to point out that no where in scripture does it state that giving up marriage is going to get you closer to God. It actually countermands the command to be fruitful and multiply. Also the failure of a few men and women to do the right thing does not mean the right things is wrong and no one is accountable.

Further, Maher and Hitchens' position strikes me as hypocritical just because they prefer to be with consenting adults, yet they would deny others the "right" to be happy if they prefer children. What makes one preference abominable and the other righteous? I agree children are not to be sexual partners but so is anyone who is not your spouse who must be a member of the opposite sex (the definition of marriage). I can appeal to an objective moral standard that does not change - the same standard Jesus used in Matthew 19. By what standard is Maher and Hitchens using to validate their ethics? If it's relative then what gives them the right to criticize the Roman Catholic Church?

With the way things are going there will come a day when pedophilia and bestiality will be condones and defended like homosexuality is today. I'll bet they'll even use Hitchen's new catch phrase: "No Child's Behind Left."




Postscript: I posted a comment on Loftus' post pointing out that Hitchens seemed drunk to me. He even had a bottle of something with him when he went on camera (see at 22 secs). He is right about the Pope. I'm not Catholic and have no interest of defending the Papacy. The thing is that gets me is that it shows a problem if you go on TV drunk. I think its disrespectful to the audience to come in public and not be at your best.

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

John Loftus posted his "thoughts" about man's accountability for our sex lives.  It's an old line of discussion but I think he makes some interesting errors and has biases that he seems oblivious to. It's instructive to think through his arguments and see if they make sense. His original words are in black, and mine are bolded..

You know you like it. Sometimes all you can think of is having sex. Come on. You know this is true. Sometimes it dominates your thinking. You cannot wait to have it. You fantasize about it. You must have it. It is probably the best natural high we experience.

John is right that is how many of us think of sex. Notice he ssys "You must have it." I have never heard of a single case of a person dying because they don't get to have sex as he points out in the next paragraph.



So why is an orgasm such a powerful motivator? It's not like we need it. We just want it. The power of the orgasm is so strong it motivates some married people into infidelity; some men to rape women; some Catholic priests to direct these urges toward molesting children; and it drives the prostitution and the pornography industries, including child pornography.

From what I understand of Dr. Loftus' worldview he agrees that adultery, rape, and molesting children are all bad and destructive behaviors. He may even agree with me that there are negative consequences for these things. Our society does reject these behaviors but embraces fornication, pornography, and homosexuality...on the grounds that they fulfill people's needs without hurting anyone.  However each of these are also examples of selfishness. Gratifying the desires of your own heart while ignoring God's law and how you are hurting others.

The orgasm just does not look like something that a divine being would create. It is way too powerful of a motivator. The three masters of suspicion, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud all argued respectively that the three motivators in life are Power, Money, and Sex.

The Bible calls these the lust of the eyes, the lust of the heart, and the pride of life. Notice neither power, nor money, or sex are evil in and of themselves. Sex is gift from God designed for a married man and woman to become "one flesh" on an exclusive level that binds them to one another for as long as the both live. It's not just for procreation. 

So why did God make our sex drive so strong? Why didn't he make the the orgasm less pleasurable? The pleasure of the orgasm is just too strong as it is. We all know this. With an evolutionary hypothesis this is what we'd expect to find, for our sex drive is good for the survival of our species. But under a theistic hypothesis it makes no sense.

Just because a tool can be misused does not make the tool evil.  Orgasams in the proper context have no negative consequences. We have problems when we seek to use orgasms  to fill needs that sex was not designed and for and in ways our bodies were not designed for. (An anus is an exit not an entrance.)

If the pleasure of the orgasm was reduced there would be fewer sex crimes, and less infidelity. Or, the orgasm could've been created so as not to be pleasurable at all. God could've made the sex drive to be something of an instinct where we only want to do it when we want children, and then also created our desire to have children periodically. If this is what God had done instead, then with divine commands to populate the world, heterosexual people would only have sex for the purpose of bearing children in fulfillment of his commands, and that's it.

God did not intend sex to be for procreation only...Read Song of Songs. If people would only have sex with their spouse and love them as they should that would eliminate sex crimes,.

Moreover, the urge for sex seems to be too strong for most of us to overcome it. So why would God create us with this powerful urge and then prohibit it except under one set of conditions, a monogamous lifelong heterosexual married life?

Simple...under such condition you don't have children orphaned by one or both parents because of selfishness. Both spouses have their needs met. It is an urge too powerful. That is why we need 
God to help us. If he doesn't, you have no hope to even attempt to live up to that standard.

To masturbate certainly involves lust, does it not? But Jesus is found to prohibit lusting. What about sex before marriage? What's wrong with that?

When two people have sex they are not just joining their bodies but their spirits too. If you don't know what I mean, then you haven't had a real orgasm. When you have sex without the commitment of a marriage you leave yourself vulnerable emotionally, spiritually, physically  (ask John Bobbit) . If a person is marrying you they are saying that they will stick it out with you no matter what. If they are just having sex with you they can get up and leave at any time.

Most people in today's society, even Christians, have sex before marriage.

True, some Christians are disobedient. You let God worry about that.

What about people who will never be married?

God has provision for them. So they won't have children or have sex. What's wrong with that? Some people,I'd wager most people cannot handle that. For those of  us who cannot, I can attest to the fact that God will give you the spouse you need. Some people should never get married. If you are unwilling to do make compromise, concessions, and sacrifices then you don't need to get married or have children....sex then is too heavy a burden for those who don't want the responsibility and the accountability.  

³Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
 ⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
 ⁷"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
 ⁸Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
 ¹⁰The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
 ¹¹Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹²For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19:3-12

What about people who will spend the rest of their lives in prison? [I taught college classes for a women's correctional facility and many of them said that lesbian sex was the best sex they ever had! What's the aternative for them?]

Again if they trust and obey God, they will be all right.  There is forgiveness and restoration in some shape or form .Leave that to God.

What about the few years between marriages for people who are divorced?

Considering that God hates divorce...and marriage is supposed to be monogamous  until either the man or woman dies...I think divorce is off the table if the two people are committed to God.  However given that there are reasons for divorce, we know that people are not mandated to stay single if a reconciliation is not possible.

¹⁵But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. - 1 Corinthians 7:15

 And what best explains the fact that there are many homosexuals in our world? Why would God create this strong urge for them and also condemn such an activity? This too makes no sense on a theistic hypothesis.

Sin - best explains the fact that there is homosexuality. Macro evolution does not. When people go against the standard and direction God has for us all then they are practicing sin. God does not create liars. God does not create thieves. People however are liars and thieves. God does not create people in such a way that we are supposed to be sinners. Just like you can repent and be made whole from any sin so you can be saved from homosexuality.We are saved from sin and death because of Jesus. You don't have to be bound or controlled  by anything decreed a sin. You can be free if you embrace Jesus.

Hell, I'll even bet all this talk about sex will cause some readers to do a search right now for a sex site, even Christians. Say it isn't so. Christian, you search for sex sites. Yet you feel guilty about it. The problem is that any prohibitions that make you feel guilty about this do not come from God.

John Loftus has a point. God is in the process of  freeing us, if you are a Christian. Some things don't just fall off right away...it's a process. 

 ⁶Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:  - Philippians 1:6

You can read John Loftus' original post below!

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

 Mike Felker has posted his own response and I agree with him that this post was "Probably the Worst Atheist Argument I have ever heard".