I wonder who he has in mind?

As I’ve noted before Pastor Sam Allberry has pushed for Christian families to give gay Christians like himself trusted access to our children.  Via his Living Out Church Audit he and The Gospel Coalition’s (TGC) Tim Keller insist that every Christian church should have gay members.  At TGC he also praises a children’s book that normalizes gay marriage and teaches children not to have their guards up (emphasis mine).

Homosexuality is presented through a human lens. Archer encounters homosexuality in the same way the vast majority of us encounter it: through people close to him telling him they’re gay. This is welcome. In our own assessment of human sexuality, and especially in our talking through such things with children, we must keep at the forefront the fact we’re talking about real people. For some Christians, this humanizing of homosexuals may be an important corrective. The two gay characters in the book come across as real, not as stereotypes. They’re not activists or pushing an agenda; they’re normal people who happen to be gay. (The only stereotyping is with the student from England, who’s inevitably eccentric and posh.)

The goal is to have no more taboos.

But this is all old news.  Today’s new news is that Allberry and TGC want Christian “singles” to be encouraged to adopt children:

 

So why did TGC choose Pastor Allberry, their frontman for gay Christian activism, to deliver this particular message?  If they didn’t mean to suggest that they are pushing for gay singles to adopt children, they failed miserably.  Even worse, Allberry is using the same arguments in the video regarding adoption that he makes elsewhere to claim that in order to be faithful to Christ we must invite gay Christians to babysit our kids, take them to and from school, and put them to bed at night.

Keep in mind that gay “singles” is a flexible term.  I’ve mentioned the Spiritual Friendship movement before, and Allberry’s site Living Out is a big proponent of the movement.  Spiritual Friendship is where gay Christians have a same sex “special friend” that they live with whom everyone knows is their (non sexual, they swear) life partner.  As Allberry’s Living Out explains, navigating this special friendship can be tricky.  From Celibate Same Sex Couples (all emphasis mine):

People want to know: if we stop the sexual side of our relationship, how far is it OK to go in terms of physical affection for one another? If sex as such is off the agenda, what about stuff that isn’t sex but expresses the love between them, like kissing? In the terms of the age-old youth group question, how far can you go before it ‘counts’ as sex?

Living Out is on the conservative side of the Christian gay rights movement, so the author explains that gays making out and fondling each other while living together is off the table.  But holy kissing is fine, as is lots of hugging and non sexual physical affection.  Indeed, such a relationship between two gay men (or women) is actually honoring God:

But, and this takes me back to my first point, holding back from sexual intimacy doesn’t spell an end to physical intimacy, not for a moment. Our culture finds it hard to distinguish between the two. But there are wonderful ways to be physically close to other people without being sexually close to them. We hug and kiss our friends and relatives in non-sexual ways. We hold hands with children. Some people (especially guys?) love to play fight (my sons love to do this with me – personally, I would prefer to cuddle them, but I have to play fight with them, because it is a way they give and receive physical affection!). None of these things necessarily have anything to do with sex, but they have much to do with physical affection and intimacy – as St Paul puts it, greet one another with a holy kiss (2 Corinthians 13:12). We need both bits of his description – it is a holy kiss, and it is a holy kiss.

Of course, it may take time and a bit of trial and error for a couple to redefine the boundaries and work out how they can best remain physically close to one another, without crossing the line again into sexual intimacy. But I believe this is worth working at, in order both to honour God by not crossing that line, and to honour him by sharing healthy physical affection with the people he has given you to and to you.

Hat Tip: Pulpet & Pen

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Living Out, Loud and proud complementarians, Pastor Sam Allberry, Pulpit & Pen, Spiritual Friendship, The Gospel Coalition, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to I wonder who he has in mind?

  1. Novaseeker says:

    It’s why the spiritual friendship approach doesn’t work.

    Yes, people who don’t have sexual/romantic feelings for each other do touch each other in non-sexual, non-romantic ways, that’s true. But the key is that there are no sexual/romantic feelings involved. That’s different from people who actually *have* sexual and romantic feelings for each other touching each other physically, even if there is an agreed “line” past which they will not go, because in this case it is not “platonic touching” but sexual/romantic touching that is simply not full-on intercourse. There is no way that sexual/romantic touching (i.e., touching where there are sexual/romantic attractions) between members of the same sex is licit, and trying to say that it’s like holding a children’s hand or hugging your sister is so disingenuous and false that it should simply be laughed out of the room. The reason it isn’t, however, is because people are scared to seem bigoted, and evangelicalism feels a lot of pressure, particularly from young evangelicals, to make peace with the gay movement.

  2. squid_hunt says:

    In a related topic:
    https://www.christianpost.com/news/single-mom-unknowingly-adopts-her-sons-sister-god-told-me-to-say-yes.html

    Christian website now celebrating “single” Christian women adopting kids and going it alone.

  3. A Portuguese Man says:

    There is something that confuses me in this gay/children thing.

    Is it not unusual to have strangers pick-up or drop your children to school, let alone put them to bed(!), whether or not they’re Christians?!

    I’ve never heard of anything like that before.

    But, if that is indeed as bizarre over there as it is here, then what hope can they possibly entertain of convincing Christians to allow their children being put to bed by homossexual strangers?!

    The insistence on this aspect of “acceptance” is utterly bizarre from my point of view.

  4. Dalrock says:

    @A Portuguese man

    But, if that is indeed as bizarre over there as it is here, then what hope can they possibly entertain of convincing Christians to allow their children being put to bed by homossexual strangers?!

    The insistence on this aspect of “acceptance” is utterly bizarre from my point of view.

    Allberry isn’t arguing that Christians should give gay strangers trusted access to our kids. His argument is that in order to replace the intimacy gays used to receive from gay sex, Christians owe it to gay Christians to give them access to our kids. He says Christ promised them this, and if we don’t comply we are making Christ a liar. They wouldn’t be strangers, they would be people from our church we had taught our kids to trust.

    It is Allberry’s colleague Butterfield who tells us that faithful Christians need to give gay strangers access to our kids by giving them keys to our house. I wish I were making this up.

  5. “The two gay characters in the book come across as real, not as stereotypes. They’re not activists or pushing an agenda; they’re normal people who happen to be gay. (The only stereotyping is with the student from England, who’s inevitably eccentric and posh.)”

    J. Gresham Machen said that this was how liberals infiltrated and conquered the mainline Protestant denominations. They used the language of conservatives but meant it in a completely different way. Moderates sided with the liberals for fear of being impediments to “the gospel.” Conservatives were painted as strident kooks and Chicken Littles. The rest is history.

    Gays are using the exact same tactic. “Hey, we’re not people with agendas, we’re just like you!”

    “Moderates” at the “Gospel” Coalition are acting like the Voice of Reason but are really undermining all of evangelicalism.

    What a season of judgment the coming decades will be.

  6. The Question says:

    @ A Portuguese Man

    “The insistence on this aspect of “acceptance” is utterly bizarre from my point of view.”

    Only if you believe they act in good faith.

    If you think they’re false teachers and sexual degenerates trying to conceal their desire to prey on and groom the next generation and want to take advantage of the too-trusting nature of most American Christians by making really pathetic rationalizations for why they need physical access to kids, then it makes perfect sense.

    The only bizarre thing in my opinion is that anyone – anyone – falls for this garbage. The naivete and gullibility of many Christians is unbiblical; we’re supposed to be innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents, not innocent as doves and dumb as sheep.

  7. A Portuguese Man says:

    @Dalrock,

    Thanks.

    I didn’t expect they meant letting the first homossexual passer-by put their kids to bed.

    But over here, apart from the most intimate family – grandparents or uncles – it would be considered bizarre to let anyone else put other children to bed, no matter how many Masses they attended together!

    I supposed there are plenty of opportunities where kids don’t spend the night at home, such as boy scouts and the like.

    But “putting to bed” seems to imply “in their home”, to me. That’s really weird.

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    Mark Devers does not distance himself from the TGC apostasy and faggotry. He needs to be called out and condemned. TGC still has credibility in conservative circles because of him.

  9. A Portuguese Man says:

    @The Question

    Oh, I understand perfectly what they want. What their goal is…

    Unfortunately, I’m not simple or innocent like that.

    What I find bizarre is the, from my point of view, crudeness and candidness of the demands.

    They might as well ask Christians to let them do what like with the children!

    Normally they tend to be a bit more subtle. So I get the impression I’m missing something, perhaps peculiar to Christians in America, or something like that.

  10. Novaseeker says:

    Is it not unusual to have strangers pick-up or drop your children to school, let alone put them to bed(!), whether or not they’re Christians?!

    Yes, of course.

    They would say that what they are asking for is that since they cannot have family life of their own while following the requirements of morality, they should be “taken into” existing Christian families so that they can experience family life, including things like putting children to bed. This is a totally bizarre request, however (even leaving aside the potential for shenanigans which is rather obvious), because it is not something that has ever been done for straight Christians who are unable to find a spouse or have their own children — like ever in the history of the Church. Yet it is supposed to be done with gay “nonsexual” couples?

    Yes, it’s as bizarre a request as it sounds.

  11. Oscar says:

    Homosexuality is presented through a human lens. ~ Pastor Sam Allberry

    We wouldn’t want to present homosexuality through God’s lens, because then we’d get statements like…

    Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination… 24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you…. 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled)

    Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

    We can’t have that, now, can we?

  12. Dalrock says:

    @A Portuguese Man

    I didn’t expect they meant letting the first homossexual passer-by put their kids to bed.

    But over here, apart from the most intimate family – grandparents or uncles – it would be considered bizarre to let anyone else put other children to bed, no matter how many Masses they attended together!

    Right. That is what he is complaining about. He calls this “pulling up the drawbridge”, and says it is unChristian. See his speech on the topic here: https://erlc.com/resource-library/event-messages/the-church-as-the-family-of-god-singleness-same-sex-attraction-and-the-hope-of-hospitality

    I supposed there are plenty of opportunities where kids don’t spend the night at home, such as boy scouts and the like.

    But “putting to bed” seems to imply “in their home”, to me. That’s really weird.

    Indeed, and it is exactly what he means. Granted, not all of the trusted access to our kids that Allberry demands will be in our homes. He and his colleagues also demand trusted access to them outside of our homes. He wants to take them to and from school. Oh, and gays need to lead the church youth groups because otherwise we are being homophobic.

  13. Oscar says:

    I’ll ask the same question again that others have asked before.

    If sodomite and pedophile behavior have no correlation, why do sodomites demand access to other people’s children? You don’t see normal people demanding access to other people’s children.

  14. The Question says:

    @A Portuguese Man

    “Unfortunately, I’m not simple or innocent like that.”

    The unfortunate thing is that his intended audience – American Christians – are unbelievably trusting and naive, especially when it comes to leadership. From casual observations of mine, they almost have a borderline “papal infallibility” complex with anyone that has a title denoting spiritual leadership. No matter how much the New Testament speaks of false teachers and prophets, they always assume the wolves are lay person, not actual leaders.

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    I’ll ask the same question again that others have asked before.

    If sodomite and pedophile behavior have no correlation, why do sodomites demand access to other people’s children? You don’t see normal people demanding access to other people’s children.

    The most innocent explanation I can conceive is they are the most tone deaf people in the world. Ostensibly they are trying to teach Christians to trust gays, and they fixate on “intimacy” with our children. It is akin to if Harvey Weinstein hired a new publicist to rehabilitate his image, and the new publicist sent all of the big players in Hollywood a potted plant on behalf of Weinstein as a goodwill gesture.

  16. Gunner Q says:

    “People want to know: if we stop the sexual side of our relationship, how far is it OK to go in terms of physical affection for one another?”

    The Biblical standard is “not even a hint of sexual immorality”. But he already knew that. Like the snake of Eden, Allberry asks the question because he doesn’t like the answer, not because he doesn’t know the answer, and he’ll keep asking until he gets the answer he wants. Like Theresa May wanting another referendum on Brexit.

    Cuckservatives must accept the difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand, and act accordingly. Allberry will never stop advocating sodomy in the Church. Our leaders will either surrender to Allberry or punish Allberry, no third outcome exists.

  17. Some of those things are so pathetic no one can possibly believe it. It’s like claiming the cliche “netflix and chill” means a guy and girl just watching a movie and relaxing.

  18. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “The most innocent explanation I can conceive is they are the most tone deaf people in the world.”

    Except that they already anticipate pushback, as you’ve pointed out. According to them, anyone who refuses to let them have access to the kids is being unChrist-like. They know people will be opposed to it, which is why they’re accusatory, or projecting like the SJWs they are.

    If they were truly that tone-deaf, they wouldn’t presume people would have any reason to oppose the idea.

  19. We started losing the minute we accepted what they meant when the said gay.

    When they say gay they don’t mean someone with an unfortunate tendency, acquired nature, environment or choice, they mean it to mean something at the core of their being, a true identity.

    As opposed to offering repentance of actions and coping methods for temptation, our sloppy understanding of the mechanics of sin and temptation is dooming us all here. I would even make the case that our sloppiness about the difference between temptation and sin, the nature of virtues, and above all the place of charity (love in action), has kind of nuked our ability to offer meaningful Christian victory in general. Psychology is helpful (Milton Erickson did tremendous work redirecting some of these men), but the current profession is pozzed and often remarkably unscientific in its method and understanding.

    I’ve worked with a lot of LGBT over the years. We’re all screwed up in our understanding. A lot of gay men are just wounded beyond belief, they need real help not “affirmation” of the thing that’s killing them. A lot of gay men are also straight up predatory. Everyone minces around this, but some of these guys are in it to dominate others, no shit.

  20. feeriker says:

    The only bizarre thing in my opinion is that anyone – anyone – falls for this garbage. The naivete and gullibility of many Christians is unbiblical; we’re supposed to be innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents, not innocent as doves and dumb as sheep.

    It’s time we stopped deluding ourselves in thinking that the majority of people who are calling themselves Christians are even remotely sincere in their faith. Were this the case, the church (and probably most of our society) would not be in the degenerate state it’s in.

    What most “Christians” seek is pseudo-spiritual cover for their own worldly lives. Ignorant of Scripture, spiritually and intellectually indolent, and lacking in genuine faith, never truly having been born again, the do not fear God and thus do not believe that there will be eternal consequences for their false faith.

    The above easily characterizes at least 95 percent of self-described “Christians.” Unless and until the number of genuinely born-again believers overtakes the number of frauds, the current rot within the church will only deepen until it reaches levels of sickening perversity that will make liberal atheists blush and complain.

  21. The Question says:

    @ feeriker

    It starts with destroying the Cult of Nice. American Christians confuse “niceness” with “virtue,” and so when they make people feel bad for what they believe they presume that they’ve sinned.

  22. Damn Crackers says:

    Since any sexual activity is A-OK now Biblically, I plan to adopt a bevy of 18 year-old comely Ukrainian girls.

  23. Damn Crackers says:

    Remember, the left-hand path always ends in homosexuality/pederasty in one way or another.

  24. “But over here, apart from the most intimate family …it would be considered bizarre to let anyone else put other children to bed …! I supposed there are plenty of opportunities where kids don’t spend the night at home, such as boy scouts and the like.”

    Boy Scouts is paying out big money in lawsuits from boys “put to bed” by Scout leaders. Now they have strict rules to prevent such behavior. Never being alone with boys, the two-man rule, etc.

    Trust is nice, but provides no protection against abuse. Vigilance and a hard-headed attitude is required for those entrusted with care of children.

  25. thedeti says:

    @ Oscar:

    We wouldn’t want to present homosexuality through God’s lens, because then we’d get statements like… Leviticus 18:22

    But Allberry and the Living Out ministers would say we aren’t homosexuals, or at least not practicing homosexuals. They’re same sex attracted which means they experience attraction to men, but they don’t ACT on that attraction. They represent themselves as not practicing homosexual behavior or conduct. They are attracted to men but are celibate, or at least, do not have sex with men. One of the three ministers, Sean Doherty, identifies as same sex attracted but is married to a woman.

    So Allberry and company would tell us that they and people like them aren’t running afoul of biblical proscriptions of homosexuality because they don’t DO the proscribed activities, even though they want to or are attracted to those activities. They’re telling us it does no good to throw Leviticus in our faces, because we’re not doing those things. It’s not helpful to yammer about homosexuality to us, because we’re not practicing homosexuals.

  26. A Portuguese Man says:

    @Larry

    I understand that.

    In hindsight, I suppose I just couldn’t believe they would just straight up demand to be let lie with children in the children’s own homes…

  27. Cane Caldo says:

    @The Question

    It starts with destroying the Cult of Nice.

    Agreed, and that will only occur in places where families and churches accept the Biblical headship of men and the Biblical submission of women. The order of the family is the basis of all society and civilization, and we are way out of order.

    Proverbs 30:21-23

  28. Crude says:

    I notice that it’s super important for gays to be invited into your homes to spend time with your children and to generally proselytize their way of life. But the idea that Christians should be invited to speak at gay organizations, to talk about Christ and what a proper and healthy sexual lifestyle is (hint: it ain’t gay) is not at all pushed.

    It reminds me of the whole gay wedding cake thing. It’s just a pastry! A silly little pastry! Just give them the pastry, it’s so ridiculous you’re fighting over a pastry!

    Then ask, “If it’s so silly and minor and ridiculous, then you should be totally fine skipping the silly little pastry, right?”

    And then, with as many tears as they can summon into their eyes, they explain that while YOU baking the pastry is silly, ridiculous and meaningless, for THEM, not getting that pastry is the echoes of the rise of a new, terrible third reich, the first step in a march towards a concentration camp.

    Go figure.

  29. thedeti says:

    I see the same sex attracted (but we don’t do those things) movement (SSA) as another step in the evolution of the North American Church’s dilemma of “what do we do with the gays?” question. The first approach was simple exclusion. That was too mean spirited and cruel, we’re told.

    The second, which was vogue in the 1980s to the 2000s was conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality. That was Exodus International, Love Won Out, “pray the gay away”. That didn’t work. It was also viewed as unspeakably cruel to gay men and lesbians who couldn’t or wouldn’t live as heterosexuals. Almost everyone associated with conversion reverted back to homosexuality (John Paulk, Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, all the bigs associated with the now-defunct Exodus). The mental health community is now almost universally opposed to conversion, because, they tell us, it’s cruel to the recipients, and it doesn’t work. This experience is also cited as evidence for genetic predisposition to homosexuality: It’s core to their identity, it’s natural to them, and it is as immutable in them as most people’s opposite sex attraction is.

    This is the third and most recent approach to the church’s continued struggle with “what do we do with the gays?” This thread the needle approach is “they’re not gay. They’re not lesbians. They’re just SSA. They’re celibate. They don’t practice homosexual acts. As long as they remain celibate, they are in complete biblical, theological, and observant unity with the church.”

    And so the message being sent is “It’s OK. Really. You can trust us. Because we don’t do those things the Bible says we can’t do. And because we don’t do those things, you have no reason to avoid us, exclude us, or refuse to trust us with your children.”

    “We are as entitled to a full life in the church as anyone else. And if you refuse us that, well, you’re just cruel, mean spirited, homophobic bigots. We don’t do those things you mainstream straight people don’t like. So stop getting all squeamish about this. You wouldn’t object to Bill and Betty teaching Sunday school, so you don’t have any reason to two SSA men (who just happen to live together as spiritual friends) teaching Sunday school. Because we don’t do those things you mainstream people don’t like. Even though we really really want to, we don’t do them.”

    That’s the latest iteration of the church’s attempt to solve the “what do we do about the gays?” conundrum.

  30. Dalrock says:

    @thedeti

    So Allberry and company would tell us that they and people like them aren’t running afoul of biblical proscriptions of homosexuality because they don’t DO the proscribed activities, even though they want to or are attracted to those activities.

    They aren’t saying they don’t do them. They are saying they try not to do them. Just like all of us, they fail in their efforts to avoid sexual sin. And homosexual temptation and sin is no different than heterosexual temptation and sin.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti paraphrasing Allberry et al
    It’s not helpful to yammer about homosexuality to us, because we’re not practicing homosexuals.

    These people would never apply this analogy to other problems such as alcohol or opiates. At least I hope not; encouraging an alcoholic to keep a few bottles of vodka in the kitchen just so he can feel more comfortable / virtuous in his sobriety? That would be downright cruel; putting temptation right in someone’s path and insisting that they step around it all the time is a kind of torment.

    I am not convinced of any of their arguments, it is just a way for churches to endorse homosexuals with a tiny scrap of gauze to cover up what is really going on.

    Really it’s just the same church of Nice that caved in to women decades ago. Because liberal minded church leaders can’t stand being called names such as “woman hater” or “homophobe” they surrender to whoever can scream the loudest.

    PS: The entire line of blather about children? Proper pushback ought to include the words “pedophile” and “sexual molestation” and even “rape”. They should have to defend their insanity in those terms. i

  32. AnonS says:

    Is it so torturous to get married to a low sex drive women and get handjobs in the dark? Marriages used to be more like arrangements and not someone you have to share every element of life and soul with every moment of the day.

  33. Oscar says:

    @ thedeti

    They’re telling us it does no good to throw Leviticus in our faces, because we’re not doing those things. It’s not helpful to yammer about homosexuality to us, because we’re not practicing homosexuals.

    Yeah, I know. And soon, they’ll be telling us that it’s not helpful to throw Leviticus in their faces because they’re not practicing pedophiles, or incestuous, or zoophiles, or necrophiles. All of that is en route.

  34. Novaseeker says:

    They aren’t saying they don’t do them. They are saying they try not to do them. Just like all of us, they fail in their efforts to avoid sexual sin. And homosexual temptation and sin is no different than heterosexual temptation and sin.

    Yes, which is why the Church doesn’t endorse as moral straight people who are attracted to each other living together and sharing a life together but “it’s ok because we’re totally not having sex”. They’re asking for permission to do this as gay people because they say “well, straight couples can always go and get married and so they have that, but we have nothing so we should be allowed to do this even though we don’t allow straight couples to do it”, to which the answer should be, as it once was, “you can also go and get married, just not to someone of the same sex”.

  35. Oscar says:

    @ greenmantlehoyos

    We started losing the minute we accepted what they meant when the said gay.

    Nope. We lost that battle long before that. The fact that Christians don’t realize how, why, or even when they lost the fight means that we’re in no position to even begin holding ground, much less taking any of it back.

  36. WillBest says:

    This seems it ignore the whole cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin command. And the whole sinning in your heart clarification that the act isn’t required.

  37. @Oscar, well sure, we lost the battle when we failed the tests of higher criticism, darwinism, and marxism in 19th century (referring to what I believe is the battle of the modern era, distinct from the battles of earlier eras, all under the great battle that ends in the apocalypse).
    But on this specific issue, can you clarify what you mean?

  38. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    If they are saying they try not to engage in homosexual practices, instead of saying “we do not do them”, it is very subtle. Because the overarching message is “we don’t do them”. Except for the statement in one of the materials linked in these associated posts in which churches are exhorted to accept practicing homosexuals as they (paraphrase) work to leave that sinful lifestyle, they are telling us in effect “we do not do these things. We do not engage in these practices. We want to, but we don’t. So the majority straight Christian population has no basis on which to exclude us or fear us.”

  39. The Question says:

    The state of modern church culture has really helped me appreciate all the “harsh” commands to the Hebrews in the Pentateuch and why God insisted all sorts of separation from the nations around them. Even with all those rules, they still adopted foreign gods and practices.

    The slippery slope is real, and we’re nearing the edge of the cliff before the abyss.

  40. Sharkly says:

    First off let me say that faggotry is disgustingly vile and the thought of it almost makes me puke. It is abominable to myself and to God. They end up ingesting so much of each other’s shit, that you can’t even be a faggot, if you’re allergic to corn. Children should not be acclimatized to such evil. That is not loving, but hateful, to intentionally sear their consciences, setting them in opposition to their Creator.

    We started losing the minute we accepted what they meant when the said gay.
    I believe it goes further back. I believe we started losing the moment we stopped executing faggots like the Bible told us to do. … and thus the land is defiled

  41. thedeti says:

    Another thing here is that Allberry and company are very studiously avoiding words usually associated with homosexual practices and lifestyles: Gay, lesbian, bisexual, homosexual. They’re substituting “same sex attracted” in its place. Gay, lesbian, etc. imply acts and practices. “SSA” invites the reader/hearer to infer a state of being, not acts or practices.

    The message is: “Same sex attracted is who I am, what i feel and what i experience internally. It is not what I do.”

  42. Oscar says:

    @ greenmantlehoyos

    But on this specific issue, can you clarify what you mean?

    I mean what Romans Chapter 1 means. A culture begins its descent when it denies God. Then God gives it over to a sexual revolution, then a homosexual revolution, then He gives them over to “a depraved mind”.

    We’re in the “depraved mind” stage (thus, transgenderism is being normalized, and soon pederasty will be normalized). We’re nearly at the bottom of the slippery slope, and the angle and slipperiness are both increasing. It does no good to look back from the bottom of the slope and say, “we lost because we did this one thing wrong in the middle of the slope”.

    Yes, I oppose calling sodomites “gay”. Yes, I call them sodomites. But in order to call them sodomites with a straight face, you have to actually believe there was a literal Sodom, that was literally judged by a literal God who literally inspired a literal prophet to write the story of Sodom’s judgement literally.

    In other words, you have to claw your way back up to the top of the slope, not the middle. And when the Serpent asks you, “has God really said”, do what Jesus did. Quote God’s Word right back to the Serpent, and believe every word of it.

  43. The Question says:

    “The portrait of Singer that emerges is of a troubled man who surrounded himself with vulnerable teenage boys. The accusations against Singer cover a spectrum. Some of the alleged victims say they were seduced by the director while underage; others say they were raped. The victims we interviewed told us these experiences left them psychologically damaged, with substance-abuse problems, depression, and PTSD.

    Make no mistake, my friends. When these animals demand to have access to kids, this is what they intend. They want this normalized.

    It’s a death-cult that must seek out new recruits to continue.

  44. Oscar says:

    @ The Question

    The portrait of Singer that emerges is of a troubled man who surrounded himself with vulnerable teenage boys.

    The Atlantic misspelled “evil”.

  45. thedeti says:

    The Question:

    Looks like The Atlantic is trying to “Weinstein” Bryan Singer.

    That article mentions Singer’s work on a movie called Apt Pupil, and that a child actor named Brad Renfro, at the time 14 years old, was one of the lead actors in that movie. Renfro died of alcoholism and heroin overdose at 25. (There’s no indication Singer ever did anything untoward with Renfro.)

    Corey Feldman has for years been making noise about pederasty and pedophilia in Hollywood, especially men attempting to have sex with underage boys. Feldman has alleged older men preying on his friend Corey Haim is a major reason why Haim descended into drug abuse into his adulthood. It’s not so easy to dismiss Feldman’s claims now.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @thedeti

    Dalrock:

    If they are saying they try not to engage in homosexual practices, instead of saying “we do not do them”, it is very subtle. Because the overarching message is “we don’t do them”. Except for the statement in one of the materials linked in these associated posts in which churches are exhorted to accept practicing homosexuals as they (paraphrase) work to leave that sinful lifestyle, they are telling us in effect “we do not do these things. We do not engage in these practices. We want to, but we don’t. So the majority straight Christian population has no basis on which to exclude us or fear us.”

    Yes, it is generally very subtle. One example was part of a quote in the OP:

    Of course, it may take time and a bit of trial and error for a couple to redefine the boundaries and work out how they can best remain physically close to one another, without crossing the line again into sexual intimacy.

    They expect mistakes to happen after gay Christians have committed to leaving the lifestyle. It is regrettable, but from their perspective homosexual temptation is no worse than heterosexual temptation.

    Why we do not support the idea of ‘gay cure’

    1) Homosexuality is not an illness. But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings. Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a ‘gay cure’. Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether heterosexual or homosexual), and that what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

    2) Attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation assumes that being gay is somehow more problematic than being straight. We believe that heterosexuality as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as homosexuality. If a person changes from lustful desire towards people of the same sex to lustful desire towards people of the opposite sex, that is in no sense an improvement. So, attempts to change sexual orientation could be a distraction from the real goal, which is sexual purity expressed either in fulfilled marriage or in fulfilled singleness. We do not believe that marriage is a preferable outcome to singleness,

    Given their advocacy of gay couples continuing to live together as special friends after becoming Christian, it is clear that singleness as they use it in the end of the quote would include being part of such a spiritual friendship. Basically their stance is “Stay gay, stay with the partner God already put in your life, and try not to act on your desires as the two of you keep house.”

  47. Hazelshade says:

    @Novaseeker

    Yes, people who don’t have sexual/romantic feelings for each other do touch each other in non-sexual, non-romantic ways, that’s true. But the key is that there are no sexual/romantic feelings involved.

    Well said, I hadn’t thought of that before. With someone who is a homosexual, or gay, or SSA, or whatever euphemistic acronym comes next ad infinitum, it is more difficult to rule out sexual feelings in social interactions.

    This is a totally bizarre request, however (even leaving aside the potential for shenanigans which is rather obvious), because it is not something that has ever been done for straight Christians who are unable to find a spouse or have their own children — like ever in the history of the Church. Yet it is supposed to be done with gay “nonsexual” couples?

    This is a very good point. Again, thank you for spelling it out.

  48. Oscar says:

    Homosexuality is not an illness.

    Is homosexuality a sin? Is sin a disease?

    Attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation assumes that being gay is somehow more problematic than being straight.

    Is all sexual sin equally “problematic”? Is being “child attracted” no more problematic than “being straight”?

    what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

    What if someone were to write, “what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less zoosexuality… “? Does that statement sound right to anyone?

  49. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Obviously, all us married men should take this as permission to have purely platonic, cuddle-puddle, sleep-overs with women other than our wives. Right?

  50. Jake says:

    This is why paul recommended people who can’t control themselves get married. The west seems to think it’s absolutely horrible notion that a gay person marry a woman and engage in sexual relations with her. We tell the least chaste population of men, sorry no sex for you then happily allow them into our churches like they are any other Christian. Marry them off to some of these carousel riders.

  51. The Question says:

    @ Oscar

    “Gents,

    Obviously, all us married men should take this as permission to have purely platonic, cuddle-puddle, sleep-overs with women other than our wives. Right?”

    I promise, the next thing we’ll hear are arguments for how it is perfectly fine for Christian wives to have “spiritual friendships” with men who are not their husband, who is expected to maintain the tingles all the same. Once they’ve established that same-sex attracted people can live together as fu-I mean spiritual buddies, anyone can engage in that behavior.

  52. Gage says:

    @the Question

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Question
    the next thing we’ll hear are arguments for how it is perfectly fine for Christian wives to have “spiritual friendships” with men who are not their husband, who is expected to maintain the tingles all the same.

    Aaaaaand we’re back to the Cult of Courtly Love, version 2.0.

  54. Gage says:

    @the question

    “The only bizarre thing in my opinion is that anyone – anyone – falls for this garbage. The naivete and gullibility of many Christians is unbiblical; we’re supposed to be innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents, not innocent as doves and dumb as sheep.”

    it is a sad observation of mine that “Christians” as a whole, tend to be the most clueless and ignorant people I know. When it comes to politics, popular culture, or anything else relevant, they tend to know the least and hold some of the most naive positions. They defend things that cant be Biblically defended and they are terrified of taking stands that might offend someone or go against popular opinion. It is almost looked down upon to hold a Biblical worldview and make judgments based on (gasp!) what the Bible says. I believe this is part and parcel to why the American church is all but irrelevant in our country today. It has capitulated on every single issue that has been brought before it because God forbid the Gospel offend someone.

    There is no doubt in my mind that within the next few years, the American church and most major “christian” bodies (TGC, Southern Baptist Covention, and others) will openly endorse and support the sodomite lifestyle. They wont have to church up the language, they will out and out say its ok and say Jesus agrees with them. Maybe this kind of open apostasy will encourage the home church movement to grow and the mega church movement to die. we can only hope…

  55. Pingback: I wonder who he has in mind? | Reaction Times

  56. feeriker says:

    No matter how much the New Testament speaks of false teachers and prophets, they always assume the wolves are lay person, not actual leaders.

    False prophets tickle their itchy, worldly ears, telling them that their faux Christianity and disrespect for Scripture is actually pleasing in God’s eyes. This, along with the lifelong brainwashing they’ve received from secular institutions training them to unquestioningly defer to authority figures (to say nothing of the blasphemous bastardization of Romans 13 that their false churches have shoved down their throats) makes them easy marks for Satan’s army of deceivers.

  57. feeriker says:

    No matter how much the New Testament speaks of false teachers and prophets, they always assume the wolves are lay person, not actual leaders.

    False prophets tickle their itchy, worldly ears, telling them that their faux Christianity and disrespect for Scripture is actually pleasing in God’s eyes. This, along with the lifelong brainwashing they’ve received from secular institutions training them to unquestioningly defer to authority figures (to say nothing of the blasphemous bastardization of Romans 13 that their false churches have shoved down their throats) makes them easy marks for Satan’s army of deceivers.

  58. American says:

    People who choose to engage in homosexual acts and then pervert orthodox Christian epistemology to conform with their choice have committed two grievous sins with the latter even worse than the former.

    I have carefully refuted their fallacious assertions but I’ve never seen someone calling themselves a Christian while simultaneously mischaracterizing and perverting genuine Christianity to conform with their sin actually repent. I’ve seen plenty of lost sinners repent but never one of those.

  59. Gage says:

    @feeriker

    You are correct that people unquestionably defer to authority figures. They take at face value, whatever they are told by anyone in a position of power/authority. Taking personal responsibility for your life, its much easier to just do/believe what you are told by someone who clearly knows best.

  60. MKT says:

    This “SSA but celibate” thing has been tried in other denominations. In the case below (and probably others), it wasn’t long before they gave in and allowed practicing sodomites to become members, because, well, you just can’t stop true love…or something.
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/03/city-church-pastor-fred-harrell-man-pca-refused-discipline
    https://www.citychurchsf.org/A-Letter-From-The-Elder-Board

    I wonder when people in the PCA and SBC will start saying “Our pastoral practice of demanding life-long “celibacy”, by which we meant that for the rest of your life you would not engage your sexual orientation in any way, was causing obvious harm and has not led to human flourishing.”

  61. MKT says:

    While they can be polarizing, Pulpit & Pen is a pretty good way to keep up with LGBTQ/SSA and “woke” Christianity in general. A few others:
    https://reformationcharlotte.org/ (very similar to P&P)
    https://thirtypiecesofsilver.org/
    AD Robles (find on Twitter and YouTube)
    https://afr.net/podcasts/janet-mefferd-live/ (Janet Mefferd-also on Twitter)
    https://sovereignnations.com/

    The last two are mostly concerned with national issues but cover the Evangelical-Woke Complex pretty well, too. And there’s Bayly’s site, of course.

  62. MKT says:

    “what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.”

    No, we absolutely need more Biblical heterosexuality and less of the feminized and illicit type. Homosexuality is called an “abomination” and clearly condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Saying we don’t need less of it is like saying we don’t need less adultery, fornication and bestiality.

  63. Novaseeker says:

    Corey Feldman has for years been making noise about pederasty and pedophilia in Hollywood, especially men attempting to have sex with underage boys.

    It’s because pederasty is, and always has been, very common among male homosexuals. This isn’t new, it goes back to Rome and Greece, it’s openly practiced in Afghanistan with the “bacha bazi” and so on … older men and teenage boys is just very common in male homosexuality and always has been. The gay community is simply lying when it says that this isn’t the case. The percentage of gay men who had their first sexual experience of any kind with an older man when they were teenagers is high, and much higher than Gay, Inc. will allow anyone to believe, but it’s been kept very quiet (just like the other unsavory aspects of gay culture, which are also still alive and well) during the recent push for gay rights. It’s not a slander to say that pederasty is not uncommon among male homosexuals.

  64. vfm7916 says:

    Pederasty & homosexuality may very well be it’s own orobouros for a great many practitioners.

    Perhaps homosexual christian males could marry lesbian christian females. They could practice moral physical affection and not destroy the church further. They could have a partnership with another human being. Heck, they could even adopt children. Look and feel like those icky cishet couples!

    Is that what’s being suggested? Nope. Should tell you everything you need to know.

  65. thedeti says:

    @ vfm7916

    Perhaps homosexual christian males could marry lesbian christian females. They could practice moral physical affection and not destroy the church further. They could have a partnership with another human being

    That was phase 2 of “what to do with the gays” I summarized up there. That was John Paulk (ex gay, now ex-ex-gay) and Anne Paulk (ex-lesbian). They were married for 21 years. John renounced his ex gay lifestyle, became an “Ex-ex-gay” man, returned to identifying as gay, and divorced Anne. They’ll tell you that they won’t suggest hetero marriage because it doesn’t work and it’s cruel, because they’re not hetero. Even though one of the three ministers in Living Out, Sean Doherty, is SSA, he’s married to a woman. But that’s still not going to be suggested as a remedy, because the zeitgeist is that telling SSA men to marry women is cruel, it won’t work, and it won’t serve as a long term solution to what is perceived as an immutable part of who these people are.

  66. BillyS says:

    They can only have those morally affectionate relations with those they are sexually attracted to after all, right?

  67. vfm7916 says:

    @thedeti

    My bad, I totally missed that post.

  68. Spike says:

    I’ve got something to say about Pastor Allberry:

    Pull the other one. it plays ”Jingle Bells”.

    IF you say to me that gay attraction is no different to straight attraction, I believe you. Having grown up with a normal male sex drive, I know (as every man reading this knows) that, if I place myself on the slippery slope of that attraction, I will slide down it. EVERY young man has dealt with this, and we resolve this when we get married, as Scripture allows us to.

    Allberry then says that he can have a platonic life partner, in a relationship that he doesn’t allow to become sexual. I have some problems with that:

    -If he has a normal sex drive, as he would insist gays have, it would place him on the slippery slope.

    -Homosexuals sexualise EVERYTHING. Their language is full of innuendo. Their gestures are full of innuendo. If you share a change room, a beach or a workplace with them, you get smutty remarks (all innocent / joking, of course). Their lifestyle is glorification of the sexual.
    It would beggar belief, then, that the kisses and hugs that a normal affectionate family gives will not, ever, be sexualised by them. I don’t believe him.

    -Homosexuals don’t have ”normal” sex drives. They are blatant about the frequency and the number of partners they cycle through, how it is always higher than heterosexual relationships. This would mean that Allberry’s ”platonic” relationship would be unstable at best.

    -As a Pastor, he might impress the women in his church, a few naïve men, but not the majority of men and definitely not the majority of gay men. All he would do is be insincere. gay men would look at his Christianity, rightly, as his ”beard”.

    -Lastly, the Gospel Coalition and any other Christian institution hiring gay, female, or transgender staff should know that litigation follows them like a bad smell. If it isn’t litigation (Google ”Transgender wins lawsuit…”), damaging, biased media ”exposures” will: They do not accept church discipline and if it is exerted on them, they will run to the media, telling them how ”bigoted” the church is. The media of course, love to lap it up. A liability for all.

  69. Paul says:

    I’m probably the odd one out here, but I think SSA is the most helpful term, and gay and homosexual are the least helpful terms. If you carefully look at many of the bible texts, these are condemning the activity of men having sex with men or women having sex with women. The biblical texts generally don’t care why you do that, or if you have any feelings at all about it.

    There’s a few exceptions, where we need a bit more careful exegesis, but I see a lot of VERY sloppy exegesis in these comments, which are needlessly inconsiderate towards people struggling with SSA. For example, the Leviticus text is not talking about feelings, or “identity” at all, it’s only concerned with what people DO. You cannot ignore the number of sincere Christians confronted with SSA who testify to have prayed about getting different FEELINGS, but the FEELINGS did not change at all. Exodus International at least shows us it’s just not as simple as that.

  70. Opus says:

    There are but two sexual taboos and both have been placed there by nature to ensure exogamy and thus the healthy continuation of the species. Were we not a species that reproduces sexually this would be unnecessary but as we are, it is. Sexual behaviour is thus not about ‘finding oneself’ or even ‘happiness’ but the bringing into this world of the next generation. Those two taboos are both breakable but with difficulty and when broken lead to shame a shame which cannot be expunged. The two taboos are Incest and Homosexuality. In the case of Incest, at least according to Sophocles, Oedipus on discovering that although but inadvertently he had slept with his mother put out his eyes and went to live in a cave. Sadly the Athenians did not write a similar play on the curse of Homosexual behaviour (Mental AIDS). The ‘gay mafia’ like to play up the Athenian liking for young males but in fact little is known, it took place only amongst the 40,000 citizens and if one reads Plato, his teacher Socrates was extremely squeemish about it. The other Greek Polis’s thought the Athenians mad.

    If a child is brought up surrounded by family the chances of Homosexuality are slight for that would involve the breaking of both taboos. In our time however far too many boys have step-fathers to whom they are not related, and have no family male in their life and otherwise are taught at school or in the Scouts by men to whom they are not related. I fall into the latter category for I attended an all-male boarding school living 24/7 for months at a time with only males and you might be surprised to learn then that the problem with homosexuality was NOT caused by the teachers, but by the boys – whom I may add were also far more violent than the teachers [The movie If (1968) gives an only slightly exaggerated idea]. In my year – we were a nice bunch of youngsters – there were three boys whom we all detested. That we did not menage to kill more than one of them (we tried more than once) now much amazes me. These boys had something wrong with them. They were a-social, did not give a damn about anyone else, enjoyed abusing us other boys generally and did whatever they wanted and that whatever they wanted included sexual abuse. Young boys have high testosterone; boys are not taught to say ‘no’ nor is it natural to do so and in an environment with no females and no tender affection succumbing to homosexual advances even from people one loathes is easily done.

    I thus agree with Father Scalia that there is no such category as a Homosexual (any more than there is a category of people called Incestuals; homosexual being as Michel Foucault observed an invention of the medical Doctors circa 1800 A.D. – before that it was unknown) though there are homosexual acts and what we call homosexuality is in fact anti-social sociopathy. Such people are Predatory, Promiscuous and Paedophillic. Those Christians who seek to turn the Church queer and with solipsism for the purpose of getting their hands on young Christians are to my mind the equivalent of the abusers with whom I schooled. They are not Christian: they are Heretics.

  71. MKT says:

    “You cannot ignore the number of sincere Christians confronted with SSA who testify to have prayed about getting different FEELINGS, but the FEELINGS did not change at all. Exodus International at least shows us it’s just not as simple as that.”

    I’m not questioning that. But this agenda goes a lot further. The Revoice conference in the (formerly?) conservative PCA had sessions on “What Queer Treasures Will Be in New Jerusalem” and other drivel. Some SSA celibate leaders recommend Christians go to Pride parades (which are often full of semi/full nudity and filth) and promote the “LGBTQ studies.” And now some are pushing churches to be more gay friendly (even if it’s so-called celibate homosexuality) and appear to be pushing adoption by SSAs?

    The fact that Exodus’ leader went back to the lifestyle doesn’t negate the fact that many people have walked away from the lifestyle. I’m sure it’s not easy. It’s not easy to walk away from years or decades of porn or heterosexual sin, either, but it’s what we’re called to do. And on one is suggesting we dream about porn treasures in New Jerusalem.

    I’m not sure which exegesis you’re referring to. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the OT and NT. It’s the only sin I’m aware of that’s both called an abomination and for which two cities were destroyed. (See Jude for a cross reference–some claim Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to lack of hospitality, but their sexual sin is clearly mentioned.)

  72. MKT says:

    “The movie If (1968) gives an only slightly exaggerated idea”

    Wow. I remember catching that movie in high school one day as I was flipping channels. Pretty disturbing…Malcolm McDowell was in some weird stuff! I guess America answered the Brits on that one with Midnight Cowboy (based on a book written by a homosexual).

  73. 7817 says:

    needlessly inconsiderate towards people struggling with SSA

    You are very concerned about the opinions homosexuals have towards normal people.

  74. Oscar says:

    @ Paul

    Exodus International at least shows us it’s just not as simple as that.

    Tilting at straw men in easier than addressing actual arguments, but it’s not helpful.

    How about you start by trying to address the demands that “Living Out” actually placed on believers?

  75. Paul says:

    @MKT I’m not sure which exegesis you’re referring to. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the OT and NT.

    As explained, I find the term homosexuality inadequate. It is not condemned in the OT and NT, because it’s not mentioned. And people mean lots of different things with it, ranging from feelings, to identity, to lifestyle, to sexual activity, to sinful lusts. That makes discussing it in a biblical context much harder than needed. I therefore explicitly used “sex between men or between women”, which the OT and NT clearly condemn. And SSA for describing having feelings, which the bible not necessarily condemns.

  76. Paul says:

    @7817 You are very concerned about the opinions homosexuals have towards normal people.

    I’m concerned about the truth, and the love and grace of Christ for all sinners.

  77. Paul says:

    @Oscar Tilting at straw men in easier than addressing actual arguments

    Wrong exegesis is not a straw man.

  78. RichardP says:

    The Bible says that sexual activity with someone who is not your spouse is sin.

    We really don’t need to go any farther than that. (That covers all the bases.)

    Except maybe to define what “sexual activity” is.

    The lawyers here can perhaps be more specific. But, in general, sexual activity would be any activity done with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of yourself or of the other. According to the Bible, doing any of that with someone other than your spouse is sin.

    And an aside about a comment upthread. This could be a much longer conversation, and it has been in many places. But – re. looking on a woman to lust after her: Jesus said that one who does that has committed adultry with her in his heart (Matt 5:28). When we carefully assemble all of the scriptures that define what constitutes adultry and fornication in the Bible, we discover that all of them involve one real human actually and physically touching another. God did not tell Adam and Eve that in the day they think about eating the forbidden fruit they will die. The sin was in the actual doing it. Real, not imagined, forbidden fruit passing into a real, not imagined, stomach. The same with adultry: real flesh, not imagined flesh, pressing upon another’s real,not imagined, flesh.

    The sign that a person is a mature christian (take on the mind of christ; stop being babes needing milk, learn to eat meat, etc.) is seeing them demonstrate that they have learned to stop staring at forbidden fruit. Staring at forbidden fruit is not going to get you condemned, but it is going to keep you from maturing as a Christian. I think the point Jesus was making was more along this line than making a new commandment that thinking about something is no different than actually doing it. We know that in the material world that God created, that is not a truth. You don’t get venereal disease from thinking about sexing up your neighbors wife. You don’t get overweight from thinking about eating food. The fleshly problem comes from the doing of it. It is a spiritual problem, stunted spiritual growth, that comes from thinking about it.

    I’ll say that again: The fleshly problem comes from the doing of it. It is a spiritual problem, stunted spiritual growth, that comes from thinking about it. And how can two SSA folks live together and not be triggered to think about “it” contantly. Is that triggering and thinking about it going to promote or retard spiritual growth?

    Assume that Eve never ate the forbidden fruit and did not offer it to Adam. What kind of life would Adam have had staying in the Garden if Eve could not tear herself away from staring at the forbidden fruit – it was beautiful to look at after all. For Eve to have grown and matured in the role in which God placed her, she would have to eventually learn to stop staring at the forbidden fruit, and turn her attention to the man who God intended for her to help, and the task that lay before them both – Adam husbanding the Garden, and Eve helping him. None of that can happen while Eve stays stuck on staring at the forbidden fruit. That’s the kind of problem the man has who fantasizes about getting sexual with his neighbor’s wife. He can’t be doing with his own wife and family what he is supposed to be doing while he is stuck on that. Same with the SSA folks who insist that they can live together. Maybe they can. But can they really grow and mature in the wisdom of the Lord, and take on the mind of Christ as we are all commanded to do, in such a situation.

    Whether gay or straight, the problem for many of us is learning to stop staring at the forbidden fruit.

  79. MKT says:

    “As explained, I find the term homosexuality inadequate.”

    Is sodomy better? That’s a Biblical term.

  80. Dylan Sexton says:


    sex is only touched on gently, yet look at the shrieking harpies responsible for the dislike bar

  81. Sharkly says:

    https://view.publitas.com/perryundem-research-communication/perryundem-report-on-public-opinion-toward-abortion/page/42

    There’s some serious societal sex bias!

    Apparently men should not be having sex without accepting the consequences of unintended pregnancy. But women maybe should, according to the polling data.

  82. Oscar says:

    @ Paul

    Wrong exegesis is not a straw man.

    Nobody said it was, which means you’re still tilting at straw men. When will you address the demands “Libing Out” is actually making of believers?

  83. “This is a totally bizarre request, however (even leaving aside the potential for shenanigans which is rather obvious), because it is not something that has ever been done for straight Christians who are unable to find a spouse or have their own children — like ever in the history of the Church. Yet it is supposed to be done with gay “nonsexual” couples?”

    Another married dad and I teach Sunday school to 4 and 5 year-olds 1 sunday a month. We are not allowed to be in the Sunday school room alone because of state law and prudence, which happen to agree on this point. Society has become so wicked that I don’t even want to be in a room with children alone so that my reputation cannot be threatened in any way. When the other dad has to go pick up his kids after church, I stand outside the Sunday school room where the cameras can see me while I wait for him to come back before the other parents pick their kids up.

    Alberry surely knows the cultural situation for men and all of the incidents with Catholic priests. Until female public school teachers began their trend of sleeping with their male students, almost all pedophiles were men. There can be no justification from prudence nor law nor the Bible for allowing men with homosexual tendencies access to children, even if they’re not alone. The Bible says that sexual sin should not be named among us, nor even its appearance. As a historical example, the first century church banned all members from using public bathhouses even though not everyone went to them to engage in sodomy. They wanted to prevent even the appearance of sin.

    Alberry also know that the Left is trying to normalize pedophilia. Should pedophiles, most of whom are homosexuals, also have access to children?

  84. Paul says:

    @MKT Is sodomy better? That’s a Biblical term.

    No, it’s not better, because it’s not a biblical term, and it often also used to describe certain heterosexual activity. Homosex would be better; at least it’s well-defined.

  85. American says:

    “This isn’t new, it goes back to Rome and Greece, it’s openly practiced in Afghanistan with the “bacha bazi” and so on … older men and teenage boys is just very common in male homosexuality and always has been.”

    ^ Not always has been but rather since Alexander the Great Hellenized what is today Afghanistan starting in 330 BC. Alexander conquered north-eastern Afghanistan and the Peshawar Valley of Pakistan during the Cophen Campaign founding a series of new cities including modern Kandahar in Afghanistan. Alexander ad Caucasum was twenty five miles north-west of modern Kabul Afghanistan.

    The Achaemenid Empire preceded Hellenization and the practice didn’t exist in that specific empire. As Herodotus claimed, “From the Greeks they have learned to lie with boys.” Outside of the Achaemenid Empire is somewhat different. For example, Plutarch asserts the Iranians used eunuch boys to that end long before contact between the cultures although Plato claimed the Iranians saw fit to forbid it to the inhabitants of the lands they occupied, since “It does not suit the rulers that their subjects should think noble thoughts, nor that they should form the strong friendships and attachments which these activities, and in particular love, tend to produce.”

  86. Paul says:

    @Oscar When will you address the demands “Libing Out” is actually making of believers?

    I don’t need to, and I can still make valid points about wrong exegesis. That’s not tilting at strawmen. Carry on discussing it as you like. I might join in.

  87. MKT says:

    @Paul No, it’s not better, because it’s not a biblical term

    https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-the-biblical-definition-of-sodomite/
    “The New King James Version (NKJV) translates the Greek word aresnokites as “Sodomites.” Aresnokoites is defined as the “active male partner in homosexual intercourse”[3] and “one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite.”[4] Consequently, the NKJV translated aresnokoites as sodomite.” This is an acceptable translation. Aresnokoites also appears in 1 Timothy 1:10. The word sodomite appears in other translations in the Old Testament. A sodomite is one who practices something that God has explicitly described as sin.”

  88. mrteebs says:

    A very key word to look for in “Christian” homosexual writings is hospitality. It is so vitally important that the lack of it will result in burning sulfur falling from the sky.

    As others have said in the comments, I wish I was making this stuff up.

    This particular gay “pastor” actually teaches that it was not homosexuality that was the reason for the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the three other “cities of the plain” described in Genesis 19. No, it was the lack of hospitality for the visiting angels as Sabin
    argues here.

    And, because we want to again underscore that the Sabin’s and Alberry’s of the world have absolutely no hidden agenda other than agape love and affection for your children, please pay no attention whatsoever to
    Sabin’s latest escapades. They are irrelevant.

  89. MKT says:

    @mrteebs: “This particular gay “pastor” actually teaches that it was not homosexuality that was the reason for the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the three other “cities of the plain” described in Genesis 19. No, it was the lack of hospitality for the visiting angels ”

    I mentioned Jude earlier. If the Genesis account wasn’t clear enough, we have this in Jude v.7:
    ” just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

    Their lack of hospitality is mentioned elsewhere and is also a sin…but there’s no getting away from the homosexual part.

  90. info says:

    @TheQuestion
    Perhaps their view of God is insufficiently sacral. In contrast to his real character.

    Compare the religious services of many evangelical churches vs eastern orthodox service/Traditional Reformed services. The character of men that those environments help to shape.

    Likewise Christians need to recognize their proper roles as ambassadors. Because this is what we are with the Gospel. Until the return returns.

  91. American says:

    @MrTeebs, it’s true that gangs of adult males kidnapping and raping other people’s boys is inhospitable and that’s what was happening at Sodom. Underway are digs of the most likely candidate for Sodom (Tall el-Hammam excavation) and what they found are Minoan bull horns on pottery from middle Bronze Age Crete in the Mediterranean and an amazing Minoan Crete archway into the city that Lot himself sat next to (for reasons I’ll explain in another post if you like).

    Generation by generation Cretan pederasty made inroads in Sodomite culture but with a unique feature which involved ritual abduction/kidnapping arranged ahead of time by influential men in the society who would send out a gang of ritual abductors to kidnap a desired boy. Afterwards, they would ask permission from the parent(s) to conduct the ritual kidnapping and of course if they refused it would be considered a cultural slap in the face and immense cultural pressure brought to bear on the parent(s). Later, they stopped bothering to even ask after the fact.

    This Minoan style of boy abduction into forced pederasty in which gangs of male Sodomites fanned out seeking the young boys of others to steal form their parents greatly offended the indigenous Canaanites (who themselves practiced things like child sacrifice and female ritual/male ritual prostitution) and the resulting outcry against Sodom was pronounced. Interestingly, one reason that Lot offered his daughters is that on both Crete and Sodom it was a capital offense to rape a woman so he knew nothing was going to happen to them and nothing did happen to his daughters at the hands of the men of Sodom.

    It wasn’t just homosexual practices that resulted in the destruction of Sodom. Others (see Ezekiel 16:49 and 50) were kidnapping, homosexual rape, arrogant materialism, disgust toward and persecution of the poor and needy (they forced widows and orphans into prostitution), etc… doing many haughty and detestable things which also included the area’s child sacrifice, etc…

    According to God, Sodom had no redeemable features left to preserve so he destroyed it. The homosexual acts, homosexual rape, kidnapping forced pederasty etc… occurring in Sodom (Gen 19) are of such a harsh and disturbing narrative that they echo through the rest of the canon. From Genesis on, Sodom becomes an image for gross immorality in 2 Peter 2:6–8 and Jude 7 and yes, in contexts like Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 16 the Sodom symbol also refers to injustices including adultery and neglect of the poor. To dump all this into a “inhospitable” container and pretend that was the only problem is completely fallacious and deceitful, but that’s what those engaged in homosexuality do today.

  92. freebird says:

    Homosexuality used to be listed in the DSM IV manual as a psychological aberration severe enough to merit exclusion from immigration to this country legally.

    It’s no longer in the DSM IV, But masculinity IS….

  93. BillyS says:

    You are an idiot Paul. Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

  94. American says:

    In humanity, exist individuals with all sort of sinful sexual proclivities outside of God’s design and they run the gambit. As for homosexuality specifically, the Bible speaks directly to “homosexual behavior” or “homosexual acts.” A “homosexual”, from a scriptural perspective, is someone that chooses to engage in homosexual acts. Though truth is found in correspondence, homosexuality is not a valid biblical “identity” because homosexuality is a sin outside of God’s design for human beings. Homosexuality as an “identity” is a modern non-biblical construction.

    While references to homosexual acts are limited in Scripture, they become a powerful image for those who in their rebellion and blindness choose to give up God’s good gift of normative morality in healthy sexuality and exchange it for something degrading and unnatural. Homosexual acts become a symbol in both old and new testament scripture for violating a basic principle of holiness: mixing that which the Lord declared should be separate.

    In Romans 1, Paul condemns homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (vv. 23–27), but his theological canvas is broader than that. Instead of treating homosexual behavior as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad ‘exchange’ fallen man has made in departing from his Creator’s intention. Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural, because it flies in the face of God’s creation scheme for human sexual expression. People are not girls trapped in boys bodies and boys trapped in girls bodies. They are sinners trapped in a world that sin has permeated and need salvation followed by sanctification.

    It is one thing to repent and become a Christian in recovery/sanctification struggling with sin issues in their life. This is the condition many Christians find themselves in. Perhaps all, to some extent. These are born-again and have aligned themselves with God in truth. It is entirely another thing to justify one’s sin as normal and refuse to repent aligning with ungodliness in rebellion to God and then twisting His Word to “justify” it deceiving themselves and others as per 2 Timothy 12-13.

    The existence of a predisposition does not equate to people being robots without any choice as those choosing to engage in homosexuality so often falsely assert today. I know, I’ve been celibate since I started following Christ in the late 1980s and I have a normal sex drive. People like to make excuses to “justify” their sinful behaviors. Better if they stop deceiving themselves and admit they’re engaging in sexual behaviors with other people that the Bible classifies as “sinful.” Best of all is to repent from them, even if it’s a process.

  95. American says:

    And though I believe Edward Gibbon’s hypothesis that Christianity was the reason for the “fall of the Roman Empire” is false; note what Edward Gibbon wrote in ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ regarding pagan Rome when he penned, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians.”

    Gibbon was speaking of the dropping birthrate of new Roman citizens to unsustainable levels because of a sweeping societal dissipation into various homosexual immoralities which had largely replaced men and women entering into heterosexual monogamous marriage with each other and procreating at least at replacement value.

    The culture had produced a large share of Roman men whom were reluctant to marry. It got so bad that Roman Emperor Augustus passed a series of laws penalizing unmarried men and rewarding men who married and had at least three children. The disabilities imposed on unmarried men included serious social devaluations ranging from being barred from attending public games and banquets to being forced to sit in less desirable seats in the theatre. But that didn’t matter to them because they were fully immersed in their “other” past times (see paragraph above).

    Christianity turned the situation around and it’s worth noting that even an anti-Christian historian like Gibbon who falsely blamed the fall of Rome on the weakness of Christianity over the barbarity of paganism patently affirmed that “the dignity of marriage was restored by Christians” in ancient Rome.

  96. Splashman says:

    @Paul,

    I therefore explicitly used “sex between men or between women”, which the OT and NT clearly condemn. And SSA for describing having feelings, which the bible not necessarily condemns.

    So I infer you would also claim that while scripture condemns adultery, it does not necessarily condemn thinking about adultery? Having “feelings” about adultery? (Cowardly euphemism, by the way.)

    Paul, you’re missing the forest for the trees. All sin starts as a desire.

    Fact: Sodomy is a sin.
    Fact: God hates all sin.
    Fact: Anyone who loves & fears God will hate what God hates.
    Fact: Anyone who harbors (protects, defends) “feelings” about any sort of sin, does not love God.

  97. Cane Caldo says:

    @Splashman

    So I infer you would also claim that while scripture condemns adultery, it does not necessarily condemn thinking about adultery? Having “feelings” about adultery?

    Exactly right. Under another post I made a similar argument that–according to Jesus–lust for another man’s wife is itself adultery, but according to modern sensibilities lust for another man is not sin.

  98. The Other Scott says:

    How far do we have to go with this before our God given wisdom kicks in and we say what all of us are thinking? “This is stupid. Go back to the pit of Hell that you crawled out of.”

  99. info says:

    @American
    ”While references to homosexual acts are limited in Scripture, they become a powerful image for those who in their rebellion and blindness choose to give up God’s good gift of normative morality in healthy sexuality and exchange it for something degrading and unnatural. Homosexual acts become a symbol in both old and new testament scripture for violating a basic principle of holiness: mixing that which the Lord declared should be separate.”

    Its fundamentally narcissistic and a mockery of what the sexual relationship is supposed to represent. That of God and his people.

    A failure to mix with what is supposed to be mixed with and going with a mirror image. And degrading the dignity of manhood and its representation of God’s image.

  100. Paul says:

    @Splashman, CC So I infer you would also claim that while scripture condemns adultery, it does not necessarily condemn thinking about adultery? Having “feelings” about adultery?

    You infer wrongly. However, I don’t mind to clarify, as my post was just meant to counter what I consider wrong exegesis. As I stated, having feelings in itself is not necessary evil, as they continuously spring up in your inner being outside conscious control. Good or evil is attributed to moral, conscious choices.

    To come back to your example; feeling attracted to a woman not your wife is not sinful, consciously thinking about having sex with her closely comes to the definition of adultery in the heart. The biblical definition of ‘lust’ is actually quite difficult to define precisely, and people tend to put a lot more into that category than necessary.

  101. info says:

    @American
    Wonder how different the world would be if AIDs afflicted them back then.

  102. Paul says:

    @MKT

    Exactly, sodomite is (only) a translation of the terms used in the original languages, which in themselves do not refer to Sodom at all. At the time of translation, sodomite was understood to mean what was about to happen to the visitors of Lot by the inhabitants of Sodom, which is of course an interpretation. Nowadays, sodomy has been used to describe a more wide array of activities, not necessarily covering homosex only, whereas the original languages refer to the latter only.

    Staying close to the original texts is less confusing; as Robert Gagnon has pointed out ‘arsenokoites’ (NOT aresnokoites) is best interpreted as ‘men lying with men’, which is quite a literal translation, and stays close to the prohibition in Leviticus (with ‘lying’ understood to mean having sexual relations).

    Contrary to all the accusations, I don’t mind discussing the negative influence of the LGBTXWYZ agenda in the church, which is a real thing, just as the promoting of homosex in “loving relationships” in the church is a real thing. I do mind the careless comments here that clearly go against what the bible teaches.

  103. info says:

    @American
    ”Gibbon was speaking of the dropping birthrate of new Roman citizens to unsustainable levels because of a sweeping societal dissipation into various homosexual immoralities which had largely replaced men and women entering into heterosexual monogamous marriage with each other and procreating at least at replacement value. ”

    Sex-selective infanticide may be a factor as well:
    https://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/23/sex-selection-infanticide-dates-back-to-the-greeks-girl-babies-were-killed-thrown-into-sewers/

    But recent evidence only in Roman Britain may put this into doubt:
    https://news.yahoo.com/ancient-roman-infanticide-didn-39-t-spare-either-145332448.html

  104. Paul says:

    Maybe as addition; the use of the term “homosexuality” is used by its proponents to argue against any prohibition on homosex in the church, because — they argue — homosexuality as a core identity, and in loving lasting relationships was unknown at the time of the NT, therefore, any prohibition against homosex cannot POSSIBLY be talking about such people.

    I therefore prefer to not use “homosexuality” in order to steer the discussion away from such “identity” talks, because in the end the bible already condemns homosex, which demolishes 99% of the LGBTXYZ rhetoric anyway. It’s never wise to start a discussion with ill-defined terms.

  105. Paul says:

    @info

    The lifenews article refers to Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity,” which is worth a read. The article is written by Murray Vasser a science teacher and pro-life theology student who still fails to see the obvious truth:

    “A common narrative in our society is that, by opposing abortion and infanticide, Christians are conducting a “war on women.” ”
    “I do not doubt that there is a “war on women” in our society. However, I would suggest that it is not being conducted by the church; it is instead being conducted by those who seek to objectify women for entertainment and profit. Furthermore, it is being conducted by those in the abortion industry who (1) enable sex-selective abortion, (2) enable statutory rape, (3) and enable sex-trafficking.”

    As if it is not exactly women who nowadays personally choose to kill their own infants with the father having no say whatever in it. Bloody hell.

  106. My problem isn’t a political one. It really IS what to do with the person beset with socially acceptable sexual perversion. Jesus died for their sin too. I’ve been in a group with a celibate lesbian with militant tendencies. Was she repentant? From what I could tell she was. She also brought a lot of conflict.

    The homosexuals are coming. They will take over our denominations because we have not been faithful to God in our duty to lovingly correct these people. Exclusion is denying our own sotierology, marrying them into heterosexual relationships may be an answer but we haven’t had the guts or the congregations structures to hold people accountable. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. The Church will reap the fruit of its cowardice.

    Homosexuality is the big symptom, that’s getting our attention. How many Chuches falling to this have already swallowed feminism, re-married pastors, Sunday morning nightclub apparel and a whole host of other garbage?

    If I get a repentant homosexual in my home for small group I’m going to do a lot of praying and watching. I’ll let them know they should expect nothing less. If they start showing signs of backsliding or equivocating on their sin they will be confronted just as I hope they would do to me if I started flirting outside of my marriage.

    What else could we do? Reject their declared repentance? Deny that the blood can cover that sin?

    I need to engage, hear God’s voice and fear Him. Even if it means the Gaystopo burns my life to ashes. I’m glad you have been pointing to Sam Allberry Dalrock, it’s been providing me with a lot of reflection.

  107. Novaseeker says:

    Maybe as addition; the use of the term “homosexuality” is used by its proponents to argue against any prohibition on homosex in the church, because — they argue — homosexuality as a core identity, and in loving lasting relationships was unknown at the time of the NT, therefore, any prohibition against homosex cannot POSSIBLY be talking about such people.

    I therefore prefer to not use “homosexuality” in order to steer the discussion away from such “identity” talks, because in the end the bible already condemns homosex, which demolishes 99% of the LGBTXYZ rhetoric anyway. It’s never wise to start a discussion with ill-defined terms.

    Well, but these guys are using it the other way around — in other words they are saying “look, the Bible proscribes homosex, and we agree with that, but we should be able to do everything else homo other than homosex because that’s not proscribed by the Bible”.

    Their argument that they make about homo relationships being “unknown” in the ancient world is spurious in any case. Perhaps the most notorious was the one between the Emperor Hadrian and Antinous, but also in Greek culture the pederasty typically took the form of relationships between an older man (erastes — “lover”) and a young man/teen (eromenos — “beloved”) — in other words it was in the context of relationships of affection, and it wasn’t all random hookups in truck stop bathrooms.

    To take another example, the famed Roman poet Martial has written more than a few of his Epigrams about his young male lovers as well, and the context is most often one of relationship and not drive-by. It’s true that the ancient Romans (and Greeks) didn’t conceive of this as a fixed orientation as the gays do today, because they kind of saw everyone as being subject to these desires. Not because of a lack of relationship, or even a lack of a preference in some for homosex or homo relationships, but because it was assumed that everyone was subject to some degree to these kinds of desires in a world that did not absolutely proscribe them (as the ancient mediterranean world in general did not).

    That is, the Bible writers, including the NT writers, were very well aware of all of this context and therefore the Bible wasn’t talking only to some small percentage of the population when it was making its proscriptions against homosex — it was talking to a much higher number of people who were seen in that context to be subject to engaging in homosex (and the relationships around that). In this way, the gay arguments are very much undermined, because the Church, and certainly someone like Paul who was himself a Roman citizen, was very much aware of what the Roman practices and understandings were around sex, and the fact that the homosex part included *both* promiscuous homosex and relationship homosex, and it condemned both equally precisely by not distinguishing between them at all in its prohibitions. The gay arguments about antiquity are quite specious for the most part because they assume that the Bible writers were ignorant of their own context, or that the context didn’t feature homosexual relationships — both of which are incorrect.

    The one thing that the gays are closer to being correct about is that the ancient world generally didn’t see it as a fixed orientation like today’s self-identified gays do. My guess as to why this is the case is that even when you eliminate most of the “marginal homosex” — that is homosex involving people who are not predominantly attracted to same sex — you still end up with a very small number of people who still have homosexual attractions. That is, when Christianity comes along with its views about homosex which were radically different from, say, Rome’s, you can, over time, kind of drive out most of the marginal homosex from taking place, but you still end up with a very small residual number of people who have a very strong preference for homosex (for whatever reason, and it really isn’t clear what the reason is, and it likely differs by individual) such that they perceive of it as a fixed orientation, and that this remnant is what we are dealing with today. This does not mean, however, as is claimed by the gays, that the NT writers were ignorant of this remnant when they made blanket condemnations of homosex — again, Paul would have been well aware of homosex relationships between men in the Roman context — so it isn’t really helpful for gays, even though they like to misconstrue it by claiming that the NT writers and early church were ignorant of the guys involved in homosex relationships in their time and saw all of it as basically truckstop sex.

  108. Oscar says:

    @ Paul

    @Oscar When will you address the demands “Libing Out” is actually making of believers?

    I don’t need to,

    You do if you want to be honest about the topic at hand.

    and I can still make valid points about wrong exegesis. That’s not tilting at strawmen.

    Your claim that others claimed that ridding oneself of lustful desires is “simple” is a straw man. Keep tilting at your straw man all you want, but don’t expect me to pretend you’re doing otherwise.

  109. Oscar says:

    Paul says:

    having feelings in itself is not necessary evil, as they continuously spring up in your inner being outside conscious control.

    Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet…

    covet verb : to desire what belongs to another

    Is a desire a feeling?

  110. Daniel says:

    Young men are sexually attracted to eligible young women, which is perfectly natural and right. I’m a married man, and I find plenty of younger women desirable, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I am happy to say that I do not want to sleep with any man’s wife that I know.

    The sin of “lusting after a woman” means to covet your neighbor’s wife. But the traditional church demonizes men’s natural sexual appetite, and “the male gaze.” Then a homosexual says “We believe that heterosexuality as we encounter it in this world is just as fallen as homosexuality.” The traditional church doesn’t have a reply, because they have painted heterosexual desire as evil, calling it “lust.”

    The Bible describes the Sodomites as having gone after “strange flesh.” Strange being translated from “hetero” and flesh from “sarx.” The Sodomites could be called “herterosarxual” to coin a term, but I don’t say that, it would just confuse people. Instead, I use “homosexual,” since it is a clinical term that keeps the focus on their disordered sexual acts.

  111. Damn Crackers says:

    Any thoughts on concubinage and Levirate marriage?

  112. Chuck B says:

    The numbers suggest he just wants more grooming opportunities, as gay men are way more likely to be pedophiles.

  113. Paul says:

    @Oscar

    I never claimed what you said about my supposed strawman. Let it go.

    You refuse to see a range of different classes of “feelings”, and put them all under the heading “lustful desires”. You then put SSA into that same category, which you then condemn. but I do not upfront.

    And no, I think ‘coveting’ is more than a feeling. I think here also people are too quick to categorize a whole range of emotions and intentions under the label ‘covet’.

    One exposition of ‘covet’ which I found very plausible, is that it conveys the meaning of ‘putting your heart and mind into obtaining it’, which is much stronger than a simple feeling of desire.

    Now I don’t claim that all inner considerations fall under the category ‘feeling’, and are therefore harmless or not sin. But I find the attitude to lump all Christians who are confronted with SSA into one and the same category as flamboyant practicing homosexuals who are burning with lusts, both unhelpful and harmful towards people struggling with SSA.

    To make the analogy; all heterosexual males are regularly attracted to women not their wives. To experience these feeling is not a sin. Putting your mind to it, or even acting upon such desires IS sin. Lumping both adulterers and males being attracted to other women into the same category, is similarly unhelpful and harmful.

  114. Paul says:

    .. all MARRIED heterosexual males ..

  115. @Daniel, can confirm.

    Growing up we had such a sloppy definition of lust in the church that resisting as a temptation was functionally impossible. This created despair and a sort of detente relationship with sin (try not to too much, but give up on actually winning). Not just in me but in most young men that I knew.

    Honestly learning about mortal and venial sin (which even Martin Luther believed in in a limited way) was a breath of fresh air. Real lust requires free conscious deliberate consent to something you know is wrong. Normal instinct and fleeting thoughts don’t qualify.

  116. theShield220 says:

    Really? “How far is too far?” That worked just greeeeaaaaat when we were in high school; now it is suddenly ancient wisdom for adults?!

  117. thedeti says:

    Growing up we had such a sloppy definition of lust in the church that resisting as a temptation was functionally impossible. This created despair and a sort of detente relationship with sin (try not to too much, but give up on actually winning). Not just in me but in most young men that I knew.

    Daniel, Greenmantle:

    Going slightly off topic, but yes, can confirm as well. Growing up in a mainline prot denomination, we boys were told that ANY sexual interest in girls was “lust” and adultery and therefore morally wrong, bad, sinful, and evil. Wanting to date and have sex with girls is wrong and evil. Not “having sex”. WANTING TO have sex. We were told that we were required never to look at girls “that way”. We were coached on how to avert our gazes, to do the “eye bounce”. And we were mercilessly confronted, called out, shamed, and held to account. All boys’ groups in churches were about “don’t have sex, be nice, treat the girls nice, do what the girls want, shut up, be nice, be compliant, do what we tell you, don’t make waves, don’t expect anything, don’t want anything, and get ready for a lifetime of subordination and servitude to whatever girl will lower herself to accept you”.

  118. BillyS says:

    DC,

    Any thoughts on concubinage and Levirate marriage?

    That only works for a society when lots of young men die due to wars and other factors, leaving more women than men.

    Though we basically have concubines today because a few hot men get far than their own number of women. They just don’t have the obligations, in general. They even manage to dump costs on non-hot men in many cases. That is not sustainable and will eventually break.

  119. Oscar says:

    @ Paul

    I never claimed what you said about my supposed strawman. Let it go.

    Liar.

    Paul says:
    January 24, 2019 at 6:41 pm
    You cannot ignore the number of sincere Christians confronted with SSA who testify to have prayed about getting different FEELINGS, but the FEELINGS did not change at all. Exodus International at least shows us it’s just not as simple as that.

    No one here claimed that is was simple. Therefore, there was no reason for you to state “it’s just not as simple as that”, unless of course, you were tilting at straw men to avoid addressing the actual arguments actual people actually made.

    And no, I think ‘coveting’ is more than a feeling. I think here also people are too quick to categorize a whole range of emotions and intentions under the label ‘covet’.

    One exposition of ‘covet’ which I found very plausible, is that it conveys the meaning of ‘putting your heart and mind into obtaining it’, which is much stronger than a simple feeling of desire.

    Now I don’t claim that all inner considerations fall under the category ‘feeling’, and are therefore harmless or not sin.

    Man, that is some seriously mealy-mouthed, effeminate equivocating. It’s almost as bad as the CBMW’s “we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument”. You don’t get your own private definition of words, unless you invent your own private language. Until then, we’ll stick to English, and the definitions thereof. Don’t like the definition? Tough.

    But I find the attitude to lump all Christians who are confronted with SSA into one and the same category as flamboyant practicing homosexuals who are burning with lusts, both unhelpful and harmful towards people struggling with SSA.

    There’s another straw man, this time equivocated by adding the word “attitude” to avoid addressing anything anyone actually wrote.

    So, when will you address the actual demands that “Living Out” is actually making of actual believers?

  120. Expat Philo says:

    This may come as a surprise to the commentariat here, but I know of one homosexually inclined colleague who lurks about the androsphere. Whenever our conversation turns to the goings on in these parts, he consistently expresses gratitude for the discussions about it. In his words: “I know it is a sin. I can name a few thousand reasons, material and spiritual, to NOT do it, but none of them helps [with the temptation] nearly as much as the condemnation.”

    I bring this to your attention for two reasons: first, to offer encouragement by pointing out that you all are actually helping at least one person by being “harsh”; second, I believe that this is a notable feature of sin, generally. Those who honestly struggle with whatever temptation find solace and comfort in the condemnation of the action which is so tempting from those in their social periphery.

  121. Lost Patrol says:

    All boys’ groups in churches were about “don’t have sex, be nice, treat the girls nice, do what the girls want, shut up, be nice, be compliant, do what we tell you, don’t make waves, don’t expect anything, don’t want anything, and get ready for a lifetime of subordination and servitude to whatever girl will lower herself to accept you”.

    thedeti often comes up with passages that can be saved for later and used to bring down the house as it were, if one is so inclined. I try not to, but sometimes am backed into a corner so fast by what I’m hearing that something like this gets away from me. Too many young men have gone by the wayside under the formula he describes.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti @Lost Patrol

    What Deti describes is a major part of the betaization process that makes US churches into Beta factories. It’s arguably part of the feminization of churchgoing young men as well.

    Returning to the OP: there are sound reasons based in real biology for limiting the opportunities that teenaged people have for isolation. We don’t let “youth pastors” have long, serious one-on-one time with teenaged girls, for example. Because isolation is part of any seduction process; not just for PUA’s in some club, but for the married man attempting to get his wife’s mindset away from “Mom” mode and into “Wife and lover” mode.

    This leads to an obvious question:
    Why would any adult want to be isolated with someone else’s child?

  123. MKT says:

    “Honestly learning about mortal and venial sin (which even Martin Luther believed in in a limited way) was a breath of fresh air. Real lust requires free conscious deliberate consent to something you know is wrong. Normal instinct and fleeting thoughts don’t qualify.”

    I think that’s a point that Paul and others are debating that can’t be fully resolved. A scantily-clad, pretty woman walks by (or is on a billboard or online ad, etc)…it catches your eye like any hetero guy. At what point does your initial reaction/attention become lust? There are black and white areas (you turn your eyes immediately and stop thinking about it vs. you dwell on it or even act out on it) but also grey areas that only God knows. The same is true for homo lust, envy, immediate anger-turning-into-hateful sin, etc. I don’t see a point debating this much because our knowledge is limited when it comes to the blurry areas between initial temptation and full-blown sin.

  124. American says:

    @info, acknowledged. The “Imago Dei” was certainly lacking in Greco-Roman paganism. Ancient pagan Romans were known to bring a select infant to whichever of the various pagan temples they supported and hand them over to one of the temple prostitutes who sacrifice the child to the pagan deity. This was usually accomplished by fire or placing the infant on red hot steel in front of the temple idol.

    As an aside when Jesus took his disciples to Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-20), he asked them who people say he is. He did this in front of the pagan grotto to Pan in which was located a large cave with a deep pool and powerful running stream that fed the Sea of Galilee and ultimately the Jordan River to the Dead Sea. Pagans called this cave the “gate to Hades” and threw their own live infants in as offerings to Pan. If the victims disappeared in the water this was supposedly a sign that Pan had accepted the offering. If, however, signs of blood appeared in the nearby springs the sacrifice had been rejected.”

    The disciples were watching parents throw their live infants into this cave while Jesus instructed them that “the gates of Hades” would not overcome the church he was going to build. Pagan evil contrasting with God’s goodness in real time, in real life, right before their eyes.

  125. @MKT, respectfully, I partly disagree. It’s very important, how can you actually defeat sin if you’re confused about the difference between sin and temptation? The concept of venial sin is the grey area in a way that you’re talking about, but the nature of venial sin is such that it is closer, in a way, to a mistake than an actual sin. The point is that a real full blooded sin is not really ambiguous. For it to qualify as an action with moral content you have to know what you’re doing.

    This stuff is important because if you actually want to do the right thing, it is very much worth debating and figuring out.

  126. MKT says:

    @greenmantlehoyos

    I realize venial sin seems to solve the problem. However, I’m not RC and don’t think it’s fully supported Biblically. I’m also not a raving anti-Catholic, and see some helpful ideas about the concept (like Luther). But I don’t think it solves the problem we’re discussing here. There’s still a middle ground (at least to our finite perspective) between temptation and sin…and not all sin has to be full-blow and completely obvious.

  127. thedeti says:

    Green, Daniel, LP, Anon Reader:

    It’s carried over into men’s groups. Men’s groups now are

    1) Stay away from porn

    2) Sex isn’t that big a deal

    3) Men have only two functions: being husbands and being fathers, and men almost always suck at both

    4) Wife worship

  128. @thedeti, Number 2, really? Because that seems like a real detour.

  129. thedeti says:

    Green:

    2) “Sex isn’t that big a deal” directed to men, meaning “so what if you don’t have sex, you don’t need sex, you obsess over sex way too much, sex should be all about what you do for her, you men oversexualize everything and and make everything about sex and you need to stop doing that because the women in your lives don’t like it”

  130. quartermoa says:

    @thedeti
    What are your thoughts on “1) Stay away from porn”? See that a lot lately.

  131. @thedeti, ah that makes more sense.

    Not to be conspiratorial, but this seems like a plan to ensure the true alphas have their pick, and make sure the rest of the monkeys in the troop stay in line.

  132. thedeti says:

    Not a conspiracy. Men in the church really do believe this is masculine. Men in the church really do believe the nice, sensitive, caring, morally observant, devout, overly religious man singing love songs to Jesus is sexually attractive to women. They really do believe that these nice, milquetoasty, wishy washy, pansy men in polos and pleated khakis really are turning on church girls and that church girls are lining up around the block to date these wispy men speaking in breathy voices about how much they love Jesus.

  133. Gunner Q says:

    Expat Philo @ 11:33 am:
    “I bring this to your attention for two reasons: first, to offer encouragement by pointing out that you all are actually helping at least one person by being “harsh”; second, I believe that this is a notable feature of sin, generally. Those who honestly struggle with whatever temptation find solace and comfort in the condemnation of the action which is so tempting from those in their social periphery.”

    Yep. Discouraging sin by condemning sin is a lost art among modern Christians. For your interest:

    https://gunnerq.com/2018/12/19/how-to-reach-homosexuals-intolerance/

  134. Paul says:

    @Oscar

    You seem to have difficulty handling non-black-and-white viewpoints .and are quick to attribute ill intent where disagreement or misunderstanding would be more appropriate. I’m not going to put my energy into that.

  135. thedeti says:

    Let me ask you something.

    Who would you take advice on masculinity from – Dennis Rainey of Focus on the Family?

    http://www.heidimhensley.com/2012/10/dennis-rainey-president-and-ceo-of.html

    Or Paul Maxwell, Ph.D., who is a recent graduate of Moody Bible Institute, holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology, and writes and speaks extensively on masculinity and faith?

    https://paulcmaxwell.com/getting-shredded-is-simple/

    You tell me.

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    quartermoa
    What are your thoughts on “1) Stay away from porn”? See that a lot lately.

    I”m not Deti, but so far as I can tell that applies to men, and only to men.
    Women’s porn aka “romance” is deemed harmless.

  137. MKT says:

    @thedeti

    How about neither? I’d rather get it from the book of Proverbs, which is written for young men.
    http://solomonsays.net/

    Maxwell may be a gym rat, but his stuff about being traumatized in seminary and “male body hatred” doesn’t strike me as all that masculine.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti
    Maxwell clearly has his act together regarding physical resistance training, therefore he has above average T. So he clearly is at an advantage regarding masculinity over Dennis Rainey.

    However I know several men ranging from 30 to 55 who are in physical condition almost as good as Maxwell’s, yet who are totally blind about women – blue pill, no Glasses.

  139. thedeti says:

    @ quatermoa:

    What are your thoughts on “1) Stay away from porn”? See that a lot lately.

    What do you mean “what are my thoughts” on that subject?

    Men should avoid pornography for a lot of reasons, not the least of which that it’s an aid to masturbation which isn’t a healthy or appropriate sexual outlet. The research is pouring in that the ubiquitous explicit porn and the amount of its consumption now is driving early erectile dysfunction, dampens men’s interest in actual sex with real women (to the extent they can even GET sex with real women), and is helping lower testosterone levels in men.

    The problem i have with men’s groups at church harping on and haranguing at men to “stay away from porn” is that that message is foisted on men to the exclusion of almost everything else. Men are being literally bludgeoned and cudgeled with it at church all the time. The message assumes that Christian men who are really trying to walk out their faith need to hear this message every time they darken a church doorway. THEY DON’T. The message assumes that all men are porn addled, sex-soaked, sex obsessed perverts who are roaming the countryside looking for women to rape.

    Men do not need to hear that looking at porn is bad for them and is not God-honoring. THEY KNOW THAT. THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE ATTACKED WITH IT EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY HOUR THEY ATTEND A CHURCH.

  140. thedeti says:

    MKT:

    Yes you can get that from Proverbs.

    who’s walking it out better, Rainey or Maxwell?

  141. thedeti says:

    Which man is actually LIVING OUT Proverbs better?

  142. MKT says:

    @thedeti

    I consider being in good physical shape important, but certainly no be-all-end-all. I agree with A/R, and have seen quite a few hipster mega-pastors with buff bods and big biceps…but their messages are anything but masculine. Then there’s stuff like this from Maxwell:
    https://paulcmaxwell.com/2013/08/25/feminists-on-the-trauma-of-abuse-research/
    “And, in my research, I came across some wisdom on the psychology of SA research that was very helpful. Two feminist scholars in particular – Judith Herman, who wrote a famous book on trauma called Trauma and Recovery, and also Jennifer Beste’s God and the Victim – provide helpful observations for those who are immersed in researching and writing about this complex issue.”

  143. thedeti says:

    Leaving aside any theological issues about masturbation, there is this thought or school of thought that masturbation is a good thing, that it is helpful or beneficial, especially for men who cannot get sex or have no other sexual outlet. It is not.

    Masturbation is at best a band aid over a profusely bleeding emotional gunshot wound. It is at best a “release” for an overwhelming drive that cannot be immediately sated with sexual congress with a woman, usually because a woman is not sexually available to him or because he is unmarried and sex is not appropriate. Masturbation does not “help” those who practice it. At best masturbation only staves off worse psychological harm resulting from grinding sexual frustration and sexual rejection.

    There are married men who masturbate, whose wives complain bitterly about their husbands’ porn addictions. What is always ignored is that those men masturbate using pornography as an aid because their wives have either (a) let themselves go so far that they’ve become hopelessly physically unattractive; or more often, (b) refused their husbands so often, destroyed their husbands’ sexual confidence and drive so often, and decimated their husbands’ feelings for their wives, that these men would rather sin than approach their wives who have made it clear how much they hate their husbands.

    These men would rather masturbate to porn than get shot down for the 450th straight time. These men would rather masturbate to porn than attempt sex with women who hate them. These men masturbate because their wives refuse them. These men masturbate because their wives will not do their jobs as wives. These men masturbate because their wives have broken their husbands’ hearts and they have no other sexual outlets. These men masturbate because their wives have them trapped in dead bedrooms but they are devout and will not divorce. They choose the lesser of two evils: Masturbation is bad, but divorce and busting up their children’s homes is worse. Masturbation is bad, but financial devastation and the ruination of their children’s lives is worse.

    If people want to talk about masturbation and porn as evils, then we need to address where it started: Wives refusing their husbands; women refusing their men, wives leaving and divorcing their men; wives cheating on their husbands.

  144. thedeti says:

    MKT:

    That article is five and a half years old. Try this more recent video:

  145. thedeti says:

    So it’s clear from that post up there: Masturbation is not “good”, morally or otherwise. It is not helpful or beneficial. It is not a recommended course of action. It is not a long term sexual solution for men. At best, it is a very, very poor substitute for sex and sexual behavior. It quickly becomes pathological for men, and that has only accelerated with the rise of the internet and the ability to access porn anywhere, any time.

  146. thedeti says:

    Shutting up now. I’ve really threadjacked this one. Dalrock, thanks for indulging me.

  147. MKT says:

    @deti
    Thanks for the video link. I’ll take a look later. As for your other post:
    “Masturbation is at best a band aid over a profusely bleeding emotional gunshot wound. It is at best a “release” for an overwhelming drive that cannot be immediately sated with sexual congress with a woman, usually because a woman is not sexually available to him or because he is unmarried and sex is not appropriate. Masturbation does not “help” those who practice it. At best masturbation only staves off worse psychological harm resulting from grinding sexual frustration and sexual rejection.”

    It’s definitely a way to medicate pain, but it comes (no pun intended) at a big cost. It’s very difficult to have any ambition or make major changes in your life when you’re enslaved to fapping and porn. It also creates a chemical cocktail in your brain that’s not unlike a drug addiction. If a frequent fapper wants to argue about this, ask them to stop for 1 year. See how “easy” that is.

    An interesting and recent Christian book about this issue is Unwanted by Jay Stringer. Not red pill or anything, but insightful with data and analysis the author collected in his counseling practice. On the secular side, there’s a guy name J.K. Emezi on Youtube who’s quite good. They come to similar conclusions about the correlation of low-ambition men and fapping/pron.

  148. feeriker says:

    I see the same sex attracted (but we don’t do those things) movement (SSA) as another step in the evolution of the North American Church’s dilemma of “what do we do with the gays?” question. The first approach was simple exclusion. That was too mean spirited and cruel, we’re told.

    Along with what The Question said about tearing down “the Cult of Nice,” churches will also have to jettison the whole “seeker-friendly” mentality if they are to reclaim any semblance of their true purpose, which is to serve as the Body of Believers.

    What this implies is that they will also have to revert to the Church’s New Testament roots and stop trying to operate like a business that panders to the feelings/trends du jour in order to earn a livelihood. Collection plates are going to empty out and persecution will set in if the leadership starts enforcing Biblical truths, but the Church can no longer avoid the inevitable suffering that Our Lord promised would be our lot for being His followers.

    Upon assuming the papal throne, I recall Pope Benedict XVI making a statement to the effect that he intended to be rigid on traditional church doctrine to the point of de facto reversing the rot that is the result of Vatican II. He also made the statement that if this caused a mass exodus from the Church, so be it; better a smaller, faithful flock than a large heretical one. No doubt this is what prompted the coup that replaced him with the current globalist anti-pope.

    I really believe that the cowards who pass for “leaders” in all denominations nowadays know just how tiny the remnant will be if they enforce Scripture and how quickly their cushy positions will evaporate and it scares the hell out of them. What should scare the hell out of US is the revelation here of how little faith these frauds truly have in Jesus.

  149. 7817 says:

    @Paul

    You seem to have difficulty handling non-black-and-white viewpoints .and are quick to attribute ill intent where disagreement or misunderstanding would be more appropriate. I’m not going to put my energy into that.

    Low energy troll.

    Seriously man, if you can’t defend your views then just shut up about them. To spout off and then try to disqualify someone’s response on the basis of them not being nice is effeminate.

  150. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    The reason porn will remain popular whatever is said about it is that most of the women in porn are happy and interested in sex. That is often not true in the real world, unfortunately.

    Fixing the latter problem would probably do more than another sermon on staying away from porn.

  151. BillyS says:

    I am not saying porn is good in my comments above, just why it has so much draw. The (lack of) attractiveness factor in many wives is an issue as well of course.

  152. American says:

    I have to say that I enjoyed the above Paul Maxwell video. He asserts that toxic masculinity really is exactly the opposite of what feminist assert. That it is sissy beta males acting like women who are presently running evangelicalism under the direction of females unfortunately. Now I have to go finish my weight workout.

  153. BillyS says:

    The problem MKT is that you may be correct for the 18-30 year old male, but the alternatives for someone older are much more limited and all face the higher than it should be risk of not having a marriage work out anyway and the costs there are huge as well.

    That is another reason the modern system is so messed up.

  154. American says:

    “The Bible says: ‘As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it also be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man.’ I have seen things in my vision that make me fear for the future of our children. I speak of wild, roving mobs of homosexual men publicly assaulting innocent people in parks, on the streets, and in secret places. These attacks by Sodomite mobs are certain to come, and, although they may not be publicized as such, those in the law-enforcement circles will know the full extent of what is happening.

    There are only two forces that hold back homosexuals from giving themselves over completely to their sin, and they are rejection by society and the repudiation and teachings of the church. When society no longer rejects their sin as abnormal and fully accepts them and encourages them in their abnormality, and when the church no longer preaches against it as sin and consoles them in their sexual activities, there no longer exist any hindering forces. The floodgates are open, and homosexuals are encouraged to continue in their sin. In my vision, I have seen these two roadblocks being swept away. When that which hinders is taken away, chaos will follow.

    Believe me when I tell you the time is not far off that you will pick up your local newspaper and read sordid accounts of innocent children being attacked by wild homosexual mobs in parks and on city streets.” -David Wilkerson, “The Vision,” publication date 1974.

  155. MKT says:

    @BillyS: I agree it’s difficult for older men, but that doesn’t excuse them from being enslaved to porn and masturbation. And they won’t have a chance to seriously improve their lives until they break free.

  156. quartermoa says:

    @thedeti Thanks for the expanded porn discussion. Insightful and I 100% agree.

  157. ray says:

    “in other words they are saying “look, the Bible proscribes homosex, and we agree with that, but we should be able to do everything else homo other than homosex because that’s not proscribed by the Bible”.”

    Hilarious. Yup that’s exactly what they’re saying. The welcome-homos-into-kids-lives shtick is to stretch the playing field. Then the territory they have their eye on short-term can be taken with little resistance. They’re throwing deep to stretch the ‘safeties’ (church) and permit easy dinks underneath. Standard incremental tactic, right from Alinsky. Who dedicated his book to lucifer.

  158. Sharkly says:

    I’m calling Bullshit on Maxwell’s Workout Page.

    I want to take you through the exact same principles that I practiced to go from 240 to 190 in about 12 weeks, while increasing a little bit in muscle size:

    The dude claims to have lost 50 pounds in under 3 months while gaining muscle naturally. If his body is really so naturally anabolic(to gain muscle while in such a serious calorie deficit that he was losing 17 pounds a month) all the time, he should be 400 Pounds of solid muscle five years later. However his video shows him to actually be smaller than his “after” picture from 5 years earlier. I’ve worked out off and on for close to forty years, studied exercise physiology, and what he is portraying on his workout page is not credible for a natural human male, even if it was “muscle memory”.
    I lost 40 pounds over 4 months once while working out, and eating a high protein diet and got seriously weaker and lost a lot of muscle in the process. That’s how that works for “nattys”. He was apparently hyping his book, sold on Amazon. The guy is a lying huckster! FWIW I’ll be fifty in a matter of months, and I’m more jacked than he is, and I have never used any illegal to purchase substances. Stay away from any “servant of God” who will overtly exaggerate and lie to sell his own book. He’ll lie about God’s book too. After five more years of his amazing workout plan He should be huge, and not a pencil-neck still.

  159. Sharkly says:

    On Maxwell’s 3 month miracle transition before and after photos, he has a full head of hair before, and a shaved head after, which he still has in the video from 5 years later. The dude cut a lot of weight fast and got hard and cut while gaining muscle. Made me wonder….?

    Unfortunately, many of the cutting steroids are DHT based; thus, one of the possible side effects associated with use is the possibility of hair loss.

    The preacher also appears to possibly have some little bumps on his ripped belly in the after photo. But, I’m sure those wouldn’t be injection site lesions from subcutaneous injections into his belly fat. /S

    The fitness guru pastor has also apparently lost muscle mass during the intervening years that should be the hormonal anabolic peak years of his life. Which reminds me of all the young guys at work who did steroids, screwed up their natural testosterone production, and are now on Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) already in their early thirties. He looks much thinner, almost like a “tweaker” now.
    Maybe I’m all wrong about the guy, but his claims are suspicious, and I don’t see that his life backs up him positioning himself as somebody you’d go to for health related knowledge. I’m probably more qualified to write about health topics than him. ????? I wonder how much money his books made? Perhaps I should write a book? “how I lost 100 Pounds, and got ‘yoked’ naturally, in one month, without exercise, on the junk food diet.” Find out the amazing details of my secret miracle diet exclusively in my new book. Or better yet, save your time, just mail me your money and I’ll pray a magic pastor prayer that will make you drop pounds like crazy, without reading anything.

  160. MKT says:

    @Sharkly

    I can’t say much about his diet/exercise stuff, other than I won’t get worked up about a 99 cent Kindle ebook. He’s not getting rich from it and is no informercial guru making 6 figures. I imagine his target audience (young men, pastors, etc.) who are out of shape and eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) would improve their health quite a bit following his advice, even if the claims are suspect. The performance-enhancing drug allegation is more serious, but I’m not an expert in that area. I know some older paleo-ketogenic diet gurus (Dave Asprey, Mark Sisson) take TRT and other things…so I’ve always been skeptical of their results and claims (my “Bulletproof Coffee” with oil and butter makes me RIPPED!!! Order yours today!!).

    I will say Maxwell’s material on masculinity, culture, theology and general self-improvement are extremely interesting. Apparently he’s no longer working for “Self Wire” per the comments. That’s too bad. It’s one of the best YouTube channels I’ve seen in a while. I’m glad @thedeti posted the video. I didn’t find his blog (older material) very compelling.

  161. Paul says:

    @7817 if you can’t defend your views

    Of I can and do defend my views, but I’m not spending energy on defending my intentions.

  162. Jack Russell says:

    Is it any wonder that countries like Laos are arresting and persecuting Christians. The govt. says it is a “western” religion, even though it started in the middle east. They probably use what passes for Christianity in the west as what they assume Christianity is and do not want it influencing their culture. African and hopefully most Asians who are Christians know that most of western Christianity is apostate.

  163. feeriker says:

    Is it any wonder that countries like Laos are arresting and persecuting Christians. The govt. says it is a “western” religion, even though it started in the middle east. They probably use what passes for Christianity in the west as what they assume Christianity is and do not want it influencing their culture. African and hopefully most Asians who are Christians know that most of western Christianity is apostate.

    Or, alternatively, Asia’s despotic governments recognize the Christianity taking root in their countries as the Real Deal and are as terrified of its implications as western governments would be if there were ever a revival of/reversion to the Real Thing here. If it were churchianity taking hold, they could and would easily co-opt it for their own ends. They know that they can’t do that with a genuine, New Testament Church, thus the desperate attempts to smother it in its cradle.

  164. Oscar says:

    @ Paul

    You seem to have difficulty handling non-black-and-white viewpoints .and are quick to attribute ill intent where disagreement or misunderstanding would be more appropriate. I’m not going to put my energy into that.

    Of course you refuse to deal with the actual demands that “Living Out” actually makes. That would require you to stop tilting at straw men – which is easy – and begin wrestling with actual people’s actual arguments, which is much more difficult. Imagine my surprise.

    If that’s false, then prove it. Deal with “Living Out’s” actual demands.

  165. thedeti says:

    Sharkly

    Dennis Rainey has nothing to say to me about masculinity. So I’ll stick with what guys like Paul Maxwell have to say.

  166. Sharkly says:

    Deti,
    I haven’t knowingly listened to either of them,(Dennis Rainey or Paul Maxwell) so I don’t know what they preach. I’m not trying to say one is better or worse than the other. I’m just saying Paul’s fitness empire appears to be built on exaggerated claims, and that makes me suspect everything he says, since I now doubt his integrity. Maybe its all true. But for myself I’ll have to find my information from sources I can trust. Like my Bible. I can pick up ideas anywhere, but if they are counter to God’s word, or countered by my reality, They’ll go right on out the other ear. Maxwell’s fitness claims don’t pass my reality test. I’m just curious how much money a young and reasonably fit guy can make claiming to be a fitness expert and hawking an over-sensationalized book he wrote about how he was able to get in shape at 27 Years old. LOL At 27 I ate only junk food slept odd hours worked out infrequently and had the body of a Greek god that many professional athletes would have traded me for.(lucky genetics I guess) Trying to hold onto that while I’m approaching 50 is a whole lot more of a real test of what still works when you’re not just young and in the prime of life, where everything works well even poor diet, training, and recovery.

    Likewise, the same can be said for spiritual beliefs. Most anything seems to work when it isn’t being tested too hard. It is easy to stay blissfully Blue Pill when your marriage 2.0 hasn’t nosedived into hell. However once you’ve had to fight the beast, and the throng of horned daemons who come out to slice and bleed you, you can’t go back to seeing her as a virtuous goddess and them as Christ’s holy church.

    I’m on your side Deti, and I agree with most of what you write, I’m just not going to be sold on Maxwell, or anybody who says, “I want to take you through the exact same principles that I practiced to go from 240 to 190 in about 12 weeks, while increasing a little bit in muscle size:”, and then is unable to even maintain that physique, using those same principles, in his thirties. Something doesn’t add up there.

  167. American says:

    You’re driving down hard, pedal to the metal, on a Ph.D. student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and philosophy professor at Moody Bible Institute there Sharkly. Maybe the brother isn’t a steroid injecting drug addict con artist, as you’ve insinuated, but rather a man who’s rejected heretical feminism and trying to do his best with the understanding he’s acquired in this world. Lighten up.

  168. MKT says:

    Testing…my last 2 comments didn’t show up so I’m trying another one. As the old TV announcements used to say, this is only a test…

  169. MKT says:

    @Sharkly

    I wrote a reply earlier but it must have disappeared in cyberspace. I can’t say much about Maxwell’s workout stuff, but I’m not concerned about him selling 99 cent Kindle eboooks. His audience is small and he’s no informercial fitness guy raking in 6 figures. I will say that his audience (young men and pastors) will probably do much better following his advice than eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) and not exercising.

    From glimpsing at his social media, Maxwell apppears to be a super busy guy–full-time job, married, very active Youtube channel, another Youtube fitness channel/blog/business. I’d guess he has very little time to work out right now other than some maintenance. Your performance-enhancing drug allegation is more serious, but I’m not qualified to judge that. I’m definitely skeptical of some paleo-ketogenic authors who push diets/supplements but take TRT and other things. Dave Asprey and Mark Sisson come to mind. It’s not their “Bulletproof Coffee” with added butter/oil that keeps them looking young and fit…

    I’m glad @thedeti introduced us to Maxwell, though. Fascinating YT channel on a variety of topics.

  170. feeriker says:

    You’re driving down hard, pedal to the metal, on a Ph.D. student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and philosophy professor at Moody Bible Institute there Sharkly.

    So what? A heavily credentialed fool is still a fool.

  171. American says:

    So now he’s also a fool too feeriker? Or, alternatively, someone who educated themselves at a prominent Christian university and teaches philosophy at another prominent Christian university and isn’t actually a fool (nor a steroid injecting con artist). One way the house gets divided is because of people who engage in the foolish behavior you two have shown toward this man.

  172. MKT says:

    Maxwell’s YouTube channel is very good and interesting. Unfortunately, he’s no longer working for whoever sponsored that channel per the comments. I did a little research on him. He used to write for Piper and TGC (before they went full SJW) and a pretty typical Evangelical. It seems his views have changed a lot based on recent videos.

    I can’t comment with authority on the fitness stuff, but I can’t get upset about someone selling a 99 cent Kindle Ebook with marketing that’s a bit over-the-top. It’s not like he’s a millionaire selling expensive junk on infomercials. I’m sure his target audience (young men and pastors) will be better off following his diet/fitness advice than the Standard American Diet (SAD) and sitting on a couch.

    The performance-enhancing drug charge is more serious and again, I’m not expert. I do know some paleo-ketogenic “gurus” (Dave Asprey, Mark Sisson) use stuff like TRT, so I take their advice with a grain of salt (or a drop of “BulletProof Coffee”). It’s obvious some of their youthful fitness is artificial. As for Maxwell, he appears to be extremely busy (2 YouTube channels, fitness business, full-time job, maybe still working at a seminary?). I wouldn’t be surprised if his workouts are limited and for bare-bones maintenance right now.

  173. Dalrock says:

    MKT for some reason Asksimet was flagging your comments as spam. I unspammed them all and then trashed the dupes, so hopefully it trained Askimet to let them trhough.

  174. BillyS says:

    I have heard you don’t really make much on Kindle unless you are at least at $2.99, so selling at $0.99 would argue against being a money seeker.

  175. MKT says:

    @Dalrock, Thanks.

  176. Kevin says:

    By almost every statistical measure children raised by single parents do worse. It is so socially costly that we should tax it or throw people in jail. Encouraging it via adoption is insane. It’s not Christian to wish for the destruction of your community, the lives of children. This doesn’t even address gay parents which is another issue.

  177. Kevin says:

    Let’s say I am same sex attracted and have struggled with this sin? Do I want other people putting me in situations where I am alone with same gender children or teens? This is a stupid idea even from the sincerely repentent SSA Christian – they want to avoid temptation at whatever cost so they can be chaste. They don’t want to be in compromising situations if they are repentant. Everything about these ideas is stupid.

    I have lots of compassion for people that struggle with this temptation especially in the modern world. It’s tough. But we have had celibate nuns and monks for thousands of years – there are ways to go through live celebrate and putting Gods law first. Not easy but we have a pattern for how to do it and it doesn’t involve spending alone time with other people’s children. That’s just madness made up without any respect for history.

  178. Kevin says:

    @Nova

    In surveys gay men as recently as the 1950-1960s did not claim that it was
    A fixed orientation or that they were born this way. I don’t know the history of that language but it is very recent. I last looked into this in detail a long time ago so I could
    be remembering wrong.

  179. American says:

    “Let’s say I am same sex attracted and have struggled with this sin? Do I want other people putting me in situations where I am alone with same gender children or teens?”

    Read: http://www.ruthinstitute.org/press/ruth-institute-releases-study-on-role-of-sexual-orientation-in-catholic-clerical-sex-abuse-scandal

    The Ruth Institute study shows:
    1. a disturbing recent increase in the number of sexual incidents reported since 2010.
    2. a strong correlation between the percentage of self-described homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and the incidence of sexual abuse of minors by the clergy.

    The conclusion isn’t based on some trite correlation, but rather a careful correspondence as in a relationship exists. One would think that a genuine Christian with integrity struggling with sexual sin would avoid church leadership altogether, as they are biblically unqualified for such roles, and remain simply a repentant in the church working toward sanctification. But that is not what happened in the Catholic Church.

    A powerful “gay lobby” exists today in the Catholic Church due to all the people engaged in homosexuality they put in leadership positions. An internal report on all this was handed to the previous pope (e.g. VatiLeaks) and the result was that on December 17th 2012 when the Pope received the report on “Vatican lobbies” prepared by cardinals Julián Herranz, Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and Jozef Tomko: the Pope decided to resign becoming the first in 700 years to do step down.

  180. mrteebs says:

    Singles should not be encouraged to pursue adoption or foster parenting any more than singles should be encouraged to have premarital sex. God’s design for raising children is in the context of a stable, nuclear, husband/wife family. Redefining “family” as two lesbians and a cat or a “recovering” homosexual with a “heart” for children doesn’t make it so. The world doesn’t need more self-centered Jody Fosters who want to “experience” parenthood without ever having to learn how to live peaceably with another adult and impart the balance that only two sexes can achieve. It is a form of narcissism.

    I became a godparent in a roundabout way to a boy who was conceived in-vitro by a single mother via a sperm bank. She selfishly wanted to experience motherhood, and didn’t appreciate the full ramifications that robbing her child of a father would have. The boy became best friends with my son for a season and I took both boys to church for several years and tried to be a decent role model. But the boy and his mother eventually moved halfway across the country and he is sadly a mess today. I blame the mother doubly for this. First for conceiving a child with the full intent of raising him without a father. Second, for being such a train wreck herself – always between jobs, never enough money for the essentials but plenty to rescue dogs and buy cigarettes.

  181. feeriker says:

    Second, for being such a train wreck herself – always between jobs, never enough money for the essentials but plenty to rescue dogs and buy cigarettes.

    In saner days gone by, such a woman not only would never be allowed to use a stranger’s sperm to create a child, but would have had any natural children of whom she had custody taken away from her, and maybe even have been involuntarily sterilized to ensure that she didn’t breed any more. Those days of hard patriarchy need to make a comeback. It’s the only way to prevent the formation of an entire generation of damaged boys who will become a danger to both themselves and society (and yes, this is a situation that is 95 percent women’s fault, the other five percent being the fault of the men who eagerly donate their sperm for use by anonymous unstable, selfish, irresponsible train wrecks of women).

  182. Pingback: Christian hospitality requires gay sex. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.