Saturday, August 20, 2005

Proud Wanker in Australia Writes In

Dave **** <****>

Today Dave from Australia emails:


I have read all of your articles on the Ezine list, and I was impressed. I
don't have the same sarcastic style as you, but I think we may have both
dealt with some of the same issues. I'll paste one of my longer articles
below... just for your interest (though a compliment would do wonders for my

"Wanking" by the way is Australian slang for masturbation.

Love and peace,


He then included a lengthy article on why he loves to
polish his chrome. Here is my email response, as well
as his article, spiced up with my own witty banter:

Hey Dave,

Thanks for your comments--I really do appreciate the encouragement.
And, yeah, I'm a *little* sarcastic. But hey us "Cowboy Americans"
are kinda known for that...

I thought your article stands up well and makes a hard point
(please note witty puns)...not that *I* masturbate or anything...
no, that would be wrong...

I also inserted a few comments into it below. Enjoy.

If someday I head "down under" maybe I can buy you a
Fosters. Just don't expect me to shake your hand.


PS: FYI: I am banned at now for submitting
this article:

More comments on your article inserted below...

> Wanking: The Last Taboo
> In today's permissive society there are few taboos left. Teenagers are
> educated in areas of sex that would have shocked and embarrassed many
> married couples in previous centuries. Fantasies are discussed freely; and
> films become more and more explicit. Premarital sex is virtually the norm.
> Homosexuality, S&M, group sex, wife-swapping - all can be freely discussed
> in polite society now. More concern is registered over someone making a
> value judgement against such practices than whether or not someone indulges
> in them.
> But one bastion of privacy and shame remains, and that is the subject of
> masturbation. Sperm banks in Australia suffer from a shortage of (paid)
> donors simply because the Australian male is too bashful to face a
> receptionist with evidence in his hand that he actually masturbated.

Hey! It's the solution to my carreer problem--I will just move to
Australia and work as a sperm donor.

> Some men find it painful to admit to themselves that they indulge in
> wanking, much less acknowledge such a practice to their friends or even to
> their GP.

Here in the states we have "Wanking Booths" at every public
restroom. We are proud of our openness and honesty. You
ought to come here--you'd fit right in.

Just bring your own lotion.

> Paradoxically, masturbation is despised by religious prudes and liberated
> machos alike. Prudes see it as sinful, and machos see it as a sign of
> weakness. Yet both parties practise it.
> Here is the ultimate in sexual hypocrisy. All of the arguments used against
> wowserism and double standards in every other area of sexual practice have
> overlooked the number one offender. While "self-abuse" as it used to be
> called, is practised almost universally, it is also done with almost
> universal shame.
> It is like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. We all implicitly support
> the lie that no respectable person would touch themselves "down there" when
> what we really need is for an innocent child to speak the truth and say,
> "Hey look! The emperor is playing with himself!"

I did that once--well, it wasn't The Emporer, it was at a 2003 Bush rally.
Did you know the Secret Service carries metal batons? I didn't.

> Many people have found it liberating to be able to speak freely about their
> fantasies, about their sexual preferences, and about other practices which
> were once frowned upon. But how much more liberating it would be if people
> could overcome the dictates of their biological needs when those dictates
> interfere with other goals. And that is exactly what masturbation
> represents. It is the safety valve on the sexual pressure cooker.
> Masturbation stops us from exploding in unacceptable or inappropriate ways.

Plus "Ball Explosions" can be really messy.
Kinda like cleaning up raw eggs with a paper towel.

> I spoke about this situation quite frankly with a fellow minister once, in
> an effort to get him to realise the positive side of masturbation. He
> eventually confided to me that in his youth ("Before I became a Christian,
> of course!") he had gone out on a date with a girl that he greatly
> respected. He did not want to scare her off by being too forward, so he
> stopped at a service station and went into the toilet to relieve himself in
> more ways than one. And, of course, it worked.

What worked? the bathroom, the stress relief or the...? Oh,
I get it. Nevermind.

> Yet this same minister still teaches boys in his congregation that they are
> guilty of a great sin if they indulge in masturbation. Paedophilia, incest,
> rape, homosexuality, bestiality... all these practices seem to be tolerated
> more by a church which refuses to speak the liberating truth about
> masturbation.

Yeah, I think I'll put that on the billboard out front of 1st
Baptist: "This Week's Sermon: The Liberating Truth about

> The traditional reason given for condemning masturbation within the
> Christian church is that Jesus Christ taught that it was just as bad to
> "look on a woman with lust" as it was to actually commit adultery with her.
> In other words, the thought was as bad as the action. So a teaching
> developed that thinking about sex (which obviously occurs during
> masturbation) is evil, whether you would ever actually indulge in the
> practice you are thinking about or not.

I disagree with this understanding of Jesus prohibition as well--me,
I don't think of sex. I think of spoiled produce. (Don't ask.)

> Some tried nobly to suppress all thoughts of sex, only to discover that they
> resurfaced, often in more bizarre forms than they had when first pushed
> underground. In Arab countries where women are covered from head to toe, for
> example, sexual offences still occur. And the same is true of the most
> extreme "holiness" cults.

Those Heaven's Gate guys had it right though: Castration.
That's the ticket to curbing the urge. Just create a ball-free
zone. No muss, no fuss, no masturbation.

> Covering women's bodies will not take away the God-given, biological urge to
> have sex. Nor is clothing going to stop the war that rages in the minds of
> people who feel guilty about sex thoughts. Some Amish groups have succeeded
> in stopping all forms of ejaculation for extended periods of time, only to
> develop cancer from the rotting semen inside their sex organs.

I need to use that with the wife..."You've got a headache?
Your headache is giving me ball cancer!"

> Others have taken the attitude that, if they are going to fry in hell
> anyway, they may as well get as much pleasure out of this life as they can
> before the final judgement.

Makes sense to me.

> So a rule aimed at teaching greater morality has led to greater immorality,
> both from those who have thrown it out as too hard and from those who have
> tried their hardest to follow it.

“’Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” (Paul, 1st Century Religious Philosopher)

> The mistake is that people confuse "thinking about sex" with "lust". Lust is
> actually wanting to do something that you know is wrong. There are plenty of
> people who lust these days. And it is not limited to matters pertaining to
> sex.

Can I masturbate while fantasizing about my wife? Especially that
night we watched Titanic and she had on that little…oops. The point
is this: Can we sin by having an overwhelmingly “strong desire”
(lust) for our spouse?

I don’t think so.

> Let's say, for example, that you like pizza. You don't feel guilty about
> this do you? But if the only way you can get one is to steal it from your
> neighbour, then fulfilling your desire could mean doing something that you
> know is wrong (i.e. stealing). You can desire the pizza all you want, and
> even (if you like, for the fun of it) fantasise about stealing it; but if
> the bottom line is that you would not actually do it (because you know it is
> wrong), then you have not sinned.

You didn’t mention what KIND of pizza. I don’t like olives. If
The pizza has olives, I’m not going to lust after it.

Pepperoni and sausage? Now you’re talking’

> But if you would steal it if you could get away with it, and if you held
> back simply because you were afraid of being caught, then you are
> spiritually guilty of the act (robbery) whether or not you ever got up
> enough courage to actually do it. You have "lusted" for the pizza, by
> wanting it more than you want to do what is right. But the pizza (i.e. the
> thing you desired) is not wrong in itself.

Too much logical thought. Brain hurts. Must take

> Applying this to sex, the sin is not in desiring sex (since that is as
> universal as the desire for food), nor is it in fantasising about sex. The
> sin is in wanting to actually perform a sexual act that you know is wrong,
> and then refraining from doing it only out of fear about what people would
> think of you or what they would do to you if they found out.
> Being turned on by a rape scene in a movie (or a detailed description of one
> in a book) is not the same as actually wanting to rape someone. And if you
> felt the scene was tempting you to rape someone, then masturbating as a
> result of the fantasy turn-on is the best way to overcome the temptation and
> to stop yourself from indulging in the action in real life.

My, you must be one busy guy, Dave.

> Masturbation is the universally legitimate way to satisfy your sexual
> appetite without indulging in something else which may not be legitimate. If
> there was more masturbation, there would be a lot less incest, fewer rapes,
> less infidelity in marriage, etc.

What a great support group: Rubs for Rapists. The slogan
could be: “You Don’t Need Incarceration, Just a Hand”

> Instead of trying to stop people from masturbating, the church should be
> encouraging them to do so, thus leaving them free to choose (without the
> overriding pressure of sperm build-up) not to do those things that God has
> forbidden.

I agree, but wouldn’t that make the pews all sticky?

> Much of this has relevance to females as well. Many marriages would be
> happier if wives weren't so riddled with feelings of guilt about their own
> need for sex.
> There is a popular myth that people cannot live without sex, and it suggests
> that God is unreasonable to expect people to remain faithful in marriage,
> chaste outside of marriage, and single if the first marriage fails. But
> people can live without engaging in sex with another person; and to do so
> does not require some impossible level of discipline.

OK, here you’re wrong. Maybe YOU can live without sex,
I can’t. Plus, I lost both hands in a freak slide rule accident
as a child.

> Living without ejaculation is, however, a different story. And because the
> church has fostered the myth that people can, through sheer willpower,
> become asexual, it must take some responsibility for the sexual
> permissiveness, high incidence of divorce and remarriage, and the backlash
> against God that has resulted from this lie in today's world.

All kidding aside, I believe the subconscious goal of
much of the institutional church is creating the
asexual male. Get rid of masculinity and you will
ultimately rid yourself of all those ugly man problems.

> In conclusion, we should ask ourselves: Was Jesus fully human? If so, did he
> have wet dreams? (For if you don't masturbate, then sooner or later, the
> semen will come out through "nocturnal emissions".) And if this happened to
> Jesus, would he have had thoughts about sex at the moment of ejaculation?
> The obvious answer is Yes. For ejaculation itself is sex. And if Jesus was
> without sin, then thoughts about sex (and ejaculations outside of marriage)
> must not be any more sinful than eating or going to the toilet. It is only
> cultural brainwashing that has taught us otherwise.

Did you really just mention Jesus’, um, man juice? What are
you, some kind of religious CSI?

Of course it does make the whole idea of “relics” more
interesting: “The True Cross,” “The Spear of Destiny,”
“The Holy Grail,” “The Shroud of Turin” and the
“Nocturnal Emission.” Imagine the testimonies of the

“I came here with one leg shorter than the other. I
touched the vial and my short leg grew six inches.”

Or even better:

“I was barren and nine months after I visited ‘Our
Lady of the Holy Ejaculate’ I had a child.”

> As a sexually frustrated, religiously uptight youth I used to look forward
> to wet dreams, because it was the one time when I was free to indulge in
> activities and thoughts which were forbidden to me in the daytime. And yet
> even these were marred by the fear that the dream might not be just a dream.
> How much better to consciously choose to fantasise (and masturbate) while
> awake. For me, this became a guilt-free option only when I discovered that
> there was absolutely nothing forbidding it in scripture.

Yeah, this one had always puzzled me too. God takes time
to lay out the details of bestiality as well as punishments for
same, but He couldn’t take a line or two to say “Stop Touching
Yourself There!”

> One of the cleverest ways the church has ever found to control the masses
> has been to make masturbation a sin. The consequence has been that the most
> dishonest (i.e. the ones who try to give the impression that they don't
> masturbate) are looked on as being the most holy, while more honest
> believers are made to feel guilty and in need of absolution from the
> hypocrites.

Your theory, in a nutshell: The Church controls the masses through
keeping them horny then refusing to give them a hand.

> Anyone interested in a genuine revival of sexual morality and sincere faith
> should consider the possibility that the first step in that direction might
> be to enlighten the masses to their right (and perhaps even their
> responsibility) to masturbate.
> At the same time, those who suffer from guilt because of the secular myth
> that real men don't wank need to stand up to that lie as well. The result
> will be a happier, healthier society.

I feel better already. Now I need a cigarette.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Clergy Molestation: When Evil Stops Being News

This week another Catholic official—this time in Maui—was arrested for sexually assaulting a young boy, the latest of hundreds of such arrests nationwide in the “Priestofeelya” scandal.

James “Ron” Gonsalves of Wailuku is charged with 32 counts of first-degree sexual assault and 30 counts of third-degree sexual assault.

That puts him up there with the “greats” of molesting priests—62 counts, he must have had a very busy “ministry.”

But here’s the distressing part of this story: It only made the news in Hawaii.

So many priests have molested so many children it has stopped being news. The Pope gets a pass. Once you hit 100 priestly pervs and over $1 billion in settlements, it gets boring.

Same thing happened to Caligula—at some point nothing impresses any more.

“Yeah, we’ve heard that before, the Catholics got problems, now where’s that sports section?”

Maybe that’s the best gauge of how pervasive the “Priestofeelya” scandal really is. It’s just not news any more. Not to the press, not to the Vatican.

Funny, the only people who still seem to care are the victims. C’mon, get over it.

Jessica Simpson Dukes of Hazard Video Controversy and Rev. Joe

Since its release, Jessica Simpson’s new “These Boots Were Made for Walkin’” video has been criticized by Christians as being “too sexy.”

Thankfully, that is not the case.

How do I know? Because Jessica’s manager wouldn’t let her do something obscene, exploiting her body for financial gain. He wouldn’t do that because not only is he her manager, he’s her father, ordained Baptist minister Joe Simpson.

To prove his oversight is keeping her from sexual exploitation, the Simpson camp released the unedited tape of the video shoot. You can clearly see the Most Reverend Joseph Simpson is directing his daughter to make sure her performance was consistent with his deeply held Baptist refined values:

Rev. Joe: Jesse, now what I want you to do at this point is turn your back toward Willie.

Jesse: You mean like this? [Jessica turns away from Willie Nelson]

Rev. Joe: Yeah, honey, only move closer…



Jesse: But, dad, I’m like right up against him.

Rev. Joe: I know honey, it’s OK. Now bend over…

Jesse: But I will have my butt right up against his, um, you know…

Rev. Joe: I know, now rub your generous Christian booty up and down against Willie. There you go. Yeah. That’s it. You know how Daddy likes it…

Willie: [Removing his hat and wiping sweat from his forehead] Thanks honey, here’s a $50.

Obviously Pastor Simpson is watching out for his daughter’s spiritual health as well as her career.

Or did he sell his soul for 15% of her Double-D income?

“You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral....What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” – I Corinthians 5:11-12

Jessica Simpson takes off her clothes and dances suggestively for men’s sexual arousal. No Jessica, you’re not a Christian.

I’m not convinced your father is either.

Can I get a hand clap?

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Ministry Idea: How to Stop Pre-Marital Sex

Jesus had balls.

I mean that literally—he was a guy—but also figuratively. Think about it: He stormed into a temple full of people selling their over-priced bulls, doves and Gospel CD’s at the table in the Lobby and opened up a can of whip-Jew on their booties.

Gotta love that. He went medieval on them before “going medieval” even meant anything.

I would have loved to see Jesus in a cage match. That’s great pay-per-view.

I wonder if today’s ministers could tap into some Holy-Spirit-inspired testosterone? I wonder if being filled with the Spirit could be like spiritual steroids, allowing those pudgy purveyors of truth to build some spiritual pecs? Like Arnold with less groping and more scriptural support.

If you’re one of those “pumping Bible” kinds of ministers, this is for you.

I am going to give you a quick way to stop people in your church from having pre-marital sex—or at least to stop many of them. Before I give you this wonderful solution I need you to consider what’s been tried before:

To stop people from sleeping with each other outside of marriage preachers have tried preaching, abstinence campaigns, movies and seminars. Still little Christian girls and boys continue to rub their naughty parts together.

So here’s the solution—be ready it won’t be easy:

Stop marrying people who aren’t virgins or widows (widowers.)

You see, these folks may not love Jesus enough to abstain, but they still want a church wedding. And they want you to perform it. If you refuse to do the wedding, lots of people will be miffed.

You might get fired (this is where the balls come in handy.)

How will you know whether or not they are virgins? You could ask for a medical exam, but most people would find that a little invasive. Here’s what I propose: Ask them.

Ask them, “Are you both virgins?” If they say yes, then we’re good to go. If not, then simply tell them you only marry virgins. And by the way, “recycled virgins” don’t count.

You might get sued.

What if they lie? If they lie, and you know they are lying, refuse to perform the ceremony. How will you know if they are lying?

If they live together, they’re having sex. If she’s pregnant, they’re having sex. If she’s been on the pill for a year, they’re having sex.

This ain’t advanced hermeneutics Augustine.

Some may protest saying you are denying them marriage. But you’re not. They can go down to the civil authority and for $8 they can get their license AND be married.

No muss, no fuss.

Imagine the impact of all the ministers in just one town agreeing not to marry non-virgins. It would make the national news. It would change the town.

They’d probably all get crucified.

Yup, Jesus sure had some huge brass knockers, that’s for sure.

Single Moms: Stop Abusing Your Kids and Saying You Love Them

Women, try this recipe for happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids:

1. Become a person of Character
2. Carefully choose and court a man of Character
3. Get married
4. Have sex
5. Have children
6. Stay married for the rest of your lives

As opposed to what normally happens today:

1. Meet an attractive person
2. Date
3. Have sex (but not before the 3rd date—that would be slutty)
4. Move in together
5. Break up and move out
6. Repeat steps 1-3 at least 8 times, 1-5 at least twice.
7. Finally meet “Mr. Right”
8. Have sex. Lots of sex.
9. Move in together.
10. Get married so you can have kids
11. Have a kid, maybe two
12. Realize you have married a no-good bum and divorce
13. Work lots of hours at Wal-Mart trying to support your children
14. Complain openly and often about the plight of single moms, prompting your friends to give you tons of self-indulgent pity.
15. Have sex. Lots of sex.
16. Visit your grown children Sunday’s at the prison

Which list above most closely represents your life so far?

The best way to love your kids is to choose a man of character to be their father, then stay married to that man for the rest of your life.

Already screwed that up? Let’s think this through. Here’s a multiple choice question for any single mom:

I am a single mom because (choose one):

A. My husband died an untimely death
B. I was raped and decided to keep the baby.
C. I am a whore—I slept with someone I wasn’t married to and got pregnant. While that doesn’t mean my kid isn’t valuable, it does make me a whore.
D. I divorced my husband—I chose badly and didn’t get what I wanted from the relationship so I selfishly chose divorce over marriage.
E. My husband divorced me—I failed to prove my worth to him as a wife.

You see, there really aren’t too many options.

And if you had to choose something other than “A” or “B”, you’re a pretty selfish piece of work.

So, that addresses your past, but what about now? What about your current situation? What can you do to make your children’s life better?

Repent of your selfishness.

Then marry a man of character.

How do you find a man of character? First you have to be a person of real character yourself. Develop your own character. High quality men tend to marry high quality women.

Become a woman of character and a man of character will find you.

The second thing ought to go without saying. It should, but we have so perverted our culture it probably won’t. So here goes:

Stop having sex.

Don’t sleep with anyone you’re not married to.

You will be amazed how many more men of character will be attracted to you when they find you aren’t a whore. Whore’s are a dime a dozen—even at church. Just about any guy can get some extra-marital excitement with a little effort. Worthless guys won’t have anything to do with you if you aren’t a whore. Worthwhile guys won’t have anything to do with you if you are.

So, mom, you want to say you love your kids? Give them a father of character.

Joyce Meyer Supporters Can Go to Hell

I don’t mean to curse—I’m not being harsh, it’s just a statement of fact.

The Most Reverend Mrs. Meyer is a great promoter, a charismatic speaker (and, no, I don’t mean she delivers her sermons in tongues), and a multi-millionaire.

After years at a $900,000 personal salary (not including $450K annually to David, Meyer’s stay-at-home cuckolded husband), Meyer has been able to attain a luxurious, self-indulgent lifestyle.*

Just imagine being the butch-voiced harbinger of prosperity theology:

You awake in one of your three mansions—paid for at a cost of over $3 million by your loving supporters. You don the latest in designer clothes and are whisked off to the airport by a ministry provided pink limousine to your awaiting ministry-provided personal jet.

Nothing but the best for the Oprah of Faith.

And, after all, why doesn’t she deserve the money? She’s been telling her supporters for years she was living a lavish lifestyle and they should too.

What she failed to tell them was how THEY could receive the $70 million in annual donations Meyer receives.

Like the classic ponzi scheme, Joyce Meyer advocates giving sacrificially to her “ministry.” Where does the money go? To get on more television stations to make more money to get on more television stations to make more money to get on…you get the picture.

Why give? Simple: “Give my ministry $1,000 and God will bring the Hundredfold Return.” $1,000 becomes a $100,000 check from Almighty God’s banker.

I think his name is Hershel. Of course, he’s Jewish.

Gee, that means each year the $70 million given to the “ministry” must result each year in the production of $7 BILLION in wealth for the givers. Lucky devils. It’s like knowing the lottery numbers in advance.

Sign me up.

So why am I not taking Meyer to task? Why is this article pointed at her supporters?

Simple: You’re the problem.

Supporters of Meyer and her kind (Hinn, Copeland, et. al.) simply exploit the basest of human lusts: Greed.

Why do you give to Meyer? You want to get rich. You want to control God. You want to BE Joyce Meyer. Instead of feeling nausea when she claims “The Holy Spirit’s gonna preach today” followed by her pabulum drivel, you’re excited.

How will she help me manipulate God today?

And when she tells you to reach for your pocket book, you do so willingly. You are a willing participant in propagating her malicious gospel of hedonism.

Without financing, she has no Brenda-Vaccaro-ish voice.

But you are not alone in propagating her filth. Radio stations, television stations and bookstores are to blame as well.

Give time and space to Meyer and you are doing more than just making money—you are promoting deception in God’s Kingdom.

So you can go to hell, too.

The other day I was walking through Wal-Mart’s book isle (not sure why we need Wal-Mart to sell books, but interestingly enough they do.) There, on the shelf, was a book entitled “Things that Steal Your Joy.” On the cover was a huge head-shot of Joyce Meyer.

My only thought was, “How could they know?”

(* )

An Open Letter to Pope Benedict

Dear Ratzy,

I have a good solution to the clergy abuse scandal rocking your church.

Give them professional level sexual satisfaction for free.

It wouldn’t have to be a big deal, just hire a few monastic courtesans, skilled in the art of priestly fulfillment. You would only need one for every 20 or so priests, along with a nice little “confessional” complete with glory hole.

You could create a liturgy for the sessions and it could begin something like this:

“Release me Sister for I am tense. It has been four days since my last emanation.”

Sister Candi could then assign the proper penance.

I’ve even thought through the financial aspects of this.

The Great Cincinnati Archdiocese alone just paid a $120 million settlement to abuse victims. Since there are about 500 priests in the Cincinnati area, that works out to $240,000 per priest.

Ouch! Hope those relics do well at Christy’s.

My solution would be much more economical—25 or so “servants” at $50,000 per year each would only take up $1.25 million per year—less than the interest on the $120 mil you just forked over.

Consider how much this would help the church.

I’m sure you will have some argue this is sin. Well, isn’t that why you invented the indulgence? You’ve got the power, use it! You’re the guy with the scepter.

Or you could try a second option:


The choice is yours, O Vicar of Christ.

The Pope Hates Potter—Both of Them

This month a court in Burlington, Kentucky issued the largest settlement to date against the Catholic Church in the “Priestofeelya” scandal.

Judge John Potter ruled in favor of the victims against the church to the tune of $120 million dollars (place pinky to corner of mouth.)

On such an infamous and history making day, there was little doubt the Vatican would issue a statement. That’s why no one was particularly surprised when Pope Benedict came out using the strongest language from the Vatican in some time denouncing Potter.

Harry Potter.

OK, in his defense, the guy with the Big White Hat is rather age-ed. Already beat the “three score and ten” often quoted from the Psalms. Possibly he meant to denounce JOHN Potter and simply had a senior moment. Certainly the Vatican did not allow this precedent setting commentary on their policies go without comment.

I guess the “Holy See” just doesn’t “see” it. (Clever pun quota met for today.)

According to Ratzinger, reading about some four-eyed-son-of-a-witch is much more harmful than a confessional fondling by Father Nutsinhander. Surely these youngsters were asking to be fondled, what with their bambi-like eyes, impish naiveté and round buttocks, playfully hidden beneath the folds of an alter-boy dress.

What sexually repressed, hard on in a penguin suit could resist asking them to visit his Rectory?

Catholics should begin addressing the real source of the sexual abuse scandal—stop reporting abuse. It worked for 50 years, it will work for 50 more.

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Heroic Battle Between the Forces of Good and the Demon of Anti-Access

Saturday I was hangin’ ten on my Dell when I ran across a Christian Forum. Not just any Christian forum, THE Christian Forum. How did I know? It said so:

I looked at a couple of the posts and thought it might be cool to sing a few lines of “Pass It On” while holding cyber-hands with my bros around the warm glow of a CRT. Just like camp.

Kinda made me misty…

So I checked out the registration and applied. Being the self-promoter I am, I chose “WhoreChurchcom” as my user name. Couple of extra visitors can’t hurt, huh?

So I hit submit expecting to be ushered into the stained glass chat rooms of cyberdom.

Drats! they have to approve me first. Just when I was ready to test my speedy typing skills.

My hunger for fellowship still burning in my gut, I fire up Google and search for “Christian Forums”. Sure ‘nuff, there’s quite a few out there. I settled on one and clicked.

With blazing T1 speed, I was propelled to the hallowed halls of

I quickly located the registration form and entered my information. With no little amount of anxiety I hit “submit”, hoping against all hope that no moderator had to approve my admission, denying me precious moments of blessed fellowship.

Hallelujah! All I had to do was confirm my email address and I was in! A few moments and I was there: In The Cyber Cathedral with Hundreds, nay Millions of my Fellows.

A topic caught my eye: “Walking in Truth.” I read with great anticipation my Brother’s thoughtful post. Did I have a word of encouragement? Correction? Addition? My fingers, Matrix-like, became a blur over the keyboard. First one post, then two.

I was in the Holy-Spirit-Helpin’-Zone.

Within a few moments I had helped five of my fellow pilgrims. Spent, I collapsed in my chair. Emotionally drained yet strangely fulfilled. I was a part of The Body.

Needing sustenance, I used the last of my strength to stumble to the refrigerator where I passed out. I heard an angel saying, “Get up, the journey is too much for you,” placing a Diet Coke in my weakened hand and one of my wife’s oatmeal cookies in my mouth.

Strengthened by the Angel Food, I returned to my chair. Had another caring soul responded to my posts? Is there a word of encouragement for me? A “Thank You” from someone whom I just saved from a life of error?

Access Denied.

What? Certainly this is a glitch. I tried logging in again…Access Denied. Possibly this must be a Demonic Attack spawned of the Evil One. Access Denied. Fowl Spawn from Earth’s Bowels, I will not be defeated! You will not deny me access!

I logged in again. Again the screen taunted me: Access Denied. Demon of Anti-Access I rebuke you in the Name of Jesus!

Still the 17” Diagonal Imp taunted me: Access Denied!

Wait! How silly of me. Certainly in my euphoric fatigue I had forgotten the password. This was no demon, it was simply my humanity.

I clicked over to email—and that’s when it happened. No, it cannot be. But yes, it had.

Ben, Moderator of the Cross-Walk, notified me. I had violated rule 20 and been banned from the forum.

Rule 20? Had I in my human weakness progressed far beyond the 10 Commandments and transgressed not rule 11 or even rule 18, but the hallowed “Rule 20”.

Crushed I wandered into bed. “Been having fun on the computer, honey?” my wife inquired. Without reply I rolled over and sobbed myself to sleep.

Sunday, July 17, 2005


Using a name like is certainly offensive. It’s also fully Biblical.

Right now there is a war raging—it’s the same war that has been raging for 2,000 years. The war is between the One True Church and the Pretender Church.

Everyone who is a Christian is a part of the One True Church, no matter what building they choose to meet with others. These people love Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. They love one another.

The Pretender Church is everyone who claims to be a part of the True Church, but in reality are not Christians. Since many of them believe they ARE Christians, these folks are sometimes hard to weed out.

In Revelation God calls this “Pretender Church” the “Whore of Babylon” (see Revelation 17.)

Jesus gave us a great way to get rid of the non-Believers who seemingly follow Him—offend them. This is what He was trying to accomplish in John 6.

The chapter opens with Jesus feeding 5,000 people. Then He walks on water. I don’t know about you, but I’d pay real money to see that.

That’s better than Copperfield’s Vegas show any day.

But that’s the problem: Following Jesus around was entertaining. And it was free—or relatively so. Lots of people came to see the show. By all outward appearances they were believers—people who followed Jesus around to see what color rabbit came out of his toga next.

So He did something almost no one today is willing to do: He told the so-called followers something completely offensive:

“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’” (John 6:53-54, NIV)

Now in our modern-day, heard about Jesus already world, we think “Hey, Jesus is speaking figuratively.” But His listeners at the time didn’t think so—they thought he had gone all “Jim Jones Kool-Aid” on them.

So they all left.

At least almost all of them. There were just a few left. Scholars don’t have a specific number, but we know “The Dirty Dozen” stuck around. Why did they stay? Peter summarized it in verses 68-69:

“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’"

They didn’t get the whole cannibalism thing, but they KNEW, TRUSTED and BELIEVED in Jesus. They just followed.—Biblical and offensive. Knee jerk posers will leave in a huff. A few real Christians will hang around and talk. They may not agree with me, but at least we can sharpen one another. I’m still pretty dull.

Hey, that works on two levels!

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Occult Christians: The New Face of the Occult

Occult tricks, spells and methods are the newest rage—and you’re likely to encounter them at your local church.

In traditional occult practices it works something like this:

You want to get rich, I give you an incantation to repeat day after day to bring wealth to you.

Wonder about your future? Go to a séance and ask.

In today’s Christianity the incantation is replaced by “the prayer of Jabez.” The séance with a “personal prophecy” session.

New wrapper, same old occult practices.

“Now wait a minute,” someone will argue, “prayer is encouraged in the Bible. Heck the prayer of Jabez is right out of the scripture. And didn’t people in the Bible get personal prophecy?”

Well, let’s consider those points.

While the prayer of Jabez is recorded in I Chronicles 4:10, it was never a best seller, oft repeated by millions of Jabez’ followers. In fact, it appears to have been the single cry of Jabez’ heart, once, to God and God honored that prayer.

The problem is not with the fact of Jabez prayer, it’s the contemporary implementation—as a magic incantation to bring you anything you want in life. It’s as if we are treated God like some impersonal, unconscious force able to be manipulated by repeating sounds over and over again.

That doesn’t sound much like a loving, personal father. A father who loves His children.

“My Friends all Prayed the Prayer of Jabez and All I Got was this Lousy T-Shirt.”

Personal prophecy goes down the same path.

For the uninitiated, “personal prophecy” grew out of the prophetic movement among neo-charismatic and Pentecostals. Basically an individual makes an appointment with a “prophet,” they get together, the prophet goes into a trance-like, uh, I mean “prayerful” state and “hears from God” personal messages just for the individual.

While I’m sure there’s no set fee schedule, I suspect there’s an opportunity to “donate” to the prophet’s “ministry as well.

No question that God has done the personal prophecy gig. In the Old Testament we have several instances where God sent one of the Hair Shirt brethren to a king or someone else important to God’s purposes.

But that’s the real difference, isn’t it? God did the initiating and speaking, we just do the listening.

Personal prophecy works on three assumptions:

1. God has something to tell me.
2. God won’t or can’t tell me directly, nor has He even told me He has a message for me.
3. God wants me to find the “Prophet” and “The Prophet” will give me the insight from God.

This is the exact opposite of God’s word:

“As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” – I John 2:27

I think both of these practices spring from a basic lack of faith. We simply don’t think God is either willing or able to bless us in our present state. He can’t speak to us. His will is somehow hidden and obscure.

Incantations put us in control. We can control whether or not we are blessed. Personal prophecy is the same way: We want a word from God and we want it now.

If that’s the god you worship, you can keep him.

John Paul II a Saint? Not by God’s Definition

Pope John Paul is dead and awaiting hell. There, I’ve said it. Someone had to.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think John Paul was secretly fondling young boys or bathing in pig’s blood.

From all I understand, the Big-P was a caring, loving, self-sacrificing, passionate-for-his-faith-kind-of-guy. It seems everybody loved him.

He’s still waiting his place in line for the pitch-fork brigade.

I’m not an anti-catholic bigot, nor do I have a problem with pointy white hats. And I really don’t care if the Catholics want to make John Paul their Exalted Saint Poobah. They can even do it using the express lane. 10 halos or less, no waiting.

That doesn’t concern me.

What concerns me is the response of protestant leaders following his death. Here are some of the quotes left after his passing:

"He was truly one of those rare individuals whose legacy will endure long after he has gone."
Evangelist Billy Graham

"John Paul II has been the most beloved religious leader of our age….[He] brought together all Christians in new bonds of understanding."
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson

"I think history will record Pope John Paul II as one of the most significant, historic figures of the 20th century."
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

"His major legacy to Christians…was the pope's commitment to the incarnate Jesus Christ."
The Rev. Robert Schuller, pastor of the Crystal Cathedral and host of the "Hour of Power" television program

"His vision, his determination, and his loving spirit will be missed by Christians around the world."
Chuck Colson, founder and president of Prison Fellowship

"John Paul II presented evangelicals with a pope in whom we found amazing ground of agreement…we have great admiration for the man."
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary


Did you notice something about the quotes? They all come from well-known evangelical leaders. People you would think understand the faith that brings salvation.

Yet all of them have seemed to miss something—the Pope was a great guy, a great statesman, a caring, compassionate leader, but he wasn’t a Christian.

Wouldn’t you think Billy Graham would have caught that little fact?

Either by intention or accident, the Catholic Church has perpetrated a tremendous shift in protestant Christianity over the last 60 years. While Catholic theology of salvation has not changed, mainline protestant leaders have seemingly lost sight of their own theology.

In Catholic teaching salvation comes through the sacraments of the church and the works of man. The grace of Jesus Christ and Mary, the Mother of God, are extended to individuals through these means. The sacraments of the church include baptism, the Eucharist and confession.


The Pope not only accepted these beliefs, he sought to advance them, even worshipping Mary at the 150th anniversary of the introduction of the dogma of the immaculate conception [of Mary] (

Certainly a theologian like President Mohler would have seen this as apostacy?

But, alas, either in a desire to accommodate the current culture or because they truly believe that John Paul was a Christian, no one seems to speak the truth.

Saying the Pope isn’t saved today is like calling a black person “the n word.” “You bigot. Catholics are good people, how dare you be so prejudiced.”

I agree. Catholics, most notably the late-great JP2, ARE good people. So are Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Muslims and not a few Scientologists.

They just aren’t going to heaven.

The evangelical movement has been seduced into a subtle yet profound change in salvation theology. So subtle it has gone almost unnoticed—though the impact is massive. The protestant church has accepted “Profession Christianity.”

Profession Christianity works like this: If someone says they are a Christian, you take their word for it. Especially if they publicly act in a moral and upright manner.

So if the Pope says he is a Christian, case closed. He must be. No tough questions about his theology.

The effect of watered-down Christianity is so overwhelming many people now also accept another one-dimensional definition: Testimony Christianity.

In the 50’s your “Christian testimony” was not what you SAID about your faith, it was how you lived. So, if you had a testimony it meant you lived a good moral life. Today living a good moral life (at least as far as anyone can see) means you MUST be a Christian.

But neither of those represent a Biblical definition of Christianity. The Bible is pretty clear (here’s the Reader’s Digest version—don’t write me with some 20 page correction, that’s not the point of this article):

One must trust Jesus Christ alone for their salvation (Acts 4:12). Then, through Spirit enabled obedience to Christ, that person will grow in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control (Galatians 5:22).

They have a profession (“I’m trusting Jesus Christ alone for my salvation”) as well as a testimony (“My life is growing in the fruit of the Holy Spirit.”) If someone is trusting in someone other than Jesus Christ—even their own works—then they aren’t saved no matter how moral and self-sacrificing they are. (Think Mother Teresa mining Satan’s coal.)

At the same time, someone who says they are trusting in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation but still treats their wife like muck isn’t a Christian either.

The Catholic system is fatally flawed. There may be some Christians in the Catholic church—those people who have grasped the few good things and avoided the confessional, the rosary and the so-called “grace of Mary”—but Popes and priests are pretty much out to lunch.

So, Pope John Paul II may be made a saint by his church, but he’ll never be one.

Me? I already am.

God Billboards: Are the Billboard God Messages Really from God?

God Billboards are popping up everywhere. You’ve seen them along the highway—black background, huge white letters: Billboard with messages signed by God.

God has quite a PR team—in addition to Fox News, He is putting out quite a collection of humorous, thought provoking quotes, each on a huge billboard. God messages plus Madison Avenue, or in this case the Outdoor Advertising Association of America.

But I wonder. Does God feel a little awkward about some of the quotes? Here is a sampling:

“One nation under me.” – God
“The real Supreme Court meets up Here.” – God
“Loved the wedding. Invite me to the marriage.” – God

It appears God voted Republican.

OK, that wasn’t an honest representation of the messages—they’re not all conservative political statements. Here is a wider sampling:

“It’s a small world. I know, I made it.” - God
“Life is Short. Eternity isn’t.” – God
“What part of ‘Thou Shalt Not’ don’t you understand?” – God
“If you must curse, use your own name.” – God
“Feeling Lost? My Book is Your Map.” – God
“As my apprentice, you’re never fired” – God
“All I know is…everything.” – God
“Don’t make me come down there.” – God
“C’mon over and bring the kids.” – God
“You think it’s hot here?” – God
“That ‘love thy neighbor’ thing I meant that.” – God
“Keep using my name in vain, I’ll make rush hour longer.” – God
“Do you have any idea where you are going?” – God
“Need directions?” – God
“Big Bang Theory? You’ve got to be kidding.” – God
“Tell the kids I love them.” – God
“Let’s meet at my house before the game Sunday.” – God
“We need to talk.” – God
“Will the road you are on get you to my house?” – God
“Have you read my #1 best seller? There will be a test.” – God
“Feeling lost? My book is your map.” – God
“Need a marriage counselor? I’m available” – God

Cute, witty, thought provoking.

There’s only one problem: God didn’t say any of these things. At least, not in the Bible.

Just to make sure I checked all of the above supposed “quotes” against an online searchable Bible. After hundreds of hours of research and fact checking, I could come up with only ONE billboard quote that God—or Jesus—uttered:

“Follow me.” – God

(Jesus quoted in Matthew 9:9 for instance. The phrase also appears in one context or another in a total of 10 places.)

Maybe the OAAA isn’t trying to represent the Bible God, maybe they intended to quote some other God. I checked on the campaign’s website: It describes the goal and reasoning behind the 10,000 billboard-wide campaign. Following the attacks of 9/11:

"the donor behind the original campaign decided to develop a new campaign—complete with new sayings—based on the same God as the first campaign, the God of the Bible."
( website.)

OK, so “the anonymous donor” sees this as a campaign promoting the God of the Bible.

I must have missed something. Does this guy really think it’s a good idea to mis-quote God? Won’t God sue? Libel or something? Imagine doing this to anyone else:

“I love killing Muslims” – George W. Bush
“Bill has no balls” – Hillary Clinton
“McDonald’s Big Mac is Delicious” – Ghandi
“Monica has more suction than Hoover” – Bill Clinton

No way you could get away with it.

The Bible has some 1,200 chapters. Couldn’t they come up with just fifteen or twenty pertinent quotes?

I guess not. They do provide a “scripture support” for each of their quotes, but they don’t actually USE the scripture.

Well, if they are going to put words in God’s mouth, here are some I would suggest, followed by the “scriptural support” verse:

“Taking Down Saddam was my idea.” – God, Romans 13:1

“Beauty: I made the mountains, the seas and Jessica Simpson’s Breasts. Enjoy.” – God, Genesis 1; Proverbs 5:19

“I did not have sex with that woman” – God, Isaiah 7:14

“Get circumcised and I will have nothing to do with you.” – God, Galatians 5:2

Some of you are thinking right now that I shouldn’t be writing these things—let alone putting them out for public consumption. I think you’re right. But if the writer of the original billboards can do it, why can’t I?

The reason this shouldn’t be done is simple: We shouldn’t take the name of God in vain.
(I checked, it’s one of the commandments.)

When we blithely stick God’s moniker on any quote we choose to make up, we not only muddy the water of a real picture of God, we also treat Him with a contempt we would never attempt with any human being.

The author of the quotes would argue his good intention. He would likely point to the good the billboards are doing for ‘merica. And in his defense, the web site attempts to recruit people into the Kingdom of God through compelling testimonies and a “Campus Crusade-like” do it yourself “How to Become a Christian” assembly manual.

But here’s the real problem: The “god billboard” quotes easily picture a god very different from the God of the Bible.

The billboards with messages signed by god picture the current god of the western world—he’s our spiritual buddy, a guy we can have over to watch Nascar. Like pop-psychology, he doesn’t do much judging, but encourages us in our spiritual walk using humor. It’s the same god being pushed today by the church growth movement—the “least common denominator” god. Instead of the Light of God we have “god lite”.

Tastes great. Less filling. (Literally.)

If I might suggest just one more quote from God, it would be this one sent out to the god “marketing” people behind the god billboards:

“Get your hands off me you damn, dirty ape!” – God

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Christian Leaders: Nazi or Mass Murderer? A Fun Who’s Who Quiz

Figure out which Christian Leader goes with which description …

A. Billy Graham – World Renowned Evangelist
B. Pat Robertson – Televangelist, Founder of Several Conservative Christian Political Groups, Founder and President of Regent University
C. Charles Stanley – Televangelist, Pastor of one of Atlanta’s largest churches and one of the world’s largest Southern Baptist churches
D. John Calvin – Theologian and Christian leader and writer. Credited with helping advance and empower the Christian reformation.
E. Tim LaHaye – Co-Author of the 50 million copy selling “Left Behind” series. Husband of Beverley LaHaye, founder of Concerned Women for America
F. Jerry Falwell – Pastor of Liberty Road Baptist Church, Founder of the Moral Majority, Chancellor of Liberty University.

1. Was a mass murdering despot who tortured and beheaded those who disagreed with his theology. He condemned 58 people to death. When asked about one detractor possibly coming to the town he ruled, he replied: "If he comes here…I will never let him leave the place alive."

2. Said of pornographer and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt: "He is a warm-hearted, very talented and very generous person whom I believe has much to offer the world."

3. Refused to grant his wife a divorce for several years since he does not allow divorced individuals to serve in positions of leadership in his church. He also said that if he ever got divorced he would step down from his ministry. When his wife finally was granted a divorce (after 7 years of attempting), he refused to step down and continues to pastor the church today.

4. Accepted a $10,000 donation to his ministry from cult leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who claims to be the Messiah. He later served on a board for Moon’s political action committee.

5. Was audio taped saying how the “satanic Jews” were responsible for many problems in the United States including pornography. He is recorded as saying the United States must throw off the stranglehold of the Jews or the country will go down the drain. When the tapes came to light in 2002, he at first denied ever making the comments, then later issued a four sentence apology when it became obvious the documentation was unimpeachable.

6. Regularly used planes donated for a Christian humanitarian project to haul equipment for his private, for profit diamond mine operation. Once an audit and investigation was launched he “repaid” over $400,000 to cover the costs. Auditors expressed serious concern about how he mingled funds between for profit and non-profit activities and over his close relationship with an African dictator.

Click Here for Answers

Quiz Answers


1 – D
2 – F Reported in the 7/1/97, Calvary Contender
3 – C
4 – E
5 – A
6 – B

Thursday, July 07, 2005

The Problem with Homosexuals

I am about to offend everyone—right, left, straight, gay, young, old. This article is so offensive you probably shouldn’t read it at all. Heck, I shouldn’t be writing it.

You will find yourself suddenly cheering as if I “really get it” then you will be raving mad when you realize I disagree with you completely.

So you have been warned. Don’t blame me if you are rushed to the hospital with sky-high blood pressure. Go ahead and have a stiff drink now—before you begin—if that’s your kind of thing. (If you think Jesus made non-alcoholic wine, you probably should stop reading right now and get your daily enema.)

Ready? Here goes…

I hate a lesbian.

Don’t hear me saying something I didn’t say. I didn’t say, “I hate lesbians.” That isn’t true. I simply hate one lesbian in particular. Her name is Francis.

Francis used to do my wife’s nails—you know, put those long plastic things on the ends of her fingers. $50 a pop, but that’s not why I hate her.

She and her partner got married a few years ago in Vegas. They live in a decent house. They enjoy playing with their pugs.

None of those things explain my disgust.

I hate Francis because she’s, well, an asshole.

Now I don’t use that type of language often. In fact, I can’t think of one other person I would call such a crude, crass name. Nobody. But if anyone qualifies for the brown shriveled sphincter award, it’s her.

Now, I don’t hate her because she’s a lesbian. I would hate her no matter what her sexual orientation. She’s an asshole who just happens to be into chicks.

What’s my point? You can’t lump people together into a group and say “they’re all the same.” They’re not. Some of them are cool. Some are, well, human gas vents.

Let me explain why the so-called church is having so much trouble dealing with the issue of homosexuality—it creeps out a majority of them.

It creeps some of them out because they’re deeply scared they might be gay and just “suppressing it.” Some of them truly believe there is an unusually strong hatred in God for that part of His creation. Others think homosexuals are the ones who molest children (most often it’s heteros who abuse kids.)

Bottom line: Homosexuality gives a bunch of people the heebie-jeebies.

As such homosexuality gets treated differently than almost every other thing called “sin” in the institutional church. Pastors like to preach against it because it lets them look good without actually accomplishing anything. Congregations like it because it reminds them of the “wall of separation” between gay and straight.

No pink shirts here.

There’s only one problem…none of it is very Biblical. The Bible talks about sexual sin. It calls lots of things sexual sin—everything from sleeping with a sheep, to sleeping with your wife when she is on her period. All called sexual sin in the Bible.

Guess what folks? The Bible also differentiates between temptation to sin and actually committing the sin. I know there can be mental sins—like malice—but I would rather you hate me than kill me; lust after me than rape me.

So how does God view homosexuality?

First, for the heteros among you, I have to begin our journey with some familiar territory.

Let’s start with good-old pubescent teenage, hormone driven, male. He likes girls. He likes girls a lot. And he likes lots of girls. Pretty much anything that walks by with the right shape will send him drooling.

Anthropologists will tell you the human male is designed—both physically and mentally—to have multiple sexual partners. He notices women.

In fact, polygamy is never forbidden in scripture (we’ll look at that another time.)

Despite his design, he understands because of his commitment to his faith he must remain a virgin until married and remain faithful to his wife.

He eventually settles down and commits himself to just one woman. They get married, have lots of emotionally and sexually well-adjusted children, and live happily ever after.

If he didn’t have sex before marriage and was faithful to his partner during marriage he avoided both premarital sex and adultery.

Despite his inbred design to have multiple sexual partners, he made a conscious choice to honor a commitment made to his God and his wife.

Now lets move to our more “hetero challenged” brethren:

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume they are born gay—they are born with a sexual attraction to men in chaps.

Now if he chooses to accept Christ, he understands he must not indulge that desire—just like his hetero brother did not indulge his desire for multiple partners.

There is no difference. If the Bible calls adultery sin and the Bible calls homosexuality sin, they ought to be treated the same. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

But of course, they aren’t. Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a prostitute and given a second chance. Then a third. I doubt the church would have been so forgiving if the prostitute was named Victor rather than Victoria.

Look the Bible is clear—homosexual behavior is sin. So is premarital sex with your hetero fiancé. There isn’t any difference. That’s what it says. Don’t waste my time trying to prove it doesn’t say that. It does.

We have just a few options:

1. We decide the Bible is archaic and doesn’t apply the same way today that it did 2,000 years ago. We can sleep with our special others whether we are married or not. Those sexual restraints just don’t apply now.

2. We decide the Bible is relevant today and determine to do what it says even if it’s hard at times—or hard all the time.

3. We decide the Bible is relevant, but it’s too hard to follow. We decide not to do what the Bible says.

Which ever you decide, just be honest with yourself. Own your actions. If you are going to sleep with every person you can, stop pretending you’re not a whore. If you’re going to practice your homosexuality, do it.

I have tremendous faith in Philippians 3:15:

“If on any point you think differently, this too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”

If you are saved and I am saved, God will eventually bring both of us where He wants us to be.

You Don’t Have a God-Given Right to Sexual Expression

This article isn’t about homosexuality.

I know you thought it was going to be when you read the title.

But it’s not. It’s about divorce and remarriage.

Divorce is an epidemic in the so-called church which has been running rampant for the last couple decades. Despite protestations to the contrary, polling data suggests divorce to be higher among conservative so-called Christians than their unchurched counterparts.

Here are the results of a 1999 Barna Research Group study showing the percentage of adults who have been divorced:

Non-Denominational Christian Groups – 34%
Baptists – 29%
Mainline Protestants – 25%
Mormons – 24%
Catholics – 21%
Lutherans – 21%

By the way, Atheists and Agnostics came in at 21%--a full 8% behind the Baptists and a whopping 13% behind the non-denominational groups.

So why are Christians plunging head-long into divorce? Simple: They think divorced just means single. Target correction made. Do over.

Imagine what would happen if we actually taught people in churches what the Bible says about divorce and its consequences? Imagine a session where a husband comes to his pastor:

“I don’t think I can live with her any more—her nagging is driving me nuts and it’s hurting the kids.”

“Well,” pastor puts on his best concerned look, “as long as you realize you will have to remain single for the rest of your life.”

“What? You mean I can’t divorce her and be done with it? Can’t I start over?”

“Biblically you can leave, but you must remain celibate or be reconciled with your wife. Are you willing to do that?”

“Gee, pastor, thanks for your advice. Uh, I think this Sunday I might give another church a try. You sound kinda crazy.”

In the US we believe we have a right to sex—at least to married hetero-sex. If our first marriage “just didn’t work out” we can remarry at will, without regard to any consequence.

I wonder what would happen if the institutional church began being a little tougher on the married heteros and spent less time consuming itself with the gays who want to marry?

Maybe then we could actually call ourselves “Pro-Family.”

Amy Grant Cashes in Once Again on Jesus' Coat-Tails

Jesus made her famous, now Amy Grant cashes in one more time.

In case you hadn’t heard, singer Amy Grant is hosting a new “reality TV” series for NBC called “Three Wishes.” It’s slated to air beginning September 23. In the show Amy travels to a town and finds people wanting a wish fulfilled—think Pseudo-Christian Pop Star meets Aladdin’s Magic Lamp.

I’m sure she is getting a nice paycheck for her hosting duties.

Why am I so tough on lil ‘ol Amy?

She has become the typical “Christian” celebrity…she can divorce her husband of 16 years, decide (despite Biblical prohibition) to remarry Vince Gill, parlay her Christian notoriety into a lucrative endorsement deal with Target, decided to “cross over” from singing about Jesus to singing about “whatever”.

In an interview with Christianity Today, Grant talks of her detractors:

“Some day, this is all going to play out in heaven, and everybody will see the full picture, and it won't even matter.”

While I agree that it will all be sorted out in heaven, I suspect that a healthy respect for Jesus and morality here probably will pay off there too. Maybe Amy sees Jesus as her “big buddy” who just overlooks all our willfulness.

Plastic Dashboard Jesus.

Amy and Vince, it’s time to repent. Surely someone will quote the adage: “You can’t unscramble scrambled eggs.” True, but you can repent and return to celibacy. Isn’t it time a famous Christian actually took responsibility for their hedonism?

I won’t be holding my breath.