The Cynic Sage

Heads Up to British Mercy Survivors

2009-05-24T18:10:00.000-07:00

The British media is interested in hearing the stories of women mistreated at British Mercy Ministries facilities. Head over to Sean's place for more info.

It's Time For the Internet's Favorite Gameshow...

2009-02-26T00:23:00.000-08:00

HOW!
LONG!
WILL!
IT!
STAY!
UP!!!

Otherwise censorship-happy Exorcist quack and blogger with a Messiah-complex Nancy Alcorn of Mercy Ministries has recently made a blog post about allegations regarding her sexual-orientation appearing in the Nashville Scene's "Jesus Rx" article (which, compared to what else is in the article, is the least of her problems).

Ironically, in the first comment on a blog where Nancy denies being a lesbian, a woman declares her love for her.

Surprisingly, comments mentioning the abuse/mistreatment scandal have not been instantly deleted.

Sean the Blogonaut posted this at February 26, 2009 3:37 AM:

So does this mean that:

a) you will not be requiring applicants to list their sexual preferences

b)that you will not attempt to promote gay conversian propaganda

c)that you will be honest in your representation of statistics associated with your success

d)that you will stop the provision of exorcism as a treatment for severe mental illness

e)That you will be following a more balanced approach to mental health that includes appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment.

I find it disgusting, demeaning and downright unchristian to demonise those who simply ask you to be honest about what services you provide.

I couldn't care less if you you are gay, bisexual or straight it is your organisation's treatment and attitude toward sexuality that is the problem.

And John Weaver of Against Biblical Counseling posted this at February 26, 2009 3:24 PM:

What these blogs care about - and I run one of them - is that the Mercy Survivors get justice. We could care less whether Nancy is gay. We merely report what the papers argue\say (or what Nancy says) and let the readers draw their own conclusions. What we are concerned about is Mercy's shameful treatment of Survivors in Australia, and its use of Restoring the Foundations. Having read the RTF manual, I do not see how Mercy could have ever considered it a productive tool for counseling the mentally ill.

I do not hate Nancy. To be honest, I feel sorry for her, though I admit i have been angered by her from time to time, and by the stuff she has said (particularly her crazy statements about not medicating demons). But there is no excuse for Mercy using deliverance\exorcism (whatever you want to call it) on mentally ill people. All Nancy has to do to stop my criticism is 1) publically - as in newspapers - apologize for her organization's treatment of the Australian survivors 2)not use RTF or any other deliverance manual for treating the mentally ill, but instead use psychotherapeutic counseling and 3) Be transparent about treatment practices. I don't think those are unrealistic goals, but i don't expect Mercy to acheive them.

And this at February 26, 2009 4:54 PM:

Dear Dacia,
I'd like to point out that my blog, against biblical counseling, quoted directly from the Restoring the Foundations manual and from other Mercy material that proved that Nancy did in fact use RTF. There has been precious little similar coming from pro-Mercy advocates.

John

P.S. I'm not trying to be confrontational. Just pointing this out. I'd also like to point out, in case anyone asks, that against biblical counseling refers to specific forms of Christian counseling (biblical\nouthetics counseling and deliverance ministries), not Christian counseling as a whole.

And yours truly posted this at February 27, 2009 12:12 AM:

Wow, Nancy. You left Sean and John's comments up. I'm impressed. I honestly did not expect that. From my own experience I find you and your your organization to be rather unethical, censorship-happy folk.

Speaking of which, here's a link to the article discussed in your blog entry (probably slipped your mind to put it in there, eh?). ;)

Remember how back in May 2008 the first response to the Mercy Oz debacle coming from Mercy America was to delete the "controversy" section from Wikipedia's Mercy Ministries page (they actually traced IP address to Mercy Ministries of America).

And then, in October of 2008, your organization launched a bunch of bogus copyright infringement claims on YouTube videos critical of Mercy Ministries to have YouTube take them down. These weren't just videos that made-fair use of your promotional material and commented on the abuse scandal that your organization had YouTube take down, but also Australian news footage reporting on mistreatment and abuse at Mercy facilities.

This coupled with the "Restoring the Foundations" workbook (which you reference in your books "Cut" and "Violated" and your February 10th, 2008 speech at Capital Christian Center) being leaked to the press and organization's constant denials of using exorcism to treat mental-illness is why I and others (which includes former supporters) find both you and your organization to be remarkably untrustworthy.

And Candace, about about you having "not seen or heard one story where a girl was mistreated because of her orientation" or "have never heard of them using exorcism on anyone"; if you are lying for Nancy, please don't. Two of the women whose stories feature in the "Jesus Rx" article are about exactly that (what happened to Jennifer Wynne was horrible, and Jodi Ferris was chewed out just for looking like a lesbian by Alcorn herself). We've all seen the YouTube video where she brags about the "casting out of demons" performed at Mercy to an entire megachurch.

And kateykat:

"How do you know about what the program is like without ever being through the program??"

From not only listening to women who have been through the program (not just the ones with the scripted "personal testimonies" appearing in Mercy Ministries propoganda), but also listening to former staff members and reading the material used in Mercy's treatment program.

Place your bets, folks.

EDIT:

Sean the Blogonaut posted again on February 27, 2009 3:14 PM:

It is interesting to note that I asked some questions of Nancy - quite direct, on her own blog, yet she hasn't answered. No one I have contacted from Mercy Ministries has ever responded to my emails.

My position on Mercy Ministries is that they probablly do a good job of taking care of pregnant women, sheltering people who have a hard life, providing a safe (very evangelically orientated)environment. Offering love to those wo have experienced abuse/hardship is a wonderful thing.

The treatment of those who have a mental illness, those with different religious backgrounds, those with a different sexual orientation is cause for concern. As is Mercy Ministries public denegration of psychatric care.

My aim in campaigning "against" Mercy has been to try and get them to offer a more balanced approach to mental health care, so that they are not abusing people intentionally or otherwise.

To get them to be honest about their successes, that is, not to use marketing puffery and spin(fine when you are raising money I suppose) when people are tryng to evaluate the efficacy of the service.

To stop them from publically vilifying brave women who speak out against them.

To get them to review and improve their services.

It took 25 years and a scandal to get Mercy to generate statistics on their program - even then, only selected information is revealled.

It took scandal and continued pressure from bloggers,and media to get them to change their use of the RTF.

It took pressure from Media and Bloggers to get an apology for the treatment of Australian survivors

My advice to women who have contacted me is to do their own research, to walk into Mercy knowing as much about the organisation as possible. To not see them as a last resort. That there is always hope.

Mercy Ministries has good intentions but we all know where the road paved with those may lead.

I have been critical even harsh in regards to Nancy and Mercy at times, what motivates me is not hatred of Christians (although I am philosophically opposed to their beliefs) but the care of vulnerable people.

I do find the US vs Them mentality obvious in these comments deplorable. To label detractors and commenters as the “enemy”, to cast us out in the name of Jesus – is to dehumanise us and in dehumanising us any action against us becomes righteous. If there is always agreement, if we always engage in back slapping and glory be to Mercy, then nothing improves.

Credit to Nancy for allowing me to post here, it is not the sort of treatment I have come to expect from Mercy Ministries.

EDIT:

Me again on March 3, 2009 3:34 PM

Candace:
"I rebuke you trolls in the name of Jesus. Go back to the pits of hell where you belong."

I know Christ, and know of trolls, but who are you?

Kimmi_Restored:
"I am so tired of hearing people run their mouths and creating drama. I miss the 'no-drama' mercy bubble. Too bad we can't make the whole 'no-drama' rule to the outside world lol."

Yeah, funny story about that. Mercy actually did try to do that back in October of 2008 by filing DMCA takedown notices on videos critical of them (which included videos Australian news footage and interviews of women mistreated at Mercy facilities).

Tell me Nancy, how does this video infringe on Mercy Ministries' copyrighted material? It was the first to be taken down from my old YouTube channel, not by a claim of copyright infringement from the Sydney Morning Herald (they didn't object ot it being there) but from Mercy Ministries Inc. What about this one? Australia's Channel 10 didn't object to it being on YouTube, but Mercy Ministries Inc claimed that it infringed on their copyright.

Didn't you meet with the women in these videos? This is part of why they found your apology insencere.

And to think you have the gall to claim that you are taking the high road.

EDIT: Me on March 30th @ 9:33am:

Forgive the long interval between your post and my response, Ken Mansfield, someone close to me died this month and I have been grieving.

The way that YouTube works is that anyone can in good faith notify YouTube about a video that they have reason to believe is copyright infringement. YouTube automatically flags and takes down those videos.

From the experience of many folks on YouTube, the "good faith" part is somewhat optional. The takedown notice emails that YouTube sent me specifically said that it was Mercy Ministries Inc that complained to them

This is how it was worded in the emails: "Dear Member: This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:"

If you contact me through my profile I can forward some of the emails to you.

I do know that you have to disclose your name, location and other identity in order to file a counter–notification. Perhaps that is why you do not want to do it.

What can I say, I like my anonymity. What Mercy did to my account hasn't really hurt me as much as it has it has them. I don't know if you are aware of this, but on Youtube people who use the DMCA as a means of silencing criticism of their ideas and beliefs are regarded as the scum of the earth. Imagine how an organization that uses the DMCA to not just silence criticism (i.e: my opinion videos) but also to cover-up their abuse and mistreatment of women (the Aussie news footage on my account) will be regarded on the internet.

Mmmmm... Abortion donuts....

2009-01-17T11:59:00.000-08:00

rrraaggghlll...

OBJECTION!!!

2008-12-04T12:03:00.000-08:00

If The Tennesean reports that:

Mercy officials in Nashville say that until recently, the group had no control over programs in other countries. Each country's program has an independent board, hires its own staff, raises its own funds and designs its own program.

...

In late 2007, Mercy started an international board to oversee its worldwide operations. All homes now have to sign a ministry collaboration agreement. Under that agreement, each international home is treated as a franchise of Mercy. They are required to meet Mercy's U.S. standards. The agreement also allows the board to sanction or dismiss affiliates that violate the agreement.

(emphasis mine)

and the Nashville Scene reports that:

Alcorn's response was swift. She claimed Australia was a rogue operation, underfunded and running independent of her control. The home was shuttered and an oversight board formed to prevent future incidents. This was not how Mercy did things in America, she said.

(emphasis mine)

Then what was the former executive director of Mercy Ministries Australia doing on the Mercy Ministries International board before 2007 (when, according to the Mercy officials the Tennessean interviewed, it did not yet exist)?

From the October 2004 issue of Charisma:

Mercy Ministries opened its first overseas home in Sydney, Australia, in 2001. A second Australian home opened in 2003 in Queensland. Both homes are overseen by noted Australian worshiper Darlene Zschech and her husband, Mark.
Alcorn recently took her 22nd trip to Australia in a five-year period--this time to discuss details for a third home. In addition, Mercy is looking for property in New Zealand, with the goal of opening a home there in 2005.

(emphasis mine)

From Darlene Zschech's interview with FaithTalks.com:

Mercy Hope: Talk about Mercy Ministries Australia.

Darlene Zschech: Mercy Australia is fantastic. Mark and I, (and please don’t make us out to be heroes, because we’re really not), before we were married had been involved in youth ministry and we always said that one day we’d like to open a place for young women, because, I mean, I struggled with eating disorders, and Bulimia in particular, when I was young, and that overwhelming sense of inferiority. You just know that the enemy comes to seek and destroy and to steal from people their future and we thought that maybe one day we would open a place like that.

It was actually while we were at GMA that we heard about Mercy and we asked whether we could go and visit. So we went, and Mark and I met Nancy Alcorn in the foyer and it was as if we had known each other all our lives. Within 12 months Mercy was born in Australia, and we have two homes there now. Actually, Mark is now heading up Mercy International. And we have a home opening in the U.K., and one in New Zealand, and other homes in Australia. It’s very, very exciting.

(emphasis mine)

From the "who is involved" page on the Hope Rwanda website which, according to Mark's ZoomInfo page, was uploaded May, 25, 2006 (an imageless version is cached here in case he tries to get rid of it):

In 2000 Mark and Darlene launched Mercy Ministries in Australia, a residential program for young women which was founded in America by Nancy Alcorn. Mark is the Chairman of the Mercy Ministries International Board which is overseeing the expansion and development of Mercy into the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Asia.

(screencap'd it just to be safe)

It also turns out Mercy Oz used to keep material on their website as far back as March 2008 saying that Mark Zschech became head of Mercy Ministries International in December 2004.

And you know the Mercy International promotional video that played just before Nancy gave her speech at Capital Christian Center in Sacramento CA on February 10th, 2008? Well, the first Mercy grad giving her personal testimony in that video is Carly Richards, who graduated from Mercy Australia's Sydney home in 2004. I know this because I have been in contact via email with one of Ms. Richards' former roommates from the Sydney home: Naomi Johnson (yes, that Naomi Johnson).

Here is the text of an email she sent me:

yeah carly was in with me... she went through the program in just 5-6months i was there april 04-jan 05 carly came in later in the year (04) and graduated just before christmas of 04. She was one of my roomie at the time she graduated and really is a lovely, sweet girl. But she was basically already the hillsong "praise the lord" jump up and down hyped christian before she came into mercy... she was already the perfect mercy girl before she entered the house and she was loved and petted by all the staff because of this. But she wasn't snooty or anything, she was maybe one of the loveliest most gentel people i've ever know and she was a close friend who i deffinetly loved quite dearly.

(and here's the screencap)

Which begs the question: If Mercy Oz was just Mercy Ministries in-name-only --an independent organization that used a different program than that of Nancy Alcorn's Mercy Ministries-- then how can Mercy Ministries International claim responsibility for Carly Richards' "transformed life" and "restored hope" while claiming that what happened to Naomi Johnson occurred without their oversight (which is even more odd considering how Nancy Alcorn herself had to apologize to the Aussie Mercy Survivors to avoid a serious lawsuit)?

Oh, and with regards to the Kelly Hughes quote, you can read about it here in the comments section. Long story short, Sean the Blogonaut quoted the post of a woman trying to enroll in Mercy from the Mercy Supporters and Friend's wall. When that woman asked him not to use her personal story, he politely respected her request and removed the quote.

Then Kelly Hughes of Harding, Texas (a different woman) who posted this:

Kelly Hughes: the australia homes fell out of line with mercy protocol without nancy's knowledge, and she has since undertaken a huge revision and close observation of their program. everything said about mercy australia, whether it was once true or not, which nancy deems as irrelevant, is now completely taken care of. have no worries. this is a place of safety and healing!

(if you click to enlarge, Kelly Hughes will sue you)

...tried to get that quote taken down from Sean's blog by siccing her lawyer on him (which is totally not what what a cult would do).

(i am trying to figure out how to click to enlarge)

Kelly Hughes: i am trying to figure out how to involve a legal process in order to get my name removed as well. if anyone else has some knowledge about privacy issues related to taking private conversations out of context and using them for one's own purposes, please message me! this is infuriating, but Satan won't bring us down this easily.

Apparently Miss Hughes definition of "private conversation" includes "things posted on a publicly-visible facebook-wall". I am also very interested in finding out what her definition of "out of context" is and how exactly did Sean do so?

Lindsey "Dont'-listen-or-even-talk-to-critics-of-Mercy Ministries-because-they-all-have-penises" Clewell then responds to that post with this:

Lindsey Clewell: could it be something with like...defamation...or something like that?....I dunno.

and

Lindsey Clewell: ....or maybe I made that up....ha! or gave it new meaning!

I take it this must be the kind of keen legal expertise that led to Mercy Ministries DMCA'ing videos making fair-use of their materials for the purpose of commentary and criticism.

Re-Upload of the Jodi Ferris ("Vickie Lucas") Interview

2008-11-29T09:56:00.000-08:00

Well, I've up and re-loaded it. The comments are a bit different this time, incorporating new information on Mercy Ministries that has come to my attention.

If you want to mirror this interview, you can download the videos from here (note: You will need WinRAR to unzip them, but most computers already have that anyway).

The screenshots of Mercy Ministries 25th anniversary page (with photos of Peter Irvine) are from here (The photos appear on a "slide-show" .swf file, and Mercy will most likely change it, so I took screencaps):

(click image to enlarge)

An Open Letter to BarlowGirl

2008-11-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

I'm back baby!

...albeit on a new youtube channel.

And on Mercy editing their Wikipedia page...

Someone Must Be Butt-Hurt Pretty Bad...

2008-10-18T17:25:00.000-07:00

click image to enlarge

... to have been flagging my videos with false DMCA claims of copyright infringement, which BTW, is perjury. They seemed especially eager to flag videos that mentioned the exorcisms and abuse done by Mercy outside of Australia. As of Oct 15th, 2008, Youtube has suspended my account and I cannot access it even to upload a video to explain to my subscribers what happened. Thankfully, Sean the Blogonaut has uploaded videos to his account telling people my fate. I also give a special thanks to SilverRose72 for mirroring what she could.

Sadly, abuse of the DMCA as a means of backdoor-censorship is nothing new: Creation Science Evangelism has done this before and recently youtube user VenomfangX has filed false DMCA claims against youtube user Thunderf00t and crashed and burned for it.

Apparently the individual who flagged my videos has not only convinced him/herself, but also Youtube, that Nancy Alcorn legally owns the color pink and letter "M" (someone should inform the good folks at Sesame Street post-haste).

I am terribly sorry (no wait, I'm not) to inform whoever has been flagging my videos that the footage of Mercy promotional material used in my videos qualify as fair-use under the comment and criticism clauses of the DMCA.

Listed below are mirrors of most of my videos and descriptions explaining how I beleive in good faith these videos constitute fair-use and that Mercy Ministries Inc has committed perjury by having YouTube take them down:

Mercy Ministries Abuses: This video is a mirror of a video from the Sydney Morning Herald's website and contains no copyrighted materials belonging to Mercy Ministries that does not fall under fair-use, especially considering this video was put together by an Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald. This video contains audio footage from former Mercy Ministries clients being interviewed accompanied by photographs of the women being interviewed, Mercy Ministries' Sunshine Coast home, and some pics of Mercy Ministries promotional material.

I had never made any sort of attempt to claim ownership or commercial gain through uploading this video to Youtube. My goal in uploading of this video was to help educate people about the harmful practices of Mercy Ministries Inc and spread this important information to others through the internet. This video's URL on my channel was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_5quQX_Wc. This video was taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc. NOTE: This video was the first to be taken down (I received email notification of this from Youtube on October 14, 2008 at 7:16:54 PM).

Re: Mercy Ministries: This video was a response to a Mercy promotional video uploaded on Nate Goldfinch's youtube channel. I commented on the Mercy abuse scandal and criticized Mercy Ministries based on the facts that had been reported in the Australian news media at the time. I also used a parody mock-up of the Mercy Ministries and Gloria Jeans logos in order to make fun of the two organizations.

I used parts of the song What Up People by Japanese Metal Band Maximum Hormone in two short parts of the video. Mercy Ministries Inc. does not own the copyright to that song and my usage of that song in my video falls under fair-use as I was using it to make fun of (parody) the background music in Mercy Ministries Inc.'s promotional videos. This video's original URL is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjUZejf71Y. This video was taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc.

No Cash 4 Mercy: This video was my response to Mercy Ministries' "Campaign 4 Mercy" promotional video. In this video I did use some of the "Campaign 4 Mercy" video, but only to parody it. I then criticized Mercy Ministries and commented on Mercy's harmful practices, advising viewers not donate to the organization. This video's original URL is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzZ_S-zNr7Y. This video was taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc.

The Two Faces of Mercy Ministries: In this video I outlining Mercy Ministries' deception and lack of transparency, using footage from Australian News programs Today Tonight's expose of Mercy Ministries and some brief footage of a speech made by Mercy Ministries Inc. president Nancy Alcorn at Capital Christian Center in Sacramento, California on February 10th 2008, which I comment on and criticize. The video's original URL is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHWMZUHcZo8. This video was taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc.

Mercy Ministries American Abuse Survivor Speaks Out: These are five videos of Cameron Reilly's interview with Jodi Ferris (then going by the pseudonym "Victoria Lucas") that he gave me permission to upload to Youtube. This interview can be downloaded in it's original audio form from Reilly's blog. These five videos contained no copyrighted material belonging to Mercy Ministries that did not fall under fair-use (I did re-use the mock-ups of the Mercy Ministries and Gloria Jeans logos from Re: Mercy Ministries). Although parts 1 through 4 were taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc, part 5 remained up until my account was suspended by Youtube. Part 5 is currently mirrored by other youtube users.

Here are the original URLs of the videos of that interview that have been taken down as a result of a third-party notification by Mercy Ministries, Inc:

Mercy Ministries American Abuse Survivor Speaks Out (1/5): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlK-SMolDhw
Mercy Ministries American Abuse Survivor Speaks Out (2/5): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_ygUmonvC4
Mercy Ministries American Abuse Survivor Speaks Out (3/5): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlTAU55QjEs
Mercy Ministries American Abuse Survivor Speaks Out (4/5): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrLeYucrTQo

Now here's the good part. Remember what happened when CSE had all those videos taken down with false charges of copyright infringement:

Yeah, I know. Awesome.

This is where I need your help.

Yes, you. I'd be very much obliged.

Do you have a Youtube account and a webcam? Then use it. Upload videos of yourself commenting on what Mercy Ministries is doing. Do you want to remain anonymous? Then wear a mask and do so. If you want use voice-to-text, just tell the people of Youtube what is going on.

Remember to mention how Mercy Ministries America first responded to news of the Mercy Australia abuse scandal by attempting to edit their Wikipedia page in May 2008 to remove any mention of it.

click image to enlarge

In having our videos taken down, Nancy Alcorn will not only be shooting herself in the foot, but hacking it off with a rusty-axe and feeding it to her shelties. When people see Mercy's use of backdoor-censorship, their reputation will go even further down the crapper than it did when the story broke that their mistreatment of vulnerable women was not limited to Australia.

Also I heartily recommend mirroring my videos. You can download a .RAR file of all the anti-Mercy vids I put together from here. You can also download a copy of the Sunday Morning Herald's video file of Naomi Johnson and Rhiannon Canham-Wright being interviewed from here (warning: I could take a while, so go do something while the files are downloading). Just remember that after you have uploaded the videos to use Youtube's annotation feature to place annotations that state that any material belonging to Mercy Ministries appearing in this video is used under fair-use for commentary, criticism, and/or parody with no intention of use for commercial gain (you can also you a video-editor like Windows Movie Maker to add some text explaining this at the beginning if you want, whatever).

And best of all, make your own videos. Be creative, just be sure to mention fair-use. If Mercy were to have more critical videos taken down (especially if they contain little-to-no material originating from Mercy Ministries) it would reflect even worse on them as news of their actions spreads through the series of tubes. If Mercy does not flag them, the material is left up and the word gets out about Mercy. Either way it's win-win.

If you don't have a youtube account, then get one. If you can't get one, then blog about what Mercy has been doing.

You can also contact the good folks at copy#right#@#you#tube.com (just remember to remove the "#"s) and tell them what's Mercy has been doing.

I will be contacting the EFF to see if I can get me one of them fancy, new-fangled copyright lawyers for free.

Godspeed, and thanks for everything,
The Cynic Sage.

EDIT: For those who don't know how, here is a tutorial for making youtube video annotations:

READ THIS NOW!

2008-10-01T17:46:00.000-07:00

Well, what are you waiting for?

Jesus RX: The untold tale behind Mercy Ministries' one-size-fits-all prescription for recovery.

The best part, IMHO, is the conclusion:

"The whole time I was at Mercy I had blinders on," she says. "For years, I was looking straight ahead, thinking I was the worst person on Earth. Then I took them off and everything got clear."

Last year, she finally gathered the strength to return to Tennessee. She knows Alcorn denies ever having a lesbian relationship or running a gay-recovery ministry. But that doesn't phase her. She saw all she needed to see on her second day back in the state.

"We go into this coffee shop," she says, smiling. "The same one where Nancy used to take me so she could bump into Lisa, right? And guess who walks through the door?"

She's beams at the thought of the punchline. Nancy didn't say a word when she saw Wynne that day. Nancy didn't need to. Her face said it all.

"She was white as a sheet."

It doesn't make sense by itself, so read the piece already.

MONDO BURGER MAKES DELICIOUS HAMBURGERS: yet chain's restaurant in Australia faces food-poisoning accusations

2008-08-04T12:51:00.000-07:00

By Richard C. Mongler

Wendy King was looking for a miracle, a miracle of flavor.

She grew up with parents who lacked the senses of smell and taste, and bland meals from her childhood was haunting her, sending King from one fast food chain to another.

"Bad flavor defined my life," King said. "And the lack of flavor made me feel bland and boring. I thought that only junk food tasted good."

Then one night, while searching the Internet for a place to eat, King found the Nashville-based Mondo Burger. Now long afterwards, she left her home for a tasty dinner at Mondo's restaurant on Old Hickory Boulevard.

"Mondo made me a delicious burger," says King, 24, who ate at Mondo Burger in 2006.

For 25 years, Mondo Burger has had a reputation for working miracles of flavor for people like King. Its affordable restaurants in Nashville, St. Louis, and Monroe, La., have served more than 2,000 burgers filled with fresh, tasty ingredients like crisp lettuce, sharp Canadian cheddar, and sweet red onions. Using a blend of secret spices, special sauces, and love, the restaurant claims a 90 percent satisfaction rate.

That success has turned Mondo into an international venture. There are Mondo Burger restaurants in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. New restaurants in Canada and Peru are in the works as well.

Reputation is tarnished

Mondo's reputation has been tarnished by accusations that an Australian Mondo restaurant ordered their staff to leave raw beef to thaw in the sun and not wash their hands. A group of former customers there claim they suffered food poisoning and had to pay to call the ambulance, despite being promised good value. And a member of the South Australian parliament has accused Mondo of being "a particularly bad example of a money-making scheme, posing as a restaurant."

Since the accusations became public in March, two executive directors of Mondo Australia have resigned. A restaurant on Australia's Sunshine Coast, outside of Brisbane, where most of the food-poisoning allegedly took place, has been closed down. Plans for new Australian restaurants have been shelved.

But so far, news of the Australian scandal has yet to be reported by U.S. media.

During an interview this week, King said she was stunned by the allegations, especially that Australian staff left beef out for 9 hours to thaw in the sun and didn't wash their hands because they believed it flavored the meat.

"That kind of thing freaks me out," she said.

Mondo officials in Nashville say that until recently, the group had no control over restaurants in other countries. Each country's restaurants has an independent board, hires its own staff, raises its own funds and designs its own program.

Wrongdoing is denied

Ballsy Bignuttz, executive manager of restaurants for Mondo Australia, denies any wrongdoing. She said no staff were instructed to not wash their hands or leave beef out in the sun to thaw.

"Our standard is that at no point is beef is to thaw in the sun," she said in an e-mail response. "However, flavoring the meat is encouraged, taught and practiced and is an integral part of the program."

Although the Sunshine Coast restaurant was smaller than most Mondo facilities, Watson says that they offered the same quality of program.

"The size of the restaurant does not affect the overall program structure and we believe that our customers received the same kind of quality cooking that characterizes other Mondo restaurants," she said via e-mail.

But in a phone interview from Australia, Mondo founder Ima Mann said the Sunshine Coast restaurant lacked the financial and personnel resources to provide quality service.

"When it comes to the Sunshine coast restaurant, I am not sure it was a good decision to open that restaurant," she said. "It's in a remote community, where there are not the same resources as a larger community."

Mann said she agreed with a decision to close the Sunshine Coast restaurant down. "What we are trying to do is to get back to the level of excellence and professionalism."

In late 2007, Mondo started an international board to oversee its worldwide operations. All restaurants now have to sign a franchise collaboration agreement. Under that agreement, each international restaurant is treated as a franchise of Mondo. They are required to meet Mondo's U.S. standards. The agreement also allows the board to sanction or dismiss affiliates that violate the agreement.

"If there is a gross violation of the Mondo Burger's vision and a refusal to change — then we have the right to take action," Mann said. "We have a right to tell them they can no longer use our name."

Currently both the international board and the Australian board are investigating the claims of abuse.

"I'm insisting that there be a full internal investigation, and if any of these things are true—they will be dealt with," she said.

Mann was disturbed that Mondo Australia charged customers for the condiments and napkins they used. Mondo Australia had a standard policy of requiring customers to pay extra for condiments, napkins, and use of the phone to call the ambulance.

"Taking that cash, it sends the wrong message," she said. "This is their money."

Good Value is Crucial

Offering good value is one of Mondo's core messages. Mann started the restaurant in 1983, using three principles she says God gave her. She says God told her to not put out advertisements that are susceptible to mankind's sinful "Truth in advertising" laws, to give 10 percent of profits to charity, and to provide good food at an affordable price.

Instead, Mondo Burger relies on high-profile endorsements for its publicity and a core of customers. Mondo's satisfaction rate has helped Mann raise millions for the franchise.

Teen Titans mascot Beast Boy recommends a Mondo Mozzarella Tofu burger for every win. Televangelist Donnie Davies' ministry gave Mondo $420,000 in 2007, Gloria Jean's Sewage Treatment facilities is a major sponsor of Mondo's.

Christian music stars Barlow Skankz and Faith +1 have sung Mondo's praise while on tour. And its work in Australia has strong ties to Darlene MXYZPTLYK of Hillsong Church, author of worship anthems such as "Praise the Lord."

Mondo believes that preparing beef in a safe and beautiful environment helps with the flavor. Mondo's Nashville restaurant has a two-story atrium at its entrance. All room furnishing were bought from IKEA, and the main dining area features a dry bar and flat screen TV, and a walkout balcony with grills.

"From the moment they walk in the door we want them to know their burger is our top priority," said Krusty Snagglepuss, Mondo Burger's executive director of development.

Snagglepuss said that while Mondo's restaurant is Christian, all the cooks on the Nashville staff have either already have had Food Safety training or are currently enrolled in Food Safety programs.

She said cooks apply their culinary skills and faith in the cooking process, believing that food safety also has a spiritual side to it.

"We don't leave beef out to thaw in the sun," said Snagglepuss.

Earlier this year, Mondo hired an outside firm to survey former customers. Almost 400 former residents replied, with 93 percent saying their stay at Mondo transformed their dining experience.

"We know the information I am giving you that I credit to an outside firm we hired is reliable because it's not like they were being paid by us or anything," Snagglepuss said.

Some question approach

Some former Nashville customers say the local Mondo Burger went too far in its faith-based approach. Sigourney Weaver, who says she was a fry-cook from January 2000 to July of 2000, says she and other staff were required to take part in a group training session for casting out demons from the meat.

"They told us that washing hands reduces flavor and not to worry about germs because food-poisoning is caused by demons and only happens to sinners." she said.

Weaver, who says she was a customer before working at Mondo, said she was warned after the if anyone ever got sick from eating there, it was because they had opened themselves to demons by doing things like laughing at episodes of Family Guy.

"That's bullshit," she said, "Nobody laughs at Family Guy, at least not at the new episodes."

And Mondo's cooking and food safety approach was based on a program called "Restoring the Flavor," developed by charismatic ministers Colin and Bagley Deutsch. Colin Deutsch, a veterinary assistant specializing in bull masturbation and scatology, and his wife Bagley, a level 15 elf cleric in World of Warcraft, say God revealed the program to them while they were Bible college students.

That program addresses four key concerns: Spices of the Fathers and Resulting Tastiness; UnTasty Beliefs; Sauce/Spirit Hurt; and Demonic Indigestion. Mondo Burger recently renamed its model, calling it "This isn't 'Restoring the Flavor' so you can't prove that we leave raw beef out in the sun and don't wash our hands why do you only listen to people who say they have been food-poisoned why don't you listen to people who haven't gotten sick and love the hamburgers WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!."

But demonic indigestion is addressed in a series of instruction manuals by Mann that Mondo headquarters recently put out.

"When you choose to give in to the harmful behaviors of vomiting, nausea, or explosive diarrhea, you are actually giving control of your digestive tract over to the devil," Mann wrote in a manual titled "Warning: Make Sure This is not Leaked to the Media or we Are Screwed."

And in a speech posted on Youtube, Mann claimed Mondo's approach to workplace sanitation to be superior to FDA and Food Safety Training, which often relies on the use of bleach.

She said that people with food-poisoning like salmonella or e-coli have opened themselves up to demonic indigestion.

"Secular Food Safety training says to prevent food-poisoning by putting bleach on the counters, in the fry-cooker, in the meat," she said. "But Jesus didn't say to bleach demons, he said to cast them out."

Would You Like Some Cheddar-Poppers with Your Excorcism?

2008-07-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

Apparently Nancy Alcorn was just in Australia and had met with the Mercy Survivors there and humbly gave a hand-in-the-cookie-jar-cover-your-own-ass-as-much-as-possible apology to the girls, saying that she didn't know about girls being treated with exorcisms and being abused and that nothing like that ever happens at Mercy America.

Well, in her interview with Cameron Reilly of The Podcast Network's G'Day World, American Mercy-Survivor Victoria Lucas begs to differ (I uploaded the interview in five parts):

The original interview can be downloaded from here.

Nancy Gets NOTHING!

2008-07-21T20:51:00.000-07:00

What is it with me and these Mercy Ministries videos?

Naomi Johnson's radio interview with Howard Sattler.

The source video for footage of Nancy Alcorn.

Special thanks to MercyGirl777 for suggesting I make the vid, and the Mercy advocates who left comments on my videos like these (emphasis mine):

I've seen sooooo many girls graduate the program a much better person. And go on to do such amazing things.
Never were there exorcisms etc. it's a Christian based program which is clearly stated during the whole application process.
If you are not willing to accept that- this program isn't right for you. Let me reiterate that Mercy Ministries is a VOLUNTRY program. I entered the program then left- I wasn't ready. -giorgiosbf

this video is bull!i went 2 mercy as a resident myself & they explain 2 u all the rules & the fact that it is centered around God & His healing (not the programs) & each girl is handeled uniquely but there are definately lots of rules that are enforced for the protection of the girls. (they even give u a copy of the handbook in the application) i went 2 the nashville home & for the 9months i was there we never gathered around eachother praying & "casting out demons". if u need help,call mercy! -lindayhamre

Ok, I'm not saying you are wrong, because maybe Mercy in Sydney does mistreat women. I went to Mercy in America and the staff there loved us beyond belief. We saw psycologists, we didn't have to ask permission for anything, our belongings weren't kept under lock and key. I am very sorry for what you went through, but Mercy in America is different. There were no exorcisms. Everything in Mercy in the US was unbelievably loving, caring, and supportive. Unconditional love and grace was offered there -christiangrrl24

So either Mercy is lying or... um... Mercy is lying.

No Cash 4 Mercy

2008-07-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

Hey guys, another vid on Mercy Ministries by me. Special thanks to Mercygirl777 for the idea of what I like to call "Operation No Mercy".

The "Campaign 4 Mercy"s tags are as of July 1st 2008:
mercy ministries cutting anorexia pregnancy sexual abuse self harm addictions

You can download youtube videos directly to your PC here.

These are the vids to download:

Some Australian news links to pass around:

"They prayed to cast Satan from my body".

"They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible".

"'Exorcisms, cruel techniques' part of Mercy Ministry treatment".

"Lives at risk when vulnerable patients taken in by cult-like groups".

"The business of giving Mercy".

"Hillsong linked to claims of abuse against women".

"Ethics, financial probity for review".

"No mercy for transgressions".

"God's cure for gays lost in sin"

"Hell or a godsend: women tell their stories".

"Cult-rescue group 'concerned about' Mercy Ministries".

"Mercy Ministries misinformation referred to the ACCC":

And some other links:

Mercy Survivors blog.

Ex-Mercy (American) blog "Truth Will Out".

beuty4ashes7's Mercy story. (give this one a 5-star rating).

X-Mercy Stories.

Radio interview with Naomi Johnson.

Coffee for a Better Cause.

No Mercy for Mercy Ministries

2008-06-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the long hiatus. I've had a big move to a place with a sometimes good/sometimes crappy internet connection, and got a new job that has been keeping me busy.

Thought I'd try out my webcam for this entry.

Mercy in the news:

Australian Today Tonight report.

They prayed to cast Satan from my body.

They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible instead.

God's cure for gays lost in sin (apparently Mercy clients are not allowed to hug each other or form lasting friendships within the program out of fear that they will become lesbians).

Other links of note:

Sean the Blogonaut's Mercy Ministry entries (contains personal stories of Mercy victims).

Mercy Survivors blog.

Mercy victims tell their stories (youtube audio).

Coffee for a Better Cause.

Words Cannot Describe This

2008-04-04T23:50:00.000-07:00

Ah Japan, land of cherry blossoms and abominations.

EMB: Fictional Addiction

2008-03-15T18:00:00.000-07:00

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 25-33

You know, it's been a long time I've subjected myself to Fred Stoeker's projections. Don't want to fall behind.

What about you? Maybe it's true that when you and a woman reach a door simultaneously, you wait to let her go first, but not out of honor. You want to follow her up the stairs and look her over.

I'm getting really sick of this, Fred, your projections and assumptions about people who don't share your "values". I'll have you know that when a woman and I reach a door at the same time, I dart in ahead of her, slam the door in her face, then turn around and laugh at her pain.

Maybe you've driven your rental car to the parking lot of a local gym between appointments, watching scantily-clad women bouncing in and out, fantasizing and lusting -even masturbating- in the car.

Wow, when Fred pulls shit out of his ass about people he has never met he sure goes into detail. Notice how it's not just a car the reader is masturbating in, it's a rental car, why not describe the make and paint-job while your at it.

Now, I happen to live close to a women's gym, and I just gotta say that ladies going in and out of the building isn't quite the nut-buster that Fred here makes it out to be.

Maybe you can't stay away from Sixth Avenue, where the prostitutes ply their trade. Not that you'd ever hire one.

I only go to Sixth Avenue to visit your mother, Fred. And yes, I am not above making a "yo mama" joke.

He just goes on and on like this.

You're still teaching Sunday school,

No.

still singing in the choir,

No.

still supporting your family. You've been faithful to your wife... well, at least you haven't had a physical affair.

I'm single. Odd how Freddy's definition of "every man" is rather narrow.

People look to me as an example, you reason. I'm okay.

Yet privately, your conscience dims until you can't quite tell what's right or wrong anymore, watching things like Forrest Gump without noticing the sexuality. You're choking in the sexual prison you've made, wondering where the promises of God have gone. You spin in the same sinful cycles, year after year.

That's right, folks. people who watch movies like Forrest Gump and focus on things like "plot," "story," and "characters" are "choking in a sexual prison".

And of course, it takes someone with a non-dimmed conscience to sell anti-masturbation books to churches so they can send them to soldiers in a time of war.

And nagging you is the worship, the prayer times. The distance, always the distance from God.

Let me get that for you.

And nagging you is ~~the worship, the prayer times. The distance, always the distance from God~~ a sexually repressed stockbroker with father-issues turned self-admitted un-credentialed sexpert and bestselling Christian author and an opportunistic evangelical John Norman/Dr Phil-wannabe who both project their own hangups onto others.

Fixed.

Meanwhile, your sexual sin remains so consistent you can set your watch by it.

I'd better be finishing up this entry soon, it's already quarter to onanism.

Fred then tells us two more stories of men "trapped in bondage", one about a guy named Sid who peeps at his next-door neighbor while she sunbathes ("She's so sexy I can hardly stand it, and I masturbate every day I see her") and this one, which in my mind stands out significantly:

Rick, for instance, walks down the hall at breaktime just to glance through the doors of another office, where a bosomy secretary answers phones and directs clients. "Every day at 9:30, I wave at her and she smiles back," he says wistfully. "She's beautiful, and her clothes -let's just say they really accentuate her best features. I don't know her name, but I'm actually depressed when she's absent from work."

Fred doesn't tell us whether or not Rick is married,* which I believe is very important. If Rick here is single, then it shows Fred's attitude towards not only sexuality separate from relationship (masturbation, ect.) but also the attraction itself. You know, that feeling some of your readers got when you first saw your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.

On the other hand, if Rick is married, then Fred Stoker is a poor writer and expects us to understand that Rick is "lurking at the door" of adultery when he has given us absolutely no reason to believe that Rick is married (and Mike Yorkey a poor editor for failing to point this out to Fred and Steve).

Fred and Steve then offer us a two-part test for sexual addiction. The first part is to see if you are "lurking at the door of sexual addiction" Let's begin, shall we?

1. Do you lock on when an attractive woman comes near you?

All you gay guys out there, don't worry, you're in the clear. And Fred & Steve, just so you guys know, it's rude to stare.

2. Do you masturbate to images of other women?

If I masturbated to images of other women, I'd be a lesbian.

3. Have you found your wife to be less sexually satisfying?

4. Are you holding a grudge against your wife - a grudge that gives you a sense of entitlement?

I don't see how much that these would lead to sexual-addiction as much as simply wanting to try new things in bed, marriage problems, or perhaps an affair. A sex-addict may cheat on his/her spouse, but not all who cheat are sex-addicts.

5. Do you seek out sexually arousing articles in photo spreads in newspapers and magazines?

Steve, Steve, Steve. Your book provides me with my spank-bait.

6. Do you have a private place or secret compartment that you keep hidden from your wife?

She will never find my precious timbits.

Kind of a vague question, don't you think? We don't even know if the "secret compartment" Steve is talking about is literal (like a drawer in a desk) or metaphorical (and if it is, then it's practically the same question as #8).

7. Do you look forward to going away on a business trip?

8. Do you have behaviors that you cannot share with your wife?

I have trouble understanding these questions, can you please make them even more vague so that it can be easier for me to partake in dangerous practice of self-diagnosis.

And the question about "behaviors you cannot share with your wife", doesn't that depend a lot on what exactly these behaviors are as well as what kind of person your wife is? Seriously, what is this? A magazine quiz?

9. Do you frequent porn-related sites on the internet.

Wow, an actual sex-related question on this borderline-sex-addiction test. I thought it would be a long time before I saw another one of those.

Yes, I do frequent porn-related sites on the internet. I started reading Amber Rhea's blog (she often writes about porn and other sex/feminism related issues) after discovering her critical and humorous review of Every Young Man's Battle. From her site I discovered Renegade Evolution's blog, which I read because I find the thoughts of a woman unapologetically working in the porn-industry about the anti-porn movement and the industry itself rather interesting. And then there's Bound Not Gagged, a blog on issues pertaining to sex-worker rights.** And Fred & Steve, if either of you two are reading this, don't click that last link there, I don't want you to ruin your precious purity by reading dirty things like "Sex Work, Trafficking, and Human Rights: A Public Forum".

Also keep in mind that "porn-related" is a rather large umbrella term that XXXchurch, Pureonline (the website of the guy who implied that my sister is a slut), and the authors' own websites can fall under as well.

10. Do you watch R-rated movies, sexy videos, or the steamy VH1 channel for gratification?

Fred & Steve then provide us with a shorter test to see if we already are sex-addicts.

Do you watch pay-per-view sexually explicit TV channels at home or on the road?
Do you purchase pornography on the internet?
Do you rent adult movies?
Do you watch nude dancing?
Do you call 900-numbers to have phone-sex?
Do you practice voyeurism?

If you said yes to the last six questions, you very well could be sexually addicted.

What Fred and Steve do here is basically ask the same question five times in a row: "Do you use pornography and/or partake in other forms of erotic entertainment?" Six times if by "voyeurism" they are referring to consensual mixoscopia ("a paraphilia in which gratification is obtained by the sight of the object of one's desire engaged in sexual intercourse with another") rather than compulsive "peeping" without consent.

Also notice how Fred and Steve don't take into account factors like compulsion, desire to stop/continue these actions (although since the reader is reading a Christian book on "winning the war on sexual temptation" it could be argued that the reader's desire to stop these actions is assumed) and whether or not the reader harming his relationships by doing these things (i.e: a man ignoring his wife and using pornography vs. a couple who watch porn together).

Steve the tells us that those who feel they suffer from sexual addiction that they can call1-800-NEW-LIFE (639-5433)*** to ~~be talked into shelling out $1,175 to attend a weekend workshop~~ receive over-the-phone counseling.

Steve then talks to us about the characteristics of "addictive" sex, referencing his other book: Addicted to Love.

Before we go further, I need to make the point that it it's easy to confuse normal sexual desire and conduct with addictive compulsions and gratification. A person can have a stronger-than normal sexual appetite and not be a sex-addict.

Addictive sex is done in isolation and devoid of relationship. This doesn't necessarily mean it's done while physically alone. Rather it means that mentally the addict is detached, or isolated, from human relationship and contact. Addictive sex is "mere sex," sex for its own sake, sex divorced from authentic interactions of persons. This is most clear regarding fantasy, pornography, and masturbation. But even regarding sex involving a partner, the partner really isn't a person but a cipher, an interchangeable part in am impersonal -almost mechanical- process. The most intimately personal of human behaviors becomes utterly impersonal.

Funny I thought addictive sex was, y'know, addictive. Believe it or not, Steve, but something being "impersonal" does not make it an addiction. Masturbation is actually quite healthy (Seriously Steve, I'm sure that one of the sex-therapists you cons... oh wait, you didn't consult any sex-therapists or sexology-trained marriage counselors before writing your book, just some pastors, James "Absolute Truth" Dobson, and your ass) and can even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

Addictive sex is secretive. In effect, sex addicts develop a double life, practicing masturbation, going to porn shops and massage parlors, all the while hiding what they do from others -and in a sense, even from themselves.

I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you, Steve, but a lot of sex is, to various extents, secretive. I guess whenever Steve would send his daughter to her grandparents for the weekend he would tell his little-girl that he wanted a chance to actually fuck her mother and not merely "spend some time alone"? Oh well, I guess if I masturbate on a park bench I'm in the clear, eh?

Also note how culturally dependent this criteria is. A young man in Holland may masturbate just as often as a teenage pastor's son in the Bible-belt. However, the European lad, when asked, will feel no need to deny that he masturbates while the American fundamentalist minister's son is more likely to lie. This is because Dutch culture is more sexually open than American culture (yet has a lower teen-pregnancy, std, and abortion rates) and the subculture the pastor's kid was raised in treats that act as shameful. Likewise, many years ago it was considered shameful even for married couples to partake in oral sex. Now it's often taken for granted.

It is because of vague and arbitrary criteria like this being used to diagnose sex-addicts that there is controversy in the psychological and sexual-health community as to whether or not sexual addiction even exists.

Addictive sex is devoid of intimacy. Sex addicts are utterly self-focused. They cannot achieve genuine intimacy because their self-obsession leaves no room for giving to others.

Here we see the one word that appears throughout the many of the Every Man books, especially this one. Thanks to EMB I cannot hear or read that word without cringing. That word is "intimacy."

According to dictionary.com, "intimacy" is defined as:

the state of being intimate.
a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group.
a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan.
an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like: to allow the intimacy of using first names.
an amorously familiar act; liberty.
sexual intercourse.
the quality of being comfortable, warm, or familiar: the intimacy of the room.
privacy, esp. as suitable to the telling of a secret: in the intimacy of his studio.

However, when reading EMB, it appears that "intimacy" differs from these definitions in that it can apparently be destroyed by touching one's wiener, having premarital sex, and watching Forrest Gump. When this word appears in EMB it doesn't seem to have a fixed meaning. At some points it appears to mean something like "trust" and there's even a point in the book where it appears to mean something along the lines of "stimulation" or "arousal" (EMB pg 114-115). In Every Man's Marriage the term is described as being synonymous with "oneness" which is in turn defined as being "every woman's desire".

Why yes, it is like they took a book on relationships, shook it up, poured the words into a hat, then reached their arm in and grabbed out a handful.

Addictive sex is victimizing. The overwhelming obsession with self-gratification blinds sex addicts to the harmful effect their behavior is having on others and themselves.
Addictive sex ends in despair. When married couples make love, they're more fulfilled for having had the experience. Addictive sex leaves the participants feeling guilty, regretting the experience.

Note how they snuck in the "married" there. There are also unmarried couples who are also "more fulfilled for having the experience" of making love.

Though I do agree here with Steve that sex that is victimizing and ends in regret is a bad thing (I also believe that fondue that is victimizing and ends in regret is a bad thing) I must say that even though victimization and despair do often accompany addiction, it is not regretting an action that in and of itself marks something as addictive, it is the inability to stop. Even Dr Patrick Carnes acknowledges this (Out of Shadows pg 34-35):

When discussing sexual addiction, it is necessary to recognize that not everyone who has a regrettable sexual experience is an addict. There are people who have regrets over specific events, realizing that their sexual behavior on a given occasion was not in their best interest. They add it to their experience and simply do not repeat it. There are numbers of people who have occasionally abused their sexuality. Going on a sexual binge, for example, might occur after graduation or in retaliation to a lover's indiscretion.

There are also those who have episodes of compulsivity. Those who study middle-age transition, the famous "middlescence", note that sexual bingeing can occur at that time. It is also often seen as a postdivorce pattern. The divorced person, who is suddenly free from marital obligations, may experiment to excess.

Back to EMB:

Addictive sex is used to escape pain and problems. The escapist nature of addictive sex is often one of the clearest indications it is present.

"So be sure that you have solved all your problems and are not in emotional pain of any kind before you engage in intercourse, 'kay." But seriously, if sex is used as a way to avoid one's problems, then one does need help, much like one who uses food to avoid facing one's problems.

Fred Stoker tells us about when he suspected that he suffered from "sexual addiction", describing it as feeling like he had "athlete's foot of the mind".

But did I qualify as an "addict"?

When I read one author's description of a four-step addiction cycle -preoccupation, ritualization, compulsive sexual behavior, then despair- I knew I'd lived that pattern. I was certain that what I'd experienced, and what these other men had experienced, was addiction.

But a thunderbolt hit me when the author outlined the three levels of addiction (keep in mind that this wasn't a Christian book):

I like how right here he practically implies what I've been saying all along: that "Christian books" are often notoriously unreliable pieces of crap filled with inaccurate information either due to their authors' ignorance and unwillingness to do research and/or a willingness to deceive others if it helps their pet causes.

Anyhoo, on to the list:

Level 1: Contains behaviors that are regarded as normal, acceptable, or tolerable. Examples include masturbation, homosexuality, and prostitution.

Level 2: Behaviors that are clearly victimizing and for which legal sanctions are enforced. These are generally seen as nuisance offenses, such as exhibitionism or voyeurism.

Level 3: Behaviors that have grave consequences for the victims and legal consequences for the addicts, such as incest, child molestation, or rape.

Did you read that list closely? Did you notice that not just masturbation, which most men practice at times, but also homosexuality and prostitution.

Here we see Fred Stoeker "cite" the work of sex-addiction counselor Dr Patrick Carnes. I put the word "cite" in quotation marks because at no place in this book does Fred Stoeker or Steve Arterburn provide us with the page number, book title, or even the author of this list. Even the expression "athlete's foot of the mind" comes from that book.

I don't believe it! The authors of Every Man's Battle have less respect for their readers than I do!

These "three levels of sexual addiction" are from pages 26-51 of the first edition of Carnes' Out of Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction, published in 1985.**** I know this because Dr Anne Wilson Schaef references and cites this list on page 12 of Escape from Intimacy.

And if that's not bad enough, they even got level 1 wrong. From what Fred Stoeker has written, it would appear that Dr Carnes (or as Fred here would prefer you to call him, Mr Notachristian Bookauthor) believes the presence of masturbation itself as a sign of harmful addiction. However, as shown earlier, Dr Carnes does not view masturbation itself as unhealthy (Out of Shadows pp 38-39):

Masturbation is an essential part of being a sexual person. Nurturing oneself, exploring sexual needs and fantasies, and establishing a basic self-knowledge are vital contributions that masturbation makes to sexual identity. As sexual therapists are keenly aware, without these factors it is more difficult to have a vital sexual relationship. In fact, for people who suffer from sexual dysfunction, therapy often involves a careful rebuilding of a patients attitudes and beliefs around masturbation.

And as for homosexuality, while in the first edition of his book he does list homosexuality as part of level one addiction, he has removed it from later editions of his book. In fact, one book edited by Carnes warns of the how dangerous it is for someone undergoing therapy to treat their orientation as the problem. Not only that, but homosexuality was taken out of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973, so in a way Carnes was a bit slow.

Hey Fred, you talk big game about sexual integrity, how 'bout you practice some writing-integrity. Even when you're "pure" you're still a big sleaze.

If that weren't bad enough, Carnes' sexual-addiction screening test has come under criticism by sex and relationship psychologist Dr Petra Boyton and marriage counselor/sex therapist Dr Marty Klein for having numerous flaws that could lead to misdiagnosis, resulting in people either receiving "treatment" they don't need or people who need special treatment not getting it. Klein happens to be one of the most vocal critics of that model of treatment, criticizing it for reasons including the following:

That it results in increasing numbers of people self-diagnosing and non-sexology-trained individuals providing treatment for sexual problems.
That, due to it's reliance on the "12 steps", it sees "powerlessness" as a virtue.
That it prevents helpful analysis by patients and therapists.
That it allows people to "split" the less socially acceptable aspects of their sexuality, blocking adult functioning.
That it pathologizes what is within reasonable limits of sexual behavior.
That it doesn't teach sexual decision-making skills.

Then comes the part where Steve reveals to us that he owns a fair-sized piece of real-estate in a little place called Quackland:

From our Christian perspective, lets insert another level at the bottom of the addiction scale.

I like how he thinks that merely having a "Christian perspective" allows you to effectively insert levels on a list of sexual addiction screening criteria that is already criticized by those in the sex and psychiatric therapy communities.

From our Cynical perspective, let's insert a boot in Steve's ass.

If we categorized being totally pure and holy as the zero level, most Christian men we know would fall somewhere between Level 0 and Level 1.

Fred and Steve's adding the "zero level" -which apparently equals "holiness" (and all this time I thought it was a theological concept and not a level on an addiction scale)- allows them to pathologize any sexual activity that they perceive as sinful, which by the way even includes -as Jeff Sharlet points out- involuntary erotic dreams.

"Your goal is sexual purity," write Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker. "You are sexually pure when no sexual gratification comes from anyone or anything but your wife." To achieve this, they argue, men must go to a kind of war. Citing Dobson, they note the "fact" that men experience a buildup of sperm demanding "release" approximately every seventy-two hours. For single men, wet dreams, if purged of sexual imagery, can act as "God's natural release valve." (Arterburn and Stoeker believe you can actually train yourself to remove the lust from such dreams.)

(Emphasis mine).

Back to Steve:

If your one of the many men in this area, it isn't at all helpful to label you as an "addict" or to simply imply that victory will take years of therapy.

Oh well, that won't stop you from pathologizing it anyway.

Wait, I'm confused. Earlier you guys said that "I" was "trapped in bondage" and masturbating in a rental car outside a women's gym, yet "I" don't need therapy?

Note how here Steve taps into the fear and stigma our society exhibits with regards to therapy (that it will take "years of therapy"), especially with regards to issues regarding sexuality. It is here where Steve attempts to dissuade the reader from attempting to acquire professional help from a secular psychiatrist and/or sex therapist (y'know, someone who isn't trying to sell them a music CD or a Mediterranean Cruise) because that might result in -heaven forbid- not viewing sexual desire in and of itself as sinful.

Instead, victory can be measured in weeks, as we'll describe later.

"After a few short weeks you'll be as pure as Freddy here, who went from being a douchebag with a life-consuming obsession with sex to, well, a douchebag with a life-consuming obsession with sex."

Your "addictive" behaviors are not rooted in some deep, dark, shadowy mental maze, as they are in levels 1, 2, and 3. Rather, they're based on pleasure highs. Men receive a chemical high from sexually charged images -a hormone called epinephrine is secreted into the bloodstream, which locks into memory whatever stimulus is present at the time of the emotional excitement.

What Steve doesn't tell you here is that epinephrine goes by another name, adrenaline. Y'know, before I read this book I had no idea that riding a roller-coaster or bungee-jumping could be an erotic experience. What Steve just described here not only happens when you read a nudie-mag, but also when you play an fast-paced videogame, watch a horror flick, or even walk by a large barking dog.

If this overly simplistic presentation of arousal wasn't bad enough, check this out. Steve goes on to say that "the vast majority of men stuck in sexual sin are living between level 0 and level 1" in something called a "fractional addiction" because, unlike women, men can be interested in sex without being molested as children and/or having poor relationships with their dads.

Another way to look at the problem is to picture a bell curve. According to our experiences, we figure around 10 percent of men have no sexual-temptation problem with their eyes and mind. At the other end of the curve, we figure there's another 10 percent of men who are sexual addicts and have a serious problem with lust. They've been so beaten and scarred by emotional events that they simply can't overcome that sin in their lives. They need more counseling and transforming washing by the Word. The rest of us compromise the middle 80 percent, living in various shades of gray when it comes to sexual sin.

(Emphasis mine).

"According to our experiences"? Dear God! This guy provides counseling to people and right here he practically admits that he's pulling statistics out of his ass to bolster his position.

I gotta admit, Steve here has stumbled onto the perfect system. Not only does Steve condemn sexuality that goes outside the limits of his purity code, he also pathologizes it. Whereas before it was just "sin" (by his fundamentalist interpretation of scripture), now it is "sickness". And now that it is sickness, a "fractional addiction" (because it's not like there is a natural sex-drive or anything), Stevie here can charge for "treatment" of not only porn usage, but masturbation and involuntary erotic dreams. That's right, folks. Steve Arterburn is a man who has found out how to sell "holiness" (as defined in a purely anti-sexual sense).

However, from what we see next it appears that Stevie here may indeed be huffing his own jenkem. Steve goes on to tell us about how, as a child at the ages of four and five, he would go into his grandfather's machine shop in Ranger, Texas and see the pinups his grandfather hung on the wall. This apparently made him be a dick to women later in life. Don't ask how, it just did.

As I grew older, I saw women more as objects than people who had feelings. Pornography became for me an enticement to forbidden love. Many young women I dated in high school and college were and sexually pure stayed sexually pure when we dated, but I was always manipulating and conniving, going for what was forbidden.

Sure is nice that porn was there for you to have something to blame your being an self-centered, inconsiderate ass-hat on.

I later tasted the forbidden fruit when I entered the promiscuous period of my life. When I did have premarital sex, it gave me a sense of control and ownership, as if these young women belonged to me.

Good thing Steve has long since left his "women are property" mindset behind him. Wait, nevermind.

One thing that disturbs me about Every Man's Battle is how the authors are so focused on their own little worlds that they can't really understand people thinking and act differently than them. Earlier we saw Freddy flip out over Forrest Gump because he can't wrap his mind around the fact that some guys -heck, most guys, no wait, almost all guys- can watch the movie without popping a chubby for Forrest's mom (and thereby destroy their marriages). Here we see Steve imply that since when he engaged in premarital sex he was a manipulative, self-centered douchebag all men who engage in premarital sex are manipulative, self-centered douchebags. In Steve's world there are no responsible, consenting adults in love who, after waiting until they believe they are good and ready, decide as a couple to have sex. Heck, judging from what he and Shannon Ethridge wrote in Every Young Woman's Battle, Steve here can't really wrap his mind around the reasons why some couples practice cohabitation (as Amber Rhea said: "Surely our esteemed and holy authors are not so naïve to think that you can't fuck unless you have the same mailing address").

If reading that has made you depressed, have no fear. Steve will now cheer us up by giving us something to laugh at: his marriage with Sandy.

When I met Sandy, we made a commitment not to have sex before we were married, and we didn't. I didn't tell her about my past, however, nor did I disclose all those secret compartments named Past Relationships or Promiscuity. As a result, I dragged my past into our marriage, which produced problems, just as she dragged her own set of problems into our martial union. Our marriage almost didn't survive those first few tumultuous years.

True, it fell apart years later, sometime after writing this book. I guess it takes more than prudery, repression, projection, sex/gender-stereotypes, platitudes, decontextualized Bible-verses, war analogies, duty-sex, and stupid "what part of this book do you feel helped you the most?"-style workbook questions to save a marriage. Oh well, third time's the charm, eh Steve.

One of my pet-peeves about the sexual purity movement in modern evangelicalism (and more explicitly these quack "Christian counseling" circles) is the notion that a person, by having engaged in premarital sexual activity (in and of itself), has doomed themselves to horrible consequences when they do end up with the one God has "specially chosen" for them because -thanks to that incredibly awesome wild kinky erotic super mega carnal sinful sex they were having before- they will never be satisfied with the the oh-so mediocre lovemaking skills of their spouse. If these people had any consistency widows and widowers would be equally regarded as tainted.

"You slept with your late husband before he died in that car-accident. Oh dear, you've made it so difficult for you to experience true intimacy with your current husband by carelessly throwing away the precious gift of your virginity to a man God did not choose to be your second husband. The marriage bed has been defiled. If you have any memories of times you made love or ever think of him again you will not only be committing adultery, but also spiritual-necrophilia in the eyes of the Lord."

This is why we have bullshit like people "reclaiming" their virginity so they have "something" special to "give" their spouse on their wedding night. If you're not a virgin and are going to abstain, then abstain away, but don't say you're a virgin because you went through a workbook and your youth pastor gave you a piece of tacky jewelry.

Which brings me to what Steve said. What I see in what Steve's has told his readers is not so much a marriage almost destroyed by "impurity" (defined here as sexual activity outside of marriage), but a marriage almost (well, eventually I suppose) destroyed by "purity."

Allow me to explain. I believe what Fred did was wrong. He should not have lied about his past relationships to Sandy, and he definitely should not have selfishly manipulated women to get them in the sack. However (keep in mind I am not defending him) why would Steve lie to Sandy about his sexual history? He slept with those women before he met her, and why marry someone if you can't share your life with them?

My two cents on the subject is this: Steve lied because he was ashamed, but ashamed about what? Was it how he had manipulated and deceived people in past relationships (that I find understandable) or was it simply that he was involved in previous sexual relationships before meeting his wife? Due to his specific mention of "Past relationships and Promiscuity" that appears to be the case.

But then again, why be ashamed? Because in the world of the "pure" a person who has already had sex is worth less as a partner than someone who is "pure". To the "pure" a person who has had any sexual relationships before marriage is a "poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker."

One of the things I hate about the world is how we believe we have to trick people into loving and accepting us. One thing I hate even worse is that the evangelical culture of sexual-obsession, which many call "purity", is how it perpetuates this kind of thinking, which is contrary to the very Gospel itself.

That's the great thing about the Gospel, Jesus doesn't give a fuck if you know your way around a dick or a pussy. Hell, Jesus said that prostitutes will inherit the kingdom of God ahead of the "pure" teachers of the law, not "prostitutes who have reclaimed their virginity because if they don't they won't be able to have the precious intimacy with their future husbands." But the Purity Pimps want you to forget that, as we will see next time when Fred and Steve will tell us about "The Heart of a Woman".

----------------------

*A married "Ricky" is mentioned in Every Man's Marriage. I don't know if Fred is referring to the same guy or simply uses the same fake-names at random to protect people's-confidentiality.

**Man it's weird how much I've changed since I first started working on this series. Perhaps I should send Fred and Steve an email and tell them how much their book has "helped" me. ;-)

***That phone number is for serious New-Life counseling for people who have threatened their marriages by watching Forrest Gump. It would make me very upset if I found out that any of my readers made a prank phonecall to that number-

-without recording it and uploading it to youtube.

****I feel that now is a good time to point out that my copy of Out of Shadows is the third edition so all the references I make to Out of Shadows are to that book.

Sorry for the Lack of Recent Updates, So Here's Some Filler From Youtube

2008-02-25T23:14:00.000-08:00

Sorry, I haven't been able to update as often as I wanted to this month. I got a huge Every Man's Battle entry in the wings that I am currently putting the finishing touches on (I am not worthy to lick the boots of Fred "Left Behind Fridays" Clark). To tide you over here are a couple of vids I found on Youtube.

Sarah Silverman is a comedy goddess, and Jimmy Kimmel is pretty darn hilarious himself.

The Lying Video-Game Hating Turd

2008-02-03T17:39:00.000-08:00

I was reading Penny Arcade a while back and came across this entry by Tycho:

On Monday, I mentioned an article by the irrelevant Kevin McCullough entitled "The 'Sex-Box' Race For President," a poorly titled, poorly sourced, and generally just poor piece of journalism. As the game has now been available for months without attracting his attention, I can only assume that his flailing response was based on this other report, itself already far removed from Mass Effect, the game which is ostensibly being described.
...
After breathless prose in the original piece about orgies and sodomy, acts which are manifested nowhere in the product he's discussing, he literally begins to fantasize in the body of the text about a machine that can rape people - and rape them "orgasmically" - at a distance. He does not warrant our time, but I will speak in the clear manner that one must when managing animals: these things are not simulated by this or any other piece of entertainment software available at retail. Indeed, it was precisely the lack of sodomy that created a stir before release.
What, then, is the source of this imagery? To find it, you must drill deep down through the artifice and find the undulating reservoir of sexual fetish that boils beneath. This scheming, grotesque caricature of a "concerned citizen" is about as transparent as it gets.

This sparked my interest and I decided to check out McCullough's article over at Townhall.com ("where your opinion counts" and not facts) and this is what I found:

It's called "Mass Effect" and it allows its players - universally male no doubt - to engage in the most realistic sex acts ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images they wish to "engage" and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the video game "persons" hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of.

The objections to such filth should be simple to understand.

Starting with the disgusting idea that one can "create" their own versions of what people look like, removing warts, moles, and bald spots while enhancing - shall we say - the extended features of the game's characters tends to objectify women, sex, and human relationships. Right? We can all agree on this?

Then there's the dishonesty behind the game' title. "Mass Effect" sounds like a war game with a deadly virus that is spreading unless the GI-Joes are able to defeat the evil and deadly substance and it's covert war plan. By it's design, kids could ask for it, or for their parents' Best Buy Card to go purchase it with nary a raised eye-brow. Generic, non-descriptive, and relatively harmless.

But it IS marketed for the X-Box 360, perhaps the most visually stimulating gaming system ever made. The software for such allows the blending of DVD video, component graphics, and the manipulation of actual pictures so that an alternate reality engulfs the fifteen year old boy playing it without much objection.

Now if I have trouble with my son taking his James Bond 007 games a little too emotionally, imagine the powerful effect that hormones add to the mix when the player's own character is copulating like jack rabbits with super-models, actresses, and anyone else they can spend the patience to create, name, and "put into play."

...

I hear the nay-sayers claiming I'm being the wild and crazed Bible thumper I've always been - but its a worthwhile question isn't it?

If a pre-teen, teen, young adult, or adult male plays such a game in which the women DO submit without choice, are made to appear as Barbie streetwalkers, and perform whatever act can be imagined, what's to stop that same male from assuming that the women in his "other world" shouldn't be forced to do the same.

We now know because of the lengthy track record of serial killer after another that addictive use of pornography was prevalent in case after case - long before the switch got flipped and what their masturbatory imaginations have given into became what they were forcing real live human beings to do.

And because of the digital chip age in which we live - "Mass Effect" can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the game player wishes.

With it's "over the net" capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away.

Holy crap! Was Tycho ever right, even about McCullough's fucking Orgasmic Rape Machine fantasy! And looking at the follow-up on his blog (aptly titled Kevin McCullough Musclehead Revolution) it appears the prophecy in Tycho's comic has been fufilled.

Now keep in mind I haven't played Mass Effect (mainly because my PC is a piece of junk that I can barely get Resident Evil 4 to work on it) but Yahtzee, in his video-game review column Zero Punctuation, has.

What Yahtzee describes is a very dialogue-heavy RPG where you can choose your protagonist's hair and facial features -and, yes, even bust-size (but not the porn-star proportions that McCullough apparently has in mind here)- and a brief sex scene that can, if chosen, take place as part of the larger narrative. No "copulating like jack rabbits with super-models, actresses and anyone else they can spend the patience to create, name, and 'put into play'," no women that "submit without choice" and are "made to appear as Barbie streetwalkers, and perform whatever act can be imagined", but some very vanilla one-brief-glance-of-a-butt-cheek-and-sideboob sex in an M-rated (18+) game.

He's still living back in the past
a douchebag neo-con who sucks ass

He'd rather drink expired milk from a decomposing dead warthog's snout
than do the needed research to know what the hell he's talking about

He's most repressed prude you ever seen
fantasizing about an Orgasmic Rape Machine
Saying the craziest bullshit you've ever heard
He's The Lying, Video-Game Hating Turd*

To be fair, McCullough apologized. But my problem isn't with McCullough. There's more to it than that. McCullough's "review" reminded me of another criticism of the game by author and talk-show host Cooper Lawrence:

Notice how Lawrence admits to never having had played the game, yet that doesn't stop her from making assumptions (which in turn makes an ass out of her and, well, her) about how the game's protagonist is a man (you can choose your sex) and on how the game treats the female characters. Videogamers, observing her wisdom, reviewed her book on Amazon in a simmilar manner.

BTW, don't forget to LOL at the guy who openly admits to playing Princess Enchanted Brides, and the chick who wonders why the game didn't receive an "AO" rating (which is meant to keep people under the age of 18 from purchasing it) instead of its "M" rating (which is meant to keep people under the age of 18 from purchasing it)** and then goes on to pine for the long-lost days of "Atari and pinball and Pac-Man". Especially LOL at the guy at FOX who decided it would be a good idea to allow the most game-illiterate pundits ever to ask the question "where's the 'A' button?" to comment on a videogame-related story.

Anyway, back to what I was saying: The thing about "moral guardians of purity" like McCullough and Lawrence is that they are, well, immoral. When McCullough saw the youtube clips of the sex-scenes, he -as a journalist- could have done more research into it, represented it accurately, and then share his opinion on it. But he didn't, he made stuff up. And Lawrence based her judgement not on direct experience or even information from a credible source, but gossip. She was not speaking as an "expert" on Fox News, she was speaking as a gossip. The words of these two were slander (well, if it's in print it's libel, but you know what I mean).

And the real scary thing is that people actually listen to people who do this. Just toss in a "think of the children" and you got yourself an army of breeders ready to follow you to hell and back. This is what sleazeballs like James Dobson do. This is why you will find people that honestly beleive that gays actively conspire to recruit children and destroy families and that feminism turns women into lesbians (and on the other side of the coin, people who believe that the US gov't was behind 9/11).

Back to the videogame: So you can judge for yourselves, I present the three sex scenes from Mass Effect (NSFW):

--------------------------------------
*Poem parody of the intro song to The Angry Video-Game Nerd.

**EDIT: My bad, turns out an M-rated game is for 17+.

EMB: Storytime and Some Disorganized Ranting About Their Other Books

2008-01-20T12:37:00.000-08:00

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 23-25

Fred and Steve share the tragic stories of five men with us in order to warn us of the dangers of setting out to write a book on a subject when you have not done ample research and have to fill up empty space with several personal stories where only two or three would suffice.

Thad - a guy recovering from drug dependency at a local Christian ministry:

"I want to be free, but I'm becoming frustrated and angry with the church. The Bible says women should dress modestly, but they don't. The women soloists are always wearing the latest, tightest fashions. I look at them, but all I see are curves and legs. You know, that one who always wears the slit way up the thigh? That thigh flashes with every step she takes. I just get enraged! Why do they make it worse?"

I've got to start attending church more often. Now I just want to mention that Fred and Steve are a lot of things, but they are not inconsiderate male-chauvinist pigs who place 100% of the blame on women wearing immodest clothing. I mean, just look at what he wrote about the Rebelution Modesty Survey:

Who can blame the girl who throws up her hands and snaps, I’m through worrying about this modesty thing! Their eyes are their problem, not mine! I certainly can’t blame them as long as we are being so lazy about it ourselves. We must take care of our own responsibilities first by disciplining our eyes and our minds to line up with scripture if we expect our women to line up in modesty. We are men. We must lead in all this.

And that is what I love about the Modesty Survey. It allows guys to take some responsibility and leadership. We can honestly help train our sisters in Christ about where those boundaries lie and, hopefully, as we think through the issue ourselves, we can begin to stand up as men by joining the Rebelution against low expectations.

(emphasis mine)

If anything, Fred and Steve are Sensitive New-Age Male-Chauvinists who place approximately 40-60% of the blame on women.

Howard -a Sunday-school teacher, who describes for us "a life-changing event in junior-high" (aren't they all):

"I was walking home, and Billy and I stopped by the store to pick something up to drink. I didn't really like Billy, but I felt sorry for him. He didn't have many friends, and he was trying hard to make some. On the way to the store, he told me about something called masturbation. I'd never heard that word, and he explained what it was. He said all the guys had been experimenting."

Well, it's not really that much of a surprise that Billy didn't have many friends.

Howard: So, what flavor of soda do you want?

Billy: HAY HOWARD U KNOW WHUT MASHTURBATION IS IT IS TEH FUNNEST THING IN THA WORLD U RUB UR PENNIZ WIT UR LEFT OR RIGHT HAND I PREFER MY LEFT HAND CUZ IM RIGHT-HANDED AN IT FEELS LIKE ITS NOT ME AND IT FEELS THO GOOD AND THEN UR PENNIZ BECOMES LIKE THPIDERMAN AND SHOOTS WEB THO YOU NEED A KLEENEX OR A THOCK LOL!!!!!10101010101

"I couldn't get what he told me out of my mind, so that night I tried it. I haven't gone for more than a week without masturbating for over fifteen years now!"

Here Fred and Steve present masturbation as a trap that men fall into in their teen years, brought on by the evil "flip-side" of puberty. The problem with this is that there are those of us, both men and women, that start masturbating even younger, without even "learning" about it from others. In her The Alchemy of Love and Lust: How Our Sex Hormones Influence Our Relationships, in the chapter dealing with stages in sexual development (ch 2, pg 24-27), Dr Theresa Crenshaw writes:

Parents tend not to understand that children are very much sexual beings from birth; and those who see the sexual dynamics clearly usually don't know how to deal with them constructively. Both sexes masturbate, sometimes in the most embarrassing places -in the grocery cart in full view or in church alongside Grandma. Little boys have erections on and off throughout the night, and more often than not, each time you change their diaper. The original Kinsey Report, written in 1948, describes men who recall experiencing orgasms before the age of five, even though they could not yet ejaculate. Young girls discover sexual pleasure sliding down poles on jungle gyms, or from strategic maneuvering around a Jacuzzi jet...

...

It is important to note that sexuality among children is different rummaging in the trash or shoving a stick in a gopher hole. It is sexual. They become aroused. In fact, it feels so good they would do it a lot more if they weren't discouraged. But don't confuse a normal child's quest for arousal with sexual exploitation. The sexual abuse of children by children is not uncommon, particularly as young boys achieve puberty. Both sexes can be terrorized by those intent on exploiting them.

From reading a section titled "Watch for Early Sexualization" on pages 91-95 of Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle, it appears to me that Steve Arterburn believes that "sexualization" is something that is happens to children as a result of outside influence. Here I will post some brief snippets so you can get the gist, but keep in mind that the thing about Preparing Your Son is that despite containing good advice, it is still an Every Man book and is therefore still serves as an ample source of lulz:

With our society saturated with sexual imagery and content, your job is to protect your children from as much of it as possible. Here are some suggestions for protecting your children from early sexualization:

Do Not Allow Them to See Movies With Explicit Sexual Content
Younger children should be prevented from seeing sexually provocative movies, even when they are not explicit. You cannot depend on Hollywood's standards.

I like the way guys like Fred and Steve here talk about "Hollywood" and "Hollywood's standards" as if entire city had some sort of Council of Nicea-style meeting in Mann's Chinese Theater to decide what all the writers, directors, actors, and producers believe.

For instance, the PG-rated Runaway Bride has no nudity, but the film has plenty of sensual joking that is out of place for Christians in light of Ephesians 5:4. How many sexual fires has Julia Roberts kindled by playfully teasing that she'd already "charmed the one-eyed snake" long before marriage.

He used Runaway Bride as an example? Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in 1988 and was rated "PG" despite containing scenes like this one and Steve Arterburn is harping about Runaway Bride's protagonist using a metaphor to indicate that she is not a virgin?

It's a shame that blogspot.com doesn't have emoticons, because I could really use a "crapping your pants in laughter" one right now. Guess I'll have to do with the next best thing:

Fred and I are appalled at the number of parents who allow their kids to see PG-13 movies that would have been R-rated just ten years ago.

And I'm appalled to see you -Steve, someone offering psychiatric help to hurting people in the name of Christ, using and promoting a quack therapy that a stock-broker pulled out of his ass as a way of disguising his compulsive sexual-obsession as Christian morality (more on that in later entries).

Okay Steve, I'll keep in mind that what you guys mean by that "God's standard" you're always harping on about is the MPAA's ratings standard for a PG film ten years ago. I guess this means I have to wait ten years after it comes out in theaters before it's okay with Jesus for me to see The Dark Knight.

Watching such films reinforces the idea that in boys that women are objects for men to use. Taken to its extreme, such behavior can also plant the idea that boys themselves are objects for men to abuse. The leap from one to the other is not far.

I just want to point out that I did not remove any text between this and the quote above it, you are reading that in context. Steve Arterburn just said that a teenager (I'm assuming that the age of the kids watching the film are between 13 and 17 because "PG-13" mean roughly "13+") watching a PG-13 movie "that would have been R-rated just ten years ago" (never mind what specifically is in the film: story, plot, message ect.) will get the idea that it's okay to sexually abuse women and perhaps even boys.

Yeah, it set off my bullshit alarm too.

Heck, even a seven-year old could watch something rated PG-13 and not get that message. Keep in mind I'm not saying that PG-13 movies that "reinforce the idea" that women and little boys are sex-objects for men to use can't exist, but of all the PG-13 films I've seen, I can't remember one where sexual abuse of women was portrayed as okay (maybe if they took one of those Japanese cartoon-pornos and edited it so it could be aired on TBS).

Keep in mind I'm not saying that I think that parents should let their kids watch anything and everything; I do believe that a kid being exposed to something he or she is not ready for can have negative effects, but not because it sexualizes him or her. Parents need to put things into context and decide what's best for their kid; the "PG" stands for "Parental Guidance" people. Once again, I am merely a ranting humorist, not a shrink or expert in any way. Moving on.

I find Arterburn's protestation that seeing PG-13 films can cause boys to view women as sex objects ironic, considering how in chapter 20 of Stoeker and Arterburn's Every Man's Marriage,* the author (I can't tell if it is Fred or Steve speaking as it doesn't say) goes into a weird passive-aggressive rant on how husbands own their wives' bodies and that women are sinning when they say things like "Oh, I'll bet you're going to want sex again tonight! I'm going to bed before you get home, so don't wake me up and ask for it." and "I'm so tired. Let's hurry up, okay?"**

Steve also gives us this tidbit of advice:

Train Their Eyes
If you are always pointing out certain body parts of attractive women ("Get a load of those -----!")

"Tracts of land"?

you will be stirring up things inside them. You will be feeding their budding interest in sex rather than helping them understand and manage it. Instead of indicating that women are a collection of attractive body parts, help them to look at what a young woman or girl is like on the inside.

Huh huh huhhuh, he said "look at what a girl is like on the inside."

"That's right, religiously conservative and sexually prudish parents who have purchased this book because you read on the back-cover that this book can help your son 'overcome temptation' brought about by 'the sexual onslaught of their culture', don't point at women's chests and shout 'TITOLE BIGGIES!' and then proceed to mimic cunnilingus using your index and middle-fingers. I also can't mention enough how important it is not ask your seven-year old son to smell your fingers after you engage in intercourse. And if you are going use a fried chicken breast to teach your son how to orally-satisfy a woman, at least try to maintain his purity as long as possible by waiting until the day before his wedding."

When young men react to women as complete, honorable creations of God, the chance for early sexualization diminishes.

Uh, no. Children are already "sexual" (biologically, even before puberty kicks-in), they will just learn to respect women and their ownership and agency of their own bodies. That is, unless they are given a cheesy piece-of-crap marriage counseling book with such a collection of such godly homespun wisdom as: "Your wife did forsake her individual freedom in clinging to you, believing you would provide love and strength" (Every Man's Marriage, pg 135), "We're one flesh, so our sin in fact becomes her sin!" (pg 223), "A wife has no right to hold back sexual fulfillment from her husband. If yours does, she's robbing you." (pg 238), and "No wonder we lead such mediocre lives where women take control of their own bodies and husbands are 'forced' to masturbate." (pg 241). Dear God! I think there might actually be men working in the pornography industry that have more respect for women than these guys do!

Stand Guard Against Molestation
I never dreamed that this one would have to be one of my major goals as a parent, but it is.

"I always thought I would be one of those parents that sell their kids' bodies on the street for crack-money."

But seriously though, Steve is spot on here. Molestation does harmfully affect children.

You must talk to your children about this, but you must also help them avoid situations where molestation could occur. The impact of this level of sexualization is lifelong,

So close. Molestation does not "sexualize" the child (God-willing there's a semantics mix-up going on here that can explain all this, but I just don't know), it negatively affects the child's sexual, emotional, and psychological development; resulting in depression, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, re-victimization in adulthood, and other negative effects (check out this piece by the American Psychological Association for more info).

and your vigilance is worth the trouble, especially considering the research reveals that a good percentage of homosexual behavior begins with early male-to-male sexual abuse.

"Yeah sure, child molestation's negative effects include depression, sexual dysfunction, relational anxiety, guilt, suicidal thoughts, and the tendency to hurt children as an adult, but that's not important. What's important is OMG YOUR SON'LL BE GAY AND HE'LL WEAR CHAPS AND WATCH SEX IN THE CITY WHILE DRINKING MARGARITAS AND SUCK AT SPORTS LIKE BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL AND PENISES!!!!"

Sorry, Steve, but according to the American Psychological Association what Fred and Steve said there about child-molestation turning boys gay is, well, let me just allow the good Dr Cox to explain:

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

(emphasis mine)

Also notice how Arterburn does not tell us exactly how much this "good percentage" is. But then again, Steve Arterburn might have read the that somewhere but have had must have had trouble finding the exact numbers. I mean, it's not like he's in a profession that provides therapeutic counseling services to people where such information is important. Oh wait, he's the founder and chairman of New Life Ministries. Oh well, I guess he had to leave it out to make room for one of Fred Stoeker's tortured football analogies.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Every Man's Battle.

Joe- A fan of women's sports who has dreams that involve hot nekkid chicks volleying his balls:

"Heavy with guilt, I wonder where my wife is, sure she has left me over this affair and wondering how I could have done such a thing. Finally, as the cobwebs clear, it slowly dawns on me that it was just a dream. But even then I feel uneasy. You want to know why?"

I'm guessing it's because you were raised and/or indoctrinated into a sub-culture where sexuality was vilified, causing you to feel immense guilt for natural and involuntary sexual functions like erotic dreams.

"Because while I know it was just a dream, I'm not certain it wasn't some form of adultery."

In one of my dreams I saved my 1st-grade elementary school from a T-Rex by using shooting lightning at it from a magical popsicle-stick. By your logic, I deserve a parade.

Wally- who is afraid of hotel rooms because, well, they allow you to order movies like Co-Ed Slumberparty, Naughty Nuns 3: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and Forrest Gump:

"I'm flooded with lustful thoughts and desires. I stare wide-eyed at the ceiling. I see nothing, but I literally feel the bombardment, the throbbing desire. I have no way to get to sleep, and its killing me. So I say 'Okay, I'll masturbate, I'll have peace and I can finally get to sleep.' So I do and guess what? The guilt is so strong I still can't get to sleep. I wake up totally exhausted in the morning."

And you should feel guilty for committing the sin so horrible that God didn't mention it in the Bible as it would give us ideas.

And then there's John, who whacks off to exercise vids. But enough about that, lets move on.

These men are not weirdos but your next door neighbors, your fellow workers - even your in-laws. They are you. They are Sunday-school teachers, ushers, deacons. Even pastors aren't immune.

You know, in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't be so negative about Every Man's Battle. I mean, I'm pretty sure that these guys can receive the help they need by paying over a thousand bucks so that Fred and Steve can guilt them for watching Forrest Gump.

EDIT: I want to apologize to Steve Arterburn for what I wrote about his criticism of PG and PG-13 programming.

Clearly he was in the right and I was in the wrong.

-------------------------------------
*I picked up the book on my Christmas break. I know, I feel horrible.

**Their words, not mine (Every Man's Marriage, pg 238). I also want to bring attention to the fact that the rant occupies pages 237-242. A five page rant. But -once again focusing on the positive- keep in mind that they also warn the man not to be inconsiderate of the needs of his fragile, dependent, little wife (pg 247):

She [the wife] must open her most intimate private place to a man who not only has kept her from blossoming in marriage, but who has picked on her weaknesses and selfishly asserted his rights at every turn. This person sounds more like a prison guard than a husband, which means sex can feel disturbingly close to being raped by a prison guard. After all, she has no right to say no, and the guard enters frequently at his whim and pleasure. So when our wives are asked to submit their bodies to us, God knows He's calling them to do something that may be brutally difficult for them. As a husband, it's your job to make sex easier for her by building oneness with a bondservant's heart.

(emphasis mine)

I agree the Fred& Steve here. Ladies, if a your husband "builds a bondservant's heart" by following the advice of Fred and Steve in Every Man's Marriage, sex won't be like getting raped by a prison guard. It will be like blowing a prison guard that smuggles in drugs and smokes for you.

What an age we live in. A man can go to an erotic boutique and pick up a book on how to please both you and your partner in bed that was written by some fornicating heathen feminist, or he can go to a Christian bookstore and pick up a book written by a Pure, Godly, wife-honoring Christian man on how to make sex feel less like rape to his wife.

Don't Drop the Study-Guide!

2008-01-04T15:46:00.000-08:00

I had mentioned Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship in my Christmas blog entry. When mulling this over during the holidays, I recalled an old Al Hartley comic based on Colson's autobiography, Born Again.

And what better way to start off the new year than the same way I started this blog back in 2007, with Things I've Learned from Christian Comics:

Being shown in a church basement on a Saturday night to five teenagers whose parents won't let them go out on dates makes a film "a major motion picture".

Richard Nixon was a man of peace, and his dream was that Chuck Colson's sons and other young men like them will never be sent to war. That's why only the sons of those not wealthy or in politics were drafted.
Explosions and gunfire make Asian children smile.
Young artists, take a tip from Al Hartley: There is no such thing as too many smiling, floating severed heads.

Nixon never swore.

Partaking in political corruption is patriotic.

Boredom is FUN!

Colson had not seen his friend Tom in three years, but he knew something was different about him because he asked how his family was doing, and non-Christian people don't do that at all.

Nixon knew nothing about Watergate.

He was the 37th President of the United States of America. He was a simple "hatchet-man"...

Evangelicals run Washington the way the Mafia runs Las Vegas.

A "hatchet-man" serving seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in a low security prison for a crime he committed is comparable to the suffering the first century Christians went through at the hands of the Roman Empire.

If you ever find yourself leading a Bible-study in prison, don't drop the study-guide.

Thanks to Colson's Bible study and prayer group, the Holy Spirit instigated change in the prison. Sick bodies we're healed, sick spirits were lifted, and black people turned orange.

Christians are better-looking than non-Christians.

Triple Threat: Ray and Kirk Fail at Evangelism, Kent Hovind Gets "Squeezed", and the Gay-Hatin' Spirit of Christmas

2007-12-25T14:40:00.000-08:00

Celebrity Evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron use their super-special patented intellect-bypassing straight-from-Jesus (who rather ironically discussed and debated the Torah the teachers of the law in his day) evangelism method to bring the Gospel to people who are already Christians. And by "bring the Gospel to" I mean "nag into reluctantly siding with you in the most insignificant issue even remotely related to the culture war".

C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen has a few interesting thoughts on the vid.

The problem is focusing on the trivial sin of saying G-D. Well, let me correct this. He is focusing on listening to someone say G-D, not actually saying it yourself! If that is not straining out a gnat while ignoring the camel, I don’t know what is. Our postmodern culture is smarter than this. Not only can they smell hypocrisy from a mile away, they are on the hunt for it. All this does is serve to confirm the postmodern suspicion that Christians live in a naive world that has no real depth or understanding.
In the end, there are much bigger fish to fry than a faulty folk interpretation of the third commandment. Whether or not one listens to someone say G-D in an entertainment flick is a non-issue. The message of the Gospel is not that God created man, he rebelled by going to a rated “R” movie and was condemned to death, so God sent His Son to pay the penalty for rated “R” movies. Forgive me for being simplistic with such satire, but that is what people are hearing when the focus of peoples rebellion becomes such things.

I would love to see the expressions on Ray and Kirk's faces if they ever sit down to watch Kevin Smith's theological dick-and-fart comedy Dogma.
---------------------------------------------------

Kent Hovind (the pastor wannabe-scientist who shows us that Genesis chapter 1 is to be taken literally but Romans 13:5-7 isn't) still in prison for tax-evasion, has been having conversations with God, including this one which I found rather interesting:

Hovind: God, are you squeezing me to get something out of me, get something into me, or get me in a more usable shape?

GOD: All three and more, son. If I told you everything I was doing, your little brain would not be able to handle it all.

I’ve gotten some prayers and writings from you that you didn’t have time for in the free world. I’ve had you read things, watch things, hear things, and experience things that have changed you forever. I can squeeze things into you and out of you at the same time.

I’m getting some oil, fragrance, and juice out of you that is helping nourish, refresh, and bless some of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m also using you to convict and convert others who were not My children until they saw you get squeezed like this.

At first I thought he was lying to garner support for his followers to attempt to get him out of prision when Hovind first said God was talking to him in prision, but now I see how wrong I was. Turns out he thinks his cellmate, Bubba, is God.
----------------------------------------------------

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist posted something a few weeks ago that brings out the cynic in me this holiday season:

Project Angel Tree is a Good Thing. Or it would be a Good Thing if the people running it would just get out of the way.

The program, part of Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship, collects and distributes Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. This is heartwarming and noncontroversial. It's also a fine example of Matthew 25-style Christianity in action: "I was in prison and you came to visit me." What's not to like?

Well, it turns out there's a problem. The folks at Prison Fellowship want to help these little kids at Christmas, but not quite as much as they want to spread the Gay-Hatin' Gospel.

Trent W. alerted me to this story via e-mail. It seems the Friends Congregational Church of College Station, Texas, is no longer allowed to collect Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. The United Church of Christ congregation had been supporting Angel Tree for 10 years before they were told this fall that their help was no longer wanted.

Initially Friends Congregational was told that this was because they were in conflict with Prison Fellowship's "Statement of Faith." Had that been true, it would have been strange enough. After all, you're not required to swear the Marine Corps Oath before your donation will be accepted by Toys for Tots. But it turns out that wasn't the real problem.

The real problem, as this letter from the church to Prison Fellowship (.pdf) explains, was that Friends Congregational doesn't hate gay people enough.

...

The letter goes on to pose three questions for the straight and extremely narrow ministry:
To the child whose parent is in prison, does it matter who is providing him or her with gifts at Christmas?
Is God displeased that a gay man or woman goes Christmas shopping for a child orphaned by society, or is God overjoyed that a child such as this is receiving love mirrored after God's love: expecting nothing in return?
Finally, at the end of the day, does it really help or does it hinder the mission of Angel Tree Ministry to disqualify churches like ours on the basis of an anonymous giver being, as you suggest, deviant from Scripture? If you feel that it helps, then we are sad to say that you have your work cut out for you, because all of us sinners who breathe God’s good air deviate from Scripture every day. This includes everyone from our congregation to the well-intentioned members of the Prison Fellowship Board.

May the Lord bless all you lukewarm Christians and unclean godless sodomites this holiday season.

EMB: The Erotic Adventures of Forrest Gump

2007-11-24T13:27:00.000-08:00

For those of you who have not seen the movie Forrest Gump, the following contains spoilers. Just thought you'd like to know.

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 21-22

Once again we step into the warped psyche of Fred Stoker as he warns us about falling into "sensual pits".

These pitfalls happen easily since much of the sexual immorality in our society is so subtle we sometimes don't recognize it for what it is.

Thank God you're here, Fred. Whatever would we do without you.

One day a fellow named Mike was telling me about renting the video Forrest Gump. "Boy, it was great!" he exclaimed. "Tom Hanks was brilliant. I laughed and cried all the way through it. I know you and Brenda rent good movies for your kids. You should get this one. It was really clean and wholesome."

"No, we won't be bringing Forrest Gump into our living room," I responded.

Taken aback, Mike asked, "Why? It was a great movie!"

"Well, do you remember that scene in the beginning where Sally Field has sex with the principal to get her son into the 'right' school?"

"Uh..."

I like how Fred writes the "Uh..." even though we regularly insert "uh"s and "um"s in our speech, but we don't give it much thought. This gives off the illusion of Fred actually "pwning" someone.

"And how about the bare breasts at the New Year's party? The nude on-stage guitar performance? And in the end, when Forrest finally 'got the girl' in the sex scene, she conceived a child out of wedlock. These aren't the kind of things I want my kids to see!"

I partially agree with Fred here (and it makes me nauseous), Forrest Gump is not for the littlest bittiest babies. I also partially agree with Fred Stoker that water is wet and grass is green. I also find it odd that Stoeker would have preferred it if Forrest and Jenny had used protection that night, since he seems to emphasize the "conceived" here.

Mike slumped into a chair. "I guess I've been watching movies for so long I didn't even notice those things."

Are you noticing? Think about it. Suppose you drop your kids at Grandma's for the weekend and decide to watch Forrest Gump with your wife. You rent the video, pop some corn, put your arm around your wife, and hit "play". After much laughter and tears, you both agree that Forrest Gump is a great movie.

But you got more than entertainment, didn't you? Remember the grunting and panting between Sally Field and his principal? And how, when Sally Field next appeared onscreen, you briefly looked her up and down and wondered what it might be like to have her under the sheets? You had your arm around your wife while thinking it. Then later, after you retired to bed for a "bit of sport" with your wife, you replaced your wife's face with Sally Field's, and you wondered why she couldn't make you grunt and pant like the principal.

I wanted to find out if what Stoeker was saying about the movie Forrest Gump was true, so I rented the DVD a few nights back. This is my response to Fred's diatribe:

Forrest Gump is rated PG-13.
To all my heterosexual male readers: You see that picture on the right? That is Sally Field as she appears in the movie right before her character sleeps with the principal (and keep in mind this is the least amount of clothing she ever wears in the entire movie). It doin' anything for ya? Now, usually when I say that James Dobson and his followers masturbate to things like Leave it to Beaver, I usually mean it in a metaphorical sense. But man, Stoeker is into some a freaky shit. Of all the movies and scenes Sally Field has ever been in, he chooses this one as an example of a film inducing "lust".
That "sex-scene" with the principal. You don't see it. You see Forrest sitting on the tree-swing outside his house while you hear the principal make a bunch of wheezing nosies (sounds like a monkey having an asthma attack). Afterwards we don't even see Mrs. Gump in the actual bed (the scene ends with the Principal exiting the house and talking to Forrest on the porch). So apparently Stoeker must also find the ape-like orgasmic wheezing of a fifty year-old man to be boner-inducing.
In the guitar scene Jenny is naked, but she's on a stool. The guitar she's holding is huge, and covers pretty much everything from the front. I'm no film-student or anything, but I think the nudity is supposed to symbolize her vulnerability. This scene is supposed to induce a few emotions in the viewers of the film, but I don't think unbridled animal lust is supposed to be one of them. I also find it ironic that in the movie, Jenny gets kicked out of the girl's college because the people running the school were concerned about her magazine photo-shoot related "impurity" tainting the good name of the school, which resulted in her working at the nudie-bar in order to support herself. From Fred's reaction to this I can take it that he has a thing for weak women. He is a Promise-Keeper after all.
The scene where Forrest "got the girl", he didn't. Jenny leaves him because she feels that a "dirty" woman like her doesn't deserve Forrest. The scene where Forrest "gets the girl" is when Jenny invites Forrest to her apartment, introduces him to his son, tells him she's sick, and asks Forrest to marry her.
About the character of Jenny in the movie teaching the wrong kind of "values", let me get one thing clear: Both the author of the novel "Forrest Gump" and the creators of the movie never intended to present the character of Jenny as a woman who always makes the right decisions. It appears to me that, in Fred's eyes, since a "dirty" woman like Jenny is presented as a sympathetic character in this film (and not vilified), she is being held up as a role model in the narrative (and therefore the film "endorses" sinful behavior). This fits in with the Maddona/Whore dichotomy present throughout Fred and Steve's worldview that we will be seeing more of in later chapters.

Seriously man, Forrest Gump is one of the few movies I can watch that can actually make me, for a brief period of time, forget I'm a cynic. The only time I can hear the song "Sweet Home Alabama" and not want to stab anyone is when it plays in that movie. Reading Fred's complaints about Forrest Gump makes me want to take Fred Stoeker to an abandoned movie-theater, duct-tape him to a seat, and make him sit through a Kevin Smith movie-marathon; Clockwork Orange-style. First Clerks, then Mallrats, followed by Chasing Amy, Dogma, Clerks 2, and ending with Chasing Amy being played once again (but no Jersey Girl. That would just be cruel and inhuman). But, like it or not, Fred is my "brother in Christ" and I gotta respect his own personal purity code like it says to in Romans 14. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to others.

"Come on," you reply, "This stuff happens all the time."

Wai-wai-wait! I said what?

Actually, what I was going to say was that a) I'm not married, and b) maybe you shouldn't define a sex-addict as "someone who doesn't have a life-consuming obsession with sex" and c) You are projecting your own hangups onto others, you are in no position to ethically provide others with proper sexual-addiction counseling, and YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP!

And Freddy, since you've felt the freedom to put words in my mouth (as well as the mouths of whoever happens to read the book) allow me to return the favor:

I proceeded to offer Mike's children candy to enter my white, unmarked van. "I'm going to teach you kids something that was taught to me by James Dobson at a Promise Keepers convention I attended." I told them, reaching for my belt-buckle.

Recently I've gotten my hands on a copy of Dr Anne Wilson Schaeff's Escape from Intimacy: Untangling the "Love" Addictions: Sex, Romance, Relationships and I must say that I find it a better book for understanding sex-addiction than Every Man's Battle for reasons that include, among others: that it is by a REAL DOCTOR, contains a bibliography, and its author isn't trying to sell anyone action-adventure novels and Music CDs. But another significant reason is how the book "talks" to the reader.

When Shaef writes about the actions of sex addicts, she will write like this (from pg 34):

The Sexual addiction process will use others' addictions (such as romance and relationship addictions) to meet its needs; I do not find that process is really looking for intimacy. In fact, I believe that sexual addiction is a way of actively avoiding nurturance and intimacy. Sexual addicts use relationships to get their fix. They are not really interested in love, romance, or relationships; however, frequently, if they pretend they are, they stand a better chance of getting their sexual "fix" under culturally approved circumstances.

This basically says to the reader: "This is what a sex-addict does. If you do this you may be a sex-addict and should get help." Now look at what Fred wrote:

But you got more than entertainment, didn't you? Remember the grunting and panting between Sally Field and his principal? And how, when Sally Field next appeared onscreen, you briefly looked her up and down and wondered what it might be like to have her under the sheets? You had your arm around your wife while thinking it. Then later, after you retired to bed for a "bit of sport" with your wife, you replaced your wife's face with Sally Field's, and you wondered why she couldn't make you grunt and pant like the principal.

(Emphasis mine).

So here Fred is saying to the reader roughly something along the lines of: "YOU'RE A SICK, HORRIBLE SEX-ADDICT for watching Forrest Gump and doing all these bad things I imagined you doing, Person-Who-I've-Never-Met-Before. So if you want to stop being a FILTHY, SICK, DISGUSTING PERVERT that obsesses over sex in movies, you should start obsessing over sex in movies like I do."

The way Fred writes is at times accusatory, the intent being most likely to induce feelings of guilt in the reader and yet simultaneously (as we will go more into next installment) feelings of victimhood. When Fred does this he seems to be projecting his own hangups onto the reader (and automatically assumes they are all married men as well).

In my opinion, Fred doing this could be quite harmful to actual sex-addicts addicts as it inspires in the addict a feelings of powerlessness and a lack of self-worth, which can prevent people (not just men, people) from owning their addiction and getting the proper (i.e: no product discount club-card) help they need. But then again I have no credentials, so I'm just as qualified to give advice as Fred.

*******************
EDIT: Dec: 13, 2007.

Just something to add to that last bit. I've been reading more of Escaping Intimacy as well as Dr Patrick Carnes' Out of Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction and I just gotta correct myself. Addicts by definition are in a way powerless to control their behavior. But there is still a problem with Fred's rhetoric above besides the obvious projection. On pages 38-40 of Out of Shadows Carnes describes the level-one sex-addict with a compulsive masturbation problem. Unlike Arterburn and Stoeker, Carnes actually beleives that masturbation can be a healthy thing (score another point for Team Sanity) but he also beleives it, like all good things, can be twisted in self-destructive ways:

For the addict however, masturbation becomes a degrading event. Masturbating four to five times a day for years on end becomes a secret life. It is the central part of every day. At the least the feeling of frustration or loneliness, the addict struggles to find a private place to masturbate. Unlocking the office door, walking out of the bathroom, or driving in the car, addicts are certain no one else is as obsessed as they are.

Part of that certainty comes from the collection of judgments and beliefs they hold to be true about masturbation. Messages from parents, family and church have left no doubt that it is a character flaw. As a result addicts may carry some equation in your head: Masturbation equals failure. Masturbation equals a loss of manhood. Masturbation is not feminine. Masturbation equals punishment.

One addict tells a story about his Catholic upbringing. Each Saturday, his father would ask if the boy had to go to confession. Since masturbation was a sin, both by and father knew what had to be confessed. The father would talk to the boy about how he would become a man when he conquered his urges. The boy would sit in his shame, he dreaded Saturdays.

It later turned out that the father was simply telling his own belief, his own myth, to the boy. The father was a compulsive masturbator who believed his problem was simply a lack of self-control. In his desperation to prevent the same pain for his son, the father relayed the myth that locked him into his own addiction. (The same ideal of manliness that added to the father's shame was passed on to his son.) Paradoxically, he recreated the same addictive system for his son out of love. As addicts go, this is a common story.

The son translated the message in a particularly damaging way. He felt that God would punish him for his masturbation. In fact, he believed that nothing would go right for him for the twenty-four hours following each time he masturbated. Given the power of his expectations and his daily masturbation, his life was an unending cycle of failure and disappointment. His compulsive masturbating was central to the self-fulfilling prophecy of God's punishment.

(emphasis mine)

That's the weird thing about Fred and Steve's ministry, it is not so much a way as to help sex-addicts as it is to make sex-addicts. Something we will be exploring in later entries.

So I apologize for my earlier error with regards to addiciton and powerlessness and remind the reader that these bloggings are not intended as therapy (except for me as a way of expressing my anger at how irresponsible Fred and Steve are) or counselling materials.

*****************************************************

But some of you* out there may be saying "But Cynic, there are sexual images all around us, like magazine covers, sensual music videos, women with breasts right in front of their bodies, classic cars, asthmatic monkeys at the zoo, flowers that look like vaginas when you squint at them, and lumpy mashed potatoes that that remind you of "lady-lumps" from the hit single My Humps which in turn reminds you of the Black-Eyed Peas causing you to fantasize about Fergie wearing a skin-tight veterinarian's outfit while holding a miniature banana-shaped inhaler. All of these can lead to us to giving into our throbbing biological urges in the wrong way; resulting in us engaging in carnal relations with our own cousins and siblings, ending up with more Bestselling Christian Self-help book authors being born. Doesn't Fred have a point when he says that sensuality is everywhere?" To which I say yes, but something that concerns me more is the unhealthy obsession that "Pure-minded" individuals like Stoeker&Co. have with it.

While reading Dr. Schaef's book, I came across the case-study of Molly, a sex-addict, but not in the way you'd think. (pg 16):

Molly is obsessed with sex. She thinks about sex constantly. She finds it filthy, disgusting, dirty and repulsive. Much of her time is focused on how to avoid sex with her husband.

...

Whenever men approach her in any way, she sexualizes the interaction and is sure they only want one thing. Molly is afraid of men, afraid of sex, and terrified of her own sexuality. Formerly, we may have called her frigid. Unfortunately, like many of our psychological conceptualizations, the concept of frigid did not take in the element of addiction.

And the case of a Father Aloysius, a Catholic priest that had two sexual affairs with women** (pg 23):

Father Aloysius had made a decision to be celibate and then tried to force his body into compliance. Hence, his life was dominated by the constant struggle to remain celibate, and he was obsessed with sexual fantasies that, he felt, were warring against his celibacy. Much of his life was spent obsessively thinking about this problem and trying to control his sexual feelings. When I met him, it was clear he was living a life of obsession and torment. His "struggle" over his sexuality was occupying much of his waking hours as well as his dream life. Father Aloysius had become a sexual addict. His life had become dominated by his sexual feelings. When I first met him, he was depressed and feeling hopeless. He was fearful of maintaining his celibacy and totally at the service of the struggle. Whatever was going on with his sexuality was the center of his day. He had crossed the line from fantasy to addiction. Instead of having resolved the "struggle" in a way that worked for him, he had become obsessed with it.

On pages 33-34 of Escaping Intimacy, Dr Schaef gives us information on levels of sexual addiction. This list in very simmilar to Dr Patrick Carnes's list in his book Out of Shadows (more on that in later chapters). However, the most visible change is Schaef's addition of a new level:

Level One, repressive sexual addiction, includes persons who are obsessed with repressing sexuality - their own and others - and are totally preoccupied with sex. Included here are such characteristics as frigidity, impotence, sexual righteousness, obsessive sexual purity, nonintegrated celibacy, religious sexual obsession, sexual anorexia, and treating of others as sexual objects.*** All of these are forms of sexual addiction and can be just as destructive to the individual and society as is sexual acting out.

We will touch back on these later, but it is important to keep this in mind. One thing I recommend doing is if you ever get your hands on both Every Man's Battle (or one of its age/marital-status/gender/blood-type/eye-color/ice-cream flavor preference-specific editions) and Dr. Schaef's Escaping Intimacy, read them side-by-side. It will scare the crap out of you.

Could be, but listen to these troubling words from Jesus: "I tell you that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:25).

In light if this scripture, piddling things like objecting to Forrest Gump may not be minor legalistic meddling.

Actually, it still is. The trouble is that you get your definition of "lust" from the back of a porno DVD. According to Countryman the word translated as "lust" there (epithymeō) is used in the Septuagint's translation of the tenth commandment. Covetousness, looking at what is not yours with a sense of entitlement, is the essence of adultery. And even if the word is being used in the sense of mere sexual feelings, the passage is followed by this:

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

Jesus here is using hyperbole to illustrate the seriousness of the sin, he isn't condemning sexual desire any more than he is requiring mutilation to enter paradise.

If you have trouble with watching Forrest Gump, then don't watch Forrest Gump. And if you can't watch Forrest Gump without obsessively focusing on the sex at expense to everything else in the movie, you're the one with the problem and not your buddy Mike.

Such subtle influences, added to hundreds of others over time, provide more than a hint of sexual immorality in our lives. Soon, the effect isn't so subtle anymore and not so fun.

As Mama always used to say: "Sexually Immoral is as Sexually Immoral does."

-------------------------------

*I have an excuse for addressing my readers directly: I'm a blogger. The purpose of this blog is not therapy, but mockery; satire, if you will. And note how I used the word "some".

**Am I supposed to feel this sense of relief when hearing about Catholic priests having sex with women?

***Interesting thing I came across on the blogosphere were some responses by feminist bloggers Kyso Kisaen and Jill Filipovic to Fred Stoeker's take on the Rebelution Modesty Survey. For those of you who do not know what the Rebelution Modesty Survey is, allow me to explain: It's some weird kind of Bizarro-Universe cybersex site where perverts, instead of telling women (who they have never met and will most-likely never encounter IRL) to take their clothes off, tell women (who they have never met and will most-likely never encounter IRL) to put clothes on; thus allowing themselves to live the illusion that they are Noble White-Knights concerned with honoring women when they have just reduced their Sisters in Christ to the status of asexual cam-whores (like shoe-on-head, but more sad than funny). Some of these guys even think they are being Christlike when judging women by the clothes they wear.

"Now I Ain't Saying ADF Lawyers Are a Huge Disgrace/ but They're Worse Than the Ones Who Ambulance-Chase/"

2007-10-30T22:46:00.000-07:00

Hat's off to Jesus' General for bringing this to my attention: The James Dobson-founded Alliance Defense Fund fights in court to defend a boy's right to have his mother dress him funny:

Pennsylvania School Says Devils and Witches Are OK, But Jesus Has to Go...

Sometimes a story occurs that illustrates how much of a toll the attacks by the ACLU and its allies have taken on Our First Liberty – religious freedom.

Yes, that's what the ACLU does, fight to take away people's freedoms.

The Abington School District (in Philadelphia) -- ironically the same school district that was a party in the 1963 Supreme Court decision, Abington Township v. Schempp which invalidated any school-sponsored devotional study of the Bible in public schools – didn't stop having a district-wide celebration of Halloween

Yeah, what is up with that? After all, All Hallow's Eve (the eve of All Saint's Day) has been a recognized a Christian holiday since Pope Gregory IV (although it has been recognized as a secular holiday since the invention of candy corn).

Officials at one school, Willow Hill Elementary, required that students wear a costume at school on Halloween if they wanted to participate in the festivities. For one ten-year-old that created a quandary. He and his mother weren't comfortable promoting Halloween and its pagan elements, but he didn't want to be sequestered from the event.

"Halloween and its pagan elements"? What a load. I'll have you know that crass-commercialization is just as Christian as frivolous lawsuits, political lobbying, and that thing about the guy who died on a lower-case letter "t" (I can't really recall that much about it at the moment, but I remember him doing something important. Not as important as stopping gay-marriage, mind you, but pretty darn close).

So, instead of dressing up like a devil or a witch, like other students did, he chose to come dressed as...

He chose to come dressed as what? A doctor? A knight? A hobo? Spiderman? Batman? Robin? Nightwing? A giant hamburger? A slice of pizza? Wolverine? Elvis? Black Panther? Abraham Lincoln? Sonic the Hedgehog? Darkwing Duck? A reporter? The Pink Panther? Magnum P.I.? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? Goofy? A Cowboy? Megaman? Protoman? The Flash? Napoleon Dynamite? Goku? Optimus Prime? A Dinosaur? Ronald McDonald? The Kool-Aid Man?A Fireman? Mario? Luigi? Sherlock Holmes? A Power-Ranger? Kermit the Frog? A Pokemon? Green Lantern? The Green Arrow? The Green Hornet? Kato? Chewbacca? Big-Bird? A Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtle? Luke Cage? Charlie Brown? Kanye West? Barry Bonds? The Incredible Hulk? The front-end of a horse? The rear-end of a horse? A clog in the American legal system that keeps more serious cases from ever seeing the light of day?

...Jesus.

Wow, I was right. Kanye West it is.

He met the requirement of dressing up in a costume, while not promoting beliefs contrary to his faith.

Like how he avoided promoting Satanism by not dressing up as Satan, how he avoided promoting masked-vigilantism by not dressing up as Batman, and how he avoided promoting the belief that cars turn into robots by not dressing up as Optimus Prime. And let's not forget how, by refusing to dress up as Sonic the Hedgehog, he avoiding promoting the satanic lie that "there's nothing cooler than being hugged by someone you like..."

The student was told that his costume violated the school's unwritten "religion" policy. School officials told his mother that the costume would be OK, if he removed his crown of thorns and didn't identify himself as Jesus, but as a Roman emperor instead (and perhaps missing the irony that the Romans were persecutors of Christians and that crucifixion was the emperor's ultimate method of execution!).

So a kid having to wear a different costume than what his mom made for him as an outward display of perceived-persecution-inducing piety to school is like the Roman Empire's persecution of Christ and his early followers?

Wait... Did you hear that sound? It sounded like our precious Lord and all the martyred saints at his right hand throwing-up all at once.

ADF legal counsel Matt Bowman has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, alleging that the school district engaged in "viewpoint discrimination" when it censored the young man's costume. A copy of the complaint can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/EDTComplaint.pdf.

"For the school principal to censor this young student because he was dressed as Jesus is patently ridiculous," said Matt. "It's just another demonstration of how hostile to Christianity some public school officials have become. It is unconstitutional to single out Christian students in this way for censorship."

I actually agree with this part. It is stupid to keep a kid from coming to school dressed up as Jesus for Halloween. He should enjoy it while he can. Because from the look of things he'll most-likely drop his faith like a hot-potato when he reaches high-school and one of his friends will show him one of those crappy "New-Atheism" books with titles like "Up Yours, Lord: Why God is a Non-Existant Doody-Head and How Not Being an Obnoxious and Alarmist Atheist Will Result in You and All You Love Being Molested By Pedophile Priests, Gang-Raped by the Republican Party, and Blown Up by Bearded Men Desperate for 72 Un-Tapped Asses (or Raisins, the Translation is a Little Iffy)!" and discovers that he can masturbate guilt-free. Then if his old costume still fits him that October, he can dress up as Jesus once again, but this time with the ADF not exactly being as supportive.

Now for all you parents out there who also want to either whore out your kids' childhoods to justify your own personal martyr-complex, or want to make attending your spouse's friend's Halloween party even more awkward, I present to you Tools For Tools (of Christ): Halloween Edition (wardrobe provided by Annie's Costumes.com):

Jesus Costume
Includes: Long sleeved knee length dark brown gown and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).
Sells for $43.95.

I change my mind, I think I'll go as Friar Tuck instead.

Moses Wig & Beard Set:
Sells for $29.95.

Leprosy not included.

Joseph/Moses Costume
(Note: colors may vary)

Includes: Long sleeved full bodied under gown with knee length sleeveless over robe. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).
Sells for $69.95.

Mary Costume
Includes: White floor length dress with flared sleeves and light blue head shawl. Available in One Size (fits up to dress size 12).
Sells for $59.95.

Once again scholars dispute Christ's lineage. Is Jesus descended from Joseph or Moses? However, the case for the Virgin Birth is strengthened:

"See, I have a wife and kid, that makes me completely heterosexual."

"He's not yours, Joseph."

"Completely heterosexual. Dr Nicolosi says so."

"But..."

"COMPLETELY HETEROSEXUAL!"

Also remarkable how back then animal feeding trofts very much resembled cribs.

Shepherd Costume

Includes: Off-white under robe, royal blue overcoat and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).
Sells for $29.95

That man is no longer a shepherd. His anger at the death of his sheep-herding comrades has unlocked his true power. He has finally become, a SUPER-SHEPHERD!

Shepherd #3 Costume
(Note: colors may vary)

Includes: Floor length robe, knee length vest, white mantle with black headband and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).
Sells for $79.95

"Hey Annie? What do you want us to do with all these old 'Bloodthirsty Arab Sheik'-costumes we can't sell anymore on account of them being too offensive?"

Blue Wiseman Costume

Includes: Blue panne velvet robe w/ silver lamé trim, matching hat and silver lamé belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).
Sells for $29.95.

What can I say, following stars across deserts will do that to you.

Purple Wiseman Costume

Includes: Purple robe w/ gold lamé trim, matching headpiece and gold lamé belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).
Sells for $29.95.

Let me guess, this is the one who brought the myrrh.

Gladiator, Fighter to Death Costume
Includes: Black polyester shirt, black cape, armor skirt, gold & silver helmet,
chest and shoulder armor and decorated shin and wrist guards.
Available in One Size Standard (fits up to jacket size 46).

Regularly: $59.95. On Sale for: $47.95.

MUST...FIGHT... URGE... TO MAKE... POWER RANGERS... JOKE...

Crown of Thorns:
An adjustable crown of brown flexible plastic 4 yards in length. Can be wrapped to fit any size head. Sells for $10.95.

Latex Whip & Spike Scar Sheet:
Includes: 6 assorted length latex whip scars, varying from 6" to 17". Also included are 6 nail scars for the hands. Both type of scars are very realistic. Sells for $11.95.

Stage Blood:
Many feature films have used Ben Nye's blood exclusively. Realistic qualities include vivid coloring and Medium flowing viscosity. Peppermint flavored and safe in mouth. May stain some fabrics and surfaces; test before use. Applications: 12-30 per ounce. Available in .5oz., 1oz., 2oz., 4oz., 8oz., 16oz., and 32oz. sizes.

Thank you, Mel Gibson, for reminding us that Jesus is the Reason for the Season.

Four Fingers...

2007-10-16T19:17:00.000-07:00

Slacktivist hits the bulls-eye about modern-day Evangelicalism's obsession with homosexuals:

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all," St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

If you're a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that's problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect. Awwwk--waaard.

But lately, many American evangelical preachers think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect "sin"* -- the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say "Amen" without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It's all win.

Can't wait for part two.

EDIT: Here's part two.

EMB: One...Two... Freddy's Coming for You...

2007-10-15T01:30:00.000-07:00

Before I get started, I just want to show you a critical review of Every Young Man's Battle done way back in 2005 by Amber Rhea. Here's quick snippet from when Fred & Steve talk to a teenage girl:

I remember the time when a guy I really liked tried some things that made me uncomfortable. I asked him to stop, but he persisted. Finally, he just wore me down and I eventually gave in. He had weakened my defenses.

Okay, this is the kind of shit that seriously upsets me. Cassie, I've got news for you, hon: that wasn't "weaking your defenses," that was rape. And what is most disturbing is that the chapter just continues along, with some stale verbiage about how it's not manly to push your girlfriend's sexual boundaries. They had an opportunity to take a real stand here, and say, "Hey, fuckface, when you 'push your girlfriend's sexual boundaries,' you're committing rape, and you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. You're a goddamn rapist, you cowardly little shit." But they didn't.

Scary shit, man. Scary shit. Thumbs up for Amber.
------------------------------

Every Man's Battle: ch2, pg 16-20

Fred tells us he attended a marriage class taught by a Joel Budd.

It wasn't long before I realized that I knew nothing about treating women properly. Perhaps it was because my mom and dad were divorced, and I never saw a loving relationship modeled at home. More likely, however, it was because of my own selfishness and sexual sin. Everything I knew about women came from one-night stands and casual dating relationships.

The criticism of one-night stands I understand. But "casual dating relationships"? What's wrong with dating? I mean that's what Archie does with Betty at Pop Tate's Choklit-shop.

And here's the grabber: Fred Stoeker still doesn't know how to treat women properly. You see, Freddy here is a member of Promise Keepers, and he wrote a book that says... well, let me just let mental health counselor Susan Hall explain in her article "The Theology of Domestic Violence" where she mentions Arterburn & Stoeker's other book: Every Woman's Desire* (aka Every Man's Marriage):

Colluding with the socialization I’ve described above is the general culture of much of Christianity, where men have not only the cultural right but also the mandate to practice sexist power differentials that promote the creation of the docile, submissive, and dependent woman described as “ideal” by clergy. In a survey I did of evangelical self-help literature, I found peppered throughout the texts metaphors, language, and analogies of hierarchy, domination, and subordination. One popular men’s book [Every Woman's Desire] uses a master and bondservant analogy, and, although the authors are asking the man to consider his wife his “master,” it is nonetheless problematic because it normalizes relationships built on power differentials rather than on mutuality. The authors’ analogy breaks down anyway when they later reaffirm that men are the “Chief Tiebreakers” in the family, once again justifying male dominance within the Christian home.
This is far from an isolated case. In their fervor for “male headship,” evangelicals all over the United States are buying books that purport to make men stronger and more spiritual than their wives. The Silver Medallion Award–winning text mentioned above advises men in the way of becoming the spiritual leader of the family, directing men to “develop the deepest knowledge of God’s Word,” “become the best at submitting to Scripture,” “be the most comfortable with worshiping at home,” “be the most consistent in your prayer and devotional life,” and “be the quickest in the family to forgive and ask for forgiveness”⁹ (emphasis mine). The message is clear: A man is to note his wife’s capabilities and competencies and then outstrip her in every arena if he is to provide leadership in the home.

This model, with its requisite winner and loser, creates an environment in evangelical homes where women are set up for the humiliation of being one-down. Because women are discouraged from outshining their husbands, they often go undercover when they are more knowledgeable or passionate about Scripture or spirituality. And when a man cannot become one-up by his competence or so-called spirituality, he often becomes violent in order to establish his dominance. If a female is not inferior to him, his culture claims that he is an inadequate man and leader.¹⁰

Anyhoo, back to the book: Fred tells us that he didn't date that year under Joel's teaching. He then began to suffer from a condition I myself have discovered by observing other single Christians and am hoping to one day get published: Matrimorny.

Matrimorny ("matrimony-horny") is a somewhat common condition among single Evangelical Christian men. You see, Holy Sanctified Christian testicles fill themselves with sperm at roughly the same rate as secular godless heathen testicles; but unlike secular godless heathen testicles, Holy Sanctified Christian testicles are only to be drained within marriage or while unconsciously humping one's mattress in the REM sleep stage. Thus the Evangelical Christian man has just as strong a desire to mate as a heathen does, but does not openly admit this as it would cause him to appear less spiritual in the eyes of his brethren. So when speaking about past instances where he has experienced matrimorny he will not say something along the line of "I needed a girlfriend" or "Boy, did I ever need to get laid", he will say something like:

I prayed this simple prayer: "Lord, I've been in this class for a year and learned a lot about women, but I'm not sure I've ever seen these things in real life. I've never really known any Christian girls. Please show me a woman who embodies these godly characteristics."

I wasn't asking for a date, girlfriend, or spouse. I just wanted to see these teachings in practice, in real life, that I might understand them better.

Which is pretty much what Fred Stoeker says in his book. Well, actually it is what he says in the book.

God did far more than that. One week later, He introduced me to my future wife, Brenda, and we fell in love.

"Brenda, this is Fred. Due to his poor exegesis of Matthew 5:27-28, he can't ejaculate without crying, see if you can help him with that. Fred, this is Brenda. Don't worry, Batman is on his way, and he's bringing the antidote with him."

Fred tell us that Brenda and him decide not to do the nasty before the legal contracty. It's their choice, I can respect that.

She was a virgin--and I wished I were.

There's still the butt, Freddie. Or did...? Nevermind. None of my business anyways...

We did kiss, however, and whoa! Our lip smacking was wonderful! It was my first experience of something I would discover far more deeply: the physically gratifying payoff that comes from obedience to God's sexual standards.

"And that's like twice as good as the kind you get from using an Arab-strap."

In a song made popular during my senior year in college, the singer mourned how it used to feel when a kiss was something special. The lyrics from that song resonated sadly with me because, at that point in my life, a kiss meant nothing to me. It was a joyless prerequisite on the path to intercourse.

Now, too all my fellow men out there, take note. If you're writing a quasi-autobiographical book and yet for some weird reason want to present yourself as The World's Worst Lover, be sure to describe a kiss as being a "joyless prerequisite on the path to intercourse". Oh, and be sure to use phrases like "lip-smacking". Seriously, not even Andy from The 40 Year-Old Virgin spoke like this. "Lip-smacking"? What's next, "a bag of sand"?

Fred tells us he spent his early married life living by the three C's: Church, Clean-living, and Corn (he actually lived next to a corn-field, which does somewhat explain the creepiness).

If you want the details on their early relationship, I recommend you read the beginning of Every Man's Marriage (which you can read for free here). Long story short: They met when Fred's step-mom set up him and Brenda on a blind-date (or "blind-courting", whatever it was). Shortly after meeting Brenda in Church, he heard a voice in his head tell him that he will marry her (and actually tells her about it later that day). He marries her seven months after meeting her and is surprised that his marriage has a freaking buttload of problems (which I believe bears a striking similarity to the plot of the latest Farrelly brothers movie). He even lost his temper on their wedding night (perhaps another bad case of "divine intervention", I hear they have pills for that now). Ah Fred, you're a walking Romantic comedy.

Then this pops out at me:

By worldly standards, I was doing great. Just one little problem. By God's standard of sexual purity, I wasn't even close to living his vision for marriage. Clearly I'd taken steps towards purity, but I was learning that God's standards were higher than I'd ever imagined and that my Father had higher hopes for me than I had dreamed.

(Emphasis mine)

I've heard something like this before, but where? Oh well, the important thing is that he grabs on tight to his newfound purity, or Jesus is going to write him a letter detailing his every mistake.

Fred, the good Christian that he is, once again pisses his tears of pompous self-loathing over Christ's sacrifice as he did in chapter one.

People around me disagreed, saying "Oh, come on! Nobody can control their eyes and mind, for heaven's sakes! God loves you! It must be something else." But I knew differently.

My prayer life was feeble. Once my son was sick and had to be rushed to the emergency room. Did I rush into prayer? No, I could only rush others to pray for me... I had no faith in my own prayers because of my sin.

My faith was weak in other ways as well. As a full-commission salesperson, if I lost a number of deals to the competition, I could never be sure if those setbacks weren't somehow caused by my sin. I had no peace.

I was paying a price for my sin.

I don't really know about the prayer, but the sales? This guy suffers from erectile dysfunction, it's divine intervention ("That's never happened to me before, I'm so virile"); he loses a sale at work, it's divine intervention ("It's not like I lost the sale"). He acts as if his "sexual immorality" is his only flaw/weakness.

My marriage was suffering as well. Because of my sin, I couldn't commit 100 percent to Brenda out of fear that she might dump me later. That cost Brenda in closeness. But that's not all. Brenda told me she was experiencing dreams in which she was being chased by Satan. Was my immorality causing spiritual protection to be taken away from her?

My Wife was paying a price.

Wait wait wait! Brenda is the "pure" one right? The one who doesn't struggle with "impurity"? Why is she being punished by God allowing her to experience these horrible late night pizza-induced demonic attacks? How exactly does Fred provide "spiritual protection" for his household? Why does Brenda even think he needs him in this way? Is Fred's penis shaped like a cross? does he have a Cruci-dick? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything in the Bible about the husband's "purity" protecting his Christian wife from demons.

"Fred, this is God again. There's something I forgot to tell you about Brenda. Her favorite movie is Nightmare on Elm Street, which she believes is a docu-drama."

Another interesting thing is that in Preparing Your Son (pg 177) he writes about "the laws of sowing and reaping" (actions and consequences):

Sometimes we think our poor crop is a direct punishment from God. But God isn't looking for a chance to nail us. When we sin sexually, God doesn't jump from his throne in a rage and bellow, "Okay, now you've done it! I'm going to give you an addiction you'll never squirm out of!"

No, in most cases He doesn't do anything to punish us at all... When problems crop up for us, they usually grew naturally from our own choices.

(emphasis mine)

Wow, Fred kinda pulled a 360 there, eh.

Some more blah blah blah-ing on how his church was suffering because he couldn't serve in it because of his sexual sin. blah blah blah ad inserts blah blah blah female joggers...

Every week I'd vow to to avoid watching R-rated "sexy" movies when I traveled, but every week I'd fail, sweating out tough battles and always losing.

"And in these movies they would say things like 'I'm going to have lots of sexy sex with you.' and she says 'Me so horny, me love you long time!' and then he's nailing her and she's like 'Augh! You're nailing me. Cool.'"

What's even funnier is what qualifies as a "sexy" movie in Fred's eyes. More on that next time. ;)

---------------------------------------
*I myself have not yet read the tranny of the "Every Man" series, but if what Susan Hall saying about the book is accurate, it causes me to scratch my head. Fred, at least when writing this book, seems to believe that women are immune to porn and sex addictions and don't "struggle" with "impurity" as men do. So he, in this way, could be acknowledging his wife's superiority in this regard. But then again, later in the book we hear quite a bit of bitching from Fred&Co. about wives who selfishly decide to deprive their husbands of gratification for the silliest reasons, like headaches, morning-sickness, and being too busy with a career outside the home.

Double Entry: CSE CopyWrong and the 9/11 Bullshit Movement

2007-09-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

Oy! Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministries are at it again. This time they've been making false copyright claims in order to get videos that criticize them pulled off of youtube. For more information, check these vids out (courtesy of Thunderf00t):

Here's the letter that goes with that last video:

Dear Sir,
I write to inform you of the abuse of copyright claims by cseministry (Creation Science Ministries).

cseministry (Creation Science Ministries) have been flagging videos as their copyrighted material even though they contain no material whatsoever from cseministry. cseministry was founded by the young earth creationist and public figure, Kent Hovind who is currently serving a 10 year jail sentence for tax fraud. Videos that cseministry have claimed infringed their copyright include phone calls from various scientists to Kent Hovind, Hovinds phone calls from jails where he conspires to hide property from the IRS and completely original satirical animations of the likeness of the public figure Kent Hovind. cseministry are evidently making abusive use of the copyright claims system by making false claims against videos which reflect badly on cseministry or their founder Kent Hovind.
-This is an abuse of the systems that cseministry have been systematically using as a form of 'back door censorship' and needs to be addressed.

Further cseministry have made copyright claims on videos they have previously made. Yet cseministry have previously declared that all material produced by their ministry is public domain material (see video below). Public domain material cannot be copyrighted. Indeed it would appear that it is only within the last week that cseministry have changed their website (drdino.com) to falsely claim they have copyright protection on all the material they have previously put in the public domain (see video below), simply so they can falsely flag videos critical of them on youtube. No-one can claim the copyright for public domain material, not even cseministry.
And even IF cseministry did own the copyright for any of this material, all of the videos they have flagged as infringing their copyright would fall into the category of fair use.

The following video explains the abuse by cseministry
watch?v=n953ZknacdE
watch?v=mAtTqCom8Fg

The following is a partial list of accounts that have had videos deleted by false copyright claims by cseministry.
rabidape, johnplex, Acorvettes, EGarrett01, Desertphile, qxdc, Chrisboe4ever, RationalResponse and ExtantDodo

Best wishes

I sent off my letter, what about you?

It appears to be working, a lot of those anti-Hovind videos are making comebacks.
------------------------------------

A few weeks ago all around campus I would find flyers like this one (I blacked out the city/town name and phone because I have a bit of an anonymity thing going on here):

For those of you who have trouble reading the text:

TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 11 - 2007
--Moment of silence at 7:15 PM--

Film at 7:30 'Loose Change'
Coffee & Snacks - Discussion

Informational exchange - Open mic

LIVE MUSIC 10:00 - DJ INVINCIBLE & KARUNA

Admission by Donation

Who the heck gets a DJ to perform at a memorial service?

"LET'S GET DEH-PAR-TAHY STARTED FOR THE DEH-PAR-TEYD!" Dugalug-dug-dug-dug...

I've heard of Loose Change before, so after seeing these flyers all over the place, so I thought I'd check it out on the 'tubes. Needless to say, I wasn't very impressed. David Wong has an excellent piece on the film and its creators (as 9/11 "truthers" would say of Loose Change, it "makes you think").

Another great piece on this is Mark Roberts' Screw Loose Change, which goes through the entire video pointing out the errors and downright falsehoods.

I just can't buy into the idea that the U.S. government killed thousands of people in an immensely complex fashion making it look like something else, yet Dylan Avery and his buds are still alive. I mean, if the government can put a plane into the side of a building, what's to keep them from flying one into some college-dropout's apartment. No, no... a plane would be too big. It would have to be something smaller, like a riding mower.

Detective Blonsky: What happened here?

CSI: It appears a riding-mower crashed into this living room, slashing the inhabitants to ribbons.

Detective Blonsky: Damn! I suspect foul play, but without grainy photos and ominous-sounding music, I'll never be able to prove it.

9/11 is an open shut case for me, but I have my suspicions about another incidence...

(Unfastened Coins video courtesy of Maddox).

Coming soon: Another Every Man's Battle entry.

EDIT 2007/09/29: And how could I have forgotten the famous debunking done by Popular Mechanics.

If You Love Homophobia So Much, Why Don't You Just Gay-Marry It?

2007-09-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we get things started I just want to say to whoever is doing so, please don't spam my comments box. It's annoying, and we have all seen that ytmnd file by now. If you are gonna spam my comments section at least spice things up with a little variety. Like, I dunno, maybe some of those medieval ones, something that's animated, or perhaps you could upload my Samson & Goliath pic to ytmnd.com (uploading yours would be even better). But as for now, on to the show.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

College has kept me busy for quite some time, but I have decided to take a break from procrastinating my assignments to once again travel through the series of tubes to write about James Dobson, the Pope of politically participating patriarchal protestants.

Now, for those of you out there who don't know who James Dobson is, let me give you a bit of backstory. James Dobson (judging by the sound of his voice heard over the radio) was conceived in sodomy between John Wayne and Porky Pig. He was later adopted by a Nazarene minister and his wife that were so filled with the love of Christ that they would hit him whenever he used the exclamation "hot-dog". He accepted Jesus into his heart at the age of three, helping him overcome a life-destroying apple-juice addiction. While he was a child he made dogs fight for his own amusement and was beaten by his mother with her own garter-belt; experiencing a childhood that can only be described as one foot in the world of Father Knows Best and the other in that of a Thomas Harris novel. Little Jimmy then went off to Christian College to study psychology, hoping to one day become a Batman villain. He finally became a doctor only to later spit in the face of God by breaking his Hippocratic Oath through promoting the unethical, harmful and pseudoscientific quackery of reparative therapy.

One day, he climbed to the top of a mountain and saw that The Children of Baby-Boomer Evangelicals were being rude and unruly. He descended the mountain carrying a hardcover edition of his famous parenting book Dare to Beat the Shit Out of Your Kids, which he then used to whoop some serious whipper-snapper ass. When the BBEs saw how well behaved and twitching their children had become, they fell to their knees in gratitude and proceeded to suck off the good doctor as if his urethra was a juice-box straw and his gonads were filled with vanilla custard. And that is how Focus on the Family was formed; an organization that provides many services and tools to Evangelical families, like movie reviews that bring attention to the amount of cleavage shown by the Fairy Godmother in Shrek 2.

One day some politicians saw that there were a lot of BBEs and decided that the best way to be popular among the BBEs was to do what they were doing. So they went down on Dobson as well, shouting "HAGH GOARS! LOOG AD USH!" and the BBEs look out of the corners of their eyes and saw what the politicians were doing and said among themselves "LEGDS BOAT FOA DOSE GAISH!" And that was how Dobson, in his own special half-assed yet mad and power-hungry way, became involved in politics. This in turn led to him writing articles like this one, a synopsis of his book Marriage Under Fire. All presented in a neatly summarized, and easy-to-mock, format:

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It would be nice if he could link us this article, because -y'know- many newspapers have web-sites these days. Usually when a newspaper article that supports the his position is mentioned by a web-author on either his blog or a web-page, the author provides the common courtesy of linking to said news-article so the reader would then be able to read it and see if what the author is saying about it is true or not.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

"It is predicted now" by who? You? And gay-marriage will cause/has caused (?) this how?

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings.

OH MY GOD! I have three grandparents! We're practically halfway there! And no good Christian man should ever marry a "used" woman with children of her own. Why, he would miss out on that fresh-vagina smell.

Well, at least we know that little Billy is going to get a fair bit of Christmas presents this year.

"Dozens of half-siblings"? How is it that Dobson has a PhD yet somehow is unaware of the use of contraceptives?

It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today).

Yep, gays are responsible for "huge numbers" of unwanted children. They reproduce like jackrabbits, them queers.

Yes, I hear gay marriage is very popular in countries that have a lot of street-children, like India.

All those children in foster-homes and living on the streets. It's a shame there isn't anyone that wants to adopt them. Well, anyone that isn't kept from being able to so by the followers of certain demagogues that misrepresent the scholars they cite (on rare occasions when they actually do cite a source instead of crying wolf).

Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

Reality TV?

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

Oy Vey! Time for me to whip out my notes from Countryman's Dirt, Greed and Sex.

Yep, Paul was talking about a homosexuality "epidemic" in Romans 1 (our God does condemn people for illness, does he not?). It's not like Paul wrote Romans as an attempt to heal rifts between Jewish and Gentile Christians at that church; He wasn't using Greco-Roman rhetorical technique to capture the sympathies of the Jewish part of his audience by expressing the Jewish cultural connection of idolatry to the "uncleanliness" of gentile culture (verses 18-27) by bringing up homosexual acts instead of unclean foods as that bringing up unclean foods in such a context would only exacerbate tensions in table-fellowship between Jewish Christians concerned with food purity and Gentiles that didn't observe kosher. Nope, he wrote Romans to warn us about gay sex being responsible for all manner of evil in the world.

Countryman notes that the Greek word epithymia, translated in the NIV as "sinful desires" is more accurately translated as simply "lusts" as it is used again by Paul in Romans 7:7 and by the Septuagint in Exodus 20:17 being defined as the sin of coveting, Paul himself uses the word positively in 1 Thess 2:17 (his "intense longing" to meet of with his brothers in Thessalonia).

Countryman also points out that Paul has a very rich plethora of Greek words he could've used to describe the "sin" of homosexuality, such as:

sin (hamartia, hamartema)
lawlessness/transgression (anomia)
unrighteousness (adikiu)
impiety (asebia)

But he doesn't use any of these describing the homosexual acts, although he does use the language of physical purity, describing them as "unclean" and "shameful" (which they would have been to Jews).

The list of sins found in verses 29-32 -the sins that "deserve death" (note that there are no "purity" violations on that list, sexual or in any other physical sense) although practiced by the "impure" gentiles, were not limited to them as Paul then follows this by rebuking in the following verses those who judged the "impure" and even noting that the "pure" Jews commit the same sins as Pork-eating, dude-loving, two-crops-in-the-same-field planting Gentiles (Romans 2). Thereby preserving the unstable unity of the Roman church by not alienating his his entire Jewish audience (by acknowledging the Jewish purity code and Jewish "superiority" in this regard) defending his Gentile audience (by not presenting Gentile culture as uniquely sinful in and of itself), and laying a rhetorical smackdown on Jewish Christians that judged "impure" Gentiles (while simultaneously not appearing anti-purity to his Jewish audience). It is only after lengthy exposition on Jews and the Law, Gentiles, and the Grace of Christ does Paul finally bring up the matter of food purity (Romans 14).

Long story short. Dobson just shot himself in the foot, as Paul is saying that "every kind of wickedness" can also be found among those who practice purity codes. And adherence to purity codes are not conditions to receive the Grace of God.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Uh. Mr Dobson, I don't know what they taught at University. But at where I attend college my profs teach me that when you put forth an argument against something, you're actually supposed to put forth an argument.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

Tom Green? I thought he was only married once, to Drew Barrymore, and even that only lasted a year.

Mr. Dobson, Lawrence v. Texas was about decriminalizing homosexual sodomy. It didn't really have much to do with gay-marriage (other than allowing the "gay" without the "marriage"). It seems to me that it was more a case of "there is no way we can enforce this law without violating the constitution, screw it" kind of thing.

I can't be the only person here who can see the irony of a "traditional, Biblical-model" family advocate complaining about polygamy which technically is the most "traditional, Biblical-model" type of family (although I believe it wouldn't function well in today's society, much like Dobson's patriarchy).

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Of course the state will have to prove that polygamy will hurt our society (which should be easy for them to do) because, technically, you can't prove a negative.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

Yep, the institution of marriage never changed from it's original state of a man owning one or more wives (and perhaps a few concubines and slaves) obtained at the age of menstruation from their parents in exchange for three goats to a man owning only one wife (something the Jews adapted from those Grecian fags when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine, according to Bible Scholar L.W. Countryman) to the woman having a degree of ownership of her husband as well (You can thank the J-man for that one) to a committed and consensual life partnership between two adults where their financial assets are united, their insurance carried, ect.

Another thing Dobson didn't learn at school: "Slippery-slope" arguments are almost always fallacious.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

As opposed to the prohibition of marriage between homosexuals being supported by nothing more substantial than a power-mad right-wing demagogue's context-ignoring interpretations of a religious text, his nation's history, and the U.S. Constitution.

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four.

He's shooting off numbers like an auctioneer.

"Andthentwoandthreepeoplewillbeabletomarrythensevenandeleventhenpi
andthity-seventimestentothepowerofeightthenzeropointfiveandagooglethey've SOLD out our nation's Christian heritage."

Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!)

Like Tom Green the polygamist.

How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

I'm sorry Dobson, but marriage between relatives has been going on long time before the gay-rights movement.

"The legal underpinnings for marriage" destroyed? I guess Adam's insurance won't be carried to Steve then. Kinda like when they change the speed limit for a stretch of road, the legal underpinning of traffic-control is destroyed.

Yes Dobson, I see your point. Two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a state-recognized legal contract is a gateway to marriage with animals ("good luck signing the marriage certificate with that hoof, eh.") and that the only thing keeping courts from giving the seal of approval to relationships where the small and weakest of our society are selfishly abused by their elders is the "ick" factor, because it sure as hell can't be that courts recognize the fact that pedophiles actually hurt children.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit.

Oh, so they don't want any of the legal benefits of marriage, since ending of the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether would result in said benefits (aside from a very tall cake and a ceremony) going down the crapper. This is basically a modern day version of "if we let Jews drink from our well they will poison it".

And Dobson, as long as married couples own things, divorce will always be a matter of the courts.

With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

So gays want to get married and adopt kids because they hate commitment and the family. Makes sense.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

NO! Not TEXTBOOKS! I want my kids to learn about homosexuality the old fashioned way. Evangelical Right-wing congressmen sending them dirty emails.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Wow, I had no idea that there is such a high demand for and limited supply of orphans these days. I bet they move faster than flapjacks.

"Sorry, but Angelina Jolie was in here earlier today and she just cleared us all out. Why don't you come back Monday, that's when the truck comes in."

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Yeah, it's worse for orphans to be raised by a gay couple than to remain without parents, shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (now where have I heard that before?).

Yeah, I remember when you argued that straight-parent families do better than gay-parent ones from your guest column in Time, where you lied like the sleazebag you are.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

What can I say, it beats shipping them off to ex-gay camp against their will.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Is he just pulling these "arguments" out of his ass? It is speculated that roughly 10% of the population is gay, so even if they all decided to get married I seriously doubt it would flood the system. And since having dependents "burdens the system" why doesn't Dobson encourage cohabitation among his straight followers instead of marriage? Real swell knowledge you have of the economy there, Dobbie.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

Wait wait wait. Pornography "spread throughout the world" -from America- after the Nixon Commission?

America is the "fountainhead of filth"? Somebody get this man an internet, STAT! Has this guy seen the shit coming out of Japan? Does he know what bukkake is? I know he has some familiarity with porn, mainly the kind with chicks "hanging from trees, and being murdered with knives, guns, ropes, etc" (me, I happen to be partial to the big-butts; but whatever floats your boat, man).

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate.

Actually Canada has already legalized gay-marriage. And, surprise surprise, families still exist and fire isn't raining from the skies. Who woulda thunk it?

And Dobbie, it might surprise you to realize that Canada and Europe doesn't look in your direction and think to themselves "That country run by George W. Bush, how can we become like it?"

Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

So looking at how laws in other countries with cultures similar to yours for ideas on how similar laws will affect your country is grounds for impeachment, but lying about a reason for war isn't? Nice set of priorities you got there.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

That's kinda weird, considering how even though Jesus was not overtly hostile to the institution of the family, he did not portray"family-values" as a central part of the Gospel. There's also the fact that the Apostle Paul personally believed that raising a family distracted one from the work of the Kingdom. Ah Dobbie, your knowledge of scripture is rivaled only your knowledge of anthropology, sociology, and snuff-porn.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

This is just me talking, but judging from the rest of that chapter, it's a condemnation of divorce, which you haven't really proven is caused by gays marrying in your country.

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries.

Yeah, I hear families and Christianity don't exist in Europe anymore.

Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture.

You see, this is what separates James Dobson from actual academics. Actual academics will actually present a case whereas Dobbie here will just repeat himself and panic.

Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

"The third country in the world to 'normalize'" homosexuality? Somebody's doctorate isn't in historical studies.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

"Like in the days of Noah"? I didn't know the Bible taught that God punished the entire earth for disobeying a Levitical purity law that didn't exist at the time.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

"You need to pray harder, dammit!"

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

It could be that they aren't "taking action" because Christians are finally realizing what deceitful, wolf-crying, fear-mongering paranoiacs you and your Focus-fluffers are.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

Long story short, if gays are allowed to marry, America will turn into this:

And to end things on a pleasant note. The musical humor of Roy Zimmerman:

Haggard's Back

2007-09-02T13:39:00.000-07:00

Yup, and he needs your money too:

Gayle and I, along with Alex (16) and Elliott (14) have decided to move into the Phoenix Dream Center on October 1st. The Phoenix Dream Center is a half-way house for the homeless, those coming out of prison, recovering alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other broken people. I identify.
The building is sponsored by Phoenix First Assembly, our new church home, but the workers are volunteers. The Dream Center also houses a church called "The Church on the Street." I met the pastor and he asked me if I would be willing to counsel some of the men and to teach the group from time to time. The woman directing the ministry to women invited Gayle to teach and minister to the women.
Gayle and I spoke to the boys about it, and after a series of discussions with several leaders and our pastor, Tommy Barnett, we decided to serve the dream center in whatever capacity asked, whether it's cleaning the building, hosting a visiting group, attending a meeting, or facilitating a study. In order to increase our availability to serve, we have decided to move and live in the Dream Center.
As a result, the Phoenix Dream Center team is creating an apartment for our family by combining a small, one-bedroom apartment with an adjacent room so our boys will have their own rooms. Even though Alex and Elliott's drive to school is quite a distance every day, we think it is worth it to be given the privilege of service.
In preparation for the future, Gayle and I are both enrolled at the University of Phoenix at their main downtown campus. Gayle is in the undergraduate program studying psychology. I am pursuing my master of science in counseling degree, which means we are both full time students. Alex and Elliott are both attending a local Christian school. Elliott is playing 8th grade football this fall. Everyone is busy!
It looks as though it will take two years for us to have adequate earning power again, so we are looking for people who will help us monthly for two years. During that time we will continue as full time students, and then, when I graduate, we won't need outside support any longer.
But for the next two years, we will need support. Between now and the end of the year, we have to find the people who want to help us transition into our future. So I am starting today to let friends like you know that we are raising money for support as we move into the Phoenix Dream Center.
Would you be willing to help us find people who can give a one time gift or make a commitment to help support us monthly for two years? If so, that would be a blessing.
If people want to support us directly, they can mail checks to Ted and Gayle Haggard, 9699 N. Hayden, Suite 108, PMB 180, Scottsdale, AZ 95259. This is a private mail box address that we have been using since we moved to the Phoenix area. If any supporters need a tax deduction for their gift, they can mail it to Families With a Mission at P.O. Box 63125, Colorado Springs, CO 80962. The supporters would need to write their check to "Families With A Mission" and put a separate note on it that it is for the Haggard family, then Families With a Mission will mail us 90% of the funds for support and use 10% for administrative costs.
Thank you so much. We feel our move into the Dream Center is the next step God would have us take. Any help we can get with this will be greatly appreciated and, I believe, rewarded in heaven.
Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might have an interest. Any assistance we receive will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
God bless,
Ted Haggard
"Preparing"

(bold text emphasis courtesy of Colorado Confidential)

And now, the shit on this bullshit:

In what is clearly a fundraising letter, Haggard indicated, "we need to raise our own support." However, he doesn't mention that when he left the church, New Life Church leaders agreed to pay his salary through 2007 - estimated at about $138,000 annually.
In addition, as Colorado Confidential reported earlier this month, El Paso County Assessor property records show that the Haggard's still own their 5-bedroom, 3-bath home in Colorado Springs. Sitting on 5.1 acres, its current market value is listed at $715,051.
The home is not currently on the market for sale.

In a handy bit of sleuthing, a blog team at the Stranger in Seattle has followed up this story with some interesting info about the organization that Haggard is asking people to send money to, Families With a Mission.
An independent confirmation with the Colorado Secretary of State's office shows that the organization's corporate offices were moved from Kailua-Kona, Hawaii to the Town of Monument, north of Colorado Springs, in July, 2003.
Its Colorado Springs mailing address is the same one to which Haggard is asking people to send donations. However, Secretary of State records show that Families With a Mission was administratively dissolved earlier this year, on Feb. 23.
And the man who is listed as the president of Families With a Mission, Paul Gerard Huberty, appears to be the same Paul Huberty who was convicted in 1996 of having sex with a 17-year old girl while he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force stationed in Germany, and who later registered as a sex offender in Hawaii. The organization Family Watchdog, which tracks sex offenders, currently lists Huberty at the same Monument address that was the principal address of Families With a Mission.

As well as:

The overseers said Wednesday that Haggard will not be moving into the Dream Center.
"It was never the intention of the Dream Center that Mr. Haggard would provide any counsel or other ministry," wrote the overseers.
"Mr. Haggard will not be moving in or working with the Dream Center. He will not be doing any ministry. He will be seeking secular employment to support himself."

Now, back when the Ted Haggard scandal hit, I saw this on the news:

Now, this is what strikes me as odd. We all know that hypocrisy and deceit are nothing new. But when you look at Ted Haggard and other contemporary two-faced individuals in positions of authority, it becomes apparent that we, as a people, are losing our skill at the ancient art of bullshitting*. I mean, come on! "I bought the meth, but then I threw it out"? "Mommy, I took a cookie out of the cookie-jar, but I didn't eat it, I was tempted to, but I threw it away instead". Little children lie that way. Heck, look at Alberto Gonzales: "I can't recall", "I don't remember", I used those exact same lines in grade five to get out of doing my homework assignments**. These aren't evil, corrupt geniuses covering their tracks. They're just little kids doing just some plain old, half-assed, lousy lying.

Ted, if you're reading this, pay attention. As someone who has seen your earlier work, let me just say that, yeah, your past performances...

...had their moments. But let's face it, they just stopped being believable later-on. For starters, to reduce suspicion you could have done a few things like, oh I don't know, not hang paintings of buff, well-oiled masculine angels and white-hooded middle-eastern men groping buff yet accident-prone handymen in your church building. And when you left that voicemail message on Mike Jones' answering machine, you could've at least tried to disguise your voice. I myself highly recommend the "Donald Duck", and if you can't do that try inhaling helium from a balloon the next time you order drugs over the phone.

As for your your newest project, the Disgraced-Yet-Repentant-Man-of-God-Begging-for-Handouts chain-letter, would have actually been quite believable if it weren't for a few things. Your first mistake was sending out the letter too soon (your salary was still going to be paid until the end of December) when you should have waited at least until January/Feburary. Flaw #2 there was keeping your $715,051 house when you could have simply "sold" it to, let's say, "Bernie MacIntosh". And instead of asking people to send the money to Mr "But officer, she told me she was 18" in Hawaii, you could have simply set up a paypal account and receive money through a website. Perhaps slap one of those plotless webcomics with self-insertion characters made using old-video game sprites (I hear they are quite popular) to increase page views.

Ted, you shouldn't studying "science of counseling", you should study acting. The theater, boy, is the place for you. Think about it; as a former MegaChurch pastor you already have plenty of stage experience. A few acting classes should definitely improve your skills. You weren't even that bad to begin with as you've had them convinced for so long. Hell, you've even convinced yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------
*However, in the case of Bob Allen, I gotta give him an "A" for effort with his "I'm scared of black men and thunderstorms" approach to covering his restroom indiscretion.

**In grade five that line didn't work to well for me, yet today it seems to be working pretty well for Gonzales. America is becoming a very scary place these days.

Too Cool (but apparently not) for School

2007-08-26T23:41:00.000-07:00

Well, thought I'd give you, my faithful readers out there (there is at least seven of you that I know of) the heads up; I'll be moving again this week, this time to return to college. Sadly, there will be I won't be updating as much as I'd like to, but I've got some treats for ya waiting in the wings, and there's still the Samson and Goliath action-figure photoshop internet meme I'm trusting all seven -or, God willing, eight- of you to spread to the vast corners of the internet.

And since it's been a while, a Youtube video to entertain you:

The Battle for the Contents of Evangelical Parents' Wallets

2007-08-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

Someone posted about this on Theologyweb, and I think it deserves a mention here:

Instead of Spiderman or Bratz dolls, children in the US could soon be clutching a talking Jesus toy, a bearded Moses or a muscle-bound figure of Goliath.
From the middle of August, Wal-Mart, the biggest toy retailer in the US, will for the first time stock a full line of faith-based toys.
The Bible-based action figures will initially be given two feet of shelf space in 425 of the company's 3,300 stores nationwide.
There, the Tales of Glory dolls will take on what their makers are calling "the battle for the toy box" with some of the nation's most popular action figures.

"The battle for the toy box"? Makes sense. Ever since Skeletor joined forces with Megatron and Cobra-Commander, Kryptonite Batman and Rocket-Blast Spiderman have been having a tough time holding down the fort.

David Socha, founder of One2believe, the company which makes the dolls, is confident the demand is there for "God-honouring" toys which reflect Christian teachings and morality.

"We get a lot of people, even people who are not of faith, don't go to church, saying 'I've got a four and a six-year-old and I don't know what to get them any more'," he said.
"If you go in a toy aisle in any major retailer, you will see toys and dolls that promote and glorify evil, destruction, lying, cheating.

Let's see... Evil...

Check.

Destruction...

Check.

Lying...

Check.

Cheating...

Check. Yup, that about covers it.

"In the girls' aisle where the dolls would be, you see dolls that are promoting promiscuity to very young girls. Dolls will have very revealing clothes on, G-string underwear."

Uh... David. If you're seeing dolls that have clearly visible G-string underwear, you're probably not in Toy's R' Us anymore.

But yeah, I see Dave's point about girls' dolls. Remember a few years ago when those talking Barbie dolls said "I can't get enough DP" and "I hope the tests comes back negative"? No... wait, that didn't happen. That's a weird thing about guys like David. He looks at dolls like Barbie that promote unhealthy body-images in young girls and empty-headed vacuous consumerism and all he sees wrong with them is "OMG I CAN SEE BELLYBUTTON!".

As for Bratz, the problem I have with people saying that the company that makes those dolls is intentionally trying to sexualize little girls is this: Nobody finds Hydrocephalus sexy. You never see chicks with head like that on magazine covers, you don't hear college frat-guys bragging about boning the chick with the fluid-filled misshapen forehead, You don't hear rappers release hit singles with lyrics like "I like big skulls and I cannot lie/ You other brothers can deny/ See a deformed honey and wanna meet her/ show her my ventricular catheter". That just can't be the case, it had to be accidental.

Toy Company Executive: Ready to show us the new miniature sex-dolls for our adult toy-line, Hojo.
Hojo: Here they are sirs. I call them Skankz.
TCE: What the Hell! Hojo, You made the wrong part of them large! Nobody can masturbate to this! We have to change the design before we start production.
Hojo: Uh sir, this is not the prototype. We have three warehouses filled with these dolls.
TCE: WHAT!!! What'll we do with all of those dolls?... I got it! Hojo, have the factory workers sand off the nipples and genitals. We'll change the name and market them as a doll for little girls.
Hojo: Brilliant idea, sir.

And that's how corporate greed works, kids. And to see how it can glorify Christ, just take a look at the one2beleive website:

We are one2believe, designers of Bible-based toys for young children, called Tales of Glory. Beginning this August our Tales of Glory toys will become available at select Wal-Mart stores and other retailers across the country.

This program represents a huge opportunity for the faith community as it is the first time a worldwide retailer has opened-up shelf-space for a strong Bible-based toy product, like Tales of Glory! However, this is only a test-run. In fact, Wal-Mart will only have Tales of Glory in about 425 stores and only for a limited time (August through January). They have temporarily made the product available, and are waiting to see the response from their consumers. The success of this program is up to us… we need to take advantage of this amazing opportunity!

This is a chance to let our voices be heard. By supporting this program we can send a message to other retailers and toy makers letting them know that we, as a Christian community, are truly concerned about the toys that our children play with! We are aware of the influence that toys have on our young children’s impressionable minds, so we would like to see more God-honoring options available. It’s a “Battle for the Toy Box”!

"This is a chance to let our voices be heard. By supporting this program we can send a message to other retailers and toy makers letting them know that we, as a Christian community, have an unrealistic fear that letting our kids play with Pokemon and Polly Pocket will eventually result in them offering oral-sex behind the dumpster of a 7-11 in exchange for crack-money, so we passively acknowledge that we as Christian parents suck horribly at instilling our values in our children and are desperate enough to try anything- no matter how ridiculous and/or counter-productive it may be- to amend that."

When a secular toy company wants people to buy their products, they put an ad on TV that shows kids how cool the toys are. The kids then beg their parents to buy the toys and the toys get sold. One2beleive can't do this for one simple reason: Their toys suck so bad that no child would ever ask their parents for one. So they innovate in their advertising strategy and play to the basic human instinct of parental fear. Yes, these guys are actually using scare-tactics to sell action-figures. I don't think even the company that made The Incredible Crash-Test Dummies did that. How long will it be until we hear about the "G.I. Joe-agenda" from these guys?

Boy, evangelicals sure love their "Culture War" with its various "battles", don't they. There's Battle Cry, Every Man's Battle, and now "The Battle for the Toy box". The only things that want to fight as much as Evangelicals want to are male elk in mating season. Wait, I think I just found out what's wrong with the Church today: It desperately needs to get laid.

And the toys. Oh those wonderful, wonderful toys. First of all, the P31 dolls:

P31 are a new exclusive collection of high-quality dolls, based on the biblical teaching of Proverbs 31. P31 dolls were specifically designed to provide a Bible-based, Christian alternative to other secular toys on the market, and to encourage young girls to pursue biblical womanhood.

For those of you who don't know. the latter verses of Proverbs 31 contain an old Hebrew acrostic poem of "The Wife of Noble Character" which describes a woman who the author envisions as the ideal wife. Let's look at one of dolls, shall we:

Abigail stands 18 inches tall, has beautiful brown eyes, long red hair, and a contemporary outfit. Abigail comes with an accessory kit, containing a Bible lesson (based on Proverbs 31:20), two cookie-cutters, a cookie recipe, and a list of exciting activities. The activities are sure to be tons of fun for any young girl! It is our prayer that the Lord would use these dolls as a means to encourage the girls of today to become Proverbs 31 women of tomorrow! For ages 3+

Dear God! Those dark, soulless eyes! It has taken the form of a human in order to deceive us. We must kill it quickly.

Bratz dolls have misshapen heads and give off a creepy "child prostitute"-vibe. P31 dolls, on the other hand, have misshapen heads and give off a creepy "corn-cult compound child-bride of the damned"-vibe. If these dolls are based off of a poem describing an ideal wife, why are the dolls crafted to resemble pre-pubescent children? I mean, it's not like you have to give them a rack or anything, just change the face a bit, make the head smaller, and proportion the arms and legs to the torso a bit differently. Proverbs may not contain a poem describing a husband of noble character, but if it did, I doubt it would contain the phrase "raging pederast". Seriously, I know people married a lot younger back in ancient Israel, but they at least waited until the girl was able to freaking menstruate.

You may be asking "Hey Cynic, how much do these dolls cost?" Well, brothers and sisters, I shit thee not, you can receive on of these little cherubs for the incredibly low price of $39.99 American. Now at first the price may seem to high for something originally purchased from a K-mart bargain-bin for $3.20 and then re-dressed in something made by a retired Sunday-school teacher, but keep in mind that this doll may be the one thing in your daughters life that will keep her from ending up with a career that involves the use of a transparent high-heels and a metal pole. But then again, you can always try out the more affordable (at $19.99 a pop) Messengers of Faith:

A long time ago, God sent His only Son, Jesus, from heaven to Earth. He was born to a woman named Mary and a man named Joseph. His earthly parents raised Jesus until He became a man. Then, He left them to travel all around the land. He helped lots of people by teaching them, healing them and performing many miracles! (New Testament Gospels)

Now children can learn more about Jesus’ incredible Tale of Glory while they play! Jesus narrates his own biography, and also quotes key memory verses from the Bible, including Mark 12:30, Mark 12:31 and John 3:16. Our unique start/stop function allows children to pause and restart the story at any point.

I remember when I was little and attending Sunday school the teacher has a Jesus doll a lot like this on that she would use to act out stories from the New Testament. Of course, back then they just had the Jesus doll, so our Sunday school teacher had to be creative; She used an old X-men Cyclops as St Peter, Rainbow Brite as Mary Magdalene, Starscream the Decepticon as Judas Iscariot, and one of those Jurassic Park velociraptors that screech when you move their legs as St John, the Apostle of love. Man, that was one hell of an Passion play.

Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of God’s Son. One day, an angel appeared and told her that she was going to have a baby named Jesus. Mary and her husband were very excited! Mary finally gave birth to baby Jesus in a town called Bethlehem. She raised baby Jesus until He grew to be a man, and she loved Him very much. (Matthew 1:18-25, 2:13-15, 20-23; Luke 1:26-66, 2:1-52; John 2:1-10)

This doll raises one nagging question in my mind: How come in a lot of contemporary church art is Jesus often depicted wearing his mother's clothing?

Esther was a Jewish orphan. She was raised by her older cousin. He loved her and cared for her until she was all grown up. Then, the King of the land began to look for a beautiful Queen. He looked far and wide, but he could not find anyone who made him happy. Then, he saw Esther. As soon as he met her, the search was over! He had found his beautiful Queen at last. But the story does not end there. Someone came up with an evil plan to destroy all of the Jewish people. But Esther decided to be brave and try to save the Jewish people from destruction. (Esther 1-9)

The great thing about this doll is how empowering it is to young women. By using this teaching aid in Sunday school little girls can learn that, like Esther, they too can be used by God to make the world a better place by sleeping with a rich and powerful man.

Looking at the doll itself, with a chin like that, maybe Xerxes should have removed that freakishly large scarf and checked for an Adam's apple before declaring her his bride.

Paul used to be known as Saul of Tarsus. When he was younger, he did not believe in Jesus. In fact, he would persecute people who worshiped Jesus.

One day, he was on his way to a town called Damascus to arrest some Christians, when something amazing happened! Suddenly, a bright light from heaven flashed all around him. Saul did not know what to do. He was so terrified that he fell to the ground trembling. Then, he heard a thunderous voice saying, “Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?” Saul was terribly afraid and confused. He did not know who was speaking to him, so he asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The voice replied, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.”

From that point on, Saul believed in Jesus and became a Christian. He stopped persecuting people, and began preaching to them instead. He traveled all over the land starting new churches and encouraging other Christians. His name later changed from Saul to Paul and he became a great missionary!

This one talks. Just press a button on the back to hear the following:

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" Romans 8:35
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10
"I'm not even supposed to be here today!" Clerks 3:16

If these guys put out a Barnabas figure that looks like Randall Graves, I am so going to buy them both.

And now, the Tales of Glory figurine set:

David was a man after God’s own heart. He did not fear anything because he trusted God to always protect him. Even when the giant soldier, Goliath, wanted to fight, David trusted God to keep him safe! (1 Samuel 17)

Children can make this story come to life with our interactive “David” play set, featuring everything you need to help your child learn about this fascinating Tale of Glory. Set includes a “David and Goliath” mini-storybook and 3 PVC figurines (David, Goliath and a collection of 5 smooth stones). For ages 3+.

Goliath: Ugh! What is that?
David: I'd say it's a pile camel-droppings, but the coloring is all off.
Goliath: I dare you to touch it.
David: Eww! You touch it.
Goliath: No, you touch it.
David: Poke it with your sword.
Goliath: Screw you, David. I don't wanna get weird-colored camel-turd on my sword. Do you know how expensive this is?

A long time ago, the Son of God was sent to Earth to be born as a tiny baby named Jesus. It was a very exciting time! (Matthew 1:18-25; 2:1-2:23; Luke 2:1-39)

Jesus: What, me worry?

There is no way that woman just gave birth. That Mary up there just spent more time in a tanning bed than in labor for crying out loud. What is it with the Nativity-scenes and a calm, smiling Virgin Mary? I swear, one Christmas I'm going to build a Nativity-scene that actually depicts Mary giving birth; legs spread apart, her nails digging into Joseph's arm like eagle's talons into a heavy bass, and a bared-teeth grimace that makes Venom look like Jack Nicholson brushing his teeth. And crowning, there will be crowning. Silent night my ass!

Fun Fact: In the early days of the Church there was a gnostic cult that believed Christ's mother to be divine. The followers of this sect distinguished themselves by mimicking her appearance. Persecution from the Roman Catholic Church drove this sect into to the east, where they settled in Japan and started the Ganguro fashion trend.

Noah was the only good and honest man on the Earth. Everyone else was so bad that God decided to send a great flood to cover all of the Earth. But God remembered Noah. God saved Noah and his family from the great flood by giving him a very special assignment! (Genesis 6-9)

Now, it's been a long time since I last attended Sunday-school, but I just don't remember that the "very special assignment" God gave Noah was to feed donkeys cocaine.

And there's more:

I don't trust that camel on the left. Camels are not supposed to smile like that. That camel has things planned. Dark, sinister things. Sins against God and nature.

Rest easy, Young-Earth Creationists. If an evolutionist gives you the old anti-global flood argument of "how could Noah take care of all the animals on the Ark?" just tell him that all Noah had to contend with were two camels, two sheep, and a pair of coked-up donkeys.

Samson was the strongest man to ever live! He loved a woman named Delilah, and he was used by God to do some really amazing things. (Judges 13-16)

Children can make this story come to life with our interactive “Samson” play set, featuring everything you need to help your child learn about this fascinating Tale of Glory. Set includes a “Samson, The Strongest Man to Ever Live” mini-storybook and 3 PVC figurines (Samson, Delilah and a column). For ages 3+.

For someone who was forbidden to have a razor touch his head, Samson sure is displaying a surprising lack of facial-hair. And this children's toy-set for kids three and up not only comes with a Samson figurine but also what appears to be a young Mrs. Claus. It doesn't really say who exactly this woman is though, so I'll have to guess she's either Delilah or the prostitute Samson banged before meeting her.

Seriously though, I understand Jonah and maybe David and Goliath, but Samson? David Socha complains about secular toys that "promote" sex and violence and yet he puts out a toy of an antihero that puts Wolverine to shame. Samson dicked his girlfriend's family around with an riddle before killing them, destroyed their fields, and made most of his decisions using the wrong head. Yeah, his actions did catch-up with him, but then he redeems himself by killing even more people. A reeaaal great role-model for the kids, eh? Heroes of the Bible.

Speaking of which, since they already have figurines for one of the stories from Judges (which is basically the "Frank Miller" book of the Bible), why not shoot for another? I recommend a "Rape of the Levite's Concubine" playset. You could press a button on the back of the Concubine doll and her head, legs, and arms pop right off.

Which leads us to this:

With Tales of Glory Spirit Warrior Action Figures children can bring the greatest stories of the Bible to life. Each 13” action figure comes with a mini-storybook. Spirit Warriors are big tough toys that boys will love to play with. Add a Tales of Glory Play-mat to Spirit Warrior action figures and watch your child’s imagination soar.

Here we see a different Samson toy (on the left), this time with a beard, yet surprisingly short hair (this probably explains why Goliath appears to be having his way with him). This gives me an idea (no, not that you pervs). To all the other bloggers gifted with the "mad photoshop skills", I suggest we start a photoshop Samson and Goliath internet meme. You can find photos to start with from here, here, here, and here. And since I suggested it, I'd better start things off:

Post your 'shops on your blog and drop me a link in the "comments" section. Have fun. ;)

EMB: Ladies Man

2007-08-07T21:21:00.000-07:00

Every Man's Battle: pt 1, ch 1, pg 14; ch2, pg 15-16

Fred Stoker goes on to describe descent into his "sexual pit", describing his intense, life-destroying pornography-addiction thusly:

I actually memorized the dates when my favorite soft-core porn magazines arrived at the local drugstore.

Wow! he makes his pornography-addiction sound almost as bad as my addiction to LittleKuriboh's YuGiOh Abridged series on Youtube.

Moving on. Fred goes into one of spiels about how in his early days the ladies were, as Strongbad would say, "all up ons" him (but of course, he is only telling us this to warn us of the dangers of teh sex), describing how when he first had sex it was with a woman he thought he would marry, and from there he turned into a man-whore (not the kind that writes poorly researched yet well-marketed books dealing with serious relationship issues that are loaded with empty anecdotal filler and decontextualized Bible-verses. That came later).

You know how in my last entry in this series I mentioned how I pitied Fred Stoeker. Well, if you are anything like me, and happen to be reading Every Man's Battle like I did, you will start off the book with a sense pity for Freddy and what he has gone through growing up with with a verbally-abusive father who abandoned his mom. But as you turn the pages, the pity will eventually be drowned out by slowly yet steadily growing dislike of him as a person.

After five years in California I found myself with four "steady" girlfriends simultaneously. I was sleeping with three of them and was essentially engaged to marry two of them. None knew the others. (These days, in my class for premarital couples, I often ask the women what they would think of a man with two fiancées . My favorite response is "He's a hopless pig!" And I was hopeless, living in a pigsty.)

Don't you just hate it when you find yourself with multiple girlfriends. You think that your "one" girlfriend either has multiple personality disorder or simply has some kind of kink where she likes to disguise herself in one of several alter-egos when she's with you. And then BAM! You spot both "Charlene" and "Sandra" at the same grocery store. It's not like anyone actively tries to obtain multiple girlfriends through deception. I mean just look his face, with looks like that he can just sit there and passively accumulate girlfriends (chicks really dig the "potato with Downs-syndrome" look).

So at the beginning of the second chapter we see Fred Stoeker, like all evangelicals that have been "delivered" and have founded their own ministries with websites that have photos of them smiling while wearing neckties with their wives standing behind them (in Fred's case, a victim from when the Joker poisoned the water-supply of the town of Stepford), has filled out his obligatory "Personal-Testimony" Mad Lib sheet:

Despite the deepening pit I occupied in my single days, I didn't notice anything wrong with my life. Oh, sure, I attended church sporadically, and from time to time the pastor's words penetrated my heart. But who was he? Besides, I loved my girlfriends. No one's getting hurt, I reasoned.

"I loved my girlfriends"? Yup, loved them enough to go behind their backs on each other. Good thing that at the part where he has his encounter with Jesus the Freshmaker he'll tell us of his realization of how badly he hurt those women.

My dad had eventually remarried, and when I visited back home in Iowa, my stepmother occasionally dragged me across the river to the Moline Gospel Temple. The Gospel was clearly preached, but to me the whole scene was clearly ludicrous. I often laughed cynically. Those people are crazy!

"The Gospel was clearly preached" you know, the one where Jesus died on the cross to give us "stop masturbating"-powers so we can finally be good enough for God to accept us. Oh well, at least his being "born-again" will cause him to realize how his deception and manipulation hurt those women.

And let's just fast forward to the office-sunset, just in time for the money-shot:

That evening as the sun dipped beneath the horizon, I suddenly saw in full clarity what I had become. What I saw was hopelessly ugly. Where once I was blind, now I could see. Instantly, I saw my deep, deep need for a Savior. Because of the Moline Gospel Temple, I knew who to call upon.

My prayer that day was born out of the simplicity of a certain heart: "Lord, I'm ready to work with you if You're ready to work with me."

I stood up and walked out that office, not yet fully realizing what I'd just done. But God knew, and it seemed as if all heaven moved into my life. Within two weeks I had a job back in Iowa and a new life ahead of me. And no girlfriends!

Wait a minute! The guy goes through four very messy break-ups involving lies and betrayal he calls that "all heaven" moving into his life?

Wait! Umm... I have a feeling something is supposed to happen here but I can't figure out what... Oh well. At least he put in that important part of how he was finally rid of those contaminating harlots.

In EMB, Fred doesn't really tell us that much about these four femmes from his B.C. days in California (although he doesn't really shut-up about the others), but Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle contains a a mentions of one of them that he maintained a long-distance relationship with (she in California and he in Idaho) after he had become a Christian. On page 224-225 in chapter 17 in the "For Son and Dad" section Fred says that he "heard the pastor say that Christians shouldn't be unequally yoked with unbelievers" (the pastor was probably alluding to 2 Cor. 6:14-16 which, according to L.W. Countryman in Dirt, Greed, and Sex, had little if anything at all to do with intermarriage* and is most likely an "exhortation to the Corinthians to withdraw from rival teachers, for it is preceded and followed by appeals to 'make room for' Paul in their affections (6:11-13; 7:2)") and writes:

If two different animals were yolked together to pull the plow, such as a donkey and an ox, you'd have your hands full trying to work that plow. The yoke would weigh heavy on one animal while choking the other, or the animal with the longer stride would drag the other painfully by the neck. This is a great word picture of what it would be like if you got romantically involved with a young girl who doesn't believe in God. You'd be working against each other instead of for each other. Believe me, in your desire to stay sexually pure, you want to be associating with someone who's on the same spiritual level as you.

(Emphasis mine).

Wow. Too bad that 2 Cor. 6:14-16 doesn't refer to marriage* and the term "unequally yoked" was a metaphor in the Old Testament referring to the cross-breeding of two different species of animals to produce mules, and Paul was using the metaphor of "uncleanliness" to refer to false teachers.

He then tells us that after uncritically swallowing what was spewed to him that Sunday, he called up "this young woman", as Fred refers to her, and they cut a deal. She would read the Bible for one month and if she did not have a Freshmaking encounter with Jesus Christ and accept him as her PLAS, she would be rewarded by not having a relationship with Fred Stoeker.

"Okay, I'll read my Bible for thirty days, and we'll see," she promised. A month later, I heard from her, right on cue. "I've done what I promised, she said. "But I can't buy into this stuff at all."

"I'm sorry to hear that," I responded. Then I quietly suggested that we should go separate ways.

Thank God she was able to dodge that bullet. Normally I'm not for the decontextualization of Bible passages (it tends to lead to things like teenage girls being burned alive, pointless wars being fought in the middle-east, and Christian bestsellers being published) but here it actually did some good. It would've been pretty horrible if "this young woman" ended up "unequally yoked" with Fred Stoker, a Christian at the "spiritual level" of "self-loathing yet pompous enough to look down one's nose at unbelievers and fellow Christians that don't share in one's purity code".

And for entertainment purposes, some more tidbits of "Stoeker's Girls" from Preparing Your Son:

Page 28:

If you read Every Man's Battle, then you probably remember all those stories I told you about my sexual sins. Brian knows the names of nearly every girl in every story. Then again, I know how the term "Mack Truck" applies to a girl he once knew. He knows which girl of mine we affectionately dubbed Woodhead. If he was making out in the front seat of the drive-in, he was in the backseat doing the same.

"Mack Truck"? "Woodhead"? Did this guy date women or Autobots?

Page:40:

If you remember from Every Man's Battle, it would be two years and one wedding later before God dealt with those simmering feelings I had for Polly. But that story Dad shared rooted deeply in me, and it was a great encouragement to me as I struggled to crucify my memories of Polly a few years later.

(Emphasis mine).

I seriously hope that this is an instance of "Christianese-gone-horribly-wrong" and he means something along the lines of "put the past behind me." Seriously, some of this shit is scary. It also seems odd how his "crucified" memories of ex-girlfriends seem to pull a Jesus whenever he writes a book.

And to top things off, a very special booty-call he made, shortly after his conversion, to an old high-school flame named Janet (page 194):

I soon tracked her down and -what luck! She was single and living in Omaha. I called her, and after some cheerful banter, she invited me to meet her at her favorite dance-bar. Need I say more? After closing time, we found ourselves alone in her apartment.

"Found" again? First accidental polygyny, now random teleportation?

One thing led to another, and we slipped out of our clothes into her bed. We began kissing, but a strange thing happened: I couldn't get an erection! That had never happened before, deeply humiliated, my head spinning, I slunk out to the parking lot and slumped into my car.

Then I clearly heard the Spirit whisper into my heart, "By the way, I did that to you. I know it hurt you, but this practice can't be tolerated anymore in your life. You are Christ's now, and he loves you."

Although I believe that Fred Stoeker should not be writing books on sexual and relational health, I do believe a complete autobiography of him would be rather interesting read. He could call it Too Much Information: The Fred Stoeker Story.

PYSFEMB has got some pretty hilarious stuff in it. I recommend you check it out, but not buy the book as not to provide these guys with financial support. What I recommend doing is search the newspaper for headlines that read something like "Adolescent boy uses rusty scissors to hack off own penis" then try to contact the father of the boy mentioned in the article. Chances are he'll have of copy of either Preparing Your Son or Every Young Man's Battle or Every Young Man's Battle that you can borrow.

Now, I don't believe in "grading" personal testimonies, but here's my beef with what Fred wrote, and the role the Personal Testimony plays within modern Evangelicalism as well:

Fred Stoeker seems to model (whether intentionally or not) his testimony after those of recovering alcoholics/drug-addicts. The problem with this is that someone's daughter is put on the level of a bottle of vodka; someone's sister becomes a rusty crack-pipe, and Fred, like the new, regenerated man that he is, thanks God that he was able to leave those horrid things that ruined his life in the gutter he rose from.

My other problem lies in the notion of the "personal testimony" itself. First of all, all movements/ideologies/religions have "Personal Testimonies", so most of the time it's not a very good way to present a case either for or against something (I wonder how Fred Stoeker and twice-divorced Steve Arterburn would react if they met some couples that credited their long and happy marriages to things like swinging and porn).

More often than we like to admit, "Personal Testimonies" are often nothing more than our own narcissism impersonating piety. "I used to be a horrible person like you are, but if you accept Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior he will change you into a wonderful person like I am now". I myself prefer to wear my narcissism on the outside, and that makes me better than you. ;)

As I have noted earlier in this entry, despite Fred's constant self-loathing he has a ridiculously high opinion of himself. For crying out loud, the man thinks he's so virile that it can only be due to being smote by the Hand of the Almighty that the Mighty Staff of Stoeker be rendered powerless (even though it is a rather common condition among men and is even brought on by psychological factors such as depression, guilt, stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem - some things I bet Freddie here had in spades during this sexual-encounter following his recently becoming "born-again").

And finally, this: Despite openly admitting in the introduction to his first book (EMB) that he has no qualifications in any fields relevant to the subjects his books deal with, Fred Stoeker, according to the back-cover of PYSFEMB, "has counseled hundreds of men and married couples". People actually listen to this man's scare-tactics ("When we look at women without clothes on, there is a chemical reaction that happens in our brains that is much like the reaction the brain has to taking cocaine.**" PYSFEMB pg162) and even bad theology ("God, through Jesus Christ, fulfilled his responsibility to help us with our sexual purity at Calvary." PYSFEMB pg179) and these people barely raise an eyebrow. Why, because by blathering on and on about past instances while using the proper Christianese lingo, Fred Stoeker "Brings Glory to God" through his ministry of misinformation and fear. "God is glorified" by Fred Stoeker being a narcissistic douche doing a half-assed job at writing books that people are depending on to save their marriages.

Glory to God in the fucking highest!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Paul's treatment of intermarriage of the New Testament dealing with intermarriage with non-Christians is found 1 Corinthians 7. The relevant passages are highlighted:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
...
39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

According to Dirt, Greed, and Sex, marriages were pre-arranged by families back then; they didn't have our concept of "dating", where you would move on from one "step" in a relationship to another. The crux of the matter here is that Paul's goal for the Corinthians is to keep the distinctiveness of the Christian community, yet Paul also has a rather significant concern that those already married stay with their unbelieving spouses as to maintain a good reputation among pagans. Countryman interprets this passage to our culture in such a way as to allow Christians that are already involved in serious relationships with unbelievers to remain in them (except in cases of abuse and other such factors) as this would fulfill the principle Paul was going for (not to mention Paul's "stay as you are"). Simply to dump him/her giving no other reason than "I met a man from Galilee" will have pretty much the same effect Paul was trying to get that church to avoid. And BTW: Flirt to convert doesn't work.

**I take it both cocaine and "hot nekkid chicks" both cause the brain to produce endorphins***, but then again, so do chocolate and mountain biking. The way Fred phrases it (in the context of a conversation about pornography he had with his son) he makes it sound like porn will make you think that there are bugs under your skin. Speaking of which, if looking at naked women has a coke-like effect on the brain, how can he have sex with his own wife without being subject to these toxic effects? His wife is a woman, right?

EDIT: Sept 26, 2007

***My bad. Dopamine is the neurochemical involved in the reward system of the brain. This does reinforces behavior and plays a part in addiction, but keep in mind that not all reinforced behavior caused by dopamine reactions is a harmful addiction. Keep in mind that sex is a drive. I'm not saying that sex-addiction does not exist, but keep in mind that if you ejaculate while conscious outside of marital intercourse, Fred Stoker believes you have a serious problem and Steve Arterburn can hook you up with a "Professional Masturbation Counselor".

Things I Learned From Christian Comics: There's a New World Coming - or - It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Nauseous

2007-07-24T19:17:00.000-07:00

Well, a few weeks back I saw Transformers. It was pretty good movie. Lot's of action. But it got me thinking: "How long do we have left?" What with the world as it is today with wars in the middle-east, global warming, and Wikipedia vandalism the very thought of extraterrestrial sentient machines descending from the heavens to attack our military, help us with our love-lives, and urinate on men in suits is seeming less and less unlikely as the days go by.

I had read the first and second Left Behind books when I was younger and had thought of revisiting them after getting back form the theater. Then I remembered that vomiting too much causes my chest to hurt, so instead I read Fred Clark's summary-reviews.

I also rummaged through my Dad's old books and found some stuff by Hal Lindsey. Now, for you don't know who Hal Lindsey is, he's the guy who wrote a bunch of books on Biblical Prophecy in the 70's which were eventually read by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins and made them go "Pfft! Yeah right!". Very interesting stuff Hal wrote. Did you know that Jesus was going to return in the 1980's, but we had to mess things up by not having a nuclear war (way to ruin things, Reagan. First AIDS and now this)?

I also discovered that Hal Lindsey worked with our good buddy Al Hartley, on a Christian comic-book titled: There's a New World Coming.

And reading it, I learned some things:

Not only do the Gideons place Bibles in hotel-room nightstands, they also coat some of the pages with LSD.

While St John the Apostle was living under house arrest on the Isle of Patmos, he wrote his Revelation in cursive English script, and was also sure to include number designations of chapter and verse.

Visually, God's outline of history is rather poorly designed. What with the loud, garish colors and the "7 years" and "1000 years" both being represented as being the same length on the graph. But this is forgivable, as God put this together in the days before Powerpoint and Microsoft Excel (sometime between 1909 and the 1970's).

At the Rapture, God will take-up all the young, good-looking Christians to himself, his fat, ugly, and elderly followers will be LEFT BEHIND!

Ladies, with all the conflict in the middle-east happening today, maybe now is a good time to lose that weight and perhaps go in for that botox-injection, perhaps even a boob-job to be on the safe side. Need I remind you that your eternal soul hangs in the balance.

Hal Lindsey is to Stephen Hawking what Kent Hovind is to Stephen Jay Gould.
"God is Gluon, and his worshipers must worship him in protons and neutrons." John Harris 4:24.

(Click image to enlarge)

The Bible specifically mentions things like America, China, the common market nations, and "alternatives to marriage" college courses.

The Antichrist shall emerge from Texas.

The Common Market Nations qualifies as a revived Roman empire more than, let's say, a Superpower that uses Rome's symbols and has a system of government somewhat based on that of Rome's.
Note to Supervillians: If you ever want to take over the world, try to become the head of an organization that doesn't actually possess it's own military.

Jesus actually mentions "outer space" in Luke 21:10,11.
Fireworks qualify as "fearful sights and great signs".

"The Jews are God's chosen race" with Asians coming in 2nd and Whites and Blacks in a tie for 3rd.

The Bible has something in common with top-rated Hollywood sitcoms and California's thriving porn-industry.
"The Jews preserved the Bible for all mankind" using hot-towels and colorful, vase-shaped plastic thermoses.

Rev 12: 1-6 is the only passage in the book of Revelation to be interpreted symbolically as something the people it was written to would have understood it to be.

While the Antichrist is in power and actively persecuting Christians with his far-reaching political, economic, and military might, the 14,000 Jewish-witnesses will be able to broadcast tv-shows from well-decorated studios while wearing fancy suits and expensive haircuts. They will most likely accomplish this through the use of their Jew gold.

Murder, drug-related occult activities, people acting immorally, and thievery are signs of that the Great Tribulation is coming soon, as none of these things have existed throughout the history of the human race and have only started to appear recently.
People today use drugs more for occult purposes than to achieve the secular goal of getting high.

Al Hartley's knowledge of occult symbolism comes from 1950's horror comics and Jim Henson films.

Mystery Babylon, for a prostitute, dresses rather modestly and doesn't wear much makeup. In fact, she looks a lot like a girl I attended High-School with.

There are few things in life that are more beautiful than a dead hooker.

Rev 9: 9, 10 can be interpreted as referring to helicopters, but it can't be that as there are some parts of the passage that can only fit some kind of soldier covered in an exoskeleton of metal. Unless...

When Jesus returns to earth, he will become a lounge singer (albeit not a very popular one).

After the Thousand years of peace, God will release Satan from his prison to go out and influence humans to do evil. God will do this to teach us that our sin isn't caused by outside influence, like Satan tempting us.

While trapped in "the Pit", the devil won't spend much of his time planning what to when he gets out (as he will be more concerned with things like avoiding the Super-Devil in the showers), resulting in him throwing together something at the last minute involving a spider-web, a pair of wax lips, a giant martini, a syringe without a plunger, two pill bottles, a near-empty jar of pickled eggs, some confetti, a large pamphlet published in the 60's, and what appears to be a giant smoldering turd.
When Spider-Man teams up with Satan, it will then become clear to everyone that Iron Man was right all along, bringing and end to Marvel's Civil War series.

The only way the Apostle Peter (who lived in an age where metalworking was practiced and heat was used to refine metal by burning away impurities) could use the terms "heat", and "the elements" being "disintegrated" with regards to divine judgment would have to be in the context of literal modern-day nuclear bombs.

To hell with specifics.
There are people who actually think like this, and quite a few of them are running things in the U.S.

Well, right now I bet you're asking "Cynic, how do you think the world will end?" Well, I don't really have the time right now to write down my eschatological views, so I'll just say that it involves zombies, dogs and cats living together, and a fourth Spider-Man movie.

However, this video sums up rather nicely how I believe Armageddon will come to pass, it's even based on a much more contextual study of the book of Revelation and serious examination of current events than anything written by Hal Lindsey or Tim LaHaye.

Enjoy.

Sorry for the Delay

2007-07-14T12:27:00.001-07:00

Good shit is happening to me this weekend. Tomorrow some friends and I are heading down to get our geek on and see the new Transformers movie.

Next week I'll be going through a bit of a move, so I don't think I'll be able to post that much during the next week. And I might have to go-back to dial-up.

But stay tuned, I got two other entries in the works; one for Every Man's Battle and another for Things I've Learned from Christian Comics.

Nevertheless, in order to make up for next week's delay, here's something to entertain you for the next 4 minutes.

Funny Clips from Ron Jeremy-Craig Gross Porn Debate

2007-07-12T12:34:00.001-07:00

If the threat of "horrible James Dobson tapes" doesn't keep you away from porn, you're pretty much a lost cause.

In my opinion, Craig Gross is one of the few people affiliated the "purity" movement that isn't a giant douche. He cares about people and has a sense of humor. I mean, you know he doesn't take himself too seriously when you look at "Pete the Porno Puppet". He takes what he does seriously, but not himself.

And that's what makes him the Anti-Stoeker.

(Special thanks to Shiznaz for uploading the vid to youtube).

This Blog is Rated...

2007-07-10T11:03:00.000-07:00

Mingle² - Free Online Dating

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
abortion (18x)
death (6x)
hell (5x)
sex (4x)
dangerous (1x)

Wow. I really think I would've gotten only an "R" if it weren't for "Super Happy Fun Abortion Time". Weird thing is that I used the word "bitch" in that entry and the machine didn't pick it up.

And how the hell is does using the word "dangerous" increase my rating?

(Special thanks to Slacktivist).