No, no, no — we were fine with D’Souza’s racism, but the adultery is upsetting

LifeWay Christian book stores still carry Dinesh D’Souza’s books. For now.

The journalistic scoop belongs to Warren Cole Smith of the very conservative World magazine, so we’ll quote from his report first:

About 2,000 people gathered on Sept. 28 at First Baptist North in Spartanburg, S.C., to hear high-profile Christians speak on defending the faith and applying a Christian worldview to their lives. Among the speakers: Eric Metaxas, Josh McDowell, and — keynote speaker for the evening — best-selling author, filmmaker, and Christian college president Dinesh D’Souza.

Dinesh D’Souza says anti-colonialism is un-American. He even says this in D.C., in a city named after George Washington.

D’Souza’s speech earned him a standing ovation and a long line at the book-signing table immediately afterward. Although D’Souza has been married for 20 years to his wife, Dixie, in South Carolina he was with a young woman, Denise Odie Joseph II,* and introduced her to at least three people as his fiancée.

Finally, near 11 p.m., event organizer Tony Beam escorted D’Souza and Joseph to the nearby Comfort Suites. Beam noted that they checked in together and were apparently sharing a room for the night in the sold-out hotel. The next morning, around 6 a.m., Beam arrived back at the hotel and called up to D’Souza’s room. “We’ll be down in 10 minutes,” D’Souza told Beam. D’Souza and Joseph came down together, and Beam took them to the airport.

The next day another conference organizer, Alex McFarland, distressed by D’Souza’s behavior, confronted him in a telephone conversation. D’Souza admitted he shared a room with his fiancée but said “nothing happened.” When I called D’Souza, he confirmed that he was indeed engaged to Joseph, but did not explain how he could be engaged to one woman while still married to another. When asked when he had filed for divorce from his wife, Dixie, D’Souza answered, “Recently.”

Amy Sullivan describes “The Right-wing Rivalry Behind” that scoop:

Needless to say, this sort of thing is frowned upon in the conservative religious circles in which D’Souza is usually celebrated. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the story was broken by Warren C. Smith, a writer and associate publisher for the evangelical World magazine. The publication has a history of covering problems within the evangelical world, and it has not shied away from stories about preacher scandals or church abuse of women. But this particular story may have interested the magazine for a different reason: World’s editor-in-chief is Marvin Olasky, the sometime Bush advisor who is no fan of D’Souza.

Olasky served, briefly, as provost of The King’s College. He resigned shortly after D’Souza became the school’s president. Read the whole thing for Sullivan’s take on the nasty history between these two nasty men.

Christianity Today’s report notes that “D’Souza has regularly appeared in CT’s pages.” One example of that is CT’s report on D’Souza’s hiring at King’s, which emphasized that the conservative activist’s Roman Catholic faith should not preclude him from membership in the evangelical tribe:

D’Souza’s wife, Dixie, is an evangelical, and the family has attended Calvary Chapel, a nondenominational evangelical church in San Diego, for the past 10 years. He has been invited to speak in several churches and colleges, including Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church and Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.

“I do not describe myself as Catholic today. But I don’t want to renounce it either because it’s an important part of my background. I’m an American citizen, but I wouldn’t reject the Indian label because it’s part of my heritage,” D’Souza said. “I say I have a Catholic origin or background. I say I’m a nondenominational Christian, and I’m comfortable with born-again.”

He said that his views align with the Apostles’ Creed and C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

That’s the imprimatur — the stamp of approval.

But D’Souza wasn’t embraced by the evangelical tribe just because he affirms the creeds and C.S. Lewis. What made CT and King’s College and the rest of mainstream evangelicalism decide that D’Souza was one of us was his political history — a former policy aide in the Reagan White House, D’Souza is fiercely opposed to abortion, gay rights, feminism and progressive taxation.

As Sarah Posner said, “D’Souza’s … rise in the evangelical world is due in no small part to his conspiracy-minded claims about President Obama’s ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.'”

Yes, conspiratorial warnings about Africans and anti-colonialism contributed to D’Souza’s legitimacy among evangelicals.

Bruce Garrett notes some of D’Souza’s odious political history:

How the man who, while editor of the Dartmouth Review, penned a racist parody of African American students titled “This Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro” and later outed a gay student using stolen mail between members of the Dartmouth Gay Student Alliance can in any sense be labeled a Christian is something confederate Christianists can explain I suppose.

Those two themes — racism and anti-gay sentiment — have endured as the hallmarks of much of D’Souza’s “scholarship.”

Alvin McEwen highlights a 2008 article of D’Souza’s titled, “Gay Rights vs. Democracy,” in which he pulls the man-on-dog nonsense.

Here is D’Souza’s idea of scholarship: “Why doesn’t the Fourteenth Amendment protect the fellow who wants to walk down the aisle with his poodle on the grounds that ‘I love my dog and my dog loves me’?” (What is it about the idea of consent that confuses these folks so much?)

Grace at Are Women Human? echoes Garrett’s observation, noting — savoring — the irony that D’Souza’s adultery has done what his nasty racism and homophobia never did, diminished his standing amongst evangelicals. The entire post — a Snoopy-dance of schadenfreude — is great fun, but the kernel of it is summed up in this one tweet from Grace:

Does it matter than D’souza peddles racist, colonialist lies? Nope. But he shared a hotel room with a woman he’s not married to! OH NOES

Or, as she writes in the post itself:

Sarah Posner writes for Religion Dispatches that this (presumed) sex scandal may spell the end for D’Souza’s once rising star. Note, not the fact that he’s been peddling racist and colonialist lies to white Christians for fun and profit for the past forever, but because of what’s assumed about his marriage and sex life. PRIORITIES.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch quotes from a post by Odie Joseph II at Smart Girl Politics, which bears the unfortunate title of “Whatever Happened to Good Ole Hypocrisy?

Feminists and liberals … tore the traditional family to shreds until they reduced us to the shining bastion of zoological (but even animals aren’t this bad and do not depend on the state to care for them) cesspool equality that we have now in every American ghetto and which is seeping out into the middle and upper classes in less animated ways.

Her bogeymen are just like those of her boyfriend: Black.

As women spearhead the demise of the ideal, the alternative to hypocrisy, they spearhead the demise of social order as we know it and love it. Henceforth, all of us will be staring down the barrel of life in a hip hop video or government-funded project. …

Buzzfeed snagged a cached copy of Odie Joseph’s blog (which disappeared when the story broke), which reveals her to have been a fan of D’Souza’s books — and of Ayn Rand.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

'Religious outreach'
The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning
Donald Trump's B-list 'evangelical advisory board'
Ralph Reed's history with casino moguls
  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It ain’t worth it.  I’m done.

    Don’t let the fainting couch hit you on the way out!

  • VMink

    The flounce lasted about four minutes.  I think that’s a record?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Do you think it’s appropriate for a man who killed a German Shepherd to
    be in prison for seven years, when another man got three years in
    prison, basically club med, for killing another man?

    [citation totally needed]

    Vehicular offences, in particular, often get sharply reduced sentences especially when it can be shown the driver was only partly responsible.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Oh, I get it, I’m not allowed, by some unknown-to-me rules of this blog, to use humor, but the anti-Christs are?  We’ve been through this before.  Yawn.  Sorry, I’m such a slow learner.  

    Both of the killings I mentioned happened in Charlottesville, VA, a few years ago.  A young man who lived in the area was stabbed, numerous times, to death by a male UVA student from PA, whose daddy was a high-powered, wealthy attorney.  Due to his daddy’s power and money, his son went to prison for a mere three years.  Oh yeah, Andrew was drunk when he stabbed Walter to death, and that helped excuse his sorry arse of snuffing out the life of another!  Another case of money talking while corruption walks.

    I agree that the Dallas Cowboy, who is behind bars for driving drunk last weekend resulting in a crash that killed his teammate, should only be held partially responsible for the tragedy.  His teammate irresponsibly got into the car, and allowed himself to be driven around by a drunk driver.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As much as I deplore the fact that a wealthy person can hire a good lawyer, the fact remains that there is well-established precedent in criminal law of “diminished capacity” which can be proven by any person reasonably competent in human physiology to originate from drunkenness.

    Oh, I get it, I’m not allowed, by some unknown-to-me rules of this blog, to use humor, but the anti-Christs are?

    Also, this?

    Your passive-aggressive false bonhomie is about as fun as scratching my arm with a cheese grater.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET!

  • EllieMurasaki

    You’re absolutely right, you know. Money shouldn’t buy privilege. What penalty should be imposed on a rich woman who gets an abortion in a jurisdiction where it’s legal in order to avoid the risk of the penalty from getting the abortion in her home jurisdiction where it’s legally murder, and what penalty should she get had she gotten the abortion at home?

  • Lori

     

    His teammate irresponsibly got into the car, and allowed himself to be driven around by a drunk driver.   

    Victim blaming.

    I now have jerk bingo.

    I thought you were lleaving Ginny. You’re such a liar.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     “Not allowed”? Seriously?

    Dearie, if I had the ability to allow or disallow your contributions to this blog, I would long ago have exercised it, because they annoy me.

    You have expressed yourself on this blog. You have annoyed other human beings in the process, and we’ve expressed our irritation with you. You in turn express your indifference. 

    All of this is allowed.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know, what we really need is a single-payer lawyer system.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    word

  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • EllieMurasaki

    People die from surgery intended to be lifesaving or health-improving with distressing frequency. Are you arguing against all surgery?

    What penalty should apply to someone who gets an abortion in a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Also, you want to know a really good way to make sure people don’t die from having abortions done? Make sure abortion stays legal. If abortion is illegal, many trained professionals who want to keep using that training to earn a living won’t perform abortions (when they would if abortion were legal), which means the abortions will be performed by people don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and/or in facilities that are not nearly sterile enough in which to do surgery.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    People make poor decisions every day, and natural consequences cannot be avoided.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, so you’re against all emergency care for people who are injured through things like skateboarding, skiing, getting pregnant, giving birth, and getting in a car, because those are all things that carry significant injury risk, and natural consequences cannot be avoided. Got it.

  • AnonymousSam

    And what of people who die giving birth? Even in the United States, the rate of maternal death is around 13 per 100,000 live births, which in the top 50 around the world falls in dead last… no pun intended.

  • P J Evans

     I know a woman who was pregnant and … the baby died while she was in labor. Full term, no signs of any problems. That has to be heart-breaking.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    It sure is!  My only granddarling was born still at full term.  Her heart was strong and perfect, as was everything else in her sweet body, and quit for no apparent reason.  Like I said, satan’s evil is rampant!

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Yep, this life is far from ideal.  That’s why we need Jesus!  satan is a destroyer of life in all ways possible.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Yep, this life is far from ideal.  That’s why we need Jesus!  satan is a destroyer of life in all ways possible.

    So “we” “need” one imaginary dude to protect against another imaginary dude?

    mmmkay.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Even supposing they’re both real, I wouldn’t be sure about that.

    I can slay my own dragons, I can dream my own dreams, my knight in shining armor is me, and Tinkerbell says, and I find I agree, you have to break rules if you want to break free, so do as you like, we’re determined to be wicked girls saving ourselves […] it’s better to fly and it’s better to die, say the wicked girls saving ourselves.

    Surely we can find a way to protect ourselves from Satan that doesn’t rely on Jesus, who (if Ms. Allen and her like are to be believed) will protect us only if we concede certain of our fundamental ethical principles. No thanks.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    People giving birth?  People?

  • AnonymousSam

    Yes, women are people too. It comes as a surprise to many conservative men, but I have it on good authority from the world’s leading scientists that women share as much as 100% of the genetic information we usually attribute to the homo sapien species (which until recently was generally considered to be exclusive to white, male, straight, land-holding Christian adults).

  • EllieMurasaki

    I think Ms. Allen’s criticism was actually of your use of gender-neutral terminology: clearly uterus-equipped trans men and genderqueer individuals are incapable of pregnancy.

  • AnonymousSam

    Mmm, I just tend not to think of gender at all.

    For that matter, if we had artificial wombs, it would be possible for a male to have a skin cell transformed into a sex cell, fertilize it in a laboratory, then plant the resulting fertilized egg in the womb until it produced the resulting offspring.

    http://medimoon.com/2012/10/skin-cell-could-be-converted-into-egg-cells/

    (I first heard about this several years ago in my Bioethics class, but the article makes it sound very recent, so I don’t know how far along the science has actually come.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    If we had artificial wombs, this debate would need to be rebuilt from the foundation up.

  • Kiba

    Holy hell, I see the tiresome creature is back again. I guess since the other thread started revolving around gun control she decided to come back here for her faux-martyr fix. 

    I think living in the South is finally starting to rub off on me because when I saw that she was posting here again all I could think of was, “Well, bless your heart.”

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am sorry atheists have lived through either poor or no fatherly relationships.  But that doesn’t make Jesus any less real.  He is the most real person ever and the only true God.  He can heal all your hurts.  

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    > I am sorry atheists have lived through either poor or no fatherly relationships.

    Then I’m delighted to share with you the good news that this turns out not to be the case; many atheists have rich, loving, supportive relationships with their fathers, and many male atheists have rich, loving, supportive relationships with their children.

    There… do you feel better now?

  • P J Evans

    I suspect that most of the faux-Christians who so love to force their views on others have far worse relationships with their fathers than the rest of us. It’s a learned reaction of some kind.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Interesting. Is that suspicion based primarily on observation or theory?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Something other than the quest for truth drives the atheist.  Most of the famous atheists who attempt/ed to cram their anti-Christ lies down our throats had poor to no relationships with their fathers.  So, for the rest of you atheists who enjoy/ed loving relationships with your fathers, your atheism is due, largely, to desiring narcissistic “free love.”  Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts.  Such doubts are mere symptoms of the root cause – moral rebellion.  For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.

  • AnonymousSam

    What do you mean by “free love”? I’m not sure what precisely you’re referring to by it, but your assumptions are quite a ways off from why I’m not Christian any longer.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Soren Kierkegaard puts it like this:  “People try to persuade us that the objections against Christianity spring from doubt.  That is a complete misunderstanding.  The objections against Christianity spring from insubordination, the dislike of obedience, rebellion against all authority.  As a result people have hitherto been beating the air in their struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion.”

  • AnonymousSam

    I don’t believe that answers my question. The last time I heard the phrase “free love” was in reference to events fifty years ago, so I can hardly say that I’ve rebelled against Christianity in pursuit of it unless it refers to something other than what the phrase is typically interpreted to mean.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    You reject Jesus due to your own stubborn will. 

  • AnonymousSam

    Please don’t tell me what I do and don’t believe. You’re quite wrong. You also conflate rejection and disbelief. Rejection implies rejecting the message of, which, taken on a case-by-case basis of statements, varies from “culturally irrelevant” to quite untrue. Jesus, for example, said a great many things about rich men which I believe rich men calling themselves Christians ought to hear more loudly.

    As for disbelief, I consider it irrelevant. I don’t believe in an active, conscious role of divinity at all. You point at creation and say it’s proof of God, whereas I point at creation and say it is God. What could possibly be more magnificent than a reality full of almost infinite possibilities and complexities and a trillion-trillions of probability-defying occurrences taking place each and every day? As far as I’m concerned, it waters down the sheer wonder of it to say that a being just happened to always be there, waved a hand, and made it so. The truth is stranger (and far more interesting) than fiction.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    How right on you are about rich Christians!  Many, even most, won’t make it to heaven due to their great love of their riches over their supposed love for Jesus Christ.  Compared to most of the world, Americans are rich, including those who are not rich when measured against the standard of wealth here.  

    The now well-established scientific fact that the universe had a beginning is a powerful pointer to divine creation.  The reason it is proper to inquire about the source of the universe is that we know it had a beginning.  As such, the universe demands a causal explanation, since whatever begins to exist has a cause.  One cannot reasonably ignore the question as if it were a trivial aside for the unusually curious.  On the contrary, there is nothing more basic to human inquiry than to ask how all of this got here.  Remember, the the Big Bang theory only concerns what happened to matter, not where matter came from.  The fine-tuning argument for God is strong and getting stronger, as the astonishingly precise balance of physical constants is continually clarified by science.  For Antony Flew, his third main reason for abandoning atheism is perhaps the strongest of all – the impossibility of life emerging spontaneously from non-living matter.  Even given a universe hospitable to living systems, one that is tuned to the “life-station,” there remain insurmountable odds against life forming anywhere, even given the 15 billion years since the Big Bang.  Hundreds of different enzymes are necessary for life as we know it, and for any one of these enzymes to be functional, a large number of amino acids must be sequenced in just the right order.  As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe show, the odds multiply out exponentially, and this is just for the simplest of organisms.  Thus, Hoyle famously compared the odds of higher forms emerging in this way to the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein,” to which Hoyle added that he “was at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious” – namely, that the infinitesimal chances of life emerging from inert matter show that it simply didn’t happen.  Life cannot have started at all without a creator.  In this sense, natural selection needs God.  So the question of evolution is actually irrelevant to the debate about God’s existence.  Those who regard Darwinism as a shield against theism are deceiving themselves or others, or both.  Once life appears, the only remaining rational debate should be among theists – as to how God did it, whether through special creation, natural selection, or some combination of these means.  The issue of origins should be an in-house theistic debate.  But, alas, it is not regarded as such by the vociferous atheist minority.  And this in itself begs for an explanation.  ~James Spiegel from his excellent book entitled The Making of an Atheist

  • Lori

    Where did God come from Ginny?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Why have you chosen to turn your back on Him, Lori? 

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Why do you so arrogantly deny the plain and obvious truth of the one true God, the Eternal Spirit of Mothrai?

  • AnonymousSam

    The fact that there are questions for which the answers are not 100% complete is not evidence of God. That type of argument is called “God of the gaps” — that is, wherever there is a gap in our knowledge, it gets filled in with supernatural explanations. The problem is that eventually those gaps begin to shrink as we fill them in with natural explanations for the world’s mysteries, and therefore so does God’s role in them.

    In particular, the reason the Higgs boson has been such a big deal is because it offers a glimpse into the Big Bang itself. It’s no longer something people are faffing about hypothetically; we’re slowly piecing things together in a frame of space we can observe and confirm is precisely as it was theorized to be.

    It’s kind of like where we’ve determined Heaven to be. Our ancestors thought it was on top of mountains. The Bible is littered with suggestions that God reigns atop mountainous regions (see Mount Sinai). Then when people started climbing mountains, they decided Heaven must be in the sky (see the Tower of Babylon). Then when people invented airplanes, it was suggested that it be even further up… and now that people have been on the moon, Heaven is an alternate plane of reality altogether.

  • Carstonio

     The central flaw with a “God of the gaps” argument is that it doesn’t really fill the knowledge gap, but instead replaces one mystery with another. That flaw doesn’t negate the possibility that gods exist. Instead, it simply indicates the weakness in one particular concept about gods. I’ve long said that it’s possible that gods exist that don’t have the power to create a universe or create life, and many religions profess the existence of gods whose powers are limited that way.

  • VMink

    What should the penalty be for a woman who has an abortion in a jurisdiction where abortion is illegal?

  • The_L1985

    It’s also possible that Sam goes by the Gandhi Rule:

    “I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are nothing like your Christ.” — Dr. Mohandas K. Gandhi

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    That’s true; Jesus is the only ONE perfect.  He is God and we are not!  Thank God the ONE we follow is perfect, and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy.  That is only possible with Him living in and guiding us with His strength.  He has raised the bar so high because He is aware of what mere humans are capable with Him!   :)

  • Lunch Meat

    That’s true; Jesus is the only ONE perfect.  He is God and we are not! Thank God the ONE we follow is perfect, and we are commanded to be holy
    as He is holy.  That is only possible with Him living in and guiding us
    with His strength.  He has raised the bar so high because He is aware
    of what mere humans are capable with Him!   :)

    Ginny, what do you think the apostle Paul would have said if the Corinthians had replied to his letters with “Oh, we’re TRYING not to have division in the church, but you know that’s only possible with God. Every time we fail, that just shows how great God is and how high God’s standards are”?

    Actually, we don’t have to wonder. Paul said this:

    But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

    And this:

    What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

    Or what do you think John would have said if the people had responded, “We’re TRYING to repent and prepare for the kingdom of God, but we’ll just have to wait until God has made us perfect.”

    We don’t have to wonder. John said:

    “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. [translation:
    don’t think that just because you’re in the right tribe you’ll be okay.
    God’s tribe can include people from any tribe.]”Or what do you think Jesus would have said if the rich young ruler had responded, “I’m TRYING to give away all my possessions, but it’s impossible with just human power. The only reason I ever do anything good is because of God”?Jesus didn’t accept excuses. He said “Be perfect.” He said “Let your light shine before people, that they may see your good deeds.” He said “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you love.” He said “Take the plank out of your eye.” He didn’t say “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you condemn others and then brush it off, explaining that only God is perfect, when people ask why you’re not perfect.”Ginny, if you are already saved, then you already have the power to be perfect in love. Take hold of it. Stop making excuses. Stop telling yourself and others that it’s “okay” not to love, that it’s “okay” if people don’t see your good deeds, that it’s “okay” if you hurt people. The Spirit will produce fruit if you let it. Challenge yourself to use the new year to see others through God’s eyes, through the eyes of love. Challenge yourself to find the best in people. Don’t accept mediocrity in love. This is the most important commandment. If you fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but have not love, you are nothing. Stop telling others how good and how wise you are and how much you understand them and go find love. We’ll wait.

  • The_L1985

     …I don’t think you’re really getting the point of Gandhi’s quote there.

    Either that, or you’re trolling, which isn’t nice at all.  Please stop trolling.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Yet another control freak I see.

  • The_L1985

    I am simply advising you to be a bit nicer and a little less rude.

  • Lori

     

    That is only possible with Him living in and guiding us with His strength.   

    Apparently he’s not living in and guiding you, because I really don’t think  he’d be spending his time posting crap on the internet.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I knew you would not be able to resist commenting here again!

  • Lunch Meat

    I knew you would not be able to resist commenting here again!

    All right, troll, you’re very clever. Positive reinforcement, attention, etc. You can go away now.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    engaging selfishly, unwisely, unsafely, uncaringly, irresponsibly in promiscuous sex.  

  • AnonymousSam

    Ah. Then most certainly not describe anything to do with why I left Christianity and certainly closer to 1960’s anti-hippy sentiments. While people do indeed engage in these things, “free love” hasn’t been an ideology in many decades. Yesterday’s free lovers are now grandparents. Their kids are just teenagers doing what teenagers have done for thousands of years.

    I would also point out that several of those words can be applied to Christian-endorsed sexuality.

    Selfishly: Douglas Wilson’s interpretation of proper sexuality is that it can and should never be egalitarian; that the only true sex involves a man “penetrating, conquering, plundering, planting,” while the woman “receives, surrenders, accepts.” He blames the belief of otherwise on insubordination against authority as well.

    Unwisely: Conservative Christians frequently berate women for seeking to escape abusive husbands and argue that “it takes a good woman to convert a bad man.” In other words, no matter how bad the abuse gets, it’s a woman’s duty to stay with her husband — even if it kills her.

    Unsafely: Conservative Christian leaders frequently argue that contraception should be outlawed, that HIV and AIDS testing should be done away with, that people shouldn’t be educated about sex at all. (Funnily enough, that doesn’t seem to stop the vast, vast majority of their followers from using contraception and wanting to know who does and doesn’t have life-threatening communicable diseases before having sex with them.)

    Uncaringly, irresponsibly: Per the above, anyone who truly cared about their partner would be more considerate of their needs, wishes, and safety. This can also refer to abortion — first, never do anything which could endanger your partner without their full knowledge and consent, and second, if you’re against abortion, then this is doubly true. The best way to prevent abortions is not to do anything which results in a pregnancy which is not desired, safe, or affordable. (Oddly enough, people with no education on sex tend not to think about all of these factors before engaging in it.)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Sam, you are wrong about free love not being a fundamental part of the narcissistic, anti-Christ agenda:  birth control, abortion, eugenics, ZPG, homosexuality, pornography, etc.  It’s all about tooting the horn of immorality, glorifying it publicly.  It attempts to remove all shame and guilt from sin.

  • AnonymousSam

    And yet the phrase “free love” hasn’t been uttered with relevance to the here and now in decades. Is this like how the Cold War is still raging on in the minds of conservative Republicans and Soviet Russia is on the verge of taking over the United States with Communism at any given moment?

    Eugenics and zero population growth are part of “free love”? The only place I even see the term “eugenics” is in reference to 1940’s history, and zero population growth has nothing to do with sexuality, everything to do with trying to bring the population in line with realistic projections of our natural resource consumption, and isn’t really happening regardless.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    The closest I come to understanding this is approaching it from the other direction.

    The 1960s notion of “free love”, the modern notion that people get to choose how they express their sexuality, furtive promiscuity, healthy and responsible sexual activity outside of marriage, rape, child molestation, responsible polyamory, deceitful infidelity, closeted homosexuality, out-and-proud homosexuality, same-sex married couples worried about how to pay the mortgage… these are all importantly different things, some good, some bad.

    But if I were to assume that there exists a single special set of rules and behaviors
    that define how to be a moral sexual agent, and that set happens to
    align perfectly with the beliefs of a particular American religious sect
    in the late 2oth/early 21st century, then I could divide all sex-related
    behavior into two categories: what that sect endorses, and everything
    else.

    So if all of the above fall into the “everything else” category for Ginny’s preferred sect, it’s perhaps unsurprising if she describes my monogamous committed 20-year relationship with my husband as “promiscuous” or “free love” or “polyamorous” or who knows what. It’s not that she has some particular similarity in mind, it’s just that the distinctions don’t matter to her.

    This is kind of in the same sense that for a practicing Orthodox
    Jew, roast pork, barbecue pork, ham and fried pork rinds are all pretty
    much the same thing.

  • Lunch Meat

    So if all of the above fall into the “everything else” category for
    Ginny’s preferred sect, it’s perhaps unsurprising if she describes my
    monogamous committed 20-year relationship with my husband as
    “promiscuous” or “free love” or “polyamorous” or who knows what. It’s
    not that she has some particular similarity in mind, it’s just that the distinctions don’t matter to her.

    This is kind of in the same sense that for a practicing Orthodox Jew, roast pork, barbecue pork, ham and fried pork rinds are all pretty much the same thing.

    And the same way that atheists, Muslims, satanists, and pagans are all the same, because they all secretly believe in the RTC God/TurboJesus but hate him. Probably your relationship with your husband is evil because you don’t really love him, you’re just with him because you like sin or something.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Exactly. And, yeah, any number of people have informed me that my husband and I don’t really love each other, precisely under this sort of reasoning.

  • Greenygal

    When one quotes directly, as you are doing here from James Spiegel’s The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief, it is only honest to acknowledge and source your quotes, rather than letting people believe the words are your own.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Actually, I do not directly quote Mr. Spiege, Greenygal.  My own words are mixed in with his.  He simply puts more succinct words to my very same thoughts.  At times I choose not to reference a source because I know the hate some Christian authors generate.

  • Greenygal

    In the referenced comment, your first sentence and your last three are direct quotes.  (Your second and third, admittedly, appear to be paraphrases.)  Your refusal to source your quotes, or even acknowledge that they are quotes, is noted; truly you are a credit to the honesty and bravery of the Christian faith.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Jesus is the ONE whom I follow.  I never suggested you follow me or any other sinful human.  I fail to measure up to His holiness every day of my life, and yet I plod on.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Actually, I do not directly quote Mr. Spiege, Greenygal.  My own words
    are mixed in with his.

    You know what we call that kind of unattributed word for word lifting?

    Plagiarism.

    He simply puts more succinct words to my very
    same thoughts.  At times I choose not to reference a source because I
    know the hate some Christian authors generate.

    And this?

    Selective attribution.

    Neither does you credit in your self-portrayal as an honest, moral human being.

    Or do you believe in the acceptability of “lying for Jesus”?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Something other than the quest for truth drives the atheist.

    [citation needed]

    I suggest your citations be ACTUAL ATHEISTS. And even then, be advised that what is true for one atheist is not necessarily true for another, because atheists, even more than Protestants [are supposed to], have no creed or authority.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts.  Such doubts
    are mere symptoms of the root cause – moral rebellion.  For the
    atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.

    Sure, that’s true enough. If I still considered the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I was taught by as a child to be moral authorities, for example, I would not be able to doubt them. Put another way: had my obedience been strong enough, the absence of evidence would not have prevented me from remaining a devout Orthodox Jew.

    We can call that “moral rebellion”, if you like. (We can also call it “independent thought”) And yes, a certain amount of such “rebellion” is necessary before doubt becomes possible.

    What this description misses, of course, is that disobedience to illegitimate authority is not a bad thing. Indeed, it’s not just permissible, but laudable.

    For example, Ginny, I bet you would agree with me that the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I was taught by as a child were not legitimate moral authorities, and that I was right to rebel against their teachings.

    You would, of course, add to this that I ought to have promptly subjected myself to the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted by whichever sect of Christianity you endorse, which is where we would part company.

  • The_L1985

     “anti-Christ lies,” “desiring narcissistic ‘free love,'” insistence that people you’ve never met must have come from dysfunctional families because they’re not just like you, further insistence that people you’ve never met must have no morals at all because they’re not exactly like you.

    Is this what you guys call “speaking the truth in love?”  Because I’m not seeing much truth OR love in this little tirade–just a lot of anger.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    So, for the rest of you atheists who enjoy/ed loving relationships with
    your fathers, your atheism is due, largely, to desiring narcissistic
    “free love.”

    Bless your heart.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    There is absolutely nothing about atheism that makes me “feel” better, Dave.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ahem

    This atheist had a 1950s-ish nuclear family structure when he was a child.

  • AnonymousSam

    Also food for thought: if one look at the glory of creation is proof of God’s existence, why do you keep referring to Satan and Antichrists being everywhere and this being a fallen world?

    If you want to argue that the world itself is proof of divinity, it’s better to start with the premise that it’s not a festering hellhole.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    You know it’s the world’s human inhabitants that have chosen to go their own way, rejecting God, and His way, who has shown Himself to one and all, and live narcissistic lives filled with evil to which I am referring, smartie pants.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Has she? Has she really? How do you explain the planet’s religious diversity–and the vast majority of those religions have records of divine appearances, in most cases records of divine appearances by multiple deities–if there’s only one deity and she’s appeared to “one and all” in a manner consistent with there being only one way to follow her?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    God is not female.  She is not named Sophia.  Many suffer from delusions and hallucinations due to mind-altering drugs or the wrong choices they have made in their lives, which result in convoluted thinking.  Unfortunately and mistakenly many refer to psychopaths, sociopaths, character-disordered, anti-social and those with OCD, among others, as being mentally ill.  In reality they have mental WILLness due to rejecting Jesus.  God has left them to their own dark, foolish thinking due to their hardness of heart they have willingly developed towards Him.   

  • EllieMurasaki

    What is your evidence supporting the idea that people who claim to have seen the Christian god have seen an actual deity and people who claim to have seen any other god or never to have seen any gods at all are–I can’t say ‘mentally ill’ here because you clearly prefer to spit upon your half-understanding of the concept than to actually understand and apply the concept.

    What is your evidence supporting the idea that your singular deity is male rather than female, agender, allgender, or third-gender?

    What penalty should apply to someone who gets an abortion in a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Ellie, I realize that what you are attempting to do when asking me this question is to label me as insensitive or mean. Your intention is to make me look bad, not to elicit an answer. I ask you, since abortion kills an innocent human being, should it go unpunished? Where abortion is legally murder, seeking an abortion is solicitation of a criminal act, so there should be a criminal solicitation prosecution for a woman who has an abortion. How would it be wrong or mean to punish the crime of abortion? Truthfully, we are being wrong and mean when we see that abortion IS murder and then look the other way. Every abortion stops a beating heart, Ellie, and every abortionist knows that.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I thought you objected to Plan B on the grounds that it’s an abortion. Fetal heartbeat doesn’t start till week six. Fetal heartbeat is a shitty measure of when it’s okay to have an abortion, mind you, because it doesn’t take into consideration any of the pregnant person’s concerns, and also if your concern is stopping a beating heart then you bloody well better be a vegetarian, but if fetal heartbeat is your concern then you have no grounds to object to Plan B.

    Define ‘criminal solicitation’; I’m not sure I’ve ever heard the term before, and I don’t know what punishment you intend to apply to the woman who solicits the criminal activity of abortion.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    What about the 3/4 of abortions that occur too early in the pregnancy for a fetal heartbeat? Or do heartbeats begin at ejaculation now too?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Mayo Clinic website says heartbeat is at six weeks. Lots of people don’t know they’re pregnant until after six weeks, therefore do not get an abortion till after six weeks. FYI.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I didn’t claim otherwise. In fact, I don’t know how you could read what I wrote to suggest that there isn’t a substantial percentage of abortions after six weeks. But I looked it up, and at least one source said that 75% of abortions occur at or before 6 weeks. Week six specifically seems to be the most common time to abort a pregnancy.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Huh. I thought most abortions were first trimester, which is a rather broader span of time than first six weeks. I’ll have to check my facts.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Ellie, I am not in need of the information you gave me, thanks. FYI, Ross and Ellie, in 100 percent of abortions the baby already has a detectable heartbeat. Doctors will not even perform abortions until six or seven weeks into the pregnancy – in order to protect the health of the mother. The doctor wants to be able to account for, and remove, all of the baby’s body parts because if some small fragment of the baby remains in the mother’s body, it could cause a deadly infection.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Are you a vegetarian?

    No?

    Then ‘heartbeat’ cannot possibly be a relevant factor here.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Ellie, Plan B is definitely NOT safe. There is NO safe option
    when it comes to abortion. What exactly about abortion is safe for the
    baby? The intention of abortion is either to end a life, or ensure it
    never begins in the first place. No matter how sterile the environment
    is, it is NEVER safe for the baby. NEVER! Contrary to what the billion
    dollar abortion industry declares, it is not safe for the mother
    either. Commingled with the physical, mental and psychological scars,
    it is also a deep spiritual wound that she will NEVER forget, unless she
    has no conscience.

    I am not a cannibal, Ellie, but neither am I a vegetarian. I
    don’t consume humans. What do you mean by pregnant “person?” Only
    female persons have the ability to bear children.

    I don’t
    know what the punishment would/should be for a woman who chose to have
    an illegal abortion. However, if it were illegal, there would be way
    fewer women seeking abortions. Since its inception, death ROE has
    caused abortions to skyrocket. Last week, what Obama told his bosom
    chum, Planned Barrenhood, is a lie. Abortion is NOT rare, and feminists
    don’t want it to be. Contrary to what feminists say, abortion is not
    about caring for women. It’s all about the money and power.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Pre- or non-op trans men. Genderqueer female-assigned-at-birth individuals. The fact that abortion is actually less frequent in places that have it (and contraception and sex ed) legal and easily accessible than in places that don’t! Savita fucking Halappanavar!

    Know what, fuck you, I’m deep-sixing all comments from you from here on out. My blood pressure doesn’t need you.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen
  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    How does preventing ovulation and conception cause an abortion? How can preventing conception end the life of a baby? Is time travel involved?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    I don’t recall ever commenting on Plan B, other than today when I said it is dangerous to a woman’s health.

  • P J Evans

    Lies upon lies: WWJD?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Jesus would tell the abortionists and those who have had abortions to “Go and sin no more.”

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    I made no such claim about Plan B causing abortions. Plan B is a dangerous chemical concoction. Doesn’t sound like a very safe or wise choice to me.

    Contrary to what Obama recently said about his bosom chum, Planned Barrenhood, abortion is definitely NOT rare. Au contraire, Planned Barrenhood’s mission is to keep it frequent! That is because it is a very lucrative business, and this has been true from it’s inception. Planned Barrenhood (a tax exempt organization) has over $951 million in total assets. The average income for an abortion doctor far exceeds the annual income for an ethical surgeon – from three to ten times more, and they work way fewer hours! They are also less likely to be sued for malpractice. Of course, the numbers of abortion go down when it is illegal, for most mothers do not want to break the law.

  • P J Evans

    Starting from the first sentence, which is a lie, it just piles on more.

  • AnonymousSam

    You are a selfish, hateful, stupid woman, Ginny Bain Allen. The world will be better off when you die.

    Thread unsubscribed.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    So you can feel for yourself but not for others.  Interesting.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, that’s what ‘sociopath’ means, and Sam’s admitted to being one.

    When a known sociopath shows more empathy than you do? That’s sad, Ms. Allen. That’s truly sad.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    The sad part is Sam could change with Jesus, if she/he would surrender her/his allegiance to Him.  That is her/his only option for lasting change.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That right there? That is another example of you being less empathetic than Sam the KNOWN SOCIOPATH.

    Also, I think you’d be a great deal better off if you weren’t Christian, or at least not a hateful flavor of Christian. But I would never dream of telling you that your only chance at a good life is if you convert.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    It would not be loving of me if I didn’t tell Sam that Jesus is the Truth, and without Him, Sam does not have a chance of being free and healthy.  It’s due to Sam’s rejection of Jesus that Sam is a sociopath.  

  • EllieMurasaki

    (1) Christian sociopaths exist.

    (2) The loving thing for you to do regarding Sam would be to support Sam as Sam is, and suggest ways for Sam to change only if Sam asks for your input on the matter. Though that’s all trumped by Sam’s disinclination to continue interacting with you, in which case the loving thing for you to do regarding Sam would be to shut the fuck up.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    No, Ellie, Christian sociopaths do not exist.  Evil and the Holy Spirit cannot reside in a person at the same time.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Christian sociopaths do not exist

    “Kill them all and let God sort them out.” That never happened, or it wasn’t a sociopath who did it?

  • P J Evans

     She probably didn’t learn about the Inquisition, and the burning of heretics, and the witch-hunting, and missed seeing the huge neon-painted logs in the eyes of her pastor and most of her church’s members.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    A slew of untruths have evolved into defining cliches of our age.  Many have to do with overturning, demeaning or diminishing Christianity in world history.  Underlying it is the notion that Christianity held humanity back for thousands of years and that it continues to do so today.  Christianity began as a faith of peaceful martyrs who died for love.  Islam began as a faith of invading soldiers who died for land.  The Crusades were in every way a defensive war.  They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two thirds of the Christian world.  The Catholic Church intervened in the business of trying witches and other heretics in order to halt bloodshed and hysteria by secular authorities and the laypeople of Europe.  The most irresponsible parties in the persecution of alleged witches were not Catholic officials, but neighbors of the accused, followed closely by ignorant secular authorities.  Most witch trials were not conducted by the Church but by the local lords at the behest of the mob.  It was against this backdrop that the Church felt it had to intercede, to bring order, reason and an end to such spectacles.  The Church saved thousands of innocent people from horrific sentences by secular authorities.  As a rule, the Church did not burn witches or heretics.  That’s something the mobs or their lords did.  Where the Catholic Church’s authority was unquestioned, there were fewer or no witch trials.  But where its authority was contested or nonexistent, there were more – and more barbaric – trials.  Secular courts delivered death sentences.  Catholic inquisitions rarely sentenced people to death, preferring dismissals or excommunication or penance.  They myth that the church was interested in beating back rival pagan faiths makes no sense for numerous reasons, not least the fact that the areas in question had by that time been converted to Christianity for over a thousand years.  When the Church was at the height of its power very few witches died.  Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority.  The witch trials were not driven by the corrupting madness of absolute power and the Church’s institutional dogmatism.  Rather they were fueled by the demands of popular mobs a weakened Church could no longer hold at bay.  It was the secular authorities who punished heresy with death, and it was the people themselves who did most of the rounding up of heretics.  As horrible as this chapter of human history is, it is not nearly so horrible as portrayed by centuries of propagandists.  Hatred of the Church is too often the hallmark of men whose will to power drives them to clear the field of competing sources of authority as well as any institution that gives voice to conscience.  Consider that the deaths from the Inquisition in the 13th century amounted to something like 3 per year.  Between 1939-1945 the virulently anti-Catholic Nazis averaged that many every 90 seconds.  The Marxists who claimed to be ending the masses’ addiction to religion then proceeded to slaughter those same masses at a rate unprecedented in the history of human life.  The Church was intolerant of heresy to be sure, but the exoneration rate of the Inquisitions is a monument to human decency and restraint compared to the inquisitions of the Communist world, which consigned men and populations alike to miserable deaths based on the diktats of a secular faith that the murderers in power made up as they went along.  Catholic heretics had the right to a trial.  Under Communism whole populations did not.  Where the Church was strong, civilization was strengthened.  Where the Church was weak or absent, mankind was more likely to operate according to its more barbaric default settings.  Europe wasn’t comprised of some kind of enlightened, white-robed philosophers.  It was filthy, dark and cruel – just like the rest of the world.  The Church survived not because it was conniving and mercenary but because good men who believed more than they know did their best to light the darkness.  ~from Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book entitled The Tyranny of Cliches:  How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    No, Ellie, Christian sociopaths do not exist.  Evil and the Holy Spirit cannot reside in a person at the same time.

    That‘s interesting.

    This suggests that the Holy Spirit resides in all Christians. Do you believe that?

    If so… how many Christians would you estimate are alive in the world today? Or, to ask it a different way: there are between 2 and 3 billion people who claim to be Christian in the world. Are all of them Christian? Most of them? Practically none of them?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.  ~I Corinthians 12:3

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     “When tweetle beetles battle with paddles in a puddle, they call it a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle” – Seuss

  • P J Evans

     That’s nice. Did you learn to do that by yourself, or did some one teach you how to copy and paste?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Your understanding of good and evil and their origins is Medieval.

    In the literal sense.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Because we’ve progressed so far past that time in knowledge and wisdom, right?  Ha, ha, very funny, ha, ha, it is to laugh!

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And how safe was the tap water you’ve been drinking since you were a child?

    The fact that it’s safe to drink at all is due to a pesky little thing called scientific research.

    So yes, we have gained in knowledge and wisdom in how to better organize our lives in the here and now to give more humans than ever before lives of ease and comfort unattainable even to kings and queens hundreds of years ago.

    And you pooh-pooh that because we no longer believe that living lives of drudgery and toil for some imagined afterlife is a balanced equation.

    Tell me, would you like to live in a “moral” Medieval era as a possibly illiterate farm worker in the Holy Roman Empire? Or perhaps in Normannic England?

  • P J Evans

     Well, come back when the Holy Spirit decides to take up residence in YOU.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Fuck you. Fuck you with the sharpest, most painful, most damaging object the world can manage to conjure. 

    Luna’s lacy lingerie…LISTEN TO YOURSELF! Just stop, detach from your bullshit and LISTEN to what you’re saying! Actually HEAR the words you’re condemning people-people you don’t know and never will-with. Listen to the utter tripe you’re spouting. 

    You call telling people that their mental illness is a lie, something that they force on themselves because they don’t buy into your personal set of beliefs “love”? Where did Jesus do that? Where does Jesus encourage the whole-sale ignorance of reality that you’re showing here? And why do you think that god wants you to be so Fucking stupid?

    You have the most Fucked up definition of love I have ever encountered, and I hail from a home that taught me god’s “love” in the form of teaching me that I’m completely worthless because I don’t have a penis. And that I should have married one of the two men that tied me up and raped me for 3 days straight, because I no longer had any worth after losing my virginity. Because god said so. 

    A lot of people leave the very religion you’re touting as “the only way to be healthy” severely damaged and in need of YEARS of help to be okay again. How do you square that with what you’re saying? 

    Sam isn’t the sociopath here. You are. Sam is light years beyond anything you could ever hope to be. You can barely fake being human.

    *stops* I need to shut up and leave. I shouldn’t have come to this thread…I had no idea it would be so triggering. Will someone please enlighten me to a way to ignore or hide certain peoples’ posts, if such a thing exists in Disqus, so I only get one round of triggers from this pathetic excuse for a human? 

  • P J Evans

     I don’t know what god you actually worship, but he, she or it is NOT, Not Ever, the God of Jesus. Because that God doesn’t send people to hell for no reason, or any reason: you have to voluntarily send yourself there. WHICH YOU HAVE DONE TO YOURSELF and you continue to deny.
    FOAD, Ginny Bain Allen: you are not a Christian and you hate everyone but yourself and your twisted excuse for a god.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, you have got to be fucking kidding me.

    If nothing else, your God could at least cure mental illness without requiring that faith comes first.

  • P J Evans

     truth: Jesus didn’t ask questions before curing people. But if they believed, he’d do it anyway.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    It’s called mental WILLness, and if someone has rejected God, He lets that person get what he/she wants.  God leaves that person alone in their stubborn rejection of Him, allowing him/her to suffer the natural consequences of choosing to live narcissistically sinfully.

  • P J Evans

    She told me he was female. And male, too. Not that it matters for Her: she can be all of them at once.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    You  obviously listen to satan, the prince of this world.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Prove it.

  • P J Evans

     No, but you certainly have been, and for a long, long time.
    FOAD, turdblossom.

  • AnonymousSam

    That’s peculiar. When God showed itself to me, it very specifically said that there is no possible way it could show itself to everyone and have that message get across in a manner that would be interpreted the same way by everyone.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    God is not an it.

  • Carstonio

    Dumb semi-rhetorical question – how can Zero Population Growth be objectively immoral? I’m not arguing that it’s moral. I could understand opposition to ZPG if infertility was widespread. Even that would entail the assumption that the continued survival of the human race is a good thing, and again my point in mentioning that is not necessarily to contest it but to emphasize that it’s an assumption. Ideally, an assertion about the morality of any level of population growth, positive or negative, should have some rationale behind it.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    how can Zero Population Growth be objectively immoral?

    (shrug) If God wants us all to “be fruitful and multiply,” meaning have lots of kids, and if morality is defined objectively in terms of what God wants, then not having lots of kids is objectively immoral.

    Zero Population Growth requires not having lots of kids, QED.

    Of course, those first two “if”s are rather a big pill to swallow.

  • Carstonio

     While I agree with your point, I wasn’t asking for that type of deconstruction. By “objectively immoral” I meant nonsectarian, where all religions’ assertions about gods were taken off the table. Imagine another religion that claimed that its god forbade reproduction, something akin to the Shaker teaching on celibacy. Both this claim and the “be fruitful and multiply” claim cannot both be correct, so the prudent course by advocates of both is to argue their case from a nonsectarian basis.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Well, if everyone happened to agree that children were the most valuable thing ever, there would be nonsectarian agreement that ZPG was immoral. I’m not sure in what sense that’s objective, though. And it turns out not to be the case.

  • Carstonio

    “Children are the most valuable thing ever” is an assertion of value, which is a subjective concept regardless of the number of people who agree with the assertion.

    Whereas  “A supreme being orders humanity to be fruitful and multiply” and “A supreme being orders humanity to be celibate” are both assertions of fact, meaning that they’re either true or false regardless of the number of people who believe in them. If these can’t be proven or disproven, then they’re meaningless in an argument about the morality of reproduction or nonreproduction.

  • AnonymousSam

    That’s just that defiance against God’s authority you have in you thanks to all the pornography you look at and your bad relationship with your father that a total stranger on the Internet knows far better than you. As you well know and are lying if you say otherwise, Christianity is the only true religion, so what any other religious people have to say is automatically invalid, and likewise a nonsectarian argument is meaningless because you’re automatically wrong and lying if you try and take God off the table. Silly Carstonio.

    tl;dr: Ginny isn’t interested in arguing in good faith.

  • VMink

    Ginny isn’t interested in arguing in good faith.

    After a thousand posts (I think they were shooting for a record; let’s see if they show up again) and in all that time a cowardly refusal to answer a simple, yet important question — “What should the punishment be for a woman who has an abortion in a jurisdiction where abortion is illegal?” — this is definitely not a surprise.

    And it all started with her defending Dinesh D’Souza’s adultery.

  • AnonymousSam

    Definitely not. Sadly, I think this is a common mindset for a lot of conservatives — not only assuming they know the truth, but that everyone else does too, and any protestations to the contrary are smokescreen to divert attention away from the real problem: being too stubborn, prideful and rebellious to admit what they already know to be true.

    It’s the most artful form of tribalism, where there aren’t even any other tribes, just people who know they’re part of the tribe and people who are childishly pretending otherwise.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    How nice it is to see Dinesh’s kind smiling face every time I come here.   :)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Nah. It’s fine to have lots of kids, so long as you kill an equal number of people.

    Given that the policies advocated by people like GBA do lead directly to the deaths of women, of the poor, of the unfortunate, I’d think she’d be just fine with it.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Point.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

    It is noted that there are criticisms of Hoyle’s statements regarding the alleged statistical likelihood of assembling a (fully unloaded) 747.

  • P J Evans

    Is Hoyle’s statement something like the one one of my college teachers had, that it’s possible to throw apiece of chalk through a solid wall (but that you might have to throw it at the wall for an extremely long time)?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Yeah. It’s technically correct, but for all practical purposes useless as an analogy.

  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • Madhabmatics

    someone salt this threads server box so nothing can ever grow here again

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I am beginning to wonder how long it will be before someone sufficiently anti-social just writes an Eliza-like program to spam discussion threads with pseudo-responsive comments like Ginny’s latest offerings. 

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    I think it’s already here.

  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • Vermic

    It’s easy to see why GBA is so devoted to the unborn.  They haven’t yet had a chance to disappoint her by becoming human.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    avoiding the fiery darts of the evil one here.   :)

  • AnonymousSam

    (Posting here because other threads don’t feel as relevant to the subject and I can’t find the other when we discussed this separately)

    This is what happens when you consider a fetus equivalent to an adult: http://feministing.com/2013/01/17/new-report-shows-how-the-principle-of-personhood-is-already-criminalizing-pregnancy-in-the-us/

  • Ginny Bain Allen

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9828589/Children-and-the-culture-of-pornography-Boys-will-ask-you-every-day-until-you-say-yes.html

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Which is *gasp* why feminists say we need to teach boys to stop nagging girls for sex because they’re not entitled to nag girls for sex.

    They are, however, entitled to use their own hands –

    Oh, wait. You and your ilk have the vapors at the thought that people even masturbate.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

     http://vimeo.com/52009124

    Maranatha!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X