-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Feminism and societal consequences
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
Coincidentally, I just finished Donovan's The Way of Men and just hadn't gotten around to posting a recommendation here yet. So here goes: I strongly recommend that anybody reading this post get a copy of that book and read it. Do it now.
The book is a quick, compelling read because it is written in a very direct, masculine style. Observations, argument, action plan, and out.
Anyone that has reared children to maturity knows that there comes a sometimes difficult, always challenging time in the life of an adolescent when you realize that you have empowered your child to the point where he or she can be a formidable adversary. If there are clear boundaries and rites of passage, you can avoid most of the worst of the potential power struggle, but in our retarded (in the technical sense of 'slow' or 'kept back', not 'dumb') youth culture it is difficult to avoid at least some push-pull before the kids leave the house (or get off the tab, if they go to school), and sometimes that pushing and pulling gets ugly. And sometimes the parents just capitulate....
Now consider whether Western culture has empowered "the fairer sex" (is it sexist for me to say that?...) to the point where they are powerful enough to push the envelope, and will take what they haven't been given if they can get away with it. The reasons women used to have for being dependent upon men just aren't as compelling anymore, if they exist at all, so the only question is whether they'll be able to exploit men further (as a teen sometimes exploits the room and board parents provide), beyond the point where men are willing to do what women want them to do. Apparently we are reaching that point as a culture.
When you read the book, note carefully Donovan's comparison of chimpanzee and bonobo culture. Ties right in with the descriptions in the Breitbart articles above.
There is SO MUCH MORE to this. I'm not trying to summarize so much as illustrate. Get the book. Let me know what you think.
The book is a quick, compelling read because it is written in a very direct, masculine style. Observations, argument, action plan, and out.
Anyone that has reared children to maturity knows that there comes a sometimes difficult, always challenging time in the life of an adolescent when you realize that you have empowered your child to the point where he or she can be a formidable adversary. If there are clear boundaries and rites of passage, you can avoid most of the worst of the potential power struggle, but in our retarded (in the technical sense of 'slow' or 'kept back', not 'dumb') youth culture it is difficult to avoid at least some push-pull before the kids leave the house (or get off the tab, if they go to school), and sometimes that pushing and pulling gets ugly. And sometimes the parents just capitulate....
Now consider whether Western culture has empowered "the fairer sex" (is it sexist for me to say that?...) to the point where they are powerful enough to push the envelope, and will take what they haven't been given if they can get away with it. The reasons women used to have for being dependent upon men just aren't as compelling anymore, if they exist at all, so the only question is whether they'll be able to exploit men further (as a teen sometimes exploits the room and board parents provide), beyond the point where men are willing to do what women want them to do. Apparently we are reaching that point as a culture.
When you read the book, note carefully Donovan's comparison of chimpanzee and bonobo culture. Ties right in with the descriptions in the Breitbart articles above.
There is SO MUCH MORE to this. I'm not trying to summarize so much as illustrate. Get the book. Let me know what you think.
D
dodidodi
Guest
Just to be clear for those who do not know, both Milo Yiannopoulos, the author of the web link article and Jack Donovan are gay.
Both of them, may have a voice for gay men, their intended audience, to become strong men, but that's kind of like letting a pedophile watch your children because they write a good book on how to raise children.
I'll pass.
Both of them, may have a voice for gay men, their intended audience, to become strong men, but that's kind of like letting a pedophile watch your children because they write a good book on how to raise children.
I'll pass.
No, actually it wouldn't be like that at all, not even "kind of".
And gay men are not Donovan's intended audience, except insofar as they are interested in being MEN, and not just GAY.
I thought about mentioning that Donovan is homosexual, but I figured someone here would probably jump on that. You're the lucky winner.
Meanwhile, not reading Donovan's book is your loss, and I'll stand by my recommendation. For those of you with a more open mind and more of a truth-seeker's heart, know that you could read and digest the whole book without the subject of the authors sexuality ever being an issue. It's just not about that.
Finally, I submit as a damning indictment of the government churches that this homosexual male is more manly than most of the Christian men I've ever met, and has more to say about being a man than most pastors and teachers I've encountered. Read the book and you'll see what I mean.
And gay men are not Donovan's intended audience, except insofar as they are interested in being MEN, and not just GAY.
I thought about mentioning that Donovan is homosexual, but I figured someone here would probably jump on that. You're the lucky winner.
Meanwhile, not reading Donovan's book is your loss, and I'll stand by my recommendation. For those of you with a more open mind and more of a truth-seeker's heart, know that you could read and digest the whole book without the subject of the authors sexuality ever being an issue. It's just not about that.
Finally, I submit as a damning indictment of the government churches that this homosexual male is more manly than most of the Christian men I've ever met, and has more to say about being a man than most pastors and teachers I've encountered. Read the book and you'll see what I mean.
D
dodidodi
Guest
From a closed mind, are they, Milo Yiannopoulos and Jack Donovan, born again Christians and have they repented of their sin of homosexuality?
Nope. Not to my knowledge.
And if in your mind that disqualifies them from having an opinion or possibly being right about anything, then so be it. But as they say, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day", and God spoke through a donkey to report what a man of God couldn't see with his own eyes.
If I ask a group of people I'm talking to what time it is, and the first guy to look at his watch is a homosexual, is it okay for me to take his word for it, or do I need to wait until a born again Christian tells me the time? (I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that it is meaningful to start judging who is and is not a "born again Christian"....) Can I take my car to the mechanic I like in town without checking his spiritual pedigree, or may only born again Christians work on my car?
Those aren't really rhetorical questions as much as I am sincerely wondering how far you're willing to take this principle.
Meanwhile, I have a hypothesis to run by you (or at least, by anyone who's willing to consider it with an open mind...
). One of the things Donovan gets into is the "flamboyant dishonor" of male virtues that is the driving force of "gay" culture. It may actually take a man who is at the farthest reach of confusion about what it means to "be a man" to stand up and say the things he has said. As the feminists continue to consolidate power and drive masculinity farther to the fringes of society, and when so many Christian men are just struggling to be "good men" (as in good providers, mostly), he may be in a better position to observe and assess and report on our culture than most of us are.
Or not. Maybe I should call that a speculation rather than a hypothesis. Just thinking out loud. I can say that during the years we were doing street ministry there were spiritual things that became crystal clear that get blurry in a hurry in comfortable suburban churches. Might be something about this guy's vantage point that enables him to see things we can't see because we're somewhere in the middle of a process that he's farther along in. Maybe?
Final thought: What I wrote above about Christian men reminds me that he does a section on the difference between "being a good man" and "being good at being a man" that should be required reading for men who care about masculine virtue. It's getting harder and harder to be "good at being a man" in this culture without getting into trouble with our keepers. And the definition of what it means to be a "good man" doesn't typically have anything particularly "manly" about it—just "nice" virtues that could apply to males or females.
Final final thought: Anyone who thinks that our government and culture are on the right track and that everything is "going to be okay" for our children and grandchildren can ignore all of this and go back to sleep. Anyone that suspects that things could go very badly very quickly if we don't start making sustained, disciplined moves in the right direction might want to check out this book on the grounds that soon—within our children's lifetimes if not within our own—we're going to need men again. Right now they're in pretty short supply (arguably because there's no demand...).
And if in your mind that disqualifies them from having an opinion or possibly being right about anything, then so be it. But as they say, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day", and God spoke through a donkey to report what a man of God couldn't see with his own eyes.
If I ask a group of people I'm talking to what time it is, and the first guy to look at his watch is a homosexual, is it okay for me to take his word for it, or do I need to wait until a born again Christian tells me the time? (I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that it is meaningful to start judging who is and is not a "born again Christian"....) Can I take my car to the mechanic I like in town without checking his spiritual pedigree, or may only born again Christians work on my car?
Those aren't really rhetorical questions as much as I am sincerely wondering how far you're willing to take this principle.
Meanwhile, I have a hypothesis to run by you (or at least, by anyone who's willing to consider it with an open mind...
). One of the things Donovan gets into is the "flamboyant dishonor" of male virtues that is the driving force of "gay" culture. It may actually take a man who is at the farthest reach of confusion about what it means to "be a man" to stand up and say the things he has said. As the feminists continue to consolidate power and drive masculinity farther to the fringes of society, and when so many Christian men are just struggling to be "good men" (as in good providers, mostly), he may be in a better position to observe and assess and report on our culture than most of us are. Or not. Maybe I should call that a speculation rather than a hypothesis. Just thinking out loud. I can say that during the years we were doing street ministry there were spiritual things that became crystal clear that get blurry in a hurry in comfortable suburban churches. Might be something about this guy's vantage point that enables him to see things we can't see because we're somewhere in the middle of a process that he's farther along in. Maybe?
Final thought: What I wrote above about Christian men reminds me that he does a section on the difference between "being a good man" and "being good at being a man" that should be required reading for men who care about masculine virtue. It's getting harder and harder to be "good at being a man" in this culture without getting into trouble with our keepers. And the definition of what it means to be a "good man" doesn't typically have anything particularly "manly" about it—just "nice" virtues that could apply to males or females.
Final final thought: Anyone who thinks that our government and culture are on the right track and that everything is "going to be okay" for our children and grandchildren can ignore all of this and go back to sleep. Anyone that suspects that things could go very badly very quickly if we don't start making sustained, disciplined moves in the right direction might want to check out this book on the grounds that soon—within our children's lifetimes if not within our own—we're going to need men again. Right now they're in pretty short supply (arguably because there's no demand...).
D
dodidodi
Guest
andrew said:
That's all I did.
BandEStensaas
New Member
Feminism as a whole has ruined our society. We for lack of better terminology have neutered are men and made our little girls masculine. Just my personal view point.
Excellent articles Nathan, thanks for sharing. And thankyou Andrew for your further commentary (on which I agree that everyone is worth listening to). These just make so much sense.
Dodidodi, these articles explain why secular men behave how they do. I expect the book Andrew recommends does the same. And they are written by secular men, the best people to actually explain how secular men think. And extremely informative for that reason. We should obviously read it in the light of Christianity and seek God on what we should do about it for sure. But too many Christians are raised in a perfect wee sheltered church environment with no idea about the real world, keep living thinking everyone thinks like that, only listen to Christians about what's happening in the world, and end up coming to misguided conclusions about what to do about society. Because they've got God, the solution for the world, but they can't see the world so don't know how to apply Him.
Imagine having the perfect tools and paint to make an ugly old house look new again, and then trying to do it blindfolded because you won't look at the house in it's current ugly state but will only look at perfectly painted houses for guidance. Can't see that going well. In the same way we MUST look at the ugly world we live in and the opinions of secular people if we are to ever hope to influence anyone towards Christ.
Dodidodi, these articles explain why secular men behave how they do. I expect the book Andrew recommends does the same. And they are written by secular men, the best people to actually explain how secular men think. And extremely informative for that reason. We should obviously read it in the light of Christianity and seek God on what we should do about it for sure. But too many Christians are raised in a perfect wee sheltered church environment with no idea about the real world, keep living thinking everyone thinks like that, only listen to Christians about what's happening in the world, and end up coming to misguided conclusions about what to do about society. Because they've got God, the solution for the world, but they can't see the world so don't know how to apply Him.
Imagine having the perfect tools and paint to make an ugly old house look new again, and then trying to do it blindfolded because you won't look at the house in it's current ugly state but will only look at perfectly painted houses for guidance. Can't see that going well. In the same way we MUST look at the ugly world we live in and the opinions of secular people if we are to ever hope to influence anyone towards Christ.
One thing these articles miss I think is that while many good and intelligent men may be looking at the cost-benefit of relationships and opting out, there are many less intelligent and more evil-minded men out there also. And when the good men walk away and leave women available, these men are only too willing to take advantage of the situation. So while intelligent secular men may be choosing to focus on other things and get sex from casual relationships, those women are left to fall victim to scumbags. And the more men that get sex casually, the more men each woman sleeps with on average, and the more likely every woman is to end up with an abusive man for a period - who will then move on to another, and another...
Each time "confirming" the idea that men are inherently abusive, and sending the spiral deeper and deeper...
Each time "confirming" the idea that men are inherently abusive, and sending the spiral deeper and deeper...
D
dodidodi
Guest
Ok I get it. Since the director, moderator, and the worship leader (TPTB) of BF believe that secular gay men have a voice in an environment about strong men leading biblical plural families, I hope it is ok that I would rather not coddle that segment of society. I lean towards teaching men that the strength of all men comes from God and that requires they accept there position based on the purpose of creation. And as far as the actions of the current church, there are bigger concerns here than how they treat secular gay men.
The world is full of voices that preach a message different than God's, but sound good to the human ear. Are we to entertain them all because of 'Christian' niceness? There are plenty of New Age philosophers, 'good' Wicca writers, and gobs of intelligent family thinkers in Islam, but at what point does a Christian man draw the line and say, we go this way. That is the sign of a strong man who leads in my opinion.
But, hey, if you guys have a ministry to the gay population, go for it. At this point God hasn't called me there.
But that is my belief, I hope that is ok here.
The world is full of voices that preach a message different than God's, but sound good to the human ear. Are we to entertain them all because of 'Christian' niceness? There are plenty of New Age philosophers, 'good' Wicca writers, and gobs of intelligent family thinkers in Islam, but at what point does a Christian man draw the line and say, we go this way. That is the sign of a strong man who leads in my opinion.
But, hey, if you guys have a ministry to the gay population, go for it. At this point God hasn't called me there.
But that is my belief, I hope that is ok here.
I'm recommending the book in the strongest possible terms to anyone that is interested in understanding masculinity. I make no apology for that, and could not care less about the author's spiritual condition (he's an atheist) or sexual preference (he prefers men). He is more correct in his observations of and conclusions regarding men in our culture than countless "Christian" men that presume to be teachers.
Samuel, you and I are 1-for-2: I disagree that the book is only useful for insight into how secular men act. This is about masculinity, not 'Christian' masculinity, 'pagan' masculinity, 'gay' masculinity, or neutered/feminist masculinity, JUST "masculinity". No adjectives. OTOH, I agree with your second point re the other men that are not dropping out. Not the same survival problem for our culture that the "sexodus" is, but still a problem, particularly for the women that are being exploited.
I'm not going to defend the book or my recommendation of it any further to people who have no intention of reading it, although I'll post more here as necessary to clarify anything I've said so far. Assume for the sake of argument that Jack Donovan is the devil and he's here to destroy your faith. If you're not afraid to go a few rounds with him, then read the first couple of chapters of the book and see if you want to put it down or keep reading. If you're afraid to even peek at what he has to say, and aren't even a little bit curious about why I would go this far out on a limb to recommend this book, then nothing else I say here is really going to matter, is it?
Samuel, I respect your objectivity and the sincerity of your commitment to truth. You can get the book in digital format from Amazon for 5.99USD. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Or better yet, it occurred to me to wonder whether Amazon had a preview. Yes, as a matter of fact they do! So here, for the mildly curious, is a link to the Amazon preview. If this doesn't pique your interest, it's on you. I've done what I can.
Samuel, you and I are 1-for-2: I disagree that the book is only useful for insight into how secular men act. This is about masculinity, not 'Christian' masculinity, 'pagan' masculinity, 'gay' masculinity, or neutered/feminist masculinity, JUST "masculinity". No adjectives. OTOH, I agree with your second point re the other men that are not dropping out. Not the same survival problem for our culture that the "sexodus" is, but still a problem, particularly for the women that are being exploited.
I'm not going to defend the book or my recommendation of it any further to people who have no intention of reading it, although I'll post more here as necessary to clarify anything I've said so far. Assume for the sake of argument that Jack Donovan is the devil and he's here to destroy your faith. If you're not afraid to go a few rounds with him, then read the first couple of chapters of the book and see if you want to put it down or keep reading. If you're afraid to even peek at what he has to say, and aren't even a little bit curious about why I would go this far out on a limb to recommend this book, then nothing else I say here is really going to matter, is it?
Samuel, I respect your objectivity and the sincerity of your commitment to truth. You can get the book in digital format from Amazon for 5.99USD. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Or better yet, it occurred to me to wonder whether Amazon had a preview. Yes, as a matter of fact they do! So here, for the mildly curious, is a link to the Amazon preview. If this doesn't pique your interest, it's on you. I've done what I can.
D
dodidodi
Guest
Ezekiel chapter 1
25 Then there came a voice from above the vault over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the vault over their heads was what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.,
This Is How the Rainbow Flag Became a Global Gay Rights Symbol
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... ts-symbol/
Homo fashion designer Tom Ford’s crucifix/penis necklace
http://theattackonreligion.com/2014/12/ ... -necklace/
Would you feel comfortable having the writer of this book you are suggesting take one of your sons on a camping trip to teach him how to be a man?
Personally, I think you are playing with fire. IMHO
There will be no more comments from me on this subject.
25 Then there came a voice from above the vault over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the vault over their heads was what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.,
This Is How the Rainbow Flag Became a Global Gay Rights Symbol
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 ... ts-symbol/
Homo fashion designer Tom Ford’s crucifix/penis necklace
http://theattackonreligion.com/2014/12/ ... -necklace/
Would you feel comfortable having the writer of this book you are suggesting take one of your sons on a camping trip to teach him how to be a man?
Personally, I think you are playing with fire. IMHO
There will be no more comments from me on this subject.
dd, everything you've said so far is basically a sad little ad hominem argument. "These writers can't possibly have anything correct to say about anything because they're gay. QED."
On a more sinister note, it's turning into an ad hominem attack against me, Samuel, and Nathan. "And furthermore, these guys that are leaders in BF are willing to listen to a gay man speak and <gasp, shudder> acknowledge when he says something interesting and possibly useful. Obviously dangerous and wrong. QED."
Okay, so you've got issues. We get it. You don't want to read the book, don't read the book.
Everybody else: Read the book.
dd, if you want to do something useful (and manly), go read the book and then come back here and point out the parts you think were wrong. But all of the pre-emptive hand-wringing is pointless.
Re camping trips: I thought we already covered this with your "apples and oranges" comparison to letting these authors watch our kids, but you're just talking about Two Different Things—not a valid comparison at all. On the one hand, we're talking about a book that makes observations about the role of males throughout history and our understanding of masculinity in this culture. On the other, we're talking about letting adults spend time with our children, which introduces a different set of considerations. I don't know Jack personally, so I wouldn't let him take my sons on a campout, for the same reason I wouldn't let all but a few men I know take my daughters on a campout. It's a matter of personal trust. Happy?
At the risk of disappointing you further, however, I'll mention that I will be going through this book with most of my sons (I have eight) after the first of the year. I think it's that good.
Everybody else: One of the main themes of Jack's writing is that men deeply desire to have value in the eyes of other men. Those of you who were at the Tennessee retreat will remember that one of the topics of discussion Saturday afternoon was that, while the intra-family relationships between men and women and between women and women obviously and for logical reasons get most of the attention here at BF, it might be time for us to look more closely at the way we men relate to each other in inter-family relationships. I think this book would help us with that project.
On a more sinister note, it's turning into an ad hominem attack against me, Samuel, and Nathan. "And furthermore, these guys that are leaders in BF are willing to listen to a gay man speak and <gasp, shudder> acknowledge when he says something interesting and possibly useful. Obviously dangerous and wrong. QED."
Okay, so you've got issues. We get it. You don't want to read the book, don't read the book.
Everybody else: Read the book.
dd, if you want to do something useful (and manly), go read the book and then come back here and point out the parts you think were wrong. But all of the pre-emptive hand-wringing is pointless.
Re camping trips: I thought we already covered this with your "apples and oranges" comparison to letting these authors watch our kids, but you're just talking about Two Different Things—not a valid comparison at all. On the one hand, we're talking about a book that makes observations about the role of males throughout history and our understanding of masculinity in this culture. On the other, we're talking about letting adults spend time with our children, which introduces a different set of considerations. I don't know Jack personally, so I wouldn't let him take my sons on a campout, for the same reason I wouldn't let all but a few men I know take my daughters on a campout. It's a matter of personal trust. Happy?
At the risk of disappointing you further, however, I'll mention that I will be going through this book with most of my sons (I have eight) after the first of the year. I think it's that good.
Everybody else: One of the main themes of Jack's writing is that men deeply desire to have value in the eyes of other men. Those of you who were at the Tennessee retreat will remember that one of the topics of discussion Saturday afternoon was that, while the intra-family relationships between men and women and between women and women obviously and for logical reasons get most of the attention here at BF, it might be time for us to look more closely at the way we men relate to each other in inter-family relationships. I think this book would help us with that project.
Hi dodidodi.
I have not read the links yet.
If information provided on Biblical Families is written by a homosexual author, I would prefer to have that disclosed prior to reading it.
Just the same as if the author was a communist, or perhaps a murder, or something else very obviously forbidden in the word of God.
I am not saying I will not read the information if it comes from that source.
I read very widely.
In fact I recently read some material written by a psychopath on understanding that mindset.
However I do like to know upfront who is writing the material I am reading.
It does matter to me.
Life values can influence writing, even in the most subtle ways. Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
Again, I read very widely,
All the best,
ylop
I have not read the links yet.
If information provided on Biblical Families is written by a homosexual author, I would prefer to have that disclosed prior to reading it.
Just the same as if the author was a communist, or perhaps a murder, or something else very obviously forbidden in the word of God.
I am not saying I will not read the information if it comes from that source.
I read very widely.
In fact I recently read some material written by a psychopath on understanding that mindset.
However I do like to know upfront who is writing the material I am reading.
It does matter to me.
Life values can influence writing, even in the most subtle ways. Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
Again, I read very widely,
All the best,
ylop
D
dodidodi
Guest
andrew said:
Sorry to jump in here again after I said I wouldn't, but this statement is absolutely wrong and uncalled for. I was only giving my opinion about the subject of a book after you asked for it. My only reference to the names you provide was an acknowledgement that this is your site and anything you decide goes. In other words we have to play by your rules.
My take on this is that Nathan did not know that the article he posted was written by someone who is gay. Samuel is really only trying to protect the establishment and a buddy, however you knew the book was written by someone Christian men would question morally but you did not disclose it in your recommendation.
To me there is only one person that has some 'splain'n to do.
andrew said:
How's that working out for ya.
Moderator hat on:
Turns out Dodidodi is actually Curtis (cwcsmc) who has been banned from this forum previously. He has a personal beef with Andrew, Nathan and myself, hence these latest statements, they do not really relate to the issue at hand rather this is just a handy excuse to restart an old fight. His tactic when he appears is to speak sense for a while to develop a good reputation and become accepted, then start baiting Biblical Families leadership until he can engineer a "showdown" in which he can try to throw as much dirt as possible in the hope that some sticks. This new alias "dodidodi" is now banned also to stop this escalating as it will inevitably based on past experience, sadly.
Please keep our brother Curtis in prayer, particularly that he would find a calling that allows him to direct his time and energy to attacking the enemies of the church rather than tearing down his brothers. Currently he's operating in Matthew 7:15 mode, but he could be a strong warrior for Christ if he redirected his energies. If anyone was intending to contact "dodidodi" aka Curtis personally, and this banning gets in the way of that, just send me a private message and I can put you in touch with him via email.
Back to the gay author matter, I agree with ylop that we should be aware of who writes things. But although this is not stated in Nathan's post the author makes it very clear himself in those articles, so I don't think there was any need for Nathan to repeat this in this particular case.
Turns out Dodidodi is actually Curtis (cwcsmc) who has been banned from this forum previously. He has a personal beef with Andrew, Nathan and myself, hence these latest statements, they do not really relate to the issue at hand rather this is just a handy excuse to restart an old fight. His tactic when he appears is to speak sense for a while to develop a good reputation and become accepted, then start baiting Biblical Families leadership until he can engineer a "showdown" in which he can try to throw as much dirt as possible in the hope that some sticks. This new alias "dodidodi" is now banned also to stop this escalating as it will inevitably based on past experience, sadly.
Please keep our brother Curtis in prayer, particularly that he would find a calling that allows him to direct his time and energy to attacking the enemies of the church rather than tearing down his brothers. Currently he's operating in Matthew 7:15 mode, but he could be a strong warrior for Christ if he redirected his energies. If anyone was intending to contact "dodidodi" aka Curtis personally, and this banning gets in the way of that, just send me a private message and I can put you in touch with him via email.
Back to the gay author matter, I agree with ylop that we should be aware of who writes things. But although this is not stated in Nathan's post the author makes it very clear himself in those articles, so I don't think there was any need for Nathan to repeat this in this particular case.
I will not respond to some of the specifics of Curtis's last post because he is not here to respond further. Some of you will see what's been going on and don't need to hear more from me, and some of you won't see what's going on, which means anything further I say is probably just wasting everyone's time. It stands the way it is.
There is one point, though, that I do think deserves some splainin: my decision not to "warn" readers that Jack Donovan is a homosexual. I mentioned above that I considered including such a warning and decided against. I'd like to elaborate on that decision here for the sake of others who are following this thread or may come along later. (The thread has almost 200 views already, which I doubt is solely Nathan, me, dodidodi, FollowingHim, and ylop.)
At the simplest level, I was following Nathan's leadership, which is what followers do. He posted without comment an article written by a homosexual. In the body of that article is a full disclosure that the author of the article and the author of the book I subsequently recommended are gay. Enough said. Understanding flows to those who do the work and at least try to understand. If you read the article, you will get the disclosure, and you will get it in a context that is important to the topic of the article. Who knows, you might even learn something. On the other hand, if you want a reason to pre-emptively dismiss anything Yiannopoulos or Donovan could say on the basis of a sophomoric ad hominem argument, dodidodi has handed that to you. Please don't read the article or the book; you won't get anything out of them anyway.
Here's another level, though: If you are an adult male and are afraid to read a book or an article written by a homosexual or someone else whose religion or lifestyle choices you don't approve of for fear that somehow they're going to "get to you" if you don't have your filters on, then the nicest thing I can say is that the matrix has you. Your thoughtways have been so conditioned by the government-sponsored church in this country that you can't defend yourself, and must rely on gatekeepers and overseers (and Christian bookstores and media) to decide what you're allowed to think about. That's a pity.
Here's another level: The idea that "he's a homosexual so he must be wrong" is just the flipside of "I'm a Christian so I must be right". If you sincerely believe that a homosexual cannot have an accurate observation or a thoughtful assessment about some topic other than what the bible clearly says about homosexuality, then that too is a pity, and it says more about you than it says about the person you are dismissing.
Here's another level: Contrary to the insinuations above, Nathan, Samuel, and I do not form some sort of monolithic leadership for the board (The Powers That Be? really?), and I won't be surprised if some of the language of this post agitates one or both of them (sorry, guys...). This board historically has accommodated a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs, communication styles, and priorities. Each of us has our own personality, and we don't always agree on everything. And that's okay, because we're MEN, and there's a larger context in which these disagreements take place and get worked out, and there's a larger mission for BF that we're all committed to. Within that context, and with that mission in mind, however, I am my own person. I recommended the book "as is" and will be interested to see who has enough confidence in their own abilities to think and curiosity about what could have gotten me so riled up to check it out. All Curtis has done is "up the ante", and now I will be interested to see who has enough interest in the topic to be willing to check it out (a) on my recommendation and (b) in spite of the fact that Donovan is homosexual (which you would have known anyway if you read the article...).
Here's the last level (not the last there is, just the last one I want to get into): The book I recommended has much to say to MEN of any denomination, creed, or sexual persuasion, and ironically would have something to say about the situation on this thread and how this all went down. The article Nathan posted is a great introduction to the problem; the book goes further and starts to open the way for understanding the root of the problem and coming up with workable solutions. I am by most accounts a successful polygynous male, and I wouldn't recommend the book in this forum unless I thought it had something to say to this group of men. If that's not good enough, then don't read it. If you do read it, please let me know what you think.
Let's move on.
There is one point, though, that I do think deserves some splainin: my decision not to "warn" readers that Jack Donovan is a homosexual. I mentioned above that I considered including such a warning and decided against. I'd like to elaborate on that decision here for the sake of others who are following this thread or may come along later. (The thread has almost 200 views already, which I doubt is solely Nathan, me, dodidodi, FollowingHim, and ylop.)
At the simplest level, I was following Nathan's leadership, which is what followers do. He posted without comment an article written by a homosexual. In the body of that article is a full disclosure that the author of the article and the author of the book I subsequently recommended are gay. Enough said. Understanding flows to those who do the work and at least try to understand. If you read the article, you will get the disclosure, and you will get it in a context that is important to the topic of the article. Who knows, you might even learn something. On the other hand, if you want a reason to pre-emptively dismiss anything Yiannopoulos or Donovan could say on the basis of a sophomoric ad hominem argument, dodidodi has handed that to you. Please don't read the article or the book; you won't get anything out of them anyway.
Here's another level, though: If you are an adult male and are afraid to read a book or an article written by a homosexual or someone else whose religion or lifestyle choices you don't approve of for fear that somehow they're going to "get to you" if you don't have your filters on, then the nicest thing I can say is that the matrix has you. Your thoughtways have been so conditioned by the government-sponsored church in this country that you can't defend yourself, and must rely on gatekeepers and overseers (and Christian bookstores and media) to decide what you're allowed to think about. That's a pity.
Here's another level: The idea that "he's a homosexual so he must be wrong" is just the flipside of "I'm a Christian so I must be right". If you sincerely believe that a homosexual cannot have an accurate observation or a thoughtful assessment about some topic other than what the bible clearly says about homosexuality, then that too is a pity, and it says more about you than it says about the person you are dismissing.
Here's another level: Contrary to the insinuations above, Nathan, Samuel, and I do not form some sort of monolithic leadership for the board (The Powers That Be? really?), and I won't be surprised if some of the language of this post agitates one or both of them (sorry, guys...). This board historically has accommodated a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs, communication styles, and priorities. Each of us has our own personality, and we don't always agree on everything. And that's okay, because we're MEN, and there's a larger context in which these disagreements take place and get worked out, and there's a larger mission for BF that we're all committed to. Within that context, and with that mission in mind, however, I am my own person. I recommended the book "as is" and will be interested to see who has enough confidence in their own abilities to think and curiosity about what could have gotten me so riled up to check it out. All Curtis has done is "up the ante", and now I will be interested to see who has enough interest in the topic to be willing to check it out (a) on my recommendation and (b) in spite of the fact that Donovan is homosexual (which you would have known anyway if you read the article...).
Here's the last level (not the last there is, just the last one I want to get into): The book I recommended has much to say to MEN of any denomination, creed, or sexual persuasion, and ironically would have something to say about the situation on this thread and how this all went down. The article Nathan posted is a great introduction to the problem; the book goes further and starts to open the way for understanding the root of the problem and coming up with workable solutions. I am by most accounts a successful polygynous male, and I wouldn't recommend the book in this forum unless I thought it had something to say to this group of men. If that's not good enough, then don't read it. If you do read it, please let me know what you think.
Let's move on.
On my Facebook newsfeed it keeps coming up that one or another of my friends liked something on a certain page. That page is called Lizzy The Lezzy. Some of the things were quite funny so I went to take a look at her page. You can guess what it was about and at the time it was filled with hatred towards Christians. They were poking fun at us, in mean and spiteful ways, ways that were actually incorrect if you read the bible, and ways that I have to admit are funny. And the comments were awful. Utterly awful.
I have never felt so let down by Christians as a whole. There is a reason that these people think what they do, there is a reason that they've taken to hating Christians.
Do you know what I see time and time again? Homosexuals have been abused as children. The amount of times I find that out is incredible. They're also more likely to be highly intelligent. I know that most believe they were born Gay, and I'm not going to argue whether that is true or not here, but I do think that these people have intelligent minds that have protected them from things done to them in the past.
And as Christians, do we say "I'm so sorry for whatever has happened to you. God loves you. He wants you to follow Him and let Him heal you."
Nope, we say "You are going to hell unless you change the way your brain has chosen to protect you. Your opinion is worth nothing and you cannot be around others that you might 'turn gay'."
On a whole, we as Christians hate gays. That's the very image we portray. How's that working out so far? Not so great huh.
In response, many homosexuals hate God. Where was He when they were young and being abused? Where was He when their family kicked them out? The people who are supposedly following Him treated them the worst. Oh and they're hypocrites, because they talk about traditional marriage being only one man and one woman. They ignore all the other forms of marriage in the bible. They want to ban the only form of love that these people have EVER had.
I've seen the sterotypical Christian response in this thread, the one that would turn homosexuals away. I've also seen those who are more accepting and don't judge someone on their lifestyle even though they don't agree with it. Yes, two guys together is a sin, but the thing is, you don't have to agree with it or to promote it to be kind and love someone and show them the love of Christ.
I'm sure there are many people here who won't agree with me. I'm just wondering what kind of a change we could make if we started loving people instead of judging and hating them. Imagine what could happen if we all loved the prostitutes and the sinners like Christ did. Imagine if we showed them that we actually read the bible and understand that marriage takes various forms (though not homosexual), and that we follow God and practice His will to the best of our ability.
Imagine if we chose to help people to heal, rather than cut them open and give them something else they had to try to overcome.
Imagine if we understood.
I have never felt so let down by Christians as a whole. There is a reason that these people think what they do, there is a reason that they've taken to hating Christians.
Do you know what I see time and time again? Homosexuals have been abused as children. The amount of times I find that out is incredible. They're also more likely to be highly intelligent. I know that most believe they were born Gay, and I'm not going to argue whether that is true or not here, but I do think that these people have intelligent minds that have protected them from things done to them in the past.
And as Christians, do we say "I'm so sorry for whatever has happened to you. God loves you. He wants you to follow Him and let Him heal you."
Nope, we say "You are going to hell unless you change the way your brain has chosen to protect you. Your opinion is worth nothing and you cannot be around others that you might 'turn gay'."
On a whole, we as Christians hate gays. That's the very image we portray. How's that working out so far? Not so great huh.
In response, many homosexuals hate God. Where was He when they were young and being abused? Where was He when their family kicked them out? The people who are supposedly following Him treated them the worst. Oh and they're hypocrites, because they talk about traditional marriage being only one man and one woman. They ignore all the other forms of marriage in the bible. They want to ban the only form of love that these people have EVER had.
I've seen the sterotypical Christian response in this thread, the one that would turn homosexuals away. I've also seen those who are more accepting and don't judge someone on their lifestyle even though they don't agree with it. Yes, two guys together is a sin, but the thing is, you don't have to agree with it or to promote it to be kind and love someone and show them the love of Christ.
I'm sure there are many people here who won't agree with me. I'm just wondering what kind of a change we could make if we started loving people instead of judging and hating them. Imagine what could happen if we all loved the prostitutes and the sinners like Christ did. Imagine if we showed them that we actually read the bible and understand that marriage takes various forms (though not homosexual), and that we follow God and practice His will to the best of our ability.
Imagine if we chose to help people to heal, rather than cut them open and give them something else they had to try to overcome.
Imagine if we understood.
God is truth. There was never a time when truth did not exist. Man, on the other hand, is a created one, and therefore man ( Christian or otherwise ) does not determine what truth is. A gay person is as capable of speaking some truth as is a man professing to be a follower of Christ can speak that which does not line up with truth. There is plenty being said from behind the pulpits, that does not line up with God's word. Having said that, let me be very clear, I am NOT condoning homosexuality. What I am saying is, If one aspires to know truth he must not be afraid of it.