This past Tuesday, my wife and I had a much-cherished date night which included dinner and some shopping (mainly to exchange some ill-fitting presents we received over Christmas). While my wife taking care of some business elsewhere, I ventured over to one of the islands in the mall—a Lids® store. As I was browsing and exercising my spiritual gift of killing time, one of the employees who wore a University of Kentucky (UK) ‘lid’ walked up and asked if he could help me. I told him that I’d like to see what they had in Bengals and Cardinals hats. He showed me the Bengals hats, but then started looking for Arizona Cardinals hats. When I clarified that I wanted to peruse the merchandise of UK’s archrival, the Louisville Cardinals, his response was classic: “Oh, that’s over in the ugly section next to Duke and North Carolina.”

Well played, sir.

As we continued our conversation, he told me that he was a student at UK who would be in the student section of the upcoming game against Louisville (a game I hope Louisville wins, but at present am not holding out much hope). He and I were hoping for entirely different results, yet he was friendly, helpful, cordial and we parted on good terms.

When many in our culture think about the ‘church,’ many inside and outside Christianity say, “Let’s put the church over in the ugly section of our culture.” Why this reaction?

So many look at the church with anger over her sins, past and present. The church is still under the long, scandalous shadow of the scandals of Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and more recently Ted Haggard. The church’s history has gone on record in support of slavery, and is seen by many as being repressive to women. Not only this, but when I first went through the book of Titus at my former church seven years ago, stories started trickling (then rushing) out about the abuse scandals found in the archdiocese of Louisville. Many ask how a group who calls themselves Christians can conduct themselves in such a destructive manner to innocent young boys and girls.

This is why, according to Tim Keller:

Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted terrible abuses by the white church . . . did not call them to loosen their Christian commitments. He used the Bible’s provision for church self-critique and called them to truer, firmer, deeper Christianity.”[i]

Some look on the church with pity. Critics ask, “How can intelligent or even semi-intelligent people blindly follow an unseen god and follow a churches dictates and rules?” Some long for freedom to such a degree that they would not shackle themselves to any organization that made demands of them, much less a church. Not only this, but they pity us for following such an antiquated book as the Bible, especially in our modern culture. Richard Dawkins, popular atheistic author, wrote in one of his books:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[ii]

Given the world’s view of the church, Christian must resolve for the church to remain pure. And Paul has written to young pastor Titus exactly on this point: he gives him God’s plan for a pure church. Paul wrote to the Ephesian church his desire for them to be pure as well:

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Eph 5:25-27).

May God grant our country and our world a pure church like He intended. 

Endnotes

[i] Tim Keller, Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs, accessed 31 December 2009; available at http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2004/oct/deconstructing3.html [on-line]; Internet.

[ii] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), quoted at http://www.davidhulme.name/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1886 [on-line]; Internet.

Cinderella – the rock group – always sorta sucked.

Hallelujah, Jimmy.

Praise be to God.

Now let me review this new-found religious friend:

A franchisor spends 5 years directing a publicly-traded, near-monopoly system which openly ignores, abuses and, ultimately, lifts $20,000 directly, this year, from each franchisees’ family business annually.

With more to come in 2010.

1. He foists the idea that their business is worth 25% less than it did last year.
2. His underlings appropriate without compensation (overnight with zero warning or chance to remedy) 100% of some terminated franchisees’ life savings because of some phoney-baloney return policy BS violation while waiting 4 months after the alleged offence happening?
3. His team continues the farce of participation in a lapdog council without answering  a single reasonably phrased franchisee question, for years (“Park this” takes on a new, fairly soprano meaning).
4. He threatens termination, cuts an IndFA leader’s sales by 15% (we had no choice), refuses to deal with a lawful association, tries to bait a franchisee litigation response, etc.
5. Leads an outfit so bankrupt of ideas that they even stoop to abscond with the franchisees’ “balanced life” model and
6. Withholds any fairness $ return simply to not give credit to the franchisee group (table scraps to the help).

And we won’t even mention the link between overweening corporate arrogance and  a series of public health catastrophes.

First Week of Advent: He shows up at a dock,  taking home to his family $5,000 more a day than the franchisees who are obliged to attend these Wal-Martian meetings, and he thinks he can spin himself as “one of the guys”?

Okay…

Just a normal, crotch scratchin’, cussin’, Buds lovin’,  good ole MBA executive

Funny how a dominant, powerful franchisee association brings the sinners on home to Jesus.

What, exactly, did your teammate mean when he said:

“The natives are Restless“?

Were the franchisees or the First Nations that were the lower caste?

In an earlier post, I quoted from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to illustrate the meaning of “fantods.” In skimming through the book to find that quote, I was reminded so strongly how much joy Twain took in the sheer inventiveness of his language that I sat down to re-read the whole novel.

Near the end, those two unscrupulous crooks and hypocrites, the King and the Duke, pretend to be the long-lost brothers of a man who was recently deceased (or “diseased,” as Huck says) in the hopes of stealing the fortune he has left. To make their claims plausible, they present themselves to his family and friends ostentatiously weeping and grieving—“full of tears and flapdoodle,” as Twain says.

In our own time, we’ve been subjected by celebrities and politicians—from Jimmy Swaggart to Mark Sanford and Glenn Beck—to so many egregious public displays of “tears and flapdoodle” that I hope we can resuscitate this wonderful phrase and get it back into circulation. I’m sure we’ll have many more opportunities.

–Dennis

I ran across this article while trolling the internets: Hypocrites

I mention it, because it sparks one of those unofficial and probably ill-informed ideas I have about people.  Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those people who seem the most outspoken, even vitriolic, about certain issues tend to have their own person struggle with the issue? 

This phenomenon was most clearly demonstrated to me when in my early twenties.  When one of the Vice Presidents of a certain college was caught surfing pornography in his office late into the night (a scandal that later uncovered pornography use by two professors – and the rampant use in the dorms, duh?) , I had a friend that seemed to react more than others.  In fact, his response was negative in the extreme.  We happened to be attending church where the aforementioned VP sang in the choir, and my friend would literally shake with fury that the man was not being paraded around on stage as a heretic and pervert.

“Months later, in tears, he confessed his own horrible struggle with pornography.”

I remember initially thinking, “you freaking hypocrite, how dare you pursue a personal vendetta against someone for doing the exact same thing.”  However, since he was coming to me for mercy and accountability, I decided that wasn’t the best response.

My feelings have since changed about that encounter, but I cannot help  noticing that this overreaction seems to be common in people.  Why is it that they lash out and attack things in others when they know they are struggling with it, too?

Apparently, there are a lot of famous people that fit this profile (you know, being an obnoxious opponent of something while engaging in the behavior themselves).  So, in the spirit of the web article I linked, and in the hopes of snatching the title of “most controversial blogger at theophiliacs” away from James for at least one day – here is an amended list of the most famous, obnoxious hypocrites in recent memory.

Just in case anyone wants to pick a fight, allow me one caveat.  Please remember the point of my post – I am NOT trying to highlight the sins of other people.  The person whose wickedness I am best informed of happens to be me.  I know my own demons well.  The point of the list is to demonstrate that there seems to be a pattern of people viciously attacking a problem/”sin” of which they happen to be quite guilty.

Let’s get the obvious, preachers, out of the way first.

Jim Bakker – I know you remember him, he was one of the first to create the modern stereotype of bad-hair brandishing, too much make-up wife marrying, golden fixtures on the stage while orating, televangelists: charged with 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy for pocketing nearly $4 million from contributions to PTL in order to maintain what the government called a, “lavish and extravagant life-style.”  The combination of preacher and “lavish and extravagant life-style” ought to be hypocrisy enough for anyone.  However, you’ll remember this all came about because of that famous trist with Jessica Hahn.

Jimmy Swaggert – who can forget that theatrical, bible-thumping, A/G preacher who was ousted for his own infidelity after dispatching another pastor with a rival TV ministry (Marvin Gorman, pastor of First A/G in New Orleans) upon learning of his extra-marital affair in confidence.

Ted Haggard – this is probably recent enough for you to remember, but I quote the article by MSN,

“He was pastor to thousands, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and consultant to presidential strategist Karl Rove. Ted Haggard, 52, was also a regular customer of male prostitute Mike Jones, who in 2006 claimed monthly, drug-fueled romps with the preacher. Haggard confessed to “sexual immorality” and resigned from his Colorado Springs’ New Life Church. As Jones later told the New York Times, “Here is Ted preaching about being shameful — You won’t see the kingdom of God if you’re gay, and blah, blah, blah — and then he sneaks around with me.”

Rush Limbaugh – Let’s face it, his rhetoric is mystifying.  The man may be obnoxious (and a hypocrite), but he is good at what he does.

“If people are violating the law by doing drugs,” Rush Limbaugh pontificated in 1995, “they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” Eight years later, the radio giant was himself under investigation for violating drug laws, and after three years of legal wrangling, Limbaugh was charged in Florida with fraudulently concealing information to procure prescription drugs. Translation: He allegedly “doctor shopped” to feed an addiction to painkillers.

Eliot Spitzer – There has been a lot of ink spilled over this guy, and I still feel most sorry for his wife.

Jaws dropped in March when the New York Times identified holier-than-thou New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer as Client 9 of a big-bucks prostitution ring. Wasn’t Spitzer, 49, the white knight who vowed to restore ethics to Albany? The guy who, as state attorney general, routed out Wall Street corruption? The same crusading prosecutor who only years earlier had busted up prostitution rings? Indeed it was.

Bill Bennett – I just become more and more disillusioned with people associated to the Bushes and Reagans

Education secretary for President Reagan and the first President Bush’s drug czar, Bill Bennett, 65, calls himself in his official bio “a man of strong, reasoned convictions.” He writes books with titles like “The Moral Compass” and “The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories.” Basically, not the kind of guy expected to lose an estimated $8 million over a decade at video poker and slot machines. But in 2003, the Washington Monthly revealed Bennett had done just that. Perhaps recalling his own harsh words toward irresponsible addicts, America’s morality maven said he would quit gambling.

Laurie David – just in case you think we’re only picking on conservatives here.

The go-to green gal for Oprah Winfrey and other media titans, Laurie David, 50, has done more to sound the global warming alarm than almost anyone except her chum Al Gore. She even produced the former vice president’s Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” So why does the soon-to-be ex-wife of comedian Larry David keep homes in both California and Massachusetts, and fly a private jet between the two?

Strom Thurmond – this guy is just so creepy

This controversial son of the South led the splinter party Dixiecrats in the 1948 presidential campaign on a pro-segregation platform. After losing his White House bid, Thurmond served a record 47 years in the U.S. Senate, punctuated by his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster (another record) against the 1957 civil rights bill. Yet throughout this era, he knew he had fathered a child of an African-American housekeeper. The child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, was 78-years-old when Thurmond died at age 100 and it became public that she was his daughter. As the New York Times indelicately put it, Washington-Williams is “the unacknowledged mixed-race daughter of the Senate’s most notorious white supremacist.”

Thanks again to Ian Hodder, contributor for MSN – I borrowed nearly all of the “footwork” from him (here)

In world news, yesterday’s paper ran an article entitled “Pontiff praises Africa as font of spirituality” (New Jersey Star-Ledger). This brief piece concerning a clerical meeting about Africa (held in Italy), dredged up some interesting concepts: that the African continent is a font of spirituality, but it suffers from materialism and fundamentalism. Having never been to Africa, I am not in a position to assess how materialistic the continent is, but from the images seared into my brain of barely clothed, starving children who own nothing, having this comment come from the opulence of the Vatican is jarring. Teaching by example is far more effective than, well, pontificating. Perhaps if some of the art and Christian swag were sold to invest in the poor, there might be reason to listen to rebukes from foreign potentates.

Catholics and Fundamentalists sometimes share political agendas and cooperate to get their holy candidates elected, but clearly they clash when it comes to issues of religious praxis, and especially, authority. I watched with horror over the last two decades as Roman Catholic bishops paired up with the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to support the Bush family legacy because they agree on the same conservative side of the issues. I even saw this on a small scale at Nashotah House. Once the victory is won, however, the honeymoon is over and the claws come unsheathed and fangs are bared.

Religious fundamentalism is an extremely dangerous force, and Rome is right to call it a “virus.” Like Catholicism, however, it is based on fear of dissing the almighty. If we dare probe deeper, underlying all the obsequious servility towards the divine, both forms of Christianity thrive on their own power. Being able to control the masses with claims of sole spiritual authority — sorry, only one set of keys to the kingdom — is also a dangerous thing. Benedict IX, meet Jimmy Swaggart; Jimmy, meet Bennie.

Jerry blesses a papal bull

Rifqa Bary, the 17-year-old girl who ran away from her Sri Lankan Muslim parents in July, claiming abuse and death threats due to her conversion to Christianity, was born in Sri Lanka but brought to America by her parents in 2000, who came to America seemingly for the same reasons that most immigrants do: better opportunity, education, and quality of life.  To all appearances, she grew up to be a typical American teenager, all smiles in the pictures her parents display in their living room.  Pictures that include Rifqa in her cheerleader uniform.  Her short-skirted, flirty, typical American cheerleader outfit.  Which her father, the man who she claims is a radical Muslim who wants to kill her, has on proud and loving display in his typical American home.  Hardly the act of a fanatic Islamist thirsty for the blood of his little girl.

In the Rifqa Barry case, all the focus has been on whether her parents, Aysha Risana and Mohamed Bary, will kill their daughter for converting to Christianity in order to save their Muslim honor.  Islamic honor killings happen, even in America, as was most grievously demonstrated by the murder in Texas of Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, allegedly by their Muslim father, in January 2008.  One can imagine how a child’s conversion to  Christianity could deeply upset a devout Muslim, just as a child’s conversion to Islam might deeply upset a devout Catholic parent.  It is not beyond possibility that such a young woman could be in danger from her devout Muslim family, and in America any credible claim of child abuse or endangerment must be investigated.  Any credible claim.  Credibility of the claimant must be established before an investigation of an alleged crime is deemed necessary. 

Florida investigators have found no credible danger to Rifqa from her family.  What of the danger posed to her by real religious fanatics?

Rifqa has stated that she became a Christian when she was 14, through Christian friends at school and a local ministry.  Sounds innocent enough.  Finding Christ and faith in God is hardly a bad thing – depending on where you find him and who is shepherding you to him. 

The problem is just this.  With exactly whom did Rifqa become involved on her road to Christianity? Subsequent to her initial conversion, she established a relationship with the pastor of  The Global Revolution Church, Blake Lorenz, through Facebook and on the telephone, and ran away from home in Ohio, to him and his church in Florida.  If that part of the story by itself is not the epitome of everything that is bizarre and wrong with contemporary society, I don’t know what is, but that is a whole other story, one that should include a pointed examination of the dangers of children exposed to the world — the good, bad and ugly — through the internet with no parental knowledge or protection.  The point is, she herself and the people and religious group with whom she became involved — to such an extent that she left her family — must be examined.  Her claims must be weighed before society sends the witch hunters out after her parents.  Although it’s too late for that: her parents regularly receive death threats on the telephone (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=126605&d=21&m=9&y=2009).   

About the church to which Rifqa ran.  The Global Revolution Church.  Creepy? Um, yes.  Frankly, the whole situation surrounding Rifqa Bary, including Rifqa Bary as she has been behaving and presenting herself, is creepy.  Sample this “testimony” from her, filmed by a fellow Christian enthusiast and posted on YouTube when she was 16: “In 150 generations in my family no one has known Jesus – I am the first one.  Imagine the honor in killing ME!” This video is a disturbing demonstration of a young girl drawn into an all-consuming, radical ideology.  The only credulous aspect of this testimony, to be seen here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0MdUyJ1GU, is the envelopment of Rifqa’s mind by radical Christian extremism.  With flailing arms, she manically declares her faith:  “I’m one in millions!!!” she yelps, “I’m on fire!”, “O, yes, Wow! Come to Jesus! The Nazarites!! He’s raising up the generations! I’m one of thousands he’s raising up who’s seeking the heart of God, here and now!!! The revival is coming to America!! He’s raising up the Esters and the Jeremiahs! Choose now!!”

No wonder her father fears she’s been brainwashed by fundamentalists.  She has been.

This video reveals not an oppressed, abused teenager, but a manic, hysterical girl under the influence of an extremist, break-off Christian sect characterized by exactly the kind of self-centered grandiosity so often seen emanating from the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard.  The kind of sect, for example, that sets up on Facebook and preys on vulnerable teenagers and children who are still finding their way in their world, who need their parents to guide them, not religious radicals, whatever their faith. 

The Global Revolution Church, along with its pastor, Blake Lorenz, should be examined.  Especially because it is now being mysteriously “reorganized” (http://www.thenewstribune.com/ tacoma/24hour/religion/story/873839.html).  What the heck does that mean? Reorganized. What financial, sexual, or moral scandal is brewing there? Maybe none, but given the present circumstances — non-family adults encouraging a minor to cross state lines and housing her without her parents’ knowledge – and the history of frontier religion in America, it’s certainly worth finding out.  Especially since Florida investigators found no credible threat to Rifqa from her father (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550442,00.html).  The father who was Catholic-educated in Sri Lanka, who, again, has on display in his home photographs of his daughter in a quintessentially American cheerleader skirt.  The father who has stated, quite believably, that she is free, has been demonstrably free, to practice whatever faith she wants in his home, which is her home.   

Mohamed Bary is no Muslim zealot yearning to kill his child.  He is a father who wants his daughter back in his arms and out of the clutches of fanatics: “Rifqa is a very active kind of a person. She wanted to be involved in helping people, she wanted to go to Africa. She had some Christian friends who took her to their Korean church where she got involved with youth activities. She met missionaries who preached to her. We didn’t know about it at the time. Partly it was my own fault, I did not teach her about Islam as I should have. I was always traveling and out of town on business trips” (from http://www.arabnews. com/?page=4&section=0&article=126605&d=21&m=9&y=2009).

No American reacts with anything but repulsed horror when a Christian teen gets involved with radical Muslims and runs off to Afghanistan or Somalia to train as a warrior for Allah against The Great Satan.  No American should react with anything less than the same repulsed horror when a foreign-born Muslim teen is consumed by Christian zealotry so fanatical as that revealed by Rifqa herself on YouTube.

“It is unnatural for any one man to sexually desire only one woman.”

- Xenocrates

Why do men cheat? A lot of women have pondered on this question with great frustration. The answer however is so profoundly simple that I suspect the reason many have failed to appreciate the utter simplicity of it is largely because they are needlessly looking for an answer much deeper than the obvious. However, science shows that the simplest answers usually suffice.

Ladies, the first thing you need to understand is that this article is being written by a man, from an entirely objective perspective. I’m not going to take any sides or validate any behaviour. As best as possible, all I’m going to present here are the facts. I will of course inject my opinions as well.

But I’m sure you already knew that.

Dudes, before you flame off, please examine your feelings. Search your thoughts, padawan. You will know these things to be true. I’m going to make some very general remarks that might take some of you by surprise – but please note, I’m well aware that there are exceptions to every rule.

You don’t need to remind me.

What is Cheating?

When it comes on to romantic interests, men and women view cheating differently. For most men, cheating is defined as sexual infidelity. For most women, cheating begins long before sex even enters the picture. Men and women have these differences of opinion because of how their brains work.

For women: Straying Thoughts

We all know that men are more logically inclined and women more emotionally so. Therefore it should come as no surprise that women are more likely to forgive a cheating man so long as he isn’t emotionally involved with the woman. The rest is all up to her level of tolerance and long suffering.

In fact, women tend to draw the line at flirting or any other emotional display of affection or interest – even if it is innocent. I’m sure some women will have an issue with the last part of that sentence. Many women don’t think flirting can be innocent at all. They consider it a serious breach of confidence.

However, most of the times when a man flirts, it’s not with an explicit view to get laid. It’s more driven by the same instinctive urge to pursue just for the sake of pursuit. I do admit that flirting can be dangerous – particularly in marriage. However, the thrill of the hunt is not something men will ever tire of.

For many women, it’s the very thought that counts as cheating – even though this is inherently preposterous. If thoughts count as cheating, then every man cheats every day, on average of once every 6 minutes with every even remotely attractive piece of ass wrapped in a short skirt or form fitting jeans.

Because women don’t have this trigger in the back of their minds, firing off every time someone of the opposite sex walks by, they tend to impose such standards on men. Women need to remind themselves that men don’t think the same way they do. In fact, men view cheating in a whole different context:

For men: Property Violation

At the back of their minds, even if they don’t say it explicitly (and I’m sure I’m going to hear from a few outraged men at this), once a man has had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend or his wife, she becomes his property in a sense. She becomes an extension of his ego. It’s like a dog marking his territory.

(This is concordantly why many men don’t think a husband can rape his wife – but I digress.)

Now before you women run off and say “see? I told you! all men are dogs!“, please consider for a moment that women belong to the same species of animal that men are. If all men are dogs, then that unwittingly validates the use of a certain derogatory expression that is used to describe some women.

But that’s not the issue here.

The issue is that men are instinctively territorial. Once he has claimed a woman as his own, whether or not the woman has feelings for the other guy she slept with, men are inclined to see sexual infidelity as a violation of territory. This breeds a far more powerful emotion than that of hurt: Vengeance.

This is why men are more likely to express raw, unbridled jealousy in the face of infidelity as opposed to hurt. Because now it becomes an issue of dishonour – not so much an issue of emotional infidelity. It’d almost in the same category as if someone scratched his car, or parked in his spot at the company lot.

I kid you not.

Now I’m not saying that men don’t get emotionally hurt by cheating. We do. The issue is that we often see it as such a bruise to our ego, that the actions of the cheating woman become second to the desires to hire a ninja to off the Joe Schmo that nailed her. So we want to get even, not comforted.

In less civilized times, men were less likely to break down and cry when another man sleeps with one of his women. In fact, this would often become a cause for war, (and in some cases, annihilation). The only difference between then and now is that we’re wearing business suits instead of chain mail.

Humans are animals

Dad: I’m divorcing your mom this summer. Kid: But you just met!

Search the animal kingdom. There are an extremely low number of animal species that have been noted to exhibit any kind of distinct monogamous behaviour. The most prominent example of course, is that of the Emperor Penguin of Antarctica. There are not many other comparable examples.

Of course, technically, this isn’t monogamy as much as it is a necessary function of reproduction. The male Emperor Penguin braves the harsh winter season protecting the one egg laid by its mate so that the females can run off to feed themselves before they drop dead from starvation.

This is necessary in the first place to facilitate mating while they waited on the males to come to meet them for the grand mating orgy. While mommy is away, the male Emperor Penguin must keep the egg warm and wait for mommy to return so she can bond with the new born hatch-ling.

She takes over from there, while the males now take their turn to run off and feed themselves. This is after their long fast, protecting the egg with their body warmth from the ensuing winter storm. You might be wondering: Why am I mentioning all of this? How is it relevant? To demonstrate a very simple point:

Emperor Penguins are only monogamous for one year.

This includes the total time it takes to get the kid birthed, hatched and bred. After once cycle of this, they change mates. If you take the harsh winters and the great distances the Emperor Penguin has to face down in order to survive at all, they are no less promiscuous than any other animal in the kingdom.

Promiscuity is a genetic survival mechanism designed explicitly for the purpose of maximizing the survival of any species. No animal in the kingdom is stupid enough to be monogamous by choice. Humans invented the idea of monogamy as a means of population control to facilitate sustainable social development.

At the end of the day, humans are animals. We live in zoos where the rules are dictated by social laws of the super-ego. It’s a society of pretentious order relatively void of sexual anarchy. Society can put as many restrictions on raw animal instinct as it likes – but it won’t stop us from being any less an animal.

Males were designed keep the species alive

This king has many wives. Humans weren’t so different once.

The sex drive many men experience early in their boyhoods is a part of nature’s design to keep the species from going extinct. You will find a corresponding alacrity for sex in the males of most animals. Primates, canines, cetaceans, avians, crustaceans – you name it. Males want sex – and lots of it.

In fact, some of you may recall some time ago where I wrote about the Caveman instinct as a now useless bit of genetic code (Click here to read that post). Therefore this near treacherous desire for sex in men should come as no surprise. Understanding the animal kingdom gives deeper insight into this.

So am I saying that the reason your husband or boyfriend cheated is because he is an animal? Not quite. What I’m getting at is that the incredibly intense drive for sexual intercourse in men is perfectly, 100% natural and that nature intended for it to be that way originally. Given this obvious reality, it is unnatural for any one man to sexually desire only one woman. ‘Sexually’ is the key word.

What women probably don’t understand is that this desire is so intense, that it’s like an infinitely recurring decimal sitting in the back of our minds slowly driving us mad. Every man experiences these desires. We have just learned, through social engineering and some cognitive dissonance to boot, how to tame and control these propensities for the good of mankind. *cough*

Why do men cheat?

Bill sampled the succulent lips of this nimble number.

Let me be abundantly clear: Men don’t cheat because of an obnoxious wife or a nagging girlfriend. It’s not because his mistress is prettier or sexier. It’s not because she’s a nicer person or because of a loss of interest. So asking your cheating boyfriend these questions is a pointless waste of time.

Men don’t cheat because they’ve “fallen out of love” (women are more likely to cheat because of that). It’s not because of a “lapse in judgement” (we are quite cognizant of what we’re doing – unless we’re drunk) or because of weakness, or boredom or desire for adventure, or to get even. Simply put:

Men cheat for the same reasons dogs chase cars – because they can.

Yes, it’s that simple. More specifically, opportunity defines cheating. Allow me to elaborate: Men are very much aware of the fact that they can’t have every woman on the planet and dogs are very much aware of the fact that they can’t stop any car they haven’t tinkled on that’s driving through their urine defined territory. Rather, the function of infidelity represents a conflict of interest.

We humans are sexual creatures. Sex is always on our minds. We don’t have sexual seasons or need to wait for a female to be in heat or the occurrence of a full moon. We have sex so long as we are in the mood. So long as we’re feeling healthy, men are always in the mood. So sex is relatively inevitable.

However, we are quite aware of our unspoken social contract. It states that once we are in a relationship with someone, we should be faithful to that person and them alone. Unfortunately, this flies right in the face of our genetic imperative. So we obviously have a very serious conflict of interest here.

The instinct to cheat represents a war between a powerful genetic imperative and a binding social contract that goes directly against it. Our genetic imperative states quite simply to “be fruitful and multiply”. Now that we have 6 billion people on the planet (and counting), we no longer need the imperative, and yet, here we are, looking at the fine pair of legs in another skirt walking by.

When men cheat

Mark Sanford admits to an extra-marital affair – June, 2009

There are only two things that ultimately controls when men cheat:

1. Opportunity

Men will cheat so long as an appropriate opportunity presents itself. By “appropriate”, I mean an opportunity that is compelling enough that will also allow for the relief of that sexual desire without the repercussions that might be experienced through social engineering (i.e. getting caught).

So don’t think that the reason a man hasn’t cheated is because of religion, or because he’s happily married. He just hasn’t been presented with the right opportunity yet. Without the right opportunity, most intelligent men would never cheat. So if you’re still faithful, pray you are not tempted with the right opportunity. That’s the only thing separating you from infidelity.

I know some religious married men out there are reeling at this right now (or rolling their eyes). If so, I laugh (scornfully, even) at your naivete. I don’t care how strong a man claims to be. For every man that lives, there exists a woman out there in the world that is sexually compelling enough, that given the right opportunity, he would enjoy it with mind bending exuberance and alacrity.

You just haven’t met her under the right conditions yet.

If you were to travel a thousand miles away from the prying eyes of your wife, kids, family, friends and pastor and you had the opportunity to Benedict (pun intended) with a woman who doesn’t even speak your language, who you know you would never meet again, (or so you think), you would. Just ask Governor Mark Sanford. He got an opportunity and he took it. Ole!

I know you can’t wait to get to the end of this to flame on, but I ask you to consider this one thing: Have you ever met a woman out there that is more sexually attractive than the one you’re currently involved with? Since I already know the answer is ‘yes’, I can tell you with great certainty that you haven’t been presented with the right opportunity yet. Let’s hope it stays that way.

2. Social Engineering

If there were no angry wife to deal with, no disappointed socially engineered kids to pander to, no outcry from friends, from church members, no public embarrassment or shame to contend with, no divorce or rendering of your estate in half to pay for, men would cheat wantonly and indicriminately.

This is why most men enjoy their single life.

Marriage is a function of social engineering. It serves a very useful and (somewhat) effective purpose: Population control. Yes sir. Marriage was originally invented as a way for a man to declare ownership of a woman – that was back when polygamy was cool – not now that monogamy is law.

But if men could still marry many women, the population explosion that would result flies against every sense of sustainable development. However, if we had invented an effective means of contraception long before we thought of marriage, the world would be a very different place today.

Of course, I’m pretty sure the feminist movement of the 1950’s would have put an end to that sooner or later. (Thank God for feminists!) While I could admit that it is more honorable for a man to be seen with only one woman, I could also admit I’m only saying that because of my social engineering.

Now that things like diplomacy, education, equal rights for women and marriage have roughly stabilized the number of men and women in the world, polygamy would no longer be practical. If you consider the fact that men slightly outnumber women in the world, it could even mean an act of war. (Men can be so childish, that we’ve started wars for far less significant things).

Infidelity and Religion

Do you remember this guy? Jimmy Swaggart - at the time, the ultimate Televangelist, fallen from grace. This was back in 1988.

Don’t even mention religion. Religion is little more than a psychological placebo. But not even that can stop a man from cheating. While some christian circles have gone as far as to say that “God has let us down” (dear atheists, try not to laugh too hard at that article), I doubt that God even cares about such.

While I was growing up as a christian, I’ve heard Pastors declare that:

1. They don’t allow young girls to travel in their cars
2. They don’t counsel young girls in their flock
3. They have prayer meetings for women separately
4. …the list goes on.

If these men of God were so trusting in the “power of the lord” to save them from temptation (as the Lord’s prayer would seem to suggest) then why would they make such a big deal about keeping those hot young females away from them? Oh, that’s right. The book of James chapter 1:13-15 suggests that we are tempted by our own desires, not by God. He’s so hands off in this case.

That’s fascinating to me, since Christians would like to think that God intervenes in our lives when we need him most – except when it comes to things like satisfying a sexual desire that he created in the first place. But it makes sense to me that God wouldn’t contravene his own commandments.

I mean, what kind of duplicitous “loving” God would give people the powerful urge to have sex and then forbid them to do it? Oh right; the same God that placed Adam and Eve in a garden and forbade them from eating from the one tree at the center of it all. Makes perfect, logical sense to me. Not.

Look, let’s be reasonable here. Pastors are just people like anybody else. If they are men, then the rule of opportunity applies as well. The holiest of men have fallen from grace because of the powerful allure of the loins of a woman. It has nothing to do with their faithfulness. It has nothing to with God. It has nothing to do with a 2,000 year old mythology that ensnares their minds.

Sex is just more powerful than God or any other imaginary friend. The Book of James made that abundantly clear. We humans are responsible for our own actions. We are biological machines designed for one thing: Procreation. Without it, we’ll cease to exist. It’s just that we’ve created a social construct to advance our species that also goes against our biological imperative.

How do we fix this?

I wrote sometime ago that we still carry around useless DNA – genetically induced behaviours that no longer apply in today’s world. At our basest instinct, we are all still cavemen. It’s just that the world is very different today from it was two million years ago – ultimately rendering this DNA obsolete (or at least, until another world war plunges us back into the dark ages).

This ultimately means that we can’t fix this – but we can control it. Now you don’t need religion to control your sexual urges. In fact, unless you’re of a particular type of mind, religion will be absolutely useless to you. You’ll need a far more powerful incentive – and I can give you a few to get you started:

1. Self Preservation

Herpes is nothing to smile about.

It seems pretty stupid to name one of these incentives “self preservation“, right? I mean, what could a man possibly need to preserve himself from by scoring up a plethora of women? Well, some STDs are pretty lethal. A significantly larger population means that there is a correspondingly greater opportunity for the occurrence and spread of dangerous organisms.

This is one of the lesser known laws of biology. There is a population threshold at which organisms survive best. Once over that threshold, the incidence of pandemic disease increases exponentially, because of a more thorough iteration through the many permutations of DNA. In other words, the more people there are, the greater the likelihood of the occurrence of disease.

Fidelity reduces this probability by several orders of magnitude of mathematical complexity. Keeping only one woman under your belt means that the probability of the occurrence of bad DNA is limited only to inherited disease, not communal ones. Since the probability of the occurrence of the latter is greater than the former, one woman relationships are much, MUCH safer.

2. Cost Effectiveness

Every woman has a cost. No sex is for free. Whether the price of the sex ranges from a Coors™ Light to a ticket to Venezuela, every ounce of vagina has a price tag. Even if you’re rolling in it like Eliot Spitzer, the paltry 80 grand you spend will cost you some employment opportunity. There’s always a cost.

The question is, is this extra vagina cost effective? Don’t laugh, I’m being totally serious. Even if you fly half way around the world to score with a lusty African diva, is being an HIV infection medication poster boy worth it? How do you like being featured on a herpes hit list after your tryst outside state lines?

Even if there is no cost associated with disease, there is a psychological cost. When you cheat once, your wife probably won’t know, but you will. If you got away with it once, there’s probably nothing stopping you from trying to get away with it again, and again …and again? …and then you get sloppy.

When men get drunk with the power of their penis, they start to think they can’t get caught, and that’s when people like Spitzer get outed. The only person who could get away with openly cheating on their spouse were men with absolute power, like King Henry VIII. He was a bad ass of biblical proportions – literally! His grandson was editor of the King James Bible!

However, such kingdoms are largely long gone. There is only one man with that kind of power today, who openly enjoys his wives. That man is the famous King of Swaziland, and he has many, many wives. See more here:

Men with power like that will have no trouble having multiple women out in the open. There appears to be some kind of psychological precedent (that men are actively aware of) where they seem to attract more women by virtue of the number of women they already have at their disposal. Strange, but true!

This is especially true for men who wield a great deal of power. It doesn’t have to be the kind of power as is exhibited by a political figure. It can simply be the power to exhibit raw sex appeal. For some reason, women are overwhelmingly attracted to this – although that’s nothing a little education can’t fix.

But even the King of Swaziland has to maintain those wives and each one of them comes at a price. Sure, he’s wealthy and can more than afford to do so. But do cheating men realise that it is not economical to keep more than one woman? Your penis and your pocket may be at odds with each other.

It’s not only large companies that have to think about downsizing in these harsh economic times. You may have to think about downsizing your harem too (*gasp!*). Then you have to factor in the cost of each and every love child you inadvertently fathered on your merry way to Fish Town. It gets pricey fast.

3. Emotional Fallout

This now famous micro expression is not of sorrow – it’s of shame.

You bastert! How could you? *smack*

Most men who cry after having an affair are not usually crying because they’re sorry for cheating. They’re more likely crying because they got caught. Shame is a far more powerful deterrent to men from cheating than the sudden realization that they committed the ultimate act of romantic betrayal.

So cut the BS, Mr. Spitzer. You don’t fool us.

If nothing else can deter you, then consider the shame. If it’s not the shame of being a two-timing, bastert (misspelling intentional), then consider the shame of facing the people who look up to you – like your kids. Cheating on your kids’ mother is an excellent way to raise a young pimp (if a boy) or a young whore (if a girl). If you don’t have any kids, then for humanity’s sake, don’t have any.

It’s not just the woman and her children that are hurt, but it’s also the people who respect you. When you spend your career going after illicit government officials who pander to prostitution, or you spend a lifetime charring hellfire and brimstone at fornicators in your congregation, you’re going to cause a hell of a fallout (pun unintended) when your infidelity is inevitably discovered.

Even if you’re not in a position where you think you have nothing to loose, what do you think is going to happen when you cultivate a mentality that abhors the respectability of women? You will grow into an insatiable dirty old man; a 60 year old boy chasing after women who could be his daughters.

From the looks of it, men in this position are never happy (and they rarely live very long) because they keep thinking just like an alcoholic; that the next woman will be his last – as if there is such a thing. Men who are serial cheaters are not the type to fall in love with a woman. They fall in love with novelty. In other words, they’re addicted to the emotion of starting a new relationship.

That brings us to the most powerful incentive:

4. Quality vs. Quantity

John Edwards cheated on his cancer stricken wife with his videographer.

This is my personal favourite. When I think about the sanctity of a relationship, I think about it as a cult of two. When a man truly loves a woman, the real value of the relationship is the uniqueness of what she brings to the table. If a man should take the time to really appreciate the full value of the woman he has chosen, it significantly reduces the appeal of seeking another.

Think about it.

What’s the one thing that your girl can do for you that most other women out there could not? If you can’t answer this question, then you might want to start thinking about it now. For while having a strong emotional bond with your woman is great, sexual desire should never be underestimated.

All men would do well to remember this: Sex with all women feels exactly the same. The difference is only a perception that lives inside your head. Concordantly, this is why men seem to prefer the emotional experience of having a new lover as opposed to the emotional experience of stability.

They’re like children constantly craving the newest toys. The craving is not for the toy. It’s for something new. Therefore, men who cheat are not so much in love with their wives as much as they’re in love with the novelty of having a new lover. If this is how you think, you will never be satisfied. Ever.

However, an inability to break an addiction to novelty is more a function of an inability to value quality over quantity. When men are unable to derive quality, they seek quantity to make up that deficit. If you could find one woman who could satisfy all of his relational needs, you will never develop the need to seek another, since the deficit would have already been adequately filled.

But wait a minute: Does this mean that a straying husband is the wife’s fault? Far from it! Men are not children to be coddled by their wives. They are intelligent human beings with the capacity to think for themselves. The real problem is that out thinking a powerful biological imperative is hard to do.

Hard… but not impossible.

If all else fails, it is better to end the relationship with the old lover before starting anew. While the emotional fallout from this is inevitable, it’s nowhere near as tumultuous as having your infidelity being found out surreptitiously. Just ask former presidential Candidate, John Edwards. Although, the less that is said about that act of infidelity, the better. His was particularly vile.

The Dog Hearts

These men know nothing about sexual fidelity. Absolutely nothing.

If all else fails and you really are a heartless, gutless, yellow bellied, two-timing, back stabbing, dirty double-crossing, mother[censored]ing, son of a whore, then please do the rest of the world a favour and get a vasectomy. At the very least, you won’t perpetuate your ruinous DNA to mankind.

While I do admit that some men really are dog hearted (like the men who cheat on perfectly wonderful women – whether they be wives or otherwise), even they can see the hurt that they cause. Some men really are dogs in the truest sense. They are completely devoid of any emotional capacity.

Such men are not quite as rare as I’d like to admit. There are parts of the brain (specifically, the amygdala), which are notably less developed in such men than others. These men are the true dog hearts – the ones who could develop such conditions such as satyriasis (aka coitophilia, or sex addiction).

There’s not much you can do about men like that. That’s a function of genetics. They would have sex with their own female relatives (however slightly removed) if they could. These are men who simply do not have the capacity to inhibit their own indiscriminate socially destructive sexual behaviour.

…not without professional help.

What about women?

Now, I am perfectly aware of the fact that women cheat as well. In fact, women are far better at covering up their infidelity than men, simply because they are better at hiding those micro expressions that insinuate lying. Men only appear to be bad liars because women are phenomenally better at it.

What I don’t get is the women who go after men who they know are married. Is the power trip of one upping the old lady really worth it? Surely there are more constructive ways for a woman to certify her sex appeal without destroying someone else’s marriage. Thank god for Karma (is that blasphemous?).

Every mistress from Monica Lewinsky right back to Rielle Hunter certainly knew their lovers were married men. Yet, it is not these women who received the brunt of the flak – I suppose because they were approached by these powerful men. Never the less, the media will not spend too much time crucifying these women when these powerful men make a much more sensational sell.

With that said, there is only a small subset of women out there with a libido equivalent to that of a man – not quite enough to develop a whole discussion around. However, when a woman cheats, that’s usually the end of the relationship since women rarely cheat purely for raw sexual reasons.

Here’s why:

Women don’t quite get as much pleasure out of sex as men do. The only exception is her lover knows what he’s doing, or she is one of those rare women whose g-spot is placed deep enough inside the vagina to get direct penile-vaginal stimulation. So the motivation is not usually for the sex. Rather:

Women cheat for emotional gratification.

That’s the complete package. Men usually cheat for one half of the package (particularly younger men). Therefore, if your girlfriend cheats on you, there’s usually no recovery in sight. Your relationship probably ended long before you even realised it. That might not even be something worth fighting for.

Finally

But is cheating really worth it? In my mind, it’s easier to doge pots, pans, an icy stare and china ware than it is to dodge the social and emotional upheaval that will ensue when you’re found out. I mean, this is precisely why men rarely invest in kitchen ware anyway. But make no mistake, you will be found out.

It is as inevitable as day follows night, shining a penetrating light on the hidden incidences that transpired before. Gentlemen, know this: We may at one time have been slaves to our biology. However, we are humans. The key thing separating us from lower animals, is that our biology can be enslaved to us. Anything less would render us as nothing more than dogs of a different breed.

I beseech you therefore brethern, by the gift of life afforded us as champions of the human race to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, wholly and acceptably to the one woman who would love you as your reasonable service. Ante up your game, or step down. This new world is for men, not animals.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21

God created everything in existence. He created the animals that live in the seas, and the animals that live on the land. God charged Adam with the naming of the animals.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:19

Adam, the first man, was not a brute, a savage, or a caveman. He was probably the smartest man in the history of the world, with an inherent intellect hardwired straight from the mind of God. I have read that most people today only use around 10% of their brain. Apparently there is some dispute about this, as neuroscientists are forced to admit they really still don’t know all that much about how the brain functions. But I have wondered if Adam, before he sinned, used 100% of his brain.

Some people get confused about Genesis 2:19. They say that it sounds like the land animals and the birds were created after Adam, but before Eve. Genesis 1:23–25 makes it clear that Adam and Eve were created after the animals. The solution is in understanding that Genesis 2:19 is giving a summary of what happened previously in Chapter 1. In modern English, we would probably say that God “had formed.”

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 2:4

The phrase, “these are the generations of,” in Genesis is a sign post identifying a break in the narrative. There is a similar phrase in Genesis 5:1. The word translated “generations” is the Hebrew word “toledoth,” which means “origin” or “record of the origin.” There are 10 of these “toledoth” statements in Genesis. It is believed that the written records of Genesis were probably first kept on stone or clay tablets.

The events recorded in Genesis 1 were probably described by God to Adam. Genesis is a historical record, and many ancient historical records are written in a style of giving an overview of big events first, followed by more detailed accounts marked by summary statements from the overview. In Genesis 1, the events are generally in chronological order. In Chapter 2 they are not. These two chapters are not contradictory. The Lord Jesus Himself said:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:4-5

Jesus referenced both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as though they were both part of the same consistent account.

Do not be deceived by the false teaching that there existed a civilization or human beings living on Earth before God created Adam and Eve.

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Ezekiel 28:13-15

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:12

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and all that in them is…

Exodus 20:11

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Job 38:4-8

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 1:31

These verses refute the so-called “Gap Theory,” as popularized by the Dake study Bible, and used by many Charismatics and Pentecostals today. Jimmy Swaggart’s “Expositor’s Bible” also incorporates Dake’s false claims of a “pre-Adamite” race.

Generation X (of which I’m proudly a part) is universally characterized as being skeptical. And it’s no surprise, really. Consider a couple of factors:

• We came of age in what, looking back, seemed to be the dawn of what is now the very common occurrence of key leaders having to very publicly defend their moral discrepancies. From Jim Baker to Jimmy Swaggart, from Gary Hart to Bill Clinton. We watched as key leaders crumbled before our eyes . . . in very public ways.
• The age of information started on our watch. The veil was lifted that separated access to information that was to that time considered “insider info.” Today this level of access is ingrained in the way we approach culture. The Drudge Report. Snopes. Factcheck.org. The legion of journalistic and investigative bloggers. It’s hard to remember that this wasn’t always the case.

But the inherent skepticism with which we seem to approach the world is not just unique to Gen X’ers. It is a prevalent characteristic of most (maybe all) Americans. I dare say, maybe all Westerners in general?

And it’s not misplaced. The culture in which we live has duped us one too many times. It’s a culture where what is “real” never is. Consider . . .

“Reality” TV (aka, The Beijing Olympic’s Opening Ceremonies effect)

Several years ago, the revelation that certain scenes of Survivor were produced or staged only served to confirm people’s longstanding beliefs that reality TV was as much a product of network producers as your average sitcom. Same for the lipsyncing soloist and the digitally enhanced fireworks at China’s Olympics.

Enron, HealthSouth, (Insert any number of failed/disgraced corporation here)

Cooked books not only brought down mega-corps, but brought down honest people’s 401K’s as well.

The Photoshopping Effect

Whether it’s slimming celebs’ tummies on the cover of a magazine or the myriad ridiculous “forward email” pics, the word “photoshopped” has morphed form a harmless software package to an accusation.

The Ted Haggart Phenomenon (If I may be so crass)

The more our spiritual leaders are caught in habitual sinfulness, the more skeptical people become.

Botox, Collagen, Silicone

How many celebrities have created the illusion of youth and beauty through artificial means?

The Erosion of the Honest Politician

Sure, maybe politicians by nature are dishonest (Sorry . . . I’m a Gen X’er, remember?), but there was a time when a lack of access/interest perpetuated the myth of the public servant. Now we simply know too much. When was the last time you thought the government had truly pure motives in mind for any decision?

I could go on and on and on . . .

The real issue for me is the effect that seemingly institutionalized skepticism has on religion (in general) and Christianity (in specific).

I believe Christ is well suited to handle our skepticism. It’s His followers I worry about.

Numerous studies show that the majority of people who identify themselves as Christians have an utterly tragic grasp of the basic tenets of their faith. In essence, the body of Christ-followers (at least in the US) are a misinformed lot. They can’t defend their faith in a way that is logical, Scriptural, or constructive. Simply put, they don’t know why they believe what they believe.

The real problem occurs when there is an intersection between a poorly informed Christian (which seemingly, again, is most “Christians”), and a skeptically minded person armed with reasonable questions. In most cases, this intersection is one pock-marked by collisions.

We are a country of skeptics. We just are. And while skepticism used to be looked on as a less-than-desirable character trait, I believe today it is a survival mechanism developed after years of getting burned. Let’s call it Social Darwinism at work. Because of this fact, it’s more important than ever for those who identify themselves as Christ-followers to become informed Christ-followers.

Take a theology class.

Read a book on apologetics.

Here’s a novel idea: study your Bible.

Hang out with people who don’t believe in Jesus (GASP!)

And most of all, don’t be afraid to aim your personal skepticism at God or afraid of those who do. He is big enough to handle it. Skepticism towards God is much better than apathy towards God. God has been bringing people through their skepticism for centuries. It is our disinterest that creates a wall between our maker and ourselves.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s disappearing act has provided numerous jokes. Two of my favorite:

• The governor allegedly calling his staff to tell them he was going to get some Argentine tail which sounded like he was going to the Appalachian Trail from his cell phone. Oh, it’s plausible. Don’t tell me you’ve never had a bad cell connection.
• A blogger suggesting that the governor had been abducted by aliens. After the governor’s press conference, the blogger changed it to read that instead of being abducted by aliens, the governor had been abducted by his penis.

What was funny a few days ago is now becoming pathetic. This guy is either an egomaniac, just plain stupid or on the Humpty Dumpty emotional edge. I’m beginning to suspect the latter. Where is his damage control team to help him avoid:

• That rambling, thinking-out-loud apology. Never go before the press without being prepared. And if you’re going to shed tears, they’ve got to be crocodile tears.  Didn’t you see Jimmy Swaggart crying that river from the pulpit a few years back?
• Comparing himself to the Biblical David and saying that he will overcome and come back stronger.  Please gov, such comparisons are reserved for our religious adulterers.
• Admitting that he had “crossed the line” with a handful of other women during his 20 years of marriage.  You’re already down. Don’t dig the hole any deeper!
• Saying that he is trying “to fall back in love” with his wife. Back in love? What were you thinking?
• Calling your Argentine mistress your “soul mate.” So, you’re implying that you were incapable of resisting this liaison because it was all in the stars?

You’ve destroyed your political career, embarrassed your wife and four sons — even deserted them on Father’s Day — brought shame to the governor’s office and the state of South Carolina. Oh yeah, and then there’s the Republican Party.

Maybe it’s time to resign and let Stephen Colbert run South Carolina. Go to Argentina and let this thing with your “soul mate” play out. Then when it’s over in six months or a year, come back and start your life over. But please don’t try to go back into politics. And don’t think the Republican Party will embrace you again. You’re no Newt Gingrich. And please don’t even consider changing parties to get acceptance. The Democrats already have their quota of adulterers.

“That wasn’t flying! That was falling with style!”

~ Sheriff Woody, Toy Story, 1995

If South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford ever spoke at Bob Jones University, I don’t know about it. It’s no great leap to assume Sanford has spoke at BJU – after all Sanford is a) Christian, b) Republican and c) a “family values” oriented politician. Three necessary ingredients to allow one to speak at the “Fortress of Faith.”

As a student at BJU, I remember being regaled by the unintelligible speeches (to those of us born north of the Mason-Dixon Line) of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond who was a) Christian, b) Republican, and c) a “family values” oriented politician.

Of course, now we know that these two politicians have something else in common –

– keeping “It” in their pants.

Governor Sanford is probably aware of the fact that, according to statistics, Christian marriages are as likely (more likely, according to some stats) to end in divorce as pagan (“non-Christian”) marriages. Gov. Sanford may take some comfort in the fact that he’s following in the foot-steps of many a Christian man – “be fruitful and multiply” and then go find another hottie to bonk.

So it was just a matter of time before someone came up with the comparison that Governor Sanford is like the Old Testament King of Israel, David.

[For those pagans out there who have never heard the Bible account of David – David was lounging on the roof of his palace one day when he spotted another woman bathing. Seeing this naked or nearly naked woman tuned David on, so he had to have her. And David did – repeatedly. David later admitted his mistake, apologized and asked for forgiveness – but David never resigned as King of Israel. That’s the Reader’s Digest version of the story.]

If you want to read why Christians and Christianity has fallen into the abyss of idiocy and worthlessness, read this article on CBN.com.

Adrian P. Schoonmaker, the writer of the article, repeatedly tells us:

“Yet I am proud of Mark Sanford.”

“Still, I am proud of Mark Sanford.”

“I am proud of the governor…”

“Today I am proud of Governor Mark Sanford…”

“As for me, I remain proud of Mark Sanford…”

Schoonmaker, a Christian (Assembly of God), is proud of Governor Sanford, not for the Governor’s successful marriage, family and career – not for how Governor Sanford could be the next “family values” flag-waver for the GOP – not for how the Governor set aside his duties of the State and spent Father’s Day with his four boys grilling burgers in the back yard – but for how the Governor admitted his failures.

In other words, this Christian man is a great Christian because he fails correctly!

But maybe failure is the true essence of this religion.

Schoonmaker says, “King David whispers to the Ted Haggards [had a homosexual affair] of this world, the Jim Bakkers [had an affair & ripped off many, many gullible people who thought they were giving their money to a “man of God”] of this world, that there is hope for redemption.”

“Redemption” in this case means “moving on as though nothing happened.”

This must be why men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts and Richard Roberts can repeatedly fool and swindle their gullible flocks – doesn’t matter what they do – there’s no accountability as long as they “fall with style.”

I’m not sure that the Governor Sanford affair is analogous to the Old Testament account of King David’s sin. First of all, just how many wives did David have? Can we safely say “more than one?” And how about those concubines? Not too many state governors have a gaggle of concubines – well, not since Arkansas Governor Clinton and his “Bimbo Eruption.” Another difference is King David had his lover’s husband killed. I don’t think Governor Sanford has killed anyone. King David never gave up his lover, Bathsheba, but had more children with her. One son, Solomon, became Israel’s next king and the world’s wisest man – although Solomon had “seven hundred wives…and three hundred concubines…” (I Kings 11:3) Not sure how that makes Solomon so wise.

So, Mr. Schoonmaker, rather than saying, “it’s okay – David did it”, I find it disturbing that statistics show virtually no difference between pagan and Christian marriages. Governor Sanford is just a high profile example of another professed Christian that claims the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit and the guidance of Christ’s teachings –

– and then lives his life like every other pagan.

Makes one wonder if any-Thing is there at all…

There is virtually no difference between the imaginary and the invisible.

Addendum: More posts on Sanford & religion…here and here…oh, and here.

I watched a show last night that has stuck with me on many levels & has made me ask questions that I haven’t asked in years.  It has made me re-think the way I believe and what it means to be a Christian.  It made me examine the grace and forgiveness of God and the forgiveness of men.  Is there such a thing as too far gone?  Is there truly enough blood to cover ALL sin?  This program was sometimes heart wrenching and I found myself silently praying for the welfare of this man and his family as he struggles to find his way back to the Lord.  It was the story of Ted Haggard.

Like everyone else in America, I saw his VERY public fall from grace.  I saw how he had been caught purchasing illicit drugs and I watched with discust the man who came forward declaring he had been sexually involved with Ted Haggard.  When the story first broke I was quick to make assumptions about how and why this had occurred.  I was and continue to be frustrated with the “televangelists” who have paved this road which seems to broaden with each passing year.  I was of the mindset that whatever happened to Ted Haggard was deserved for deliberately disobeying the Word of God.  Reading and interpreting the Bible was what this man did for a living, he knew the whats and the whys, he knew the possible losses he would face if ever his sins came to see the light of day but he made a choice to act on fleshly urges.  He knew God condemned adultery whether it was with woman or with a man and still his decision was to act in an un-Godly manner.  He had seen the outcome of those who had fallen before him (ie. Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart just to name a couple) but in his mind perhaps he thought he would be the one who could maintain secrecy.  Be sure, your sins will find you out…..and his certainly did in a BIG way.

As I watched the story unfold in this documentary there were smatterings of TV news clips outlining the actions taken by the church’s board of elders.  He was, of course, relieved of his duties as Senior Pastor of his church, he was required to participate in a spiritual rehabilitation course to “correct” his sinful nature AND he was exiled to the desert, both figuratively and literally.  He had to pack up his family (they supported him through this trial) leave the state of Colorado and promise to never hold a pulpit anywhere again.  With all that would fit into a U-Haul truck the family left their home in Colorado Springs and headed to Phoenix, Arizona, not knowing how he would make a living, where he would live or how he would survive.  For the first time in his life, at age 51, he had to go job hunting in a world in which he was not skilled to operate.   He had only a degree in the ministry which was useless in the secular market.  Where would he start?

He moved four times in one year because he did not have a home to call his own.  He depended on the kindness of friends as well as strangers to keep a roof over their heads staying short periods of time in each place.  He worked commission jobs, door to door jobs, placed door hangers on homes in the Phoenix area…..whatever job he could do to generate income.  Though he received a severance from his church in Colorado, it would only last a short period.  Where there is sin there are consequences and these consequences are steep.  He confessed to the deep despair and depression he dealt with during this time in exile and he shared the scriptures that he continues to hold close to his heart.  He struggles with God’s calling on his life and with the question everyone wants to know….why? and now what?

He is a man searching for answers, not unlike the rest of us, of what God has in store for his life post televangelism.  He admits he still struggles with the very things which caused his fall but he continues to lean on the Lord for the strength to overcome the hold they have on him.  His wife stated that even knowing what she now knows she would still marry him (they’ve been married 29 years).  She loves and supports this man, flaws and all.  But what about the rest of the country?  What do YOU think of when you hear the name “Ted Haggard”?  Do you think of a hypocritical preacher who told everyone how to behave in a Godly fashion while he, himself, had a secret life of sin?  Or do you think of a flawed human who is trying to find his way in a fallen world?  How do you think GOD sees Ted Haggard? 

I am reminded of men in the Old Testament who fell short of the calling God placed on their lives because they gave into the flesh.  Moses disobeyed God.  He was told to speak to the rock to receive water but out of anger toward the Israelites for the constant complaining they did he used his staff to strike the rock.  However, God continued to use him to lead His people though as consequence for that action he, himself would not enter the sanctuary of the Promised Land.  David acted on his lustful desires for Bathsheba, conceived a child through that union then arranged for her husband Uriah to be murdered.  The consequences for those actions were the death of that child but David’s repentance brought redemption and God blessed him with the birth of another son with Bathsheba, Solomon.  Though these men sinned, God none the less used them for His glory.  New Testament scripture tells us of the prostitute who was being stoned when Jesus intervened on her behalf.  Those stoning her attempted to justify their actions to Jesus telling Him she was “caught” committing adultery but His reply to this was to tell them unless they were blameless and without sin they had no business condemning this woman.  Then He told her to “go and sin no more” thus acknowledging His awareness of her sin but He went further by telling her she was forgiven of her sin.

Would He say anything less to Ted Haggart?  Should we?

Glenn Becks insanity is getting worse. Beck’s family has a history of mental illness in so much as his Mother and brother-in-law committed suicide. It explains his bizarre behavior on and off the air.

Glenn Beck leaves no stone unturned though. Homophobia, Narcissism, misogynism, racism are all laced throughout his Hitler like tirades. He is also a Mormon. Televangelism is making a comeback, served up through the Fox News Channel. This time around, it’s  about inciting violence by controlling the weak minds of Beck’s followers and influencing them to commit violent acts. The more weak minds Beck can influence, the more advertising $$$ for Fox News. This makes Fox News and Glenn Beck happy.

Glenn Beck crying

Does this sound familiar?

Most snake-oil salesmen attract a crowd. Only suckers believe them. The goal of this carnie and his water works, like Jimmy Swaggart,  is obvious. Attention and moolah.

Puritan John Bunyan authored Pilgrim's Progress while serving a 12 year prison sentence for preaching the gospel.

“O soul, consider this deeply: it is the life of a Christian that carries more conviction and persuasion than his words.” – John Bunyan

It is not profitable for one’s self, nor for those with whom he comes into contact, who has called himself a Christian to live a life that is marked by unholiness and affinity with the world.

Here’s the rest of this quote from John Bunyan, which appears as a footnote in Pilgrim’s Progress (as posted at Puritan’s Fellowship).

Though, like an angel, you talk of Christ, of the gospel, of the doctrines of grace, and of heaven; yet, if you indulge devilish tempers, and live under the power of any sinful lusts and passions, you will hereby harden others against the things of God and prevent their setting out in the ways of God. Study and pray to be a consistent walker in the ways of holiness; else, all is but windy profession and airy talk. O how much harm is done to Christ’s cause by the unholy walk of many professors!

We all probably immediately think of high-profile people like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim & TammyFaye Bakker, or swindlers like Creflo Dollar and Peter Popoff, but, I recently read comments from an 18 year-old Christian girl boasting about how she saw her first “R” rated movie, as if that’s a good thing. I have recently encountered a professing Christian who seems to revel in his “freedom” to use as many four letter cuss words as he can, even though he acknowledges that it is an offense to others.

The freedom found in Christ is not freedom to do whatever we want or that makes us feel good, it is the power to be set free from those things that God hates.

The power of the gospel is not our affinity or relevance to our debauched culture, but our transcencdence out of, and separation from it.

Thanks for reading.

-Tracy
The Colorado Springs Photographer

Pastor Jackson Boyett of Dayspring Fellowship interviews Dr. Michael Horton about heretical TV preachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, Kenneth Hagin, Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff, Jimmy Swaggart, John Avanzini, and a host of others. Horton is the editor of the book, the Agony of Deceit which is co-authored by Dr. Walter Martin, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Joel Nederhood, C. Everett Coop, Art Lindsley, and others. Dr. Walter Martin has been a frequent guest on the John Ankerberg show and is the founder of the Christian Research Institute. Part 5. Director – Larry Wessels of Christian Answers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2003246070293752911

THIS VIDEO IS A PART OF A 5 PART SERIES. All parts are 1 hour in length but well worth the time, as I have seen most every Word of Faith exposure videos. And in my opinion it is the very best,, this series is even better than Justin Peters series called “A Call for Discernment” The rest of the series is available on THIS BLOG! Click the “VIDEO” picture in the top right hand column for the TWotWoF VIDEO ROW blog.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’m still having trouble narrowing this down to an understandable level. It’s OK for a muslim man to behead a Christian, westerner, or muslim woman. It’s OK for muslims to air television broadcasts that glorify the killing of non-muslims. It’s OK for muslims to indoctrinate their children to hate Jews and Christians. However, it’s not OK to draw a cartoon depicting allah? Any cartoon depicting allah? I don’t get it. I hear all this noise that I have to be more tolerant and understanding of muslims, but don’t hear anyone (especially any liberals, or those who have been cowed by political correctness) saying muslims must also be tolerant of us if they expect such treatment. Religion of peace? I think not. Oh, by the way. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a total system of government and a way of life that thus far has shown itself to be incompatible with the rest of the world.

If it bleeds, it leads … right?

Posted by Caleb (absentee) (Profile)
Friday, February 20th at 2:00PM EST

Have you ever heard of Ted Haggard? If you ever read blogs you have. He’s a recurring joke online, an underline to a meme. He’s a favorite bogeyman, a name trotted out to point at religious conservatives … J’accuse! Haggard cleans up in internet searches. His name is in lights on every left blog ever conceived by man or beast. There’s a documentary coming. His name pops up in TV Shows. Haggard, you see, proves all Christians are hypocrite jerks. That’s why left wing bloggers can’t wait to say his name every chance they get. They love it. They thrill to it. Are you a conservative christian with democrat or left-wing friends? Try talking to them about gay marriage. They’ll dump Haggard on your lap like he’s your personal spiritual mentor in under 10 seconds. You getting the picture here? We could also go with Jimmy Swaggart, if you’re older.

These men are guilty of the worst crime of all, if you’re a lefty. No, not adultery, although that was what they were committing. No, not lying, though they did lie quite a bit. You may guess hypocrisy, and you’d be partly right. But no, they are guilty of the worst possible thing. They are conservative Christians who are hypocrites. Talk about compounding your crime!

You think I exaggerate? Tell adulterer Jesse Jackson. No good? Need I mention the escapades of Reverend Wright? What, conspiracy-theorism and America-damning aren’t scandalous? Fine. So, how about murder? Does murder count? Is murder good enough for you?

Not just any murder, mind you. How about a religious figure who commits murder in a really hypocritical fashion? You know, like a civil rights activist keeping a sex slave and killing her. Or an anti-Death Penalty crusader killing someone who wronged him. Or, how about someone who dedicates their life’s work to creating a venue of understanding, a place where people can learn about how good and decent and non-murderous his faith really is. What about a religious person who ran a company or media venture, the purpose of which was to teach you that his faith doesn’t go around beheading people … well, beheaded someone. Big news right? I mean, when Christians sin it’s all the rage to get all enraged. It’s trendy to get offendy. So this would lead the news networks, then, right? Nope.

Much like the word adultery on Jesse Jackson’s wikipedia page, big stories and left-blog commentary about Muzzammil Hassan, a man who recently beheaded his wife, is mysteriously elusive. Hassan set up a TV network a few years back called Bridges. The objective of his station was to counter Muslim stereotypes and present a modern and integrated face of the moderate Muslim to America. I’d say he may have undermined that mission just a tad. But Hassan, you may note, is not conservative Christian.

Mark Steyn at NRO ponders the media’s obvious double-standard. Not simply with regard to tales of Christians in trouble, but with regard to their previous adoring coverage of Hassan when his station first launched. The press averts their eyes, though, to what, by standards applied to any other religion, ought to be a sensationalized story and provoke finger pointing at the faith. But it won’t, of course, because the faith in question is Islam. A quick search of google news confirms the relative obscurity in which this story unfolds.

What is it that the press doesn’t want to confront? Is it merely the old enemy of my enemy thing? George Bush was fighting Islamic terrorists, so the New York Times isn’t so keen on negative news about Muslims? Is it just political correctness run amok? Could it be fear of reprisal?

After all, when a Danish paper ran negative cartoons about Muhammed there was blood and fear around the globe. Shortly thereafter, provocative cartoon show South Park was censored: a scene showing Muhammed giving a salmon football helmet to another character was cut by Comedy Central. As a frame of reference, the same episode featured, uncensored, Jesus and George Bush defecating on one another and on the American flag. It would be very hard to argue that Comedy Central wasn’t censoring for fear of reprisal. (I’ll let you know, by the way, when worldwide Christian bloodshed breaks out in response.)

Leaving the media aside, I wonder where the left blogosphere is on this? Actually, I don’t wonder. Anyone who reads bloggers on the left knows that the only thing they are truly interested in is heaping snarky derision on conservatives and Christians. Everything else in the world is just background noise. Like Frank Schaeffer and an increasingly unabashed chorus of lefties, these bloggers really only believe in one evil force on this earth, and that’s conservatives and Christians. Whether they behead anyone or not. Unhinged? You bet.

The story of Muzzammil Hassan is of little interest to the mainstream press or the left blogs, contrary to their keen in interest in sensational “hypocrisy” stories otherwise. Although he received much praise for reaching out on behalf of Islam, he’s receiving little criticism for honor-killing his wife to the detriment of the image of Islam. That media silence is as deafening as it is, dare I say, hypocritical. And all in a day’s work for a press completely in bed with the left.

Muito link quebra, um post com vídeo pode sair do ar pelos mais diversos motivos. O mesmo acontece ( pelo menos por aqui, não me perguntem como ) com fotos até, e honestamente é horrendo alguém vai ler o texto e a informação complementar do que tá escrito se encontrar manca.

Esse tapinha na tela aqui então, daqueles pra fazer a tv funcionar, lembra? É uma sessão que informa as ajeitadas e consertadas nas coisas aparentemente já idas pro espaço por cá.

Como na Killboard, quinta parte da lista sobre injustiçados, o vídeo que fechava o texto, Sarah Silverman contando The Aristocrats tinha sido removido do ar. Não mais. Substituí por um vídeo três minutos maior, que mostra uma conversa dela que no vídeo anterior simplesmente não aparecia.

http://sergiohrds.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/killboard-injusticados-parte-5-humor-negro/

Ainda, noutra lista da Killboard, sobre os profissionais obscuros do escândalo televangélico ( a vogal E sozinha é proposital ) o vídeo da choradeira do Jimmy Swaggart tinha sumido. Consegui um igualzinho pra substituir.

http://sergiohrds.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/killboard-profissionais-obscuros-do-escandalo-televangelico/

Na carta de Silvio Tendler a Tarso Genro, tirei a foto do Cesare Battisti, que além de muito pequena tinha nitidez muito baixa.

http://sergiohrds.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/cesare-battisti-carta-aberta-de-silvio-tendler-ao-ministro-tarso-genro/

A foto com a cara do John McCain de assustado infelizmente sumiu, no texto Latino, lá do inicião do blog. Não troquei nada, ficou só o texto.

http://sergiohrds.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/latino-original-de-190908-bastante-alterado/