Category Archives: Christian worldview

Sheryl Sandberg’s foolish and evil advice

I am so grateful to God that I married young and married well.  The world was fallen then, of course, but now it seems ridiculously hard for young people to marry well.  One of the many reasons is the advice given by feminists like Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

Side note: The entire article mentioned children once, and that had the caveat about “if” you have them.

So Sheryl thinks that females should have sex with lots of different guys before marrying — i.e, be sluts.  And make no mistake, when she says “date” she means “have sex with.”  She even uses the words sexy and sexier.  That’s horrific and evil advice.  And it is false, because no matter how many times she repeats it, women don’t find beta men sexy at all.  It is like drinking saltwater: Men are told to be subservient to women, and when it doesn’t work they do it even more, with disastrous consequences.

Fact: Men do not want women who have slept around.  Feminists lie and say that men don’t care, but that’s poisonous advice.  When it comes to marriage, high value men will always choose someone younger, prettier, debt-free, chaste, tattoo-free, etc.

When women sleep around in their teens and 20’s:

  • They reduce the ability to bond
  • They get diseases
  • They set impossibly high standards for future husbands to meet.  Sure, a 9 guy will sleep with a 5/6 girl when drunk or desperate, but there is no way he is going to wife her up.  But now she thinks she can marry a guy like that.  Her poor beta husband will always come in second place.
  • They will hit the “wall” around 30 or so and not realize that hotter and/or older guys won’t be into them any longer.  Those guys will chase the younger ones.
  • Women want to marry up (hypergamy).  But when they are ready to “settle down” (read: get a less attractive chump to fund their lifestyle and have children with until, if she wants to, she can divorce him and take half of his stuff), the pool of guys for her is small or nonexistent.  Those guys are either already married, opt out of marriage or want someone younger/prettier/more chaste.  Or the women make more than the available men and therefore aren’t interested in them.

And while I prefer smart women, Sandberg’s definition of opinionated usually means a harpy.  And men don’t want ambitious women.  That’s another popular lie.

Never buy into the lie that women are allowed to have standards for men but that it is misogynistic if men have standards.

Ladies, don’t ruin your lives by listening to Sheryl Sandberg instead of God.  Your best path is to be chaste then marry young to a committed Christian and stay with him for life.  There is a long line of women who slept around in their 20’s under the delusion that they could just marry their pick of guys whenever they wanted to.  They hit the wall and now spend their money on anti-depressants and their time rationalizing why they are OK with being lonely and childless forever.

The 30’s are not the new 20’s, they are a key decade to accomplish things and make good decisions that will greatly impact the rest of your life.

 

 

 

 

Bonus: Great advice in this video.  People who think they are always the victim will eventually be toxic in relationships.  She’ll start to rationalize that you are the oppressor.  Radical feminists can only survive on college campuses.

 

Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt

One of my old favorites . . .

pluralism.jpg

There are two main kinds of religious pluralism.  One is good and one is intellectually bankrupt.

Good pluralism: Numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.

Bad pluralism: All religions are true and equally valid paths to God.

Pluralism can be a good thing if it means we should tolerate the beliefs of others.  Jesus, who was God in flesh, didn’t force anyone to convert.  So why should we think that we can?

Christianity should flourish in a society with good pluralism, as the Gospel can be shared freely and there isn’t pressure to fake one’s beliefs.  Sadly, we often get complacent in such atmospheres and Christianity spreads just as well or better in times of persecution.  It tends to weed out false believers and teachers more effectively.

Of course, there are some truths in each religion, but there are irreconcilable differences in their essential truth claims regarding the nature of God, the path to salvation, their view of Jesus, etc.

Here are some examples:

One of the following is possible when we die, but under no circumstance could more than one be possible:

  1. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
  2. Complete nothingness (Atheism)
  3. One death then judgment by God (Christianity, Islam, others)

Jesus was either the Messiah (Christianity) or He was not the Messiah (Judaism and others), but He cannot be both the Messiah and not the Messiah.

God either doesn’t exist (Atheism), He exists and is personal (Christianity) or He exists and is impersonal (Hinduism).

Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or He didn’t (Islam).  The Koran repeatedly claims that Jesus did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). What evidence does Islam offer? One guy with a vision over 500 years after the fact. That is not what we base history upon, especially when scholars of the first century — whether Christians or not — agree that a real person named Jesus died on a Roman cross.

God either revealed himself to us (many religions) or he didn’t (Atheism, Agnosticism).

Jesus is the eternally existent God (Christianity) or He isn’t (everything else, including the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness). In fact, in Islam it is an unforgivable sin to claim that Jesus is God, so there is no way to reconcile Christianity and Islam.

Some people hold the view that God will be whatever you conceive him to be in this life.  That is one of the most bizarre religious views I have heard.  I’m not sure how they came to the conclusion that every human gets a designer god and that at death it would be just as one wished.

Consider the view of Mahatma Gandhi and Hinduism in general:

After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all religions have some error in them; [3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one’s own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible. (Mahatma Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60.)

Yet the exclusive claims of Christianity prove Gandhi’s worldview (that of Hinduism) to be false.  Among other things, the Bible claims at least one hundred times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  It also commands us not to worship idols and that we die once and then face judgment (it does not hold to reincarnation).  Those are key elements of the Hindu faith.  So if Hinduism is true then Christianity cannot be true.  But if Hinduism is correct in stating that all religions are true, then Christianity must be true.  But Christianity claims to be the one true path, so if it is true then Hinduism is not.

Also, Hinduism claims that Christianity is true, so if Christianity is false then so is Hinduism.  Either way, the logic of Gandhi and Hinduism collapses on itself.

When I share the Gospel with people I do so as respectfully as possible.  But I always try to work in examples like the above to highlight that under no circumstances can we both be right about the nature of God and salvation.

I used to hold the position of religious pluralism.  We studied world religions about 15 years ago in an Adult Sunday School class and, sadly, didn’t dig very deep (I was attending church but not really a believer . . . at best I was “saved and confused”).  Most of us walked away thinking the religions were “all pretty much the same” and with no incentive to go out and make a case for Christianity. 

So why did I – and so many people today, including Christians – embrace bad pluralism? I think it is typically out of a lack of clear thinking on the topic.  When you examine the essentials of these faiths it is not that hard to show how they are irreconcilable.

Political correctness and fear contribute as well.  It is easy to deny the exclusivity of Jesus (or the truth claims of whatever faith one follows) if one wants to avoid controversy.  But as unpopular as it is to make truth claims, it is really a rather logical thing to do.  The one claiming all religions are true needs to back up that claim with their evidence and logic.  Just rattle off a list of religions, sects and cults and ask why they are all true.  Just be careful saying things like, “Hinduism has a lot of sects.”  If you say it too quickly people will have surprised looks on their faces.

Sheer laziness is another factor.  Knowing enough about one’s faith to defend it in the marketplace of ideas is hard work.  Religious pluralism is a great excuse not to evangelize.

I expect many non-Christians to say that all paths lead to God, but it really bothers me when Christians do so.  They should meditate on this passage, among others:

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

 

Roundup

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beth Moore is out of the closet

She’s been slowly moving towards full feminism for years, but now she is comfortably loud and proud. I never liked her schtick, but for a long time she was careful to have a traditional Christian veneer.  No more.  Just a typical phony who switches sides when it profits her most.

This sums it up well:  Beth Moore’s Journey From Women’s Bible Teacher to Full Blown Feminist 

For Beth Moore, it’s been a long journey from a womens-only aerobics instructor to a womens-only Sunday School teacher (with a few male stragglers) to a mixed-gender Sunday School teacher to a women’s’ conference preacher to a preacher to both men and women within the gathered assembly on the Lord’s Day. That’s a lot of steps, and it all began with a pastor who thought it was a good idea to put this theological lightweight in spandex into a lecturn.

Ken Silva, Chris Rosebrough, and myself (JD Hall) were all warning you about Beth Moore as early as 2008 and before. We explained her deep theological issues, not the least of which (or the greatest) is her feminism. But for any honest person surveying her career, they should be able to see that Moore has either radically shifted her positions or (more likely), has held them in secret, waiting for the right time for the church to catch up to culture.

Secrecy is not the mark of a Christian teacher. It’s the mark of the devil.

For more on Beth Moore’s recent social media meltdown over women preachers, click here.

And her Twitter tantrums are getting more unhinged. Recently she has been explaining why her preaching to men isn’t a sin, but she hardly ever does that sin, even though it isn’t a sin, but again, she hardly ever does it so what’s the big deal?  She’s indistinguishable from Rachel Held Evans in her feminism (and I’ve never heard of the allegedly Bible-believing Moore criticizing a heretic like Evans, because feminism first!).  And her “it’s Mother’s Day!” bit makes it worse.  Why would the church even recognize this make-up holiday whose founder disavowed it because of its commercialism?

In addition to the feminism, she also does that creepy thing where she claims direct revelation from God.  Uh, sure, Beth — you and Paula White . . .

Christianity: Still the worldview that treats women the best

And second place isn’t even close.

This is an outstanding summary of why Christianity is not just the only way to salvation, but also the best worldview for women. I wish that at all the secular and “Christian” Left feminists like Rachel Evans would read it and stop whining about the “patriarchy.” They would rather attack Christianity than acknowledge how badly other religions and secular cultures treat women.  They support porn, abortion, any LGBTQX perversion imaginable, rampant promiscuity, etc.  In short, they mock God 24×7.  (They are going to love living under Sharia law.)

Read 10 Reasons Why the Bible Regards Women Higher than All Other Systems for all the details.  I included the text for #3, as it is the most relevant, obvious and bizarre example for our culture.  Consider Robert Stacy McCain’s analysis of a sex columnist for Cosmopolitan magazine.  She’s a feminist extremist, of course, and  she’s considered an expert on sex and gets paid for dispensing advice.  Yet by her own admission she has Herpes, has to fake orgasms, doesn’t really enjoy sex, is self-loathing, depressed, etc.  Maybe someone will tell her the truth about Jesus and she can escape that secular/”Christian” Left madness.

 1. Women are created in God’s image, making them infinitely  valuable. 

  2. The Bible forbids the killing of women.

  3. The Bible forbids the sexual exploitation of women.

It’s obvious our culture has a hunger for exploiting women. The insatiable devouring of pornography is proof. Pornography does not only involve the exploitation of women, but it is largely that. The current statistics from the National Center of Sexual Exploitation on pornography are incredible:

  • 93% of boys and 62% of girls have seen pornography during adolescence
  • 64% of people ages 13-24 seek out pornography weekly or more often. One site reports that in 2016, people watched 4.6 billion hours of pornography on its site.
  • Analysis of the 50 most viewed pornographic videos found that 88% of scenes contained physical violence.

What is pornography conditioning boys, teenagers, and men to think about women? What is it setting them up for in their relationships with women? How is it preparing them for sacrificial, selfless, and loving marital relationships? How is it preparing them to parent productively and raise the next generation? What is it teaching them about the value of women?

This is a culture that largely exploits women. Doing so is totally forbidden in biblical Christianity, because the Bible regards women with great worth and sanctity (Matt. 5:28, 1 Cor. 6:18, 1 Tim. 5:2).

  4. The Bible forbids men from sexual interaction with a woman prior to marriage. 

  5. The Bible holds husbands to the highest ethic of love for their wives. 

  6. The Bible prohibits men from marrying more than one woman. 

  7. The Bible forbids husbands from “falling out of love” with their wives. 

  8. The Bible commands people to consider women as more important than themselves. 

  9. The Bible prohibits men from divorcing their wives.

  10. The Bible commands men to regard women with the highest moral purity. 

You could add to the list of reasons why the Bible regards women higher than any other ideology in history (e.g. a woman’s command to influence humanity at its earliest, formative years, etc.). Despite the protestations of culture, God’s word remains the standard for one’s view of women. History has not, and will not, present a system of higher regard for women than Scripture.

How to ruin a movie

Take an interesting story about an actual person who displayed true bravery, add good acting and production values, then tack on a fictional account of a guy who abandons a loving, pregnant wife to do it with a tranny – and make the latter the hero of the story in the pivotal final scene.

That’s what they did with The People vs. Fritz Bauer.  The title character actually took bold risks to help bring Adolph Eichman to justice, but his actions were overshadowed by the manufactured pro-LGBTQX propaganda. Think of the countless premeditated acts that went into producing that movie.  From start to finish they planned to use important historical truths as a vehicle to peddle their God-mocking agenda.

If the perverts make such heroic characters, why do they have to fictionalize them?

Skip the movie.

(I didn’t watch it all, just bits and pieces.  I hate movies and TV, and this is another reason why. My wife was watching with headphones on via the Roku remote.  But I was curious about the accuracy of the plot line and discovered the truth with a little research.)

Pro-abort Rachel Held Evans uses (false) exceptions to make bad rules

As the saying goes, exceptions make bad rules.  But in the case of pro-abort “Christian” Racist Held Evans, she uses a false exception to make a horribly bad rule.

She plays  on the sympathies of those with children diagnosed in utero with health issues.  In her world, it is much better to kill the child right away because she might have serious health issues when born.  That ignores that doctors and diagnoses are sometimes wrong (I’ve personally met several people who are glad they didn’t heed the advice to kill their children). It also ignores that God doesn’t permit mercy killings (then again, since when did pro-LGBTQX Mrs. Evans care what Jesus said?).

But as bad as that is, faux-lifer Evans isn’t using that argument to make the case to ban all abortions except those in her example  She uses it to justify all abortions at any time, and to have taxpayers pay for abortions for those who can’t afford to kill their children.  She piles evil upon evil.  When pro-aborts make deceptive claims like that, ask them exactly which abortions they want to make illegal.  Answer: None.

And to make it worse, she virtue signals in her pro-abort Tweet.  You see, she is more righteous and caring than you because she would consider killing her child while you wouldn’t.

Source: Pro-LGBT Activist Who Thinks She’s A Christian Defends Abortion – Reformation Charlotte:

In an ultimate display of selfishness, Held Evans, a professing Christian (of course she isn’t a real Christian, but she has many Christian followers), asserts that she isn’t sure what she would do if she were told by a doctor that her unborn child may have a birth defect affecting the “quality” of the child’s life.

The problem here isn’t that Held Evans is concerned with the quality of the child’s life. Held Evans is concerned about the quality of her own life. She — and other abortion supporters just like her — see children not as a gift from God made in the image of God, but as a burden. Further, a child that may need special care and extra attention would, in Held Evans’ eyes, decrease her own “quality of life.”This is the sickness of the pro-choice movement. You can’t call yourself a Christian while holding to anti-Christ beliefs. The gospel calls us to lay our own lives down, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. Held Evans and the many pro-choice (or undecided) people out there have failed to see the goodness of God and the gift of salvation in Christ. They are, regardless of their claims, unregenerate and need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ found only through repentance and faith.