Women, did you have sex before marriage? Paul Chappell thinks you’re a “dirty dishrag.” (No mention at all of what men are like)
It’s worth noting that West Coast Baptist College has jumped on the TRACS bandwagon. One wonders whether pursuing accreditation will soften their tone in the same way it has at BJU and PCC.
265 thoughts on ““Dirty Dishrags””
Holy shit Batman. I’m first. it has been a while.
Ugh. Well that was awkward.
Sorry to steal your thunder Scorpio. Your excrement isn’t so sacred anymore :^)
There is nothing holy about bat guano.
Oh, I disagree. Bat poop is glittery. Glitter is cool. Therefore bat poop is cool.
Ok, maybe not holy. But definitely cool.
Bat guano is also know to be the mechanism of injury that carries the Ebola virus when monkeys, apes and other critters trample through it and spread it abroad. Bats carry the virus, but are not affected by it. They simply poop it out and people die a horrible death.
Therefore, bat guano is neither holy or cool!
Well that was a case of premature ejaculation.
(And by ejaculation, I mean “something said quickly and suddenly,” for all you people with your minds in the gutter.)
Ha ha. Bravo.
That never happens to me. Honest. I was just so excited. Give me another chance.
Oh my mercy I am cracking up!! You guys made my day. That is hilarious!
Speaking of vocabulary, I once read a sermon by John Wesley where he said our Christian values must come into play whenever we “have intercourse” with other people.
Of course, in the 18th century, to “have intercourse” with people meant to talk to them.
It doesn’t mean that now?
Darn, I need to quit using that as a pick up line. I just thoughts the wimmin-folk didn’t want to talk to me.
Whatever happened to the days when a man respected to not pressure into such situation? Okay, maybe those days never existed, but the double standard is hideous.
not pressure women into such situations
Standards are good.
Double standards are twice as good.
I’m sure that’s in the Bible somewhere…..
You people think your soo smart. Science (which many of you hold up as God) has proven that men are visually oriented while women respond to touch and emotions. Who dresses “sexy” to impress there boyfriend? Who uses emotional manipulation and gets touchy-feely just because our horomones are our of whack? Hint: it ain’t the man! They did a study that confirmed that men have a “visual rolex” when they see a naked or “sexy” woman, even a picture, which means that they can’t get the image out of they’re mind if they tried!
Rev. 2;20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication
btw, I am a woman, and I thank God that He gifted me with a Godly man who hasn’t been emasculated by a man-hating culture.
Wow. There’s so much to discuss here. First of all, I’m sure you meant you use “you’re” instead of “your”. Second of all, men and women both are tempted by “sexy” pictures; however, the measure of a man or woman is in how they react to that. As for dressing “sexy”, that is a relative term and mean different things to different people. Your argument (if I am understanding it correctly) is that men cannot control their desires? If that is the case, then men with that issue need counseling or therapy, stat, because they are obviously not equipped to deal with reality.
I’m sure you meant to use “means” instead of “mean”. And you are correct, men cannot control their desires. No, they do not need counseling or therapy, they need Jesus, who said “for without me ye can do nothing.” The “reality” is that men and women were created different. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
I’m sorry that your husband refuses to control his desires, but that doesn’t mean that he *can’t.
Oh, and also? I’m a woman, and you’d better believe that I enjoy the visual pleasures of grade A male flesh. Do I act on that? Nope. But that’s because I am perfectly capable of controlling my desires and don’t use them as an excuse to treat other people like objects.
My husband doesn’t need to “control” his desires, because they are fulfilled by me and by Christ.
Have you read the Sermon on the mount? If you have lust in your heart, then you are in sin.
You just said that he “can’t” control his desires.
And lust or not, there is not one of us who is sin-free. Unless you’re claiming that status … ?
Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. If the men in your church can not handle seeing a lady showing a little thigh or shoulder, than they lack self-control. They are the ones with the problem.
Also, women most certainly do respond to visual stimulus….oh, yes indeed they do.
Regardless, calling a significant group of women a dishrag is completely unacceptable – especially at a pulpit when a pastor is supposed to be preaching Scripture and not his own hangups.
“Also, women most certainly do respond to visual stimulus”
It sounds to me like you need Jesus, too. I’ll admit, I had some temptation issues when I was a new Christian. This is why its important to have Godly men (and women) in your life to nurture you in your walk.
Wait, you’re saying that women who enjoy seeing men need Jesus, but men are victims of their own desires?
The contradictions are strong with this one.
Ok, I’ll try to make this as simple as possible. Men and women are both victims of their own desires, and both need Jesus. But God in his infinite wisdom chose the man as the head over the woman, while Christ is the head of the man. If Christian men are expected to live a holy life under the authority of Christ, so should a woman seek only to support and encourage the headship of her husband, rather then subvert it and cause him to stumble. Men are accountable to God through Jesus, and women are accountable through the headship of man. It sounds unfair, but it is what it is, and God sees the big picture while we endlessly debate over things we don’t understand.
Oh, but I *love* causing my husband to stumble. He ran into a tree once while he was staring at my chest. (True story!)
Did he become your husband before, after or because of this incident?
Let’s just say I submitted to his headship afterwards.
God designed me to respond to visual stimulus, but the Spirit gives self-control (a fruit of the Spirit) so I do not act upon that stimulus inappropriately.
See how that works?
Sad neither Chappell not you see the Spirit’s work in your own church.
Why get to know and trust the Holy Spirit when you can let fear and rules dominate your life and let them suck the life out of you? That miserable existence sounds so much more enjoyable and fulfilling. Obviously Paul was full of poppycock when he wrote to the church in Galatia :^)
I’m not sure what you mean by a “visual rolex” though admittedly my original post was grammatically tortured. But to suggest that a man can’t control himself is to deny the validity of Scripture and power and work of the Holy Spirit. The fact is we, in concert with the Holy Spirit’s power and presence, exert a tremendous amount of authority over the content of our mind. Just because I might see a woman in a bathing suit or some kind of provocative dress doesn’t mean that I’m a slave to my y chromosome and I’m destined to lust after her or sexually assault her.
Instead, I can train myself to think about things that are true, noble, pure, lovely, admirable…With the Holy Spirit’s presence I can choose to set my mind on things above and be transformed by the renewing of my mind. And if I have the Spirit of Christ in me and he governs my mind then I experience life and peace. And as someone else pointed out, one of the character qualities that is evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence in our lives is self-control.
Are men by nature visually stimulated? Yes. But if we weren’t able to exercise some degree of self-control, then we’d all need to be wearing blinders, like the black and blue Pharisees who were known to walk into things or trip and fall because they’d close their eyes if a woman walked by less they look upon her lustfully.
Thlipsis, you are contradicting your self. The power and work of the Holy Ghost is the only thing that allows self-control, which really has nothing to do with one’s self. It is God who controls our thought proccesses. This is why submission is of tantamount importance for both men and women. The man submits to Christ, the woman submits to her father/pastor/husband. Simple, huh?
“The power and work of the Holy Ghost is the only thing that allows self-control … ”
So explain all those worldly unsaved men who aren’t out there randomly violating and raping women? I mean, it’s not like they are capable of having self-control …
You don’t even get how utterly weak you make men sound. Fundies idolize men, but in the same breath they pedestalize them, they also make them look pathetically like slaves to their own hormones and genitals.
“The man submits to Christ, the woman submits to her father/pastor/husband. Simple, huh?”
1 Tim 2:5 applies to women too. One Mediator, Jesus. I answer directly to Him. That means if what Jesus tells me in His Word is different from what my husband says I follow Jesus first. I do not need a pope….not even a Baptist one.
1Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
I usually don’t allow myself to get drawn into these sort of blog discussions, but I honestly don’t see where I’ve made any contradiction. The process of sanctification is a joint venture between God’s work and my actions (see Philippians 2:12-13).
Additionally, I would contend that generally God does not control thoughts processes or anyone else’s thoughts for that matter–thoughts are under human control (the executive function of prefrontal cortex in the brain). It’s called free-will and even as followers of Jesus I don’t abdicate my will, but my responsibility to offer myself as a living sacrifice to be conformed to his likeness. My responsibility is to bring my thoughts in accordance to God’s perfect and pleasing will. Virtually all the commands regarding the nature of our mind and thoughts are some form of active imperatives, meaning that we must do something. I need to offer myself; I need to put to death; I need to set my mind on things above. I’m not a passive automaton in this process. Granted there are circumstance through which God acts upon us and through disciplining our minds he reinforces certain behaviors or thoughts, but to overlook our human responsibility in this is to ignore what the Scriptures make all too clear.
It is God who controls our thought proccesses.
Yikes. This sounds like quietism.
I must ‘girl’ wrong because I most certainly DO enjoy some good looking eye candy.
If women had NO visual stimulation, then why all the hot, wet, muscular, topless photos of guys?
Hey, “robin”, are you a girl or a guy? Hard to tell these days. In any case, I would suggest praying for someone to guide you in the right direction, as your thoughts are clearly the by-product of a God-less CULTure.
Why would you put my name in quotes? Robin is a real name, my name, usually a female’s name. I also flat out stated that I am female, twice.
…and I didn’t give in to ‘Godless culture.’ Women are, in fact, wired to fully appreciate a nice male form just as men are wired to appreciate a nice female form. Simple observation will show you this is true.
I apologize for my misunderstanding. I thought robin was the gay sidekick of batman.
And you’re right, men and women are both wired (since the Fall) to lust after one another, sometimes even after they’re own kind. Again, why we need salvation.
Still, this doesn’t excuse a woman for not keeping herself pure in thought and in appearance. Men are the spiritual leaders and warriors for the Kingdom, and they really don’t need that kind of distraction.
For those of you who think that men are responsible for causign a woman to stumble, read Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. First of all, why would a man lust after her unless she wanted that kind of attention? Second, it says “hath committed adultery WITH her in his heart” so don’t tell me she had nothing to do with it.
“First of all, why would a man lust after her unless she wanted that kind of attention? ”
Did someone drop you on your head as a child? Of course men lust after women regardless of whether the woman wants them to or not. I’ve been out and about wearing big bulky turtleneck sweaters covered by ginormous ponchos (hey, I get cold!), and I have STILL had men ogle my chest. It’s not because I WANT their attention. God just happened to endow me substantially. And let me guess: You’re one of those lovely fundy women who side-eyes curvy women because their bodies — THEIR VERY BODIES — aren’t modest enough???
Well let me tell you Ms. Faithfully, my body is just as God made it, and if some guy lusts after it even while I’m bundled up for the cold winter weather, that is totally on HIM. Not me.
I was dropped as a child. I don’t know if it was on my head. I don’t see how that has anything to do with Biblical Truth.
“I’ve been out and about wearing big bulky turtleneck sweaters covered by ginormous ponchos (hey, I get cold!), and I have STILL had men ogle my chest.” How could you tell they were staring at you, unless you were looking at them? Alot of women have no idea how their mind works beneath the surface, subtley wishing someone would ogle them or subconsiously using body language to say “look at me, aren’t I hot?”
Sorry, A., but the Holy Bible is clear on the matter.
This actually just happened yesterday, and I wasn’t even aware of it. My husband noticed the guy doing it and was annoyed with him over it (with the other guy — imagine that — NOT me). As to the rest: Do you also believe in ESP and similar nonsense? Women are not compelling men with the power of their minds OR their boobs to stare at them.
I call Poe. There’s no way anyone is genuinely this obtuse.
Come to think of it, I rather like the idea that I can make men do whatever I want using the think system. I’m going to start thinking really hard, “GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY” every time I pass a man. I might even be able to put my kids through college with this!
Grand idea, Faithfully. Thanks!
What rock do you live under that you know of Batman’s supposedly ‘gay’ sidekick but have no clue that Robin is a very common, typically female, name?
As for the rest? YAWN. Critical thought is your friend, dear. I promise that you won’t go to hell for thinking.
I know several females named Robin (some spell it Robyn), but also some males. In Britain, it is commonly a male name (or nickname?). See, for example, Winnie-the-Pooh’s pal Christopher Robin.
I know of a few guys named Robin, but mostly it is a female name, here in the US.
I was named after my dad, Robert. Could have been worse; he wanted Roberta.
FaithfullyHis is a Poe, and a really good one.
Regarding poor A.’s uncomfortable situation where men stare at her, even when she is dressed quite modestly (aka covered), I think it is very unfair of FaithfullyHis to assume that A. had noticed that he was staring at her (even though we found out it was A.’s husband to be exactly) only because A. must have been looking/lusting/drooling over the man that was looking at her too. I mean, what the heck? you can feel someone staring at you sometimes, and if A. had looked over just casually, she could have noticed that he was staring her down!! News Alert: “FaithfullyHis”… humans DO and WILL look at other people. But its not always done because of lust. Of course, I guess if that’s usually the reason why YOU look at a man when your’e out anywhere, then I’d understand why you assume that A. was doing something wrong too. So let’s see here, maybe you’re the one who has the most issues with lusting …. …. ….
Oh, and BTW,FaithfullyHis.. my SFL name is Lady Isabelle… please don’t ask me whether I’m a man or a woman. haha. =)
“Of course, I guess if that’s usually the reason why YOU look at a man when your’e out anywhere, then I’d understand why you assume that A. was doing something wrong too.”
Here we go again, shoot the messenger and ignore God’s holy Word. You know, come to think of it, I am better equipped to deal with temptation then most woman, because
Screw it, I’m done. Thanks to all who took part in this dubiuos dialogue, and I apologize for any headaches, heartburn, nausea, or broken coffee mugs it may have caused.
Thlipsis, “visual rolex” was a play on “visual rolodex”, which I heard about on conservative christian radio. Suffice it to say I believed that crap until I got over my hangups.
I like the name Robin, for both girls and boys.
I was dropped as a child. I don’t know if it was on my head. I don’t see how that has anything to do with Bibli… uh, never mind.
A., you called it first. I disagree with your statement that no one is this obtuse. In fundamentalism, logical and coherent thought is an act of rebellion.
Dear FaithfullyHis aka E. Allan,
Well played. Blessings to you!
Thanks, BJg. I had fun, but I didn’t want to drag it out too long. Blessings to you, too.
leo the lamb, aka E. Allan, aka FaithfullyHis (Hey, I have to maintain some separation between myself and my fundy alter ego).
Well played leo. I like the way you joined in the conversation as yourself also. A nice diversionary tactic.
I thought about responding to FaithfullyHis as myself, but that would be cheating (:
“First of all, why would a man lust after her unless she wanted that kind of attention? ”
Ask Susanna. Yep, I know she’s not in that truncated 66-book Bible, but she is in the Bible canonized at Carthage and Hippo in the fourth century and accepted by both East and West until Dr. Luther came along. 😉
Susanna was chaste, Scripture says, yet two old goats sought to ravish her. Daniel defended her, and she was vindicated.
See what you miss by not having all 73 inspired Books in your Bible? (You also miss out on Judith. Good old Judith. Like Jael, but even more bloodthirsty. Yeeehaw!)
That’s what Fundies miss by not really reading the 1611 KJV that they claim to love so much. The original King James Bible did contain the Apocrypha.
Oh my gosh, just saw that FaithfullyHis is a Poe. I was completely snookered. I didn’t have a clue. Well done indeed!! I actually know people who talk / argue just like this. Seriously!!!
So you believe that rape in all cases, including child rape, should be excused because men are incapable of helping themselves when they are visually stimulated. Got it.
Notwithstanding that what you said is not actually true, according to science.
And people wonder why more aren’t flocking to the church these days?
Are you for real??? Or are you just playing the devil’s advocate? For the record, the BS double standard that was shoved down my throat in fundyville pretty much ruined my relationships for a time until I saw the light and got the hell out of that victimizers’ paradise. Seems that one of the fruits of the spirit is “self control” and no gender designation or exclusion is indicated in that scripture, get over it.
Scorpio – you are second. I am third.
wrong – 4th
I am the walrus……goo goo g’ joob
Its a broken record. The woman bears the burden of purity and modesty. The men do not have to learn how to be self controlled. If their mind wanders from Jesus, its the woman’s fault–not the fact they cannot control themselves.
And it is a woman who is compared to a dirty dish cloth rather than a man. One almost gets the feeling from listening to fundamentalists talk about sex, that it is only practiced by women. Men play no part in it.
This is especially repulsive because in my own experience usually it is the man that makes the advances, especially in those circles. Not that the women are just standing there, but usually the guy makes the first move. And yet the woman gets called the dirty dishrag. Well if she’s the dishrag, then what do you call the perp doing the washing?!
Perfectly said, EasterLily!!
Nailed it. Their attitude towards anybody not a MAN bothers me more than almost anything else.
Pornography is problem in our culture because women WANT to pose in those kinds of pictures or make those kinds of films. Obviously they’re the ones exploiting me. If it weren’t for those kind of women, Jack Schaap would never be in prison, Jim Baker would have never fallen and Jimmy Swaggart would have been faithful to his wife. That’s basically the argument Adam made to God in the garden, “It’s the woman You gave me that caused me to sin.” And since it’s in the bible, then it must be true.
thlipsis, if you haven’t opened a can of worms there, it’s not for lack of trying.
thank you :^)
And Paul and Jan Crouch would have kept TBN/PTL Club legit and not a money hungry/prosperity/word of faith/charismatic/Pentecostal/Assembly of God/heretical network.
thilipsis, that sounds like a GREAT fundy sermon title — ” It’s the the woman you gave me that caused me to sin” and there will be about a zillion alliterated points and about 500 examples of how much evil the woman has done, and how it is harming the man every day. And with all the sexy references and issues brought up during the sermon, I’m sure the young men and teen guys in the service will have alot more scenarios in their heads that they can enjoy and play over & over for weeks to come!!! =) haha
Can i use actual video and photographic examples of just how temptingly evil women can be?
Only if we haven’t seen any of the before. 😉
^Only if we haven’t seen any of *them* before.^
His mannerisms are similar to no less than 5 IFB pastors/evangelists that I have seen in person that come to my mind quickly. . His message is the same drivel that I used to hear.
I am so glad I do not have to subject myself to any of this nonsense. Unless I click play.
(Greta Garbo voice)
“I can’t to be a clone…!!”
“I vant to be a clone..!!”
(Autocorrect can be a real pain sometimes)
Good thing dishrags are able to be laundered! Throw that woman in a shower, and she’s as good as new.
Throw that woman in a shower……
Stand back. I’ll take care of this one. 🙂
Wait…you have a shower in the cockpit? Isn’t that an FAA violation or something?
It has a locking door so we are good.
Oh, well, that’s good to know. Don’t want any box-cutter wielding terrorists in there…unless you’re into that sort of thing.
Right, Leanne. And this is what I hate – fundy preachers made all my fond memories feel dirty, even my wedding day and even memories of never spanking my kids!! Thank God Jesus is all about charity, not finger pointing.
Unfortunately it is not just a problem in fundamentalism. Since the beginning–women have been blamed and burdened with being the emblem of what is different about a culture or a religion. As thlipsis stated above–Adam used it in the garden. A woman who doesn’t produce a male heir was a disgrace in many cultures even past the time science figured out it was the male who gave the info for whether a baby was male or female. Women have had to wear the outfits which the culture deems modest from dresses to head coverings to fully covered. For some reason, women bear that burden in many religions and many cultures.
Joan Osborne’s take (please ignore the cornball pictures someone else added to the song):
For what it’s worth, purity event like the one Chappell alludes to are nice in thought but really aren’t effective in preventing teens from engaging in sexual activity. Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke University, did a study that reveals human are not rational when aroused; when in an aroused state we radically compromise whatever values we professed in a calm state and are much more likely to engage in risky behavior, behavior we know to be dangerous or believe to be immoral when not aroused. For instance, why would a rational thinking married man engage in an affair with a co-worker knowing that it will cost him his marriage, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a divorce settlement and potentially estrange him from his children? It simply is not rational. But as Ariely points out humans are anything but. Predictably Irrational is the title of the book and it’s an interesting read.
I don’t know that such events are useless; how does one measure it? If one person is persuaded, is it “effective”?
There is a point at which nothing will stop, but there are many times before that point where someone can still turn away from the decision to go forward.
I’ll have to dig the statistics up, but I thought I read somewhere that there is really no statistical difference between youth who go through one of these events and then get involved in various sexual activities versus those who don’t go through such a ceremony.
And if I’m not mistaken one of the biggest factors in influencing a teenage girl’s sexual purity is the level of attachment with her dad. If she feels loved, valued and secure by her dad she is far less likely to look for love and acceptance by offering herself to a teenage boy.
I don’t ever remember reading anything about teenage boys and what might actually curb their sexual activity, which is kind of sad when you think about it.
Put saltpeter in the boys’ food.
(I have no idea what saltpeter is, nor where to buy it.)
Talking to them. Keeping the lines of communication open. Encourage them to see women as people rather than conquests. Teach them to respect themselves and others in their lives. Talk to them about how to make good choices.
These things haven’t been studied, perhaps, but I suspect they’d make a world of difference for many young men today.
Apparently the use of saltpeter to induce impotence was not factually based.
The studies are conflicting in their findings (surprise, surprise). But it was study in 2009 by the Journal “Pediatrics” that concluded 5 years after the pledge there was no statistical difference between pledgers and non-pledgers in their sexual activity.
The only difference is that they waited longer to have sex.
Noticed he has no problem with remembering the Jezebels from weddings and funerals. Probably upfront memorizing every bit of cleavage he sees. Maybe if he didn’t view them as Jezebel, but as a human being made in the image of God he might get some respect.
“I’ve counseled too many men to know that if we don’t have everything [women] covered just right…”
It’s good to know we’re sticking with the lie that men aren’t responsible for their thoughts (and probably actions).
It isn’t a lie. Mr. Chappell doesn’t hold them accountable. A man who can’t own his pecker is no man at all.
And it seems he has a bunch of pervy men in his church who simply are unable to control their lusts.
Thanks for the warning about LBC/WCBC, Paul.
Plus Jim Vineyard’s son is on hot water and nearly everyone left except those who remain loyal to the Vineyards. Sad thing is OBC looks to be shutting down soon and so will Windsor Hills Fundy school.
First of all, n one gives a flaming pile of rat shit what Paul Chappell thinks. He teaches as commandments the doctrines of men – and his opinion is just as valid as Hugh Heffner’s.
Second of all, this is the kind of putrid legalism which makes its followers twice children of hell – it completely denies all the truth of the gospel. What about, “Behold, I make all things new?” Etc., etc. And while we are on the topic, why are so many baptist preachers so concerned with the sexual habits of women? There was a time when only a knave or a boor would rant about these kinds of things in public to a mixed crowd – not that Mr. Chappell has ever known anything like shame or honor. God damn this nonsense.
You need to show respect for Imam Chappell.
Funny thing is the bible never mentions anything about a woman’s skirt or dress length but it does mention something about not wearing expensive jewelry (1 Timothy 2; 1 Peter 3) and strangely it’s Jesus who tells men that if they even look lustfully at a woman he’s the one committing adultery and he doesn’t fault women at this point (Matthew 5). Odd how all of that is absent from this bible-believing preacher.
And the funny thing is, a woman can be wearing a full-length evening gown and not even be exposing herself and that can be a trigger for lust. Maybe, just maybe, lust has something to do more with the condition of a man’s heart than what a woman wears.
perhaps “self-professed KJV 1611 believing peracher” would be more appropriate
And the funny thing is, a woman can be wearing a full-length evening gown and not even be exposing herself and that can be a trigger for lust.
Boy howdy. Evening gowns are like crack for your testes.
perhaps the best description I have ever read Dr.
My former pastor always said that the verse that said that lusting = adultery applied equally to women because it says “have committed adultery WITH her in his heart,” and that one word, “with,” means that they’re equally guilty.
Anything can be twisted to blame women.
What the heck???
How EVIL! He is adding to Scripture. He is saying God says something God didn’t say.
Thanks for pointing out one of the root causes for the lies propagated by these jackass IFB preachers. Their insistence on using only the KJV and demanding their people use it to, but then being too intellectually lazy or simply dishonest to find out what it really means. The KJV contains many words that have been misunderstood because their meanings have changed over time. The one you mentioned “modest” , in 1 Tim 2:9 is a good example. Other examples are “study” from 2 Tim 2:15, “conversation” from Philippians 1:27, and “appearance” from 1 Thess 5:22. The average pew sitter in most churches doesn’t have a clue what these words really mean and that is primarily the fault of KJVonly promoters and pastors and teachers in fundamentalist churches, schools, and institutions of “higher” learning. Shame on these lying fools for leading their sheeple astray. It’s high time that someone stands up to this unholy arrogance.
Arrrrgh….use it “too”.
Fundies totally blame a woman if a man looks at her in lust. As Jesus says that the man commits adultery WITH HER in his heart.
They hang their whole argument on those two words and completely miss the point. Something about ‘straining gnats’ comes to mind.
Very well said
“you’re not even teaching the basics of our faith!”
Matt Chandler? The guy Tony Hutson called a heretic because he’s a big mover of the “seeker sensitive” model and has appeared on TBN.
I heard this same “Rose” teaching at Lancaster Baptist. How no one wanted a young lady who had had sex with others. She was unlovable and unwanted.
He looks just like Gomer Pyle.
No, he looks like Goober from the Andy Griffith show.
They really cannot fathom the forgiveness of Christ. How about 1 John 1:9? How about his righteousness being filthy rags? Ugh, don’t get me started.
Yes! Our RIGHTEOUSNESS (even those who didn’t have sex until after marriage) is a “dirty dishcloth.” It’s not about us. It’s about Jesus. Preach JESUS and His love and forgiveness.
I am so grateful that my Jesus did not refer to Mary Magdalene or the woman convicted of adultery as a “filthy dishrag”. My Jesus loved these women and refused to judge them. My Jesus would call this man a pharisee and tell him “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone”. My Jesus is love and grace. I do not know Paul Chappell’s Jesus.
Chappell has been collecting stones for years
Hugh Hefner at least practices what he preaches.
Control, control, control
Mind control, spiritual control, emotional control…
Cult, cult, cult…
I hate that the passive pew dwellers have to sit under, and be so manipulated by these Independent Baptist mother fundamentalists!
Chappel is probably a Jack Hyles disciple.
He’s talking about what women should wear and he’s demanding attention.
The IFB industrial complex draws men of this stripe to its positions of power. Unquestioned, unrestricted, unaccountable authority is rotten with men of who are attracted to the power such a system provides for them.
Actually, Paul Chappell did not plant LBC. It was a very small church when he arrived.
Watching clips like this always makes me realize the strange, strange things fundy preachers choose to talk about from the pulpit. I can’t even remember the last time I heard a message about modesty. They’ve been replaced with messages about what God has done, and continues to do for us. And how we can serve others, not our own self interests.
Thank goodness I don’t have to sit under this type of preaching either.
I didn’t even listen to the clip. I heard it enough in the 70’s and 80’s.
It’s pretty bad that he compares a woman to a dirty dish rag.
That’s just wrong. Sad.
To mr. chappell
He needs to give one, that is.
We all know the Bible story where Jesus called the woman caught in adultery a dirty dishrag.
Then he mentioned something about throwing stones…
Imam Chappell doesn’t know this Jesus person.
Correct. Seriously, I sometimes wonder what the other side will look like for some of these false teachers. “Wait…you’re Jesus??? Get outa here! I was expecting Tony Soprano with a beard!”
I remember someone on another forum saying that heard a Jack Hyles sermon where Hyles said “A woman wearing a mini skirt is worse than a woman wearing brithces”. You go Jack!
That depends on the woman or women in question. Please send photos (for research purposes only, of course) and I’ll report back.
Ain’t no pleasin’ some men. Don’t want me in a miniskirt, don’t want me in pants. I guess you just don’t want me around.
We want you in the altogether.
No surprise there.
Speaking of “dish rags”. There’s a sermon of Jack Hyles preaching against dancing and women wearing pants. He says the “dishrag twist” is a sinful dance that was back in the 1950’s. Shows just how out of touch Hyles was with pop culture.
Kind of reminds me the pastors and speakers that keep bringing up the dangers of New Age. Most people today don’t even know what New Age is.
Let’s not forget that scandalous Charleston!
No! Not the Charleston!
It’s some dance, some prance, there ain’t nothing finer. Every step you do leads to something new . . . and nothing good can come from that.
I always wondered, after Jesus said “let those without sin cast the first stone”, why didn’t he start throwing stones?
After the video youtube suggested a clip showing a group of minions. Scary how good google’s big data meta analysis really is
Leaving aside Paul Chappel and some of the other items mentioned…
It does seem that American society has became very casual; it used to be very standard to dress up for weddings and a funeral, and that doesn’t happen much anymore. We seem to have become more self-centered; as long as we are comfortable, we are not concerned about whether or not it is fitting for the occasion.
“Fitting for the occasion” is a cultural construct. There is no ethical difference between wearing a suit to a funeral or wearing a jogging suit. The only moral difference lies in whether one is consciously offending others for the sake of their own desires (ethics and morality are not to be conflated).
This. Note that wearing old-fashioned formal clothing (circa 1940s) is now interpretable as an attempt to show of and attract attention. Hence, hipsters.
Also, there’s place to consider. “It’s all good if your Carhartts are clean” has been the standard in my community for at least 50 years!
GR – I think his rant about dressing for a wedding and funeral had to do with how much skin the womenfolk show. Not if they are dressed “nicely” vs. casually.
I could be wrong. My mind wanders when I hear and see this type of display.
No, Paul Chappell, you aren’t “old-fashioned.”
My grandmother was old-fashioned.
What you are is an arrogant, ignorant, misogynistic, mean-spirited, self-important blowhard with a kinky skirt fetish. And you may quote me from your pulpit.
Paul Chappell ain’t no Dave Chappell though Paul Chappell is now labeled as the “Dave Chappell’s of IFB’s”. Chappell isn’t a comedian though. IFB have three famous comedians already in Tony Hutson, Larry Brown, and Phil Kidd.
We’re ALL filthy dish rags! Even our righteousness are as filthy rags! That said, I am sick of the way non-marital sex is so casually accepted everywhere, but to call those who do it filthy dish rags is rather hypocritical. What about YOUR sin??
As well, premarital sex between consenting adults may be a violation of God’s law, but it doesn’t hurt people like the heavy legalism of IFB. There are a lot worse sins out there.
“…I am sick of the way non-marital sex is so casually accepted everywhere,….”
Why would what other people do in their bedroom have any impact on your life whatsoever? To the point that it would bother you so much. I just don’t understand some people’s preoccupation with the sexual habits of other people.
It seems to be a fascination among IFB preachers (Hyles/Schaap/Chappell/Tom Vineyard). They spend more time talking about “sex” and what women wear than they do any other subject.
Sorry. Isaiah 64:6 is a trigger to some of us. We were raised being beaten over the head with “‘All your righteousness is as filthy rags.’ That word is for menstrual rags.”
1. This was used to encourage self-loathing, even among males. It also taught males to fear a menstruating female.
2. This was used to REALLY encourage self-loathing among females. “Your menstrual cycle is the best example of filth I can think of!”
What a great way to help our young adolescent women learn to hate their own bodies!
The bible is a product of its culture. Women were seen as less than men in both OT & NT times.
Just my rant.
This. Exactly what I said when this was discussed in the youth group. Do our girls not have enough nonsense thrown at them?
Plus, fundies ignore the historical context of that verse. It had a very specific application to God’s Old Covenant people in a particular time and place. It does NOT mean that, when a Grace-empowered Christian feeds the hungry or shelters the homeless, that’s a “filthy rag.” Jesus seemed to indicate just the opposite: Matthew 25: 31-46.
What irks me is how these supersaints present their personal moralism as superior to the Gospel. If these control freaks knew what the Gospel of Jesus Christ was actually about they would apologize for their idolatry and humbly preach Christ rather than touting their personal, hobby-horse, control agendas. They spend all their time and effort white-washing tombs and wiping off the outside of the cups.
Yea, what Don said.
This dude loves to talk about what women should dress. Maybe he’s watched a few Jack Schaap sermons and is a HAC/Hyles guy.
Unfortunately that is usually an indication that he struggles much the same way Schaap did.
Maybe he too will fall victim to some struggling teenager who showed too much patella and end up bunking with Schaap in jail.
At least he will have someone to help Polish his Shaft.
Schaap needs some company as Eddie Lapina and Bob Hooker don’t talk to him anymore and don’t do anything illegal. Schaap’s buddies Tony Hutson and Larry Brown won’t be joining him because they don’t do anything illegal except tell jokes and have their own Showtime comedy specials.
I’m going to have a hard time unseeing the image of Chappell and Schaap in their cell polishing each other’s shafts.
It does have a certain symmetry to it, though.
The really disgusting part is that what he means by illicit sex is not what we mean by illicit sex. Any time female genitals are touched by another person outside a monogamous two-sexed marriage = dirty dishrag time. Hence women who have been raped–even children who have been molested–are just as filthy and soiled as women who “stray.”
And the men who commit the crimes are the poor helpless victims of their irresistible sexuality.
The dangerous part is how smoothly he slides from discussing chastity, to discussing modesty and in particular his own standards. It’s subtle but it clearly puts the blame on women for “tempting” men.
I’d be willing to bet he follows the line most fundamentalists do. In theory rape doesn’t make a woman dirty – but they’re going to have to make sure she didn’t have her skirt above the knee first.
“…unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
If the men in his church can not think about the wonderful grace of Jesus when a woman is not covered as per his standard, then perhaps those men, including him, are defiled and unbelieving?
This is what spiritual abuse towards women looks like. And further, this is what Enabling men to pass the blame for their actions looks like.
Yes, in this discourse he perverts the meaning of the verse, “To the pure, all things are pure,” to make it mean approximately the opposite of its intended meaning.
its what comes out of a man that defiles him. That’s Bible right there people. In fact, its Jesus!
If FBCH ever brings back Pastor’s School, Paul “Dave” Chappel needs to be a guest speaker. Plus he’s also suited for Youth Conference as his favorite subject is purity and how women dress.
Because, you know, adolescent girls just don’t spend enough time worrying about how they look and what other people think of them.
Perhaps these IFB women should put their men in cock cages. No erection, no worries!
Whatever happened to purity? I’ll tell you what happened.
It never existed! The only place it exists is in some fantastical illusive past that you and a bunch of other miscreants think happened. There has always been hormones, and women have always had boobs. You simply grew up in an environment that kept it secret, or didn’t have a medium to relay what happens in life . But it was there. Women were sexually abused, kids were too. Women took advantage of men and men cheated on their wives. The only difference is that back then, you had no idea about most of it. Now you do. Now you know that kids mess around, and men cheat on their wives, and wives leave their husbands. There’s TV, magazines, movie stars to follow, Social Media and Internet. What happened to purity is that it can longer be faked. Abusers can’t intimidate their victims anymore, and teenagers no longer have a barn to mess around in. That’s what happened.
Like the creepy purity movement, all this sermon will accomplish is to either make people feel like shit, or make people act like they have it all under control. Either way, it’s set up to make you fail so that you can eventually come up to the altar while they sing “Just as I am” over and over for the rest of your life.
Their yoke is easy indeed.
^^^ slow clap.
Agreed 1000 times over.
Dear Keep On,
Your replies are almost always right on target. Thank you.
I’ve counseled too many men that have zero self control, that are blame shifters, that are so forbidden from any sexuality that the sight of knees gets them aroused.. these poor men surrounded by filthy rags. These poor holy men with nothing but sloots at their disposal!
Give me an effing break.
Fundies are so obbsessed with sex its weird. I was eleven years old when they told us (girls) we couldn’t have suckers or sit on our dads lap anymore.
Crazy crazy crazy sick sick sick… I need to punch a fundy in the face right now.
How about Popsicles? 😉
Seriously, you should never tell a little girl she can’t sit on her dad’s lap! I suppose I should tell my 11 year old son he can’t snuggle in my bed anymore. I’m pretty sure that would crush his heart.
You’re never too old to cuddle!
People these days try to make everything about sex.
Why would any man be turned on by their own daughter sitting on their lap?
The mind doesn’t even want to go there…
Social workers deal with this on occasion. Wonder if they have been sent to an IFB home lately?
I heard a weird one about some college not allowing girls to eat bananas in front on the guys.
I about fell over.
Sicko is right.
psycho is better…
Seriously, IFB men need to learn that a woman is not a sexual object for a man’s pleasure or lusts.
Marriages end too quickly because of mere sexual attraction. When the couple tires of the sex, they usually divorce.
A woman is made in the image of God. She is an equal helper and a partner comparable to men. She was not intended to be used only for sexual pleasure. Any real man in a real relationship knows that there will be times when he cannot be intimate with his wife. There will be illnesses, births, hospitalizations, separations, deployments…etc… If he truly loves his wife he will be empathetic when she cannot or doesn’t want to be intimate. He should never force her for his sexual pleasure.
Too many IFB men really don’t know where to begin when it comes to being truly intimate with their wives. It’s not about instant gratification. I don’t know if they will ever realize that or not.
Thank the Lord, He gave me a real man who is considerate when it comes to sex and intimacy.
In reality, IFB men really don’t need a woman if they are simply going to treat her as a sex tool.
And I’m going to be brazen and say that any IFB preacher that condemns a woman for having sex before marriage needs to rethink the times when he was alone with his thoughts and his own sexual organ……. (I won’t continue)….
One of the first girls I tried to date told me she wouldn’t date me because I was a Christian.
She had been saved, she said, but when it was found out that she had been sexually active, she was told she was dirty, not fit to marry a “good boy,” and was run out of her family and her church.
She had internalized all that. It was bitterness, of course. But she had been torn apart. There was no redemption for her. She moved away and wouldn’t give me her address. I still think of her on occasion.
Her cousin was in the church, and he had been sexually active, too. Somehow or other the church (which knew about it) was not inclined to throw him away. He married a sweet girl and was living happily and serving in the church in some capacity when I last saw him.
It really doesn’t matter whether a church is fundamentalist or not — the double standards on sex exist, and churches generally do not know how to talk about sex, sexuality, and relationships. In the IFB culture, ignorance is considered the preferred condition, but ignorance does not necessarily produce happy marriages.
The fact is that I don’t know where the balance should be. I just know that my own marriage suffered damage because of IFBism’s policy of ignorance, and my wife and I managed to come to the marriage “pure.” The ignorance (and misinformation, and attitudes about sex being sinful) made itself quite manifest in the marriage, however.
My children have grown up in the IFB. My two older sons are married to IFB girls. I can only hope that somehow …. well, you know.
The only way to change things is to talk about them, but IFBism keeps people from daring to talk about them. I have had no success talking to my wife about these things. I am sure others have had the same problems.
It speaks volumes that so many of the “great” “men of God” have fallen in this arena. Their product is not as advertised.
You expose your own soul to us in this post, and I for one appreciate it. I laugh and joke all the time–but never at those who show their vulnerability. I always appreciate your writing, for it often serves as a reflection of some facet of my experience.
I’d rather be a dirty dishrag than a “preaching” douche bag.
The accreditation thing cracks me up. Not even five years ago, their website had a total different tone about how it was evil to try to obtain accreditation and that only liberal colleges like Biola University did that. And then he illustrated how their unaccredited students sang Amazing Grace at a baseball game when they were sitting near Biola students who were acting and dressing all worldly and such. …presumably because they went to one of those evil accredited universities.
Absolutely freaking idiotic.
I totally agree. For years Chappell’s diatribe against accreditation was posted and printed. He believed and taught accreditation was flat out not biblical for a Christian college and criticized those who thought it was important.
I have been noticing more LBC kids choosing to attend the local community college. People have seen the failed examples of the past and do not want to get caught in the same trap when looking for a job after graduation, IMHO. I suspect this loss of revenue is what is motivating him.
Think of it this way. Accredited Master’s College (John MacArthur, WASC accreditation) is just 45 minutes away from Lancaster and charges about $118k or so for a 4 year degree (plus room and board). WCBC charges about $40k for their toilet paper quality diploma. If he can up the respectability of WCBC’s degree, he can attract more students and charge a lot more tuition.
My IMHO, but I suspect this is all about power and money.
UTBF, you are absolutely correct. Word on the street is that the Fall enrollment at WCBC was way below what they were projecting. It’s ALL about revenue.
I have the original document saved somewhere on my computer. It was, as you say, an extended rant against accreditation. Accreditation was a sin. It was that black and white to him then. It is the ultimate height of hypocrisy for him to do a 180 on this issue now. Hence, the extended (three chapters!!!) apology for the abrupt change of course. And, yes, money is mentioned pretty much every other line throughout.
Now, to tell the “rest of the story.” The hymn was “Victory in Jesus” (incidentally, a hymn deemed so worldly that it was not included in my home church’s hymnals). They did in fact all grandstand and sing it at a baseball game. Then, like everything at WCBC, it became a “we’re not going to be less spiritual than last year’s posers” kind of thing. So now, EVERY YEAR, they go to a Dodgers game and they all stand up and sing the song. I’m surprised they are still granted admission to the games.
No doubt, they then get the attendance numbers for the game and add that to the “souls saved” tally for that week.
If you take the link Darrell posted above, it will take you to WCBC’s statement (scroll down). They are acknowledging problems graduates have had with their crappy degrees.
Here is an excerpt:
The following considerations, however, are real for young people seeking ministry training who want to glorify Christ in ministry and life:
The State of California and our veterans’ right to the GI Bill—There are unaccredited institutions in other states with state agencies friendly to faith-based colleges that have been able to accept students on the GI Bill. These benefits for unaccredited institutions, however, can only be obtained through state approval. As an unaccredited religious-exempt school in California, this government review and oversight of WCBC is something we refuse to allow. We do, however, desire to honor our veterans (and their children) who have placed themselves in harm’s way for our freedom and then, with the calling of God on their lives, come to WCBC to train for full-time ministry. The funding these men and women receive is not “just money.” It is money they have earned—and which they have earned while protecting our freedom.
The difficulty of students transferring general credits to accredited institutions should they determine they are not called to full-time ministry—Some students enroll in WCBC with a heart for ministry but without being certain of God’s specific calling on their lives. We believe there is no better place to make that calling sure than at WCBC. Should a student attend for a year or two, however, and sense God leading him into a secular field of service, we desire that his general courses of English grammar, composition, speech, history, computer skills, etc.—which are taught by qualified professors and are as substantial as that which they would learn in a secular school—could transfer to an accredited college.
The increasing difficulty of accepting international students—Unaccredited faith-based colleges have faced an increasingly difficult ability to accept international students in recent years. Each year, our foreign students are at constant risk of losing their ability to continue their education at WCBC. Federal government scrutiny is minimized through a college being accredited by a body (even by a Christian agency) that is recognized by the Department of Education.
The refusal of earned scholarships—A high school student who earns a college scholarship through academic accomplishments will only be able to use that scholarship toward Bible college tuition if the college is accredited. This is similarly the case for students eligible for the 911 scholarships (granted to dependents of those killed or permanently disabled as a result of the 9/11 attacks).
Students whose parents work in large corporations unable to receive educational benefits their parents have earned—Many corporations and nonprofits have private grants and scholarships that are paid out only if a student attends an accredited college.
The increasing hostility and encroachment by our government toward religious training—Each year, we see state and federal mandates that affect Christian schools, colleges, and churches. We are open to measures that would protect our ability to operate at current levels. We are also willing to stand and suffer if and when that time comes.
Our graduates sometimes having missions doors closed to them—Many missions opportunities require a “creative access ministry” such as a business or education “front.” This is especially true in Communist and Muslim countries. Obtaining entrance into these countries often requires a degree from an accredited institution.
Our response to these considerations holds significant ramifications for our students, including that many of our students would be eligible to receive monies from private funds, grants, and corporate funds if we were accredited. Private funding or earned scholarships paid to a student, of course, attach no obligations to our college like government funding directly to our college could do.
As our administration studied the above realities, we were reminded of the “children of Issachar” in 1 Chronicles 12:32 “which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” In every area of leadership, it is incumbent upon leaders not only to have an abiding, thorough understanding of God’s truth, but also to have an “understanding of the times” and an ability to exercise biblical principles in current situations.
With this in mind, we revisited our original concerns regarding accreditation. What we found was that some of our perceptions regarding accreditation failed the test of further study as we began to understand the various options available.
This is definitely a positive step. but one that should have been taken over 20 years ago.They started a college without knowing enough about something as basic as accreditation, and as a result of their ignorance many graduates have been harmed financially and in their careers.
$40k in tuition for what?
I couldn’t read all of that – try summarizing your frustrations instead of bombing the beach with a plethora of thought.
Dr. Altar Ego,
If you couldn’t read all that perhaps it’s because you went to WCBC and find reading to be a chore?
At the very least read the last paragraph.
But see, if a woman wears a skirt that exposes her thigh, and a man is led away from the thoughts of Higher Things to the thoughts of higher things, then his mind is taken off of the things of his wife and onto the things of other women. And having his mind taken off of seeking for Higher Things, he seeks to possess the higher things of a woman. And being thus led away from Higher Things he takes in his hand the higher things, desiring the things he has not seen instead of the things he has, for they are not as high as they used to be.
So, as you can see, clearly it’s the responsibility both of the other woman to keep herself covered, and of his wife to make sure he’s not straying.
So you’re saying his wife should take in her hand his higher thing, even though it is not as high as it once was? Lest he be forced to ask another woman (whose skirt is slit too high) to handle his difficulties instead?
Please grow up and learn how to behave in public.
This video is getting more attention. 2500 views on Youtube so far and Rawstory has picked it up.
Wowsers. Did he quote Titus 1:15? None so blind as those who will not see…
Bless you brother, amen.
Thank God, Jesus died for “dirty dishrags”.
WOOOOO!!! GLORRRYYY!!!!! That is preaching right there and truth!
For way too many years I was taught that it was the woman’s responsibility to keep a man pure. Being responsible for the sin of all males is a crushing burden. Then one day, I sat in a service where Mark 7:14-23 was clearly taught, and all the previous contrived “teaching” I had heard was shattered. Please, someone check, is this passage in the Authorized version?
If by “Authorized”; you’re referring to the King James Version, yes.
If by “Authorized”; you’re referring to Paul Chappell’s opinions on what the Bible says; probably not. Those pages might be stuck together in his Bible.
I doubt that any pages are stuck together in Chappell’s bible. His copies of Penthouse, however, may be a different story.
To see the damage caused by this purity culture nonsense, see Elizabeth Smart’s comments last year after have turned into a “dirty dishrag.”
Seriously, we should each send to Chappel’s office our dirty dishrags.
We should quit discussing it here and just show our disgust in a tangible way. Imagine off his office got several hundred dirty dishrags delivered…
I’m sick of this attitude. It’s so damaging, mysogonistic, and… I can’t even. The words fail me how disgusted this makes me.
Who’s with me? Seriously, let’s do this.
4020 E. Lancaster Blvd.
Lancaster, CA 93535
This……could be hilarious. Especially with a note quoting the “all our righteousness are filthy rags” verse =D
If you want to be textually accurate with Isaiah 64, it would have to be something other than dirty dishrags.
uh, yeah. Even more effective
Why should we textually accurate? He’s not.
If we actually sent what the text says it would probably only fuel his convictions that women are wicked.
If I send him my old dish rags would he buy me some new ones? Stupid dishwasher won’t get my dishes clean, so I’m having to hand wash some of them…
I’ve got dish-pan hands now!! Of course, been doing dishes for 40 plus years.
Dear current and future West Coast Baptist College students:
TRACS accreditation is a very low level of accreditation. So low in fact WCBC’s educational grads will still be unable to get jobs in California as a SUBSTITUTE TEACHER. Many good jobs and grads schools are looking for REGIONAL accreditation – not TRACS accreditation.
Be smart – get a degree that matters. The job market is too tough to try to compete with an inferior degree.
WCBC’s education majors will still not qualify as public high school teachers or any other state job.
Time to get the word out that it is REGIONAL accreditation that is necessary before even more people waste their time and money.
The state of CA even requires substitute teachers to have regionally accredited degrees:
Our pastor actually preached about sex this morning. Or at least mentioned lust in with a bunch of other sins. Funny, he forgot to say it’s all the woman’s fault. Of course, he wore jeans to preach, so you can pretty much ignore what he said.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned yet that there’s nothing wrong with a dishrag being dirty. A dishcloth (or “rag,” if you prefer) is supposed to get dirty in the course of doing its work. Then you wash it in the laundry, and it’s clean again.
I don’t trust anybody who won’t get his or her hands (or rags) dirty.
Got dish-pan hands myself!!
I agree. Aint nothing wrong with a little hard work.
This is unbelievable: in my mail today I received an advertisement about the “I Will Build” conference hosted by “Dr.” Paul Chappell at Lancaster Baptist Church. Interestingly, one of the themes of the conference is “Preaching that Builds” I lie not!
For the record, I serve in a church that is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference, and get all kinds of junk mail, and so many people assume that if you’re “Baptist” you must be “IFB”…is there any other kind?
And heaven forbid you’re part of the Southern Baptist Convention. grin…
Fundies don’t believe that God can visit those type of churches.
I like how he says that purity and going to church is all about Jesus but he fails to mention anything else about Jesus.
When I was in high school we had to write out our dating standards as part of gym class. You just can’t make this stuff up!! I don’t remember the guys having to do that because the teacher even said that the girls set the standard. I can go on and on about BJ days/dating/sex. It is amazing that any of us have healthy attitudes about sex if we are married or not. To me, that is the true miracle of purity!!
I’m sorry you had to endure that.
There are no words…
What did dating and gym class have to do with one another anyways? Scratching head…..
I’m beginning to realize that my Fundy HS wasn’t so Fundy after all. phew!
This video has been featured on Rawstory, Fox Radio (Alan Colmes), and several blogs.
I read a really good observation in the comment section on the Patheos blog:
“Who is stronger?
The man who needs women to cover themselves so he doesn’t do something indecent?
The man who doesn’t do something indecent because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of what the woman is wearing?”
Yes. The answer to that question is fairly obvious to everyone except Fundies.
Another valid way to phrase it is, “Which man is a decent human being, fit to live in society?”
After some reflection, I’ve come to believe that this sort of ‘preaching’ is a subtle way to give the Manogawd an excuse when he cheats on his wife.
Blame it on the woman.
Even the ones who don’t literally cheat on their wives can use such ploys to assuage guilt about wanting to do so.
Shins – Good.
Knees – Iffy at best.
Thighs – Bad
In my humble opinion, all of the “virginity” preaching is 99% based on the insecurities of the man preaching and 1% in what the Bible has to say about it. These hyper-repressed guys read “purity” and instantly think “vagina.” They don’t think about purity of heart, spirit, or mind. They’re obsessed with being the only man their woman has ever known because they’re terrified of any comparison, and hate the idea that there could be someone in the past that rang the bell a little better. I just don’t see Jesus spending 50% of His time discussing women having sex. Conversely, when He encounters a woman who’s slept with more men than anyone else, His response is basically “Meh.” His concern is for her and her future.
I feel bad for any woman who this guy causes to think of sex as dirty or something that can make her dirty. I’ve encountered virgins and women who aren’t. I can say definitively that given the choice between a virgin who’s a head case about sex and a non-virgin with a healthy self-image and healthy thoughts about sex, give me the non-virgin A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. I’m one guy, but it’s a complete non-issue to me. Virgin/non-virgin, couldn’t care less. Just want a confident woman who values herself and has a healthy, happy view of sex.
Interesting read. I was Larry Chappell Sr.’s “filthy rag” as a girl. So because of him, forget being pure at the wedding altar.