Important News! About God and sex stuff! (Ewwww)

So apparently there is a group out there called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

     
 

I know, ewwwww already, right? Their board contains these manly specimens of heterosexual manliness

            

  Jeff Purswell  Board Member                            Daniel L. Akin  Board Member

Jason Duesing

Editor, JBMW Board Member

It may surprise you to learn that the board includes exactly zero women!

I mean, they're only the council on "manhood" and "womanhood." Why would you need any women having their womanly input? What do women know about womanhood?


Anyway, this no doubt charming little group has issued a manifesto of sorts setting out their - I mean God's - views on the whole man/woman thing and if it's any more insightful than "boys have wieners and girls have hoo-hoos" I will be truly shocked.

We are proud to release today The Nashville Statement, a coalition statement on biblical sexuality https://t.co/oNkHLEcHB0

— CBMW (@CBMWorg) August 29, 2017

Ewwwww! "Biblical sexuality?" Ewwwww! ew ew ew!!!

Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory,

Wait, hold up. Are you saying God made the entire human race just to show off? Just to get some glory? And he's happy with the result? He hasn't ever said "hey look what I can make. . . oh man. Uh, look over there! I made dolphins!"

And if he made us for purposes of self-glorification, why do so many of us look like this?

I mean, come on. If you had made any of these guys, would you be basking in the glory right now?

Anyway. . .

We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. . . Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Article 1

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

Oh, that's original! Yeah, totally didn't see that one coming.

You really took all the time and effort to put together this proclamation and your lead is "Yup, same as always. One dude, one lady. Exactly like we've always said." That was time well spent.

Article 2

WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality

Seriously, did you just cut and paste this from every other statement every other evangelical group has ever made on the subject?

Article 6

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Okay, that's one I've not heard before. But really? People who are born with ambiguous or possibly no genitalia still have to conform to your rigid gender roles? You can't even give that person a break?

Article 7

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

So. . . we insist that you live as God made you. Unless he made you gay or trans. Then it's up to you to cover for him and pretend you're not.

Anyway, this thing has a total of 14 articles all of which add up basically to "boys have wieners and girls have hoo-hoos and that's the way we like it!"

And you know someone is paying these grifters to put out this stupid missive about how they still believe the same things, no changes, but divided into "Articles" to make it seem important. Oh, here's a surprise - there's a "Donate" button!



Because whatever creepy families/organizations are funding these conmen aren't paying enough, they need gullible old people to endorse their social security checks over to them so that they can, I don't know, is it still the "homosexual agenda?" Is that still what they're fighting? Maybe Sharia Law or something? I don't know. But here's why they so desperately need your money:

In the months and years to come, the mission of CBMW will include distributing The Nashville Statement and developing resources to equip pastors and churches to stand firm for the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. One way you can be involved is to join us in prayer for the Lord’s blessing on our efforts, as well as to make a financial gift in support of this very important work.

So. . . they need to print up some copies at Kinko's and, um I guess buy stamps? And then pretend that "developing resources to equip pastors and churches to stand firm" is a real thing and that it is a thing that costs money?

Kellyanne Conway is Ridiculous -- Again.

It's hard to say what the most ridiculous part of this is.And it's only a minute and a half.

“It’s way over the line.” -@KellyannePolls reacts to James Clapper questioning Pres. Trump’s fitness for office pic.twitter.com/w4Db17t6g5

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) August 24, 2017

I'm sorry you had to see that.

Anyway, what is the most ridiculous part?
Is it maybe when she complains about news channels not reporting straight news but trotting out a parade of pundits to "opinionate" and "pontificate" while she's speaking to FOX AND FRIENDS, on a network that is built entirely on blowhards opinionating and pontificating and of course no one sees the irony at all.

Maybe it's the idea that Clapper's assessment of Il Douche's fitness for office is "way over the line," when no one on this network seemed to think it was over the line to question the previous president's  patriotism, honesty, intelligence or citizenship. It was not, apparently "over the line" to claim that the previous president had "a deep-seated hatred of white people," And it was certainly not over the line to call our last president a Marxist. And a fascist. And a Nazi. And a Maoist. And a Bolshevik. And a Trotskyite.

Is it when she claims that the media was "way too afraid" of the Obama administration? Like sure, that was 8 solid years of no criticism of the administration. Yeah, you never heard anything negative about Barack Obama in the media!

I would say the part about the press not being scared enough of Orange Julius Caesar was pretty ridiculous, but it's also kinda scary.

Or is it the verbal eyeroll she gives when she talks about the press doing their jobs and reporting facts and holding people accountable as if that's some sort of absurd idea.

Is it that Democrats are supposedly "whispering" that they wish Hillary Clinton would not have written a book, that she should "make herself useful" or "go away," like you know who's privy to the whisperings of the Democratic Party? Kellyanne fucking Conway! Yeah, of course, whenever a Democrat has a problem with the direction of the party, they go right to the most dishonest member of the Dolt 45 talking head brigade.


I guess the most ridiculous part is when she reflexively shits into "yeah, well what about Hillary?" mode.

"Where is her big c4 trying to help women and children?' Um, you mean the CLINTON FOUNDATION?

"Where's her bi-partisan effort to help with infrastructure?" You do know she's OUT OF OFFICE, right? What the hell is she supposed to do? Somehow she's going to be the one to get Republicans to get off their asses and produce some sort of bi-partisan legislation even though the entire idea of any kind of bipartisanship is anathema to your entire party? A party, by the way, that controls both houses of Congress and the White House and can pass whatever it wants even without Ms Clinton's help. And by the way, her name is "Secretary Clinton." Show some goddamm respect, you little hack. We would also accept "Ms. Clinton," "Ms. Rodham-Clinton," "Senator," or "Mrs. Clinton." What makes you think you're on a first-name basis with a person of actual accomplishment?

Oh, and Kellyanne? You say you're working on the opioid crisis every single day? Wow, you're doing a bang-up job!

Oh, Canada! I expect better from you.

I know you're not perfect, Canada. You probably have some flaws. I can't really think of any except maybe curling? Oh, and you did give us celine dion and Justin Bieber, but you also gave us Kids in the Hall and kd Lang, so I guess we're even on that score. Oh, and Leonard Cohen! I almost  forgot Leonard Cohen, forgive me, gods of music.
Anyway, I know it's unfair to expect you to always be better than us in every way, but really - THIS?

Canadian town refuses to remove swastikas from park as mayor defends local history

Okay, why in the Hell are there swastikas in a Canadian park? Canada fought on the right side of WWII. My late father-in-law dropped bombs from a RCAF plane onto those Nazi bastards. Who the hell is putting swastikas in your parks, Canada?

A Canadian village has refused to remove swastikas from a local park after an activist tried to paint over the controversial symbols.
The Nazi emblems are on an anchor that is on display in Pointe-des-Cascades, about 50 miles west of Montreal in Quebec.

Oh. Okay, maybe I'm wrong. Is this an anchor from a Nazi warship that was sunk by the Canadian Navy? It's a war trophy? Because that would change everything.

Corey Fleischer, founder of a group called Erasing Hate, was trying to paint over the symbols last Thursday when he was stopped by the local mayor, Gilles Santerre, who called police to have him removed from the park.

Seriously? The mayor doesn't have bigger fish to fry? The Mayor is out patrolling parks looking out for vandals?

Stressing it was part of the area's local history, he said the anchor, which belonged to a merchant vessel, predated the Second World War and was discovered by divers 25 years ago.

Oh yeah, you gotta preserve that local history. Let us never forget that time in 1992 that a couple of local fellas found that anchor. That was pretty cool, right? You know, cuz it was pretty old, like an antique or something. We will never let anyone take away that moment of glory!

He cited a Radio Canada article that said the swastika was a symbol of peace before 1920.

Yes, and the word "f__got" used to mean " a small bundle of sticks," but no decent person would be okay with that word being thrown around in a public park.

 The mayor sad the symbols would not be removed, but promised to place a more descriptive plaque next to the anchor to clarify its history.

 Oh, yeah. You gotta clarify that this well-known symbol of hatred and murder has an important place in your town's history, having been stumbled upon by a couple of scuba divers and all.

David Ouellette, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said Mr Fleischer should not have acted without consulting the village but said it was important the anchor's history was made clear to the public.
"If you're going to display publicly the swastika, it's important to give the full context," Mr Ouellette told the CBC.

Or you could, ya know, just not display the goddamned swastika!

Come on, Canada! People down here look up to you. You have to set a better example. Remember, you're a role model.

It could be worse. You could live in Maine!

What's the matter, Bunkie? You say your governor is a right-wing ass? And your state legislature is chock full of Tea Party nutjobs? And your Congressional delegation is an embarrassment to humanity? Is that what's troubling you, Bunkie?




Okay, this is way too much effort to go in to a joke that even I'm not old enough to get.

Anyway. . . whenever you feel bad about the leadership in your state, just thank whatever gods or goddesses you believe in that you don't live in Maine. At least you don't have this gross thing as your governor.



Sorry, wrong picture!

Here we go:

Ugh! So much worse!

Anyway, Maine governor Paul LePage, who, besides just being an awful terrible horrible person in general, is also a first-class lunatic (Google Paul LePage + Sovereign Citizens) decided to weigh in on the Civil War and the removal of Confederate monuments.  Now you would think that if asked about Confederate monuments, a New England governor might answer "well, thank God we don't have to deal with that up here in Maine, God knows we have enough troubles without having to worry about Confederate shit." But, no. No, he decided to weigh in with some really atrocious bullshit.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage: Civil War was initially fought over land, not slavery

By Nathan McDermott and Andrew Kaczynski, CNN

(CNN)Maine Gov. Paul LePage defended monuments to the Confederacy in a radio interview on Tuesday, claiming that 7,600 Mainers fought for the South and that the war was initially about land, not slavery.

Two Civil War historians contacted by told CNN disputed LePage's assertions.

Wait, you're telling me that Civil War historians DON'T agree with Governor fatfuck's interpretation of history?

"What was the war? If you really truly read and study the Civil War, it was turned into a battle for the slaves, but initially — I mean, 7,600 Mainers fought for the Confederacy," LePage, a Republican, said in an interview with Maine radio station WVOM.

Wait. Seriously? Seven thousand six hundred Mainers fought for the South? Were there even seven thousand people in Maine at the time? Did they just want an excuse to head South during the Winter?

Well, I did what is known as a "Google Search" for "how many Mainers fought for the Confederacy?" which I guess is something that Governor SackoCrap couldn't be bothered to do, and this was the first result:

Search Results

Top stories

LePage said 7600 Mainers fought for the Confederacy. It was maybe 30.

Bangor Daily News · 2 days ago



Also. "Mainers?" That's what they call themselves? Not "Mainiacs?" Realy missed the boat on that one, Mainers.

"What was the war? If you really truly read and study the Civil War, it was turned into a battle for the slaves, but initially — I mean, 7,600 Mainers fought for the Confederacy," LePage, a Republican, said in an interview with Maine radio station WVOM. "And they fought because they were concerned about — they were farmers — and they were concerned about their land. Their property. It was a property rights issue as it began. The President of the United States, who was a very brilliant politician, really made it about slavery to a great degree."

 

Ugh. . . here we go again. . .

The Civil War Was About Slavery.
Not only about slavery, I'm sure there is more than one causus belli for pretty much every war, but for God's sake, just take a few minutes and glance at the various states' declarations of secession - if you have the stomach.


Here's what Mississippi had to say on the subject:

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Here's the opening of Georgia's declaration:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Here's a little excerpt from Texas's

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

You get the idea.

It is the worst, sickest kind of historical revisionism to pretend that the Civil War was not fought by men who were willing to go to war against their own nation in order to preserve the institution of slavery. It is the height of disingenuousness to say that the Civil War was a fight for "states' rights" when you know good and goddamm well that the "right" the Confederate states were fighting for was the "right" to own and enslave other human beings. It is a particularly noxious brand of bullshit to claim that the war was about preserving "property rights" when you are fully aware that the "property" the Southerners were worried about losing was enslaved human beings. And it is just bizarrely ridiculous to claim that farmers in Maine were somehow worried about losing their farms so they fought for the Confederacy. I can't imagine anything you could say that would be as offensive and just plain stupid as that.

LePage also said that removing confederate monuments could lead to the removal of history books and monuments to the Oklahoma City bombing and the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. 

Touche', Governor. Touche'.

Connecting Unconnected Stories with Gifs

Okay, so a Navy ship collided with a civilian craft a couple days ago and some sailors are M.I.A. and there was a search and rescue operation underway, and apparently Trump gave it the ol' Jerry Seinfeld response.

Trump on USS John McCain Crash: ‘That’s Too Bad’

And the best part is, no one cares.
It's a sign of how far we've come in the last 7 months that no one is upset about Trump shrugging off the possible deaths of US Servicemen.

If Obama had responded like this to a similar incident, the right would have been up in arms and rightly so.
If Dubya had been this cavalier about missing sailors, progressives would have pilloried him. And rightly so.
But Trump? You hear that Trump just blows off something like a Naval shipwreck and everyone just goes "yeah, that seems right."





I mean, he didn't call the missing sailors "losers." He didn't take the opportunity to brag about his yacht. He didn't even try to blame it on Obama. All in all, I'd take this as a win.

He didn't blame Obama.

So someone had to.

Fox's Ralph Peters Blames Obama For Naval Crash This Weekend

By John Amato

yes, Ralph Peters, the man who perpetually looks as if he's just sat in something damp, is once again called upon to explain how everything bad that happens snywhere is the fault of some durn lib'rul.

Guest host Ashley Webster asked Fox News' military and strategic analyst, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, why with our fabulous technology, these crashes keep happening.
At first, Peters blasted the officers and the crew, "The obvious conclusion is the officers on the bridge and the seamen don't have basic navigation skills. They don't, no longer are drilled in basic seamanship. They don't have the discipline they should."

[Heh heh heh "seaman!"]

And you know no one has a better grasp of the current state of the Navy's training programs that a retired Army Colonel who last served in 1998.


Although I assume he is partly right, they probably don't spend as much time learning to navigate because there are now computers that do a lot of the navigating for them. Not a lot of call anymore for a fella that can work a sextant.
[heh heh heh, "sextant!"]

Peters continued, "You had the horrific behavior of the sailors who were grabbed by Iran without a fight."

Wait, what?




You're upset because a handful of US military personnel didn't try to start a war with Iran? That's what you consider "horrific behavior?" That these sailors didn't recklessly get themselves killed over nothing?
And what the fuck were they going to do? One US ship versus the entire military of Iran? On Iran's homefield? What are they, the magnificent Seven? Are they a bunch of John McClanes? They're going to somehow defeat the entire nation of Iran by themselves? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Peters continued, "But I think they're -- one of the parts of this problem, part of it is fundamental. Those sailors did not have the basic seamanship skills, but by God, they got their sensitivity training, they got their race relations training, they got their sexual harassment training and we have for a long time, but particularly under Obama, turned the military into a social engineering experiment."

Oh my God, I see it all now. You teach a sailor to not be a racist or not to be an asshole to gay people, or not to sexually assault female sailors, of course they're going to forget how to steer the boat! Oh, it's all so obvious now!

And speaking of obvious. . .


Can we please please please stop having these news stories about "Idiots who voted for Trump are still idiots and still like Trump."

CNN Focus Group Thinks Everything Trump Does Is Great

By Susie Madrak

Alysin Camerota sat down with a group of Trump voters from Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Alabama and Georgia to see how they react to Trump's policies -- including his decision to increase troops in Afghanistan. She asked who supported the move. Everyone raised their hands.

Yeah, of course they did. You put out a casting call for people who are still horrid enough to support Dolt 45, did you think there was a possibility that THIS was going to be the last straw for them? Like someone was going to say "I 'm fine with him supporting Nazis, I'm fine with him trying to start a war with North Korea, I 'm even okay with him trying to strip healthcare away from 20 million Americans, but this! This increase in troop levels? That is a bridge too far!"

"I think it's a serious problem that we've kind of not taken that seriously in the last eight years of Obama. and this is what he said he was going to do, that he was going to --"
"No, he didn't," Camerota said, quickly pointing out that Trump criticized Obama for doing the same thing.
"How many generals did he talk to before he tweeted that?" one person asked. "None. He didn't have the information at that time."

Oh, well defended!
And this doesn't at all raise the question of whether, having zero fucking information on the subject, he should have been shooting off his stupid fat ugly mouth about it!






Also, tRump's supporters insist that everything is fine now, because he has these generals, these experts, that he listens to who tell him what to do. Would these be the same generals that Cheeto Mussolini said he knew more than? [pardon my syntax]

These people aren't worth talking to. They are completely divorced from reality, immune to facts, and allergic to logic. They add nothing to the discussion.
Of course the same could be said for any and all of Trump's actual paid spokespeople.

Case in point:

Katrina Pierson Calls Slavery ‘Good’ in Hilariously Awful Attempt to Defend Trump

Katrina Pierson, currently with the America First Policies group, said on Fox and Friends Monday that there are reasons to keep markers of the 1860s rebellion against the United States.
“Americans actually love their history, their culture, good and bad because it helps them learn and it helps keep people educated about why America is so great to begin with,” Pierson said.
  “It absolutely deserves a place, because bad history is still good history for this country.” “Slavery is good history?” Osefo asked in disbelief.

“Considering where we are today! Where we are today! Absolutely!” she said. “Slavery is good history? Absolutely? Oh, wow,” Osefo shot back.