photo by See-ming Lee
Is church too touchy-feely for you? Are there too many songs? Are the talks too long and too boring? Do you need a donut break from all those women? How about a church service just for men?
What is Man Church? Man Church is church the way a man expects it to be done. No singing, short sermon, time to talk with other guys, no women present, and coffee and donuts. That’s the way men want to do church. The topics of discussion will have a definite manly focus – being the best possible husband, father, employee, leader – being a real man. In fact, every aspect of Man Church is geared for men – not like any other church you have seen. This ain’t your mama’s church!
These apes guys apparently can’t handle creative expression, women, music, or big words. If I were male, I’d be insulted that my church leadership thinks I am an emotionless, simple-minded grunt who doesn’t crave depth of study and a song once in a while. This sounds fast food instead of a full course meal.
Notice how all of the selling points for “Man Church” exclude anything that appears remotely homosexual. No surprise, coming from a Christian church, but it still blatantly ignores men who don’t fit into this grunting, emotionless, impatient mold. Machismo is one of my hot-button issues, and “Man Church” really grinds my nerves.
I think we need to watch a little Tim Allen to understand these “manly men”:
Home Improvement never gets old to me 
.
Why should outsiders have to work so hard at pointing out the flaws in Christianity when Christians do it just fine on their own?
I can take that vacation now!
What you’ll hear: an interview on Way of The Master Radio with Todd Friel interviewing an ex faith pentecostal faith-healer, Mark Haville. They discuss how “being slain in the spirit,” faith healing, and revival services are a sham. The irony is that the same arguments about emotional manipulation, pastor preaching styles, and it all being in the person’s brain still work for fundamentalist anti-pentecostal Christianity. Maybe they’ll realize this one day.
Your thoughts?
Good ol’ Bible literalist John Shimkus (R-IL) is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He’s an evangelical Republican who also sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This committee has jurisdiction over a large portion of legislation, such as public health, biomedical research, travel and tourism, national environmental policy, alternative energy, and conservation. That sure is a lot of power, wouldn’t you say?
So whats the problem with Shimkus being on the committee? Let’s see what he thinks about preserving the environment:
During a hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of the scientific community by quoting the Bible. He uses God’s promise to Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) [as proof.]
“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.
Oh goody, someone who thinks the flood was literal and pretty rainbows mean climate change is a lie.
He then uses Matthew 24:31 (which has nothing at all to do with the environment) to defend a position that:
“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” Shimkus asserted. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”
(source)
Shouldn’t there be a requirement for learned people who actually know an industry—or at least (dare I say it) science—to lead the major committees in the House? Pretty please with intelligence on top?
Oh gee, it reminds me of this:
Here we have yet another example of how religion shapes children at impressionable ages.
“What do we do at church, honey? We sway, close our eyes, and lift a hand when music plays.”
(via christiannightmares)
This kid will fit in nicely at a Jesus Camp one day:
Sigh. I guess it’s time for me to quote Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion again:
Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.
Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.
I’ve also addressed child preachers, hysteria in worship, and shown some amusing (or perhaps disturbing) examples of life “in the spirit.” Enjoy!
Meghan on 
LeetheGirl on 
Loading ...