Good News Clubs and their critics, part 2: A summing up of the Good News club message

Suppose you had a Ferrari that was currently not in roadworthy condition, but that could be like new if you spend $2 000 dollar on the spares needed to repair it. This car would be unroadworthy right now, but not worthless – it will really be worth spending the money to repair the car.
The CEF message is sort of like that, except that it regards each person as the unroadworthy or ex-unroadworthy Ferrari, originally made very good (in God’s image!), that could be or was repaired by the price Jesus paid.
This article will be a report on the CEF message. Fans and critics of CEF alike has to agree that what is reported here is more or less what Good News Clubs teaches. The degree to which the message is good or bad could be disputed, that this is taught cannot. If you are familiar with CEF, you could skip or skim this post.
There is a message that is part of CEF teacher training and in some form part of almost every CEF lesson. CEF sums it up into a Wordless Book of 5 colors, sometimes:


The Wordless Book

Gold: God made everything, God made you. God loves you and wants you in heaven with him. God is holy. (Gold stands for a crown – God is King – or for the streets of heaven.)Dark: But you sinned and God cannot allow sin in heaven.(Dark stands for darkness in the heart)
Red: Jesus was punished for your sin on the cross. (Red is the color of blood.) He rose again from the death.
White: If you choose Jesus, your sins are forgiven, and you can be with God in heaven one day. (White is the opposite of dark)
Green: Grow as a Christian by knowing the Bible, praying, witnessing, asking God’s forgiveness when you sin again, and meeting with other believers. (Green is the color of growing grass and plants.)

Continue reading

BDSM is not “safe.” It is full of predators and cover-ups for predators.


Kinksters who are honest admit that the BDSM scene has predators. Kitty Stryker say:

Basically, we [Kitty and Maggie Mayhem] realized that we have had very similar negative experiences in the BDSM scene. When we started talking about these abusive situations more, we realized this was more of a widespread problem. It wasn’t just us… we discuss how abuse is generally never seriously confronted. For example, consent — especially in regards to kinky sex — is joked about and made a punch line. These jokes about safe-wording have a darker undercurrent since essentially we are laughing about the lack of consent. We like to talk about why this is problematic. And one of the main issues we’ve noticed is that many people don’t feel comfortable going to their community leader or dungeon monitors about their sexual assaults.

There’s this “victim blaming attitude” people like to take. Many people responded saying that maybe if I safe-worded, I wouldn’t have been abused. But there’s not always a definite time to safe-word sometimes, because such unexpected and out of the ordinary situations come up. And who really is going to safe-word in a culture where the person who safe-words is called a wimp? … And there’s this attitude that if you are a submissive who safe-words, you’re a difficult submissive.

…neglecting the possibility of rape and abuse is symptomatic of our unwillingness to talk about consent and the reality that it’s not always there.

Many of her commenters agree:

…abuse within BDSM is a problem …Sadly, if a Top or Dominant is popular, has money, throws a good party/event, etc., that Top/Dominant will be given a pass. Too many people are willing to offer the most ridiculous justifications as to why these individuals should not be banished from our community. – Guest

Continue reading

Good News Clubs and their critics, part 1: Where I and the critics strongly agree.

106456110I was doing something called Service Year for Christ when I first heard of CEF (Child Evangelism Fellowship). The very first thing lecturers from CEF’s 3 months Training Institute told us was to learn Matthew 18:1-14 by heart, and to meditate upon it:

  At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2  He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3  And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4  Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5  And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

6  “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea…

10  “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven…

14…your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

CEF people taught me children matters. Continue reading

Can atheists call God a murderer?

Can you spot the difference?:

a) Gerald has houses which he borrows to Joe Jones, Sally Smith and Martin McDonald. He moves them from those houses to other houses, also provided by him.
b) Joe Jones, Sally Smith and Martin McDonald had legally bought houses. Gerald moves them from those houses, with no thought over where they will go from there.

Now, the second one:

a) God gives life to Joe Jones, Sally Smith and Martin McDonald. He moves them out of this life to another reality, also provided by him.
b) Joe Jones, Sally Smith and Martin McDonald started their life with no God having a hand in it. God moves them out of this life, with no thought over where they will go from there.

Aggressive atheists like to claim that God is a murderer, for those times in the Old Testament when he killed.
But God cannot be a murderer if scenario (a) is true. In order to come to the atheistic conclusion that God is murderous, you need to start with the atheistic assumptions that life did not come from God, and he has no control over any future life.
As such, atheists cannot use a murderous God as a premise, before proving that a human’s life is not from God and God is not in control of the future life.

“Women don’t sleep with nice guys” – how I think that rumour got started

I think the way some men came to that conclusion is like this:

Their Premise 1: “I am a nice guy”

The majority of people on this planet thinks of themself as decent people. Murderers think of themselves that way, and philanthropists do too. People who work at rape crisis centres think of themselves as good people, and rapists do too.

Their Premise 2: “Some guys get more sexual action than me – and they are not as nice as I am”

That may or may not be true. Other possible truths about some of these situations could be:

> The guy who claims to get all the attention could be lying about their success with women, with the unsuccessful guys believing him.

> The “nice guy” with that perception could be less nice than the one who gets the action – but he overvalues himself.

Their Conclusion: Women prefer guys who are not so nice, and hate good guys

Firstly, both premises may or may not be true. But if the premises are both true, it could also lead to other conclusions.

> The not-nice guy who gets the girl could be one who ignored the woman’s “no” – and women are afraid to go to the police, as the message will tend to be that it is hard to prove rape if she actually went on a date with him.

> Some not-nice guys are liars. Women sleep with them because they think these guys are good guys, who do not have a criminal record/ accept responsibility/ want to marry them/ are financially capable of doing their part/ will stop hitting them/ love them/ whatever. In this case, the woman does not want to date a bad guy, but she believes untrue things about this guy’s goodness.

> Women do not hate men they do not sleep with – they often deeply respect and appreciate many men whom they do not sleep with, the same way many men have respect and appreciation for some men they do not sleep with.

> Men who sleep around less are actually more likely to get and stay married – if women really hated them, the opposite would have been true.

My conclusion:

All of the above leads me to a different conclusion about men who complain of being “too nice” to be wanted by women: If a man complains that treating women “nice” is wrong because he don’t get women to use and throw away that way, he is not nice enough at heart. In his heart, he is an exploiter who idolize successful exploiters.

Why I don’t try to be good without Jesus

In a recent internet discussion, someone was blasting “Christianity” and wishing for Christians to deconvert. She mentioned, in her rant, a lot of ugly things “Christianity” does in her view. I answered that I dislike those things too. But Christianity is Christ-ianity, being like Christ and following him. The things she mention is not Christ-ian, as Jesus will never recommend them. (It is, methinks, shocking how un-Christian some church people are.)

She then answered, among other things, that she agrees with me about Jesus. But I could be Christ-like enough by just following the golden rule. If I don’t proclaim the sexist and otherwise ugly things some Christians are (in her opinion) known for, I could as well drop the label Christian and just be good, like Jesus was good.

Here was my answer: Continue reading

Lower your (dating) standards? Only to a certain point

This is a common bit of advice on dating sites:

Lower your standards, you are far from perfect yourself.

This is partly true – None of us could expect a beautiful/ handsome film star with lots of money and 100% devotion who will never cheat on us. If you expect too much, there is a time to lower your standards.

But it seems to be true only superficially. Think of a woman who is not very attractive to men, one whom men will superficially call a “three.” Now, I hate that system of valuing people – a truly attractive woman, a woman with lesser looks, and an aged woman who lost the good looks she had, are all equally valuable as people. But for the sake of argument, I will call this woman a three now. Suppose Miss Three wants a man who can give her conversation on her level, and who is at least capable to do his share in providing. She should not date a man who is a three (less than average) in conversation on her level, or a three in provision (while her capacity to provide for herself is a five).

In such a relationships based on low standards, Mr. Three will feel he accepted an unworthy woman because he is unworthy, and Miss Three will feel the same about her man. Such a relationship, for anyone who is less than perfect, is based on shortcomings. Such a focus tends to break a relationship down, not build it up.

If, on the other hand, Mr. Three and Miss Three instead went out to make a list of their good qualities, and tried to find partners who will appreciate that and have a need for that, they could have done much better. There could be men willing to look at Miss Three’s less-than-plain face and love her kindness and sense of humor, despite her face with the big nose and long jaw. There may even be a man who loves her face because he looks at the gentle eyes and pleasant smile, not the ugly nose and jaw. And that man may have some of the qualities Miss Three would want in a man.

Similarly, there could be women who don’t care about money or intelligent conversation, and mostly enjoy that Mr. Three is a glib and charming talker, whom they could move on from when they get tired of him.

Many people will be better off if they don’t judge themselves by how datable they are to the average member of the opposite sex, but look out for partners who will appreciate the good qualities they do have. It doesn’t matter what the average guy/ gal thinks of you – as long as the one you are with is above average enough to appreciate your special qualities.