Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honest question here, I promise. I do not mean this as a “gotcha” or argumentative in any way. I’m just seeking to learn more.
You stated here that basic human rights are being denied to whole groups of people. I assume you are referring to LGBTQ based on the thread. Re-reading through the comments, it seems like the issue being debated is whether or not this is considered a “sin”. For those with a traditional, biblical belief system, I think the answer is yes. So the basic human right being denied is - whether or not someone thinks someone else is going to heaven (or hell)? I’m genuinely confused. It seems as though the demand here is for people to alter their personal beliefs to assure someone else is “ok”. It seems strange. I consider myself a “sinner”. Whether or not you believe I am going to heaven (or hell) is of no consequence to me.

No offense taken to the question! The basic human rights I’m referring to are marriage, adoption, affirming health care for trans people, etc. These things are under very real attack at both the state and national level right now.

While I think the non-affirming position is incorrect theologically and harmful to the church, I don’t mean to equate that with human rights. The problem is that the lack of separation between church and state allows the former to influence the latter.

Anonymous wrote:Tina's Instagram just became public today. Go check it out. Lots of very happy pics of the beautiful engaged couple, and lots of pictures that show her great rack. She's a hottie! Gavin and Caleb are probably so h*rny over their new stepmom. She is the definition of a MILF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't think we were here to argue about doctrine, gay marriage, etc. What I find incredibly destructive and shallow is the attitude on Jens part that "Oh, I changed my mind on this issue because of deep, intense Biblical study ( and also because my daughter is gay) , and now everyone who still thinks like I did last week is hateful, anti Jesus, ad infinitum....

It's really the new puritanism. And less believable from someone who sells stuff in between snippets of politically correct instruction.

This is why I call Jen the totalitarian social media influencer. Not only are we told what to wear, what to buy, how to vacation, how to cook, how to do ( or undo) marriage, but we are told what we should think and believe. Total conformity. That's where she is dangerous. The Pioneer Woman sells a lifestyle, good recipes, and a darn good restaurant in Oklahoma. There is no litmus test of political or religious belief to get in. All are welcome.

This is not true, though. She didn’t have a scorched earth mentality about people who were not yet affirming. The text of her Facebook post can be found here: https://nerdywordybirdy.blog/2016/11/11/discussion-lifeways-decision-to-pull-jen-hatmakers-products/ and the most she does is encourage people to think about the real-life LGBTQ+ people who will read their comments and responses. She’s quite gracious. I can’t find it at the moment, but she also explicitly said “To those still wrestling with issue, I affirm your good will.”

Of course she became angrier at injustice between 2016 and now. That’s the case for a lot of us who feel like our faith communities abandoned the teachings and example of Jesus for political expediency.

As for “all being welcome,” check out the paradox of tolerance. The position of denying basic human rights to whole groups of people literally can’t be tolerated if one’s goal is equality and dignity. It’s okay to be intolerant of intolerance. Where people are honestly learning and growing about an issue, it should be done with love and some sense of patience, yes. But not complacency to injustice.

Honest question here, I promise. I do not mean this as a “gotcha” or argumentative in any way. I’m just seeking to learn more.
You stated here that basic human rights are being denied to whole groups of people. I assume you are referring to LGBTQ based on the thread. Re-reading through the comments, it seems like the issue being debated is whether or not this is considered a “sin”. For those with a traditional, biblical belief system, I think the answer is yes. So the basic human right being denied is - whether or not someone thinks someone else is going to heaven (or hell)? I’m genuinely confused. It seems as though the demand here is for people to alter their personal beliefs to assure someone else is “ok”. It seems strange. I consider myself a “sinner”. Whether or not you believe I am going to heaven (or hell) is of no consequence to me.

And like Glennon, her selection of a partner is “signaling” and a clear, woke, evolved social statement/choice. We’re all supposed to be humbled or enlightened or better, casually and quietly observant of their coupling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To shift the subject away from the religious talk…

How often do Jen and Tyler see each either? Is it more frequently than she posts? If not, it seems that it’s only once a month or less. Part of me finds their relationship believable—they are both a catch in their own ways—but the distance, infrequent visits, and the over-the-top profession of forever love have me scratching my head. The gushing on about it and going on podcasts to discuss their relationship give a thou-doth-protest-too-much vibe. If it were all a stunt or set up, she wouldn’t be professing that he’s her forever love though, right? That doesn’t leave the door open for parting as friends or whatever is next. None of it adds up.

And like Glennon, her selection of a partner is “signaling” and a clear, woke, evolved social statement/choice. We’re all supposed to be humbled or enlightened or better, casually and quietly observant of their coupling.

Glennon and Abby have an obvious chemistry though, right? That’s missing with Jen and Tyler, at least on SM. Maybe she doesn’t actually share everything. That would be refreshing, but it seems unlikely considering all that she shares.

Anonymous wrote:

Honest question here, I promise. I do not mean this as a “gotcha” or argumentative in any way. I’m just seeking to learn more.
You stated here that basic human rights are being denied to whole groups of people. I assume you are referring to LGBTQ based on the thread. Re-reading through the comments, it seems like the issue being debated is whether or not this is considered a “sin”. For those with a traditional, biblical belief system, I think the answer is yes. So the basic human right being denied is - whether or not someone thinks someone else is going to heaven (or hell)? I’m genuinely confused. It seems as though the demand here is for people to alter their personal beliefs to assure someone else is “ok”. It seems strange. I consider myself a “sinner”. Whether or not you believe I am going to heaven (or hell) is of no consequence to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't think we were here to argue about doctrine, gay marriage, etc. What I find incredibly destructive and shallow is the attitude on Jens part that "Oh, I changed my mind on this issue because of deep, intense Biblical study ( and also because my daughter is gay) , and now everyone who still thinks like I did last week is hateful, anti Jesus, ad infinitum....

It's really the new puritanism. And less believable from someone who sells stuff in between snippets of politically correct instruction.

This is why I call Jen the totalitarian social media influencer. Not only are we told what to wear, what to buy, how to vacation, how to cook, how to do ( or undo) marriage, but we are told what we should think and believe. Total conformity. That's where she is dangerous. The Pioneer Woman sells a lifestyle, good recipes, and a darn good restaurant in Oklahoma. There is no litmus test of political or religious belief to get in. All are welcome.

This is not true, though. She didn’t have a scorched earth mentality about people who were not yet affirming. The text of her Facebook post can be found here: https://nerdywordybirdy.blog/2016/11/11/discussion-lifeways-decision-to-pull-jen-hatmakers-products/ and the most she does is encourage people to think about the real-life LGBTQ+ people who will read their comments and responses. She’s quite gracious. I can’t find it at the moment, but she also explicitly said “To those still wrestling with issue, I affirm your good will.”

Of course she became angrier at injustice between 2016 and now. That’s the case for a lot of us who feel like our faith communities abandoned the teachings and example of Jesus for political expediency.

As for “all being welcome,” check out the paradox of tolerance. The position of denying basic human rights to whole groups of people literally can’t be tolerated if one’s goal is equality and dignity. It’s okay to be intolerant of intolerance. Where people are honestly learning and growing about an issue, it should be done with love and some sense of patience, yes. But not complacency to injustice.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't think we were here to argue about doctrine, gay marriage, etc. What I find incredibly destructive and shallow is the attitude on Jens part that "Oh, I changed my mind on this issue because of deep, intense Biblical study ( and also because my daughter is gay) , and now everyone who still thinks like I did last week is hateful, anti Jesus, ad infinitum....

It's really the new puritanism. And less believable from someone who sells stuff in between snippets of politically correct instruction.

This is why I call Jen the totalitarian social media influencer. Not only are we told what to wear, what to buy, how to vacation, how to cook, how to do ( or undo) marriage, but we are told what we should think and believe. Total conformity. That's where she is dangerous. The Pioneer Woman sells a lifestyle, good recipes, and a darn good restaurant in Oklahoma. There is no litmus test of political or religious belief to get in. All are welcome.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't think we were here to argue about doctrine, gay marriage, etc. What I find incredibly destructive and shallow is the attitude on Jens part that "Oh, I changed my mind on this issue because of deep, intense Biblical study ( and also because my daughter is gay) , and now everyone who still thinks like I did last week is hateful, anti Jesus, ad infinitum....

It's really the new puritanism. And less believable from someone who sells stuff in between snippets of politically correct instruction.

This is why I call Jen the totalitarian social media influencer. Not only are we told what to wear, what to buy, how to vacation, how to cook, how to do ( or undo) marriage, but we are told what we should think and believe. Total conformity. That's where she is dangerous. The Pioneer Woman sells a lifestyle, good recipes, and a darn good restaurant in Oklahoma. There is no litmus test of political or religious belief to get in. All are welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To shift the subject away from the religious talk…

How often do Jen and Tyler see each either? Is it more frequently than she posts? If not, it seems that it’s only once a month or less. Part of me finds their relationship believable—they are both a catch in their own ways—but the distance, infrequent visits, and the over-the-top profession of forever love have me scratching my head. The gushing on about it and going on podcasts to discuss their relationship give a thou-doth-protest-too-much vibe. If it were all a stunt or set up, she wouldn’t be professing that he’s her forever love though, right? That doesn’t leave the door open for parting as friends or whatever is next. None of it adds up.

And like Glennon, her selection of a partner is “signaling” and a clear, woke, evolved social statement/choice. We’re all supposed to be humbled or enlightened or better, casually and quietly observant of their coupling.

Anonymous wrote:To shift the subject away from the religious talk…

How often do Jen and Tyler see each either? Is it more frequently than she posts? If not, it seems that it’s only once a month or less. Part of me finds their relationship believable—they are both a catch in their own ways—but the distance, infrequent visits, and the over-the-top profession of forever love have me scratching my head. The gushing on about it and going on podcasts to discuss their relationship give a thou-doth-protest-too-much vibe. If it were all a stunt or set up, she wouldn’t be professing that he’s her forever love though, right? That doesn’t leave the door open for parting as friends or whatever is next. None of it adds up.