Friday, October 27, 2006

Webb's Writings Disturbing!!

The blogs are abuzz with the news about Jim Webb's Weird World. Drudge has the disgusting details...if you really want to read them.

This is a man who would be a U.S. senator from Virginia? I think he needs counseling...and quick!!

Here's a copy of Senator Allen's press release:

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below (go to Drudge site, I don't even want to post them here!! But be will find them to be sickening...) shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land!

Webb's Writings Inappropriate for Radio News Show.

Sister Toldjah asks: What's with the pro-Webb bias of the Washington Post?


Stephen said...

I remind you that the Bible also contains characters that engage in underage sex, incest, murder and say harmful things about women (Paul, for instance). Yet we don't judge the Author.

Simply because someone writes a book which contains characters which do these things does not mean the author desires or approves of these things. Usually, the author sets them up like this on purpose so make an example of them or to prove a point.

I don't know anything about this Webb person, but I would not be so quick to judge him based only on his books.

To do so amounts to a slander. Jesus said nothing that goes into our mouths can make us unclean, but things that come out of our mouths can, don't let your words be slanderous of another person.

In love


Christinewjc said...


The Bible doesn't approve of everything it records. It is an honest book and therefore, records the sinful deeds of beings, including man and the fallen angels.

I disagree that Paul said "harmful things" about women. The passages that you are probably refering to were not a blanket statement that "all women should be silent in the church," but the "babes in Christ" who were not well versed in Scripture should not be preaching. There were many women teachers and preachers in Paul's ministry. I can look up the names if you are interested.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would want to defend this particular man. You came on the Garden Guy website because you disliked what the Farbers said when refusing to do yardwork for two gay men. Yet here, you are willing to dismiss all of the derogatory things that Webb says about women (not to mention the gross incident between a man and young boy). What's up with that?

When it comes to picking political candidates, I think that evaluating what they do (and what they are like) at times other then when they are in the political arena is extremely important. It can make a huge difference in a voter's mind as to whether or not they would choose to vote for the person.

Sometimes, certain types of judgments are necessary. If we go through life never judging anything or anyone, especially on important matters, decisions, and when placing a person in a political leadership/representative position, then we can end up being stuck with the worst candidate(s) for the job. Not taking the time to judge a person for what they are like according to the information at hand can lead to making some very bad decisions!

You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but I don't agree with you that my words were "slanderous." I stated my opinion here:

"The blogs are abuzz with the news about Jim Webb's Weird World. Drudge has the disgusting details...if you really want to read them.

This is a man who would be a U.S. senator from Virginia? I think he needs counseling...and quick!!"

The rest of the post included the words of Senator Allen and whether you agree with him or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. He's entitled to his own opinion.

BTW, slander is generally used in a way that means telling false statements or rumors about a person. I didn't see anything slanderous in Sen. Allen's statements. He made some true comments and, as a result, asked a few pertinent questions.

I think that what people say, do, write about and how they behave can be a window into their souls. Philipians 4:8 instructs us in this area.

Character is so important. Are we not to judge others by their character traits? I don't mean judgment in the form of salvation-wise. Only God can do that. But judgment about what we read, say, do and how we behave is important in this life. Jesus also said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

Stephen said...

Well, like I said, I don't know this man at all and I have no idea what his political leanings are. However, if someone writes a book of fiction, we cannot (should not) conclude anything about their character, except that perhaps they spend way too much time thinking about what horrible people would do.

Wilbur Smith wrote books which contained graphic descriptions of rape, child molestation, beastiality and violence. It got to the point where I stopped reading his books. Not because I dislike Wilbur Smith as a person, but because I disliked the contents of the books and the effect they had on me.

Many of his lead characters were blatantly misogynistic too, then again, for the genre the books were set in, it was "appropriate" even though it was wrong.

Oh wow!

I am extremely overjoyed that you agree with me in Paul's words! I thought you would have taken a very hard-line literalistic view there. By the way you write, I kind of assumed that you even cover your head when you pray as Paul instructed! Maybe I misjudged you.

I am sure you are painfully aware that many people still disagree with you in your interpretation of Paul's words. Please see this link and this link for just some random examples. Many people think he meant it literally as command from God. Many women are still not permitted to speak at all in church, this in Christian Churches and here in the US!

Do you know what they said, when you women were lobbying for the right to speak in church, or even to study the Bible?

They said: "this is the thin edge of the moral wedge, if we let women in, the next thing you know the gays will want to be ordained! We can't let this happen."

True enough: gay liberation follows closely on the heels of women's liberation and for that reason I am always grateful to women like you who have the courage to speak against wrong interpretations of the Bible, even though the very act of speaking up is the act they condemn you for. We have a lot more in common than I thought.

Explaining away Paul's words and the myopic literalist interpretation of them takes a lot of guts and faith, especially in the face of all that anti-women rhetoric. It is exactly the same for gays. In fact, we gays have better arguments against the anti-gay stuff than you have against the anti-women stuff (still recommend you read that book).

In love


Jaded&Opinionated said...

This man's writings may have nothing to do with his own beliefs. Of course, they certainly may mirror them entirely. I have no idea. I don't know anything about him, nor about his opponent.

I don't agree that "most" Americans would find those passaged to be disgusting. If that were true, internet porn wouldn't be the multi-billion dollar industry it has become. I think that most Americans have become desensitized to sex. Sex has become recreational in our society, as opposed to something sacred shared between two committed adults. That's the thing that bothers me. It's not the fact that this man wrote such things, but the fact that it didn't seem that "shocking" when compared to the countless images and discussions you can find on network television.

You'll notice, I'm sure, that I didn't even mention religion until just now. The fact is, we are entitled to free speech in our nation. We are not entitled to be well-received, we're not entitled to be free from repercussions, nor are we entitled to be "not" offended...we're just entitled to say what we want to say. That's how it works, thankfully. But if passages like those you mentioned are offensive to someone, no matter what the reason might be, they have the ability to cast their vote for someone else. If he loses because people are offended, well, so be it. That's the price we pay for speaking freely. Sometimes there are repercussions.

As for Paul, well, I don't adhere to the literal interpretation, which I'm sure you could have guessed. Stephen is right...there are many Christian denominations which view women as "less than" in the eyes of the church. The first one that springs to mind is the Catholic church, by my issues with that particular denomination run far deeper than that. I even recently listened to a re-broadcast of an interview with Jimmy Carter on NPR. In it, he said that he left the Southern Baptist Conference because they have decided to view women in a much more negative light. He said that they have been leaning more toward the "traditional" view that women should be seen and not heard, and that was something he couldn't live with.

I think that God loves us all, equally, without regard to gender.

ebsfwan said...

Well...I don't particularly care for Webb's fiction but it is that: FICTION. If you look at Allen's history:
then you quickly see that his actions and words make him a racist. I guess if I was voting I would select none of the above.

Stephen said...

Indeed, Paul wrote: "there is no slave or free, male and female"

This little phrase has been used to abolish slavery, even though the Bible is very detailed in its instructions for instituting slavery.

It has been used to abolish the oppression of women, even though the oppression of women is not only assumed but commanded by scripture.

Eventually it will be used to free the homosexuals too, even though some homosexual acts were called "unnatural" by Paul.

God may have created us male and female, but in His eyes, there is no male and female. We are all created in His image. Let's act that way.



Christinewjc said...


Don't you think that a person who writes fiction has a choice between writing about good things in life or evil things?

I find Stephen King's novels to be very creepy. I saw one movie made about one of his stories and that was it for me. Similar to what you said about Wilbur Smith. Certainly can't blame you for not reading any of his books anymore!

The stories may be fiction, but shouldn't just the fact that these men think up these evil situations make us wonder about them? I'm not judging them in the salvation sense that the Bible warns us about, but I do have the right to judge them based on what they choose to write about, don't I?

When Jesus said, "do not judge," it wasn't an overall condemnation not to ever judge anyone about anything. If that were true, then there would be chaos in the world. The battle between good vs. evil might just lead to an attitude of indifference to those suffering under the influence of evil.

As I said in the past, we must take the entirety of Scripture into consideration when interpreting what Paul meant when he said that women should be "silent in the church."

Here's a post that I wrote a while back regarding women and teaching.

Christinewjc said...


Well said! I agree that a man's fictional writings may, or may not reflect his own personal views. But just the fact that he wrote so many derogatory accounts against women makes me feel that he might have a grudge of some sort.

You are right about the internet porn explosion. Years ago, a Christian analyst did a search to see how many sites existed for those seeking porn compared to how many sites existed seeking Jesus Christ. In the past, the sites seeking Jesus were way ahead of the porn site. Today, (I have been told) porn has overtaken the Jesus links. IMO, that's an extremely sad statement about the moral condition of people in our culture today.

Christinewjc said...

Hi abfswan,

Welcome to Talkwisdom!

Many people think that Allen is a racist because of a word he had allegedly used in the past. But many of his African-American friends and acquaintances have come out in support of him saying that the man they know isn't a racist.

I don't always trust Wikipedia, because anyone can add opinions/comments to the page. Therefore, it is likely that differing ideological battles can result in some incorrect information about a person.

Stephen said...

Yes, Christine, I do take the whole of scripture into account when looking at the speaking of women in Church.

This is why I approve of women speaking in Church.

I also take the whole of scripture into account when looking at homosexuality.

This is why I approve of homosexuality.

My conclusion from both is that God condemns neither, so neither should we.

However, you are entitled to your beliefs, misguided though they may be, and I should try my best so as not to cause you to stumble, so I will remain silent :)

Christinewjc said...


You are entitled to go right on and believe that what I am sharing from God's word is "misguided." But IMO, I don't think that you can, or should, compare the two subjects (women speaking in the church and the misguided view that God approves of homosexual behavior).

For one thing, homosexual behavior is never mentioned in the Bible as something God approves of. In fact, it is mentioned several times in both the Old and New Testament as something He disapproves of.

In Jesus' prayer to the Father, Jesus said to the Father, "Thy word is truth." Since the New Testament was not yet written, it was both the words that Jesus shared during his three year ministry on earth as well as the Old Testament books, Law, and the Prophets, that Jesus was referring to as "Thy word is truth."

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

That means that God's word in the Leviticus verses (which you label the "clobber" verses) are certainly God's truth as well. God's word doesn't change. It's only people's opinion(s) about them that do.

Isaiah 55 reminds us:

Isa 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Therefore, what we would choose to think about homosexual behavior doesn't really matter. What God says about it in His word is what matters most.

Ubersehen said...

I find Stephen King's novels to be very creepy. I saw one movie made about one of his stories and that was it for me.

To write off a novelist like Stephen King's work simply because it's creepy is to ignore the ultimate message that he is trying to convey. Certainly, he couches much of his work in the horror genre because people enjoy it and he is good at giving them what they enjoy. He does, however, often pit Good versus Evil, as in The Dark Tower series and The Stand. Is the depiction of evil things a bad thing if they are not condoned? Further, Stephen King has also authored a trio of highly acclaimed novels that have been made into equally highly acclaimed films. Specifically, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. None of these stories contain much, if any, element of horror, and all are quite beautiful and moral in their narrative. This is just one example of an author whose work is quite consistently written off as "trash," "too creepy," or "sick."

It is vitally important to thoroughly assess the quality, intentions, and breadth of an author's work before completely disregarding it.

Christinewjc said...

Well, I guess I'm one of the few who does not enjoy horror. I'd rather see a good drama, love story (a.k.a. "chick flick") or comedy. There is enough darkness in the real world these days for me to desire seeing more of it onscreen.

The exception to the rule (at least for me, personally), is a movie that has a redemptive message. Horror and gore for the sake of grossing people out has never been appealing to me.

I'm trying to remember the movie by King that I saw many years ago that was just way too creepy for me. Could it have been "Pet Sematary?" Did he write "Cujo" too? Hated watching that movie, too.

I didn't realize that he wrote the "Shawshank" and "Green Mile" stories. I liked both movies, except I don't like Tim Robbin's political ideology (or his girlfriend Susan Sarandon's either).

Ubersehen said...

If it's merely that horror's a little too dark and spooky for your taste, that's perfectly fine.

Even his darkest or messiest work, however, comes with overall positive messages. Pet Sematary functions more as a cautionary tale than an endorsement of evil, and never in any of his stories is there any ultimate confusion over what is good and what is evil.

Finally, if you're not a fan of the cast of his films, you can always read the source material from which they spring. The novels are every bit as good as the films, without the discomfort of watching cast members whose politics you don't agree with.

Regardless of Tim Robbins' and Susan Sarandon's activism, however, I still feel that they're excellent actors. As I see it, when I watch a particular actor/actress in films or television, I'm supporting their work in film/television, not their political causes. This is how I stomach Jason Dohring, from Veronica Mars, or Giovanni Ribisi, given their regrettable Scientological leanings. Their unfortunate choices of politics/religion, luckily, don't seem to have hindered their acting.

Stephen said...

Christine, as I have said before, I think you need to read more about this homosexuality in the Bible business before making sweeping statements as you do.

I recommended "What the Bible Really says about Homosexuality".

Without reading that, you really can't discuss this sensibly.

Many of us believe that there are homosexual relationships (or, at least, sacred covenant relationships between same-sex partners) that are endorsed by God in the Bible (both old and new testaments).

Also, just as you take liberties with your interpretation of Paul's words to refer to a specific group of women performing specific acts at a specific time (not all Biblical scholars agree with you there), we make the same claims with Paul's words elsewhere. We believe the homosexual behaviour he is talking about (and the homosexual behaviour spoken about in the old testament) is behaviour specifically related to temple prostitution, which amounts to idolatry.

Please read that book.

If you don't feel like it, then I guess this link will have to do. It's woefully out of date and doesn't go into enough depth on Romans, but it's good enough for now.

I hope to write my own "gay apologetics" essay, in much the same style as your "women apologetics" essay. But that will take me a while. :)

In love


Lewis said...

Pssst, in case you didn't know, the bible is a work of fiction. Complete with it's own rape scenes, incest, killing, sacrificing and turning of people into salt.

I could call you a bad person and call you out on your pro-jewish bias since you seem to love the OT so much, but why even bother?

Christinewjc said...


I do not need to read that book. In some form or another (i.e. online, in books, at seminars etc.) I have probably read or heard the pro-gay arguments that liberal theologians have created in order to justify homosexual behavior.

A common example is the misrepresentation of the brotherly love and friendship that David and Jonathan had despite the fact that Saul wanted David killed. What those verses have represented for thousands of years have only recently been twisted into saying something different.

This is just one example of liberal ideologists turning the Word of God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, into their own image rather than humbly submitting, repenting, and reflecting the true image and likeness of Jesus Christ as born again believers.

In another thread, I noticed that you wanted to write a "gay apologetics" essay. Sorry Stephen. There is nothing to support such an idea in Scripture...absolutely nothing! You have been duped into believing a heaping cauldron of lies, instigated long ago by the enemy of our souls and, unfortuately, currently being used by false teachers that have infiltrated some denominations of the Christian churches.

I know that this is very difficult for you to accept and face since you are "happy" in your current beliefs. But realize one extremely important fact. God doesn't call for us to be happy...but to be holy! Jesus reiterates this when he said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Christ's death on the cross saves us from the punishment for our sins. By keeping his commandments, we are showing Him day by day that we love Him! His plea for us to keep the commandments doesn't save us, but He is telling us the importance of sanctification and striving for holiness in our lives!

But one of the most awesome things that I have realized since I dumped those sins that used to keep me in bondage is that I am happier now than I ever was while wallowing in those former sins! I have met countless Christians who have said the same thing. The sinful acts that used to give them pleasure...for a season...are now worthless and repulsive to them. Isn't that amazing how Jesus Christ can change the heart of a person from the inside (Holy Spirit) to the outside (leaving former life of sin).

My friend Stephen B. (the other Stephen who posts on this blog) knows all about this. You would do well to seek his help in your same-sex attraction struggle. I love the verse that he uses often:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Stephen B. is a living example of that verse. Many people are. I pray that you will find it in your heart to seek the truth just as Stephen B. did.

God bless,

It is my hope and prayer that you will study the Scriptures more diligently to seek the truth for yourself. I realize that you will not take my word for it and you probably shouldn't. But seek out the Scriptures, on their own without any gay-behavior affirming propaganda and you will find the truth and the truth will set you free.

We are urged not to be led away from God's honest truth. The book of Jude warns us of this very thing that you are currently believing and following within the gay-behavior-affirming church.

For more on this issue, Al Mohler has a great article at his blog which describes the dangers of veering away from Scriptural truth through theological liberalism.

Christinewjc said...


I guess the fact that most of the 350 prophecies about the Savior in the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Testament is just a coincidence?

According to Simon Greenleaf, evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ are enough to make it pass as a proven fact in any modern court of law. Are you sure you want to just brush that off as "fiction"?

The rest of the prophecies about Jesus will be fulfilled at his second coming. Given Jesus' track record, I'd start thinking differently about Christ, and the Bible if I were you.

Stephen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stephen said...

Ok, I didn't plan on saying anything, but sometimes I get upset. I hope my words don't cause offense.

You have "liberals" such as me to thank for the fact that you personally enjoy the freedoms you currently enjoy. Liberal-minded people who have a love of equality and a great deal of compassion for all other people.

Not too long ago, verses such as these were being used against the ordaining of women, before that it was mixed marriages, before that slavery.

Make no mistake, I am not deluded as to the true nature of Jesus. Jesus is the Truth and that Truth alone shall set you free.

ebsfwan said...

According to the logic that you are what you write then God is a pedophile. Didn't God write the Bible through a variety of holy men?
The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and worse.

Twisted logic goes both ways I guess.

Christinewjc said...


I said this in my first comment here, but in case you missed it, I will repost:

It helps to remember that the Bible doesn't approve of all that it records. It is an honest book that records the rebellion against God, and the sins, evil, and death of fallen human and fallen angelic beings.

ebsfwan said...

Well then how about you apply the same standard to other authors?

You can't have it both ways.

Stephen said...

Ok, Christine, I calmed down and had a good read of the articles you linked me to.

I was especially fascinated with this one.

Christine, how do you explain this? Grudem very explicitly says that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is binding to you and that you, as a woman, should not speak in church.

In fact, Grudem links allowing women to speak in the church directly with allowing hoosexuality. How do you explain that?

How can you link me to that article to read when it completely deconstructs your reasoning about women in the church?

ebsfwan said...


Al Mohler has a great article at his blog which describes the dangers of veering away from Scriptural truth through theological liberalism.

He specifically addresses the issue of women and says we should be following what the Bible says about them.