Acton Bowen Update: What Part of "One Man, One Woman, FOR LIFE" Didn't Mrs. Bowen Understand?


Good grief. If you want to be a pederast, find a church and rape the children of the conjugation. They will pray for you and say you are a good guy even after you have committed the most atrocious acts imaginable against their progeny. And they will even try to defend your reputation afterwards.

"We requested that he never be alone with any female other than his wife. And we requested that he never be alone with a male minor... under 16 years old,''

Srsly, Evilungelical ChrISIStians are so dumb fucked in the head--'scuse me for throwing out a technical psychiatric term there--that they can't be left in the same room with women and children and think that a weapon of mass murder is an appropriate gift. They're clearly a danger to themselves and others.

Lock. Them. Up.

Especially #NotMyVicePresident Dense.

I wonder who VP Pence's accountability buddy is.
No doubt Yahweh will forgive him of these minor earthly transgressions and he'll still be on the VIP list for The Heaven Club, because of all the Good Works (tm) he's performed as his deity's vessel on the mortal plane, so it's Saul Goodman...
@3 seatackled Gold star comment!

Seriously, though, if people knew he couldn't be trusted around minor boys, they're morally culpable for his crimes as far as I'm concerned.
@3, @5: “We don’t trust him around our womenfolk or children, but GLORY BE TO JEEBUS we trust him to lead our community.”

You’re right, that’s some amazing “crimestop” they had going there.
dan, I occasionally like commenting on posts like this because I have a wealth of knowledge that would otherwise be going completely to waste. the bible - even jesus himself as quoted below - says that divorce is allowed in cases of marital infidelity or other sexual immorality:

Matt 5:32 "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matt 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
@7 Another example of religious fascism.
@8 And contradictions with the Old Testament, too.
It still amazes me that now—in the 21st century!—anyone falls for *any* religion & its hypocrisies & strange medieval myths, fairy tales & hatreds ...hocus pocus dominocus indeed!
@7: How about quoting some of the truly bizarre & cray cray & hateful passages in your bible? such as..."a woman who comes to marriage & is not a virgin *must. be. stoned. to. death." You can't make this stuff up. Enough with this ridiculous ancient book pasted together from crusty myths by patriarchs who wanted to control the masses.

Thank you! :)
@7 That's not the way Mark tells the story:

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
@11 "You can't make this stuff up."

And yet, somebody did.
@13 Granted, I only skimmed your comment, but at least it made me think of this:


"Lights, please."
He's got a real purty mouth.

He'd make a nice bunk muffin, but i hear they don't take kindly to short eyes in stir.
Can we please just split the US into South and North so we don't have to pay any attention to these Southern cretins?
And did anybody notice that Pastor Joey Jones never mentioned or prayed for Bowen's victim(s)? It's like he thought that he was the victim, or his church was the victim, instead of the actual victim being the victim.
@9 it doesn't really contradict the old testament. and certainly not the practice of the OT law at the time of jesus, where he was addressing questions about the common practice of divorce at the time. still, going deeper, modern evangelicals believe the OT law was undone when jesus died and rose from the dead. this is nuanced, of course, but it allows for virtually any concept from the OT to be explained in the light of the NT. that's why tattoos and shellfish as generally considered okay, despite what would seem to be OT prohibitions against them. this is just to say, using the OT against a modern christian will not be a very effective argument in their eyes, despite how frustrating or illogical that may seem to you.

@13 there's no doubt arguments can be made on both sides of this story. certainly my experience growing up was that divorce due to adultery was frowned upon, and not as, i don't know, spiritually "good" as forgiveness/saving the marriage. but those passages in matthew clearly put the option on the table for allowing divorce. and that's enough for any evangelical who is a good believer in the principle of sola scriptura. it was the idea that the two becoming one flesh, as seen in mark, was undone by the infidelity. adultery was the one thing that justified divorce. not even physical abuse (though in my experience a victim of domestic abuse would be "allowed" to leave the house, just not divorce). and sure, you can find OT passages that seems to support divorce and others that seem to be against. the questions put to jesus as written in matthew and mark seem to indicate divorce for reasons other than adultery were common at the time the question was asked. the OT, however, doesn't matter much, as modern christians believe the OT law was basically rendered moot upon jesus' resurrection.

another facet of this gem is that it was primarily a benefit to men. in the past (OT, NT, and even recently) a man could divorce a woman and come out relatively unscathed, whereas a woman could not. this recent focus by evangelicals comes at a time when women finally have the social and economic means to leave a marriage due to adultery on the part of their male spouse, and i don't think that is entirely a coincidence.

@11 there is no verse found in the bible that says unequivocally that any woman who comes to marriage who is not a virgin MUST be stoned to death. there's some strange, out-dated, cultural- and era- specific stuff, but what you suggest is not there. for instance, mary, mother of jesus, was certainly found not to be a virgin at marriage, and she was not stoned to death. joseph merely sought to divorce her quietly. this is one of those OT laws i referred to above that is no longer followed after the NT. just in general, this is an unconvincing argument to a believer because the believer doesn't believe this verse still applies. the believer is easily able to say that verse is a product of the time it was written (it was common for a dowry to be paid for a virgin across many cultures, as i'm sure you are aware) and the law that was given appropriate to that time, and appropriate to the purity of god. anyways, this particular verse, which a modern christian really wouldn't give much thought to, describes a specific transaction and what may, but not must, be done. the word "virgin" in this context is a specific to a woman who is already betrothed. in essence, this is a rule similar to adultery (punishable by death) and a rule about contracts and inheritance. here's a reasonable jewish explanation of the passage you refer to as found in the torah:… of course, you will be hard-pressed to find any jewish people or christians who still believe this should apply in our present age, if for different reasons.
It's great that some fucked-up people can find solace and help in the church. Doesn't work for me but whatever.

That said, there'd be a lot less systematic rape and extortion (oops I meant contribution-seeking) if church were more like AA. Everyone comes in knowing they're broken and will stay that way. The goal is lifelong management of our own inherent troubles and supporting others in their own struggle. There is no magic fairy to declare you cured and thus suddenly above suspicion and fit to tell others how to live.
To everyone bashing Christianity, I would like to challenge you to this thought. I am not asking you to change what you believe or trying to convince you of anything, but think about your family. You love them and support them. Now imagine one of those that you love committing a terrible crime. This doesn’t change the fact that you love them, or that you’re family, but you experience deep disappointment and devastation. You do not condone or agree with what they have done. Your heart is broken. Please consider this as you accuse Christians who loved him and supported him. We are all fallible human beings and don’t claim to be perfect. We are disgusted and broken. His actions are completely unacceptable and horrific.

I think the absurdity of this entire manuscript and most comments thereafter, is in the fact that Savage, the author, chose to bash the wife and use that bash as the entire title and focus. Stupidity. The comments thereafter, of course no one knew anything was happening or he wouldn’t have been there in the first place. And please.... when you separate the country , try to keep us away from the north and the west ... all of the horrific crimes I’ve read about in those areas ... can’t even begin name them all! Let’s see... Man keeps that girl in his back yard for how many years, has two children with her... all the time hanging her in distorted positions on the wall to do whatever he wanted with her body .. just to name in in California ... and on right, up north .. hostage situations being discovered up there all the time ! Who the hell are the hipocrits here?!?