Religious people: Did you feel any guilt when you lost your virginity?

[jminnesota]

puberty seems to be comming younger it seems. i hit puberty at 12 and most of my friends did the same and girls would hit around 11 i think. but i notice lot of 8 year olds that have breasts now and its like is it just me or is puberty hitting younger now? so now there is longer time between puberty and when someone normaly gets married. More people seem to marry upper 20s and low 30s now vs getting married at 18 and 19. chances of a 30 year old virgin is rare now a days of course.

 

[Larry Mondello]

puberty seems to be comming younger it seems. i hit puberty at 12 and most of my friends did the same and girls would hit around 11 i think. but i notice lot of 8 year olds that have breasts now and its like is it just me or is puberty hitting younger now? so now there is longer time between puberty and when someone normaly gets married. More people seem to marry upper 20s and low 30s now vs getting married at 18 and 19. chances of a 30 year old virgin is rare now a days of course.

That's prob. true.

My first real adult relationship @26, dated this 30 y.o. virgin woman in 1988.

Now, it's not likely everyone in the church singles group we participated in knew that tidbit about her, and she told me, not when tried to have sex with her, but in some "making out."

Really respected her for holding out that long and hadn't even let a guy massage her breast from outside her shirt, the farthest she ever let a guy go (me).

She literally came to tears when I told her I wasn't a virgin like her.
Didn't say how many or how long ago, just that I wasn't a virgin.

Was shaken and wasn't quick on my feet.

Would've told her I was quite naive about sex, didn't really have much experience, and could count the number of times on one hand.
Would've said I really wish I'd waited if I knew a girl like her would come along... but was something I couldn't change. High school was like a different world.
...and how as a Christian I regretted getting sexual outside of marriage/ engagement, but things can happen to a lonely guy as he gets into his late 20s....

Unfortunately, she let her political views, which were opposite mine, get in the way of a relationship and dumped me after 6 mos.
Funny how pro-choice and everything else she was, but was so intolerant of me and my (limited) sexual experience...

Just wanted to post there are older virgins out there.

 

[Larry Mondello]

This was in the above post, but wanted to split it out and add some thoughts.

God.. it still smarts... that 30 y.o. virgin's, my NEAR-fiance's judgement...

....there's so much I could've said -- and would say to others when the question came up.

Why couldn't she have forgiven me or understood?
It wasn't like I went out and had sex to deliberately hurt her....

Wasn't "promiscuous" nor "had been around..."
Hardly knew anything about sex and how to please a woman, so I wasn't "experienced."
Her condemnation really hurt.

I was a "Good Guy" after all and didn't press women for sex, and really respected their Christian morality, like I did with her.

Did I press you for sex, Tammy? NOPE.
Did I press other women? Nope.

Like those women I posted on earlier, the ones who offered themselves to me in my late 20s, but I said no. Didn't feel it would be right.

I hope God took note of my actions.
You think "Christian" women would value that kind of man.

Oh... that's right. The so-called "Christian" women ignored me in my early 20s and was like I didn't exist while they only had eyes for the "Bad Guys" and gave-up their virginities to them.......:o

 

[Shane Roach]

It seemed a lot more personal originally. All of the below sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Possibly because originally it had my name on it, which put a punctuation mark on the situation for me personally.

But I mean, yeah.... so if you get that there is likely to be a little more or less institutionalized bias to Christian views on a Christian site, it's then a matter of sweetening your own presentation.

I don't go to Atheist sites to proselytize. I know I'm not up for it. I know some Christians do. I suspect some of them who think they are up for it probably aren't but there's a funny thing about that in one of the links I just posted.

In many South African NGOs, I saw played out the paradox that faith is the basic thing that brings social justice. Activists who relied on their human capacities were ground into the dust. Activists who believed that God was in charge were unstoppable. If they got things wrong, they just tried another way, because they saw themselves as weak sinners with a very partial vision; it was okay, and in fact comforting, to admit they were wrong. If their practical goals turned out to be destructive or impossible, they could cheerfully let them go–to love God was their mission, which no one could take away from them.

Read more: Sarah Ruden, a joyful iconoclast - Rod Dreher
​

In other words, no matter how incompetent we are as Christians, there is, I suppose, something to be said for giving it the old college try.

Nevertheless, I think you might be able to tell why I would feel very foreign in any Atheistic community. And despite the constant reminders that atheism is not a religion (neither is theism), there is obviously a collection of beliefs and values that atheists share, I think whether they realize it or not mostly drawn from the common anti-clericalism spawned largely of the incestuous church/state relationships that instigated much of the pre-modern/early modern world's political and philosophical change.

I just feel most are mired in philosophies that are 150 years behind, and in no small part precisely because they refuse to allow themselves the luxury of organizing and becoming, legitimately, a "religion". Indeed, sadly I think many see political advantage in not being a religion to the point that they cede the advantages of organization in favor of the perceived advantage of having an inside track on changing the state from within.

So to sort of synthesize all that into one coherent thought, what I am saying is there -is- a broad, definable atheistic set of values, and whether it is a religion or not, these values should not be given an inside track in any discussion, but in general they seem to be given precisely that, and I do not feel even a small tug at the conscience to go into their own little meeting places and stir that up. Yet they do seem to proselytize Christian sites quite vociferously and regularly, and I find that off putting in much the way I find street corner preachers a little off putting.

I don't know why atheists would come here and feel their view of which way the moderation is skewed should be taken with anything other than something of a grain of salt. I definitely see it the exact opposite. We -can't- accommodate conservative Christians on the open boards anymore. There simply are barely any left here. That's decidedly NOT because the moderation is too one sided in its treatment of atheists that it is driving them off in droves. Quite the opposite. They have even resorted to policies of banning entire subjects in order to make the place friendlier for the extreme hard liners on the left - both atheistic and church going.
​

Genuine thanks for the consideration, but I did not see it as such. I do however see it as an inadequate response to my point.

Just because this forum is "your turf", so to speak - that's not an excuse for inconsistency in argument and in how you treat one group compared to another. I do pick up Christians for it here - I try and pick people in general up on it wherever possible. I do it to atheists on other boards that are predominantly atheist. It's something I try to be consistent on, and it's frustrating when people can't be bothered to do the same. Yes, it happens in a place full of like-minded people. That's still not an excuse to let it continue.

I know I wouldn't find similar opinion here - but I'm not looking for agreement. What I'm looking for at the minimum is consistency.

I don't really know what to say to this. I'm somewhat sympathetic, and yet I'm not. There are I don't know how many boards here, most of which are off-limits to us. And from what I've seen, we stick to those boundaries. Even on boards with a mixed regular population, if the Christians want to have a "holy huddle" and swap favourite songs etc, I've rarely seen a non-Christian go in there to stir things up.

But if someone's on an open board like this one, making claims, then those claims are fair game. If you open a board up to us, I'm not about to hold back just because the venue isn't "my turf". (And frankly, I much prefer this board than whichever one it is where the nonChristian:Christian ratio in every topic is fixed at 1:bloodyloads). If you want atheists to participate, and where they're are at is a particular level of iconoclasm, then to some degree that's going to show up in the discussion. If that becomes too much - I don't think you're short of safe spaces on this forum, frankly. What fellowship is to be found in a board discussing ethics and morality? Or why can a dilemma not be brought to the fellowship boards?

I see that it's going to happen, but I don't necessarily think it means outright bias. It may simply be a consequence of the board's population dynamics and the fact that atheists are significantly outnumbered by Christians, so the minority's posts may end up reported more than the other as there are more people on the other side liable to get rubbed the wrong way and report. If the mods are only able to effectively respond to the posts that get reported - quite likely on a large board - then they are probably going to be coming down more on posts by the minority opposition.

I've seen this happen before on boards with predominantly atheist/left posters and a minority of religious/right posters - and predominantly atheist/left mods. There is a bit of bias in the moderating, but it's not intentional or malicious.

I expect some bias in how specific rules are formulated, e.g. some boards are totally out of bounds for non-Christians, blasphemy is against the rules (although I happen to think blasphemy is rather too slippery a term in general, but anyway) - but when a non-Christian does the same thing in discussion as a Christian and the non-Christian gets slammed by someone for it, I get annoyed.

This is all rather tangential, as it happens - the issue I have is not with the mods, who I've no complaints about and have had very little contact with during my albeit brief spell here. The issue I have is about personal consistency on the part of some posters. Inconsistency is a great weakness, as far as I'm concerned - I do try my utmost to root out my own, and I do wish some others would at least make a similar effort.

 

[Shane Roach]

Episcoboi,

I think one of the reasons premarital sex is so common among young people is because our social evolution is out of sync with the onset of puberty. For much of human history, a young woman was married as soon as she was able to have children.

Today, we encourage our children to wait, until after college to get married. So you have about 15 years between puberty and marriage. That's an uphill battle that pits hormones against abstinence.

I'm glad to see more and more people coming to this conclusion. To me it is an example that one cannot separate other social justice issues from sex. Not being able to afford to get married and raise children is, in fact, the single most important motive towards sexual corner-cutting.

The rest of this is directed at no one in particular, just my thoughts on the subject.

It is insipid to expect people to go a decade or more after the onset of puberty without sex while we tell them they are not yet prepared to be paid a living wage to work. It's not our educational system. It's our work system.

Believe it or not, a great many people find it much, much harder to learn in a classroom setting. There are studies to this effect.

Hands-On Learning vs. Lecturing - Digital Education - Education Week

The first thing that struck me about this is that a bunch of 8th graders CAN INDEED build a water purification system, which says a little something about just how dumb it is that we pretend that people cannot learn on the job. If they can learn to build a water purification system, what exactly is the problem with them doing it for money? Of being a part of a team that does this for money?

The second, more obvious and perhaps less controversial thing that strikes me about this is the fact that people just flat out learn better through hands on experience. This is not new information. Why is it not more integrated into our curriculum? It seems we are actually going in the exact opposite direction from this.

We're always being told we are "progressing". I don't call being held in poverty and servitude till your mid-20's "progress". That's bound to be part of the equation regarding sexual expectations.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think part of what you are experiencing is the difference between what we see on TV and what most people actually experience. Your experiences are way closer to mine than the casual, supposedly "adult" experiences seen on t.v. The people on t.v. don't even ask the hard questions, let alone deal with all the emotional fallout from trying to do "good" and never getting any recognition for it.

Bottom line is, most women do not sleep around. It is not easy to just go out and have sex WITH A SPECIFIC WOMAN. Rather, men who have a lot of sex have it with women who have sex with a lot of different men.

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publi.../HSE2010_REPORT/HSE2010_Ch6_Sexual_health.pdf

"Men reported a mean of 9.3 female sexual partners in their life so far, while women reported a mean of 4.7 male sexual partners."

Numbers vary from study to study, but the trend is pretty clear.

"A new nationwide survey, using high-tech methods to solicit candid answers on sexual activity and illegal drug use, finds that 29 percent of American men report having 15 or more female sexual partners in a lifetime, while only 9 percent of women report having sex with 15 or more men."

Supposedly this is from National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Average man sleeps with 7 women - Health - Sexual health | NBC News

Bottom line, some ladies somewhere are making up the difference for the general reticence of most women to sleep around, but even taking that into account, most people do not have a lot of partners in their life, and it is a well established trend in sociology, anthropology, etc, that human beings over time tend to pair bond. The more shared children, the more stable the pair bond, among some few other broad considerations.

So the whole discussion is being skewed. In reality, no one even really WANTS all this sexual chaos, but we are constantly fed this line that it's just the way it is, "can't put the genie back in the bottle", etc.

I too, totally fail to see the relevance of comparing having sex with trying on a shoe. I am no one's shoe. Find something more meaningful about me to worry about.

Your average monkey can find a way to have pleasurable sex. Human beings should not make the prospect of not being able to have pleasurable sex with a partner they otherwise cherish into such a big deal.

I never bought the "must drive the car first" argument on dating and sex.

A woman I dated in my mid-20s, a non-virgin but limited experience Pentecostalist, once asked me if I was "one of those guys who wants a test drive."

Nope, told her.
We remained platonic those 3-4 mos. we dated.
Sounded like other guys, "Christian" men, pressured her.

Never gained romantic feelings for her and couldn't see it going anywhere.
When I broke it off, one of the rare times I ever broke a relationship up (usually, "Christian" women were the ones that broke my heart:o), she "offered" herself to me if I'd stay....
Said thanks and appreciate the tempting offer, but....
Though she was an attractive blonde most guys would've been happy with, couldn't see having sex with someone I didn't have feelings for.

Sure, I could've made love with her, but though she'd had some sex with another guy, didn't want to harm her Christian morality.
Wasn't such a "strong" Christian then as I had been in college, but still.... I knew that wouldn't be good and after 2 casuals I'd had the year before her.... didn't want that regret.

Turned-down an offer from another non-virgin never-married Christian woman a year later that I dated for 1.5 yrs.

Though she was in her mid-30s (I was 27), she was conflicted about it so didn't wanna go all the way, which I understood.
And I didn't press her, though I wanted her.
However, didn't mean we didn't do "other things" short of intercourse

, which I now regret.

One night, she told me she wanted me.

But like a fool, and knowing her stance and afraid of what she'd think of me ("some 'Christian' you are... look what you did" -- honestly, I saw us getting married) and afraid she'd had too much wine... I questioned her.
See what a great "gentleman" I was?
Even when "invited", I wouldn't accept.

I hope those women appreciate how I treated them... and hope God saw my actions... and caution about sinning...
Really... I did feel a lot of guilt... but still wanted a woman's sexual love.....

Here I was... a "dating loser" for most my 20s.... and women OFFERED themselves to me...
Am sure many guys wouldn't have hesitated...

 

[Shane Roach]

Regarding the general topic that virginity and love are not directly tied, that is true enough. Virginity is nothing to expect in older age people, and even the loss of virginity does not mean the end of the road for ever finding true love.

But I want to say this about the comparison between two young lovers expecting one another to be virgins, and two older people - divorced, widowed, widower, whatever - falling in love later in life. The comparison to be made here is that if two older people both have a track record of being faithful to a previous spouse, they can demonstrate to each other that they are reliable. This is the same concern that younger people can have about their partner's virginity. And women should start demanding it from their men as vociferously as men demand it of women, instead of both genders pretending it doesn't matter.

When someone cheats, all the philosophical jibber jabber goes out the window, and people get their feelings hurt because of failed expectations. When the pain comes, that's where all the talky talk walks away, and leaves people who took the bad advice holding a basket of rotten, busted up eggs.

Never believe someone who tells you not to worry. Don't let yourselves get PARALYZED with worry, but by golly, WORRY.

You better worry. Worry until you understand. Then you'll find you don't need anyone to tell you not to worry. You just won't, because you'll know.

 

[razeontherock]

The second, more obvious and perhaps less controversial thing that strikes me about this is the fact that people just flat out learn better through hands on experience. This is not new information. Why is it not more integrated into our curriculum? It seems we are actually going in the exact opposite direction from this.

We're always being told we are "progressing". I don't call being held in poverty and servitude till your mid-20's "progress". That's bound to be part of the equation regarding sexual expectations.

This is actually a quite interesting and relevant point, even though it has nothing to do with the thread topic

Fix the US manufacturing base and service industries via OJT, and drastically reduce the supply of those pursuing academic careers which will fix the crazy cost of that. It would address a great many other social ills at the same time, as you alluded to.

 

[Shane Roach]

This is actually a quite interesting and relevant point, even though it has nothing to do with the thread topic

Fix the US manufacturing base and service industries via OJT, and drastically reduce the supply of those pursuing academic careers which will fix the crazy cost of that. It would address a great many other social ills at the same time, as you alluded to.

Well, the tie in is that if people are given the opportunity, historically they are happy to pair up and, on average, stick together. I think we see a lot of trouble with that in modern times because of the extended period of dependency foisted on us by various economic forces. This in turn leads to moral and ethical conflicts that can lead to sex in less than ideal circumstances, and from there to guilt.

You might have needed to be around on the thread for a while to see all that in that last post though. LOL

 

[razeontherock]

No I saw it all. (I don't post w/o first seeing what's going on)

 

[Gadarene]

It seemed a lot more personal originally. All of the below sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Possibly because originally it had my name on it, which put a punctuation mark on the situation for me personally.

My apologies. I personally think your post - while I'd dispute it - certainly deserved to be made. My point was simply that I very rarely if at all object to people stating what they think. But when someone else (poster, not staff) in the thread complains about people being off-topic (someone who has already in this thread come down harder on atheists for making the same sort of argument as a Christian did, said they were dragging the thread off-topic), I saw the lack of a reaction to your post that appeared to be guilty of the same thing as more of the same bias.

But I mean, yeah.... so if you get that there is likely to be a little more or less institutionalized bias to Christian views on a Christian site, it's then a matter of sweetening your own presentation.

No. Not at all. I will not pander to bias anywhere. I accept that it may not be intentional bias, but that isn't a reason to pander to it. Apart from anything else, if people's awareness is raised of their biases, then they can be collectively overcome. Pandering will just ossify it.

In short, I'm doing them a favour by standing up to it.

I don't go to Atheist sites to proselytize. I know I'm not up for it. I know some Christians do. I suspect some of them who think they are up for it probably aren't but there's a funny thing about that in one of the links I just posted.

In other words, no matter how incompetent we are as Christians, there is, I suppose, something to be said for giving it the old college try.​

Well...it depends. That quote very much attributes the "success" of the Christians to having the nous to figure out when they blundered.

In short....a lot of the Christians who do proselytise online don't really portray that ability.

Nevertheless, I think you might be able to tell why I would feel very foreign in any Atheistic community. And despite the constant reminders that atheism is not a religion (neither is theism), there is obviously a collection of beliefs and values that atheists share, I think whether they realize it or not mostly drawn from the common anti-clericalism spawned largely of the incestuous church/state relationships that instigated much of the pre-modern/early modern world's political and philosophical change.

I just feel most are mired in philosophies that are 150 years behind, and in no small part precisely because they refuse to allow themselves the luxury of organizing and becoming, legitimately, a "religion". Indeed, sadly I think many see political advantage in not being a religion to the point that they cede the advantages of organization in favor of the perceived advantage of having an inside track on changing the state from within.

Of course there are commonalities and common histories, but none of them really follow from what atheism actually is, and it isn't much. Your point falls down because I know of plenty of atheists who would feel out of place in many atheist movements.

In addition, by not labelling oneself as some collective body, it actually allows for a greater level of support by appealing beyond that potential label. If atheists want to rally in favour of secularism, then the fact that there is no label to set "us" apart from "them" means it would be easier to draw in religious secularists as well as non-religious ones.

So to sort of synthesize all that into one coherent thought, what I am saying is there -is- a broad, definable atheistic set of values, and whether it is a religion or not, these values should not be given an inside track in any discussion, but in general they seem to be given precisely that, and I do not feel even a small tug at the conscience to go into their own little meeting places and stir that up.

Again, there is nothing about the values that necessarily follows with atheism.

"Skepticism" would be such a small word change, and yet that would make your point a lot more accurate.

You want to challenge the "values", whatever you think they are? Please, go for it. Someone challenged skepticism itself on the Philosophy board some time back. It was a terrible argument, but the attempt was nonetheless made. No-one really minds these things being done.

Yet they do seem to proselytize Christian sites quite vociferously and regularly, and I find that off putting in much the way I find street corner preachers a little off putting.

I don't really know what to say to this. I've never felt that suddenly experiencing opposition is a reason to stop participating in a forum. If anything, I see it as a challenge to rise to. It's usually fun.

I don't know why atheists would come here and feel their view of which way the moderation is skewed should be taken with anything other than something of a grain of salt. I definitely see it the exact opposite. We -can't- accommodate conservative Christians on the open boards anymore. There simply are barely any left here. That's decidedly NOT because the moderation is too one sided in its treatment of atheists that it is driving them off in droves. Quite the opposite. They have even resorted to policies of banning entire subjects in order to make the place friendlier for the extreme hard liners on the left - both atheistic and church going.

​

Erm...again, my problem is NOT with the moderation. I made the point I did about bias as a result of the inconsistent behaviour of an ordinary poster.

And maybe that's why certain topics were banned, but I can tell you a fair few non-Christians with that alignment find the moratorium on discussing homosexuality, for example, incredibly obstructive. And we're definitely not worried about friendliness or lack thereof when defending that.

 

[Shane Roach]

And maybe that's why certain topics were banned, but I can tell you a fair few non-Christians with that alignment find the moratorium on discussing homosexuality, for example, incredibly obstructive. And we're definitely not worried about friendliness or lack thereof when defending that.

I'm fairly certain that is exactly why it got banned. And I think it makes my point.

There has to be some understanding that, on a Christian site at least, you cannot make the point about such topics by simply angrily drowning out the Christian view.

Banning the topic ends up working in your favor. The Christian view is now banned on the easiest-to-find Christian forum on the internet.

 

[Shane Roach]

And your problem WAS the moderation because you were speaking TO a moderator ABOUT me at the time this interchange between us got started, so stating you had no problem with the moderation after the fact strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

 

[Gadarene]

And your problem WAS the moderation because you were speaking TO a moderator ABOUT me at the time this interchange between us got started, so stating you had no problem with the moderation after the fact strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

No, I wasn't talking to a moderator about you. I was talking to a regular poster. Go and check.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, I wasn't talking to a moderator about you. I was talking to a regular poster. Go and check.

You're right. Your post came up right under the moderator's post which confused me.

What difference does it make what a non moderator says? It is the mod coming on and saying get back on topic that counts.....

 

[Gadarene]

You're right. Your post came up right under the moderator's post which confused me.

What difference does it make what a non moderator says? It is the mod coming on and saying get back on topic that counts.....

My point to them was that I am under no compunction to be told 'get back on topic' by a non-moderator - partly because threads drift for one, but for two, I was accused of being off topic after making a very similar point to one of the Christian posters.

I point out inconsistency where I see it. Maybe that's not important to some, but it is to me.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm fairly certain that is exactly why it got banned. And I think it makes my point.

There has to be some understanding that, on a Christian site at least, you cannot make the point about such topics by simply angrily drowning out the Christian view.

Banning the topic ends up working in your favor. The Christian view is now banned on the easiest-to-find Christian forum on the internet.

It hardly 'works in my favour.' I don't wish for opposing views to be drowned out. Even if discussion of such topic was permitted, surely the restriction by faith-icon would still apply, keeping atheists out of the majority of the boards.

At which point, we're back with the same problem. There are umpteen boards for Christians and which indeed are sheltered for Christians, and a handful where we can post - so I'm having a hard time seeing what the issue is.

 

[Shane Roach]

This, ultimately, was where I saw the moderation start. It was specifically about me. One of the atheist posters here likes to take snatches of what I or anyone else Christian for that matter says and try to make it look absurd. He has an especially easy time of it picking on Christians who obviously are not the world's greatest typists and/or grammaticists. (Which is a word, I don't care what the spell checker on CF says...)

You then hopped in with my name as well, which you perhaps did not realize was already in the midst of a moderator involved little tiff from said atheist, but it sure felt like it.

Anyhow... I believe that errors in balance more or less are unavoidable, and on a Christian site they should definitely be in favor of the Christian population of the site when push comes to shove.

I've never in my life heard that God would send people to hell for having pre-marital sex.

The topic of the thread is not a debate against Christianity. The topic was pretty simple. Religious people, did you feel guilt?

Not for others to come in and tell religious people who felt guilt that they are being silly.

 

[Shane Roach]

It hardly 'works in my favour.' I don't wish for opposing views to be drowned out. Even if discussion of such topic was permitted, surely the restriction by faith-icon would still apply, keeping atheists out of the majority of the boards.

At which point, we're back with the same problem. There are umpteen boards for Christians and which indeed are sheltered for Christians, and a handful where we can post - so I'm having a hard time seeing what the issue is.

The issue is without protection of the Christian view on the open board,there are only two possible outcomes otherwise. One is the Christian view getting drowned out by repeated, hateful, often nigh vulgar accusations from the anti-Christian group, or we can ban the topic altogether.

I've been here for these discussions. I even got a warning for very politely demonstrating that one of the atheist posters was misrepresenting studies by going and getting a copy of the study and posting portions of it here on these boards. So he was in no trouble for being dishonest, but I got in trouble for using the word "disingenuous". You know, the one I just used on you that you had no trouble understanding without feeling I needed to be banned from CF.

Either way, the Christian view is buried, which I am sure at least some portion of the atheist community considers as good as a victory. Drowning out objections, whole not good argumentation, is exceedingly effective rhetoric.

 

[Gadarene]

This, ultimately, was where I saw the moderation start. It was specifically about me. One of the atheist posters here likes to take snatches of what I or anyone else Christian for that matter says and try to make it look absurd. He has an especially easy time of it picking on Christians who obviously are not the world's greatest typists and/or grammaticists. (Which is a word, I don't care what the spell checker on CF says...)

You then hopped in with my name as well, which you perhaps did not realize was already in the midst of a moderator involved little tiff from said atheist, but it sure felt like it.

Anyhow... I believe that errors in balance more or less are unavoidable, and on a Christian site they should definitely be in favor of the Christian population of the site when push comes to shove.

Yes, nice inclusion of grammaticist, and I'm trying to lay off the correction of typos etc.

I did miss the context, so apologies for the confusion.

Well, I suppose I accept that some forums do operate with a bias - as long as they're open about it, I don't really care. There are only two forums I've been part of or lurked on that were actually openly and explicitly aware that they were outright biased against one particular side and simply did not want to hear it.

Most of the time though, such bias operates unscrutinised, which is a rather dangerous status quo to maintain, IMO. It's something I can't help but confront, wherever that may be.