Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [14]

Is Christianity Misogynistic?

I continue once again examining the arguments of blues guitar playing, anti-Christian, Chaz Bufe, written in his self-published work, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

In his 16th point, Chaz claims Christianity is misogynistic. “Misogynistic” is a fancy word meaning “woman hater.” This particular entry is a bit long, so I refer the reader here to read it in its entirety.

Chaz writes in his opening sentence, “Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity.” Really? Woman hating is the one thing that permeates all the writings of Christianity?  I always get a laugh from the person who hates my faith and insists he or she would have nothing to do with such nonsense, but then pretends to be enough of an expert to educate me on what I’m supposed to believe.

Any person who genuinely thinks misogyny is fundamental to Christianity is either,

a) cherry-picking selective citations from the Bible without any thought of context within a Christian worldview or,

b) has a limited view of world history and,

c) certainly has not traveled anywhere beyond the immediate borders of his or her hometown, let alone anywhere in the world.

I would venture a wild guess and say all of those apply to Chaz, at least the first two.

In order to “prove” his thesis, Chaz moves on to quote, out-of-context of course, Paul’s words to wives in Ephesians 5, a few OT passages that speak to the “uncleanness” of women, and then lists other similar passages from the Bible like 1 Timothy 2:11,12, and 1 Corinthians 11:3. Chaz insists those passages and other like them are responsible for the oppression of women throughout the history of the world down to our current day where women are not allowed to pastor churches. He also presents some citations from the sermons of church fathers like Tertullian, who allegedly railed against the disobedience of Eve in the garden of Eden. Those sermons, insists Chaz, are  filled with venomous misogyny.

One amusing part of Chaz’s point is how he buys into the inflated number of “millions” of witches burned during the Inquisition and the myth about the English common law allowing husbands to beat their wives.

First, regarding the witch burnings. Chaz leveled those bogus charges under a previous point in which he accused Christianity of cruelty. As I noted when I answered him then, the number of young women burned at the stake is highly exaggerated, more like in the tens of thousands rather than millions, and that is over a course of 300 plus years. Additionally, it was the so-called “superstitious” church who put a stop to much of the witch burning, not “intellectual” anarchist atheists, as Chaz would have us believe.

Moving to the charge about English law allowing husbands to beat their wives is also another urban legend created by feminist. Sort of like the claim more women are abused on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day. Christiana Hoff Sommers has done a fine job of debunking the “rule of thumb” myth in her book Who Stole Feminism?, and showing how it is the invention of fevered feministic anti-traditionalism. Read the section here.

Certainly there have been individual cases in history past where judges favored an abusive husband over his wife, but the true “rule of thumb” among law courts both in England and America was to punish abusive husbands who battered their wives. That protection of women is a product of Christianity elevating the place of women in God’s kingdom, and it has been Christians who have advocated against domestic violence toward women.

But the chuckle inducing part of Chaz’s point is his conclusion listing a group of women instrumental in the establishment of feminist ideology. Two are worth noting.

First is Mary Wollstonecraft who was an 18th century atheistic feminist. She is lauded as a pioneering intellectual of feminism who advocated for educational opportunities for women and other equal rights in her writings. As enlightened as she supposedly was, however, her choice of men for her relationships displays the mentality of a Hollywood bimbo. She had affairs with two notorious misogynists, one with artist Henry Fuseli, an emotionally troubled painter who had severe hang-ups and hatred toward women, and Gilbert Imlay who got her pregnant and then left her for another affair with an actress. Her daughter, Mary, who wrote the Frankenstein novel, didn’t fair too well with men either. She married the womanizing Percy Shelley who left his pregnant wife to marry her and who eventually left her as well. Those may be women liberated from the “tyranny” of traditional Christianity, but they only trade it for the piggish behavior of narcissistic, chauvinists atheists.

Then Chaz lists Margaret Sanger. He even quotes favorably one her key slogans of life, “no God, no master,” and says it is still relevant today. That is a frightening thought, because Sanger was a pro-eugenics racist who promoted birth-control for the purposes of maintaining a fit nation free of unevolved ethnic groups who would hold our society back. Chaz may want to read his previous point where he accused Christianity of racism, but I digress.

At any rate, Sanger created the American Birth Control League, what was to become Planned Parenthood, for the purposes of creating her vision of a fit nation freed from undesirables. Her group specifically targeted low-income ethnic and minority neighborhoods because the people there were considered more feeble-minded than the rest of our society.

In reality, it is Chaz’s view of liberated women that is a disgusting form of selfish sexism. That is typical of anti-Christian intellectuals through out history. Chaz is for sure a supporter of Darwinianism, but Charles Darwin himself was a sexist. Writing in his second major book of biological evolution, Descent of Man, he presented women as being less evolved than men and the reason why they need to stay home under their protection. Many of his immediate supporters also held to the notion that men were more evolved than women.

hatThat attitude continues even to this day. Over the last few years, ideological and personal fissures have formed among atheist/skeptical groups because of the latent sexism existing among them. The alleged sexism is particularly on public display at their various, yearly conventions. On the one hand are humorless, man-hating femi-Nazi types who break out into sobbing fits or faux outrage when a Comic Con nerd atheist works up the liquid courage to ask one of them to have cocktails with him after a session to discuss continuity inconsistencies within the Dragon Riders of Pern series.

On the other, there have been serious allegations raised of sexual assault by well-known, celebrity atheists, and those crimes being ignored or covered up by the old white-male atheist club. See also HERE HERE and HERE.

In all honesty, Chaz’s concern for the rights of women in Christianity is phony. Sure Chaz decries the mistreatment of women by the hands of Christian officials over the centuries, pointing out how they have been oppressed and are not allowed to participate in church leadership and are basically told by the Bible to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. But it is all a ruse to cover up his true motive which is to have free, limitless sex with any girl of any age with impunity.

You see, biblical theology, as taught throughout the entire length of Scripture, has a profound respect for women. That profound respect is demonstrated in the fact the scriptural ethics do not allow men to use women as sexual chattel. Are there examples of men abusing women in the Bible? Sure. Is that an operating moral principle taught in the Bible for a Christian worldview? No.

One truly important illustration of genuine love and respect for women means a man does not use women solely for his own sexual gratification. A biblical morality teaches men are to take responsibility for the women they involve themselves with sexually including committing to them in marriage first, and taking care of the children who will be the product of that sexual marriage.

Chaz, on the other hand, promotes a playboy mentality under the guise of helping to liberate women that doesn’t want the hassle of the responsibility stuff. Thus, in his mind, women “set free” from the stifling life as a Christian and cut loose from the shackles of traditional Christian morality, can assuage his guilt for using them, because they don’t have those annoying, sexual mores in tow.

57 thoughts on “Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [14]

  1. Fred…

    it is all a ruse to cover up his true motive which is to have free, limitless sex with any girl of any age with impunity.

    ? I’m sorry, I didn’t see any of these allegations in Chaz’s words on this topic. Is this something you know from beyond the page you’re citing?

    I wonder why you bring up this attack (perhaps justified, I don’t know Chaz in the least and am not defending him, necessarily) on Chaz’s supposed attitudes about women? Do you think that Chaz’s attitudes towards women is pertinent to his points being made? Perhaps a case could be made.

    Given that you have chosen – in an effort for Full Disclosure – to point out Chaz’s alleged opinions about women outside the context of this topic of women’s liberty and the church’s alleged ill-treatment of women, I think this is a reasonable time and place for you to provide Full Disclosure, Fred: You have offered statements that sound as if you don’t think women ought to be able to be self-determining when it comes to marriage (and perhaps other areas?). Would you please answer this question now?

    After all, if you think it is fair game to go after Chaz’s alleged womanizing, then it is also similarly fair game to clarify if you don’t believe in self-determination and personal liberty for women.

    Fred?

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  2. This will be the one time I will answer you. If you don’t like the answer, I am not going to get into an infinite regress loop of having to supply my answer to the exact same question over and over again for 75 comments.

    The key point to take away is that Chaz, and by extension atheist critics of alleged religious misogyny, is that atheists are hypocritical when they accuse Christians of mistreating women. They do it all the time. In fact, as history shows, women outside of the Judeo-Christian, biblical ethic, are wildly mistreated across the board in pagan societies. You need to read the rest of Chaz’s comments and papers (which I have had the misfortune of doing) to take away how he values free, irresponsible sex, hence the reason I feel comfortable going after his womanizing.

    Not sure where you are getting this idea that I don’t think women can be self-determining. I am guessing you think because I defended the marriages of women of pagan cultures to Israelite men, that I deny women their liberty, whatever that means.

    If you want me to say I agree with arranged marriage, well, I don’t; but arranged marriages are not sinful or against a biblical ethic. Only Western society, with the false notion of libertarian autonomy, believes a man or a woman has his or her will violated if his or her parents arrange the marriage. It’s not what I prefer, and would never subject my kids to it, but it isn’t a violation of biblical ethics or morality if that is what you are trying to prove.

    Of course, the root of your objection is again the false notion of libertarian freewill. There is no such thing.

  3. Fred…

    Only Western society, with the false notion of libertarian autonomy, believes a man or a woman has his or her will violated if his or her parents arrange the marriage. It’s not what I prefer, and would never subject my kids to it, but it isn’t a violation of biblical ethics or morality if that is what you are trying to prove.

    Thank you, Fred, for finally providing an answer, such as it is. Why would you have fought so hard at answering this simple question?

    Now, as to your answer, IF a person does not get to be self-determining when it comes to making a choice so very vital and personal as who they will marry, then I don’t see how you can think that isn’t a violation of free will?

    Do they, in fact, have the free will to say No to arranged marriages? In some contexts, yes, they do. There could be an arranged marriage and the adult-child says “No, thank you” and can freely choose to walk away from that marriage, in those circumstances, yes, they do have free will. And that is a very good moral thing.

    Do you disagree?

    But in some contexts, when the marriage is arranged and there is no option for saying no, then that is by very definition a violation of that person’s free will. How could it not be?

    And I would disagree with you extremely strongly on two points:

    1. This IS a moral atrocity, to take away someone’s liberty on so very key a point. You can’t say, “Oh, they’re ONLY losing the ability to choose their life partner, no big deal…” It IS a big deal. Additionally, because “giving women away” and arranged marriages are typically something that have been foisted upon women, not men, it is a civil rights issue for women. Feel free to disagree, but you are on the wrong side of morality and human liberty, if you do (in my opinion).

    And it is a moral atrocity not strictly for religious groups, but for all groups anywhere this has been practiced throughout history. It’s not limited to Christians, at all, or the religious. Arranged – what I would call forced – marriage has been accepted in many places throughout history, religious and non-religious alike.

    2. The way you you conflate “biblical ethics” with morality is part of what I think Chaz is pointing to and part of the problem with some Christian ethics. Things are not moral or immoral because we find a line in the Bible that says “this is bad” or “that is good…” Things are moral when they promote the good, liberty, justice, truth, health, right living. Things are immoral when they destroy, cause harm, oppress, deny liberty or justice, spread falsehood, take away from right living.

    It is morally simplistic, it seems to me, to say, “We can know that forced marriages (or slavery, or polygamy, or killing children…) are not immoral in and of themselves because they are not condemned in the Bible.” Morally simplistic and ultimately, wrong, not to mention unbiblical and irrational.

    So, thank you for answering this question at last, but I can not disagree strongly enough with the immorality you appear to be defending in your approach to reading the Bible and morality. This sort of approach to “morality” is where Chaz has it right, it seems to me, even if he is not consistent in his morality or rationality, and this approach is part of what drives people from God and churches… Even if they don’t have morality perfectly down themselves, they recognize the harmful immorality of that “cuz the Bible says” approach to morality.

    I would be interested in hearing what you mean, specifically, by “libertarian autonomy” and why you appear to think that personal liberty to be self-determining is a bad thing, although this may not be the post to discuss it…

    Respectfully disagreeing,

    Dan

  4. Dan, what are you talking about “thanks for answering this question at last?” I answered you in the comments under the previous discussion we had. Did you miss it? Good grief. I said pretty much the same thing.

  5. No, Fred. As a point of fact, you have never answered this question. But, again (as I noted before), if you can produce the quote where you answered the question, then I will gladly apologize and correct myself. As it stands, I have read and re-read your comments and you never said anything of this nature. Never happened.

    I’m sure it’s an honest mistake on your part, Fred. Mistakes happen. I’m sure you may have thought you answered it, but anyone can go back and re-read your posts and see you never did.

    How about it, Fred? You go back and produce the quote where you answered the question and I will gladly and humbly apologize. Failing to find anything (as you will), you will return and say, “Oh, my bad! No wonder you kept asking, I never did answer it! I apologize…”?

    Again, mistakes happen, but your belligerence on this point and your acting as if you did answer it rather than simply admit the mistake truly makes respectful conversation difficult.

    I’m prepared to admit a mistake if it happened. Are you?

    ~Dan

  6. Why do I have to do your work for you? Go back to March in the side bar, find the post, and then scroll through the comments.

    Pertaining to the morality of slavery I wrote,

    Now, if you want to define “forced” in that she doesn’t get to marry the man of her choosing, in which she falls in love, and all that other sappy romantic American sentiment, yeah, I guess she was “forced.” But under the circumstances of an ANE world some 3,000 years ago, a woman who is attractive to a Jewish man so that he would take her as a wife is a pretty good deal.

    Those who think it is “immoral” especially atheists, have to justify from their worldview, why it is immoral. Moral implies a law giver of a law that is outside of ourselves. Any atheist who complains about immorality really has no ground to stand upon because by the definitions of his own worldview, immorality is defined by what he thinks is immoral, which may not be what others think is immoral. We know things are immoral because our creator told us, not because some apostate or atheist thinks it is icky.

    Later, in another comment, I cited you stating,

    Can we agree now that women were forced into marriage, contrary to their will, in the passage I cited? And indeed, that was the cultural norm, so we should take that into account, but that does not make forced marriage moral… women SHOULD have the human liberty of making their own decisions… Can we agree on all that?

    And then I bluntly stated,

    There is nothing immoral with the woman being taken as a wife. No one’s “liberty” is being violated.

    Also go back and read Ken and Marshall’s responses. They supplied lots of answers to your inquiries.

  7. Those are not direct answers to the question I asked, Fred.

    But okay, I THOUGHT that was your answer in response to what was happening THEN. That was the context, after all. I was seeking clarification from you. MY QUESTION to you was TODAY do you agree that it is immoral to deny that liberty to others. I didn’t catch that was your answer for all time. So, for failing to recognize that as your answer, I do apologize. I was mistaken.

    Do you understand that I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, though? I thought, SURELY, you were suggesting that back then, in that context, it wasn’t so bad. SURELY you don’t mean today that it is immoral to forcibly take someone as a wife, against her will.

    So, I apologize, but, wow. Just wow.

    Fred, do you recognize that in the free world, that this is a monstrous and immoral position to take? That it is NOT immoral to have a woman TAKEN as a wife, against her will?

    Wow. I am sorry, but that is… hard to believe that any modern individual in the free world would think this is acceptable.

    Nothing personal, Fred… I’m sure you’re a Christian and all and striving to be a good person, but you holding such an evil position counter to personal human liberty, you just don’t have much credibility with me to speak on moral issues with any sort of authority.

    I hope and pray you’ll reconsider your position. it is an evil position to hold, Fred, and it DOES help your readers understand where you’re coming from… You’re not so worried about issues of slavery and oppression as found in the bible because you don’t believe in personal liberty, at least for some people.

    Wow.

    Respectfully, but strongly, disagreeing,

    Dan

  8. Fred…

    Those who think it is “immoral” especially atheists, have to justify from their worldview, why it is immoral. Moral implies a law giver of a law that is outside of ourselves. Any atheist who complains about immorality really has no ground to stand upon because by the definitions of his own worldview, immorality is defined by what he thinks is immoral, which may not be what others think is immoral. We know things are immoral because our creator told us, not because some apostate or atheist thinks it is icky.

    And I have done this. You appear to want to cite, “Cuz the Bible says so…” as how we know right and wrong, to justify why something is or isn’t moral. The problem (one problem) with this is you don’t have any consistent rubric for distinguishing which rules you are lifting from the Bible as moral rules and which rules are not applicable to us.

    You don’t cut your hair according to “God’s prescribed haircut plan” in Leviticus, just a few words before the command against “men laying with men” which you extrapolate out to be a universal rule against any and all gay behavior up to and including sex within marriage for gay folk (even though that isn’t what the words say, in context), but then, you DON’T think that the very next line that says “kill those” men who lay with men.

    Do you see the problem? You, Fred, do NOT take all the rules in the Bible as our rule book, you approve of some and you don’t approve of others, but you have no consistent rubric for making that call. Or at least, I have never seen a conservative literalist produce such a rubric. It’s all pretty whimsical and subjective.

    Beyond that, the Bible never suggests that “the Bible” (or any of its books) are a universal rule book where we can go to “justify our worldview, why behaviors are immoral…” If the Bible never suggests that claim, why would we?

    So, while I gladly admit that the “do no harm” “rule” for figuring out morality is not perfect, it’s much less whimsical and subjective than the “cuz the Bible says… except when it’s not a universal rule” approach.

    Or at least that’s how it seems to many people. And for us, it is absolutely NOT because we think a behavior is “icky,” but whether or not it promotes the good, the true, the just, the right… or whether it takes away from those things.

    To denigrate such high ideals as “don’t like it cause its icky” is not representative of our position.

    Respectfully, in Christ,

    Dan

  9. “That protection of women is a product of Christianity elevating the place of women in God’s kingdom, and it has been Christians who have advocated against domestic violence toward women.”

    No the exact opposite acutally, the bible said husbands are leaders in their familes, wives are to obey

    “In fact, as history shows, women outside of the Judeo-Christian, biblical ethic, are wildly mistreated across the board in pagan societies”

    yup that must be why women are not allow to be clergy and the Romans did allow women to do so

  10. Dan,
    I can’t help it if my responses are not direct or nuanced enough for you to understand. But I answered your questions.

    Tony, wives submitting to their husbands or not being allowed to be clergy is not domestic violence. You’ve allowed pussy riot feminist to warp your thinking.

  11. I thought your little friend would turn up when you posted on this subject!

    There is a short verse tucked away in 1 Cor 7 that imo is a wonderful short illustration of divine sovereignty and human freedom – and on the issue of marriage to boot.

    “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (v 39)

    The sovereignty of God is seen in marriage being a divine institution between husband and wife for life, and, with Paul speaking in his capacity as an apostle of Christ, limiting it to a fellow believer. The human freedom or responsibility (which I prefer) is seen in that other than this restriction, she can marry anyone she wants to. He even goes on to give his advice in the next verse that she might well be happier not to get married again, but there is no obligation for her to have to follow this advice; she is free to think about it for herself and make her own decision.

    Someone will have to explain to me where you get misogyny from in a passage where husbands are commanded to love their wives, and to nourish and cherish them, just because wives are told to ‘submit’ to them a verse or two earlier. A wife’s respect is perfectly balanced with a husband’s sacrificial love. Indeed, no-one hates his own flesh, and the one flesh relationship/union of husband and wife is an illustration of love; this is quite the opposite of hatred.

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! is a phrase that comes to mind.

  12. You mean to tell me that God is restricting this woman’s freedom by putting restraints upon who it is she can marry! How misogynist of God!

  13. The ‘restraint’ on whom she can marry is actually for the benefit of both parties, and believers married to unbelievers can find their faith something that pulls them apart (though this is not inevitable), as Paul talks about earlier. So we find God placing a restriction on us that turns out to be for our good!

  14. Fred…

    I can’t help it if my responses are not direct or nuanced enough for you to understand. But I answered your questions.

    And, as it turns out, I understood what you meant. But, your claim being so abhorrent and immoral, I doubted what I was understanding. And so I asked for clarification.

    Fred, that is how conversation works. Instead of all the repeated and vague “I answered your questions, already!” wouldn’t it have just been more helpful and more clear and direct to say, “Dan, I recognize that my view is disdained as immoral by many today, but to clarify: I do NOT think it is immoral to “force” a woman into marriage… I do NOT think that arranged marriages – even without the woman’s consent – are innately immoral. To further clarify, I don’t think they’re necessarily moral, either. I just think it is a morally neutral point. IF you are okay with arranged marriages, then there is nothing immoral about it and fine. IF you are not okay with arranged marriages, but your culture insists upon it, that’s okay, too. It’s not immoral…”

    Like that. One short paragraph could have clarified your position.

    I’m actually very interested in this phenomenon, as I see it often at conservative blogs. Why wouldn’t you have just clarified the very first time I asked for clarification?

    Is it because you are sort of embarrassed by your position, not really wanting to try to defend it? Is it because you’re not sure of your position?

    And, your answer itself needs clarifying. You DON’T think it is immoral, BUT you wouldn’t force your daughter into a marriage and, presumably, wouldn’t want to be forced into one yourself. Is that what you’re saying? If so, presumably, then, you don’t think it is ideal, but not immoral? It’s not a good or healthy solution, but it’s also not immoral? Why are you not supportive of it if you don’t think it’s immoral?

    My guess is this goes back to the (in my opinion) flawed view you have of the Bible… that you probably DO treat it as sort of a rule book and, since there are instances of slavery and forced marriage (what I call “forced,” because that is what it is, by definition, what you might call “arranged” or “spoils of war” or something else…) in the Bible, you’re not willing to call those evils “Immoral,” but you also don’t endorse them because… well, for whatever reason.

    If that is the case, this is why, in part, people like Chaz are turned off by Christians, because of their moral whimsy… the notion that actions/behaviors are not wrong or right because of their character and consequences, but because there is a line in the Bible that you intepret to say “This is wrong” and “this is acceptable” – even when we’re speaking of something as obviously (to modern folk) evil as slavery and forced marriage.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Dan

  15. Ken,

    Are you saying that you, too, do not find forced/arranged marriages to be innately immoral? Are you willing to give a straight answer on this question? If not, why not?

    And for clarity’s sake, I’m going to continue referring to the problem as “forced marriages” because that is the best descriptor of what I’m talking about… marriages where the woman literally can not say no, where even if she did not want to marry a given man, she would be forced to do so, against her will. Literally a forced marriage. I recognize that you all are more comfortable with the term “arranged marriages” and you can call it that if you want, but I’m using the more literal term.

    Are you saying, with Fred, that you don’t find forced marriages to be necessarily good… that you wouldn’t do it yourself, but that if someone else wants to force their daughter into a marriage, you wouldn’t call that evil or immoral?

    What if your son was going to marry a woman and you knew the woman was opposed to the marriage, but her father had decided and agreed with your son that they would get married, even against her will. Would you call that a morally good or morally bad situation, or would you just shrug your shoulders and say that it’s neither good nor bad?

    Do you, Ken, Fred, anyone else who agrees with them, recognize how morally atrocious this view is to probably most people in the free world? If you can recognize that, wouldn’t you think you should be prepared to try to make sense of what seems like a monstrously evil position?

    If not, why not?

    Is there ANYONE here who is not amazed and horrified by these admissions? Who would agree with me that women SHOULD have a right to self-determination, especially in the case of who your life-long SPOUSE should be?

    One last question: Do you recognize that your holding this position really regulates you to the “trash bin of history” of bad, immoral ideas? Like slavery, like forced child labor, like oppression of women? That, when people realize you hold these positions, your moral and rational credibility is severely wounded, if not killed off altogether? And honestly, I do not mean that in a mean-spirited way… I’m trying to convey to you a concern about how you’re coming across and what it’s doing to your credibility and the credibility of your church…

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  16. So, to the topic of this post…

    Is Christianity Misogynistic?

    For many people in the free world today, to the degree that some Christians say that it is NOT immoral to have an arranged marriage where the woman does not have the option of saying yes or no, THAT branch of Christianity comes across as morally wishy-washy. Especially when they say, “Well, I wouldn’t do it for myself… but I am not willing to call it a moral wrong…” a lot of people would think, crudely, WTF?

    “It’s NOT morally wrong to deny a woman her freedom of self determination about marriage?!

    Perhaps you are unaware of this, but for many, many people today, even treating forced marriage as a moral gray area, as Fred seems to be doing, is still atrocious. It is a given that OF COURSE women should have the freedom of self-determination. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all PEOPLE are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and, by God, yes! That includes the freedom of self-determination.

    So for the many of us who believe this way, then yes, that branch of Christianity sometimes borders on misogyny, because to deny a woman her freedom of self-determination is a hateful thing to do.

    Answering from that wing of Christianity and the free world…

    Respectfully and in Christ,

    Dan

  17. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
    So Dan, according to you, I have to figure out your limitations in understanding my answer so that I can sufficiently nuance it so there will be no misunderstanding.

  18. THAT branch of Christianity comes across as morally wishy-washy.

    According to Dan, and people who hate biblical authority.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all PEOPLE are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and, by God, yes!

    So is there anything biblical about your objections? or is it all, “I don’t like it, it hurts people’s feelings, so I think it must be untrue.”

  19. Yes, I DO happen to believe that the Bible clearly speaks of the priesthood of believers, that we ought to follow GOD, not men, that the Pharisees’ error (one of them) was trying to impose rules upon others and Jesus rejected that notion. Yes, I do believe that the Bible speaks to these ideals, but it’s not right or wrong because there is a line in the Bible that says so. It’s right when it promotes whatsoever things are good, true, pure, righteous, noble, loving, healthy, whole. It’s wrong when it destroys, oppresses, tears down, harms, takes away liberty from others.

    Fred…

    So Dan, according to you, I have to figure out your limitations in understanding my answer so that I can sufficiently nuance it so there will be no misunderstanding.

    No, Fred, you don’t. That’s how conversation works. IF I am unsure of what you mean, it is incumbent upon me to ask for clarification. I did so. You did not NEED to figure out my limitations of understanding your VERY vague and indirect answers, I asked for a clarification so you could know I was not clear on your point. As I have still done. And you have still not offered clarifications.

    Again Fred, I am very interested in this… Here I am, telling you that I do not believe I fully understand your position, respectfully asking for clarification. Why not clarify? Why not say, “Oh, you’re not understanding that I view this as a moral gray area, but that I wouldn’t do it for my children? Okay, here’s why…” and offer a clarification?

    Instead, you seem to take offense at the questions even being asked. Why is that?

    Fred…

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    I literally have no idea what you’re speaking of here. One helpful hint about communicating on a blog: When someone says something that is unclear to you or you find offensive, quote them (as I just did above) to be more clear. IF I put words in your mouth, I certainly and humbly apologize and ask your forgiveness. It was not my intent. Again, your position is sort of “out there” and that is why I am asking for more direct and clear answers, so that I CAN correctly summarize your position.

    But to the degree that you opt to not answer my clarifying questions, perhaps you can understand how a fella could make an honest mistake.

    Again, do you recognize at all how non-mainstream your apparent views on forced marriages are? Any time someone takes such a foreign position, they help themselves and the cause of communication when they go out of their way to make themselves clear.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  20. “Tony, wives submitting to their husbands or not being allowed to be clergy is not domestic violence. You’ve allowed pussy riot feminist to warp your thinking”

    lols ok than, Fred, you are indeed brilliant! let us celebrate the high level of women’s rights in 1920s alabama and victorian london!

  21. Fred – I think Dan is trying to help you grow the fruit of the Spirit :-)

    Dan – for all you (fake) outrage about forced marriage – are you in one, do you know of one, do you know Christians who currently advocate this? – you have not given any argument where a right to self-determination for women comes from in the first place.

    If there is no God and you believe in unguided evolution, then why shouldn’t alpha males rule the roost and do just as they like? We are all collections of atoms randomly put together for no prior purpose, why worry about it? If there are no moral absolutes, why worry about what anybody does to anybody else?

    As for the free world, I don’t see much freedom about it. “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one”. This manifests itself in women being treated as objects and enslaved to men’s lust in many ways as bad as if not worse than the old Canaanite practices. This is what occurs outside believing churches, it is not a result of Christian doctrine and practice, it is in rebellion against it.

  22. Fred…

    According to Dan, and people who hate biblical authority.

    Speaking of putting words in people’s mouths… IF this is to indicate that I “hate biblical authority,” to clarify: I don’t hate it, it’s just that I don’t believe in what you mean by it, most likely.

    You see, my goal is submit to God, to follow Jesus and GOD’s authority. To that end, I must follow God and not some human’s opinion of what the Bible says.

    So, to be clear, I don’t “hate” God’s authority, I just also don’t believe in submitting to mere human authority on their say so, alone (or them assuring me, “but I’ve read the Bible and I know what God wants for you…”) I reject HUMAN authority and seek God’s.

    Dan
    =====

    The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.

    ~Thomas Jefferson

    We hold that each man is the best judge of his own interest.

    ~John Adams

    The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.

    ~St Thomas Aquinas

    Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power.

    ~John Adams

    Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.

    ~Harry Emerson Fosdick

  23. Ken…

    for all you (fake) outrage about forced marriage – are you in one, do you know of one, do you know Christians who currently advocate this?

    1. My outrage is genuine, IF there are people – Christians! – who do not believe in personal liberty for women.

    2. No, not a single one. Which is why I’ve asked Fred, and now you, to clarify. I believe my first comment to Fred, and now you, is “Surely you agree that women should be able to choose their own marriage partner…??” and I never got a direct response. Still haven’t.

    What I HAVE received from Fred is the sort of gray/vague, “If you want me to say I agree with arranged marriage, well, I don’t; but arranged marriages are not sinful or against a biblical ethic.”

    So, FRED, at least, does not think that forced marriages (arranged marriages where the woman can’t say No, which then makes it forced) are immoral… although he also wouldn’t try it with his daughters, apparently. So, it SOUNDS LIKE to me that he does not think that forced marriages are immoral, but that they’re maybe also not very good… just sort of gray like “is it immoral to like vanilla ice cream? … well, it’s neither moral or immoral, it’s just an option…” That’s my best interpretation/understanding of his opinion so far. Likewise, you APPEAR to be defending his position, but I don’t know because you have not answered the question directly, either.

    So Ken, help me out – maybe I’m just stupid or just having a hard time understanding your position, so clarify it for me by answer this question:

    DO you think that forcing women to marry men they don’t want to marry, denying women the option of choosing their own husbands… do you think that this is a great immoral act?

    Or, do you think it is neither moral or immoral, just an option that some cultures may engage in if it’s what the fathers want (without regard to what the daughters want)?

    If you could answer this line of questioning as directly as possible, then I can better understand your actual position.

    The ball is in your court, but why wouldn’t you clarify?

    Ken…

    If there is no God and you believe in unguided evolution, then why shouldn’t alpha males rule the roost and do just as they like?

    I believe in God. Why shouldn’t people force their will on other people? Because that causes harm. Because I believe that some truths are self-evident, including the notion that humans have innate rights, including the right to life and LIBERTY – the freedom to self-determination. And I believe that it is self-evident that violating those rights is a great moral wrong.

    Do you disagree with me?

    Ken…

    As for the free world, I don’t see much freedom about it.

    Well, you are welcome to your opinion. In the world where I live, my daughter has the liberty to choose to go to school or not, the liberty to decide what course of studies she wants to pursue, what job she’ll seek, what she does with her free time and who she marries. That is a great and marvelous liberty in my world that women have not always enjoyed and I will fight tooth and nail those who would immoral advocate taking away those liberties from her.

    Hopefully you can agree with that.

    But I won’t know unless you clarify. Seriously fellas, why would you not want to make your opinions clear? If someone is not understanding, why would you not go out of your way to help them understand. For instance, Ken seemed to just insinuate that I don’t believe in God. No problem, I can clarify that with a simple statement letting him know that I do believe in God.

    Why would you not do the same? And why do you all seem to be getting emotional and upset that I’m even asking these questions? They’re just questions seeking clarity.

    In Christ,

    Dan

  24. Ken…

    you have not given any argument where a right to self-determination for women comes from in the first place.

    I did, but I am more than glad to repeat it for you. I cited our founders who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all PEOPLE are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ”

    If “these truths are self-evident” is good enough for them, a solid enough foundation for our nations founders to base these inalienable rights, it’s good enough for me, because it IS so obviously self-evident.

    Do you disagree? Do you think that it is not self-evident that ALL people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination?

    If you’d answer this question directly, it would help me understand your position. And note: When I request a direct answer, that isn’t me insisting on a Yes or No answer. I would think that for this kind of question, Yes/No would suffice, but if you need to give a more nuanced explanation, that’s okay, too. Just as direct as possible, please, if you want people like me to be able to understand your actual position.

    In Christ,

    Dan

  25. Dan, you are a crack me up. You get onto me for suggesting that you don’t believe in biblical authority. And then you cite to me quotes from individuals like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and apostate Harry Emerson Fosdick (and I’m sure you read Machen’s responses to him, correct?) who all rejected biblical authority. Why am I not surprised.

    Question. Those Christians in the rest of the world, out side that mythical “mainstream” you keep mentioning, who arrange marriages for their children and who then have normal, healthy, and functioning marriages in spite of the woman’s will being so horribly violated as you suggest, are they in sin or disobedience to God for doing such a thing?

  26. Fred…

    are they in sin or disobedience to God for doing such a thing?

    I will be glad to answer your question, Fred, as directly as possible. Will you please return the favor?

    I affirm the notion of human liberty, strongly, which includes the notion of the right to self determination.

    Do you?

    I oppose in the strongest terms possible, forcing someone into a marriage that they do not wish to take part in.

    Do you?

    To the degree that there are places/cultures today that force women into marriage against their will, I oppose that. I also oppose men forcing women into sex against their will.

    I think both behaviors are morally wrong.

    Do you?

    Now, I have offered one clarification earlier that I will repeat, in case you missed it. There are places/traditions that have arranged marriages where the daughter has the option of saying No. To the degree that it is a tradition with which the women are agreeable, then it is NOT a forced marriage. I’m speaking specifically of FORCED marriages. I’ve been quite clear on this. Do you understand the distinction I’m making?

    Let’s look at an example. Here’s a story…

    “Sri was a victim of forced marriage, a practice in which women — and sometimes men — are forced to marry against their will

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/21/forced-marriage-isaliveandwellintheus.html

    I oppose this tradition and believe it to be a moral wrong.

    The Church of England, at least, renounces forced marriages as “morally and legally wrong…”

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/forced.marriage.morally.and.legally.wrong.church.of.england/17281.htm

    Do you?

    Now, you cite Christians who are engaging in forced marriages? I’m not aware of places within any orthodox Christian groups where this is happening. Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims? Yes. Orthodox Christians? Not aware of it. Feel free to cite a source.

    But, if there are Christians who are practicing it, that would not change my opinion, I still think it is a moral wrong.

    Is that quite clear on my part? Will you be answering the questions put to you, too, and keep this a respectful two way conversation? Thanks!

    ~Dan

  27. Fred…

    You get onto me for suggesting that you don’t believe in biblical authority. And then you cite to me quotes from individuals like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and apostate Harry Emerson Fosdick

    I was citing the quotes, not the people. Do you disagree with the ideas and ideals found within the quotes?

    I’m an advocate for taking arguments for their own sake, not engaging in questions about the content of the character of the people making them. Ad hom attacks bore me, friend. The point was that these are some fine, exemplary ideals that I’ve quoted. Do you disagree with these ideals?

    This one, for instance…

    The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.

    On which side to you land? Each person should have the liberty to seek God, the Good, the Right the best he/she can? Or decisions of morality and what God wants are best decided by a few of the right religious believers?

    Or that scoundrel Thomas Aquinas’ quote, what of it? Do you agree that the highest manifestation of life is when a person governs their own actions, rather than being under the thumb of someone else, telling them what is good and bad/right and wrong?

  28. I affirm the notion of human liberty, strongly, which includes the notion of the right to self determination. Do you?

    No. The concept of libertarian autonomous free will is an unbiblical philosophy that comes from Greek philosophy. Clear enough?

    I oppose in the strongest terms possible, forcing someone into a marriage that they do not wish to take part in. Do you?

    The concept of “forced” has to be defined. A society that practices arranged marriages are not forcing anyone to do anything, but are arranging marriages between two agreeing families. There is nothing sinful or immoral about that regardless of how YOU feel about it. Clear enough?

    To the degree that there are places/cultures today that force women into marriage against their will, I oppose that. I also oppose men forcing women into sex against their will.

    Forcing a woman into sex against her will is rape. An arranged marriage between two agreeing families, is not “rape;” regardless of what the man or woman thinks about the situation and is not immoral as you claim.

    I’m speaking specifically of FORCED marriages. I’ve been quite clear on this. Do you understand the distinction I’m making?

    Yes. I have always understood it. You are taking anecdotal stories from far away cultures who are pagan and ungodly, and layering that upon the OT scriptures, as in our previous convo on the previous post, as well as insisting this is what the Bible is teaching. You are mistaken about that as we have repeatedly shown you. BTW, the Muslim backed Al Jazeera is hardly a reliable news source. More like a propaganda organ for Saudi Arabia.

    Now, you cite Christians who are engaging in forced marriages? I’m not aware of places within any orthodox Christian groups where this is happening. Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims? Yes. Orthodox Christians? Not aware of it. Feel free to cite a source.

    This is why it would help you to get outside your small little bubble world here in the US and consider the real world. Lots of believers arrange marriages in various cultures throughout Africa, the Middle East, Asia. None of the slimy components you insist is present with them is there. No one thinks of it as morally wrong, nor is it against biblical standards.

    Do you disagree with the ideas and ideals found within the quotes?

    Pretty much. They are uttered by men who had no love for God and truth.

  29. Fred…

    There is nothing sinful or immoral about that regardless of how YOU feel about it. Clear enough?

    No. It’s not. I’ve been quite clear that I’m NOT talking about arranged marriages where the woman can say yes or no. I’m talking about forced marriages where the woman can NOT say no.

    Do you understand that this is what I’ve been speaking about all this time? Have you understood that all along?

    You say, “Yes. I have always understood it.” but then proceed to address “arranged, NOT forced marriages” as if you don’t understand it.

    And IF we are speaking about forced marriages, yes, clearly it is an affront to human liberty.

    In what I am speaking of – forced marriages – can we agree that THAT is immoral, when the woman does not get to choose, where the woman being married does not have the option of saying NO, can we agree that that is forced and therefore, immoral?

    Fred…

    None of the slimy components you insist is present with them is there.

    THIS is why I’ve tried so hard to get a clear and straight answer from you. I have been abundantly clear that I’m not speaking of all arranged marriages. I said that any time the woman has the option of saying NO, that is not a forced marriage. It is the action against the personal liberty of a person that makes it evil. I have been very clear about this. You say you understand that, but at the same time, you refer to “slimy components” I’m insisting upon. This makes no sense. The slimy components I’m insisting upon is the assault on personal liberty, the forcing of a woman into marriage.

    On THAT point the point I’ve been making all along, do you agree to THAT point?

    Can you answer that question clearly and directly? Don’t talk to me about “arranged” marriages, I’m not speaking of arranged marriages in general. I’m speaking of FORCED marriages. Morally wrong, yes or no?

    – Do you disagree with the ideas and ideals found within the quotes?

    Pretty much. They are uttered by men who had no love for God and truth.

    Wow. You don’t believe that people have the right to be self-determining? That is amazing and, pardon me, but a neanderthalic view point (I’m not calling you a neanderthal, understand, but that view is prehistoric in its immorality).

    Come on, is there no one else out there that is disgusted by the sheer horror of that position.

    Seriously, Fred, that does help explain why you seem to soft-pedal moral atrocities like forced marriage and slavery. And Lord help your tribe, that is exactly the sort of injustice and immorality that is driving many people away from God.

    Pray on that one.

    So, if “arranged marriages” are not immoral, why don’t you want to do that for your children? Do you, at the least, consider it less-than-ideal, if not outright immoral? I’m guessing you must not like it since you wouldn’t have it in your life. But why don’t you like it?

    Fred…

    The concept of libertarian autonomous free will is an unbiblical philosophy that comes from Greek philosophy. Clear enough?

    The notion of freewill is a long valued tradition and belief in the Baptist, anabaptist and many other faithful Christian traditions, and we find it taught in the pages of the Bible, as well as being self-evident. But I wonder: What does your position even mean? I mean, obviously, we have the ability to direct our lives, make our choices. If you have children, they can choose to be doctors or surfers or writers or preachers or whatever it is they want, and they have the liberty to do so. Don’t you think this is reality? And a very good thing (as compared to the alternative)?

    I don’t even know what that means to not believe in personal liberty. I’ve never heard a Christian argue against personal liberty. What in the name of all that is holy does your position even mean?

    In Christ,

    Dan

  30. Fred…

    The concept of “forced” has to be defined.

    I’ve defined it for you. Repeatedly. In case you missed it, though: A woman has been forced into a marriage when she doesn’t have the option to say “No.” That is forced, by definition. That is a denial of her right to self-determination, by definition.

  31. Fred…

    They are uttered by men who had no love for God and truth.

    Again, Fred, I am not impressed by ad hom attacks. Logical fallacies only weaken your argument and witness.

    Don’t tell me that Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson are doodyheads, in your opinion, instead, offer your argument AGAINST personal liberty.

    ~Dan

  32. Dan – I’ve already given a reply on the theme of a woman deciding whom she wishes to marry as an example of NT liberty. I think this illustrates a general principle.

    Now in the context of war, and the war in Canaan in the OT, I don’t think it was immoral for the Israelites to take as wives those who had survived the war. This lifted them out of the status of slaves, meant they were to be provided for and looked after, and meant they were not abandoned to try to look after themselves in a culture where they would more likely as not be left to starve. But what happens in wartime does not represent what the norm should be in peacetime. Some of the niceties of life have to go, including things we might in other circumstances regard as our rights. It’s not that complicated! The war brides are an example of a specific action within a specific time and setting, not a general principle for everyone at all times.

    I was not, incidentally, accusing you of being an atheist, but you do act like one inasmuch as you have found a subject – so-called forced marriage – and seem unable to let it go as means of attacking what you assert to be a part of Christian belief.

    As for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, these are not absolutes. The murderer forfeits his right to life, liberty has constraints on it – we should not be free to harm others – and the pursuit of holiness is far more important than the pursuit of happiness.

  33. It’s not. I’ve been quite clear that I’m NOT talking about arranged marriages where the woman can say yes or no. I’m talking about forced marriages where the woman can NOT say no.

    Do you understand that this is what I’ve been speaking about all this time? Have you understood that all along?

    Yes. I understand that is what you are talking about; always have. But you have the mistaken notion that with the average arranged marriages in the world, the woman can have the freedom to say yes or no. That is not the case. Rarely that is the case. Your burden is to demonstrate why arranged marriages, in which a woman, or man for that matter, can’t get out of it, are inherently sinful and forbidden by Scripture. You appeal to non-Scriptural principles outlined by secular deists in the Declaration of Independence, which is hardly a standard authority when considering these matters.

    I’m speaking of FORCED marriages. Morally wrong, yes or no?

    Again, as I have already told you, forced is a loaded term that has to be defined. If you mean forced marriages in the sense of ISIS murderers killing villages and making the captured women marry their jihadist warriors, then yes, forced marriages are morally wrong. If you mean, on the other hand, a woman arranged to be married to an otherwise good man, even though she may not particularly like him, no, that “forced” marriage is not morally wrong. You have made it morally wrong based upon faulty ideas about human autonomy, freewill, and Enlightenment era romanticism.

    Wow. You don’t believe that people have the right to be self-determining?

    According to scripture, there is no such thing as “self-determining.” I thought you said you believed the Bible? Man is enslaved to his sin nature, he is oriented morally against God and his will refuses to do anything right or God honoring apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. So your entire rant against me being a Neanderthal in my thinking is based upon faulty premises.

    I don’t even know what that means to not believe in personal liberty. I’ve never heard a Christian argue against personal liberty. What in the name of all that is holy does your position even mean?

    I am not against personal liberty, but I define “liberty” according to what the Bible states is true liberty. True, genuine liberty only comes from a heart regenerated by God, set free from the bondage of sin and a mind renewed by the Holy Spirit. The liberty you advocate for is a phony, fake liberty that doesn’t exist except in the fevered minds of sinners who think they can create their own destinies apart from their creator.

    Don’t tell me that Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson are doodyheads, in your opinion, instead, offer your argument AGAINST personal liberty.

    There you go again putting words in my mouth. I never said they were doodyheads, or stupid, or whatever. I wrote that their ideas were written by men who have no love for God or His truth. One can be smart and have no love for God or truth. Though according to the Bible, such individuals are the greatest of fools (Psalm 14:1).

    Now maybe I can set Aquinas in a separate circle, apart from the other men you cite, but even Aquinas’s philosophies/theology was problematic because it was so awash in Greek philosophy that had come to him through Islamic scholars, so I take what he wrote with a heavy dose of salt.

  34. Fred…

    you have the mistaken notion that with the average arranged marriages in the world, the woman can have the freedom to say yes or no. That is not the case. Rarely that is the case.

    Please cite me where I said that the “average arranged marriage” is a forced marriage.

    Or, is it safe to say that you can’t cite me saying that because, in reality, I have NOT stated that?

    So, has all your vagueness and refusal to directly answer the question been based on a misunderstanding of what my actual position is?

    As a point of fact, I do not know how often arranged marriages are forced marriages, or how many forced marriages are out there.

    ALL I have said is that a forced marriage is an immoral action. That’s all.

    To my actual point that I have been making this entire time, do you agree or disagree? Do you truly disagree that a forced marriage is a moral wrong?

    Fred, do you understand how this seems to be much more difficult than it needs to be? How it seems you’ve made assumptions (without asking for clarification) about my position and then argued a point other than my actual point, rather than just answering the actual question I have been asking all along?

    Sometimes, I think perhaps you all think my respectfulness and grace towards you have been an act, that I’m actually mocking you or something. But no, I’m genuinely interested in this phenomenon (that I have seen in many places beyond this blog): Why is this communication so difficult? I’ve asked a clear cut and simple question, one that seems to have an obvious answer, and yet you appear to keep arguing something different rather than just answering the question actually asked. Why is that?

    Now, to your claim about arranged marriages above…

    you have the mistaken notion that with the average arranged marriages in the world, the woman can have the freedom to say yes or no. That is not the case. Rarely that is the case.

    Please cite some research to support that claim. It could be, I just have not seen any research to say one way or the other.

    Do you know this thing that you’re stating as a fact, or is this just your best guess, not based on any research?

    Regardless, my point stands. Forced marriages – what I’ve been speaking about all along – are immoral, wrong, evil, even. They are morally wrong because they deprive someone’s God-given freedom of self-determination.

    You go on to say…

    If you mean, on the other hand, a woman arranged to be married to an otherwise good man, even though she may not particularly like him, no, that “forced” marriage is not morally wrong.

    I gave you a definition: “FORCED” means when the woman can’t say No. If she doesn’t “particularly like him” but still agrees of her own free will, that is not forced. When she does not have the option of opting out, then that is by definition FORCED.

    Are you not understanding what I mean when I’ve provided this definition multiple times?

    Are you disagreeing with the English definition of the word forced (“enforced or compulsory” – ie, against one’s will)? If so, please provide your definition.

    Fred…

    According to scripture, there is no such thing as “self-determining.” I thought you said you believed the Bible?

    Fred, are you intentionally being divisive? Argumentative? An ass?

    Of course I have read the Bible, all my life… and studied it prayerfully and with all manner of people and teachers, including some absolutely brilliant, humble and wise Godly men and women.

    That I disagree with your opinion is not an indication that I have not studied the Bible, don’t be intentionally obtuse or insulting.

    So then, going with your hunches, you are not deliberately being foolish or snarky or divisive… you can’t help but present yourself as an ass in this conversation, is that what you’re saying? It’s beyond your control to be respectful, helpful, polite?

    Of course we have free will. You can choose to respond to this how you wish, just as I’m choosing how I respond to you. The power IS in your control.

    Additionally, YOU have the freedom to marry who you want, your children have the freedom to marry who they want. We all have the freedom to choose to be a preacher or a drunkard, a conservative or a whore, a carpenter or a doctor.

    Fred, do you truly think that you don’t have the liberty to determine who you will/did marry?

    That you cherry pick a few verses where the authors are using figurative language is not rational support against the reality that you and I DO have the ability, the freedom to be self-determining.

    To that end, you say…

    Man is enslaved to his sin nature, he is oriented morally against God and his will refuses to do anything right or God honoring apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. So your entire rant against me being a Neanderthal in my thinking is based upon faulty premises.

    Again, the places where that sort of language occurs is clearly speaking metaphorically. We have a tendency to sin, to err, to make mistakes, but we are NOT helpless slaves. We CAN choose the right, even if imperfectly, and we do it all the time. I am taking care of my ill parents NOT because I am enslaved to doing so, NOT because I necessarily find it fun, but because it is the right thing to do. My wife helps homeless families find sustainable answers for housing options not because it is fun to work with homeless people day in and day out (although of course some times it is) or because she is forced to… she CHOOSES that work because she believes it is the right thing to do. She IS morally self-determining.

    Again, you appear to be arguing against reality based on faulty understanding and cherry picking of verses in the Bible, out of context and against reason. “I thought you said you believed the Bible?” (By the way, Fred, I made the self-determined choice to quote your words back to you, and I did so to make a point, I hope you get the point.)

    Are you saying that you are entirely “enslaved” to your sin nature and “oriented morally against God…”? If so, on what basis would you take your position, since it is a sinful one, apparently according to you?

    Or is your answer, “Well, I, FRED have been allowed by God to be aligned to God’s Will, so I’m not making the mistakes… It’s every one who disagrees with me that is enslaved to sin, not me…”?

    Do you see the rational and biblical problem with that, Fred?

    “Thank God, I am not like those sinners…” said the pharisee…

    Respectfully, but disagreeing strongly with your approach,

    Dan

  35. Ken…

    you do act like one inasmuch as you have found a subject – so-called forced marriage – and seem unable to let it go as means of attacking what you assert to be a part of Christian belief.

    You have misunderstood. I absolutely do not believe forced marriage to be part of Christian belief. God forbid! Exactly the opposite!

    No, I believe conservatives appear to be calling “forced marriages” (again, making a woman marry someone she does not want to contrary to her wishes… forced, by definition) a moral good, or at least not a moral bad. You all appear to be equivocating about something as clear as the immorality of forced marriages.

    For instance, I asked you specifically a clear question: Can you agree that forced marriages are morally wrong? You have not answered directly. You appear to be equivocating on what should be an easy-to-answer question. Why is that?

    No, I don’t believe Christianity defends forced marriages, but it does sound like some conservative fundamentalist-types appear to be defending it.

    Do you see the difference – I don’t conflate fundamentalist’s opinons with Christianity as if they were one and the same – and do you see why I keep asking the question, keep giving you a chance to make yourself clear and say clearly: NO! Women should NOT be forced into marriages. Women SHOULD have the liberty to be self-determining in their marriage partner!

    Will you join with me on this point and answer this question clearly and directly, Ken?

    If not, why not?

    I also asked you this question…

    Do you disagree? Do you think that it is not self-evident that ALL people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination?

    You appear to give an indirect response that touches on some related themes, noting for instance, that murderers are not free to murder. But that isn’t what I asked, Can you answer the question I asked and do so directly as possible, please?

    DO YOU BELIEVE that all people are created equal and with certain inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination (with the noted obvious caveat that this does not mean that they are free to impinge upon or take away other’s inalienable rights)?

    If you can’t answer this clearly and directly, why not?

    Do you all recognize that this equivocating does exactly make it seem like you all are defending a religion that is misogynistic?

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  36. Here are some stats from Unicef on arranged/forced marriages…

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/arranged-marriage-statistics/

    And here is some info on actual forced marriages…

    http://www.theahafoundation.org/forced-marriage/

    Adeela, a 17-year-old high school student from Atlanta, was under intense pressure to drop out of school and marry a man chosen by her parents. While Adeela hated the idea of leaving school and marrying a stranger she didn’t love, she knew that if she refused, she would face physical punishment or even death.

    Speaking SPECIFICALLY of this example: I call this morally wrong. You?

    I call it wrong because it forces a woman to marry and thus, takes away her personal liberty. If she does not agree, she faces harm for merely exercising her personal liberty.

    If you disagree with it and call it wrong, on what basis do you call it wrong, since you “don’t believe in” self-determination as a reality? (Do you recognize how just silly that sounds to many people? I don’t mean any offense, Fred, but that just sounds insane on the face of it… don’t “believe in” self-determination as a reality?? What does that mean??)

    Also from the site above…

    According to a survey conducted by the Tahirih Justice Center, approximately 3,000 known or suspected forced marriages occurred in the US over a two-year period.

    Speaking SPECIFICALLY of these examples: I call this morally wrong. You?

    Dan

  37. Please cite me where I said that the “average arranged marriage” is a forced marriage…. So, has all your vagueness and refusal to directly answer the question been based on a misunderstanding of what my actual position is?

    Dan, you’re so wearying. Again, I haven’t misunderstood anything you have written. I have already explained that the word “forced” has to be defined according to the situation. I gave examples of that situation in the previous comment.

    Now what I find amusing, or annoying, actually, is that you move the goal posts of your complaint after I answered you. You stated in a comment from April 10 at 9:32 pm that, Repeatedly. In case you missed it, though: A woman has been forced into a marriage when she doesn’t have the option to say “No.” That is forced, by definition. That is a denial of her right to self-determination, by definition.

    Okay, but I am here to tell you that a couple can be in an arranged marriage where they don’t have the option to say no, and the marriage can be healthy and fulfilling in spite of your emotional insistence otherwise. Most arranged marriages in the cultures where this practice takes place are of that type.

    Now, does that mean no abuse in those arrangements takes place? Of course not. Is such abuse morally wrong? I would say so, but not because arranged marriages are unbiblical or because some guy or gal is getting his or her imaginary self-determination trampled upon.

    We all have the freedom to choose to be a preacher or a drunkard, a conservative or a whore, a carpenter or a doctor.

    Fred, do you truly think that you don’t have the liberty to determine who you will/did marry?

    You are mixing issues. Everyone has the freedom to act according to their nature. Sinners are free to sin in great amounts or less amounts, but they are still sinners and they cannot choose to do otherwise without the regenerating work of the Spirit. Having the “liberty” to marry who you can choose is a different category all together. But I sense that explaining it to you will only agitate you to call me names again.

    Are you saying that you are entirely “enslaved” to your sin nature and “oriented morally against God…”? If so, on what basis would you take your position, since it is a sinful one, apparently according to you?

    I was at one time entirely enslaved to my sin nature and oriented against God until I was saved by God. You apparently missed the distinctions I made with those concepts of liberty. Go back, re-read again.

  38. but I am here to tell you that a couple can be in an arranged marriage where they don’t have the option to say no, and the marriage can be healthy and fulfilling in spite of your emotional insistence otherwise. Most arranged marriages in the cultures where this practice takes place are of that type.

    I have not stated that it may not appear to work out (at least at a shallow glance)… that such marriages may stay together.

    I’m stating a simple fact: If a woman can’t say No to it, it is a forced marriage by definition.

    Do you understand that?

    Do you disagree? It appears you do, but if so, based on what? What definition of “forced” are you using that “having no choice in the matter” is not a forced marriage?

    Earlier, you had said…

    Your burden is to demonstrate why arranged marriages, in which a woman, or man for that matter, can’t get out of it, are inherently sinful and forbidden by Scripture.

    I have explained why they are wrong – because they are an affront to human self-determination, and it is especially a problem of sexism since it is most often women who do not have the choice, who have their human liberties denied.

    I do not have to offer biblical texts cherry picked to support why it is wrong. We don’t need a verse from the Bible saying Drinking and driving is a great moral wrong without using our God-given reasoning to know it to be so.

    Again, I don’t use (abuse/misuse) the Bible the way you do: The Bible is NOT a rule book or a rulings book where we just check the concordance to find out if Issue X is or isn’t a sin. That is a horrible way to treat this great book of wisdom. It is the sin of the pharisees (one of them).

    The sabbath is made for humanity, Jesus said, NOT humanity for the Sabbath. The Pharisees had mistaken the scriptures for a rule book and Jesus had to remind them of their mistake.

    Are you seriously saying that ONLY rules found in the Bible are the only way we can know if something is right or wrong?

    Something is wrong when it causes harm, when it oppresses, when it denies or takes liberties, when it kills and destroys.

    So, no, I don’t have to find a Bible verse that says “forced marriage is a moral wrong” to know that it is a moral wrong. The burden is on you in this case.

    You are the one with the rather incredibly unbelievable and horrifyingly immoral- and irrational-sounding belief, the onus is on you to support rationally why anyone should agree that women should not have the liberty to be self-determining, to be able to choose their own lifelong spouse!

    Fred, why do you oppose the idea of forced marriages for your children if you don’t think it’s moral? Do you think it’s a bad idea, but not immoral?

    Why do you think it is a bad idea?

    If you had a female family member/friend who moved to a nation where they did not believe in women having the right to choose their own spouse and someone forcibly took her as their spouse, would you call that a crime? A horrible atrocity? Rape? A great evil and horribly immoral?

    If so, why?

    Dan

  39. Speaking SPECIFICALLY of this example: I call this morally wrong. You?

    Dan, I already explained what I mean by forced. Are people being “forced” in these examples? Yes. Is it abusive? Well of course if the threat of death is present.

    Additionally, in the first link, it is just statistics. Mostly from India, Africa, and the Middle East. For some reason, China and other Asian cultures are left off. One is left to figure out if he wants to assign moral judgment to them. If we are talking about divorce rates, the statistics are pretty good against divorce. Looks like a positive for arranged marriages.

    The second link tells us the terrible story of some girl with a made up name. She is probably likely from an Islamic or Hindu sect. Basically a pagan example. Where have there been Christians in cultures that practice arranged marriages in which a woman is threatened by honor killing (an Islamic concept for the most part)? Can you name one? Some Christians practice arranged marriages in those noted examples in the first link and the participants are “forced” in that they are expected to marry each other according to the family’s wishes, and the marriages are good.

    So in Rome, during the writing of the NT, Christian slaves who were forced into their marriages against their wills were involved in an immoral relationship according to your definition? Even though Paul would tell them in 1 Cor. 7 not to seek to undo the marriage?

    If you disagree with it and call it wrong, on what basis do you call it wrong, since you “don’t believe in” self-determination as a reality?

    I call the second example you give, which is all anecdotal by the way, as wrong because there is the threat of death. But by citing these examples, you seem to think the practice of arranged marriages is okay, just as long as either participant can say no. If they don’t have that option, it’s morally wrong.

    BTW, is it morally wrong to tell a woman she can marry again, but only in the LORD? In other words, is her self-determination being violated if her parents for bid their daughter to marry an unbeliever she really, really loves and hold her accountable if she claims to be a Christian but chooses to marry the unbeliever none the less. Was the sinful man in 1 Cor. 5 having his self-determination violated when Paul stated that he should be disciplined out of the church for the immoral relationship he was in with a woman who was essentially his step mother?

  40. by citing these examples, you seem to think the practice of arranged marriages is okay, just as long as either participant can say no. If they don’t have that option, it’s morally wrong.

    Yes! THAT is what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying:

    1. If there are arranged marriages and the woman agrees with the ideal, then it is not forced.
    2. If there is an “arranged marriage” and the woman does NOT want to go along with it but is forced to, anyway, THAT is forced;
    3. Forced marriages violate a person’s human rights and are, thus, morally wrong.

    How about you? You have said that you wouldn’t support this approach for your family… on what basis do you reject forced marriages (where the daughter/woman doesn’t have a choice)? Because it is less than ideal, but not because it is immoral?

    If someone were forcing a loved one of yours into a marriage against her will, but she had no choice, would you call it a moral wrong? or just a gray area?

    Your questions to me…

    is it morally wrong to tell a woman she can marry again, but only in the LORD?

    I don’t know what “married in the Lord” means. Feel free to explain. If you mean, is it morally wrong to tell a loved one, “I don’t think you should marry a non-Christian…”? No, it is not morally wrong to offer an opinion.

    Do you mean, “I will NOT allow my daughter to marry a Jew or a Muslim!” and actually physically stop her from exercising her free will, by force of some sort? Yes, I view that as a moral wrong and just a really stupid idea.

    Was the sinful man in 1 Cor. 5 having his self-determination violated when Paul stated that he should be disciplined out of the church for the immoral relationship he was in with a woman who was essentially his step mother?

    Can churches opt to shun people whose marriages they disagree with? Sure, if they want. Is it immoral? I don’t know if it’s immoral, but I’m not sure how good an idea it is.

    If a woman was marrying a known abuser, if they counseled the woman against it and she married anyway, shunning them/excommunicating them only isolates the woman further, so I’m not sure how that’s helpful.

    it just might depend upon the situation. But again, the point is, the Bible is not a rule book where we find Paul’s 1 Cor example and extrapolate out a rule. That’s a misuse of the Bible, seems to me.

    I’ve answered your questions, I hope you’ll answer mine.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  41. Sorry, a few other questions from you that I passed over…

    in Rome, during the writing of the NT, Christian slaves who were forced into their marriages against their wills were involved in an immoral relationship according to your definition? Even though Paul would tell them in 1 Cor. 7 not to seek to undo the marriage?

    I’m not judging ancient cultures by modern standards. Ancient cultures engaged in polygamy, they held slaves against their will, they killed children in war time, they forced women into marriages and had cultures that treated women as chattel, as “belonging” to their husbands and fathers. That’s what they did, it was a different time and a different culture. I’m not judging it one way or the other – what difference would it make to judge ancient cultures?

    What I am saying is that, today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.
    Denying women basic liberties is a moral wrong.
    Forcing women (or anyone) into a marriage is a moral wrong.
    Deliberately targeting and killing children in wartime is a moral wrong.

    If, TODAY, we located some of the girls kidnapped and “married” off to Boko Haram members, I would NOT counsel them “oh, just stay with your husbands… you’re married now, so now you must stay, that’s the moral thing…” Good God, NO! That very notion is nauseating to me, morally.

    Would you?

    ~Dan

  42. Another earlier question of yours…

    Where have there been Christians in cultures that practice arranged marriages in which a woman is threatened by honor killing (an Islamic concept for the most part)? Can you name one? Some Christians practice arranged marriages

    I am wholly unfamiliar with any large group of Christians who practice forced marriages (where the woman does not have a choice and has to marry against her will). Not saying it doesn’t happen, just that I’m not familiar with it.

    But to the degree that anyone forces a woman to marry, contrary to her wishes, that is a moral wrong for the reasons I have stated.

    When you oppose it with Muslims doing it, what is your reasoning? You don’t think the Muslims who do this are engaging in an immoral thing – forcing women to marry against their will? If you oppose it, on what basis do you do so?

    Dan

  43. Pingback: Mid April 2015 Presuppositional Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth

  44. Dan: Well, I would put myself in the ‘conservative’ camp if we have to have camps.

    I’ve already explained clearly what I think the NT says about marriage, and apart from exceptional circumstances, I think this has applied from the beginning, though not always practiced. I have answered your question direct, I’ve said what I am for. I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve merely used my self-determination to answer the question in a format of my choosing.

    What I don’t understand is if slavery is regarded as a moral wrong now, why wasn’t it morally wrong in the past? How can right and wrong change over time?

  45. Ken…

    I’ve already explained clearly what I think the NT says about marriage, and apart from exceptional circumstances, I think this has applied from the beginning, though not always practiced. I have answered your question direct, I’ve said what I am for. I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve merely used my self-determination to answer the question in a format of my choosing.

    I am fine with you answering questions directly, however you choose to do so. The problem with your answers is that, IF you have given what you consider to be a direct answer, I still don’t know what your position is. That is, if you have indeed answered, you have answered in a way that did not communicate to me what your position is.

    The problems with that are

    1. It is not helpful.
    2. It is not clear.
    3. It comes across as having NOT answered the question.
    4. Which in turn comes across as if you support evil, immoral positions or at least are immorally non-committal about something so vital as human rights and women’s rights, specifically.
    5. The problem, then – getting back to the point of this post – is that you come across as misogynistic, hateful towards women in a refusal to support their basic human right to self-determination.

    Now, if that is how you wish to come across, well, that’s on you. But I have to believe that you don’t want to appear vague and unhelpful and immoral and misogynistic.

    I understand not all questions are asked in a way that lend themselves to a direct Yes/No answer. The classic “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question can’t be answered directly Yes or NO. BUT, it can be very clearly and directly answered.

    Observe:

    That question has a mistaken implication in it and I can’t answer that with a yes or no, BUT, my direct answer to that question is this: I have never beaten my wife or in any way abused her. Therefore, I can’t “stop” beating her as I never have beaten her.

    That answer is brief and quite clear and very direct.

    Likewise, you could help your case and be more communicative by being similarly direct. As it is, I truly have no idea what your answer is to my questions. Let me take a best guess though. I asked…

    Can you agree that forced marriages – where the woman can’t say NO to the mate chosen for her – are morally wrong?

    Ken/Fred’s answer (best guess):

    Dan, I can’t say yes or no to that question. The problem is that the question implies that the woman has a right to be self-determining and I don’t believe in the notion of “the right to self-determination…” I don’t believe it exists…

    THAT is a direct answer, but it begs a HUGE question that must be followed up upon…

    What does that mean? At 19, I chose to drop out of college. At 22, I chose to ask my wife to marry me. She chose to say Yes. At 28, I chose to return to college… in EACH of these instances, in the real world I DID have the right, the liberty, the option of being self-determining. No human agency intervened and told me No. If they had, that would have been immoral and it would have been immoral because it would be attempting to take away my human liberties, my right to self-determination. That happened in the real world. I HAD the liberty to be self-determining. So, what do you mean you don’t believe in the human right option of self-determination?

    At which point you could directly answer that question. Or whatever you two are trying to say. I’m saying you CAN be more helpful and more direct than you have been because, thus far, you have not been all that direct as witnessed by the reality that I still don’t know what your position is.

    Do you think that it is immoral for human agencies to deny others their human liberty in their right to self-determination when it comes to what career I’ll pursue or who I will marry, for two examples?

    The ball is in your court.

    Ken…

    What I don’t understand is if slavery is regarded as a moral wrong now, why wasn’t it morally wrong in the past? How can right and wrong change over time?

    Cultures change. What WAS acceptable in one culture is not acceptable in another. In the Bible, polygamy was accepted behavior. It was not one time condemned. God, in fact, says God “gave” King David his many wives (in 2 Samuel 12, if memory serves…).

    But just because polygamy was accepted as moral and allowable then, does not mean that we need to accept it as moral or allowable now. Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral. Just because forced marriages were acceptable then does not mean that they are moral.

    Do you disagree? Do you think that polygamy, slavery and forced marriages are all morally acceptable options – NOT immoral – and the reason they acceptable is “the Bible…”? That is, because they were accepted in ancient cultures, we must consider them moral now?

    If so, do you understand how crazy and immoral that sounds? No! God forbid! We do NOT have to accept past mores as valid moral options now. To insist upon that is to insist upon moral anarchy and immorality.

    IF that is what you are doing, then I would counsel that you are not understanding the Bible correctly, that you are treating it as a “Holy Magic 8 Ball” where one cherry picks out moral answers to today’s moral questions and that is disrespectful to the Bible’s actual teachings and certainly, in my opinion, to the God we serve.

    If you wish to be understood and not considered to be wimpy, vague, or outright immoral and misogynistic, please cite my question and respond directly with “Dan, the answer to that question is right here:” and provide the answer to that question so I know where to find your answer. As it is now, if you all think you have answered any of my questions, I have not seen those answers.

    Respectfully and with the love of God for you two fellas,

    Dan

  46. But just because polygamy was accepted as moral and allowable then, does not mean that we need to accept it as moral or allowable now. Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral. Just because forced marriages were acceptable then does not mean that they are moral.

    Polygamy was never “moral.” Jesus clearly stated that the original intention of God was one man and one woman in Matthew 19. That is the Genesis decree. Polygamy was bad, and was the bane of ancient patriarchs who took on pagan ideas with regards to more than one wife for whatever reason. The fact that God did not immediately judge it does not mean that God thought it acceptable.

    Additionally, slavery was never seen as moral either. But under the circumstances of each society, God gave specific directives as to how masters were to treat slaves, and slaves submit to masters. Paul had no problem send Onesimus, the run away slave, back to Philemon, his owner. Under your rubric the apostle was acting immorally, which is absurd.

    Walter Kaiser’s Toward an OT Ethic would be invaluable for you to read.

  47. Why? Does he answer the questions that you and Ken are not?

    Again, I am very curious: IF you all want to make your case, why would you not answer reasonable, respectfully asked questions? These are questions that point to holes in your argument/opinions. If you can’t answer them, then I am left with the idea that your opinions are irrational and inconsistent and, in places, quite horrifyingly immoral. Thus, I will dismiss them as such. Surely others might have the same questions and might similarly dismiss your positions.

    Given, that, why would you all not deal with the questions being raised?

    Or, if as Ken suggests, you have answered the questions, but done so in a manner that is not detectable/clear, why not be more clear and specific?

    If this Kaiser does not address the holes and immorality of your presentation, I’m not especially interested.

    On the other hand – lest you misunderstand my position – I AM quite impressed with OT Ethics, I love the prophets and the voices of and for the poor, the neglected, the oppressed and marginalized. The systematic attempts to deal with questions of justice and poverty, it’s amazing! The positions and values found in these stories and poetry are magnificent, especially in the context of the time period. So, at least the title of Kaiser’s book sounds promising.

    To your main point:

    What I have said is that, taken literally, the OT…

    1. Never condemns slavery – the owning of other human beings against their will – is never condemned as immoral in the Bible. Taken as literal history, we even have God commanding slavery of this sort, so if you presume that God would not command what is immoral, then by that standard, slavery is not immoral.

    2. Never condemns forced marriage – marrying a woman against her will – is never condemned as immoral in the Bible. Taken as literal history, we even have God commanding forced marriage of this sort, so if you presume that God would not command what is immoral, then by that standard, forced marriage is not immoral.

    3. Never condemns polygamy is never – not one time – condemned as immoral in the Bible. Taken as literal history, we even have God saying he GAVE David his many wives, so if you presume that God would not do what is immoral, then by that standard, polygamy is not immoral.

    The same can be said for killing children and babies in wartime and capital punishment over relatively minor offenses and probably some other actions that are morally disagreeable.

    My point being that, if one tries to take the Bible as “our official source for rules about behavior,” then one is treating the Bible incorrectly and addressing questions of morality incorrectly and irrationally. Trying to use the Bible as The Rule Book can lead to some horrifyingly immoral positions, especially if you also treat it as a literally factual history book.

    If you insist that the way we know what is good and evil is by finding a line in the Bible, then I reject that approach and we just simply disagree.

    If you insist that women don’t have the liberty to be self-determining, then I reject that human opinion as grossly immoral and irrational and, yes, misogynistic.

    If you don’t “believe in” the notion of self-determination as it relates to what jobs, marriages, choices we make as adults, then I reject that as delusional, since obviously, we DO have the ability to be self-determining.

    I say “IF” on all these cases because, despite our many words, I’m still not entirely sure of the position that you and Ken hold. Clarify if you wish or leave me with these presumptions based on my best guess of your positions.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  48. Fred…

    Paul had no problem send Onesimus, the run away slave, back to Philemon, his owner. Under your rubric the apostle was acting immorally, which is absurd.

    ? Why? If I had a woman escape from slavery and make her way to my house, there is literally no way in hell I would return her to her “owner” (ie, to the monster who immorally tried to own a human being). Why? Because slavery is a moral wrong. Period.

    What would be “absurd” about me refusing to return a slave to her owner?

    Can you not agree with me that slavery is a moral wrong. Period?

    Do you understand that, IF that is your position (that slavery is sometimes not immoral and that we should encourage a slave to return to their “owner…”), I find your position not only absurd, but immoral as hell, literally?

    So, as I have stated, I’m not judging ancient people in different contexts for their moral decisions – that is ridiculous. I’m speaking of what IS and ISN’T moral for us today. I’m stating unequivocally that slavery is immoral, that forced marriage (as I’ve defined it/ie, by definition) is immoral, that denying people their basic human liberty of self-determination is immoral.

    Do you actually disagree with any of that?

    Dan

  49. Are you even familiar with Paul’s letter to Philemon about his slave Onesimus who he was returning to him as a believer? Just the wee bit?

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s