Category: abortion

The Ouroboros of Feminism

Has feminism really helped women? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been reading The Bully Society and the book talks about how women are often treated, including by other women! Women live in a quite contradictory world. If you wish to remain a virgin until you’re wedding night, then you’re a prude. If you do sleep around with men, you’re a slut.

I have said that the self-esteem movement was a failure. Feminism was also a failure and has become an ouroboros. If you do not know, that’s the depiction you will see sometimes of a snake that eats its tail.

The first mistake is that it has been thought that men and women are different and therefore, one is superior to the other. This doesn’t follow. There are plenty of things that are different to one another, but it does not follow that one is superior. Cats and dogs are different and people have their preferences, but it does not follow that one is superior. The same could be said with various foods, colors, books, movies, etc. Sometimes there is a superior, but not just because two things are different.

There was also the question of men sometimes getting different treatment, such as in the workplace, but this was not because men are superior. It was because men and women are different in that women can miss long periods of work at a time when they have children. Men are not the same way. It was tempting to write “Do not have the same problem” but that assumes that it is a problem.

I happen to side with what the Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft said. Men are superior at one thing, being men. Women are superior at one thing, being women.

Keep that in mind as we go along.

Unfortunately, women started seeing their being a woman as the problem. While the pill certainly helped some, it was abortion that really got the ball rolling. With that, women were able to eliminate pregnancy. Thus, they could have careers like men.

Just pause to think about that. Innocent human lives dying for the sake of a career. We read in the Bible about the Canaanites performing child sacrifice, but we’re worse. At least they saw that as a real sacrifice and did it for the good of the harvest.

Baby: Why must I die?

Canaanite: We realize what a value you are to us so we are sacrificing you as a gift to the gods so that they will bless us with a bountiful harvest so we can all survive.

Baby: Why must I die?

Women: Because your mother didn’t want to have you and just wanted to have sex without consequences and if she has you, she can’t get that promotion she wants at work and go on to have a successful career. You are an inconvenience on her path to independence.

They are both wrong, but the Canaanites make a better case.

In The Bully Society, it is claimed that many of the early feminists wanted men to start treating sex the way women did. Generally, women seem more interested in building relationships. Men generally tend to be more interested in, well, sex. Not so, instead, women started to act more like men and why wouldn’t they? They had already killed their femininity with abortion.

Fast forward past that and the LGBTQ people start making cases. “Hey! If couples get married all the time without children and we allow abortion, then really children don’t matter. Right? If marriage is not really about children, but about the happiness of the people involved, then why can’t we get married?”

And if it is true that marriage is not about building up a stable family unit for a future generation, then they have a point. Why can’t they? It is as if the whole of society had ceased to really think about marriage and what it was and decided that whatever this is, we can just apply it to another group.

With that, the sexes in a marriage became interchangeable. You don’t have to have a man and a woman. You can have two men or two women. Now we have people marrying buildings and animals and other inanimate objects and even themselves. Before long, the Mormons will surely be pushing for polygamy, and why not? After all, if male and female are artificial ideas thrust on marriage, why stop at just two people?

It was only a few years after that we went the next logical step. Note in saying logical I am not agreeing with it, but I am saying that if you accept the premises already mentioned, the conclusion does naturally follow. If men and women are interchangeable in marriage, why not everywhere else? This gets us to the transgender movement.

Remember how I referred to Kreeft earlier saying men are superior at being men and women at being women?

This is no longer the case.

Men claiming to be women are winning sports competitions. They are winning beauty pageants. They are even winning poker tournaments. Not only that, but many women are defending this. Who are the superior women now?

Looks like men are.

Oh. What else do the men get out of this?

They still get to keep their jobs. They also get to have all the sex they want with the women who will kill the children so that men don’t have to have responsibility for them. They also don’t even have to marry the women any more to get to have sex.

Women meanwhile have lost their femininity and are being beat by men in what was supposed to be the areas for women.

This is the end result of feminism.

True femininity encourages women to celebrate being women. It tells them having children is not a hindrance but is a gift. It tells them to celebrate the differences they have from men. It tells them to have men earn sex with them by making lifelong commitments to them prior. It also tells them to stay faithful to the men that they do marry and build families together.

In this deal, women get to have a future with their DNA passed down to their children, they get to be provided for by their husbands, they get to be loved and adored, and oh yes, they get to have the sex without worrying about the consequences because having a baby isn’t a problem to them. They can also tell men to get out of women’s sports and other women’s areas. They can work if they want to, but it’s not a requirement.

Maybe it’s just me, but it looks like women are better off with a more traditional approach.

If you are a woman, celebrate it. Don’t be a feminist.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Reply To Honestly by Tom Copeland Part 3

What about interpretation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this part of the book, Copeland starts with examining the biblical data. He admits upfront he’s not a biblical languages scholar. That’s fine. Neither am I. We’re not going to get into any fancy use of Greek or Hebrew here. So let’s see first off what Copeland says is the standpoint of the positions.

He says that conservatives point to Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy mainly to offer passages they say offer indisputable proof that the bible condemns same-sex sexual behavior. Liberals dispute these and sometimes say that some of these passages could be about pederasty instead. They say that the Bible gives no condemnation of loving and consensual same-sex relationships.

Okay. Both sides could have some nuance, but they are generally a fair assessment. This is certainly something that is written about back and forth. So how does Copeland respond to these?

So which side is right? I’m not really sure, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter that much.

Copeland, Tom. Honestly – A Book About Sex for Christians . Tom Copeland. Kindle Edition.

I’m sorry. What?

I mean, this is only Scripture which we say is our authority. This is only what we say could be about the fate of countless souls for all eternity. This is a question that doesn’t matter that much?

Last time, I wrote about how the liberal side is reluctant to deal with passages if they think they hurt them or someone they care about. We have already seen that take place. I would have preferred at least some reason for thinking that the conservative side is wrong rather than a dismissal of the issue altogether.

He instead goes with an approach from Tillich saying that we are all dealing with our own interpretations and all sides have claimed biblical sanctions on various issues. It is certainly true that all sides have, but one side has been wrong and the other has been right, at least if you hold to a conservative view of Scripture. If we go this route, then we could easily say anything is okay. Moral relativism wins out.

He also says Rich Mullins said God knows what it means. The rest of us are just guessing. To an extent, but some guesses are also better than others. God knows what the disease is someone has, but odds are if they go to a doctor, he has a better guess than they do.

He also quotes Donald Miller and says we are more interested often in a propositional claim than a relational one. Interesting to note that that itself is a propositional claim. They’re unavoidable. We should make sure ours are rooted in truth. He then asks what if we’re wrong?

This is followed by asking if Christians should be passing radical anti-abortion laws to protect unborn children like the one in Texas.

Okay. This book was published in 2013, so I’m guessing that law was HB2. I looked up the measures of this radical law. I did find something from the UK on it here.

So what is so radical?

– Abortions doctors were required to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.

– All abortions clinics were required to upgrade to become ambulatory surgical centres (ASCs).

– Abortions after 20-weeks were prohibited, except in the case of “severe fetal abnormalities” or to “avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment … of the pregnant woman”.

– Women who take abortion-inducing pills, must do so under the supervision of a physician, requiring two trips to the clinic for each dosage.

– After the administration of the abortion-inducing pills, a woman must set a follow-up visit with the physician 14-days after the dosage.

In addition to the three visits required of those seeking abortions under HB2, Texas passed a law in 2011 requiring women to undergo an ultrasound procedure 24 hours prior to getting an abortion – resulting in a minimum of four visits to the clinic.

The article says that if this were upheld, 10 or fewer clinics would have served the state.

On that last part, might it not be best to say that if so many clinics can’t handle these requirements, maybe they shouldn’t be open? What is really so radical? Is it wanting an ultrasound so a woman can make an informed decision? Is it being near a hospital in case something goes wrong? Is it that except in cases like a fetal condition that could cause death to the woman abortions weren’t allowed after 20 weeks?

And this is radical?

Copeland asks if we should instead have healthy choices for women, particularly in cases of rape and incest.

The hugely overwhelming majority of cases of abortion are not for rape or incest.

Should Christians be in favor of the death penalty or opposed to it? He speaks no further on this, but I say, yes, we should be.

Should we be in favor of second amendment rights, even having people allowed to have concealed handguns at church? Well, considering how many bad guys with guns have shown up at churches, yes. I don’t live in fear of the majority of citizens having guns. Bad guys having guns without the majority having them? Yes. That’s fearful. Even more fearful, the government being armed while we’re not.

This goes on to questions of war and wealth. Copeland asks who we usually say is right. The answer is us. Of course, that’s not a major claim. If I did not think my position was right, why would I hold it? However, if I hold a position, I have reasons for it.

He goes on to say that he doesn’t know and he has this thing called faith which requires not knowing. I have written on faith more here. Based on this, you might as well say that we should strive to know less so that we can have more faith. This doesn’t fit anyway. “I don’t know which side is right, so I have faith?”

He then says he can’t make life-altering decisions for someone else based on passages that only show up in the Old Testament and Paul and are mentioned nowhere in the Gospels or any other New Testament writer. (Ignore for the point Jude could say something about it.) Unfortunately, Copeland has already done this. Saying he won’t condemn the behavior is itself making a life-altering judgment and if he is wrong, then his advice could condemn numerous souls for eternity.

Never mind that James 3:1 says teachers will be held to greater account. Will he stand before God and say “I decided it really didn’t matter what your Word said about the issue.”? As for Jesus, Jesus never said anything about the death penalty or abortion or guns either, but yet Copeland sure asks about those. Jesus talked about questions that were relevant debate topics in Israel. We have no reason to think same-sex relationships were one of them.

After this, Copeland says:

The stakes are real. The stakes are people. Depending on the research you read, between 25-40% of non-heterosexual teenagers have attempted suicide and as many as 75% report having had suicidal thoughts. The rate is as much as five times higher for teens who identify themselves as gay than for heterosexual teens. For the church to do anything that could possibly contribute to that is unacceptable.

Copeland, Tom. Honestly – A Book About Sex for Christians . Tom Copeland. Kindle Edition.

I agree that the stakes are real and are people and we need to do something, but notice this. If someone is having suicidal thoughts based on whatsoever issue, the first thing to deal with primarily is what in them is making them have suicidal thoughts. Having gone through divorce, I sometimes pondered the question of suicide and I understand that most people who go through divorce, particularly those wrongfully divorced, do. Now if I was at a point of acting, is the thing to do to change everyone else and force my ex to take me back, or is it to change my own thinking on how I see myself regardless? Wouldn’t it be best to deal with the underlying mental health issue?

In the end, Copeland might say he doesn’t want to really take a side, but the reality is he has. He can say he doesn’t want to make life-altering judgments, but he has. He can say he doesn’t want to make judgments on the holiness of certain actions, but in reality, he has. They are unavoidable.

I think he’s wrong entirely.

We’ll each have to stand before God and give reasons for our answers someday.

I hope we’re both prepared.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

A Prayer For Our Country

What is part of my prayers every night? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I pray every night before signing off of my computer and going to bed, and part of that prayer every day is a prayer for my country. I love America. I just don’t love what has happened to her. I still think that this nation can be a city on a hill once again.

When Israel was in the promised land, they were meant to be a kingdom of priests for those on the outside. They were meant to intercede for their pagan neighbors. When the nation was in exile, we see in Daniel 9 that it is Daniel who repents on behalf of the nation of Israel. There is a precedent of the righteous interceding on behalf of the wicked, especially shown in the cases of Jesus and Stephen.

Because of this, I pray every night for our country and it includes the following, which is centered on our children.

First, we have killed our children.

Wednesday while listening to the radio, and I only listen to talk radio, I heard someone talking about the massacre of the people at a concert in Israel and how that was the greatest act of evil he could think of in our times. I get what he was saying. It was a hideous act of evil, but I could easily think of a worse one.

Every day in abortion clinics across our country where hundreds if not thousands more are murdered every day in the name of freedom and reproductive rights. I have often said that we’re worse than the pagans were in the past. When they sacrificed their children, they did it for the good of the harvest or for the welfare of the nation. We sacrifice our children at the altar of convenience.

Pray for our repentance and forgiveness.

Second, we have mutilated our children.

More and more children are claiming that they are transgender and at a young age are being told they have such authority to say who they are. We have people having their bodies destroyed and letting themselves be sterilized for this purpose. it is an irreversible decision in many cases and don’t be surprised if within a few years, there are major lawsuits against “health-providers” for this. Even more amazing, we call it “gender-affirming care” when it’s exactly the opposite.

Pray for our repentance and forgiveness.

Third, we have groomed our children.

We have Drag Queen Story hours where we are normalizing children to sexual behavior they shouldn’t be normalized to. We have children celebrating Pride events at schools. Florida was blasted for a bill called by the media the “Don’t Say Gay” bill when all it said was sexual matters should not be talked about with children who are third grade or less.

Pray for our repentance and forgiveness.

Finally, we have indoctrinated our children.

We have a generation of people growing up who know next to nothing about the history of our country. They sit on laptops with their smartphones drinking at Starbucks and complaining about how evil capitalism is. They repeat cliches so much so that now in light of events in the Middle East, you have them saying “From the river to the sea” and talking about “There is only one solution” not even realizing where these terms come from. They are growing up to be more and more narcissistic and basing their lives on social media.

Pray for our repentance and forgiveness.

Then after this, I pray for something else.

I pray that the church rise up and be the church and change our society once more.

No. This is not a Catholic prayer in the sense of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a catholic prayer in the sense of the church universal. It is the prayer that we who are Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, will rise up and unite together in this cause. I have areas where I disagree with Catholics and Orthodox, but I have plenty more where I agree with them on and that’s where I choose to focus. I am blessed to meet regularly with some Catholics to study Aquinas and when I am asked what I believe about certain passages of Scripture, I speak freely. I doubt that I am agreed with, but I think they know I try to be as fair as possible. I am not antagonized. If anything, the joke I make is I am there to make sure everyone has their doctrine correct since I’m one of the ones asked about hard questions on Aristotelian thought.

It’s not about my being recognized as an authority in something. That’s nice, but the primary thing is I am recognized as a fellow Christian regardless of differences. Our country is at war fighting for the soul of our country and I want that to be our main emphasis.

I recommend that you join me in this nightly prayer for our country, but at the same time, don’t just make it a prayer and do nothing. Act. Do something to be the salt and light you need to be.

We can change this country. More accurately, Christ can change this country through us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 6

Can materialism sustain a culture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, there are only two things I really want to point out that I find interesting. Humphrys goes against the new atheist movement where he does suggest that the death of religion is not coming as quickly as some people think. If anything, it looks like the reverse is happening. There is still a growing desire for something beyond this world.

He points to an article called God Returns to Europe found in Prospect magazine and written by Eric Kaufmann. He says that it looks like religion is coming back and one reason is women who are religious tend to marry young and tend to have a lot of babies. This isn’t just Catholic women. This is also Protestant women.

I concur with this and think the same is due for America. Those on the left are busy killing their own children in abortion or rendering them sterile through transgenderism. There is a reason secular pro-life is growing here in America and I suspect it’s because they saw the impact of abortion on their generation and don’t want to see that going on anymore.

There are also more and more cases of people undergoing sex change operations and regretting it, many of them suing. I have said before that if you are going into law, this is a good field to jump into. There will be loads of lawsuits against doctors for performing these surgeries and enticing minors to go into them.

So in one case, either the population is dead, or in the second, they can’t have children anyway.

Those of us who are Christian do tend to believe that marriage is for life and that children are a good thing. We also want our children to be raised with our values and will instill them in them. Of course, the culture will get some of them, but as the cultural power wants, it returns back to the hands of the Christians.

The second is that Humphrys says we are more materialistic than we have ever been, and yet we want something more. Those of us who are Christians are not shocked at all at this finding. With material things, one usually always wants more and it is never enough and yet it is also the case of diminishing returns.

Man wants more than just hedonistic pleasure in this life and we usually look down on those who just live for that pleasure. We can enjoy the movies Hollywood puts out, but few of us would really want to be like the people in Hollywood.

We were promised Utopia and it didn’t deliver. If anything, as I pointed out recently, the breakdown of religion could have unleashed something atheists think is worse. Could it be that in the end, we will find those principles we abandoned turned out to be good ones? Could it be maybe the family really is what is important? Could it be that the pushback to Pride last month is starting to open the eyes of people?

None of this is a shock to us. We knew this wouldn’t work long-term. How many of us have enjoyed a day of great pleasures and in the end still said, “There has to be something more.” We are often like the children on Christmas day who open their gifts and wonder “Is there not anything more?”

No. None of this establishes theism, but it is a pointer to it. If a worldview can’t be lived out, there’s a problem with it. Are we opening our eyes at last to the bankruptcy of materialism?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

What Are Your Children Reading?

Do you know what’s going on in your school library? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As a conservative, I like watching the channel Don’t Walk, Run on YouTube. I don’t know the religious position of the host Andrew, but I do like the material he presents. He recently asked a question about the book The Perks of Being A Wallflower and asked if it contained any sexually explicit material or not. Now I hadn’t read the book, but I went to Google Books. It’s important to know you can’t type in a search “explicitly sexual material” or “rape scene.” Thus, I put in terms that would be used in such scenes.

I am putting in the ones I thought were the worst. I was even hesitant to share these on Facebook for fear that I would get in trouble for them. If you are hesitant to put something like this on Facebook, putting it in a book geared toward children is probably not a good idea.

So let’s see some screenshots I took of my computer.

Also, this is just from one book. In Andrew’s video, he reads passages from these books to show why they are banned. Keep in mind that books that are considered classics like Huckleberry Finn are often condemned today because of “racism” but books describing rape and having explicit pornography in them are okay.

Later on his Twitter, Andrew shared a picture from A Court of Mist and Fury and said this was one of the tamer passages in the book.

Keep in mind also no one is saying ban these books outright as far as I know. If someone wants to read them, they can go to a bookstore, Amazon, or even a public library. What is being said is this does not belong in a school library and books like this should certainly not be required reading for students.

Some might say “Doesn’t the Bible contain some explicit language?” Yes. However, the Bible is also not written as if it the primary target was young hormone charged teenagers. Also, this is either shown in a marital context, such as in the Song of Songs, or else it is shown in a way to indicate the wickedness of the action.

We are living in a day and age of mass sexual confusion. Keep in mind that at every step it has been “This is all we’re asking for.” What is being asked for has always increased. At first, it was just accept homosexuals and give them freedom. Then it was to allow marriage. Now it has moved towards transgenderism where healthy girls are getting double mastectomies. We are raising up a children that will be sterile every time they go through such an operation.

Parents. Please be watching what is on your child’s syllabus and/or assigned reading list. Make sure you read anything first. I am considering for this blog getting some of these books at a library myself and letting parents know what is in them even more. This is about protecting your children more and more because in an age of confusion, they are more prone to be victimized in the name of being loving.

It’s up to you, parents, to put a stop to that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and Science on Gender, Sex, and Marriage

What do I think of Lindsay Harold and Daniel Biddle’s book published by Genesis Apologetics? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t know anything about Daniel Biddle aside from this book, but Lindsay is one of my favorite posters to read on Facebook as her insights on marriage and family are excellent. Thus, when I heard she had a book out on the topic of gender, sex, and marriage, I wanted to get in on helping out with it. I thank her for sending me a copy of it. As I normally do then, I am going to list the positives and then the things I would like to change.

First, a lot of the information in this book is excellent. The authors put in a lot of work to demonstrate that from the womb to the tomb, men and women are different. They point out the ways that men excel in areas women normally don’t and then vice-versa. They do point out that these are generalities. For example, while it is common that men are taller than women, that does not mean that every man is taller than every woman.

Second, they do put a lot of work into demonstrating a biblical foundation for sex and marriage and family. This is important especially for a lot of layman Christians today who are buying into the LGBTQ agenda and haven’t really thought about these issues much. Too many people buy into the idea of just saying “Love is love” as if every kind of love is automatically good.

Third, from a Christian viewpoint, the gospel is clearly here. The writers give the bad news about the wrongs done in our society too, but they also give the good news. They do talk about compassion for those who have made mistakes in their lives in these areas. For instance, when talking about abortion, they do list a number of pro-life ministries to help a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t know what to do.

So now the things I would like to change.

First, I do understand this is Genesis Apologetics and they are YEC, but I think this could be a distraction. For instance, at the start, a biblical worldview is talked about, which includes man created out of clay instantly thousands of years ago. I understand a lot of Christians believe this wholeheartedly, but a lot of them do not. I know plenty of people in all walks of creation beliefs that love Jesus. I also know that if you want to reach non-believers, that they will tend to discount this position quite quickly. People like myself can be told we have a secular worldview, even though I would just as ardently say my view is in line with Scripture.

Second, I am not against using Scripture, but I think the book could be more effective had it stuck to general revelation topics and then at the end perhaps had a postscript covering the gospel for all interested. If I was wanting to convince someone on a Christian worldview of sex and marriage who was an atheist, I would start with what we all know already in general revelation. I would be glad to ground that later on in theism if need be, but I want to go one step at a time.

Third, the authors at the end did list a lot of sexual practices and beliefs about marriage that have caused great harm in society, including divorce. The effects of everything else were covered, but I don’t remember divorce, which is a shame since this is also one of the most abundant and easy ones to cover. I am grateful that many of the others were covered.

Overall though, this is an excellent book and it’s a short one. I read it in a day and you can too and it’s not really a strain to do so. We need more information out there on the differences between men and women and the role sex and marriage should play in our society.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

How Feminism Has Been Bad For Women.

Is Modern feminism a good thing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“Modern feminism has done more to harm women than the so-called patriarchy could ever dream of doing.”

This is what I put on my wall on Facebook Saturday night. Someone did post wanting to know more and it was late and I figured, “There’s a lot here. Why not write a post on it on Monday?” So having said that, let’s go through and see how I think this has been a bad thing.

Now what sparked this was the videos about women in gym talking about guys watching them while there. In some cases, a guy is treating a woman like a piece of meat when all he’s doing is just glancing her way from time to time. In one such video, we found out that one of the girls talked about how traumatizing it was and yet had an OnlyFans account. This is just one example and I will expound on it.

Let’s also be clear. What I mean by modern feminism is an attitude that is often anti-male or thinks that men and women are absolutely equal in everything, save perhaps biological differences. I am not saying anything about women having the right to vote or have a career outside the house or being able to have higher education.

First way is that modern feminism has helped women suffer under the transgender movement.

If you want to try to eliminate all differences between men and women, one idea that can easily come about is that men and women are practically interchangeable. Then what happens is that men undergo an operation, claim to be a woman, and then compete in women’s sports and lo and behold, they win. This is because generally, men are stronger and more capable than women in these areas due to how their bodies develop vs. how a woman’s body develops.

“Well that’s not true! I know a woman who is far better than most men in these areas!”

That’s why this is a general statement. It’s not saying all men are better than all women at XYZ. Generalities do allow for exceptions, but the fact that they are the exceptions demonstrates the point.

Not only are men winning women’s competitions, now they are even winning beauty pageants and other such titles. This is pushing women out of the rightful positions they should have here. I am also not saying that modern feminists intended for this to happen, but many of our actions do result in unintended consequences.

Let’s also be clear at something. When we say men and women are different, it does not follow from this that one is superior to the other. All that is said is that they are different. I like what Peter Kreeft has said about this. Men are superior at being men. Women are superior at being women. Unfortunately, the transgender movement now has it that men are going to be superior at being women also.

The second way is telling a woman that a career is most important.

Once again, this is not saying that a woman cannot have a career or should not pursue a career, but it is saying that women cannot put career first and still expect the rest of their lives to work out normally. Many women have even sadly been shamed because they didn’t do anything with themselves but be a stay-at-home Mom. A housewife is treated as a lower position. It’s also seen as servile. Staying home and cleaning and fixing meals and making sure your husband has a meal?

If you are a stay-at-home Mom because that is what you wanted to do, God bless you. You have not chosen a lesser path. What job could be greater in the world than raising the next generation of human beings and preparing them to be contributing members to society?

Now, women are told to put off marriage and children. Go and get a career and then you can think about those things later. Unfortunately, biology disagrees. The older a woman gets, the harder it will be for her to conceive. A man does not have this problem. A man can be a senior citizen and still father a child.

Because of this, women will often go out and work on their career and then realize their chances of being a mother are greatly lessened. Not only that, if they do not date to marry at this time, they will find that many of the good men they are wanting are gone. Who got them? Those women that chose that “lesser position” of being a housewife and stay-at-home Mom.

Now this gets us into the sexual marketplace. One of the biggest mistakes of feminism has been championing abortion. One of the biggest distinctions between men and women is that women can give birth. Abortion treats this fact as a hindrance and a problem to be dealt with. Let’s ask a simple question about this. Who benefits?

Well, feminists tell us also that men only want one thing and that’s sex. Last I checked, in abortion, man gets what he wants then, the sex. Not only that, he has no consequences. He doesn’t have to be involved in the life of a child. He doesn’t have to pay child support. He gets to have his fun, and then the woman removes the consequences for him. Guess what the man gets then overall? Sex without responsibility. He doesn’t have to owe anything to the woman or promise to be there. This only helps enable the negative attitude that women have toward men.

The increase in something like no-fault divorce also doesn’t help women for the most part. Now men who would normally marry and make a commitment do not do so because they can get with a woman, then she leaves him when he is the innocent part, and he ends up paying alimony and child support for the rest of his life and she takes half of his stuff. (This did not happen with me lest anyone thinks I am writing this out of personal vengeance.)

So what happens? They move in together instead and don’t get married and what happens? The man can leave at any time. A woman will often go for this thinking it’s a stepping stone to marriage. The man can go in easily thinking “Sex without commitment. Sounds good to me.” Again, I am not saying this is how it happens every time, but it is something that is expected. Once again also, the man is the real beneficiary.

Also, if a woman is willingly doing porn, she is doing what she has complained about men doing to her, objectifying her. Let’s go back to OnlyFans. What is a woman doing with this? Sure, she’s making money, but what she is saying to any complete stranger is “If you pay this bunch a month, you can see me naked.” How is the woman treating her self-worth? She’s worth whatever the charge is. In the past, if a man wanted to see a naked woman, he either had to go down to the magazine stand or video store which was public and people could see what he was doing, or else he had to do the work of winning a woman’s heart and making a lifelong commitment to her. Women have now made it easy.

Now let’s look at the situation of women at the gym. Newsflash everyone! Men notice beautiful women! A book I remember going through explaining the way men are to women said that picture a group of men watching the final moments of the Super Bowl or the World Series or something of that sort and then a woman comes in and starts taking her shirt off.

The men will lose complete interest in the game.

In my area, there was a challenge given to women and these were recorded on video. You never saw the woman aside from perhaps non-sexual body parts, at least normally from our culture’s perspective. The challenge was these women had just got out of the shower and had only a towel around them and they would go to their men who were either husbands or boyfriends and were playing video games. They would then do something like toss the towel at the man who would for the overwhelming most part stop whatever game they were playing and go for the girl immediately.

Not only this, but generally, men notice anything in the world normally, not as a whole first, but as several individual parts. This implies to women also, which is why men can easily notice what they see sexually desirable in women. I am not saying this is a good thing necessarily. I am saying it is just a reality.

So if a beautiful woman goes to a gym and is wearing something that really clings to her body or is wearing something exposing her midriff or anything that makes her attractive, men will notice. In the book “Through a Man’s Eyes” by Shaunti Feldhahn and Craig Gross, Feldhahn writes about talking to a couple at a church about a movie called Cold Mountain. She asks the wife how they handled the sex scene in that together. The wife asks “Was there a sex scene?” The man just looks up briefly and says “Yep.”

Men notice this.

The problem is feminism now punishes men for being men. In the video in question, which I am not finding on its own, but here is Candace Owens talking about it. (I would have gone with Joey Swoll, but there is language involved there.) This man is made into a villain when he simply looked over a couple of times, and then came over, offered help, and then left the woman alone.

First off, if a man notices a woman at the gym, that is not wrong. I am not talking about the man who stares and gawks at a woman with his tongue sticking out or something like that. Yes. A guy can be creepy in his attraction to a woman. However, suppose he is attracted to her. Is it necessarily creepy if he goes over and starts to talk to her and eventually asks her out? (One wonders if the woman would complain if the man looked like a Brad Pitt type to her.)

Second, a man could watch a woman for any number of reasons. Could she use some help? What if someone who is creepy does come up to her? Many men just like to be aware of their surroundings. That includes the women in the area.

What women do here is punishing men for being men and wishing they would think more like women. No. They will not. That desire that you think is creepy can also be what will drive them to be the best for you and care for you. Many men overall really want to protect and cherish women.

Yesterday, I saw a video from Just Pearly Things about how men only want one thing and they don’t expect much in return. No. The video is not about what you expect. Men ultimately want respect and will do anything to help out the women in their lives. Yes. There are exceptions, but we’re not talking about those. Any time I have been somewhere and seen a woman in need, I have wanted to do what I can to help her.

However, because of these videos coming out, what are men less likely to do? Ask out women. After all, you can get a sexual harassment lawsuit headed your way. If a woman has a phone at the gym, a man will stay away. He might stay away period just to avoid getting in any trouble.

By the way, that means also good guys will stay away. Those good guys that women ask about where they are? They’re the ones that don’t want to be ruined for the crime of being attracted to women. This isn’t just me saying this. I see plenty of women saying the same as well.

Women can often complain about what they call the patriarchy, but they are doing the worst damage to themselves. They don’t need the patriarchy to ruin women. They have met the enemy and it is them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

What Is It?

Do we think about what things are anymore? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

If you are a cat owner, you understand the curiosity of a cat. Many times when I open my closet door to get out clothes for the day, my cat will just happen to wander in and I wait as he explores a little bit before he comes out again. After all, it’s been a few days since he’s been in there and something might have changed. Cats are curious. They want to know.

Yesterday, I wrote about how people don’t talk about what marriage is. Today, I saw someone post on Facebook Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee asking why some people hate jokes more than child porn? This about Balenciaga and their advertising activity lately whereas the Babylon Bee can get banned on Twitter for a joke. I also had someone respond to my blog on TheologyWeb about how words like marriage are pretty much meaningless in our society today.

There is a case to be made that marriage is our third most meaningless word in society today. The others are God and love. When normal people talk about these terms, they never define them. They just talk about them as if everyone knows them when really hardly anyone does. The terms become whatever the speaker thinks they are.

Our culture sadly abandoned metaphysics long ago. Because of that, we no longer think of what things are. Why should we? After all, Kant came along and said we can’t know the things in themselves, but only how they appear to us.

Now it could be said that science is the exception to this. Don’t we go out and discover reality? That’s the goal, but that’s also the goal of most every other field out there as well, just done differently. Every field has its own methods, but each is aimed at truth to some degree.

Yet nowadays, even that has been lowered. A lot of people look at how “Follow the science” worked in 2020. We also see science being used to control in the case of something such as climate change controversies. We see how science is selectively ignored when it comes to abortion as all of a sudden, it does get closer to metaphysics supposedly asking “Well what is a person really?”

If we are the ones who are ultimately at the center of reality, then words are what will matter the most to us. If we determine reality, it goes a step further. It is not just what the person said, but how we feel about what the person said. It doesn’t matter what the other person meant to say. It is how we see the words that matters and if I see your words as violence, then they are violence.

This is especially the case in the area of sexuality. We talk a lot about the topic, but we don’t think about it. We don’t ask what it is, how it came to be, and what we should use it for. This is the last thing our culture wants to do.

After all, if you define something and talk about a purpose of it, you have to talk about a right and a wrong way to use it, and that cannot be allowed. We might  say “Well, we don’t allow XYZ yet”, but it’s easy to respond that we are allowing activities today that we never would have dreamed of allowing years ago. Every step that has been taken by those on the left to push the envelope has led to it being pushed further and further. It’s easy to claim the slippery slope fallacy, but the truth is sometimes slopes are slippery and people do fall down them.

What is needed in our culture? A return to learning what things are and to watch the terms that we use. Defining terms is not just good for debate, but it is also good for society. We use so many words without thinking about what they mean. Kierkegaard once said something about how we care so much about the freedom of speech, but think so little about the freedom of thought that gives our speech meaning.

Until we learn what we’re talking about, maybe it would be best to just not say anything at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is Abortion Evangelism?

Why not kill the child and send them straight to Heaven? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In my systematic theology class this morning, we had a discussion on original sin and at one point, the question came up of why not go ahead and kill babies if they will go straight to Heaven? Now I have thought about this over the years and have a response. I don’t want to risk anyone just thinking that I only thought about this briefly for the first time this morning and now I’m shooting out a response.

The first thought I have on this is that we do evangelism wrong. We have made evangelism all about getting to Heaven. It’s a quite wrong-headed goal. It’s as if our whole emphasis on marriage was just getting people to the altar. That’s important, but it’s only the first part. If we don’t focus on the purpose of marriage for the new couple, they could wind up worst off than before.

In the same way, Heaven is what happens when a Christian dies, but that does not mean that that’s our sole goal. After all, many of us become Christians at a young age and then live a few decades. What are we doing? Just putting in time until we die?

“Well we’re doing evangelism and spreading the good news.”

Which is the real point of our lives. We are there to bring about the Kingdom of God and look forward to that final fruition of it when we see the marriage of Heaven and Earth. When we emphasize Heaven far too much, we make it that that is the only purpose of life and then everything else in between is just like filler episodes on a TV series that are there to have something to do until you continue the story.

This means that we need to really improve our doctrine of Heaven as well. Most of us don’t have it worked out and honestly, we treat God like He’s an afterthought. It’s as if you get to go and live in a mansion and have streets of gold and see loved ones again and by the way, God’s there too if you’re into that kind of thing. For the record also, I’m not saying I described a view of Heaven that I hold, but I recognize it is common in the church.

The other point I made is that Paul said in Romans 3 that we should not do evil that good may result. There is never a good reason for a purpose to do that which is an evil act. A Christian can hold that God can bring good out of it, but it is still something that is harmful at least for the person who is doing it.

Abortion is an evil act and whoever does it does destroy the life of an innocent baby and likely harms several other lives, but they also do great damage to their own soul. Because of that, there is no justification for doing it. Abortion is not evangelism, but simply murder.

We as Christians are to celebrate children and new lives coming into the world. Abortion is anti-thetical to the gospel entirely.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Grounding of Abortion Laws

Is an executive order what pro-abortionists should really want? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Right now, abortionists are wanting to pull out all the stops. Biden, a supposedly devout Catholic president, is considering an emergency health crisis in support of abortion. There’s also been an executive order issued. To an abortionist, this might sound really good, but is it really the right way to go.

Roe v. Wade was simply put, poorly based at the start. Ginsburg thought it was. While Alan Dershowitz doesn’t agree with what Dobbs did, he also thought Roe was not done right. Just like I can be a Christian while thinking there are some bad arguments for Christianity, and there are, you can be an abortionist and even think the case in Roe was weak.

An executive order to save the day might seem like a good idea, but is it really? Carl Trueman in his book The Rise and Triumph Of The Modern Self, bases some of his work on Philip Rieff. Rieff argues that with regard to laws, countries are either first, second, or third world. First world countries do have a transcendental basis and it’s usually fate or some other power, It could be the Oracle of Delphi or some other sort of otherworldly source.

Second world is what is in line with monotheistic theism today where the laws are rooted in the character of God. This could apply to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or even Deism. This is why some people like Clarence Thomas use a lot of natural law reasoning.

Third is a secular world. In this world, the laws are rooted in society. Whatever the society says, that is what is good. The problem with this is ultimately that might makes right. It also has the problem that whatever you do, your opponents can do the same thing eventually.

Suppose a liberal president makes an executive order in support of abortion. What is stopping a conservative president from doing the opposite? If the government can give a right, it can take it away too. This is why our government has it in our founding documents not that government gives rights, but rather it recognizes the rights humans have.

This is also why these rights are things that are restrictions on everyone else. The government doesn’t give me ilfe. It is meant to tell everyone else they can’t take away my life. The same applies to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So if you are an abortionist what are you to do? Simple. Come up with better arguments. Look at Roe and see where it was weak and do what you can to improve it. Shows of power will be at best temporary havens of salvation for the side of abortion.

Meanwhile, those of us who are pro-life need to familiarize ourselves more and more with why we are pro-life. At this, I do want to give a plug to my friend Clinton Wilcox, who has recently started a substack on defending life and answering abortionists. If you want a good place to get the information you need, this is a great one and you can see it here.

Also, to those on the left supporting abortion, the reactions are showing many of us what we always thought. Abortion has always been a back-up way to deal with pregnancy and it was never about safe, legal, and rare. People react in proportion to how much a loss effects them and if a loss effects people this much, we need to ask why.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)