Tag: marriage

Book Plunge: The Case Against The Sexual Revolution

Was it all a bad idea? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A long-time friend of mine said he wanted to see me write book reviews of books I enjoyed. (And not just enjoyed laughing at how bad they are.) Fair enough. You all need to know about good books as well. Thus, I am pausing the current book review to do one entry on a book I highly encourage you all to read, The Case Against The Sexual Revolution.

As of my writing this blog, the book is fairly new being published in 2022. I had checked to see if transgenderism was a big thing when she wrote the book. Apparently, it was and still is.

So much in my copy of this book is highlighted and I am going to let some fellow students borrow it, both of them with an interest in this area. Let’s start this by listing her chapter titles.

Sex must be taken seriously.
Men and women are different.
Some desires are bad.
Loveless sex is not empowering.
Consent is not enough.
Violence is not love.
People are not products.
Marriage is good.
Conclusion: Listen to your mother.

I found it interesting that for someone like myself, all of those seem like common sense statements.

I have seen leftists argue against each of these in one way or another.

Let’s start with that first one. How many times have we heard something like “It’s no big deal. It’s just sex.” Anytime someone says, “It’s just sex”, they are not taking it seriously. She starts this off with comparing Marilyn Monroe who underneath it all did not like being treated like an object, with Hugh Hefner who lived his life treating women like objects. In speaking of the idea of sexual freedom, Perry says “Why do so many women desire a kind of sexual freedom that obviously serves male interests?” (p. 8) She later says that women have switched one form of female submission for another, but called the latter liberation. (20)

Having a chapter about men and women being different can be seen as heresy by many on the left today. That being said, the transgender movement has taken on a sort of quasi-religious touch to it. If the body is all there is, then it makes no sense to say you are in the wrong body. There has to be some aspect of the person that is not material in the viewpoint in order to make that aspect align with the body by the mutilation of the body.

In this chapter, Perry has several statistics on how men and women are physically and psychologically different. She says that for many this is common sense, but alas, common sense is not that common today. Men and women approach sex and behave sexually in very different ways and it’s a mistake to think that those ways should be the same for both sexes.

Some desires are bad points to some cases of people such as pedophiles. In many ways, what they desire is spoken of openly and no one seems to blink at all about it. We have an idea that if we strongly desire something, that something is good. Nope. Not at all. We think it is good, no doubt, but that does not mean that it is.

The chapter on loveless sex looks at the hook-up culture today. “Hook-up culture is a terrible deal for women and yet has been presented by liberal feminism as a form of liberation. A truly feminist project would demand that, in the straight dating world, it should be men, not women, who adjust their sexual appetites.” (p. 79)

Once again, I marvel at how it is women think they are embracing this and sticking it to the patriarchy. If you are giving men free sex without requiring any commitment from them or responsibility, you are not hurting them, at least not in a way they think they are being hurt. You are teaching them to use you.

Now in the long run, I do think this hurts men seeing as they do avoid responsibility and fatherhood, but that is not the goal of the feminists. The feminists want to avoid responsibility and motherhood often as well. In an irony, feminists wanting to say they are superior are treating the common masculine approach as if it was the ideal.

Perry also says being desired is not the same as being held in high esteem. A man might want to sleep with a woman because he thinks she’s hot, but he will not want to have children with her. He’s just using her for his own sexual gratification.

The chapter on consent is not enough is a huge stab at the porn industry. Perry outright says on p. 113 that there is no good reason to use porn. Pornography has damaged the viewpoint of sex by men and women both. There are plenty of men who struggle with even being able to perform sexually due to porn use and younger and younger men are needing medications for ED.

In some of my apps, I am sure I see an ad about an app for dating where women tell you what they want, and the first lady talking looks like she’s being choked at the same time. Naturally, this brings to mind the subject of the chapter on violence, Fifty Shades of Grey. Perry is quite troubled with how many women loved this book and has said that if a man can remain aroused while beating you, stay away from him.

People are not products deals with the idea of “sex work.” Treating sex this way makes it just a commodity for trade and ultimately, it makes it be people for trade. Again, this benefits men. Men go to the women not for the idea that they love them, but for what they can get out of them.

Finally, marriage is good. This presents the problems the pill presented for society with the incredible line that “When motherhood became a biological choice for women, fatherhood became a social choice for men.” (p. 167) Men are enabled to shirk their responsibility in raising children and then ultimately, the state becomes the surrogate husband. Perry writes about what her grandmother said about the thesis of the whole book as well. “Women have been conned.” (p. 181)

She also writes about the problems of easy divorce. Making divorce easier was done, no doubt, with a lot of good intentions, but it has made everything worse. I fully agree with this speaking as a divorced man who struggles with fears of rejection and problems of trust still today.

Perry longs for there to be some technology that can enable men and women that encourages men to avoid short-term thinking, for women to be stable and protected, and for children to be raised. She then says such a technology exists. It is clunky sometimes and does fail at times, but it’s here. It’s called monogamous marriage. (p. 181)

This book is phenomenal. It is one that I think every thinker in this field should interact with. Perry is a refreshing voice in this world.

Oh. Did I mention she’s neither conservative nor a Christian? Must have slipped my mind.

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

A Woman’s Worth

How should a woman view herself? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“I don’t understand why she’s living the way she is. She seems to just get all of her joy from being with different men. What could I say to her?”

So someone asked me about someone they knew. It’s easy to say speak of such a person in negative terms, but I don’t want to go that route. The condemnation route from Christians is already known.

I thought back in reflecting on this question to a time I went to visit some friends from church when I lived in Georgia and their daughter came down to talk to me in the midst of a group conversation. She told me about a guy she was with and I asked if they were going to get married. She said not yet because he said he wanted to travel first.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

If a guy is really interested in a girl, you have to wonder why he would put off wanting to be with her until after he “travels.” Besides, wouldn’t it be better to have a wife and go on those travels with someone? Wouldn’t the relationship come before one’s fun?

The parents were thrilled this was happening. I made it clear to this young lady that the guy was not really committed to her. She was good for some entertainment, but if he was committed to her, she would come first.

So we come now to the case of a young woman who is sleeping with men thinking that that is where her joy comes from. Is she seeking value? Is she seeking love? Does she think this is her purpose?

Now none of this is to say women shouldn’t enjoy sex. They absolutely should. However, like any good thing that can be enjoyed, it should be enjoyed in the proper place and context. It’s fine to enjoy a sweet every now and then, but if you make sweets your whole diet, you will suffer for it.

So what I would say to this woman is what is she worth?

If a woman wants to know if a man she is dating is really interested in her, there’s a simple way. Don’t have sex. Yes. I know that sounds revolutionary, but hear me out on this.

Men tend to be very self-sufficient. If it wasn’t for sex and also children, we would not really bother pursuing a romantic relationship. It’s not that we don’t care, but you can marry a girl and then she can divorce you and the state will back her and you could lose half of what you have and wind up paying alimony and child support for life.

What would be ideal for a man? A sexual relationship with a woman where he doesn’t have to risk everything. In other words, one where he doesn’t have to make a commitment. He can leave any time he wants and there’s nothing the woman can do about it. If he doesn’t want her to have children and protection fails, just get an abortion.

It’s a shame the way the feminist model has played right into the hands of the men they have such a problem with.

Suppose though a woman wants to be more than just a toy to him. Suppose she does want a commitment. Suppose she does want someone she can count on? Suppose she wants someone she can grow old with.

Then don’t have sex.

And yes, women are in charge of that one.

The question of when a woman has sex shows how much a man has to do to get her. A simple date? Three dates? Dinner and a movie? A month? Three months? A year? Engagement?

What if you say you have to make a lifelong commitment and it can only be me until death do us part?

If the man says “No,” then he’s not really interested in you. That’s good. You’ve eliminated a poser. However, if he says “Deal,” and then he works and works to get to that point for you, you know how much worth you have in his eyes. He is willing to go the extra mile and if a man really loves a woman, he wants to pursue her. He will climb mountains for the chance to demonstrate his commitment to her.

Not only that, but the man wins in the end to. A man gets a relationship that he has fought for. He gets to know that he has proven himself worthy of the girl he is with, although ask him later and he still will say he married a girl out of his league. The woman gets the lifelong relationship. She also in the end gets the sex too, just like the man does. In the end, both parties win. Both parties put the relationship first and then both parties get all of the benefits.

As it is, in the end, women are the big losers in the dating game today. Men don’t have to commit to them. They don’t have to step up and be actual men. They can come to the woman when they want to have some fun and then it’s off to do whatever they want to do.

Women deserve better. They deserve the best. They deserve a man, not a boy.

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

 

 

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)

 

The Failure of Self-Esteem

Does it work to build up a child’s self-esteem? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am going through The Bully Society now, among many other books. Something I am noticing in this book is the rampant problem of bullying in our schools. That’s not a shock. What causes it though is often making sure kids have the right fashions or that men are men and not coming across as feminine or “gay”. It’s odd that in schools, those who are educated are the ones who are the oddballs and the schools lavish everything on the athletes.

As I keep going through this, I have a dominant thought.

The self-esteem movement is a colossal failure.

We have spent so much time telling kids to feel good about themselves and be proud of who they are. Meanwhile, you have numerous kids around them telling them that they are shameful and embarrassing and they should not be proud of who they are. Who do children at that age want to please more generally? Their teachers and other adults, or their younger peers?

Knowing that, which voices are going to speak the most to them?

The problem with the self-esteem movement is that it is grounded in nothing. Think about how it is when you get a mass text or a mass email from a business that tells you how much they are thinking about you. You know they’re not. You’re just a name on a list. They don’t know who you are.

It is the same with the self-esteem movement. “Oh! You’re telling me all these wonderful things about me! Thank you so much! It means so much that you see me that way and….wait….you just said the exact same thing to them….and to that other person…and to the next one.”

At that point, you realize it has nothing to do with you.

Kids then want to go to the people who do know them and those are their peers. They will do anything because they want to be accepted and not rejected. They want to fit in. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with that. We all want to be accepted. We all hate rejection.

The problem can be sometimes these kids do things that they shouldn’t do because they want that acceptance. Status has been defined before as buying things you don’t want with money you don’t have to impress people you don’t like. It is really short-term thinking. It’s not about children building up good character, but about children being liked.

This also leads to them getting involved sexually. The problem is, they approach usually from very different standpoints. A man needs to be sexually active in society because that is what a man does. The man is not thinking about long-term commitment. He’s thinking about notches on his headboard and getting the woman naked. This is also why so many guys dump girls after they sleep with them.

Girls generally want love and often think “if I give the man what he wants, he will give me that love.” The sad thing is, it doesn’t work. The idea of feminist empowerment so that women can enjoy sex the way men does is a failure because women are not men. Women end up being used and the guy still gets what he wants most of the time.

So what are children chasing after for acceptance? Material things and sex. Why shouldn’t they? What else are they being given to ground their worth in?

The church definitely needs to improve. Often, our message is the same as the world’s, but with a Christian veneer painted on it. The goal is often to get young people to feel good about themselves instead of being good themselves. It is to determine how they stand with God based on their feelings instead of a sound understanding of Scripture.

That also means a whole teaching of theology and doctrine and the reasons behind it. Hard work? Yes. Would you prefer to keep doing what we’re doing instead? How is that working out?

Our young people are worth it. They need a solid foundation for who they are in Christ. Only then will they not chase after everything else for identity.

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

 

 

 

Hollywood and Autism Part 4

Can love be hard to find? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Atypical is a series I never got to finish as divorce started becoming a reality in my life around that time. It involves a young man named Sam on the spectrum in the middle of his teenage years who decides it’s time to get a girlfriend. His family is unfortunately dysfunctional and his main friend helping him is a perv and he develops a crush on his therapist. I plan to start the series again as I never got past the first season.

Sam has a problem in that he seems to let everything out immediately. He goes to a girl that he is interested in and has been arranged to date in some way, and starts listing off a long list of character flaws of his and includes he’s never had sex. The girl says “You’ve never had sex?” She invites him back to her place and he is sitting on the edge of a bed nervous and she comes over and starts putting the moves on him to which he pushes her off. At that, she is angry and tells him to get out.

Yeah. That doesn’t go well.

So let’s talk about what it’s like on the spectrum.

My ex-wife and I met through a mutual friend and our first conversations were through this ancient service called AOL Instant Messenger. I’m really thankful that we started that way and were introduced by a friend because speaking in person to someone like that is quite difficult. My therapist and I have decided that while many people use small talk to engage with others, I use humor. I have a reputation and I have been told I am one of the funniest if not the funniest guys on campus.

That is doable, but just a regular conversation is extremely difficult. When I go out and do evangelism which I have to do weekly for my scholarship, I have to have someone else join me (We go in pairs anyway) to start the conversation. Once it’s started, I can try to find a way in.

If I go to the grocery store and want one of the sticks used to separate orders, I find it nigh impossible to go to someone in front of me and ask for the stick. I usually wind up gesturing wildly. Strangest thing, but they never seem to notice that.

Thus, when people come to me and say “Just go up to someone and ask her out”, I wish it was that simple. For a guy, it is saying “Go up to someone and throw yourself on the line and admit those difficult emotions and risk total rejection once more.” Any of those are hard to do for a neurotypical guy. It’s much harder to do for an neurodivergent guy.

What would make it easier? If I had some sign that there would be a positive response possible back. Unfortunately, men struggle with understanding when a woman is flirting and when she is not. It is again, much harder if you do not understand social cues to begin with. “Hey! That lady smiled. Is she flirting with me? Is she being polite? Is she possibly interested?”

Now once I have a relationship, I usually do quite well. Believe it or not, being on the spectrum does not mean you’re an emotional rock. I am actually quite the romantic. I like to do everything I can to put a smile on a lady’s face.

Yet like the initial conversation, that initial contact is difficult, and force of will often does not seem like enough to do it. It is also one of the reasons I am in therapy right now. I am working on building up those skills and learning how to communicate better.

When I did watch Atypical, I did relate to Sam and his struggles. I am curious what else will happen as he continues his journey. I also pray my journey is successful.

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

Book Plunge: Discerning the Voice of God Chapter 9

Does God speak truth? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Oh, Priscilla Shirer. If only you focused so much on what you said at the start of this chapter. If only you would make that your focus. What you say is true and yet at the same time is tragic.

He speaks principally through His Word. And His Word is always true.

Shirer, Priscilla. Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (p. 127). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

This is absolutely true. I even agree with the principally part. Obviously, the best revelation of God ever was in the incarnation, but we don’t have access to that directly. We only know that through the New Testament writings. There is also general revelation that speaks to us of God, but the best place to go is still Scripture.

My ex-wife used to wonder about a dream she had. She would wake up from a strange dream and wonder what she was to learn from it from God. I told her the same thing always. “If only you spent as much time interpreting Scripture which you know is from God as you do dreams which you don’t know are from God.”

Now I am not at all saying God cannot speak through dreams. I am thankful that this is happening in the Muslim community and usually, those are quite clearly divine dreams. I am saying that it is not normative for us and unless we have strong knowledge somehow that a dream came from God, it is best to not fixate on it. I have no problem with seeing if we can learn something about ourselves, but it could just be that we had that dream because we ate too much pizza the night before.

The problem here is that Shirer tells us that God speaks principally through His word, but then has a whole book here dedicated to understanding messages that we have no way of knowing if they are from God and which I generally doubt are. She is taking her audience away from the sure thing and focusing on the possibly thing. It is a great neglect on her part. I do realize she has written other books going through Scripture, but she should stick to just Scripture.

She tells the story of a man who wanted to leave his wife who claimed to be a Christian and without knowing the details, we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to Shirer that the grounds were unbiblical. I am even quite sure she is right on the grounds. Scripture is clear on the grounds for divorce. She has to argue against him when he says he is positive God has given him an okay for this and he really feels led to do this.

Miss Shirer, isn’t that what you have laid the groundwork for? I am not at all saying you would advocate for this, but this is the kind of thinking that your approach leads to. You can say all you want that Scripture forbids this, but for all you know, this man can just say “God has shown me I am an exception.” Maybe he will compare himself to Hosea?

For me, I would just say “I don’t care what you think God said to you and I don’t care about how you feel about it. I just care about what the Bible says.”

There really isn’t much else worth commenting on in this chapter, but overall, it’s a tragedy. The chapter on truth should be all that needs to be shown to show how far Shirer has stumbled from it. We are all better off if we stick to what we know is from God.

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

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 7

Is there a place for faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Once again, it’s a relief to read Graffin in comparison to other atheists. Graffin does not speak down on faith entirely. There is a problem that he never defines it, but at least he’s not on a tirade like someone like Richard Dawkins is. He says there is a place for it.

So let’s start with this quote I found directly relevant to me:

Not everyone feels empathy to the same degree. On the one hand, some autistic people appear to be born with a neurological condition that severely limits their ability to appreciate the emotional state of other humans, despite having similar experiences. On the other hand, sociopaths either feel no empathy or have become so adept at suppressing it that they never bother to assume another’s perspective. And all of us can become so tired, frustrated, angry, or bored that we ignore our empathic impulses, even when doing so makes others and ourselves miserable.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 184). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Speaking as one such person on the spectrum, it’s not that I do not care about other peoples’ emotional states. It’s that I cannot tell what those states are. If someone is silent around me when I think they should say something, I wonder if the problem is me or not. This is especially so when it comes to the opposite sex. I know other neurotypical men struggle with this, but I suspect much more with me. Is the girl flirting or is she just talking? If she speaks with me is that interest or not?

That being said, empathy is not a good basis for our relationships since people have different degrees of understanding and just because I can feel X with someone, it doesn’t mean that I am obligated to do anything. Not only this, this is a highly western way of thinking. This is not a Woke thing with saying Western Civilization is bad. Western Civilization is incredible. It’s saying that in Eastern honor-shame cultures, empathy wouldn’t have the same appeal. People would think not based on how the individual feels, but on the attitudes of the group at large.

Graffin goes on to say that Western religions base moral codes on analogizing human nature and then looking at superhuman figures, such as Jesus or for a lot of Catholics and Orthodox people, saints. (Not to say Protestants don’t have saintly role models as well.) I do not know what he means by analogizing human nature, but I contend he would be benefitted by reading a book on Christian ethics to see how we make our decisions.

In a surprising twist, he says that science is based on empathy. He says that it relies on a shared experience of the world. He then turns and says it is also the best basis for human ethics, which again does not work since many cultures actually have quite different experiences of how the world should work. How do we adjudicate between them? We have to point to something beyond them.

Many religious believers mischaracterize naturalists as people without faith, but that is absurd. Everyone must believe in something—it’s part of human nature. I have no problem acknowledging that I have beliefs, though they differ from more traditional kinds of faith. Naturalists must believe, first of all, that the world is understandable and that knowledge of the world can be obtained through observation, experimentation, and verification. Most scientists don’t think much about this point. They simply assume that it is true and get to work. But this assumption has relevance to people other than philosophers. When intelligent design creationists, for example, speak of replacing methodological naturalism in science classes with theistic naturalism, they are threatening to remove this assumption from the shared presuppositions of public discourse.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 204). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is a surprising statement again, but yet a refreshing one. He is right in that science assumes that the material world exists and we can have knowledge of it. This is something they should consider. I am again unsure what he means by theistic naturalism.

He also says natural selection is not the main driving force of evolution. He says luck is actually a big part of it. He also says we cannot base our lives on the idea of saying “I am more fit than you, so I get to reproduce and you don’t.” The problem is, “Why not?” Graffin may say he doesn’t like that, but the person who thinks they are more fit could just say “Why should I care about what you like? I need to produce progeny!”

He also says we cannot judge people with respect to an arbitrary idea of what should be considered optimal, but from a naturalistic perspective, why not? It can be granted he would not like that. It is not granted that from his perspective, that is automatically wrong. Graffin has to give the reason why the person in power should care.

He then tells us that simply by existing in the human race, we all have a worth and a dignity that is inherent. Okay. Why? If all we are is matter in motion from a cosmic accident that will die in a universe that will cease to be, why should I think any life has inherent value? I agree that all human life has inherent value, but I do not think it can be supported in naturalism.

I don’t believe, for instance, that evolutionary biology or any scientific endeavor has much to say about the value of love. I’m sure a lot can be learned about the importance of hormones and their effects on our feelings. But do the bleak implications of evolution have any impact on the love I feel for my family? Do they make me more likely to break the law or flaunt society’s expectations of me? No. It simply does not follow that human relationships are meaningless just because we live in a godless universe subject to the natural laws of biology. Humans impart meaning and purpose to almost all aspects of life. This sense of meaning and purpose gives us a road map for how to live a good life.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 206). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Why doesn’t it follow though? If Graffin’s worldview cannot explain love, it is a quite weak worldview. Humans can import meaning to loving relationships, but they could also just as easily import it to destructive ones. Who is to say someone would be wrong in doing so in naturalism? What is this good life Graffin speaks of? Again, there is no real in-depth look at the questions.

He lastly speaks of love in relationship to Allison, his now wife. Love requires a trust in that there is no 100% knowledge, though there can be good evidence. He describes love as a unique feeling. I contend love produces feelings, but it is not a feeling. It is an action that one does. Still, Graffin does speak of that trust as a form of faith, which again is refreshing.

Next time, we’ll talk about what it means to believe.

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

 

Your Husband Thinks You’re Beautiful. Accept It.

Can you accept a compliment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My pastor gave a sermon Sunday on marriage and he talked about how men have a great need for respect and women for love. No problem there. He also said that men need to regularly tell their wives that they think that they are beautiful.

I agree with all of this. I had no beef with the sermon, but I do have a concern that many men do this and many women resist it and this is a problem. Keep in mind that I am speaking about an all things being equal marriage and I am not at all talking about one where a spouse is abusive.

I still subscribe to marriage blogs and recently, the XY Code had a blog about the truth on your husband thinking you are beautiful. When he says it, you can usually expect that he means it. Of course, men don’t help their case if they regularly talk about how beautiful the actress on TV is or have a problem with pornography, but neither one of those means he doesn’t think his own wife is beautiful.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of Instagram where everyone puts their best pictures on social media. How many women will post a picture of themselves when they first get up in the morning and have bed hair, for example? What you see of people on social media is usually their very best.

I remember this being a struggle in my marriage. I regularly told my ex-wife she was beautiful, no matter what changes she went through, and I meant it every time I said it. There was only one woman who turned my head and I did not speak about others. I had promised to one and wanted to turn all my desires to that one. The problem was she had a hard time believing it.

Ladies. If your husband tells you you are beautiful and you say no, many problems are going on in that situation.

First, you are telling him that he is either a liar or deluded. Now you could say hypothetically that maybe you are not beautiful and he is deluded, but while he could be mistaken, he cannot be mistaken in that that is what he thinks. Why not just accept it? Why not be thankful you married a man who thinks you are beautiful? He chose you out of all the women in the world after all! If you call him a liar, you are building up distrust between you and him.

Second, you are damaging yourself. You are permitting yourself to insult yourself. Why? What are you gaining by that? Note that this is not saying you should not do things to take care of yourself. There is no problem with saying “I am beautiful, but I also need to go to the gym and watch what I eat and take better care of myself.”

Third, you are also teaching your husband to not compliment you. What husband will want to compliment his wife if it leads to an argument every time he does so? Why would he want to say you are beautiful if he ends up being put on trial for doing that? Men are fast learners in this area. If we do something and we just get chastisement for it, we learn to not do that. (Ask a man to wash the dishes and if your first words to him when he is done are criticism, he will realize he should not do that anymore.)

So in the end, you are calling your husband a liar. You are insulting yourself. You are shutting down future compliments and then wondering why your husband does not pay attention to you or call you beautiful.

This is not to say men do not have areas, but this is one that I want to address. I know many men who have had the exact same struggle I have. You would be surprised if you took the time to listen to know just how much your husband really loves you and treasures you and wants you to know that. I hope I can do that again with a special lady who yes, I will say is beautiful.

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

Working On Marriage

What should you think about in marriage? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Being on a seminary campus, it’s not uncommon that students will meet, date, and marry. I’ve been here for two years and I have seen that happen regularly. I am one of the few students on campus who is actually divorced.  Saying few is not really accurate. I only know of one other.

I write about this because it is on my mind due to my church having a marriage enrichment seminar coming up called Spouse-ology. I would tell every married couple to try to take time aside for this event. I would even encourage engaged couples to do this.

Generally when I see couples about to get married, I give them  advice and then ask a question. The advice is for early on in their marriage.

First off, when you go on your honeymoon, do what I did. I contacted my parents and her parents and told them to not reach out to us unless it was an emergency. Tihs is where you start to establish your own unit and you don’t need your parents giving you advice, especially advice that could contradict one another. Focus on one another.

With that, the second piece is to avoid social media. Yes. You have a lot of great pictures of your wedding and events on the honeymoon. They will still be there when you get back. Wait. There’s no need to share them. I didn’t even check my email while I was on mine. When I got back, I saw a whole thread on TheologyWeb dedicated to the wedding. People were already sharing pictures. Let them do that. Who cares what other people think about how beautiful your wedding was? Focus on each other.

Third, do not be seeking out to do active ministry in this time. Yes. I know we’re supposed to be serving the Kingdom, but one of the great services you give is your marriage. Now if an immediate need pops up for someone and you have to do something, then do it, but do not seek it. You are not alone in the work of ministry.

The question I ask them to think about is this. I remind them that I am divorced and then ask “What do you have that makes you think the same will not happen to you?” I hope it does not, but the statistics are often problematic. Even if they are not as bad as they could be, they are still bad. I really hope all these marriages succeed. I do not want people to have to go through the pain of divorce.

If you are engaged and about to marry, work on your marriage. If you are newly married, work on your marriage. If you have been married for five, ten, twenty, fifty, or more years, work on your marriage. It is one of the most important ministries you will ever have, and even more so if you have children. If your church offers you marriage enrichment seminars, take them.

One of the best ways we can transform the culture in the long run is having good marriages and raising good children. Get started today.

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

Is Love Love?

What is love? (Baby, don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me, no more.) Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“Love is love!” is often what people in support of the LGBTQ+ groups say. It sounds simple. How could you respond to something like that? Love is not love? I saw someone actually say at an event in the comments recently “Love isn’t love!” Well, that’s wrong, but does that mean the other side is right?

A lot of Christians hear a saying like this and think that they can’t really argue against that. Who is opposed to love after all? Isn’t love good? Isn’t God love.

Let’s replace it with another saying.

Cats are cats.

Now would anyone want to dare say that cats aren’t cats? What else could they be? However, what if I said cats are cats, therefore, this:

Is the same as this:

Are there similarities? Yes. Are there relations? Yes. Despite that, when I go to bed at night, there’s only one I want jumping up on the bed with me. Meanwhile, if you go to the zoo expecting to see the bottom one and you see the top instead, you’ll be thinking the zoo isn’t bringing in all these interesting species.

Both of these are cats, yes, but both are not the same kind of cat. We have to break down what that means. My Shiro, for instance, is a Turkish Angora largely. My parents have a cat that is a Himalayan. As someone who loves cats, every day I ask my Echo device what the cat breed of the day is. Somedays, I do get something like a lion. Most days I get a breed of housecat.

You could fill in the gap with several items. Dogs are dogs. Books are books. TV shows are TV shows. Movies are movies. Sports are sports.

The Greeks had four different words for love.  Many of these we celebrate in our society. I don’t know anyone who is opposed to friendship. We can say there are some people you shouldn’t be friends with, but we are not opposed to friendship in general.

Agape love is usually seen as God love and while there are people who don’t believe in God, many would not oppose the idea of something like loving your neighbor as yourself. They could say that if a Christian thinks God loves them, they’re wrong, but good for them. Family love is more familial love. This is the kind of courtesy you have for a complete stranger just because they’re a fellow human being.

Now we get to the last one, erotic love. Very few people are probably anti-sex altogether. That includes we who are Christians. It’s one of the reasons we get married as well after all. Christians have books and resources too on how to have a good married sex life.

At the same time, that doesn’t mean everyone celebrates every kind of sexual activity. Let’s start with an obvious one. Children. The overwhelming majority of people says children should not be involved in sexual relationships. Pederasty is still largely condemned, though if society keeps going the way it is going, that won’t last much longer.

How about another one? Rape. You can love women and you can love sex, but if you force yourself on a woman against her will, then that is wrong. Yes. I know rape is about power, but it is also an act of sex as well and one we condemn.

Most sex is celebrated today. I am not saying I celebrate it, but let’s face it. On a sitcom or drama, the question often thought is “Will they or won’t they?” It used to be “Will they get married?” but nowadays it’s “Will they have sex?” It’s usually celebrated when they do. I am not agreeing with it. I am just saying the reality is real.

Yet despite that, do we really think we should live in a culture where we celebrate and encourage ALL sexual activity even if it is consensual? Do we want to celebrate couples forming one-night stands and not forming long-term relationships? Do we want to oppose men and women forming lifelong covenants called marriage?

After all, something that sets sex apart from every other activity out there is it alone can produce new life. That means with it comes responsibilities and risks as well. Seeing as life is a good (Although sadly, many think life in the womb is not a good but a problem to be dealt with), we encourage relationships that are capable of bringing that new life into the world and raising it. Thus, we encourage marriage as a form of stability for raising new life.

This is the love as a society that we should be promoting the most. No other relationship can do this. Some might say some incestual relationships could, but those blur the family lines and also are prone to more genetic harm to the child. That is why societies promote married love. It is not because the people feel good about themselves. It is not because they have their identities affirmed. It is because that alone produces children and society depends on its members having children.

Note in all of this I have not said same-sex sexual relationships are immoral. (though I think they are) I have said simply that they are not the same as married opposite-sex relationships. This is also why the idea of redefining marriage is so problematic. It has been compared to the bans against interracial marriage in the past, but the problem here is that race has no affect on the sexual behavior. Men of all races are still men and women of all races are still women. The races are interchangeable in the relationship. It is not the same with the person’s sex.

By the way, along those lines, if one can say they are the wrong sex and identify as another, what could stop someone from identifying as a different race? I am fully white, but what if I said I was born into the wrong race and I feel like a black man? If anything, race is much more on a spectrum than sex is.

So is love, love? Yes, but it needs to be broken down and not treated as a cliche. Cliches tend to stop thinking and our society needs more of it.

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