Tag: marriage

No Woman Should Be A Feminist

Are men the greatest threat to women? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Before diving into another book, let’s talk some about feminism. Women often complain about how men mistreat them and are the greatest evil to them. Then you see protests going on, one a friend told me about recently, where women decided the best way to protest it was to go topless.

Yep. That’ll stick it to the men alright.

Women in this movement also tend to be very much pro-abortion, which is quite odd. If there’s something that sets women apart from men, it’s that they can give good birth. They have the ability within their bodies to bring new life into the world. These women think that this is a negative and must be stopped and what’s more important is to have a career, the thing that men have.

It’s almost like when you get down to eat, women think the ideal is to be like men. Go and have working jobs and careers and have sex without consequences. Avoid having to go through that horrible period called giving birth where you bring a new human life into the world.

Now a lot of women aren’t like this. They are actually pro-life, but they have been hurt in other ways by feminism. They have imbibed mindsets that counter-productive to what they want.

These women want good men who will take care of them and provide for them and help them to raise families. They want to be wives and mothers. Unfortunately, they have bought into the feminist idea too often that men are the enemy.

Let’s consider this mindset that was going around not too long ago with saying that women would rather meet a bear in the woods than to meet a man. What was the point of this? It was so many women saying that they thought in general men were so dangerous that they would rather meet a bear in the woods as they’d have a better experience with it.

Okay. So let’s suppose a good woman shares this thought. Now there are two kinds of men in this thought experiment out there.

The first are the bad men she’s talking about who don’t really care about women and have no problem using a woman for sex. They will see this and say “Don’t care. If I want to have you, I will do what I can to get you and then toss you aside.” Then there are the good men who do care, but they will see this and say “If that’s how she sees me, I don’t want to get close to her.”

The good woman then is not attracting the good guys to her by sharing this. She’s enabling the bad guys actually. They won’t be deterred a bit by what she shares. If anyone will be, it is the good guys. Bad guys don’t care about being bad. Good guys don’t want to damage their reputation of being good.

You also have cases of women going to the gym in skin-tight outfits barely leaving anything to imagination and then are shocked when men notice them. Not only this, they record themselves working out and then make negative comments about the guys they accuse of leering at them. One case of a woman complaining about this involved a man who told the people at the gym, truthfully, that he was blind.

By the way, these women also often have an OnlyFans account.

Nowadays, feminism is even getting worse. Now you have men winning beauty pageants for women and this is considered a victory. You have men dominating in women’s sports and this is also accepted. In trying to say there is no difference between men and women, women have created a world that said “Okay” and acted accordingly. It doesn’t help that this same world also decided to redefine marriage and treat men and women as if they were interchangeable entirely.

So in order to stop the patriarchy, now we have cases of men beating women at women’s sports and beating women at women’s beauty pageants.

That’ll stick it to the patriarchy alright!

Women also aren’t helping themselves out when it comes to pre-marital sex. If a guy doesn’t have to make the effort to get you, odds are, he won’t. If you don’t make a man work to get you, then you are setting a low worth on yourself. Make a man rise to the occasion and if he really wants to be with you, he will do just that.

When I showed up on the first date for my ex-wife, I had plenty of money in my wallet, I had flowers, I had tickets to the aquarium, and I had downloaded her favorite music to my phone to play for her. Men who care about women love to impress women and if you go on and give in to them immediately, that will stop right there. It’s one reason married couples need to always be pursuing one another and chasing one another. Dating should continue into marriage.

Feminism may have meant to hurt women, but it hasn’t. It has done the opposite. By painting men as the opposition, it has stopped the natural way the two sexes are to work together. Of course, more could be said on how men should treat women, but that would be a whole other blog post.

For now, just remember if you are a woman, you should celebrate it and embrace womanhood. If you want to stay single, that’s your choice also, but remember that involves being celibate as well. If you want to be married and have a career, that’s fine too, but I wouldn’t recommend sacrificing children so you can get a career. Children are a gift. They will give you far better memories and influence than a career most likely will.

The worst enemy of women today is not from without. As in most other cases, it is from within, the way empires fall. Feminism is the greatest enemy a woman has.

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

 

The Control of Language

Do words matter? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was looking at a group I’m in on Facebook Wednesday night and saw someone share a before and after picture of Ellen Page, who is now calling herself Elliot Page such that if you do a web search for her name, the first thing you can get is Elliot Page. Already, if some are reading this, they would accuse me of misgendering and insist that I say “He” about her.

One comment left on the picture was about how sad she looked after X number of years living as a man.

I jumped in and said she has lived zero years as a man. She has lived instead as a mutilated woman.

This kind of thing might seem minor to some people, but it is huge. “Why do you say ‘he’? Why not just say ‘she’? What’s the big deal. It’s just a pronoun.”

Pronouns are gateway drugs.

What it is really saying is “I have the power to define myself in contradiction to reality and not only do I want to contradict reality, I want you to join me in contradicting it.” I can freely say that Ellen believes herself to be a male. I can freely say she has mutilated her body to look like a male. I can freely say that she identifies as a he now. However, I can say those things because they are either what she believes about herself, the first and the last option, or something objectively true, the second one. I cannot affirm that her beliefs reflect reality and thus, I cannot affirm them.

It is the same thing I see when I hear someone talk about someone who is a biological male. There is only a male. As soon as we say biological male, we are saying on some level that we think women who mutilate their bodies become men. Male needs no explanation. You either are or you aren’t.

I also do not speak of a same-sex marriage. If marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and it is, there can be no such thing as a same-sex marriage. You might as well talk about a square circle. If you say the term, you have already given up half the game. How can you say that it’s not really a marriage when by your words you have already said it is.

What do I say instead? Redefining marriage. The impetus is on the other side to show why the classical definition of marriage is wrong and why it should be changed. They must also show why it is changed to what they want and not what they don’t want. Marriage has to mean something. If it can mean anything, then it is nothing so there’s no big deal in having it.

Some of you might have noticed I don’t even use the term homosexual. I use the term same-sex attracted. Is it clunkier? Absolutely, but I fear part of the danger is we make who someone sleeps with part of their identity and if that is your identity, how can you expect to deny it? I prefer a term that describes the attraction without saying the person has to have this in their identity.

Every step of language is one we must defend. One might think that this is so small, but what started just a few decades ago as “Just let us live in peace and don’t bother us” has now become Pride parades going on with sexual acts being done where children can see them. We have children taking puberty blockers and mutilating their bodies. We have books in public school rooms graphically displaying sexual acts that are often dangerous and also exploitive and abusive.

We were taught tolerance for so long that most people didn’t see that it was a sham (Though some of us did) and as soon as the reins of power switched, tolerance went out the window.

Also, some might think this is unloving. I disagree. What is unloving is to affirm someone in a deadly delusion that can destroy them. Loving someone does not mean denying reality.

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

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 9

What happens when the church absorbs secularism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We are going to conclude this tonight as the last two chapters are about men and marriage and the church and patriarchy.

For the former chapter, Pearcey says it takes a man to save a marriage, and in many ways, I think this is true, but not all. I know many men like myself who we did not want our wives to leave at all. We fought tooth and nail to save our marriage.

If someone wants to leave, you can’t stop them.

Yet still, there is no doubt men need to be pulling their weight in marriage. Of course, women do, but this is written considering the men. We need to make sure we are treating our wives honorably and in a way pleasing to Christ.

That gets us to the last chapter.

Can we get some matters clear?

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR A HUSBAND TO ABUSE HIS WIFE!

Let’s add a corollary to that.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD A WOMAN STAY WITH A MAN THAT IS AN ACTIVE DANGER TO HER AND/OR HER CHILDREN!

The first one seems obvious, but there’s a real danger in that several churches tell women they cannot leave an abusive relationship. They have to respect the man as the leader of the household. If he’s not being the man he should be, who’s fault is that?

Why it’s the woman, of course. She is just obviously not being pretty enough or taking care of the house enough or being submissive enough or not having enough sex with him. If she will change her behavior, he will change his.

Baloney.

One strong reason men who abuse keep abusing is that they know that they can get away with it. A woman in this position is not respecting male headship. She is enabling true toxic masculinity.

This is not some new modern idea. This goes back to Augustine.

In the fourth century, the great church father Augustine said that if a husband is committing serious sin, such as fornication or adultery or physical abuse, his wife should not submit to him. She should regard God himself, not her husband, as her head: If her husband fornicates, she offers her chastity to God. For Christ speaks inwardly in her heart, and consoles his daughter with words like this: “Are you distressed about your husband’s wrongful behavior, what he has done to you? . . . In so far as he behaves badly, don’t regard him as your head, but me.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 257-258). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

If you are in danger, get out. If your children are in danger, get out. If your church tells you you have to stay, leave that church.

Headship means the man is actually striving to act like Christ. A man who is an abuser is not a man. He’s a temper-tantrum boy in the body of a man.

Pearcey closes the book describing the Titanic and when it sank, the men went down with the ship so the women and children could flee. One man put on a tuxedo so he could die as a gentleman. Now, a group of men regularly gather around a statue commemorating the event and say the following:

“To their dignity, grace, and style, but most of all, tonight we toast their courage. . . . To those brave men.” “Hear! Hear!” “To the stewards, the men who stoked the boilers, the crew who shared that bravery as much as any man in a tuxedo. . . . To those brave men.” “Hear! Hear!” “To the young and old, the rich and the poor, the ignorant and the learned, all who gave their lives nobly to save women and children. To those brave men.” “Hear! Hear!” Finally, one man closes the commemoration saying, “Chivalry, gallantry, bravery, and grace—in these times those ideals seem to have all but disappeared. But by our remembrance they are born again. And in our lives, they can live again.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 269-270). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

May they live again in men today!

Hear! Hear!

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

Book Plunge: The One

What do I think of this novel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’ve already interrupted one book to talk about another book and now I’m interrupting that book to talk about a third. This one will be short. It’s only going to be one entry.

I’ve been making it a point to read more fiction lately. I don’t mean Christian fiction. I just mean fiction. This is in addition to mystery novels that I’m also reading. The last book that I read in this category and finished yesterday is The One, which you can buy here.

Please keep in mind that this is not a Christian book. However, it is certainly a book that is thought-provoking. Just know if you’re a Christian you won’t approve of everything in it.

Dating is hard. I know it. I hate it. You have to go out there and find the person and then spend so much time with the person before you decide you want to marry the person. What if there was an easier way?

In this novel, there is. You can just take your DNA and send it to the Match Your DNA company and they will run it through their database and find the one person that is meant for you based on your DNA. Who is that one person that you will click with and form a relationship with?

This is something that most everyone is doing in the society. There are concerns about couples who are not “matched” and many couples sadly get divorced so they can be with their “match.” Couples who marry without a match are seen as passing up “the one” that is meant for them.

A little side note here, but before you roll your eyes at the concept, if you’re a Christian, remember that too many of us have a concept of how we have to find “the one” that is meant for us. Verse in Scripture that says this? None. We just throw it in with the same errant concept of “Finding God’s will for your life.”

Anyway, the novel follows five characters. I don’t want to use the term protagonists because you will not like all five of these characters. All of them use the Match program and while there is some good that comes of it, overall, I conclude there is far more harm. Something that was meant to lead to better relationships seems to lead to harder ones.

Really, I can’t say much more beyond that because some of you might want to read it and if you do, I don’t want to spoil it for you. The main thought I had going through this book was that we praise science all day long in our society, and I’m certainly not saying science in itself is an evil, but there are some decisions that maybe we just shouldn’t be leaving to science. Maybe sometimes we should make the decisions ourselves instead of having others do the thinking for us.

Fortunately, we’re not in any danger of that today. Right?

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

Book Plunge: The Toxic War On Masculinity Part 2

Where did things go wrong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we have a culture in America that prizes women, where men are told to treasure them. Men actually lead their families. Everyone works together and men are guardians of virtue leading the family in prayer and Bible study. That all sounds good. What changed?

Answer: Technology.

In the past, men would often work on their own turf and eventually one day, the Dad would call the son over and introduce him to the craft. The family would work together. When the Industrial Revolution came along, men got separated from that and they were more in a work environment than a home environment.

Pearcey tells us that the work environment was quite different and many of the traits we deem toxic today, started showing up, like the strong competitive win-at-all costs mentality and the desire to get ahead. I think to some extent, men have always been competitive, but now it was a dark side of competition.

Men had to do this because they had to provide for their families and they had to show that they could not be replaced. Pearcey tells us the criticisms Marx had of the working environment were common in his day. Man was becoming a machine to earn profit and it was not about the family business anymore.

In the past, there was the Protestant Ethic, whereby it wasn’t just ministerial work that was a calling of sorts, but so was secular work. The person who was making shoes could serve God just as much as the priest could. All people were to play a part in the Kingdom of God. The priest could travel the roads, but he certainly needed someone to build those roads!

This also led to a public and private divide. The private was the home and the public was the work. The public/work was that which could be verified, think science. The private/home was the subjective. Those familiar with the Schaeffer idea of the lower and upper story, which Pearcey definitely knows well and references, will be familiar with this. Because of this, morality did not control work like it did the home and men working in that environment were more influenced by it than they did influence it.

Not only that, but we needed to know how to get along in a workplace that was amoral. What if we made a set of dictums to follow artificially? We could call it, an, oh, I don’t know, social contract maybe? Yep. That’s where it began. It was even called social physics. How does a contract work as a system of ethics? Pearcey says:

What’s the difference between a contract and a covenant? Both are agreements, but the differences between them are crucial. A contract defines an exchange of goods and services. But a covenant defines a moral relationship between persons. In a contract, I seek my own interests, I strike a deal. But in a covenant, I seek the common good of the relationship and everyone in it. A contract includes an opt-out clause so I can leave if I no longer feel my interests are being served. But a covenant is a moral commitment of the whole person.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 98). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

As an aside, do you see what happens when we treat marriage like a contract instead of a covenant? In a contract, each person enters for their own good in an exchange and they leave when they are not getting what they want. In a covenant, the parties enter a moral relationship for the good of the other and the relationship.

She goes on to then say:

But in social contract theory, a social institution was no longer defined as an organic unity with a common good. It was merely an aggregate of autonomous individuals, all pursuing their own interests. And if there was no common good, then a man’s duty could no longer be defined as responsibility for protecting the common good. Men were set free to pursue self-interest.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 99). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

One place of common good was the household which gets us to women’s suffrage. When the idea first came up to allow women to vote, it had a lot of opposition. From the “patriarchy?” No! From women!

When the issue of women’s suffrage was first raised, most women actually opposed it—a fact that puzzles modern historians. Even the early feminist leaders acknowledged that the vote was not popular with women. Alice Stone Blackwell, a leading suffragist, wrote, “The chief obstacle to equal suffrage is the indifference and opposition of women.” Suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Ida Harper wrote, “In the indifference, the inertia, the apathy of women lies the greatest obstacle to their enfranchisement.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (pp. 99-100). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The right of women to vote would be seen as breaking the house into not one common unit all voting together as one, but as individuals who could each go their own way. The woman would thus be her own individual and the man would no longer be looking for the good of the whole household.

Now that we have a division in place, women started to be seen as more superior. After all, they were the ones raising the families for the most part. One aspect of this I hadn’t considered was angels. Typically, angels in the Bible are fearsome creatures. They constantly seem to have to tell people to not be afraid immediately.

But in the Victorian age, angels began to be portrayed as young women—delicate, sweet, and guarding little children. Brown concludes, “One of the great mythic transformations of the early nineteenth century was the feminization of angels.”

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 109). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Also interestingly in the past, the strong sex drive was not seen as being on the part of the men. It was on the part of the women. The women were seen as having insatiable lust that would men astray. This is not to say that men don’t have a strong sex drive, as many of us men will attest, but it does mean that feminism has come to be something quite different.

What this would mean eventually was that men needed to have women in their lives to ensure that they were virtuous and if there wasn’t a woman, well the man could pursue his self-interest. Women do contribute to men, but a man can be and needs to be virtuous even without a woman in his life. We now have it that men are bad boys and once a woman gets a man, she has to shape him up.

This had an effect then on church life and ministry:

Even the tone of American evangelicalism became softer and more emotional. In a classic book on the subject, The Feminization of American Culture, Ann Douglas says the ministry lost “a toughness, a sternness, an intellectual rigor which our society then and since has been accustomed to identify with ‘masculinity.’” Instead, the ministry took on traits society has typically identified with femininity, such as care, nurturing, and tenderheartedness.

Pearcey, Nancy. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (p. 115). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Around this time, we also had attacks coming in based on higher criticism, evolution, and philosophy. The church should have responded with intellectual rigor, but no, they went into retreat. Christianity was based on the emotional experience at that point. Christianity then became a private faith. (Want to know what God is saying? Don’t go to public Scripture, but go to private experience.)

Right now, things are not looking good for the church in the world and a lot of it has had to do with the erasure of masculinity.

We shall continue next time.

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

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 5

Is remarriage adultery? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So in this one, according to Madison, Jesus says all remarriage is adultery. We can be thankful that at least he went through the work of scholars like David Instone-Brewer and Craig Keener and….

If you’re laughing now, you know what’s coming.

Of course, he didn’t. Who needs to waste time with scholars?

This means that, according to Jesus, adultery is rampant among Christians, given the number of good believers who have been divorced and remarried. And one must wonder whether these followers of Jesus are admitting, when they get divorced, that God joining them together was his mistake?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 40). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

First in response to this, he at first assumes all these divorces are mutual. As someone like myself who is wrongfully divorced, I fought tooth and nail to save my marriage. I also don’t claim all marriages are joined together by God directly, in the sense of God leading people to marry one another, but I do say that even if God does do something, that doesn’t mean we can’t resist His will and go against it. God didn’t make the mistake. We did.

“…except on the ground of unchastity…” Is it possible that even the writer of one of the gospels was embarrassed by something Jesus taught and added a qualifier to tone it down?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. This either something explanatory put in, or else part of what Jesus said in the sermon. If anyone was divorced in Jewish thought, it would likely be assumed that they could remarry. The problem was that there were two schools of thought. One said you could divorce for any reason such as if she burned toast. Instone-Brewer has a quote from one rabbi who says divorce could take place if a prettier girl was found. (I got the book at the library and so am unable to quote it now.) The liberal side was from the Hillel school. The Shammai school tended to say divorce could only be allowed in the case of adultery.

Jesus steps into this discussion which is not about remarriage, but more about divorce. He sides with Shammai, but His case is strong. It needs to be a case of unfaithfulness to the covenant. I have had to do papers here on both the Gospels on divorce and Paul on divorce and came to the same conclusion. Scripture allows for remarriage in the case of wrongful divorce.

Madison goes on to say about Jesus’s command against lust that

So now Jesus is condemning sexual feelings, a teaching that ignores how we are built and has led to unnecessary shame and guilt for centuries. The Greek word translated “lust” in the passage could also mean “longing for” or “desiring.” Even the most devout Christians can’t help noticing when someone comes across to them as “really sexy” and feeling something that is more than simply appreciation. And anyone—Christian or not—who has ever had a partner understands how important sexual feelings can be in creating a mutual attraction between two individuals.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. Jesus is not condemning sexual feelings and desires. He condemns an action in this case. It is looking at another man’s wife with the intention to lust after her. He is right that the word used does refer to strong desire, but He forgets there is an action involved. Why does He condemn this? Because if you are willing to look, it means you are closer to doing. The same could be said for emotional affairs. Open the door for something that seems innocent and it’s not too long many times before it ends in a hotel room.

So once again, Madison doesn’t really understand the passages.

We’ll continue next time.

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

Christianity and Modern Gods

What are the gods we deal with today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am reading through the church fathers, among other things, and something I am noticing with Tertullian who I am on now is that he has a vast array of knowledge about the gods of the Roman society he lives in. I grew up reading Greek mythology which was claimed by the Romans, but there is still a lot I don’t know about it. Tertullian is familiar with the ins and the outs of the great stories in addition to being familiar with the biblical topics he knows about and the history of Christianity and the Roman Empire.

Nowadays, most people do not believe in those gods. Many people would consider themselves secularists and even many Christians are largely secular in their thinking. That does not mean we are not without gods. Not by a long shot. We have several gods today and these are gods Christians need to know about as well to interact with worshippers of these gods, as there are plenty of such worshippers.

So what are they?

Let’s start with sex. Yes. We all know about sex. A goes into B and sometimes a baby can result. We all know how it works, but what about what it is. We have plenty of debates on this topic. What is the ultimate purpose of sex? Is it something reserved for marriage? Is it to be between a man and a woman?

Then this gets into our personal identity. What is orientation? Is there such a thing? Is there a difference between sex and gender? Is this something that is assigned at birth or is it something immutable that cannot be changed? On one level, we can say the question “What is a woman?” is simple, but on the other, it is something quite deep that we need to get more to an answer on.

Christians definitely need to have a message here. After all, if we aren’t sharing our views on this with our children, the world is and the world will speak loudly. If we do believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman in marriage, how can we tell children this is a great gift while at the same time saying it needs to be reserved for that state? (Something even difficult for we adults who are single again.)

Another god is money. For this, Christians need to study economics. Many of the debates we have in this country are because people are ignorant of economics. We think with our hearts alone and think “If our intentions are good, the results will follow.” Not at all. I am not saying to avoid compassion, but I am saying that to see if a policy works, you don’t ask “How compassionate is it?” but rather “How effective is it?”

Capitalism is often seen as encouraging greed. Is it? Marxism is seen as caring for the poor. Is it? Why did we go to war with Marxism so much in our history? Is Marxism necessarily linked with atheism? Were the early Christians socialist?

As for caring for the poor, what is the best way to help people who are poor? What method has the best results? How should individual Christians care for the poor? Is it wrong for you to buy something really nice for yourself when there are poor people in the world?

Power is another one and this gets into politics. This is definitely here when an election year is going on. Christians need to learn how their government works. Can we tell the three branches of the American government? What is the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of Independence?

How much power should the government have? Should the citizenry be able to have guns and if so, are there any limitations to that? What should we prohibit? What should we permit? What should we promote? What role do passages like Romans 13 play?

What about science? This seems to be the reigning authority today. What is science? Is science necessarily materialistic? Can it answer the God question? Can it answer questions of good and evil? Is it the only way to know anything?

What should we accept in science and what should we not? Is evolution true? If it is, what does this say about our beliefs on Scripture, inerrancy, the existing of God, and the resurrection of Jesus? Can you be a faithful Christian and accept evolution? Can you be a good scientist and reject evolution?

What about modern issues as well like climate change? Is the earth’s climate changing? If so, is that something that would happen anyway or is man responsible? Is there anything that can be done about it either way? What about our response to Covid? What did we get right? What did we get wrong? Can we trust the science or are we even more skeptical?

Christians interacting in our culture need some knowledge on all of this. In addition definitely understand other gods if you are interacting with other systems. We need Christians who understand cults, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism and any other belief system out there.

In all of this, yes, we need to know our Bibles and our history and what we believe and why, but we are interacting with people who speak of other gods. Like good missionaries, we need to know what those other gods are and how to address them. Christians throughout history have had something to say about more than just Christianity. We need to do the same to be effective witnesses in our culture.

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

Book Plunge: Atheist Universe Part 12

Is internet porn a danger? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Up until now, I have considered Mills highly ignorant.

Yet when I got to this chapter, that changed.

Mills has an attitude that is disgraceful to have and highly misogynistic towards women. I do not make such statements lightly. I do intend to back it.

First, why this chapter anyway? Why did he write it? He didn’t just write a chapter about supposedly odd views about sex that Christians have. No. This was about internet porn specifically. This was about men going on the internet with the intention of looking up pictures of women in various stages of undress all the way to completely nude for the purpose of feeding their own lusts and that is okay to Mills. Note I say men specifically since that is the group that Mills focuses on saying girls don’t really have this struggle. Well, they actually do, and a large part of that is because men do as well.

So let’s dive in.

Is there truly a problem of children’s accessing pornography on the internet? And if there is, shouldn’t we, as adults, strive mightily to prevent impressionable children from viewing sexually oriented material intended solely for adults? The answers to these questions are: (1) There is no problem; and (2) We should not strive to “child-proof” the internet.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 193). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Entirely wrong on both counts. It is extremely hard for women to find men today who are not viewing porn. They are the exception, not the rule, and this is changing the way men think about sex and in turn changing the way women are doing sex and thinking about sex. Men are getting more and more the idea that what they see on the screen is how sex is supposed to be an how women are supposed to look.

Those are airbrushed fantasy and put a real woman next to a fantasy and the fantasy will win. I hate saying that because real women I do think are definitely superior because they are real, but fake women can be whatever the man wants them to be. Today, a man’s first sexual encounter won’t be on his wedding night. It will be in front of a computer screen.

Yes. We need to child-proof the internet. Minors are passing around nude pictures of themselves that in any other hands would be considered child pornography and a crime. A number of them have committed suicide after said pictures have leaked. Women are suffering in the Instagram generation where they think they have to look like the women on Facebook.

But this is just the beginning for Mills.

He goes on to talk about how our young men reach sexual maturity in their teen years and then have to wait several years before they can get married. On this, I agree. This is a problem. Our society has set eighteen as if it is some magical number that suddenly makes a boy a man. It doesn’t. There are several boys who are over eighteen and there are several men who are under, though those numbers are greatly increasing on both sides.

So Mills says:

So economic reality, more than anything else, has crafted our perception that teenage males are “harmed” by sexual preoccupation. Today’s male faces a frustrating gap of approximately ten years between the onset of his sexual maturity and the median marital age. Genetically and hormonally, however, today’s teenage male is unchanged from the day when early teenage copulation was the accepted norm. During this extended gap between puberty and marriage, all teenage males masturbate frequently, and the overwhelming majority of them view pornography as well.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 197-198). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

In this, there is very little to disagree. It’s his next part that’s the big problem.

Again I pose the question: If, throughout the entirety of human history, teenage males were not “jeopardized” by full penile-vaginal intercourse with their teenage partners, how then are today’s teenage males “endangered” by mere photographs of women?

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 198). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

And this I declare is incredibly misogynistic. Mills says “If a man was involved in a relationship with a woman where he was spending his life with her and siring children with her and raising a family with her, then how is looking at photographs a problem? That is hardly a one-to-one parallel. The former requires that a man be a man. It requires that he take responsibility for a woman he has pledged loyalty and faithfulness to. It requires that he work to provide for her and the children that they will have.

Pornography does the exact opposite. It requires that a man not be a man. It does not require the man to take any responsibility. It does not require him to be faithful and loyal to anyone. It does not require him to make any effort to provide for a woman or provide children. The woman in pornography is solely there for the gratification of the man. He doesn’t even have to know her name or anything about her. He doesn’t have to risk himself with her at all.

Yet Mills sees these as parallels.

Unbelievable.

This really tells you how Mills sees women.

Pornography causes young men to see women as just bodies and cheapens sex. I am not at all saying women’s bodies are not beautiful. Thank God they are. I am saying you can’t beat the real thing. It is why even as a divorced man I strive to keep myself porn free so that when I remarry, my then wife will know I only have eyes for her and she doesn’t have to compete with a Rolodex of images of nude women in my head.

Another sad fact is that if Mills’s view is true, then yes, there is nothing wrong with any of this. There is nothing wrong with anything. There is also nothing right with anything. Things just are. That’s it.

Thank God the world is not like that.

Thank God women are real and good in their own right and that sex was a gift He created for us to enjoy in the context of a marital relationship.

We don’t want a cheap thing like Mills does.

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

 

 

Femininity is a Good Thing

Is it good for a woman to be a woman? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I read some of a mystery every day. Yesterday morning, I read this in the one I’m going through now where a female detective is wanting to find out how to get close to a male suspect she wants to question.

“Rob Saunders is obviously a bit of a Casanova. You’re a young, pretty girl. You could use that to your advantage.”
“What? You’re not telling me to seduce him, are you?” cried Ellie.
“Oh, don’t look so shocked. I’m not suggesting that you sleep with him,” said Aunt Olive, clicking her tongue. “But a man like Rob… well, now, he’d be easy to interrogate if you know how to play him.” She saw Ellie’s expression. “Oh, come on, poppet! Calculated seduction is a time-honored tradition in intrigue and espionage! I know it’s not politically correct to say this nowadays, but you can achieve a lot with a suggestive smile and a show of cleavage.”
“Aunt Olive! You’ve just set the women’s lib movement back fifty years or something!”
“Rubbish!” snorted her aunt. “A woman who knows how to use her feminine charms to get what she wants is the one who’s truly empowered.”
I realize some people might think the language here is a bit crude and no, this is not a Christian work, but ultimately, as I read this passage, I had to agree with Aunt Olive in her basic point. The empowered woman is not the woman who tries to deny her femininity. It is the one who knows how to use it properly.
The feminist movement has really been very anti-woman. One of the main problems is that they set up a sort of competition between men and women. Men didn’t have this problem. Women did. Women wanted to be able to focus on a career, not worry about children, and not be seen as a piece of eye candy.
I am not against a woman having a career and not every woman will be a mother. Certainly a woman shouldn’t be treated as an object, but the way women went about these goals was wrong. It was not by being better at what they were, being women, but by trying to in essence not be women and be men.
So a man can have sex and not have to worry about carrying a baby for nine months as a result. No problem. Use birth control and if that doesn’t work, get an abortion. Deny your biological clock (Which men don’t have) and just work at your career and you decide when you want to have a baby, if you ever do. If men can walk around topless, women can too!
It hasn’t worked well for women.
Believe it or not women, if you want to get a real man, a man wants a woman who is a woman. He doesn’t want a woman who is trying to act like a man. He likes the things in a woman that set her apart from men.
That includes beauty.
That beauty is a good thing also. Yes. A woman can do a lot of damage to a man if she misuses her beauty and seduces him into doing things that he shouldn’t. However, she can also use that beauty to greatly inspire and motivate a man.
Consider Jacob in the Bible. When he sees Rachel, he’s immediately impressed by her beauty and when asked what his wages will be, he already knows. He wants Rachel! The text says he worked seven years, but they seemed like a short time because of his great love for her. I can imagine him easily out in the fields working hard and here comes Rachel walking by with a cute smile, the breeze blowing through her hair, the grace of her figure, everything, and Jacob just thinking “Soon.”
Then when the seven years is up (Is Jacob counting down the days), Jacob is awfully brazen and just goes to his future father-in-law and says “I’ve done my work. Give me your daughter. I want to sleep with her.”
That’s what the text literally says! I honestly can’t imagine going up to my former father-in-law on the day of the wedding and saying “You ready to give her up? I’m wanting to sleep with her.”
Now in the story, Jacob had to work seven more years for Rachel, but he did it. Why? Because female beauty is highly inspiring to a man. A man can do things he never would have dreamed of doing before just for female beauty. My ex-wife did cause some major good changes in me just because I was motivated by her beauty, something no one else could do.
Ladies. Keep this in mind also. Perhaps a guy who asks you out isn’t a ten in your minds, but consider this. If he is of good character, go out with him and see what changes can be brought about in him just because he wants you. You can inspire a man to be a man in ways he never was before just because your beauty has that effect on him. (Consider how in the Christmas special, Rudolph flies immediately just because Clarice says she thinks he’s cute.)
It’s the way God made the system. Enjoy it. He knew what He was doing.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Outdated

What do I think about Jonathan Pokluda’s book on dating? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In many ways, this is an excellent book. It deals with a lot of myths out there not so much about dating, but about marriage. Naturally, I hate that I have to read dating books again, but lo and behold, I do. Pokluda is a minister who didn’t walk the street and narrow before his conversion and so has made many of the mistakes in the book. Each chapter begins with a brief lie about marriage and then what the truth is.

Throughout, there are generally good insights. An example is that if you are just out there dating just to have fun, that’s what you’re going to get. Dating should not be a hobby. It should be done as a means to an end. When you start dating someone, there are going to be two possible outcomes. You get married or you break up.

One myth he deals with is the idea that you have to find the one who is out there and just right for you. It is a lasting myth many people believe and he cites a NASA scientist who said that if the idea of soul mates were true, 1 in 10,000 people would marry theirs, and I really think that’s likely being generous. We are too often expecting a magic fairy tale scenario.

He also says we have an idea that there is supposed to be a magical spark when we meet someone and we just know. It would be something like a movie where you see that person and all of a sudden you just get spellbound. The reality is there are probably plenty of people you have met who would be wonderful matches for you and you have put them in a friend zone for some reason like that. He mentions people looking for a mystical sign, which I think could easily include God saying “This is the one!” The speaking of the friend zone is his wording, but I want to speak on behalf of many single men out there and say “Hear! Hear!”

Instead, real life and real marriage is hard and when you marry someone, you see their flaws and if you went on a spark, that spark fades away. Then you meet someone else who you have the “spark” with and decide that that person must be the real one you were meant to be with. However, you bring all your same problems with you that you never worked on in the original relationship and before too long, history repeats itself.

Speaking about appearances, he has a great saying that if you can’t cherish someone who loves Jesus, but isn’t that physically attractive to you, that says a lot more about your spirituality than anything else. On the other hand, this chapter did seem to be teaching a lot against “Don’t marry for looks” to which I agree with, but said very little on the role physical attraction plays in a relationship. I agree it is not everything and to think so is shallow, but at the same time, the Bible, specifically when speaking about women, regularly talks about their great beauty.

I also understood what he said about men needing to be initiators in relationships, and I agree, but as someone on the spectrum who has a hard time even asking for a divider at WalMart, easier said than done. On this front, ladies, please let us guys know you are interested in us. What you might think is obvious is not obvious to us.

There are many other topics dealt with in this book such as pornography, living together before marriage, and pre-marital sex. This is really a good book for dealing with a lot of myths that people have and the author wants to see good dating because he wants to see good marriages. He wants a great foundation and it starts with proper dating.

If you’re single, I recommend it.

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