I know domestic violence is a sensitive subject to many people, so I will try and be gentle with my approach to this issue; however, I firmly believe that men do have a
right to beat their wives.
Personally, I believe this because I believe that a man has a basic moral right over his own body. All physical decisions pertaining his body are his to make.
No one has a right to tell a man what to do with his own body.
We can’t tell a man what to do with his fists. The government is not a glove, so the government should stay off of men’s hands.
Sometimes, men just need to be able to beat their wives. Maybe his wife turned out to be much different than he expected when marrying her, and she is ruining his plans and his life with her demands. He should have the right to put her in her place with a good beating. Or, perhaps he decides he isn’t ready for a wife at this point in his life, and so he should be able to beat her to the point where she no longer wants to be around him. Or, maybe a man reluctantly has to face the reality that he doesn’t really love his wife like he used to, and therefore, it would be unloving to the wife to not beat her and drive her away. No wife should have to be in a marriage where she is unwanted.
I’m very confused.
I recently discovered that one of my Christian friends has created a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for “gender reassignment surgery”. My initial reaction was one of sadness, which only increased when I heard her say that she believed the surgery to be her only means of avoiding crippling depression. Statistics show her hope to be misplaced.
Research has shown gender reassignment surgery to be ineffective. The Guardian reported that, “The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham‘s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.”
The director of this research stated that, “There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised – often to the point of committing suicide.”
Research from the US and Holland suggest also that up to 20% of patients regret changing their sex, and has also found that suicide attempt rates of up to 18% among those who underwent surgery.
As Walt Heyer, a former “trans-female” himself described,
“I lived for 8 years as a so-called trans-female named Laura Jensen. But no matter how feminine I appeared, like all transgenders, I was just a man in a dress. I was unhappy, regretful of having transitioned, and I attempted suicide. Gender surgery is not effective treatment for depression, anxiety, or mental disorders.”
It was Walt Heyer I thought of when I saw my friend express her desperate hope that the surgery would solve her issues. It won’t. In fact, it will only lead her further down the road of depression. Yet the culture tells us otherwise. The culture tells us we have to “follow our heart” and pursue that which we believe will make us happy.
It’s like we believe that we all have Jack Sparrow’s special compass that points to that which we want most, embedded in our chests, and perhaps we do. The only problem is that no one tells us that what we want isn’t necessarily what we need, or what will lead to true happiness and fulfillment.
The more we seek after our own happiness, the more distant it becomes.
I’m guest posting today over at Alovelycalling.com again! This time focusing on the question of self-worth.
What are you worth? If you were put up on an auction block today, what kind of price would you fetch? What dollar amount would equate to your value?
Do you think you are worth a hundred dollars? Or maybe ten thousand? A million? Surely you don’t think you’re worth a billion dollars, right? Come on! What kind of narcissistic psychopath are you?
Well, according to our American society, you are worth about $5 million. Hmm…not too shabby. As a livescience.com article points out, “If a safety code will cost more than $5 million for every person it will save, ‘regulators eyes start to glaze over. They say that that is too expensive.’”
Have you ever thought of yourself as being worth $5 million before? How would you treat an object you owned if was valued at $5 million?
Click here to read the rest!
In our Post-Modern world where truth is relative, a curious phenomenon has developed: people don’t like you if you are confident about your beliefs. It’s very strange. These Post-Modernists are confident that you are wrong for being confident in your “false” beliefs, just as they are confident that there is absolutely no such thing as absolute truth.
It is cool to be a skeptic today. Doubt equals wisdom.
If you express confidence in your beliefs, then you are dogmatic, judgmental, legalistic, and a slew of other derogative terms. Of course, without God, this makes sense.
If you don’t believe in God…you really can’t trust that you know anything. If we all just evolved by accident in the primordial soup of Earth’s ancient oceans, if we were just cooked up by the flaming prehistoric meteorites slamming into Earth bringing with them the “ingredients for life,” if we were just dead material shocked to life, ala Frankenstein, by lighting or whatever it is atheistic scientists are now claiming allowed life to form from non-life…then we can’t really trust anything.
As it is for most kids, Christmas time was my favorite time of the year growing up. Everything changes. There are lights, Christmas songs, making gingerbread houses, fun Christmas movies, and best of all, lots of new toys!
I was always the first one up Christmas morning, and always dazzled by the sight of our family-room filled with beautifully-wrapped presents, all filled with new and exciting things just waiting to be discovered. Yes, Christmas was the best time of the year.
I never thought much about why we had Christmas, or what all of the traditions and practices meant. Everyone celebrated Christmas…or so I thought.
Once while visiting a great Christian family, I was horrified to discover that they did not celebrate Christmas! WHAT? WHY? How sad their children don’t get presents Christmas morning! My parents explained later that they believe we should treat every day the same, and consider every day as holy, and seek to celebrate God every moment.
Okay, that makes sense, I thought, but why not treat every day the same…but also get presents?
As I grew older, Christmas slowly began to lose its luster for me. More and more things began to bother me about the holiday, such as the hustle and bustle, the stress the season seemed to bring, and the over-commercialization.
Since then, I have also learned more sinister things about the origins of Christmas. Indeed, there are even some Christians who believe we should not participate at all in the celebration due to its pagan origins.
Social media allows us to express ourselves like never before. We can share our opinions on Facebook and Twitter, post pictures of ourselves on Instagram, and create virtual boards full of things we like on Pinterest. Social media allows us to create a whole world devoted just to ourselves.
It seems that this virtual world we create for ourselves often goes to our heads, or does it? I’ve been trying to figure out if it is really social media which is making us arrogant, or if social media only reveals our arrogance. Regardless, it’s quite obvious through social media that we think a lot of ourselves.
The most tangible evidence of our arrogance has to come in the form of the selfie, which actually was named the word of the year
last year. We are taking a lot of pictures of ourselves.
Allow me to tell you a story from Greek mythology you’ve probably heard. Narcissus was a hunter who was legendary for his beauty. In fact, he was apparently so good-looking that when he happened to gaze at his reflection in a pool of water, he couldn’t look away. Paralyzed by his own beauty, Narcissus died.My, my. How tragic.
Perhaps the word Narcissus sounds familiar to you. This is because our word “narcissism” (a fixation with oneself) is derived from this Greek myth; however, it’s not a myth. This story is being lived out today, only instead of pools of water, we have pixels on a screen.
It amazes me how some people seem to be obsessed with selfie-taking. They’ll change their profile picture every week it seems, and post extra pictures they took of themselves (nicely edited) on their Facebook page, or Instagram, or what have you. If you really think you are so good-looking that you feel you must take a picture to capture your beauty, okay, but then to post it all over social media? That just screams, “Hey everyone! Look how narcissistic I am!”
The epitome of this is the bathroom mirror selfie. Really? The bathroom? What? Are you really so proud that you were able to have a bowel movement that you had to take a picture of yourself in your glory, and then post it on social media for everyone to know that you look good even when nature calls? Incredible.
When I heard last year’s Heisman trophy winner, Jameis Winston, was suspended for a game last Saturday because he acted like a person his age normally acts, I laughed. Apparently what he said was offensive to women and not appropriate, but I’ve heard similar things spoken in high school hallways and on my own college campus. Of course, not everyone stands up on a table in the middle of their college campus to shout such things, but all the same, the words Jameis Winston spoke which led to his suspension are common, and come out of the mouth of just about every college student. What is more, all he did was repeat the words of what was apparently a popular internet meme.
The same words he spoke can be found in the songs of popular rappers and music artists, and they are celebrated. They are in films, and they are in our common speech. Most people thought what he said was funny, as the plethora of tweets about the event proved. Everyone laughed. Why then did he get suspended for acting the way the culture teaches us to act? Do people really not know what middle school, high school, and college-aged kids say?
Jameis Winston got suspended for acting exactly the way he was supposed to act. The media has come out and claimed that what he said was offensive to women, okay, but why then does popular culture encourage this type of attitude toward women?
As Doug Wilson says, “a large part of the entertainment industry is dedicated to honoring the dishonorable, praising the despicable, and glorifying the inglorious.” Jameis Winston’s crime is that he actually said, publically, what is only said behind closed doors, or allowed in media as “art”. Also, he happens to be famous, and because he is famous, we hold him to a higher standard for some reason.
A lot of analysts now are debating whether or not Winston will be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft. My question is, why would repeating a popular phrase rule him out? Because he lacks moral character? Yes, and the NFL is certainly a bastion of morality which promotes the dignity of women. Much more offensive things are said about women in football locker rooms, but you don’t hear about that. Actually, much more offensive things are said in high school and middle school lunch rooms, forget locker rooms. Why? Because this is the way popular culture, with its lyrics, dialogue, pictures, and videos has taught men to talk and think about women. College kids aren’t upset with what Winston said, they’re just upset that his scandal has turned their funny meme into a bad thing.
Poor Jameis is being punished, not for what he said, but for where he said it. If he had just waited until after he was drafted, and did it in front of his teammates when the cameras weren’t on, he would simply be referred to as a funny guy, or maybe a good teammate.
I don’t think we as a society have a right to be upset at someone when they act exactly the way we’ve told them to. We shouldn’t be surprised when someone acts exactly the way popular culture has told them to act. If you want to be mad at young Jameis who is just a kid after all, just 20 years old (can’t expect much of 20-year-olds, right?), then you should be mad at him for stealing $32 worth of crab legs
, not for repeating a meme. Really, Jameis? Stealing crab legs? I haven’t heard one rap song about that (then again I don’t listen to rap music, so who knows. Crab legs are pretty good, and he is a poor starving college kid after all).
Actually, now that I think about it, Jameis didn’t steal, he only “shoplifted,” and according to Al Sharpton, there is a BIG difference between robbing and shoplifting. So let’s not be too harsh here on young Jameis.
Now, I am not defending Winston’s actions, but there is a disconnect here. If you were to tell regular college or high school students that they shouldn’t speak or behave in such a way (which I have) then you get laughed at or mocked. Yet, Jameis does it and suddenly it’s a bad thing. I think everyone should be held to the same standard.
When we talk so often about how we expect college kids to be immature, and that it’s normal and natural and fine…why do we get up set when one acts the way we expect him to act? Just because he’s good on the football field we suddenly expect more from him? Or is it that we really are okay with such behavior, so long as it only goes on at parties where there are no cameras. Perhaps we actually just feel betrayed that Winston did, in public and in broad daylight, what we wanted to keep in private and in the dark. Now that, I don’t think, is very fair.
Linked up at:
A Modest Mom
A Mama’s Story
Mom’s The Word
Time Warp Wife
A Wise Woman
My Daily Walk In His Grace
“Hmmm. Maybe we should just have our pastor or parents pick out our “good match” spouses. That would make it a whole lot easier for everyone. *whew* besides we will just learn to love them later right? As long as they are a good match nothing else matters right? 🙂 Wow, this is so messed up I’m appalled, I’m very sad that people still think that this thinking is ok. The only girl I know that went through this “perfect” scenario, and married her “godly” husband is the most miserable girl I know. You can “learn to love” someone, but I think that God factored in attraction for a reason…. Or wait is attraction a product of the fall? I can’t remember anymore… im sure you have never experienced a real “courtship”/relationship. :/ this is exactly the thinking that pretty much ruined my poor brother and his wife’s life…. Thankfully though they persevered and are married and boy am I glad that the religious nut with this thinking wasn’t able to ruin their marriage.”
I normally wouldn’t spend so much time replying to such an uncivil post, but I get quite a few, so I feel a need to explain how such comments make me feel so that my critics might change their tactics…though I rather doubt they will.
What really frustrates me about comments such as the above, is that this person could be right. Perhaps they have a legitimate objection to something I wrote, or maybe I need to clarify something…but their comment is so unhelpful, I can’t be sure what she is even referring to.
“Wow, this is so messed up,” she says. What is messed up? That parents should pick our spouses for us? Okay, maybe, but I didn’t say that in my post. But even if I did say that, how is it messed up? She doesn’t give any reasoning, but instead just throws out an unsupported statement. Does she expect me to take her at her word? Does she want me to listen to her with a blind faith? Is she a deity? If she wants to help me see things the way she does, then I need some reasoning. But, maybe this isn’t what she is saying is messed up.
Is it messed up that I argue being a good match should be the major determining factor when it comes to whether or not you should marry someone? Okay…how is that messed up? Surely she is not saying we should marry people we are not a good match with. Maybe she doesn’t understand what I mean by a “good match?” Maybe she thinks what I mean by “good match” consists of merely having the same beliefs or something? (which I don’t believe). It’s really hard to tell from such a comment.
I believe this commenter, hiding behind the alias “Wynd”, doesn’t really want to help me. If she did want to help me, she would have followed the rules of civil debate. She lobs ad hominem attacks at me, inaccurately claims to have intimate knowledge of my personal life, says that I don’t have experience, and intentionally ignores large portions of my post.
“A basic rule of civil debate that should always guide not only Christians but all serious people: always describe your opponents’ view as they describe it, and if you are going to accuse them of leading to a conclusion they do not actually embrace, say they do not actually embrace it. Attributing to adherents of a particular view certain beliefs they explicitly reject is unfair at best, and dishonest at worst.” – Rodger Olsen
People don’t know how to disagree anymore. In fact, society has come to believe that disagreeing with someone means you personally detest them. This is nonsense.
A lot of the criticism I receive is from people attacking things I never said, or points I don’t believe. This phenomenon is not unique to me. It’s everywhere. Whenever someone expresses an opinion, antagonists immediate twist and warp what was said.
This is unfair, uncivil, and really very barbaric. What is more, it is very unhelpful. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, and it simply spreads around false belief and slander.
There are plenty more civilized ways to disagree with someone. The quote above describes some foundational rules for civil debate:
Back in December, I posted one of my college papers on my blog. This paper was for my New Testament class which wanted me to make the case for something I didn’t believe was true.
Specifically, I had to argue that there are different versions of the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew and Luke (and Thomas) because the gospel authors each had an ax grind and were twisting the truth to fit their needs. Since the assignment said I could make my own observations, I thought I could give the position the class took, while also giving my own views. This would show that I understood the material taught in class, but disagreed. While I was aware this would probably hurt my grade to some extent, I thought I would still get a fairly high score.
I was wrong.
I ended up getting a “C” on the paper, and it had nothing to do with the quality of writing, or failure to follow the details of the assignment. I got a “C” simply because I didn’t agree with the bias of the class.
Here is what the official grading looked like.
Writing skills: Good. Well organized.
Connection to the reading: Excellent! Judicious use of quotation.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation: I appreciate the essay took a different approach, but the argumentation is extremely flawed and more or less disregards the teachings of the class completely. It is likely that Jesus did give a parable on a shepherd and the 1 and 99, but for very different reasons than what the essay gave.
What was so wrong with my analysis, synthesis, and evaluation? It was different from the class.
Well, that seems kind of reasonable though, right? I mean, college classes are always right, so if you write an essay defending something the class doesn’t teach, then you must be wrong.
The only problem is that in this case, my class was taught by a highly biased professor who used a highly biased textbook. Additionally, we weren’t allowed to use any outside sources on any of our assignments. Hmm…
Our textbook was written by Bart Ehrman, who is far left as far as Bible scholars go. Ehrman is far more skeptical of the Bible, its writers, and the content than what is generally accepted in academia. Not only that, but we were being taught that the views we were receiving in class were the views held by most scholars, and that these views were fact. This was completely false.
Moreover, there were a few times when the professor mentioned the existence of opposing viewpoints, but he would never describe them, choosing instead to keep the class one-sided. Therefore, I think I am justified in trying to argue against what the class taught, since it is a class based heavily on speculation.
However, none of this should have mattered because my paper followed the criteria in the assignment.
“Assignment: This paper is intended as an opportunity for you to make your own observations about one or more texts in their contexts, using the methods of critical analysis that you have been learning. Therefore, do NOT rely on secondary literature such as commentaries on the internet. You are expected to use your Ehrman textbook and your HarperCollins Study Bible.
Directions: Your final essay is to be 5-7 pages, double-spaced and in 12-point font
The parable advances a different theme in each gospel. Compare the three different versions of this parable, considering the full context of each version in its respective gospel. What are differences? Explain why the versions are different. For example, concerning Matt and Luke, where is the original version? What does “the largest sheep” mean in Thomas? In the final analysis, do you think that the historical Jesus actually declared a parable about sheep (or a coin)? Why or why not?”
You can go read my paperhere
and decide for yourself if I followed these criteria or not. Personally, I think I did, and so did the grader.
I met with the TA who graded my paper soon after I received the grade, and he told me how he graded it. He told me that if I hadn’t included all of the parts detailing my own views, I would have received a “B”. This is because I parroted back what was taught in class, followed all the directions, and the writing itself was solid.
I would have received an “A” if I had thought outside the box and provided a perspective that was unique, insightful, or that went beyond what the class taught. The TA admitted that I did indeed go beyond the class with my paper, and that it was very unique and insightful. So I should have gotten an “A”, but there was one tiny problem.
I was wrong. Or rather, I was “just plain wrong,” as the TA put it, so I ended up with a “C”.
If you read my paper, you see that I argue that we have different versions of the parable in different gospels because it’s likely Jesus told this parable many different times and with different details depending on his audience. I provide reasoning for why I believe this; however, the TA concluded that my analysis was complete “speculation.”
Okay, so my argument is speculation, but the argument from the class that the versions are different because each author had a personal agenda isn’t speculation? Really? The TA was there 2,000 years ago? How does he know Jesus didn’t tell his parables multiple times as he traveled? Aren’t we all speculating? Furthermore, there are other Biblical scholars who don’t believe as Ehrman and my professor believe, scholars who would agree with me.
The grader had his arguments for what he believes, and I had mine. The assignment told me to make my own observations, and that’s what I did, while also describing what I knew the class wanted me to say.
And yet, still the “C” remained. Apparently, they didn’t like my observations.
I met with the professor (whom I was on good terms with) to try and get a better explanation from him for why I had received a “C”. An hour and a half later (of mostly him talking) he basically said all the same things my TA had said. However, he was a bit more sympathetic.
He explained his own history growing up in the church and how some of what the Bible taught began not to make sense to him, but when he asked his pastor about it, his pastor basically told him to overlook it. His pastor had no answers for him, and my professor felt betrayed. He ended up dedicating his life to studying the Bible for the purpose of discrediting it.
He told me that he understands that I’ve probably grown up going to church (I haven’t) and that it’s probably hard for me seeing that what I believe doesn’t line up with the facts (I wasn’t seeing that.) Apparently he has had a lot of previous students who were like me (or whom he thought were like me), Christians clinging to what they had been taught at church rather than accepting “the facts.” I wonder how many he has led astray with his teaching.
I realized any further debate would be fruitless, so I let him believe what he wanted to believe, and left, but not before my professor recommended more classes he taught on the Bible to me. I told him thanks for the recommendations, but in my head I said “no thanks.” If his other classes were anything like his Intro to the New Testament class, they would be so one-sided as to be a waste of time. Skeptical atheist speculation is awarded an A, while Christian “speculation” gets a C, or worse.
To rub salt in the wound, the human-pin-cushion girl who sat next to me in class (and was close to failing the class) told me that she had gotten a B on her paper after only spending two hours on it. She pontificated for several minutes about how it was one of the worst papers she had ever written, and yet she still got a “B”. She became even more thrilled when she learned I had received a “C”, since I had earned a bit of an “overachiever” reputation among those who sat next to me for my rather frequent objections to the material being taught.
I had spent hours and hours on my paper over the course of several weeks, even getting mocked by my peers for making an outline that was longer than the required length of the paper. And yet, I could have gotten a better grade had I taken much less time, left out my “own observations”, and simply parroted back the material taught in class.
This is college; a bastion of ideas and thinking outside the box, it is not.
Linked up at:
A Wise Woman
Hope in Every Season
I Choose Joy
Live and Learn Farm
Living Well, Spending Less
The Modest Mom
What Joy is Mine