What if I told you that I believe it’s OK to physically abuse your household pets?
Hold on. Don’t jump on my case about it. I’m saying it’s acceptable to torture and torment pets — but only pets. And only your own pets. You certainly can’t go around drop kicking, headbutting, or pile-driving your neighbor’s dog, but your dog is a different story.
And you can only punch, pistol whip, and karate chop your gerbils, cats, puppies, parrots, etc, up until a certain age. And only in the most humane way possible.
That’s all. I’m not some kind of psycho animal hater — I’ve never even assaulted my own cat, and I don’t think I ever will — I just happen to think you should have that right, should the need or desire ever arise.
But, beyond this one admittedly unique viewpoint, my overall ideology is pretty mainstream. I mean, I think it’s important to recycle and eat healthy and be nice to people and all that stuff.
Now, what if I told you that I also consider myself an animal rights activist?
Do you think the other animal rights activists will embrace me as their own? Will they allow the title “animal rights activist” to be bent and broadened to the extent that it also includes maniacs who think we ought to vociferously defend a person’s right to smack their pets around?
Alright, maybe this is a bad example. PETA kills thousands of animals every year, yet they seem to be celebrated in the animal rights community.
Still, you get my point. And in case you don’t, I’ll spell it out:
Our beliefs are not packaged, sealed, and sold separately. We don’t formulate our personal philosophy in a vacuum. Your views on one subject will be colored, or clarified, by your views on everything else.
If you think you live in a world where it is morally acceptable to do X, then your opinion on Y must be understood in the context of a world where X is considered righteous.
So this is why you can’t, for instance, advocate for slavery while also being a proponent of civil rights. Either you’re lying about your civil rights stance, or else you have an understanding of ‘civil rights’ which does not include a right to be free from enslavement. If that’s the case, then you are not a believer in civil rights at all, no matter how loudly you insist otherwise.
For very similar reasons, you simply cannot be Christian and pro-abortion.
In order to be both, you’d have to change Christianity into a religion that does not and would not condemn the murder of human children. You’d have to turn Christ into a Savior who embraces infanticide, and God into a Father who creates children but does not necessarily expect us or command us to refrain from violently destroying them.
What you are left with is something that bears no resemblance to Christianity. In fact, you’re left with something that is, in every way, exactly the opposite.
You are the pro-animal abuse animal rights activist, the pro-slavery civil rights proponent, the circular square, the north south. You are attempting to be two diametrically opposed things simultaneously. You’re trying to do something that is not only theologically impossible, but scientifically impossible as well.
If churches in America had any guts, this message would be proclaimed from the pulpit at least once a month. Especially this week, after that revolting story about a ‘Christian’ abortionist.
This man — a mercenary killer of infants — insists that his faith ‘calls’ him to decapitate babies. ‘Dr.’ Willie Parker says that abortion “became this conviction of compassion in a spiritual sense of the deepest level of love that you can have for another person, that you can have compassion for their suffering and you can act to relieve it.”He’s right when he says that Christianity is a religion of love and compassion. But he understands (or claims to understand) love and compassion to include the extermination of 50 million children worldwide each year. His version of love leaves the ground scattered with the corpses of slaughtered babies. Christ’s love called us all to protect and love children, and warned us that we’d be better off with a stone around our neck, drowning in the sea, than defying that commandment. (emphasis added by me)
Continue reading via There is no such thing as a ‘pro-choice’ Christian | The Matt Walsh Blog.
I mentioned on yesterday’s post that this has been a very stressful. Very stressful. I’m spiritually battered and emotionally spent at the moment, and my soul is bruised. Rather than try and come up with something that would be coherent (that’s not happening today), I’ll share what is giving me comfort today, and perhaps tomorrow I’ll start catching up.
21 When my soul was embittered,
when I was pricked in heart,
22 I was brutish and ignorant;
I was like a beast toward you.
23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength[a] of my heart and my portion forever.
Psalm 46:1-3, 10-11
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present[b] help in trouble.
2 Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
3 though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling.
10 “Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
11 The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; 6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
I don’t know how anyone goes through the adoptive process – as adoptive parents OR birth parents – without God. I know that adoption is not limited to believers, but I honestly don’t know how those who don’t find their strength in God are able to do it. Adoption is hard. Really hard. Yes, the blessings do far outweigh the difficulties, and it really is worth it, but it is not for the faint of heart.
When we started five plus years ago (with a Christian agency that had a great reputation), I was excited and nervous…and scared. I had heard the horror stories of changed minds and children being ripped from adoptive parents’ arms months or years after the fact. But I also knew that there were red flags present in those situations, and that making sure we chose a good agency, one that made sure all the details were done right, and was a believing agency to boot, would protect us.
What I didn’t foresee at that time, and couldn’t articulate until much later, was that just having the Christian tag on the agency doesn’t make it the right agency for us. I was confident when we went through our first home study, with a wonderful case worker with whom we connected instantly, that we had chosen the right agency. A few months into our initial year, I began to have doubts. Our profile was not being presented often…in fact, perhaps 3-4 times over the course of a year. Our social worker was also the director of the agency, and as I had more interactions with her, I became more and more in doubt of her enthusiasm for our family. I began to feel we did not have an advocate, and I began to doubt our suitability to be adoptive parents. I wondered what was wrong with us. With me. What was making us a family that no one wanted?
In retrospect, I see now that it was not that no one wanted us, but it was that few birth parents saw us. The reasons given were that we didn’t fit the profile desired by the birth families. I was really, really discouraged. What’s more, I didn’t have the words (ironic as that is) to articulate that to my husband…not until we moved away.
I am so grateful that we had (have) friends who are vigilant prayer warriors. I know that there were many, many prayers spoken on our behalf, and I know that were it not for that, I would have felt completely alone, and completely marginalized by our agency. I also see now that God was present throughout that entire, discouraging year, and rather than barring us from having our hearts’ desire, he was working diligently on my heart.
After our cross-country move, it took me over a year to gear up and be ready to try again. We were starting again from scratch. This time, when we underwent our home study, my heart was (finally) where it should have been all along. I finally prayed, without reservation: “Lord, I will take and love whatever child you have chosen for me. Period.” My heart was not there before. True, our (Christian) agency didn’t care for us in the way I would have liked. The director didn’t have the enthusiasm for us (or in my opinion, for her job in general) that I thought she should. She did disappoint me desperately, and I came to believe that if she had lost her enthusiasm and joy for this job, perhaps it was no longer the job for her.
But, my heart wasn’t prepared in the way it should have been, and God used that year to show me that. As soon as I let go of my fears and doubts about WHO I could parent, God opened up the door that brought our beautiful son into our home.
We had decided to pursue adoption through foster care. We had not made any limitations with regard to race or ethnicity, we were flexible in what special needs we would consider, and we were open to more than one child, of any age up to our biological son’s age.
We got a call from our agency, requesting us…appealing to us…to consider joining the domestic adoption program. They had more birth moms than they had adoptive families to present. They desperately needed more adoptive families in the program. I saw God all over that. How could we say no? We couldn’t. and in that moment we set the wheels in motion that brought our son home to us.
If I wasn’t convinced in God’s providence before (I was), I have seen it firsthand now. God wants to give us the desires of our hearts, but He also wants us to trust Him completely, and trust that He loves us and has our very best interests at heart. I had to trust Him completely, and stop trying to engineer the outcome I wanted, and as soon as I did that, he gave me the best possible outcome, one that I could neither have engineered nor foreseen.
Great is Thy faithfulness, O God my Father;
There is no shadow of turning with Thee;
Thou changest not, Thy compassions, they fail not;
As Thou hast been, Thou forever will be.
There’s nothing I can add. This is the perfect response.
I read that you are indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty after he quoted the Bible and said that the homosexual act is sinful. I get it, guys. I do. You punished the Christian guy for being a Christian because you got some angry emails from a bunch of whiny gay activists who lack the spine and maturity to deal with the fact that there are still people out there who have the guts to articulate opinions that they find disagreeable. In so doing, you’ve kowtowed to a pushy minority of vocal bullies who don’t even watch your channel, while alienating the fan base of the one show that keeps your entire network afloat.
You’ve got standards, after all. You wouldn’t want to be associated with tasteless and inappropriate things. The people on Duck Dynasty can’t be allowed to run around being all Christian-like. It…
View original post 702 more words
Steve shared a link.
Laura Are you speaking tongue in cheek. If not, I am not understanding your point.Friday at 8:23pm · Like
Steve Nope, not tongue in cheek, Laura. I celebrate women, just not feminist.Friday at 8:42pm via mobile · Like · 1
Steve Fox is by no means immune…Friday at 8:43pm via mobile · Like
Laura No, of course Fox is not immune. However, I’m not sure who you were referring to as feminist in that segment. If you’re referring to Megyn Kelly, I disagree…and so does she. She explicitly stated that she is not a feminist, but she IS a working mom, and she was taking exception to the generalization that kids of working moms are more prone to have problems.Friday at 8:45pm · Like
Steve Not referring to her, Laura. Tammy works too. Wish she did not have to.Friday at 8:47pm via mobile · Like
Laura Then I am mystified by the comment, as it seems to bear no relation to the attached debate.Friday at 8:54pm · Like
Steve With that said, do you believe her making mention of homosexual parents study that they are as “well adjusted” as those of heterosexual couples ?Friday at 8:54pm via mobile · Like
Steve Pure liberal myth is what it is.Friday at 8:56pm via mobile · Like · 3
Steve Of course I’m judging her comments biblically.Friday at 8:57pm via mobile · Like
Todd Whether Kelly agrees or not, her view (because of her personal choices) is to take the politically driven American Psych Assoc. analysis which is the feminist mindset on roles. Women also drive wages down in the workplace so that many see it as necessary to have double incomes. You hardly need data to tell you that children don’t fare well without a homemaker, at least I don’t. If they’re going to make the argument subjective then two can play that game.Friday at 8:59pm · Like · 1
Cado just bc megyn kelly says shes not a feminist does not mean she is not one. her husband writes story books while she communicates to the nation. she quotes columbia university and every other liberal pseudo think tank. why the hell is she a “working mom” when she doesnt need to be one?Friday at 9:07pm · Edited · Like · 1
Todd I like a woman who can spar wittily but she strikes me as sassy and unfeminine. What kind of man would this attract? is always a question I reserve the right to ask.Friday at 9:04pm · Like · 2
Cado she divorced her husband in 2008 to marry a story book writer. she cohabited with her first husband before marriage and says its not a sin. her second marriage was officiated by a female pastor. what does that tell you about her?Friday at 9:09pm · Like · 1
Laura I do believe that the study indicated exactly what she stated. No, I do not agree with the premise of the study. She was debating scientific research with scientific research, and I believe she was taking exception because she is a working mother, and that was one of the groups he targeted. It doesn’t mean the scientific research is biblical, but it wasn’t inappropriate in a debate setting to bring it up, particularly since she was seeking to dispute a point.
Listen, I’m a stay-at-home mom. I chose that, and I think that, generally speaking, having a parent at home is best for kids, especially when they’re little. However, I am not casting aspersions on women who work, because I have seen situations where, whether or not the woman “needed” to work for financial reasons, there are some who need to for other reasons. There are days like today when I was at the end of my rope (and I only have ONE kid), and i know it would have been easier to be at work today.
I thought the debate interesting. I thought your comments were unnecessarily abrasive. IMO, there isn’t any reason to be crude & snarky if you believe your positions to be true and valid. That’s all.Friday at 9:09pm · Like
Todd She was railing against men who also were not casting aspersions on women who must work and said so, so what exactly was she on about? What one is not allowed to say in NetworkLand is that anything moderns wish to do is not ideal and that it brings a decline of various sorts. That is ridiculous and I will never comply. I thought the men were honest, forthcoming, correct and not harsh in the least and though there are tons of feminists applauding Kelly, I could not find one column for the other view (I didn’t check the Old White Thugs Review however). Proof enough that it is feminism that we are witnessing here. She also wanted it to be an ad hominem or subjective argument, repleat with emotionalism. But then, apparently she is pregnant.Friday at 9:40pm · Like · 1
Todd The men also allowed that the difference in quality wained as incomes grew into the highest brackets, probably where there are so many services available at home Mom becomes simply a figure expected if not endeared. Kelly would fall into this circumstance with her income. So she’s not just fighting this for her own circumstance but for others who will suffer, sometimes terribly. This is just willful and stupid.Friday at 9:46pm · Like · 1
Eric Right on the money, Steve. Rupert Murdoch = Jew. If you want pagan, liberal ideas wrapped up in a conservative-looking package, he’ll be happy to sell it to you all day long.
Megyn Kelly is a major feminist, as this video demonstrates. There’s nothing more backwards than watching a boisterous woman lecture two men in public about right and wrong. Even if she were on the correct side of the argument (and she’s not), that’s bass ackwards. What’s even more disgusting is that they both back down to her. The first thing out of Erickson’s mouth should have been, “Watch your attitude. If you can’t speak to me in a respectful tone, this conversation is over.”Friday at 10:02pm · Like · 2
Laura A boisterous woman?? Backwards?? Disgusting that they back down to her?? (They didn’t, by the way…they chose not to fight with her.) Should I then infer that it is PROPER for a man to lecture a woman in public about right & wrong? Holy cow! And NO, they should not have responded with “watch your attitude.” Nothing more off-putting in the world than a man who is condescending to women, and who treats them as his subordinates.Friday at 10:11pm · Edited · Like
Eric <Laura>Should I then infer that it is PROPER for a man to lecture a woman in public about right & wrong?</Laura>
Yes. That is the biblical model. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. Man is the head of woman.
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”Friday at 10:17pm · Like · 2
Laura 1) Adam was no less deceived than Eve. Regardless of who the vessel was that perpetrated the deceit, the Devil deceived them both. They both fell. They were both in transgression.
2) Should my husband publicly lecture me or otherwise humiliate me in front of others, I can assure you that would not bode well for our relationship. There is a way to teach, and a way not to, and you’re implying that excoriation and embarrassment are acceptable.
3) Yes, God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of the church. However, when man & woman were created, woman was created as a helpmate, not as an authority over man or to be crushed under his heel. We were created to be partners. There are certainly gender specific roles for men and women, but there is an implication in your words that suggests a more master/servant relationship. That does not cut it for me. Sorry.Friday at 10:31pm · Like
Laura Respect goes both ways in relationships, and it does not improve things to be disrespectful, regardless of whether or not the other party has been. What you suggested as an appropriate response to Megyn Kelly in that debate was, in fact, quite rude and disrespectful, even if you believe it was a proper response. There was no reason to embarrass her on the air, and by doing so, digging himself into a pit because of his caustic response. If she was disrespectful – and I’m not conceding she was – let her stand alone on that.Friday at 10:36pm · Like
Kent I couldn’t listen past 2:14. I pray with my daughter every night that she will become a Beautiful Mommy someday. That is my dream and prayer for her: A beautiful Mommy who lovingly submits to her husband, cherishes her children for who God is making them into, faithfully manages the home, implementing the family vision of her husband.Friday at 10:43pm · Like · 1
Laura Why not a shared family vision? If they are true partners, then shouldn’t they share in those dreams and decisions? What about a beautiful woman, who follows faithfully God’s plan for her, regardless of what it entails? That, by the way, is my prayer for my children. And my husband is the one who pointed out that, without a shared vision for our future, there’s not much gettin’ done.Friday at 10:48pm · Like
Eric <Laura>Adam was no less deceived than Eve</Laura>
Given that you deny male headship, it’s not surprising that you also deny the authority of Christ and His Word. Adam was not deceived. His sin, interestingly enough, was submitting to female ideas about right and wrong. If he had done his job, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.
<Laura>Should my husband publicly lecture me or otherwise humiliate me in front of others, I can assure you that would not bode well for our relationship.… you’re implying that excoriation and embarrassment are acceptable.</Laura>
No. I did not say that you should be publicly humiliated or embarrassed (unless you publicly feminize like Megyn Kelly, in which case, yes). A pastor lectures his female congregants during his sermon, but there’s nothing humiliating about that.
<Laura>there is an implication in your words that suggests a more master/servant relationship.</Laura>
Those weren’t my words. Those were God’s words. “As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”Friday at 10:53pm · Like · 1
Kent It’s a given that it is a shared family vision, husband and wife working together in one mind, fighting tooth and nail to raise their covenant seed in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. as to your comment about the beautiful woman following God’s plan for her life: This is God’s plan. The normative role in Scripture for women is to marry and to be that glorious helpmeet and Proverbs 31 wife/woman, which we husbands so desperately need. If she desires something other than this, then I would say that she is out of accord with God’s will, generally speaking. Just because right now, our society is so backwards, doesn’t mean that as Christians we just give in. Rather as the Psalmist says: “When the foundations have been destroyed, what must the righteous do?” The answer is clearly to: Build them up again! May God restore to the greater Christian subculture this glorious view of Biblical femininity.Friday at 10:57pm · Like · 3
Eric <Laura>What you suggested as an appropriate response to Megyn Kelly in that debate was, in fact, quite rude and disrespectful</Laura>
It’s rude and disrespectful for me to say, “Watch your attitude.” But it’s totally fine for Megyn Kelly to wag her head and scoff and disrespectfully say, “Who died and made you scientist in chief?” If I ever heard *my* wife or *my* daughters speak that way to any man, in public or private, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Friday at 11:00pm · Like · 3
Laura So explain that to the Christian women who are single adults, particularly those who are not single by choice. Clearly God has a plan for them, and is using them in some way. You aren’t implying that they are out of accord with God’s plan, which is why they’re still single?Friday at 11:00pm · Like
Laura Eric, in that forum there was NO WAY for those two men to do other than what they did without speaking in an ugly way. Perhaps she crossed the line with some of her comments. She was more antagonistic than I would have been, but I don’t think she was wrong to defend working mothers, being that she is one. The forum was debate, and it would have been stupid for her not to participate, seeing how that’s part of her job.Friday at 11:04pm · Like
Kent I did purposely use the phrase “generally speaking.” But that is just a straw man type of argument you have used. Remember: We cannot let the exceptions become the rule. There are plenty of single Christian women who could have been married long ago if they had not bought into all the deceitful lies of feminism, which have destroyed femininity and the families in the Church. Also, I will wholeheartedly grant you the dearth of eligible Christian young men with the type of vision I am speaking of, but they are out there and increasingly more so thanks to the ever growing Christian homeschool movement. May my sons grow up to be this kind of man. worthy of marrying that type of woman.Friday at 11:11pm · Like · 3
Eric <Laura>in that forum there was NO WAY for those two men to do other than what they did without speaking in an ugly way</Laura>
Exactly my point. She was out of line publicly. She deserved to reprimanded publicly. Instead, millions of viewers observed a masculine female stomp on two effeminate males with no consequences.
<Laura>I don’t think she was wrong to defend working mothers</Laura>
I have some sympathy for working mothers if they are single and have no other way to feed their children, or if their husband is somehow incapacitated. Megyn Kelly is not one of those, nor is that the type of working that she was defending. She’s a classic feminist. Here is the exact wording of her objection to Erickson: “You believe that women who choose to work instead of staying at home to nurture their children, and instead have the father do that, are imposing a worse future on their children than women who make a different choice.”
<Laura>The forum was debate, and it would have been stupid for her not to participate, seeing how that’s part of her job.</Laura>
That’s not a legitimate job for a woman, especially a woman who has two small children and one on the way. She should be at home playing legos with her boys and teaching them how to read, rather than farming them out to a daycare operation while she goes out and conquers men. Anyway, I do understand your point that it was a debate. She easily could have engaged in the discussion without being a brawling and contentious woman. If a man had said the same things she said, it would not have been offensive in terms of feminism, but it still would have been poor journalism. Personally, I can’t stand to listen to Megyn Kelly even when she’s doing a monolog and I’m in agreement with what she’s saying.Friday at 11:50pm · Like · 2
Todd Well, bless my soul, here’s a bunch of Christian men who wouldn’t have one of the Fox feminist hotties for all the tea/koolaid in China. It’s cultural Marxism any way you slice it, along with Neocon warmongering. No thank you, ma’am. Here a page of Fox skirts rising in direct relation to their ratings.Saturday at 7:10am · Like · 3
Steve There is a HUGE difference in thinking Biblically vs. thinking Conservatively. I repent of my conservatism where it is not Biblical. I have much ground to recover.Saturday at 7:55am · Edited · Like · 4
Eric “It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.”
—R.L. DabneySaturday at 9:25am · Like · 2
Todd http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fox-news-anchor-babes-short-skirts-video-photoFox Women TV Anchor Babes’ Skirts are Rising: Fox News Babes the best Fox News LegsFox Women Anchors, hottest TV anchor babes, showing off their Fox News legs. Fox…Saturday at 10:54am · Like · 1
Kent Great Dabney quote!Saturday at 11:02am via mobile · Like · 2
Todd Thanks Eric…I had Dabney in mind but didn’t have time to look up his prophecy! SharedSaturday at 11:04am · Edited · Like · 3
Todd The difficulty I have even conversing with Laura (it seems she carries her maiden name into marriage) – and the millions of professing conservatives with this frame of mind – is that her protests against men who rule over their women presuppose that all men are faulty and therefore unworthy to address a woman on these matters with any kind of more-than-equal authority. A wise woman must first choose a man who she would trust and want to be a man to her. I think the modern woman wants to choose a mate on some other basis than deep wisdom and then covers the less than wise move with “we have an equal partnership”. The reason you have an equal partnership is because an unwise woman chose an unwise and untrustworthy man. As far as I’m concerned, after that these people are all on their own in uncharted waters in a ship of fools. Hope they make lots of money to make up for the satisfaction of deep joy in a Christ-founded marriage.Saturday at 2:47pm · Edited · Like · 1
Kent Hewett, Todd, in fairness to Laura, if you don’t know her…. Many women on Facebook use their maiden name so people who knew them before they were married kind find them… My wife does this too.Saturday at 6:42pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kent Meant “hey” not “hewett”Saturday at 7:13pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kent And “can” not “kind”.Ugh!Saturday at 7:13pm via mobile · Like · 1
Todd OK, good Kent, and I don’t know her so I hope she perceives I’m a gentleman. It’s fine for women to have two men’s names instead of just one. There’s plenty substantive in what I have to say on this subject for Laura to despise legitimately without heaping reprobation on her for wearing two names, whatever the reason. I don’t say these things because I’m an evil man or that I don’t like you Laura. When I visit my parents it’s Fox for hours and I tell my mother that she needs to put it in critcal gear while she’s got that in her environment – it has some elements of conservancy but mostly it’s neoconservative, worldly, big government, irreligious or worse, heretical opinion. So that eventually someone comes along who says somethng that’s true like the men above and now it all sounds so radical and unreasonable in the context of the absolute rot that you’ve taken exposure to and been told it is the only reasonable course. This is how cultural battles are won. It’s insidious and dissembling. And very well meaning folks are thus converted over time. Please consider our advice sister Laura.23 hours ago · Edited · Like
Laura For the record, I did carry my maiden name into my marriage as my middle name. I hated my original middle name, and there was no question when I married my husband (a man quite worthy of my trust, btw) that I would drop my middle name. He is not threatened by that, and should not be. I do not hyphenate, and have no interest in being anyone other than his missus. And yes, I use both names on FB for the very reason Kent stated.
I do not know why I felt the need to share this, except that the conversation has gone on with me as part of the subject, so I thought I would set the record straight.
Also for the record, please do not assume that I get my news solely or primarily from Fox. I was speaking to Steve regarding this particular video, not Fox news in general. I am not a neoconservative or a pseudo-conservative, or whatever other term you would use. I am not a feminist, and have never been, but I take HUGE issue with the statement that Megyn Kelly’s job (or whatever job in whatever field) is an illegitimate job for a woman. What century are you living in?? I suppose that Deborah (the OT prophet), Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Condoleezza Rice, Mother Theresa, Queen Noor, Queens Victoria & Elizabeth, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Angela Merkel, Karen Hughes, Joan of Arc, and myriad others (these are just off the top of my head) are not legitimate jobs for women because they are in positions of power over men, and are able to (by virtue of their position) lecture men on right and wrong. Y’all got some ‘splainin’ to do.
I also take exception to the statement that I raised a straw man issue with regard to single Christian woman of marrying age. To assume that they are buying into deceitful feminist ideals as the reason that they are not married is presumptuous in the extreme. I was a single Christian woman for a long time (I married at 34), and I can tell you that it WAS NOT due to my feminist ideas. As if! The dearth of worthy men was a definite factor, but also a factor was that I decided to be content with my life and look forward to whatever God had in store for me, marriage or not. I know a number of single women, spanning a range of decades, and I can tell you that none of them have their heads full of feminist propaganda. None of them are setting Christ aside and living as a god unto themselves, either. They follow hard & fast after Christ, and he is the center of their lives. So again I say, go ahead and explain to them how they are living out of accord with God’s plan for them, and how that why they are not married. You SERIOUSLY think that God’s only plan for us is that we marry and produce children? That is a pretty narrow vision of who He is. You can’t look at a person’s life (any person, not just a woman) and conclude that because some bad thing happened (or some good thing did not happen, i.e. marriage) that there is obviously some sin that caused that. “Christianity does not provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair.” (Tim Keller, The Reason for God). Perhaps you need to go back and reread the book of Job. We are a fallen, sinful people. We can do many good things through Christ, and bad things will still happen (or desired good things may not). That is life.
Finally, you all have made some sweeping assumptions about me and others who don’t share your biblical views on women, marriage, etc. One doesn’t have be in your camp to have a Christ centered marriage, or to be fully resting in God’s providence. Thank GOD for that. My husband will tell you that we are happily married, regardless of the fact that I am (apparently) a boisterous woman with opinions who will tell him he is wrong when he is, in fact, wrong. He is a kind, hardworking man of moral character, he is strong & trustworthy, and most importantly, he loves God and endeavors to love me as Christ loves the church. You really can’t ask for more than that. He knew I was outspoken and opinionated before he married me, and somehow that has not been an impediment.