Just Wars, Good & Evil, Worldviews and Paradigms, Secular vs. Religious Societies and Standing Armies -- Ravi Combines Many Ideas to Answer This Question

Many topics intersect here into one. First, Ravi Zacharias puts all questions into a paradigm. Then he makes the point that depending on which paradigm one comes from gives any weight to the moral aspect of the question. "Good" and "evil" are examined as well as Adam and Eve's original redefining of what is the meaning behind those concepts. Ravi then explains a bit about justice, just wars, and man's aversion to actual evil. He comments a bit on Jesus' examples of military analogies, and ends with a wrap up of the Ten Commandments. A longer response than usual.

 

Ravi is Asked About Standing Armies and Religious Societies from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

An Arizona City Forbids In-Home Bible Studies -- Bad Law Alert

This will undoubtedly be yet another out of the myriad of wins for "our side." But it takes MONEY!

Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes

'This letter will serve as a 10-day written notice to quit such use'

The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city's zoning codes. 

The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home. 

The ban, however, prompted a response from the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed an appeal with the city as the first step in its campaign to overturn a provision it describes as illegal. 

"The interpretation and enforcement of the town's code is clearly unconstitutional, " said Daniel Blomberg, a member of the litigation team for ADF. "It bans 200,000 Gilbert residents from meeting in their private homes for organized religious purposes – an activity encouraged in the Bible, practiced for thousands of years, and protected by the First Amendment."

The appeal was filed on behalf of the members, all seven, of the Oasis of Truth Church. 

Pastor Joe Sutherland had been told in a letter from code compliance officer Steve Wallace that the people were not allowed to meet in a home for church activities under the city's Land Development Code. 

There had been no complaints about the meetings, which had been rotating among members' homes before the officer wrote the letter and ordered the group to "terminate all religious meetings … regardless of their size, nature or frequency," because he noticed signs about the meetings. 

The town interprets its law so that "churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners," ADF said. 

A city letter confirmed, "Given that the church is considered to be religious assembly, and given the LDC provisions prohibiting that use on Local streets without Use Permits and prohibiting it in single family residential structures, it follows that the church meetings cannot be held in the home." 

"The assembly activities associated with the church, including Bible studies, church leadership meetings and church fellowship activities are not permitted," wrote Mike Milillo, the city's senior planner. 

"This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes," the ADF said.

 ...(read more)...

UPDATE: Officials in an Arizona city where workers recently told members of a small church they are not allowed to hold Bible studies in a home and then backed up the warning with an official opinion from the city planner – an issue on which WND reported – say they now hope to make changes that will allow such religious activity.

A Near Death Experience With RU-486 -- Tweeted

This woman almost got 86'ed!

The copycat who stopped live tweeting her abortion.

We learned together Jackson was grossly uninformed about the medical abortion process.

For nine days Jackson tweeted about recurring headaches, nausea, vomiting, bleeding, pelvic pain, backaches, and cramping so bothersome she went through an entire bottle of 20 Tylenol with codeine in a week and had to ask for more (which she was apparently denied, tweeting Feb. 27, "This is definitely the most pain so far. It's distracting & makes me unhappy… Ibuprofin is a joke, ya'll").

Maybe coming out of codeine la-la land caused Jackson to realize tweeting the painful details of her abortion did not bode well for her RU-486 promotion campaign, because it was on that day she stopped, also noting with aggravation that I was blogging what she wrote.

[....]

Meanwhile, a copycat named Next Thursday, inspired by Jackson, decided to begin tweeting her RU-486 abortion on Feb. 25.

Next Thursday wanted to abort because "[t]his pregnancy was unexpected. We cannot afford another child, we do not have room for another child, and my body is not ready to experience pregnancy again so soon after our last child."

Next Thursday had three children, the youngest being 9 months old and still breast-feeding.

(I read "breast-feeding" and winced. Among many things for which RU-486, aka mifepristone, has not been tested is breast-feeding. The labeling indicates, "It is not known whether mifepristone is excreted in human milk. Many hormones with a similar chemical structure, however, are excreted in breast milk. Since the effects of mifepristone on infants are unknown, breast-feeding women should consult with their health care provider to decide if they should discard their breast milk for a few days following administration of the medications." Was Next Thursday told that?) ...

...(read more)...

Here are a few of the posted Tweets in Jill Stanek's column:

 [....]

This is where she quit Tweeting. Jill hopes she is all right.

Higher Thinking, Debate & Some "Second-Tier" Thinking

Take note that in the response to the theist you see straw-man after straw man raised towards the theist: young earth creationism, what "evidence" do you have (e.g., only evidence accepted is dialectical materialism, or, philosophical naturalist types of evidence -- talked about a bit below), theological statements while admitting not knowing theology, etc.

From a debate I had years ago (portion of larger post linked): "'Evidence' 'Science' 'Proof'"

The question then is: What evidence do you need? Or better yet: What kind of evidence? Can Science help? Lets see… the scientific method merely shows that if miracles did occur in the past, that science (as currently defined) could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions [of history], excludes laboratory treatment. And Christianity claims to be a historical belief. The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, one that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So how, then, do we deal with the historic claims of Christianity? Like any other historical event, we go to the records.

"What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” (Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, pp. 57-58)

“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi[2nd ed.], p. 909)

“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, p. 869)

So when someone asks, “I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for the existence of God,” is he defining what evidence is and how we get knowledge about past events, and then going to the sources to see if they are credible or not?

From my review of a 2-hour radio interview with William Lobdell and his book Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace (portion of larger post linked): "Hugh Hewitt Interviews Evangelical Turned Atheist, William Lobdell, for 2-Hours"

Robots and Cosmic Puppetry: The Scientific Challenge to Freedom

Since at least the time of Sir Isaac Newton, scientists and philosophers impressed by the march of science have offered a picture of human behavior that is not promising for a belief in freedom. All nature is viewed by them as one huge mechanism, with human beings serving as just parts of that giant machine. On this view, we live and think in accordance with the same laws and causes that move all other physical components of the universal mechanism.

According to these thinkers, everything that happens in nature has a cause. Suppose then that an event occurs, which, in context, is clearly a human action of the sort that we would normally call free. As an occurrence in this universe, it has a cause. But then that cause, in turn, has a cause. And that cause in turn has a cause, and so on, and so on [remember, reductionism].

 

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player” ~ Albert Einstein.

As a result of this scientific world view, we get the following picture:

 

Natural conditions outside our control…

cause…

Inner bodily and brain states,

which cause…

mental and physical actions

But if this is true, then you are, ultimately, just a conduit or pipeline for chains of natural causation that reach far back into the past before your birth and continue far forward into the future after your death. You are not an originating cause of anything [this includes brain activity of all degrees, that is, love, pain, etc.). Nothing you ever do is due to your choices or thoughts alone. You are a puppet of nature. You are no more than a robot programmed by an unfeeling cosmos.

Psychologists talk about heredity and environment as responsible for everything you do. But then if they are, you aren’t. Does it follow that you can then do as you please, irresponsibly? Not at all. It only follows that you will do as nature and nurture please. But then, nature on this picture turns out to be just an illusory veil over a heartless, uncaring nature. You have what nature gives you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where is human freedom in this picture? It doesn’t exist. It is one of our chief illusions. The natural belief in free will is just a monstrous falsehood. But we should not feel bad about holding on to this illusion until science corrects us. We can’t have helped it.

This reasoning is called The Challenge of Scientific Determinism. According to determinists, we are determined in every respect to do everything that we ever do.

This again is a serious challenge to human freedom. It is the reason that the early scientist Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) once said that if you could give a super-genius a total description of the universe at any given point in time, that being would be able to predict with certainty everything that would ever happen in the future relative to that moment, and retrodict with certainty anything that had ever happened in any moment before that described state. Nature, he believed, was that perfect machine. And we human beings were just cogs in the machine, deluded in our beliefs that we are free.

(Philosophy for Dummies, 133-134)

J.P Moreland agrees with this summation that there would be no standard to judge whether a particular position about reality were true if we are the products of a completely naturalistic, chance, chain of atoms bouncing off one another happened. To be clear, if atheistic origins of the universe were true, then one liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla would be just as true as someone choosing atheism over theism:

Mind/Body Physicalism Refuted

A number of philosophers have argued that physicalism must be false because it implies determinism and determinism is self-refuting. Speaking of the determinist, J. R. Lucas says:

If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result…. Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments [say, whether or not homosexuality is a right or not] as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them. (Freedom of the Will, by John Lucas)

H. P. Owen states that:

Determinism is self-stultifying. If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism. But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it I have no ground for holding that my judgment is true or false. (Christian Theism, p. 118)

… if one claims to know that physicalism is true, or to embrace it for good reasons, if one claims that it is a rational position which should be chosen on the basis of evidence [as one does when they reject theism], then this claim is self-refuting. This is so because physicallism seems to deny the possibility of rationality. To see this, let us examine the necessary preconditions which must hold if there is to be such a thing as rationality and show how physicalism denies these preconditions.

At least five factors must obtain if there are to be genuine rational agents who can accurately reflect on the world. First, minds must have internationality; they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world. Acts of inference are “insights into” or “knowings of” something other than themselves.

Second, reasons, propositions, thoughts, laws of logic and evidence, and truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people’s minds and influencing their thought processes. This fact is hard to reconcile with physicallism. To see this, consider the field of ethics. Morality prescribes what we ought to do (prescriptive); it does not merely describe what is in fact done (descriptive). Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth, and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one’s parents) and things (persons and animals have worth) [this all applies to the debate over homosexuality]. If physicalism is true as a worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts. Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally prescribe that another physical ought to be. If physicalism is true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should do to be in conformity with the moral universe. Rather, “ought” serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially acceptable or psychologically desired goal (e.g., “if one wants to have pleasure and avoid pain, then one ‘ought’ to tell the truth”). Moral imperatives become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a preference for Burger King over McDonald’s….

(Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland, 90-92)

The atheist has no way ultimately to point out that an act that society currently considers taboo, such as rape, is morally wrong. The atheist, unlike the theist, would not be able to say that rape is morally wrong at all times and places in the entire history of the known universe. Again, all that can be said is that at this point in our evolutionary history and culture it is currently outlawed in most societies by the majority of peoples. This majority can change thus making an act morally acceptable that is currently outlawed, or immoral. Back to the chemical, or biological basis for rape though, a couple of books that deal with this specifically have addressed this issue by philosophical naturalists. For example, in this exerpt from a larger paper I did for a class on Natural Law and homosexuality, I point out that without creation ex nihilo, rape is not morally wrong in the ultimate sense:

Idolatrous Tools

Idolatry is referenced in connection with human sexuality by Anthony Hoekema who points out that while “primitive man use to make idols out of wood and stone, modern man, seeking something to worship, makes idols of a more subtle type: himself, human society, the state, money, fame.”[1] Thusly, an idol can be fallen man using the gift of relationships as a tool to manipulate others for his or her selfish ends,[2] idolizing pleasure by making it an end-to-a-means, so to speak. In doing so, the person seeking gratification (whether emotional or physical) utilizes or instumentalizes another in order to worship self-gratification. This concept is seen in the slang term “tool”[3] used by today’s generation either to reference a man’s genitalia or to reference another person.[4]

The reader by now should have clearly established in his mind that homosexuality rejects the created order and designs its own contrary vision.[5] Moreover, part of this vision is an atheistic, naturalistic (almost Epicurean[6]) rejection of Creation ex-nihilo.[7] How does the “carnal” person deal with the unnatural order of the homosexual lifestyle? Since it is a reality it is incorporated into their epistemological system of thought or worldview.[8] Henry Morris points out that the materialist worldview looks at homosexuality as nature’s way of controlling population numbers as well as a tension lowering device.[9] Lest one think this line of thinking is insane, that is: sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous;[10] rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success.[11] How do the naturalist, those who have rejected the created order and the moral laws of nature, view such an instrumentalizing of the human body for the end-result of idolatrous worshiping of pleasure?

Liberal sexual morality, based in an ancient epicurean view of the nature of man that “denies that marriage is inherently heterosexual necessarily supposes that the value of sex must be instrumental” in order to pleasure oneself, which makes such an act a tool in the hand of a person’s desires, or, an “end-in-itself.” In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage rejects the view that sees the ultimate point or value of sex in marriage as an instrument to attain either affection or sexual pleasure, which is what the epicurean is left with. Sex, in the homosexual context, then, is the instrumentalization of the body.[12]

Ethical Evil?

The first concept that one must understand is that these authors do not view nature alone as imposing a moral “oughtness” into the situation of survival of the fittest. They view rape, for instance, in its historical evolutionary context as neither right nor wrong ethically.[13] Rape, is neither moral nor immoral vis-à-vis evolutionary lines of thought, even if ingrained in us from our evolutionary paths of survival.[14] Did you catch that? Even if a rape occurs today, it is neither moral nor immoral, it is merely currently taboo.[15] The biological, amoral, justification of rape is made often times as a survival mechanism bringing up the net “survival status” of a species, usually fraught with examples of homosexual worms, lesbian seagulls, and the like.[16]

This materialistic view of nature will give way to there being no difference in the emerging ethic between married couples, homosexual couples, or couples in a temporary sexual relationship. Some go as far to say - rightly so - that with the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle follows shortly thereafter the legalization of polyamorous relationships,[17] which is already considered as a viable option by many in Sweden for instance.[18] After polyamory is legal – about the only thing left is for the Peter Singer’s (professor at Princeton’s Center for Human Values) of the world to argue for “cross species” sex acts.[19] Columnist George Will aptly calls this type of legislation “the moral equality of appetites.”[20]

According to atheistic evolution, these appetites are driven by some chain of events that go back through history to the big bang. Everything is the way it is because of this chain of chance events that resulted in our environments and firing of neurons and their chemical reactions in our brain... making us believe and do what we believe and do. It is really fascism, or so called:

 

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

(Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist [Ignatius Press; 1999], by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.)

So since all acts are of equal value in the struggle for survival, the acts that only temporarily determine the highest possible survival of the species at that moment in evolutionary progress/history is the most beneficial... which could be interpreted as being the most “moral” in evolutionary vernacular. Therefore, atheists (which include Lobdell) have no metaphysical basis to say that rape, or the killing of innocent people by religious persons, and similar actions like unjust wars by Marxist revolutionaries, are morally wrong in a meaningful way. They are merely pointing out that they personally disagree with the action they are describing. Arguing, then about the immorality of acts committed by the religious (and I would contend, non-religious peoples) would be just as powerful morally if the same person argued with a friend about the superiority of chocolate ice-cream over that of vanilla ice-cream.

Tweating Abortions

I do not know what to say in regards to where our culture is taking us, other than this is a prime example of man's nature on display.

This 27-year old and her boyfriend think they have life and death figured out (Genesis 2:9), that they have "life" in the palm of their hand (Prov 14:12; 21:2). We see that these views come from her rejection of God specifically as NewsBusters points out:

...During the interview, Phillips tossed softball questions at blogger Angie Jackson, who is known on Twitter as "antitheistangie," or "Angie the Anti-Theist" on her blog (Phillips didn't mention her guest's political or philosophical outlook during the entire segment). After playing a clip of Jackson from YouTube.com, Phillips first asked, "So, Angie- you know, did it take a while to come to a comfort zone, that you wanted to do this? Tell me how you eventually decided, this is how I'm going to do it and I'm going to let everybody see it happen."

Once the "anti-theist" blogger gave her initial answer, Phillips played another clip of her guest from YouTube, where the blogger flatly admitted, "Yes, it had the potential for that embryo to become a fetus, to become a person....But it was more likely to kill me, and you're not going to shame me....I do not feel sorry that I saved my life. I do not feel sorry that I stayed here for myself, for my boyfriend, for my kid that I've already got."...

It is sad to see this 27-year old and her boyfriend beleiveing that they have an understanding of life and death apart from God in their grasp (Genesis 2:9), and that they think they have understanding beyond their current situation (Proverbs 14:12; 21:2). Romans 8:5-8 speaks to this well:

Those who think they can do it on their own end up obsessed with measuring their own moral muscle but never get around to exercising it in real life. Those who trust God's action in them find that God's Spirit is in them—living and breathing God! Obsession with self in these matters is a dead end; attention to God leads us out into the open, into a spacious, free life. Focusing on the self is the opposite of focusing on God. Anyone completely absorbed in self ignores God, ends up thinking more about self than God. That person ignores who God is and what he is doing. And God isn't pleased at being ignored.

God does not like to be ignored for he is a Jealous God in our midst, whether we see Him or make our own will a god (Deuteronomy 6:15). There will be a time of Reckoning for not only Angie's callousness, but also all those who do not clothe themselves in the finished work of Christ on the Cross (Revelations 19:7-8). Jill Stanek points out that this whole process even caught Angie off gurd who thought that "her abortion would... [be a simple]... '4 hour bleed-out'," not realizing that some girls have died because of this process of interrupting the natural process and change of a woman's bodily functions. Changing nature is often times painful and/or deadly, as Jill points out:

...For 9 days, from Feb. 19-27, Jackson tweeted about such severe cramps she had difficulty walking across the room. She went through 17 Vicodin in 6 days and at a point soon after requesting a prescription for another 20.

Jackson tweeted nausea, vomiting, backaches, headaches and bleeding. 5 days into her abortion experience, Angie commented on another blog, "Honestly I had no idea this would go on so long. I thought the entire abortion would take a few hours, as I'd read in a few stories...."

Before I post Jill's continuing article at World Net Daily, I want to answer some of Angie's comments or questions below, and this comes from a previous post. Angie asks after mentioning she missed her normal period why no one yells at her for bleeding during her normal periods. She misses the point that Kathy Ireland points out to Bill Maher:

Kathy Ireland, many years ago, was on Bill Mahers Politically Incorrect and the discussion that ensued shows the frailty of the liberal/relativistic position:

Bill Maher: Kathy, why do you oppose a women’s right to choose?

Kathy Ireland: Bill, when my husband was going to medical school I underwent a transformation. Because I used to be in favor of abortion. But I noticed when I was reading through some of his medical teaching books, that according to a law in science known as the law of biogenesis, every living thing reproduces after it own kind. That means dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, humans produce humans. If we want to know what something is we simply ask what are its parents. If we know what the parents are, we know what the thing in question is. And I reasoned from that because human parents can only produce human offspring, unborn human fetuses could be nothing but human beings, because the law of biogenesis rules out every other alternative. And I concluded therefore that because human fetuses were part of our family, we should not harm them without justification.

In October 2002, Kathy Ireland made a compelling argument against abortion on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes political debate show. Alan Colmes described Ireland's opinions as religious, but Ireland said that her views on abortion do not stem from faith. She asserted that even atheists could realize that abortion is wrong. Kathy told Alan that her belief is founded in science and technology, which she says, "has come a long way since Roe vs. Wade."

Ireland also defended her values as being pro-women, stating, "We need to support these women who are in crisis pregnancy situations." She claimed that because scientific evidence proves that abortion is murder, "I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us."

I also wanted to let this "potentiality" speak for herself:

Here are some of the Tweets Jill had in her WND article showing more insights from Angie

A Sickening Look at the Marriage Contract

Sex Changes Operations -- Tax Deductible

 
This is one of the final steps to allow tax-payers to pay for sex-change operations under a single-payer health care option. The video below is about two people in Canadian health-care and how the PC crowd is run-a-muck in whom gets care and whom doesn't:

• (Video from: "Conversation from the Break-Room")

Case backs need for sex-change surgery

US tax court rules costs deductible

The US Tax Court ruled yesterday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have wide implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain, who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

The IRS said the surgery was cosmetic and not medically necessary.

In its decision yesterday, the tax court said the IRS position was “at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances’’ that is “thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence.’’

The legal group, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented O’Donnabhain, said the ruling could potentially affect thousands of people a year in the US who undergo similar operations.

“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,’’ said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney.

...(read more)... 

"Santa Equals a Swastika" -- O'Reilly: Jesse Watters Visits Mass. School that Told Kids that Couldn't Celebrate Christmas

Howard Dean: The Debate on Capitalism and Socialism Is Over

 (HotAir h/t)

It is true, there seems to be a communitarian aspect to human-kind that individualism cannot satisfy.  But you will notice that Howard Dean connects that with governmental socialism, whereas I and most conservatives would connect that aspect of man being fulfilled in faith, family, and charities and organizations.  It is all Howard Dean can connect it to because of his strict secular worldview.

(Click to Enlarge)

ReasonTV's "Nanny of the Month:" Crossroads Church was Banned from Feading the Poor... Just In Time to Starve Them for Thanksgiving

American Universities Becoming 1984'ish (Indoctrinate U Attached)

(Hot Air import)

Katherine Kersten wonders when dissent became so unpatriotic — and when universities began demanding ideological purity as a prerequisite to attaining a degree.  The University of Minnesota will apparently demand that its education graduates, the future teachers of Minnesota, confess to their own bigotry if they believe in the American dream of equal opportunity as a means to cleanse the Minnesota education system of cultural biases.  It sounds like a page out of communist show trials:

The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U’s flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” contributes to the poor academic performance of the state’s minority students. Last spring, it charged the task group with coming up with recommendations to change this. In January, planners will review the recommendations and decide how to proceed.

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the “overarching framework” for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

The first step toward “cultural competence,” says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”

It sounds as though they “earn points” for obsequiously affirming the political biases of the university’s education professors. What’s the point of all these confessions?

[...(read more)...]

The Veritas Forum: Belief in an Age of Skepticism? (March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley)

Noted pastor and author Dr. Tim Keller discusses the place of exclusive truth in a pluralistic society in Wheeler Auditorium, followed by a Q&A session.

Hosted by Reformed University Fellowship, Dr. Keller's talk is part of The Veritas Forum at Cal, following Francis Collins' lecture in February on Christianity and science.

Which Worldview -- Modern Secular Feminism Distorts Reality

(This is in response to a small section in a larger video posted over at My Private Casbah and deals primarily with Rep. Bachmann's statement about wives being submissive to their husbands. Which is usually ripped from its context and used as a canard.)

[...] large break [...]
[....] from a very large chapter from my book (Worldviews: a Click Away from Binary Collisions) entitled, "Gnostic Feminism: Empowered to Fail," not fully edited [...]

• Gnosticism vs. Feminism

Another reason that Christianity succeeded over that of the other ideologies of its day is partly due to - I believe - the high regard given to woman as compared to the pagan religions of the day, Gnosticism included. This topic is dealt with in the book, How Christianity Changed the World, by Alvin J. Schmidt. His chapter entitled “Women Receive Freedom and Dignity” is very revealing (click to enlarge the scans from his book).[1] Paul, for instance, had a high regard for women as coworkers, which is amply demonstrated in other letters.[2] Barbara Geller points out that “during the Byzantine era, female leadership was exercised largely within the hierarchical structures of women’s monastic communities.” She continues, however, that,

...the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts suggest that in the earliest phase of emerging Christianity, the opportunities for women were far greater. The closing chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, following the epistolary conventions of that period, includes greetings and personal commendations. Paul mentions ten women, the first of whom is Phoebe, described in Greek as diakonos and a prostates, correctly translated in the New Revised Standard Version as “deacon” and “benefactor” (Rom 16:1-2). Older translations erroneously rendered these words as “deaconess” and “helper”; thus, generations of translators ignored the plain sense of the text because of their assumption that women could not have exercised significant roles in the early church. Ancient Inscriptions suggest, moreover, that prostates was not only a benefactor or patron, but also frequently the president or head of an association.[3]

As is common, persons today with an agenda -- this includes feminists -- misinterpret Scripture to bolster a political position or to live comfortably within their own worldview. Paul, in his letters, interprets the role of women more liberally than his antagonists say he does. Even the Gospels portray women as being more spiritually perceptive than men.[4] So it is hardly surprising that early Christianity proved to have a deep appeal for women, as one scholar observes:

“It is probable that Jesus’ teachings attracted women in part because of the new roles and equal status they were granted in the Christian community. There were many cults in Greece and Rome that were for men only or, at best, allowed women to participate in very limited ways [as prostitutes, for instance, in the fertility cults within ‘goddism’]…. Judaism offered women proselytes a circumscribed place at best, for they were faced with the Jewish restrictions that limited participation in religious functions. While women were not allowed to make up the quorum[5] necessary to found a synagogue, nor to receive the Jewish covenant sign (circumcision), these limitations did not exist in the Christian community.”[6]

The Book of Acts is another indicator of the early church’s emphasis on the important role of women. In fact, Peter’s speech to the Pentecost crowd included portion of the Old Testament book of Joel: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy…. And on My menservants, I will pour out my Spirit in those days…” (Acts 2:17-18). Women are first mentioned in Acts 1:14, when the disciples were constantly in prayer “along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.” The first convert in Philippi is Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. The Philippi church meets first meets in her home. Then Priscilla is introduced, a Jewish evangelist! Together with her husband, Aquila, she is mentioned four times in Acts, always being the first mentioned after the couple’s initial introduction.[7]

Luke makes mention of when Paul visited the evangelist Philip in Caesarea, that he had four daughters who prophesied. Far from Paul and the church being oppressive to women, this type of universality that included women was a departure from both Jewish norms as well Roman norms. The Romans in fact, could have used this early equalizing as being socially subversive to their social order, in this case to the patriarchy. Likewise, the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus and the teachings of the early church, including Paul at first, severely restricted the role of women.[8] Paul and the other writers of the New Testament telling men that they should cherish their wives (Ephesians 5), that marriage is a financial partnership (I Timothy 5:8), that the husband is to honor his wife (I Peter 3:7), and that the male should be a part of raising their children within the family unit was essentially unheard of until then. In contradistinction, the Gospel of Thomas “is clearly influenced by the kind of Gnosticism we know was prevalent in the second and third centuries, but not in the first.”[9] For example, we find Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas responding to Peter, let’s read:

114: Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“This demeaning view of women was common within Gnosticism, but utterly foreign to the historical Jesus.”[10] The fact that the canonical Gospels were written a century or two earlier than those of Gnosticism is at least a good preliminary indication that they could possibly also be more authoritative. O. C. Edwards agrees:

“It is precisely as history that I find her [Pagels] work most unsatisfactory. Nowhere, for instance, does she give the impression that the basic picture of Jesus given in the New Testament gospels did not arise contemporaneously with the Gnostic portrait, but antedated it by at least a century. As historical reconstructions [go,] there is no way that the two can claim equal credentials.”[11]

To ignore the century before Gnosticism started, seems to me, like a tell in poker. That is when the opposing player does something or makes an odd move to show the other players that he or she is bluffing, verbal or not. In this case, the total disregard for pre-Gnostic history and roots is telling.

• What’s Going On?

Concerned Women for America has triple the members that National Organization of Women has, one of the reasons for this I believe is to be found in the current movement’s direction. For example, in the January 1988 National NOW Times, the newsletter for the organization, said: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”[12] This is extreme to say the least, and it is this type of radical thinking that has made many women see the emperor with no clothes on, and she is not pretty. This radically political movement likewise looks forward not only to the overthrow of the nuclear family but of capitalism as well. Well-known feminist author and co-founder/editor of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem, said the following about feminisms end game: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole #@*! patriarch!”[13]

How can a civil rights movement be interested in capitalism? As if chauvinism and patriarchal over expressiveness suddenly vanish with Marxist forms of government. As if Stalin wasn’t a womanizer.[14] Obviously then, it isn’t the system of markets that create patriarchal attitudes.[15] It is, however, free markets and government that afforded women the opportunity to create equal rights under the law. Here of course what these ladies are talking about are not equal rights under the law but using “special rights” to propose a whole new system of government, which drove Tammy Bruce, former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW as well as being a former member of NOW’s national board of directors, to say: “What Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland and all the rest have presented to you over the last 15 years (at least) has not been feminist theory.”[16] Ms. Bruce goes on to show that Betty Friedan and Patricia Ireland, ex-presidents of NOW, (and others) are involved with socialist or communist political parties or organizations.[17] ~Now~ the political goals become clearer as we understand the intent of these “posers,”[18] as Tammy Bruce calls them.

One sign of an over oppressive movement is illustrated in The Animal Farm, by George Orwell. Napoleon, one of the main characters, concerns himself with the education of the young, and forcefully takes two litters of puppies away as soon as they're weaned, saying he'll educate them. In effect the “State” are the ones who are charged with educating and rearing them. Now compare this to a statement made by feminist Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman, and the lesson taught in Animal Farm: “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”[19] Alternatively, Gloria Steinem declared: “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.”[20] NEA president/feminist Catherine Barrett wrote likewise that,

Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling. ... We will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills’, which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the present school day. ... When this happens—and it’s near—the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher. ... We will be agents of change.[21]

[...] large break [...]

• Comparisons

Brenda Feigen, the co-founder of Ms. Magazine, is a great example of what the movement offered in the past. She became the kind of woman the modern feminist couldn’t keep up with! A lawyer, wife and mother, civil-rights activist, politician, Hollywood movie producer, and author… she is a feminist in the true sense of the word. This feminist sounds surprisingly like the one in Proverbs 31:10-31:

A good woman is hard to find,
and worth far more than diamonds.
Her husband trusts her without reserve,
and never has reason to regret it.
Never spiteful, she treats him generously
all her life long.
She shops around for the best yarns and cottons,
and enjoys knitting and sewing.
She’s like a trading ship that sails to faraway places
and brings back exotic surprises.
She’s up before dawn, preparing breakfast
for her family and organizing her day.
She looks over a field and buys it,
then, with money she’s put aside, plants a garden.
First thing in the morning, she dresses for work,
rolls up her sleeves, eager to get started.
She senses the worth of her work,
is in no hurry to call it quits for the day.
She’s skilled in the crafts of home and hearth,
diligent in homemaking.
She’s quick to assist anyone in need,
reaches out to help the poor.
She doesn’t worry about her family when it snows;
their winter clothes are all mended and ready to wear.
She makes her own clothing,
and dresses in colorful linens and silks.
Her husband is greatly respected
when he deliberates with the city fathers.
She designs gowns and sells them,
brings the sweaters she knits to the dress shops.
Her clothes are well-made and elegant,
and she always faces tomorrow with a smile.
When she speaks she has something worthwhile to say,
and she always says it kindly.
She keeps an eye on everyone in her household,
and keeps them all busy and productive.
Her children respect and bless her;
her husband joins in with words of praise:
"Many women have done wonderful things,
but you’ve outclassed them all!”
Charm can mislead and beauty soon fades.
The woman to be admired and praised
is the woman who lives in the Fear-of-God.
Give her everything she deserves!
Festoon her life with praises![22]

Keep in mind, much like Mrs. Feigen, this addition by Lemuel’s mother[23] about a role of a woman is over a lifetime. Mrs. Feigen wasn’t all those things at once (a lawyer, wife and mother, civil-rights activist, politician, Hollywood movie producer, and author); she accomplished them over many years, a lifetime. Proverbs portrays the feminist exercising responsibility for the provision of food and clothing for the household, and also being involved in managing financial and business affairs outside the house itself. She also cares for the needy, and fulfils a wise teaching ministry. She parallels Ms. Wisdom in the opening chapters (corresponding expressions in 3:13-18; 9:1-6). Woman’s teaching role in the book alongside man’s (1:8; 6:20) fulfills part of the vision in Genesis 1-2 of man and woman together representing the image of God and called to exercise authority in the world on God’s behalf. This is in stark contrast to A Feminist Dictionary, whose definitions are self-explanatory:

• Male: “... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.”[24]
• Man: “... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man.”[25]
• Testosterone Poisoning: “Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”[26]

Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.”[27] Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.”[28] Let us allow Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, to set the stage with the following praises about her contemporary, Andrea Dworkin, “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.”[29] Why preface Andrea Dworkin? Because she has this to say about men in general: “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies.”[30]
Creating Victims

One must keep in mind that when studying theology through the lenses of gender feminism, hermeneutics[31] will be subjugated to gender influenced viewpoints. This revisionist starting point, e.g., class warfare, will not only affect the Bible, but also other holy books and religious beliefs. Other presuppositions that drive the modern feminist movement include philosophical naturalism (atheism) all the way to neo-paganism, an umbrella term for a more ancient tradition.[32] The real goal of gender feminism tends towards either a gender free society (which is not neutral) or one based on the matriarchy. Both are reactionary to a radical rewriting of history, as already discussed.

The Christian tradition is rich with examples of feminism.[33] The feminism that truly empowers women, not the feminism that makes victicrats[34] out of well meaning woman that wish to make a difference. Christina Hoff Sommers, a conservative feminist and formerly professor of philosophy at Clark University, comments on the current condition of modern feminism:

The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it's full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it's become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women's studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement. And I consider myself a whistle-blower. I'm from inside the campus. I teach philosophy. I've seen what's been going on.[35]

Many true feminists, like Dr. Sommers, do away with the many myths that are meant to “scare” women into becoming radicals.[36] Books by feminist Christina Hoff Sommers[37] are good books to refute such myths. Alternatively, the Independent Women’s Forum can be accessed via the Internet.[38] This “backlash” by women against radical feminism is well summed up in a review of the book Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life: How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch With the Real Concerns of Women, by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese:

According to historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (who describes herself as a feminist), is that most women perceive “official” feminism as indifferent to their deepest concerns. In particular, they are put off by the movement's negative attitude toward marriage and motherhood, its intolerance for dissent from its most controversial positions, its attacks on men, and its inattention to the practical problems of balancing work and family on a day-to-day basis. Hence the title, echoing a refrain running through the author's conversations with a diverse sample of women: “Feminism is not the story of my life.”[39]

[...] large break [...]

• Footnotes:

[1] The following list, “The Role and Status of Women” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 120-121.

[2] Dale & Sandy Larsen, 7 Myths about Christianity (Wheaton, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), see chpt. 2, “Christianity Suppresses Women”; also all one has to do is read 1 Corinthinas 7:1-16, here Paul puts the male and female on equal terms and status, unheard of in the ancient pagan world... until that is, the New Testament and the Christian community. In fact, Wayne Grudem makes this new distinction apparent when he points out the role of women in the early church:

Perhaps the best example of a woman well trained in knowledge of the Bible is Priscilla. When Paul went to Corinth, he stayed with Aquila and Priscilla: “because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade” (Acts 18:3). Paul stayed a year and six months at Corinth (Acts 18:11), and we may ponder just how much Bible and theology Priscilla would have learned while hav­ing the apostle Paul as a house guest and business partner during that time! Then Priscilla and Aquila went with Paul to Ephesus (Acts 18:18­19). It was at Ephesus in A.D. 51 that Priscilla and Aquila together “explained” to Apollos “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). So in A.D. 51 Priscilla knew Scripture well enough to help instruct Apollos. After that, Priscilla probably learned from Paul for another three years while he stayed at Ephesus teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27; compare 1 Cor. 16:19, where Priscilla is called Prisca, and Paul sends greetings to Corinth from Aquila and Prisca and the church that meets “in their house”). By the end of Paul’s three-year stay in Ephesus, Priscilla bad probably received four and a half years of teach­ing directly from the apostle Paul. No doubt many other women in Ephesus also learned from Paul—and from Priscilla! Aquila and Priscilla went to Rome sometime later (Rom. 16:3, per­haps around A.D. 58), but they returned to Ephesus, for they were in Ephesus again at the end of Paul’s life (in 2 Tim. 4:19, Paul writes to Timothy at Ephesus, “Greet Prisca and Aquila”). Now, 2 Timothy was probably written in A.D. 66 or 67 (Eusebius says that Paul died in A.D. 67), and 1 Timothy a short time before that, perhaps in A.D. 65. In addi­tion, before he wrote 1 Timothy, Paul seems to have been in Ephesus and it seems he had told Timothy to remain there when he left for Macedonia (see 1 Tim. 1:3: “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus . . .”). Therefore, both because 1 Timothy is near in time to 2 Timothy, and because Paul had recently been in Ephesus to know who was there before he wrote 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy, it seems likely that Aquila and Priscilla were back in Ephesus by the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, about A.D. 65. This was fourteen years after Priscilla and Aquila had explained the way of God to Apollos in Ephesus. Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 175-176.

[3] Michael D. Coogan, ed., The Oxford History of the Biblical World (2001 paperback edition; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 429-430.

[4] Compare Mark 4:40 and 6:52 to Mark 5:25-30. See also Mark 7:24-30 and 12:41-44.

[5] “The number of members of a group or organization required to be present to transact business legally, usually a majority.” Random House Webster’s Unabridged CD-ROM Dictionary, (1999).

[6] Ben Witherington, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 246.

[7] John W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 56.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995), 118.

[10] Ibid., 118.

[11] O. C. Edwards, “A Surprising View of Gnosticism,” New Review of Books and Religion, May 1980, 27. Quoted in, Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MS: College Press, 1996), 107.

[12] William D. Gairdner, The War Against the Family: A Parent Speaks Out on the Political, Economic, and Social Policies That Threaten Us All (Toronto, Canada: BPS Books, 2007), 295.

[13] Ibid., 300.

[14] “Stalin was attracted to strong women, but ultimately preferred submissive housekeepers or teenagers. He undoubtedly enjoyed adolescent and teenage girls, a taste that later was to get him into serious trouble with the police.” Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2007), 235.

[15] I am not here saying that the patriarchy is intrinsically bad either.

[16] Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2001), 123.

[17] Ibid (footnote 103), 123-124:

Do not be mistaken: what Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Patri­cia Ireland and all the rest have presented to you over the last 15 years (at least) has not been feminist theory. Betty Friedan, a former Communist Party member, was only the precursor of the hijacking of feminism to serve other political interests. Some consider Gloria Steinem, the founder of Ms. magazine and probably the second most influential feminist leader, after Friedan, of the last 30 years, to be the one who began blurring the lines between gender and race issues. This might be sur­prising to those who are unaware of Steinem’s involve­ment in socialist politics. In fact, she serves as an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which boasts of being the largest socialist organization in the United States and is the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Good for her, but we should know this as we explore what factors influence those who are considered feminist leaders. Steinem’s influence, combined with the socialist sym­pathies of NOW’s immediate past-president, Patricia Ire­land, explain the co-opting of NOW by leftist ideologues. A 1996 article in Ms. quoted Ireland as saying that NOW “must offer a clear understanding of what it means to be a feminist organization concerned with ending discrimina­tion based on race, class, and other issues of oppression [emphasis mine] that come from a patriarchal structure.” Steinem then commented, “To be feminist, we have to take on the entire caste system.” Ireland details her support of the Communist Party in her autobiography, What Women Want. She admits that her socialist sympathies and participation in pro-Commu­nist rallies in Miami (of all places!) were due in part to the fact that her friend and future lover, Pat Silverthorn, was an activist in the Socialist Worker’s Party. There were problems, Ireland explains, with Silverthorn and her friends being Communists in Miami. “Later, after we’d become close,” Ireland writes, “[Pat Silverthorn] would confide that she, too, had wondered how much more dan­gerous she’d made her life by openly professing commu­nist convictions in that volatile, violent, commie-hating city... Working closely with Pat opened my eyes about the reality of living as a political leftist in this country.”

[18] Ibid., p. 142

[19] Fr. Robert J. Carr, “No News For You!!” Catholic Online (9-23-2004). Found on the Catholic Online site (http://www.catholic.org/) at: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1364 (last accessed 7-29-09). Here is the full quote from Father Carr’s article:

“Mary Jo Bane, formerly of the Clinton Administration Department of Health and Human Services one of the major voices in the Boston Globe against the average Catholic’s right to freedom of religion. Bane’s most famous quote is ‘We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. ... In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.’”

[20] Angela Howard and Sasha Ranae Adams Tarrant, Reaction to the Modern Women’s Movement, 1963 to the Present: Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings from the Literature of the Opponents to U.S. Feminism, 1848 to the Present (New York, NY: Routledge Publishing, 1997), 153.

[21] Dennis Laurence Cuddy, The Grab for Power: A Chronology of the NEA (Washington, DC: Concerned Women for America, 2000), 6.

[22] Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), cf. Pr 31:10-31

[23] There is good evidence that this section of Proverbs was written by a women:

31:10-31 The complete woman. Vs 10-31 are often treated as separate from the sayings of Lemuel. But every other independent unit in Proverbs has its own heading, and the absence of such a heading in v 10 suggests that this section should be seen as part of the sayings of Lemuel. The fact that Lemuel’s sayings came from his mother (1) suggests that this last sec­tion of the book is a woman’s description of a woman’s role.

New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 607.

[24] Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, eds., Feminist Dictionary (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1986), cf. male, 242.

[25] Ibid., cf. male, 246.

[26] Ibid., cf. testosterone poisoning, 446.

[27] Daniel Dervin, Enactments: American Modes and Psychohistorical Models (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), 244; another telling quote comes directly from Atkinson’s own biography, Amazon Odyssey:

The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide.... I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (New York, NY: Links Books, 1976), 90, 91.

[28] Elizabeth Knowles, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), cf. Freeman, E.A., 324.

[29] David M. Friedman, A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis (New York, NY: Free Press ,2001), 225.

[30] Neil Boyd, Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality (British Columbia, Canada: Greystone Books 2004), 23. Dr. Boyd continues with Dworkin’s quote:

In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and economics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has - sex. He can steal it outright (prostitution), lease it over the long term (marriage in the United States), or own it outright (marriage in most societies). A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.

Ibid.

[31] “Traditionally the sub-discipline of theology concerned with the proper interpretation of scriptural texts,” C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), cf. hermeneutics, 53.

[32] For a good definition of and differences between “neo-pagan” and “new age,” see Sarah M. Pike, New Age and Neopagan Religions In America (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2004), 18-26.

[33] Helen Kooiman Hosier, 100 Christian Woman Who Changed the 20th Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books/Academic, 2000; and Rebecca Price Janney, Great Woman in American History (Camp Hill, PA: Horizon Books, 1996).

[34] “A victicrat is one who blames all ills, problems, concerns, and unhappiness on others,” Larry Elder, Ten Things You Can’t Say in America (New York, NY: St. Martins, 2000), 22-33.

[35] PBS, “Has Feminism Gone Too Far?” Think Tank Transcripts: Has Feminism Gone Too Far? Article found at: http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript132.html (last accessed 8-6-09).

[36] These include some of the following:

1) Myth of the Extent of Anorexia Nervosa; 2) Myth of Amount of Domestic Violence; 3) Myth of Increased Domestic Battery on Super Bowl Sunday; 4) Myth Concerning Percent of Women Raped; 5) Myth Concerning Female Self-esteem; 6) Myth of Discrimination Against Females in School; 7) Myth of Huge Gender Wage Gap, Etc.

These can all be found at Independent Women's Forum: http://www.iwf.org/

[37] Who Stole Feminism: How Woman Have Betrayed Woman (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster,1995); The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001).

[38] http://www.iwf.org/

[39] “Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life,” Books In Review, First Things 61 (March 1996): 46-48; also found at Leadership U: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9603/reviews/feminism.html (last accessed 8-6-09).