https://twitter.com/brian_sauve/status/1683858509656637441?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Men were made to be lowercase-s saviors. That's why nearly all of them have an innate and God-originated desire to save, deliver, redeem, rescue, ransom—to crush the head of serpents, cut off the head of giants, and search out the biggest dragons in the land in order to pick a fight with them. “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” -Proverbs 24:11 As N.D. Wilson reminds us, our father Adam was given a dragon to fight before sin ever entered the world. Why do you think that is? Because our God is a man of war (Exodus 15:3), a dread warrior (Jeremiah 20:11), the Seed of the Woman come to crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15)—and we are made in his image. Man is the glory of that God. One thing this means is that real, masculine, godly men must be capable of putting up a fight. They fight their own flesh, waging war with it (1 Peter 2:11). They fight with weapons that are not of the flesh, but weapons that have the power to destroy satanic strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:3–5). They are given a sword with which to fight, the word of God (Ephesians 6:17).
God’s men are to be dragon-slayers, giant-killers, following after our High King, Jesus, who by his cross became the great dragon-slayer.
We fight, like our Lord, by dying. By dying to ourselves so that our wives and children and churches can live. And like our Lord, we find that dying is the path to resurrection life and joy.
So men: Go fight.
Don’t be passive.
Don’t be cowards.
Live in such a way as to put a big target on your back for the fiery darts of the enemy. The church has enough passive men.
102 comments:
One thing this means is that real, masculine, godly men must be capable of putting up a fight.
Sorry, I vomited a little just now in my mouth. I don't know who you're quoting, but this is spot-on 1940s chauvinism and it's just... what? Petty? Pathetic? Condescending? Patriarchal? Nonsense?
And "Brian Sauvé..."? Sauvé?? "Oh, Brian Swah-VAY, you big-muscled mustache of a man! I love your virility!!!" ...with his overcompensating beard and mustache?? I mean, come on. There are more compelling conservative Christian writers than this lightweight patriarchal goofball. Do you all not understand how deeply repulsive this 18th century line of toxic masculinity is?
https://medium.com/honestly-yours/utah-pastor-outs-himself-with-cringey-viral-tweet-b53e6c1bf394
I get it. He's concerned that men are not being "virile" and "tough" enough so he overcompensates with imagery of dragons and fortresses and battle and blah, blah, blah.
Boys, get over it. The previous centuries lost, this toxic masculinity and over-compensating lost. We don't need you to prove how mock-tough you are. Jesus Christ have mercy on us all! Do you all not even see it?!
As to the "content," such as it is, of Mr Suave...
Men were made to be lowercase-s saviors.
That's why nearly all of them have an innate and God-originated desire to save, deliver, redeem, rescue, ransom
This is, of course, true of women and trans folks, as well. People in general have that, in them, that doesn't want to see the poor and marginalized, children and disadvantaged harmed. This is part of what makes us Human.
The suggestion that this is somehow unique to men is sexist and perverted and just wrong.
Indeed, as those of us who are familiar with "mamma bears," there is NOTHING and NOONE more fierce that a mother (biological or otherwise) in defense of her or others' children. We all, at our best, want to help, to save from danger, to deliver and redeem and see redeemed. We have that of God in us, in that way.
Do you disagree?
Do you see the problem with this pseudo-hyper-"masculine" talk that suggests it's somehow unique to men or, at least "real men..."?
He continues...
search out the biggest dragons in the land in order to pick a fight with them
A perfect example of toxic-masculinity talk, as if pretending to be tough and defeat "dragons" by "picking fights with them" is somehow a rational or good thing. Blecch. It's just pathetic masculinity. The WORST of mock-masculinity and humanity, not something to fetish-ize.
Can you see that?
"Our father, Adam..."
Again, Blecch.
One thing this means is that real, masculine, godly men must be capable of putting up a fight.
And yet, when women and other progressive types actually put up a fight to this pathetic toxic masculinity, such men will endlessly complain about being oppressed and abused.
And on it goes. I mean, are you posting this to suggest this guy may be ON to something or to make fun of his pathetic "masculinity..."? He's a sad misogynistic joke.
Don't be cowards, indeed.
The man your boy is citing (ND Wilson) is the son of a right wing cult leader in Idaho, Doug Wilson, a slavery defender and misogynist. FYI. THIS is what one almost always finds at the root of this branch of toxic masculinity. Sure you want to be citing these knuckleheads?
"One even alleged that she was forced to tell Wilson about losing her virginity to her boyfriend during a one-on-one meeting at Wilson’s request."
https://churchleaders.com/news/409619-douglas-wilson-christ-church-moscow-idaho.html/3
"A Guardian investigation has revealed that a controversial church whose leader has openly expressed the ambition of creating a “theocracy” in America has accumulated significant influence in the city of Moscow, Idaho...
Recent reporting focused attention once more on the church’s – and Wilson’s – handling of a series of sexual abuse cases, and the theological subordination of women.
In 2005, Wilson asked a judge for leniency in the case of Stephen Sitler, a former student at a Christ Church-aligned college, New Saint Andrews College (NSAC). Sitler was at that time convicted of sex offenses involving children."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2004/doug-wilson%E2%80%99s-religious-empire-expanding-northwest
https://julieroys.com/deacon-doug-wilson-church-indicted-possession-child-pornography/
"Christ Church has garnered widespread attention due to numerous allegations of sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia within the church's congregation.[1][2] Church leader Douglas Wilson himself has appealed multiple times to judges and police officers to ask for leniency for church members convicted of pedophilia. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_(Moscow,_Idaho)
ugh.
"How terribly toxic!" said no true man anywhere at any time.
I'm going to note the reality that I found this "interesting", not that I agreed with it 100% or that I agree with or endorse the author. I'm not going to waste a lot of time with Dan's tactic of ridiculing people who hold different viewpoints than he holds. It's a silly, childish way to marginalize and demean someone without actually engaging with what they've said. The tactic of ridiculing the author's name, and facial hair (I guess Dan must be compensating for something), is straight out of junior high school. I'll also note, that the author does support his thesis with scripture. While his interpretation might not be 100% correct, the burden would seem to be on Dan to demonstrate that Dan's interpretative is the only possible correct interpretation.
"This is, of course, true of women and trans folks, as well."
When you make these kinds of statements, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have irrefutable, objective proof of this claim.
"Do you disagree?"
Not necessarily, although a few exceptions don't prove the rule. I'd also argue that in a world where "nature is red in tooth and claw", "kill or be killed", the "circle of life", and the food chain all shape life in the animal kingdom, that maybe using animals as examples of how humans should act isn't the best choice.
"Can you see that?"
You know, after just re reading the Chronicles of Narnia, LOTR, The Hobbit, and lots of history, I don't know if I can see that your hunch is correct.
It's interesting that I've spent a significant amount of time reading and studying church leaders with truly aberrant theologies McLaren/Padgett/Driscoll, and have been able to glean some bits of wisdom and value from them despite their incredibly problematic theologies. Dan, on the other hand seems quite content to condemn one man for the sins of others in his quest to vilify, ridicule, and demean this author.
I know Dan might not comprehend this, but just because I find things interesting doesn't mean that I agree with them. Hell, I find lots of the bizarre hunches Dan has to be interesting. I just don't have the need to immediately move to ridicule and demean.
"Trans" don't put up fights. They throw tantrums.
Citing the maternal instinct doesn't mitigate the point, and the maternal instinct can't stop a deranged lefty from perpetrating violence against her or her children.
Real women want men effeminate modern progressives and feminists demonize with the term "toxic".
BTW....men who abuse their masculinity are nit "toxic". They're criminal.
"This is, of course, true of women and trans folks, as well."
No such thing as "trans folks." People cannot change gender. No matter how much butchering they get and how many pills they swallow, they will always be what they were born as. People like Danny Boy think the emperor has new clothes when he is really naked.
"While his interpretation might not be 100% correct, the burden would seem to be on Dan to demonstrate that Dan's interpretative is the only possible correct interpretation."
But that's not how Dan rolls. No. He doesn't need to explain an alternative understanding which is actually more compelling and more definitively grounded in Scripture, science or anything else. It's enough that he dislikes opinions different than his and the opponent is required to provide a degree of proofs and evidence Dan couldn't hope to bring to the table in support of his alternative.
But you knew this. I'm going through it yet again defending the clearly revealed Will of God through His Apostle Paul on the issue of the prohibition against women pastors. Dan's gotten a far greater load of evidence and support for the truth than he ever imagined exists and still he refuses to be a man.
"Hell, I find lots of the bizarre hunches Dan has to be interesting."
Oh, so do I!! I find his positions incredibly interesting in that I would never have imagined anyone with the level and types of education to which he claims would still proffer such stupid stuff. It's really hard not to ridicule and demean him while doing so to his opinions. But at least I have and deliver the evidence he demands for mine.
When you make these kinds of statements, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have irrefutable, objective proof of this claim.
Well, it's observable. The real question is: DO YOU DOUBT THIS? Do you harbor a suspicion that men and only men or primarily men are the "brave ones" who will rescue and be "saviors..."?
I'll remind you of what your fella said:
That's why nearly all of them have an innate and God-originated desire to save, deliver, redeem, rescue, ransom
"Nearly all of men" he claimed, with no support "have an innate and God-originated desire to save..." I note that when I push back and say that this is true for women and transgender folk as well, you note that I haven't produced irrefutable support for the claim, but you made no such hedged bet with the fella you cited. Do you doubt his claim, too?
Give that you posted this and found it "interesting" and that you didn't raise any questions about his claim and yet you push back at my response, it makes it SOUND like you think men are the brave ones who were "designed" "by God" to save, and that this is in contrast to women and others.
So, by all means, clarify: Do you agree that women and trans folks ALSO have it within them to try to save and lend support?
Do you suspect that this trait is more dominant/common in men?
If so, where is your support?
YOU are the one making the rather outstanding claim. ANYONE who knows women, trans women and men, knows that they, too, regularly act out in bravery to help and to save. I've made no claims about numbers (like "nearly all" that your fella did about men). I merely pushed back at the suggestion that this trait is only commonly found in men.
So, if you want to try to make the rather sexist and homophobic claim that this trait is NOT found commonly in those who aren't men, then YOU will be obliged to support that claim.
I mean, maybe it's the case that you and I agree that this desire to save and protect is not an exclusively or predominantly male trait. Maybe even this fella you cite thinks that, but it does not appear to be the case.
Do you agree that, given what we know of this "virile male" Suave dude and what we've read of his writing that he is, indeed, making the suggestion that this is a predominantly male trait over and against non-males? If you agree with me that this is what he's suggesting/saying, do you join me in calling BS on the claim?
As a point of reality, I don't know that anyone can prove the claim "Most men.." or "most women..." are instinctively protectors. There is no test I'm aware of that could authoritatively settle that question.
The question then is, do we think it's likely true?
Feel free to clarify your opinion and, if you're in agreement with me, to suggest that this fella is ridiculous to make such a claim.
And if it was just a matter of someone saying, "I think basketball team A is the best and strongest and has been for 20 years" and someone else saying, "No, team B is the best and strongest..." if it was just THAT kind of meaningless disagreement, then no need to worry about such silly little opinions.
But in our world, women have been historically oppressed and marginalized. Women have been told to "stay in their place" and let the "naturally strong and savior-like men" do all the hard work of being brave and saving and shit... In our world of blatant misogyny like that which has gotten better but still raises its ugly head occasionally, THAT is why it's important to push back on such nonsense claims. To side with the historically oppressed, as Jesus and decency say we should do.
I will say that there is a SLIGHT chance that this fella is using "Man" in the sexist manner to suggest "humanity," not male people. ALL the Bible verses he cites in favor of "men" being warriors and "dragon-slayers" (rolls eyes) are speaking to God's people, not men specifically.
But I say it's virtually guaranteed that this is not what he's doing. He's trying to build his "case" for "biblical manhood..."
https://relearn.org/shows/rc/the-basics-of-biblical-manhood-with-brian-sauve-and-eric-conn/
...speaking specifically of boys being "strong men, fearless leaders and wearing big bear-like beards!!" (that's not an actual quote, just the sickening vibe he gives off).
Given that likely reality that he's saying that MEN specifically need to be these "saviors," what do you make of him using proof-texts that don't say what he's saying?
That is, when Peter speaks of people "waging war" against their own flesh, Peter is not writing specifically to men at all.
When Paul mentions "weapons to destroy demonic strongholds," [rolls eyes] he is speaking to the church, not men specifically.
When Paul mentions using a "sword" he is not speaking of men specifically. So, IF his "argument" is that "the Bible" is making the case for "male men" being "real men, strong and fearless" sort of nonsense, he is misusing the Bible if he's suggesting that these are characteristics encouraged specifically for beardy men.
Agreed? And not only that, but doesn't it strike you as a rather grade school level abuse of the Bible to endorse a rather grade school level notion of "real men..." (Middle school boys, at best) by ripping these texts out of context and reading INTO them something that literally is not there?
It seems like so many modern conservative men are truly trying to over-compensate for something. They appear to clearly fear the "feminization" of men and the embrace of LGBTQ folks so they have to go over-the-top in defending "dragon-slayers and meat eaters and bear-smackers and warriors and GROWWWWLLLL! AWWWWWOOOOOOOO!!!!"
Snowflake, much?
Here's some of the oppressive nonsense that Lord Suave teaches...
https://www.briansauve.com/blog/2023/5/26/the-womans-glory
Not only should women not teach men, they shouldn't even teach women on theological matters, nor speak of it publicly!
And more and more...
Still "interesting?"
Dan
I suspect that one reason that someone like you reads this guy and doesn't see red flags is perhaps you are unaware of the research on toxic masculinity. Thus, those of us who have experienced and read about it, read links like your two over-compensating men here and think "RED FLAG," but you just don't see it.
Are you familiar with the research?
A well-documented risk factor for IPV [Intimate Partner Violence, ie, spouse/partner abuse -DT] perpetration by men toward women is associated with masculine gender socialization. That is,
men who strongly adhere to masculine norms
are more likely to perpetrate acts of violence toward a female intimate partner,
and acts of violence in general
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868426/
With the need to assert masculinity, some researchers argue that IPV is likely to occur in a context where a man perceives that his power and control, and thus his masculine identity, are threatened (Dutton & Browning, 1988; Totten, 2003) and the cost of losing his identity is high...
In a seminal study, Dobash and Dobash (1979) reported that
abusive male partners frequently described the use of IPV in response to
their female partners’ failure to engage in
stereotypical feminine or “wifely” behaviors.
Providing additional support for the argument that IPV may occur in response to gender role deviations, Finn (1986) found that more egalitarian gender roles contributed to a reduction in attitudes that legitimize the use of physical force.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3223&context=gc_etds
Research has found that hypermasculinity is associated with sexual and physical aggression towards women and perceived gay men. Prisoners have higher hypermasculinity scores than control groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermasculinity
Since these hot-button issues were seeded with race and gender considerations, it became morally imperative for some powerless white men to transform their personal rage into a political cause. Masculinity and whiteness became entwined as never before–to be a “real” white man was to be hyper-masculine. Paramilitary mythology
became the path to redemption.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211203.pdf
I could go on and on citing the research, but presumably you get the point. It's a "known thing" in researched psychological realms that hyper-masculinity is a red flag. Which is NOT to say that all men who go on and on and on about "warriors" and "dragon-slayers" and "meat-eating body destroyers!!!" etc are abusive or potentially abusive or have other concerns (racism/xenophobia in some circles, for instance, as in that last citation), it is a red flag, something to watch out for.
More on the topic of hyper-masculinity and patriarchy, this time, more from a church point of view:
Many Christian churches ascribe to some form of “benevolent patriarchy” commonly known as Complementarianism. This belief gives men the role of authority over the wife and children, and only allows men to be church leaders. Women are expected to submit unilaterally to men, fathers, husbands, pastors. While many churches who subscribe to this encourage men to sacrificially lead their wives, there is still a power differentiation. Men are still given the final say, and it still falls on the scale of patriarchy.
Since abuse is motivated by power and control, and patriarchy is a system based on power and control, it is not surprising that abuse is prevalent in these circles. Even writer Jason Meyer from The Gospel Coalition (a mainstream Complementarian parachurch organization) states that Complementarianism asks women to “take the most vulnerable position,” and can “quickly become a dangerous position when [these] views get distorted.”
Additionally, The 2014 Journal of Integrated Social Sciences’ article, “You Are Not Your Own:” Rape, Sexual Assault, and Consent in Evangelical Christian Dating Books, says:
[Benevolent sexism] did relate to rape myth acceptance in cases of acquaintance rape (Abrams et al., 2003), which accounts for about two thirds of all rapes committed (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005; RAINN 2012). People who ranked high in benevolent sexism were more likely to pass blame onto victims because they saw victims as transgressing traditional feminine gender roles (Abrams et al., 2003) [See Table 1]. Two components of both hostile and benevolent sexism—dehumanization and traditional gender roles—especially contribute to unhealthy attitudes surrounding rape and rape victims.
I believe there is a strong intersection between patriarchy and abuse. This is not to say that all who are in patriarchal systems are themselves abusive, but that the structure as a whole is based on inequality of the sexes—a key component in abuse.
https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/church/3-ways-womens-equality-can-counteract-abuse/
There is, of course, much, much more.
"I suspect that one reason that someone like you reads this guy and doesn't see red flags is perhaps you are unaware of the research on toxic masculinity. Thus, those of us who have experienced and read about it, read links like your two over-compensating men here and think "RED FLAG," but you just don't see it."
Then you'd be wrong. You'd also be ignoring the fact that I was quite clear that because I found it interesting, didn't mean I agreed with everything said.
"Are you familiar with the research?"
Irrelevant, and a straw man.
Obviously I'll publish Dan's Straw man rantings, but that doesn't mean I have to interact with them. But Dan's ability to make ad hom attacks combined with raising a straw man, is impressive and should be noted.
"DO YOU DOUBT THIS? Do you harbor a suspicion that men and only men or primarily men are the "brave ones" who will rescue and be "saviors..."?"
Let's say I'm in a place where I've just immersed myself in Leweis and Tolkein, and some similar writings. Right now I'd lean toward agreeing that while I think that Men are created to fulfill this role, that doesn't mean that women have absolutely zero examples of filling that role. I'll repeat myself in case you can't or don't read. My finding this interesting doesn't mean I agree with it or ever with snippets of it. It means that I find it interesting, no more no less. To demand that I defend the words of others just because I find them interesting, is simply insane.
"We fight, like our Lord, by dying. By dying to ourselves so that our wives and children and churches can live. And like our Lord, we find that dying is the path to resurrection life and joy. So men: Go fight. Don’t be passive. Don’t be cowards. Live in such a way as to put a big target on your back for the fiery darts of the enemy. The church has enough passive men."
Given Dan's almost visceral negative reaction to the entirety of this piece, I'm struck by the above quote. The notion that Dan is offended by someone calling for men to follow the example set by Jesus, to not be passive, and to not be afraid of the response of "the enemy", seems strange to me, as it literally paraphrases the exact words of Jesus.
I wonder if the problem isn't what he's said, as much as the notion that men and women are identical and interchangeable with absolutely no differences between then is really the problem.
The notion that Dan is offended by someone calling for men to follow the example set by Jesus, to not be passive, and to not be afraid of the response of "the enemy", seems strange to me, as it literally paraphrases the exact words of Jesus.
The notion that Craig is offended when I stand against oppressive notions, attitudes and policies that have been used to oppress women throughout the centuries seems quite strange to me, and part of the problem of snowflake men not being able to recognize a stand against injustice if they think it might cost them some power.
I'm not offended by suggesting PEOPLE should follow the example set by Jesus. I argue for that precisely all the time.
I'm offended by someone literally standing for the position that women have lesser roles and should be submissive to the men in the world. It's piggish, it's hateful, it's misogynistic and it's oppressive in the real world situation where men have used such thinking to oppressive and keep women "submissive" over the centuries.
Do you agree with and recognize the reality that women have been oppressed throughout the centuries? That notions of "a woman's place is in the home" and "women should be submissive to their husbands" and "Women can't be pastors, that's a man's job" have been used to keep women out of power and in disadvantaged situations? That this sort of thinking - by the church - is part of why women were denied the right to vote for so long? Do you agree that all of this is clearly wrong and oppressive?
I have no problem noting that we should be brave - all of us, men and women - and stand against the oppressors, the enemies of women, in this case - all of us - and that is what I'm doing. Do you recognize that?
I wonder if the problem isn't what he's said, as much as the notion that men and women are identical and interchangeable with absolutely no differences between then is really the problem.
None of us humans are identical or interchangeable, but ALL of us have rights and ought not be told by men what we can and can't do. Do you disagree?
There are differences between ALL humans, but I disagree with you if you think there are roles for women and men can tell them what those roles are, while men tell themselves what their own roles are.
If a woman feels called to be a pastor or president or general in an army, do you stand opposed to her following what she thinks is right because there is a line in the Bible where Paul says he doesn't permit women to have authority over men?
It IS interesting how you appear to have no problems with these sorts of misogynistic voices or, if you do, you remain silent, while using your words to condemn me for calling out that misogyny.
Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?
Be brave, indeed.
Craig...
No, I am not making that claim in any way shape or form. I am not making ANY claims in this conversation.
Dan:
"Do you suspect that this trait is more dominant/common in men?"
Craig:
Based on history, I'd say that it's likely.
THAT is a claim. I'm sorry you didn't see it in your own words, but now, I've pointed it out to you. You're welcome.
And that claim is part of the problem.
What a misogynistic answer!
"Based on history..."? WHAT history? The history (written by men in power) of oppressing women and telling them what roles they can and can't take? The history of denying women the opportunity to lead and speak out... and then when, because of that very real oppression, there are fewer stories from history of brave, dragon-fighting women, you are citing THAT male-constructed "history" to suggest that men are the primary brave fighters? Is THAT what you're saying?
If so, do you recognize the rational problem with that?
"THAT is a claim"
If, under some bizarre definition that is some how a claim, then it is the least specific and most nonobjective claim ever. It's my opinion, I did not express that opinion as a fact, I said that "it's likely". But if that's the hill you want to die on, the go for it. I could point to the overwhelmingly vast amount of historical documentation, and the vast amount of classic fiction that supports this tepid claim, but I won't. To deny that if one looks at history, literature, and real life that it is more likely that men will be on the front lines in any conflict is to deny reality.
"WHAT history?"
Well, I'd suggest that the entirety of recorded history would be a good place to start.
"The history (written by men in power) of oppressing women and telling them what roles they can and can't take?"
And here we go. Dan applying his 21st century American leftist political worldview to history. He's holding historical figures and writers to a standard that is a recent standard, and a standard that is based on a very narrow political worldview.
"The history of denying women the opportunity to lead and speak out... and then when, because of that very real oppression, there are fewer stories from history of brave, dragon-fighting women, you are citing THAT male-constructed "history" to suggest that men are the primary brave fighters?"
I could go back and point out the problem with your selective reading of history, that ignores the reality that women did lead countries and empires. Or I could go back and suggest that actual history simply shows men in that role more than women. Pointing out reality, doesn't mean that women are being denigrated, it's just reality.
"Is THAT what you're saying?"
In general, if you are asking if I'm "saying" something you've made up the answer is always going to be no.
"If so, do you recognize the rational problem with that?"
I recognize that you, with your limited, biased, prejudiced, slanted, partisan, views about your Rationality, and how representative of others it is might have a problem with it. I also recognize that your hunches about rationality are limited to you, and therefore of no worth to anyone else or as a standard to judge anything by.
"Do you agree with and recognize the reality that women have been oppressed throughout the centuries?"
I recognize that women and men have all been oppressed in various ways and at various times throughout history.
"That notions of "a woman's place is in the home" and "women should be submissive to their husbands" and "Women can't be pastors, that's a man's job" have been used to keep women out of power and in disadvantaged situations?"
Again, I recognize that human beings have a tendency to use these sorts of sayings in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of others.
"That this sort of thinking - by the church - is part of why women were denied the right to vote for so long? Do you agree that all of this is clearly wrong and oppressive?"
It's possible that that could have been one reason. But please devote this much vitriol to the places where religious doctrine is currently being used to oppress women.
"I have no problem noting that we should be brave - all of us, men and women - and stand against the oppressors, the enemies of women, in this case - all of us - and that is what I'm doing. Do you recognize that?"
I rarely recognize what in the hell you're doing. You spend so much time in ad hom attacks or straw men and so little time simply providing a simple, direct, unequivocal explanation of what in the hell you're rambling about that it's unlikely that you make sense to anyone.
"None of us humans are identical or interchangeable, but ALL of us have rights and ought not be told by men what we can and can't do. Do you disagree?"
Interesting notion. Are you really saying that men, duly elected to legislative positions or lawfully appointed as LEO, are not legitimately allowed to make of enforce laws? Of course, I'd take you slightly more seriously if you didn't spend so little time going after the regimes that are currently behaving like this. But obviously, in countries where rights are equal, they should be equally protected.
"If a woman feels called to be a pastor or president or general in an army, do you stand opposed to her following what she thinks is right because there is a line in the Bible where Paul says he doesn't permit women to have authority over men?"
Well, I wouldn't dismiss what the scriptures have to say. But more so, I wouldn't accept anyone who simply announced that they should be put in a position of authority because that "think it's right".
"It IS interesting how you appear to have no problems with these sorts of misogynistic voices or, if you do, you remain silent, while using your words to condemn me for calling out that misogyny."
It's irrelevant because I am not bound by your insistence that something is misogyny. You simply declaring something to be misogyny isn't enough to bind me to your hunch.
"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?"
The side that doesn't stoop to condescending, idiotic, bullshit like this.
the go for it. I could point to the overwhelmingly vast amount of historical documentation, and the vast amount of classic fiction that supports this tepid claim, but I won't. To deny that if one looks at history, literature, and real life that it is more likely that men will be on the front lines in any conflict is to deny reality.
Some facts:
Throughout history, "history" has largely been written by men, the men in power, predominantly.
Throughout much of history, women have not been allowed to be in leadership roles, and they were largely denied the right to vote on matters. Decisions were made FOR women BY men and forced UPON women by men.
Do you agree/recognize that reality?
I could go back and suggest that actual history simply shows men in that role more than women. Pointing out reality, doesn't mean that women are being denigrated, it's just reality.
In WHAT "role..." in the role of toy soldier? Is that how you're measuring "brave and courageous fighters..."?
And by "Front lines," are you suggesting the only/main way to show bravery and fighting against evil is through soldiers in battle? That would be a rather shallow view of bravery and fighting evil (and indeed, often soldiers are fighting in an evil manner or directly FOR evil causes).
And again, because of patriarchal oppression, women didn't even HAVE the opportunity to fight in battles, so that's not much of a measure, if you're trying to use that shallow and problematic criteria as a measure.
So, help me understand: This fella (these fellas) are writing specifically to MEN saying that MEN specifically are to be the ones who "fight dragons and giants and are warriors..." that MEN SPECIFICALLY were designed to be the "brave and strong" ones, in contrast to women.
Do you agree that misogynistic BS is what he's saying (I'm not asking if you agree that it is misogynistic, just if it's what he's saying)?
Are you saying it "seems" to be "likely" correct that "men" were/are "the brave fighters" in contrast to women? And is your reason for thinking this that men have served in battles where women weren't allowed? How is that a measure?
I can almost guarantee that you recognize that there are many ways to be brave, many ways to fight oppression, that it's not limited to those allowed to carry guns (and indeed, that's a pretty pathetic measure of bravery or fighting oppression). Right?
If so, what is this appeal to male-written history about male-dominated policies that kept women out that you think is rational?
Help me understand.
I wouldn't dismiss what the scriptures have to say. But more so, I wouldn't accept anyone who simply announced that they should be put in a position of authority because that "think it's right".
The blind irony in nearly every response (not quite answers) is astounding.
Do you think that "the Bible" or "God" doesn't want women to be pastors? Do you think people of good faith can and do disagree with that human interpretation of that one bible verse? EVEN THOUGH the anti-women-pastor group is telling us what THEY "think is right..."?
Do you recognize that those who think thusly are basing it primarily on ONE VERSE in the NT were Paul is clearly and literally speaking for himself and says that HE, Paul, doesn't "permit" women to "have authority over men" and expects women to "remain silent..."? Who cares what Paul permitted 2000 years ago? At least in that one scenario which he offered his opinion...
You spend so much time in ad hom attacks or straw men and so little time simply providing a simple, direct, unequivocal explanation of what in the hell you're rambling about that it's unlikely that you make sense to anyone
I wonder how much partisan difference makes it hard for you to understand someone on "the other side" (and vice versa)? I feel like I'm being abundantly clear.
1. Throughout history, women have been oppressed, disenfranchised, not given a voice in their decisions/lives, as a point of fact.
2. Throughout history, the church has been complicit in this. The church has long-defended and in some cases, STILL defends a Patriarchal arrangement, where men are in leadership and making the decisions. As a point of fact.
3. Indeed, that these fellows you're citing are, themselves, part of a Patriarchy Now initiative. Your bearded friend, Brian Sauve, says, among other things: "Patriarchy is inevitable—as creationally inescapable as gravity. Men may rule well or poorly—but rule they will."
"THE MISSION: REBUILD AND RESTORE THE PATRIARCHY"
https://21studios.com/21-patriarch/
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/mansplaining-convention-coming-to-orlando-promises-to-make-women-great-again-26553974
4. ?!!
5. I find this Patriarchy Now BS to be dangerous and oppressive. You so far have not responded to it and appear to be at the least, sympathetic to it. It doesn't appear to immediately raise red flags to you.
By all means, make yourself clear. DO you find these ideas promoted at the links I've provided DEEPLY problematic on the face of it? ARE you supportive of the idea of a Patriarchy?
Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
Patriarchy: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line
====
What about my position is unclear to you? I hate the notion of patriarchy. I reject the evil done in the name of patriarchy and the oppression of women that has inevitably resulted. I recognize that those who have more patriarchal worldviews have, according to research, been more likely to abuse and oppress women. I believe that oppression, including the oppression that has arisen from Patriarchy is bad, immoral, unhealthy, not good and thus, should be opposed.
For THOSE reasons, I oppose it.
What is unclear?
The side that doesn't stoop to condescending, idiotic, bullshit like this.
As you acknowledge, women have historically been oppressed. It is thanks to progressive thinking and active opposition to the oppression of women and patriarchy that women in our world are NOT as oppressed. Guys like these "patriarchy defenders" are part of the problem. I'm asking what seems to be a reasonable question: Are you opposed to this notion of promoting patriarchy or are you NOT opposed to it? Given the real-world history of oppression of women, how is that condescending? How is it not a reasonable question?
"The blind irony in nearly every response (not quite answers) is astounding."
It's only astounding to you as an old, white, male who is convinced that your hunch on these matters is right and the only acceptable conclusion.
"Do you think that "the Bible" or "God" doesn't want women to be pastors?"
I think that the Bible says what it says about the roles of men and women, and that we have to come to grips with the text and how to apply it. I've said this before, so it's likely you ignored or forgot, but I currently attend a church in a denomination that employs women as pastors. I am involved at another church that also ordains women. I guess, in this case, my actions mean nothing because I haven't said the right things according to you.
"Do you think people of good faith can and do disagree with that human interpretation of that one bible verse?"
Sure, people disagree or ignore all sorts of things the Bible says, why would I think this one is different.
"EVEN THOUGH the anti-women-pastor group is telling us what THEY "think is right..."?"
Well, let's start with some reality. The reality is that they could BE right. I'm not saying that they are, but anyone who claims that there is a zero % chance that they could be right is either blinded by their worldview, or insane. There's also a chance that "they're" wrong. As you're so fond of saying, "We just can't know...". I personally have seen good arguments from both of the rational positions, although none from you. Are you really telling me that "they" are absolutely 100% wrong with zero% chance of being right? That you are 100% right, with zero% chance of being wrong?
"Do you recognize that those who think thusly are basing it primarily on ONE VERSE in the NT were Paul is clearly and literally speaking for himself and says that HE, Paul, doesn't "permit" women to "have authority over men" and expects women to "remain silent..."?"
If you say so. I've never heard anyone only list that one single verse, but you clearly know more about the positions of those you disagree with than they do. How could I possible not blindly agree with your representation of the position "they" take?
"Who cares what Paul permitted 2000 years ago?"
You're right. Screw Paul. Why should we listen to anything he said anyway? What idiots thought the Paul should be included in the canon of scripture?
Obviously Dan is who we should listen to instead of Paul. Dan the Apostle is the new authority.
It's only astounding to you as an old, white, male who is convinced that your hunch on these matters is right and the only acceptable conclusion.
You DO understand that women having full, equal rights and opposition to a Patriarchy is NOT unique to "Dan," right? That the whole of the modern world is opposed to notions of Patriarchy and some of the few places that it's still accepted are in some extreme segments of religions like Islam and LDS, right? I'm not some weird outlier who thinks women ought to have equal rights.
"Do you agree/recognize that reality?"
And yet, somehow women kept finding themselves in leadership roles and controlling/oppressing people just like men.
"In WHAT "role..." in the role of toy soldier? Is that how you're measuring "brave and courageous fighters..."?"
It's incisive, respectful questions like these that make my life complete. Yes, it's one way. For years that standard was that women and children should be saved first, I'd suggest that the men who sacrificed themselves for their families safety (on shipwrecks for example) would be another. But, by all means, let's ignore//forget/minimize the millions of men who have sacrificed their lives to save others, however that looks.
"And by "Front lines," are you suggesting the only/main way to show bravery and fighting against evil is through soldiers in battle?"
No.
"Do you agree that misogynistic BS is what he's saying (I'm not asking if you agree that it is misogynistic, just if it's what he's saying)?"
No, I do not agree that his words are misogynistic just because you say so. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I am having problems with you as an old, rich, white, guy demanding that I must accept your hunch on the topic.
"Are you saying it "seems" to be "likely" correct that "men" were/are "the brave fighters" in contrast to women?"
No.
"And is your reason for thinking this that men have served in battles where women weren't allowed? How is that a measure?"
No. But your argument that women must be allowed/forced to prove themselves in combat to be equal is fascinating.
"I can almost guarantee that you recognize that there are many ways to be brave, many ways to fight oppression, that it's not limited to those allowed to carry guns (and indeed, that's a pretty pathetic measure of bravery or fighting oppression). Right?"
Yes. It's always interesting when pacifists who benefit from others service, demean and minimize their service as "pathetic". If I had to rely on someone like you to protect my family, I'd simply surrender.
"If so, what is this appeal to male-written history about male-dominated policies that kept women out that you think is rational?"
Unless you are suggesting that the history we have is somehow so wildly inaccurate and tainted by these misogynistic bogymen you seem to fear so much, I fail to see the point of your question.
"Help me understand."
Well, it's like this. I posted a piece that I thought was interesting. I made no endorsement of it, nor did I criticize it, I simply found it interesting. You seem to have decided that I must take and defend the position that you've assigned to me. I have no desire to do so. I'm content to sit in the tension and indecision for a while.
Blah, blah, blah, the patriarchy, blah, blah, blah, Misogyny, blah blah blah, repetition of the same old meaningless talking points.
I think that the Bible says what it says about the roles of men and women, and that we have to come to grips with the text and how to apply it. I've said this before, so it's likely you ignored or forgot, but I currently attend a church in a denomination that employs women as pastors. I am involved at another church that also ordains women. I guess, in this case, my actions mean nothing because I haven't said the right things according to you.
Good for you, I guess. But what a VAGUE non-answer.
I repeat: DO YOU THINK THAT "THE BIBLE" or "GOD" DOESN'T WANT WOMEN TO BE PASTORS?
If you're attending a church that thinks, of course, women can be pastors and you support it, why not say so? If you DON'T support women as pastors, why not say so?
Why the never-ending vague non-answers?
" Are you opposed to this notion of promoting patriarchy or are you NOT opposed to it?"
I'm agnostic.
"Given the real-world history of oppression of women, how is that condescending?"
Because women aren't the only ones who have ever been oppressed. Your tone, demeanor, and how you phrase your "questions". Oh yeah, calling any adult male "boy".
"How is it not a reasonable question?"
Since you are not the arbiter of reason for others.
"You DO understand that women having full, equal rights and opposition to a Patriarchy is NOT unique to "Dan," right?"
You do understand that your version of all of those things is not the only possible way to interpret them, don't you? Or are you a hopeless narcissist. Your whole "argument" hinges on your hunches about misogyny, or patriarchy, or whatever, as well as your idiotic notion that every single thing done under a patriarchal system is evil, and that any other system is good.
"That the whole of the modern world is opposed to notions of Patriarchy and some of the few places that it's still accepted are in some extreme segments of religions like Islam and LDS, right?"
If you say so.
"I'm not some weird outlier who thinks women ought to have equal rights."
No, that's not why you're a weird outlier. It's more your insistence that your hunches are objectively right and that everyone must accept your hunches on these topics.
I personally have seen good arguments from both of the rational positions, although none from you.
My arguments are clear and reasonable, whether or not you ultimately agree with them.
1. I do not believe the Bible is a magic rule book, where we go to find rulings on morality. I believe the Bible is a book of stories about God's grace and to try to reduce it to a source of rules is to MISS THE POINT of the stories of God's grace.
2. That being the case, I don't care that there are lines in the Bible that could be construed as saying slavery is okay, that selling your children into a marriage is okay, that stoning to death gay people is okay. Why? Because the Bible is not a rule book. It contains rules for what people thought was right thousands of years ago in those specific cultures and times, but that isn't the same as saying God wants us to embrace rules found in the Bible.
Whether or not you agree with my conclusions above doesn't mean they're irrational or wrong.
3. Women are human beings and human beings have rights, innate, God-given rights. Those rights include the right to self-determination. That is, men don't get to tell women what their career choices or ministry options are. That's between the individual and God.
Whether or not you agree with that conclusion doesn't mean it's irrational or wrong.
Agreed?
Are you really telling me that "they" are absolutely 100% wrong with zero% chance of being right? That you are 100% right, with zero% chance of being wrong?
They COULD be right. God could hate humanity. God could hate women and want men to rule them with an iron fist and sell their daughters into sexual slavery. It's possible. I've been abundantly clear that neither you nor I can prove authoritatively what God thinks. BUT, I see NO reason to think it's likely, rational, moral, Godly, Christian, healthy, beneficial or biblical.
Agreed?
I'm agnostic.
And that's the problem.
All it takes for evil to win is for good men to be agnostic on matters of oppression.
"Good for you, I guess. But what a VAGUE non-answer."
If you say so. I'm sorry that my actions are not good enough to answer your question. I'm sorry that my lack of monomaniacal obsession doesn't match yours. I'm sorry that this is a topic on which I am willing to extend a fair bit of grace and not be dogmatic.
"I repeat: DO YOU THINK THAT "THE BIBLE" or "GOD" DOESN'T WANT WOMEN TO BE PASTORS?"
I repaet: THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT WHO IS QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE ROLE OF PASTOR. I'm not saying anything, because I don't carry any weight.
Are you saying that there is zero Biblical evidence that would indicate that the role of pastor is one for men? Are you saying that the Bible says anything that would lead one to conclude that women pastors are mandated and must be accepted?
"If you're attending a church that thinks, of course, women can be pastors and you support it, why not say so? If you DON'T support women as pastors, why not say so?"
I did. I've never given you my position on the topic. I fail to see why I am required to do so.
"Why the never-ending vague non-answers?"
I try to word my answers to say precisely what I want to say, and no more. In some cases, I just don't really have "an answer". I think that's allowed, don't you?
calling any adult male "boy".
"Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?"
It's a famous human rights hymn. You're not familiar with it?
You need to get out more, son.
https://youtu.be/9XEnTxlBuGo
Are you saying that there is zero Biblical evidence that would indicate that the role of pastor is one for men? Are you saying that the Bible says anything that would lead one to conclude that women pastors are mandated and must be accepted?
Yes. Just yes.
There IS ONE VERSE that one could take to mean something like that IF YOU ABANDON the rest of the Bible and, well, just basic common sense. But ultimately, there is ZERO biblical evidence, for what it's worth.
But then, I'm not one that believes in the magic rule book god that you appear to favor.
I did. I've never given you my position on the topic. I fail to see why I am required to do so.
Because there is a real world history of real oppression of women, of denying them rights and liberties. You want to hedge your bets on less-important questions (should we watch R-rated movies? Are statues with boobies exposed pornographic? etc), go for it. But on important matters - is slavery a great evil? Is patriarchy a great evil? - YES, good and rational people are required to take stances.
Do you think it's okay to have no stance/take no position on the question of "Is slavery a great evil?" - well, that's problematic and part of the problem with modern conservatism and its ties to anti-liberty positions.
"My arguments are clear and reasonable, whether or not you ultimately agree with them."
I don't care about your personal arguments. They carry no weight with me, and they all end up just repeating the same old assumptions that you pretend are facts. Your opinions and hunches have no value to anyone but you. The fact that you find them clear and reasonable, doesn't mean that they meet some objective standard of clear and reasonable. Of course they're clear and reasonable to you.
"Whether or not you agree with my conclusions above doesn't mean they're irrational or wrong."
Of course, that doesn't mean that they are rational and right either. They're simply your hunches filtered through your worldview, biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and the like, yet aren't objectively rational or right.
"Agreed?"
Sure, I agree that you find your arguments amazing, rational, correct, biblical, and whatever you want them to be. That doesn't mean they are everything you think they are. They're just your hunches.
"Agreed?"
No, I don't agree that your hunches automatically overcome any other position your encounter.
"You need to get out more, son."
Yeah, because "boy" or "son" isn't condescending from you, right skippy?
"Yes. Just yes. There IS ONE VERSE that one could take to mean something like that IF YOU ABANDON the rest of the Bible and, well, just basic common sense. But ultimately, there is ZERO biblical evidence, for what it's worth."
Thus sayeth Danthustera. Cue the Also Sprach in the background, and pan to his tiny horde of acolytes.
You have made it very clear, and once you've spoken, all must bow to your majesty.
"Because there is a real world history of real oppression of women, of denying them rights and liberties."
Maybe if you were less worried about oppression hundreds of years ago, and more worried about the oppression going on right now, you'd have a tiny bit of credibility. Unfortunately, all you've got is one more bland, vapid statement like-"I don't like any oppression, I just choose to focus on oppression that isn't currently a major issue."
"YES, good and rational people are required to take stances."
Once again, the Great and Powerful D'oz speaks and we must listen. D'oz has spoken.
"Do you think it's okay to have no stance/take no position on the question of "Is slavery a great evil?" - well, that's problematic and part of the problem with modern conservatism and its ties to anti-liberty positions."
Fortunately, what's problematic for you isn't something I place any value in.
It's more your insistence that your hunches are objectively right and that everyone must accept your hunches on these topics.
Slavery is not really a debated point, any more, amongst rational moral adults. Do you agree? ANYONE who hems and hedges about clearly denouncing slavery is a moral outlier today, do you agree?
The same is the case for Patriarchy. It's a foregone conclusion in modern moral circles that it's just wrong, and indeed, a great evil.
Do you agree that slavery and patriarchy are both similarly well-established as great evil ideas that should not be endorsed or even defended as POSSIBLY acceptable...?
If the latter, do you recognize that you are in the outlier group?
I had said...
"YES, good and rational people are required to take stances."
And instead of agreeing with a reasonable, common, easy-to-accept premise, you dodged and mocked, saying...
Once again, the Great and Powerful D'oz speaks and we must listen.
This has nothing to do with me. Good moral rational citizens across the world and across world philosophies agree:
Slavery is a great evil.
Patriarchy is a great evil.
We have an obligation to take stands against great evils.
Do you agree that this is a common set of moral philosophies, embraced by Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists and rational, moral people the world-round? If so, quit trying to reduce this to "Oh, this is just crazy Dan insisting that people agree with him..." These ARE the dominant rational moral world philosophies now on these points.
Do you disagree that these represent extremely commonplace moral worldviews?
Why the dodging on something as simple as agreeing that slavery and patriarchy are great evils? Is it possibly the case that you don't agree? Well, if so, be brave enough to own your own opinions and make it clear: I do not agree that slavery or patriarchy are always great moral wrongs.
Do you see how trying to make this commonplace view about "Dan" is a way of dodging and not very adult or good-faith on your part? It's not like I'm asking unreasonable questions.
You have made it very clear, and once you've spoken, all must bow to your majesty.
People are, as always, free to disagree. But SAY SO. I'm asking you to clarify your position. You are under no obligation to agree with me or common moral reasoning. IF you think that patriarchy is okay... or SOMETIMES okay (if it's a "gracious, Christ-like" patriarchy... for instance), just say so. IF you don't know and are not able to form an opinion, just say so and be clear.
That's what I'm hearing from you right now, that you have no opinion because it's just not that clear to you. But help me understand: IS that what you're saying?
Thus sayeth Danthustera.
As a point of observable, demonstrable, objective fact:
1. God has never said, ever, that women can't be pastors, shepherd, preachers, prophets.
No where.
2. Paul stated ONE TIME (in his letter to Timothy) that HE, Paul, didn't "permit" women to "have authority over men." He also said that he, Paul, didn't want women to have elaborate hairstyles, to wear gold or pearls and he wanted them to "remain silent."
These were all in a list of things that Paul said, "I do not..." speaking literally for himself.
Now, some may ASSUME and READ INTO the text that Paul was speaking of women being pastors and that Paul was speaking for God, but that is NOT in the text. It literally isn't.
This is objective, observable reality. Do you agree with that much?
Given that, it has nothing to do with what "Dan" says as Dan is just stating what is observably factually found in the text. What INTERPRETATION humans may assign to that text and what those humans READ INTO it are another question, but "Dan" is just noting what is and isn't literally there.
Do you recognize that much reality?
I repaet: THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT WHO IS QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE ROLE OF PASTOR. I'm not saying anything, because I don't carry any weight.
What a defeatist, apathetic attitude. Grow a spine, brother (you prefer that?)! Have opinions!
WHO SAYS, for instance, that what "the Bible says" about "who is 'qualified' to perform the role of pastor" is the deciding factor? Does God? Does the Bible? I think we both know that this is not the case.
What if we took this attitude about slavery or polygamy or selling our daughters into a marriage arrangement?
"I repaet: THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT we can enslave someone/sell our daughters into a marriage/polygamy. I'm not saying anything, because I don't carry any weight."
We SHOULD form rational opinions, don't you think? The Bible hasn't told us to look to "the Bible" and what people were doing 2000 years ago to decide moral matters, has it? Why would we?
Do you at least understand that some people who LOVE and VALUE the Bible and, because of that, do not look to ancient rules to find answers for modern moral questions. We recognize the great immorality of what was commonly accepted back then and don't find any rational, biblical or moral reasons to use the Bible as a rule-determiner today, looking to what they did and didn't allow/forbid back then?
More reading to help you/us all form rational adult opinions on vital matters...
https://www.tearsofeden.org/blog/spiritual-abuse-in-the-christian-patriarchy-movement
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/smashing-the-patriarchy-why-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-supremacy
https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/7-reasons-why-patriarchy-is-bad-and-feminism-is-good-for-men/
https://rachelgreenmiller.com/2014/09/22/the-soul-numbing-dangers-of-patriarchy/
https://rachelgreenmiller.com/2012/05/31/whats-wrong-with-biblical-patriarchy/
"I merely pushed back at the suggestion that this trait is only commonly found in men."
A truth universally accepted throughout human history. That's not the same as suggesting it is "uniquely" or "exclusively" found in men. But "commonly"? That's absolutely true without going the distance, while it allows for women as well.
I don't know why Dan felt the need to include homosexuals in this debate. He really likes homosexuals.
"As a point of reality, I don't know that anyone can prove the claim "Most men.." or "most women..." are instinctively protectors."
Yet I don't believe Dan has a problem suggesting men are more likely to be predators...particularly sexual predators. Yet this same trait is simply a different manifestation of the male character. It's the "hunter/gatherer" versus the "nurturer" distinction between the sexes which has been a truth universally accepted throughout human history....except by perhaps the effeminate modern progressive male.
"To side with the historically oppressed, as Jesus and decency say we should do."
Ah...Dan means to be the "protectors" of the "historically oppressed" (a stupid term Dan likes to throw around as if it has value and improves the credibility of his positions...what a moron!)
"...speaking specifically of boys being "strong men, fearless leaders and wearing big bear-like beards!!" (that's not an actual quote, just the sickening vibe he gives off)."
If he didn't say it, then only a liar would suggest the vibe the liar inferred is attributable to the man.
"So, IF his "argument" is that "the Bible" is making the case for "male men" being "real men, strong and fearless" sort of nonsense, he is misusing the Bible if he's suggesting that these are characteristics encouraged specifically for beardy men."
That's funny! Dan is accusing someone else of misusing the Bible to make his case!! HA!!!
"It seems like so many modern conservative men are truly trying to over-compensate for something."
It no doubt does to the effeminate modern progressive "man".
"They appear to clearly fear the "feminization" of men and the embrace of LGBTQ folks so they have to go over-the-top in defending "dragon-slayers They appear to clearly fear the "feminization" of men and the embrace of LGBTQ folks so they have to go over-the-top in defending "dragon-slayers and meat eaters and bear-smackers and warriors...."
Conservative men and women want "drago-slayer They appear to clearly fear the "feminization" of men and the embrace of LGBTQ folks so they have to go over-the-top in defending "dragon-slayers and meat eaters and bear-smackers and warriors" exclusively in our military and law-enforcement...not dudes who pretend they're women, nor women who will or could never be man enough to be as effective as the "dragon-slayers and meat eaters and bear-smackers and warriors". Indeed, real women want men like that...not the effeminate modern progressive alternative of what a "man" is.
"Here's some of the oppressive nonsense that Lord Suave teaches..."
Clearly he's a legitimate "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture.
"Are you familiar with the research?"
Yeah...
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/family-matters/when-women-perpetrate-domestic-violence/
https://honest-ribbon.org/domestic-violence-research/female-perpetrators-of-intimate-abuse/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178906000474
Must be toxic femininity. I've even recall stories from law enforcement suggesting domestic violence within lesbian relationships are especially savage compared to normal relationships.
But it's good to get the perspective from the leftist side of the aisle. Then we can mock them when the full truth is exposed.
But that aside, it's not surprising Dan would attack me as if he gives a flying rat's patoot about women. No. He's simply attacking conservatism and the importance of real men standing up against real problems, not fake men standing up for what effeminate modern progressives assert are important. They're morons and should be roundly mocked while we take care of business. It's never been the progressive types who've made the nation great. And yes, I can concede that homosexual men have stepped up in such a way, though they still defend their perversions.
I was just listening to the news about the new Emmett and Mamie Till memorials going up now and the dozens (hundreds?) of filthy, cowardly men and the one brave woman who faced them down and at significant risk to herself. And it just reminds me of all the fierce mothers and women in our history and of the countless cowardly, awful men who oppressed them... the abused wives,, the sexual assault survivors, etc... and I'm just left wondering what history you're paying attention to that let's you guess that bravery is likely more commonly found in men.
Dan
Craig said,
" To demand that I defend the words of others just because I find them interesting, is simply insane. "
That's our Dan. He'll grab whatever he thinks he can exploit to attack better people. For instance:
"The notion that Craig is offended when I stand against oppressive notions, attitudes and policies that have been used to oppress women throughout the centuries seems quite strange to me, and part of the problem of snowflake men not being able to recognize a stand against injustice if they think it might cost them some power."
There's a universe of difference between what Craig was suggesting versus Dan's corruption of it to posture as one caring about "oppressing women throughout the centuries". The type of man Craig is referencing and defending is not the type which oppresses anyone. And again, for Dan to pretend he stands against injustice while defending the practice of abortion is a most heinous example of hypocrisy.
"I'm not offended by suggesting PEOPLE should follow the example set by Jesus. I argue for that precisely all the time."
I don't recall anywhere in Scripture Jesus being described as defending infanticide, sexual immorality or coveting the wealth of others over creating wealth for one's self. I don't recall Jesus perverting the intentions of another's position in order to denigrate that person or the position that person holds. Craig isn't speaking about "PEOPLE", but about men specifically and the type of men we need in this culture, which are not the effeminate men of the modern progressives.
"None of us humans are identical or interchangeable, but ALL of us have rights and ought not be told by men what we can and can't do. Do you disagree?"
Well, that would depend upon what's being demanded, right? Men can tell others not to murder their unborn, because doing so is reprehensible, cruel and inhuman. Real men need to be telling others not to do such things. Furthermore, they should be doing all they can to prevent such things and punish those who do it.
"There are differences between ALL humans, but I disagree with you if you think there are roles for women and men can tell them what those roles are, while men tell themselves what their own roles are. "
Good women understand those roles as well and both good men and good women base that position on Scripture and common sense. That men and women are each better suited for roles the other isn't is not something which has ever been widely disputed throughout human history. Society works best when that reality is generally accepted. Society fails when it is ignored.
"If a woman feels called to be a pastor or president or general in an army, do you stand opposed to her following what she thinks is right because there is a line in the Bible where Paul says he doesn't permit women to have authority over men?"
---Why does Dan feel it necessary to conflate two disparate issues except to denigrate a better person with a more logic-based position?
---Why does Dan feel it necessary to continue lying about how many lines in Scripture refer to the prohibition against female pastors?
---Why does Dan not acknowledge that women can attain high ranks in the military without forcing themselves into roles best suited for men, particularly given the purpose of the military?
"It IS interesting how you appear to have no problems with these sorts of misogynistic voices or, if you do, you remain silent, while using your words to condemn me for calling out that misogyny."
Recognizing that men and women are each best suited for roles for which the other is less suited is not in any way misogynistic. It's called "honesty" and "reason", neither of which are present in a fool like Dan regarding it as "misogyny".
"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?"
Scripture, honesty, reason, logic....that side.
"Slavery is not really a debated point, any more, amongst rational moral adults. Do you agree?"
Well, that would depend on how you define moral and rational. As we've seen recently, just in the US there is a vast amount of trafficking of children. As we see across the world,, there are more people who live in slavery than there have ever been. It would seem as though if you are to make this claim, then you would have to be ready and willing to explicitly label any country that allows slavery ("legal" or not) as Im"moral" and ir"rational". If you can't do that, then I don't know if I can agree with you without reservation. As you've made clear you are firm in your belief that objective, universal morality does not exist (or can't be known), and I would conclude that you similarly would not offer a objective, universal definition or rationality. So, under YOUR subjective standards, and without you specifically labeling societies that allow slavery (and getting rid of any products you own made with slave labor), no I can't agree with your claim.
"ANYONE who hems and hedges about clearly denouncing slavery is a moral outlier today, do you agree?"
I could cup/paste this back, because I thought it was an actual second question. Instead it's merely a reworking of the question I just answered. Even though you won't like the answer.
"The same is the case for Patriarchy. It's a foregone conclusion in modern moral circles that it's just wrong, and indeed, a great evil."
Well as long as you, the keeper of all that is moral have spoken, I guess the subject is closed. Although, you'll likely beat this dead horse and repeat yourself for an obscenely long time.
"Do you agree that slavery and patriarchy are both similarly well-established as great evil ideas that should not be endorsed or even defended as POSSIBLY acceptable...?"
I agree that according to my personal, subjective moral standards slavery is a very bad thing. I also agree that patriarchy can be a very bed thing, although I wouldn't deny the possibility of it bearing positive results. I suspect, that what you are really bitching about is the reality that sinful, individual humans, groups of humans, and human cultures have taken patriarchy (which seems reasonably neutral on it's face-as would matriarchy), and used in in profoundly evil ways. I also suspect that you place the blame on the "tool" (patriarchy), and not on those individuals who misuse it.
"If the latter, do you recognize that you are in the outlier group?"
It's always amusing when you feel obsessed with putting me in some group of "the other".
"Do you agree that this is a common set of moral philosophies, embraced by Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists and rational, moral people the world-round?"
Well, given the objective reality that the current nations with the most people enslaved are majority Muslim, or officially atheist, and your inability to assert any objective standards of morality and rationality, I can agree that you believe this hunch to be true for you.
"If so, quit trying to reduce this to "Oh, this is just crazy Dan insisting that people agree with him..." These ARE the dominant rational moral world philosophies now on these points."
Once again, DAN HAS SPOKEN AND SPEAKS FOR ALL OF THE RATIONAL MORAL WORLD PHILOSOPHIES THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED.
"Do you disagree that these represent extremely commonplace moral worldviews?"
Given the reality of a quick Google search regarding modern slavery, and the fact that there is a 90+% chance that your cell phone was made with slave labor, I don't think there's as much universal agreement as you hope.
As long as morality is subjective and decided by consensus of societies, cultures, tribes, or clans, then it's logically inescapable that slavery could be found to be moral.
"That's what I'm hearing from you right now, that you have no opinion because it's just not that clear to you. But help me understand: IS that what you're saying?"
I'm saying that my opinion on this particular piece is a work in progress. I'm saying that YHWH is regularly and most often presented as a father, and as a ruling King. It seems that if what we know about Him especially from Jesus is accurate, then at least some minimal form of patriarchy is inevitable.
Unfortunately, I'm not required to either present a fully thought through position simply because you have a whim. Nor am I required to spew my random and unfinished thoughts on the matter because you had a whim.
Danthustera manages to proof text his way into "proving" his own pronouncement. All hail Danthustera!
More repetitive, redundant, piles of crap from Danthustera. I'm not going to parse him repeating himself, it's a waste of time. I'll print it, I won't waste time on it.
Dan's list of links, indicate that he has mistaken "abuses within" the patriarchy movement (whatever that bogymonster/dog whistle is), with patriarchy. It's fairly typical to use the actions of the worst possible representatives of any "movement" (with the movement defined and portrayed as negatively as possible), to tar every other person who might possibly fall somewhat in the group, no matter how tenuous the connection is.
It's this insidious notion of treating people as members of groups (defined by the enemies of the group), instead of individuals. Further, of assigning responsibility or culpability of people assigned to the group based on the actions of others.
It's a vile and disgusting way to go through life, yet Dan does so often.
I asked THE MOST AMAZINGLY SIMPLE QUESTION to which any rational, moral person SHOULD be able to answer easily...
"Slavery is not really a debated point, any more, amongst rational moral adults. Do you agree?"
Craig didn't directly answer, he just hemmed and hated, ultimately saying...
"It would seem as though if you are to make this claim, then you would have to be ready and willing to explicitly label any country that allows slavery ("legal" or not) as Im"moral" and ir"rational". If you can't do that, then I don't know if I can agree with you without reservation."
What does MY position have to do with YOU offering your opinion?
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU, CRAIG, CAN NOT DENOUNCE SLAVERY AS A GREAT EVIL?
And yes, I do denounce nations that legalize slavery as immoral at least on that point. I condemn enslaving people as a great and obvious immorality. Do you?
Dan
How are you defining Patriarchy? Isn't the definitional understanding of it (rule specifically by men)sufficient for you to reject it as abuse of human rights? I mean, I know those in the denial world of the evils of slavery will point to so-called "happy slaves" who "learned trades" while they were enslaved and say, "see? It wasn't all bad" instead of just rejecting slavery itself as an abuse of human rights, by definition. Same for patriarchy... it definitionally is an abuse of human rights. Do you disagree?
Dan
Art's comment at August 3, 2023 at 12:14 PM is OUTSTANDING! Truth and nothing but the truth--you know, stuff Danny boy hates.
The more of Art's comments I read from Craig's side shows me there are two intelligent people responding to a brainwashed LEFTIST. Dan keeps chasing after wisdom but never catches it.
The memorial to Emmet Til is nothing but pandering for the black vote. People who are murdered don't normally get memorials because getting killed happens 24/7 and Til didn't do anything special to warrant a federal memorial.
"It's this insidious notion of treating people as members of groups (defined by the enemies of the group), instead of individuals. Further, of assigning responsibility or culpability of people assigned to the group based on the actions of others.
It's a vile and disgusting way to go through life, yet Dan does so often."
Vile and disgusting? I stand opposed to the notion of patriarchy as a viable philosophy and THAT, you find vile, but not the notion of patriarchy itself?
Noted.
Patriarchy has a definition and it's not from the enemies of it. It's from its adherents.
Look, there are some philosophies that have just lost out in the freedom-loving world. Slavery. Racism. Child abuse. Fascism. Nazism.
Patriarchy.
I'm sure there may be some individual klansmen, some individual white supremacists, some individual misogynists, who are good people in many ways. But those philosophies are not good or acceptable amongst lovers oft freedom and human rights .
Do you think it's wrong to group together white supremacists and saying of that group and that philosophy, it's a morally and rationally bad belief system?
Do you think I'm vile for grouping together defenders of white supremacy and condemning that group?
He'll, I'm not even the one who is grouping them together. They are! I'm merely noting that those who embrace slavery, racism and patriarchy are aligning themselves with bad philosophies!
Dan
"It's this insidious notion of treating people as members of groups (defined by the enemies of the group), instead of individuals. Further, of assigning responsibility or culpability of people assigned to the group based on the actions of others.
It's a vile and disgusting way to go through life, yet Dan does so often."
Vile and disgusting? I stand opposed to the notion of patriarchy as a viable philosophy and THAT, you find vile, but not the notion of patriarchy itself?
Noted.
Patriarchy has a definition and it's not from the enemies of it. It's from its adherents.
Look, there are some philosophies that have just lost out in the freedom-loving world. Slavery. Racism. Child abuse. Fascism. Nazism.
Patriarchy.
I'm sure there may be some individual klansmen, some individual white supremacists, some individual misogynists, who are good people in many ways. But those philosophies are not good or acceptable amongst lovers oft freedom and human rights .
Do you think it's wrong to group together white supremacists and saying of that group and that philosophy, it's a morally and rationally bad belief system?
Do you think I'm vile for grouping together defenders of white supremacy and condemning that group?
He'll, I'm not even the one who is grouping them together. They are! I'm merely noting that those who embrace slavery, racism and patriarchy are aligning themselves with bad philosophies!
Dan
I'm guessing, given your vague non-answers, that you may be thinking that there MIGHT be SOME instances of patriarchy that could be not immoral or maybe even good.
Is that what you're thinking and why you're not being direct in your responses? Is it the case that the jury is still out on this issue and perhaps you haven't thought it through so you don't want to commit to an answer?
If so, why not start with just the definition..? I can't imagine ANY moral modern rational person agreeing with this as even a POSSIBLE good and recognize it as anything but bad and oppressive:
Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
Patriarchy: Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men.
Patriarchy: Derived from the Greek word patriarkhēs, patriarchy literally means "the rule of the father" and is used to refer to a social system where men control a disproportionately large share of social, economic, political and religious power, and inheritance usually passes down the male line.
Given those common, normal English understanding of patriarchy, do you agree that patriarchy by THESE definitions is of course a great injustice and wrong?
Or is that not something you're willing to offer an opinion upon?
More information on what you might consider the less-toxic/evil notion of "biblical patriarchy" or "'christian' patriarchy..."
Biblical patriarchy is similar to complementarianism, and many of their differences are only ones of degree and emphasis. While complementarianism holds to
exclusively male leadership in the church and in the home,
biblical patriarchy extends that exclusion
to the civic sphere as well, so that women should not be civil leaders
and indeed should not have careers outside the home.
That "lighter" form of oppression... can you condemn it as defined there (from wikipedia)?
Note: I tried to find these "patriarchs" give their own definition of what they mean but haven't come across it yet. From what I have read in digging into Sauve and his piggish allies, this sounds like what they're alluding to, though.
Once again, I'M not defining the awful mess they're advocating, THEY are. The question remains, can you condemn what they're advocating when it's oppressive to women? (Even if they don't consider it to be oppressive...)
So, one red flag that we find in identifying problematic, troubling philosophies is when they don't have written out their manifestos, and instead, they're on endless "sermons" and rants on VIDEO where the true believers can sit through and listen to nonsense without making it easy for people to identify the deeply problematic phrases/claims/ideas they're promoting. That's true of Sauve, as well. But for your sake, I sat through some of his diatribes on YouTube. Here's where HE defines how HE thinks the defenders of Patriarchy define Patriarchy ("Obviously..." he states repeatedly), in his OWN words:
The simplest definition of patriarchy is just Father Rule. That's what it means... people really hate the word "rule"... We like to substitute softer words for it...
However, we don't like this word "Father rule." But that's what patriarchy basically means... it's the idea that the God who made the world and everything in it designed that world around various structures of rule and submission, around various hierarchical relationships, obviously most fundamentally, the hierarchy between god and everything else. Obviously...
Within that reality, God built all kinds of subhierarchies. He made it so that there would be good, Godly government rule, ecclesiastical rule, and in the home...
In the home, the patriarchal view would just say wives need to respect and submit to your husbands and fathers were made to rule in the home... And we might say actually, more than that, that
God designed the world around the rule headmanship or leadership of
Godly men and this is supposed to be true of
home, church
AND THE CIVIC COMMUNITY."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLy0xKIY2g
And he goes on. That money quote was from 10:50, give or take.
So the world of "biblical patriarchy" are speaking of Patriarchy as it's typically defined, whereby men rule and women are ruled.
So, once again, can you condemn at LEAST that much?
"Dan:
"Do you suspect that this trait is more dominant/common in men?"
Craig:
Based on history, I'd say that it's likely.
THAT is a claim."
No. That's agreeing with the premise you presented in your question. "Do you suspect...?" is nowhere near the same as "Are you making a claim?" because to "suspect" is to have a "suspicion" that something is true, a feeling, a "hunch"...if you will...the premise is true and it's based on the history of mankind, which has demonstrated time and time again how men have stepped up to deal with issues...particularly violent issues...because they are built for the purpose. I'm sorry this nonsensical modern progressive attempt to pretend it's all about misogyny failed to slip by as an intelligent comment, but now that I've pointed it out to you, you're a liar.
"Throughout history, "history" has largely been written by men, the men in power, predominantly."
Apparently Dan believes there were wide scale wars and conflicts waged and fought primarily by women and men just never reported them. What a moron!!
"Throughout much of history, women have not been allowed to be in leadership roles, and they were largely denied the right to vote on matters. Decisions were made FOR women BY men and forced UPON women by men.
Do you agree/recognize that reality?"
The reality is that this has nothing to do with the post or the point within it, except for the fact that the very traits which lead men to step up as protectors, defenders, warriors, etc., are also abused to control and oppress. Of course this is also something not unique to men...they just are naturally more powerful than women which is why the roles of protectors, defenders, warriors, etc., are not just expected of them, but natural to them.
"In WHAT "role..." in the role of toy soldier? Is that how you're measuring "brave and courageous fighters..."?"
"TOY SOLDIER"???? Now Dan is going to denigrate men who willingly enlisted in military service in times of great conflict to defend the nation and the people of other nations...many understanding the likelihood of survival...or surviving intact...was not in any way guaranteed. Dan is going to denigrate men who willingly became law enforcement with the understanding that coming home alive was a daily concern.
"(and indeed, often soldiers are fighting in an evil manner or directly FOR evil causes)."
Yeah...because Craig was referencing ALL men, not just those who are good men willing to fight evil. Dan's an asshole. There's no dishonest lengths he won't go to pretend he's in the right while being so horrible in the wrong.
"And again, because of patriarchal oppression, women didn't even HAVE the opportunity to fight in battles, so that's not much of a measure, if you're trying to use that shallow and problematic criteria as a measure."
This is a weak attempt to suggest that women were generally clamoring to fight in battles? In what bizarro world could that possibly be true?
"If so, what is this appeal to male-written history about male-dominated policies that kept women out that you think is rational?"
What moronic bullshit. If women are what Dan insists they are, how could they be denied anything at any time in human history. The very fact that women may have been "historically oppressed" validates the premise of man's physical superiority over women, including man's natural compulsion to act as protectors of women and children against evil in the world. Dan's trying really hard to project a fantasy regarding the roles of men and women, that women were somehow clamoring to fight evil directly and physically all throughout history if not for men denying them the opportunity. What a crock that only an effeminate modern progressive could conjure!!
"I'm just left wondering what history you're paying attention to that let's you guess that bravery is likely more commonly found in men."
The history which balances the evil perpetrated in history versus the good men have done to thwart it to the best of their ability, and a history which doesn't mix the two to make partisan points like a moronic modern progressive feels the need to do.
I'd also posit that most of the evil in the world is perpetrated by those more closely resembling the modern progressive than any conservative.
I came to this discussion due to a reference by Craig at my blog about Dan perverting Scripture to suggest the prohibition of women as pastors stems from a single verse...which is a blatant lie as I've pointed out at Dan's blog in a "discussion" on the subject. From among those comments of mine Dan didn't delete (at least not as of this comment), there is proof enough that Scripture is without question in support of St. Paul's instruction for worship, on both Timothy and Titus.
And the beating of the dead horse continues.
"What does MY position have to do with YOU offering your opinion?"
1. I did offer my personal, subjective opinion.
2. I explained why.
"ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU, CRAIG, CAN NOT DENOUNCE SLAVERY AS A GREAT EVIL?"
In my personal, subjective opinion, yes. I have done so many times. Do you not remember those other times I have done so?
"And yes, I do denounce nations that legalize slavery as immoral at least on that point. I condemn enslaving people as a great and obvious immorality. Do you?"
Really? Where specifically have you done so? Where are the blog posts denouncing counties that support or allow slavery? Where do you mention specific countries? Have you chosen a cell phone or computer that are not made using slave labor?
"How are you defining Patriarchy? Isn't the definitional understanding of it (rule specifically by men)sufficient for you to reject it as abuse of human rights?"
Patriarchy is a system where leadership is passed down through males. In and of it's self it seems just as neutral as a matriarchal system.
"I mean, I know those in the denial world of the evils of slavery will point to so-called "happy slaves" who "learned trades""
1. The undeniable reality that some slaves did learn "job skills" that allowed them to find employment after slavery is incontrovertible. Acknowledging this reality in no way diminishes what slavery was, or justifies the existence of slavery.
2. In both cases, it's trying to use an exception to prove a rule, which is not valuable.
3. By arguing against reality, you look like a monomaniacal fool.
"Vile and disgusting?"
Yes. Treating people as if their primary identity comes from being a member of a group as opposed to as individuals is vile and disgusting.
"I stand opposed to the notion of patriarchy as a viable philosophy and THAT, you find vile, but not the notion of patriarchy itself?"
No, this is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. It's simply a false.
"Do you think it's wrong to group together white supremacists and saying of that group and that philosophy, it's a morally and rationally bad belief system?"
Yes. While it might be of some value to generalize on some things, to attribute responsibility to the "member of a group" (especially when you "group together") based on the actions of others is vile.
"Do you think I'm vile for grouping together defenders of white supremacy and condemning that group?"
Yes. I think you're vile for many reasons, but that's just one. The difference is that I am looking at you as an individual, studying your individual words and actions, and assessing you based on what you has an individual have done. Not blaming you for what someone else may or may not have done.
I find the ideology of white/black/Asian/etc supremacy to be problematic and outrageous. I would gladly condemn the ideology. Yet I would not condemn X supremacist X for the actions of supremacist Y because they might share an ideology.
Look at what the ideology of the supremacy of the Japanese race wrought during the 30's-40's. Yet I would never blame an random Japanese civilian for the actions of an individual Japanese who participated in rape/torture/barbarity/etc because they are both part of a group.
"Is that what you're thinking and why you're not being direct in your responses? Is it the case that the jury is still out on this issue and perhaps you haven't thought it through so you don't want to commit to an answer?"
No.
"Given those common, normal English understanding of patriarchy, do you agree that patriarchy by THESE definitions is of course a great injustice and wrong?"
Again, your lack of a universal, objective, standard for things like morality, justice, and right/wrong raise it's ugly head. Until you can demonstrate that a patriarchal system always results in total evil, you have no basis (other than personal opinion) to make this judgement for others. Who are you to tell tribe X in the middle of Africa or Papua New Guinea, that their patriarchal system of government is objectively evil? On what basis will you impose your liberal, European/American, definitions on them?
I would agree that a pure patriarchy (and what seems to go along with that FOG) is a really bad idea. It is a system that excludes the majority of it's citizens from participating in any meaningful way for reasons other than their ability. It's stupid, wasteful, inefficient, etc. But who am I to impose my values on a group that chooses otherwise?
"Or is that not something you're willing to offer an opinion upon?"
Again, I'm differentiating my personal, subjective opinion from your insistence that these be condemned in objective terms.
Again, I'm not commenting on or parsing Dan's claims of evidence. It's too easy to cherry pick "experts" who'll back up his positions regardless of whether or not his positions are True.
"Again, your lack of a universal, objective, standard for things like morality, justice, and right/wrong raise it's ugly head. Until you can demonstrate that a patriarchal system always results in total evil, you have no basis (other than personal opinion) to make this judgement for others. "
Again, this is the reality of the human condition. It's not that DAN lacks an objectively provable rubric for Morality, HUMANITY doesn't have that.
It's like if you were to say, "Dan, you have a problem in that you need to breathe air. Until you solve that, then you have no basis to offer opinions about nature. The suggestion that I, alone, face this reality is just a false claim.
You have no way to objectively prove your moral hunches.. nonetheless, we all have an obligation to take a stand harmful practices.
Right?
Or is the reality that you can't objectively prove your moral hunches mean you believe in moral anarchy? (That would explain your relative silence in the face of the threats of Trump, patriarchs and racists.)
Dan
"Again, this is the reality of the human condition. It's not that DAN lacks an objectively provable rubric for Morality, HUMANITY doesn't have that."
1. This trees/forest smokescreen doesn't alter the fact that you have none, yet you act as if you do.
2. OK, Humanity lacks the grounding of an objective, universal moral code and therefore someone in one clultre/society has no grounds to label someone in another culture/society as "moral" or "rational". It's still subjective and doesn't give you grounds to label others.
"You have no way to objectively prove your moral hunches.. nonetheless, we all have an obligation to take a stand harmful practices."
Nor do you have any way to prove your subjective moral hunches, yet you continue to act as if you do by how you label people and things. You're problem, not mine. I'm not labeling people as "moral/immoral-rational/irrational" or the like based on my subjective hunches.
"Right?"
Take all the stands you want based on your subjective, individual, hunches about morality and rationality, just stop pretending like your subjective hunches can be applied universally and objectively.
"Or is the reality that you can't objectively prove your moral hunches mean you believe in moral anarchy?"
No. But feel free to make up more lies, it simply showcases how subjective your morality really is.
So, you are saying you agree that none of us has an objectively provable moral system?
AND you are saying you do not believe in moral anarchy (everyone do whatever they want, rape, steal, kill, destroy... it's ALL okay)?
AND YET, you don't think we have any reason to oppose those who rape, steal, kill and destroy...?
How is that not moral anarchy?
Take all the stands you want based on your subjective, individual, hunches about morality and rationality, just stop pretending like your subjective hunches can be applied universally and objectively.
I'm saying that we freedom-loving people - at LEAST in freedom-affirming places - have an obligation to speak out against those who cause harm. The patriarch who wants to deny women the right to vote, for instance. The person who wants to trade on slave labor.
We have an obligation to speak out against that here and to do so strongly.
Do you disagree?
Beyond that, in nations that don't affirm human rights, I STILL think we should be promoting human rights and a cessation of harm in the form of oppressive policies against LGBTQ people, against women, that might allow or permit slavery. We can't enforce our rules on other nations, but we can engage in the encouragement of human rights in nations who DO have policies that cause harm/oppression. For instance, in the nation of Dominica, where they've criminalized gay sex... we can use our foreign policy practices to discourage that.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/bishop-reverses-course-supports-lgbtq-criminalization-laws-dominica
Do you disagree?
Or do you think it's okay for nations like that to criminalize gay people having sex?
If you think it's okay, is that a form or moral anarchy ("Let them jail or execute gay folk, it's up to them, there is no objective reason to oppose it..."), or are you taking a moral stance (it's morally right for them to do it)? Or some other option?
It sounds a whole lot like you are advocating moral anarchy. Help me understand how you're not.
But feel free to make up more lies, it simply showcases how subjective your morality really is.
I'm asking a series of questions to try to understand your view. A question isn't a lie, it's a question. Accusing me of lying when I'm asking questions seeking clarity, THAT is a lie. Do you see the distinction?
1. This trees/forest smokescreen doesn't alter the fact that you have none, yet you act as if you do.
I've been abundantly clear about two things:
1. You nor I nor anyone can objectively prove our moral opinions.
2. NONETHELESS, that does not mean we should resort of a defeatist moral anarchy position. We have an obligation to make reasonable moral decisions AT LEAST on issues where people are/have been/could be potentially harmed.
I keep asking if you agree or disagree. I am still asking.
I don't think we can PROVE OBJECTIVELY our moral positions BUT that we can still take reasonable moral decisions where people might be harmed AND that we have an obligation to do so.
Agree or disagree?
Are you a moral anarchist or do you think we should push for others to not harm/oppress others EVEN IF they truly believe it's okay to deny rights to women or to enslave people?
That's rich! Between the three of us, there is none so morally anarchistic as Dan. He supports so much which flies in the fact of objective Christian truths and morality...simply because he feels morally superior to Christianity and any who abide it. Dan doesn't abide the Will of God. Dan abides the mandates of the world, particularly the nonsensical mandates of the modern progressives in the world. Clearly cultural suicide.
He'll continue to bring up slavery as if it has any relation to that which is currently a concern, just so he can pretend to be moral by opposing what is really one form of slavery...that of the antebellum south before the Civil War. No one here abides such things in any way, shape or form. Yet, Dan can't help but pretend otherwise.
"(That would explain your relative silence in the face of the threats of Trump, patriarchs and racists.)"
There are no threats emanating from Trump that concern rational, normal intelligent people. This is just another modern progressive lie Dan likes to spew...because Dan's an inveterate liar.
There's no "patriarchy" at work in American anymore than there is a true right-wing racism which threatens the nation. The only racism comes from the left, which is typical and historically the case. Racists in this country vote Democrat.
Dan's "morality" is based on what the world demands, not that which God expects. Dan's a POS.
Marshall...
"There's no "patriarchy" at work in American anymore than there is a true right-wing racism which threatens the nation."
Well, the fella that Craig quoted here led to a whole slew of patriarchy supporters on the Right, where they don't want to see women in elected office, according to them. So, reality undermines your claim.
But maybe you and I can agree on this... can you affirm this guy and his allies are wrong in advocating patriarchy and the oppression of women?
Dan
"Agree or disagree?"
I agree that you can take personal, individual, subjective moral positions and live them out or defend them. What you don't have the grounds to do is to apply them to others.
"Are you a moral anarchist or do you think we should push for others to not harm/oppress others EVEN IF they truly believe it's okay to deny rights to women or to enslave people?"
No.
"So, you are saying you agree that none of us has an objectively provable moral system?"
No.
"AND you are saying you do not believe in moral anarchy (everyone do whatever they want, rape, steal, kill, destroy... it's ALL okay)?"
No.
"AND YET, you don't think we have any reason to oppose those who rape, steal, kill and destroy...?"
No.
"How is that not moral anarchy?"
Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, since it doesn't reflect anything I've actually said.
"Do you disagree?"
No. You have every right to speak out and advocate for your personal, subjective moral code. You just have no grounds to impose or apply your subjective, personal, individual moral code to others.
"Do you disagree?"
No. By all means feel free to promote your personal, subjective, individual moral code and your personal, subjective, individual hunches about what human rights should be. Just stop trying to impose or hold others to your subjective, individual, personal hunches.
Or do you think it's okay for nations like that to criminalize gay people having sex?
"If you think it's okay, is that a form or moral anarchy ("Let them jail or execute gay folk, it's up to them, there is no objective reason to oppose it..."), or are you taking a moral stance (it's morally right for them to do it)? Or some other option?"
I'm taking the stance that if morality is subjective and is decided by the consensus of the society, group, clan, family, etc, then it is entirely consistent to believe that different societies, cultures, groups, etc will reach different subjective conclusions about morality. You can disagree with someone's subjective morality, you can't declare that their subjective morality is wrong for them.
"I'm asking a series of questions to try to understand your view. A question isn't a lie, it's a question. Accusing me of lying when I'm asking questions seeking clarity, THAT is a lie. Do you see the distinction?"
When your "questions" are based on appending "do you agree?" to a statement that is totally false which you are suggesting represents what I've said, they are simply you trying to validate your made up bullshit.
Dan...
"So, you are saying you agree that none of us has an objectively provable moral system?"
Craig...
"No."
Sigh. Okay. WHO? Who has objectively provable moral system?
Why are they keeping it secret?
That's kindofa big deal. It would be historic in nature, if it's true. By all means, point to those with an objectively provable moral system. And point to their objectively provable system.
Dan
"I'm taking the stance that if morality is subjective and is decided by the consensus of the society, group, clan, family, etc, then it is entirely consistent to believe that different societies, cultures, groups, etc will reach different subjective conclusions about morality."
But not every subjective opinion is created equal. Some may have the reasonable but unprovable position that ALL people enjoy basic human rights. Another group may hold the harmful and irrational subjective opinion that only white men enjoy human rights. Those are not rationally equal opinions.
Do you agree?
"You can disagree with someone's subjective morality, you can't declare that their subjective morality is wrong for them."
Yes, yes we can. I disagree with that subjective opinion you're stating there.
Again, not all subjective opinions are equally valid.
Dan
"...you trying to validate your made up bullshit."
Look, you tend to speak in vague whispers and not answer questions in a way that is clear enough that I understand your positions. Thus, I'm literally not making up anything. I'm asking questions to try to figure out what your position is.
I still don't if you think you have an objectively proven moral system. Some of your answers make it sound like you do, others are more vague.
I don't know if you affirm that all slavery - the owning of a human being - is wrong or not.
I don't know if you're strongly opposed to the sort of patriarchy as promoted by Sauve or not.
And on it goes. I ask to seek understanding.
Dan
"Sigh. Okay. WHO? Who has objectively provable moral system?"
My disagreement with you is simply that. When I disagree with you, that doesn't mean that I am required to automatically defend some contrary proposition that you made up.
"Why are they keeping it secret?"
No idea.
"Do you agree?"
No. Especially as your definition of "equal" seems to be based in your individual, personal, subjective hunches about what you believe to be moral.
"Yes, yes we can. I disagree with that subjective opinion you're stating there."
Obviously you (not we) can say whatever you want. The problem is that you have no grounds to assert that your subjective, individual, personal hunches about morality are objectively better than anyone else's subjective hunches about morality.
"And on it goes. I ask to seek understanding."
Then you're an idiot who chooses to ignore my answers, or to misinterpret them.
I'll repeat this one more time because apparently you weren't quite smart enough to understand it the first few times.
I posted this piece because I thought it was interesting. I don't always agree with things I find interesting, nor do I always agree with everything I post from other people. The fact that I find one snippet of someone's work interesting does not mean that I automatically agree with or support everything the writer has ever said. Hell, I post your words all the time because I find them interesting (if ridiculous) and you don't make these same complaints when I post your words.
I understand that you are, for some reason, desperate to paint me as some evil patriarchal psychopath. Despite my words and my actions, you are monomaniacally obsessed with trying to tar me with the words of someone else. Your strange compulsion to assign people to groups and to label them as something "other" instead of dealing with people as unique individuals, seems strange. But I guess you need groups of "others' to direct your anger, vitriol, at and to feed your notions of superiority or some such nonsense.
I can only feel pity for you and your obsession. Maybe if you'd embrace grace it'd be a good thing.
that doesn't mean that I am required to automatically defend some contrary proposition
I'm merely stating what is observable: At this point in all of human history, no one has provided an objectively provable moral system (OPMS).
IF you think you have one and thus, you know I'm mistaken, then ALL you have to do is provide that system.
I can 100% guarantee you that I'd be more than glad to know that an OPMS exists. That would make things easy.
You keep acting as if you have evidence of this OPMS, without being clear. I'm merely asking you simply and directly...
DO YOU THINK THIS OPMS EXISTS?
IF SO, WHERE?
The existence of this mythical OPMS would be a HUGE advancement in human history. I would argue that it would be THE SINGLE most important bit of news in human history to date (right up there with if you could objectively prove the existence of God, for instance).
It's a big deal precisely because in this world, we do NOT have an OPMS and so we're doing the best we can by using less precise, more subjective moral human reasoning. Which I happen to think is a great start and can get us very far, but it's sure not the same thing as an OPMS. If we had an OPMS, then we could begin to come together around science and provable data, rather than human traditions and religions and subjective opinions. Not everyone would buy into it, of course. Some prefer their traditions over facts, as we see every day. But it would still be a huge humanitarian advancement and many people would rejoice.
DOES IT EXIST, in your opinion? Why be coy?
Look, if you CAN'T objectively prove your moral opinions, I get it... it makes things more difficult (welcome to the rest of humanity!) But be direct and honest enough to just say so clearly.
The closest I think you've ever come to a straight answer is, as I recall, "I don't have anything that would be enough evidence FOR YOU to be convinced..." or, "I couldn't prove it to YOU..." something like that. Which sounds like both, you THINK you have access to this OPMS AND that you admit you can't prove it (which sort of undermines the Objectively Provable part). But you tell me.
I understand that you are, for some reason, desperate to paint me as some evil patriarchal psychopath.
Nope. Never said that. Indeed, what I've DONE is merely ask you a bunch of questions BECAUSE you literally cited a patriarchalist. Look, if I cited a Klan leader (perhaps because I didn't know he was a Klan leader) on some topic and somebody pushed back on it, I could be quite clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT racism or the Klan and because of that, I'd probably remove it. I don't want to do anything to in any way promote the Klan. For me, it's like that with the patriarchalists/oppressors of women.
I have said nothing about you and patriarchy, I do not believe. Asking questions, once again, is not making accusations.
I'll repeat this one more time because apparently you weren't quite smart enough to understand it the first few times.
I posted this piece because I thought it was interesting. I don't always agree with things I find interesting,
Of course. At the same time, if I posted something from a Klansman (who was talking about something adjacent to racism - just as this post, in its male-pride focus is adjacent to patriarchy) and then, someone pointed out, "Hey, did you know that this was a Klansman? and what seems to be racist-adjacent, therefore, probably IS...?" I would take it down in deep embarrassment.
Racism is not "interesting." Sexism and misogyny and patriarchy are not "interesting..."
It would be one thing if the bit you posted was totally unrelated to patriarchy/the domination/oppression of women, but it wasn't. I didn't know this guy from Adam and yet I could see the red flags with his words.
For instance, if you posted some photos of some lovely art that you didn't know were painted by Hitler and you said, "This is interesting..." that's one thing. BUT, if you posted some words by Hitler where he was hinting at the greatness of the Aryan race and you said "THIS is interesting..." that's a different thing.
Do you see the point?
When one says something that is adjacent to/leading into an advocacy of oppression, that's not interesting. That's troubling.
OR, if you had said something like, "This is interesting... but it does worry me a bit about where he draws his lines" that would be different. OR if you had said "This is interesting," but when you found out he was a patriarchalist/oppressor of women and you immediately condemned THAT, that would be different.
But none of that happened.
But I guess you need groups of "others' to direct your anger, vitriol,
I don't need that at all, of course. And yet, if a racist starts posting racist words or a patriarchalist starts posting patriarchal words - and that in the context of a free society where racism or patriarchy are starting to raise their ugly heads more publicly - I will condemn it.
Do you think I shouldn't condemn racism? Slavery? Patriarchy/the oppression of women?
As is my now usual practice, I will keep posting Dan's repetitious comments, because I promised that I would, I keep my promises, and I rarely moderate or delete posts. It's my way of demonstrating how things should be done on a blog (IMO). But I'm done parsing them.
"Do you think I shouldn't condemn racism? Slavery? Patriarchy/the oppression of women?"
I think you should stop pretending you oppose racism when you're so steeped in it, that you should stop citing slavery as if anyone here supports it, that you should stop conflating racism, slavery and the oppression of women with patriarchy as if patriarchy is defined by the oppression of women. Another fraudulent implication by Dan. I condemn your constant lying.
Art,
I think the fact that Dan spends exponentially more time railing about slavery inn the US that ended 150 years ago, while saying virtually nothing about the thousands of years of slavery throughout virtually every culture on earth or about the reality that slavery is a bigger problem now than it was during the 1800's in the US.
Post a Comment