´óÏó´«Ã½

Is there seriously ANY debate about these comments from Pastor Driscoll? I notice the only people defending these statements as NON-patriarchal are men. I'm a woman, though that won't impress the defenders of Driscoll's out-moded sexism, but I am (as Driscoll puts it) prepared to "take one for the team" here: his comments are demeaning to women, and the CERTAINLY imply that a woman's loss of attractiveness is a factor in explaining her husband's openness to sexual temptation elsewhere. Will is right that Driscoll's comments in context (a response to the Haggard businesss) do add up to finger-pointing, and the people being pointed at are women. Shame on him and shame on those men who can't recognise sexism when it's staring them in the eye. But what do I know, I'm only a woman.

Mary J- Stop being a martyr. It is, frankly, more sexist to claim, as you have by implication, that your opinion on this is more valid because your a woman. I'll repeat what I said in Will's previous post on this: there's nothing self-evidently patriarchal in what Driscoll said, and anyone who claims that there is has already read into the comments what patently isn't there.

I'll be more specific. To claim that Driscoll's comment was patriarchal, one must prove that Driscoll applies the logic to women only. It's therefore an argument from silence: Driscoll didn't say whether or not he believes that a husband must ALSO make an effort to be sexually attractive to his wife, so it clearly, unequivocally was NOT a patriarchal comment. If in fact, as I suspect, his view is more accurately represented by saying that both men and women are equally responsible for making an effort to be sexually available to each other, I really don't know what your problem is, Mary J. That is unless you feel that a woman should not be responsible for anything in a relationship -- perhaps she has gained immunity from such responsibility because for centuries she was treated in an inexcusable way -- in which case you are more sexist than the guy you accuse.

By the way, please do not draw any conclusions about me or what I say based on the fact that PB agrees with me on this; believe me, it's extremely uncomfortable for me too.

PS- I asked my wife her opinion on what Driscoll said and read her his comments verbatim. She thinks that perhaps contemporary feminism has gone so far off the deep end that the commonsense basics of what makes marriage work have been swept away in a sea of politically correct hokum.

:-)

John, I just disagree with you. If you take patriarchy as being a system where women are subordinate to men, I think some of his language does suggest that. Husbands take 'liberties' with their wives, men are 'trapped into' fidelity [which must imply it's not a man's natural state to be faithful, musn't it?] and wives ought to be 'sexually available' to their husbands.
I do agree it's a very small sample of his writing, and may not represent the entirety of his views.

To play Devil's Advocate, why would it be bad for a pastor to believe in a patriarchy? In my bible study group, which is for women, a number, perhaps a majority, would regard Christianity as a patriarchal religion. They would argue that the Bible tells us that our husbands are the heads of our household, and it's our duty to be subordinate to them.

Yes guys it was me that criticsed William's headline and in my view he has still failed to acknowledge the point.

He is creating sensational headlines that bear no direct relation to the story in order to hype debate.

William was the only person who actually said;- "Dont blame Ted: it was his wife's fault."

Driscoll never said this or even implied it. He is not even declaring whether he belives the Haggard story.

And I notice William has avoided my question about how he would feel sexually if his spouse let themelves go physically. Well William??? Just sitting back and smiling at the number of hits??? ;-)

For the record, it appears that Driscoll's comments do appear exclusively male. Big deal. A more practical response from women would be to say the same things applies to men. They do. As I pointed out previously, the Apostle Paul makes basically the same point for BOTH sexes.

Feminists, what response from you would actually encourage better relations with men? Does this matter to you? Are any of you married to one?

PB

William

What exactly do you mean by patriarchal and sexist?

Sounds impressive but was there ever in history a healthy society that worked in the way you would like and if not why should we buy what you are selling?

Exactly what sort of a society have you in mind when you envisage these terms?

I have no problem with equality but more of what is going on today seems in practise about feminist domination and subjugation of men.

I believe Germaine Greer said that a society run by women would not be worth living in.

I just repeatedly get this impression flashing up that all these liberal dreamers have an untested dream that we are all unwilling guinea pigs in.

What precedents are there for such a society? was it happy and healthy? how long did it last? was it a society that was on the verge of collapse perhaps?

It just seems to be that the culture war you speak of is really a concerted effort to eradicate judeo-christian (dare I say abrahamic) values altogether.

Over to you William, I'm ready to learn something here.

PB

I don't know about anyone else, but I've already heard enough from PB on this.

The bible has been used for too long to treat women despicably, and the implication of PB's remarks is that, as with his remarks on homosexuality, he reads the bible literally and applicable today where it speaks about the role of women, which regards women as subordinate to men. Unfortunately, Jen Erik- I'm familiar with the viewpoints you encounter in your bible study. They're extremely commonplace in evangelicalism, and PB appears to agree.

But you admit my point by saying that Driscoll's comments "suggest" patriarchalism. It is reading into Discroll's comments what just isn't there, and it doesn't deal with any of my above reasoning about what he said.

Allow me to posit a little theory I have. Could it be that, post-feminism, we're still so sensitive about the role of women in society and marriages that we can sometimes be guilty of seeing patriarchal comments where they're not there?

For what it's worth, I think the Drsicoll stuff is based on a patriarchal take on gender roles. There's no discussion of men "letting themselves go", just the suggestion that pastors' wives are partly responsible for adding temptation to their husband's lot in life. John W has tried hard to defend the comments, but even his more recent comments show that he is not at one with Driscoll on a lot of this.

And with those comments John Wright, I think I will ask for an opinion poll on whether your blog should be no longer known as libertarian reason but henceforth "fascist reason".

So much for free speech!
I know I am a hypocrite sometimes John, welcome to the club.
;-)

...and now more thoughfully..

Yes John,

Once again when the questions get too big for you, instead of coming clean and saying, gee I dont know the answer to that, you revert to type and bog down into insults. You are letting yourself down enourmously, I used to have quite a bit of respect for you.

You display a serious prejudice against the bible, you have prejudged it without understanding it, ergo you are prejudiced.

Paul commanded women to submit themselves to their husbands, yes, but that is where you stopped reading, to your shame. In the next line he commanded husbands to love their wives and lay down their lives for them even as Christ did for the church.

What women is going to criticise a husband living up to that?

What libertarian is going to object to two consenting adults living up to that?

And for the record, I will stick my neck out and say that Judeo-Christian societies with related gender roles have been the most humane and desireable societies to live in throughout history - by anyone's standards. That is not to claim they were perfect, just the best of a bad lot.

To paraphrase/mangle Churchill, his Britain was the worst possible type of society to live in - except for all the rest. Voluntary immigration patterns into the UK support this.

Keep your insults John, go and read a book and come back with an intellectual response, please.

PB

PB- I will not descend into a slinging match with you. Suffice to say, (a) I didn't insult you, merely said I had heard enough, (b) I have never tried to deny you freedom of speech, either on my blog or anywhere else and would not be capable of doing so in any case as your frequent multiple-postings clearly illustrate, (c) You are in no position to claim that I'm prejudiced against the bible, if anything I'm opposed simply to your interpretation of it, and (d) I hold nothing against you PB and believe you're taking this way too personally. I'm sure you're a very nice guy.

:-)

I note again, Driscoll said:

"A wife who lets herself go.... is not responsible for her husband's sin..."

I guess that wouldnt just have had the same ring in a headline, William, would it?

I cant help but feel that you have little understanding of this because you are not married???

Can I stick my neck out here, is there anyone out there who is blowing steam out their ears at Driscoll's comments/gender roles who is in a happy marriage?

A stab in the dark says if you totally disagree with him you are not able to hold down a happy marriage! prove me wrong here guys.

I note John Wright appears to be in a happy marriage and he can see the truth in what Driscoll is saying. I would put myself in the same category.

PB

Note, I think Driscoll's comments are fair, but only when applied to both women and men in a marriage, as per the Apostle Paul.

So after all that John,

Have you a sensible answer to my post 5?

has there ever been a libertarian society that you could recommend to us all?

PB

PB- No, it's all blind faith and wild speculation.

Yours,
JW

So....there you have it guys, this libertarian dream of a society where everyone does what is right in their own eyes (anarchy?) is really just blind faith and wild speculation. That's a lot of faith from an atheist, John, certainly more than I have.

Since I last wrote on this site I concluded pretty much the same thing.

I dont think this is a question to be asked as much as a truth to be asserted;-

"The type of society that Mr Crawley dreams of has never actually existed and cannot exist or function. The Judeo-Christian model he tears down is the divine model, I suppose you could say that challenging it is a form of blasphemy".

I say William is selling us a product that has not precedent, that we are unwitting guinea pigs if we buy it and that it is heading for disaster. It has never worked anywhere in history.

I also believe that anyone who does not accept the basic judeo christian marriage gender roles cannot have a happy marriage. If any of you out there are in a happy marriage and disagree, it would be very interesting to hear from you.

PB

PB- You make me smile. :-) Where did I say I was an atheist?

I am in an extremely happy marriage and I certainly don't subscribe to your bibliteral theory of gender roles. We regard each other as absolute equals, for a start. My wife is not obliged to submit to me in any way whatsoever and I'd be ashamed to try to claim that kind of authority over her simply because she was born with different organs. In my opinion, PB, promising to love her and look after her in return for her autonomy is a horrible trade-off that is entirely unnecessary and based on bogus theology.

Let me tell you about my wife. She demands to be treated equally, but eschews being treated specially. She wants to be regarded as being as capable as a man, but doesn't need to be regarded as being as capable in the same areas. She wants to be thought of as possessing the capacity to reason, but doesn't think that her physical attractiveness needs to suffer because of it. She believes that men and women are equal, but believes that they're very different. She's tolerant of virtually every peaceful lifestyle choice that anyone else chooses to make, but is entirely confident in her own.

Tell me PB; what problems do you believe would arise from a society in which all women lived by such values?

I've rather given up trying to follow these various threads of discussion on patriarchy. PB, for some reason, is obsessed with attacking William rather than debating the point. I can't actually understand why pb thinks Williams is undermining Judeo-Christian values, but if that's his interpretation of Will's (quite reasonable) comments about sexism in this post, that's his business. I simply ask people to focus on the question. John is at least doing that (and he and I clearly differ on this, but I appreciate his effot to construct "arguments").

John

Your description of your marriage and your views on gender roles are 99per cent the same as mine, and I dare say 99 per cent biblical.

I'm glad you are enjoying a happy marriage.

PB

Mary J

With respect, William has asked for a discussion and we have been engaged in a two-way conversation.

I have already stated several times, which you cannot have missed, that I do consider Driscoll's comments somewhat one-sided, in as much as they also apply to men taking care of themselves for their wives. This is biblical.

I am making the point that just about all William's posts seem to originate from a neo-pagan worldview, where everyone chooses their own god, their own rules and their own lifestyle. This includes make-em-up as you go along gender roles.

The Judeo-Christian worldview has one God, with one set of standards and gender roles for all. But do NOT make the mistake of assuming that the worst excesses of what has been done of the name of Jehovah in relation to gender roles has his endorsement or biblical authority. I would say much feminist critism has validity, but only up to a biblical point.

I notice a VERY common tactic from liberals visiting William's site is to pretend such views are exceptionally low-brow or to pour arrogant contempt on anyone making them, Mary.

To me this suggests you are threatened by such views and cannot engage with them logically.

William has no problem engaging with a wideranging discussion, as you will not the quote we are supposed to be discussing in this thread is about tabloid journalism. That was my quote.

Again Mary, dont shoot the messanger, and I throw down the gauntlet to you again;- which society has ever existed which showed that your preferred values will support a health and functioning society.

A fair question;- will you face it or duck it?

If you have something worthwhile to contribute other than scornful abuse, I for one would be very interested to hear it. Abuse is such a waste of your time and energy and mine.

PB

PS John, I notice your own evangelical backround has doubtless instilled some pretty biblical values into your view of marriage.

PS Mary J

Not sure if this made it into the last post, but are you in a happy marriage, which would allow you more than a theoretical knowledge of the gender roles we are discussing?

PB

John

In practise the point we appear to differ on is man being head of the household.

To me this does not mean him throwing his weight around or winning arguments by saying "I am the head of the household" and banging the table.

In our house, the wife and husband discuss all decisions as equals, the pros and cons, and logic prevails at all times, regardless of who it comes from.

The head of the household bit comes in when there is no clear way forward, the male makes the final decision.

In our house, the man is the undisputed head of the household and he can say so freely because he has asked for, and been given, his wife's permission to do so :-D

(Humour goes a long way in a marrige, I have found...)
PB

What's all this talk of paganism about? I believe that sexuality is most a feature of someone's physical and psychological make-up. I'm straight, and that's just the way I came into the world. Some people come into the world gay. Some people have a make-up that allows them to be sexually attracted to both genders. Other people have more movement in their sexuality, more fluidity you could say. Sexuality is like that. SOme people choose to experiment, that's true. Most people don't choose to experiment. I know some gay people who have chosen to experiment with heterosexuality. I can understand why they would given the pressure they face being gay.

How does any of that add up to paganism? I think pb's comments here are beyond bizarre. It's not helpful to go around labelling people pagans just because you don't like their thinking. Would it be possible for pb to stop throwing muck at people on this blog? We might take your views more serious pb if you would focus on the issues.

You list some gay people who think homosexuality is chosen. Big deal. Gay people are not experts on psychosexual biology! Just as not all christians are experts on church history. Many gay people disagree on these issues too ... fair enough. But Peter Tatchell doesnt speak for every gay person, or even for the majority of gay people.

Can we return to the real issues here?

1. Shouldn't homophobic ideas dominating church culture be held responsible for part of Ted H's problems?

2. Driscoll's comments reflect badly on him. In the context of a response to the haggard incident, his comments are appallingly out-moded, patriarchal and sexist. Sorry - I am married, and I've asked my wife and she agrees. Not that it matters if I am married or not! That's another silly argument coming from pb on this. I don't need to be black to recognise racism. I don't need to be married to recognise sexism. Astonishing.

3. Sexuality - is it fixed or variable across time. My answer: it's fixed in most people and variable for others. Can't we grow up and get our minds round that idea? Then we can stop attacking people who find themselves in either category?

4. Choice. Even if pb is right and EVERY gay person chooses to be gay - who cares? If someone chooses to have a relationship with someone of the same gender, I couldn't care less as long as it's consentual.

5. Age of consent - pb mentions the Republican congressman Mark Foley who resigned last month after it was revealed that he'd sent sexually provocative text messages to young assistants. These assistants were over 16 years old. They consented to the exchanges. They sent back equally provocative messages. The age of consent in Washington DC is 16. This guy's career is over. He actied improperly - just as Clinton acted improperly - but he did not break the law. Check out this story online and you will find that a democrat congressman has admitted to an affair with a 16 year old assistant in congress and he wasn't required to resign. It was consentual and no law was broken. My sister was married at 16, with our parents' consent. Pb, calm down!

Ken- You're just the latest commentor to say that you think Driscoll's comments are patriarchal and sexist, yet you're just the latest commentor that hasn't explained how his comments are self-evidently partiarchal and sexist! As far as I can see, you're not taking that view from Driscoll's actual words, but from the stigma you attach to someone saying what he said.

John ... why are you defending this man Driscoll? He was writing a response to the Haggard scandal. While writing on this subject, he goes off on one with these commends about how pastors' wives sometimes let themslves go. If that isn't patriarchal, it's just downright idiotic.

If he had written in some other context that husbands and wives shouldn't take each other for granted and that they should BOTH be careful not to let themselves go in terms of their physical appearance, there would be no debate. He doesn't write that, though. Instead, the the context (and the context is important) of a response to the Haggard scandal, he singles out pastors' wives for a braindead comment about how they need to be careful not to add to their husband's problems by not keeping up their appearance. This comment is from the dark ages, when men ran marriages and their wives' role was to look good for their men. Please!

And while we're on this, I've visited the Driscoll website ... and he could lose a few pounds.

Helen- I enjoyed your final sentence...! :-)

I'm defending Driscoll because I think he's being misrepresented, that's all. He made a politically incorrect observation about the nuances of relationships where its only downfall was that it was politically incorrect. To be honest I'm surprised that board liberals are the ones being so hard on Driscoll here; to deny that factors such as the ones he describes can be present in marital difficulty is a fairly a-liberal thing. I can only guess that he is being crucified because he claimed that a woman's physical appearance is a factor in anything. It could explain a few things about the physical appearance of many feminists, actually....

From Driscoll's blog: "While each individual is responsible for their own sin, in marriage we should love God and our spouse enough to tend to ourselves and them sufficiently to work for satisfying intimacy and oneness. This, of course, applies to both husbands and wives."

His use of the qualifier "of course" (meaning "as a matter of course") would tend to indicate that Driscoll assumed it would taken as read that his comments applied equally to men and women and therefore were not patriarchal.

John

I have to apologise because although I read Driscoll's blog I missed the quote you give in post 25. I think you are totally right here.

I thought Driscoll was being unbalanced but this quote above is perfectly balanced and biblical.

William's misleading headline "Dont blame pastor ted; it was his wife's fault" is largely to blame.

It was not fair comment because it was not presented as opinion, but as fact.

PB

Hi Ken

Thanks for your intelligent contribution.

I welcome the fact you recognise that the fixed/flexible debate about sexuality is not as black and white as some would say.

Please note William himself in a recent blog entry said he believed it was fixed. But he noted that this view was only held by a minority of scientists.

ie, most scientists do not believe sexuality is fixed before birth. This puts your personal opinions on the matter into their proper context.

Peter Tatchell does not need to be a scientist to notice his ex-partner went straight and that many other gays do so.

I am not saying that anyone is a card carrying pagan, simply that a neo-pagan worldview is replacing the previous judeo christian worldview.

Paganism holds everyone can have their own god, lifestyle and rules to live by. It holds that the divine is part of both nature and man and therefore nature and man should be can be treated as sacred (ie 'worshipped') This also justifies any sexual desire being labelled as divinely sanctioned. Sexual taboos are out, and violence and hedonism are glorified. This is increasingly obvious in Western culture, as people willfully reject biblical values. Paganism is historically man's default position when Jehovah is rejected.

So this is not about attacking individuals but an observation about the zeitgeist.

Ken are you really saying that taking care with your respective physical appearances and willingness to meet or refuse sexual needs of each other are totally irrelvent to keeping your marriage together? Seriously?

On your point 4, you ask who cares if sexuality is fixed or not? This is the voice of the neo-pagan zeitgeist speaking;- the judeo-christian worldview says it does matter but the neo-pagan view says it doesn't. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Lastly ref age of consent, what do you believe the age of consent should be for straights and gays? Should this be flexible to allow it to be lowered further in future should public opinion require?

Remember, pure neo-pagan values mean that eventually anything goes;- no sexual restraints on sex, regardless of age, species, gender or number of partners.

Good to talk with you, Ken.

PB

pb. On this fixed thing. You've bee in your bonnet, mate. You say Will argues for a fixed view of sexuality, so I went looking, and this is what he says:

"A growing body of psychobiological scholarship is challenging the idea that homosexuality is merely behavioural choice, and many other commentators -- some for theological reasons -- would argue that a gay person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of his or her identity, to be respected and protected. These competing perpsectives carry us into one of America's most entrenched culture wars, and the Ted Haggard affair is an eve of election battle in that war." (See Ted Haggard: Im a liar and a deceiver)

I agree entirely with that. That view is entirely consistent with the view you applaud me for holding (namely that there's fluidity in sexuality - read my last comment for for on that).

Now stop calling people pagan because they disagree with you. It's possible that someone could make a religious argument in defence of gay marriage. You don't need to abandone all notions of traditonal morality in order to be gay or defend gay rights! There are leading christian supporters of gay rights who have not become pagans (though you will say they are pagans, but that's just begging the question).

Just to clarify Ken

I understand your bemusment about what this has got to do with paganism, but remember that this style of Babylonian pagan anarchy I am talking about was again adopted by the Greek and Roman empires, all the same gods were worshipped under different names, and the libertine zeitgeist was increasingly evident as each empire crumbled.

PB

Ken

I am not criticising you personally and would welcome us being able to cooly discuss the ideas in that context.

You are willfully portraying me as labelling individuals as pagan when I have repeatedly said I am not doing this. Check out post 27 again please.

Society in general is reverting to neo-paganism, I am not criticisng you or anyone else as an individual.

You say "Some people come into the world gay".

William is promoting research that suggest people are biologically programmed to be gay and have no control over this.

But the Apostle Paul commends some Christians for leaving homosexuality in the New Testament and condemns others for entering it, in Romans. The bible does not allow for a fixed homosexuality.

I dont meant that to be an attack, they are just statements of fact.

I would be interested to see you respond to my questions on marriage conduct and age of consent as you did address me on them.

sincerely
PB

....sorry Ken...another point

You say it is possible not to abandon "all traditional notions of morality" to be gay or defend gay rights.

But may I suggest there is really no such thing as a traditional notion of morality.

Western culture is really founded on judeo-Christian values, eg the British legal system is founded on magna carta, which is based on the bible/10 commandments.

And the US system the same.

Our expressions, holidays, legal rights, assumptions and worldview are at root judeo-christian, even if it has been corrupted and if you have never been to a church.

I know this sounds stark, but I suggest the notion of morality you talk about is the vestiges of judeo-christian values. Liberal thought is even now continually trying to undermine this eg gay rights, euthanasia, abortion, etc etc etc

Right now, culturally we are in a half way house between the two, but in reality it is only a two destination railway track and the train can never stop. It is always moving in either one direction or the other.

If you disagree, can you actually tell me what absolute source or authority you would use apart from the bible to determine values?

Man centred values resulted in the worst holocausts of history in China, Germany, France and Russia.

Without the bible I argue the default destination is ultimately neo-paganism, regardless of how long it takes to get there.

I feel the point you are most missing is the historical context, I am not suggesting most of the west are card carrying pagans, but that they are slowly but surely succumbing to the common values of ancient paganism without realising it.

The bible closes with an all out war between the mystery religion of Babylon and Jehovah, remember.

PB

pb, i'm just trying to get you to accept that Will's comment, which I quoted, is accurate. He's simply saying that research exists and some people are persuaded by it. His comment doesn't assess or approve the research, he just introduces this information in our discussion.

As for your comments about "man-centred" idiologies ... who would stoop to defend Stalin or Hitler? But who could defend the crimes committed in the name of religion either. There's no point adding up all the deaths in the name of atheism and comparing them with the list of those killed in the name of religion. That makes no sense. Religion shouldn't be killing anybody.

And this climate change thing - thats very man-centred of YOU. We should be concerned about the creation/environment (whichever you prefer) for its own sake, even if our economies have to change.

Pb, I don't know you, but I'm getting a certain picture here:

1. You deny the reality of the cimate change crisis.

2. You can't recognise patriarchy or sexism when it's as clear as day.

3. You oppose civil liberties for gay people (e.g., legal marriage)

4. You want to put the 10 commandments into our legal system.

5. And everyone who disagrees with your morality is a pagan, or, if they are intelligent, a neo-pagan.

Come clean pb. PB stands for PRESIDENT BUSH. Am I right? Come on Mr President, the game's up. You've been exposed. You've been bunking off security briefings again and causing chaos on ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs. (cue music: Hail to the Thief)

on no, I'm rumbled!

Rummy! Rummy where are you! Oh. He's gone!

You did make me smile Ken - PB

Ken

okay, I give it to you the bush joke was good, though please note I would actually have Blair and Bush in court for Iraq. It is a disgrace they are effectively unaccountable for it.

If this was a one-off point Will was making about this research I would accept your point. But taken in the context of all he has written and said on the subject a clear picture of him begins to emerge too.

He always promotes viewpoints of the gay lobby and undermines those of the biblical lobby. Not at all impartial.

You will have read that I already said feminism has addressed some valid points in western culture. ergo I recognise sexism exists. But like John Wright, I recognise men and women are inherently different, though equal.

Now, if you are man enough you have some overdue assignments Ken;-

1) What is your lowest age of consentyou would give for gay and straight sex and what should the lowest rate that should ever be set in future? how would you decide?

2) Are you really telling me that your marriage would be impervious to either of you lettings youself go and denying each other sexually?

3) You know very well that I did not deny climate change is happening, climate change has obviously been happening since we went in and out of several ice ages. But I am challenging you to show some evidence or facts that show you have not just swallowed green dogma whole without critiquing these glaring inconsistencies in its doctrines. How do we know these are not natural cycles?

Come on Ken, I see it time and again on this website, people heap personal scorn and abuse on me for asking fair questions and then disappear. when I challenge them to stand up their assertions that is the last we hear of them.

Case in point, Mary J, posts 16 & 18.

I sincerely hope you arent going to join this list too Ken,

come on dont let me down now...

PB

PS Ken I am not sure if you are misunderstanding me accidentally or deliberately,

I am not suggesting a theory that we should put the ten commandements into our legal system.

I am telling you as a statement of fact that our legal systems have degenerated from the ten commandements.

There are no real grounds to dispute this.

Quite a difference.

PB

ref creation Ken,

Biblically Adam (ie man) was made steward of the garden of eden and obviously has a responsibility to take care of it.

I hate to see willful destruction of the environment, which is a reflection of the glory of the God who made it. Litter, dumping, destruction of wilderness, pumping chemcials into rivers, factories carelessly pumping out reckless fumes, it is all sin.

But Christians are also stewards of their resources that must give account for how they are spent. If we uncritically swallow faulty science that says man is the real cause of climate change that too could be sin. Because all those billions could have been spent relieving famine and poverty for people.

Remember Christ said the bible summed up was to love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself. So God's highest priorities are people, not the environment.

That is not to say Christians should not care about the environment, just that it is a lower priority than people.
For example Christ spent his life calling people to join his kingdom for eternal security but never once mentioned the environment. In fact he warned of the birth pangs of a new heaven and earth, the whole bible speaking of natural catastophies which have their root in man's original sin. Note, pagan view does not accept original sin.

And we also can't forget that Peter warned the earth would be burnt up one day and a new one created.

So there you have it, biblically, actual desctruction of the environemnt is a sin which Christians should oppose.

But God's plans for people, their physical and spiritual welfare is without question a much higher priority both in secualar and spiritual terms. Even some scientists who believe climate change is man-made question the economies of trying to stop it in relation to real, current human suffering.

Lastly, it would also be a serious sin of negligence to pour billions into useless climate change measures which could not stop a problem wrongly diagnosed.

I come back to my point, show me convincing evidence that climate change is man-made and I will be convinced.

You could argue another way, show me convincing evidence that natural climate change has stopped since the ice ages and I would also be convinced.

I understand neither of these points are addressed in the mainstream climate change models currently guiding public opinion.

Now Ken please try to understand, rather than as you seem prone to, to misunderstand, what I have written.

If climate change is proven to be man-made then we should address it, without question.

PB

Ken

You think it is just US neocons who question whether man is causing climate change?

´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4 did an investigation into this called "Overselling climate change".

see;-

PB
PB

PB- What age are you?

PB ... to answer your questions:

(1) My prefered age of consent? 16. That's the GB age and it's the average across europe too. Its the age of consent in washington dc too. I'm happy with that age. I'd also make that the age for voting (they should be the same i think) and for other rights and responsibilities in adulthood (as we already recognise in, say, education, where a 16yo cannot be required to continue in school). What's your suggestion? Let me guess ... 36.

(2) Letting yourself go in marriage. I think my wife and are take care of ourselves. If my wife puts on weight when she has a baby and can't lose the weight, Im not leaving her! She dresses great and I try to look tidy too. You're still missing the point about Driscoll's comments in the haggard context - he wasn't addressing both partners, he was talking to about pastors' wives. Why can't you get that point? No one denies that married couples should make an effort for each other, but Driscoll's comments in tone and context aren't saying that ... he's sexist.

(3) Climate change? I won't be able to persaude you, pb. All i suggest is that you consult the Royal Society ... the UK's most important scientific body ... who have assessed the available evidence and called this a crisis. They're not some green lobby group. Time to wake up ... god's creation needs protected. Don't bury your head in the sand. You sound like one of those pseudo science types who say AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus.

Ken

I'm glad you are still talking. I'd just like to add a rider that I don't consider any of my personal opinions watertight, but certainly regard the bible as infallible.

1) I agree with you that sexual consent should be the same as voting age. I think it would be good to have voting, alchohol purchase, marriage, sexual consent ages tied as the entry to adulthood. I would put it between 18 and 21. Eighteen-year-olds a generation ago used to be very responsible but now we talk of tweenagers. I think it may be helpful to show legal discretion to underage teenage sex if there is less than a three year age difference, but I still think it should be restigmatised for the physical and mental health of all concerned. ie abortion and single parenthood. I fear the current age of 16 will lower in time, in practise it already has.

2)Ken you and I, JW and Driscol seem to agree very much that partners need to take care of their appearances for the sake of their marriages. I show I got your point in posts 4, 11 and 18. Did you miss JW's post 25?

3)You appear to be projecting a range of your stereotypes onto me unjustifiably.
How "far out" can I be if I sympathise with a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 4 documentary? You have totally buried your head in the sand about the reality of natural cycles in climate change. You are missing my point entirely; I am not disagreeing with you that it is a crisis, I am questioning your blind faith in a suspect diagnosis of the cause.
Can you acknowlegde there are natural cycles to account for?

JW - my mommy told me not to give out personal info to strange men on the internet ;-)

PB