Podcasts

Are two mommies as good for a child as a biological mother and father?

4 Comments
Cloning her would solve the marriage problem
She protects men and children

Another podcast featuring Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. This one is a must-hear for men, especially men who feel threatened, unappreciated and fearful about the way that their importance is minimized by the culture.

The MP3 file is here. (11 minutes)

Topics:

  • A new study claims that two women are better for a child than a opposite-sex parents
  • The author of the study thinks that mothers and fathers are interchangeable
  • She doesn’t think that a biological mom and dad are better for children
  • The headlines claimed that two moms are better
  • The research seems to argue that heterosexual fathers are worse for children than mothers
  • The study claims that children benefit when there are no heterosexual men in the home
  • The study claims that gay men are better parents than heterosexual men
  • The study argues that gender roles are a bad thing
  • The goal of these scholars is to abolish distinctions and roles based on sex
  • Th study implies that heterosexual men can be marginalized and excluded from the family
  • This is made worse when courts are able to declare who is a parent and who isn’t

A caller to the show talks about how damaging fatherlessness is for male and female children, too. She refers to what we can see today in the inner city where fathers in the home have been replaced by checks from the government. Dr. Morse mentions that this is also occurring across all races among the lower income classes in the UK. She is concerned about the damage that can result if men lose their traditional role in society, and in the family.

Dr. Morse also wrote an article with more details here (this is mentioned in the podcast).

Excerpt:

Instead allow me a few quotes, from “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” to illustrate my point that fatherhood itself is at stake in the same sex parenting debate.

[…]“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”

See what I mean? Men and women are identical, except women are better.

“Gender nonconformity” used to be considered a negative trait, something, which if found, provided an argument against same sex parenting. But listen to Stacey and Biblarz turn “gender flexibility” into a positive trait.

“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”

“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”

[…]The bottom line is not really that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but that masculinity is a bad thing.

Can you imagine if the left gained power and this “research” became the basis for laws? What if these views were pushed on impressionable children in the public schools? What if people who believed things like this were nominated to high positions (let’s call them czars, say)?

Related posts

News

University of Calgary students face expulsion for pro-life display

1 Comment

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Eight pro-life students at the University of Calgary (UofC), faced with possible expulsion for their activism, gathered this morning to deliver a simple message to their university: “Do unto us whatever you desire, punish us however you wish; but our convictions shall not change, and we shall not alter our actions based on intimidation.”

These words were read by Cameron Wilson, vice president of UofC’s Campus Pro-Life (CPL), at a press conference this morning in front of the school library.  Wilson is one of eight CPL members who were notified late last week that they have been charged with non-academic misconduct over their presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on April 8-9.

The group has put up the GAP display, which compares abortion to past historical atrocities through the use of graphic images, on the University of Calgary grounds without incident eight times since 2006.

In 2009, the university charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the crown prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November 2009. The university has threatened participating students with non-academic misconduct charges on the occasion of each display, but this is the first time they are following through with their threat.

[…]“If [UofC] were a private institution then they would have the right to censor whatever viewpoints they want,” explained John Carpay, a lawyer with the pro-free speech Canadian Constitution Foundation, who has represented the students since the fall of 2008.  “But they get the majority of their funding from Alberta taxpayers, and so they don’t have a right to discriminate based on viewpoint.”

[…]Each student is required to appear at a hearing before UofC’s Vice-Provost in the next few weeks, to which they have been told they are not permitted to bring legal counsel.  There the students could face penalties including probation or even expulsion.  Once a decision is rendered, there are two levels of appeal within the university and then, if necessary, the case would go to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

Unbelievable. In the most conservative city in Canada. Pro-life taxpayers in Alberta are paying an academic institution that censors and persecutes pro-lifers. Imagine. Parents subsidizing the persecution of their own children – subsidizing the violation of the human rights of their own children.

Related posts

Commentary

MUST-READ: William Lane Craig discusses Calvinism and the problem of evil

36 Comments

This is an answer to a question of the week from his Reasonable Faith web site.

Here’s the question:

Dr. Craig,

I am troubled at the mass amount of Calvinists I see who are incredibly intelligent and trustworthy christian leaders. What I mean is that, So many seem to be capable of great analysis (far beyond myself), but seem to stick their head in the sand when it comes to the problem of evil. If they don’t, then they tend to make God a self-contradicting being. Why do you think this is so?

I’m also personally troubled at how few leaders I see subscribing to Molinism. It seems to me that it answers the most questions and creates the least problems. I understand it can be complex, but I wouldn’t think we would just rest with the problem of evil not being satisfied. I don’t base what I believe on the beliefs of others, but we can’t ignore the influence others have in our lives, or the desire to have a home with others when it comes to these thoughts.

Anyway, I would enjoy your thoughts… as I always do.

Thanks,

Gordon

And here’s the first part of the answer:

I think you’re right, Gordon, that a great many intelligent and godly Christian leaders are Reformed, or followers of John Calvin, in their theology. I’m currently participating in a four-views book on divine providence along with a pair of Reformed theologians. It is evident from their contributions that, despite the intellectual puzzles raised by the Reformed view, they both embrace it because they are convinced that it most faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture on the subject, Scripture being the only authoritative rule of faith.

Actually, I have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Now this is precisely what the Molinist believes! The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin. It is a tragedy that in rejecting middle knowledge Reformed divines have cut themselves off from the most perspicuous explanation of the coherence of this wonderful confession.

By rejecting a doctrine of divine providence based on God’s middle knowledge, Reformed theologians are simply self-confessedly left with a mystery. The great 17th century Reformed theologian Francis Turretin held that a careful analysis of Scripture leads to two indubitable conclusions, both of which must be held in tension without compromising either one:

that God on the one hand by his providence not only decreed, but most certainly secures, the event of all things, whether free or contingent; on the other hand, however, man is always free in acting and many effects are contingent. Although I cannot understand how these can be mutually connected together, yet (on account of ignorance of the mode) the thing itself is (which is certain from another source, i.e., from the Word) not either to be called in question or wholly denied (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1: 512).

Here Turretin affirms without compromise both the sovereignty of God and human freedom and contingency; he just doesn’t know how to put them together. Molinism offers a solution. By rejecting that solution, the Reformed theologian is left with a mystery.

Craig levels 5 challenges against Calvinism:

  • Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture.
  • Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed.
  • Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility.
  • Universal, divine, determinism nullifies human agency.
  • Universal, divine determinism makes reality into a farce.

Read the rest here. It’s worth it. (Registration is not required, as far as I can tell)

All of my readers should try to make themselves familiar with Molinism (i.e. – middle knowledge). I have friends who are Calvinists and I think it helps to be able to explain to non-Christians how God can be sovereign over all of the universe from the beginning of time, and yet man can still be responsible for freely choosing to rebel against God.

I think every Christian feels that God was tugging them toward him to some degree or other, and that they had no free choice to resist him. And on Molinism, there was no other way it could be. God chose a universe in which he knew that you would freely respond to his drawing you toward him. He was not surprised – he knew. There was no rolling of the dice – he chose to save you before the universe was created. But not in violation of your free will to respond to his salvific initiative. He chose you, and he gave you what you needed to respond to his drawing you to him.

Seriously folks – the middle knowledge view solves the problem of divine sovereignty and human freedom a lot better than Calvinism does. You can keep your Calvinism if you like it, but it sure helps to know the Molinist view if you are talking to atheists who want an answer. Just phrase it as a possible answer to the problem, if you don’t believe it. At least survey the possible views for non-Christians so they see it as a possibility.

Related posts

Response from a Calvinist