Tag Archives: Marriage

Commentary

Interesting exchange with Modern Christian Spinster

25 Comments

I think everyone’s noticed Modern Christian Spinster’s frequent comments disagreeing with me on many things, especially politics, economics and feminism. I am conservative across the board (social, fiscal and foreign policy). I also believe in chastity and traditional marriage.

In another thread, we were discussing traditional morality (e.g. – chastity, sobriety, individual charity), as compared with the new morality (e.g. – recycling, yoga, vegetarianism, same-sex marriage, socialism). She seemed to be very hesitant about making moral judgments, which I take to be central to Christianity because of the whole concept of sin. Suddenly, I began worry that Modern Christian Spinster was not a Christian at all. So I asked her some questions to get her views.

So I wrote this:

Do you think that people who do not believe in Jesus are resurrected to eternal life?

Do you believe in a place called Hell, which is a place of eternal separation from God where people who do not know God in Christ go on the day of Judgment?

Do you think that a conscious, sincere profession of faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin is a necessary and sufficient condition to be resurrected to eternal life?

And she wrote this in reply:

I believe that life is eternal, the way I believe in mathematics. If you add 2+2 and for you it equals 5 then the principles of mathematics are still in effect, even if you get the wrong answer. So I believe that life is eternal on principle. If you were a miserable SOB in life, dying won’t resolve that for you. You will continue to work out in the afterlife what you didn’t work out on earth. As for people who don’t believe in Jesus, I am constantly surprised by the number of people who DO believe in him. They might be Buddhists, they might be Muslims, but Jesus is actually very well respected among people I talk to, even those of other faiths. So I wouldn’t venture to say whether or not they’re resurrected. I mean, the fact is, after someone is gone, we just don’t know what their journey is. I will say, however, that most people I talk to very much identify with what Jesus stood for, even if they don’t necessarily identify it that way.

I do not believe in a place called hell: I do believe it is a state of consciousness, just as “the kingdom of heaven is within you.” But it’s not a physical place apart from where we already are. I see heaven in places where many other people see purgatory. God to me is everpresent; therefore, I try not to let what my eyes tell me blind me to the fact that he is with me, even in desolate places. I also believe that we cannot ever be separated from God. We may think we are separate, but what we need to handle isn’t real separation but the erroneous belief that we are separate. LIke the story of the Prodigal Son.

I do not share your belief in Christ’s atoning for sin. I don’t see Christ dying for my “sin,” I see his death and resurrection as proof that sin and death can be overcome through complete obedience to God. I’m not sure if that is the same thing as you are saying. But I do not believe man is inherently sinful. However, humanly speaking, there does appear to be a lot of sin in the world. However, it is something not natural to us. Part of the human condition, sure, but I believe that our spiritual identity is our true identity. Not sure if that answers your question. It’s certainly a different point of view.

I thought this was very interesting. She disagrees with me on these three questions. I am not saying this to judge her, she knows where to find me if she wants to talk about it. My advice to her is to take a second look at the Bible and pick a good book on theology, like this one by Wayne Grudem.

Commentary

Ex-member of Parliament calls for shared-parenting legislation in Canada

1 Comment

Good news for men who want to marry in Ontario.

Excerpt:

One man I spoke to, for instance, says his ex-wife falsely accused him of slamming a van door on her leg. And even though that assault charge was later withdrawn by the Crown attorney, the man says the allegations damaged his reputation during proceedings with a family court judge who restricted his access to his kids.

It’s those kinds of situations that the fledgling London Equal Parenting Committee will explore during “an evening of awareness in relation to domestic violence” Thursday at Crouch Library.

The evening’s main speaker is Roger Gallaway, the former Sarnia-Lambton MP who co-chaired a 1998 federal report called For The Sake Of The Children, which examined issues surrounding child custody.

“What I find distressing is the lack of objectivity around this whole subject,” says Gallaway, who represented his riding for the Liberal party from 1993 to 2006. “There has to be some type of balance put into the discussion. And it’s sadly lacking.”

Gallaway regrets that none of the 1998 report’s recommendations — including a call for stricter rules regarding the reporting of abuse — were ever adopted.

“An allegation of violence is a weapon,” he says. “And in Ontario we have a zero-tolerance policy, which generally speaking says that when allegations are made, it’s the male who’s removed (from the residence). And that then casts the die for what will occur in terms of child custody or access.”

Gallaway adds that more and more people are starting to realize that more and more deserving fathers are being shortchanged when it comes to contentious custody battles.

“There’s a growing constituency . . . that sees what’s occurring and knows these men aren’t bad people,” he says. “So the doubt about what is being said about (so-called) violent men is growing.”

What I’ve heard is that Ontario has the most unfair family court system in Canada, so this is welcome news. The more that courts discriminate against men and paint a portrait of men as unreliable and abusive, the less men will marry and stick around to be fathers. Men rise to the occasion in order to gain respect. No man wants to get involved with marriage and parenting when he is not going to be respected and valued by his wife and by society as a whole.

Men’s Rights activist Glenn Sacks comments on the article’s counterpoint against shared-parenting:

As a counterpoint, the article quotes DV advocate Peter Jaffe as saying that false accusations of DV are “rare.”  Actually, in the U.S. studies have shown that as much as 71% of DV restraining orders were either unnecessary or received under false pretenses.  Other studies show that over half involve not even the allegation of physical violence.  In Canada, reports of child maltreatment are deemed to be unsubstantiated or without evidence in 55% of cases according to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect.  So what Jaffe said looks to be far from the truth.

Shared-parenting is one of the measures that Dr. J said would encourage people to get married and stay married, which benefits the children. Biological fathers are not really a threat to children – it’s the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends who pose a threat to children.

Related posts

Podcasts

Oklahoma considers legislation to reduce divorce rate

Leave a comment
She makes marriage sensible
She makes marriage sensible

A podcast with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.

The MP3 file is here.

Topics:

  • do governments have an interest in preserving marriage? Why?
  • when a divorce occurs, what does the government decide for you?
  • why preserving marriage helps to preserve your liberty
  • how every child has an interest in the stability of their parents’ union
  • how every child has a right to care from each biological parent
  • how justice requires us to care about the needs of vulnerable children
  • the government should legislate to protect the rights of children
  • how much does a divorce cost the couple?
  • how much does a divorce cost taxpayers (i.e. – government services)
  • how can government protect marriages
  • is mandatory counseling before a divorce a good idea?
  • is a mandatory waiting period before a divorce a good idea?
  • how can changes to custody rules discourage divorce?
  • is fault-based divorce a good idea?
  • should fault be considered when splitting up property after a divorce?

For such a short podcast, this really rocks. Every sentence is brilliant.

I have tons of ideas of how the government could prevent divorce and encourage marriage. I would cut off all subsidies for failure, and replace them with vouchers for counseling, tax credits for getting married, and tax credits for staying married. I also like covenant marriages. I think I would be way more likely to marry if I could get a covenant marriage. It’s a really fun thing to think about, because you want to preserve liberty while still encouraging people to be careful who they marry and how they related to their children. What’s your idea to preserve marriage?