Well, this is taken from a post by Dalrock which links to another post by a devout man that lists 10 types of women that a man should not marry. There are over six hundred comments so far, and the tweetage rage from the Christian feminists slash SJW is… frenzied. Shark jumping frenzied.
For younger men, I would agree with the bulk of the list. A young man of God needs to find a wife who is a Christian, not career minded, not child hating, not a feminist, not divorced or a baby momma, a virgin, and with a fervent devotional life and (missed by the author) head over heels in love with him.
I have some issues for those of us who have been through the mill and are now divorced, for various reasons, given the antichristian family courts we have in most countries. I’m reformed, and the party who has been left by an unbeliever for licit reasons (adultery and abandonment) can remarry, for the other party is as dead for them. (I would allow abuse, perhaps: I accept that a person who has repented and lived as a single person in celibacy for some time can remarry, after some time, but this is allowed for the fact our hearts are hard)
But that is not what I want to comment on. It is the argument to authority. Please note that the commentator’s handle is Juliet Davis.
as someone with a Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy, and a Christian, there are so many laughable things about this it’s difficult to know where to start. The unbeliever is probably the only sound theological suggestion because people who don’t share a faith will possibly struggle to go in the same direction in life.
I love it when people start quoting the Bible chapter and verse because they miss out all the interesting things like using the death penalty for working on the holy day. Using a quotation to support your argument lends no credence to it – it just means that another human being shared your opinion. St Paul, and all the contributors of the Bible that the Catholic Church chose to include, are men. It is written during a time in history, and in a society, very different from our own. In today’s world we are lucky to find love.
Well, Juliet, some comments that will ensure that I am on your avoid list.
- Your degrees mean nothing. Yes, they were won with tears and exhaustion. Yes, the thesis was exhausting. Yes, it was five years of your life. But compared to scripture, they are nothing. I have a number of degrees, and they got me into the community of scholars: what matters more is my papers and my citation statistics. I’m not sure if you have a PhD, or a Th.D, or both: but both mean little beyond your thesis. Your thesis topic would tell me more.
- Your disavowal of creeds makes me wonder what breed of Churchian you are. Ah, you say, but I said I was a Christian. Yet you criticize scripture. Scripture is the rule of the Church. It contains the very data on which our salvation is formed: including that the just penalty for breaking the laws of God — which we all have inside us — is to die. This is shown in the Mosaic law. You criticize scripture as being written by men (using feminist tropes) as if this deconstruction can preserve the Gospel. Need I remind you that Christ either rose from the dead, giving us hope for our salvation, or he did not, leaving us the most pitiable of deluded fools? You cannot have the form of Christianity and deny the power of the gospel.
- Shaming does not work. Arguing from authority, or shaming people since you state you have authority, is circular. You need to show data. You need to cite evidence. The standard way theologians have done this is to cite scripture, carefully, respectfully. Saying “I is a theologian and you are wrong” does not work in this era: many laymen have read theology, are equally educated, can parse Greek if not Hebrew and will argue right back. From Dalrock’s comment stream:
I love the classic appeal to authority from the chick with the doctorate in theology. Nothing screams churchian feminazi like a doctorate in theology.
Shame works both ways. Disavowing Data leaves you with your feet firmly in the ether.
Juliet, arguing from authority has always been a weak argument. Arguing from feelings has been not much better (which I note you did not do) and arguing from ideology indicates that you are placing your ideology before scripture.
And, given the progressive memes, consider, carefully, if you are living contrary to the evils inherent in this world, or living in a manner that supports them.