To read original post click HERE
Dear Ivy
Russell:
Well, I’m truly
sorry to be so long in getting a response off to you. As I began to address you, I became a little confused over which
is your first name and which is your last name. Russell Ivy seems the most likely, but Ivy Russell could also
work. Perhaps you could clue me in.
But to the point
– First, you seemed offended by my use of the word “train” in conjunction with
children. The term is intended to
connote more than just rote conditioning as is common with animals. The Merriam-Webster
dictionary definition includes,
“3
a : to form by instruction,
discipline, or drill b : to teach so as to make fit, qualified,
or proficient 4 : to make prepared (as by exercise) for a test of skill.”
You are right that our children should be nurtured,
loved, encouraged and appreciated. To
do those things, however, often includes training. For example, if you love your child you will instruct him/her to
stay close to your side while walking in a parking lot to the store so the
child isn’t hit by a car and injured.
Sometimes simple instruction is all that is needed and sometimes stern
discipline is required to protect the child’s safety. At any rate, we do it because we love our children and it
consists of training."
The Bible instructs parents
to, “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not
depart from it.” While that may not
mean anything to you, it means a lot to Christian parents who desire raise
their children according to a Christian worldview.
You mentioned
that “numerous times you refer to women as objects of sorts.” You’ll have to help me out on that one. I can only conclude that your worldview
interprets what I say as demeaning to women whereas the Christian worldview
interpretation is one that esteems women.
Only the Christian worldview recognizes the equality and worth of every
person on earth as being made in the image of God while simultaneously
recognizing that the universe is a place of order. Not everyone can be the President of the United States just like
not everyone can be the poorest of the impoverished. This is true whether one is speaking of the global community,
national community, local community, or the family. Somebody must lead and somebody must follow.
You wrote, “In
today's society women are raised and encouraged to be strong individual
thinkers who can make a life for themselves without the help of a husband.
Men are intended to be optional in the modern woman's life.” I have no problem with strong thinking
women. Did you see the page on the web
site devoted to Margaret Thatcher? I’d
say she’s a pretty strong woman, wouldn’t you?
But while I admire your Western rugged individualism (that is the
American way, right?) you are wrong to think that it is other than the best for
the vast majority of men and women to partner together under the conviction of
a marriage commitment.
You ask,” What
is your response to the fact that numerous times in history crusaders for your
religion have destroyed valuable information that has never been
recovered?” I ask you, “What is your
response to the fact that hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered
by those who embrace your religion?”
But throwing stones at the different actors of our respective worldviews
doesn’t really accomplish anything. The
validity of truth and reality is determined by the universal laws of logic to
ascertain if a worldview accounts for all of reality in truth. Unfortunately, men make mistakes and are
prone to selfishness and greed and other things and therefore are very capable
of acting contrary to their professed beliefs.
You comment,
“You are quite obviously a product of the brainwashing your parents and their
parents before them have fed into you.”
And you are quite obviously a product of the brainwashing fed to you by
modern feminists and egalitarians. But
again, it doesn’t accomplish much to call each other names. Yes, I believe that all men are created
equal but not the way hyper-egalitarians have twisted the original meaning from
its Christian origins to the classless dream of Marx, Lenin and
Communistic/Socialistic oppression.
The product of
100 years of Dewey/Spock socialism is today’s American culture that expresses a
desire to “rise above “ class structure all the while demanding for and recognizing
more and more special interests groups and sub-classes. Just this week was the news of the deaf
“parents” who purposely birthed a deaf child on the belief that deafness is a
culture.
Modern liberals
cry for fairness and tolerance of all groups and cultures on the surface while
practicing their own brand of discrimination based on whether or not you are a
member of one of their “approved” special interests groups. But homophobes are not on the approved list
and, thus, there is no tolerance for their voice. It all rings too similar to the French Revolution, the Bolshevik
Revolution, and China’s Communist Revolution – a culture where everyone is
treated the same – as long as you conform to the standards established by the
ones with the most guns. Otherwise, death.
Well,
perhaps we will agree on some points but I suspect that our worldviews are
irreconcilable. Ultimately in a
society, one worldview prevails. I tend
to agree with Robert Winthrop’s 1849 assessment of things, “All societies of men must be governed in some way or
other. The less they may have of
stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual
self-government. The less they rely on
public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral
restraint. Men, in a word, must
necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without
them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the
Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for
other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting
religion. Here, under our own free
institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”
God’s
grace to you,
Pat Hurd
|
Fortifying |
Patrick L. Hurd EST. 01/01/01 |