ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2007/01/contempt-for-responsibility.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2007/01/contempt-for-responsibility.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.vkbxo<\IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈ冬NOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip (àšNÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 22:49:25 GMT"a5db0704-bddd-435c-94b8-20d6f86f7df6"?„Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *n<\Iÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5nšN Dakota Voice: Contempt for Responsibility

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, January 19, 2007

Contempt for Responsibility

The CHADs are on the warpath against sexual responsibility again. I debated on whether to even acknowledge their silliness, but I guess in the end the temptation was just too great.

There was nothing in the integrity ball which absolved young men of their duty to responsibility, either in what was included in my article or what wasn't included. While I tried to include a comprehensive report of what was said, there's no way I could have included everything.

I'm just guessing here, but I think the reason why much of the encouragement to the young men was made as it was is because of the psychology of males. (I know the ubersexualists at CHAD probably disagree, but males and females actually do think and relate differently.) Males tend to think of themselves as bulletproof, so an appeal to the male to safeguard the welfare of others is more likely to be effective than to tell him that sex outside of marriage is just as harmful to him--after all, he thinks he's invulnerable). A wise teacher tailors his message for his audience (Jesus was the perfect example of this technique).

The CHADs seem to get some idea that Christians approve of having sex if it's with girls outside of their religion ("It says that women who are not virgins or not of their version of religion are exempt and therefore fair game.") ??? I guess if you operate outside the bounds of reality in the first place, there are no limits to the ideas you can manufacture ex nihilo.

Another example: "This kind of mentality encourages rape, abuse and sexual harassment." How you get that out of an event designed from start to finish to instill respect for women is beyond me. But then, see my last paragraph for a possible explanation.

Though the hyper-feminists at CHAD accuse Christians of the same, it is actually they who are obsessed with the concept of women as property (maybe it's an inferiority complex or something--I don't know). Real men, real Christian men, respect women as being of equal value in God's eyes, realize the value of a good woman as their life partner (Pastor Baker even said as much, warning young men if they failed to value the counsel of their future wives). They are so insecure about the strength and value of women that they transfer their own insecurities onto those they perceive as enemies. Sad that they fear those who respect women the most.

But if complete sexual autonomy is your ultimate goal, as it appears to be for the CHADs, you can't have silly things like rules, guidelines, boundaries, responsibility and mutual respect getting in your way.


0 comments:

 
Clicky Web Analytics