A Few Odds and Ends

I just wanted to take a post to write a few odds and ends. As I have been looking for some new things in Candice's book, I actually have found something that is not new. When I wrote my paper Real Authors Write Responsibly in response to Ted Slater citing an article by Candice Watters called Ruth Revisited when someone brought up the fact that Boaz did not inititate his relationship with Ruth, I got a strong response from the folks who disagree with me, and expecially those who were supporters of Candice Watters. I could not figure out why. However, the reason why there was such a response is because, though the book had not come out yet, unknown to me or anyone else, the entire set of three articles on the book of Ruth were republished word for word in the book. Hence, my article dealing with Candice's arguments on the book of Ruth will have to be included as part of the response.

Now, apparently there have been some developments in Old Testament scholarship since Edward Campbell's Commentary on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series was published. Usually Anchor Bible commentaries are pretty up to date, but my Northwest Semitic Inscriptions professor, Dr. Lawson Younger, told me that we now know exactly how big a ephah is, and it is exegetically significant. I will have to get back to the reader of the blog on that topic, but everything else is up to date.

Also, I keep on receiving these comments from people who, apparently, just sign up to take shots at me. For instance, a poster by with the simple screenname of "kt" posted this in the comments section of my second response to Candice Watters:

Alrighty then -- God decreed that all these believing women would be left single so that the conditions in our churches that enable men to be passive, ignorant, absent and disobedient may be revealed!

Better add "sparing us from our own stupidity" to the pile of things that, as you say, "God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us"

PS... Adam, what is YOUR idol? Fruitless debate, perhaps?

Ah yes, those loving radical marriage mandators. However, the other interesting thing that I have found is that, if you click on his screenname to see his profile, he has been a member since June 2008!!!!!!! Yes, apparently, one of the reasons this user even signed up to post on blogger is so that he could write this nasty stuff to me.

Again, when it comes to the radical version of this movement, I have seen some language that I have not seen from King James Onlyism. That is how radical this stuff is. I just have to keep pointing that out along the way.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Well, I could probably pick any of Gortexgrrl's posts from last time, but, as many of you know, Darren Allen absolutely takes the cake when it comes to nastiness, irrationality, and just downright refusal to even listen to what the other side is saying. No comment is really needed here. I just let his own words speak for themselves. He is such a kind soul :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hey when can we see your picture?

I am sure there are a lot peoplr here who want to see your mug.

How come we have no pithy commnents from Ted Slater?

Ted, where are you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam,

You are a jackass.

We don't care what that means in greek or ancient aramaic.

Thanks,
The Hobbits
---------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind, this is a man who goes to Wheaton. Yes, that's right. Yet this is the best he knows how to respond???????? Now, I have no idea if it is the same Darren that is found in Debbie Maken's recent post, but I do know one thing interesting. Debbie Maken will talk about the fruits of her movement in terms of marriages, but she will never tell you about the fruits of her movement in terms of the behavior of the adherents. Her version of this movement has become just as nasty and cultic as Peter Ruckman ever dreamed of being. Apparently, marriage is so important that your behavior is secondary.

However, Darren's behavior is certainly a fruit of this movement. As I said, it speaks for itself.

Captain Sensible More Sensible than Debbie Maken!!!!!!!!

I have been [trying to] have a dialogue with Debbie Maken [which begins here] on the Boundless Blog. She keeps on running out the exact same arguments that I then refute. However, she has been charging me with "bearing false witness" against her. So, I challanged her to show where I had done that. Here is her response:

To that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors):

I am surprised. I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door, so one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness) against those who do not live next door.

It's hard to take you seriously because you want to characterize perfectly substantive answers, as no answers, simply because you do not care for the answers. You want to raise specious questions like, "Where does Luther say rare?" (See your own blog). When you yourself quote Luther as saying "rare, not one in a thousand." (See comment #147). Please do not take Boundless' highly liberal posting policy of your intellectual garbage as an indicator of merit, but more of a "let a fool speak and remove all doubt."

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. First of all, here is what I *actually* said with regards to Martin Luther and rareness of the gift:

Ok, and where does Luther every say that it always would be rare?

See, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Luther believed the gift was rare, but whether he believed that it would continue to be rare. Of course, Maken simply skirted this, so she could get back to her mocking tone.

It seems like Maken thinks that skirting the issue, and using acid-filled language is giving an answer. It simply is not. As others have pointed out in the comments to my last post, the best these folks can do is attack my credentials, and my spelling.

However, what I wanted to point out is the language that is used in this "response." She uses phrases like "that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School," "I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door," "one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness)," "intellectual garbage," and "let a fool speak." I must ask you. How is this any different from Captain Sensible's "Dumb and Dumber" post that Captain Sensible herself has since decided to remove? What level of nasty language did this woman use that Captain Sensible did not use in her last post that she eventually took down? At this point, I have to say that Captain Sensible is far more sensible than Debbie Maken.

This is the same woman who has written articles for Boundless, [in the "best of" section, no less] whose book Boundless endorses [also in the same "best of" section], who has the approval of Albert Mohler and Tim Challes, and who has endorsed Candice Watters' book. Let me ask why it is that a woman who cannot answer straight questions like this, who must resort to all kinds of acid, to cover up for the fact that she is only skirting everything I have said, would ever end up with this kind of support from Christians.

I am hoping to, in the next few days, write to Albert Mohler and Boundless and point them to this discussion. I am hoping that they will see that an endorsement of this woman's work is simply not possible from such influential Christian institutions. I mean, if Albert Mohler still wants to support Candice Watters, and Boundless still wants to support Albert Mohler, then I see nothing wrong with that. However, giving approval to this kind of irrational nastiness from a position such as Debbie Maken's that is based in nothing more than emotion, is not something that Christians should be doing. We should care enough about truth that we are willing to answer each other's questions in an honest, open manner. It is obvious from this discussion that Debbie Maken cannot do that.

I hope this has been instructive. The dialogue is a good example of how to deal with someone that comes from the cultic version of the Mandatory Marriage Movement. However, unfortunately, there will be many people out there who do not know that there are responses to this stuff. I only hope and pray that there will not be more people who take the cultic approach to this issue like Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible have.

That is, again, why I have to say that, while I criticized Boundless a minute ago for supporting this woman's work, I have to say that, from all of the people in this movement with whom I have dialogued, they are by far the most Godly of any. They are, at least, willing to consider what you say, and come up with an honest answer. For that, they are to be commended. Again, I pray that, whichever side of this discussion you take, we honestly deal with these issues in a fair, God honoring manner. This is something for which, given her consistent campaign to silence me, Debbie Maken simply cannot do.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

This little note was left to me today over on Anakin Niceguy's blog by a man named Darren Allan. This is the man who accused me of "comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd." I have documented the irrationality of this charge before, and pointed out that I was talking about barrenness in a particular cultural setting at a particular time. The funny thing is that Mr. Allen accused Anakin's blog of misrepresenting people today. I challanged him on this absolutely hypocritical charge, and here is what he had to say:

If you are idiotic enough to compare childlessness with being a nerd, then your foolishness speaks for itself and I have no reason to misrepresent you. Your ego is just hurt that no one pays you any attention so you keep bring up stuff that happend months ago. Even if you refuse to get a wife, at least make some attempt to grow up.

Darren Allan

Again, no discussion of the issues I have raised, just pure acid from a man who is uncritically hanging on the things that Debbie Maken, Candace Watters, et al. are saying. It was funny that Ted Slater was also on the blog, and he said that it was just a matter that was between us and God. Well, when you have teachings that produce this kind of irrational emotionalism, it is not just a matter between you and God. These types of teachings have sociological implications, and Darren Allen is a perfect example of that. Here is a man that is so cavalier in his misrepresentation of me, that he has to engage in this kind of language, and engage in horrendiously hypocritical thinking in order to attack Anakin. I hope that those who care about the truth on this issue will call Darren Allan out on this.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Check out this message that was posted to myself, Anakin, and others over on Anakin "Niceguy's Blog:

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

Hello, anonymous. You said:

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Ummm, I never insulted Maken's race. What I said was that she was interpreting the Bible through the lens of her Indian culture. That is not "insulting" her race. It is simply recognizing that she has cultural factors that are influencing her exegesis of the text of scripture.

I also have never said anything about Maken's marriage. That is totally irrelevant. And I likewise agree that we should refrain from making such comments.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

Lol, anon, anyone who has read Debbie Maken's book knows that it is *her* that cannot answer the objections levied against her, and it is her that resorts to "bashing," even to the point of thinking that she can know people's motives. Just read her dialogue with me, or her dialogue with Andreas Kostenburger.

As far as "not having jobs" and "not having anything to contribute to society," how do you know that? Do you know our personal lives? Have you ever met any of us? Or do you believe it just because Debbie Maken tells you so? If this is the case, then I would say you are relying on a discredited source.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

Lol, who is the one who is "insulting" now? Apparently, we show utter hypocracy in not caring that you run off and do the very thing you accuse us of doing to Debbie Maken. Even if you were right that we are the worst people in the world, and have nothing to contribute to society, if we are right, we are right and there is nothing you or Debbie Maken can do about it. I find it so amazing that the mandatory marriage movement can engage in this kind of intimidating rhetoric just to cover up the fact that they have been Biblically refuted.

If you can't answer our objections, don't write anything at all. I am still waiting for someone to deal with the things that we have said. However, I have a feeling I will be waiting a long wait, and will spend most of my waiting time reading rhetoric like this.

BTW, anyone find it odd that the majority of people who write these kinds of messages are "anonymous?"

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

(and another comment)

I just wanted everyone to know that Debbie Maken's comments are really sturring up the Mandatory Marriage advocates. They are desperate to defend her comments. Let me give you an example of the rhetoric that is going on some of the blogs.

I made the following comments over on Anakin Niceguy's blog:

Also, sometime in the near future, I am going to send those comments to Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is always encouraging couples to get married, even though they may not be financially well off. I wonder what he will have to say in response?

Here is what an anonymous poster responded with:

PC, I don't know if you really are in idiot or you just play one on TV. I have not seen one comment from Maken saying you should only marry when you are rich. Her comments have to do with parity in all ways, education, financial, and spiritual.

Hello, Anon. Did it ever occur to you that it would be suicide to send the comments of Debbie Maken to Albert Mohler when I have misrepresented her? Obviously, such would be absurd, and your very postulating of such a senario shows that you have a ton of bias.

BTW, anon, read my comments that you yourself quoted. Does it look to you like I said Debbie Maken said that someone must be "rich?" No, I said that she said they must be financially "well off." Maken said that they must be able to take care of a family, which means that they have enough income to care for themselves as well as at least two extra people before they marry. If that is not financially well off, I don't know how you define the term.

Also, you refuse to deal with my earlier point that parity is not a biblical concept. That appears to be something Maken and her supporters are using to try to defend comments that are simply indefensible. Clothing indefensible comments under a euphomistic name does not make the comments any more defensible.

Here is another comment from the same blog that Debbie Maken commented on by a man with the nick "SWColorado:"

I once read a story about a judge back in the 1800’s who, when a woman was brought before him on the charge of prostitution, would levy a fine against every man in the courtroom.

So guys, in that same spirit, KNOCK IT OFF! Stop blaming the culture, the church, the singles groups and you for sure had better stop blaming the women. If your God is so small that He can’t provide you with a godly mate for reasons above – you’re pretty close to committing blasphemy in my book.

Hello, SWColorado. Our God is not too small. You see, our God is so big that he can say "no" to our request for a spouse any time he wants. He is under no obligation to give us a spouse no matter what we do.

Of course, it appears that your God, on the other hand, must give you a spouse if you just go about it the right way. It appears that you can twist the hand of God to make him do whatever you want him to do just by simply "Getting Serious about Getting Married." I agree that if a guy wants a girl he should pursue her, but God always reserves the right to say no at any time. That is why he is God, and you are not.

As for both of you, the tone of your comments speak for themselves. If this is the way you answer criticism, then I think it says a whole lot about the substance of the mandatory marriage movement. If the best you can offer is intimidation, then you should really be thinking about how strong the arguments for your position really are. If they were better, you would not have to resort to this kind of language.