Impossible Omnipotence?

I am currently mulling over whether or not to post more on my Thanksgiving Tragedy. In the meantime, I invite all my readers to mull over another little gem.

The esteemed Austin Cline of atheism.about.com highlighted a wonderful little observation posted by a forum member at that site. Observe:

A forum member writes: God cannot be completely omnipotent. There are some things he cannot do. He cannot create a genuine Bank of England ten pound note. He may produce a perfect copy of a ten pound note (complete with a picture of Darwinon the reverse) but it will not be genuine. To be genuine it has to be produced by the Bank of England under the aegis of the British Government. Thus, the Government can do something which God cannot do. (This is why Tony Blair has such a high opinion of himself.)

Brilliant.

What do you all think? Are there limits to omnipotence? Could God, for example, use his omnipotence to destroy His omnipotent powers? Could He use His omnipotence to annihilate Himself, or perhaps duplicate Himself?

Or could he actually pull a Kim Jong Il and create a bank note that isn’t a forgery?

This is another post where I welcome all thoughts on the matter, especially the thoughts of my (apparently few) religious readers.

Thanksgiving Tragedy

Note: this story is completely true, except for the names, which have all been changed except for mine.

Today I was supposed to drive to Palm Springs to meet up with numerous family members for Thanksgiving. My mom's side of the family was to be there: my grandpa, various aunts and uncles, cousins, and of course my mom, my sister, and myself. However, something terrible happened, and the Palm Springs get together was cancelled.

Early this morning, I was awoken by a call from my mom. She told me, "Aaron, there is a problem. Nobody has heard from your uncle John. His voicemail box is full and nobody has seen him since last Saturday. Your uncle Jimmy is looking for him. The Palm Springs trip has been cancelled, and everyone is very worried. This isn't like him. Come over to my house, your sister is already on her way."

I hurried over to my mom's house, which is a half hour away from mine. When I arrived, everyone looked very sad. I was worried to say the least, and immediately asked what had happened.

My mom, with tears in her eyes, explained to me, "Jimmy found your uncle John. He is dead. It looks like he died a few days ago, and his truck was at the bottom of a ravine. He drove off a cliff. Your uncle Jimmy is hysterical."

This was quite a shock to me, as well as my entire family. We discovered what had happened to him on Thanksgiving Day, and he had died a few days prior. He likely was drunk driving late at night and lost control of his truck, which caused him to fall down a 300-foot ravine. We are going to have a memorial service or a funeral in a couple days (don't know which yet).

Now, dear reader, I want to know what you think of this, whatever your beliefs are.

Do you think that a conscious higher power had anything to do with John's accident, or the timing of it?

Where is my uncle John now?

Elton John Would Ban Religion

Elton John has a bone to pick with organized religion. From CNN.com:

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."

"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion," he said. "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

A very astute observation on Elton's part.

The timing of his criticism could not be better, as Richard Dawkins' new book is selling like hotcakes worldwide (I am half-way through my copy) and the atheism movement in general is picking up speed. More and more prominent social figures are throwing their religious criticisms in to the ring. Even South Park had a go at the atheism movement in general, and portrayed the future as groups of warring atheist states (notice that states still existed in their vision of the future). If South Park does a two-part lampooning of atheism, then obviously the topic is a rather large blip on the radar screen of contemporary social consciousness.

However, I disagree with Elton's conclusion that religion should be banned. I certainly would not want religion banned, and I think that Elton is missing the point by displaying the same intolerant attitude that he finds so distasteful in organized religion.

If an idea or position is banned outright, then it cannot be fairly evaluated on its own merits by individuals, and therefore cannot be legitimately rejected. Therefore, it cannot be legitimately compared against competing ideas, nor can it be legitimately ridiculed or satirized.

Ideas must stand or fall on their own merits, not by fiat. Passing decrees and fiats are what dictators and communists do. Letting things stand or fall on their own merit is what scientists and lovers of reality do. It’s what Dawkins, Hawking, Einstein, Russell, etc, would do.

Elton is expressing statist sentiments to an ideology that is hostile to his kind. While it is good to see prominent social figures like Elton John being openly critical of religion, it is bad to see people wishing to ban any ideology outright, and it is especially bad to see these intolerant, statist sentiments being linked up with atheism. The reason is that religious people will point at Elton's recent comments and say, "See? We are being persecuted! Elton wants to bring back the days of Stalin and Mao and prevent us from practicing our faith! Death Camps are the atheists answer!" Unfortunately, nobody will realize that death camps are the answer of the statist and the collectivist (virtual religions in their own right), not the answer of the atheist.

If one wants to find the atheist's answer, they should not go looking for it at an Elton John concert.

What the atheism movement needs right now is a prominent atheistic Anarchist in the spotlight; someone who realizes, and can articulate, that a nihilistic God and a collectivist state are two sides of the same coin. Until then, the atheist movement will have consistency problems, because so many atheists are statists.

As the atheist movement continues to gain momentum, I fear that the state will become a bigger and bigger hindrance to its message. We must link godlessness and statelessness not only in the minds of atheists, but also in the minds of the common God fearing voter. Accomplishing this link will not only improve the purity and consistency of the atheist message, but will also pre-empt many of the criticisms being hurled at it today.

Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.

The Offspring Murder Club: New Male Member

Kill The Afterlife's Offspring Murder Club has a roll call that is heavily tilted toward the fairer sex. That changed today, with the induction of its newest member, Jason Thorbon.

The Offspring Murder Club has very strict membership requirements, so the question is, does Jason qualify? Let's take a look at the evidence:

Thorbon told Knox County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Jeanette Harris that he was trying to kill his son as a sacrifice to God when he began strangling the boy at their home on Blackwood Drive in January 2005.

Thorbon's wife managed to wrest the toddler away from Thorbon and flee. Testimony has shown that Thorbon, a former mental health counselor and honor student, suffers both mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.

Intent and attempt to kill one's own child? Check. God/afterlife as a motivator? Check. Success in killing offspring? Not quite.

However, the technicality of whether or not Jason succeeded in the act is not as important as the spirit of the act, For The Offspring Murder Club is all about spirit, whether metaphorical or literal.

Therefore, I proudly introduce the newest inductee into The Offspring Murder Club, Jason Thorbon!

Attention Theists: Prove Your Faith Like Abraham Did!

Are you a Christian? Muslim? Jew? Good, because I want to ask you a question.

Remember the old story about Abraham being commanded by God to kill his son in the land of Moriah? Remember how Abraham was about to faithfully commit infanticide on his own offspring in the name of God, but then at the last second God stopped him?

In the past I have explained that afterlife belief automatically bumps this material life to one's #2 priority slot. The same held true for Abraham, and was even inadvertently admitted by some theistic commenters on this very blog.

In the past I have shown that religiosity is common among mothers who kill their children. In fact, I started a club called the Offspring Murder Club, and its ranks are swelling fast with devout, God-fearing infanticidal mothers.

Now that a background has been established, let's get to the question asking. This is a thought/faith experiment. First, we acknowledge that you are an Abrahamic theist (Christian, Muslim, or Jew). Second we assume that you have a child (if you don't have one in real life, let's pretend that you do for the sake of argument). Third, let's imagine that God came to you and told you to sacrifice your child on the peak of the nearest mountain, a la Abraham at Moriah.

Of course, in the story, God stopped Abraham at the last minute and allowed Abraham to kill a ram instead. But Abraham didn't know that God would stop him. And more importantly, Abraham was about to carry out the infanticidal act with total faith and conviction.

So the question to you, dear theist, is: Would you do it?

Seriously! Don't dodge the question. According to your faith, God did it before, so put yourself in Abraham's shoes. This is a test of your faith and conviction. This is a test to see if you put God first in your life!

If God asked you to kill your child, would you do it with total faith and conviction? Would you pass the test as Abraham did?

(Thanks to Olly at 10,000 Reasons to Doubt the Fish for the inspiration for this challenge)

Women are Invaluable, Religion is Worthless

When the sovereignty of a human being and the sovereignty of an ideology come into conflict, which one should yield?

The ideology.

Ideologies are only worthy of our adherence to the amount that they secure our freedom, happiness, and understanding of the world. Ideologies are concepts and frameworks that are meant to serve us.

Humans are not meant to serve ideologies.

So when an ideology comes into conflict with a human's freedom, happiness, self-determination, etc. It is the ideology that must be re-evaluated, or even discarded.

Such is the case with religion, and in particular Abrahamic religion.

In fact, Abrahamic religion has been undergoing quite a bit of re-evaluation over the years. And even some parts of it are being outright discarded because it keeps coming into conflict with the freedom and happiness of human beings.

Some old-timers and die-hards will fight for their ideology, and will try to subjugate other humans to keep their ideology intact, but in the long run, the ideology eventually loses. And Abrahamic religion is losing.

Abrahamic religion has had it out for women since its inception. Women have been tortured, murdered, enslaved, and completely dehumanized for over a millennia thanks to Abrahamic faith. All this has occurred because of the fact that females have a slightly different set of body parts than males.

In recent past posts, I have given numerous examples, quotes, and articles of the pervasiveness of anti-woman values found both in Abrahamic ideology, and in the minds of its adherents. And today I bring to you some quotes from Religioustolerance.org.

Religioustolerance.org has a few pages that contain some choice quotes and links regarding the re-evaluation and discarding of certain anti-women components of Abrahamic faith. These are some of the most anti-human and downright evil portions of Abrahamic faith, and are some of the most damning examples of the worthlessness of religion itself:

"It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." Rev. Jill. Nelson, pastor of the Sunshine Cathedral Metropolitan Community Church, commenting on Leviticus 20:13

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend: "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546): "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

Reformation Fellowship of the East Valley, Mesa, AZ (circa 1995): "In the beginning God made man male and female. He made Adam first, and then made Eve from Adam's rib. This order of creation subordinates wives to their husbands in marriage, and women to men in the church. As an act of submission to their Creator women are commanded to submit to their husbands and to male leadership in the church. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in any formal capacity in the church."

Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue: "...make dads the godly leaders [of the family] with the women in submission, raising kids for the glory of God."

Its almost lunchtime, and I just about lost my appetite cutting and pasting that filth! But now compare those above quotes to this next one, from an anonymous writer of a "Why Women Need Freedom From Religion" pamphlet:

"The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth...and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them."

Humanity needs women. Humanity is women. But humanity needs not religion. Humanity is not religion.

Kill the worthless religion. Stand in solidarity with our invaluable women.

The Pope Finally Says Something True

The Pope recently declared that modern western culture is against religion. Looks like he finally got the wire. Unfortunately, he had to do lots of projecting:

Verona, Italy- Modern Western culture is unable to dialogue with religion and cannot answer fundamental questions about the meaning of life, Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday.

He has it exactly backwards. In reality, it is ancient religion that cannot answer fundamental questions about the meaning of life and is unable to dialogue with modern culture. But I doubt he would ever figure that one out.

He continued to bitch:

Benedict said the West was witnessing "a new wave of Enlightenment and secularism, in which only that which can be tested and calculated is considered rationally valid, and in which individual freedom is erected as a fundamental value to which everything else is subordinated.

"In this way, God is excluded from culture and public life", he said.

Benedict laments it, while modern western society celebrates it. Well it looks like this party isn't for you, Popey. Go home. But wait, he has one more projection to throw:

"It is not difficult to see how this type of culture represents a radical and profound separation not only from Christianity but more generally from the religious and moral traditions of humanity," he said.

This statement should say, "...from the religious, immoral traditions of humanity." Because only a fact-based, Godless moral framework can be considered "moral."

The Pope doesn't realize that morality cannot be based on God's rules. That is because he's been brainwashing himself with crappy books his whole life.


Oh well. This most recent whining from the Pope is a good thing, to be sure. Popes have been bitching about secularization of western society for a while now, and Benedict is merely carrying the torch of lamentations while he watches his pews, and more importantly, his donations, wither away uncontrollably. It gets even worse when he looks at the youth component of his faithful: every year since 2003 or so, the Catholic Church's "World Youth Day" breaks a new record for smallest attendance yet.

Doris Tracey is Confused About Death

Sean Prophet from BlackSun Journal wrote a post recently about the untimely death of Brianna Wilkins, a pretty 17 year old girl who, through the help of a very crappy book, became so obsessed with the moment of "now" that she forgot to think ahead far enough to eat food or drink water.

But this post isn't about her. It's about a lady named Doris Tracey who popped into the comments section and made some very unusual statements regarding Brianna, God, and death in general. I replied to her, and she replied back. I'm going to reproduce the comments here for all of your reading enjoyment. Doris will be quoted (indented), and my responses will be in normal text. In some instances I am directly quoting her in my response, and those quotes will be in italics:

Sean

I love your beautiful heartfelt message about Briannas tragic death and another wake-up call. Her soul was obviously not very happy here and was trying to find her way back to god in the only way she was taught how. May the Holy Spirit comfort her and her family in this hr of great tribulation!

Doris

Doris,

You said:

"May the Holy Spirit comfort her..."

But you seem to be misunderstanding the facts of the situation. This poor woman is DEAD. Which means that there is no more "her."

The very phrase "afterlife" is a contradiction.

If this woman still existed, than there would be no tragedy to lament, would there? The only reason this situation is so sad is because this woman has died, and prematurely so. She no longer exists.

What part of the word "death" don’t you understand?

Hi Aaron,

Are you dead in Christ or alive? Evil is live spelled backwards.Death has always been an illusion and cannot exhist where life is. Death is a lie and its appearance has no power. Many people are dead in Christ until quickened by the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy and without that pure energy you are a mechanical robot or the living dead. Some souls will choose to remain dead and will lose their identity, God forbid. Choose life not death. If we ultimately die in the end there would be no reason for us to go on at all.

Doris

Hi Doris,

Thank you for the reply.

You said:

"Are you dead in Christ or alive?"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. I am not dead or alive in anyone, except for me. I guess you could say that I am "alive in Aaron." As far as Christ goes, there is lots of evidence suggesting that he never existed. But if he did exist, he is most certainly dead now. By the way Doris, how does a person be dead OR alive "in" someone?

"Evil is live spelled backwards."

It certainly is. And racecar is racecar spelled backwards. But I’m not here to play scrabble; I’m here to talk about the meaning of life and death. Trying to equate being alive with the concept of evil through spelling games is somewhat silly considering the seriousness of Brianna Wilkins untimely demise.

"Death has always been an illusion and cannot exhist where life is."

I agree that death and life are mutually exclusive. But you said here that death is an illusion. Are you seriously claiming that Brianna Wilkins is not dead?!?! Care to support that assertion?

"Death is a lie and its appearance has no power."

Death is a word used to describe the concept of no longer being alive. So in a way it is a negative statement. But death is not a lie as far as I can see. Brianna is most certainly dead. I’ve seen people die in front of my eyes. It will take much more than your unsupported assertions for me to discard the evidence of "death" that I have directly witnessed in my life.

Why don’t you start with providing evidence that Brianna, my grandmother, JFK, etc... are not dead and never actually died?

"Many people are dead in Christ until quickened by the Holy Spirit."

So first you tell me that death is a lie, and now you are telling me that dead people reside within the dead body of Jesus Christ until "quickened"? I’m sorry but this statement is nonsensical as far as I can understand it. You might have to dumb it down a shade for me to grasp it. How exactly do living people exist as dead entities within the body of a fictional-or-dead cult fonder from 2000 years ago? And what exactly is this "quickening" process that allegedly removes the dead people from Christ’s body?

"The Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy and without that pure energy you are a mechanical robot or the living dead."

If the Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy, can it be detected, perhaps even contained? You know, we do have devices that contain, generate, convert, and otherwise manipulate pure electrical energy. Where does this Holy Spirit electricity reside? Earth? Perhaps the Andromeda Galaxy?

Last time I checked, electrical energy was not a singular, conscious, personal and acting entity. Since when did electricity get itself a thinking mind and a will and such?

And exactly HOW MUCH electrical energy comprises the Holy Spirit? A few Gigawatts? Maybe Terawatts? Electrical energy, no matter how much, is quantifiable.

And if the Holy Spirit is indeed pure electrical energy, why haven’t I heard this news from the guy who discovered it, Benjamin Franklin? Or why doesn’t the Royal Academy of Engineering have anything on this fact? Why hasn’t NASA, or the National Academy of Sciences, or some other group familiar with electricity spoken up on this little fact?

Is there anything at all from any recognized scientific or engineering body that attests to this rather revolutionary claim that the Holy Spirit is pure electrical energy? Where do you get this kind of information anyway?

"Some souls will choose to remain dead and will lose their identity, God forbid. Choose life not death. If we ultimately die in the end there would be no reason for us to go on at all."

Oh boy, now I’m really confused! A minute ago you said death was fake. Now you are implying that it is real. Which is it?

Furthermore, you seem to confuse the actual properties of death. You said that souls choose to remain dead. But I don’t think its possible to "choose" anything when you are DEAD! That’s the whole point: death = not existing anymore. If I, for example, am able to make a "choice," then I have to be alive to do so, don't I?

Thanks again for your reply, and I truly hope you can give me some clarifying answers, because your statements sent my head spinning and totally contradicted everything that I know regarding God, energy, matter, consciousness, and even existence itself.

Thank you,

Aaron Kinney

What's in a Name?

HowManyOfMe.com

There are: 47 people with my name in the U.S.A. How many have your name?

There are 47 people in the United States with the name "Aaron Kinney." And if you Google the name "Aaron Kinney," I am the first result!

So it is official. I am the most popular Aaron Kinney in the United States. Hallelujah!

Austin Cline on Christian Abuse of Women

Austin Cline of Atheism.About.com offers even more evidence of Christian-sanctioned abuse and subjugation of women. And this time, the problem is even admitted by the Archbishop of Canterbury! In the article, Austin offers an excellent analysis in the Christian abetting of domestic abuse against women, and he does so in his usual hard-hitting, fact-of-the-matter writing style that I love so much to read.

But I'm not going to quote any of it. You're just going to have to click on the link and read the article for yourself. You will be glad you did.

Diocese Bankruptcy Count: 4

The Catholic Diocese of Davenport filed for bankruptcy last week:

DAVENPORT, Iowa (CNS) -- The Diocese of Davenport is now the fourth Catholic diocese in the United States to file for bankruptcy protection because of sex abuse lawsuits it faces.

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Or rather, are falling. I expect many more bankruptcy filings in the coming years from the Cathylicks and other Christian cults. Maybe this is one instance, unlike the red scare, where the domino theory actually applies?

Years ago I had a roommate who worked at Calvary Community Church. He was eventually fired for being an agnostic (religious discrimination employment laws don't apply to churches), but before that happened, he told me that there was a sex scandal that took place with one of the pastors who worked there. Unfortunately I don't remember if it was a homosexual or heterosexual scandal, but it was definitely pedophilic.

The funny (or scary) thing was that my former roommate recalled a church counselor or official of some kind as saying in response to the sex scandal that, "this kind of thing doesn't happen here... not at this church."

Wrong, scumbag! It does happen and it did happen, at this very church! If I recall correctly, the sex scandal was kept relatively under wraps and hush/settlement money was paid out.

It’s a shame too, because I would have loved to see Calvary Community Church file for bankruptcy. Their facility is located right off the 101 freeway and their huge torture device (cross) is easily visible from the freeway. Not to mention that their attached high school looks like a minimum-security prison. Their cross, and their entire facility, is ugly as sin. I've seen more aesthetic looking crosses in The Passion of the Christ. The only church I've seen in the Los Angeles area that compares to Calvary in ugly factor is the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown. Babyshit brown, huh? Who chose that color, Jesus?

I would just love to see a church in the Los Angeles area file for bankruptcy due to a pedophilic sex scandal. It doesn't have to be Catholic, hell it doesn't even have to be Christian! Any Abrahamic institution is good enough for me.

Oh holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, please grant me this prayer. May your noodly appendage serve up hot steamy dishes of your marinara-flavored justice.

RAmen.

Even More Evidence That Christianity Views Women as the Property of Men

Craig Sowder, a Christian blogger and all around nice guy, has recently written about the ideas expressed in a book written by another Christian named Doug Wilson.

In his book, Doug Wilson writes about how a Christian man should go about finding a wife. Craig sums up Wilson's ideas of Christian courting by saying:

Wilson has written a little book called Her Hand in Marriage where he explains that, from a Biblical perspective, the father has authority over the daughter, and that an interested young man should approach the father before he ever approaches the daughter about courtship. If the father approves, the young man can begin spending time with his daughter under the supervision of the family. As time goes on, the two can begin spending more time alone together. But throughout the entire process, the father is the authority over the daughter.

Craig says that while he has a bone to pick with Wilson over specifics, he doesn't necessarily disagree with Wilson's general message.

To Craig's (partial) credit, he does say this in response to Wilson's views on women:

Sure, that all sounds good and everything until you actually try doing it that way. I would be willing to bet that if I walked up to the father of a girl I was interested in at church and said, "I'm interested in getting to know your daughter", the father would probably say, "Okay… she's standing right over there, so why don't you go talk to her?" Wilson might say that the father isn't doing his job, but the reality is that, right or wrong, this is the way things work in 21st century American culture.

Notice that while Craig accepts the reality of today's (post-Christian) world as not working that way, he doesn't actually disagree with Wilson's view that "women = property":

Now, as I said, I do believe Wilson's philosophy or vision for Christian courtship and marriage is a good one, so I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with it in theory.

Every time I read anything from a Christian about women, and every time I read any historical or news source concerning Christian treatment of women, the ownership concept is all over the place. What I mean is, that Christian women are owned at all times by someone other than themselves. Either they are owned by God, or their father, or their husband, or even a combination of these! But at any rate, the poor women are constantly treated as property.

But when Christians encounter my charge of sexism and maltreatment of the status of women, they disagree quite vocally. They say that not all Christians agree about this, and that I'm taking things out of context, or adhering to a narrow fundamentalist view of Christianity.

Yet again, I have to call bullshit. Ownership of women is so incredibly widespread in liberal, conservative, and moderate Christian circles, that I've yet to see a single Christian write against the idea. And believe me, I do read a lot of Christian writing. When I read religious/atheist blogs (and I do quite often) about half of my reading is done on Christian blogs, the other half is for atheist blogs. And this is probably the 1000th time I've read some Christian view about women not having ownership over their own person. I've yet to read anything from a Christian who says that a father or husband doesn't own their daughter or wife.

Would I ever accept a doctrine of my mother owning me and a woman having to ask my mother permission to court me? Hell no. And would I ever ask a father permission to court his daughter? Hell no. It's not his choice; its his daughter's choice. If I wanted to court a woman, it would be because I respect her as an equal, and my equals own themselves. It would be an insult to the woman to ask her father and to treat her like a commodity or piece of property.

I don't court pieces of property. I respect myself too much. I court women who are my equal. And I consider women my equal because I am not some chauvinistic insecure sexist bastard. I don't want to marry a piece of property. I want to marry an equal, where the respect and admiration and love between us is equal.

Craig, again to his credit, has experienced both Christian and non-Christian social environments. Craig couldn't ignore the reality of the situation when he compared Christian women to non-Christian women:

let me tell you that Christian women need to take a few lessons from non-Christian women. The non-Christian women I've been around over the years are not afraid to get into relationships with men and actually arrive at conclusions about men far more quickly than Christian women. Sometimes I don't think Christian women will go out for a cup of coffee with a guy without some kind of sign in the heavens telling them to go for it.

I literally LOL'ed at this. I think Craig may have accidentally revealed a bit too much about the detrimental effects that accepting an other-ownership doctrine can have in the mind of a young woman. Craig says here in no uncertain terms that non-Christian women are much more of what a woman should be: thinking for themselves, and taking responsibility for themselves.

Incidentally, Craig's blog is called "Autonomy is Madness," yet he quite clearly is praising secular women for their autonomy, while lamenting the lack of autonomy in Christian women. Craig has also expressed multiple times in the past that he thinks that Christian women are crazy.

So is autonomy madness, or is it the reverse? Craig is obviously implying that the reverse of his blog title's message is true, yet he doesn't seem to realize it. Craig can't seem to see the big picture here - that his religion is detrimental to the social lives of both male and female Christians. The Christian singles simply can't compete with the secular ones.

Anyway, where is the "women own themselves" Christian view? Where can I find the writings of a Christian who says that men do not own women, and that both men and women are equal in the sight of God? Where are the Christian writings that say that the father does not own the maiden, or that the husband does not own the wife?

And perhaps more importantly, where is the Biblical support for a "husband does not own the wife" Christian view?

Obviously the "women are property" Christian view is fucking up the lives of the Christian youth, and they are watching their secular peers live much happier, more fulfilling social and romantic lives, in general. I know that I sure am!

Thanks to Dr. Zachary Moore for writing about this first and bringing this to my attention.