The source of his translations, however, isn't too important since Mr. Toad is clearly picking whatever passages of Scripture are necessary to support his own dogmas. Here is a specimen of his scholarship from his last article, Feminism and Bible Translation:
"A virgin has no agency. She is married to any eligible man who takes her virginity whether she consents to marriage or not. She may be forced into a marriage that she does not desire and does not consent to by her father, as a free woman, or she may be denied marriage by her father. She may be sold into permanent slavery by her father to be the concubine of a free man (a slave-wife) or to be the wife of another slave. Or she may be raped into marriage against her will and over her objections."
Which statement is liberally salted with Biblical passages taken completely out of context. It doesn't seem to occur to Mr. Toad that everything he just described is completely illegal under even under the secular laws of Christian countries. We haven't had legal slavery in the United States since 1863 and rape has never been legal here. Paternal permission for marriage is only required when the affianced bride is legally a minor. Not a single one of these laws has the slightest thing to do with Feminist policy.
Aside from that, it is singular that Christ speaks of the Church Universal as 'His Bride' and of Christians singularly as 'His Children'. Nowhere in the New Testament is marriage spoken of in any sense but monogamous. When Christ speaks of a husband and wife becoming 'one flesh' this is obviously impossible to reconcile with polygamy. The Catechism goes into some explanation of this passage and concludes:
"Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. Conjugal communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this in fact directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in Holy Matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." (p.2387)
This passage refers thus to everything that is wrong with Mr. Toad's (and most of the Red Pillian's) exegeses. Everything that Toad and other Red Pills argue revolves around being contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women." While Toad claims to be anti-Feminist, his teachings are really much closer to Radical Feminism than to Christianity on this point of equal dignity. Equal dignity of the sexes is the same as Gender Polarity, which we've written about on many occasions.
Toad unwittingly confesses that his doctrine is Male Supremacy when he writes further that: "The issue here is one of authority....who has authority over the virgin? Only the father or the betrothed husband. There can be no one else with authority over her."
And what of Christ's authority over her? Toad claims that rape is a moral act and the Catechism addresses this as well:
"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person...Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It is always an intrinsically evil act." (p.2356)
Therein lies one of the metaphysical contradictions of Red Pill Doctrine. If women have no moral agency, then they are not accountable to God for their actions and therefore not responsible for them, nor capable of sin. The Red Pills can only argue that God gave man dominion over women in the same way that He gave Adam dominion over the creatures of the earth. But nobody holds lower animals morally responsible for their action. A lion who kills and eats a farmer's sheep is only being a lion---he's not a thief nor a murderer.
And so again the Red Pill appeal to Scripture falls flat. Like most of their false teachings, their notions of marriage can't withstand even the light of human reason, let alone the Revelations of Christian truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment