“What God has joined together let no one separate”. (Matt)
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.” (Matt)
In the above passage Jesus’ historical account for the permission of divorce treats it as a kind of social moral defect.
The point that I’m making about divorce is only for the purpose of establishing a Christian model for marriage. I wish I didn’t have to bring it up at all but it is necessary for my argument.
Next it follows that the duty of every married person is to order their lives in such a way as to keep their marital relationship out of risk of divorce. Obviously a person who is married must behave in particular ways. A spouse should try to avoid behavior that strains a marital relationship. These aren’t just nice things to do as a spouse they are essentially part of what it means to be married. These things are what it means to take your vows seriously. The Christian model for marriage entails not divorcing, but “not divorcing” amounts to more than just something that you must avoid doing. The Christian model for marriage is inherently a prescription for life, life that is compatible with marriage and that prevents divorce. And let me make it clear that divorce isn’t something that is primarily chosen by a husband and wife but something which is affected by the state of a marital relationship. In other words divorce isn’t something a couple does autonomously but something that happens to them when things have gone wrong.
So, in light of this moral duty to preserve marriage, prevent divorce, and keep your marital vows where does the extra marital sex practice of The Law of Love fit? The doctrine of the Law of Love asserts that extra marital sex, when properly practiced, is not only harmless to a marriage but actually beneficial. This is quite a bold claim, especially when the majority of the world throughout history—and Christians in particular, have said quite the opposite about extra marital sex. How can we know that this fabulous claim is true? How can we know that extra marital sex as per the Law of Love is compatible with God’s design and the Christian model for marriage? The Bible certainly doesn’t give us any indication of this; in fact, as I’ll discuss in a later post, the Bible consistently says the opposite about extra-marital sex: that it’s immoral and destructive, and we are certainly no more comforted by the psychologists and sociologists.
In The Family people often claim to know by experience that it works. The way that I’ve most often heard the doctrine supported is by testimony. A testimony that goes something like this: “I know the Law of Love works; I have personally experienced its success”. As compelling as a testimony can be, you may hope for something more substantial before putting your marriage at risk to one of the most common causes of divorce--and by the way, If this kind of hesitance sounds like doubt, don’t worry, this isn’t the kind of doubt that you need to worry about. Prudence is another name for this kind of doubt, and if you never experience it then you might be in danger of being a fool.
The problem with personal testimony is that it often isn’t worth much. Every day people in pharmaceutical drug trials testify to symptoms of placebos. Brilliant scientists often struggle to keep their own personal attachments to some mostly irrelevant theory from dictating their observation. We would be right to be suspicious of observational selection where the outcome of a person’s observation may just happen to suit some of their most powerful biological impulses and passions.
Clearly we need a better way of verifying the practical effect of this doctrine before believing it if we are going to honor our vows and protect our marriages. (Keep in mind that this argument is exclusively practical. There are other factors that should feature in your consideration, many of these will feature in other posts but for now I’m only concerned with the way that this doctrine functions with respect to the Biblical model for marriage).
One way in which we can more accurately test this doctrine is by examining the overall health of marriages in The Family during the history of this doctrine’s practice. Have divorces and separations been rare? Are single mothers and fathers a rare phenomenon in The Family? Are many of the FGA’s still married for the first time? Are young SGA marriages strong and stable?
Don’t forget that the doctrine of The Law of Love boasts its ability to improve marriages. Also keep in mind that The Family is a Christian community. All other things being equal, we ought to be able to expect better marital health and stability in Family marriages than in other churches and Christian communities. Without any available statistical data I leave the observation to you. But frankly, I for one would be surprised if, on average, TFI marriages are even as successful as secular American ones. In my experience there are few FGA’s who can call their present wife the first and young marriages seem to be springing up and shattering at the same sad rate.
I don’t have the formal statistics to assert for a fact that in The Family during the period of time in which extra-marital sex as per the Law of Love has been practiced, marriages have failed more often than the American average. However I think it’s very safe to say that TFI marriages do fail too often, and I strongly suspect that any formal statistics would favor my argument and show a serious problem. So one sound conclusion that we can draw is that if the Law of Love was meant to strengthen marriages, then either it has been quite ineffective or else it hasn’t been practiced. Either way, too many Family marriages are not being saved by The Law of Love’s extra-marital sex.
If we can agree that there is a problem, then we now need to think hard about how to correct it. Our marriage vows aren’t pinky promises; they’re sacred oaths that we’ve made to God. Maybe it would be wise now to consider the reasons why most of the world has frowned upon extra marital sex, why Christians--wise men and women of God today and those who came before us have renounced it. It should be mentioned that our practice of extra marital sex, our ideas about love, and our interpretation of Matt 22:37-40 is a great departure from the wisdom of virtually all of Christendom from times past and present. And it isn’t as if any of the pieces which we have construed to form this doctrine are new or uniquely available to us. They have been available to all Christians but only we have produced this unique doctrine and interpretation (according to some sources also an early Gnostic sect called the Nicolaitans [of whom God was apparently not very fond Rev. 2:6, 15]).
"The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again." (Lewis) It’s prudent to consider the possibility that the world has been right about extra marital sex, and that a possible cause of the ill health of TFI marriage is this most obvious suspect. If divorce is a problem in The Family then we have no right to continue practicing such an inherently risky doctrine.
It’s my impression that marriage has not been treated as the sacred and holy covenant that it is. Why else would we continue to place our marriages at such great risk? Are we really treating our marriages as holy covenants with our creator? Are the benefits—whatever they are—of practicing this doctrine really important and meaningful enough to place such a risk upon our marriages and upon our families? Does this behavior help to secure marriage? Is this kind of behavior prescribed by the nature of Christian marriage?
The conclusion of this practical argument is that extra marital sex inherently contradicts the nature and intended function of marriage if it tends to damage a relationship or put it at risk of divorce. I’ve also proposed that there is a pandemic divorce problem in The Family and that this is most likely due to our practice of extra marital sex. Fidelity to God, to our families, and to our marital vows is of far greater importance than this doctrine of extra marital sex and so it should be abandoned if it causes marriage problems or if marriage problems are prevalent in The Family.
The inductive argument can be put in point form like this:
1. Christian marriage is a holy and sacred vow between God and a man and woman to stay together, and so to not divorce.
2. Keeping such vows entails acting in ways which secure and strengthen marriage and entails avoiding other acts which compromise a marriage and cause divorce.
3. There is good reason to believe that extra marital sex is harmful to marriages.
4. There is good reason to believe that extra marital sex has harmed TFI marriages. Therefore we have good reason to believe that extra marital sex contradicts the purpose of marriage.
5. Marriage is more important than extra marital sex.
6. Therefore extra marital sex should not be practiced.
In my next post I’m going to examine the way that we have tried to reconcile this doctrine with the Christian doctrines about sex and marriage in the Bible.
Thanks for reading and I do appreciate comments and contributions of every opinion. I only ask that you please express yourself respectfully and politely. Thank you
Citations
Lewis , C.S.. Mere Christianity . New York , NY.: Harper Collins, 2009.
Malachi 2:15-16, New International Version
Matthew 19:6, New International Version
Matthew 19:8-9, New International Version
20 comments:
I don't see why the family needs to be so "christian". 99% of this argument fails without your christian assumptions and I don't think that the family needs to agree to many traditional christian premesis. The family hasn't seen itself as a "christian" group in that traditional sense or even a "religious" group at all. That's why we have been free to do things differently and why not? Why do we have to fit the mold? Why do we have to care about "the christian model for marriage"? Our model works in ways that traditional models never could.
When it all boils down family religion is very simple: love. Nothing else needs to be said. Love silences all of this tautology and abstract babble with something real. The family made this truth its guiding star. The family may be full of sinners but I say its core values are sound.
To Anonymous: I was unaware of the fact that the Family was not a Christian organization (or at least not supposed to be). I can't count the number of MO letters in which David Berg justified his rants with verses from the Bible. That goes doubly for the letters from Mama and Peter. I think it's safe to say that the Family not only endorsed the Bible, but claimed it to be part of the Family's foundation. You are correct however in your statement that it has not been the case in the Family. The Family is well known for cherry picking verses out of the Bible when they want to make a point, but blindly ignoring verses which contradict their practices.
It may be nice to say that Family Religion is all about Love, but I can count over 30 third generation Family children, not to mention the scores of Second Generation children who will grow up with their parents separated. I don't know about you but I never thought of separating a child from their parent (even if it's only on weekdays, and that's with a good parenting teamwork) as loving.
To Jason: Good post, are you using MLA citation? If so you may want to include page numbers in the body of your text. i.e "They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership…” (Lewis 138)" something like that, this way we know where the quote is coming from, same goes for Bible verses, page numbers are typically included in the works cited entry as well...
Lewis, C.S.."Mere Christianity". 83-105. New York,NY.:Harper Collins, 2009.
If you're interested I have a book that shows the proper way to format in MLA no matter what you're citing. Not a big deal because it's on a blog, nevertheless, there it is.
http://iguanaroy.blogspot.com/2009/05/law-of-love.html
Here's my paper on the Law of Love! I wrote it back when i first joined like 5 years ago. I need to rethink my own position too, as it's been quite some time! Thanks for writing this, keep posting the next pages too!! It'll be quite a debate.
To Anon: Thanks for participating. Before I remark about your comment I wanted to say that posting anonymously is totally acceptable. Actually an alias is better because you can be distinguished from other commenters while keeping your privacy in such a sensitive discussion.
You are right to say that much of my argument relies on Christian assumptions: propositions that will be facts if Christianity is true.
I thought that it would be safe to appeal to the Bible and Christian principles in an argument that is intended for Family members and I still think that this was a sound approach.
I doubt that many Family members would accept your terms for preserving this doctrine. I doubt that Family members are willing, or able, to renounce Christianity the way that you have proposed in order to preserve the LOL (an allegedly Christian doctrine).
My case exists because it is neither possible for The Family to depart from Christianity, nor is it possible for Christian Family members to be honest and consistent while accepting some Christian doctrines but denying and revising others arbitrarily and ad hoc.
The best and only way for you to vindicate this Family doctrine is to show that it isn't contra-Christian. To renounce Christianity in order to preserve this "Christian" doctrine is nonsense.
I have something to say about the LOL as an ethic which will come in another post.
Lastly, I've argued that the extra-marital sex contradicts marriage by harming and destroying it.
You have proposed that "(TFI's) model works in ways that traditional models never could." My question to you is: How do you know that this model does in fact work? I've given an argument for my opposite conclusion that extra-marital sex essentially contradicts marriage and so is not functional; I'd be interested to hear your argument to support your opposite claim.
To Blog God:
They are MLA citations. I actually used an MLA citation generator and they didn't ask for a page number.
Thanks for participating.
To PenuelFlux: I'm going to read your paper when I get a chance. Thanks for participating.
I’ve seen “the Law of Love” result in more harmful than beneficial situations. In theory, though, the allowance to fill a need -- or even a desire -- if all parties involved are in agreement, is a rather useful concept: In non-TFI society, you have swingers and people who are in open relationships/marriages… while the basis isn’t Christian, it works for them… throw in some Christ-driven love and the Law of Love could work.
I’d venture to say LOL was not the reason for or even the main contributing factor in the dissolving of most TFI marriages. I think, in general, there’s an acute lack of desire and/or willingness to work through problems -- there’s even a general lack of love and Christian graces and values, when approaching the difficulties that one should expect to arise in a marriage/relationship. Running off to someone else while in the midst of marital/relationship problems -- in effect, distracting oneself, instead of dealing with the issues -- in my opinion, exacerbates the strained situation and is not in any way part of the solution. Besides, having or finding such a distraction probably involves misapplication of the LOL, to begin with.
(As a side note: It’s possible that some LOL-ing started off fine and properly applied and then one or all parties realized they actually wanted to be with someone else and an amicable change was arranged. While technically this may be all good and well, if there are kids involved -- coming from a split-parents family [not due to misapplication of the LOL] -- I would not recommend even a “loving” split, for the sake of the children. Although, if all children end up with both a father and a mother, it may be acceptable.)
In the end, I think most couples, Christian or not, would benefit from focusing on strengthening their own relationship, without the complications and risks of additional relationships. If, however, a TFI couple should find themselves in a situation where something besides the Christian norm (or Vera -- I make a clever joke, haha! okay, only I get it…) would be required, in order to fill needs -- assuming all requirements are met and things are done correctly -- it’s a unique and liberating option and I wouldn’t deny it to’em.
In the few instances where I’ve observed correct LOL usage, it hasn’t resulted in dissolution of the marriage/relationship and all the promises in the Word really did come true.
It takes extremely strong (i.e. fighting human nature, having love not lust, etc.) and extremely loving people, with an extremely clear set of priorities, to (extremely) properly apply it, and I think, truth be told, most of us just aren’t strong, loving and pure enough. So we end up with entirely messy results and terrible problems.
If LOL theory could be practically applied according to what I believe was the original intent -- that is, I swear to live by love and nothing but the love -- some worlds could be a better place.
For added perspective, in a misapplied LOL-ing situation, I was the one who got the raw end of the deal.
The theory of the Law of Love is wonderful, loving, beautiful, pure and sincere, when involving wonderful, loving, beautiful, pure and sincere people. The reality and application of it is where it seems to get messed up.
In conclusion, maybe it’s simply not for everyone/most?
Rainbows: It's as if you were to say "There's nothing inherently immoral about driving down the wrong side of the street against the tide of oncoming traffic -- if done properly so that it hurts no one. Of course it takes an extremely good driver not to hit another car and an extremely lucky driver not to be hit by another car. Theoretically though, it's fine. It's just the application where things get messy."
You can see why the state would say it's irresponsible to drive on the wrong side of the road. From a Christian perspective, you might say it's unloving and against the Law of Love to do so.
The Bible, and specifically the New Testament, says adultery is against the Law of Love for much the same reason.
Wow, that's a lot of writing, Jason. Having once been a family member, joining at the age of 16 in 1971, I remember when the LOL first started & first started to be applied. At first, it was ONLY for top leadership to participate in, as us flunkies on the bottom where thought too dumb to know how to use it or apply it. Actually, come to think about it, at first IT WAS KEPT TOP SECRET. Then the leadership could do it, then us low folks could maybe do it. It seemed to me it fulfilled a lot of peoples lust for sex. Remember, I was there, I speak from experience. My first wife slept with someone new almost every night. I, not because I'm better than anyone else, could count on one hand the # of girls I had been with over a 5 or 6 year period. I have seen tons of peoples lives ruined because of the LOL, which, if you do an honest Bible study in the original languages that the Bible was written in, David Berg really stretched the truth, misapplied verses etc. Should I go so far as to call him a pedophile? How about having sex with your own grand daughter? Come on guys, grow up & smell the coffee. Let's call a spade a spade. David Berg was just a sex hungry pervert who could have sex with anyone he wanted, because, as he said in his own writings, he answered to no one but God. Ha! I wonder how he's answering now. Think about it, guys. What if you thought you answered to no mere man, don't you think you'd do just about anything you wanted to. Jesus said "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Check out David Bergs fruit. His own children to his first marriage, & the children he claimed as his own, from his second marriage. Wow! Need I say more. Some people just don't want to open their eyes. The family started out good, but was lead completely astray. This is just my own opinion, & I won't argue with anyone about it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We will all find out who was right in the end. God & Jesus, or David Berg. You be the judge.
i am assuming ur judeo-christian institution applies solely to the nuclear family...what about extended/polygamous marriages?
Climacus, for the sake of discussion…
Firstly: A full definition of terms and qualifications is lacking, in order to quantify every angle. For example, is “adultery” in this discussion extramarital, premarital, in-your-heart (Matthew 5:28), some or all of the above? Is “adultery” in the Bible a taking-of-another’s-property violation or an emotional/psychological/spiritual transgression; or all; or other; or does it depend on the era? Which school of thought defines THE Christian-State laws/standard, given the varying interpretations of the Bible that exist? If Jesus appeared right now and said “go ye therefore and apply the sexual side of the Law of Love”, would/should one reply with “I’m sorry, I can’t, because it goes against the State’s application of New Testament writings?”
Secondly: Some legislation or standards of morality are way too subjective (from an expansive point of view), particularly without complete data/information/perspective, without knowing what has been, why it’s been, what is, what may be, the mind of God… no way to factor in all the minutiae. Well, that’s why it’s a discussion and, in the end, it’d be impossible for any one person to actually pass unbiased and deity-ish judgment.
Too many angles! Regardless… acknowledging that we (well, some of us) are wooorrrms :) in our understanding…
Applying stated New Testament standards across-the-board, I know a host of men I should be running out to stone right now (even though I really shouldn’t cast the first stone, since I, too, have sinned… oh…), due to them having adulterous thoughts regarding Angelina Jolie… all because Jesus decided to go and complicate the legislatorial process by saying that the state of the heart and mind is just as transgressional as the physical/visible action.
If in Zorborgia the law states that it’s fine to drive against oncoming traffic, insofar as persons in the vehicles involved are willing participants and abide by the specified rules and regulations for such conduct, although I may not choose to engage in such activities, as I know all those of us involved would die, due to my (or their) poor driving skills, if the people in those 5 other cars want to engage in the-fun-and-exciting-chase-of-dodging-oncoming-traffic, with each other, while staying within the regulations, according to Zorborgia laws, it should be permissible.
But I think I digress… and from what, I do not know… :D
Second Anonymous comment: That's a great question. I didn't talk at all about polygamy in my post about the Christian model for marriage and although it really is a completely different beast which deserves its own focus, it does seem to be a relevant issue with respect to the Judeo-Christian model for marriage and society.
Basically (if I may), you are reminding me that ancient Jewish men often had many wives--not just one. This seems very different from the Genesis style of marriage that I described in my argument. Does this fact present a problem for my argument? It actually doesn't. My argument only requires that the Biblical model prescribe permanent marriage, not that a man marry only one woman.
As far as the issue of the compatibility of the Old Testament practice of polygamy with the Genesis model for marriage is concerned: I will have to admit that I am fairly ignorant of theological cases for, or against, polygamy.
At the risk of inciting a discussion about polygamy I'll make a couple of remarks about it.
There are some distinct differences between polygamy and extra marital sex. I can't see any way in which the practice of polygamy in the Old Testament could infer any allowance for extra marital sex. The best you could do with it (it would seem) is build a negative argument against what I've called the Christian model for marriage (and this still may not get extra marital sex off of the hot seat).
"Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." (Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis)
Since we are discussing the practical effects of TFI marriage with respect to the Christian model I will say that polygamy would seem to involve fewer obvious social problems than extra marital sex so long as marriage remains a permanent agreement.
And finally, (the digression) if there is any lack of clarity in the Bible about the moral status of the practice of polygamy, there certainly isn't any obscurity about the moral status of extra marital sex.
(note) I'm going to cover the New Testament's treatment of extra marital sex and the meaning of the word adultery in another post.
i think it has long been the practise of male christians, as a patriarchal institution, to take on mistresses if not marrying them(and i think theology has evolved to make concession for it). in times of war many times it was advised with the shortage of men.
the taboo simply was when women exercised the same freedom. can the LOL not then be seen as simply a more democratic reflection of this concession to human 'excess' ...away from simply male dominance?
Rainbows:
It isn't necessary for me to quantify every angle, nor to define all terms and parameters possible in the broader discussion in order to comment on the specific angle, terms and parameters you defined in your original comments. I'm not attempting to engage in the broader discussion, just to comment on the following statements you made:
"I’ve seen “the Law of Love” result in more harmful than beneficial situations."
"In the few instances where I’ve observed correct LOL usage..."
"It takes extremely strong (i.e. fighting human nature, having love not lust, etc.) and extremely loving people, with an extremely clear set of priorities, to (extremely) properly apply it, and I think, truth be told, most of us just aren’t strong, loving and pure enough. So we end up with entirely messy results and terrible problems."
I agree with your observations; that correct LOL usage has occurred in "few instances"; that in general it "result(s) in more harmful than beneficial situations"; and that "we end up with entirely messy results and terrible problems."
If some other behavior resulted in "harmful, messy results" and "terrible problems" wouldn't you say that it wasn't according to your Law of Love ethic?
However, your conclusion is not that such negative results mark a behavior as being wrong according to your own Law of Love ethic, but rather that "maybe it's simply not for everyone/most?"
I think I see where you're going with this: It's the argument that "if people applied the LOL ethic correctly to their sexual activities, there wouldn't be these problems...it's just that people don't apply it correctly."
After giving it the "'ol college try" for 30 years or so, do you think maybe it's time to admit that, like you said, at best such a hypothetical is possible in "few situations" and that "most of us just aren’t strong, loving and pure enough?"
To return to the driving analogy I gave, there is a reason why traffic laws have been put in place to prevent people from driving on the opposite side of the street against the oncoming traffic. It's because when someone does that it more often than not results in "more harmful than beneficial situations" and "we end up with entirely messy results and terrible problems."
Could someone of exceptional skill and luck pull it off without a problem? Every time? What about the other drivers on the road? According to the Law of Love ethic would you even permit someone to attempt it, putting everyone else on the road at risk, as well as themselves? Does the fact that for them it's "the-fun-and-exciting-chase-of-dodging-oncoming-traffic" justify it? Especially since "messy results" can be exceptionally terrible (driving/death, sex/divorce)?
I'm not asking whether there might be a fictional country where such driving behavior would be legal. I'm simply asking whether it's morally right, within the terms, definitions and parameters of the Law of Love ethic we are discussing.
Imagine that there was such a fictional country. I think most people would question the ethics of a law which permits people to put their lives and the lives of others at risk in such a way, even if all the participants involved agreed to it for the sake of fun and excitement. I think someone who holds to a LOL ethic might say that law was morally wrong, because it violated the LOL.
In an analogous way, this seems to explain why the New Testament writers, who identified many applications of the LOL and many offenses against it, classified adultery as being an offense against the LOL.
What do you think?
I'm not sure if the LOL is the main reason for failed marriages amongst TFI or Former TFI members.
I think a lot of young people got married and had kids too fast and had a lot of them and then after a few years realized that maybe they didn't actually want to spend the rest of their lives with their significant other.
Jason,
Not to harp on the same thing but just because you put it into an MLA generator doesn't mean it's doing it properly. Proper MLA citation includes a page number when citing from a book. Ask anyone who's taken a college writing class. Also most professors in college prohibit the usage of MLA generators precisely to prevent the kind of mistake you have made as many people think that just because it is automated it is correct.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/2/
Check out the link above or Google MLA in-text citation if you don't believe me.
well if someone came up with this great conclusion when living communally (and acted on it) I would give them a lot of credit but when you live alone and decide that being exclusively with your wife is the "best way" when basically its what your doing it doesn't seem all that earthshaking I think there has to be a viable alternative before a statement to go in a certain direction has value
Attack arguments, not people.
Last anonymous commenter: You don't need personal information about me to judge the strength or soundness of my argument. And although I actually WAS in The Family and in a commune in San Marcos for over a year after I judged this doctrine to be false, that fact doesn't strengthen or weaken my argument.
Johannes Climacus: Thanks
Jesse: I'm sure you're right, but now I think it's strange how my philosophy professor from last semester never gave me trouble for doing it that way.
I bet you were on board with the law of love when it suited you!
Thanks for the comment. I have a couple of remarks about it. Since I just talked about Ad Hominem argumentation in the comment that preceded yours I won't bring that point up again.
1. I was "on-board" with the Law of Love once, but I didn't stop being on-board because The Law of Love stopped suiting me. The Law of Love suits every man by his nature; I stopped believing in The Law of Love when I started thinking and when I stopped being dishonest with myself.
2. If I had never practiced The Law of Love myself, wouldn't you be arguing that there is no way that I could understand The Law of Love and therefore have no right to make judgement about it?
Doesn't it rather strengthen my credibility that I was neutrally born into The Family and raised with these doctrines which I now oppose? Is there really a more credible kind of critic than one who is neutrally born into, and raised, with the ideas and beliefs that he later criticizes? or am I only credible if I agree with The Family?
3. It seems a little contradictory that, while defending Family doctrine, my character and credibility should stand in the way of your reviewing my arguments. How did the character flaws of Family leadership pass your scrutiny that you should believe and defend their arguments? It seems that you haven't been consistent (much less neutral) yourself.
Post a Comment