Randal Rauser's Blog, page 67
December 1, 2019
November 30, 2019
November 29, 2019
Would you indoctrinate your child to save their soul?
This should be interesting. I just posted this Twitter survey. It seems to me that if you believe that the failure to be a Christian ensures eternal separation from God and the concomitant deprivation of the unimaginable goods of the new heavens and new earth, then in principle you would have excellent grounds to indoctrinate in order to ensure that outcome.
To be sure, in the real world indoctrination offers no such guarantee. And thus, in the actual world, Christian exclusivists are not obliged to indoctrinate. But the principle remains, nonetheless: given that specific Christian exclusivist soteriology and the guarantee of the desired outcome, indoctrination would be the obligation of any loving parent.
Christian parents, if you could choose between (i) indoctrinating your children and thereby ensuring that they hold your Christian beliefs or (ii) educating your children and thereby making it only 75% likely that they would hold your Christian beliefs … which would you choose?
— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) November 29, 2019
The post Would you indoctrinate your child to save their soul? appeared first on Randal Rauser.
November 28, 2019
Eternal Conscious Torment and Modern Sentimentalism
Christians who defend the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment often accuse critics of the doctrine of “modern sentimentalism”.
What, like the “sentimental” ideas that slavery and torture are wrong? That animal suffering is morally significant? That armies in military conflicts shouldn’t target non-combatants? That prisons should seek to reform and not merely to punish?
Those are all “modern” ideas. Yet, that is no argument against them. And to call them “sentimental” would be diminished as retrograde, foolish ignorance. The moral censure of eternal conscious torment is drawn from the same well as the modern stance on all these other varied topics. If we do not dismiss the latter as mere sentimentalism, why do so in the case of eternal conscious torment?
The post Eternal Conscious Torment and Modern Sentimentalism appeared first on Randal Rauser.
November 27, 2019
November 26, 2019
November 24, 2019
November 21, 2019
What the Bible Says About Dogs (and why it matters)
Many Christians think the Bible is a handbook for all of life. In this video, I test that idea by considering what the Bible says about dogs. (Spoiler: it ain’t good.) So, must we choose between the Bible and our dogs?
The post What the Bible Says About Dogs (and why it matters) appeared first on Randal Rauser.
November 20, 2019
Blame the Victim: Conservative Christianity and a culture of shaming women
Yesterday, The Christian Post published my article “John Crist sinned, but did he also commit sexual assault?” I don’t know if those who commented on the article were conservative Christians, but they certainly fit the patriarchal stereotype of conservative Christianity. A fellow named Charles Baker wrote:
“I think Crist is probably guilty as sin but the author accepts the woman’s version without question. There are a whole lot of red flags in her accounts so please don’t be so quick to accept one side of the story.”
First, I didn’t accept “the woman’s version without question.” Rather, I pointed out that it provides sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation, which it most surely does. (Among the relevant points are Mr. Crist’s past history of similar behavior, the real-time corroboration of her boyfriend, her demonstrable trauma, and her lack of motive to lie/fabricate her experience.)
But what really irks me is that Mr. Baker uses objectifying, distancing language by referring to Kate as “the woman”. Further, he says, without evidence, that her testimony includes “a whole lot of red flags” without explaining what those “flags” are. In other words, raise just enough concern that you can safely ignore what she says.
Arguably even worse is the comment of “Vicky Daum” who writes:
“What he did wasn’t right, but where is her responsibility? She gave him her phone number. She didn’t bring her boyfriend, or anyone else, and went alone. She didn’t know what she was drinking? She couldn’t tell if the drink was stronger than water or soda? And then she went swimming with him, and although we don’t know what she swam in, this is usually a recreational activity where less clothes are worn, not more. Too many women don’t want to send the wrong message…while sending the wrong message.”
Imagine a victim of sexual assault hearing this kind of victim-blaming. “Why’d you give him your phone number?” “Why didn’t you bring your boyfriend?” “What were you drinking?” “Why’d you swim?” “What message did you send?” “Did you lead him on?”
It is exactly that line of questioning that has long empowered predators and shamed women into silence. Notably, no commenter expressed sympathy or support for Kate. In my experience, the #MeToo movement has not even begun to make inroads into conservative Christianity and its patriarchal culture of shame and victim-blaming.
The post Blame the Victim: Conservative Christianity and a culture of shaming women appeared first on Randal Rauser.
November 17, 2019
John Crist sinned, but did he also commit sexual assault?
A few weeks ago, Charisma Magazine published a powerful expose of comedian John Crist chronicling his long history of exploiting women for his sexual gratification. Near the end of the article, author Taylor Berglund writes, “Though the allegations against Crist are not criminal, we believe they are newsworthy….” Unfortunately, Mr. Berglund provides no explanation for why he finds these allegations to be not criminal. And there is noteworthy evidence in the article to the contrary.
The article highlights the experience of one young woman, “Kate,” who described interviewing Mr. Crist with her boyfriend present. As she left, Crist asked for her phone number. He contacted her soon after and invited her to come over. Thinking the interaction would be platonic and would exemplify a mentoring relationship, she notified her boyfriend and went to meet Crist.
The article then states that Crist “gave her a water bottle full of raspberry vodka …” though, importantly, it is not clear from the article whether Kate was aware of the contents of the bottle at the time. They then went rollerblading together along the boardwalk in Venice (California). After Kate had consumed more than half the bottle, she agreed to go swimming with Crist:
“Once there, she says Crist grabbed her and tried to kiss her, and in her drunken state, she struggled to push him off. He told her in crude terms how much he wanted to have sex with her and continued to pursue her. In response, she tried to explain that she had a boyfriend and only desired a mentoring relationship with Crist, not a sexual one. Eventually, he relented.”
In this exchange, we read that Crist forcibly grabbed Kate with sexual intent at which point, “she struggled to push him off.” Despite the fact that Kate had made clear that she did not consent, he nonetheless “continued to pursue her.”
Following this exchange, the two returned to Crist’s apartment so that Kate could retrieve her personal things: “Once there, Crist again grabbed her, crudely propositioned her for sex and begged her to stay.” In other words, for the third time Crist put his hands on Kate with sexual intent despite the fact that she had strongly expressed her nonconsent to his sexual advances.
The experience was extremely traumatic for Kate. As we then read, “The ordeal left Kate emotionally devastated and still—two years later—spiritually shaken. She says she struggles with ‘what it means to be Christian after being so disgustingly let down by a role model I considered a man of God.'”
Crist’s actions were clearly immoral, but were they illegal? Let’s consider, as an example, The California Penal Code Section 243.4 (a) which addresses sexual battery:
“any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery.” (Source; My thanks to Dana Harper for pointing me to this section of the Code.)
As we have seen, according to the excerpts from Kate’s interview, Mr. Crist continued to physically touch her with sexual intent even after she had asked him to stop. The experience was so intense that Kate remains traumatized two years later. Further, as the Charisma article ominously observes, “Kate’s story is not an isolated incident.”
Did Mr. Crist commit sexual battery in this case? Might his actions constitute other violations of the California Penal Code? Has he violated the laws in other jurisdictions based on a similar pattern of behavior?
At this point, we do not know. But it seems to me that at the very least the available evidence does not support Mr. Berglund’s assessment that Mr. Crist’s actions were not criminal. Sin is serious business, but so is the violation of the law. And if Mr. Crist has violated the law, he must be held accountable. To that end, my hope is that his victims will have the courage to come forward and seek legal counsel. Healing can only begin once the nature of the crime has been identified.
The post John Crist sinned, but did he also commit sexual assault? appeared first on Randal Rauser.
