To read original post click HERE

Dear Ivy Russell:

Well, I’m truly sorry to be so long in getting a response off to you.  As I began to address you, I became a little confused over which is your first name and which is your last name.  Russell Ivy seems the most likely, but Ivy Russell could also work.  Perhaps you could clue me in.

But to the point – First, you seemed offended by my use of the word “train” in conjunction with children.  The term is intended to connote more than just rote conditioning as is common with animals. The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition includes,

3 a : to form by instruction, discipline, or drill b : to teach so as to make fit, qualified, or proficient  4 : to make prepared (as by exercise) for a test of skill.” 

You are right that our children should be nurtured, loved, encouraged and appreciated.  To do those things, however, often includes training.  For example, if you love your child you will instruct him/her to stay close to your side while walking in a parking lot to the store so the child isn’t hit by a car and injured.  Sometimes simple instruction is all that is needed and sometimes stern discipline is required to protect the child’s safety.  At any rate, we do it because we love our children and it consists of training.

The Bible instructs parents to, “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.”  While that may not mean anything to you, it means a lot to Christian parents who desire raise their children according to a Christian worldview.

You mentioned that “numerous times you refer to women as objects of sorts.”  You’ll have to help me out on that one.  I can only conclude that your worldview interprets what I say as demeaning to women whereas the Christian worldview interpretation is one that esteems women.  Only the Christian worldview recognizes the equality and worth of every person on earth as being made in the image of God while simultaneously recognizing that the universe is a place of order.  Not everyone can be the President of the United States just like not everyone can be the poorest of the impoverished.  This is true whether one is speaking of the global community, national community, local community, or the family.  Somebody must lead and somebody must follow.

You wrote, “In today's society women are raised and encouraged to be strong individual thinkers who can make a life for themselves without the help of a husband.   Men are intended to be optional in the modern woman's life.”  I have no problem with strong thinking women.  Did you see the page on the web site devoted to Margaret Thatcher?  I’d say she’s a pretty strong woman, wouldn’t you?  But while I admire your Western rugged individualism (that is the American way, right?) you are wrong to think that it is other than the best for the vast majority of men and women to partner together under the conviction of a marriage commitment.

You ask,” What is your response to the fact that numerous times in history crusaders for your religion have destroyed valuable information that has never been recovered?”  I ask you, “What is your response to the fact that hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered by those who embrace your religion?”  But throwing stones at the different actors of our respective worldviews doesn’t really accomplish anything.  The validity of truth and reality is determined by the universal laws of logic to ascertain if a worldview accounts for all of reality in truth.  Unfortunately, men make mistakes and are prone to selfishness and greed and other things and therefore are very capable of acting contrary to their professed beliefs.

You comment, “You are quite obviously a product of the brainwashing your parents and their parents before them have fed into you.”  And you are quite obviously a product of the brainwashing fed to you by modern feminists and egalitarians.  But again, it doesn’t accomplish much to call each other names.  Yes, I believe that all men are created equal but not the way hyper-egalitarians have twisted the original meaning from its Christian origins to the classless dream of Marx, Lenin and Communistic/Socialistic oppression.

The product of 100 years of Dewey/Spock socialism is today’s American culture that expresses a desire to “rise above “ class structure all the while demanding for and recognizing more and more special interests groups and sub-classes.  Just this week was the news of the deaf “parents” who purposely birthed a deaf child on the belief that deafness is a culture.

Modern liberals cry for fairness and tolerance of all groups and cultures on the surface while practicing their own brand of discrimination based on whether or not you are a member of one of their “approved” special interests groups.  But homophobes are not on the approved list and, thus, there is no tolerance for their voice.  It all rings too similar to the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and China’s Communist Revolution – a culture where everyone is treated the same – as long as you conform to the standards established by the ones with the most guns. Otherwise, death.

Well, perhaps we will agree on some points but I suspect that our worldviews are irreconcilable.  Ultimately in a society, one worldview prevails.  I tend to agree with Robert Winthrop’s 1849 assessment of things, “All societies of men must be governed in some way or other.  The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government.  The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint.  Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.  It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion.  Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”

God’s grace to you,

Pat Hurd



Patrick L. Hurd
Weatherford, Texas

EST. 01/01/01