What is Faith?
According to the definition supplied at Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Faith is:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Synonym = BELIEF
The underlying foundation of 'faith' is that it is not 'demonstrable proof'. Faith requires a commitment against which there may be logical rebuttal or demonstrable evidence. Faith is not the absence of doubt, but rather the assurance of the verity of that in which it is placed.
Faith more often than not, requires a 'leap of faith'. That is to say, that one must put away the 'doubt' and trust that that in which faith has been placed, is worthy of the faith that has been placed in 'IT'.
This type of 'leap of faith' however, is a 'choice' that is made of choosing between two or more 'particulars' (objects, circumstances, people, values etc).
There is however another type of 'leap of faith', which says that I must choose between ideologies, not because a faith decision is required by virtue of a lack of demonstrable 'proof' that my faith/choice is right or wrong, but rather is a requirement to adhere to a 'principle', despite the solid evidence against 'justifiable faith', for the sole reason that by refusing to place one's faith (and consequent commitment) 'totally' in and to that ideology, the fundamental basis of that ideology will be destroyed.
In short, it becomes necessary to support something corrupt within an ideology, for fear that the ideology and its effect will be utterly destroyed without that 'total' support.
Take for instance, Feminism. There is a branch of Feminism which is so virulent and aggressive, that it refuses to see women as anything other than victims of male society, and completely deny anything that suggests otherwise. On a page entitled 'Violent Crimes and Studies' at www.fathers.ca, one can read things such as the following quote:
'In 1975 a team of U.S. researchers lead by Dr. Murray Straus and Richard Gelles conducted a national BOTH GENDER survey in the U.S. regarding "inter-spousal battery". The survey was anonymous, and they found that 16 percent of couples were violent toward each other, and that fewer than 1 percent fit their severe abuse criteria.
Most surprisingly they found that "women assault their partners at about the same rate as men assault their partners", including the most severe forms of abuse gathered. This latter finding was so unexpected that the researchers assumed it to be an abberation. However in 1985 a second survey gave the same findings, and the results of both surveys were published in the 1986 August edition of the "Journal of Marriage and the Family" (vol 48). So was born the subject of the "battered husband".
One of the more well-known individuals to write on this topic was Suzanne Steinmetz, the author of the book "The Battered Husband" and one of the co-investigators of the 'First National Family Violence Survey' by Murray Straus et al. She would frequently give lectures at various universities regarding women's violence toward their spouses and, as a result, became the object of wrath of many a women's group.
When she was scheduled for a promotion, women's groups launched a letter writing campaign urging that it be denied. Other times she and her family were the object of death threats; one of the conferences she spoke at received a bomb threat.
Why, one wonders, would certain groups or individuals, within the women's movement, be so paranoid at acknowledging the fact that men, too, can be victims of battery at the hands of their wives? One theory offered is that women's groups "feared" that they would be forced to share funds allocated for shelters; however even if this were to occur, it hardly excuses their behaviour. Everyone is entitled to live a life free of violence regardless of their gender, and to have their issues equally aired and dealt with.'
There is a great deal throughout this website dealing with how Ultra Feminists have hijacked society to the point that even some 'Women' are not exempt from their vengeance.
Of course you may consider this just my personal bias, but let me draw your attention to an article in the Courier Mail (Q'ld Aust.) Online Newspaper Article entitled 'No one listening to runaway'.
Making clear eye contact and speaking articulately, Peta - not her real name - said the allegations of emotional, physical and sexual abuse brought against her father by her mother, which prompted the department's intervention, were "bull....". She said officers made her sister have blood tests for pregnancy and hepatitis. ....."She had the pregnancy test because our father supposedly interferes with us and she had the (hepatitis) test because they said Dad had it. But he doesn't - our mum does," she said.
In the same newspaper's feedback section there appeared this comment:
- "This makes me sick. The Department of Child Safety won't leave these girls alone, yet I've been calling them for months about the abuse of a toddler in my neighbourhood and they won't do anything about it. These girls are put through hell by the Dept of Child Safety, while the same Dept sits by and lets a mother put a toddler through hell and won't do anything about it. Seems no child is safe with things the way they are".
What this article and the comment portrays, is a completely 'hysterical' approach to MEN that does not apply to women. Now take this article for instance in the same Newspaper entitled: 'Mum jailed for torturing son's friend'
This women who appeared to have a drug and alcohol problem had an unjustified fear that this boy wanted to rape her daughter. This is what she did:
- 'She then beat him with a baseball bat, punched him in the face repeatedly and threatened to circumcise him with a razor on June 16 last year. She also threatened to burn him with a cigarette lighter, wrote the word liar on his forehead with a texta, set her dog on him and locked him in a shed.'
She was sentenced to 18 months in jail with a suspension of 14 months, effectively reducing her punishment to 4 months. As one feedback comment put it: If a man had done all these things to a thirteen year old girl, he would have gone to jail for years, rather than four months.
The point I want to draw here, (and I hope you will check out the 'fathers' website), is that in pursuance of their feminist agenda, some women are 'abusing' not only men, not only children, not only other women, but society as a whole, by constantly demanding women choose between 'the truth' and 'feminism'. This is not to say that feminism itself is wrong, but when a women must choose a philosophy over the truth, she is in error.
It is one thing to overcome one's doubts with 'Faith'; it is another to 'choose and follow a demonstrably false doctrine', in order to give legitimacy to one's genuine and legitimate 'faith'.
Unfortunately, this type of rationalisation pervades every sphere of western society and culture.
This article was originally written 7 years ago and was updated July 2011
On the Issue of Abuse you can read: Emotional Abuse & Female Emotional Abusers, which I published at Kingscalendar and which has been Serialized at Magic City Morning Star News.
The Truth about Gender Violence (Links to the Violent Women Series at Kingscalendar).
R.P.Bendedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Other Articles worth Reading:
R.P.BenDedek is the pseudonym of the Author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' (www.kingscalendar.com), and is a guest columnist at Magic City Morning Star News. An Australian, he currently teaches Conversational English in China.
Writers Journal Kingscalendar
"The King's Calendar" is a chronological study of the historical books of the Bible (Kings and Chronicles), Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah, and the (Essene) Damascus Document of The Dead Sea Scrolls.
