Love & marriage

An evangelical Christian publicly solicits advice about whether he should break off his engagement to a woman who believes abortion and homosexuality are morally licit. My response, though I'm sure others can do better:

1. I'm assuming you and others (e.g. friends, family, pastors) have already attempted to reason with her, but she still won't change her mind. If you haven't, of course, then this is something you should try to do if you wish to salvage the relationship. Try to graciously win her over to the truth. If you have tried, time and time again, but she remains unconvinced, then what more can you do? You can't reason with her if she doesn't wish to listen to reason.

2. Romantic love that motivates people toward marriage is wonderful. However, a good marriage can't be built solely out of romantic love. If romantic love is all there is, a marriage simply won't last. It'll be like fireworks fizzling out after all the champagne, toasts, kisses, and celebrations are finished. After the honeymoon period, there needs to be something that will give a marriage staying power. Staying power to last a lifetime. In short, what's most needed is fundamentally shared beliefs and values about the most important things in life. And nothing is more important in life than God. The God of the Bible, who is the one, true, and living God.

3. There are central issues and peripheral issues in Christianity. There are issues which Christians can agree to disagree on and issues which they can't or else it'd undermine what it means to be a Christian. Abortion and homosexuality are central issues.

a. Abortion is, at heart, about life, about neighbor-love, about loving and protecting life in the weakest and most vulnerable, i.e., babies. This reflects the character of the God of the Bible who protects the helpless, the weak, and so on. If she's willing to put her "right to choose" over and against the baby's "right to live", to prioritize personal autonomy over what's moral, then is that the kind of person you want to be your wife and the mother of your children? For example, wouldn't you be concerned she might abort your child behind your back if she decides it's inconvenient for her?

(By the way, I can cite medical and scientific literature demonstrating a zygote-embryo-fetus is a human life. All these terms are different stages of development but the same baby. It's like saying newborn, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly. Just different terms for different stages in life but the same human being.)

b. As for homosexuality, as well as transgenderism and other related issues, the problem is this dives deeply into what it means to be human. To be male and female. To have been created in the image of God.

That's something secular society is confused about because they don't really believe in God. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then there's no objective universal foundation for "being" a human being. Not that I can see. If God doesn't exist, or at least if God's thoughts don't matter, then humans don't have a fixed fundamental nature of what it means to be a human being. We can decide for ourselves who or what it means to be human if we don't need to hear from God what it means to be human.

Hence, in essence, almost anything goes. You're a man who wants to have sex with other men? You're a woman who wants to have sex with other women? You're a man, but you want to be a woman? You're a woman, but you want to be a man? No problem, do whatever makes you happy. That's the basic mantra in secular society.

However, one need only look at the lives of homosexuals who have had plenty of sex with other homosexuals. Not to mention the lives of transgendered men and women who have become what they always wanted. Sure, like everyone, they put on a happy front, but their lives are often hollow and miserable on closer inspection.

And read what Rob Gagnon, Rosaria Butterfield, Vaughan Roberts, Christopher Yuan, and Jackie Hill-Perry have to say about homosexuality. Some of them were former homosexuals who became Christians.

4. You're already doubting yourself, asking if you're a "silly fundamentalist", and so on. As such, it seems to me if you marry her, then it's far more likely she'll have a liberalizing effect on your beliefs and values than the other way around. It's a story I've seen more than once with my own eyes. A husband gradually accommodates to his wife. He believes whatever she wants him to believe. He does whatever she wants him to do. He lets her be the boss. He thinks she'll be pleased. However, in the end, how much does she really respect him for believing or doing whatever she thinks best?

5. By contrast, if you do break off the engagement, it might make her see that you really do have beliefs and values you're willing to stand up for, even at great personal cost to you. It shows her, as heart-breaking as this would be for you and her, and as much as you love her, that you have a higher love and duty to God. This may or may not make her reconsider her own beliefs. That's not something you can or should count on. However, she won't be able to disrespect you for living up to your beliefs and values. If anything, it'll likely be the opposite: she may be sad, angry, upset, or worse, but she'll have good reason to respect you.

The twilight of Jordan Peterson

I want to piggyback on a comment from redditor HillGrassBlueBilly:

I recently watched a dialogue between Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager. In the opening of the discussion, Dennis Prager start’s by expressing a high commendation for Jordan that he (Dennis) has an innate ability at recognising “Goodness” in people and regards Jordan as such. Jordan responds by disapproving the well-meaning compliment and instead says that it’s not that he’s inherently good, rather he recognises in himself the capacity for evil and how terrible he could be. Seeing and avoiding the pathway to the dark places people can go, is what motivates him to do “Good” rather than it being inherency.

This reminds me of what C.S Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity regarding the increased awareness of all the evil in you.

"When a man is getting better, he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less.

A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.

This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them, you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk.

Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either."

I’m not suggesting Jordan is a Christian (Although if I had to place a bet I’d say he’s bordering on conversion) but the more I walk with God, the more I also recognise just how utterly evil we humans are or capable of. This can often be looked at as overly cynical as it has been suggested to me before, but there would have been a time when I myself would regard Romans 3:10-12 as pessimistic.

I would not say my view on how absolutely reprehensible we are, is solely down to realizing how evil we are/could be (I’ve seen a fair share of evil), rather it concurs with a new perspective and appreciation for the Holiness of God and His goodness which is beyond comprehension. It’s this revelation of His goodness that becomes one of the cornerstones in my seeking for goodness.

1. Here is the discussion between Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager. I haven't watched it. I'll simply go off of the comments above.

2. On the one hand, that's good Jordan Peterson recognizes the evil within him. So, with respect to the evil within, sure, I suppose one could say he is "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mk 12:34).

3. On the other hand, I think the problem is Peterson teeters back and forth between this (biblical) recognition of our bent, twisted, and evil nature and the nihilistic moral abyss into which he fears his soul could plunge at any moment. I think Peterson is attempting to "rage, rage against the dying of the light", to choose goodness and light in the face of the torrent of moral darkness rising up and threatening to flood him and drown him beneath its heavy waves. He's like a Viking heroically facing down Ragnarök, though the twilight of the gods is upon him.

In short, I think Peterson echoes within his own soul: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Peterson sits on a knife's edge, knowing he must resist so he doesn't become a monster or be pulled into the abyss, but likewise suspecting resistance may be ultimately futile. Fearing that, at any moment, the monster could emerge or the abyss suck him down, down into its depths, forever lost.

4. My hope is Peterson realizes if nihilism is true - such as (if I'm not mistaken) the nihilism of Peterson's mentors across time and space like Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche - then there are fundamentally speaking no objective moral values let alone duties or obligations. If there are no objective moral values or duties, then Ragnarök is inevitable. The death of all must come. If nihilism is true, then life is absurdity.

As Shakespeare puts into the mouth of his guilt-ridden MacBeth upon hearing about the death of his queen:

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

5. However, if Peterson doesn't wish to succumb to the perpetual night and the frozen waste land, wherein lie absurdity and madness, then his only real or viable option is to embrace the faith of his father and mother: the God of the Bible, whom alone imbues life with ultimate value, meaning, and purpose. Why is Christianity the only real or viable option? I'd recommend a book like James Anderson's Why Should I Believe Christianity? for the case.

God of life and truth

The ultimate reality of which Moses was the shadow, the archetype of which Moses was the ectype, now appeared. The true light (John 1:9), the true grace were now manifested.’ It is in this sense that we are to understand our Lord when he said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’...He is the God of truth and all truth derives its sanctity from him. This is why all untruth or falsehood is wrong; it is a contradiction of that which God is... The necessity of truthfulness in us rests upon God’s truthfulness. As we are to be holy because God is holy, so we are to be truthful because God is truthful. The glory of God is that he is the God of truth; the glory of man is that he is the image of God and therefore ‘of the truth’ (cf John 18:37). It is not without significance that the arch-enemy of God and his kingdom is the father of lies; ‘he does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, because he is a liar and the father of it’ (John 8:44).

https://www.the-highway.com/truth_Murray.html

There are some problem with this inference:

i) Not only is God the exemplar of truth, but as Murray mentions, the exemplar of life. Conversely, Satan is not only the archetypal liar, but the archetypal murderer. 

Likewise, humans are life-givers, through the power of procreation. In that respect, we emulate God–at a finite, derivative level. 

But where does our duty lie if we can save innocent life through an altruistic falsehood? Which of God's exemplary attributes provides moral guidance in that situation: the God of life or the God of truth? Is our primary obligation in that situation to safeguard truth or to safeguard life? Does the preservation of truth take precedence over the preservation of life? So Murray is arbitrarily selective in his appeal to God's nature. 

ii) I don't think we can automatically extrapolate from what's right for God to what's right for us. God is not exposed to the vulnerabilities that lead human agents to lie, to get out of the situation. Of course, that doesn't justify lying in general. But we can find ourselves in dangerous or unjust situations through no fault of our own, where a lie may be the only escape. God is never in that desperate position or predicament. So it's not analogous. God is not in every respect our role model. In some respects he's a radically different kind of being, with some unique prerogatives. 

Why didn't God create us in heaven?

Some people ask why God didn't begin at the end. Begin with the goal. The question is ambiguous.

1. Technically, "heaven" is the intermediate state, a disembodied, postmortem state between death and the general resurrection. So is the question why didn't God create us after we died? But of course, God can't create us after we die, inasmuch as we must already exist in order to die.

2. Is the question why didn't God created us in a disembodied state? But that's not an ideal condition. There are many benefits to embodied experience. 

In that respect, the question suffers from popular confusion by theologically illiterate people who think heaven is the ultimate goal of human existence. You die, go to heaven, and live there forever. But that's not Christian eschatology. 

3. Is "heaven" being used as a synonym for the final (earthly) state, i.e. the new Eden/new Jerusalem? But God already created Adam and Eve in an Edenic earthly state. They fell.

4. Perhaps the question is why didn't God create us perfect? Skip the journey and cut straight to the destination. 

i) If so, that assumes the process is dispensable. And the end-result is achievable without experience. But is that realistic? Take forgiveness. You can't experience forgiveness without prior wrongdoing. The sense of guilt, gratitude, and relief. So that condition can't be directly created. It's a nested effect, internally related to something prior. An intervening history is necessary prerequisite. 

ii) In addition, creating everyone sinless and impeccable would preempt the lives of many people whose existence is contingent on a fallen world. They are products of chains of events involving sinful agents. 

The privilege paradigm

The status of white privilege is a big issue in Democrat politics. But before we can analyze white privilege (assuming that's a meaningful category), we need to grasp the concept of privilege in general. Let's consider a few examples of what might constitute people from a privileged background. Terence Tao is on the short list of greatest living mathematicians. His mother received a first-class honors degree in physics and mathematics at the University of Hong Kong. Actress Anjelica Huston is the daughter of renowned American director John Huston. Harpsichordist Igor Kipnis was the son of renowned opera basso Alexander Kipnis. The father of mathematical physicist Roger Penrose was a geneticist and Fellow of the Royal Society. Ed Witten was the son a theoretical physicist.

What these example have in common is how the background of these individuals contributed to their success in their chosen field. It's not coincidental that they had that kind of background. Their background proved to be advantageous in their career choice. In that respect we might say they were privileged kids.

Suppose we compare that to a cowboy in Montana. Let's say he grew up on a ranch, adjacent to a small town. He was cut off from "civilization" growing up. So it might well be said that he's underprivileged. He never had the advantages enjoyed by the individuals I just mentioned.

But here's where the definition of privilege becomes relative or circular. The privilege paradigm is goal-oriented. It reasons back from success in a particular field to the background of the individual, which in some cases gave them an unearned competitive advantage.

So our cowboy is underprivileged, at a disadvantage, provided that his dream is to become a movie star, physicist, mathematician, or classical musician. Suppose, though, that was never his ambition in life. He hates big cities. He loves horseback riding. Loves the out of doors. He drinks in natural beauty. Rivers. Fields and streams. The Grant Tetons. The starry night, undiminished by light pollution from the big city. He relishes the freedom to make his own schedule, rather than punching a clock.

So in that respect we can reverse the comparative advantages. In relation to what he cares about, what he finds fulfilling, he has a privileged background in contrast to Kipnis, Penrose, Witten, Huston, and Tao, who–by comparison–are underprivileged. If the aim is to enjoy the lifestyle of a Montana cowboy, then their background puts them at a nearly insurmountable disadvantage, by prejudicing them against ever considering that alternative.

Put another way, your background often has a conditioning effect, not only on what you're likely to succeed at, but on what you wish to succeed at. They'd have to overcome their background to appreciate ranching in Montana. And they wouldn't have any skills, honed from childhood, suiting them to that lifestyle.

It's striking how much of the American mythos is bound up with what progressive academics would regard as an underprivileged background. Take Mark Twain's valorization of his childhood as a country boy. Nostalgic memories of summers at his uncle's farm. Life on the Mississippi. Exploring the local caves. Or consider the Western in American mythos. Admittedly, that's often romanticized. 

My father grew up in small-town Yakima, in the 20s-30s. He was dying to escape that and make it to "civilization" in Seattle. Because we had relatives in E. Washington, we made frequent trips there. It was a nice change of pace. Stretches of E. Washington are bleak and barren, but it also has some majestic landscape, like the Columbia river gorge. Spokane is a handsome town. 

I was once talking to a cousin who grew up in E. Washington. He waxed wistful about hunting and horseback riding. A different lifestyle. But for him, that was good.

I didn't grow up in Seattle, and I dislike the urban lifestyle. On the other hand, some folks revel in the urban lifestyle. So there's no one-size-fits-all ideal. "Privilege" is person-variable. 

So the privilege paradigm is analogous to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where you begin with the outcome, where the dart lands, then draw a circle around the dart, exclaiming that it retroactively hit the bullseye. By the same token, the privilege paradigm begins with a hypothetical ideal outcome, then reasons back to an advantageous or disadvantageous initial conditions, where achieving or missing the outcome is impeded or facilitated by one's background. That, however, typically trades on a provincial and elitist preconception of what is best in life. If, to get the best out of life, it's be better to be a movie star or physicist than a cowboy, then a boy with a rural background is underprivileged. But the assignment of what's ideal is arbitrary. It tacitly mirrors the values of academics who formulate the privilege paradigm.

Men should shut up–unless we need their votes

Men are entitled to no opinions about abortion so shut up about it but also if you don’t speak up against this abortion ban you’re a failure https://t.co/yGvTa3ENg1

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) May 23, 2019

Delphinid existentialism

French existentialist dolphins are prone to ennui. They realize that in a godless ocean they have no ultimate porpoise in life. So they drown their anomie by swimming in chablis. 

Out with the old and in with the new

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/05/23/pope-francis-church-must-learn-abandon-old-traditions/

The Failure of Biblical Unitarianism: Part 1 - History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32kaHhUzFXQ

Walking into a self-induced ambush

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/24/naomi-wolf-discovers-book-wrong-middle-interview/

Ghost-layers

Exorcists are associated with expelling demons from the possessed. A related, but neglected category, is ghost-layers. Unlike an exorcist, a ghost-layer is associated expelling ghosts or poltergeists from a haunted house. Traditionally, exorcists are associated with Roman Catholic priests while ghost-layers are associated with Anglican country parsons. My immediate point is not to comment on the merits of ghost-laying, but draw attention to a neglected designation and curiosity of church history. 

A Reassessment Of The Warrens And Enfield

Lorraine Warren's death last month has been getting a lot of media attention. The stories I've seen often mention the Conjuring series and the movies associated with it, including The Conjuring 2 in particular, and the Warrens' involvement in the Enfield Poltergeist. Given the success of the Conjuring series and affiliated movies (another one's coming out next month), we'll probably be hearing a lot about the Warrens over the next several years. And they'll be discussed for many years to come for other reasons. I don't know much about the other paranormal cases they've been involved with, but I do know a lot about Enfield. I recently finished listening to Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes, and some of those tapes include discussions with or about the Warrens. To my knowledge, much of the material on those tapes has never been discussed publicly, and some of it is highly significant. Since the Warrens are getting so much attention, this is a good time to address those tapes.

Some of the coverage of Lorraine's death has portrayed her positively. See, for example, this article by the Horror News Network that includes a lot of references to her kindness, generosity, and such. By contrast, a Hollywood Reporter article in December of 2017 noted:

Dr. McGrew on extraordinary claims

Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html

The modern-day imperial cult

I've been getting some inquiries about Gene Bridges. I believe that's prompted by James White's 5/21 DL riposte. A few preliminaries before I talk specifics:

i) I don't have the original statement by Gene. A friend of mine transcribed what White read on the DL. So I'm going to be commenting on (most of) the excerpts from the DL. Some of Gene's remarks seem to be directed at White in particular. I don't know the original context. I'm guessing that he's miffed by White's role in The Statement on the Gospel and Social Justice–among other things. 

ii) Gene used to be a guest blogger at Triablogue. His posts are still up. He stopped posting 10 years ago. He wasn't asked to leave. He just dropped out, of his own accord, for whatever reason. I never asked. Somewhat later, for reasons I won't discuss, his connections with Triablogue were formally severed. That was a team decision. 

iii) If memory serves, Gene used to work at a gay health hotline. If so, I think his background in the gay community is skewering his analysis of the culture wars.

Is protecting babies unchristian?

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made the claim Thursday that the slew of anti-abortion laws passing multiple states are “against Christian faith.”

“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants [sic] of our faith is free will,” Ms. Gillibrand told reporters following a discussion with lawmakers, physicians and abortion rights activists at the Georgia state house, CBS News reported.

“One of the tenants [sic] of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people,” the New York senator said. “And I think this is an example of that effort.”

Ms. Gillibrand made the trip to Georgia after the state last week banned abortions after about six weeks or when a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Mississippi, Kentucky and Ohio have recently passed similar measures. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the most restrictive anti-abortion bill yet, outlawing virtually all abortions in the state, including in cases of rape and incest.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/17/kirsten-gillibrand-anti-abortion-laws-are-against-/

i) Along with presidential hopeful Pete Buttboy, this is another example of a Democrat candidate attempting to co-opt Christianity. To replace it with something contrary to Christianity, but act like that's the real Christianity. 

ii) Christianity is not equivalent to freewill theism. That's a tradition within historical theology. But historical theology includes predestinarian traditions. 

iii) I doubt she has a philosophically informed concept of freewill, but she sets it in contrast to "imposing" one's views on others. Since, however, she's not an anarchist, her position is nonsense. She's a lawmaker. She believes in passing laws that tell people what they can and cannot do. Laws that impede their freedom. That's what most laws do, after all. Most laws mandate or forbid various behavior. Most laws curtail liberty. 

iv) Separation of church and state is not a tenet of "our democracy". The first amendment prohibits the federal gov't from establishing a national church. That's it.

v) But suppose, for argument's sake, that separation of church and state was a tenant of our democracy. That would mean local, state, and federal gov't must never mandate or forbid conduct that violates an individual's religious faith. Yet she supports the Equality Act, which is a massive gov't intrusion into the religious freedom of Americans. 

vi) She commits the genetic fallacy. The relevant consideration is not whether an idea is religious or secular, but whether it's good or bad, true or false. Unless she takes the position that religious values are automatically wrong, there's no reason why religious values shouldn't figure in law and public policy so long as they are good.

vii) We have a system based on popular sovereignty. If a majority of voters wants law and public policy to exemplify Christian social ethics, they have the Constitutional right to elect officials who will enact such policies. 

viii) Naturalism is unable to justify moral realism. So unless laws are just an exercise of arbitrary power, they must have theological underpinnings. 

The Muslim Conundrum

Wesley Huff
Ramadan is in full swing this month and with it continue my conversations with Muslims. Over the last month I have been communicating with a number of Muslims about various subjects relating to the interaction of Christianity and Islam. In the course of these correspondences we have gotten on the topic of the authenticity of the Bible often. The following is what I routinely present to Muslims as an argument commonly referred to as the Qur'anic Conundrum:
1. The Qur'an routinely refers to the "previous Scriptures," identified as the "Torah" (توراة‎ - Tawrat, mentioned 18 times) and the "Gospel" (إنجيل - Injil, mentioned 12 times). These books are prefaced with the descriptors of being "sent down by God," as seen in places like Surah Ali 'Imran 3:3 and urah Al Ma'iadh 5:68: :

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel;"

"Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people."

2. Muhammad is told by Allah in Surah Yunas 10:94, that if he has doubt he should look to the Jews and the Christians because they have the previous Scriptures:

"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."

3. In context to mentioning the previous Scriptures the Qur'an declares that Allah's words cannot be changed in Surah Al-An'am 6:114-115:

"[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters. And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

4. Christians in Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:46-47 are told to judge by the Gospel and if they do not do so they are "defiantly disobedient":

“And we sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

Conclusion: If the previous Scriptures sit in a chain of succession (as is alluded to by verses like 4:46) then it makes logical sense that you cannot remove one of the links of the chain without compromising the others. If indeed the Torah and the Gospel are corrupt, as modern day Muslims would have us believe, then the author of the Qur'an seems to have no knowledge of it. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary that the author of the Qur'an actually articulates their trustworthiness and authenticity as God's word.

Similarly, if the Gospel and Torah are God's word and no one can change God's word then how have these previous Scriptures become corrupted? Did Allah not know they would be corrupted - in which case he is not all-knowing? Could he not stop individuals from doing so - in which case he is not all powerful? Or is what we have in Surah 6:115 incorrect, in which case the Qur'an itself has been compromised?

In conjunction with accusations of change, why would Muhammad be encouraged to talk to a people who had corrupt Scriptures in 10:94? Would this not only confuse Muhammad as there are clear teachings being revealed to him for the Qur'an that inherently contradict what is in the Torah and Gospel?

We know exactly what "the Torah" and "the Gospel(s)" looked like during the late 5th and early 6th centuries of Muhammad's lifetime. We even have manuscripts from the areas near Syria and the Arabian peninsula from this specific time period. They are virtually identical to the modern Gospels and Torahs we have in translation today. Thus, if these commands had any application for their original audience then what was "the Gospel" and "the Torah" being discussed in Surah 10:94? If we know what these documents looked like in the time period that these verses have application then the evidence shows no serious difference from what we have today.

Finally, why would Allah tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if it had been corrupted? If the Torah and Gospel the Qur'an is continually talking about are not the Torah and Gospel(s) we have today then how is the eternal revelation of the Qur'an to speak to modern day Christians? Why bother making the statement that Christians are to "judge by what Allah has revealed therein" lest they be "the defiantly disobedient?" Why not simply tell the Christians outright that these former revelations were corrupt and to get rid of them in place of the more perfect Qur'an?

If I take the Qur'an at its word as a "person of the Gospel" and I judge the Qur'an by the Gospel that has been revealed to me, in accordance with the command in Surah 5:47, I find it wanting. I see no interaction with any of the discussions taking pace in the Gospel nor any indication regarding knowledge of what Jesus is recorded saying there. In fact, what I do see are continual contradictions and misunderstandings regarding what the Gospel says and teaches and therefore, if the Qur'an is true and I obey its command to me then I have to conclude that it is false.

At the door step of JW

https://www.alankurschner.com/2019/05/23/in-season-and-out-of-season/

NPR propaganda glossary

https://wamu.org/story/19/05/15/guidance-reminder-on-abortion-procedures-terminology-rights/

Is preaching an exercise of authority?

i) One complementarian or patriarchal argument I sometimes run across is that women shouldn't preach in church because preaching is an exercise of authority, in which case female preachers are exercising authority over men. But that's a very strained argument. In what respect am I putting myself under the authority of the preacher by my physical presence and merely hearing the sermon? I've heard thousands of sermons. When I sit in church and hear the sermon, sometimes I agree, sometimes disagree, sometimes agree in part and disagree in part. In what respect did I put myself under the authority of the preacher? How is he exercising authority over me? 

ii) One problem is the definition of authority. It reapplies to prooftexts (e.g. 1 Tim 2:12) a diluted concept of authority which is not, insofar as I can tell, how the concept was understood in the ancient world–where the concept of authority was more coercive. Take the authority of kings, slave masters, commanding officers. Or the authority of a Roman father over his family. The power to impose your will on someone else. 

ii) Suppose we define authority as obligating belief and/or action. But surely the mere act of preaching doesn't obligate belief and/or action. The preaching of John Spong, Benny Hinn, Jeremiah Wright, or Pope Francis isn't authoritative. 

iii) We could say a sermon is authoritative insofar as it is true. But that wouldn't single out male preachers.

iv) Here's a more principled argument:

There are natural stereotypical physical and psychological differences between men and women. These are normative differences because they exist by divine design. As Jordan Peterson puts it, "Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically-minded, independent, stubborn)"

As a result, women are less naturally suited to be doctrinal guardians. They are generally less interested in doctrinal disputes. Less likely to get into theological fights. Less likely to enforce standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 

That's why God reserved eldership for men. It's hard enough to find faithful men who hold the line, and much harder to find women who do that. Women make an indispensable contribution to the life of the church, but when feminine values dominate the direction of the church, there's a loss of fidelity to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are exceptions, but a general policy shouldn't be based on exceptional situations or individuals–although it can make allowance for exceptional situations and individuals. The argument could be fleshed out, but it lays a deeper foundation than ad hoc arguments about preaching as a male domain because preaching is allegedly an exercise of authority.