Pugsley’s story shows the folly of the celibate boyfriend:
When I met my then boyfriend-now husband, I told him right away that I was saving myself for marriage and he was fine with that because it was my body, my choice and he loved me.
We were together for six years before we got married.
Not surprisingly, her celibate boyfriend went on to become her celibate husband. Part of this has to come from the selection process. When a young woman sets out to find a celibate boyfriend instead of a husband, her selection criteria are going to be totally different. A young woman looking for a husband will look for the best man she can attract, a man who fits the role of a husband and whom she can fall head over heels in love with. A celibate boyfriend on the other hand is a totally different animal. She needs to find someone without better options than to sign on as her official beta orbiter. She also needs to find someone whom she isn’t too attracted to, or she might slip up herself. Then after a suitable number of years of proving that she wasn’t in any hurry to marry (and most likely attaining her feminist merit badge), the celibate boyfriend is very often converted into a husband.
Again, this isn’t the biblical model. The biblical model says marry if you burn with passion, then do it like rabbits. The churchian model says to prove you really are in love by waiting to marry, most often several years, in a celibate romantic relationship. The modern (unbiblical) view is that romantic love is purer than sex, and is what makes sex and marriage moral. This overlooks the fact that like sex, romantic love is for marriage, and marriage is what makes sex and romantic love moral.
Who waits six years to marry someone????? That’s torture, plain and simple.
What of Jacob who wait’s 7 years for Rachel?
I know it’s the old testament. But this is Israel, God’s man. Why would he make him wait that long?
Not the best story for continued marital bliss tert!
He actually waited 14, but who’s counting..
@tertioptus says:
Actually it was 14 years. Either way, this isn’t presented as the biblical model for courtship, as something to emulate.
This is a new one on me. A much more common path is non-celibate boyfriend to celibate husband.
How old were they when they married? Maybe I overlooked it in the article? If they met at, say, 13 6 years makes a bit of sense. If they met at 16 6 years makes no sense.
From the article: “I realized that I couldn’t figure out how to be both religious and sexual at the same time. I chose sex.”
If this is a problem for you you are doing both wrong. I can’t entirely blame her because what she was fed was absolutely wrong (well, for the most part. The premise was sound).
From the article: “I’m now thoroughly convinced that the entire concept of virginity is used to control female sexuality.”
Why not male, too? They also are asked to wait but that doesn’t matter because male.
The only reason that she feels this way is because “purity” was idolized for her and they waited too long allowing that to become central in her view. We are a society that over thinks, overanalyzes. In those 6 years she favored herself- her supposed purity, her body, her her her- over her husband. She thinks it was always all about him but it’s clear it wasn’t. It’s been about her since the beginning. It was about her when she lost her virginity and cried in the bathroom and continued to feel ashamed- “I’m no longer special” was her thought process. It continues to be about her now. That’s the only reason she thinks things are fixed- because now everyone is focusing on her and her pleasure while her husband is an invisible supporter. This was not about waiting for purity or even pragmatism’s sake it was about waiting for her. Because she’s special, no doubt. She was special because of her purity and now she is special because of her empowerment.
What I am getting at here in my longwindedness is that the whole idea of waiting was, no doubt, invented by a woman or by a beta male trying to please a woman. Make it about her for wedded bliss. How’s that working out for them?
@feministhater, wasn’t that presented as essentially a manipulative dirty action on the father’s part? it certainly wasn’t the norm or the ideal.
Samantha and Ian got married at age 21, in 2010 I believe. I’m not sure what “together for six years” means since if she were still within that church’s framework at age 15 then they were not allowed to date or court for at least half of those six years.
@Margery
Regardless of her age, if she wasn’t old enough to pick a husband, she shouldn’t have been picking a man, period. This is a crucial problem with the celibate boyfriend. It makes it seem that foolishness is wise.
So if they got married at 21, started dating/courting at 15, they should have gotten married in half the time.
Hmmm,..let’s see if I can rephrase this so as not to offend Earl again…
Ah, I find it’s a testament to God’s power that Christian ever manage to breed at all anymore.
*runs for the exit*
The article didn’t say…or at least I didn’t catch on as to how old they were when they got married.
Anyhow, this is the folly of what traditional feminism (chivalry) is…the old “if you love me you’ll wait” gambit. Part of it is the over-forceful job that people do in teaching about sex, but a lot of it is the man falling into “preserving the beautiful moral flower” (as taught, sex is evil), and losing dominant frame.
Having an attitude throughout courtship towards a prospective wife of “you’re mine, I’m going to make use of your body in every good way possible…repeatedly…and often…when the time is right” is the better way to go rather than to supplicate oneself at the altar of woman and be purposefully asexual in order to satisfy the traditional feminist thought that the woman is pure, and holy, and all that.
True love waits. But true love claws at the door hungrily in anticipation.
Well yes, in a reality based world, they should have probably gotten married when she was 15 or 16. In a feminist world, that’s 20 years too early, and she should have been sexting for at least 15-20 years prior to marriage, as well as selling her soul to big corporates.
I agree, in reality 15 or 16. I tried to get married underage and they do not make it easy nor is it easy to get a full time job of any sort underage.
In this world and especially in the modern Christian world I really question what she meant by “together”.
If her father was truly intent on preserving her purity, why let her establish this steady boyfriend relationship as a teen to begin with? Why were she and her boyfriend spending time alone, as she described, where she claims to have been repeatedly tempted? Why teach young Christian women chastity and then leave them alone and unsupervised with a boyfriend and wait to see if they fail? The whole notion of romance outside of marriage while demanding chastity is not only unbiblical, it is sadistic to all involved.
Keep in mind that Jacob would have been perfectly willing to marry Rachel the moment he saw her – it was Laban who made Jacob prove himself worthy by performing labor for seven years before the wedding: then the old codger tricked him into marrying Leah and extorted another seven years of work from him.
But keep in mind that after the seventh year Jacob was getting it on the regular from Leah (she bore him children), while he was still working for Rachel’s… um… hand, in marriage. Jacob kept his growing family around for another six years after his obligations were over, so he must have been okay with the eventual arrangement to some degree. Nonetheless, as Dalrock noted: the situation wasn’t ideal for anyone (except Laban). Leah married a man who overtly loved her sister more. Rachel had to wait 14 years for her wedding. (This assumes that the “week” referred to in Genesis 29: 28 denotes a seven year period, which is the common understanding. Either way, they had to wait a long time.) Jacob had to go celibate for seven years, and eventually had to work 14 years to get Rachel.
Kids – don’t try this at home.
_____________________________________________
As for the celibate boyfriend thing – I don’t see the point. It’s a cultural artifact from a dysfunctional culture. When I met the then-future MRS Lyn87 on a blind date (Christian dating service in the days before the internet), we both knew almost right away. We were engaged two months after we met and married about two months after that. Long engagement to plan a big wedding? Screw that: Get ‘er dun… we gots neeeeds!
We ended up having a bargain-basement ceremony that cost us around $200 – reception included. Even then, we sort of wish we had just eloped and been done with it.
June 19, 2010.
http://www.weddingbycolor.com/sammy0415
It’s not that I’m that good, it’s that Google (and Alta Vista before that) trained their algorithms on me, apparently.
@Lyn87 re: “um … hand”
lol
Again, this isn’t the biblical model. The biblical model says marry if you burn with passion, then do it like rabbits.
Through out history and possibly still in some parts of the world today, the biblical model also includes any who were married to someone that was chosen for them. This means keeping their marriage vows and obligations to someone whom they did not choose. So attraction or not, the obligations are there. Of course in societies where parents arrange marriages, societal expectations probably reinforce the keeping of these obligations.
The teaching of the church in which she was raised.
“Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.”
http://www.idlewildbaptist.org/beliefs.php
Looking for points of agreement here and distinguishing them from controversial things. Men agree that sex after marriage is Ok. Before marriage, sex is controversial. Women believe that sex before and after marriage is controversial. Women should always have the right to say “no”–they agree about that. And they agree that husbands should keep asking for sex. Otherwise, they would be unable to deny their husbands sex, which is one of the chief joys of many women.
Amirite?
why is this written like it’s the man’s fault? it isn’t. she was a nutjob who was hoping an angel would appear & give her a pat on the back for waiting.
Lyn87 says:
“Nonetheless, as Dalrock noted: the situation wasn’t ideal for anyone (except Laban). Leah married a man who overtly loved her sister more. Rachel had to wait 14 years for her wedding.”
It gets worse. Leah was jealous of Rachel, because Jacob loved Rachel, not Leah. Rachel was jealous of Leah, because Leah bore Jacob children and Rachel couldn’t (at first).
Rachel therefore gave Jacob her maidservant as a concubine to bear Jacob children in Rachel’s place. Leah then retaliated by also giving Jacob her maidservant. That’s how Jacob ended up with 12 sons and an unknown number of daughters.
All that strife and jealousy poisoned Jacob’s family, and led to disturbing acts like nine of his sons attempting to kill one of his sons, but then changing their minds and selling him into slavery instead, and one of Jacob’s sons having a sexual affair with one of Jacob’s concubines.
The Bible mostly presents the patriarchs and their families as examples of how we should NOT live.
Rollo Tomassi says:
August 18, 2014 at 10:59 am
“I find it’s a testament to God’s power that Christian ever manage to breed at all anymore.”
And yet, Christians continue to have more children than the non-religious. For example, I have eight kids.
Beat that.
@JDG
You are confusing the terms biblical and historical. What I described is what the Apostle Paul advises in 1 Cor 7. But yes, once married you are expected to honor your vows.
Oops! Another typo. The paragraph should should read:
Through out history and possibly still in some parts of the world today, the biblical model also includes many who were married to someone that was chosen for them. This means keeping their marriage vows and obligations to someone whom they did not choose. So attraction or not, the obligations are there. Of course in societies where parents arrange marriages, societal expectations probably reinforce the keeping of these obligations.
I was referring to Christians in marriage.
Dalrock, I didn’t see your response until after I posted my correction.
@ Lyn87 says:
“We were engaged two months after we met and married about two months after that. Long engagement to plan a big wedding? Screw that: Get ‘er dun… we gots neeeeds!
We ended up having a bargain-basement ceremony that cost us around $200 – reception included.”
I proposed to my wife when she attended my Officer Basic Course graduation. She planned our wedding while I attended the Sapper Leader Course. We married when I arrived home from the SLC, and ten days later she dropped me off at the airport for my first combat deployment.
The only drawback was that I was gaunt and half-starved after the SLC, so my mama stuffed me silly over the few days before the wedding. At least I had a nice tan (on my face and hands, anyway).
An addendum to my earlier post:
My wife and I were both celibate before we got married. I had just turned 25 and she had just turned 20 – so the idea of spending a long time not having sex was just absurd, and since we weren’t going to commit fornication, the celibate boyfriend/girlfriend thing didn’t last a moment longer than it needed to.
Of course most couples (even churchians) are not waiting until marriage to have sex. As Robert What? very astutely noted, “This is a new one on me. A much more common path is non-celibate boyfriend to celibate husband.”
I think the trend Dalrock notes is enabled by a great deal of denial. Churchians like to pretend that all the young attendees (especially the females) are not doing it like bunnies, so they get to follow the Churchian version of the feminist script for their daughters (“Have lots of (whisper)celibate(whisper) relationships while you… Go to college! Start a career! Enjoy your youth!”). Their daughters are doing all the things the rest of the girls are doing, but by averting their eyes to the bobobo-like behavior in the Young Singles Group, they cling to the idea that their daughter’s relationships are more-or-less chaste.
____________________________________________
Another personal anecdote: I have a niece who always wanted to be a wife and mother. She did go to college to study a hard science and met a Navy vet (older – still celibate). They got engaged relatively quickly, and planned the wedding a few days before her 20th birthday – she wanted to already be married by the time she turned 20. They’ve been married a few years now, they have two kids, they go to the same church we do, and my wife and I just sent them on a little trip for their anniversary last weekend.
Oscar,
There was no war going on (other than the Cold War) when I met my wife, so we lacked the urgency of the, “I only have a few days before I go to the war” situation that you did. I was a First Lieutenant at the time on my first assignment after my initial training (long schools, long story). Still… I spent the third night after our wedding in an underground bunker.
@JDG
Likewise. It sounds like we are in closer agreement than I originally understood.
A man who accepts “wait until marriage” is showing that he can exercise self control and put his values ahead of his urges. A man who who is willing to wait for six years is showing that his urges aren’t very strong. A woman who chooses that man isn’t interested in a lover.
@Lyn87, loved your marriage story lol
I clicked on the story link and found this quote towards the bottom, “My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex”. Uh…maybe the husband is gay or severely brainwashed? And what type of person describes their husband as “feminist”?
For what it’s worth, I think Christians should only wait a few months to get married.
“A man who who is willing to wait for six years is showing that his urges aren’t very strong. A woman who chooses that man isn’t interested in a lover.”
Crowhill has just edged out theadsgamer for best comment so far in this thread. Clearly I need to up my “comment game.”
Re: geo-truthiness.
Ian’s parents have lived in Maryland for many years, including many years prior to 2010. Ian has no family tree relatives in the Charlotte, much less Idlewild, area. Also for some reason Samantha’s father relocated to NewYork in 2009, although he’s back managing a restaurant as of a year ago, and Samantha’s mother is going by a different last name.
Probable scenario: Samantha met Ian in college, and a lot of other things she’s saying are similarly exaggerated to say the least.
Agreed, and, I never really got the supposed “problem” that romantic love was supposed to address.
He’s a boy. She’s a girl. Put two 18-year old kids together in a room, and barring some pronounced physical or mental handicap, they’ll end up “in love” sooner rather than later. It’s just as valid a way to produce marriage as what we’ve got now.
Boxer
Dalrock, didn’t you write about this exact same thing with Lolo “I’m a virgin” Jones, or whatever her last name was? Or was that Rollo? One of you wrote about her and said how it was risky that if a woman got the wrong mindset, and ended up staying a virgin too long, it becomes part of her identity?
I can sympathize with the writer, my parents were the same way, the sort that felt some burning need to make negative comments whenever they saw a couple kissing or a girl not dressed completely purely, or romance in a movie between unmarrieds. And now, out of the three of us that were raised that way, none of us are remotely normal. My brother is 25, single, never even had a steady girlfriend. I’m 22, same. My younger sister rebelled, ran off at age 17, and proclaims she’s bisexual now. .
Reminds me of what a pastor I knew, John Fictner of Liberty Church in Marietta, said once. “A thing that kills a lot of new driver is, they’ll drift a little off the road, then jerk the wheel into the opposite direction and end up in a head-on collision. There’s a ditch on each side of the road, so don’t overreact.”
Salon… Horrible place for a story like this. I am sure it is embellished to heighten anti-church sentiment, not that much of it doesn’t ring true.
Look, dating for six years is just ridiculous, but don’t you need a little time to figure out if the person you’re marrying is what he/she claims to be? Making a lifelong covenant before God and man–you ought to do due diligence to ensure that your intended spouse is not a sociopath. When communities were smaller and more local, it was easier for family members to “vet” a potential matchup than it typically is today.
I hope Pugsley isn’t her real name. If so, she’s just completely humiliated her husband. He looks like a loser.
For the record, Jacob only waited 7 years (+1 week) for Rachel. Read the story for yourselves. I get touchy when Bible stories get turned into myths.
Anyway, that certainly seems impressive. We’re also told that the time flew by for Jacob b/c he was so in love. Curious if that has a deeper meaning in this context.
Anyway, Pugsley’s story is more evidence of solipsism rather than a knock on Christianity. The woman wants everything to be about her, and finds virginity gives her that spotlight. She says feels she’s “soiled” after consummating her marriage, which is exactly the opposite of Biblical teaching, and more about the fact that she’s no longer going to be in the limelight. Heck, she could even have a baby, and those things get all the attention!
@archerwfisher
Yes. I wrote about Lolo in a previous post titled The folly of the celibate boyfriend.
I’m 98 percent this is her:
https://twitter.com/samanthapugsley
She looks like a butch dyke. I’m guessing that her virginity was largely involuntary.
Boxer
@archerwfisher:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/09/the-adolescent-social-skill-set/
It was less about virginity per se than clinging to an adolescent social skill set, but yeah…
Late Term Virgins is a better one:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/23/late-term-virgins/
@Crowhill
It is typically worse than this, because there is typically no promise of marriage nor a timeline to make this decision. This is the distinction between boyfriend and fiancé, although the distinction is very often blurred in our deliberately ambiguous SMP.
Were I younger and unmarried, I’d probably chat her up because I find her cute. But, I’m an outlier who likes short hair on women and women who don’t flirt with being skeletally thin.
@Boxer
I’m one that can see a bit of beauty in just about any woman who takes care of herself, but that one…let’s just say that picture will make great natural birth control.
According to this site, she’s 24….
http://www.samanthapugsley.com/711905-biography-cv
I believe the text around the story for Rachel and Jacob indicates he got her right away, but was then obligated to server 7 years for her. That sounds more reasonable to me. He still had to “fulfill her week,” but I am not convinced he waited 7 more years.
Dr Torch writes, “For the record, Jacob only waited 7 years (+1 week) for Rachel. Read the story for yourselves. I get touchy when Bible stories get turned into myths.”
That may or may not be correct. The term “week” is used in the Bible to denote a group of seven units of time. We currently consider those units of time to be literal, 24-hour days, but that is not always the case in Scripture. In Daniel Chapter 9, for example, the term weeks refers to periods of seven years. That’s why I was careful to write this:
(This assumes that the “week” referred to in Genesis 29: 28 denotes a seven year period, which is the common understanding. Either way, they had to wait a long time.)
From the context it is possible (perhaps even likely) that Laban allowed Jacob to marry Rachel at the beginning of his additional seven year period of servitude, but one cannot say that definitively. In any case, Jacob had to work seven years as an incel to get Laban’s permission to marry one of his daughters – even if she wasn’t the one he expected.
About 2 years ago I would have told my daughters and sons stay virgins, to get school in and learn and then marry around 25-30. I have completely come around to Darlock’s stance: stay virgins, find someone you love, and get married ASAP and do it like rabbits. The idea of trying to build a life without the marriage and thus by Christ without the sex is crazy. Get married by 22-23 if at all possible.
Note the key reference:
[Gen 29:28, 30 KJV] 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. … 30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
This indicates the 7 years were after he got Rachel as wife. Reading the whole section it seems more like a summary of what happened than a step-by-step guide.
So I thought, ‘Is she a fattie’? – well not exactly but almost and though those jugs are ginormous but you would not be exactly over-proud to take her home to your parents – and what has that poor dude been doing for the six years until his marriage? Porn, Homosexuality, some other woman? This is what the alleged (because I don’t believe her as you will see and I see from Twitter that I am not the only doubter) former professional virgin and all round narcissist writes about herself: Samantha is an English studies freelance writer and photographer. She is a married bi-sexual (i.e. adulteress) and is also passionate about female sexuality, gender equality and mental health reform. Mental health note. In short whilst she was saving herself she appears to have been muff-diving. Sorry Samantha that does not count towards your virginal status.
Her article is of course merely an opportunity to bash Christians as she flirts with Atheism. I too was told by my clerical teachers not to do certain things. In hindsight by the way I think they were right, but did it stop me? Of course not indeed if anything it was a barrier to be broken and at the earliest possible time. For a girl who complains on Twitter about sexual harassment she puts up an awful lot of photos of herself especially of her chest.
A rather confused young woman and on a Jenny Erikson scale out of ten I’d say about eleven.
Can we find more about her poor (presumably gay) husband.
It’s a growing trend to see girls pledge purity until marriage. But the mistake is purity in conjunction with the incessant bleating at these young men and women to WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! for marriage. WAIT until all the stars are exactly aligned just right. WAIT until you’re done with college. WAIT until you’re done with grad school. WAIT until you have the exact job you want. WAIT until you’re living where you want. WAIT until you have a house. WAIT WAIT WAIT.
Look. The time will never be right for marriage. You will never have enough time, enough money, a good enough job, a big enough house. If you love each other enough and you burn with passion, and she respects him and can follow him and can fall head over heels for him; then she should marry him. If he loves her and burns with passion to sex her, then he should marry her.
Robert What? touched on this at the top of the thread. What’s more common than celibate BF to celibate husband is slut having sex with men who won’t marry her and whom she isn’t really thinking about marriage with; to marrying a beta orbiter whom she can control with ladling out sex in dribs and drabs.
@Bucho, she’s recently 25, making her 18 when she wrote requesting moar gory horror-sex stories.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/thriller?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2QR0B8FFJIDUZ&cdMessage=Mx8P310KIIVUW9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx43O8COU4AEXL
From what I can glean she was goth in high school for at least a little while. The ONLY connection she might have with Ian from before college that I can find (with one finger …) is a Neopet she may have made in his honor when she was 15. So it is possible they were “together” online for a few years before college.
While the linked story clearly shows a potential downside to waiting for marriage, and in general I’m inclined to agree with “The Follow of the Celibate Boyfriend,” I’d be interested in an honest treatment of what “when passion burns get married post-haste” is supposed to look like in the modern age. I’m not convinced that early marriage is the panacea that it is sometimes made out to be. (Part of this may be from my own experience, having gotten at 21.) It seems that a lot of the pro-early-marriage people are looking wistfully back on a bygone age where adulthood started much earlier. Now, one can argue that maybe it should start earlier than it does, but education of at least four years post high school is required in many fields. This may or may not be wise on the part of society, but it is a fact. “Passion” starts “burning” somewhere around 14 for most people. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that women should not be educated beyond a bare minimum, Christian men are still in a pickle if we’re going to require that they be able to show the ability to support a family prior to marriage and sex.
So, rather than ask the question of what should be done at the societal level, let’s ask the question:
What would you recommend to your son and to your daughter given the realities of modern society and why? Do you see any potential problems or caveats with your recommendation?
Okrahead @ 11:07 am:
“If her father was truly intent on preserving her purity, why let her establish this steady boyfriend relationship as a teen to begin with? Why were she and her boyfriend spending time alone, as she described, where she claims to have been repeatedly tempted? Why teach young Christian women chastity and then leave them alone and unsupervised with a boyfriend and wait to see if they fail? The whole notion of romance outside of marriage while demanding chastity is not only unbiblical, it is sadistic to all involved.”
You nailed it. The Churchians are violently schizophrenic on marriage and sexuality, pushing the chaste to extreme self-denial while simultaneously enabling the feral to run free.
Their true colors show when the Christian Betas start asking for a pre-mortem reward.
Bucho says:
August 18, 2014 at 1:13 pm
My exact reaction to the picture on her site: http://cheezburger.com/6264363008
Dalrock, this is my first comment, I generally like your blog, but the above frame is just a dead-end. I know several (at least a dozen come into my mind right now, including my sister and my brother-in-law) christian couple (Eastern Europe), started dating before their twenties (say 18), both christian, both chaste, first relationship for the most. Once the guy graduated, he proposed her, and married soon thereafter. Before the graduation, they could have not married, because they did not have a background to start a common life, and in most cases the parents did not have enough money to support them.
I am pretty sure that they struggled with temptation, but they did not have sex before marriage, and as far as I know in each case that I can think both of them were virgins before they married. Of course, when the guy proposed her, the she accepted at once (I’ve never heard a girl who refused a proposal in the church.)
Well, probably, that is not the case here, but in general, I do not think girls delaying marriage (at least not here). Usually, couples here marry right after the graduation. (And yes, I’ve heard some girl complaining that they find it too late.)
What would you recommend for them? If they are approached by a christian boy, just refuse him because he is only 18, and cant support a family? Or tell him to wait for, say 5 more years?
From Pugsley’s article:
“When he did, I obliged. I wanted nothing more than to make him happy because I loved him so much and because I’d been taught it was my duty to fulfill his needs. But I hated sex.
“My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex. He encouraged me to see a therapist and I did. It was the first step on a long journey to healing.
“When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.”
There is always a horribly distorted view of sex and a woman’s sexual role in marriage whenever these discussions are had. A wife is supposed to be sexually available to her husband at all times. She is supposed to give her husband sex when he wants it. Look at it this way: Would a wife put up with a husband who said “well, I’ll work when I feel like it. I’ll give you money to take care of the family when I feel like it, or I think it’s a good idea, or when I decide you need it”. Would a wife put up with that? Didn’t think so. So it is with sex and a husband’s view of it.** But women don’t want this. They don’t want to be totally sexually available to their husbands, for many reasons, chief among them are that most wives just do not desire their husbands sexually. This is a problem because most women are having sex with men who are more sexually desirable than they can get for marriage.
The other prime reason that women don’t want to be sexually available to their husbands is if they are, then they cede a lot of control in the marriage to the husband. A woman before marriage is able to control men by using sex and sexual access. Sex, sex appeal and sexual access are the greatest measures of a woman’s power, and if she gives them completely and totally to one man, she has given up most of her power. She doesn’t want to do this, of course, because that would require her to submit and trust, and what if he screws it up?
** NOTE TO liberals, feminists and other dipshits: I AM NOT SAYING THAT A WIFE IS CONSENTING TO RAPE. I am not saying a wife must have sex when sick or injured or recovering from childbirth. No loving husband would demand sex under those circumstances. I AM, however, saying that a lot of wives unreasonably withhold and limit sexual access. No wife is too busy that she can’t take 20 minutes out of her schedule to take care of her husband’s need. And if she is, then her priorities are screwed up. I am also saying that if a woman doesn’t consent to having sex with a particular man when HE wants to and NOT just when SHE wants to, then she should not marry that man and should not marry at all, because she has a distorted and improper view of marriage.
I’m guessing she was around 18 when she got engaged. Not sure what the story is on Mr. P. I’m guessing he’s in the IT field….
Since someone has already found who her husband is, I’ll post this….
http://www.mywedding.com/samanthaandian/index.html
@Boxer says:
“I’m 98 percent this is her:
https://twitter.com/samanthapugsley”
So irritatingly artsy-fartsy!
@jf12 says:
“she’s recently 25, making her 18 when she wrote requesting moar gory horror-sex stories.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/thriller?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2QR0B8FFJIDUZ&cdMessage=Mx8P310KIIVUW9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThr”
Someone please explain: how does this…
… square with this?
“There is something about erotic horror that just gets my attention. I think it may be the danger of sensuality mixed with the shock of gore. There is nothing like an erotic horror experience. Unfortunately, I have not had luck in finding many.
I have read everything I could get my hands on by Richard Laymon. He is the perfect read. Things get violent, and when you least expect it, there’s an intriguing aspect of sex that just makes everything…interesting.”
And finally it all fits together. I promise, all free, all public knowledge.
http://www.mywedding.com/samanthaandian/stories.html
Ian’s (“Pugs”) attraction to the supernatural started earlier than Samantha (“Sammy”), at the latest at approximately 13. He was online all night every night, totally caught up in horror, satanic, and photorealistic fantasy murder/sacrifice images, video, stories, and bulletin boards. He cooled off from his real interests by more boring stuff, including attempts at “hacking” WoW , Hello Kitty revenge porn (don’t ask), and bullying younger kids at normal gamer sites.
At one of these sites, Sammy was attracted to Pugs’ evilness, and by age 15 they had done some blood rituals for each other (not making this up). Still totally online relationship for some years. Her family is in turmoil for a few years, but the cause/effect is difficult to sort out. Against his parent’s wishes, he joins her as soon as she is legally emancipated, and asks her to marry him within weeks of meeting in person. For several years physically together she keeps getting more and more into the local satanic/horror scene,while he gets less and less into it. She gets some smattering of jobs, not enough to support living on her own, so some money comes from father or boyfriend, and she nearly flunks out.
There isn’t enough easy info to determine where they usually actually slept, but they were definitely at best technically virgins at the wedding. They get married. He buckles down and gets student awards and a series of nice jobs. She is flaking worse and worse, loses even her lousiest part-time job. No exaggeration 90% of her “art” comprises her taking pictures of herself getting killed and/or sacrificed especially in her wedding dress, the kind of stuff that used to turn Ian on. Apparently they feel a need to escalate, incorporating other women into their bed.
Lyn87 wrote “That may or may not be correct”
You’re trying too hard. The marriage week was the custom of the day for the married couple, a week to spend together w/o other responsibilities. Pretty much what we call a honeymoon.
Your response is thus silly.
@jf12 says:
“And finally it all fits together. I promise, all free, all public knowledge.
http://www.mywedding.com/samanthaandian/stories.html”
None of that bizarre garbage is even remotely Christian. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet, Salon.com didn’t even bother to question or check up on her supposed Christian faith.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good Christian-bashing, I guess.
Big wedding; Bridesmaids, Grooms Under Grooms, Under Maids – and its own web-site – I’ve never seen that before. Honeymoon in Mandingo land. She is obviously a romantic at heart.
‘I didn’t ask to be raped’ as she reveals her fat thighs and fatter stomach. Don’t tell me she is a rape victim too. Her body her choice but that is a crime against felt tip.
Perfect wedding so I look forward to the perfect divorce.
Looking at that wedding album, she has definitely chubbed up quite a bit since then.
@ Lyn87, crowhill
“A man who who is willing to wait for six years is showing that his urges aren’t very strong.
Meh, his urges might be strong and his self-control might be stronger. One thing’s for sure. She had six years of enjoyment blue-balling her fiance.
A woman who chooses that man isn’t interested in a lover.
Maybe she likes using him as her sex-denial toy with many years of sadistic happiness in view.
Sorry to bust the meme … celibate man, celibate woman = four kids and a mutually satisfying relationship. When God’s way doesn’t work it’s because we try to shove our way into the middle of it and justify it.
Welcome Orangeman,
I’m not familiar with Eastern European customs on the matter, and my post was more regarding what we are seeing in the West. With that in mind, approached for what? To be his girlfriend? To be his betrothed? to be engaged? If one of the latter, are there strong customs in place to enforce this? Would either of them be doing something morally wrong if they fell in love with another, or a series of others, during the 5 year period before marriage? Would the young woman be wrong if she got tired of waiting after two years, and married a man who was ready to marry? Would the man be wrong if he decided after a few years that another young woman would make a better prospective wife, and swapped her into the wife-in-waiting position?
Women believe that sex before and after marriage is controversial.
‘Cept when in thrall to tingles.
“It is typically worse than this, because there is typically no promise of marriage nor a timeline to make this decision. This is the distinction between boyfriend and fiancé, although the distinction is very often blurred in our deliberately ambiguous SMP.”
The blurring (often obliteration) of that distinction is at the root of much parental/societal disengagement with sexual sin in the SMP. It’s no big deal because either the elders did “it” themselves or knew people who did.
The “it” then was premarital sex with a fiance. The “it” for the last twenty years that the elders have been out to lunch is sex with a boyfriend or worse. Both sin, but of an entirely different nature.
“refuse him because he is only 18, and cant support a family?”
You can support a family just fine at 18 if you’re working. You can’t support a family, two cars, a 4 bedroom house, the latest electronics, etc at 18 but you can certainly support a family.
There is no harm or shame in marrying “poor” and building your lives together from there. It’s my personal belief that there is great value in it. Families are only expensive because we make them expensive.
Oscar
None of that bizarre garbage is even remotely Christian. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet, Salon.com didn’t even bother to question or check up on her supposed Christian faith.
Again, this rant appears to have first seen publication at xojane – attempting to use reason, logic, facts, etc. is a waste of time and energy. This rant has many tells of disinformation / propaganda, starting with the “my body, my choice” text early on in the “purity” rant. Again, someone correct me if I am wrong, but the “purity ball” subculture does not use 2nd stage 1970’s feminist tropes such as “my body, my choice”.
This is propaganda. It was not written in good faith. It is propaganda. It contains a mix of facts and fancy, truth and lies (lies by comission and lies by silence). It is intended to propagandize young women.
I can’t put it any clearer than this.
@Anon Reader
The problem is the basic argument is so common as to be cliché. Her story may well be BS, but we are constantly bombarded by this kind of message. Moreover, the basic story of a Christian girl keeping a celibate boyfriend on the hook for years while delaying marriage is one I’ve personally seen, and I would expect others here see this frequently as well. Earlier this year a friend of mine told me about his pastor’s recent college grad daughter not wanting to marry (yet) her boyfriend of 3+ years (he wants to marry, she wants to wait). This wasn’t seen as a scandal in that church because they weren’t having sex, and it is a very conservative church by today’s standards. In fact, there is a strong sense in modern Christianity that not offering to be a celibate boyfriend is a sign of a bad man.
Similarly, there is the commenter Happyhen11 over on the “What is modern marriage for?” thread hand-wringing about the “damage” of teaching young women the importance of virginity before marriage, going on at length about how much she identifies with Pugsly. She is either a troll or just a Christian feminist cliché. I can’t know, but I can respond to the BS argument either way.
Well she admits that she has some mental health issues on one of her sources. How well it is being controlled is questionable, though. I wonder what the state of mind she is in when she has these outbursts that passes as journalism. Whatever it is, I hope she is getting the appropriate help….
DrTorch writes:
Your response is thus silly.
And your certainty about the correctness of your interpretation of an ambiguously-worded passage is not, of course. Thanks for clearing that up.
For the record, I did not say that you were wrong – in fact I said that, “it is possible (perhaps even likely) that Laban allowed Jacob to marry Rachel at the beginning of his additional seven year period of servitude, but one cannot say that definitively.”
Do you really believe that it is literally impossible that the term “week” might have the same meaning in Genesis 29 as it has in Daniel 9 – even though the same Hebrew word – שָׁבוּעַ` – is used in both places, and can mean either seven days or seven years? Because that’s the only way my response could be construed as “silly.”
Look, I’m starting to think that the week in question was probably seven days rather than seven years, but since you admit to getting “touchy when Bible stories get turned into myths,” you ought to tread cautiously where Scripture is not perfectly clear, lest you make some myths of your own.
Oscar/jf12:
Thanks to the links to her web page. You guys are right. She’s sorta short, which she couldn’t help, but once had a nice figure and long hair. Not to let her husband off the hook any. He was once a decent looking and presentable fella also.
I find it interesting to chart the course from “respectable dude with cute girlfriend” to “sloppy looking potbellied neckbeard with angry bulldyke domestic partner”. Adler pointed out that there was never any such thing as a healthy member of a troubled couple, and this makes his point well enough.
Best, Boxer
@Dalrock, the modern Catholic perspective is given in “Love and Responsibility”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Responsibility
later embellished in the ex-cathedra (Pope deliberately acting in his duty as spiritual leader of the Catholic church) teachings of Theology of the Body. Which I will summarize here:
“Man up and stop pestering your wives for sex all the time! Women determine what is right and good and true.”
Lyn87 wrote “Do you really believe that it is literally impossible that the term “week” might have the same meaning in Genesis 29 as it has in Daniel 9”
Impossible is a strong word, granted. But looking at the text from several perspectives:
– The use of years everywhere else in that passage
– The custom of the honeymoon week
– The fact that it says he fulfilled “her” week. Leah’s week. Her bridal celebration. Not his “week” to serve Laban, not Laban’s “week” due to him, not Rachel’s “week” for fulfillment of her bride price. Leah’s week. So how would that week mean 7 years?
Kind of off topic, but Jacob was celibate for at least several decades before Leah and Rachel and the others.
How many of these guys do you suppose started out ‘saving themselves for marriage’?
http://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/
One should not mock other people’s misery, but then plastering your life all over the net merely asks for comment.
Her photos are distinctive and put me in mind of Kate Bush’s Wuthering Heights: woman alone in a haunted lanscape. The only ones that aren’t are those of her ‘incredibly brave friend’ with the Felt Tip body-writing.
This is what she says about herself on 20th April this year: ‘I’m at a time in my life when I need to make some tough decisions. I don’t want the life of a stay at home wife. I’m not ready for children and stay at home mum status. Now add my anxiety problems and figuring thing out becomes impossible’. Her anxiety problem has a name: General Anxiety Disorder.
At the moment she is on a short holiday minus husband. If she had children to care for she could stop indulging in first world problems but would that be fair on the children.
Ahh yes, yet another man who has achieved the high status marker of ‘celibate husband’ mangina hipster dude. Once the reputation of wives in western society as sexless shrews circulates among the younger generations of single Christian men, how long will it be before they lose interest in marriage completely? Count me out for a start.
It’a always been interesting to me that so many interpret Paul to have meant “it’s better to be married than to burn with passion”, when what he actually meant was “it’s better to marry than to burn in hell because you are committing sins by having sex outside of marriage”. As a practical matter, this does mean that if you can’t control your sexual passion so as to avoid sinning while remaining unmarried, “by all means” you should marry so that you do not burn — but Paul wasn’t saying “it’s better to get married than to be celibate and have blue balls”. For Paul it’s all about whether you can control your sexual passion and avoid sin, not whether you have sexual passion to begin with. Yes, I know that the prevailing Protestant interpretation is “better to marry than to burn with passion”, but it’s just an odd interpretation of what Paul is saying.
Dalrock on the propaganda
The problem is the basic argument is so common as to be cliché. Her story may well be BS, but we are constantly bombarded by this kind of message.
Good propaganda contains enough truth to make it plausible. This makes it more convincing to the target audience. I agree that this is a common story. The first step to dealing with the common story is to recognize when someone is engaged in propagandistic lying, and point that out. IMO.
Those familiar with the purity movement should be among the first to spot the glaring inconsistencies in the propaganda presented to us, because they are obvious distortions of the purity movement vocabulary and goals.
I’m not arguing with anyone’s points. I’m strongly suggesting that trying to deal with a propaganda piece via reason and logic is possibly a waste of time.
“In fact, there is a strong sense in modern Christianity that not offering to be a celibate boyfriend is a sign of a bad man.”
Well, it wouldn’t be the Christian thing to pressure a girl to have premarital sex with you using the threat of breaking up with her.
However, if you want to break up with a girl because you want to get married and she refuses, that’s perfectly reasonable. A fellow can’t waste the best years of his life getting strung along.
Did a check to look this woman up and got this
http://www.xojane.com/author/samantha-pugsley
Samantha Pugsley is an English Studies graduate, freelance writer, and photographer. She’s a married, bisexual, artsy super nerd who loves Marvel, fantasy/science fiction novels, video games and writing fanfiction. She’s incredibly passionate about gender equality, female sexuality and reproductive rights as well as mental health reform.
I highly recommend following the link to see what this woman looks like. When I first read the article I had in my mind some image of a cute little waif, what I clicked on was an obviously mentally ill woman who does not take any care of herself.
I believe Dalrock is probably spot on about her husband. Chances are he is one of these slimy low testosterone weaklings you see blowing around society. No wonder she was disgusted on her wedding night.
But I wonder. Bi-sexual and married? This woman is either being delusional (ie she is claiming a certain sexual status for attention) or has either slept with other women before her marriage or during her marriage. In the first case, she would be another hysterical attention whore, in the second, an adulteress who is married to a weakling.
@Novaseeker, you would have us believe that in addition to instructing us in the first part of 1 Cor 7:9 that marriage is the remedy in this life for those who cannot contain in this life, Paul did not merely amplify in the second part but completely redirected the entire focus, destroying the this-life focus of the first part. “It’s better to hold your nose and go through with the icky thing, instead of going to hell.”
Dalrock,
Happyhen is not a troll, or a feminist (or Christo-feminist). I am familiar enough with her story to know why she is upset by all of this. Unfortunately, it is emotionally jarring enough for her that she cannot explain herself well. And by that I mean she is emotionally projecting and writing to defend this woman because she has projected herself into the woman’s shoes.
Hmmmm,…
Not sure if troll:
Lesbian Fu*ks and Beta Bucks.
@Novaseeker, on the other hand, the missing hell word does make a funny kind of sense as a sort inside joke, given that Paul was definitely advising to not marry if you were able not to. “Given the choice between marriage and hell, it’s somewhat better to choose marriage.”
Oscar says:
August 18, 2014 at 2:06 pm
http://t.co/92DeCQ0Q4B
I’m having a heard time believing we are looking at a potential date rape victim here. Did she really have to say “no!” to some one? Is the percentage of obese girls who have to say “no means no!” very high?
It seems almost as believable as a homeless man being seduced into a marriage.
I told him right away that I was saving myself for marriage
Wow, that takes me back… A young lady I knew in grad-school – she was a freshman when I met her – had a guy on the line who was going through his medical residency and she played that game of “saving herself”. Of course, what he didn’t know was that after they went on a date she would come over to my place to “work the randiness out”. So whenever I hear about a woman saying something like that, I can’t stop thinking of my little freshman. I saw her for four years and the month before her marriage she went off the pill since her plan was to have a baby as quickly as possible, and she thought it would be a turn on to go through the marriage ceremony pregnant. Don’t know if she succeeded on that note, but she did “deliver early”. That was almost 30 years ago. Do know they had a beautiful little girl, that I still get photos of, since I was her “God-father” – I still like that… Of course, she may be his… And hey, if you listen to the feminists, it doesn’t matter who got Momma preggos, it’s the man that pays that is the “father”…
Kind of a self serving viewpoint if you ask me… But it worked pretty well for me… And he got a woman that really enjoyed sex out of the deal….
… the basic story of a Christian girl keeping a celibate boyfriend on the hook for years while delaying marriage is one I’ve personally seen, and I would expect others here see this frequently as well.
Sadly yes. Even in the very conservative churches I am involved with I see daughters and parents of daughters pushing this for the most part. They usually want the kids to be older and finished with college, especially the girls. It makes no sense biologically or biblically IMO (nether does sending them to college IMO). I’m no longer surprised though, as I have learned that conservatives are basically feminists at heart (though often unknowingly).
The bright side of ministering under the above circumstances is watching someone change from a feminist conservative into a biblical Christian. It takes a lot of patience, but I have seen it.
@Cotto
but education of at least four years post high school is required in many fields.
Ten to twenty years ago I might have been inclined to agree with that, but the state of the trades at the moment makes it a better choice (IMHO). It takes less money and less time to get into many in-demand trades. Besides that, there are plenty of alternate options (to 4-year post-secondart) that are just as good, if not better (i.e. avoiding $100k worth of student debt).
I see frequently on Free Northerner and other places that the proper response to endless marriage delay and careerism is to marry very early. Being horny does not entitle you to marry. This has never been a Biblical or traditional model outside of a tribal society. Should a 16 year old girl marry? Possibly, but to a 25 year old man. A man is just going to have to tough it out for a while until there is some sign of responsibility and economic stability. A couple of 16 year olds encouraged to shack up and crank out kids on daddy’s dime are not going to mature normally. The exception might be in a family that has a farm or business that the young man can jump into immediately.
@Anonymous Reader
“Again, this rant appears to have first seen publication at xojane – attempting to use reason, logic, facts, etc. is a waste of time and energy.”
You’re right. Silly me. I keep expecting journalists to – you know – do their job. I need to stop that.
@JDG says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:26 pm
“I’m having a heard time believing we are looking at a potential date rape victim here. Did she really have to say “no!” to some one? Is the percentage of obese girls who have to say “no means no!” very high?”
That’s not what confuses me. I’m confused because, on the one hand she posts an anti-rape photo, and on the other hand she admits to reading what amounts to rape fantasies, and even complains that she can’t find enough of these sick rape fantasies to satisfy her.
But, there I go trying to use logic again.
Oscar, you are referring to Salon.com, what does that site have to do with journalism?
More broadly, if you reflect on the last few years (think of the Prop 8 fallout in California), it should be obvious that “journalism” is not much of a profession any more.
But, there I go trying to use logic again.
LOL!
Yep, happens every time.
@Anonymous Reader says:
August 18, 2014 at 7:38 pm
“Oscar, you are referring to Salon.com, what does that site have to do with journalism?
More broadly, if you reflect on the last few years (think of the Prop 8 fallout in California), it should be obvious that “journalism” is not much of a profession any more.”
Yeah. Exactly. My mistake.
@JDG
To be fair, he wasn’t alone. He had a dog.
To be fair, he wasn’t alone. He had a dog.
LOL!
True enough.
I for one think it’s nice that the lady has stopped worshipping her own vagina, and is now worshipping her own feelings. (the ones she feels with her vagina)
And now there is a whole generation of young “adults” who worship their feelings. (the girls worship their own feelings; the boys worship the girls’ feelings, but have a sense of humor about it)
http://www.girlsaskguys.com/other/q1103596-sex-without-love-is-love-without-sex-is-what
This article is clearly completely fabricated, and designed to re-instill atheist, feminist beliefs.
You guys are just being silly now.
Agree with Edwin. As I stated in the last thread, this is a James Frey-esque fakey-fake to please all the clucking lefty hens and be all anti-Christian.
Shades of that fictional story Dalrock exposed from OK Cupid.
“It’a always been interesting to me that so many interpret Paul to have meant ‘it’s better to be married than to burn with passion’, when what he actually meant was ‘it’s better to marry than to burn in hell because you are committing sins by having sex outside of marriage.'”
Actually, the original interpretation is the correct one, despite what the Gnostics would have us believe. Paul was saying, “If you’re horny, get married.” That’s why God gave most of us a sex drive.
Thankfully, I’m now asexual, so I won’t have to worry about walking that plank.
@just Saying
You let another man marry that whore because it worked out for you. You don’t care that the kid might be yours and on top of that you allowed her to continue involving you in her life after they got married, humiliating her husband even further.
Appreciate your honesty in letting us know what goes on. At the same time, in all honesty, you are garbage and you should not be allowed to live.
Chastity is not synonymous with virginity. It includes virginity but it also extends to sex within marriage. Sex within marriage is chaste and pleasing to god.
Frigidity is not chastity nor is promiscuity. Chastity is promiscuity within marriage and virginity outside of marriage.
It is true Leah’s marriage feast lasted a week, not 7 years. There is a place or two in the Bible where a week implies 7 years, but one should not automatically plug ‘7 years’ in any place where it says a week.
Zodak says:
August 18, 2014 at 11:31 am
“why is this written like it’s the man’s fault? it isn’t. she was a nutjob who was hoping an angel would appear & give her a pat on the back for waiting”
This is EXACTLY my thoughts when I read it. It is also by no means unique to women in marital situations.
As a martial arts instructor, I have watched many men and women obtain black belts under extremely rigorous circumstances.
When men get a black belt, they usually punch the air and want their first post-black belt lesson.
When women get a black belt (in a watered-down version of the men’s black belt!) they expect some spiritual experience to occur to them, and are very frequently depressed when it doesn’t happen. Consequently, they either drop out of the system or we don’t see them for months on end, where they go on some other “spiritual quest”.One even told me that her quest involved “having evolved past my husband” (read: failed at marriage).
I am not making this up.
DrTorch,
I’m going to leave this conversation about Jacob and Laban after this post. I’m the guy who first pointed out that the passage was ambiguous at 11:14 A.M. today. You declared your position to be the only correct possibility at 12:59 P.M.. I reiterated that the passage was not definitive at 1:19 P.M., and gave my reasons why, while agreeing that your explanation was the likely one. You reiterated that only your position could possibly be correct at 2:21 P.M., and called my response “silly.” I showed that it was possible to read the passage either way – even using the Hebrew word that has dual meanings – שָׁבוּעַ` – while once again stating that your position was probably correct. You backed off the word “impossible” at 4:22 P.M., but continued to argue for a position that I had already conceded – twice – was probably correct. Odd: since I’m the guy who first pointed out that the commonly-accepted “year” explanation was not the only one possible.
A72 is also correct at 10:56 that the likely explanation is that it was seven days, but the context allows either one to be possible, since both the honeymoon period and the seven additional years he worked for Laban would be referred to as a week – שָׁבוּעַ` I’ll give you Rachel if you wait for a שָׁבוּעַ`… Then Jacob worked for him for a שָׁבוּעַ`. So this is not just a case of randomly plugging in “years” – Jacob did, in fact, work for Laban for seven more years after that conversation – in “payment” for Rachel’s hand. It seems to me that the word causing us the trouble is the word “she” in verse 27 – if the “she” is Leah, then the passage clearly means seven days – but if the “she” is Rachel, it’s probably seven years. Given the context of verse 26, “she” is probably Leah, thus “days” is probably correct.
Again, I’m not saying that the “day” interpretation is wrong – I’ve repeatedly said that it is likely to be the correct one. I’m responding to your correct statement that mythologizing Bible stories is bad, and that we should tread carefully when we walk where Scripture does not definitively light the way – I would think that would not be controversial. I’m saying that one should be wary of making definitive declarations when more than one explanation is possible. Given that, I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about.
To any spectators following this – if this seems like a trivial matter, it is not. Whether Jacob served Laban before or after his marriage to Rachel may not matter to us, but the question we’re dealing with is when we can justifiably make definitive doctrinal statements – and that matters A LOT.
Okay. I think we’re all on the same page. I’m done.
I don’t know why, but this pic seems appropriate on several different levels…
Female Roommate..yes or no?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903690
I am the wife and the provider…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903711
What is heavy petting, exactly?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903744
Dalrock,
You see this makes perfect sense. But if you show this to any pastor, most likely they are just going to smile, shrug their shoulders, and say “whatever” because this is just not that important to them from a Biblical standpoint. They are not going to care, not (EVER) going to call out the behavior of women looking only for the celibate boyfriend.
Getting back to the original post, if a young Christian man is looking for a wife, what’s the best way for him tell whether a potential prospect is looking for a husband, or a celibate boyfriend?
@deti
It’s a growing trend to see girls pledge purity until marriage. But the mistake is purity in conjunction with the incessant bleating at these young men and women to WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! for marriage. WAIT until all the stars are exactly aligned just right. WAIT until you’re done with college. WAIT until you’re done with grad school. WAIT until you have the exact job you want. WAIT until you’re living where you want. WAIT until you have a house. WAIT WAIT WAIT.
The annoying thing is that waiting so long increases their chances of failure, which in turn often leads to them rejecting Christian sexual morality, as well as blaming the notion of waiting until marriage for their failure (which is just a little silly). The idea of waiting implies (or rather, entails) that something will eventually happen.
There are days when I wonder if Heartiste will create “waiting Game.”
Regardless of her age, if she wasn’t old enough to pick a husband, she shouldn’t have been picking a man, period. This is a crucial problem with the celibate boyfriend. It makes it seem that foolishness is wise.
Let me expand on the teen dating exception for 6+ years dating.
1. A large Christian subculture exists with parent involvement in their kids dating lives (trying to restrict heavy romantic displays and sex). Assuming for the moment a 16 year old claiming to have dated for 6 years, the first two years may indeed be anything but dating both from learning about each other, motivations, and all the coquetry with none of the meaning, both parental and juvenile. Add in a year or two of education after high school grad, and they’ve been “dating” in a very loose sense, but only seriously for 2 years.
2. Girls are more prone than boys (and I’m talking about boys speaking frankly) to count from the moment everybody know he had the hots for her to proposal as an uninterrupted dating experience SIMPLY for having not dated others in that period and keeping regular contact. Hamster rationalization takes over through all the fast breakups, combines together the time period to fit the “Princess Narrative” i.e. he was always my prince in that time, and surfs into the classical churchianity how-cute-what-a-touching-romance-story affirmation from her peers & older women.
He could’ve easily been postponing to see if she was really the one and gaining the skills for the income to support a family. Blue-pill maybe with ONE-itis, but not necessarily full party to a 6-years of dating experience.
Two other random thoughts:
3. “MY BODY MY CHOICE” makes me sick to my stomach coming out of anyone professing to know Christ as their savior. This is classic sinful attitude, pushed through the female empowerment feminist reframe and bought up by Churchianity wholesale. We were bought at a price, no longer our own (1 Cor 6:20, Ro 12:1). Being saved is no excuse to go back into worldly action (Ro 6) … “my choice” particularly smacks of finding morality if she chose to sin, so long as she’s the one doing the choosing and not somebody else pressuring her.
4. “He loved me” is also cringe-worthy. You can tell from context its the back-wards love. BECAUSE he married up THAT redeemed his past dating and proved his love. Love isn’t manifested in long dating relationships (and Dalrock you hit that one out of the park). It’s still classic Holy-Path-To-Marriage false narrative–I’m going to judge his current love by going into the future and examining the past action and deciding if it was really love if I liked how everything turned out. Compare to relationships that end (Oh, I was more mature than him … he was not good enough for me … any number of reasons) and we know after the fact that it indeed wasn’t love.
“I’m not familiar with Eastern European customs … ”
.
My ancestry is Eastern European and Orthodox.
A while back, in some regions, the custom used to be that a young man in his mid 20s would marry a young woman (completed puberty, able to get pregnant) in her mid teens.
The father watched the boy grow up, the boy watched the girl grow up.
A few years before marriage could become appropriate, an identified (as a strong possibility, and on his way to becoming established) young man would start to participate (to some extent) in the girls family, to ensure compatibility, and to help (in limited ways) with raising her.
In short order it would become obvious that either 1) that pairing would not work, or 2) the girl liked and looked up to the young man, and the young man liked, and enjoyed guiding and protecting, the girl.
By the time she became a young woman and her hormones started raging, she was already receptive to his established dominant position, and the step to marriage (timewise, and as a life change) was relatively small, with minimal to no angst and uncertainty.
Doing something like this in the modern world would be much more difficult, logistically and in other ways, but the principle remains.
Pingback: From celibate boyfriend to celibate husband (tr...
Samantha Rodman makes the case that men are right and women are nuts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-rodman-phd/what-women-think-about-sex-vs-reality_b_5601040.html
Not in so many words, of course. In her previous article about what men get wrong (which about the only thing men get wrong is assuming their wives are NOT nuts), she pointed out that the fact that almost all wives deliberately deprive men of sex has nothing to do with what the men do or don’t do. Her basic message is sympathetic, but useless, to men: “Sorry, Charlie.”
@SocietalDecay re: how to tell.
There is not only not just one best way to tell, in most cases there is *no* good way to tell. One way that could work is if he happened to be so attractive that she continually whined that she could hardly keep herself off him. This therefore works for about 0.5% of men.
Yes. A month or two should do it.
Look, people buy houses in which they expect to spend decades, taking on 30+ years of debt, based on a 10-minute walkthrough and a day or two of thinking about it. They help their kids select a college, believing it will determine the trajectory of their success in life, based on some brochures, web site reviews, and an afternoon visit. They hire employees who are critical to their financial success based on half-hour interviews. It’s ridiculous to think you need years to determine whether someone is “compatible” enough with you for marriage.
And the stats bear that out: even people who live together before marriage, often for years, have a similar or worse divorce rate to people who do not. Even living together doesn’t allow them to spot whatever it is between them that will make the marriage fail. The truth is, if you can’t tell someone is psychotic in a a couple months of courtship and a few months of engagement, you wouldn’t be able to spot it if you stretched that out to ten years.
People don’t delay marriage because they need time to vet the other person. They delay marriage because they don’t want to get married yet.
re: living together.
Every properly performed study finds that periods of unmarried cohabitation increase breakup rates. The key understanding for analysis is that for those who eventually marry, the timeclock for divorce starts upon moving in together, not at the wedding. For those who never marry the breakup rate is enormous.
@jf12
Then there’s this gem along the sidebar: “The Very Last Thing I Wanted To Be Was A Twice-Divorced 35-Year-Old Single Mom” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/life-after-divorce-_n_5565474.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
“I was going to marry, have my two kids, watch them grow, stand arm-in-arm with their father as they walked down the stairs for prom, graduation, leaving for college, and then, when the they left the nest, we’d grow old together, comfortable in our little regimen of gardening, taking trips and bouncing our grandchildren on our knees.
…
“when I became a stay-at-home mom after the birth of our first daughter, things started getting less-than great. When we had our second daughter I realized there was no way I could live the rest of my life like that.”
So in other words, she found out that her fantasy was a fantasy, and rather than facing real life she nope’d on out of there.
And then she found mr, Super-Alpha-Man who dumped her like an Alpha:
“Shortly thereafter, I met the man I was sure was my soulmate. We rushed into the relationship, found ourselves pregnant rather early on and got married. And then, a month after our first anniversary, I discovered his affair — his two year-long affair. His two year-long affair with a close friend of mine. I tried to make it work, because the very last thing I wanted to be was a twice divorced 35-year-old single mom of three young kids. Eventually he decided he no longer wanted to work on us any longer and moved out. I was devastated and sunk into a deep depression. Everyone said “hang in there; it’ll get better.” I couldn’t believe them. But I hung in there, and thanks to my friends, my family, and most importantly, my children, it really did get better.”
Wait…if she found his two-year affair a month after their first anniversary, then how does she say they “rushed into the relationship” and got pregnant “rather early.” Just how long were they together when they were married?
“I’ve since met a wonderful man through online dating. He’s exactly what I want in a partner, all the things I learned through my countless “failures.””
Someone’s gonna have to hamsterlate this part for me, because I’m not sure if “exactly what I want in a partner” is a beta schlub with a phat wallet or a man that makes her go all tingly.
Also, “countless ‘failures'”? she slept with that many men in a period of 3-6 years?
Making up for lost time, I guess.
“I once thought being mid-thirties, twice divorced with three kids was a dating death sentence, but it’s not. It’s just the beginning. ”
It is just the beginning.
The beginning of the end, because as we all know:
she’s reaching the end of her peak in about -15 years.
Not true unfortunately, as you prob know BPDers are incredible about keeping you in the dark to their true personalities until the deal is signed and they have their foot in the door. A very common tactic that ehy have to use, otherwise no-one would touch them with a barge pole.
I favour the Jewish engagement system, wherein they actually live together ala Mary & Joseph and then tie the knot before deciding to consummate.
Hah, the Mark Driscols of this world may prod the men folk to marry their churches single mothers giving the example of Joseph.
And he still married a virgin !
So suck it up marky boy.
Does she seem anxious to get married? That’s probably the best test. Does she talk positively about marriage and children, or does she sprinkle any discussion of marriage with words like “someday” and “yet”? It might be okay if she has a practical reason to wait a while, like if she’s about to start a six-month study program overseas, so she wants to set the date for three months after that to leave some time for planning when she gets back. That’s reasonable. But “I don’t want to get married until after (undetermined number of years of) college, because I can’t imagine planning a wedding while I’m going to school,” is not reasonable.
So in general, does she seem like she wants to get married? It takes time to train a celibate boyfriend and make sure he’s going to be willing to accept an “upgrade” to celibate husband. Delaying marriage for a few years and seeing how he reacts is a critical part of that process.
Yes, I’ve know a few. Read what I said again: if you can’t spot one in a month, you probably won’t be able to spot her in years. As you say, BPDers are excellent at keeping their psychosis hidden for as long as necessary. If anything, the longer you spend with one unawares, the more you’ll get pulled into the madness and the less likely you’ll be to be able to judge her rationally.
The idea that living together first will let the couple test their compatibility for marriage is one of those things that makes sense on paper, but doesn’t work out in practice. Ditto the idea that long engagements make for healthier marriages. We have a couple decades of experience and stats now to prove it.
To me, the best test for a BPDer is catching one in a lie. Then when you confront, you get a long, elaborate explanation that at least makes plausible sense. The key is the explanation – it’s lengthy, it’s tedious, it’s detailed, and it actually could be true. It makes sense but it usually fails the Occam’s Razor test.
BPDers always seem to get themselves into tough spots and always have to lie their way out. You’ll probably catch them in a lie in the first month or two.
“But “I don’t want to get married until after (undetermined number of years of) college, because I can’t imagine planning a wedding while I’m going to school,” is not reasonable.” Cail Corishev
And the degree is usually something like an MSW where they turn around and get a job with the county making 30K a year and paying off (re: future husband will have to work extra hours to pay off) a 90K loan.
@Pro-Truth re: last thing.
She didn’t want to be twice divorced, so she’s setting her cap at thrice.
re: countless.
I agree. I cannot understand why *women* and only women, think that repeating this lesson 289 times means that they are slowly learning to avoid it.
@Cail, re: “People don’t delay marriage because they need time to vet the other person. They delay marriage because they don’t want to get married yet.”
This is the single biggest takeaway of the phenomenon of delayed marriage.
Let’s also remember that Jacob had Leah for those seven years, he definitely had an outlet for his passions, his example does not count as ‘waiting’
The tradition of teaching that Jacob waited for Rachel is the lie which Dalrock is eviscerating.
Jacob purchased two wives; each with a bride-price of seven years of labor to Laban. The transaction–the relationship–was between two men. Jacob wanted Rachel because she was pretty, but Leah was older (probably more responsible) and a better woman who loved God.
Either way: Jacob didn’t date anybody.
Off the point of this post: Jacob and Rachel are a cautionary tale.
This it’s partly due to the fact that these civilizations were not dependent on complex economic systems. Ours, or better yet the western model thrives on all the lousy expenditures, emotional and mental damages that occur during our best reproductive years. Think of all the business that revolves around it, divorce court, dating coaching, all the silly gift giving, contraceptives, college, beauty industry (aka looking for a mate) STDs (proliferation and prevention).. I mean I could continue all day. It goes so far that economic status is implicitly the number factor to marriage for the average woman and a prerequisite for a man. Until the money element is removed you can expect massive delays in reproduction and marriage.
* number one factor
“I’m not familiar with Eastern European customs on the matter, and my post was more regarding what we are seeing in the West.”
I can assure you that we have no particular customs here (Hungary), and we (the local churches) deal with almost the same problem that you in the States. The human nature is pretty much the same everywhere, we share the same cultural basis, and Sex & City is available all over the world.
We have minor structural differences in the church, but it does not influence my answer.
(I’m 28, so this isn’t my problem, just curious.)
“With that in mind, approached for what? To be his girlfriend? To be his betrothed? to be engaged? If one of the latter, are there strong customs in place to enforce this?”
To be his girlfriend of course, but let’s assume the latter two. To enforce what? A prompt engagement? marriage within a year? neither party can broke the engagement?
If it is the first one, and either party can cancel the engagement, I do not see any point in a fast engagement (or any difference with the “christian dating” conception)
I do not see the possibility of the second either. Although it is legal to marry in the age of 18, most of the couples can not pay for an own household (as they do not have steady income), and in most cases parents can’ support them either.
The third one would be equal to a marriage. I do not agree with the above commenters, some months is definitely not enough to know someone.
“Would either of them be doing something morally wrong if they fell in love with another, or a series of others, during the 5 year period before marriage? Would the young woman be wrong if she got tired of waiting after two years, and married a man who was ready to marry? Would the man be wrong if he decided after a few years that another young woman would make a better prospective wife, and swapped her into the wife-in-waiting position?”
No, of course not, but they probably go to the same church, both christian, share the same interest, I do not see any point in denying a chaste relationship; Furthermore, this makes for boys under 25 impossible to seek any type of relationship.
But that was only an example Dalrock, my main point is – as far as I can see it – the reason behind the long christian and chaste relationships is not that the girl denies the marriage or refuses the proposal.
I read the original article and what I can say is that they adored virginity as god. That has consequences.
Yeah, I see what you mean now, and grudgingly agree you are correct. They will only show their real psychosis when they assume its safe to do so without repercusions. Keep your passport handy as they say and some clothes in the trunk.
Surely though, a living together peroid without sex would be enough to coax out and filter for most severe problems before you sign a ruinous contract with a lunatic headcase ? My ex revealed her true nature just before marriage when we had to spend a few weeks living together, wasn’t long enough that I could put a halt to the procedings without knowing what the hell was really going on.
Thats what I thought the Jewish style of engagement enabled – no ?
If there is no possible way of identifying who is sane or not before marriage, then how can you trust anyone? If we had done that 6 months before I don’t think she could have kept the illusion going that long, she cracked very quickly under the very slight pressure of living together.
Maybe she knew the game was up for me anyway 😀 and decided to come out of the closet, maybe she would have sat on it for 6 months. Who knows.
@Cane Caldo says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:22 am
“Off the point of this post: Jacob and Rachel are a cautionary tale.”
The entire story is a cautionary tale, especially when you get to the part where the two sisters start to compete with each other for their husband’s affection and how that jealousy and competition poisoned their children.
@ Societal Decay says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:17 am
“Getting back to the original post, if a young Christian man is looking for a wife, what’s the best way for him tell whether a potential prospect is looking for a husband, or a celibate boyfriend?”
Other men probably have better advice than I do, but I prefer the direct approach, because it’s the only one that works for me.
I made it very clear to girls I dated in college that I was looking for a wife, not a girlfriend. Obviously, that scared a lot of girls away, but it got me the one I married.
In my experience its abit like being brainwashed, same thing cults do, anytime they are caught in a lie you get a barrage of high intensity emotional messages (usually screamed or raged) from half a dozen different directions/viewpoints.
Now the human brain esp a man’s (with our less ability to decode control,manipulation,emotional strategy), just isn’t built to decode what the heck that means. You’ve gone into fight or flight mode, your frontal cortex is making for the door, as should the rest of you.
In my experience feminism is just like BPD behaviour thats been codified into law and sanctified.
BPDers and NPDers normally align together (with relationships too). So you have BPDers screaming I’m a victim, and the NPDers (most politicians+CEO’s of charities etc) make the laws based on believing their screaming’s.
Its manipulation at the government level. It would be beautiful to see if it wasn’t so catastrophic. We have lost so much sanity in our society when they believed the lie that woman don’t lie.
Minesweeper, yes, it’s quite possible that yours got cold feet and was trying to blow up the marriage at the last minute. They can’t stand to be held responsible for anything negative, especially something that might bring judgment like calling off a wedding, so they try to drive others into doing it for them.
I lived for several months with a complete basket-case, and would have longer if she hadn’t run off. The “catch her in a lie, confront her, get a plausible answer that you can’t quite prove a lie” cycle became almost daily after a while. She was expert at making me feel guilty for distrusting her and trying to “control” her. It took a long time to get over her (the sex was incredible and plentiful, of course). I know now that she was a poster child for BPD, but at the time I had no idea so I rationalized away everything she did.
While it’s true that you can spot a BPD sooner or later if you know what you’re looking for, I think it’s also true that if you know what you’re looking for, it won’t take that long. And if you don’t know, you won’t get it until she’s gone and you have a chance to de-program yourself and reconnect with objective reality.
Exactly. The problem you have with this “True Love Waits” teaching is this: You’re taking a single isolated Scripture verse and then fashioning a whole doctrine after it, which is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. It’s amazing how many different references to Genesis 29:20 I find. Basically put, whoever came up with that doctrine shopped, deciding to conform Scripture to their wishes instead of conforming themselves to Scripture.
And the only way you can really take the whole story.
In other words, they are taking an exceptional case out of Scripture and turning it into the norm.
BPD?
BPD: Borderline Personality Disorder
NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://truelovedoesntwait.com/
Cail if only ! I think it was far more the case that the pretence that she kept up she could no longer do while having just normal daily life when removed from her environment of origin and extended family.
She was spending some time on her own while I was at work, and if their is one thing you know about BPDers is that spending time alone makes them even crazier due to the intense abandonment feelings they experience.
When she ran off you were saved my friend. But yeah the sex can be great – anything you like anytime.
I had no idea until she had gone what the heck was wrong with her. I think I’m still deprogramming from a whole lot of crazy. You would have found like I did, your next relationship with a non-BPD just feels so amazing.
Cail Corishev
Ditto the idea that long engagements make for healthier marriages. We have a couple decades of experience and stats now to prove it.
The two exceptions that come to my mind, one from the 80’s and one from the 00’s, involved couples who announced their engagement and set their wedding date 1 year hence. In both cases there was a female relation of the bride (such as a sister, cousin, etc.) who had in the previous year gotten knocked up. Genteel version of “I am better than her” IMO. Both still married to the best of my knowledge. 6 month engagement seems more than long enough to me.
Deti
BPDers always seem to get themselves into tough spots and always have to lie their way out. You’ll probably catch them in a lie in the first month or two.
There’s no real way of knowing if BiPolar Disorder is more common now than in past decades / generations / centuries or not. However given the amount of brain-chemistry-altering drugs that are handed out like candy at Halloween by doctors, it seems likely. What’s the effect of Prozac or some other SSRI on a developing child in utero? Eh, it’s safe…or so we are told.
It occurs to me that as part of The Glasses / Red Pill a man, especially a young man, ought to learn how to tell the difference between normal female fitness-testing / ditzyness / etc. and real-deal BPD. Women are often adept at spinning absurd yarns out of their feelings, but as you note the abnormal brain of someone with BPD goes way, way overboard. A man needs to have some idea of what that looks like in order to avoid an expensive learning experience. But he also needs to have the confidence to NEXT, to preserve himself by disengaging. That means he needs an abundance mindset, not oneitis or scarcity. As Cail implied it is easy for a credulous man, especially one in his 20’s, to get dragged down the rabbit hole of BPD and the longer that goes on, the messier a breakup will be for all concerned.
Parenthetically, I have gotten to know a few men on the Aspie or Autist spectrum over the years, and in some ways they really do seem hyper-male in terms of single-mindedness and concentration to the exclusion of everything else. If I recall correctly, BPD is much more common in women than men; perhaps it is vaguely similar in that properties normal to women are pushed to a great extreme. Corrections on this little hypothesis welcome.
@Cail
They can’t stand to be held responsible for anything negative, especially something that might bring judgement like … causing endless problems in a marriage coupled with a complete refusal on every level to address even the slightest of those.
So true, you seem to have got a handle on this, I’m (even years later) still unpicking it all. It’s definitely a anti-BPD defence move, pick a problem you guys have and resolve it. With a BPD that will never happen, ever.
Cail touched on another prime reason it takes so long for men to see what a BPDer is doing: The sex with a BPD is off the charts. A lot of guys who get involved with a BPD are getting more, hotter, and wilder sex than they’ve ever seen or heard of. That’s how they throw their men off the trail: ply and lure them with hot, plentiful, swing from the chandelier sex. When the complaints come, it’s “You’re getting laid, ain’t ya?” and “Oh, come here, let me take care of that little problem for you” as she strips out of her clothes.
Another way to spot a BPD is that she uses sex to deflect and “solve” problems in the relationship.
Minsweeper on BPD
If there is no possible way of identifying who is sane or not before marriage, then how can you trust anyone? If we had done that 6 months before I don’t think she could have kept the illusion going that long, she cracked very quickly under the very slight pressure of living together.
How about a nice, week long camping trip with a group of friends? I’ve come to the opinion that many people will reveal quite a bit about themselves out in the woods when heat comes from fires made with gathered wood, and so forth. Even a week at a KOA might well flush out some flaws in detail. Shorter time period than your suggestion, likely as effective?
Pingback: Forced Celibacy | The Reinvention of Man
The whole problem in the west is that we have completely severed dating and courtship from marriage. Almost all dating is done with no intent to marry or even looking to marry. Dating starts long before there is even the posibility of marriage. What purpose is there for two teenagers dating in a culture that says marriage is for people in their thirties. Women who think marriage is for someday, later, not now have no business dating. And men that are not interested in marriage shouldn’t be dating these women; although the do sort ofThe whole problem in the west is that we have completely severed dating and courtship from marriage. Almost all dating is done with no intent to marry or even looking to marry. I the west dating starts long before there is even the possibility of marriage. What purpose is there for two teenagers dating in a culture that says marriage is for people in their thirties? Women who think marriage is for someday, later, not now, have no business dating. And men that are not interested in marriage shouldn’t be dating these women; although the do sort of deserve each other.
The rest of the problems follow from this source. The woman spends 10 to 15 years being courted; free meals, lavish entertainment, free stuff, and gifts. Her sense of entitlement to her definition of romance becomes too huge for any marriage to satisfy. This becomes the new normal. After all of that it is a big disappointment to settle for one guy that wants and expects reciprocation.
deserve eachother.
@deti says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:45 am
Cail touched on another prime reason it takes so long for men to see what a BPDer is doing: The sex with a BPD is off the charts. A lot of guys who get involved with a BPD are getting more, hotter, and wilder sex than they’ve ever seen or heard of.
Yeah, but after a while it can get just too wierd, believe it or not, guys do need boundaries in the bedroom, without those its almost hard to quantify whats going on, its like an endless credit card that you never have to pay, eventually everything loses its value when its ‘free’.
AR – BPD is Borderline Personality Disorder. I think Bipolar is just refereed as such. Although they do often get confused when being diagnosed. I know BPD females who are on Bipolar meds, its quite well known there is a problem with the diagnostic kits.
I don’t think a camping trip with others would do, BPDers are at their best with outside people to impress and obtain validation from, as long as they aren’t on their own for more than 2 mins, they will be having the best time of their lives. My ex was at her best hosting large parties or camping trips. At her worst when stuck alone with nothing to do.
Please edit this overwriting error.
Here are some ways to detect a woman who might suffer from a mental illness (not just BPD, not just NPD, not just Bipolar):
1. She rushes into a relationship with you and the relationship turns immediately sexual. She is very, very serious about you, about making a life with you, and about making this work.
2. The sex is off the charts fantastic, all the time. She uses sex to smooth over problems and issues in the relationship.
3. She overreacts at small problems.
4. She never accepts responsibility for any problems in the relationship.
5. She is being treated for, or has been treated for, any kind of substance abuse/dependency. (Sorry, female recovering alcoholics, but most of you have some sort of mental illness and/or deep-seated mental issues that are very, very hard to dislodge.)
6. Closely related to 2 and 5, she “medicates” or “numbs up” with something. Whatever it is: Church. Food. Sex. Religion. Weed. Shopping.
7. She never seems able to manage daily, day to day life functions. She’s always playing catch-up, always falling behind, never gets out in front of things coming up.
8. She has an explanation for everything that absolves her of all responsibility for any problem, their causes, and their consequences.
*I think Bipolar is just referred as such
@deti, re: “Another way to spot a BPD is that she uses sex to deflect and “solve” problems in the relationship.”
Nothing quite like the embarassment of riches to make a man seem spoiledly humble bragging. “You wanna talk about problems with sex? Well my girl couldn’t get enought! yadda yadda”
@deti – your check list should be part and parcel of every schoolboys guide to female relations handbook. And you are right, they are all into some sort of substance abuse.
Its not just all female either, I knew of 1 woman who married a BPD male, turns out he was snorting lines of coke in the bathroom on the wedding day unbeknown to her and just prior to this tried to strangle her.
Oh yeah another for your check list deti – some form of physical violence.
At the risk of earning the ire of Earl, our good friend Paul does not actually say you can’t have sex before marriage. He says:
“If any of you burn (with passion) and cannot control yourselves with your virgin…let them do what they will. But let them marry.”
Note the order of events. Horny-Fuck-Wedding. Nothing about waiting for 6 years. The Biblical prohibition is against adultery (sex with a married person not your spouse) NOT against fornication (sex between unmarried persons). Yes I know you can spew out various verses that obliquely reference fornication- something in Revelations about “All liars, fornicators, effeminate men etc” go to hell. Are we to take that literally? All effeminate men go to hell? We are in BIG trouble if that is the case because it is easier for an Alpha to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a Beta to man up. I suppose with God all things are possible but still…
@infowarrior1 –
This is a little late as a reply, but the combination of the timezone I’m in and my work schedule means I’m often late to replies. But regarding your August 18, 2014 at 10:48 pm comment, I have to take issue with the following statement:
Frigidity is not chastity nor is promiscuity. Chastity is promiscuity within marriage and virginity outside of marriage.
I agree with what I think you’re trying to say here, but that’s not what “promiscuity” means. The words “promiscuity” or “promiscuous” always imply multiple sexual partners; they mean not being picky. One dictionary defines “promiscuous” as “having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.” Another defines it as “Having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.”
A better way to express what I think you meant to say would be: “Frigidity is not chastity, nor is promiscuity. Chastity is virginity outside of marriage, and humping like bunnies within marriage.”
I can’t say that I’m all that good at spotting “crazy” – but since Dalrock and most of the guys here are coming from a Christian starting point, it seems to me that we’re glossing over the value of discernment. Men of the world have to rely on charts and graphs to calculate the odds – Christian men have all the same tools, plus the guidance of the Omniscient One to guide us.
From my childhood my parents prayed for my brother and me that we would find good women who loved us. They didn’t have long lists of traits – just the few things that mattered to the parents of boys. My brother chose poorly, but it wasn’t that he had to, or that he was tricked, or that God failed him: he knowingly married a slut. He knew it was wrong at the time – I know he knew because he hid her past from all of us until she had run off with their kids and her former lover. I can understand why he married her: he thought she was cute and he was watching the time tick away. However, had he acted with discernment he would have never gotten tangled up with that sociopathic train wreck to begin with. Part of what attracted a happily married guy like me to the manosphere was watching what that redheaded-bundle-o’-crazy did to my brother and the kids, and the further damage she would have done but for Divine protection of my family.
I am not a “better” man than my brother, but by the grace of God I didn’t make the same mistake. Once I got some “frame” in college I was the one doing the “nexting” rather than being “nexted” myself, and I did it ruthlessly. (Not that I was ever mean about it – I just treated a break-up as something that would not be improved by drawing it out or inserting a lot of emotion into it.) But when I met the then-future MRS Lyn87 (as I have written before) I knew pretty quickly. The moment she knew is instructive as well – we were about to go out on a date and some crisis flared up. I told her we should stop and pray together about it. I took the lead, and as we sat there on her couch praying it was like God smacked her upside the head and said, “Are you blind? This is the man I have for you.”
She took the suggestion. That was 27 years ago and neither of us has regretted it for a moment.
Christian men are not to be wandering through life blind – by all means count the cost, be wise about the signs of bad women, and ultimately, seek out the guidance of the Holy Spirit and follow it. God has never led me into a mistake.
I think deti’s list is great, provided it’s approached holistically. Nearly everyone (men too) will occasionally flip one of the switches on that panel.
Just as important, in my opinion, is checking out a prospective wife’s background — with a modicum of dispassion and fairness. This is hard for a young man to do when he’s blinded by eros, which is why matchmakers and parents of the groom were so handy in years past.
Does she have a history of getting drunk and banging strangers? Is she a heavy user of marijuana or a user of any other substance (I wouldn’t trust a heroin junkie no matter how long they have been reformed). Does she have weirdo tattoos or piercings? Does she curse in public, or in excess in private? Good manners are more important than many would have you believe. They’re the outward expression of an inner peace that is lacking in some people.
How does your future wife describe her own parents? Her brothers and sisters? This is the most obvious tell as to what your relationship with her will end up like. If she hates mom and/or dad today, and berates them to you, she’ll make you the subject of her eventual critique, orated to the next gent down the line.
Best, Boxer
Everyone should ignore everything Bluepillprofessor wrote in his last post. He wrote the following heresy, “The Biblical prohibition is against adultery (sex with a married person not your spouse) NOT against fornication (sex between unmarried persons). Yes I know you can spew out various verses that obliquely reference fornication…”
There is nothing “oblique” about it. The Greek New Testament uses the word fornication – porneia (πορνεύω) – 26 times, 20 of which refer specifically to individual sexual sin.
The word porneia (πορνεύω) means sexual sin in general, whereas adultery – moicheia (μοιχεύω) – specifically involves sexual sin (fornication) with a married woman. All adultery is fornication – some fornication is adultery.
Lest anyone believe BPP and start to think that the Bible only condemns adultery (a subset of fornication), Galations 5:19 directly contradicts BPP by listing both words: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness…” [emphasis added].
Wow!!! deti’s comment (August 18, 2014 at 1:57 pm) & Jf12’s comment (August 18, 2014 at 2:15pm) are both great! What a scary and twisted story… she is in no way some kind of feminist model (except for the FACT that she actually IS lol). I’ve been reading an interesting book written by a feminist (picked it up by accident when taking my son to the library & he was throwing a fit b/c Mommy actually wanted a book), so I grabbed the first interesting looking one I could find. It really is an eye-opening lesson in how feminism was basically started. The glorification of purity and being asexual (celibacy) was started in Christianity (namely, Catholicism) – complete with women LEAVING their husbands and children in order to remain PURE and holy (sexless). **This is DIRECETLY related to the fact that Catholicism was so anti-sex at that point in history.** And these women were looked up to for this atrocity of abandoning their children and husbands, they weren’t shamed for what they were doing – it was considered better to be “pure” than to be a mother and wife. There is an image included of a mural made by the church where married men and women were placed at the bottom of the totem pole so to speak – the least able to receive blessings from God due to their being sexual!!! Literally, the mural is of women and men receiving blessings of grain and possessions, and the married couples are on the bottom and receive the least. Talk about misrepresented biblical teachings that still affect many religious people today!
The author (obviously) views these women as the first feminists due to their sticking up for their body and right to live how they dictate the course of their lives – modern thinking for women back then – even though she does seem sympathetic to the husbands of such wives – feminism is, after all, only concerned with how anything might affect women. The book is fascinating because it goes on to the more recent events around 1800-1900 that are so familiar to some of the things Rollo & Dalrock post about TODAY as back then – feminism really hasn’t changed that much. Truth is truth… and its become addicting to me from reading what ya’ll write. I’ll be writing quite a few posts I imagine based off this feminist’s book. Thank you Dalrock.
@Dalrock:
“This overlooks the fact that like sex, romantic love is for marriage, and marriage is what makes sex and romantic love moral.” – Doesn’t this imply that the entire boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is immoral? You shouldn’t be searching for boyfriend/ girlfriend for a relationship, but a potential husband/ wife for a marriage.
Hey Lyn87:
Do you have an opinion on the concept of “natural marriage”?
I don’t agree with bluepillprofessor’s interpretation of the text either. (I’m not an expert, just a reader, but I can’t seem to come to his conclusion). There is something to be said for people who, without any priest or rabbi around to perform a ceremony, commit to each other and start living with the dignity of man and wife. This often happens after copulation and pair bonding. The couple might have their own ceremony, or might merely discuss their plans for the future. Either way, people who do this are at least as “married” as the typical couple who halfheartedly signs the documents down at the marriage commissioner’s office.
Catholic theology seems to recognize this as a social reality, as does (of all people) Pat Robertson. Thoughts?
Best, Boxer
@Lyn87, re: spotting crazy.
Besides the usual offhand “degrees of craziness” remarks, it is also true that nobody can possibly spot will-be crazy, nor will-be devil possessed. It’s simply impossible.
Boxer asks me, “Do you have an opinion on the concept of “natural marriage”?”
Why, yes… Yes, I do (big surprise, right?). I have addressed the issue before, but with all the comments and commentators around I don’t expect you to remember what I wrote. In my writings I have always maintained that the state should have no say in defining marriage – which is something set up by God. My wife and I are married because we took vows and then had sex – not because we got a piece of paper from the state. If the state where we were married suddenly notified us that there was something wrong with our marriage license that rendered it legally invalid, we would still be every bit as married as if there were no such issue. It would effect how we file our taxes and not much else.
That’s why I don’t give much thought to so-called “Gay Marriage.” Gay people cannot marry and never will be able to: and getting a license from the state that allows them to file joint tax returns won’t change that one iota. Even exchanging vows won’t do the trick, since marriage vows exchanged within such a union do not and cannot create an actual marriage.
As for priests or rabbis: vows are vows, and whether they are witnessed by others is irrelevant to their “bindingness.” We have ritualized the event of entering the state of matrimony by having events called weddings, but in my estimation the only things that matter are the commitment (which probably ought to be explicitly verbalized) and the consummation.
jf12 writes, “nobody can possibly spot will-be crazy, nor will-be devil possessed. It’s simply impossible.”
Matthew 19:26 says, “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
Thus my earlier comment about prayer and discernment.
@Lyn87 says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm
“jf12 writes, “nobody can possibly spot will-be crazy, nor will-be devil possessed. It’s simply impossible.”
Matthew 19:26 says, “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
Thus my earlier comment about prayer and discernment.!
Well now your victim blaming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/snark
Heresy? @ Lyn: “Everyone should ignore everything Bluepillprofessor wrote in his last post. He wrote the following heresy, “The Biblical prohibition is against adultery (sex with a married person not your spouse) NOT against fornication (sex between unmarried persons). Yes I know you can spew out various verses that obliquely reference fornication…”
There is nothing “oblique” about it. The Greek New Testament uses the word fornication – porneia (πορνεύω) – 26 times, 20 of which refer specifically to individual sexual sin. ”
26 mentions in a 2,000 page book? Since I’m already a heretic I might as well go all in. How many mentions of touching a woman who is on her monthly shame? How many mentions of not even touching anything that an unclean woman touches. My guess is a lot more than 26. Do you sleep in separate bedrooms 5 days out of the month? Of course not! Those OT laws were ritual purification stuff and we are all under “grace” today.
For the NT how many of those references were among lists of examples of the types of people who were likely to be damned (presumably unless they accepted Christ) and not fully inclusive. ALL liars? Really? The level of literal reading stretches the mind. Jesus himself forgave the adulteress and it is adultery- not fornication- that is in the 10 Commandments.
Finally, Paul gave the unmarried a get out of fornication free card if you “marry” the virgin who you could not control yourself with. Problem is in Paul’s day that was not such a disaster. You just added her to the Roster in your home. Today it has far different consequences.
@Boxer: Here is the REAL heresy. There is NO marriage today. It doesn’t exist as an institution. If something bears NO resemblance to the institution sanctioned by the Lord then it has NO right demanding strict compliance to MAN-MADE laws- particularly when they run counter to the laws of God. God says women are to submit. Man’s laws do not require this and in fact they encourage the woman to rebel. The way it plays out is this. Man and woman form a LT commitment and start having sex. THAT commitment is the Biblical marriage. That is the closest thing we have today- a “marriage” where the man is free to “leave” with little consequence. (in the 1st century the man could return his bride to her father in disgrace, and he could always take another wife- how’s that for the hard dread!). THEN if they break up, you can decide retroactively (using hamster-logic/TM) that it was actually not a marriage after all so of course you are free to ‘remarry.’ Rinse- repeat. At least it precludes ONS and requires the slut avoidance policy. Plus it is a LOT closer to what the Lord was talking about than the broth these celibate Churchians are trying to sell.
BPD: Borderline Personality Disorder
NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Are these real things, or just symptoms of a selfish, self-centered, immoral person? I don’t mean any offense. It’s precisely because of mental illness in my family that I am very wary of labeling everything some kind of disorder.
Is it a coincidence that we have more incidence of this (as evidenced by the comments here) at the exact point in our cultural timeline where everything is sexualized, proliferation of choices is the norm, and accountability of any kind has all but dried up?
Minesweeper
AR – BPD is Borderline Personality Disorder.
Thanks for the correction, I mis-typed, but all I know about this is from arms-length study. I had one experience with one woman who probably could have used some therapy, but I can’t say what the problem(s) happened to be. So it’s academic to me, except in terms of the reality around me.
I think Bipolar is just refereed as such. Although they do often get confused when being diagnosed. I know BPD females who are on Bipolar meds, its quite well known there is a problem with the diagnostic kits.
That’s interesting.
I don’t think a camping trip with others would do, BPDers are at their best with outside people to impress and obtain validation from, as long as they aren’t on their own for more than 2 mins, they will be having the best time of their lives. My ex was at her best hosting large parties or camping trips. At her worst when stuck alone with nothing to do.
Ah. Long walks in the country, then, quiet reflective moments with just one person and nature – would that flush out some of it into view, then?
@thecivilizationalist
Correct.
BPP,
Your lack of understanding of the basics of exegesis is mind-boggling. You admitted that the ritualisms of the Old Testament law are not binding in the Age of Grace, so why bring them up? You noted the passage about liars (and others) not going to Heaven, but completely ignored forgiveness of sins – which is the main point of the Bible.
You felt comfortable stating that Paul condemns adultery (sex with a woman married to another man), but not fornication between unmarried people. Yet the word “adultery” only occurs four times in the New Testament, while the word “fornication” appears 26 times (20 times in reference to sexual sin). Yet FOUR times is enough for you to declare a definitive Pauline condemnation of adultery, while TWENTY separate condemnations of fornication (in the NT alone) is just an oblique reference that may be ignored at will. Which is it?
And since you wrote this whopper, “26 mentions in a 2,000 page book?” I guess I’ll go ahead and point out that the word “crucify” only occurs 16 times in that 2000 page book. By your reckoning, the crucifixion of Jesus must have been an event of little consequence since it only get 4/5 the number of mentions as the “oblique” references to “fornication.”
As for your last paragraph to me – Paul didn’t give anyone a “get out of fornication free card.” He laid out the rules for what do if someone committed the sin of fornication. It didn’t change the fact that it WAS a sin, but he specified that certain actions had to take place once the sin had taken place – in addition to repentance, not instead of repentance.
You are telling people that God’s Word condones fornication – stop it.
“Ah. Long walks in the country, then, quiet reflective moments with just one person and nature – would that flush out some of it into view, then?” -AR
That’s probably another reason it seems like a lot of these girls are obsessed with traveling to these exotic destinations. Gotta always be where there are constant external stimuli.
Blueplillprofessor @ 11:20 am:
“Yes I know you can spew out various verses that obliquely reference fornication- something in Revelations about “All liars, fornicators, effeminate men etc” go to hell.”
You refuted your own argument with that “oblique” reference.
“For the NT how many of those references were among lists of examples of the types of people who were likely to be damned (presumably unless they accepted Christ) and not fully inclusive. ALL liars? Really? The level of literal reading stretches the mind.”
If you’re looking for the difference between liars going to Heaven and liars going to Hell then it’s repentance. Christ said as much to the adulteress. If you’re looking for a loophole in Biblical morality then don’t bother. Either God does not exist and you can do as you wish, or He does exist and you will not outwit him.
Boxer @ 12:49 pm:
“Do you have an opinion on the concept of “natural marriage”?
…
There is something to be said for people who, without any priest or rabbi around to perform a ceremony, commit to each other and start living with the dignity of man and wife.”
From the Christian perspective, marriage is an act of God. You can view it either as a three-way partnership or God combining the two people into a single identity. Hence the longstanding tradition of involving a priest as God’s representative. This isn’t something we Christians should give up.
From the non-Christian perspective, a natural marriage like you describe would be fine except when children enter the picture. At that point, the parents have incurred the serious commitment of raising them. That commitment doesn’t NEED to be formalized but it’s a good idea, like doing business with contracts instead of handshakes.
In fact, take note that a major part of Marriage 2.0 is divorce courts refusing to honor formal marriage commitments like prenups. The commitment gets redefined years after it’s made and without the consent of all parties involved. Even under human law, that’s illegal.
BDP sounds a lot like demon possession to me. Any thoughts?
The biblical model says marry if you burn with passion, then do it like rabbits.
While this is true on the surface, how practicable is this in our modern day? The typical kid starts burning with passion from teenage years, say from age 15 if not earlier. Assuming he waits until 18 before courting a woman, how long will this courtship be before he is able to head a family? Most professional degrees take 7 to 10 years of college education on average. Are we advocating that young people get married before they are able to earn a living?
I think there are no easy answers.
Again, I do agree with the premise, but I have a problem understanding the practicability.
I have always maintained that the state should have no say in defining marriage – which is something set up by God. My wife and I are married because we took vows and then had sex – not because we got a piece of paper from the state.
Ditto.
@JDG re: possession.
Yes. As someone said, discernment. Fits in with Elspeth’s observation of non-coincidence.
Lots of people saying that you can’t identify crazy in a short period of time. In my experience crazy almost always runs in the family. Are mom and dad together? Are either on psych meds? Any strong family history of addiction, jail time, tattoos? Also, adopted people are often nuts, likely due to genetics.
Most professional degrees take 7 to 10 years of college education on average.
We should also keep in mind that college isn’t what it used to be. I would only consider trade school or STEM. I would also say that the woman doesn’t necessarily need a college degree, especially not before marriage or in the child rearing stages of marriage. That should take out some of the complexity, and save some money down the road (considering that many degrees that women get are next to worthless).
Dear Fellas :
Thanks for your responses. Please see below…
@Lyn87
You should maybe open up a blog? I find your explanations useful and well-informed. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one to visit.
Anyway, I think we’re all susceptible to reading religious texts through the filter of our own rationalization hamsters. There are plenty of things mentioned in the Bible… Samson’s enjoyment of prostitutes, Solomon’s polyamory, David having his friend murdered so that he could bang the widow. These little artifacts humanize the characters, but they clearly don’t imply an endorsement of the behavior by the author.
@Bluepillprofessor
Do you have a New Testament reference for this specific ceremony: the “returning of the bride to her father”? I realize it happened, but I don’t see it endorsed anywhere in the text. I also can’t concur with your position that a husband is “free to leave” his wife with “little consequence”.
When I read the New Testament (or the Talmud, or the Qur’an) it talks about divorce being a fact of life, but the fact that we divorce each other displeases God quite a bit. We are warned that we face plenty of consequences (first order punishment for divorcing, and second order consequences for the inevitable fallout of the divorce). This is not something that men or women should approach lightly, if they take these religious texts to heart.
This is regrettably common among the less-disciplined parties to modern marriages. I don’t really see how your proposal would rectify the situation, though. It seems like an inverted form of feminism, where men should have the threatpoint to frivorce their wives at a whim, and take new wives, etc. How is this better than the cultural garbage-heap we’re forced to navigate now? More importantly, where are these liberties advocated in the New Testament?
Best, Boxer
“The whole problem in the west is that we have completely severed dating and courtship from marriage. Almost all dating is done with no intent to marry or even looking to marry. Dating starts long before there is even the posibility of marriage. What purpose is there for two teenagers dating in a culture that says marriage is for people in their thirties.”
Who is this “we?”
“This it’s partly due to the fact that these civilizations were not dependent on complex economic systems. Ours, or better yet the western model thrives on all the lousy expenditures, emotional and mental damages that occur during our best reproductive years…”
It’s not that we have “complex economic systems” but that we have a mass media and institutionalized educational establishment-driven society that has purposely inculcated a deliberate, multi-generational propaganda mind war to brainwash we the sheeple to delay marriage so as to effect an insidious population control agenda.
The same “complex economic system” (Keynesian debt slavery to the fiat usury banksters 2big2fail) was in place in the 50’s during the baby boom era.
All the lousy expenditures, emotional and mental damages that occur during our best reproductive years are due to deliberate, society-wide indoctrination that promotes feminism, credentialism (aka YOU MUST GO TO COLLEGE TO BE ABLE TO GET A REAL JOB), and debt slavery…which all feeds into the larger agenda of those who are behind this propaganda war – total population control.
TL;DR – Read the Jaffe Memo. Our modern lives of delayed marriage and below population replacement level demographics were planned out for us.
The memo was written in 1969.
Any of these proposed ideas look familiar?
You should maybe open up a blog? I find your explanations useful and well-informed. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one to visit.
No you wouldn’t be the only visitor. Lyn87 is one of the most intelligent and resourceful participants in the manosphere that I have encountered (Lyn87 if you reading this, don’t get a big head). There are others on that list, but not all that many. I won’t list the other names for fear of more big heads.
GunnerQ,
Thanks for the back-up: I was starting to think that nobody but me was going to refute BPP’s view that fornication isn’t a sin. I have ceased commenting on three “Christian” blogs in the last three years… the main reason? Someone would come along and write something wildly heretical (like the idea that God approves of fornication) and I would be the only one to offer a rebuttal – I would be far more likely to be called a “Pharisee” than receive an “Amen.” That led me to believe that the readers of those particular blogs really weren’t interested in the “Christian” part of a “Christian blog” discussion. Not some of them… all of them. I know that’s not the case here. (I’ve come to regard the term “Pharisee” as a compliment these days, because the only people who seem to use it are people who just don’t like straight talk. Being called a “Pharisee” by a Churchian is akin to being called a “Misogynist” by a Feminist.)
Anyway, your statement, “Either God does not exist and you can do as you wish, or He does exist and you will not outwit Him” is awesome.
I see you took a stab at Boxer’s question about “Natural Marriage” as well. I have no kids, and I see your point about the practical ramifications of having them in a marriage that is not recognized by the state. The problem with the idea that a legal marriage is better because it’s a contract is only valid insofar as the state will treat the marriage as a contract – and therein lies the problem you noted. As we all know, that’s cool (mostly) as long as the couple themselves feel bound by the terms of the marriage, but the state does not treat even legal marriage as a contract if the woman wants out.
I’m thinking as I type, but it occurs to me that a man who wants kids should probably get legally married anyway: not because legal marriage has much to do with actual marriage… certainly not because the legality is necessary for a marriage to be “real”… but simply because the father and the kids are somewhat better off from a legal standpoint if the father is officially married to the mother, and he’s no worse off if things go south. It’s not like a man who’s raising a child with his “natural wife” would be any less screwed if the relationship ends. In other words: as long as the couple is married the law doesn’t work against him and provides some small benefits, while if the wife decides to leave he’s no worse off than he would be anyway (he’s screwed either way). I’m willing to admit I may not have considered everything: like I said… I have no kids.
To dig up an older topic in this thread, I’m surprised that several people mis-corrected Jacob/Rachel’s story.
>>> What of Jacob who wait’s 7 years for Rachel?
Actually it was 14 years. Either way, this isn’t presented as the biblical model for courtship, as something to emulate.
Jacob worked 7 years, was tricked into marrying Leah, and then was given Rachel 1 week after, in return for working 7 more years. He didn’t have to finish off the 14 years before getting to sleep with her.
” 28 And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife. 29 Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant. 30 Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.”
On another tangent, I despise the new PC NIV translation. “30Jacob made love to Rachel also” just sounds vulgar after growing up reading the old NIV. I guess I can look forward to being like the cranky KJV-only people in a few more decades.
[i]I’m thinking as I type, but it occurs to me that a man who wants kids should probably get legally married anyway: not because legal marriage has much to do with actual marriage… certainly not because the legality is necessary for a marriage to be “real”… but simply because the father and the kids are somewhat better off from a legal standpoint if the father is officially married to the mother, and he’s no worse off if things go south.[/i]
This is pretty much true. Divorce is not the absolute worst thing that can happen. What if the mother dies? Married Father has default custody, right of attorney, medical decision authority etc. in terms of the kids.
Marriage is a total crap shoot in today’s day and age. But if you are a man, and you do want to have kids, you should do it within marriage – not just for religious and moral considerations.
Keoni Galt
I am an old fart. I did it the way you suggested. And as it turned, out my wife did die very young, leaving me with 4 children the youngest 3 at the time. The issue I have is that I do not see it as a good alternative for my sons in their twenties now. You must be joking when you say “he’s no worse off if things go south”. In this Child Support based culture the single father is much better off than the divorced father. The single dad will be maxed out with CS because all men must be punished for associating with women and having her not be haaaaapy. However, he still has the financial capacity to try again. The divorced father is pretty much buried by alimony, CS, and having almost all of his assets stripped during the divorce. Having been both I can assure you that the divorced dad is much worse off. And he will have little to no contact with his children and there will be parental alienation. Having been married does not save a man from any of the predations and viciousness of women and the divorce industry. At least if they don’t have the signed contract of indentured servitude he can save part of his dignity.
As to your early comment:
““The whole problem in the west is that we have completely severed dating and courtship from marriage. Almost all dating is done with no intent to marry or even looking to marry. Dating starts long before there is even the posibility of marriage. What purpose is there for two teenagers dating in a culture that says marriage is for people in their thirties.”
Who is this “we?””
I’ll state that we is the culture in the US. All of us are part of the problem.
The divorced father is pretty much buried by alimony, CS, and having almost all of his assets stripped during the divorce. Having been both I can assure you that the divorced dad is much worse off.
Can’t argue with your experience. Just saying….on a Christian blog where most participants claim to adhere to the laws of God as laid out in the Bible, the only legitimate place to have sex is marriage.
IF — and I say that with all caveats regarding full knowledge of how our Soviet Family Court System operates — IF a young man wants to have his own offspring, he should do so by properly vetting women until he can figure out if she could be a suitable, loyal wife he could marry to have kids with.
Kids should have an intact home with a Mother and a Father.
I’ll state that we is the culture in the US. All of us are part of the problem.
Sorry, I was just being facetious. My point is that this entire “problem” we are dealing with, was deliberately fostered. Most folks don’t realize that the role they play in this is that they are blindly following the mainstream dictates of our society…especially Christian Father’s advising their children to follow the population control agenda of mainstream society instead of the Biblical model.
In short, mike, the people responsible for our current affairs have one overriding objective – to break up the Father-headed family, destroy marriage, and ensure that as many people as possible don’t get married and don’t have children.
Having a successful marriage with lots of children IS the only way you truly beat them at their own game….
KG,
You noted that sex/procreation is only sanctified within marriage: which is true. My ramblings were in response to Boxer’s question about differentiating between natural marriage and legal marriage. My contention are that both are marriage, but that only legal marriage has the imprimatur of the state.
MD5,
I wrote the comment you responded to that Keoni agreed with. My point about being “no worse off” is because if a man legally deemed the father, whether he was legally married to the mother doesn’t impact his CS – he’s the man on the “blame” line, and that’s all that matters. He pays, she plays. End of.
We all know that, and I considered the alimony thing before I wrote what I did, but if a couple has a “natural” marriage rather than a legal marriage, he’s still going to lose his assets if kids are involved. If they have mixed their finances like married couples do – both living in the same house with one set of furniture, for example, the joint assets will be divided as if they had a marriage license issued by the state (which means the lawyers get half and she gets most of the rest). As for ongoing payments, they used to call it “Palimony” – I’m not sure what they call it now. I’m just saying that, on average, a man whose “natural” wife decides to leave with the kids is not much worse off than a man whose legal wife does the same thing. A man who was legally married might be better off in the sense of getting access to the kids, rather than the “ex-boyfriend who writes her checks” would be. Plus, as Keoni noted, a legal widower has a much easier time than the guy without the paperwork if the wife dies. On the other hand, the legally married guy will be more likely to have to pay alimony and have more lawyers bills in the event of divorce – so there’s pluses-and-minuses both ways, I suppose. Your thoughts? This isn’t something I’m an expert on.
Thanks for the back-up: I was starting to think that nobody but me was going to refute BPP’s view that fornication isn’t a sin.
This is so blatantly obvious that even non-Christians know it isn’t right.
Elspeth says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
“BPD: Borderline Personality Disorder
NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Are these real things, or just symptoms of a selfish, self-centered, immoral person? I don’t mean any offense. It’s precisely because of mental illness in my family that I am very wary of labeling everything some kind of disorder.”
They are very real. Although the current culture is to think of these people as making choices which are evil, the fact is they are in fact evil. They’re Demonic.
I deal with them all the time, I have been involved with them occasionally romantically to my detriment.
They wear a mask of sanity, but underneath it is malice. Just as their are people that are saints, there are people on the other side of the spectrum.
Just as some people are selflessly good, they are selflessly evil. They hate for hate’s sake. They will suffer to do evil.
It is not selfishness that motivates them, this is a mistake, it is the will to do evil, to visit harm on others to destroy that motivates them. And they hide it because they know how people would react to them, they hide to attack, to ambush.
Also, yes there are more of them, our culture creates more opportunities for them to occur every year.
Did the person grow up in a broken home or single mother?
Was he victimized, especially sexually molested? (again the chances of that are higher in a broken home)
victim or see violence? (again higher in single mother homes)
Raised by someone with a personality disorder?
The list of things goes on and on. The more single moms, the worse it gets.
All these things increase the chances someone will end up with a personality disorder, and the more of them there are the more they begat.
We are well past the tipping point with a 40% single mom rate. Same with marriage, the divorce rate for new marriages is rapidly approaching 90% its just hidden so far, but the rest of the country will catch up to California’s 79% divorce rate, and pass it.
I don’t have my Heartiste hearts to highlight the word science but wish I did.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/09/study-nagging-by-a-spouse-could-shorten-your-life/
Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen said having a nagging partner can significantly shorten one’s life, and could result in three extra deaths per 100 people per year.
The study also said people nagged by their spouses are more likely to get heart disease and cancer.
The study followed nearly 10,000 Danish men and women between the ages of 36 and 52.
I know why this is. Because repeatedly firing up the “fight / flight / freeze” response with no respite, with no way to burn off those complex chemicals, yanking on the limbic system like a midschooler pulling the fire alarm again in order to get out of a test – all of this absolutely negatively affects the immune system (cancer) and the endothelial system (heart / stroke).
How many men develop high blood pressure after the youngest child leaves home, eh?
A BPD woman can kill a man in a few years. Normal women can do the same, it just takes longer.
And this is just another example of ancient knowledge that got, er, forgotten in the last century.
Thanks to Anonymous Age 72 back when he was Age 68:
Better a tent on the roof than a big house with a contentious wife
Proverbs 25:24
Lyn, always glad to support another Christian!
JDG @ 2:54 pm:
“BPD sounds a lot like demon possession to me. Any thoughts?”
I find it unlikely, having once known a priest in that line of work. BPD is sufficiently well-defined, consistent and common that demonic influence can’t be assumed. Like a runny nose that could be pneumonia but is probably just a cold, BPD shares symptoms but not causes.
Never be quick to assume demonic possession. A few weeks ago I was in a store near a major bus stop. There was a crazy bum outside who kept screaming things about God and America. Finally, a passerby paid him to shut up and he did… he just wanted money.
Ah, the Bay Area.
Elspeth @ 1:56 pm:
“Is it a coincidence that we have more incidence of this (as evidenced by the comments here) at the exact point in our cultural timeline where everything is sexualized, proliferation of choices is the norm, and accountability of any kind has all but dried up?”
It isn’t a coincidence but the causes have more to do with the loss of stabilizing factors like family, church and work. Some of us can hold together with no external support, Mad Max-style, but that isn’t typical.
Honestly, I’m rather proud of my fellow Americans for holding things together for so long. If the Christian church hadn’t been sabotaged by Churchianity then I think we would have beaten the Communists once again.
My not-at-all-a-doctor take on BPD is that it’s what you get when a girl suffers some sort of childhood abuse, especially at the hands of her parents, and then is allowed to run feral (“independent”) by modern society. The childhood stuff explains the intense abandonment feelings you mentioned, and the way she uses the crazy to drive people away before she can be abandoned again. The feral lifestyle supercharges that, because she has no one to provide the behavioral boundaries she desperately needs.
The pros want there to be a physical cause for it, like there appears to be in some cases for depression, because that means a possible drug fix and money to be made. But so far they’ve come up dry, and nothing they can do has much effect on it. Certain types of cognitive behavioral therapy seem to help a bit if they’re followed religiously for a number of years, but some experts also say people tend to grow out of it with age.
So you’ve got a feral girl who drives herself like a speeding truck in and out of relationships through her 20s and into her 30s, getting crazier as she goes, blowing apart relationships that her friends and family desperately hope she’ll keep, running off to meet convicts — you know, the usual. Then she starts seeing a therapist, and after a few years and tens of thousands of dollars — coincidentally about the time she’s hitting the wall — she makes some breakthroughs and seems to settle down and become capable of acting like a human being. I have my doubts.
Funny thing is, in today’s system of date -> shack up- > long engagement -> marriage, many people would consider a one-year engagement to be short, if you haven’t been a “couple” for several years already. I too would lean toward 6 months as preferable. If both people are ready for marriage — and they shouldn’t be dating if they aren’t — and they’ve spent a few months on the basic courtship stuff like spending time with each other’s families and going over their checklists of dealbreakers, six months should be plenty of time to test yourselves for cold feet and get a wedding planned.
Dalrock: I’d like to get your take on this.
http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/
Quite possible. If not outright possession, then one of the milder forms like oppression (influence, but not overt Exorcist-style control). I usually don’t mention that angle because most people, even Christians, simply don’t believe in the demonic in any real sense these days. But I mentioned childhood abuse above, and that often opens the door for demonic influence, so it could all tie together.
Carmack, I’ve seen that anti-courtship article popping up on Facebook lately. He makes a few good points, but he’s attacking a version of courtship that has some pretty weird elements. Looks like mostly a strawman to me, but I guess there are people who are doing it that way — no kissing before the wedding, for instance, and very tight parental control over everything. It’s not the traditional courtship that I’ve read about, but some new creation, which I suspect some Churchian parents have cobbled together to try to reconcile chastity with delayed marriage and go-girl feminism. So some of it does sound strange, but he’s too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting “courtship” altogether.
Girls are liking it, of course, because he tells guys to:
A) Just ask girls out; don’t be afraid of rejection, but don’t push either.
B) Don’t worry about marriage; date around and have fun and let it happen.
C) Pay for dates.
What’s not to like?
“If I recall correctly, BPD is much more common in women than men; perhaps it is vaguely similar in that properties normal to women are pushed to a great extreme.”
You are correct just as there are more male antisocials than women. They’re just the masculine and feminine versions of sociopath.
Although I have dealt with worse.
Cail is right that the families hope they’ll settle down. They usually don’t and the families tend to be horrible enablers. They rarely warn a prospective mate of what they’re getting into.
I’m not sure they ever “get better” they may slow down some but if you go to
http://www.shrink4men.com/
It makes it pretty clear they often don’t. There are crazy cat ladies out there and they come from somewhere.
as for the demonic thing, the guy that wrote a “road less traveled” has a book on that very idea. And there are stories, especially about NPD and the supernatural element.
Finally, as for detecting them, other than looking at their history or catching them in a lie, there is one other way.
If you see a flash of anger/rage in their eyes that seems out of place with the situation, and I mean a brief flash before its gone, you’re probably dealing with a personality disordered person.
that was their mask slipping ever so briefly.
You can sometimes see it in pictures of them, everyone is smiling but there’s something off about them. Look at the eyes and you will see malice
Cail Corishev
If both people are ready for marriage — and they shouldn’t be dating if they aren’t — and they’ve spent a few months on the basic courtship stuff like spending time with each other’s families and going over their checklists of dealbreakers, six months should be plenty of time to test yourselves for cold feet and get a wedding planned.
Yes, I agree with this. However, as I explained previously in both cases the woman of the couple had a blood relation (sister, cousin, etc.) who had gotten knocked up. My apologies for not being more clear: the sister, cousin, etc. had become pregnant but was not married. In one case a shotgun wedding followed, in the other case the more usual and dreary drifting-into-sorta-kinda-an-LTR-with-a-guy-for-a-while followed. In both cases the women were clearly making a statment: This is not a shotgun wedding and this marriage is intentional. Hence the 1 year engagement. And again, both are still together to the best of my knowledge. So that worked, for them, in that case.
I agree that 6 months should suffice. Sometimes people choose to make a point, take a stand, stake out a position, make their intention clear, with the duration of an engagement. Hope this is clearer.
Cail Corishev
I usually don’t mention that angle because most people, even Christians, simply don’t believe in the demonic in any real sense these days. But I mentioned childhood abuse above, and that often opens the door for demonic influence, so it could all tie together.
Thought experiment for someone to carry out:
Question for churchgoing people, “Do you believe in angels”? followed by “Do you believe in demons?”
Logically, in Bible terms, if you believe in the one, then you should believe in the other. However, I would bet vastly more churchgoing people would answer “yes” to the first and “maybe” or “no” or “Yes, but…” to the second question.
@Cail Corishev:
I agree; there were some good points in that article, but there are some holes in the author’s thinking. He says that divorces in marriages that began in courtship are spiking and attributes this to incompatibility. But what he doesn’t ask is: which party is filing for divorce? I suspect the spike is due to influence from our Bernankified Miley Cyrus frivorce-happy culture rather than to incompatibility due to courtship instead of dating.
Really, I think either one could work in a tight-knit isolated community with fathers who (a) teach their sons how to lead a girl and (b) don’t view their daughters as princesses and prevent them from acting like princesses. But the truth is that current culture is hostile to both courting and dating. If you ask a 21st century girl to dinner, she’ll think you’re a chump. Legal incentives to divorce, princess culture, and a society that worships vulgarity are all bigger problems than courtship vs. dating.
@Anonymous Reader says:
August 19, 2014 at 7:03 pm
I don’t have my Heartiste hearts to highlight the word science but wish I did.
Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen said having a nagging partner can significantly shorten one’s life, and could result in three extra deaths per 100 people per year.
The study also said people nagged by their spouses are more likely to get heart disease and cancer.
The study followed nearly 10,000 Danish men and women between the ages of 36 and 52.
I know why this is. Because repeatedly firing up the “fight / flight / freeze” response with no respite, with no way to burn off those complex chemicals, yanking on the limbic system like a midschooler pulling the fire alarm again in order to get out of a test – all of this absolutely negatively affects the immune system (cancer) and the endothelial system (heart / stroke).
How many men develop high blood pressure after the youngest child leaves home, eh?
A BPD woman can kill a man in a few years. Normal women can do the same, it just takes longer.
And this is just another example of ancient knowledge that got, er, forgotten in the last century.
Thanks to Anonymous Age 72 back when he was Age 68:
Better a tent on the roof than a big house with a contentious wife
Proverbs 25:24
Oh yeah, these people will shorten your life span, I became seriously ill after my very very high and protracted conflict ridden divorce and am still dealing with the serious repercussions of that. So yeah, kept my worked for assets, lost my health. Although if I had lost my assets too I was so at the end of my tether I just might have done something very stupid indeed, she had pushed me and my lawyers to the edge of sanity. That level of stress will magnify any underlying health issue a hundred fold and leave you crippled emotionally, mentally and physically.
And as for this happening in families -my ex : neglectful charismatic Christian BPD waif mother, absent NPD alcoholic father = one f****ed up queen BPD kid
I concur that those I know how are adopted also are totally screwed like this, its the failure to not be abandoned or neglected during the crucial early years, causes the brain to flip into a fail safe mode (for a child) for survival. When you head of children who commit suicide they have encountered the same environmental failure but were unable to flip over successfully.
Saying that though, what helps you survive as a child is fatal as an adult.
And check this out :
Domestic abuse crime considered by ministers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28860213
5 years if convicted of emotional abuse, well guess just how many women will be convicted of that ? – zero
SO along with scores of other laws all fully twisted to support the man-bad view, it looks like any say at all by the female will now be enough to have the guy kicked out of his house in a heartbeat. And jail time if she is not happy. VAWA for the UK.
Note they are selling this law based on a women getting killed a few years ago who was being stalked by her psyco-ex, note these 2 conditions DO NOT match up, but hey they are sure as hell using it to sell it.
I just can’t see relationships still be able to occur, the threatpoint against men is becoming so huge, any relationship you have will have to have a policeman (or 2) and a magistrate present at all times, just for the males protection against false accusations.
Bizarrely in my lifetime we seem to have gone to no fault divorce and FAULT IN EVERYTHING ELSE (for the man) in interpersonal relationships.
Dr T. hit on a great point in a recent avfm youtube, in that she stated that often families will NOT warm the prospective husband as they are so desperate to get rid of the troublesome child. This is my experience too, heck the town practically had a parade when I took her off their hands.
Ah well, the things God uses to change you. And as for spiritual oppression of the host with BPD, I don’t think its just that but it can be a factor, the brain is plastic and can malform/reform they are discovering. Its not like bones or liver, its like the internet, it can reroute, alter change its structure and this will alter the personality of the host, even if unintended consequences occur because of it.
What have you heard ?
If I have a broken bone in my foot – my metatarsal – that is what I have. I do not have a bi-polar broken bone or a narcissistic broken bone or even a borderline broken bone. Every one is clear what it is – I can’t walk properly.
With the brain however medical science begins to make religionists look the home of rational thought. There is only one brain and some people become over emotional – a failure to respond in cynic or stoic fashion to the vicissitudes of life. The will is strong but the control is missing. Thus we have the psycho-babble which is the DSM IV creating ever more psychological categories than Christians can find angels on the point of a needle (though occasionally erasing categories – such as homosexuality) and an industry grown up to serve those convinced that they too suffer from one of these named disabilities. Whatever the medical profession say of Mrs Pugsley (and we are supposed to offer sympathy to a worthy victim) it is pretty obvious what is wrong with her – poor little rich girl of mediocre talent with no purpose in life beyond her own whining.
Carmack,
I read the “Courtship” article you linked. I imagine it won’t resonate with many guys here, as the “Courtship Cult” is well past its prime, and was only popular among certain groups. I recall it being all the rage in the 1990’s among the weirder elements of the Evangelical set. (Nothing against evangelicalism in general: I consider myself to be an Evangelical Fundamentalist – but there was a lot of dross in the pot.)
My cousin and his wife were heavily into the “Courtship” thing for their kids, as were a lot of parents among my Evangelical acquaintances and colleagues, and one thing I noticed was this: none of them had met their spouses that way. It has always impressed me as sort-of creepy that parents were SO involved in the details of their children’s relationships as they neared adulthood. It gave me the same uneasy feeling a lot of people get when they see the “purity ball” pictures today. Here’s the thing with my cousin: he was a “playah” who talked an excellent game – to the point of running Bible studies in his college dorm room and browbeating everyone about sexual morality. (You see where this is going)… then he had to announce that his girlfriend was pregnant and they were getting married. (He also successfully stole a few million dollars from his own father, but that’s another matter. His pastor is okay with it because the tithe on a few million dollars buys a lot of pews and songbooks.) Most of the people I knew who were advocates of “Courtship” were pretty flaky on a lot of things, and almost all of them were heavily into the “Name it and Claim it / Hyperfaith” stuff propagated by false teachers like Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and Kenneth Hagin. The “Courtship” fad was just another new bandwagon for them to jump on.
So… while it is common among parts of the hard-core home-school set the writer grew up in, I think he vastly overestimates the number of people who seriously adhere to it. In my observation it’s not all that widespread, and the people who tout it tend to talk about it more than they practice it. Having said that, I’ve been out of the dating scene for a long time and boys and girls act differently than I recall having been common when I was that age. He does make some good points about traditional dating, though. I agree with him that dating isn’t a particularly terrible way to find a spouse, although the modern practice of just turning hormonal kids loose with no boundaries in a hyper-sexualized culture is a very bad idea. But I disagree with our host that dating is only appropriate for those ready for marriage right now. I went on dates with quite a few young women, kissed a few more, and went “steady” with a few of them, too. Some of those dates were awkward, many were enjoyable, one particularly fun blind date turned out to be married (oops – no second date for her), some were for events where it is just customary to bring a date… and every one of those relationships taught me things about myself, and about women. I have few regrets, and no major ones. I learned a lot about dealing with women from my dating successes and failures, and dating helped me sand down the roughest edges of my previously-significant social awkwardness while I was not ready for marriage, so that when I was ready I was able to conduct a quick yet methodical search without having to learn a lot of stuff late in the game. By the time I met my wife I was efficiently “nexting” women nearly every week – offers that I would have clung to like a life-preserver a couple of years earlier… so when I met the right girl I didn’t have to wonder.
@Carmack,
“Really, I think either one could work in a tight-knit isolated community with fathers who (a) teach their sons how to lead a girl and (b) don’t view their daughters as princesses and prevent them from acting like princesses. But the truth is that current culture is hostile to both courting and dating.”
I agree with you on this.
Dating and courtship both have pro’s and cons. The blog writer and the comments I read there have followed a red herring. The rising divorce rate among home schooled couples is sad but dating will not cure it. The root of the problem is that churches, homeschool groups, Christian families, and Christian colleges no longer prepare women to be wives and mothers. Instead they prepare them to have a career and/or ministry.
Churches, homeschool groups, Christian families, and Christian colleges refuse to teach the controversial sections of the Bible which discuss men being strong leaders, women being helpmeets to their husbands, women being submissive to their husbands, married women staying home and having lots of children, women not teaching men, etc.
Dating before being “ready” for marriage wouldn’t be as dangerous if it were done within a small, tight-knit community as it was in my rural grandparents’ time. In that case, if you happened to fall in love/pregnancy with someone, odds were good that it could work out, because you had similar backgrounds and faiths, the families already knew each other, etc. Maybe they weren’t always officially “courting” with a stated schedule toward marriage, but everyone knew that was part of the program within some reasonable time frame.
That’s very different from the usual situation today, where you meet a girl at work, school, or elsewhere, start dating her and fall for her, and only then start to find out whether your viewpoints are compatible, or whether she’s even interested in marriage at all. You can find yourself head-over-heels for someone and then hear her say, “Oh, I don’t ever want kids.” At which point, if you’re not confident in yourself or have a tendency to one-itis, you may start discarding your own goals and desires to accommodate hers, and end up in an open-ended “relationship” that ends messily when one of you finally gets bored/frustrated enough to blow it up.
The traditional (Catholic) courtship model I’m familiar with isn’t that different from dating, except that you don’t do it until you’re both at least willing to marry, and you involve each other’s families and friends rather than spending all your time sneaking off alone getting romantic the way new lovebirds are wont to do. And if it looks like marriage isn’t in the cards, you part ways as painlessly as possible and take your search elsewhere. All the other stuff, the refusal to kiss or touch, the purity balls and so on, is unnecessary weirdness. Like I said before, I suspect people are adding that stuff to try to make it sustainable over a longer stretch of time, because they don’t want their perfect princesses tying themselves to some icky man at age 18 and “missing out” on education and other wonderfulness.
@Cail, I’m trying not to be facetious, so please believe me. I’m pretty sure I could not kiss a woman with romantic intent without already achieving that goal. That is to say, kissing makes me feel in love (as well as vice versa: being in love makes me feel like kissing). This may be due to my small N, but I feel that kissing with a woman that I wasn’t in love with would have the exact same kind (if not degree) of going-through-the-motions as having sex with a woman that I wasn’t in love with. Or maybe I just really like kissing.
Cail,
Good point, and similar to what the writer was told by his own grandmother. For those who didn’t read the article, a common rule back then was that people started to date in junior high school (they also married about five younger than people do now, and teenage marriages were fairly common), and they could date as much as they liked, but they could not go out with the same person twice in a row. In other words, a girl could go out with Bill on Tuesday and again on Friday, but only if she went out with Steve in between. As long as everyone had the same rule, nobody got too serious until they were closer to the threshold for marriage.
As he noted, it’s important that we all mean the same thing when we say “dating.” If we mean it as his grandmother explained it, it’s pretty casual and definitely not exclusive. That’s different than “going steady” (which was still a thing when I was in high school), which denoted at least a long-term possibility, and was considered inappropriate for kids too young to be conducting a genuine mate search.
In short, before you were ready to start a serious search (as opposed to being ready to actually marry), you had to “spin plates.” As long as everybody played by the same rule, almost everyone could date, since the rule required a person to date a lot of different people if they wanted to date at all – the market rewarded “novelty”. As I wrote above, casual dating – and especially plate-spinning – did wonders for my attitude and knowledge about women.
________________________________________________
Quick plate-spinning story that I’ve told before – A “good girl” girlfriend flaked on me once and left me high and dry for an event we planned to attend that evening. I went moping back to my room in the barracks and ran into my roommate and his fiance, who was being visited by her notoriously-slutty sister, who also had no date for the event. The two of us ended up together, and I dated her for a while (I didn’t sleep with her despite her best efforts), and when my regular girlfriend came back her friends told her about it immediately. We didn’t talk to each other for a little while, but when we did it was on my terms: I told her that I was going to date other women (and she knew exactly who I meant). I even told her that since we weren’t exclusive she could date other guys. Lo and behold – not only did she NOT date other guys, but she started trying harder to please me, even to the point of telling off her “friends” who bad-mouthed me to her all the time. I didn’t understand anything about pre-selection back then, but I figured out the basics pretty quickly. Even my “slutty” girlfriend (who was stationed overseas on a short tour at the time) gave up seeing other men – and proposed to me in a letter! (Much to the amusement of my friends. I declined, of course.)
So now whenever I get hit on by a woman I immediately tell my wife about it. Not to make her jealous (she is not the jealous type and she knows she can trust me), but because my dating experience taught me that pre-selection is sexy to women. My wife knows that I’d never spin another plate, but it doesn’t hurt that she knows I could. That’s not Dread Game by the way – no threat is even implied, but women like to know that other women find their mates attractive.
thought this might interest some here –
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/2014/08/regretting-divorce.html
Marriage in the UK is about to come to a crashing end:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11043785/Bullying-husbands-face-jail-under-new-proposals-by-Theresa-May.html
JF12, I know what you mean; it’s pretty intense for me too. But I think those boundaries are something people have to set for themselves. If a couple wants to save kissing for the wedding night because they’re afraid it could lead to sin, that’s up to them. My objection is just to the people who set that up as an ideal, as if people who can restrain themselves that much are holier or more likely to be a good couple. I think everyone here can recognize the opposite danger: if your bride says she’s fine with not kissing before the wedding, there’s a chance that she’s not really very attracted to you, and you’re setting yourself up for a world of pain.
It seems to me that some people are idolizing chastity to the point of setting up a sort of super-chastity that they can brag about. The ideal is virginity until marriage. To achieve that, it’s important to avoid occasions of sin, but that doesn’t mean you have to be silly about it. Don’t suck face for an hour late at night in your apartment; but sharing a kiss when you drop her off at home, where her dad might peek out at any moment, ought to be safe for most people.
Elspeth says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Haven’t read all of the comments, but I’d offer that a great many diagnoses reflect the “sin to syndrome” metamorphasis that has overwhelmed western society. The helping professions keep inventing new maladies (or even eliminating them – see homosexuality) that would have simply been viewed as sinful behavior (or an inclination thereto) in an earlier age.
That being said, if BPD is a thing, I believe I’ve seen it up close and personal.
Elspeth says:
August 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Haven’t read all of the comments, but I’d offer that a great many diagnoses reflect the “sin to syndrome” metamorphasis that has overwhelmed western society. The helping professions keep inventing new maladies (or even eliminating them – see homosexuality) that would have simply been viewed as sinful behavior (or an inclination thereto) in an earlier age.
That being said, if BPD is a thing, I believe I’ve seen it up close and personal.
@Cail re: “Don’t suck face for an hour late at night in your apartment”
Can I do it for twenty minutes? Until I need glasses? Ok, now that was facetious.
But this isn’t: to me the near occasion of sin is already being alone with a “strange” woman in an apartment. And yes, been there done that, more than a couple times, although I usually mostly kinda tried not to, because, ya know, a boy’s gotta have some standards. So by the time actual kissing commences (and yes, been there done that, more than etc) it’s passed being the “near” occasion into the literally in-your-face this-is-happening occasion.
Keoni Galt says:
August 19, 2014 at 4:04 pm
I’m not entirely sure that the presumed legal protections afforded to a father by way of a civil marriage a) can not be worked around via other legal contracts and b) are not outweighed by the ‘expected value’ of the costs (financial and otherwise) of a possible divorce proceeding.
The problem with civil marriage is that you get “b” above which quite effectively incentivizes the destruction of the putative legal protection it was supposed to provide in the first place. Being civilly married alone is insufficient to satisfy the sacramental requirements of any Christian denomination whereas being sacramentlaly married outside the bounds of the civil realm is throughly sufficient in this regard. The latter state of affairs accomplishes the sacramental requirements while not exposing the parties to the unholy machinations of the domesitc relations industry (with the notable exception of child custody) and the perverse incentives attached thereto.
In other words, if you’re not legally married, she’s far less likely to blow up the family than otherwise.
Dave: Assuming he waits until 18 before courting a woman, how long will this courtship be before he is able to head a family? Most professional degrees take 7 to 10 years of college education on average. Are we advocating that young people get married before they are able to earn a living?
Why not? First, you don’t need a “7-10 year professional degree” to earn a living. Second, it costs just as much to live single as it does to live married — probably more, in fact, due to the high cost of housing, which effectively gets cut almost in half for a married couple.
(Unless you’re confusing the cost of marriage with the cost of a wedding…)
Lyn87, the problem with his urging people to date like his grandparents is that he also talks against parental involvement. I understand he’s reacting to the overly protective tendencies of the purity ball crowd, but he goes too far the other way. If our grandparents had “dates” in junior high, they weren’t anything like dates now. They were at church and school dances, the malt shop, neighborhood picnics, things like that. They were also dating kids whose parents their own parents knew, socialized with, and possibly went to church with. Nowadays, a junior high girl is likely to date a boy from school whom her parents don’t know at all, or even one she met online. It’s a much different context, and he doesn’t seem to be taking that into account.
Agreed. Going to her apartment alone and telling yourself it’s okay because you took a no-kissing pledge would be foolish.
Yes. Childbirth and kids cost money, but people who say they can’t afford marriage itself are just being silly. If it cost more to bring someone into your house to share expenses, there would be no such thing as roommates. If I went out and found a woman to marry tomorrow, we’d instantly save one rent/mortgage check and one home worth of utilities every month, probably some on food (cooking at home is more enjoyable for two), something on insurance policies, and so on. If you can’t afford to get married, you’re doing it wrong — probably letting her run wild with the finances.
Societal Decay @ 10:07 am:
“First, you don’t need a “7-10 year professional degree” to earn a living. Second, it costs just as much to live single as it does to live married — probably more, in fact, due to the high cost of housing, which effectively gets cut almost in half for a married couple.”
Agreed. Spending a few years as a double-income, no-kids household is a good way to pay off some debt.
The idea that marriage’s purpose is having children is quite toxic*. Not only is it unBiblical, it sells the idea that a guy needs to be professionally established with a three-bedroom house before getting a wife. How that is going to happen before he’s 40, especially in the current economy, goes unsaid.
*Usual caveats for the risks of Marriage 2.0.
Cail Corishev
It seems to me that some people are idolizing chastity to the point of setting up a sort of super-chastity that they can brag about.
Then it isn’t really so much about chastity, as about a public show of chastity, right?
Reminds me of the politician who makes a big show of eating [ethnic food] on camera – is it about the food, or about impressing someone else?
@Cail re: foolish.
Yep. I agree with you agreeing with me agreeing with you. I was quite leery of being alone together with a woman, i.e. not very foolish, when single and dating. Both of the women that I was alone together with during that time I wound up kissing, of course, and asking them to marry me, in that order, of course. My first wife I never kissed until the wedding kiss.
The idea that marriage’s purpose is having children is quite toxic*
Not quite IMO. I would say the idea that having children is the ONLY purpose for marriage is incorrect and unbiblical. I think marriage sets the framework for legitimacy. Having children is one of the purposes of marriage, so is legitimate sex, so is glorifying God by following the example of Christ and His church.
God told them: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,..”, and I think we (as a people) are foolish to expect everything to be perfect before we have children. My opinion is that the average child in a 3rd world nation like the Philippines is better off than a great many children here (not even counting the kids who never made it out of the womb).
A woman spends a month tracking every mean thing she says to her boyfriend.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/charlotte-green/2014/08/i-took-note-of-every-mean-thing-i-said-to-my-boyfriend-for-a-month-and-this-is-what-i-found/
Not exactly surprising.
Anchorman says:
August 20, 2014 at 9:12 am
That article makes me wonder if this:
http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems
isn’t all that far fetched.
@Lyn87
I read the article, “Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed”, and the first word that came to mind was “bullshit”, especially when I read this…
“The lack of exclusivity helped the girls guard their hearts and kept the boys from feeling entitled to the girl. How could a boy have a claim to her time, heart or body if she was going out with someone else later that week?”
Apparently this guy’s never heard of “hooking up”, or “one night stands”, or the Magaluf Girl. He doesn’t seem to understand how much the culture has changed (even in the Church) from the time his grandmother was a girl (60 years ago?) until now.
Alivia complains that after she got tired of being sexual with her boyfriend and wishing he were not so familiar, or rather that she could have anewstranger in her … er … life, so to speak, that he was a big fat meanie because he didn’t want to hang out ljbf-style.
“I started to feel myself not just falling out of love with him, but also craving something different and more fulfilling. Yet at the same time, the thought of not having him in my life felt both sad and unfamiliar.”
http://thoughtcatalog.com/alivia-hall/2014/08/you-were-once-a-lover-now-youre-a-stranger/
“Second, it costs just as much to live single as it does to live married — probably more, in fact, due to the high cost of housing, which effectively gets cut almost in half for a married couple.
Yes. Childbirth and kids cost money, but people who say they can’t afford marriage itself are just being silly. If it cost more to bring someone into your house to share expenses, there would be no such thing as roommates. ”
I have to really disagree with this. It seems logical and rational to the male mind that you would “share expenses” and it would be cheaper married than single, but it almost always the other way around.
I know several divorced men that are better off financially divorced than married because women as a rule tend to spend more than they have (and by have that counts everything he has). It is the nature of women to never be satisfied and always want more, and so it is their nature to go into debt to fuel this. You see this all the time with divorced women getting huge settlements and then five years later going to court to get more because they have run through the money.
They don’t care where the money comes from as long as it is spent on them.
A spouse is not a roommate. A wife has considerable amount of leverage over the husband that a roommate does not have. There are boundaries with a roommate that do not exist in marriage.
It is “abuse” these days to limit the wife’s access to the bank accounts, credit cards and everything else.
I have known men that were sound financially bankrupt themselves once they got married.
So no, it is not cheaper to be married, it is never cheaper.
Minesweeper says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:53 am
@Ra’s al Ghul says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:16 pm
And there are stories, especially about NPD and the supernatural element.
What have you heard ?
http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=m.+Scott+Peck
http://www.amazon.com/Glimpses-Devil-Psychiatrists-Personal-Possession/dp/1439167265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408555395&sr=8-1&keywords=m.+Scott+Peck+exorcism
I have heard stories about weird things going on around some NPD. I have never seen it, but a supernatural element is sometimes described. Odd coincidences, odd things happening like electronics getting fried during a rage out.
Gotta agree with Ras on this one. Marriage is generally the most expensive “lifestyle” a man can opt into.
Oscar,
Your point is certainly valid – but the author is talking about a community that already has the “No sex before marriage” thing down pat. These are people who actually never kiss until they are man-and-wife standing at the altar. For good, bad, or otherwise, I kissed an indeterminate number of girls before I got married, and I managed to not have coitus with any of them. Some may call that “technical” virginity, but that’s okay, because words mean things, and a technical virgin is still a real virgin. Saying that “technically” 2+2=4 doesn’t change the fact that 2+2=4… “technically” is redundant. That’s not to issue blanket approval for anything that falls short of PIV, though, and I’m not qualified to tell anyone else that, “This is okay but that is too far.” I simply do not have enough scripture to define where the line belongs, and as I have shown in this thread and others, I don’t make definitive statements without that. I suspect the guys here could not reach even a loose consensus, and we’re pretty homogenous compared to the general population.
For the people in the “Courtship Cult” – which is his target audience – dating a’la the way his grandparents did IS better than the way they’re doing it. They are not a hyper-sexualized culture, and any girl with the propensity to act like “Magaluf Girl” would never have been in Magaluf to begin with. In THAT culture – like in his grandmother’s culture – the “dating” culture might work pretty well. It’s really the culture that matters most in the “meta” sense.
Even when I was going up my parents were aware that some people advocated extreme levels of parental involvement in their children’s relationships and rejected it as being crazy – nobody was calling it “Courtship” at the time though. My father was a pastor (retired now), and that has potential pitfalls all its own. HE was called to pastor – not me – and God doesn’t establish special, stricter rules for the children of pastors. A lot of P.K.s go waaaaay off the rails because their parents held them to standards that only applied to them. If it’s okay for everyone else to do “X” but not me, I’m going to throw the B.S. flag. But if none of the kids in the church can do “X,” that’s a different matter. Again… culture. My brother and I had basically one rule – “God says that fornication is a sin, so don’t do that.” Got it. THAT I can handle.
Gunner Q says: “The idea that marriage’s purpose is having children is quite toxic. Not only is it unBiblical, it sells the idea that a guy needs to be professionally established with a three-bedroom house before getting a wife.”
Modern Christians’ opinions are warped by the availability of artificial birth control since about 1960. Before BC, marriage resulted in sex resulted in children, for the overwhelming majority of couples. In the Old Testament, barrenness is seen as a sign of God’s disfavor; in the New, celebrating barrenness is a sign of societal inversion and impending apocalypse.
The point is, DINKs were a (usually temporary) anomaly. The point of waiting to become established is not to afford a wife — if childless, she has no reason not to work at a job too — but to afford a wife whose work is as mother to your children. Now, the ratcheting of expectations up to requiring three-bedroom houses, granite countertops, premium cable, etc., to have a minimally suitable environment in which to raise children is just consumerism run wild. It’s not the kids who care about that stuff. Ever since about 1960, the average home size has increased in inverse relationship to the average family size.
The idea that marriage’s purpose is having children is quite toxic*
JDG
Not quite IMO. I would say the idea that having children is the ONLY purpose for marriage is incorrect and unbiblical.
And toxic. Because the idea that having children is the only purpose for marriage leads to a child-centered marriage; this in turn will almost always lead to the mother “marrying” the children, which leads to contempt for the man, who in turn comes to resent the wife because the only reason he’s still around is the children. and so forth. It also likely contributes to empty-nest separation and even divorce.
John Rosemond has been writing family advice columns for years. He has been insistent that a child-centered family is disaster since the 90’s, and that only by putting the marriage first within the family can children be raised properly. Paraphrasing: “The marriage existed before the children came into it, and properly should continue to exist after the children have left home. Therefore the marriage is paramount, and must be the center of a functioning family”.
Obviously if no children enter the marriage, it’s still a marriage.
I was one of them, so I know it often works that way. But it didn’t for my parents and grandparents, so it doesn’t have to. My point was that it’s a way to judge a woman’s true interest in marriage: if she thinks you need several years of building up income before she can marry you, she’s A) not really that into you, and B) expecting you to fund a more lavish lifestyle than you might want to.
When people have several children, instead of having 1-2 and doting on them constantly, it actually works the other direction. I see the child-centered-ness in many small families, whether they had kids right away or waited several years. In fact, the child-centered people are often the ones who wait and keep the family small because they think each child deserves to be pampered, from having his own room to getting a free ride to college. In large families, like you tend to get when people see procreation as the primary (not only) purpose of marriage, that kind of spoiling simply isn’t possible.
Ra’s al Ghul. Who are you, and where are you holding Ras Al ghul? What are your demands?
His avvy looks-a-like theees … [Righteous Ras] , got sort of a celtic cross in the middle.
You got the four-spot off of a dice.
{sometimes it’s quite handy, being OnThe Spectrum and all ;¬¦]> }
Oh, and ..
Blueplillprofessor, had my eye on ye and all. But your avvy is the same as Bluepillprofessor, so you’re a standup guy.
Damn. My pencils aren’t aligned perfectly with the mousemat .. sorry folks, have to dip out for a bit.
craig @ 12:34 pm:
“In the Old Testament, barrenness is seen as a sign of God’s disfavor”
Can you provide a reference or two? If anything, I see childless women in the OT being treated kindly by God, like Samuel’s mother. There are proverbs that say children are a blessing from God. That’s fine but it doesn’t imply that an absence of children is a curse. Also, if barrenness is a bad thing then how can Paul recommend not getting married and, by extension, choosing to not have children?
@GunnerQ, New Testament too.
Luke 1:24-25 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
There is no indication in scripture that individual infertility was a curse from God. It could be at the national level, though. Time in the Word‘s* explanation is about as good as any:
Those scriptures are conditional national blessings on the Children of Israel as long as they served God. They read as follows:
Ex 23:26, “There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.”
Deu 7:14, “Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.”
Seven individual women in the Bible were noted to have been barren: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, the wife of Manoah (her name is unknown), Hannah, Michel, and Elizabeth. Of those seven, six are known to have had their fertility miraculously granted. In none of the cases is there the slightest indication that the women were individually cursed by God in any way.
The Time in the Word* article goes on. Here’s the money quote:
* (http://timeintheword.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/gods-providential-exception-the-barren-womb-part-2/)
I see JF12 beat me to the punch while I was typing. Note that Elizabeth said, “Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.” [Emphasis added]
Reproached by men – not by God.
People may look down on an infertile woman and assume that she’s cursed, but scripture does not support that view at all. I’ve heard “hyper-faith” loonies declare that all sickness or even tragedy is caused by some fault of the individual, rather than something that just occurs in a fallen world. Apparently they are unfamiliar with the book of Job.
GunnerQ, I did not mean to say that God declared barrenness a sign of His disfavor, although the people of Israel naturally viewed it as such, since the promises to Israel include fruitfulness as a reward for fidelity (cf. Exodus 23, Deuteronomy 7). So it was commonly thought that barrenness was punishment for immorality. Wisdom 3:13 does contradict to that presumption: “For blessed is the barren woman who is undefiled, who has not entered into a sinful union; she will have fruit when God examines souls.”
“Gunner Q says:
August 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Can you provide a reference or two? If anything, I see childless women in the OT being treated kindly by God, like Samuel’s mother. There are proverbs that say children are a blessing from God. That’s fine but it doesn’t imply that an absence of children is a curse. Also, if barrenness is a bad thing then how can Paul recommend not getting married and, by extension, choosing to not have children?”
Attitude is everything. Intent matters.
See King David and Michal, his wife and daughter of Saul.
_____________________
”
1 Chronicles chapter 15 (KJV)
29 And it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart.
”
_____________________
”
2 Samuel chapter 6 (KJV)
20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.
22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
”
__
re: barren. Two of several other relevant Old Testament verses
Genesis 30:1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
1 Samuel 1:6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.
Barrenness, especially for women, was definitely considered a stigma, a *handicap*, a burden.
jf12,
It seems there was a definite man-made stigma attached to barrenness. It is also accurate to call it a handicap, in the same sense that a blind person is handicapped (some bodily function doesn’t work normally). But again, nothing here indicates a curse.
John 9: 1-3 offers a similar view:
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
re: special needs.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
When I was growing up, maybe junior high, the all-purpose schoolyard insult wasn’t “You moron!” it was “You’re ‘fflicted!” as in “Afflicted!” But it was also an excuse: if you were injured, or wanting to be considered to be injured, or for laughs, you could limp and claim to be ‘fflicted.
It’s not that long ago that the common view was that those who were “touched in the head” or had a “stroke” or the poor, the sick, the naked, those in prison, widowed, etc including barren were considered to be God’s “special needs” children.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 20, 2014 at 12:38 pm
In my comment I listed three purposes for marriage (even though there are more). Having children is a purpose for marriage, not THE purpose for marriage.
Obviously if no children enter the marriage, it’s still a marriage.
Obviously.
In agreement with Anonymous Reader’s statement, “Obviously if no children enter the marriage, it’s still a marriage.”
LDG replies, “Obviously.”
Gentlemen, I completely agree, but you might be surprised at how controversial that is. Before she and I met, my wife had been dating a guy for some time – they were high school sweethearts and everyone expected them to get married at some point. Well… it turns out that my wife has a medical condition that makes pregnancy a life-threatening condition for her. She is almost certainly barren from birth. We don’t actually know that pregnancy would kill the baby and/or her, because we never put it to the test, but the doctors seemed pretty sure.
Anyway, her boyfriend at the time wanted kids when he got married, and when she told him that she was barren his response was something along the lines of, “You can’t have kids? That’s no different than a guy that’s gay.”
Clearly he could be a bit of a douche-nozzle… And who the hell would immediately think of THAT anyway? //shudder//
He equated marriage to a barren woman to living with (and having sex with) a male homosexual. He’s not alone, either. We caught a lot of crap from family (mostly hers – they weren’t all that savvy about life-threatening conditions), when we made it clear that we weren’t going to try for kids. A lot of Catholics are just as bad: as they often consider that the main purpose of marriage is to make more little Catholics – or that at least attempting childbearing is an existential part of marriage. I’m reminded of this (NFSW):
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk)
Cail Corishev says:
August 20, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Co-signing. Thie biggest lie perpetrated on the last two generations is that having a small family (1-2 kids) is the key to better development. What ends up happening is that the parent(s), can at least in the near term, focus intently on the fewer kids, but this happens to the detriment of the spousal relationship. If you have 3-4 (or 5-6), there is no choice but to make the kids mature more completely and faster (in a positive way – not becoming more worldly too young). You simply can’t helicopter parent (and thereby shortchange your spouse, among other things) when you have a larger brood (which will be spaced more closely together by necessity).
More kids than typical is divorce insurance. Not foolproof, but probably better than any other approach.
LDG replies, “Obviously.”
Lyn87 – is LDG the result of a typo or representative of something else? I only ask because you have used this before when referring to me.
He equated marriage to a barren woman to living with (and having sex with) a male homosexual. He’s not alone, either.
This brought to mind another question pertaining to this topic:
How many men in ancient times would have married a woman knowing that she could not reproduce?
How many men would do so today?
JDG,
re: LDG. I’m just a poor typist. And with all the other quirks I have… maybe a touch dyslexic.
As for your question: if a woman was a virgin, her barrenness probably would not have been apparent until she had been married for some time and unable to reproduce. Of course that doesn’t rule out that the man is the one “shooting blanks” (unless he had children by another woman), but in my understanding, the ancients usually figured the problem was with the woman as long as the guy wasn’t impotent. After all, HIS equipment was visibly working. They didn’t understand that the discharge has several components, only one of which is the sperm.
But if a woman was known (or thought) to be barren I imagine she’d have a hard time finding a husband.
Hurting, also, the more kids you have, the more obvious it is that Mom staying home and raising and teaching them is the only financially sensible thing to do. More kids also keep her busier, less likely to get “bored” and start looking for trouble. That’s not to say wives never get unhappy with busy motherhood, but it seems to be less dangerous than boredom.
Still, if anyone, Catholics included, says a marriage without children is not a real marriage, he’s wrong (and probably insulting many people for whom that is a source of pain). While Catholics believe procreation is the primary purpose for sex in marriage, it’s not the only one. The “unitive” purpose is also critical. That’s why the marital debt — one’s responsibility to meet one’s spouse’s sexual needs — does not end at menopause or take a break during pregnancy.
@Cail, I and most men and most Catholics would agree that the fact that the wife must try to put out more than she would if left to her own, er, devices is sound Biblical and Catholic teaching. But the elevation of the unitive aspects, more technically mutuum adiutorium and remedium concupiscentiae (as anti-dis-unitive, so to speak), has paradoxically made it *easier* for Catholic women to wiggle out of their obligations.
Roughly speaking, more explicitly in “Love and Responsibility”, but also in “Theology of the Body” and elsewhere, John Paul II commendably brings to our attention that the current teaching of the Catholic Church is that if the wife doesn’t want to have sex (except maybe some indefinite time in the distant future, and hell freezing over counts, I think) then the husband is being disunitive for pestering her to have sex.
JF12, there’s no such thing as “current teaching of the Church” if it contradicts long-standing teaching of the Church or scripture. That’s a problem with much papal writing since Vatican II, though (with Benedict as an exception most of the time): writings are often vague or flowery enough that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways, including ways that contradict actual teachings. If they aren’t always interpreted through the filter of Scripture and Tradition, people may fall into error. The way to read any papal pronouncement is, “Considering what we already know from Scripture and Tradition, what could this mean that doesn’t contradict that?” If you make an honest attempt to make it fit and it won’t, you throw it out. Popes can make mistakes.
The marital debt is clearly laid out in scripture and has always been Church teaching. While it may be true that a husband “nagging” his wife for sex could result in her digging in her heels and making things worse, that doesn’t absolve her sin or shift it to him. If JPII taught that it does, he was in error on that. I’m guessing (not having read it, and not having much desire to) that he was trying to be helpful, assuming — as many pedestalizing pastors we discuss here do — that a husband can catch more wifely flies with honey than with vinegar, so a husband could “fix” that problem from his end by being nicer and less demanding. That just happens to be untrue.
@Cail, I’m not even exaggerating slightly that the current teaching of the Catholic Church has flopped over in a century or less from the earlier advice to wives to “lie back and think of Eng … I mean Rome” to now advising men to “roll over and think of God, or Jesus, or the Pope, to take your mind off it”.
JF12, I know you’re not exaggerating. They’re still wrong. It’s not the first time the bulk of the hierarchy has taught something incorrect for a while, and it probably won’t be the last.
JDG
In my comment I listed three purposes for marriage (even though there are more). Having children is a purpose for marriage, not THE purpose for marriage.
Yes, I know. I was expanding on your accurate observation. Might consider when someone agrees with you they are not your enemy.
JDG @ 4:49 pm:
“How many men in ancient times would have married a woman knowing that she could not reproduce?”
Too many variables in that one, not least of which is how infertility could be known in advance. It isn’t something you can inherit.
How men in ancient times reacted to infertility is all over the place, from happy acceptance to Henry VIII.
“How many men would do so today?”
A lot, I expect, given the interest in contraception I’ve seen and the State’s having turned children into economic and legal liabilities. Throw in a touch of “genuinely helpless female” and it shouldn’t be a tough sale.
Harder in past times, no doubt, but if nothing else enough women died in childbirth a barren woman could have a window of opportunity. If she wasn’t too picky.
Yes, I know. I was expanding on your accurate observation. Might consider when someone agrees with you they are not your enemy.
Sorry my bad. I was grouchy and misunderstood. Either way I should have kept my cool.
When I was younger, I fell into the “she’s special” camp when it came to virgin girls. This led to beta pedistalization with the accompanying disastrous results.
Now that I see the error of my ways, I have a better perspective.
Refraining from evil doesn’t make you “Special”. You don’t get a medal or a crown just because you did what you’re supposed to do. Otherwise, men who refrain from rape should be regarded as heros and a man who doesn’t beat his wife is a saint.
BTW, guys, I just saw more redpill truth in mainstream. The Big Bang Theory. Lenard is talking to the tired out carousal rider Penny (who Sheldon has estimated has over 40 sex partners.) She’s thinking out loud, saying she needs to make smart life decisions, then suggests she and Lenard get married. http://sharesix.com/f/MBrmYp
Lenard. “C’mon, be serious.”
“I am.”
“So I’m a smart decision? Like a bran muffin, some boring choice you make because it’s good for you? I want to be something exciting, like a cinnabon or a pop tart!”
“Honey, what does it matter as long as I’m choosing you?” Penny asks, the clueless carousal rider talking to the beta.
@Lyn87 That’s a pretty terrible thing to have happened to your wife. I find myself that few people really understand just how devastating unwanted infertility is to women. All the “well, maybe you aren’t trusting in the Lord enough” comments are quite cruel.
@Cail Corishev
I have read all of the Theology of the Body Wednesday addresses as well as Love and Responsibility (the first translation of that was beyond abysmal, perhaps why many find fault in it now). The important bit to keep in mind is that sex is not really the main focus, rather why do we have bodies in the first place? It goes through the three major time periods, before the fall, after, and after the second coming with the overachieving theme of Christ’s marriage to the church. People focus on the sex because it’s a lot more juicy than, say, priests imaging Christ’s role as bridegroom or father.
Another important factor is the influence of brain infections, aneurysms etc. causing mental illness. I had a rather insidious brain infection for about a year before the correct antibiotics were administered (shots or IV are the only way to treat brain infections) which caused me to seem a bipolar/BPD mix. After the treatment? Normal.
The way to figure out if it’s physical or mental is a quick test, do they think they’re crazy and/or not acting normally? I knew pitching fits like a 2 year old was bizarre (during rare moments of lucidity) and got myself to medical professionals for help. BPD doesn’t think there’s anything wrong. Witness an ex roommate. Completely cracked, crying on the floor because her bf didn’t call her, making me talk to her for hours because she wanted to kill herself because some guy wouldn’t take a walk with her etc. She went to a “counselor” who told her to journal and that nothing was wrong with her.
So quick tips on mental health professionals:
1. Male. Females are too likely to side with women.
2. PHD. A master’s degree requires next to no research or experience.
3. Clinical work and/or publications. This means they’ve actually seen proper examples of all of the mental disorders.
@craig
That. This is also combined well with the fact that any training for a trade or profession is infinitely more expensive now than in the 60’s with the lovely bonus of cratering wages for people without it. So both the man (and the woman) should work to eliminate debt from said training before they get married (as well as not dating seriously) until it is a manageable size. Starting out a marriage with a significant amount of nondischargeable debt is a great way to prepare for a divorce.
“The way to figure out if it’s physical or mental is a quick test, do they think they’re crazy and/or not acting normally? I knew pitching fits like a 2 year old was bizarre (during rare moments of lucidity) and got myself to medical professionals for help. BPD doesn’t think there’s anything wrong. Witness an ex roommate. Completely cracked, crying on the floor because her bf didn’t call her, making me talk to her for hours because she wanted to kill herself because some guy wouldn’t take a walk with her etc. She went to a “counselor” who told her to journal and that nothing was wrong with her.”
While I don’t know your circumstances, I would guess you couldn’t control it.
The BPD and NPDs can, they are extremely calculating. They will wait until the guy is hooked upon them before revealing the crazy and then the guy is screwed.
Not that you can’t tell if you know their background, but then today’s society makes it more difficult to vet people then a hundred years ago. Like I’ve said, contemporary culture is geared toward personality disordered people and giving them every possible advantage in victimizing people.
There is big difference between bi-polar and BPD.
The bi-polar wakes you up at 3 oclock in the morning because she needs to have mashed potatoes. She simply has to have them, like right now, wouldn’t it be just so AWESOME if we made 5 pounds of homemade MASHED POTATOES! So lets go, I’ll peel, and you get the blender ready, with the milk, a butter, and I’ll boil them and it will great and I can’t WAIT until we have MASHED POTATOES!!!!!
………
(twenty minutes later)
…….
You are going to LEAVE ME I KNOW IT!!!!! (cries hysterically) Please, PLEASE don’t EVER LEAVE ME!!!!! I know I don’t deserve you, I’m sooooooooo stupid, I didn’t mean to wake you, and I know that you are going to DUMP ME!!!! I feel terrible, I just want to DIE!!!!!
That is bi-polar.
The BPD wakes you up at 3 oclock in the morning because she needs to have a conversation. She simply has to have it, like right now. She is accusing you of f-cking another woman because when you were watching some stupid reality tv show 7 hours ago you paused the DVR to look at some reality show girl’s big boobs. She says “wouldn’t it be just so AWESOME if you coul df-ck both her and I at the same time you letcherous pig monster! I know you want to f-ck all these other girls expecially your ex-GF! So lets go, I’ll just pick up the phone RIGHT NOW and give her a call because you don’t love me, you don’t want me, YOU WANT YOUR EX NOT ME!!!!! (Grabs phone, runs into the bathroom crying.)
………
(twenty minutes later)
…….
The police arrive. It appears BPD girl called 9-1-1 to report a domestic disturbance and she wants you OUT OF THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW (because you paused the tv looking at big boob girl) and now she is making up some story that you attacked her and there is blood all over the place because the whole time she was calling the police she was also cutting herself (her legs, her arms, her face) to show the cops where you just beat the living shit out of her. They put you in handcuffs and send you to jail and if you should be so unfortunate as to have married this BPD, now she will divorce you and collect her cash and prizes.
That is BPD.
You can’t cure a BPD. Can’t be done. BPDs are almost always women and the world is full of them (because as a society we tend to only incarcrate the men who are BPD.) So watch out, she might get you. 100 years ago the Rite of Excorcism might have been done by a Catholic priest to excorcize a woman who was BPD (because being possessed by the devil is the only possible explaination they had back that for women this f-cked up.)
Purposes of marriage
The Bible only listed three:
1. Companionship—-“it is not good that the man should be alone…” Genesis 2:18
2. Procreation—–“And God bless the man and his wife, saying be fruitful and multiply…” Genesis 1:28
3. Sexual release—-“If they cannot handle their sexual pressures, let them marry; it is better to marry than to burn” 1 Corinthians 7:9
Marriage (not wedding) more expensive
The biblical marriage implies that the man should be superior to and be able to take care of wife. This includes paying their debts (as Christ did for our sins); teaching the wife (“let them ask their husbands at home”; “wash with water of the word”). Christ went further to suffer capital punishment for His wife; we are not called to do so as husbands.
Now, tell me, which newly graduated kid just out of college is able to take on the debts of a former classmate who has now become his wife? Which girl will be attracted to Johhny who is drowning in his own school debts, has no money and earns less than $35k a year? When you throw children in the mix, you have no marriage.
Do true marriages still exist?
Here is the REAL heresy. There is NO marriage today. It doesn’t exist as an institution.
It amuses me when American writers assume that the world ends at the American border. May I remind my readers that the United States is a mere 4% of the world’s population? True marriages may not be all that common in America, but they sure are in many, many places on earth. Heck, there are true marriages here in the US, and a number of folks on this site can testify to that.
Yup
I don’t know about guys but its certainly geared towards PD females being excused (and more dangerously BELIEVED) and given every chance possible to create as much damage as they can – because the poor deeries.
Generally, one of the worst things these people can do is lie with absolute impunity, their ability to motivate others to destroy others is truly incredible. They can get others to do awful things who would normally never every consider it. They are very dangerous when believed.
Very accurate description you have some experience with this ?
I dont think they can be cured either , they can use DBT and learn to control emotions.I do know they are generally not welcome with counselling as they make no progress ever, like I remember, the same issues round and round, it never gets better, there is no resolution or progression to a healthier state. Iread one book where some BPD woman did make alot of progress, from being a complete nut to semi normal, she even wrote a book of her experience. Thats how rare a BPD recovery is. If it happens to you – you get to write a book.
@Boxer
His statement is cavalier, but it’s not unfounded. 1 Timothy 5:3-16
In practice, this will often be a widow returning to her father’s house; where he is master.
Marrying at university???
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904109
I have truly stumbled.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903984
Frustrations with friendships and staying single
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904029
“BPD doesn’t think there’s anything wrong. Witness an ex roommate. Completely cracked, crying on the floor because her bf didn’t call her, making me talk to her for hours because she wanted to kill herself because some guy wouldn’t take a walk with her etc.”
In a way, they are aware of their behaviour that’s its awful, but are not that it is wrong, as far as they are concerned their feelings are always correct and appropriate and must be acted upon.
In a strange way its like the emotional scales are flipped, tiny things (her bf didn’t call her or bag was too heavy etc) produce insane reactions, but huge things that normal people would crumble with can produce no reaction at all. Either its so large a disturbance they can’t can’t even begin to grasp it, or more probably, their emotional center is so immature (like a 2yo) they just can’t process it and just look blankly.
That is one way to identify PD’s, their abnormal reaction to normal outside stimulus just makes you think – WHAT ?? Its almost too difficult to fit into your own frame of reference, you just view their behaviour as odd and unable to be categorised.
Dear Cane:
Thanks for the reply. I read it carefully. If I understand the passages, they refer to older widows with dead husbands, rather than young divorcées. I still don’t see the allowance for a displeased husband to divorce his wife and return her to her father’s house.
Quoting Blue Pill Professor here:
If there is a piece of the Bible which states “Verily I say unto you, it is permissible for a man to dump his wife on his father-in-law’s doorstep, and find some new chick to shack up with… for hard dread is the way of the LORD” etc., please clue me in. (All fun ‘n games aside, I trust your interpretation more than most here).
Best, Boxer
Dear IBB, et. al.:
Cluster-B personality disorders are interesting, and their underlying causes are not well understood. There appear in many cases to be a constellation of factors: Childhood trauma, genetic predisposition, contributing psychiatric illness and organic brain damage often work in tandem to produce these specific symptoms.
Society has a way of sanding down our rough edges, and by the time they hit their mid 30s, most of the people who have these disorders settle into a normal life. This suggests (to my layman ass) that they may be symptoms of a particularly permissive society, or perhaps a lack of socialization.
A century ago, people weren’t inclined to throw fits in public for attention, or sit around crying and shaking. There was too much work to be done, and if you didn’t get up and be productive, you’d go hungry until your attitude changed. The really sick people got shipped off to mental hospitals. The personality disordered ones learned to control themselves through fear of going without food or heat.
Psychoanalysis has had some success, as has Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Mostly, I think these disorders are symptomatic of people being able to live as emotional children for too long. You can see the psychopath, the narcissist and the borderline, all in fine form at the preschool. The shit these people do is normal (albeit annoying) at three years of age. At twenty-three its self-destructive.
Best, Boxer
@Ra’s al Ghul
It was a combo of west nile, encephalitis, aneurysms, and neurological Lyme that did it to me. So many things going on at once that a proper diagnosis took a very, very long time. Heck, I even got to be a case study in a dissertation! Exciting!
The thing about hooking men, so true. Said women finally got her claws into a friend of mine. He went to our priest (a trained psychiatrist) for spiritual counseling, but she insisted on going to his private session (they had been dating for 3 weeks). Said priest told him to get rid of her and it wasn’t a healthy relationship. Guy didn’t listen, got married 1 year later, and at the wedding looked like a skeleton. He’s since dropped off the face of the planet. Poor bastard.
Minesweeper,
First fiancee was BPD. At 23 I could not have diagnosed what is so plain to see today. I had very little personal experience with mental health conditions. But I thought I knew everything. And because I loved her, I thought I was man enough to help her, to save her.
I. Was. Wrong.
I got out before any perminant damage to my life. I just chalked up all my personal losses (both social and financial) as write-offs, and in the grand scheme of things, I got out pretty cheap. About a couple thousand bucks and lost one friend. But I was close. I was sooooo close. If I had said “I do” to this woman…
Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
You can not treat/cure Borderline Personality Disorder. Impossible. You must…. ignore them.
Truly the only possible way for them to come through their souls being possessed by the devil, would be for them to accept Christ, marry a Christlike man, and to truly submit to him, do absolutely everyting he says (and not what THEY THINK) for the rest of their lives. Maybe, one-in-a-million BPD women would do that. The rest are sucking Satan’s dick.
@innocentbystanderboston
Oddly enough bipolar is quite resistant to treatment, generally because they don’t want to lose the manic part (creativity, energy, etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGDl6-lyfMY
Borderline does seem to be a very extreme form of the female experience of emotion. Perhaps it is liked somewhat to the structural differences between the brains of both genders? The general borderline brain differences are: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2008/emotion-regulating-circuit-weakened-in-borderline-personality-disorder.shtml If so, very little help for treatment.
Boxer,
Isa,
Yes. Just like I was saying about the mashed potatoes, they LOVE their highs. Love them! Absolutely love them. I had the unique experience of meeting two Rules Girls (from the Worldcrossing Forums) in Las Vegas for a weekend in 2000. Wow, 14 years ago. Anyway, one of them was in her “high” all weekend and let me tell you, she was a BLAST to be around! I loved it. She was happy all the time, doted on me, was a constant loving flirt, totally fun to be with.
Thankfully, I did not see her in her lows.
http://judgybitch.com/2014/08/20/zoe-quinn-can-go-fuck-herself/
female BPD behaviour exposed ! and of course her being defended by her idiotic white knights who lack even 1 iota of moral fibre between them
@Boxer
You are correct. In no way do I endorse BPP’s interpretation. If I recall, BPP once said St. Paul was wrong.
We even have the term “high-functioning BPD,” which refers to a person who’s able to hold down a job, even excel at it, to maintain friendships and professional relationships in her public life and generally impress people with how capable and sensible she is — and then be a complete basket case behind closed doors. So they do have the ability to control their behavior.
As Boxer said, they seem to be emotional toddlers. Some theorize that it’s as if some childhood trauma froze them at that emotional age, and they can’t mature past it. They learn to mimic the behavior of grown-ups, but inside they’re still 2 or 4 or 6 years old, and that’s how they act in their personal relationships when their emotions take them back to that state.
I read an interesting article somewhere that theorized that many of these people actually have a character disorder rather than a personality one. In other words, they’re just bad people — people who never grew up for some reason — maybe because a permissive and wealthy society never required them to — so they sank into bad habits and learned defensive techniques to allow them to maintain those habits. So the girl who’s addicted to drama is much like the guy who’s addicted to alcohol or porn. I think there’s something to that, at least in many cases, though I can see how childhood trauma could cause real personality problems that go beyond that in some cases.
IBB “But she did everything she could do destroy me in my running away. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
Don’t feel too bad about it, she would have done the same when she left you your behaviour made no difference. The $k’s and friend you lost, consider them well spent. I’m probably about x100 that at the moment. They tend to have a habit of destroying all those who try to help them (husbands, parents, siblings, friends, councillors) , eventually they realise that this individual can’t do it, then they attack them with unbridled fury for their failure.
All you can do as I discovered is get as far way from them as possible and watch them destroy every single adult person that gets close to them and tries to help them.
IBB – ” I’m probably running at about x100 that at the moment” – to clarify, in both $$$, health, friends, family members and church connections permanently alienated now.
It.Is.Truly.Unbelievable.
It’s like they are the human equivalent of a neutron bomb – without any fail safes installed.
Its because in public they don’t have to use that part of their brain that handles emotional intimate relationships. I personally think its sort form of emotional regression to a previous state that worked. The brain has tried to advance in a environment that can’t support this development or actively impedes it, therefore it falls back to last known good. THe problem is because that part of emotional development will now never occur when it needed too, the emotional maturity into an adult can never take place. The sequence has been interuppted.
So you have an adult with the mental capacity and reasoning of an adult, but inticritly attached with the emotional neural circuit of a 2/3 yo and all the intensity of emotions that they display.
I don’t see any evidenge of that anywhere tbh. Wishful thinking, the only ability to resolve the original regression seems to be trauma so serious it will end the personality. At which point a reset occurs and the individual can resume with the original maturing process.
EDIT: *intrinsically attached with the emotional neural circuit of a 2/3 yo
Tendency toward partial or complete remission by middle age is part of the very definition of a personality disorder in the DSM V.
For more on what you’re talking about, see Cohen, Brown, Smailes, et. al. “Child Abuse and the Development of Mental Disorders in the General Population” Development and Psychopathology (2001)
Cail Corishev says:
August 20, 2014 at 5:10 pm
The serious trouble in my marriage coincided with my younger son starting kindergarten. Too much free time to wonder ‘what if’ and whatnot.
If that is stated somewhere I can’t find it in the DSM V, I also see no evidence of that in the population, of those that I know who are\were NPD or BPD, the disorder lasted their lifetime and I have witnessed this first hand with current\departed family members, old friends and my ex. And of others in middle age I don’t see it’s effects reducing, it can induce the opposite as they have less ability and opportunity to guide their life, which creates more desperation and increasing need to control whats going on.
Unless you can find evidence to the contrary of course. Everywhere I’ve looked seems to state the disorders are stable. I’ve not studied this academically, maybe you have along with your philosophy ?
The actual DSM-IV (as opposed to whatever web based synopsis you cut and pasted here) should be in the reference section at your local public library.
Read pp 661-685 for the actual definitions (far too lengthy to post here). Note that in the cluster-b disorders (Antisocial, Borderline, Narcissistic, Histrionic) there is criteria for diagnosis that the patient be at least 18-years old, and have symptoms which have lasted three years. Note also the caveat that if the disorder appears to have started post adulthood, the diagnosis is contraindicated. This is important, because the onset of symptoms later in life suggest a neurological problem (it’s possible the patient got hit on the head at work, or has a brain tumor, etc.) Finally, note the criteria about symptoms decreasing in severity with age, in all of these specific disorders. This is important for the same reason. Emotional dysregulation which gets worse in middle age is not a personality disorder, and is likely early onset of dementia.
The reference I posted last is a study which suggests that these disorders, which are often partially caused by trauma (abandonment, neglect, abuse, etc.) in childhood tend to be overcome as the patient matures, probably through conditioning rather than through the typical process in the common maturation process. Human beings have a remarkable tendency to heal.
I hope this is helpful.
Boxer
Isa writes to me, “That’s a pretty terrible thing to have happened to your wife. I find myself that few people really understand just how devastating unwanted infertility is to women. All the “well, maybe you aren’t trusting in the Lord enough” comments are quite cruel.”
Thanks, but it worked out great for all involved (except him and the woman he married – more on that later).
I really can’t blame the guy all that much: like most people, he wanted kids, and when he discovered that the person he was “supposed” to marry was infertile he probably just reacted without much thought… immaturity rather than malice, so to speak. Keep in mind that they were quite young, and he no-doubt believed all that “there’s only one person in the world for you” bit that people buy into. Christians tend to add a religious element to that by declaring that God has ordained a specific person for every one of His children who will be juuuuuust right. I disagree in general, although I believe there are individual exceptions.
Anyway, I met him a few times, and he wasn’t a bad guy, but his mouth had a tendency to write checks he couldn’t cash. In retrospect, he had a bit of “game” – since he tended to be aloof about her feelings, but he revealed a BAD case of oneitis when she dumped him for me. Anyway, when she finally got fed up enough with his insensitivity he told her to, “Date other guys and see how good you have it.” Bold move – very “red pill” – and utterly disastrous for him. Why? One of the first people she ran into after that was me. She was pretty much done with him after our first date – she wrote a letter to her mother about me the very next day. He took it pretty hard, but… oh well. He ended up marrying someone who looks a lot like her – I understand it didn’t turn out well, probably because HE was an alpha-widower, and his flesh-and-blood wife couldn’t measure up to “the one that got away” in his mind.
Anyhow, enough schadenfreude for now – back to your observation. People can be incredibly cruel about infertility, and the “hyperfaith” loonies can be the worst since they consider that anything bad that happens to you is due to your own lack of faith. It’s even worse if they are of the “quiver full” camp. For those unfamiliar with that, it’s a reference to Psalm 127: 3-5, which reads as follows:
Oops, I meant to end the blockquote after the scripture reference. The final two paragraphs are not supposed to be indented or italicized.
Dear IBB:
Jack Donovan has written about women hijacking the masculine tendency to overcome obstacles in order to play games with us. Berne’s old pop-psych “Games People Play” also alludes to this. The effectiveness of this nonsense is maddening.
In any event, while we can (and should) have sympathy for a rape survivor, we shouldn’t allow anyone to excuse present misbehavior by playing such a victim card. It’s good you finally opted out of your participation in that little dialectic. You have nothing to feel badly about.
If there is a God, I’m confident that he wants every man here to fulfill his potential for greatness. Being someone else’s emotional punching bag is not part of that itinerary.
Best, Boxer
A web search for “does bpd decrease with age” will also turn up many discussions about it. The consensus is that it does, and markedly, but there’s not much consensus on why. That’s not surprising, since we only have a vague idea of what causes it in the first place. Also, it would be more accurate to say that the symptoms decrease with age. But does that mean the person truly gets better on the inside, or does she only learn to hide or restrain the symptoms better? I’m not sure we know.
It’s not that there aren’t older women out there doing self-destructive things, harming others, behaving badly, and displaying some BPD traits. But they’re probably not really BPD. A problem with these personality disorders is that they’re hard to pin down and distinguish from each other and from just being a nasty person, unless you know the person’s private behavior very well over a period of time.
@Boxer, I’m probably not going to find that in my library.
No web reference exists at all ?
I forgot to include the link I used :
DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria for the Personality Disorders
© 2012 American Psychiatric Association. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf
Do you have access to the study you linked to on PubMed ? Cause I don’t, if you can get hold of it I would be most grateful.
“Finally, note the criteria about symptoms decreasing in severity with age, in all of these specific disorders”
Again I’m sure I have seen something similar written down but I don’t see this in daily life, but most of those who I know have either BPD/NPD are not in any treatment. Sure its not middle age with long term treatment ? And decreasing symptoms is very subjective, maybe they drop 2% over 40 years when aligned to some internal scale of their feelings. I guess that would qualify, but its not apparent in their dealings with others.
I also believe humans have an ability to heal, but unfortunately certain injury’s and adoptions just don’t unfortunately. You strike me as a bit of an idealist, would that be correct ?
@Cail Corishev says:
August 21, 2014 at 9:02 am
A web search for “does bpd decrease with age” will also turn up many discussions about it. The consensus is that it does, and markedly, but there’s not much consensus on why.
That is great to know, but for the handful of female BDP’s that I know, do I not see it. A close female family member was BPD right to the end. She got markedly worse in middle age. Way worse. So if there is a generalised trend for severity of symptoms decreasing, its maybe not across the board. Is it caused by a lack of grey hair and wrinkles ?
I would love to meet one who is feeling better.
Dear Cail:
Indirectly related, people who are interested in the intersection between neurology and psychiatry should check out the popular work by James Fallon. Dr. Fallon’s work for many years was examining brain architecture in an attempt to find patterns in lifelong criminals and other antisocial types. His team found several markers which were widely published.
At one point, for a bit of fun, one of his assistants slipped in control test results from healthy people. Fallon himself marked several brains off as obviously fitting all the criteria for psychopathology. One of the brains was his own, that had been tested months earlier. He subsequently retested himself and sent the results off to colleagues for blind study. They all concurred that this was probably the brain of a serial murderer or depraved rapist.
The point is that the causes of such disorders are rarely isolated to just one aspect of our selves. Many of us are born with certain proclivities which we successfully suppress and then ignore, for the rest of our lives.
In the margins of many articles are these discussions. We see people going into remission, but how do they do it? The typical person manages to control their emotions by around 15 (again according to the DSM) through a defined maturation process. No one seems to know whether this process is delayed, or whether some parallel process develops in disordered people’s adulthood, but the suspicion is that it’s something different. Social forces and semi-conscious discipline may play a part. At some level, these people don’t like being dysfunctional, and eventually they succeed in finding some other way to get a handle on their behavior.
This is especially troubling in what’s termed Antisocial Personality Disorder (the brainiacs believe that this is the male version of Borderline). A fella in his early 20s has a pattern of minor theft, beginning in his early teens. How do we know that this guy is emotionally handicapped? He might just have found an easy way to get luxury goods without working for them, etc. To qualify as an actual personality disorder, one needs to establish the existence of a weird compulsion to steal, and an emotional inability to sympathize with the victim of the theft, and as you point out, that’s very difficult to do.
Best, Boxer
@lyn87
“My usual response is something like this, “Yes, God said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ – twice. Both times were in Genesis. The first time the world’s population was two, and the second time the world’s population was eight. Humanity has fulfilled God’s command to fill the Earth – Mission Accomplished.”
I laughed out loud. Good one.
As to the hyperfaith crowd giving you crap, a close friend of mine had a young child die, members of his church then descended on him and accused him of causing his son to die through his lack of faith.
It never ceases to amaze me what dicks people can be esp Christians who really should know better. We are meant to live by the spirit after all. I’m surprised he didn’t punch them out, I would have.
Thinking more about it, BPD or others decreasing with age still dosn’t click with me, for most of the BPD books that I have read, a consistent theme is that councillors tend to refuse to take them on as they condition is so stable and resistant to treatment. I’ve know of one to have 3 years intense therapy to be then shown the door by a frustrated councillor as not a jot changed.
This does not spell out symptom reduction long term, to me any how.
Hmmmmm.
@Minesweeper
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137382
Beat me to it. The whole fallout is quite interesting to watch, considering the classic beta-male temperament of most “gamer”s
@Pro-Truth says:”considering the classic beta-male temperament of most “gamer”s”
You know I have never considered that, makes alot of sense, good input. You could just tell an Alpha\BDP feminist would eat them for breakfast, which she did.
@Pro-Truth, re: gamers
After all, we’ve been practicing saving the princess from Bowser.
Athor Pel says:
August 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Thanks. I stand corrected.
@Lyn: “You are telling people that God’s word condones fornication. Stop it.”
I appreciate the debate along with your education and Biblical instruction. I have prayed about this a lot and done my research enough to agree that God’s word does not “condone” fornication.
However, I really can’t find a strong condemnation of it. The Lord equated just looking at a woman in lust to adultery and the Apostles had a fit about the ‘hard’ instruction. He didn’t say just looking at an unmarried woman in lust is like fornication. Imagine the response of the Apostles if he had cast that broad a net! I am continually amazed at Churchians who tout the fornication thing like a get out of Sainthood card when many of the Saints were fornicators. St. Augustine prayed: “Lord make me pure…but not yet.” The same Churchians ignore male headhship instructions and work on the Sabbath and on Sunday without qualms. They take the Lord’s name in vain in one instant and condemn the gays and fornicators in the next. In my view fornication is not “good” nor is it condoned. However, it is not the same type of sine as eating shellfish, acting effeminate, playing X-box all day (i.e. idol worship) or lying to the religious leaders about your income! Lets keep it in perspective.
My argument is that the Lord, Paul, Peter, and others were commenting on an institution that does not exist (in the U.S.) any more. Are you saying a “marriage” between committed people who go to church, study and (try to) follow the Bible and are exclusive, is somehow invalid but if you say a few words before a Justice of the Peace without any religious involvement while granting the woman de facto leadership of the home that makes it “holy” and pure. I call bull whiskey.
@Boxer: “That is the closest thing we have today- a “marriage” where the man is free to “leave” with little consequence. (in the 1st century the man could return his bride to her father in disgrace, and he could always take another wife- how’s that for the hard dread!).”
If there is a piece of the Bible which states “Verily I say unto you, it is permissible for a man to dump his wife on his father-in-law’s doorstep, and find some new chick to shack up with… for hard dread is the way of the LORD” etc., please clue me in. (All fun ‘n games aside, I trust your interpretation more than most here).”
Is there a place in the Bible where this common first century practice was ever condemned? In the same way Polygyny is also NOT condemned. Men in the 1st Century were pumping and dumping their wife’s and then throwing them on the streets to beg in poverty. THAT was what Jesus prohibited (except for grounds of adultery). He wanted to protect women at a time when they needed some protections. He did not intend to shackle men to the feminine imperative for all time.
A simple exercise demonstrates the folly of taking the allegorical statements and stories of Jesus literally. Consider this reasoning borrowed from the fems interpretation of Porn viewing: If looking at another in lust is like committing adultery, and you have the right to divorce your wife for grounds of adultery, then if your wife looks at another in lust you have grounds for divorce (the transitive property- if A = B and B = C then A = C). Further, since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God we can assume that all women have, at some time in their lives, looked at a man in lust. If she hasn’t, just turn on the movie 300 and watch her drool. Now you have your get-out-of-marriage card. The desire for holiness is more important than binding rituals that shackle one party and let the other do whatever they want.
Clearly this is NOT what the Lord meant. He was speaking about the desire for holiness and the ideals to strive for. Not giving explicit instructions on how to live every moment of your life. Read the Quran if you want that level of instruction. Christianity would not have done very well if all the men were celibate Monks and the women were all cloistered nuns so as to avoid all sinful thoughts.
@Dalrock
Here’s an interesting article:
Do YOU regret getting divorced? Astonishing 50 per cent of people wish they had never ended their marriage
A study found 54 per cent experienced second thoughts
Some realised they missed or still loved their ex-partner
42 per cent had considered giving their relationship another go
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2727716/Is-going-separate-ways-really-good-idea-Astonishing-50-divorcees-regret-breaking-partner.html
BPP,
I’m glad we’re talking again. I’d like to address your points, if I may. I’ll put your statements in blockquotes and mine in plain-text for clarity. But before I do that: we’re not using the same definition for the word “fornication.” In the KJV, the word “fornication” mainly appears in the New Testament, although condemnations of sexual activity outside of marriage are found in the Old Testament as well using different words*: Genesis 38: 24 (translated into English as “whoredom” – zanuwn), Deuteronomy 23:17 (translated into English as “whore”), and elsewhere. In those cases the condemned activities include sex between unmarried people. Keep in mind that the word translated as “fornication” is the Greek word porneia (πορνεύω), which encompasses any illicit sexual activity, including adultery – which is uniformly defined as sex with a married women other than one’s wife (although some would consider sex with a married man other than one’s husband to be adultery as well – I’m not willing to argue against that view).
* The KJV does contain the word “fornication” four times in the Old Testament, but it is only used to describe spiritual or political fornication (chasing other gods or forming alliances with ungodly nations), rather than sexual activity.
My response is that you’re not looking very hard. Fornication is universally condemned in the Bible. Every time is comes up, it is noted as being bad, and Christians are specifically told to abstain from fornication nine times in the New Testament. That seems pretty clear to me. I suggest pulling up Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible – http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html – and do a word-search for the word “fornication.” Then read the verses in context. There’s no possible way to avoid the conclusion that God is serious about it. Of the 26 times the word porneia occurs in the Greek New Testament, it refers to individual sexual sin 20 times – in each of those times it is condemned. Very few things in the Bible are as strongly condemned in the Bible as sexual sin outside of marriage, whether porneia in the New Testament, or zanuwn in the Old Testament.
Adultery (moicheuō – the word Jesus used) is a subset of fornication (porneia). You are drawing a linguistic distinction where none exists.
Fornication is a forgivable sin, and anyone who says otherwise is simply incorrect. The fact that some people hold it to be “especially” sinful are missing the point of forgiveness. But… porneia IS a special “class” of sin, for lack of a better term. I Cor 6:18 says, “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” So while is it a forgivable sin, it is different in that sense. Also, virginity is highly prized – for very good reasons – and virginity lost prior to salvation is still lost, often with the temporal consequences that go with it.
I’ll not defend the Churchian tendency to pick-and-choose between passages of scripture. Your argument is against people who are not present. As for the rest, eating shellfish isn’t a sin (the law was fulfilled and the ritual aspects are no longer in force (see Romans Chapter 10)… effeminate (I Cor 6: 9-10) refers to male homosexual conduct, not having a lispy voice or wearing a frilly shirt… playing X-box all day may be a poor use of time, but it is not idolatry… lying about ones income comes from Acts 5, and the context of the story is important.
No, I am not saying that. I have never said that. In fact, that is exactly the opposite of what I said. See my comment at August 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm.
I have to say that I agree 100% with what Deti write here
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-136967
Exactly! Repeat this to all the young people you know!
“However, I really can’t find a strong condemnation of [fornication]. The Lord equated just looking at a woman in lust to adultery…”
And that’s not a condemnation of fornication? Read Matthew 5 & context more carefully. The Pharisees argued much as you do today, that all they had to do to please God was satisfy the exact lettering of the law. “I didn’t commit adultery with her, I just watched through her bathroom window. It isn’t adultery so God is totally okay with this!” To that we have Christ’s reply, that the spirit of “no adultery” is just as binding as the letter.
This is the legalism Christ despised so frequently: “nothing I do is specifically and directly forbidden by God”. BPP, you are like a child who honors his 9pm curfew by “waking up” at 9:02pm. You want to keep the letter of the law while destroying its purpose and claim you aren’t rebelling when it’s obvious you are.
“The desire for holiness is more important than binding rituals that shackle one party and let the other do whatever they want.”
This is a common form of the suffering we Christians are promised. Our holiness is never greater than when we are punished for persisting in good behavior. Avoid marriage if you wish but God requires a sexless life if you do. Get married if you wish but God requires you to keep your vows. Do not seek a loophole or excuse. Seek God’s favor.
“Christianity would not have done very well if all the men were celibate Monks and the women were all cloistered nuns so as to avoid all sinful thoughts.”
Many of Christianity’s finest moments involved such monks and nuns. Hospitals, poor houses, orphanages, schools/colleges, manufacturing guilds, science, art, music… They never bred so “the future never belonged to them”, yet Western civilization owes them its very existence.
Has someone mentioned nuns and orphanages in a single sentence? What about these kids?
Apparently, the quality of care was rather lacking…
The typical person manages to control their emotions by around 15 (again according to the DSM) through a defined maturation process. No one seems to know whether this process is delayed, or whether some parallel process develops in disordered people’s adulthood, but the suspicion is that it’s something different. Social forces and semi-conscious discipline may play a part. At some level, these people don’t like being dysfunctional, and eventually they succeed in finding some other way to get a handle on their behavior.
I have noticed this with my own obsessive compulsiveness. It gets worse when life is very stressful and mostly goes away when things are humming along. Same with my facial tics which started the year my parents divorced.
I dated a woman who was functional in every aspect except to her intimate relationships. I was searching for answers to her peculiar behaviors and began to learn about BPD and other Cat5 disorders. She had pretty much all of the indicators. I don’t think it decreases but increases. It is just that women can hide it better.
Bluepillprofessor:
I have had many convo’s about the whole fornication thing. Personally I don’t see God condoning sex outside marriage to the extent of absolute death and hell. I think a man should avoid being a player, but I do not see a moral conflict when a man and woman engage in sex outside of marriage but in a loving committed relationship. We all know the argument about the hazards of marriage these days.
I do want to add that I have yet to find any passages that instruct men to be virgins when marrying.
The main point it that following the bible literally, and in terms of our shitty MMP, men should remain sexless and alone just because a man refuses to get involved with the marriage and divorce industry. I just see how that is holy.
GunnerQ,
In the past two days BPP has written something that questions the sinfulness or seriousness of “fornication-that-is-not-adultery.” Both times I responded with meticulous scripture references – including the Greek and Hebrew words… as if his objections were the result of an incorrect understanding of the scriptures. Both times you have indicated that you believe BPP is just looking for a loophole. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
BPP,
Although I offer reason (“Come, let us reason together”… – Isaiah 1:18), my inclination is to agree with BPP’s take. While I address the mind, I believe that he cuts to the heart of the matter – you seem to be looking for a loophole rather than a more perfect understanding. My posts and his are complimentary, not contradictory (perhaps hammer and anvil is an apt description). If you are truly looking for the truth, it’s right there in black-and-white, and I told you precisely where to find it. But if your heart is to follow your carnal nature (which we all struggle with), GunnerQ has called you out. I suspect both the approach he took and the one I took are important for you to see – I pray that you take heed.
To which I reply with the nine specific commands to refrain from fornication that I noted earlier.
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
I hope that helps to clarify. As for this, “I don’t see God condoning sex outside marriage to the extent of absolute death and hell.” I give you:
I Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Stop. Teaching. Heresy.
“Thinking more about it, BPD or others decreasing with age still dosn’t click with me, for most of the BPD books that I have read, a consistent theme is that councillors tend to refuse to take them on as they condition is so stable and resistant to treatment. I’ve know of one to have 3 years intense therapy to be then shown the door by a frustrated councillor as not a jot changed.
This does not spell out symptom reduction long term, to me any how.
Hmmmmm.”
There’s the old therapist joke “How do you treat a BPD?”
You send them to someone else.
You’ve got two different factors that have different impacts, as people grow older they tend to slow do and even the crazies slow down, but on the flip side of things it becomes more and more exhausting for them to keep the mask up as they age, its harder to keep the appearance of sanity up
monkeywerks @ 2:11 pm:
“I do not see a moral conflict when a man and woman engage in sex outside of marriage but in a loving committed relationship.”
There might not be a conflict. If the couple is sexually loyal to each other until death then they’re keeping Biblical morality. God does not require government recognition of a marriage for it to be legitimate; after all, God’s opinion is that He’s the one who creates the marriage bond in the first place.
The phrase “loving committed relationship” has become a red flag, however. It’s been used to justify sodomy, serial monogamy, statutory rape and other garbage. An unofficial marriage can be pleasing to God but our current situation has not lowered his standards of conduct.
“@Cail Corishev says:
August 21, 2014 at 9:02 am
A web search for “does bpd decrease with age” will also turn up many discussions about it. The consensus is that it does, and markedly, but there’s not much consensus on why.
That is great to know, but for the handful of female BDP’s that I know, do I not see it. A close female family member was BPD right to the end. She got markedly worse in middle age. Way worse. So if there is a generalised trend for severity of symptoms decreasing, its maybe not across the board. Is it caused by a lack of grey hair and wrinkles ?
I would love to meet one who is feeling better.”
As a word of caution there are a lot of BPD apologists out there and a lot of nonsense pushed (probably by disordered women) and one of the ideas is that “You should just be patient and stick it out, the bpd will get better and validate her feelings.” and even some sites saying the personality disorders are often temporary this is all pushing the men in their lives to tolerate the abuse and man up.
This is pure nonsense.
Boxer,
If a person is stealing from others, and it isn’t to survive, he is engaging in behavior that most people wouldn’t consider, It is a sign of a problem and probably a personality disorder if it persists.
Most of these people do not change. Ever. Their brain functions are different. The doctor that discovered he has the brain pattern of a sociopath confirmed it with family and friends that they thought he completely lacked empathy among other things. It can be compensated for, this is what BPD, NPD and ASPD people do, the compensate, they wear a mask, but they are not normal and never will be.
GunnerQ writes,
Agreed, as long as it’s an actual marriage it need not involve the state. To the extent that there’s a consensus here, it is that a marriage is a marriage with or without state sanction. It’s when we use “marriage” to mean “got a piece of paper from the county courthouse” that we run into problems.
As you also noted, “Loving committed relationship” is often fem-speak for other things. In this context it’s usually, “Sleeping with my (current) boyfriend” – serial monogamy, rather than anything any Christian would recognize as a marital relationship on the Biblical model.
Yes, that’s dangerous thinking. While it does seem to get better in some cases, it takes years. If you meet a 25-year-old girl who’s BPD, are you really going to sign up for 10 years or so of attacks on your grip on reality, bouncing back and forth between being fiercely loved and coldly rejected, being cheated on and lied to, being accused of abandonment one day and controlling abuse the next, in the hopes that by the time she’s 35 or so she’ll be able to handle a marriage proposal without losing her mind? That’s the kind of time frame we’re talking about, optimistically.
One counselor told me she’ll only have one ongoing BPD patient at a time, because dealing with them is so mentally and emotionally exhausting. And this is someone who would only be dealing with it for an hour or two a week, with no personal commitment beyond the professional one.
When they do get better, it’s such a long, slow change that it’s hard for a counselor to see it. Very few of them stick with a single counselor and do the work consistently for that long anyway. They frequently drop therapy until some sort of fear drives them back, or bounce to a new counselor every time one gets to know their tricks too well. So even if a BPD does improve and discard some of the symptoms over the span of a decade, it’s not like there’s usually someone there to document it.
“innocentbystanderboston says:
August 21, 2014 at 1:16 am
Minesweeper,
Very accurate description you have some experience with this ?
First fiancee was BPD. At 23 I could not have diagnosed what is so plain to see today. I had very little personal experience with mental health conditions. But I thought I knew everything. And because I loved her, I thought I was man enough to help her, to save her.
I. Was. Wrong.”
You talk to any man that has dated women and you’ll find at least one crazy girlfriend out there for about every three girls. (this does not necessarily mean that 1 in 3 girls are full on crazy because the crazy tend to get around, a lot). But I have watched several men dumb enough to marry women with personality disorders and the capacity these women have to destroy is amazing.
Careers, relationships, finances, health. They corrode all of it.
“One counselor told me she’ll only have one ongoing BPD patient at a time, because dealing with them is so mentally and emotionally exhausting. And this is someone who would only be dealing with it for an hour or two a week, with no personal commitment beyond the professional one.”
I’ve actually read that people in these relationships have a very distorted sense of time, time passes faster, probably because parts of the brain just shuts down over time when dealing with this kind of evil.
Cali,
From what I have read BPD is primarily caused by insufficient pair bonding between mother and child from birth – age 3 or so. This deficiency causes certain neural pathways’ to be improperly formed. These neural pathways control the empathy circuits. People with BPD have little to no empathy, which is required in order to form lasting and fulfilling relationships. This is a major contributing factor to the behaviors we associate with BPD and NPD, such as lying, infidelity, manipulation, etc.
Another core problem BPD and NPD people have is that they are empty inside. They have no inner self. This is where we see mimicking behaviors. Ironically this mimicking coupled with hypersexuality found in the more histrionic people, makes them awesome lovers.
A man can have a fulfilling relationship with these types of women but the man needs to be 100% strong inside, have excellent self esteem and be willing to ruthlessly enforce boundaries, as you stated. You must have a strong hand. Only the most dominate and alpha men can truly handle this type of woman. With a man like this, this woman would actually have a chance at a good relationship.
It is vitally important for every man in the SMP to be intimately familiar with the indicators of BPD. One study said that over 20% of US women have this in varying degrees.
Off topic but important news. New research shows that any significant length of time using the Pill impacts future fertility.
http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/articles/2014/08/%E2%80%98-pill%E2%80%99-shrinks-ovaries-cuts-egg-numbers
Dear Ra’s Al Ghul:
You are probably right, but only partially and by accident. The definition of APD in the DSM specifically rules out a primary motive of “gain”. The criminal steals for gain, plans his crimes, and usually has at least a secondary financial need. The cluster-b shoplifter steals because of some emotional compulsion, can often afford the item but steals anyway, and has no ability to sympathize with his or her victim. Moreover, it is thought that at least some of them desire the “drama” of being caught and the attention of the court system. Several washed up celebrities of stage and screen have been nailed for exactly this in the past few decades, and now you know their motivation.
It is not uncommon for criminals to try and fake a personality disorder, so that they can get sentenced to psychiatric treatment rather than jail. Malingering (faking illness) is indicative of another personality disorder (not a cluster b, though) so you are not technically wrong.
There is a huge difference between a careful criminal who, despite his best attempts, gets caught, and a mentally ill headcase who steals for the hell of it. The legal system in developed countries recognizes the distinction, and generally orders that one of them needs to be punished, and the other needs to be locked up in a treatment facility.
Best, Boxer
To which I reply with the nine specific commands to refrain from fornication that I noted earlier.
And may I add one more as an explanation:
1Cor 6:16: Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute* becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
* also translated harlot.
Wow. Just, wow. Talk about a target rich environment. Where do I even begin? I mean, I love the way the thread wanders, but rather than address this issue head-on, let me use a parallel issue near and dear to this blog.
The problem is people tend to read into the text what they want to see based on their cultural conditioning. I’ll use divorce as a simple example. Matthew 19 is the most commonly cited passage which Christians claim will allow divorce for reasons of infidelity. And virtually everyone gets it wrong. I’ve seen plenty of men I believe to be sincere (based on their erroneous schooling) claim that if a man’s wife divorces him he’s been sentenced to involuntary celibacy for the rest of his life. What utter bunk.
In Matthew 19 Jesus was asked about the grounds for divorce (“Can a man divorce his wife for any reason?”) His response was simple: “They are no longer two flesh, but one. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” In other words, no divorce for any reason. That got them going and they asked why Moses allowed it. He responded and said “For the hardness of your hearts, Moses PERMITTED you, but from the beginning it was not so.
What followed was based on Matthew 23:1-3. In His earthly ministry, Jesus was completely a man. He was under the authority of Moses, so in answer to the first question interpreted by the second (that’s important) He gave the strictest interpretation possible for the judgment of Moses. To claim that Jesus gave his approval of the practice of divorce for reasons of unfaithfulness is to claim that Jesus contradicted Himself within the space of 6 verses. Ridiculous. It also creates an antinomy with 1st Cor. 7:10-11.
Probably the strongest testimony to this exegesis is the commentary of the disciples, who said “It is better for a man not to marry.” They knew exactly what had just been said: no divorce for any reason.
Many do not like to see Deuteronomy 24:1-4 characterized as a judgment, but it only appears in Deuteronomy, not in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers. It was not part of the Law as given to Moses by God, but rather a judgment of Moses sitting as the judge of Israel. Jesus pointed that out when He said “Moses permitted you…” This didn’t come from God, folks.
Some claim the judgments of Moses were inspired of God. That’s a lie. One has to look no further than Numbers 25 to see that. God gave the judgment and told Moses to crucify the leaders of the people before the entire assembly in response to the sin of the men chasing after the Moabite women. Moses didn’t do it and he ordered the men he’d been commanded to kill to kill each of their men who’d joined himself unto baal-peor. For that, 24,000 died until Phinehas manned up while Moses was crying. Within this context it is ridiculous to claim that Jesus permitted divorce because of the judgment of Moses.
With that background, Paul’s testimony in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 takes on new meaning. Paul is careful to say the instruction to believers is not from him, but from the Lord. Wives are not to separate from their husbands, but if they do are to remain single or be reconciled to their husbands. Husbands must not divorce their wives. Period.
That is what the Bible says. We do notice that God does not regulate sin. He forbids it and condemns it. That’s why the churchian view that multiple wives is sinful fails. God regulated the practice. Yes, the marriage of Jacob to Racheal and Leah has been discussed, but notice that in the Law God specifically forbid a man to marry sisters. Or a mother and daughter. And that makes it the perfect lens through which to view the absolute hypocrisy of the church when it comes to divorce. God didn’t have a problem with polygyny, He regulated it. But He said “I hate divorce” and the Lord forbid it in 1st Cor. 7:10-11.
Polygyny is Biblically sanctioned dread-game. It isn’t that she’ll be left on the side of the road, it’s that she’ll be replaced. Publicly. And we all know how much women hate to be publicly shamed. And what about corporal punishment? Just another tool in the toolbox that allows the husband to maintain the dominance over his wife that she craves so very badly.
In partial response to some of the issues of judgment of fornication, I think there is a massive confusion about God’s judgment. There are three official “judgments.” There is the judgment of believers at the Bema seat in which the believer will be rewarded or punished (see the parable of the talents) based on their service to the Master. There will be the White Throne judgment in which everyone except those in Christ will be judged. But there’s one other one, and that’s the sheep and the goats judgment. At the end of the great tribulation, Christ will return and set up His kingdom for a thousand years (The Kingdom of Heaven). He will rule and reign for a 1000 years in Jerusalem serving as both king and High Priest. Temple Worship will be re-established.
The point is that the people who enter the Kingdom of Heaven after the tribulation are probably not going to be Christians. Yes, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the light, and no man enters into the Kingdom of Heaven except through Me.” However, giving a persecuted believer food, drink or shelter is not the same thing as making the Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of your life. A common fallacy of Christians is that Heaven will be our home. Not so. Heaven is God’s home. For believers, the new city of Jerusalem will descend from heaven and it will be the bride of Christ. This will be the home for believers. I have not seriously studied it, but it’s possible that the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” might be translated the same but have different meaning.
Question: Are a Christian’s sins ALL forgiven, past, present and future?
So… is that a license for fornication? No. I think Lyn87 at August 21, 2014 at 2:33 pm has covered this nicely: fornication is a sin. As has been covered here before, sanctioned sex is within marriage. We see in the Bible legitimate marriages with one wife, multiple wives and both wife/wives and concubine/concubines. No condemnation, no prohibitions on any of these. Give me a hard time about that and I’ll link to the thread which shall not be named… You have been warned.
However, Paul clearly said that when you join yourself to a whore you become one flesh with her and how can you join the parts of Christ to a whore? If you want something on the side, pick a good one, move her in and make it official (use a contract). If she decides to leave later, that’s something she’ll have to answer for, not you. If the fembot landwhale wife decides to leave, so be it. We answer to God, not men, in the end. Access to the pussy requires commitment on your part, not necessarily hers.
I just wanted to point out that the wedding photos site linked in the comments above has been taken down or at least rerouted so that the links posted are now invalid. Too bad as I would have liked to been able to post the evidence to a youth minister who was a bit upset about the original article as it made its way through cyberspace. It would have been helpful to be able to post to screenshots or some such and show that the professed Christians were NOT living what is commonly understood as a Christian lifestyle or having a Christian dating experience as claimed in that article.
May I suggest that in the future posters always screencap before posting links? This will prevent evidence of lying from disappearing the next time uncomfortable reality gets in the way of a good narrative.
–happy one
@ Dalrock
I was sent this report. “Before “I Do” What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality Among Today’s Young Adults?”
Galena K. Rhoades and Scott M. Stanley, The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia
I would take a look at the findings. Quite interesting overall.
http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf
JDG, no worries, no harm, no foul.
Pingback: Marriage Doesn’t Wait For True Love | The Society of Phineas
I do agree that the bible states that sex was only sanctified in a marriage. The problem is that only men, such as the Christians ones here, play by such rules. As we know, or should know by now, most women, Christians included, will follow their tingles and modify their morality as necessary to justify whatever action they decide. Think Jenny Erickson. I think she really believes she is a Christian. So does my self-righteous ex wife who nuked our family. I have been playing dread game with her for the last year. I have to do this so she will act right. Its stupid, it sucks and I don’t get to see my kids, but it works. That’s what is important.
Now the quandary. When men are negatively affected by their wives nuking their families, cheating, withholding sex, etc., where does our needs come into play?
What I hear from Christian red pill men is that men should always sacrifice their needs and goals and follow the rules completely when women only follows these when it fits their goals and the church only subjectively teaches the rules. You cannot play a game when only one side is playing by the rules. So you choose to either play as dirty as your opponent or choose not to play at all. Most Christians just seem like white knights to me with the whole self sacrificing BS.
Maybe I am more pragmatic that Christianity will allow, but I think my goals should take precedence over the oft debated interpretations of modern Christianity.
Lyn87,
I do appreciate your response. However you only listed fornication not a directive explicitly directing a man to be a virgin. Even in the NT a woman is required to be a virgin upon marriage and for men there was never, OT or NT, any such requirement. There was only admonitions to not commit sexual immorality, which somewhat defined in the bible it is still pretty vague. When you have to start looking up the meanings of words from a dead language to make a point I thinks its lame. The bible should stand on its own in plain language. The other day I was discussing the different rules regarding married sex between Catholics and Baptists. From what I understand Catholicism prohibits certain sexual acts even if done in marriage like masturbation, pulling out, anal and oral. The Baptists have an attitude of anything goes, between husband and wife. Which is right? This same debate can easily spill over into the rest of the sexual immorality question. What is actually immoral? Adultery(obviously), anal, cunnilingus, fellatio, having sex before the actual wedding but with the woman you marry? I can go on and on here.
I wax on about the women single men can expect to find in church. You have the sluts, frivolous divorcees and the few virgins with 463 point lists who already have so many sexual hang-ups even before having sex. So what’s the choice for men? I know there are like 10,000 cool virgin women who will get freaky with their husbands, but lets face it most are not marring us older divorced men. And even if they were, there is simply not enough of them. So I have to marry a slut or other damaged woman? See if you follow the logic, it all ends up to men risking everything and compromising our own goals and integrity.
Let’s look at divorce and remarriage. Under what circumstances a man or women can even remarry is a hot potato item debated among Christians and denominations. Did she leave, did he look at porn, what is abandonment (def is real hot issue), did she cheat emotionally, did he cheat physically? How about the Catholic only practice of annulments. That’s nowhere in the bible. There is so much crap floating around that is not in the bible. Yes I know Rome had more docs by other eyewitnesses. I’m talking about t catechisms and this and that and whatever the protestants come up with.
There are no hard rules. The bible is wrought with areas that actually do leave quite a bit of room for different interpretations depending on your starting view point, cultural upbringing, premise and overall objectives. It was said that the holy spirit will guide a readers understanding of scripture. I actually believe that. That said, the debate over the meanings of words is often unnecessary or should be. People who know me for real are amazed because I learned how to memorize and comprehend almost everything I read. I see the argument about fornication in my mind as a picture. There is just so much that is added to that picture by humans.
Faith requires reason. It requires scientific study and certain verification. Christianity does satisfy a lot of that. However the negatives of Christianity are more apparent after the red pill considering the state of the church and the hypocrisy of most Christians.
I have to conclude that biblical sexual morality is unworkable in our current environment and system because only one gender (primarily men) seems to actually follow it. Because of this I cannot in good conscience recommend marriage to any young man and I will certainly never recommend being in a relationship with a Christian woman. Too many are fake or become hypocrites when the tingles happen. And almost all of the rest, save but a very tiny minority, are sexually dysfunctional and will always be that way regardless if they happen to still have their hymen.
There is no longer any more “till death do us part or, for better or for worse” in modern marriage. None, zilch, zip. For the moralists how do you deal with that? Although I can I choose not to run around at present. But I may want to later. Maybe I’ll have a relationship with a woman I love. Because I make love to her and we love each other, I just don’t see the bad, nor do I see how some guy saying some words will change the fact that men and women have no obligation and little incentive to stay together if they tire of each other.
When does the magic happen, when I give a woman a pagan symbol of commitment (the ring), is there a time in the ceremony, can state marriages even be considered holy and sanctified? We want to believe that marriage is still as relevant as it once was. Marriage used to be about God and sanctification and moral sex in Christian terms, but marriage itself is a custom. Most societies do have similar customs recognizing a couple’s commitment. But marriage in the US is a custom that has changed not only in its significance, but in the risk, rewards and benefits expected, which is different for the genders.
Sex is moral if it feels right and if your committed. I realize how chicky it sounds, but lacking better words right now. Men of conscience will follow their hearts, as they have always done. Like anything else there are minimal standards and extreme practices. Swinging is extreme while frigidity is minimal in a marriage. In the middle is the happy medium.
I think traditional conservatives are just as bad overall and I include the modern Christian operating under a bible only morality.
AT gave me some food for thought.
I have been pondering these issues for the last couple of years. I am still working on it.
Ra
What I read and seen is BPD worsens with age. Any man in a relationship with such a woman should rum. They will sap your strength away and may kill you. You will not be happy if you stay.
“People don’t change, they only become better versions of themselves” Me
Monkeywerks –
The problem is that only men, such as the Christians ones here, play by such rules.
We have to, and we should want to if Christ truly is our Lord. The problem I often see is that we are often lied to about what those rules are. That’s why Christians (especially Christian men) need to study the Word of God daily. Keep your swords sharpened.
John 14:21 ESV
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
1 Peter 3:17 ESV
For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
Most Christians just seem like white knights to me with the whole self sacrificing BS.
If someone is a Christian, then self sacrificing isn’t BS, it is essential. It’s hard, but nothing worthwhile is easy.
John 3:16 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
John 12:25 ESV
Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
It totally sucks what she has done for you and your kids. I pray that God intervenes and gives you wisdom and strength to guide you through this.
Typo again. It should read – It totally sucks what she has done to you and your kids. I pray that God intervenes and gives you wisdom and strength to guide you through this.
@ Artisanal Toad
In Matthew 19 Jesus was asked about the grounds for divorce (“Can a man divorce his wife for any reason?”) His response was simple: “They are no longer two flesh, but one. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” In other words, no divorce for any reason.
Your error is in choosing a weak translation. A better translation of the question in verse three has it: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” In other words, “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for various and sundry reasons at a husband’s whim?” This is what Moses allowed. The question is not “Is there any reason for which a man may lawfully divorce his wife.” Christ limited the reasons for which divorce is lawful and asserted his authority as being greater than Moses.
How To Shrink Your Church In One Easy Step
Every major American church that has taken steps towards liberalization on sexual issues has seen a steep decline in membership.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/
Moving To Sweden
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904322
Interesting, in light of:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/01/25/scandnavian-men-leaving-feminists-to-themselves/
http://www.daddys-sverige.com/daddys-blogg/the-truth-about-swedish-feminism-do-not-watch-this-film
@IBB
Thanks for the analogy and definitions of BP & BPD. Priceless! I have met many women like you described in your post.And you are SOOOOO correct when you state that “the world is full of them”.Actually,I believe that about 50% of modern wimminz meet the criteria that you described.
Also,a few threads back you mentioned the “Toronto Cop”….the one that was reprimanded for telling the girls “stop dressing like a slut and you will avoid rape”. Guess what? I met him on Tuesday afternoon.Fluke accident. Myself and two co-workers decided to grab a coffee about 11:00am,take a walk,have a BackWoods cigar.We were walking about a block away from the office and chatting among ourselves.We came upon a “beat cop” standing beside a building.My friend says “good day officer.Nice day to be outside”…..He replied ..”Good day gentlemen,it sure is”….No big deal. My friend says to me..”that cop…he is the one that was all over the papers for his comments to those sluts during the skank walk”……I replied…”Are you sure”?…..POSITIVE!…I want to meet this guy! So we eventually turned around to walk back to the office.This time he was on the other side of the street(writing a ticket to a bicyclist).We went over and introduced ourselves.I asked him if he was the cop from the News articles and he said that he was(but not indignantly).I said “I want to shake your hand”.(Which is something for me as I am no fan of Toronto cops).Anyways,I got talking to him about the incident.He said he was “blackballed” and is now relegated to walking the beat.We conversed on the subject and I let him know that “what do expect from TO Police?…the left wing PC thugs!”….He quietly agreed! I asked him if he has ever heard of the Manosphere. He said that “he had not”.I explained some things to him that I was sure would catch his interest.It did! I exchanged cards with him and wrote Dalrock’s Blog address on the back of the card.I am keeping my fingers crossed that he shows up.I have not seen him for a few days.At least he is in the financial district(Bay St. area).I told him that if he needs anything,go into the front of the building to the Security Desk,show my card,Security will call me upstairs(34 & 35 floors cannot be reached by elevator unless you have the ‘magic key’ to take you to those floors) and they will send you up in the elevator.That made my day meeting him! I felt sorry for the poor SOB.He seems like a descent guy and cop…who works in a VERY VERY bad environment(PC’s,Liberals and Fem-Tards)…..Welcome to Toronto!
Artisanal Toad says:
August 21, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Its amazing how few actually see this. You might find Twice Married Always Married interesting:
http://oncemarried.net/twice-married-always-married.html
And thats while happily married, expect the end of your world in a divorce.
@Cail:you sure its not 55 when the slow down is rather than 35?
monkey:
BPDers have empathy, its just wired wrong, like a 2yo screaming that her doll’s dress is the wrong size, they will have extremes of empathy for things, just nothing normal.
@Lyn87,
I hope you know that there is some disagreement to what fornication means – it could be far closer to the use of prostitutes (temple or otherwise) than just fooling around with someone outside of a marriage agreement.
Its abit like the word lust, we think it means sexual desire, its actually means destructive coveting.
Our bibles have been translated to not cause offence particularly in regards to sexual matters. Sometimes you need to take a new look at what it says to understand.
On the subject of whether PD’s can ever resume normailty.
NPD’s can recover, particularly after being involved with a BPD, as they are stripped bare after the experience, this forces them to evaluate their life and get help. And as NPD is a survival mechanism, with the failure of their current existence, the brain no longer holds onto it’s faulty belief system.
BPD’s can learn to control emotions via DBT.
No, that was just an example. I don’t think they all slow down at all, and some get worse. But in general, they seem to slow down, and my guess is that it tends to happen when they stop getting away with it. Two examples from my own experience:
The girl I mentioned before , whom I lived with. After she bailed out on me, she went back to her ex for a while, and was generally pretty crazy for a few more years, broadcasting her drama on Facebook and the like. Then she started seeing a much older guy, and gradually seemed to settle into domesticity. It took a while, but now they’ve been married for a few years, and she seems to have stopped picking fights with family and friends, stopped trying to flirt with me (and presumably other exes), and acts pretty normal. It just so happens that about the time she met this guy was when she really hit the Wall and her looks declined drastically within a year or two. If she drove him away, it’s quite possible that she couldn’t get another guy.
Girl #2 I met several years ago, but never dated, because I’d become wary. For the first few years, she really seemed to be doing better. She was aware of and honest about her issues, and though she had some rough patches, it seemed to be “two steps forward, one step back” most of the time. Then she had a traumatic event — the kind of thing that would make a normal person sad for a few weeks — and it sent her into a near-suicidal tailspin. For the 2-3 years since then, she’s been digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole, driving away all her strongest friends (keeping the superficial ones that won’t challenge her) and generally acting so erratic that everyone now just shrugs and says, “What a shame.” Occasionally she shows a hint that she may want to get out of the hole, but she won’t ask for help or admit that she did any of the digging to get herself there, so nothing happens.
Thing is, girl #2 is still attractive enough that she doesn’t have to shape up yet. People still try to help her, and there are still plenty of guys who will take her out to dinner or more if she lets them. When she hits the Wall, will she suddenly “get better” like girl #1, snag a man, and settle down? I don’t know, but I have my suspicions. The thing about the high-functioning ones is that they can control it when they really have to.
But even if girl #2 shapes up, like girl #1, she’s not going to end up with any of the guys who tried to make it work when she was crazy. She’ll go start fresh with some new guy who wasn’t there to see all that, who won’t have that to hold against her. So even if a guy falls in love with a BPD and thinks, “Well, this is painful, but I’ll stick it out until she gets better,” he’s wrong — if she does get better, she won’t end up with him anyway.
But leave the BPD and age out of it: if you met a girl and wanted to marry her, and she told you she was determined not to get serious about anyone and marry until ten years hence, would you stick around? No reasonable guy would do that; he’d just figure, “Well, that’s a shame, but I guess it’s just not going to work out.” But when her reasons for delaying are emotional, especially something that can be diagnosed as an illness, that brings out the White Knight in many of us, and we don’t want to hold her illness against her. But that leads many guys to sign up for an open-ended stint of hand-holding — when she’ll let you hold her hand — while waiting for her to decide she’s better.
That’s why boundaries are so important with BPDs. You don’t have to choose whether to kick a sick person to the curb or sacrifice yourself for her crazy. You set your own boundaries, make them absolute, and don’t accept any behavior that violates them into your life. It really is like dealing with a toddler: you can reward good behavior, but bad behavior has to be shut down instantly; and you can never waver, or she’ll pick away at your resolve trying to get you to make exceptions. The problem with that is that it’s exhausting, and not what most guys want in a relationship. As someone said above, it can be done by a 100% confident, extremely dominant man, but how many of us are that? How many of us even want to be that?
@Cail, its not like any of these chics come with a manual, I would say 99%+of individuals have no idea at all to what is going on, including the BPD’s themselves.
And as for super confident alphas, well if your alpha, your not going to be suppin on the dregs of humanity are you no matter how attractive they are? If a BPD’s disorder is exposed only very low rent individuals would be interested in them long term, if they have a choice in the matter.
An Alpha won’t stick around some chic who would make his life hell. That is not what an Alpha is about.
Minesweeper, exactly. The kind of man who could handle a BPD normally wouldn’t get into a relationship with her. That advice would be more for men for whom simply removing them from your life isn’t an option: a father dealing with a daughter who was taken away as a little girl by divorce and has now been sent to him because her mother couldn’t handle her anymore, for instance. Or your boss hires one to work in your office, and you’re trying to keep her from destroying the place and getting you fired — that kind of thing.
It is noticeable that you don’t tend to get BPD males, at least if you do they are not, being men, able to bask in endless female indulgence. Men who are manic depressive (the old term) have to stew in their own juice when low and tend to be avoided when high.
It does seem to be the case that oft times a crazy girl meets an older man and that tends to settle her. For those of us stuck with youthful good looks that man won’t be with us.
Sorry, this is going to be long – lots of unpacking to do since I was here yesterday.
_______________________________
@ Monkeywerks,
Wow, that’s a lot of text. Let me address some of it:
Fist of all, it would be more accurate to say that the Bible defines sexual immorality broadly rather than vaguely – that CERTAINLY includes what we now call fornication. And since men (and women) are required to abstain from it, men must be virgins upon their first marriages as well. There is absolutely NO way around that. We can discuss whether male or female promiscuity generally has greater temporal consequences, but to pretend that male promiscuity is somehow “okay” is nonsense, and you know it.
The entire Bible is was written in languages that nobody speaks any more. Every single word in whatever version you use is the result of the translators looking up the meaning of those words from dead languages. What’s your point? The scriptures that require men to be virgins (you can’t NOT be one if you have avoided fornication all your life), stand on their own in plain language. I quoted nine of them yesterday.
Reason number 295,603 why people should refrain from making doctrinal statements in the absence of unambiguous scripture. “Flee fornication” does not fall into that category – it is utterly unambiguous.
There is no shortage of unsuitable women in churches. There is also no shortage of unsuitable men in churches. There are also suitable men and women, and there have always been wolves in sheep’s clothing. There is also the matter of discernment. Nobody is telling you that you HAVE to marry anybody. And yep, if you chose to go that route you risk losing in the temporal sense… but losing your integrity? Nope: the only way to lose your integrity is for you to give it away.
See Matthew Chapter 19. This really isn’t all that complicated.
Again, building doctrines outside of scripture is hazardous, and the fact that Catholics have been doing it since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th Century doesn’t make it okay. Annulments are bogus – period. Matthew 19 needs no papal “help.” Why bring it up?
Just because the Bible doesn’t spell out everything – and believers are to be guided by the Holy Spirit – does not mean that there are no hard rules. There are plenty of them… “Flee fornication,” for example.
Faith does not require anything that God does not supply (Romans 12:3). I’m a big fan of reason, study, and verification: I have taught apologetics – but those things buttress faith, they are not foundational to it. And whenever run across anything that conflicts with Biblical Christianity, it’s the other thing that is defective – even if that thing is something from the “red pill.” The “red pill” can be useful, but don’t make an idol of it or put it above the word of God
Then you have consciously chosen illicit sex over righteousness. That’s your choice, since God gives us free will, but don’t pretend that you know something that God doesn’t know, and don’t be surprised when it doesn’t work out well.
If you don’t want to recommend marriage, then don’t. I’m no fan of the legalities we have now, either, but understand this: No marriage equals no sex. And if you’re so concerned about hypocrites, you might start with men who think “Flee fornication” applies to women more than to men. Something tells me you won’t have to leave your room to find a guy like that.
It’s not “some guy” saying words, it is GOD who requires marriage for sex, and GOD who laid out the obligations and incentives. Take it up with Him if you think He’s wrong. And just because you don’t see anything wrong with fornication doesn’t make it okay. The act that you describe with the weasel-words “make love” is F-O-R-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N, and it is forbidden.
I have already addressed this several times up-thread, please stop asking questions I have already answered. God established marriage, and the state has nothing to do with it. Also, marriage is not a “custom” – it is an institution established by God in the Garden of Eden, and endorsed by Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
So-called “men of conscience” who defy God’s word will “follow their hearts” straight to Hell. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “traditional conservatives,” but since you include “people whose morality is dictated by the word of God, then you’re wrong to slam them. God is always right, and whenever you find yourself in disagreement, it is you who need to adjust.
Artisanal Toad says:
August 21, 2014 at 7:32 pm
monkeywerks says:
August 21, 2014 at 10:50 pm
AT and MW,
Pretty much agree with your comments above,
which I know is a minority viewpoint around here,
but that’s okay.
Off-topic, perhaps, but FWIW, I posted this yesterday on another thread.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/#comment-137461
“@Opus says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:25 am
It is noticeable that you don’t tend to get BPD males, at least if you do they are not, being men, able to bask in endless female indulgence. Men who are manic depressive (the old term) have to stew in their own juice when low and tend to be avoided when high.
It does seem to be the case that oft times a crazy girl meets an older man and that tends to settle her. ”
I know a couple of a couple of BPD males, both unstable emotionally (as usual) with drug\alcohol addictions , BPD isn’t the old name for manic depressives, the old name for BPD was “Partial Insanity”, manic depressives are now BiPolar.
What I have seen is that BPD females will marry a (much) older man sometimes from another country – she will move there. They go much older as they need that stability (he has less options to leg) plus a much older guy is far more likely to give latitude to a much younger sexier female.
Also the switch country trick, this is done as it hides the crazy i.e. she’s not so crazy she is just from xyz and the culture is so different plus has a different native language so you only get to hear what she translates! Plus it erases her past also which is important for BPD’s as they need to bury the past always, as its usually a complete disaster and no-one would accept them if they knew them from before.
They are chameleons and because they lack a personality adapt well to new environments and languages. Merely absorbing and reflecting what is around them, they also know that obtains immediate acceptance.
Which is always a worry when you marry from abroad (no matter how hot they are) as its far more difficult to understand their personality, plus you don’t get to interview her long time friends or understand what her family chatting away is all about.
Lyn87 is right. Just pay for hookers and pray for forgiveness. It’s more moral than unsatisfied marriages and divorce.
Lyn87 is right. Just pay for hookers and pray for forgiveness. It’s more moral than unsatisfied marriages and divorce.
For the record, that’s not what I said at all – don’t go to hookers and then you won’t have to pray for forgiveness for going to hookers.
Unfortunately, every married man has to pray for forgiveness for adultery whenever their dick moves from the sight of another woman. We’re all sinners in one sense or another.
Lyn87 is correct. I don’t see why non-Christian men are having a problem with Christian men trying to live a holy life. Jesus never promised us a Christian life would be problem free, in fact just the opposite.
Romans 3:23 ESV
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Minesweeper:
This took a whole five seconds to find in a web search:
Why do people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) tend to feel better as they get older? What is the relationship between BPD and age?…
http://bpd.about.com/od/faqs/f/whydecline.htm
Post a peer reviewed journal article that supports this novel treatment model.
Were you locked up in a mental hospital with them? The prevalence of these disorders is quite limited. The chances of knowing all these people with different diagnoses, as you claim to do, is almost impossible, outside an inpatient facility.
I think a lot of you guys are casually diagnosing the assholes or quirky people in your lives with a lot of medical terms you don’t even understand. By definition, a personality disorder makes a person’s life pretty much unmanageable. Everyone has some atypical psychic artifacts (a/k/a a personality). The fact that you don’t like someone doesn’t mean they are insane.
Best, Boxer
“@Phillyastro says:
August 22, 2014 at 10:11 am
Unfortunately, every married man has to pray for forgiveness for adultery whenever their dick moves from the sight of another woman. ”
lol
Indeed, a set of righteousness blinkers should be fitted to each male following baptism.. Along with 2 sizes too small c0ck ring when out-with of the presence of his new owner following the ceremony of heavenly matrimony.
You joke about holiness and righteousness at your own peril. God is not mocked. We all will reap what we sow.
You’re missing the point of Matthew 5: 27-28. It reads:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Jesus was pointing out that we all have a sin nature, not that an involuntary response to physical beauty was literal adultery, and since we have a sin nature we cannot be redeemed by following the law – salvation by works. If He meant that lust was literally adultery (in the “justification for divorce” sense), he would have left out the last three words and the scripture would have read:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her.”
I John 3:5 also equates hatred with murder, in the sense that it is murder in the heart. Most everyone understands that this is figurative (although still sufficient for damnation), but for some reason a lot of people want to take the “lust” reference literally.
____________________________________
It’s that sort of thinking that led to a situation I found myself asked to comment on by a pastor I used to know. He said that a woman asked him for his advice (he always counseled women with his wife present). Her problem was that her husband used to hang out in bars a lot. She had no indication that he was committing adultery, but wondered if she would be justified in divorcing him. The pastor’s response was that loose women hang out in bars, and even if he didn’t commit actual adultery, it was probable that he had felt lust for some of them, and because of Matthew 5: 27-28, he was therefore guilty of adultery and thus she was justified in initiating divorce because of Matthew 19.
THAT was the thread upon which he hung his pastoral advice to a woman in his congregation to detonate her marriage.
@Lyn87 – I agree with your interpretation completely. Nothing would make sense if we were all literal murderers and adulterers. Thus, I understand why you’d be upset at the pastor you knew.
I don’t mean to mock anyone’s Christian marriage here. I just think that marriage is so far removed from the responsibility that marriage meant 2000 years ago that it’s difficult to match up the words of St. Paul and others to the institution today. Both he and the OT mention you shouldn’t marry a harlot. But, how can any man in the U.S. avoid that? Making everyone in the country celebate won’t help.
Congratulations, you still havn’t delivered the previous article that I requested on pubMed. If you have read the previous comments, even though there seems to be some online web references, not many are buying that, nor does the DSM seem to mention it.
Now obviously I will have to defer to your superiour experience. Which I don’t think you have any, just academic knowledge. Care to identify your field reports ? You have live examples of a regression ?
Dr T Palmer, stated this recently on AVFM going mental (and good the vids are too), also I have seen this once in practice (its rare). Of course if you wish me to setup a double blind study on this – I will need some funding, and some blindfolds.
Now we understand one another.
Bit of an arragant statement no ? Considering the prevalence in the population of PD’s ranges from 10%-20%.
Maybe come down from your ivory tower that you live in, hit ground level, you will soon discover them, I’ll give you a hint – CEO’s, politicians, drunken bums…
@Monkeywerks
I do agree that the bible states that sex was only sanctified in a marriage. The problem is that only men, such as the Christians ones here, play by such rules. As we know, or should know by now, most women, Christians included, will follow their tingles and modify their morality as necessary to justify whatever action they decide… Now the quandary. When men are negatively affected by their wives nuking their families, cheating, withholding sex, etc., where does our needs come into play?
If you start at the beginning, God said that it’s not good for man to be alone. Enter sin… the fall… and the curse of Genesis 3:16. Biblically, the curse of Genesis 3:16 is still in effect and it didn’t go away just because she got saved. ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ The word that’s translated as desire is only used in two other places in the Bible. In Genesis 4:7, ‘sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’ In the Song of Songs 7:10, ‘I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.’ Bible scholars have long argued about how the word desire in Genesis 3:16 should be understood- as a desire to control such as used in Genesis 4:7, or as a possessive sexual desire as in the Song of Songs. I think the answer is that it isn’t an either/or proposition, it’s both. I think the meaning of Genesis 3:16 should be understood in this way:”
Monkeywerks said “You cannot play a game when only one side is playing by the rules. So you choose to either play as dirty as your opponent or choose not to play at all.”
The problem, as I pointed out, is the church invaded the family and imposed a bunch of rules that God never imposed. Why they did it is irrelevant in the same way the rules are irrelevant: This did not proceed from God, therefore it’s illegitimate. We’re in the same boat in a lot of ways, but the point is if your wife (and if she’s a believer and you’re a believer, she’s still your wife) separated herself from you she’s to stay single or be reconciled to you. You, however, are not required to stay celibate. You can legitimately take another wife or a concubine. She, on the other hand, cannot legitimately re-marry.
Monkeywerks said ” From what I understand Catholicism prohibits certain sexual acts even if done in marriage like masturbation, pulling out, anal and oral. The Baptists have an attitude of anything goes, between husband and wife. Which is right?
What does the Bible actually say? I wrote an essay about this, The Bright Red Line. I had a great deal of curiosity about why the Bible has only two restrictions on the marital bed (no sex during menstruation and no sex for 40 or 80 days following childbirth, depending on whether it’s a boy or girl) but the ancient church imposed a lot of rules. Brundage’s book and the work of other historians is quite enlightening in this area.
Monkeywerks said “Let’s look at divorce and remarriage. Under what circumstances a man or women can even remarry is a hot potato item debated among Christians and denominations.
Let’s reduce this to its essence. God created marriage as a covenant entity (meaning God is a party to the marriage), gave it a mission (Genesis 1:28) and gave them His rules for marriage (For Christians, the major passages are Ephesians 5, 1st Corinthians 7 and 1st Peter 3). One guy altered things, his name was Moses, but I already discussed that. The problem we have is with the invasion of the family, by the church, as a means to gain power over the nobility in the middle ages and the tremendous effect that had over the culture that carried over into today.
As Rollo has stated, game has evolved and our understanding of socio-sexual dynamics is much greater than that of previous generations. Yet, those same observations lead us straight back to the Bible. Spinning plates and dread game? The Bible calls that polygyny and God regulated it. Polygyny isn’t forbidden anywhere in the Bible. Women’s hypergamy? God said the daughters were to be under the absolute authority of their father and when they married they passed to the absolute authority of their husbands. I don’t want to open the “do women have agency” can of worms, I’m just pointing out what the Bible actually says. Did you know there are more verses about corporal punishment of adults than children, and they aren’t gender specific? I’ve yet to have a white knight explain why the husband, commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church, doesn’t have the authority to spank her given Revelation 3:19 (Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent).
The church, for political reasons, invaded the family, imposed regulations God never did, called that which God never had a problem with sin and over time robbed the husband of the ability to be the dominate masculine man his wife needs. Women achieved sufferage and the rest is history. Feminism invaded the church and now we have “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” being taught, which causes the wives to seethe with contempt for their husbands. It’s all about transferring power from men to women.
Monkeywerks said “There are no hard rules. The bible is wrought with areas that actually do leave quite a bit of room for different interpretations depending on your starting view point, cultural upbringing, premise and overall objectives.
Wrong. There are hard rules. “A wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.” 1st Cor. 7:39. “Wives submit to your husband as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” Ephesians 5:22-23. If a man wants more than one wife, God gave his rules. Of course, women don’t like this, but God said “Shall the pot speak back to the potter?” So, they try to redefine what things mean. The preposterous argument that Ephesians 5:21 is the “context” for what follows was shot down by God in Numbers 16, but nobody studies their Bible any more. The point is that the hard rules are boundaries, the rest is left up to the individuals.
Monkeywerks said “I have to conclude that biblical sexual morality is unworkable in our current environment and system because only one gender (primarily men) seems to actually follow it.”
No, I have to disagree with you. The only marriage that truly tames feminism in this environment and offers protection from the interference of the state is a polygynous marriage. The state cannot recognize it as a marriage and with a tightly written cohabitation contract the state would have a very difficult time dealing with it, especially if it had a well-written disciplinary clause. With multiple income earners the women would have a higher standard of living they’d otherwise be able to obtain, the competition for the husband’s attention would make him more dominant and they can get their emotional needs met from each other (allows the husband to stay aloof). With multiple wives there’s no way he suffers from sexual starvation. It’s all about arranging the incentives in favor of staying in than getting out of the marriage.
The problem is that after a certain age, most all of the desirable women in the church are legally divorced from a believing husband (c.f. 1st Cor. 7:10) but as far as God’s concerned they’re still married (c.f. Matthew 5:31-32) because God won’t accept an illegitimate divorce. Discernment is necessary more so than ever today. Widows are still a good bet, but be careful with the never-marrieds.
“@JDG says:
August 22, 2014 at 10:35 am
You joke about holiness and righteousness at your own peril. God is not mocked. We all will reap what we sow.”
Was that sent to me ? little old me? Who is mocking God here, I would never do that and anyway in my experience with him he has a great sense of humour (where do you think we get if from ?).
And we do reap what we sow unfortunately and we also reap what others sow in our lives, even generationally, I’m sure Boxer could pop in here being a lapsed Mormon and all. They are big on the generation thing, and I think that is true as well, I can trace alot of dysfunction back several generations and see where the root occurred.
Numbers 14:18.
Don’t judge a joke that was made to others as an insult against God. Now you are reading far too much into this, as I suspect you also are doing the same with scripture. And don’t judge a joke I make against you as an insult against God, unless you are one and the same of course.
Do not judge or you will be judged.
Dear Minesweeper:
What page in DSM IV or DSM V are you reading? I have access to both. I’ll explain whatever you’re confused about, if you’d like.
From where do you get this strange statistic? I’m sure you’ll post a credible source, right after you post the peer reviewed journal articles supporting all your other tenuous contentions… Real soon now.
Regards, Boxer
I think part of the problem is that most people in the US are fine with the average female being a sexually empowered slut. Those of us that are not down with that, and still want to marry, must either forget about what we want and forego marriage (celibacy for Christians), marry a slut (not an option for many of us), expat, or vet very carefully (and prayerfully for Christians).
With one exception, I can not remember one single woman before I did marry whom I would consider marriage material that was not already married (and there were few of those). There was one woman who I would have married, but her father would not consent to our marriage because I was not a virgin (she was), and she would not disobey her father (nor I in this).
I did eventually encounter an available woman whom I considered wife material, but not in the US.
Dear Boxer,
I did answer your previous statements, now where is that article ?
I did ask in a previous message (keep up) can you post a web link to the DSM IV or V that you can reference online showing BPD regression. Shouldn’t be too hard nowadays. Failing that a pic of your book will do, image upload sites abound.
If you have the full DSM in front of you, then since it is so convenient why don’t you add up the PD’s and tell us all the prevalence.
Where else – the font of all knowledge, the fountain of youth and the key to everlasting existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#Epidemiology
Wiki’s upper scale(apprx 10%) to Dr T. Palmers (recently stated max) of 20% that she see’s. But then she is probably biased in dealing with male clients who’s ex’s are head cases.
I cannot verify the upper figure myself, it was just a range after all. Do I need to set up a double blind study again ?
Best MS
Minesweeper:
Wikipedia is a good place to start, but it doesn’t help much in cases like these. What one needs, to support these sweeping declarations, are peer-reviewed sources. Peer-review is everything, you know? Otherwise, we’re living in a world where we make important decisions on the basis of “four out of five dentists recommend…”
Who is “Dr. T Palmers” anyway, and why would you take him or her seriously? My sister got her MD a few years ago. I love my little sister, but I laugh thinking about all the silly things she believes. Being a “Doctor” (assuming “Dr.” isn’t the given name of Mr/Ms Palmers) doesn’t mean you’re not immune from silly ideas. Hence peer review.
Best, Boxer
And don’t judge a joke I make against you as an insult against God, unless you are one and the same of course.
If you made a joke against me, I don’t see it. Of course that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Could you point it out to me?
Do not judge or you will be judged.
We all have to judge.
I think you are referring to this:
Matthew 7:1 ESV
“Judge not, that you be not judged.
But context is critical:
John 7:24 ESV
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
1 Corinthians 2:15 ESV
The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
Out of context, a verse can be used to say anything.
Still, I wasn’t judging anyone (as the word is used in Matthew). I was warning those who make light of God’s word that there will be recompense (when God judges them – in the way you are using the term).
My statement was quite correct and still stands.
@Lyn87
1) If a man is married and goes to court for custody of his childen against the wife divorcing him, he will likely have to pay her legal bills as well as his own. If they are not married, she will have to pay all her own legal bills. Facing that reality, she may just give up and let him have the kids. I think I read an example of the latter in the comments of this blog a year or so ago.
2) Not saying I think sex outside of marriage is acceptable in some cases, but pushing for a better argument on fornication. Your arguments sound a lot like a circular reasoning fallacy. I agree that fornication is a sin and the Bible confirms that. However, what exactly does the Bible define as fornication. There is a list in Leviticus which does not mention two unwed/unbetrothed individuals, unless between certain family relatives. It does mention bestiality. You mentioned whore/whoredom translations (similar to Paul’s statement about uniting with a prostitute). And the vague term “sexual immorality”. To me, your statements sound a lot like “All sex between two unmarried people is sinful because fornication is a sin. Fornication means sexual immorality. Therefore, all sex between two unmarried people is sinful.” There is an assumption that sexual immorality includes ALL sex between unmarried persons. But I do not recall reading any Bible verses that provide that definition. If able, please list them.
Dear Boxer,
You obviously have access to p2p research, those without have to make do with with inferior material. Lets not pretend that over time a moderate amount of p2p material has been found to be crap (particularly involving medical drugs). It’s not the Holy Grail. It tends to re-enforce bias, rather than expand our horizons.
For instance I became seriously ill through a benign medical treatment, but but large numbers of p2p studies conducted stated no evidence of harm….well b0ll0cks, they couldn’t find their arse with their elbow unfortunately. So yeah I’m living proof that a huge amount of it is sh1t. If I was only the 1 in a billion or say an internal cascade failure has occurred to cause this, but i’m not and I know many who are affected.
But I guess if you lack the experience of those with PD’s (consider yourself blessed), well then you can learn from us. Ask away, we will educate you – FOC, we paid upfront with our lives.
As for Dr T.P. see below and also avoiceformen.
http://www.shrink4men.com/
Where have you been ? They just had the world’s 1st MRA conf and she was a speaker.
Also have you ever done a myers briggs test ? I would be interested to know your type as you remind me of a close friend, you could be one and the same apart from the ex Mormon credentials.
Best MS
Dear Minesweeper:
You have access to it too, as I have posted it for you, repeatedly, for two days now, in this thread. You just didn’t read or pay attention to it.
Is this the “Dr. T. Palmer” you mentioned earlier? Her name is Tara Palmatier, and she’s not an MD. Hence she isn’t authorized to diagnose anyone with any of these disorders you claim that she talks about. Not that I would accuse her of any such thing. I can dispense with the notion that you can paraphrase her with some degree of accuracy, since you don’t even know her name.
Regards, Boxer
@JDG
You stated : “You joke about holiness and righteousness at your own peril. God is not mocked. ”
Well unless you were just making a general statement that wasn’t directed towards me in any way – yes ?
You can judge for your own benefit, but passing judgement on others will lead to your own judgement. Now granted I can understand you being offended by my joke, that is different. If God is offended he will surely let me know. I have worked out my salvation with fear and trembling, have been at that stage with him where I felt I was being crushed on all sides and close to death.
So yeah I know what he can do.
Your offence does not mean Gods.
Dear jsr:
πορνεία is an interesting word. In its classical context, it used to just mean something like street prostitution. there’s an important distinction in Classical Antiquity between πορνεία and ἑταῖραι, who were something like Japanese Geishas. The latter were authorized prostitutes who were well educated, regulated, and often worked at various temples of Aphrodite and Eros. The former were more like modern street prostitutes, who will take you in a back alley for a couple of rocks of crack.
By biblical times, the lexical range of the word seems to have broadened considerably. Slumming it with street hookers is an easy analogy to blasphemy and idolatry, in that it signifies the departure from civilized behavior in favor of a life of general debauchery. Strong’s suggests (to my uneducated ass) that Biblical “fornication” includes more than banging sluts. It’s a psychological shift away from striving for higher things, into looking for cheap thrills, even if those thrills don’t necessarily include sexual intercourse.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm
This lines up well with Lyn87’s exegesis above, where he explains the “adultery in the heart” quote that radfem Christians like to quote when divorcing their husbands.
I hope this has been helpful. Thoughts?
Best, Boxer
Dear Boxer says:
“August 22, 2014 at 12:11 pm
You have access to it too, as I have posted it for you, repeatedly, for two days now, in this thread. You just didn’t read or pay attention to it.”
I have the link, I do not have credentials to download the document, I tried 2 days ago when you 1st posted it, it won’t allow me to download with out a user account that can only be obtained once you have published your own research.
Unless I read it wrong – which is a possibility, there are several research sites, sometimes I can get access, sometimes not, maybe you can fill me in on this.
Well, she is known as Dr T, in the sphere, no need to disregard her because she didn’t hit your credential bar. I think she can diagnose – as can anyone, (if you have a runny nose – can I not tell you have a runny nose), probably not prescribe meds though.
I don’t really feel this conversation is productive, I’ve tried to explain every point and give examples but you don’t seem to address my questions nor move towards any points that I bring up. If you want to honestly question our experience and gain from that then I will be happy to help.
But you seem to be taking the tact of : not a MD ? then shut the hell up foolish oaf.
Best MS
So, feminists want marriage?
From what I remember πορνεία is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word zanah. The Hebrew does mean sexual immorality, but primarily also means adultery.
I always assumed “fornication” had a rape or child molesting connotation to it when refering to the unmarried. If you look at the early Irish penitentials, the hardest penalties were given for those who “seduced virgins”, not simple intercourse.
St. Paul said you shouldn’t “unite” with a harlot, which can mean marrying one. So unless you haven’t married a virgin or widow, aren’t you going against the words of Paul?
Minesweeper
Now granted I can understand you being offended by my joke, that is different. If God is offended he will surely let me know.
It really doesn’t matter if I am offended or not. I am nothing. People say a great many things here that I find distasteful and offensive, and I hold my tongue.
My concern in this is for those who claim to know God, yet mock His teachings. God knows our minds and our hearts, and we will be held accountable for every word we utter.
I am glad to hear that you have worked out your salvation and have the fear of the Lord.
@MarcusD says:
“August 22, 2014 at 12:39 pm
So, feminists want marriage?”
That is truly dreadful, ahh the future that awaits us all.
There is no longer any more “till death do us part or, for better or for worse” in modern marriage. None, zilch, zip. [False – slightly more than half of all legally-married couples stay married for life.] For the moralists how do you deal with that? [By denying it, since it’s not true.]
Lyn – a 50% success rate does not make my point wrong.
Most single church men are much more sexually pure than their opposite numbers. It’s the beta conditioning and man up crap and all. A lot of these single guys in church can’t get laid if they wanted too and the church girls think they are dorks. So no, the rate of young men and women marrying in church is very low and seems to happen in any number in only certain environments and subcultures. This has been covered and substantiated ad nauseum. So no there are not HUGE numbers of available women for good Christian men to marry. I believe that men outnumber these good women by a significant margin. So what you are saying is that these men should live a life of quiet desperation. Cool.
I have watched successful and failed couples for all of my life because my parent failed and I ended up failing. The couples who did not believe in all of this Christian stuff and who did not go to church were much happier overall and more successful (still married) that the ones that did. That led me to see the problem. It’s the belief system that failed. Now the question is why is that?
“Faith does not require anything that God does not supply “
God gave me my mind so I may question all that I see and hear.
Broadly = Vaguely. With a broad brush many an action is covered. It’s that actions are added and subtracted as per the (oftentimes) whims and cultural indoctrination of the proponent.
I never mentioned male promiscuity, ONS, banging sluts, etc. I have consistently questioned about a man in love with a woman who loves him having sex in a committed relationship without marriage because marriage for men sucks. Your saying I will go to hell because I refuse to get involved in a state run scheme that has, get this, over a 70% rate of failure. The church has nothing to do with modern marriage. It’s just the building where the paper gets signed. That is about how much the church has to do with modern marriage.
As for hard rules, our divorce culture conflicts with the bibles instructions, as does are marriage culture, yet you instruct that we should follow the bible when there is no foundation to enforce those beliefs, and you yet still call state sanctioned marriage biblical or a Christian institution. That’s hypocritical and it’s wrong. Our divorce and marriage culture are tied together, inseparable.
As for the divorce/remarriage issue it is hotly debated by all the denominations. Who is right? I have my own opinion about it but what I believe is not the issue. The issue is I could be wrong or the other camp is wrong. Or we are both wrong. The point is that I think a lot of Christian teaching may need a second look in light of what is pragmatic, especially in regards to sex and relationships.
I get it; sex outside of marriage is unbiblical and wrong from the Christian POV. I have always known this. This does not need to be debated any more. I believe the typical Christian POV is just unworkable and unreasonable. I realize where my own beliefs are in conflict with one another and my overall view of morality. I am working on that as I pointed out.
Lastly, you avoided my admonition about all of the conflicts that spew from human mouths about what fornication is, broadly of course. You also stand on the opinion that I should risk all of my temporal happiness on oft debated scriptural interpretations and Christian doctrines.
This is why I will never attend another church and I refuse to promote marriage and marriage to Christian women. I also do not condemn men from having sex outside of marriage. Celibacy is unnatural and unhealthy.
jsr asks,
There is an assumption that sexual immorality includes ALL sex between unmarried persons. But I do not recall reading any Bible verses that provide that definition. If able, please list them.
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21. Also, verses 28-29 of the same chapter lay out the very real consequences for a man that has sex with an unmarried woman. He is considered to have committed an offense against the girl’s father (has to pay him the bride-price for a virgin even though she isn’t one) and against her (he’s not allowed to divorce her for any reason – ever).
This really isn’t all that complicated. But I’ll provide definitions from a couple of Bible dictionaries anyway – with the caveat that they aren’t scripture. In any case, the Bible clearly speaks against it, and nowhere does it condone it.
Nelson New Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines Fornication as: Sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage. The technical distinction between fornication and adultery is that adultery involves married persons while fornication involves at least one person who is unmarried. But the New Testament often uses the term in a general sense for any unchastity.
Harper’s Bible Dictionary defines Fornication as: Any type of illicit sexual activity. Included in the realm of sexual misconduct in the OT are seduction, rape, sodomy, beastiality, certain forms of incest, prostitution (male or female), and homosexual relations. The specific sin of adultery, related to marriage, was considered more serious than the others, however, so that a special set of laws governed it. In the NT, almost any form of sexual misconduct (that is, sexual activity outside the marriage relationship) could be designated as fornication or “immorality”
Again, this really isn’t all that complicated unless someone is looking for an excuse to do it. I’m reminded of a certain “slick” politician who kept questioning what the meaning of the word “is” is. Is the meaning of “Flee fornication” really that hard to understand, especially since it takes (at least) two to tango?
Mustard – good catch and it’s a 100% accurate assessment. The church creates sexual dysfunction in the very women who save their virginity until marriage. It’s does this in men also by teaching them to be pussies and led by their wives. This makes men afraid to teach their wives what they want and need in bed. Their wives see every part of sex as dirty and then they feel shame so they stop having sex. This leads to the denial of sex (which was lame anyway) and porn use and divorce and all of this other crap.
So where is the problem? It’s the church and Christian doctrine in general that makes sex bad and shameful over all.
Pagans do not have these problems (as much anyway) and their sex lives are far more interesting which leads to better bonding to their spouses or partners.
Most marriage problems could be solved with good sex between husbands and wives. That is one reason the entire ‘sphere exists is because of the problems in relationships witch could all be solved by a better attitude about how we use our damn genitals.
Dear Minesweeper:
This is an excellent example of the common misconception around here. A runny nose isn’t a disease. It’s a symptom, and further tests are indicated to figure out the cause. You don’t want to give someone decongestants, if they have a raging sinus infection that will turn into encephalitis without antibiotics.
These personality disorders have specific criteria to be met. You (and not just you, mind you) seem to think a few symptoms is an obvious diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, or whatever. In fact, it’s a medical term, and these things need to be diagnosed by a team of medical professionals.
A Ph.D. (Ed.D., Psy.D.) just means you’ve done some research and kissed some ass. The clinician in question probably collaborates with MDs in her practice, and helps treat these people once they’re diagnosed. Personality disorders display social and emotional factors that someone like “Dr. T.” is trained to help with.
The people you’re labeling as “Borderline” and “Antisocial”, etc. are more likely just assholes. They have some of the symptoms of the personality disorders, but they’re really motivated by angst, malice, or irresponsibility rather than a legitimate psychiatric disorder. Many women are unpleasant bitches, and they shouldn’t be given the pass of claiming “I’m medically handicapped” when it’s more appropriate to just call them what they are, and hold them accountable.
OK. Take Care.
Boxer
MarcusD – Maybe there is a plan to eliminate the Swiss gene pool altogether.
So where is the problem? It’s the church and Christian doctrine in general that makes sex bad and shameful over all.
No, it is people teaching false doctrines in the name of God. Christian doctrine in general makes for strong and moral families and societies. What you are stating is as false as what the churchians are teaching.
JDG : Thank you for your concern. I won’t mock his teaching ever, I will mock feminism, churchianity and wrong or far too rigid teachings.
Wrong teachings can do far more damage than good and place heavy burdens on those unable to carry them. Woe to those who teach falsehood – which seems to occur quite alot.
Indeed we will be help accountable for every careless word. And I will admit, my language and sense of humor is not what it was, for better or worse.
@JDG
I don’t believe most men are honestly not bothered by marrying a slut. Christian men are fortunate in the sense that they have theological doctrine to site for reasons why they shouldn’t marry a slut. Non-Christian men just have their gut reaction. This reaction could be naturally hardwired into our brains, or it could perhaps be a vestige of Western enculturation. Either way, the reaction exists.
It isn’t so much that men are fine with and down-to-marry sexually empowered sluts but that they see no viable alternatives. The strategies you list are valid but really how many men would agree to a life of celibacy, or even to moving overseas? Vetting carefully may turn up no results at all. So, out of desperation men are manning up to marry those sluts!
I found a non-slutty woman to marry. But the process was as much dumb luck as vetting. There was probably higher odds of me not finding her and having a menagerie of less-marriageable women to chose from.
It’s amazing how many women are ruled out after three qualifiers:
1- Low n count
2- Not mentally ill
3- Prioritizes having children/family
Monkeywerks continues to lie about my position:
That is exactly the opposite of what I wrote in this thread in the following posts:
August 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm
August 19, 2014 at 3:56 pm
August 19, 2014 at 5:10 pm
August 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm
August 22, 2014 at 8:36 am
STOP LYING ABOUT MY POSITION. Is that really too much to ask?
And by the way, you wrote the following:
Uhmmm… Yeah, it does make your point wrong. Most marriages last until one spouse dies. You said that “til death do us par” doesn’t exist. Not only is your statement wrong in absolute terms – it is wrong most of the time.
The rest of your walls of text are mostly rationalizations for the fornication you want permission to commit. I’m done trying to convince you otherwise. You’re a grown man: if you want to get your freak on, go right ahead. But don’t say you weren’t warned.
http://libertyviral.com/woman-downloads-child-porn-to-frame-her-husband/#
I meant to mention that I did no research to see if the story is true or not..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jury-woman-downloaded-child-porn-frame-husband-25068424
Yep, here is a more “reputable” news source.
The Brass Cat –
Non-Christian men just have their gut reaction.
Yes I agree in a universal moral sense. I think that this is what Paul is referring to in Romans 2:
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
The reason I think that most people are fine with sluttery is because if they weren’t, they would do something about it. What I see instead is folks making excuses as to why we are stuck with sluttery (present company excluded), folks arguing to take advantage of sluttery (and thus contributing to the problem of sluttery), and folks outright in favor of sluttery (because women need their ‘sexual freedom ie: sluttery’).
Laws are passed to encourage sluttery, and few people dare speak against it. When someone dares speak against it, the opponents of sluttery are overwhelmed by a tsunami of tirades from the “you can’t judge her” camp.
I’m sorry to be the one to repeat this, but if enough men wanted feminism (and by extension sluttery) to end, it would disappear within a month, probably in a week, maybe overnight. But we all know this already. I’m just ranting here.
It’s amazing how many women are ruled out after three qualifiers:
1- Low n count
2- Not mentally ill
3- Prioritizes having children/family
Sad but true. My list ruled out even more.
@Dalrock
Why did the links on my last comment get deleted? (at 11:02 AM) Has something changed?
@JDG
A lot of men are in complete denial, especially the middle age and older men. My father, who doesn’t use the internet, was completely divorce raped (including a trumped up domestic violence arrest!) and he still doesn’t understand the scope and depth of the systemic problems in the justice system. He sees everything that happened to him as an isolated incident. So it’s hopeless trying to convince him that young women today behave any differently than in the 1950s/1960s… they just dress differently and go to college more. And it’s always the man’s fault, you see (except in his divorce).
The young men of today are brainwashed in Feminist training camp for 12 years, then go to college for more reinforcement. Most of them become manginas, white knights, and pedastalizes. They’ll fight for women’s right to be sexually uninhibited because they’re trained to do so, like Pavlov’s dogs. But this is only suppression of their true feelings… and they have their own rationalization hamsters. I’m sure when their “free-spirited” girlfriend admits to having slept with only 10 other men (not counting oral) it turns their stomachs, then their training kicks in to suppress those feelings. The hamster runs wild after feeding on 12+ years of Feminist propaganda!
And of course many men are desperate and are willing to swallow their pride and “man up.” They are condoning sluttery even though, if they are being honest, they don’t like it. Then there are those who take advantage of it, as you mentioned. I think of pickup arts as slut enablers.
But here’s me making excuses about why we’re stuck with it for now:
I’m sure many men would like to see the end of Feminism but are afraid to stick their neck out and risk losing their head. How many are really willing to risk their careers (HR departments are notoriously feminized) to fight for change? The reality for men is quite often: “doing something about it” = losing his job = not being able to take care of his family. This is going to change (slowly) as more men become aware that they aren’t alone in their opinions.
@Lyn87
Deuteronomy 22 is primarily about married or engaged people, not truly single ones. Verses 28-29 are about rape.
“This really isn’t all that complicated. But I’ll provide definitions from a couple of Bible dictionaries anyway – with the caveat that they aren’t scripture. In any case, the Bible clearly speaks against it, and nowhere does it condone it.”
If it’s not complicated and the Bible is clear, why did you choose to cite dictionaries and inapplicable Bible verses?
It appears you are suffering from etymological, appeal to common sense and ad hominem fallacies. I expect someone with the IQ level you have claimed to do better.
jsr and others of similar though,
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? – Mark 18: 8a
There is simply no way to read the passage I noted in Deuteronomy and come away with the idea that sex outside of marriage is ever okay. By your logic, any argument I make is circular in the sense that all definitions are circular – a dictionary defines words with other words, which are themselves defined elsewhere in the same dictionary… therefore, all explanations that rely on definitions are tainted by the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. Nothing means anything.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Everyone who’s not searching for a loophole knows that fornication includes screwing sluts – let’s not mince words here: that IS what we’re talking about – and that fornication is a sin. Therefore…
I’m done with this. I’ll just repeat what I wrote to monkeywerks:
You’re a grown man: if you want to get your freak on, go right ahead. But don’t say you weren’t warned.
Lyn87 – Lets get real. Marriage without a church and pastor/priest is just cohabitation with conditions and a verbal contract. It is not state recognized and thus does not exist. Because it cannot be enforced except before God, either party can end it without consequence or condemnation from the community or the state.
Now I agree that the state should have no part in marriage and only recently has this been so. A marriage license was nothing more than the marriage bonds to satisfy the notification requirements of scripture. The state changed the scope of its involvement about 60 or 70 years ago.
So what makes that more moral than making love to a woman you are committed to? Sure you commit before God and all of that in your marriage model, but don’t they do that in the fancy buildings too? Yet we have a divorce rate of almost 70%. The church rate is the same.
You keep saying that most marriages last until death. When did less than half start to mean most? Most is 90% and that’s not reality. You have a better chance of your marriage ending from divorce or abandonment than you do of success. And the ones who do stay married, a significant number of these couples suffer from sexual dysfunction. You can read any Christian or marriage site and most the site’s articles talk about sex in one way or another.
Marriage, however a man chooses to participate is a bad deal overall for men.
When you sit down and strip away all of the indoctrination and false pretence of Christian morality and the self righteousness, you have only one answer. And it is not a repeating of the same mantra that that led our country to where it is now. The same morality you espouse is what feminists have used to control men for years.
No I am not trying to make promiscuity moral. Sex outside of marriage is not promiscuity if done in love, or based on commitment. That is because the biblical model of marriage is dead and gone and will never return because the biblical model is absolutely unenforceable in real life, in the here and now.
monkeywerks says:
August 22, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Lyn87 replies,
I’m done trying to convince you otherwise. You’re a grown man: if you want to get your freak on, go right ahead. But don’t say you weren’t warned.
___________________
I’m not going to respond, point-by-point, to another wall of text that just reiterates things I’ve already answered. Anyway, in just the past 24 hours you’ve gone on record declaring your stance that Biblical sexual morality is not binding on men:
I provided the time stamps so anyone can confirm that I’m not taking you out of context. These are not just “Churchian” practices you object to, but Christian doctrine. So since I’m no longer going to try to convince you of something that you have denounced at least four times in the past day, my question to you is this…
Why do you care what I think about Christian doctrine, since you do not feel it is valid?
I know why I’m writing here – I don’t want anyone to think that screwing sluts is “just peachy” with God. I’m not sure why you’re writing, because the more men believe as you do, the more women will become the Churchian sluts you complain about (while reserving the “right” to have sex with them).
Sleeping with sluts is fornication (unless you married her – good luck with that), and fornication is sin.
The Brass Cat –
I think your explanation makes sense.
monkeywerks, just my 2c, I doubt you can convince these guys, are you looking for their approval ?
God tends to frown upon seeking man’s approval, its probably a sin somewhere
I’m sure we will find out in a shortly
instead stick close to the Lord, find out what he wants then do it no matter what anyone else says
he may give you the desires of your heart
now that is an easy pat answer, he may also crucify you through the process, so not easy
Who knows, the main thing is go with him and let him lead you.
Monkeywerks,
90% is not most. 50.000000001% is most.
I can’t promise what will happen tomorrow, but my wife and I go against your claim.
I have not kept up with the whole conversation, but the idea that sex outside marriage is ever consistent with Biblical commands is idiotic. Even the claim a man can freely take another wife or concubine lacks an understanding of what marriage is.
The difficulty of following God’s Word doesn’t negate the need to do so.
Note too that the Disciples asked Jesus why they should marry at all when He spoke of divorce. They clearly didn’t have the idea they would “just get another one” or they would not have been so shocked. You really need to meditate on the core principles more rather than just thinking of your own current lusts.
> he may give you the desires of your heart
He will not give you fornication partners if that is your goal. The enemy may do so or you may find them on your own, but blaming God for that is as bad as the many other things we blame God for.
He doesn’t violate His Word.
@BradA
Where in the Bible does it say that a man, who is not a leader in the Church, may not take another wife?
Hi guys I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion and I thought I would just add my 0.02c.
When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant he assumed she had been fornicating. IMHO This is the best New Testament example of what Jesus meant when He said “except it be for fornication”. i.e. pre-marital sex. This is usually referred to as the ‘betrothal view’. If you are interested please have a look at Once Married Always Married:
http://oncemarried.net
@ Don Quixote
“Yes, the marriage of Jacob to Racheal and Leah has been discussed, but notice that in the Law God specifically forbid a man to marry sisters…”
Its amazing how few actually see this.
I realize that this isn’t necessary for the main point, but Jacob died long before the Law was given.
monkeywerks @ 10:50 pm:
“The other day I was discussing the different rules regarding married sex between Catholics and Baptists. From what I understand Catholicism prohibits certain sexual acts even if done in marriage like masturbation, pulling out, anal and oral. The Baptists have an attitude of anything goes, between husband and wife. Which is right?”
Christianity allows churches a lot of leeway. Like any group of Christians, a church can do as it wishes unless it contradicts Biblical teaching. For example, the Bible allows divorce for adultery but Catholics don’t allow divorce at all. That is acceptable because the RCC is holding its members to a higher standard than the Bible. A couple could switch denominations in order to obtain an adultery-driven divorce because the new denomination is also obeying the Bible. (Of course, other Christians are free to have an opinion about such conduct. The RCC would certainly be under no obligation to welcome them back.)
For another example, various churches have prohibited dancing or alcohol, or limited membership to a specific ethnic group, or believe tithing is best done by automatic payroll deduction. The Bible neither requires nor contradicts these behaviors but, if you are a member of such a church, the Bible requires you to obey your leaders.
To answer your question, both the Catholics and Baptists have an acceptable teaching. Which one is binding depends on which denomination you are a member of.
This does not permit fornication because that’s a lower standard. A denomination that teaches free sex until one makes a marriage commitment is in blatant violation of the Bible and therefore not Christian. The freedom God allows us is never an excuse to disobey.
The ultimate authority is the Bible. The important parts of it are easy to understand, if perhaps not accept. You can quit the additional teachings, traditions, rules and habits of any particular group of Christians but if you quit the Bible then you quit Christ.
monkeywerks @ 12:53 pm:
“Most single church men are much more sexually pure than their opposite numbers. … I believe that men outnumber these good women by a significant margin. So what you are saying is that these men should live a life of quiet desperation. Cool. ”
I say it too, that a man should endure lifelong celibacy if he can’t find a decent wife, and I have lived it as well. It’s tough but possible and, because God is real, worthwhile.
Artisanal Toad @ August 21, 7:32 pm:
“Question: Are a Christian’s sins ALL forgiven, past, present and future?”
Yes, all future sins are forgiven. To believe otherwise is to believe salvation depends on good behavior as well as trust in Christ. The catch is that Christ does not forgive without repentance.
This is one of the greatest benefits of Christianity, that our salvation is certain. No other religion guarantees salvation without good deeds; in Christianity, we do good deeds BECAUSE we are saved.
@Gunner Q
Christianity allows churches a lot of leeway. Like any group of Christians, a church can do as it wishes unless it contradicts Biblical teaching. For example, the Bible allows divorce for adultery but Catholics don’t allow divorce at all. That is acceptable because the RCC is holding its members to a higher standard than the Bible.
No. In Matthew 19, the Lord was first asked if a man could divorce his wife for any reason. You can literally turn this around and say the Lord was asked if there were any reason a man could divorce his wife. It’s the same thing. Notice what He said, please. He said Have you not read? They are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.
STOP. Full Stop. The Lord just said “NO DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON.”
That must have been a shocker, because the Pharisees then asked a SECOND question, why did Moses command us to do so?
Jesus said “For the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted you, but from the beginning it was not so.”
We see three things there. First, this was a judgment of Moses, not something of God. Otherwise Jesus would never have responded as He did. Second, Jesus knew exactly what the Law said, but when asked about divorce He didn’t turn to the Law, He went instead to the creation story. Third, He twice expressed both His disapproval and rejection of divorce.
THEN, we see a sudden change. After rejecting the idea of divorce for any reason, He said And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Six verses ago He said no divorce. Now He says it’s OK if she’s screwing around on you. How does one make sense of this? Compare to 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and work it all out. The only way it makes sense is if Jesus is saying Moses got it wrong (like in Numbers 25). In His earthly ministry He wasn’t in a position to correct this, but He did later in 1st Cor. 7:10-11. Between believers there is to be no divorce. Period.
Jesus notes that divorce leads to adultery (assuming either party remarries), and you take that as approval of divorce in the case of adultery?
@Toad, if that’s a fair demonstration of your reading comprehension, you’re not going to make sense of any writing beyond Curious George.
Of course, you’re not the only one. Most people see in the Bible exactly what they want to see.
@Splashman…
I’m not the one with a problem with reading comprehension. If you’d read my previous comments, you’d realize that I’m pointing out a major problem with the idea that Christ endorsed the idea of divorce for immorality.
I do not and have never stated that I approve of divorce between believers, because I believe that’s the clear message of the NT. Many Christians view Matthew 19 as endorsing divorce in cases of immorality This is not the case, just the opposite, when put in context. There can only be adultery if the individual is married. Think about that. They got divorced and God is talking about adultery, so obviously they’re still married. Lot’s of people think they’re divorced but they aren’t. That piece of paper they got from some state court judge is about as authoritative as a piece of paper from a priest of Baal.
“Christianity allows churches a lot of leeway. Like any group of Christians, a church can do as it wishes unless it contradicts Biblical teaching. For example, the Bible allows divorce for adultery but Catholics don’t allow divorce at all. That is acceptable because the RCC is holding its members to a higher standard than the Bible.”
Adding to the standards in the bible is unbiblical and thus contradictory. Furthermore I will not obey a leader if he is found to be incorrect. If there is not direct prohibition stated CLEARLY in scripture it is allowed. So the RCC prohibit behaviors that the bible does not is extra biblical and wrong. What you are saying is that Gods standard is not the highest and the RCC can make hold men to an even higher standard. That does not jive with scripture. I can blast on the Protestants too when it comes to divorce and many churches adding equally as nefarious garbage. I’m equal opportunity here.
Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”(also Deuteronomy 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).
Proverbs 30:5-6 ESV / 109 helpful votes
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18-19 ESV / 160 helpful votes
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Deuteronomy 12:32 ESV / 50 helpful votes
“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV / 7 helpful votes
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Either way my point was made. There is zero consistency in Christianity. And if you really don’t want to live life to the fullest you will follow the bible and whatever your church boss tells you.
Lyn87, I just wanted to thank you, after I read all these comments, for standing up for Biblical marriage. I can’t help but think of all these comments attempting to justify a man’s ability to just pick up a woman if he’s “committed” and “in love” as a glaring example of hamster-wheel spinning and a wholesale adoption of “romantic feelings” as the moral place for sex rather than the formal commitment of marriage. Biblical marriage might be difficult in today’s legal and moral climate, but it is certainly not impossible!
And I am not impressed by the scorn heaped upon Christians who hold to more restrictive interpretations of moral rules. Aren’t we warned not to put stumbling blocks before weaker believers? Just because you think that polygamy is permitted, or sleeping with a “committed” lover without making a formal covenant with her in marriage is fine, doesn’t mean you should be recommending this behavior to those who believe that such behavior is sinful. Even if you are fully convinced to your own satisfaction that it’s not a sin.
@Toad, sorry ’bout that. You’re right, my reading comprehension sucked.
There is zero consistency in Christianity.
This is blatantly false and logically inconsistent. Disagreement over certain bible passages by various persons does not equate to zero consistency in Christianity.
Mark,
Most welcome. And I think its great that you met that cop in Toronto.
So many interesting comments and dialogue about Christianity. Lyn87 – I totally agree with many things you say. Fornication is wrong. I still find it hard to condemn people – warning them and making them aware of the verses is your responsibility as a Christian. Still, I understand Monkeywerks’ point of view as well – and he definitely states truth when he says this line:
“Most marriage problems could be solved with good sex between husbands and wives. That is one reason the entire ‘sphere exists is because of the problems in relationships witch could all be solved by a better attitude about how we use our damn genitals.”
If parents in church could collectively teach their children about sex and how it is meant to be – and how it should be like in a marriage, we would have much less divorce. The entire sphere seems to be centered on sexual issues… they really are what makes or breaks a society and culture. When even Christianity gets sex messed up, the culture is extra “doomed” because it has no good example to look to – or to uphold the society. We’re in a very strange and evil time… and you can bet a lot of it stems from the simple issue of sex.
The core of the problem isn’t sex, it is sin. Sin infects everything that involves human beings, including sex. Even if society could get sex right without dealing with sin (not possible), there would still be a multitude of other problems to deal with.
Found this site via MMSL, and am happy to find a Christian viewpoint in the “manosphere.”
My husband and I had a quick engagement –3 months(and rather dismayed to find the pastor who married us suggest we wait another 4 months because of some wedding planning hiccups, after my then-fiance had told him we were having trouble abstaining). I think the pastor assumed if we were “really Christians” this wouldn’t be so hard (he is Reformed Baptist). BUT WAS IT HARD.
Now I’m trying to figure out how to help my kids not go through the same torture we did (they are 7 and under, so I have time).
Thanks for your work.!
[D: Thank you, and welcome.]
Help with marriage issue
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904484
Marriage is fizzling out just after seven months.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904579
Embracing the single life.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904648
@Toad
“There can only be adultery if the individual is married. Think about that. They got divorced and God is talking about adultery, so obviously they’re still married. Lot’s of people think they’re divorced but they aren’t. ”
Good point, but what Jesus was saying to Jews was if you give your spouse a divorce certificate (which in their eyes was sinless and fulfilled the requirements of law, they had done no wrong and couldn’t be held accountable) you caused them to sin and to commit adultery, which would have horrified them, considering adultery could be a capital offence.
Its like us forcing someone to commit murder, would we be blameless and without sin in that situation?
What he is saying there is no divorce without sin/adultery, and the same nowadays, even with the legal law of the land being followed, sin will occur.
Of course the other argument is that the bible states he installs governments so you follow their decrees, so if you do divorce under the laws of the land and commit sin ? Who is at fault ? the government or you ?
It probably helps to understand that there are many levels to a marriage, from law to sex to emotions to assets etc. Each level goes through its own separation. And divorce is horrific.
And I think those arguing for “once married always married” is just plain nuts, can you imagine the internal torment you would put someone under who is divorced, their spouse remarried for you to condemn them into the state that they are still married to them while they are having a full relationship with someone else. I mean come on people.
There is a huge problem with lack of understanding and mistranslation with our bibles,and also the even bigger issues that we barely do what we are told at the best of times. When was the last time most of us loved our neighbours ? How often do we break bread, drink wine and remember him?
I don’t think it would be unfair to say if we have got it right 20% of the time, we are doing astoundingly well most of us are way below that. We are broken vessels, some more than others after all. And I won’t hold someone’s sin against them, that’s Gods job.
@ BradA
“the idea that sex outside marriage is ever consistent with Biblical commands is idiotic. Even the claim a man can freely take another wife or concubine lacks an understanding of what marriage is.”
Please enlighten us with Bible verses that do not merely state that fornication is a sin without defining fornication; that would be circular reasoning. As for the claim of idiotic … that statement is basic shaming language. Something that is fit for feminists, liberals and tyranny, not the androsphere.
When a man realizes he has been lied to, manipulated and conned, even by churches, it is only natural to have some doubts about what else might be lies. If the Bible doesn’t really say what christian men have been taught by churches regarding love/sexuality in marriage, what else has been corrupted? Perhaps the morality of polygyny or sex with unmarried/unbetrothed women? Instead of shaming and attacking men who have had their worlds shattered regarding something as basic and important as love/sexuality between men and women, how about walking them through a biblical exegesis that sexual morality is really what you (and most of churchianity) claim it is. Or even one “smoking gun” bible verse.
Phillyastro,
[Mat 19:5-8 KJV] 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Note that God made Even for Adam, not Eve, Sue and Edna.
How do you become the “one flesh” covered here with many wives.
No “you cannot marry multiple women” Scripture exists, but the clear optimal is for a single man and a single woman for life. That is why polygamy is wrong. It may be tolerated, but that doesn’t mean it is ever good.
AT,
Moses didn’t “get it wrong,” what was written (with God’s leading” allowed for the hardness of man’s heart. It was still impossible to fully comply with, but God allowed things that were not the intention.
JSR,
You are clearly ignorant of the Scriptures if you don’t know that sex is designed for inside marriage, not outside. You are free to pretend that theme is not woven into the Scriptures if you wish, but it is idiotic.
It would be casting pearls before swine to note Scriptures that demonstrate that since your post indicates you have already discounted the ones that speak of fornication.
I would ask you: Exactly what do the Scriptures that refer to fornication mean?
[Act 15:20 KJV] 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
What fornication were they supposed to stay away from here?
[1Co 5:1 KJV] 1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Note that this one indicates the man having sex with his step mother was a subset of fornication. What is the superset in this case?
[1Co 5:1 KJV] 1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
What are they to not “burn” with? Why is marriage better?
@jsr says:
“August 23, 2014 at 2:07 am
@ BradA
“the idea that sex outside marriage is ever consistent with Biblical commands is idiotic. Even the claim a man can freely take another wife or concubine lacks an understanding of what marriage is.”
Please enlighten us with Bible verses that do not merely state that fornication is a sin without defining fornication; that would be circular reasoning. As for the claim of idiotic … that statement is basic shaming language. Something that is fit for feminists, liberals and tyranny, not the androsphere.”
(applause)
plus as well, lets not forget that if your a happily married man with all the benefits of that, you will not be able to see someone’s else viewpoint who does not have your privileges.
Hmmm…
I might be throwing myself under a bus here, but.. I’ll preface this by saying that I do think Mrs. Pugsley is an incredibly troubled individual and I was frankly disturbed by her article. It’s so strange to me the way she had pedestalized her own virginity and purity and couldn’t see how that was simply a phase in her life and now that she’s married she’s becoming a wife and (ideally) mother instead, a truly wonderful thing in its own right.
However, and I do understand this might not apply to Mrs. Pugsley, it is possible to be a Christian woman, married, bisexual, and not an adulteress. I happen to be one myself. There have been many times I’ve wished I was not attracted to women as well as men, but the orientation is there and it’s not going away. I haven’t had sex with a woman (or anyone besides my husband, for that matter) but I’ve been in love with one before I met my husband. I haven’t acted on those feelings or attraction and I don’t intend to in the future.
My husband knows this, of course. He also knows that he is the only person I’d ever want to be with and that I love him with all my heart. Moreover, he’s the one I chose.
Just wanted to put that out there. I’m a frequent reader though I seldom comment here, mainly because this is a male space and I want to respect that. Also, I’m extremely non-confrontational by nature and although I don’t mind following debates now and then, taking part in one gives me the hives (and right now, with me being 4 months pregnant, would probably activate some epic waterworks to boot).
Oh, and though I do not respect her opinions, I actually liked Mrs. Pugsley’s photography. *ducks down and takes cover*
[D: Welcome Rainey.]
Minesweeper says:
August 23, 2014 at 1:59 am
Please consider the words of John the Baptist to Herod: “It is not lawful to have your brother’s wife.” The divorce apologists among us will quickly point out that the Law forbade this marriage because it was incestuous, but did you ever wonder what made it incestuous??? It was because Philip [Herod’s brother] was still alive, that makes it adulterous first and incestuous second.
Not convinced?
Please consider when King David was approached to be king over all Israel he refused until his first wife was brought back to him. David forced the separation of her second marriage. 2nd Samuel chapter 3.
Still not convinced?
Please consider the ill fated marriage between God and Israel. In Jer.3:8 God gave Israel a certificate of divorce because of her adulteries. And then in verse 14 says: “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you…”
The other red-flag is the word “spouse”, you will notice that this is not used as such in the Bible. It is once implied in 1Cor.7 but the actual word isn’t there, why? Because the Bible always is gender specific when dealing with this subject.
Note to readers: If ever you see a document [statement on divorce and remarriage] that uses words like ‘partner’, ‘spouse’ or ‘party’ you know that it is bull$h!t.
Its better to discover the difficult truth now than later.
Once Married Always Married check it out:
http://oncemarried.net
@Don Quixote says:
August 23, 2014 at 5:03 am
I’ll just answer one of your quotations.
even in 2 Sam3 ALONE David had SIX sons from SIX different women (inc 1 wife),
AND he wanted the original back as part of the deal that he had betrothed himself with for the price of 100 foreskins.
So with this example what are you saying ? for men with wives and concubines – don’t agree to be king unless you get the lot ?
Unless you are saying sex outside of marriage is fine with your concubines, and ensure even if you have a wife at the time, if you purchased another previously (through slaying your enemy) make sure she is part of the deal, I mean can’t have you deprived of female company and all.
You are trying to create an impossible burden for those who are divorced. Impossible.
BradA, JDG, GWADT, Pancakeloach,
Thanks for taking up the cudgel. I have the definitive answer to the objections below.
It’s pretty obvious that a lot of guys who condemn female promiscuity in the harshest terms wish to believe that their own promiscuity is acceptable to God. To say something along the lines of, “Okay, okay, God doesn’t approve of sleeping around” one day, and then “I can have sex with a woman I’m not married to if I really, really, like her,” the next day, shows what they think. According to them, God would never wish an unhaaaaaaaaapy man to suffer through a period of celibacy, but demands that unmarried women do so as a matter of routine – their entire lives if necessary. So… God designed a moral system that makes things harder on “the weaker vessel”: yeah…. that makes sense, especially since the only way an unhaaaaaaaaapy unmarried man can have sex is if he does so with a woman he’s not married to (which is sinful for her). To buy into that is to indict God as cruel, inconsistent, and irrational. I may commit the sin of being cocky once in a while, but I know better than to lay such charges against God Almighty.
But some have declared that since the Bible doesn’t define the exact contours of the word “fornication,” that the word has no meaning. I could list hundreds of words that the Bible doesn’t define – because the Bible isn’t a dictionary, but we don’t argue about what those words mean, probably because nobody is looking for a loophole in those cases. In the absence of some reason to think that a word had a different meaning in Ancient Hebrew, Chaldea, or Greek than it does now, there’s generally no reason to search for alternate meanings – unless one is looking for an excuse to do something wrong.
We have no problem saying that an unmarried woman who screws around is a slut – and the women who do so are sinning, and often ruined in the temporal sense. Yet some wish to say that the act of screwing them is okay because – although it is crystal clear from the context of multiple passages of scripture – the Bible doesn’t have a dictionary section attached to it.
But it’s really even simpler than that – MUCH simpler. Here’s the “smoking gun” they keep asking for:
Since we all agree that it is sinful for a woman to have sex with a man she’s not married to, and Christians are commanded to not do things that would cause another person to sin, a man who has sex with a woman he is not married to is in violation of at least two passages of scripture: Romans 14:13 and I Corinthians 8: 8-13. Note that the highlighted portion below (I Cor 8:12) declares that causing another person to sin is itself a sin against Christ – so even if the act of sex was was not sinful for the man in itself – it would still be a sin because it requires the woman to sin. So if female promiscuity is sinful, then any man who enables that sin by having sex with such women is also sinning. The scriptures read as follows:
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. – Roman 14:13
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. – 1 Corinthians 8: 8-13
There simply is no way around this – having sex outside of marriage is a sin for both men and women.
@JDG “The core of the problem isn’t sex, it is sin. Sin infects everything that involves human beings, including sex. Even if society could get sex right without dealing with sin (not possible), there would still be a multitude of other problems to deal with.”
Maybe you didn’t completely understand my point… sin IS the core of the problem, and the entire reason we have a manosphere is because of how sex in our culture (and especially in marriage) is distorted or used improperly (it all boils down to sin). Feminism boils down to sin… anything in culture that stems from evil and messes up the way things should’ve been – the way God intended for them to be – comes down to sin. So my point still stands that sex definitely is the problem. There are of course other sins that affect the world, but for marriage, singles, and divorcees, etc.
And it would be naïve to think that all churches have sexual teaching down right – or more importantly, the correct attitudes towards sex. Monkeywerks is right when he calls out Christianity for its making the problem worse at times – not all churches fail in this, but many still do. Church sermons aren’t usually trying to teach men how to be men (to embrace their masculinity, and how they should lead their families) anymore than it teaches women how to be good wives. You can say that people should understand that from the Bible, but many people still wouldn’t get it if they’re baby Christians. The church has really failed in this way. I think I’m lucky, my church actually did an entire sermon series on sex, and it helped A LOT of people. I already knew everything that was preached because of my parents having really healthy and biblical views on sex, but even my close friends didn’t know much of what was taught. So I actually taught a lot of my friends in our early 20’s the purpose of sex. A lot of them had mothers that had NEVER talked about those things with them… can you imagine what happens when a sexually ignorant Christian virgin gets married? It opens the possibility to all kinds of disappointment and sexual failure in a marriage. This is what Monkeywerks is trying to educate ya’ll on. Its really happening… and still happening. And until the church takes more responsibility in educating its congregation on these very crucial issues for our society, we will continue to have very messed up marriages, unhappy and unproductive people (and Christians), and divorced people who feel they have no other choices in their dilemma.
It really is the core of the manosphere, as all issues I’ve seen have to do with sexual issues.
GWADFT,
I’m in general agreement with you, but I have two points of contention. The first is probably just semantic. You wrote, “Monkeywerks is right when he calls out Christianity for its making the problem worse at times…”
No, Monkeywerks is NOT right about that. There are problems with many (most) churches, but there is absolutely nothing amiss with Christianity. It is very important to differentiate between Churchianity and Christianity. The former attempts to reconcile the Gospel with the fallen world – the latter is the unadulterated truth. Which brings me to my second point: you are giving Monkeywerks far too much credit. Monkeywerks is on record – multiple times – as someone who believes that the problems we face are the result of God being wrong about human sexuality. I provided four quotes of his where he says that in my post at August 22, 2014 at 4:27 pm:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137625
Monkeywerks – and several others who have risen in his defense – sings the same song as women who frivolously divorce or slut around, “That can’t be a sin because God wants me to be happy.”
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again now:
I see nothing in scripture to indicate that God wants us to be unhappy, but when our desires conflict with His will, God cares a lot more about our holiness than our happiness.
Otherwise, we’re in general agreement.
The church teaching about sex is like urinating on a forest fire at this point in a macro sense. Every church Ive been a part of, combined with any churches or evangelists Ive ever paid attention to on TV, in print, online, etc., have all had teaching on sex. It varied from OK to good, but all did it.
I disagree that all (Christian) manosphere issues are sexual issues. One thing about marriage sexual issues however is that the solution is so simple. It doesn’t even require, or shouldn’t, in-depth biblical teaching to convey the simple truth. Sex is a component of marriage, not a feature or benefit, or icing on the cake. All that needs to be said is that sex is there, its present, its a part of spouses comportment like being charitable and kind and sacrificial and patient….add sexually available… and done.
Issues in the sphere begin with mate selection, available potential mates, attitudes to marriage permanence, etc. As much as I say that sex should not be considered a result of marriage so much as it should just be considered a part of it, I will say that the sexual problems in Christian marriage ARE a result of the sphere focused issues I mentioned, like mate selection etc. As trite and obvious as it seems, the issues are gender/spiritual fundamentals, which manifest in sexual and marriage permanence problems, two things that are tangibly linked.
In the spirit of “giving credit where credit is due,” I will second Monkeywerks’ post at August 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm, where he points out that adding man-made restrictions and requirements to those laid out by God is forbidden. His references to Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Deuteronomy 12:32 are definitive… Although his reiteration that, “There is zero consistency in Christianity” is still nonsense-on-stilts.
Lyn
Not to mention there very last verse in the bible.
Parents and other adults can give children a misunderstood version of Christian morality: that sex is a form of wickedness that suddenly becomes sacred upon marriage. This was noted for women in earlier comments. It also applies to men:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730692/Evangelical-virgin-men-pledge-abstinence-left-confused-married-struggle-new-sex-lives.html
My 2¢: even if the parents are mostly teaching correctly, 10% of children will either misinterpret their parents because they occupy a different place in the spectrum of OCD or Asperger’s, or they will pick up on their parents’ own insecurities because these cannot be completely hidden. A small fraction of children will be screwed by well-intended teaching. Perhaps this is true regardless of what is taught.
Empath,
I deliberately left out Revelation 22:19 because it could be argued that that particular scripture applies to John’s prophetic Revelation, as opposed to the entire Bible.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. – Rev 22:19
The other scriptures noted – and others besides them – are sufficient to make the point that adding stuff to scripture is bad.
Lyn, yes….fair enough.
James K, nah, 10% of kids are not Asperger. Asperger has been curve fit to apply to 10% of kids.
Lynn –
There simply is no way around this – having sex outside of marriage is a sin for both men and women.
Absolutely, sex is for marriage (life long commitment). Marriage (life long commitment) makes sex legitimate.
Everybody –
for·ni·ca·tion
ˌfôrniˈkāSHən/
noun formal humorous
sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.
synonyms: extramarital sex, extramarital relations, adultery, infidelity, unfaithfulness, cuckoldry; premarital sex; informalhanky-panky
“the nuns warned us about the spiritual price one pays for fornication”
Even a secular lexicographer knows what fornication means.
I can’t believe that this can actually be debated among grown Christian men. Words have meanings.
http://jar.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/13/0743558414546718
I think that’s explainable by extroversion. Why do people spend so much time on unimportant symptoms?
girlwithadragonflytattoo says:
August 23, 2014 at 9:58 am
” And it would be naïve to think that all churches have sexual teaching down right – or more importantly, the correct attitudes towards sex. ”
Mustard says:
Yes to this.
Minesweeper says:
August 23, 2014 at 6:17 am
My point in using this example is to show that the marriage continued after all those years apart. King Saul [re]married off his daughter to another man, but the first marriage continued. As all the other examples show.
Divorcees [like myself] need good information, not politically inspired divorce apologetics. The churches are desperate for members and much prefer to recycle divorcees into adultery than say things like Luke 16:18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
And very few want to open this can of worms. I wonder if Jesus will open this can of worms when our works are tested by fire?
GWADFT –
Monkeywerks is right when he calls out Christianity for its making the problem worse at times
Lyn87 covered this, but I would like to re-emphasize that Christianity is not the false representations that people give. You judge a religion by it’s teachings, not by it’s follower’s failures.
… anything in culture that stems from evil and messes up the way things should’ve been – the way God intended for them to be – comes down to sin. So my point still stands that sex definitely is the problem.
I would amend it to “sex is a problem”. Again, I don’t think you can fix the sex problem with out fixing other problems first.
I agree many Christians are neglecting there duties and are ignorant in what to teach their children. I agree many “churches” are contributing to the problems we have by becoming more indistinguishable from secular society. What I think is being over looked here is the fact that many “churches” have bought into a false narrative of Christianity. Sex is only one aspect of the false teachings that are being disseminated among church attenders. I contend that some of these other aspects are directly effecting the sexual problems that are prevalent on blogs like these.
For example egalitarianism, by not recognizing, teaching, and enforcing male headship, potentially can do damage to the attraction a wife may have for her husband (among other things), which in turn can directly effect a couples sex life. Egalitarianism is directly linked to the princess pedestal, which makes marriage all about the woman, and reinforces her selfish and sinful behavior.
Another problematic teaching is slut acceptance. It is not biblical to encourage young men to marry women who have given their virginity away. Yet here is another non-Christian teaching that is being pushed as Christian. This teaching can directly affect a couples sex life as well as their entire marriage, and it fails to discourage other young women from following the ways of the world in regards to purity.
There are many other false teachings that are very popular which encourage sin (and IMO are effecting the problem of sex), but even more problematic IMO is the heart that is hostile towards God.
A wife that is hostile towards God will in all probability be hostile towards her husband. It is unlikely to matter if she is aware of ‘red pill’ fundamentals or not because 1) she will be unlikely to believe they are true in her hard hearted, me first, state of mind, and 2) even if she does believe them, she will seek to please herself regardless and her hamster will make an excuse for her selfish decisions. But a wife who knows God, and is known by God, will want to please her husband because she wants to please God.
So to sum it up, I agree that churches need to teach sound doctrine and hold people accountable for their actions, but we should not confuse false teachings with Christianity or the Church. Also, IMO in order to fix the problem of sex in a relationship, the core problem of sin in the individuals will have to be addressed.
No, Monkeywerks is NOT right about that. There are problems with many (most) churches, but there is absolutely nothing amiss with Christianity. It is very important to differentiate between Churchianity and Christianity.
Yes this, thank you Lyn87.
I see nothing in scripture to indicate that God wants us to be unhappy, but when our desires conflict with His will, God cares a lot more about our holiness than our happiness.
Exactly. We tend to think it is all about us. It is not. And happiness is deceptive to begin with. Contentment is what one will find when living a holy life. Contentment beats happiness hands down IMO.
As trite and obvious as it seems, the issues are gender/spiritual fundamentals, which manifest in sexual and marriage permanence problems, two things that are tangibly linked.
Yes.
As a matter of fact, yes to the whole post at 10:26 am.
I’ve checked out long enough to not see what’s going on here too specifically, but it does seem there’s a bit of wrong on both sides. The problem we have in one camp is the mistaken idea that what the church is doing has nothing to do with the representation of the truth. In short, Lyn87 would have us separate what is Christian truth from what the churches are doing. In reality, this can not be done. The command to be light of the world and salt of the earth is not suspended. The Christian follower can not be blind to what is going on – most of what causes these things to stand is that a significant portion of people who should know better are living in the Land of ShudBe rather than the Land of Reality.
It is sinful on the parts of the people (majority) that claim that Biblical marriage still exists, and try to separate these things to deny it. The Scripture even addresses this point (Titus 2:5; 2 Samuel 12:13-14; Jesus talks about the issue tangentially in Luke 6:39-42). In other words, the representation of teachings is communicated by actions of the followers. When the followers fail to uphold those teachings, those observing will either push back, accept silently (the majority), or enthusiastically follow. The follower’s failures are conveying teachings. These teachings are what Monkeywerks is speaking against, and a significant group here assaults him for it. What Monkeywerks speaks is the reality of what Christianity is presenting itself to be. You can’t excuse such observations – to do so is to excuse those “follower’s failures”, and lead to the sin of “the word of God being blasphemed.” And to use the Churchianity / Christianity dichotomy as an excuse only enables this sin. (Ephesians 5:11)
This leads to the other issue. When you realize that Biblical marriage is dead, and the counterfeit has taken its place – when you realize that marriage is an abomination against everything God has laid out, what do you do? I think this is where Monkeywerks comes from in what he is writing. What is the proper response to all of this? Does the rampant existence of sin allow me to sin myself? Definitely not! Fornication is a sin, and has been proven over and over again as such. As Lyn87 points out, God’s more concerned with our holiness than our happiness. So, do you accept this sheer wickedness standing in the guise of “marriage” just so you’ll be “happy” with a woman and have the outside chance of getting your dick wet? Or do you distance yourself from the wickedness? Anyone with a slight understanding of holiness should know the answer to that. But the answer continues to be to offer yourself into the fire, instead of turning from evil and doing good (1 Peter 3:11). Is it not better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil? (1 Peter 3:17) Is it better to gain the whole world than to forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26) Or rather, is it better to have Marriage 2.0 and suffer for its wickedness than to forfeit your soul as well?
In other words, the representation of teachings is communicated by actions of the followers. When the followers fail to uphold those teachings, those observing will either push back, accept silently (the majority), or enthusiastically follow.
In other words, the problem is with the communication, not with the teaching. And followers that do not uphold the teachings of the one they claim to be following are not good representatives of the teacher.
The follower’s failures are conveying teachings. These teachings are what Monkeywerks is speaking against, and a significant group here assaults him for it.
And these are false teachings, not Christian teachings. Anyone can buy a hammer and say he is a carpenter.
What Monkeywerks speaks is the reality of what Christianity is presenting itself to be. You can’t excuse such observations – to do so is to excuse those “follower’s failures”, and lead to the sin of “the word of God being blasphemed.” And to use the Churchianity / Christianity dichotomy as an excuse only enables this sin. (Ephesians 5:11)
Sorry I’m not buying this. If the whole world were to go apostate and represent itself as Christian, it would not change what real Christianity is and is not. Also, Christianity doesn’t stop at the US borders. There are Christian churches all around the world. Some of them are genuine (just like here). We are to test the spirits, for there are many who would pervert the gospel.
When you realize that Biblical marriage is dead, and the counterfeit has taken its place – when you realize that marriage is an abomination against everything God has laid out, what do you do?
We should look to the teachings of Jesus and His apostles (Christianity) to see what is wrong. Test the spirits, verify, apply sound doctrine, expose every false teaching, and obey God. One thing we shouldn’t do is start blaming Christianity.
monkeywerks @ August 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm:
“Adding to the standards in the bible is unbiblical and thus contradictory.”
You’re reading too much into what I said. There are Bible standards and there are local current standards. It’s just group dynamics. Every church inevitably has its own habits and rules separate from God’s principles. None of those churches I used as examples could say “the Bible prohibits dancing” or “the Bible requires direct deposit for tithing”. But they could still require it of you if you chose to join that church.
“Furthermore I will not obey a leader if he is found to be incorrect.”
If the leader violates the Bible then yes, you’re right to not accept him as a leader. You cannot serve two different masters. If the leader merely does something you don’t agree with, however, then Biblical standards on submission require you to either obey him or peacefully quit following him entirely. Before you quit, however, understand you’ll never find a church you agree with 100% all the time… and the practice of submission is a critical element of Christian maturity for men as well as women.
“If there is not direct prohibition stated CLEARLY in scripture it is allowed.”
I recommend studying how Paul addressed the issue of food sacrificed to idols. The Bible allows eating such food–those false gods are, of course, false–but if doing so hurts the conscience of a fellow Christian then it’s prohibited even though the Bible would otherwise allow it.
“What you are saying is that Gods standard is not the highest.”
Yes. God’s standard is only the baseline for human conduct. He tried the legalistic, comprehensive route with the Mosaic law. The OT records in great detail what a disaster that was. The Bible is to a Christian what a rifle is to an airsoft player–indispensable, yes, can’t go without it for a moment, but if you stop at range practice then you’re missing out.
Jeremiah 35 contains a useful example for the interested.
But the answer continues to be to offer yourself into the fire, instead of turning from evil and doing good (1 Peter 3:11). Is it not better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil? (1 Peter 3:17) Is it better to gain the whole world than to forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26) Or rather, is it better to have Marriage 2.0 and suffer for its wickedness than to forfeit your soul as well?
You tell me, is it better to suffer for a little while, or for eternity? We ALL must suffer. Is it not better to suffer for doing good? What exactly are you advocating here? Are you suggesting that Christians should embrace yet another false teaching to counter the churchian ‘focus on the female’ teaching?
Are you saying that Christians must now accept as Christian teachings that are clearly not Christian simply because the overwhelming majority of church goers claim their teachings are Christian? What about “churches” that have homosexual and female pastors? Are you suggesting that these must be viewed as Christian teachings now as well?
What Monkeywerks speaks is the reality of what Christianity is presenting itself to be. You can’t excuse such observations – to do so is to excuse those “follower’s failures”, and lead to the sin of “the word of God being blasphemed.” And to use the Churchianity / Christianity dichotomy as an excuse only enables this sin. (Ephesians 5:11)
If you are saying that ALL Christians must except responsibility for false teachings, there is a case to be made for that. However, we still do not refer to those false teachings as Christianity. I think the churchianity / Christianity dichotomy is quite apt for pointing out differences between wide spread false teachings and genuine teachings. We aren’t letting the false teachers off the hook by not referring to their teachings as Christian. It’s just a way for us to point out the differences.
When the followers fail to uphold those teachings, those observing will either push back, accept silently (the majority), or enthusiastically follow.
I recommend the book “The Battle for the Bible” by Harold Lindsell. This book clearly documents how the major denominations became apostate. The faithful did push back and fight. Still they were out maneuvered and possibly out numbered. Many eventually left the mainstream denominations for more conservative environments or sadly stopped attending church altogether.
Most of those mainline denominations are now PC social clubs who have lost millions of members. These “churches have basically become ‘liberal’ social clubs that don’t even acknowledge the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Now the evangelical churches are being attacked. Rinse, repeat, and apply. The true Christian Church is made up of believers who follow Jesus Christ. Anybody can pick up a hammer and call himself a carpenter.
When considering “Churchianity” vis-a-vis Christianity, you could perhaps do worse than check out a recent book review by “ballista74”, who occasionally posts here (see a few posts above this one). I checked “ballista’s” website, “The Society of Phineas,” (which Dalrock links to) and found a thoughtful review (some approval, some criticism) of the book “Mere Churchianity” published by Michael Spencer in 2010 (the same year that he passed away). You can then follow the book reviews at the Amazon site for the (mostly favorable) reaction of others.
Michael Spencer was best known for his long-running blog, “Internet Monk,” which has continued under the general direction of “Chaplain Mike.”
My own knowledge of Michael Spencer and his viewpoint is very modest — some reading at his blog a few years ago, just before his death, so I am in no position to pass approval or disapproval on his life’s work. But you may find this readily available material helpful if you want to study the comparisons that we here are trying to make between Churchianity and Christianity.
I left out the specific link.
http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/book-review-mere-churchianity-by-michael-spencer/
Thank you mustardine. Apologies to ballista74 if I was over the top in my replies.
I think Ballista is saying that entangling yourself in marriage as it is represented today is to continue to exacerbate the problem. That the”suffering” of accepting celibacy as your lot in life is the more holy way to go than to join yourself in “marriage” to a woman in this current social, legal, and religious climate.
And that the few men here who are in what they feel are happy marriages need to be careful not to sell other men a false bill of goods.
That’s what I think he is saying. From reading his blog, anyway.
@BradA
Proper exegesis of Scripture cannot allow an antimony. Paul wrote that in order to avoid the sin of fornication, people should marry. That within marriage neither husband nor wife is to deny the other except for periods of time mutually agreed upon for fasting and prayer. But what if your wife refuses to have sex within the marriage or frivorces you? Nowhere in the Bible is a wife given the authority to divorce her husband because no woman has the authority to initiate a marriage, only a man (c.f. Genesis 2:24),
Monkeywerks was frivorced. There are some here who teach a Biblically incorrect position that because his wife divorced him he cannot remarry. But sex is a physical need for him, so, does he violate the church’s teaching that he is forbidden to remarry and take another wife at the extreme risk of being frivorced once again or just fornicate in relative economic safety?
Let’s start with the issue of divorce. Some here claim it is allowed because of what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9. The problem here is fairly simple if one closely examines the text. He was asked “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?”
Look carefully at the answer Jesus gave and ask yourself whether Jesus knew what Deuteronomy 24;1-4 said and then consider His answer. “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
He said (paraphrasing) no divorce for any reason. He made no reference to Deut. 24:1-4. That’s all the answer He gave them. Some claim that He made a blanket statement and six verses later provided the exception to the rule. No. Had that been the case He would have provided the exception in His first answer.
That got him a second question. Notice that He already answered the first question about divorce by saying “let no man separate.” The second question is not about the justifications for divorce.. “They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Again, they are no longer asking about the justifications for legitimate divorce. The question is why Moses allowed it. So, Jesus answers their question “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
Please observe there is no mention of a certificate of divorce in all the Law that God gave to the people through Moses. We don’t see that until the final sermon preached to the people by Moses, who was also the judge of Israel. That makes it a judgment of Moses and as such it became part of the Law. Some claim that Deuteronomy 1:3 means this particular judgment was from God because “Moses spoke to the children of Israel according to all that the Lord had commanded him to give to them.” The problem that could be read to say everything in Deuteronomy was what the God gave to him, but it also supports the interpretation that yes, he did do that, but not mentioned is he also included a few things God did not specifically command him.
One has only to take a look at the judgement God gave to Moses in Numbers 25 to see that Moses didn’t always give the judgments God told him to… and in that case it resulted in over 24,000 people being killed.
So, back to the two questions Jesus answered. If God had given that judgment to Moses, why did Jesus say no divorce and point out that from the beginning it was that way, but Moses changed it? Second, why did Jesus specifically single out Moses as the source of this and not God, if God commanded Moses to make that judgment? The word “permitted” indicates this wasn’t from God because if it was from God, Moses wasn’t permitting anything, he was carrying out the command of the Lord.
After first saying no divorce (let no man separate) and then blaming the certificate of divorce thing on Moses, Jesus then made a seemingly contradictory statement: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So, either Jesus is contradicting Himself within six verses in the same passage and with what He said in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, or something else is going on. Some claim “look: He said it, right here! He said divorce for reasons of immorality is allowed!” Look at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 But to the married I give instruction, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does, she is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and the husband should not send his wife away.” Other translations say the husband “must not divorce his wife.”
During His earthly ministry Jesus was a man under the authority of Moses, the scribes and Pharisees (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3) and He had to say what He did in Matthew 19:9 because He had to uphold the judgment Moses gave at that time. He told the truth in His first two answers and then supported Moses in his last answer by giving His interpretation of the judgment of Moses. Matthew 19:9 can’t be used as support for divorce because the only way this isn’t a case of Jesus contradicting Himself is He gave the answer on justification for divorce saying there isn’t one. Then He answered the question of why Moses had allowed it, interpreted the judgment at Matthew 19:9 and overturned it at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.
@BradA said
the clear optimal is for a single man and a single woman for life. That is why polygamy is wrong. It may be tolerated, but that doesn’t mean it is ever good.
On the one-flesh thing, check 1st Corinthians 6:16. Polygamy, which means “many marriages” is also serial monogamy with illegitimate divorces, which is exactly what we see today. Polygyny, which means “many wives” is not “wrong” because God does not regulate sin, He condemns it and prohibits it. You use the word “tolerated” but the better word is “regulated.” There are Biblical guidelines for different trades a person may engage in. Some are condemned, such as being a prostitute or a thief. Some, like farming, are regulated. Not everyone was a farmer, as there were a great number of trades. Yet, we don’t see anyone use the word ‘tolerated’ when talking about farming because God chose to regulate it. And what about all the problems with people planting vineyards, getting drunk and doing things like passing out naked or getting their daughters pregnant while blacked out?
It appears your argument boils down to “I don’t like it so I don’t think anybody else should be able to do it.”
The crux of the problem is fornication is sin. Yet, as Paul says, it’s better to marry than to burn. My argument is that for believers, divorce is forbidden unless the unbelieving husband or wife leaves. So, what happens when your believing (her claim anyway) wife leaves and divorces you? Matthew 5:31-32 makes it clear God will not accept an illegitimate divorce, so since you both claim the name of Christ, you’re still married as far as He is concerned. She is commanded to remain single or be reconciled to you, but nowhere in the book does it say you can’t take another wife. Or two, or three. And, just for the record, my understanding is a concubine is a wife whose children don’t have inheritance rights. A wife does not have the right to sentence her husband to involuntary celibacy either within the marriage by cutting him off or by leaving him. She sentences herself to celibacy in leaving him (if she is obedient to the Word) but he can take another wife.
This is a doctrinal matter. As soon as you can say “It’s not forbidden and you have freedom in Christ, and while I don’t believe it would be right with me, if your faith is strong go for it” then you’ve opened a can of worms. Very few men are alpha enough to pull multiple women into a harem and keep things running smoothly, but recognition of the Biblical validity of a polygynous marriage removes a lot of the problems divorce is causing. However, this is something the women most likely to divorce their husbands will scream loudest about, because it significantly reduces their real-world power in modern day marriages. No more denying the husband sex, ’cause he’s got it right down the hall. The Old Testament specifically cast polygyny in two separate lights: One, in the case of a man who hates his wife and brings in a rival wife. The other, in the case of men with large appetites, Alpha enough to be a cat-herder. Think King David. In the case of a rival wife it was public shaming of the first wife, and we all know how much women love to be publicly shamed.
I believe God’s Word is sufficient for all people for all time. There are some things God doesn’t have a problem with and polygyny is an excellent example of a marriage that practically eliminates many of the issues and problems feminism brought upon us. I have only heard one reasonable argument for why polygyny might be wrong in terms of adding a second wife, and that’s if the husband vowed to forsake all others.
This brings us to the churches. There are so many doctrines on the subject of divorce and remarriage that it’s no wonder it’s so confusing. What does the Bible say about marriage, divorce, remarriage, polygyny, complementarianism, the headship doctrine, etc.? You’d be amazed at how plain the Word is, as well as the back-flips people have been going through for hundreds of years to get the text to say what it doesn’t say. I firmly believe the whole fight over the divorce issue was caused by the church essentially banning the practice of polygyny. For over a thousand years the church was at odds with the nobility (c.f. Brundage) and their policies restricting sexual activity within marriage while at the same time restricting the reproductive choices of the nobility was all to their advantage. The prime directive of nobility is to produce an heir. Polygyny being banned, wives that couldn’t produce an heir had to go and somebody had to come up with a way to biblically justify divorce.
This is the legacy we deal with today, which can be traced back to church leaders who prohibited what God regulated, who spoke where God was silent and took authority over that which God never gave them authority. Those little flies caused the perfume to stink over time until today the stench is overpowering.
Well said Artisanal Toad!
I notice that your definition of polygyny is equivalent to my use of the word polygamy. No big deal I will do some checking.
Elspeth @ 5:39 pm –
From ballista74:
But the answer continues to be to offer yourself into the fire, instead of turning from evil and doing good (1 Peter 3:11). Is it not better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil? (1 Peter 3:17) Is it better to gain the whole world than to forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26) Or rather, is it better to have Marriage 2.0 and suffer for its wickedness than to forfeit your soul as well?
Maybe your right. I thought he was saying with the above statement that Christianity is pushing people into marriage 2.0 and telling them to suck it up. Apologies again ballista74 if I misunderstood.
While many folks who call themselves Christians are doing this, we don’t know if these people are Christian or not. They certainly are not following the teachings of Christianity. This is another reason I like the term churchian. Another description I will use is church goers. They are church attenders, but they may be wheat, tares, or wolves in sheep’s clothing. Either way the teachings are not Christian.
@JDG “A wife that is hostile towards God will in all probability be hostile towards her husband. It is unlikely to matter if she is aware of ‘red pill’ fundamentals or not because 1) she will be unlikely to believe they are true in her hard hearted, me first, state of mind, and 2) even if she does believe them, she will seek to please herself regardless and her hamster will make an excuse for her selfish decisions. But a wife who knows God, and is known by God, will want to please her husband because she wants to please God.”
Well when you say it that way, I totally agree with you. It is a heart issue more than just a “sex” issue. I can think of many examples I’ve seen to explain this, but yes, if a woman or man has a hard heart towards God, it will mess up many things in their life – including their sex life.
So you’re right… a heart issue.
@Empath… “It doesn’t even require, or shouldn’t, in-depth biblical teaching to convey the simple truth. Sex is a component of marriage, not a feature or benefit, or icing on the cake. All that needs to be said is that sex is there, its present, its a part of spouses comportment like being charitable and kind and sacrificial and patient….add sexually available… and done. ”
I forgot about your blog… I stopped following you after you supported Matthew Chiglinsky (a bullying cyber harasser/atheist who has expressed extreme hatred towards random women). I think your blog is one of the extremely few exceptions of the manosphere, yet even your blog has many posts I would consider stemming from sexual issues. I don’t think that just saying that sex is there… that spouses should just be sexually available to each other, would fix all the problems seen in Christian marriages (that seems incredibly hopeful and not realistic in the least!!!!). It goes WAY deeper than that. The sermon series that my church did a few years was very in depth, and centered around the correct intentions God had for it, the attitudes that different people bring to it (that aren’t biblical at all), it was really eye-opening for a lot of couples that I suppose just didn’t know or understand.
And you’re also wrong when you assume that just because you’ve seen all churches cover the sex topic, that of course all the other ones you’ve never experienced also do. LOL There really are churches out there that simply don’t cover sex… it’s odd to me that you would think otherwise.
Sexless Marriage: A Negative?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904748
Elspeth says:
“I think Ballista is saying that entangling yourself in marriage as it is represented today is to continue to exacerbate the problem. That the”suffering” of accepting celibacy as your lot in life is the more holy way to go than to join yourself in “marriage” to a woman in this current social, legal, and religious climate.”
“continue to exacerbate the problem” it could also be said that when men continue to voluntarily sign up for what is a raw deal (socially, legally, religiously) for them they postpone the solution to the problem. The solution being men refusing to do business’ until the deal gets a whole lot better. As long as women, Christian women, political and churchian leaders have men putting themselves at their disposal, why would any of the aforementioned groups be motivated to change the current arrangement? Its simply too convenient as things are. Why change as long as the volunteers tirelessly, selflessly clean up the mess, take the bullets and throw themselves on the grenades. Yes, of course, NAWALT. Marrying women who are the exception, or hoped to be, is worthwhile for the individual but it still only delays the solution. Christian men in significant numbers refusing to marry and making their reasons known for example would force Church leaders and ultimately Christian women to at least face the mess they’ve contributed to.
Why would Christian men accept the “suffering” of celibacy and stay single?
One obvious reason to me is that the suffering of accepting celibacy or near celibacy as his lot in life is reputedly the fate of many a married man.
As for men who are non-believers, I have no idea why any secular man with options would even bother with marriage. Women aren’t denying them sex, cohabitation or even children at this stage. Take away the moral context of biblical marriage and the legal security men once had, what’s the point?
Remarriage as polygamy/polygyny:
http://oncemarried.net/twice-married-always-married.html
@Don Quixote
I read some of your website. I’d recommend you stop reading books about the Bible and learn how to actually study the Bible and then do so. I don’t say that as an insult, I have simply noticed that those who study their Bible will cite the Bible and those who read the works of others who may or may not have studied their Bible’s, will cite those works.
In terms of Christianity, the only definitive standard is God’s Word. The problem is everyone has blind spots (yes, this includes me). Every great preacher, evangelist and otherwise wonderful man of God had blind spots. We need go no further than Moses (Numbers 25) to see this. Thus, we are not to place our faith in men, but rather in God’s Word.
LisbethSalander (dragon tattoo)
Two misunderstandings
1. I made no suggestion that fixing sex would fix any of the other overarching problems. Quite the contrary, when I suggest that there are deeper root issues than sex, and that the sexual issues are an extension of those, that i am not suggesting….fix the sex fix the issue. Sex is easily solved, meaning we are born equipped for it and designed to do it, men and women. Compare that to the thing that the church teaches as the offset, the emotional needs and communication thing. men are NOT born equipped to communicate like women. Yet we are taught that in order to get one of these supposedly opposite but equal things right, men must learn and do something alien to them so that women are able to do what they are born able to do.
2. I did not make the assumption that all churches teach sex. I do not make anecdotal extrapolations as a rule, ever. I shared the anecdote to express a different correlation. Amongst all the people who DO sit under decent sex teaching, the issues persist. I simply expressed that Id seen sufficient ones that do teach and an associated concentration of ongoing relational issues to support my overall point which is simply that the sexual issue is not the root issue. The teaching I refer to in 1.) above, expressed as the microwave and slow cooker analogy, is generally a flawed part of sexual teaching even in the most well intended churches. And that is an outgrowth of the root problem i refer to as gender/spiritual
@ girl WADFT
Sex is at the heart of marriage: “The two shall become one flesh.” It is the thing without which there can be no marriage in the biblical sense. If a couple has sex four times a week, spending an hour each time, then they are only spending 3% of their waking hours on sex. But that’s just sooo much to expect, hah!
(It would be an error to read anything into this about my own sex life. I’m just following up on an ongoing theme of mine.)
Brings to mind the aphorism that for a typical man, sex is 10% of a good marriage, but too infrequent sex or none at all is 90% of a bad marriage.
@Empath… lol you assume wrong again! Dragonfly tattoo does not = Dragon tattoo… you seem incapable of not making assumptions. And we’ve already established that it is more of a heart issue than just a “sex issue,” but which still affects the way women treat and respect their husbands. I’m actually using sexual issues as more of a broad term of female/male communication and relation to each other… you know, feminine vs. masculinity… sex is also at the core of that.
@theasdgamer – lol yes, I think couples should make it a priority… every night if they can.
You could get really graphic in explaining how sexual issues are at the root of the “marriage problem”… the feminine sense of submitting and being open to a man, accepting him (into her body), inspiring him to be hard (pun intended) and courageous, inspiring masculinity in him through her being a simply feminine woman. The man being drawn to a woman’s passionate gentleness, her tender yet girlish qualities, her captivating vulnerability & humility….
Of course, it doesn’t solve all issues, but embracing being a woman or a man and the sexual overtones that go with that would fix many issues in marriages, even society.
Feminism, in a figurative sense, is a woman rejecting her sexual role… submitting and being open to a man, accepting him (into her body), etc. is directly against what she wants.
(I should’ve added)…because it would mean her giving up control. Wasn’t that woman’s curse? To want to control her man. Submitting and inviting him into her (mind and body) require a vast amount of vulnerability… something that feminists hate because they think its beneath them to be this feminine.
But that’s of course obvious right? We are lol … on a manosphere blog.
@ gwadt
Ok, so, I’m switching to your on-topic idea about sex as a metaphor for how men and women relate in marriage. Celibacy in marriage for other than a short time for prayer is unbiblical, assuming that there are no health constraints. So, being on topic, celibacy for an extended period before marriage while in a bf/gf relationship would seem to create:
1. wrong expectations for marriage about relating since their initial patterns would have to change once they were married,
2. bad relationship habits between the couple,
3. bad prioritizing of sex by the woman after marriage,
4. communication problems between the couple since there would be one appropriate communication protocol before marriage and a very different protocol after marriage; e.g., appropriate flirting before marriage is very different than appropriate flirting after marriage, and
5. a weird frame would be imposed on the man before marriage (quite possibly the woman’s) which might very well cause him dominance problems after marriage.
Comments?
Sometimes one need not take themselves, therefore others, so seriously. I read your usename clearly Lizbeth. I was obviously making a joke. I won’t continue the topical discussion as it seems tedium is order of the day.
Honestly, I was under the impression that you were using that name judgmentally… another disgusting judgmental Christian.
@theasdgamer – I’m not sure how long a period you are thinking before marriage… 1 to 2 years is a long time, I agree with the other commenters, particularly Lyn87 on the topic 🙂
Honestly, I was under the impression that you were using that name judgmentally… another disgusting judgmental Christian.
Yep that’s me too. I make judgments all the time and everyday. I’ve finally just accepted that I am a disgusting, judgmental, homophobic, racist, sexist, bigot.
I’m disgusting because I’m male.
I’m judgmental for pointing out when people are sinning.
I’m homophobic because I believe sodomy is a sin.
I’m racist because I disagree with just about everything our current president stands for.
I’m sexist because I think women shouldn’t vote and wives should submit to their husbands.
I’m a bigot because I think Jesus is the only name by which men can be saved.
There you go, a disgusting, judgmental, homophobic, racist, sexist, bigot – a bible believing Christian.
No JDG… those are personal convictions of yours… you are not calling someone a name.
Empath was using the name “Lisbeth Salander” because my blog sounds like that book. Her story is definitely one that someone like Empath would look down upon, if you just google her name you can see the character’s pictures… and draw conclusions as to how he as using that name. Her story is so sad… it’d be like me addressing him by her uncle’s name (the man who tortured and repeatedly raped her brutally when she was a child). I’m sure Empath would be offended by that. It was a little offensive to be addressed by her name, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was just making assumptions and not reading clearly. But he WAS reading clearly, he just wanted to refer to me using her name.
Artisanal Toad has referred me to this post in regard to a discussion we were having on my blog. He re-stated some falsehoods about divorce and remarriage which have already been debunked in our conversation.
His omissions, selective readings and repeatedly false claims concerning scripture become apparent to anyone interested. It’s disgusting for him to come on here and throw out statements like, “In terms of Christianity, the only definitive standard is God’s Word” and turn around and ignore it.
One major falsehood he’s maintained is Deuteronomy wasn’t an actual command of God(which is clearly stated in verse 1: 3) but simply a “judicial ruling” undertaken by Moses on his. There’s so much falsehood in my interactions with him that his writing is quickly reaching the level of lies.
FYI: If you go to my blog, know that I’m using the free version of WordPress and I have nothing to do with any adds you see.
girlwithadragonflytattoo –
Isn’t she a fictional character in some books and movies? Isn’t your blog name based off the name from those books and characters? I haven’t read the books or watched the movies, but I immediately connected you with the “dragon tattoo” enterprise when I saw your first comment some time ago (I think at SSMs). I just figured you were a fan of the “tattoo” movies.
To be honest, when I first saw your name, I figured you were most likely a feminist (because of the “dragon tattoo” connection). Now I have strong doubts about that. But that’s what people do. We take the info we have and make evaluations.
Just for clarification, I don’t look down on feminists (but I detest their ideology) or anyone else. I realize my own potential for pathetic behavior is as great as anyone else’s.
I guess I’m trying to say that just because Empath connected you with the book/movie enterprise doesn’t mean he is looking down on you. Maybe there is more to the story, but Empath doesn’t strike me as that kind of guy.
By the way, I heard that the story is terribly sadistic, and the “heroes” are just as sadistic as the villains. I don’t like stories where the good guys are just as bad as the bad guys, and I especially don’t like stories where the “good guy” girl is basically wonder woman on steroids. Maybe I’m weird, but I liked when the girl in black ran for her life from the Hulk in the “Avengers” movie. To me that made a lot more sense than a 90 lb woman going toe to toe with a 250 lb man. But then, I’m not a girl.
I keep thinking of things to add 🙂 … maybe you’re offended that I used the words “disgusting Christian.” Sorry, JDG, but even Jesus referred to the Pharisees as vile (disgusting/repulsive) in the way that they acted, the way they touted the Christianity above others like Lisbeth, and looked down on others – even other Christians who were earnestly trying. Empath used her name in a derogatory sense, and now wants to back track saying he’s just joking.
There are different kinds of “Christians” … there are Pharisees that get pleasure in looking down on others (making derogatory jokes), and normal caring Christians that are just trying to live their life and grow in God’s word. There’s a huge difference… Jesus was the first one to really point out how disgusting the judgmental ones are.
No need to apologies, but I think you’re right about the “disgusting Christian” term. I guess I don’t like it. It sounds judgmental.
If a woman is running the sexual show before marriage, she’ll be running it afterwards. Smart men make *women* wait for sex. Until marriage. And even then, they know to keep the ball(s) in their court.
s/b – No need to apologize…
I’m in a brain fog and I don’t know how to get out.
Smart men make *women* wait for sex. Until marriage. And even then, they know to keep the ball(s) in their court.
Yes this was good advice about 50 or 60 years ago, now smart men just won’t marry women from the US or the UK (some exceptions may apply).
A happy marriage:
Submission, sex, and sammiches.
@JDG: I understand where you’re coming from, but universal marriage is the only solution.
http://demarkate.com/index.php/14-relationship-realism/73-trickle-down-marriage
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kate – thank you for the link. I’ll check out the blog.
I’m going to assume that when you say “universal marriage’ you don’t mean this:
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/a_call_to_universal_marriage.php
because a marriage requires a man and a woman.
I’m all for marriage, but what passes for marriage in the US or the UK isn’t really marriage at all. It’s kind of like living together only with the state as a third party to the arrangement. And that third party has a history of actively encouraging and subsidizing the destruction of relationships that it is a part of.
You are much more optimistic than I am. I don’t think there will be a solution (at least until until the Lord returns). If one comes before then, it will most likely involve much poverty and possibly bloodshed (though I truly hope not).
Kate,
I read your “Trickle Down Marriage” article and it’s okay as far as it goes – although you make the usual female mistake of over-concentrating on what the top men are doing – at least you didn’t make the usual follow-up error of ignoring the other 80% of men.
But you didn’t deal with the incentives and disincentives of your idea. Why in the world should men – especially the top men who can drown in a sea of estrogen if they want to – marry in the Western World today? If we’re talking about old-school marriage – the kind that’s required for civilization to exist over time – sure… but that’s not an option. Marriage will be a crap shoot (and a sucker’s bet for most men), until women lose the power to initiate “no-fault” divorce and be awarded cash and prizes for doing so, AND the current generation of carousel riders have aged out of the market. The only way to make marriage work on a societal scale is for women to be chaste and NOT have the power to dominate-or-detonate their marriages at will. The law simply will NOT force women to fulfill the terms of their marriage contracts – although it has NO problem forcing men to do so, to the point of subsidizing the destruction of their families and themselves under threat of prison. Dalrock’s article “Threatpoint” explains the issue in far greater detail than I’m going to do here – just check that out if you haven’t read it.
Until that happens, a married man is legally at the mercy of his wife. For naturally-submissive women who have great integrity and/or fear of displeasing God (NOBODY does “Dread” like Him), things tend to work out well. But if she decides to go rogue, she’ll have a literal army at her back: wearing blue suits and black robes. For marriage to work, that MUST end.
No rings for sluts, and no cash-and-prizes for divorcees.
Marriage will be a crap shoot (and a sucker’s bet for most men), until women lose the power to initiate “no-fault” divorce and be awarded cash and prizes for doing so, AND the current generation of carousel riders have aged out of the market. The only way to make marriage work on a societal scale is for women to be chaste and NOT have the power to dominate-or-detonate their marriages at will. The law simply will NOT force women to fulfill the terms of their marriage contracts – although it has NO problem forcing men to do so, to the point of subsidizing the destruction of their families and themselves under threat of prison.
This is an excellent summarization of the situation.
… she’ll have a literal army at her back: wearing blue suits and black robes. For marriage to work, that MUST end.
I’m thinking the most likely scenario (aside from supernatural intervention) is one where black robes and blue suits are unable to enforce unjust decrees upon fathers. For this to be the case it is also likely that they won’t be able to enforce much of anything else. I’m thinking of Bosnia in the mid 1990s.
No rings for sluts, and no cash-and-prizes for divorcees.
Yep!
Every time we liberate a woman, we enslave a man.
Kate,
In order to get “universal marriage” you need to get buy in by all the males, and it is not in the interest of the top men to buy in to this.
The only other alternative is by some kind of force. You have to force men to marry. Rome tried that and it didn’t stop their decline. You can raise taxes on single men, but you can’t tax what they don’t have and that’s the direction men are slowly going.
And considering what a financial net negative it is for a man to be married (even before divorce) any taxes are probably better paid then marriage.
And I mean that last part.
So the other alternative is an over arching religion that demands marriage, punishes adultery and fornication out of marriage and at least does a better than token effort on enforcing this on the elites as well.
And there isn’t a religion in the west that has the ability to do this anymore on a scale that would be necessary.
There is only one way to save marriage and that requires in the interim that it be destroyed utterly, just as the political, legal, welfare and social structures that currently exist have to be destroyed and here’s the thing:
Men don’t have to do anything for this to happen, these things are already crumbling under their own weight.
It is only when a woman and her children’s survival depends directly (not indirectly as it does now) on a man will marriage work, only the will it be restored and its going to be a long brutal while before it comes back.
“I’m thinking the most likely scenario (aside from supernatural intervention) is one where black robes and blue suits are unable to enforce unjust decrees upon fathers. For this to be the case it is also likely that they won’t be able to enforce much of anything else. I’m thinking of Bosnia in the mid 1990s.”
This is correct. A horrible, but inevitable outcome.
Empath,
Huge raging forest fires are put out by lots of little changes. The alternative is to sit back and let them destroy everything. We are likely to see much destruction come about because of our foolish modern sexual behavior, but small firebreaks and such can still have value.
Elspeth,
Ballista is basically standing for perfection in Christians from what I was finding on his blog. I got myself banned there for standing for what is true and not bowing to his interpretation of it a long while back. Very little room there for discussion or true learning.
The problem is that most marriages are not the failures that many claim. Yeah, the system is biased and it is very difficult today, but so what? That is life. We will not have a perfect society until Jesus returns to run it.
> And that the few men here who are in what they feel are happy marriages need to be careful not to sell other men a false bill of goods.
I don’t know if you would say I am in that category, but I do not believe I have ever done that. I have a relatively happy marriage (26 years this week), but it is far from perfection. We just had some major issues come up on the way home from Church today, for example. We relatively resolved it, but I realize that I ultimately have little overall control over what happens. I just set the tone and keep working so I am doing things properly and let God work on my wife.
(We have weathered not being able to give birth to children and having our 4 adoptive children all decide that we were nothing more than foster parents in their eyes, if that. The feminist issues are almost trivial compared to that.)
Claiming that we can nuke marriage because it isn’t perfect is idiotic at its core. The modern environment is not great, but successes do happen. We must always focus on what God’s purpose for marriage is and push for that, whatever the cost.
The grass is not greener anywhere else since humans live in all those places.
AT,
Not sure what antimony is. I don’t think you meant a kind of metal.
> It appears your argument boils down to “I don’t like it so I don’t think anybody else should be able to do it.”
You don’t read very well if you are going to make that assertion. Go back to the beginning and see what was made. Can you name even one positive example of polygamy in the Bible? “All things are lawful, but all things are not profitable.” That is a good Scriptural idea to keep in mind. Go for your multiple wives if you really want them, but I would be a bit more watchful preaching that as a good path given that nothing in the Scriptures says that.
> This is the legacy we deal with today, which can be traced back to church leaders who prohibited what God regulated
BS. The situation we have today is because we have humans on this earth and we are not yet into the heavenly Kingdom. Bad stuff will happen. People will enable it, but the modern situation is not caused because men couldn’t marry multiple wives in the Church. Talk about stretching things….
JDG, My wife and I got a good chuckle out of that poster.
A bit OT:
I was thinking on the way home from Church today that the Scriptures only have a command on how women can behave and possibly win their husbands to the Lord. We have no mirror command for men. Does anyone know of a Scripture that tells us that a man doing XYZ will have a chance at winning his wife for the Lord?
One other general comment about marriage: I am not sure what I would do about marriage if I was much younger and single. I can almost guarantee I would not remarry now should I find myself single in the future, but I suspect I would end up being more like a MGTOW than would be right, largely due to the environment.
That would be balanced with my firm will that I will do what is right regardless and live with the consequences. I have done so in my own marriage and many don’t think highly of me (to put it mildly) because of that. I am not perfect at it, but I largely don’t worry about what others think about me, so it can work.
I do see why many push ideas at odds with the Scriptures. I would at least like to see people admit that rather than performing some justification loops to claim they really are not wrong. I would admit my wrong if I did choose a MGTOW and was not fully focused on the Lord’s work. (Wouldn’t that not be MGTOW by definition though?)
I am not trying to start a MGTOW argument, just respond to the claim that some of us are whitewashing things.
It is interesting that this discussion brought up some things lurking behind my personal motivations that I had not considered consciously when writing my previous comments. As many can relate I have had to face a church teachings and doctrine head on that were quite unbiblical that in turn affected my family directly and negatively. Suffice to say, the bible did not win the day and it usually never does when faced with female solipsism and hypergamy. Most of what I state is motivated by these events, the subsequent fallout and my observations and knowledge about how women work, thanks in large part to sites like this.
I still stand on my statements that biblical marriage is dead and gone and it will never return. It is still my sincere and well reasoned belief that no man should ever marry nor should he ever consider a Christian woman if he does indeed choose to marry. These statements really bother most Christians on a visceral level because it shows the hypocrisy of modern Christian teachings in general. Most people in the church do not want to see the reality of the problem, because doing so, they will have to acknowledge the probability that little Suzie will most likely be doing things with little Johnnie in the back set of some car. This ties directly into the inherent white knightery of most bible thumping Christian men. We all want to protect our daughters after all. However by protecting your daughter (and by ignoring reality) the whole concept of the family and marriage continues to be sacrificed.
Little Suzie will most likely not be a virgin when she marries, regardless of what she proclaims. However, it will be negotiated that she marries little Henry who remained a virgin. She will not have genuine attraction for him and will leave him eventually taking his children and money. And them Henry will come to these forums and say with pride at least I only had sex in marriage and the rest of you are going to burn, when it was his virginity and lack of experience in handling women that caused his marriage to fail in the first place. This is a foundational issue.
This discussion then begs the question of what is the point of even being a Christian when in reality (for over 50% of men) there is no joy in marriage, no joy in sex (because you have to celibate after all) and frankly going by some of the guidance in the preceding comments and my own observation of incels, life would just kind of suck until I die and receive some future benefit. A Christian man wants to have sex but it is his peer group and his ideologies that pressure him not to. Couple this with little Suzie getting finger banged by the alpha bad boy because Henry is lame and is not attractive to any woman, in church or out of it. This causes his celibacy to be in many ways involuntary.
I found a blog written by a guy who is a 29 year old virgin. He hates it and his failures at getting laid have had a negative impact on other parts of his life. That’s all too common for these men. And his failure to get laid became a part of his ID to where he will continue to fail until he learns hard game and dark triad skills, loses the betaness and kills off the white knight. What I described is the typical Christian male virgin because they are really the same thing as a non believing Incel at this point. Christian men being virgins until married will generally have the effect of emasculating him and cause his future wife to control the entire frame (sexual and otherwise) of the marriage, which in turn leads to an unbiblical marriage and eventual unhappiness and divorce.
Then the church goes on its tirade of “man up” and “men must lead” BS. That is the essential underlying message from anti fornication people.
I just don’t see a lot of unplugged or red pill men being converted to Christianity. It seems like most, if not all Christians in the ‘sphere were believers before they came to learn red pill truths. Then I see many men and some women try to merge these truths with their faith. Dalrock actually does a pretty good job of this but in general he does not hammer on the whole male virgin or male celibacy thing, but I think he realizes how hypocritical and damaging that would be overall. Many of the proponents of marriage are in fact married themselves, and have been for some time. They are then using their exceptionality as the rule in defiance to what is really happening in the SMP and MMP. That’s a very arrogant and narrow minded approach to these real issues.
So it was not like my faith was being tested enough because my ex wife’ church was actively complicit in our marriage blowing up, I see men giving advice to other men that all of us fornicators will go to hell because we want to have sex with a woman we care about and marriage is such a bad deal, so we choose sex outside of state marriage. There are no other options. Celibacy is not an option it’s a curse. For many of us who actually like the company of women ans especially one that we can love MGTOW is also not something we would choose to do. One thing that’s really closed minded is this notion that every man who has sex without being married is committing some awful sin. I don’t buy it. Christians seem to want to conveniently ignore the base impulses and needs of our human sexuality. This is foolish. This causes Christianity to lose whatever little credibility it may have had left as a valid belief system.
The original topic was about this average young Christian couple who were taught the generally promoted spiel about sex, virginity and marriage. The end results of this were 2 extremely sexually dysfunctional individuals. I believe this is the normal result in regards to how the bible is taught and its values promoted, not the exception.
I think Dragonfly stated this in the recent past, sex with your spouse should be natural like eating or breathing. A couple should not have to make a big production out of bringing their bodies together in love and/or passion. Why should a couple not come together every night before falling asleep? We eat every day don’t we? The sad thing is that for a couple to do this and feel totally natural doing it requires such a positive attitude about not only sex in marriage but sex generally that can only be learned from ones parents when young. Older men and women trying to change their attitudes in order to save their marriages are really not all that successful. I would attribute this to the thirst that the average American man has for just a little sexual attention and affection that he will accept and praise a small incremental increase in his wife’s sexual availability. In the end she is still FUBAR’d as is the marriage.
The sad thing is that a lot of men who share my experience can tell you that we have experienced what sex should be like and what it is about more outside of marriage with a unbeliever that inside.
The church is taken already dysfunctional people, in most cases, and made them even more screwed up.
@mustardnine Thanks for the vote of confidence.
@JDG No problem, especially if the writing wasn’t too clear. In fact, it’s going to lead to a post in the future, so it’s not all for waste. I was saying something quite different than you seemed to think I was (though reading the Scriptures I put in should lead you there). That I forgot a “not” in what you quoted: “Or rather, is it better to not have Marriage 2.0 and suffer for its wickedness than to forfeit your soul as well?”
The point I was trying to make is that even if what people are putting out there is false teaching, you have to recognize that it exists, and is represented in the minds of most as Christianity. Remember that Scripture even states that the church will be fully apostate when Jesus returns. Most all of them are now, thinking they are really following Christianity. And people are drawn into it thinking they are finding salvation through Jesus, when they find something quite different.
Even worse, there are those on the outside looking in seeing this. In other words, you can’t stick your head in the sand with regards to what is going on. Perception is reality. You can’t just dismiss what people are seeing when you deal with them. You can tell them that what is going on isn’t true Christianity, but the examples set before them will stand a lot more than what you can ever say. That’s a quandry of my own blog. How do you get some one to look past what they see with their own eyes and experience so they’ll hear that those things are wrong? Answer, you really don’t. But you have to acknowledge the truth of things before you even go any farther. See Daniel’s prayer of repentance for the sins of Israel (Daniel 9) as an example.
The very real problem is that you have people with the perception that “Christianity” is pushing people into Marriage 2.0 and telling them to suck it up, because the ones they see are indeed doing that. Even some parties here, as Elspeth writes in her second paragraph, will do this, and will bring out the shaming epipteths for those that see what is going on. Of course, the problem you get is one of selection fallacy – it’s like a lottery winner giving financial advice. “Just go out and win the lottery like me and all your problems will be solved.” It’s just not practical.
@Elspeth was right about the third paragraph, but that was the rest of it. The “outside looking in” folks see this, and see this as the very representation of Christ. To many men, there’s a Mark Driscoll waiting inside every church on Sunday morning. It keeps them from looking at Jesus and seeing Him for who He is. The ones that are doing this are causing others to blaspheme the Word of God instead of see that these “Christians” are counterfeit. You can just come out and say that until you’re blue in the face and it won’t mean anything. This reality has to be acknowledged and dealt with before these people can begin to see the true Jesus.
@embracing Reality
The book I’m reading now talks about a lot of the reason wicked things exist and perpetuate is that people don’t know their rights and aren’t using them. You don’t use your rights, you lose them. If anything, that’s been one of my consistent messages on the blog – men do have the right of choice. Furthermore, they have the right to push back on all these false teachings. But so many are limp-spined anyway, so if they did know, they would just accept. Or they’re so enamored with having a woman that they fall into the sin of Adam even before they have a woman to worship in their lives. Or so many that have the red-pill knowledge still want to play the lottery in hopes that they’ll win the jackpot. So many of the “Christians” can just read numerous blogs and get the answers to every one of these problems, but double down on the same garbage. There’s a reason for this, which is why I pushed back on Dalrock’s idea of denial two or three posts ago.
There’s no forceful resistance – so why should there be any change? Good comment.
Domestic Violence Toll (This is going to be one of those threads that gets closed)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904864
I hurt my husband (“Please try not to beat yourself up!”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904855
Never dated.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904912
@BradA
Lies like this are no surprise from you. I’ll clear the air since you brought it out publicly. You got binned for rather vociferously protesting my ban of another person who was vomiting some rather disgusting hate-mongering filth into the comment boxes. I’ve long since deleted the comments so I can’t link there. But the real reason BradA was banned at the time was this: He decided to go play white-knight and fell on his own sword.
Marriage? Should I support it anymore? (This one practically exploded…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904856
Adulterous Wife (?)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904955
Confused: How will a first marriage impact our future plans?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904861
By the way, BlueEyedLady gets into a fairly typical feminist angle in the “Marriage? Should I support it anymore?” thread.
@Dalrock
Marriage? Should I support it anymore? – the thread provides a lot of fodder for several posts…
@ Ballista74
I’m not sure exactly what went on between BradA and yourself on your blog. But I will confirm I noted BradA as a white knight many years ago when I first discovered the manosphere. Over the years, many of the women he likes to rigorously align himself with have been dubious and some revealed to be outright heretical, which he probably wouldn’t want to defend now – at least not publicly. I think some people just like to cause trouble.
@Don Q, I don’t like being told I’m making a political statement, when I’m not. What I was saying is that with your thinking you trying to create an impossible burden, and God doesn’t do that.
I would echo AR words below:
“In terms of Christianity, the only definitive standard is God’s Word”
see Matthew 5:32, note not only does Jesus not say “once married always …” ( I don’t even want to use that phrase), what he is saying is :
If she hasn’t sinned with fornication and you divorce then you cause her and her next husband to commit adultery.
If she has sinned with fornication and you divorce then you don’t.
Note Jesus doesn’t say her and new husband will be committing adultery continuously upon her remarriage and he also does say “whoever will be marrying”, so its a new marriage. He makes no reference at all to her being still married to her previous husband. Nor does he say they couldn’t divorce.
Until he said this the Jews thought they could have a sinless divorce for any reason with a certificate of divorce.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, I won’t be revisiting this topic with you.
One last thing many blogs have standards about not trolling your own website in the comments section even once, I notice you have done this 4 times in just this ONE thread, is this not rather unbecoming ? Dalrock is a obviously very graceful host so I doubt he would say anything, but how many others do you see doing this ?
Minesweeper says:
August 25, 2014 at 3:23 am
My apologies, I get a bit excited when I see the word “spouse”.
Ok, we disagree here. I’m convinced that a covenant ’till death’ is until death. I didn’t create the rules, just trying to explain my understanding of them.
Now we agree. But we have different perceptions of God’s word.
But if the marriage is adulterous how can marital relations be anything else?
And Paul must have been wrong to say: “So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress…Rom.7:3
See Paul’s quote above.
You’re right. Dalrock is very gracious host, and I should stop spamming.
Sorry for my lack of tact.
Ballista is basically standing for perfection in Christians from what I was finding on his blog.
High standards, yes. i find those at Society of Phineas. My toes get stepped on…hard. But if he was advocating sinless perfection he wouldn’t participate at my blog, 😉 .
I don’t agree 100% with everything on his blog as I’m sure he doesn’t agree with everything on mine, but I think Ballista argues in good faith. I lean heavily toward giving people the benefit of the doubt.
As for to the topic, there is something to be said for the fact that men accept far too much baggage while taking on far too much risk when they marry in the current legal and social climate. It’s also true that just saying the vows in a church does not a Biblical marriage make.
My purpose is a bit different than Ballista’s in that my focus is on those of us who have already done the deed, and how to live as closely to Biblical marriage as possible in our homes, while making a conscious effort to ignore everything the law (and even the church) says you can do if you’re not getting what you deserve.
For better or worse, Christian men who feel they can economically handle marriage are going to get married because for many celibacy is too distasteful an option. So I do my part to help their wives as they cross my path online and in real life.
I have no problem with Ballista sounding the alarm about the risk men face when they marry women with a colorful past full of rich experiences. And I don’t think doing so means he’s advocating perfection. More like encouraging discernment.
OT
I published a short article about instances of breaking rapport in the Song of Solomon.
@monkeywerks says:
August 24, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Indeed, where does this mythical saying come from ? All I can see is Men love, Women submit.
It’s been turned into Men lead (like a damm general and provide all neccesarry provision), Women ……errrr…just try to put up with his inferior leading and work your way around it, if his leading is too inferrro then pull the escape cord, its only biblical (for yourself and the children not to be stuck with inferior leading), but don’t worry, you will get your proper leader iwth the next marriage, your previous leader will be taught a good lesson for his own benefit and to benefit other men who are still learning to lead their wives and children in what will happen should they fail.
I could agree with all of that. I had a LTR after my marriage broke up and it was x1000 times better at least than the time I had with my “‘christian’ wife”. It was lovely to have experience respect in a relationship.
In my experience there are far more damaged women inside the church than outside, far more. The damaged ones tend to arrive at the church and never right themselves. I’ve come to the conclusion that most females rarely recover from almsot anything serious. Its just not in them to really push through the pain of restoration.
Once the emotional\physical pain becomes too much, they collapse and return their to starting position. It just a never ending loop from then on.
*multiple spelling errors ! come on WordPress can’t you let us edit or spell check ????
or at least preview before posting……..
All the major Churches today, in fact, see men merely as beasts of burden: as tools to serve their own interests (via paying tithes) and the interests of women, seen as much spiritually and morally superior to men. Men should do the hard labor and pay the bills so that women can be freed of those tasks so they can do the REALLY important stuff. Seen in this light, EVERYTHING makes sense: men’s sexual desires are of course base and beastly, while women’s are pure and noble. If a woman commits adultery, it must be because the man drove her to it. If a woman frivorces, he must have done something to deserve it. Fatherhood is great and wonderful – as long as it is exercised according to a woman’s wishes – but if contrary to it, it’s bad and even dangerous. Obviously it can’t really be true that wives should submit to and obey their obviously inferior husbands, so this must mean either “servant leadership” or “mutual submission”. It ought to be a woman’s decision whether to join the paid workforce or not, as she ought to decide where her “feminine genius” will be best put to use; but it’s still of course the man’s primary job to pay the bills. Oh, and pushing a baby through a birth canal is a MUCH higher achievement than sending a man to the moon or finding a vaccine for polio. Etc., etc. And if men complain about this they should “man up” and stop complaining because none of these problems could ever be women’s fault.
@Don Quixote
Take heart, sir. I worship amongst a body of believers where divorce and remarriage is not tolerated. We broker no compromise – no exceptions for “my wife committed adultery, so it’s ok” or “technically men can be polygamists so men can take multiple wives”.
The net effect is that marriages and families are strong. Our retention rate of young people (which is not how a church should be judged, by the way) is high. People who want to blow up marriages are not welcome. Feminists are not welcome. People who decide to leave their spouse usually just leave the church.
There are certainly marriages in trouble – women who want to leave their husbands, women who have created sexless marriages. But the men in the church at least still get to see their kids more than every other weekend and aren’t going broke making alimony and child support payments. And marriages actually do get reconciled.
@Minesweeper
I get it, man. Christianity isn’t for you. You want to live your life based on feelings and based on hedonistic pleasure. Christ promised us persecution, poverty, and martyrdom.
However, I do take issue with your assertion: “I just don’t see a lot of unplugged or red pill men being converted to Christianity.” You seem to think that all men want is endless sexual pleasure. I know plenty of people who are seeking something else, although most people who have turned their lives over to pleasure seek it in more practical ways than sex, such as drugs. Some of these people want set free, and want to become Christians.
The simple fact is: any man or woman who fornicates will not inherit the kingdom of God and will not inherit eternal life. I decided being a follower of Christ was more important than sleeping with lots of pretty girls.
So, it’s futile to think that any kind of a solution will come from the Churches, and the “manly” thing to do, at least for me, was to leave. Many others have thought the same, and congregations are becoming more and more female. This is not, as pastors would like to think, because women are inherently more spiritual, but because more and more men are becoming fed up with the pastors’ pandering to women. No amount of typical tactics like “man up” shaming language, or pseudo-religious hypocrisy like preaching about “bearing the cross” will make us change our minds.
I know some will say: this isn’t Christianity, it’s Churchianity; they’ve gotten away from God’s Word. Okay, for instance, show me one, just one Church, that will preach on how unjust divorce is to men. Sure, many don’t like divorce, but they are COMPLETELY focused on how it affects women (one RCC article even cited the discredited Weizmann paper about how women’s standard of living allegedly decreased by over 50% or some ridiculous figure) and they completely assume that the reason for divorce is the husband trading in for a younger model or some other fault of the husband’s. If you want me to believe that the answer is going back to God’s Word, and that God’s Word does not entail female moral or spiritual superiority, then show me one Church that actually does this.
Nope, your quotes above were from : monkeywerks @ August 24, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Not guilty your honour 😀
Brother Ballista writes,
As if on cue, Monkeywerks is back with the same argument that has been deconstructed half a dozen times already. Rather than address the issue, he simply declares his OWN gospel:
One could make the case (as both Jesus and Paul did), that bringing your carnal nature (your “base impulses”) under subjection is the very essence of the Christian walk once we have been redeemed. And, at the risk of repeating myself,
“I’m done trying to convince you otherwise. You’re a grown man: if you want to get your freak on, go right ahead. But don’t say you weren’t warned.”
For anyone interested, I dealt with all of Monkeywerks’ objections to Christian (not just Churchian – Christian) doctrine here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137702 and especially here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137702
I have to agree that Christianity does have a big problem in that many churches have become false witnesses and departed from Christ, yet still claim the name. I am a little surprised, though, considering the debate over whether a man can remarry after he is divorced, that more attention hasn’t been given to the failure of church leadership to discipline the flock! Yes, many churches teach feminism instead of God’s commands for women, but a bigger issue is that these “church leaders” are not upholding their duties towards their congregations. If a woman divorces her husband, and refuses to be reconciled to him, she should be EXCOMMUNICATED. It doesn’t matter if she claims to be a believer, if she sins in this way and remains stubborn in her rebellion, she should be cast out and treated as an unbeliever who has abandoned a believing spouse. “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances” – if a husband is divorced by his wife (and Christian wives are specifically forbidden from doing this even to unbelieving husbands!) then IMO the man is free to remarry. No matter what she claims about her own status, her actions speak louder than words.
If she later repents, then the church can have a discussion about whether or not polygynous marriage is appropriate, or whether she must remain celibate for the rest of her life – I think in this circumstance, it should be allowed if the man consents to take her back, although of course he would thereafter be barred from church office. This key provision, in addition to all the examples of how polygynous marriages Always Cause A Lot of Trouble in Scripture, that indicates that this arrangement is not the ideal marriage as originally designed by God. Consider that for hundreds upon hundreds of years, God allowed the Jews to have divorce-on-demand for husbands – and Jesus reveals that this cultural practice was causing people to commit adultery! God obviously doesn’t think that we need to have every little specific detail of marriage rules laid out explicitly when He’s already given us the creation example. I’m reminded of Luke 16:31 – if you won’t listen to the instruction of Scripture, God’s not going to make an exceptional effort to get the point through your thick skull; He’s going to let you rationalize your way right into Hell!
Re: judgmental Christians. LOL! The problem with mainstream American Christianity is that it is not judgmental enough – specifically it has failed to properly judge itself. And indeed, all the passages decrying judging others by measures not held against oneself will apply. But make no mistake – Christianity in its purest form is extremely judgmental. It tells everyone that they are sinners – and points to the most closely held, cherished vices of the human heart as damnable sins! Remember that before mercy can be received, there must be judgment – because one who is not condemned has no need of mercy at all. Christians are to judge each other, and themselves, most harshly of all – yet we cannot stop condemning sin wherever it is found, inside the church or out. Of course unrepentant sinners hate hearing that their favorite behavior is unacceptable, and say, “Don’t judge me!”
Re: BradA Versus Ballista74.
I have no knowledge of the kerfuffle, but I’ve encountered both of these men enough times to say that I agree with both of them the vast majority of the time. Something must have gone awfully sideways for a parting of the ways like that.
Like Elspeth noted above, I’m inclined to give a person the benefit of the doubt (until that person forfeits that consideration by repeatedly rejecting the clear teaching of scripture or declaring God to be incorrect, for example). Although I have occasionally found myself in (usually minor) disagreement with both if these men, both BradA and Ballista74 are securely in my “He definitely gets the benefit of the doubt” category when it comes to motives.
FWIW, my advice is for both of you to kiss and make up – figuratively speaking, of course.
pancakeloach says:
August 25, 2014 at 9:54 am
Bravo!
@BradA
Antinomy, not antimony. My bad.
You quibble over details, but you provide no alternate exegesis of the text. Polygyny was regulated by God and nowhere in Scripture is it forbidden or condemned. You admit as much. Yet the church, forbidding it, added to the Law, which was forbidden in and of itself. There is an incredible amount of data supporting that what is known as ‘dread game’ works. Christians lament that they can’t engage in such a practice when in fact the Bible supports it. The threat of a husband taking a rival wife if the wife of his youth decides to make his life hell is a very helpful tool in keeping the marriage on course.
Jesus clearly said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” but everybody wants an exception. I consider the Christians who comment here to be, for the most part, far more serious about their faith than those I meet in church. Yet, on these critical issues dealing with marriage everyone wants to ignore what the Bible actually says and stick to their catechism. I think the doctrines dealing with marriage and family to be the most important in the Bible, so why is there so much resistance to recognizing what the Bible actually says about this?
No man wants to be an incel but sex is only sanctioned within marriage. What is marriage? What are the Biblical elements of marriage? Permission of the father? It didn’t always happen. Agreement of the two to marry? That was normal, but it didn’t always happen because if a woman was captured in war, her captor could (after shaving her head and waiting for her month of mourning) marry her. And what about the girls that got grabbed by the men of Dan at Shiloh? Marriage always required consummation (sex) and cohabitation to establish the marriage, but it seems to me that the state of mind to be married (a permanent commitment) is required. In Malachi God tells the people they dealt treacherously with the wife of their youth, their wife by covenant. A Covenant is an agreement to which God is a party.
Wives are commanded not to separate from their husbands, but if they do they are to remain single or be reconciled to their husband. Husbands are commanded not to divorce their wives. So, the question (from a Biblical perspective) is whether moving a woman into your home, bedding her and personally making a lifelong commitment to her makes her your wife. If not, what additional factors are required for God to honor it as a marriage?
Lyn87 says:
August 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm
I hate to disagree with you on the point of there is no such thing as until death do us part. I usually agree with and look forward to your posts. I was married once in a till death did us part marriage. That does not mean the institution of marriage was the cause or even the facilitator. When 50% of marriages dissolve, and there is no penalty to pay for at least the female half of the marriage partnership, then the institution is not until death does us part. The no-fault, unilateral, divorce was the death of until death does us part marriage. Sorry, but that is just the facts. If some people manage to stay married their whole lives I am happy for them and have the utmost respect for the effort they put into that accomplishment. However, it does nothing to restore the nature of marriage in the west.
BrainyOne –
Okay, for instance, show me one, just one Church, that will preach on how unjust divorce is to men. … If you want me to believe that the answer is going back to God’s Word, and that God’s Word does not entail female moral or spiritual superiority, then show me one Church that actually does this.
The church I attend does not pander to feminism, nor does it give credence to the notion that women are superior in any way. Women are held accountable the same as men. The last mother’s day sermon blasted women for the mess they were making of motherhood. Our pastor quoted statistics from the CDC to criticize the actions of women who divorce their husbands, women who have kids out of wedlock, and women who abuse their children. A lot of people were shocked when he read the numbers. Wifely submission is preached at our church.
That’s not to say that their aren’t individuals who think women are above reproach, or at least THEIR women are, but they abide by church (bible) doctrine like the rest of us. There are other churches out there that aren’t feminized, though few and far apart they may be.
AT, “dread game” in a Christian marriage ought to be the very real threat of having her husband bring her up before her church elders and telling them, “My wife is in rebellion, she consistently refuses her wifely duties, and she will not listen to me.” Thereafter, if a wife is continuing in sin and refusing correction, not only from her husband but also from her church elders, let her be excommunicated as per Matthew 18:17. This threat of public shaming and ostracization should encourage wives very well without men needing to make convoluted rationalizations about how husbands shacking up with younger, prettier women is permitted. In addition, this threat of being excommunicated and shamed before the church is likely to cause a woman to either repent, or remain in rebellion and pull the divorce trigger herself, freeing her abandoned husband to remarry.
If you don’t have a church whose elders will do this, find one – they do exist. That’s a man’s duty as a husband and head of household: to find a church that will fulfill its Biblical duties to discipline and lead the congregation, men AND women alike. It’s better to do this at the beginning, of course, than stay in a feminized churchian group until trouble befalls you. Trust me, I am well aware that if I stepped over the line, my husband could go to the elders, and they would come down on me like a ton of ESV-packed shipping crates – first to attempt to correct me in love, and then to excommunicate me if I failed to heed their discipline as I vowed to do when we joined the congregation. This creates a significant amount of dread without my husband needing to do anything, not even mention the possibility of it happening! (Not to say that my church is perfect in this matter – but the elders can and do excommunicate people if attempting to lead them back into fellowship fails.) The failure of the mainline denominations to do this – including the RCC – is a huge black mark against them.
However, just because the institutions that SHOULD be levying harsh penalties against breaking of the marriage covenant aren’t doing so does not in any way mean that the institution of Biblical marriage does not exist. If you were to court a young woman, make a lifelong commitment of sexual access and exclusivity to her (which she must then reciprocate), calling upon God to witness, and then move her into your home and set up a shared household: yes, you are married! This is called common-law marriage. Ceremonies and legal paperwork are not required: those things are for society, so that your community can witness your vows and (ideally) help you both to keep them. They are icing, not cake.
@Pancakeloach
If a woman divorces her husband, and refuses to be reconciled to him, she should be EXCOMMUNICATED.
The problem I have with this is Christ said the wife is not to leave her husband, but if she does she is to remain single or be reconciled to him. The implication is that in some circumstances she should leave and if she does she is within the command if she remains chaste.
If she later repents, then the church can have a discussion about whether or not polygynous marriage is appropriate, or whether she must remain celibate for the rest of her life – I think in this circumstance, it should be allowed if the man consents to take her back, although of course he would thereafter be barred from church office. This key provision, in addition to all the examples of how polygynous marriages Always Cause A Lot of Trouble in Scripture, that indicates that this arrangement is not the ideal marriage as originally designed by God.
This presumes the church was given authority over marriage. That completely disagrees with Ephesians 5:22-24 which clearly states the authority over the marriage belongs to the husband in the same way the authority over the church belongs to Christ. Way upthread I pointed out that it was the church that first invaded the family and imposed rules within the marriage to the point of regulating the marriage bed. The church received no such grant of authority and there is no difference between that and the state presuming to dictate doctrine and liturgy within the church.
1st Corinthians 7:10 indicates the believing wife who separated herself from her believing husband is still his wife (or be reconciled to her husband). I believe this is why some conservative sects don’t believe in remarriage, but this is simply a case of empowering women at the expense of men. No wife has the authority to sentence her husband to be an incel because God allowed polygyny and regulated it. Pointing to examples of polygynous marriages that had problems is a straw-man argument because polygyny is simply one of the tools available to husbands in dealing with wives. Compare it to corporal punishment of wives. Neither are commanded, neither are forbidden, there is significant textual support for both and both were culturally acceptable in Biblical times. Most significantly, both fall under the headship authority possessed by the husband and from what Scripture says, it’s the husband’s decision to make.
This threat of public shaming and ostracization should encourage wives very well without men needing to make convoluted rationalizations about how husbands shacking up with younger, prettier women is permitted.
There is no convoluted rationalization at work here. However much I may agree with your comments of public shaming and ostracization, churches do not honor the church discipline of other churches so all this shamed and ostracized woman has to do is drive in a different direction and she’ll find another church that preaches Jesus forgives everything and don’t forget to tithe.
1st Peter 3:7 says for husbands to live with their wives… so I think there is a good argument that the believing husband cannot refuse to be reconciled to the wife that returns in repentance. Marriage is a type for the relationship between Christ and the church and it cannot be contemplated that Christ would reject one of His who returned after confession and repentance.
The problem with the interpretation of leaders in the church being husbands of one wife is the exact same phrase (in Greek) was used to describe the widows who were to be provided for by the church. All of the qualifications for elders speak to their moral character and being faithfully married to more than one woman is not a moral issue. Being a “ladies man” with a wandering eye while married to one woman is a different story.
this arrangement is not the ideal marriage as originally designed by God.
And yet God’s Word is for all people for all time. It endures forever.
The family is under attack today like never before and the teachings of the Bible with regard to marriage and the roles of husband and wife are among the most clearly stated in the various passages (Ephesians 5, 1st Corinthians 7, 1st Peter 3, et al) of the Bible. Anyone who reads this blog knows that. Jesus said to render to Caesar the things of Caesar and render to God the things of God. Marriage belongs to God, not Caesar. In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus made the point that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Does anybody really think that God will accept a piece of paper out of a family court as legitimate? It seems to me that the Christians who make that claim are committing idolatry because they are giving authority to the state that correctly belongs to God and God alone.
Let’s say your wife went down to the Temple of Baal and got the priest to wave his hands and pronounce the marriage was over. Are you still married to her? She steals your stuff and moves into the Temple of Baal. Are you still married? Better question: As far as God is concerned, are you still married?
Upthread I provided my analysis and exegesis of Matthew 19:1-9 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, which boils down to no divorce for any reason for two believers married to each other. To say the believing husband is actually divorced from his believing wife after she frivorces him in a state court is to say a family court judge can trump God’s Word. If she marries another after that she’s an adulteress. If he takes another wife after being frivorced, he’s didn’t “remarry.” He took another wife in addition to the one he’s already got that’s in rebellion against both him and God.
Dear Artisinal Toad:
(Great username, by the way)
Do you have a canonical source for this contention? Where is the “taking of the second wife” mentioned in the New Testament?
Thanks, Boxer
JDG:
“Our pastor quoted statistics from the CDC to criticize the actions of women who divorce their husbands, women who have kids out of wedlock, and women who abuse their children. A lot of people were shocked when he read the numbers.”
Meh, I’ve always been rather impressed by the female’s ability to just laugh in the face of evidence, and go right on her merry way, undaunted.
It’s dam*** depressing, that’s what it is.
JDG-
I don’t deny there exist individual pastors of individual Churches that haven’t swallowed the blue pill. Is your Church a member of any mainline denomination? I’m guessing no, otherwise your pastor would likely be reported to his superiors for his supposed “insensitivity” to women and their needs.
pancakeloach-
That is all very well until the woman decides she doesn’t like that Church any more due to its supposed “misogyny”.
From: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904856&page=10
By the way, do you genuinely think that fault divorce would make divorce less nasty? I guarantee you that people would just cook up faults–you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube when people have been used to a no fault system for so long.
—
Dalrock, there is so much fodder on that thread – I’ve mirrored it just in case it goes down, by the way.
Thinkn’Man says:
August 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Meh, I’ve always been rather impressed by the female’s ability to just laugh in the face of evidence, and go right on her merry way, undaunted.
It’s dam*** depressing, that’s what it is.
No doubt and some of them did, but they are still held accountable for their actions unless they leave (which some have in the past).
Mikediver5,
I will agree with you to a limited extent: the legal institution of marriage is not an enforced lifetime commitment. But marriage is defined by God – not the state. That’s all I’m willing to agree to. Here’s why:
I would posit that you are saying that because the current legalities of the western nations do not enforce ’til death do us part (at least on women), that the institute of matrimony – as created by God and spoken of by Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, does not exist.
I would counter that nothing a man – or any group of men – can do can ever undo what God has done. If every married human being in the world suddenly decided to divorce his/her spouse tomorrow and every court allowed it… if every polity on the planet outlawed marriage tomorrow… if every denomination declared every marriage to be invalid tomorrow…
Marriage would still be ’til death do us part tomorrow… and the day after, and the day after that…
Because God says so.
Fact is, if anyone is counting on governments of men to define and defend their marriages, they should read Jeremiah 17:5, Psalm 20:7, and 2 Corinthians 10: 3-6. I’ll quote the Jeremiah passage for the warning it contains against that sort of thinking:
This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD. – Jeremiah 17:5.
Plus, it is simply a fact that most marriages last until one of the spouses dies, even today in the United States. The lifetime marriage rate is also higher among people who self-identify as Christians than among the general population. That is NOT to condone the divorce-industrial complex or the willingness of most churches to endorse it, but it is to say that the majority of people who get married – and a super-majority of professing Christians who do so – stay married for life.
BrainyOne –
My comment was in response to this:
show me one, just one Church, that will preach on how unjust divorce is to men.
and this:
then show me one Church that actually does this.
I thought you were being literal. My bad.
Is your Church a member of any mainline denomination? I’m guessing no, otherwise your pastor would likely be reported to his superiors for his supposed “insensitivity” to women and their needs.
His superiors know all about it. Some agree with him and some disagree.
Yes our church is a part of a large denomination, and that denomination is in the midst of a losing (IMO) battle against feminism. The churches within the denomination are choosing sides, but I think the denomination itself is lost. Others disagree and are still trying to fight to save it, but the infection is at the top levels and in the denominational universities. There is likely to be a very large split coming down the road.
We long ago decided we would part with the denomination before going down the egalitarian road with them..
MarcusD: as of about 2 minutes ago that thread has been nuked. I was up to page 8 out of 11 pages on it.
Good to see they accept constructive criticism. Hah
@Artisional August 25 10:20:
“the question (from a Biblical perspective) is whether moving a woman into your home, bedding her and personally making a lifelong commitment to her makes her your wife. If not, what additional factors are required for God to honor it as a marriage?”
I accept your challenge and believe this is EXACTLY what the Lord was talking about- not this modern legal Leviathan and abomination that we call “marriage.”
Thanks for picking up the banner on this argument. It is heresy to say the STATE gets the final word on what God has joined. Your discussion Churchianity hampering true Christians is well thought out. Without the Dread men have NO POWER at all in a modern relationship. Without the Dread the woman will begin to ration the sex and seize control. THAT is not a marriage. THAT is not Biblical.
In the 1st century- the institution that the Lord was talking about and NOT the current institution- a man was permitted to take a second wife. Jesus was speaking to the spurned women who were left on the streets to beg when he said no divorce except for adultery- not the spurned men because it didn’t happen I the 1st century because men had the power. Today they don’t. The legal institution of marriage is a fraud today and the institution our Lord created no longer exists. It is not that it is more difficult. It is practically IMPOSSIBLE without the Dread to maintain your wife’s attraction and some so called Christians want to remove even this tiny sliver of power that men still have. I think advocates of this point of view are going to have some explaining to do when Jesus tells them “away from me for I never knew you” but it will be to late.
@Boxer: The power to take a second wife was assumed in the 1st Century. Paul mentions that Elders are only supposed to have one wife and therefore impliedly condones the practice for everyone else. Do you seriously want doctrine for polygamy- besides Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
Looks like it went down: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=904856&page=10
I guess the mods weren’t happy about the way it was going…
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/caf-confirms-what-many-already-knew.html
@Boxer
Do you have a canonical source for this contention? Where is the “taking of the second wife” mentioned in the New Testament?
Not sure what you mean by canonical. I just go by what the Bible says.
The real question is who has authority over marriage. The state claims it does with laws requiring marriage licenses (which, according to the Supreme Court are ‘merely directory’) and other laws allowing the dissolution of the marriage by either party for any reason. The church claims it has authority over marriage to one extent or another as one passes through the spectrum from RCC to various protestant sects. However, the authority to initiate a marriage is invested in the man (Genesis 2:24) and the Bible clearly says the husband is the authority over marriage (Ephesians 5:22-24) according to the rules God gave for marriage.
So, if marriage belongs to God and He placed the husband in authority over his marriage, does the state have the authority to dissolve the union? Well, they *claim* they do and enforce that claim with guns and badges.
If a believing wife separates from her husband and divorces him in a state court, the question is whether God will see that as a legitimate divorce. My understanding of Scripture is the only legitimate divorce for a believer is if their unbelieving spouse refuses to stay with them. Per 1st Corinthians 7:12-15, in those cases the believer is free and the divorce is legitimate.
If that is not the case, then from God’s perspective they’re still married.
If the husband marries another woman that’s eligible to marry he now has two wives.
If the wife does not remain chaste while separated she is an adulteress.
If she marries another man the marriage is invalid because she’s still married to the first.
If she repents and desires to reconcile herself with her husband, he can’t say no just because he married a second wife.
The marriage license requirement was originally created as a form of notification when a couple became betrothed. Instead of nailing the notice on the church wall, you filed notice with your Secretary of State office and then a notice was ra in the newspaper. That was the extent of the licence, which used her is a statutory term of art.
You can research your states marriage laws prior to feminism for verification of this. The state had to change the scope of the license in order to better regulate marriage and make it a state institution, thus removing it from the purview of the church.
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/caf-confirms-what-many-already-knew.html
Are you serious???
Criticism against feminism is the reason cited for locking someone’s account on a Catholic site? They’re not even trying to hide it any more. How far up the leadership chain does the infection go in Catholic circles?
Now how can you trust anything coming from the church?
Now how can you trust anything coming from the church?
Lyn87,
Let me try and make my point clearer. Yes marriage was instituted by God. But humanity and mostly western culture have corrupted it beyond recognition.
I was raised Catholic. Marriage was taught to be a sacrament and a covenant. A covenant is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as 1: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement. Marriage today may still be formal and, to a limited extent, solemn, but it is not binding. In that it is not binding it is not a covenant, and therefore is not a biblical marriage. God’s marriage is still in existence somewhere (the Philippines in my mind), but not here. What people in the west are doing when they stand up in church and make vows that over 50% of brides are not serious about even while they are making them, is not a biblical covenant marriage in accordance with God’s directives. When I was divorced from my first wife, a serial multiple adulterer who had basically abandoned the marriage and our daughter, I was not excommunicated from the church. I was however driven out as a scapegoat and pariah. I was also not allowed to remarry in the church. The church and I have gone our separate ways. During the divorce my soon to be ex-wife informed me that she walked down the aisle with the attitude that it was a let’s see how this works out and if it doesn’t I’ll just get a divorce. She was hardly making a solemn and binding vow. Today women do not marry “until death does us part”, but rather for as long as it makes them happy. This has been written into law.
I am sorry to say that I have to agree that those men that continue to follow the State rather than the God given marriage are not doing their part to restore God’s intentions for the human race. The only way to restore God’s marriage is to refuse to participate in the abomination that is currently on offer.
Dear Artisanal Toad:
I admire that. I think the Bible says lots of things. What I was specifically looking for, and what you never provided, is a biblical reference for the process you described earlier. You remember you wrote:
Is there a verse in the New Testament where this process of taking multiple wives is regulated, or even discussed? If not, then what are you basing this contention on?
Thanks, Boxer
Are you serious???
Criticism against feminism is the reason cited for locking someone’s account on a Catholic site?
Yes. If you saw the deleted thread above (I’m working on getting the mirror up), you could see how corrupted the whole forum is (I have one quote further up). It’s absolutely amazing. People on there are calling for the expansion of no-fault divorce. If that’s not anti-Catholic (or pro-sin), I don’t know what is. Reminds me of a video by an atheist (but the sentiment is similar):
MD5,
Okay. I have always maintained that the civil aspect of marriage was completely extraneous to the actual institution of marriage. We’re mixing terms here: when you say “marriage” in terms of the legal sort-of-contract that exists in western LAW, then yes, there is no such thing as ’til death do us part. No argument from me. In fact, I was among the first to make that point a very long time ago – before the man-o-sphere was even a thing.
When I use the word marriage I generally mean the life-long covenant relationship between two people (husband and wife). Whether anyone got a piece of paper from the courthouse is only of interest with regard to how the state classifies the relationship for legal purposes.
Same thing with the word divorce. Just as getting a letter from the county clerk doesn’t make you married; getting a divorce decree from the county judge doesn’t make you divorced.
God defines marriage. God defines divorce. The state may come in with laws and guns, but the state cannot usurp the authority of God. They can enforce unrighteous judgements, but they cannot make those judgements righteous.
Case in point: one of my sisters-in-law divorced her husband (unjustified and really stupid on a lot of levels). She recently got married – in the legal sense – to a guy who is permanently impotent. I maintain that they are not married, since 1) her divorce – though legal – is not actual, and 2) they have not, and will never, consummate the union. The law considers her to be both divorced and remarried – I consider her to be neither. Needless to say, we didn’t attend the ceremony or send a gift.
I new the mods and many of the participants on the site were feminist in their thinking (I’ve commented there as underdog), but I didn’t know that they would come out and directly state it on the internet. That’s why I wonder how far up the chain of command this goes.
Boxer,
Since AT hasn’t come back yet, I’ll answer your question. The short answer is that the New Testament does not address the practice of having multiple wives except for two instances that are tangential to the topic – the qualifications for deacons and elders found in both 1 Timothy Chapter 3 and Titus Chapter 1. All it says is that the men who hold those offices in the church are to be the husband of one wife. That is not generally considered to preclude widowers who have yet to remarry (they have no wife at all). It does, in my view, render the entirely of RCC clergy unqualified, though, as they cannot ever be married, so are unable to demonstrate their qualifications as heads of households, as listed in both passages. Those passages, as well as 1 Timothy 4: 1-3, are a death sentence for the RCC requirement for priestly celibacy.
Nothing forbids bigamy or polygamy in the New Testament per se, except for those who hold those offices.
Pancakeloach alluded to this up-thread at August 25, 2014 at 9:54 am, when she said that a man whose wife abandoned her who took her back after marrying a second wife could remain in good standing, but not hold office in the church.
Dear Lyn87:
1 Timothy 3 is the verse that my relatives use, when I ask them this same question. My relatives, mind you, are fundamentalist Mormons, and don’t take the New Testament as canon, but only as divinely inspired literature “true as far as it has been translated correctly” etc. So, they use it as a backup, in an attempt to suggest that historically (when Christians were living under a genuine revelation) it was not forbidden, which comes to my second point.
Nothing forbids homosexuality in the New Testament either. It’s not mentioned even once. Gay and lesbian Christians use this to imply that homosexuality is permitted by Jesus, St. Paul, and the New Testament. They, like you guys, aren’t necessarily wrong; but, we should acknowledge that they, like you, are interpreting the gray areas, rather than enjoying an explicit permission of the text.
Always enjoy your comments here, by the way. You’re one of the scriptural heavy hitters.
Best, Boxer
Boxer, writes, “Nothing forbids homosexuality in the New Testament either. It’s not mentioned even once.”
Actually, the New Testament condemns homosexuality in three places (arguably four if you count the oblique reference in Jude 7).
Romans 1: 18 – 32: For the sake of brevity I’ll just quote verses 26 – 28: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (KJV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)
and 1 Timothy 1: 8-10: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine … (ESV)
Bottom line – polygamy is only mentioned in the New Testament as a disqualifying trait for a man who seeks to be an elder or deacon – it is otherwise not mentioned at all. Unlike homosexuality, which is expressly condemned three times in the New Testament and several times in the Old Testament.
John Nesteutes says:
August 25, 2014 at 9:11 am
Thanks for your kind words. It is encouraging to hear of churches that still hold to biblical principles concerning marriage. But I have seen the exact same problem where a couple want to [re]marry and the pastor refuses to perform the ceremony they just go to another [desperate for members] church and they’re treated like virgins…[sigh]
Nothing forbids homosexuality in the New Testament either. It’s not mentioned even once.
1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1 Timothy 1:8-10 ESV
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine,
Also sexual immorality is mentioned a few times, of which homosexuality is a subset.
Surely you know this, are you arguing against translation of the word arsenokoitai?
@Monkeywerks @Boxer
In the case Meister v Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)) the Supreme Court held that marriage is a right and any state laws requiring marriage licenses were ‘merely directory.’ That case was decided in 1877 and the ruling has been upheld at every point the issue of marriage has been revisited since then. The legal definition of the word ‘directory’ means it’s nothing more than a polite suggestion and there can be no penalties or invalidating consequences for disregarding such a law. A license, in general, is a permission granted by a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, unlawful, a tort or a trespass. In other words, if you have the right to do something you don’t have to get somebody else’s permission.
The flip side of that is the array of laws on the books that criminalize the solemnizing of a marriage in which the couple doesn’t have a license. In Alabama, for example, a preacher who married a couple without a license is fined $1000 and $500 of that goes to the person who reported it. One of the reasons the church is powerless is because they drank the corporate Koolaid. See Hale v Henkel.
…the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
In other words, any incorporated church is nothing more than a non-profit business entity providing services of a religious nature to the public. It was created by the state and is subject to the laws of the state, its creator.
In my world, any church that publicly claims they were created by the state and subjects themselves to the laws of the state is committing the sins of idolatry and blasphemy. Of course, it’s the same as the marriage license. “This is the way it’s done, son, so just sign on the dotted line…”
@Boxer
There are no discussions of the practice of polygyny in the NT. In the OT the practice was regulated in the Law. Exodus 21:7-11 discusses purchasing a woman from her father to be a wife. The mention of conjugal rights pretty much confirms that. Leviticus 18:17-18, not to have sex with both a mother and her daughter, not to take the sister of your wife as a rival wife. Deuteronomy 21:15 is another judgment of Moses, specifying that if a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, if the firstborn son is from the unloved wife he must still be given the rights of primogeniture.
There are those who desire the qualifications for overseers within the church be the husband of only one wife, but a thorough exegesis of that passage yields a different meaning because the exact same phrase was used to describe the widows as ‘wife of one husband.’ I believe the best exegesis is it’s the overseer is not to be a ladies man and the widow going onto the church rolls as a widow in need of support is not a flirt. Keep in mind, these are moral qualifications. It is my position (as I’ve stated upthread and cited extensively) that the judgment of Moses at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was acknowledged by the Lord in Matthew 19 as being the product of Moses, that it contradicted God’s plan for marriage, that as a man He interpreted it in the strictest terms and as the Risen Lord He overturned that judgment and forbid divorce to His bondservants at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11..
Back when I was a member of a civil rights litigation group, I had an old judge (a friend of my father who was trying to keep me out of jail) explain something very significant: He said “sometimes, what the order does not say is as important if not more important than what the order does say. In trying to interpret a judicial decision you must always consider what the judge could have said.” There is only one true judge and sometimes it’s important to look at what He didn’t say.and then think long and hard about the wisdom of speaking where He was silent. Not accusing you of that, but all God did was regulate the practice. He didn’t forbid it and he certainly could have.
Sorry Lyn87, I didn’t see your responses until after I posted.
Dear Lyn87:
I’m sort of a literalist, and I like to look things up in the old, misogynist King James Version of the bible. I note that the KJV only backs up your contention in one place, not three. That one scripture, though (Romans 1:27) is quite explicit; and I’m grateful you posted it.
The author of the New Testament was a rabbi named Saul of Tarsus. He was also a Roman citizen. When you read the New Testament in its historical context, you can find some easy rebuttals. Rome was monogamous by decree (marrying more than one spouse carried the death penalty, for instance). It can be argued that St. Paul didn’t mention polygamy because it was outside the legal bounds of normalcy.
I might also point out that one of the verses you attempted to use about homosexuality is tangenitally related:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1&version=KJV
1 Timothy 1:10 talks about “whoremongers”. My interpretation is that this would apply to a married man who “takes a second wife” (i.e. acquires a fuckbuddy — let’s just be honest and call this shit what it is).
OK., I’ll approach this in a more general way. Is there a verse in the New Testament that declares that “anything not forbidden is permitted”? Several verses in Qur’an declare this, so I hear Muslims using the underlying concept all the time, with justification. I’ve never seen it in the bible, though. (That doesn’t mean it’s not there).
As a secular dude, I won’t pretend to have an interest in your eternal salvation. I do know polygamy, though. I’ve seen it growing up, and while I’ve been largely sheltered from it, I was in a position to see how it operates. I would caution any of you brothers against seeing this as some sort of solution, not just for your sakes or your wives’, but for your children’s well being. The stories I can tell… you don’t even want to know.
Thanks again for your answers. Romans 1:27 is in my notebook.
Boxer
Dear Artisanal Toad:
I realize that. The Old Testament is important too. Freud wrote about it in “Moses and Monotheism” and in other places. His theory was that prehistory was a matriarchal civilization (mud huts, no written language, etc.) The old testament types were one step toward higher culture, in that they were setting up a patriarchal civilization, but they hadn’t achieved high culture yet.
Interestingly, Uncle Sig backs up Jesus in spirit, when the messiah talks about “Moses allowed you because of your hard hearts” (Matthew 19:8).
The point is that polygamy was a step away toward high culture, for the ancient Hebrews. For us, it would be a step back toward matriarchy.
I’ve also seen polygamy, as it is practiced. If you think it’s hard for a man to have one wife, you should imagine trying to please three or four, who have all day to collude together and commiserate. I should take a few of you guys to some family reunions, and you can see what’s what. LOL! I’m pretty sure you guys wouldn’t be all gung ho when you see the end result.
Regards, Boxer
Ahhh, AT, back to your old sawhorse again… you are a man full of perversions.
I refer to Jesus on the matter of marriage in Matthew 19; He refers back to creation as the way marriage was meant to be: 1 man + 1 woman. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (v. 5-6). This is the ideal of marriage we are to replicate. Two, becoming one. Not one becoming one with two. There is no way to live with the second spouse (through polygamy or “remarriage”) without sinning against the first spouse. A plain reading of Scripture, without a bias to support your personal peccadilloes, shows how Jesus expects Christian marriage to be structured. And that is why Christianity has always upheld monogamy.
A wife’s body is owned by her husband; a husband’s body is owned by his wife. One cannot give to a second wife what is already owned by the first. See 1 Cor 7:4.
I asked my husband about this whole polygamy deal. His first response:
“Why would I want to be responsible for TWO women? Three? No.”
And after that was the serious answer. First, that Adam had one wife. Second, that every single polygamous marriage that Scripture gives us a glimpse into was rife with jealously, discord, deception, and strife. You’d think if God was okay with it he’d have made it look a little more appealing. Just because something is recorded, doesn’t mean God condoned it.
And while the NT forbids elders and church leaders from having more than one wife, the OT expressly said that a king MUST NOT multiply wives. The man with the most resources available to support many wives is told not to multiply wives. There is something to consider.
I actually knew all that but we are acquainted with people who believe much like AT, with the express caveat that the man absolutely must be able to financially support the family. The Sister Wives approach is not allowed.
Dear Ellie:
Thanks. That’s what I perceive as the spirit of the text, too. These interpretations, wild as some of them seem, are an example of the fact that men have “rationalization hamsters” too (myself included, of course).
Best, Boxer
Boxer,
I’m usually a KJV guy myself – I chose the quotes I used based on two things: 1) the source I went to used different versions and I just picked them up as a blockquote, and 2) in the cases of the other two scriptures the KJV isn’t as clear – although the meaning from the original is clear. As I mentioned up-thread, the word “effeminate” refers to male homosexual conduct, not wearing frilly cuffs and penny loafers. The Strong’s lexicon of Ancient Greek supports that view – and that’s pretty much the Gold Standard for things of this sort. I DID put the version used for each quote so as not to give the impression that I was cherry-picking or hiding anything.
As far as the idea that “anything not forbidden is permitted,” that’s a tougher one to explain. Paul addressed the topic in 1 Corinthians twice: 6:12 and 10:23. It would not be proper to divorce that from his other statements about righteous living, so it’s NOT a license to sin. But if something is NOT a sin, he’s generally free to do it, although that doesn’t mean he necessarily should. Also, the passage in Romans 14 I quoted a day or two ago applies – to do something (even something that is otherwise acceptable) is sin if it causes another person to sin.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html
Hey Lyn87:
To be clear, I’m not accusing you of anything like that. I like KJV for a number of reasons: It’s great literature, it’s was, until recently, the bedrock of the English language (along with Shakespeare). For Mormons of my era, the bible is thought to be a flawed book, but we’re told that the KJV is the least flawed.
You were also right, and gave me one rock solid verse that I hadn’t picked up, so I appreciate it more than I might have let on. I appreciate your input and value your responses, even if I don’t completely concur with every point.
Boxer
@Boxer
My very dear Boxer, I must disagree with you. You said:
The point is that polygamy was a step away toward high culture, for the ancient Hebrews. For us, it would be a step back toward matriarchy.
Sir, it is feminism that has taken us down the path to matriarchy and the feral nature of women who will not be controlled by God’s Word. In His wisdom, God gave us a tool called polygyny that deals with the high-N sluts who have already preselected for polygyny through their predilection for carousel-riding and all-round sluttery. Yes, the Lord forgives them, but their earlier life’s choices created problems. Polygyny places these women in a sanctioned marital structure that is arguably far safer than any monogamous marriage today.
I too have seen polygyny, but evidently not of the sort you appear to be describing. My favorite example is a family of three women who banded together, consolidated their families and found the right guy for them. He married all of them at the same time and moved in with them. All property is owned by a trust, they have some complex legal agreements and contracts in place and while they live frugally their income is well north of $100k annually. I know a few families in which the women were lesbians in their BC days and deliberately chose to partner in marrying a shared husband. As one of them is fond of saying… “we didn’t get married to sleep alone.”
You appear to be attempting to assign a value judgment based on what Freud wrote. Mud huts? Bunk. The excavations at ancient Ur (that place Abraham came from) show a complex city with houses that had up to 18 rooms. We aren’t talking about mud huts here. When the kings of the north attacked the cities by the plain and carried away Lot, Abraham took his men 318 of them trained with the sword and spear; overtook them and rescued the victims. It was on his way back that he made a tythe to Melchizedek, the priest of God. 318 men trained with the sword and spear? That’s not mud-hut civilization. That requires organization.
You also said
1 Timothy 1:10 talks about “whoremongers”. My interpretation is that this would apply to a married man who “takes a second wife” (i.e. acquires a fuckbuddy — let’s just be honest and call this shit what it is).
I asked the question upthread, what are the elements of a Biblical marriage? Essentially it boils down to consummation, cohabitation and commitment. Let’s say you’ve got a woman who hits menopause, dries up (literally) and conducts a funeral for her libido. Her husband, OTOH, is going just fine and has zero need for little pills. It seems to me that from a Biblical standpoint, she either buys a couple of cases of Astroglide and commits to taking care of business, or says “Honey, let’s find us a merry widow we can both get along with and she can keep you warm at night. I may want something on special occasions, but I can’t keep up with you.” They find such a woman and move her in. He’s committed. Does that make her a fuckbuddy?
Dear Artisanal Toad:
Thanks for your response.
My question is where did he do this, in the text that we’re both fond of? It’s not surprising that you have yet to answer this.
Had you read Freud, or even the article you’re pretending to respond to, you’d appreciate his acknowledgement (and mine) that polygamy was a step away from the mud hut era of matriarchy, toward the high culture we enjoy today. His point (and mine) is that it was an intermediate step.
If you’d like to recreate the civilization of “ancient Ur” (I assume you’re talking about Mesopotamia here) you can do so. No one will stop you. Just don’t pretend that Jesus told you to do it, mmm-kay? The rest of us can read too, and your novel interpretation isn’t the only one available.
Regards, Boxer
Re: polygamy.
As we’ve all been discussing, polygamy is not ideal, and in some cases expressly forbidden (deacons and elders in the NT, and arguably kings in the OT). It seems to me that it otherwise falls into the list of things that are not forbidden, but not generally ideal, and certainly not for everyone.
Let’s say that a church has a couple of young widows with children. If they were willing to share a husband in order to secure provision for themselves and their children, and a man (of sufficient means) was willing to take them on as wives, I don’t see how that’s a problem, as long as everyone goes into it with their eyes open. He couldn’t hold ecclesiastical office, of course, and he couldn’t break the law by getting two marriage licenses from the state, but those are the only stipulations I can think of. As for the “marital debt,” as long as he can keep both his wives satisfied, neither has cause to complain.
I’m not trying to build an exclusive doctrine based on things not in scripture – I just picked that set of details for my hypothetical to illustrate that such an arrangement does not necessarily involve sin for any of the parties involved. Once we get past the idea that bigamy (or polygamy) is not necessarily sinful, we can discuss where we think the limits lie.
@Ellie
In light of your comments regarding 1st Corinthians 7:4, would you please explain Exodus 21:10? Is sharing unbiblical?
With respect to your desire to label polygyny as a perversion, would you please provide me a cite where God called it a perversion? I recall God calling bestiality a perversion, and I’m sure there are some others, but surely I’ve just missed it. Cite please. I already mentioned you (not by name) as being the only person to ever give me a reasonable objection to polygyny (taking a vow to forsake all others).
Boxer writes,
“To be clear, I’m not accusing you of anything like that.”
No offense taken: I know you’re not. That comment wasn’t really directed at you so much as to anyone who would accuse me of such (as you’ve noticed, I have critics who would grasp at any chance to accuse me of duplicity). I figured you and a few others would pick up on the fact that I quoted from different versions, but most readers would not.
You’re far too classy a guy to do that, and I appreciate it. I was just inoculating myself against charges of deliberately misconstruing things to bolster a point, and it was easier to write what I did that go into a dissertation on the Ancient Greek word malakos.
I’m glad I could be of assistance.
@Boxer
My very dear Boxer.
No, I did not read the paper by Freud. I might have looked at it if you’d provided a link, but as a rule I don’t place the thoughts of Freud on the same level as the Bible. Not even close. And I stick by my assertion that it’s feminism that’s pushing us toward matriarchy. Polygyny places men in the position of power within marriage, not women.
I have already provided cites to where polygyny was regulated under the Law. I suppose the command to be fruitful and multiply counts inasmuch as it provides no limitation on the command to fill the earth and take dominion over it. I already compared polygyny to farming, yet as part of the curse Adam was told the land was cursed and farming would now be with difficulty. In the Law God provided His regulations for farmers such as not to mix their seed, not to plough with an ox and ass yoked together, not to bind the mouth of the ox that treads the grain, to give the land a Sabbath rest every seven years and so on.
I do not find any place in Scripture where man was specifically authorized to be a farmer, nor do I find a commandment specifically authorizing polygyny. Is the profession of psychoanalyst specifically authorized in Scripture?
Dear Artisanal Toad:
Thanks for your admission that the New Testament does not specifically support polygamy. Please see below…
Of course not. I’m glad we can agree on the fact that scripture leaves open many areas to interpretation. Now that we have an accord on that issue, the natural thing to do is to appreciate that your interpretation, and my interpretation, are colored by our own personal whims and biases.
We read things through our own lenses, and a lot of subconscious contents spill out on the pages, and sometimes we see the things we want to see in the text, and sometimes we find it convenient and easy to ignore the words that conflict with our own latent desires. We don’t have to set out to consciously deceive ourselves. It often just happens.
Best, Boxer
As much as I hate to leave in the middle of this spirited debate, it’s time for Karate. No to worry – we don’t do any of that pagan mokuso stuff. Just good old-fashioned pummeling with classic rock blaring in the background, mostly.
Carry on.
Right, AT. The wife owns the husband’s body. A NEW concept in the NT. It supercedes the OT.
And as far as perversions go, you are not speaking on just this one issue. Anyone who has followed you for any amount of time knows that when there is no majority opposing your ideas, that you trot out the ‘bisexual orgies between the wives is Scriptural’ argument too. You are indeed a perverse and filthy man, seeking to convert others to your perversions.
Boxer @ 4:10 pm:
“Is there a verse in the New Testament that declares that “anything not forbidden is permitted”?”
Nope. In fact, the NT is rather cautious about naming actions forbidden or permitted. Why? Because otherwise you could, for example, have slavery without it being called “slavery”, like the way our Federal Gov’t encourages the young to run up huge, permanent student debts. The Pharisees themselves were masters at technical obedience mixed with actual rebellion. If you consider the spirit of Biblical morality to be just as binding as the letter then you’ll do fine.
“I would caution any of you brothers against seeing [polygamy] as some sort of solution”
I’m reminded of a beer commercial. Two guys are talking at a bar. One asks the other, “What’s your personal dream?” Other guy gets a dreamy look…
*Cutscene: Guy is lounging on a tropical beach with beer, grinning at the approach of two gorgeous, scantily-clad women. They sit down next to him, slide arms over his shoulders… “Did you clean out the garage like I asked you to?” “Uh-uh, he was going to paint the house today!” “Only when he’s done with the attic!” The women start a catfight over which set of chores he needs to work on first.*
Guy wakes up screaming. “I need to work on my dreams!!!”
*Cutscene: Guy is lounging on a tropical beach with beer, grinning at the steaks grilling on a barbecue and the huge dog curled up lazily at his feet.*
Guy nods to himself and takes a swig. “Yeah… this is more like it!”
I think a reasonable question to ask would be “why has the Christian church, since inception, defined adultery as applying to both men and women”? That is not OT-style either, yet centuries of Christian believers interpreted adultery this way. Why?
@ minesweeper
Pay no attention to those who twist scripture. It’s not worth your time arguing.
@ Ellie
Did you know that there have been occasions where people in polygamous marriages have converted to Christianity? Did you know that those marriages are considered as holy as one-v-one marriages? Which wives was a husband supposed to throw out on the street or deny sex to? “Let the bishop be husband of one wife…” implies that there would be members of the church with multiple wives.
I’m not much of a KJV guy, since that version wasn’t used by Jesus and the apostles. KJV doesn’t work so well if people don’t speak English. I’m more of a Koine Greek guy, since the apostles likely used greek NTs. You also have the benefit of avoiding the middleman. And you can tell when the text means you-singular v. you-plural in Koine Greek.
“Did you know that those marriages are considered as holy as one-v-one marriages?” News to me. If that is true, why are they excluded from church leadership?
One wife is more than enough burden for one man. Any man fool enough to take on more than one wife deserves whatever he gets.
Pingback: The Male Hamster In Action- Exhibit # 1273 | Donal Graeme
@Lyn87
Let’s say that a church has a couple of young widows with children. If they were willing to share a husband in order to secure provision for themselves and their children, and a man (of sufficient means) was willing to take them on as wives, I don’t see how that’s a problem, as long as everyone goes into it with their eyes open.
It actually works better this way. I note you very carefully refer only to widows, but never-wed single mom sluts and legitimately divorced women would also be eligible. The reality is the high-N sluts have already pre-selected for this lifestyle by carousel riding. If the women can partner together (especially the low-income women that are never more than a few months from being homeless) and work out their domestic issues, move in together and find a husband together then most of the problems of polygyny are solved before they get started.
He couldn’t hold ecclesiastical office, of course, and he couldn’t break the law by getting two marriage licenses from the state, but those are the only stipulations I can think of.
Please see my earlier comments about the law regarding marriage licenses. They are NOT required per the Supreme Court way back in 1877. Cited here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137902
I know some women who did what you described and they went all-out with a signed marital covenant, no marriage licenses and lots of witnesses. They all signed it first and their husband signed last, effectively marrying all of them at once. They got kicked out of their church for that… NOT because anybody could point to what they were doing as wrong, but because it made the leadership nervous. It was over two years before they found a church they could tolerate that would allow them to fellowship. They went from being low-income single moms to relative affluence. They have a *very* nice house, they host a ballroom dancing class weekly and have a formal party once a quarter. They’re either six or seven years into their marriage and they’re about the most boring family you can imagine. No drama, no blowups, no nothing.
The irony is so many churches would welcome openly homosexual unions while denying them fellowship because it makes people feel uncomfortable.
@Ellie asked:
I think a reasonable question to ask would be “why has the Christian church, since inception, defined adultery as applying to both men and women”? That is not OT-style either, yet centuries of Christian believers interpreted adultery this way. Why?
It can apply to both men and women, but part of the problem is there is a serious information gap. The Bible came to us as the Textus-Receptus, in Latin, meaning it was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into Latin. Of course, there were two different versions of the Septuagint, so how are we to figure out which was the correct one? Then it got translated into English. There were problems. (Side Note: Many years ago I wrote a program that took a passage of text and translated it from English to Russian to Spanish and back to English using Google’s translation algorithm. It completely defeated every known program at the time for identifying authors based on linguistic patterns and common word usage. This is an area I know more than a little bit about.) It wasn’t until we got a Greek to English lexicon that it really became possible to test the text, but by then a number of errors had already been “legitimized” as canon.
What is the definition of the word adultery? It means to mongrelize. To adulterate. Based on the text itself, without a married woman you don’t get to adultery. Fornication, sure. But it takes a married woman to get to the level of adultery.
@Boxer…
You’re an interesting fellow. I’ll respond to you tomorrow. At the moment, I think it better to sleep on it and see how I see things tomorrow.
Dear asdgamer:
I’m sure a legitimate historical source for this will appear, “real soon now”. Until then, we’ll all take your word for it.
είσαι ηλίθιος
Boxer
Artisanal Toad says:
August 25, 2014 at 9:33 pm
“Let’s say that a church has a couple of young widows with children. If they were willing to share a husband in order to secure provision for themselves and their children, and a man (of sufficient means) was willing to take them on as wives, I don’t see how that’s a problem, as long as everyone goes into it with their eyes open.
It actually works better this way. I note you very carefully refer only to widows, but never-wed single mom sluts and legitimately divorced women would also be eligible. The reality is the high-N sluts have already pre-selected for this lifestyle by carousel riding. If the women can partner together (especially the low-income women that are never more than a few months from being homeless) and work out their domestic issues, move in together and find a husband together then most of the problems of polygyny are solved before they get started.”
Untrue WRT “most of the problems of polygyny are solved before they get started”. Small communities with significant polygyny will still likely have most boys booted out early (homelessness likely, education little-funded by parents virtually certain, going by FLDS, etc. groups). Most significantly, if polygyny is widespread enough to do significant good, it’s going to cause most beta men to check out of ambition/being maximally productive, and likely lose enough loyalty to the nation that they will neither defend it in wartime, and may well be violent insurrectionists. See the Middle East for how civilization typically fares under polygyny.
Boxer says:
August 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Nothing forbids homosexuality in the New Testament either. It’s not mentioned even once. Gay and lesbian Christians use this to imply that homosexuality is permitted by Jesus, St. Paul, and the New Testament.”
Sure there is. “I come not to void the Law, but to fulfill it” (paraphrased) ring any bells.
Unrepentant poufters do downstairs when they die.
Ellie asks (regarding pre-conversion polygamous relationships):
If that is true, why are they excluded from church leadership?
I have no doctrinal hook upon which to hang this, so take it for whatever it’s worth. We are told to “rightly divide the word of truth,” and in the absence of defining scripture, my go-to approach is to look for logical consistency across scripture – and to be led by the Holy Spirit. I start with the study because I know that the Spirit will not lead me contrary to the scriptures, and I want to know the scriptures so that I don’t hear myself. Then I’m careful NOT to declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord” when I do that, but I tend to present it like this, “There are several schools of thought on this: they are as follows: 1, 2, 3. I favor #3 because of the following reasons…”
Having given the caveats, Thus sayeth Lyn87: there are several schools of thought on this…
When I look at the qualifications for deacons and elders I see a few things to consider. 1) The men in those positions needed to not only BE good Christians, they must be SEEN to be good Christians. And not only that, but they need to model some very specific attributes. Both Luke (in Acts) and Paul (in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) are crystal-clear that the personal lives of deacons and elders had to showcase, “What right looks like.” And since it is undeniable that monogamous marriage is the ideal, they had to be in stable, monogamous marriages themselves. 2) Monogamous marriage is the model for the relationship between Christ (the bridegroom) and the church (the Bride of Christ). 2a) A polygamist would not be modeling that relationship in his own life, and 2b) would likely have little idea how a normal (monogamous) marriage works, and would thus lack credibility when he attempted to counsel married men.
To recap: a polygamist who became a Christian would not be able to model the ideal marriage situation (monogamy), his marriage would not model the relationship between Christ and the church, and he would have diminished gravitas counseling about marriage. Those would make him unsuitable to hold those offices in the church.
That’s my take on it, anyway.
On a couple of occasions in my life I have had people tell me that I should consider a pastoral-type ministry. On one occasion the church I attended lost its pastor, and some members of the board suggested that I take the helm. I always declined and listed two reasons: I did not feel a calling from God, and 2) as a man with no children I was not qualified. I could not meet the requirements of 1 Timothy 3: 4-5, “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” Others think differently, and I won’t tell them they’re wrong, but I cannot accept that for myself. How could a childless man like me demonstrate “what right looks like” in regard to Christian parenting? I have often criticized the RCC for ordaining virgin men as pastors for that very reason: 1) they lack the qualifications laid out by Paul, and 2) who would go to a man with no sexual or matrimonial experience and no children for marital advice? Sure, a virgin man can read the Bible as well as I can, but there’s a reason 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 read as they do – the men in those positions must do more than KNOW the truths about marriage and fatherhood – they must LIVE those truths demonstrating them day after day, year after year. Since I try very hard to not be a hypocrite: I consider myself disqualified as well. I’m happy to teach – that is one of my gifts – but not to be an overseer (the word translated as bishop or elder in modern translations – which includes pastors).
FWIW, my father is a retired pastor and even he thinks I’m being too literal here – the way most people understand it is that if a man has children they must be in subjection with all gravity. I’m even suspicious of a man who has only one child, since he has no experience with having siblings under the same roof, and the word in 1 Timothy and Titus is children, not child. But I’m an outlier on this and few people have the same understanding about this that I do. Like I wrote at the top – take this for whatever it’s worth: I’m not writing doctrine here.
AT,
If I understand your position, you are saying that polygamy is not illegal because of Meister v Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)). I disagree: Meister v Moore might be an interesting tidbit for connoisseurs of legal trivia, but it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. There was a Supreme Court case in 1856 (USA v. John Wilson) that proved that paying Income Tax was voluntary too. There are people in prison today who thought that because the Supreme Court made a ruling in the 19th Century that they would stay out of prison in the 21st Century. They were wrong, and so are you. As a military historian by avocation and education, I would advise you to read up on the “Mormon Wars” – I’m sure Boxer can clue you in if he feels so inclined. The gist of it is that the U.S. Army went to the Utah Territory in 1857 and did away with polygamy by threat of force of arms… making it illegal was part of the deal for Utah to enter the union. Suddenly the vociferously pro-polygamy Mormon Church had a new “Divine Revelation” that polygamy was bad. (Funny how the Mormon god was so easily swayed by 2500 guys with muzzle-loaders.)
Bottom line – if you try to get a second marriage license from the state, you will be denied. If you somehow slip through the cracks, you will likely be arrested and jailed. You can share a cell with some guy who didn’t pay his taxes because of USA v Wilson and complain to each other that the government doesn’t play by its own rules.
That’s not to say that you cannot form an extra-legal plural marriage on your own, like the people you mentioned. But if you think you’re all going to file a joint tax return, I suggest having a bail bondsman on speed-dial – you’re likely to need one.
Lol, we already have soft polygamy, ‘granted’ by the State. You don’t need a marriage license to practice it and the costs are less than what David et al would have suffered back in the OT. I don’t see why Lyn87 and others have issue with this, it’s all around them..
Men are already disinterested, you don’t need marriage licenses granted for multiple wives for this to happen. You just need lax sexual rules for women and they will naturally gravitate towards men who can spin plates.
I am dismayed at the number of Christians tying themselves up in knots to justify fornication, adultery, polygyny, and all manner of perversions.
Men and women can both commit adultery. Nobody can get divorced (except maybe men for “fornication”, whatever that means). Remarriage is adultery.
If this doesn’t work for you, Christianity is not for you. You can sleep with lots of women in our culture and gain social acceptance. You can divorce and remarry. You can be a practicing homosexual. You can indulge a pornography “addiction”.
You just can’t do that and convince yourself, or anyone else, you’re a Christian.
Chateau Heartiste is right over that way. Enjoy the decline. May you avoid my alpha widows.
@feministhater,
Indeed, we already have soft polygyny. I’m not sure why men who are obviously not George Clooney apex alphas are so eager to formally instate polygyny.
You’d think restoring God-honouring marriage would matter more… but that would mean abandoning the pleasures of fornication.
Men have agency and can sin, too.
Separation
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905067
Grounds for divorce?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905021
Ellie says:
August 25, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Because Jesus said it in Luke 16:18 Mark 10:12 etc etc
I would like to attempt to answer your question:
When your first wife frivorces you because she is unhappy, it is not fair to deny a man a second wife, unless his first vows forbade it.
How is that sinning against your first wife?
How is that sinning against your first wife? It is not sinning against her.
Talk about having to supplicate to her authority. She frivorces you, you are forever a celibate (involuntary) as well as her slave in this world by God.
@theasdgamer says:
August 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Indeed, I would probably say it’s deception and you can tell, when you get into a discussion with some people, instead of clarity, it just all becomes confusing, everything is muddy. Esp. when it’s such a rigid position. They are not even twisting scripture, they have none. It’s just aggression for their unscriptural and deceived position.
And absolutely, always drop down to the original writing and language every time to discover what is really said, our translators are only human and if a conflict occurs over the meaning of a statement they will always go with the conservative option to avoid offence even if it is less likely to be the correct meaning, they also translate while using past translations, this also means translation failures that occurred hundreds of years ago are compounded today.
@Boxer re RM 1:18-32
TL;DR – men worshipped idols, as a punishment God made straight people became gay. Now that’s some punishment if you’re straight. How can it condemn those who are gay if it’s something God himself has done.
Can you really punish twice ?
Idolatry = punishment = gay = punishment .
If you find yourself in that position and it’s not a punishment, what then ?
@ Boxer
“Did you know that there have been occasions where people in polygamous marriages have converted to Christianity? Did you know that those marriages are considered as holy as one-v-one marriages? ”
I’m sure a legitimate historical source for this will appear, “real soon now”. Until then, we’ll all take your word for it.
Damn, you’re snarky. No, that wasn’t cursing, although “damn” can be used in a curse. I used “damn” for its emphatic meaning. But churchians replace Paul’s exhortation–“don’t curse” with their own rule–“don’t use words that might be used to curse”.
You need only read the Wiki article to find plenty of references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity
I could point to the book of Titus as an example that polygyny in the church was implied. Polygyny was controversial in the Roman empire, where the Jews practiced it, yet I can find no example from scripture that Paul condemned it. If you use a little common sense, you will realize that I was speaking the truth.
είσαι ηλίθιος
Translation: “Are you Peter?”
Doesn’t matter if I’m an apostle (e.g., Peter). What matters is whether I exegete scripture accurately.
Now I’ll ask you a question to find out if you have basic knowledge about Christianity. Tell me the reference in scripture where the good-news-that-saves-when-it-is-believed is defined.
Dear asdgamer:
Thank you for proving, yet again, that you are “dumb as a rock”.
Your knowledge of Greek is limited to web based tools, as is your knowledge of scripture. You have no business pretending to teach serious men and women about religion.
That’s all I’ve got for you today, wikipedia boy; but, I’m sure you’ll continue to dance for the amusement of your elders and betters.
Regards, Boxer
Dear Feministhater
I don’t see anyone having a personal problem with immorality, until the usual chuckleheads start barking nonsense like: The LORD gave us married men the liberty to fornicate with other women, it’s right there in the bible for everyone to read…
Those of us who own a copy of this book are naturally curious about this, and those of us who read in it casually are asking for sources for these new teachings. Rather than being hit with chapter and verse, we’re getting inundated with rationalization hamster droppings from the incipient whoremongers who salivate over the thought of a polygamous lifestyle.
If you guys want to live this idiotic lifestyle, then have at it. I’ll feel sorry for your kids, but otherwise won’t care, provided you don’t blame the protagonist (Jesus) or the author (St. Paul) for your own descent into the “soft” matriarchal ghetto.
Regards, Boxer
@ Boxer
Thank you for proving, yet again, that you are “dumb as a rock”.
Sorry, I don’t agree. Speaking frankly, your analysis is typically very plebeian and churchian, with some eclectic gloss. Your analysis lacks depth and insight. Oh, and literacy.
Your knowledge of Greek is limited to web based tools
You are a liar. I have Aland’s NT and dictionary and BAGD and Young’s on my desk as I type. I have translated I John in the past and various other NT passages, including multiple chapters of John’s gospel.
You have no business pretending to teach serious men and women about religion.
Can’t answer my elementary question about the gospel? As I thought. You need to take your own advice.
That’s all I’ve got for you today, wikipedia boy
Don’t let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out.
but, I’m sure you’ll continue to dance for the amusement of your elders and betters.
Which wouldn’t include you on either count, now would it? Nice dancing, by the way, Monkey. You are at least useful for light entertainment. Bye-bye. [waves]
Boxer, I’m merely pointing out that one does not need a marriage license one way or the other. I choose not to fornicate till marriage as a personal choice, but that doesn’t mean I don’t notice what goes on in society. We don’t have marriage, we have soft-core Harems and easy ‘marriages’ to assuage the guilt suffered by our authorities over these Harems and the lack of morality surrounding relationships with women.
Why is pointing out exactly what goes on ‘salivating’ over such a lifestyle? I hate it.
What’s funny is that people fight over what ‘marriage’ is or is not and whether we are allowed 1 wife or 20, when there is no such thing as ‘marriage’ full-stop. It’s gutted. The Church destroyed marriage by allowing the State to enforce it and thus ‘control’ it.
@ Boxer
I exposed your total bolloxed attempt at reading Matthew 19. You still haven’t recovered from that. Work some more on your literacy.
@asdgamer
Part of marriage is a public covenant recognised by a broad community, such as your neighbours. If you can marry a second wife and gain recognition from your church body, your neighbours, your friends, etc., by all means, multiply wives unto yourself.
I think we’ve got gerbils spinning at light speeds here.
@Boxer
Thank you for calling out Christian hypocrisy and desire to justify sin. Sometimes, we need an atheist to set is straight.
@greyghost
How is that sinning against your first wife? It is not sinning against her.
Talk about having to supplicate to her authority. She frivorces you, you are forever a celibate (involuntary) as well as her slave in this world by God.
Choosing a path of righteousness is not involuntary. A wife could also remain married but refuse to have sex. There is absolutely no biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage in such a case.
The fact a wife abandons her husband, commits adultery, and rejects Christ’s gift of salvation does not merit her husband also choosing to live in a continual state of sin.
Dear FeministHater:
That was not a comment that was directed at you personally. There’s a small but vocal group here who seem to feel that the bible gives them license to do whatever they want, sexually. Some of these people crow about being biblical experts who know ancient languages, and have access to secret, occult knowledge about what the bible actually means. The problem with this is that even the average dullard (like me) can read the bible and in a matter of minutes, realize that it doesn’t say what they want it to.
Like you, I don’t pretend to care about anyone else’s lifestyle or eternal soul; but I do care about integrity. I just think we should pay attention to literary texts, and not read our own carnal desires into them. The people who actually do know the bible here (and that doesn’t include me, though I’d like to know it better) approach it with humility.
Best, Boxer
@feministhater
I don’t know about your church, but mine has been busy preserving marriage, and our numbers are half a million strong in North America. Perhaps you would be wise to seek out churches whose members aren’t all divorced and remarried.
@asdgamer
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. (Matthew 19:8-11 ESV)
Yikes. No exception clauses there if your wife abandons you (and your wife moving out of the house is not “sexual immorality”; I study Greek too.)
And since we’re studying Greek, “sexual immorality” isn’t even adultery. Not the same words.
Sinful man wants guaranteed access to sex, under cover of religion. Jesus told us to live a different way.
Dear asdgamer:
Keep spinning, spankard. I don’t know Greek, outside of a few first-century insults, which is exactly what that was. “Are you Peter” LOLOLOLOLOL!
Anyone who did know Biblical Greek would have known the typical answer to that statement (it is in two parts). I’m sure one of your less emotional, more educated brethren will clue you in, and you’ll be back on here directly with it.
Again, and for the last time, you are a pretender. Leave teaching to the teachers.
Regards, Boxer
Feministhater,
Due my usual habit of not immediately assigning malice when misunderstanding may be at fault, I have to ask why you chose to single me out in your post at August 26, 2014 at 1:20 am, and to completely misrepresent my position when you did. A certain other commenter did that several times up-thread – feebly attempting to upbraid me for a position that is the exact opposite of the one he ascribed to me.
Now you’re doing it. If you simply read what I wrote, rather than what you claim that I wrote, you will see that I was clear that 1) monogamy is the ideal marriage arrangement, 2) that God (not the state) defines marriage, but 3) that polygamy is not defined in scripture as being a sin per se, and 4) that even if polygamy is the least-bad solution for individuals in some rare cases, it ought not to become widespread. The links to my comments where I make those assertion are found below.
If you have a cogent argument against any of that, I’m all ears.
1) Monogamy is the ideal marriage arrangement: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137944
2) God (not the state) defines marriage https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137879
3) Polygamy is not defined in scripture as being a sin per se: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137895
4) Even if polygamy is the least-bad solution for individuals in some rare cases, it ought not to become widespread: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137916
Nobody ought to want to see widespread polygamy: it would skew the MMP as much as – or more than – the current situation where we have feral women bed-hopping and feral men amassing soft harems. It would also greatly harm the male children of those unions (we see that among the FLDS community). On the other hand, in some rare cases – like the hypothetical one I noted above with two young widows – one man taking both of them as wives might be the least-bad solution for all involved.
__________________________________________
@ Boxer,
Now you see why I wrote this last night:
as you’ve noticed, I have critics who would grasp at any chance to accuse me of duplicity
I’m not sure if Feministhater is deliberately misrepresenting my position or if he just doesn’t understand what I wrote – I try to be very precise with my words. His response to this – if any – should solve the riddle.
Commenting to get notifications for new posts.
Pingback: Flailing through the weeds | Something Fishy
@Minesweeper, my apologies for mixing you up with monkeywerks.
The tone here regarding the use of “dread game” to keep a wife around is ridiculous. And it doesn’t work. Right now in mainstream culture any man can divorce and remarry, have affairs, or go to strip clubs and look at pornography. How’s that working out?
The only system I have seen that is effective is knowing one’s family and one’s church will disown and excommunicate you if you engage in continual, sinful divorce / adultery.
And if I had daughters, I certainly wouldn’t want some fellow in my church looking to make them wife #2 or wife #3 just so he could run dread to keep his unsubmissive first wife in line. I invite any man who thinks he can do such to acquaint himself with godly men with godly daughters and see how well they take this sales pitch.
@ John Neustates
The key to translating and exegeting this Matthew 19:11 passage correctly is to get the sense of “de” in verse 9. Some have it as “and” and others have it as “but”. “But” is correct. (“de” always denotes some kind of contrast.) Once you get that translation correct, you get the point of the passage–Jesus is greater than Moses. Jesus can modify Moses, overrule Moses, etc. With Jesus’ appearance, Moses becomes obsolescent.
I have no axe to grind in any of these debates about polygyny, fornication, etc. My only real axe is exegeting scripture accurately. I’ll chime in if I see a point that needs to be made to further the discussion.
Yikes. No exception clauses there if your wife abandons you (and your wife moving out of the house is not “sexual immorality”; I study Greek too.)
And since we’re studying Greek, “sexual immorality” isn’t even adultery. Not the same words.
Oh, this is all obvious stuff. However, if a wife were to refuse sex for an extended period, would the ancients have considered that to be sexual immorality and grounds for divorce? So, if she were to move out, wouldn’t she be practicing sexual immorality?
@ Boxer
I don’t know Greek, outside of a few first-century insults
Bar bar bar bar bar
@Luke
Small communities with significant polygyny will still likely have most boys booted out early (homelessness likely, education little-funded by parents virtually certain, going by FLDS, etc. groups).
You point to a cult that makes polygyny the *ideal* rather than simply permits it. I do not claim it is an ideal, I merely point out it is permitted and is a solution for dealing with the high-N sluts polluting the church. Nobody here can point to any part of the Bible and say it’s forbidden or condemned because it isn’t. Cat-herding is for alphas. Betas can succeed, but there’s no way deltas, gamma’s or omega’s have a chance at making that work. Thus, by definition, there is only a small percentage of men who can do this. The FLDS mormon cult tries to impose polygyny as an ideal and when you get delta’s, gamma’s and omega’s trying to do that it won’t turn out well. The point is God did not prohibit or condemn the practice and who are you to speak where God was silent? You can certainly say you don’t think it would be wise for you and I’d respond that you shouldn’t do it. However, if you go beyond that and claim the practice is wrong for everyone, you’re playing God.
Most significantly, if polygyny is widespread enough to do significant good, it’s going to cause most beta men to check out of ambition/being maximally productive, and likely lose enough loyalty to the nation that they will neither defend it in wartime, and may well be violent insurrectionists.
You are describing the consequences of widespread feminism, not polygyny. Feminism is opposed to *formal* polygyny because it is dis-empowering for women. At the same time we see an informal version of polygyny with carousel-riding in which the women are cheerfully sharing the alpha men knowing those men have other partners. After polluting themselves in this way they’re unfit for monogamy, which is one of the reasons why there’s such a direct correlation between the number of premarital sexual partners and both marital success and marital satisfaction. Polygyny is a Biblical form of marriage that deals with this. It’s also a Biblical form of dread game in which the wife knows her husband could legitimately replace her. Not kick her to the curb, but move in another woman and very publicly demonstrate his affection for her no longer exists.
If one believes God is our Creator, one has to assume God knows what women are really like. God also knows what the curse of Genesis 3:16 does to women. Yes, AWALT. With that understood, it seems to me that opposition to polygyny is simply pedestalization of women and a strange form of one-itis.
@theasdgamer
I intend no offence toward you, but I have friends and acquaintances whose skills of exegesis, textual interpretation, and knowledge of ancient languages vastly exceeds yours. Their opinions do not coincide with yours.
The notion one can divorce his wife for “sexual immorality” because the ancients considered frigidity sexual immorality is absurd.
Have you guys ever read the Sermon on the Mount? We’re supposed to do good to our enemies and love those who hate us.
@Artisinal Toad
Jesus called all men and women, regardless of Greek letter sociosexual rank, to repentance and righteousness. That’s the best way to deal with “High N count women polluting the church”.
Jesus also died for sinners and provides a path out of sin. Preaching against sin is indeed what we do in the circles I run in, although that includes telling a brother to quit fornicating.
Women in our church with pasts find repentance. Those who wish to justify their pasts don’t stay around. If they’re previously married, they don’t get remarried. If they were never married, men are rather wary of them, as many men consider being single better than being in a troubled marriage you can’t get out of.
And we don’t need polygamy to do it.
Some of you may be wondering about the translation of Boxer’s greek phrase:
είσαι ηλίθιος
είσαι means “Are you?”
ηλίθιος is an elision of the definite article ‘η (meaning “the) and λίθιος
Now what is “λίθιος”?
1) an adjective: “rocklike”
or
2) a noun: an alternate spelling (or perhaps misspelling) of “λίθος”, meaning “rock”.
I went with the second choice because of the definite article. Of course, Jesus is famous for having given Peter his name: λίθος.
It was impossible for us to know what Boxer the Dancing Monkey meant ahead of time, since he didn’t give us enough context.
Lyn, my issue is not with your position on marriage. I quite agree with that but that you take issue with polygamy but stating that the State, not the Church, prohibits its use.
I was merely pointing out that one does not need a marriage license to practice marriage or polygamous marriage. I don’t see why you need to get anxious over my intent. My country being entirely different of course, we actually having marriages with more than one wife, i.e. the South African president – who I hate, being one of them..
@ John Neustates
I intend no offence toward you, but I have friends and acquaintances whose skills of exegesis, textual interpretation, and knowledge of ancient languages vastly exceeds yours. Their opinions do not coincide with yours.
No offense intended towards you either, but your claim of your friends’ superior exegesis is controversial. Your friends are wrong. Deal with the text, please, instead of appealing to unavailable “experts”.
The notion one can divorce his wife for “sexual immorality” because the ancients considered frigidity sexual immorality is absurd.
Well, if Jesus said what I claim in Matthew 19, then your claim is absurd. It all hinges on the interpretation of “de”, doesn’t it?
Have you guys ever read the Sermon on the Mount? We’re supposed to do good to our enemies and love those who hate us.
Please try to stay on point.
@ John
I certainly wouldn’t want some fellow in my church looking to make them wife #2 or wife #3 just so he could run dread to keep his unsubmissive first wife in line.
Regarding “Dread”, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
@Lyn87
If I understand your position, you are saying that polygamy is not illegal because of Meister v Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)). I disagree: Meister v Moore might be an interesting tidbit for connoisseurs of legal trivia, but it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Not what I said. On point, Meister held that marriage is a right and laws concerning marriage licenses are merely directory. Did you ever look up the legal definition of the term marriage license? It’s a license to intermarry. When you look up intermarriage you get “See: Miscegenation. When you look up miscegenation you discover that it’s the mixing of the races. Thus, by definition, the vast, vast majority of people got a license to do something they didn’t do.
I am not a mormon and I have nothing to do with the mormon church or any of their practices. However, I notice the Federal Court recently struck down part of the Utah code concerning bigamy, essentially making the point that if people choose to marry by right, on their own, the state cannot criminalize their actions. Please keep in mind what a license is: It’s a permission to do something you don’t have the right to do. If you have the right you don’t need a license.
Methinks this style of argumentation belongs in a sophomore seminar at your nearest Bible college. Lurkers here might suspect the existence of male hamsters as capable of shaming language and name-calling etc. as their female counterparts.
@ Artisanal Toad
The point is God did not prohibit or condemn the practice and who are you [Luke] to speak where God was silent?
Please don’t tempt me with those floating pitches. Luke has a lot of company.
@ Colonel Mustard
Lurkers here might suspect the existence of male hamsters as capable of shaming language and name-calling etc. as their female counterparts.
Oh you concern troll you! 😉
Hoo-boy… I should have just stayed in bed. Both Feministhater and AT have – again – misrepresented what I wrote. I will give Feministhater the benefit of the doubt by assuming that Afrikaans is his native tongue. But AT (who is usually very thorough)… not so much.
Let me try again:
@ Feministhater,
You wrote, “I quite agree with that but that you take issue with polygamy but stating that the State, not the Church, prohibits its use.”
And again, for probably the tenth time in this thread alone – that is exactly the opposite of what I wrote: I don’t take issue with polygamy – as an institution that is occasionally the least-bad option – at all (with the caveats noted in my last post). I even gave you a link to the post that spells out my position in the greatest detail. You are arguing against a position that I did not take, and attributing that position to me, even though I have written the opposite time and again. I don’t know how else to explain it: In the U.S. (and we were talking about a case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that is not binding in South Africa) – polygamy is not legal. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – it does – but it means that such unions are not recognized in our law. It is the STATE that prohibits polygamy, not the CHURCH. Now… most individual congregations do so as well, but the Bible simply does not prohibit it except for certain cases already discussed. A Bible-following church would probably heavily discourage it in the vast majority of cases (rightly so), but not prohibit it outright.
@ AT,
Dude… please… I know the difference between a right and a privilege. My point stands – Meister v Moore did not result in any state generally recognizing polygamous marriages, any more than District of Columbia v Heller overturned the 20,000+ gun laws that infringe on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms (RKBA). In both cases, the USSC recognized a right (marriage in Meister and the RKBA in Heller), but if you try to carry a pistol on a White House tour or get a machine gun without a permit, you will discover that just because the USSC recognizes a right doesn’t mean that you’re not going to prison if you attempt to exercise it. Same thing with polygamy.
You mentioned a recent case with regard to Utah’s polygamy laws. I haven’t heard of it and would be interested to read more. It may be that the tide is starting to turn. As you are doubtless aware, a lot of people predicted this when “Gay Marriage” started to gain traction. The argument was that if states recognized “alternative” arrangements, that they could not logically stop with homosexuals, but would have to recognize polygamy as well. If Federal Courts are now overturned those laws, it seems they were correct.
@theasdgamer
Your friends are wrong. Deal with the text, please, instead of appealing to unavailable “experts”.
You are wrong. (See how easy that was?) I deal with the text, and arrive at different conclusions than you do.
Well, if Jesus said what I claim in Matthew 19, then your claim is absurd. It all hinges on the interpretation of “de”, doesn’t it?
I read the whole Bible, including Jesus’ other words.
[regarding the Sermon on the Mount]Please try to stay on point.
The Sermon on the Mount is the point. Tell yourself you are a follower of Christ all you want, but you can’t follow Christ without listening to and obeying his words. You seem to want to find an excuse in a specific verse to justify your own sin. Running dread game on your wife by dancing with other women is not only sin, but is also something that most Christians still find morally repugnant, and with good reason.
Regarding “Dread”, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I think you, as a married man of many years with children, are treading dangerously when you lecture me about “dread”. Unless you’ve been engaging in rampant affairs and adultery, you do not know anything about dread game and its actual praxis. I (to my great shame and discredit) do.
@mustardnine
Indeed, this stuff gets addressed in week 2 or 3 at our Bible colleges whose longest sessions last for a summer. It is rather laughable to have married men tying themselves up in knots to convince us that their adulterous affrairs are actually polygamous marriages. We’ve seen and heard this before, as has the rest of the church, for the past 2,000 years (and longer than that if you want to go back).
A few friends and myself have nominated the male hamster as the “gerbil”. For example: “Certain posters in this thread are gerbilling at Autobahn speeds.”
@Lyn87
Thank you for choosing to stand firm against wooly thinking and rationalisation of sin.
@Bee
Churches, homeschool groups, Christian families, and Christian colleges refuse to teach the controversial sections of the Bible which discuss men being strong leaders, women being helpmeets to their husbands, women being submissive to their husbands, married women staying home and having lots of children, women not teaching men, etc.
People keep saying this, but it’s simply not true. There are many churches, homeschool groups, and Christian families who teach exactly these things. (Not so many “Christian” colleges do, but I advise intelligent young men and women to avoid college unless they have $25,000/year sitting around they need to get rid of.)
Find other people doing the things you described and join them. Win converts over. If you can’t find anyone where you live doing this, then move.
If you want help finding people doing this, please send me an email (john_nesteutes@yahoo.com). There are plenty of us.
It is rather interesting, this whole discussion. The people tying themselves in knots are those who claim divorce is allowed for immorality and polygyny is wrong, a perversion or some other such twaddle. Polygyny thus becomes the lens through which we can see the hypocrisy of the modern church in allowing that which God says He hates and condemning that which God called good (c.f. 2nd Samuel 12:8).
The OP is about incels, which is something Scripture speaks to very clearly in 1st Corinthians 7:4. Neither husband nor wife are to deny the other if they want sex. But, as I have noticed before, most of the folks here are simply arguing their catechism, not what the Bible says. I offered my exegesis of Matthew 19:1-9 in light of 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 upthread, demonstrating that contrary to popular opinion, Christ did not endorse the destruction of marriage in cases of adultery/fornication. The only thing I’ve seen is quibbling about Matthew 19:9.
I pointed out that in the US, individuals are not required to obtain a marriage license in order to marry and cited the current ruling of the Supreme Court that dates back to 1877 (never overturned) on the subject. I explained what a license is and pointed out that a marriage license is actually permission granted by the state for the purpose of miscegenation. I should have added that getting the marriage license makes the state a party to the marriage.
@Lyn87
In this comment I addressed marriage licenses:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137902
Excuse me, but I did not say Meister addressed polygyny in any way. However, getting a marriage license is to accept an elective franchise of statutory marriage from the state in which the state becomes a party to the marriage and gives the state the implicit authority to regulate such an elective franchise, including limiting them to one wife at a time. That’s the tie-in, because the state can pass laws regarding its marriages (render unto Caesar and all that) but if a man has more than one wife without partaking in the state’s scheme of licensed marriage, it isn’t “officially” marriage. Just going by the definitions, a marriage license is a permission to commit miscegenation and if the candidates are of the same race there is no need for a license.
To use a different example… The state can require a fishing license to fish in public waters and pass a law that says a person can only use one fishing pole at a time when fishing. However, if one is fishing in waters where one has the RIGHT to go fishing, then no license is required and a man can have as many lines in the water as he wants or can handle. In one case it’s illegal, in the other case it’s not, and THE POSSESSION OF THE LICENSE IS THE PRIMA FASCIA EVIDENCE IT’S NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT.
Bigamy is actually the crime of having two or more current licensed marriages. There is no law criminalizing polygyny except in the case of bigamy. So… what if (as a family I know did) the individuals marry under a marital covenant because they consider getting a license from the state to be idolatry due to theie truly and sincerely held religious beliefs. The women all sign the marital covenant and then the man signs. In signing that document he just effectively married all of them at once. No pre-existing marriage. No subsequent marriage. No bigamy. That’s because bigamy is actually the crime of having more than one concurrent licensed marriages.
God created three covenant entities (family, state and church) and gave each of them their own mission. The church does not have the authority to dictate how the husband is to conduct affairs in his family because God placed the husband in authority over his marriage and God has already spoken to the husbands concerning how they are to conduct themselves. Just as the state has no authority to dictate to the church how to conduct its affairs, neither does either the state or the church have the authority to dictate to the husband how to manage his household. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but the authority isn’t there.
@theasdgamer:
Please don’t tempt me with those floating pitches. Luke has a lot of company.
OK, please explain by what authority it is correct to do so. If the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church (c.f. Ephesians 5:22-24), by what authority does an outsider condemn the husband if he is within the bounds of what God has permitted and commanded? Are you making the claim that morality is determined by democracy? Go ahead. Clobber me with a papal bull.
It was the invasion of the family by the church which claimed authority over marriage to the point of dictating rules and practices to govern the marital bed that led to the state copying the practice once the church lost control. Once men lost control of the government to women everything went to hell in a handbasket.
Some are claiming that Biblical marriage no longer exists today. I disagree. Paul essentially restated the law of the bondservant (Exodus 21:1-6) in 1st Corinthians 7:12-15. Think of a triangle with each point of the triangle representing each party to the covenant entity called marriage. God at the top and husband and wive taking the two bottom points. In the middle is the Lord Jesus. Husband and wife make vows up to God and laterally to each other. As Christians they are bondservants of the Lord, who forbid His bondservants to divorce (c.f. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11). This is why if the unbeliever departs the remaining believer is free and why violations of the vows between husband and wife do not break the marriage covenant to which God is a party (c.f. 1st Peter 3:1)
The State took the same model and by granting a license to marry, replaced God with the State and replaced the Lord with a family court judge. This effectively means the state is claiming to be God. The marriage license makes the state a party to the marriage and the state claims an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage, including the children. Instead of the Lord mediating between His bondservants and God the Father, we have a family court judge. I believe it is idolatry to ask the state for a license to marry a fellow believer, no different from offering a pinch of incense to the genius of Caesar.
The state took control of the churches through incorporation and registration as 501(c)3 entities which receive a tax exemption although they were already tax exempt as real churches. I cited Hale v Henkel, which has been cited over 1600 times in other judicial decisions. Aye, the rot goes deep.
I have repeatedly pointed out that polygyny was regulated under God’s Law and nowhere in the Bible is it forbidden. I made the argument that in the environment we are confronted with today, there are advantages to having a marriage the state cannot view as a marriage (polygyny) because it offers a higher standard of living and a more dominant husband to the women and offers freedom from sexual starvation to the husband. The incentives in such a structure are to stay in the marriage rather than bail out. Such a marriage, organized under a formal marital covenant (contract) could not be seen by the state as anything other than cohabitation with an enforceable cohabitation agreement.
Anyone who studies the development of doctrine in the church should be able to admit that sometimes church politics influenced doctrine to the point there is no real Biblical foundation on which to rest said doctrine and sometimes the doctrine actually contradicts what the Bible says. Some churches have doctrine in place that allows the wife to turn her husband into an incel, claiming that if his wife leaves him he’s not to marry another. This is not supported anywhere in Scripture because God allowed the solution for that and it’s the fact a man can have more than one wife. So, although the wife separated herself, marriage is for life and they’re still married. The wife was commanded that if she separated from her husband she was to remain unmarried or reconcile herself to her husband but there is no command for the wife to reconcile herself to her husband once she’s separated. Likewise there is no prohibition on the husband taking another wife.
God said He is not like man, that His ways are not our ways and He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
Husbands who tell their wives they’re fat may be guilty of domestic abuse, says Labour shadow minister
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734600/Husbands-constantly-criticise-wives-weight-guilty-domestic-abuse-says-Labour-shadow-minister.html
Husbands who constantly criticise their wives over their weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse, a Labour frontbencher has suggested.
Seema Malhotra, Labour’s new shadow anti domestic violence minister, said such abuse could be part of a wider pattern of ‘controlling behaviour’ which can be as bad as a physical attack.
She said: ‘It can be part of a pattern of controlling behaviour that leaves people feeling fearful and terrorised in their own homes.’
http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/
AT,
Further discussion seems pointless if you are going to gloss over the fact that I differentiate between marriage as defined by God and marriage as recognized by the state.
I’ve addressed this issue maybe eight-to-ten times in this very thread, and I’m done re-re-re-re-re-explaining my position. Obscure legal precedents from the 19th Century are interesting, but they have exactly NO relevance today. Anti-miscegenation laws are equally extraneous to the current legal environment. I have no problem at all with the three-way marriage you discussed – and neither does the law, because it’s not a “legal” marriage. Of course, if one of those women decides to hit the detonator, he’s likely to find out just how vulnerable he is – but hopefully that won’t happen.
A man in the U.S. can enter a de facto polygamous relationship all he wants, but if he tries to make it de jure, he faces jail time. That’s all I’m saying. A assume you agree – if so, what are we arguing about?
“So, although the wife separated herself, marriage is for life and they’re still married. The wife was commanded that if she separated from her husband she was to remain unmarried or reconcile herself to her husband but there is no command for the wife to reconcile herself to her husband once she’s separated. Likewise there is no prohibition on the husband taking another wife.”
Let us check those vows, made freely before God. He vowed to forsake all others. Period. He did not vow to forsake all others unless if she grew frigid. He instead promised “richer or poorer”. Sex rich or sex poor, he was her man and her man only. God witnessed the vow. God does not forget. Not even if the other end of the contract is not doing her part. What it comes down to is this: do you want to please God above all else? Honor your vows. You think with dread that you finally have the right weapon. Although it makes human sense, it is not God’s way. His commandment is to turn the other cheek. To bless and not curse. To love when we are hated. To do good and not evil. To humble yourselves that you may be exalted. To leave vengeance to God. To trust the Holy Spirit to sanctify your professing wife. To trust God to provide an out to your temptations. And then to reconcile should an opportunity present itself. Forgive as we have been forgiven- freely and fully. Who says it is easy? No one. It is dying. But in death, there is life.
Lol, no, adultery is a reason for divorce. If your wife does porn or has a children with multitudes of men, what are you to do? Sit there and take it like a ‘man’ I suppose. No, in that case, divorce is granted. Argue against it all you want to but without that, a spouse can do ANYTHING and there is nothing you can do to protect yourself or your family. No one signs up for that. No one. It’s cruel and unjust to think that someone HAS to stay in a marriage once the other party has committed an act as destructive as adultery.
There is nothing unusual about a couple who met at 15 years of age to wait until 21 to marry. That’s a young marriage. That’s good and normal. The issue isn’t virginity or how long a person should wait.
This issue is Samantha Pugsley is a leftist. Go and look at her twiiter page and how she describes herself at the feminst site xojane. She wrote the article to attack christianity. She is the typical Celtic/Germanic American young female feminist. She grew up a christian, and then became a typical young leftist. She has the SAME views as every other young leftist in the USA. She is orthodox leftist. She has gone from one church to another. These Celtic/Germanic young women become some of the most ardent feminist leftists, who HATE men from their own ethnic group and hate everything about European christian societies. Just check out the Scandinavian feminists, who attack their own men as “oppressors” while welcoming muslims from the middle east and Somalia.
Who was talking about adultery and divorce? Not me. AT’s quote was about frigidity and separation.
Why in the hell would anybody want more than one wife when the one is what got us all here in the first place. here I am talking about artificial womabs and surrogates to have a family with no wife and you guys are having a serious biblical discussion on polygamy.
Go out marry another chick an ask god for forgiveness. You don’t have to take that from some hypergamous skank. Sitting around jacking off thinking you are going to heaven. According have of the righteous types to even think about getting some ass is sin in itself. God knows your heart and he can make the call.
@Lyn87
Further discussion seems pointless if you are going to gloss over the fact that I differentiate between marriage as defined by God and marriage as recognized by the state.
Ok, now we’re on the same page. I believe we are in agreement on this but I simply do not recognize the state as having *any* legitimate authority over marriage. Marriage belongs to God, His rules apply and your differentiation between a de facto marriage and a de jure marriage don’t exist for God. It is given to man to live, to die and then face judgment. Only two men haven’t died and they’ll be coming back to testify for God and will be killed in the street. The rest of us have what we have, three-score and ten, more if by reason of strength. After that, we face judgment.
I have no problem at all with the three-way marriage you discussed – and neither does the law, because it’s not a “legal” marriage.
This is entirely my point. “Legal” is the state version and “lawful” is God’s version. The issue with the marriage license is two-fold. I get the whole “obey the government” thing but it doesn’t apply here. First, it’s not an actual requirement, per the USSC. As to the age of the ruling, I think you’d be surprised how well stare decisis works most of the time. Hale v Henkel (from 1906) has been cited in other rulings more than 1600 times. Second, the marriage license brings the marriage into the realm of elective franchise in which the authority issuing the license (the state) gets to make the rules and change the rules at any time but (for the state) conveniently does not provide a way out. A divorce DOES NOT nullify or invalidate the marriage license. This is the back-end of marriage, the continuing transference of assets from the man to the woman under the control of the state. In accepting the dissolution of marriage, the marriage contract to which the state is a party is converted into a divorce contract to which the state is a party.
Of course, if one of those women decides to hit the detonator, he’s likely to find out just how vulnerable he is – but hopefully that won’t happen.
I have consistently mentioned the use of a marital covenant, a written contract of marriage. Because of the issues regarding public policy, the state is not able to recognize the marriage as such and thus is forced to view the marital covenant as an enforceable cohabitation contract. For the legal reasoning behind what I’m saying, read these essays:
http://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/marriages-go-their-own-way/
http://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/marriages-go-their-own-way-ii/
http://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/questioning-marriage-1-0/
Unfortunately, per the rules adopted by the USSC, one cannot just hang their hat on the fundamental right to marry. There has to be another fundamental rights violation as well, so take your pick: right of religious free exercise or right to contract. There have to be two or more fundamental rights violations to get the case moved into strict scrutiny, otherwise you’re stuck under rational basis. As long as the state can keep you in rational basis, you can’t win. However, if through multiple fundamental rights violations you can get over under strict scrutiny, it’s difficult to lose provided you’re prepared and know what you’re doing. See Yoder.
The question ultimately boils down to whether an apostate can force the violation of someone else’s rights of religious free exercise, right to marry and right to contract. But read the essays, they’re rich in references. I also wrote a post about the Utah case:
http://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/utahs-prohibition-against-polygyny-struck-down-in-federal-court/
In Brown v. Buhman, the US District Court of Utah, Central Division, Judge Clark Waddoups struck down a portion of the Utah Bigamy statute, removing the phrase “or cohabits with another person” as being unconstitutional….
From the State’s point of view, lawful marriage with no license = cohabitation.
@feministhater
Lol, no, adultery is a reason for divorce. If your wife does porn or has a children with multitudes of men, what are you to do? Sit there and take it like a ‘man’ I suppose.
…
It’s cruel and unjust to think that someone HAS to stay in a marriage once the other party has committed an act as destructive as adultery.
There is a reason the disciples, after hearing their Master’s answer in Matthew 19:1-9 said “It is better not to marry.” As far as cruel and unusual, if you consider that every sin you’ll ever commit nailed your Lord to the cross and burdened His body until He died, and the fact that He forgave you… does that help you put marital conflict in perspective? Do you ever give in to temptation and sin? Do you think it’s easier for women, with their supercharged hamster rationalization engines? C’mon. Apply the pimp hand and move on. Or, get a bunch of girls together and study Hosea and see what you learn. Both are instructive, but in different ways.
However, given your objections, if you’d like to provide an alternate exegesis of Matthew 19:1-9 in conjunction with 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, please do so.
Excuse me folks, I now need to take a moment to address the peanuts gallery…
@Ellie
The wife vowed to love, honor and OBEY. Remember, the subject of this post is the incel. The one who has been denied sex by his wife. The husband is charged to love her as Christ loves the church. She was commanded to put out whenever he wants it unless it’s one of those periods reserved for fasting and prayer, mutually agreed upon. So, when she refuses to do her duty in violation of the Word, his responsibility is to lovingly correct her. Contemplate Revelation 3:19 for a moment. (Toad waits for the screaming to stop) If she then decides to separate herself… in violation of the commandment… we have an issue. You’re trying to claim that she owns him and can prevent him from banging anybody else but denying the fact that he owns her by refusing to meet his needs. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too just because you have tits.
So, woman, men are speaking. Be silent. If you have questions, go ask your husband.
[D: Ellie is welcome here.]
Re: “Forsaking all others”
My wife and I were discussing the contents of this thread for about two hours last night, including the idea of a man being able to take a second wife.
(As an aside, she asked about the permissibility of a wife taking a second husband. I told her that that could not happen, since a wife must submit to her husband, and cannot submit to two men if they tell her different things. As she’s been an officer’s wife for a long time and understands hierarchy, I explained that as an officer I could have many subordinates, but only one first-line supervisor: a person cannot serve two masters. Thus, a man can have more than one wife, but a woman can only have one husband. She agreed that that makes sense.)
When I pointed out that a person may not deny his/her spouse sex for any appreciable length of time, if she suddenly decides to move back to her home state against my will, I could consider that she had abandoned the marriage and take a second wife (abandonment is not a valid cause for divorce and remarriage), but only with the proviso that I would be obligated to take her back if she repents and returns – as long as she has not committed adultery in the meantime (in which case I would have no marital obligations to her at all). Of course if she had simply moved away and I took a second wife (with no adultery on her part), I would have to let Wife #2 know that she was one of two, and that Wife #1 had the right to return if she repents. I suspect few women would agree to that, but if she did, nobody would have cause to complain no matter what happened.
My wife, clever girl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8o5fxnDUjs) that she is, asked about the portion of our vows that said “Forsaking all others.” I agreed that that was the only potential sticking point, since that phrase is not conditional (at least as long as the marriage itself exists). The question then becomes: if she abandons the marriage by moving away, am I still bound by my vows to a marriage that she has abandoned? I would certainly argue that she retains the right to return following repentance (again, as long as she refrains from adultery), but whether I would be free to take a second wife in the meantime is potentially open to interpretation. I would lean toward the idea that “forsaking all others” precludes that option – whereas a man who did not include that phrase in his vows would be morally free to take a second wife, with all the caveats as noted.
She then asked where our vows came from. We took the traditional vows, so I told her that they originated in the Book of Common Prayer, and were based on what the Bible says about marriage, but are not found in scripture per se.
I should point out that my wife is not thinking about leaving – this was a purely intellectual / theological discussion.
Dear Greyghost:
These discussions are interesting in light of the social and political status quo, because many of us (Boxer raises his hand) were not raised in a traditional family.
To answer your question about artificial wombs and surrogates and such: I think that might be a viable option for a brother, provided he is independently wealthy, and provided he is very, very careful. I think in the vast majority of cases, men who do that will be doing the same type of damage that women do, when they decide they “don’t need no man” and start squirting out bastards.
I’m guessing that most of us probably love our mothers. Even those of us who have differences with our mothers probably are better off for them being around as we grew up. In my case I also had a grandmother and a couple of aunts who were straight with me. Yes, these were wimminz, and as such I wouldn’t suggest listening to them giving advice about masculinity or dating other wimminz or shooting the AK-47 or lifting or woodworking or how to overhaul a small engine; but, my life would have been poorer without them.
If a brother decides to go the surrogate route, he will essentially be denying his little boy or girl a mother, in the traditional sense. I am not sure this bodes well for either the child, or for any grandchildren that the surrogate/test tube baby may produce. It will also likely put an emotional strain on the extended family, which has to make up for the lack of a mother in the kid’s life.
Of course if a brother is a multimillionaire, he can hire people to do the mother’s job, so this does not apply to celebrities or trustafarians. How about all the working people out there? Are my tax monies supposed to pay for all the men who want to be single fathers? It sounds like a very expensive welfare program, keeping all these theoretical kids cared for while papa works and raising them up while he tries to do his part.
These are just my thoughts, and I’m sure they won’t be popular in some quarters, but there you have it.
Boxer
Greyghost, what’s up with your interest in ectogenesis? I’ve seen it repeatedly and it makes no sense. The best solution to modern problems is restoring patriarchy, not replacing women entirely.
Like Boxer, I can’t see how choosing to be a single father can be any more moral than choosing to be a single mother. Children deserve both a father and a mother. To intentionally deny them a traditional, nuclear family is pure narcissism.
@Lyn87, @Ellie, et al, my latest comment is in moderation (I assume because it has too man links). I’m sure Dalrock will at some point issue me a “get out of jail” card. OTOH, he may not. We’ll see.
Just check out the Scandinavian feminists, who attack their own men as “oppressors” while welcoming muslims from the middle east and Somalia.
Ironic isn’t it. Another shining example of the feminist/leftist ability to think ahead.
Now Boxer you know no man will be given Tax payer funding for anything not even a child. I can almost bet a working class man can get him some live in pussy that will take care of “HIS” child.
Also not as many people love their mothers as you might think. And mothers are not necessary she is a helper. Besides that women don’t raise kids any way day care and the schools do. At six weeks the baby is dropped off and it is like that from then on out.
What I’m am saying is artificial wombs and surrogates are just an option. A man can still get him a future ex-wife and CS and alimony payments just some men will chose not to. MGTOW community with a couple guys running a day care and a group of single dads. I wonder if those kids will grow up gang banging and shooting each other. Just imaging a community like that and seeing the kids living as single mom kids do doesn’t make sense. Good stuff to think about. No good will come from finding a way to a peaceful and stable family that involves women. And they(women) know it.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/comment-of-the-week-dread-game-macrocosm/
είσαι ηλίθιος
Google translates this to “You’re an idiot”. No idea if it has this meaning in Koine Greek.
Husbands who tell their wives they’re fat may be guilty of domestic abuse, says Labour shadow minister
I guess they want to make sure the correct answer is supplied for the age old question: “Does this dress make me look fat?”
Pretty soon the UK will pass laws that require husbands to openly submit to their wives in all things, for the safety of the wives of course.
Gunner Q you have just shown a complete lack of knowledge of female nature.. Also lacking in faith what do you think “ectogenesis” will cause. Do you really think some good women are going to change their actual nature they will have the whole world looking like Detroit. And then they will double down on the same shit that brought us all here today. Restoring the patriarchy has to be in that bitches own wicked self interest. So that may mean you don’t go to heaven
Did not mean all of that
“No good will come from finding a way to a peaceful and stable family that involves women.”
Not a helpful attitude. It’s been done successfully and for most of human history. An all-male society? I wouldn’t get laid there any more than I would in a polygamous society.
AT writes, “I’m sure Dalrock will at some point issue me a “get out of jail” card. OTOH, he may not. We’ll see.”
It happens to everyone; not just you. Comments with more than a certain number of links (three maybe?) seem to go into auto-moderation until manually released by Dalrock. My post from up-thread that has four links went into moderation for a few minutes – I assume for the same reason.
I didn’t say an all male society I said male headed and dominated with out female input families. The sluts will be everywhere riding the cock carousel. “dad’ can get on and ride him some of that ass and get back to his family with fear of that same woman as his loving wife (what we have now) frivorcing him and making him a criminal for not being able to continue to pay the ex for all of that love.
I’m becoming convinced that this thread is being dominated by Pharisees or Medieval Scholastics trying the square the circle. As for divorce in today’s world, no man is truly divorced who has to pay child support/alimony – take a 2nd wife like AT states if that makes you feel more in line with the NT. But, don’t expect to be a Bishop or Pope.
Also concerning the fornication/adultery exception in Matthew, I’m sure everyone would be aware that an adulterous wife would be stoned to death back in Christ’s time…problem solved.
Huh. Okay, riddle me this: why are people promoting polygamous marriages and unicorn-dust-powered future tech as means of restoring sanity to the marriage part of society? I mean, we have examples of how polygamy works in practice, and it’s always less desirable than the effects of stable monogamous marriage at the macro level. If we’re going to suggest pie-in-the-sky “solutions” why don’t we focus our efforts on restoring actual fault-only divorce and a patriarchal assumption of parental duties – as well as slut shaming? That’d be no more difficult than getting churchians to accept polygamous marriages for alphas or developing artificial incubators. We are FAR FAR away from understanding human biology to the extent necessary to replicate gestation. I’d bet that Western civilization collapses upon itself before that breakthrough occurs, in fact; it’s far easier and cheaper to simply pay a woman to rent her uterus for nine months.* Going back to what actually worked most successfully in the past – monogamous lifelong marriage – is a much better option even just from a practical perspective!
*This is profoundly immoral except possibly in the case of a woman who gestates for a married couple who have used their own gametes to conceive the embryo. Parents have a right to raise their own children; conversely, children have a right to be raised by their own parents, both mother and father. Anyone who abrogates this right for the sake of personal convenience is guilty of treating a human being as if he or she were a pet animal. If you don’t have the chops to enter into a binding relationship with another ADULT, you have NO business to be creating a child. IMNSHO.
I’ll confirm. The magic number of links you want to put in your post is a maximum of 2. 3 or more, and the WordPress system, by default, considers your post link spam.
I don’t get it either. Dubious Scriptural value aside, you’d think they’d look at the issue fully, instead of “I can use it for dread lozozozozozozl”. Approval of polygyny will only legitimize what women are doing now, to the point that certain women who hold a legalistic morality will fall into it. So you literally legitimize what is going on now to cause the destruction. You’ll get women clamoring for the alphas instead of looking elsewhere because butt and gina tingleolzoolzozozlzo. Why be married to a lowly man when you can be part of George Clooney or Brad Pitt’s (I really am going to have to modernize myself on those names) hard harem? You might have to share time with a hundred or two other women (Solomon himself had 1000 lined up – 1 Kings 11:3), but you get the chance of the exciting life of a princess. Not like boring Bob Sixpack…
You think things are messed up enough now in terms of marriage, just wait until this kind of polygamy is legitimized.
The scriptures are very clear in regard to polygamy. And yes, it’s now forbidden for any believer to enter into another marriage while still married. Converts who were in multiple marriages are still married, but disqualified from being elders.
(ESV)1 Corinthians 7: 2, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
(KJV)1 Corinthians 7: 2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
And
(ESV)Titus 1: 6, “if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,[a] and his children are believers[b] and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”
(KJV)Titus 1: 6, “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
Why would a man be disqualified from being an elder if polygamy were in fact biblical? How could polygamy be a reproach if it were in fact godly?
It’s absolutely disgusting to see Artisanal Toad continue to pump out his lies regarding polygamy and divorce while pretending to adhere to the word of God. There’s a conversation between he and I on my blog regarding biblical divorce which debunks the lies he’s begun to repeat on here.
The only reason why I’m posting is because he randomly posted much of the falsehood into this thread from a conversation we were having. Read the conversation and it will become apparent he’s a liar who has no interest in sound doctrine.
pancakeloach
I see you like the idea of surrogacy ….me too. Now the other part is nice and popular to say. The real fun is getting us there from here. Sure would love to hear your ideas on how to get us to the ideal. One thing before you start any plan that requires virtue from females is less likely than my making an artificial womb in my garage over the next couple years. good luck
Pancakeloach,
Agreed, I don’t think anyone (except maybe AT – he can speak for himself) is actually suggesting polygamy as a serious strategy except in the most extreme cases – we’re discussing hypotheticals here. We often swerve into discussing the “edges” of problems, so to speak, and polygamy is pretty far out there as things stand now. That’s how men often go about this sort of thing – and it is probably foreign and strange to you as a woman. To borrow a phrase, “It’s a guy thing, you wouldn’t understand.” By defining the farthest limits of what is theoretically possible for Christians, we can then look at those things that are more practical without having to consider things that fall outside that subset. (Sometimes it takes time to get there – it took two or three days just to push fornication outside the boundary of acceptable behavior enough so that nobody is touting it anymore. That should have been a 10-second discussion.)
Think of a Venn diagram, with a set of proposed solutions… polygamy represents the circumference of the circle that defines the subset “theoretical possibilities.” Past that boundary: there be dragons. Most men will chose something much closer to the center of that circle, like long-term celibacy and careful vetting. Even then, it’s not just a pointless discussion like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” As I mentioned before, my wife and I talked about this for a couple of hours last night. We know people whose lives are messed up because they never even think about this kind of stuff. While taken a bit out of context, I’m reminded of Hosea 4:6a: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…”
There is not yet a consensus about ectogenesis, but I’m with you and GunnerQ as thinking it’s a very bad idea (outside the circle with the rest of the dragons) – deliberately using artificial means to birth a child who will have no mother seems to me to be a terrible thing to do – akin to baby-mommas who “don’t need no man.”
Shammahworm,
While I, for one, appreciate your warning about AT’s stance on divorce (I agree that he’s all wrong about Matthew 19), you made an iffy statement yourself when you wrote this:
The scriptures are very clear in regard to polygamy. And yes, it’s now forbidden for any believer to enter into another marriage while still married.
We’ve been batting that around for days here, and the scriptures that you claim make that “very clear” are nowhere in evidence. The first scripture you quoted indirectly hints that monogamous marriage is the ideal form (I think we all agree on that). The second scripture you quoted pertains to the qualifications for deacons and elders. To go from that to say that polygamy is categorically “forbidden” to all men is to assume a conclusion based on evidence that has not been presented. So you ask, “Why would a man be disqualified from being an elder if polygamy were in fact biblical? How could polygamy be a reproach if it were in fact godly?”
Technically, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). I realize that this thread has nearly 700 responses so far, and you’re coming in late, but be aware that 1) those questions have already been answered, and 2) the clarity you allude to isn’t found in the Bible. I (among others) have addressed the topic here – Discussion of whether the Bible actually forbids polygamy:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137895
and here – Possible reasons why polygamists cannot hold church office (since Paul doesn’t tell us why):
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137944
I visited your blog, and I really like what little I saw (you mauled AT pretty well about divorce and remarriage) – just be aware that if you plan to stick around here, “just so” statements are usually challenged.
@Lyn87, GunnerQ
One prominent members of the MGTOW movement argues for ectogenesis:
His response to critics:
AT,
> You quibble over details, but you provide no alternate exegesis of the text.
I had no idea what you were saying and the only match I could find was for a metal. I definitely cannot read your mind.
Where do the Scriptures “support” polygamy? They may permit it, but that is far different from saying it is a good thing.
[1Co 6:12 KJV] 12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
[1Co 10:23 KJV] 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Note that Paul wanted to make this point so much that he said it twice in the same letter.
Jesus went back to the beginning, so do I. You should do the same, but that would ruin your narrative.
Why would the disciples proclaim:
[Mat 19:10 KJV] 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.
That makes no sense if they could just freely take another wife, skipping the divorce.
You also confuse the perfect command with real life. I am sure you don’t always walk perfectly. Are you forever condemned because of that? Maybe you believe you are, which is why you condemn others….
Mikediver,
> The no-fault, unilateral, divorce was the death of until death does us part marriage. Sorry, but that is just the facts. If some people manage to stay married their whole lives I am happy for them and have the utmost respect for the effort they put into that accomplishment. However, it does nothing to restore the nature of marriage in the west.
Either it is completely gone or still present for some. You can’t have it both ways. The societal support has gone down the tubes, but it still remains. No guarantees. My marriage may not make it, but it is looking like it will. I would be an idiot to proclaim “All Marriages are Like That” if mine did crash and burn.
Since we’re busy talking about “what ifs” of how to restore “patriarchy” or biblical marriage (which some people assert doesn’t exist – which means that all men must needs to be celibate, then, which I find rather absurd), why don’t we consider what Paul told us about maintaining proper headship amongst Christian men and women?
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Good so far? I think those of us in the manosphere can nod our heads and agree with this.
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Yikes, manospherians. We all agree a woman’s hair should be long, right? Maximum SMV and all that? Here Paul spells out that a woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head might as well have a had shaved.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? … If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Judge for yourself indeed. Do we see proper headship practiced in the church, or do we see things completely out of whack? Do you want to be contentious about this? Do you have another practice?
I hear your objections. “In our culture women don’t cover their heads” – no, sir, they do not; but our culture is filthy and not worth giving any heed. “Long hair is a covering.” OK, go right ahead and get all your women to grow their hair long and let me know how well that works. (Especially for the chemotherapy patients.)
The simple fact is that God gave us a gift for Christians to practice to keep men, women, and Christ in proper relationship to each other. Christians decided to stop doing this in the 1960s, and we’ve been woefully lost ever since.
Some of you are afraid to marry a woman who veils her head, yet you’re all gung-ho to take on multiple wives.
Boxer,
> Where is the “taking of the second wife” mentioned in the New Testament?
It isn’t. Those who support that tack make an argument from silence and claim a command from what is merely tolerated.
They also fail to consider how many men could not have wives if such were widely practiced. That is a HUGE hole in their argument.
I would also note that it clearly is not a good thing if those in church leadership cannot practice it.
Where is polygamy ever noted as a good thing in the Scriptures? (Though I think we had this argument before and none were found, though a few were claimed.) Adam had Eve and that is all, even though she “ate them out of house and home.”
The hardness of men’s hearts allowed for polygamy just as it allowed for the certificate of divorce.
Sorry if my comments are a bit after the fact. I didn’t realize I was so back in the conversation.
Lyn87,
Several do present polygamy as a serious alternative, at least in theory. A big problem is that allowing it in “only the hard cases” would be opening it in all cases. The ones who got it would generally not be the ones wrong by a wife, but the ones who wanted several. Look at the effective polygamy many alphas practice today.
It fails on so many points.
@BradA
The mental gymnastics some debaters are displaying to justify polygyny is proof that a male rationalisation hamster really does exist, even when confronted with Boxer’s first hand experience of what polygynous Christian society is like.
And then we have the geniuses telling us that marriage doesn’t exist anymore. Scripture seems appropriate:
… that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
When I don’t have a fellow believer telling me, quite literally, that I need to quit eating meat or I’m sinning against the earth/environment/poor people, and then I have other believers on this blog telling me marriage is impossible – literally forbidding to marry – when men speak who claim to follow God, yet whose consciences are so seared with a hot iron that they think they need to take on multiple wives, or fornicate, because “I am a man and men have sexual needs?” —
That is when I am grateful for the gift of scriptures and for the church.
@Lyn87
Several do present polygamy as a serious alternative, at least in theory. A big problem is that allowing it in “only the hard cases” would be opening it in all cases.
Allowing divorce/remarriage “only in the hard cases” is exactly what got us into our present-day mess in the church. First came fault divorce (as opposed to legal separations). Next came fault divorce followed by remarriage. Then came no-fault divorce. Then came no-fault divorced, remarried men in positions of leadership. Then came women (often no-fault divorced, remarried, or closeted homosexual) in positions of leadership. Finally, openly homosexual in committed same sex relationships in leadership has come knocking at our doors. Oddly enough, many churchians feel this matter is of great import – but don’t seem to have noticed all the much more problematic godless unions they have permitted and exalted.
Allowing polygyny runs the same endgame; churchianity in the west consists of following the feminine imperative. Following the masculine imperative is just as evil. Better for followers of Christ to follow Christ’s imperative.
MarcusD,
From the “roommate” thread:
“… I’d make sure that it’s a woman who you have like zero attraction to … ”
Nah, you pretty much want to do them, too. (Sheesh, does nobody watch When Harry Met Sally anymore?)
@Lyn87
My apologies for the absolutist language. I do believe the passages in addition to what some other posters said(Jesus’ words about marriage) make it clear Christians shouldn’t practice polygamy. Admittedly, my study about polygamy isn’t very extensive.
The main reason why I posted was to bring attention to AT’s disregard for sound doctrine.
@John Nesteutes
Your position is wrong in regard to biblical divorce and remarriage. Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 make that perfectly clear. Matthew 5 and 19 refer to other forms of sexual immorality in addition to premarital sex such as adultery, homosexuality, etc. I wrote a long entry on this topic which you can find by clicking on my name. Divorce and remarriage are biblical in cases of sexual immorality. Any church which doesn’t acknowledge that is perpetuating false teachings.
Bluepillprof,
Oh, nonsense!
That’s not:
“(If any of you burn and cannot control yourselves with your virgin…let them do what they will. )( But let them marry.)”
Rather it’s:
“(If any of you burn and cannot control yourselves with your virgin…) (let them do what they will. But let them marry.)”
Girlfriend issues…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905272
Lots of dating advice for shy and awkward guys
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905317
shammahworm says:
August 27, 2014 at 3:13 am
Dear shammahworm please consider that it’s unlikely that Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage for post nuptial sexual sin. Here is another explanation of the exception clause they you referred to:
Any study of the Hebrew marriage customs and laws reveals that the groom pays for the bride with a dowry paid to the bride’s father (Gen. 34:12, Exod. 22:17) . Many examples can be found in the Old Testament of this, e.g. David could not afford the dowry for a king’s daughter (very expensive) (1Sam.18:25). No better example of this is than the groom Jesus paid for His bride, not with corruptible silver and gold but with His own blood, revealed as a dowry in this example.
Terms and conditions:
No try before buy.
Payment upfront in full before marriage.
One exception only, if the girl is not a virgin the deal could be called off. Hence the reason why Jesus said “except it be for fornication”. This also reveals the importance of holiness: if we don’t maintain our chastity then we will be excluded from the marriage supper.
How’s this:
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except the loss of her virginity causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Fixed it for ya
infowarrior1
I like the way the guy in the video thinks. . Talk about restoring politeness. The effect on women and there wicked selfish nature will be interesting. That second video was spot on. The guy has no romantic view and projection of loving virtue on to women.
For all of the good Christian men of righteousness and grace rest assured the bad men will deliver you polite and ready women to marry and have your children. The bad men will also give you the polite children to do the work of civilization so you don’t have to import illegals. Nothing like some bad men to enhance the worldly social status of Christian men.
I have faith in the nature of women. That wicked selfishness will be so kind and loving people will start to think it was women that built civilization by civilizing the savage beast man. the preachers can worship pussy and the churches full with every body singing with joy. In loving unison they cab look at the bad man.
For the fella that mentioned that it seemed like the same as the feminist “I don’t need a man” pussy isn’t all its cracked up to be. I’ll bet my life and soul single dads even black ones cannot duplicate Detroit ,Stockton, Chicago or the new flavor of the period St Louis
MGTOW are saving your grandsons ass and allowing you to play righteous Christian man house at the same time. All we need now is bunch of PUA to waste away the fertility of the sluts and some male birth control pills for beta chumps to have. His beta nature of not wanting to be irresponsible and have a child out of wedlock and his desire to not force his loving former PUA penis warmer slut to go with out love can be taken advantage of . Win,win for righteousness.
Don’t worry yourself pancake the bad man has got this.
@Don Quixote
Except the actual words of Jesus don’t say “the loss of her virginity.” It says fornication(sex between unmarried persons) or more accurately, sexual immorality. Read my blog entry in which I thoroughly demonstrate via the OT that your explanation is impossible. Deuteronomy 24 makes it clear that a man could divorce his wife AFTER he’d taken her into his home and consummated the marriage for impurity. A woman/girl who falsely represented her virginity was executed if it was discovered she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night(Deuteronomy 22: 20-21). Adulteresses were executed in all cases except where there wasn’t the evidence to convict from the time of Moses through the time of Christ. Cuckolds almost never had the option of divorce because Levitical law commanded the execution of the adulterer and adulteress.
So no, you didn’t “fix” the actual reading of the King James Bible. All you did was make a pathetic attempt to alter the word of God. I can’t retype my entire post here or copy and paste it.
It needs to be said a person who has repented of his/her sexual sin will absolutely be present at the marriage supper of Christ. Also, it needs to be said that women who’ve been promiscuous can absolutely go on to lead a godly life.
How can divorcing someone for committing adultery cause them to commit adultery.. Lol! Jesus does not make contradicting commands or statements.
Sexual Immorality most definitely includes adultery. You, as the injured spouse, have the choice whether to divorce the damaging party or not.
That is all.
Not every body is stupid
shammahworm says:
August 27, 2014 at 5:03 am
That was from Don’s Paraphrased Version, comes in handy now and then.
I will have a look at your blog, but I doubt I will be convinced. Is there a something short you could post that sounds convincing?
I agree with the above paragraph.
What point did you want to make?
Again we agree.
I was wondering whether Mrs Pugsley has been basking in the attention that she has received from this blog. Perhaps; but that has not slowed down her anger at men or her general confusion – if her latest Tweets are anything to go by.
From just fourteen hours ago we have a number of Tweets with the hash-tag ‘Rapeiswhen’ from which we learn it occurs when, ‘you are married and your spouse doesn’t consent, when you ignore a safe word, when there is any doubt and you do it anyway, and, intoxication, sleeping and a mental disorder’.
She wants nevertheless ‘to go places, do something, be someone, live a meaningful life, make a change in the world’ but we also have ‘I wish my feminist brain would shut up during movies’ and ‘I want my own baby, will someone give me a baby’.
Her latest self-portrait looking ” as fierce as fuck” merely shows me that she is rapidly putting on weight.
@Lyn87, @BradA, @Shammahworm, et al…
Let’s clear up a few things. First, I have not at any point said there is a *command* for polygyny anywhere in Scripture. We all know that there is neither a command nor a prohibition and therefore it’s a matter of choice for the believer. Period. I have repeatedly compared the situation to that of being a farmer. If one chooses to be a farmer, God provided His regulations on the practice. Likewise, if one chooses to have more than one wife, God provided His regulations for that practice.
Several folks lump polygyny into the same category as adultery and fornication, describing it as a perversion but nobody has offered anything to back that up. Adultery and fornication are sins because God said they’re sins, but God didn’t say polygyny was a sin. You might think it’s a sin so it is a sin for you, but not necessarily for someone else. Read Romans 14.
@BradA
It isn’t. Those who support that tack make an argument from silence and claim a command from what is merely tolerated.
Cite, please. Where did I ever say it was a command?
[Mat 19:10 KJV] 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.
That makes no sense if they could just freely take another wife, skipping the divorce.
You miss the entire point of Malachi 2. You have already admitted there was no impediment for the Hebrew men to have more than one wife, yet God is calling it treachery when they divorced the wife of their youth. It’s not that they couldn’t marry that cute little honey from across the village, it’s that they didn’t need to divorce wife #1 to do so and when they did it was treachery. The disciples understood that Jesus was saying no divorce, that if you marry the woman you’re stuck with her.
This is reflected in the comment by feministhater:
It’s cruel and unjust to think that someone HAS to stay in a marriage once the other party has committed an act as destructive as adultery.
I’m sure the disciples thought the same way, which is why after hearing what Jesus said, they said if that’s the way it is, then it’s better not to get married. Then too, there’s the book of Hosea to consider, but the bottom line is the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church. That means, among other things, to forgive her and keep forgiving her.
From His own words, we see in Matthew 23:1-3 that during His earthly ministry Jesus was under the authority of Moses. That means He did not have the authority at that time to overturn any judgment of Moses. As the Risen Lord He had the authority to overturn the judgment of Moses and He did in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11
The issue of qualifications for overseers and the “husband of one woman” has been a hotly debated topic for a long, long time. There are multiple ways to interpret that passage and forbidding a position of leadership to a man with more than one wife is pretty low on the list. Perhaps taking a look at this will help:
http://dmhodge.com/DIVORCEDREMARRIED.htm
With respect to stoning the adulteresses, I think everybody is forgetting that little part about “let every matter be decided by the testimony of two or more witnesses.” That would mean the crime of adultery would seldom be punished by the official sentence of death because absent a confession from both guilty parties, that means two witnesses would need to actually see them having sex.
@Lyn87
You have been diligent to provide plenty of solid text in (for example) pointing out that fornication is a sin. When Boxer said homosexuality wasn’t mentioned in the New Testament, you were all over that. However, upthread when I provided an exegesis of Matthew 19:1-9 you didn’t touch it, although in later comments you say I’m wrong. Like virtually everyone else, you have not explained the contradiction between “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate” and “if any man divorces his wife for any reason other than immorality” in light of 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and Malachi 2. Care to take a stab at it?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137737
@Shammahworm
The scriptures are very clear in regard to polygamy. And yes, it’s now forbidden for any believer to enter into another marriage while still married.
Cite, please. Where, exactly, does Scripture say it’s forbidden for any believer to enter into another marriage while still married? You are very quick to call me a liar when you don’t agree with me, but it seems to me you’ve got some ‘splaining to do.
You make the blanket statement that Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 make it clear divorce is allowed for reasons of sexual immorality. You have called me a liar. Prove it. Click on the link above and take a stab at making a cogent exegesis that explains the apparent contradiction. Jesus was very clear in saying “let no man separate” and then identifying Moses as the source of the divorce ruling but “from the beginning it has not been that way.” That is completely in line with what He said in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 but these passages are in complete contradiction with verse 9 of Matthew 19. Care to clear that up for us without creating more contradictions? Keep in mind that God is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
You can say “divorce is allowed” and “He said it, right there!” all you want, but God is not a God of confusion. His Word has to agree with itself and contradictions in our interpretation aren’t allowed. Who was Jesus speaking to? What is the context of what He is speaking about? What other passages impact what He’s saying? Please provide an exegesis that deals with the apparent contradiction of what Jesus said just in Matthew 19 that isn’t in conflict with 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and Malachi 2. If you seriously want to hold the position that Deuteronomy 1:3 means the judgment concerning divorce was commanded of God, please explain that in light of Numbers 25 where God clearly gave Moses His judgment and then Moses told the people the opposite. Then explain why Jesus said “Moses permitted you” because if it was commanded of God then Moses didn’t have a choice and couldn’t “permit” anything.
@ John
I presented an exegetical argument. You presented some hypothetical experts, which I disallowed because they are unavailable for discussion. You have failed to undercut my argument one iota or to present a counter-case. You have merely said, “Uh-uh.” This is not a logical argument.
My argument stands. I note that I have presented my main exegetical argument before to others, including to Artisanal Toad (who is typically outstanding in his analysis), and it has yet to be seriously challenged.
@ Opus
Your comments about some women being inconsistent/illogical are well-taken. Few women will dispute this–even feminists. Women vary a great deal in their capacity to think linearly. However, virtually all of them at one time or another exhibit illogical/irrational/inconsistent thinking–which may be derived from decisions being made in the amygdala and rationalized/hamsterized in the cortex. We men attribute this kind of thinking as childish, with some reason. I will reference SfcTon over on another blog I frequent (J4G) who believes that women need to be treated as children. I think that his point is correct if we add the modifier “some of the time”. (For some women, this might be “most of the time” or “all of the time”.)
Of course, the FI allows that irrational/illogical/inconsistent thinking is perfectly fine for making decisions when women do it–and feminists insist that men ought not be allowed to inhibit the implementation of those decisions. If the Herd accepts those decisions, feminists say that men have to accept them.
AT, every matter in court requires a number of witnesses and evidence to corroborate a specific sequence of events. That is normal and in no way disqualifies adultery as a precursor to divorce, or in the case of the OT, stoning. Being quite sick of this topic, which is a blatant attempt of given women ALL the power over a husband and thus rendering marriage completely and utterly void, not God ordained at all, I am going to ask you a question.
What does a husband do, in today’s environment, if he walks in on his wife with hundreds of men, to which she later confesses to sleeping with them all for many years and thus given birth to their children, which he has had to pay for and bring up? You see, adultery hardens the heart, to think it doesn’t is contemptible and beyond stupid.
Jesus qualifies his statement of ‘divorce not allowed’ by an exception clause, not Moses but Jesus. That exception clause is the case of sexual immorality which includes adultery. It actually states that a man who divorces and takes another wife commits adultery, not a man that simply divorces, so.. in the end a man can divorce for sexual immorality on the part of his wife at his choosing but for no other reason than that.
Of course, you’ll have another wall of text saying that God is not a God of confusion while sowing seeds of confusion yourself.
@BradA
Sorry, I missed copying this earlier:
Where is polygamy ever noted as a good thing in the Scriptures? (Though I think we had this argument before and none were found, though a few were claimed.) Adam had Eve and that is all, even though she “ate them out of house and home.”
The hardness of men’s hearts allowed for polygamy just as it allowed for the certificate of divorce.
The first question is easy to answer and I’ve done if for you before. In 2nd Samuel 12:8, God, in the context of rebuking David for his sin of committing adultery with Bathsheba and then killing her husband to cover up the pregnancy, was describing the good things He’d done for David and said that if it hadn’t been enough He’d have given him more. God took credit for giving David his multiple wives.
Jesus said the hardness of their hearts was why Moses permitted men to divorce their wives. However, God did not say He gave David his wives because David’s heart was hard. So, would you please give me a cite that says polygyny is the result of having a hard heart. I’d like to see that one.
@theasdgamer
I said that did I. Mrs Pugsley is certainly exhibiting considerable contrariness in her writings. All I would observe is that the women who complain the most about Rape are the ones least likely to be so troubled. For a woman only recently married her writings do not bode well – indeed, before things get any worse I can only recommend that Mr Pugsley sues for Divorce – but what chance is there of that with a man who commits himself to her self-serving rhetoric of abstinence for the six year term of their pre-marital courtship. You cannot rescue crazy [I tried once – don’t do it] nor should you try to do so.
The classic case of celibate boyfriend and girlfriend is of course Robert Schumann and Clara Wieck, but look how that ended – by him throwing himself into The Rhine, leaving Clara to the tender mercies of Johannes Brahms.
@feministhater
What does a husband do, in today’s environment, if he walks in on his wife with hundreds of men, to which she later confesses to sleeping with them all for many years and thus given birth to their children, which he has had to pay for and bring up? You see, adultery hardens the heart, to think it doesn’t is contemptible and beyond stupid.
Let’s see… First I’ll simply ask you to read the book of Hosea and think about it.
Second, what does the Lord do, looking down at all the sin within His church that He paid the ultimate price for? Does He harden His heart? Or, when the sinner returns to Him in repentance does He forgive them? (Hint: 1st John 1:9) Does that make the Lord contemptible and beyond stupid?
Your comment indicates you have an emotional investment in *wanting* to be able to divorce if you feel you are betrayed. Lots of men want the option available.
You said
Jesus qualifies his statement of ‘divorce not allowed’ by an exception clause, not Moses but Jesus. That exception clause is the case of sexual immorality which includes adultery. It actually states that a man who divorces and takes another wife commits adultery, not a man that simply divorces, so.. in the end a man can divorce for sexual immorality on the part of his wife at his choosing but for no other reason than that.
This is a convenient answer that allows for divorce but does not deal with the contradiction it creates with 1st Corinthians 7:11 or with the context of the narrative. Keep in mind that at the time Jesus was speaking there were two major points of view on what the grounds for divorce were. One of them was ‘for any reason at all’ and the other was ‘only for sexual immorality.’ The disciples, upon hearing what Jesus said responded “it’s better not to get married.” They were there and they knew what He meant. No divorce.
@shammahworm
To be clear, I believe anyone can repent of sexual sin and and join us at the wedding supper of the Lamb. Repentance means choosing not to keep engaging in the same sin over and over, though. If a man or a woman frivorces his spouse, marries another, and then repents, he has no choice but to attempt to reconcile with his spouse. We can debate until we’re blue in the face if he’s married to both – but he needs to go back to the first. A woman has no choice but to go back to her first, and to exit the adulterous relationship. “Whosoever marries a divorced woman, makes her commit adultery.” No exception there.
You’re welcome to your opinion that divorce and remarriage is allowed in the case of “sexual immorality”. This flies in the face of what every Christian believed until the 1950s (minus fringe groups started by people trying to justify their sin).
The fruit of tolerating divorce and remarriage is churchianity. The fruit of believing Jesus’ and Paul’s words about divorce, remarriage, and sexual immorality is a church that is not full of single mothers, effeminate, virginal men in their 30s, carousel riders, and kids who who see their dads every other weekend.
@theasdgamer
The “experts” I know are people in real life that I am in fellowship with and speak with face to face. I also see the kind of life they live and the example they live. They have wives who dress modestly and discreetly; the number of children they have makes it obvious they don’t use hormonal birth control; they are self-employed men; they are masculine. Their children grow up in the fear and instruction of the Lord. They fellowship with other men who believe the same way and raise their families and lead their wives the same way.
I see the life you live, which seems to consist of going to dance outings to make your wife jealous so that she’ll sleep with you. If I am not mistaken, your daughters have pursued higher education into their 30s and high powered careers. I don’t know anything about your church. Is it a thoroughly masculine congregation?
Your attitude towards every other single commenter here is one of arrogance and pride. You seem to be looking for justification for your sin. You also have self-proclaimed “Asperger’s social disorder”, going so far as to place it in your handle. I don’t have ASD. The way you interact needs adjustment. You know better. Stop hiding behind a made-up condition to justify your foul behaviour.
@feministhater
Sexual Immorality most definitely includes adultery. You, as the injured spouse, have the choice whether to divorce the damaging party or not.
You have a choice to be separated from them. I personally advise filing legal separations instead of divorces, which are legally identical, but don’t provide the freedom to remarry. Usually this problem solves itself when the unrepentant spouse chooses to be the plaintiff.
A spouse’s sin does not justify the other spouse to go and sin even more by entering a fake, adulterous re-“marriage”. And if adultery makes divorced justified… why not other felonies? Why not abuse? Why not emotional abuse? Why not abandonment? Why not looking at pornography 2 hours a day?
@Artisinal Toad
You’re on the right track, but you need to give up your fear of a wife leaving you/divorcing you and you not having an option to marry another wife.
No, they did not, otherwise they would have said so, Jesus would have also said without using the exception. Stop making up things that are quite blatantly not there. They asked him a simple question about whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all, any. Jesus said no and gave the only possible exception. It’s as simple as that. As for Hosea, yea, we get it. Don’t marry a whore. However, that does not deal with a wife who decides to become one.
You read a contradiction where there is none. We are not God, our hearts are already hardened. A person with a loving heart would not cheat on their spouse and cause that sort of harm. I’ve often heard the phrase that Christians will suffer on this world. Which is true, however, that suffering comes from the people of this world and the systems of man, it does not come from God. God would not and has not made a marriage covenant that would place such an impossible take upon a man.
This is a pointless argument. No man would get married under your perspective. Scratch that, you would, but most men would see through your conceited effort to place an impossible burden on them and would opt out. Not that it matters much anyhow. There is no marriage these days. Only the harping of those willing to shackle believers to an unjust institution.
@theasdgamer
I think this is the gist of your argument, but please correct me if I’m wrong:
Your error is in choosing a weak translation. A better translation of the question in verse three has it: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” In other words, “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for various and sundry reasons at a husband’s whim?” This is what Moses allowed. The question is not “Is there any reason for which a man may lawfully divorce his wife.” Christ limited the reasons for which divorce is lawful and asserted his authority as being greater than Moses.
The key to translating and exegeting this Matthew 19:11 passage correctly is to get the sense of “de” in verse 9. Some have it as “and” and others have it as “but”. “But” is correct. (“de” always denotes some kind of contrast.) Once you get that translation correct, you get the point of the passage–Jesus is greater than Moses. Jesus can modify Moses, overrule Moses, etc. With Jesus’ appearance, Moses becomes obsolescent.
Correct exegesis means the interpretation doesn’t create a conflict with another passage. During His earthly ministry Jesus was 100% man, born of the tribe of Judah. His instruction to the people in Matthew 23:1-3 means *at that time* He was under the authority of Moses. After He ascended to Heaven all authority was given to Him by God the Father. Afterward, He used that authority to overturn the judgment of Moses allowing for divorce. All Jesus did at Matthew 19:9 was interpret the judgment of Moses in the strictest of terms. Otherwise, His two previous answers would have been to the effect of overturning Moses, something He did not have the authority to do at that time. My complete argument is here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137737
tl;dr version:
Jesus took the original question, which concerned a judgment of Moses, all the way back to Genesis 2 and said “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” When asked why Moses allowed divorce He stated Moses had indeed permitted them to divorce, “but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
Does that not indicate to you that first, Jesus was opposed to divorce and second, doesn’t His statement that “from the beginning it has not been this way” indicate that what Moses permitted was going to be put back in accordance with God’s plan for marriage? If that’s a fair reading of the text, wouldn’t 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 be where (as the Risen Lord) He overturned said judgment of Moses? This interpretation is the only one I’ve ever seen that brings all the various passages into harmony.
@feministhater
This is a pointless argument. No man would get married under your perspective.
Hmmm… That sounds almost exactly like the response of the witnesses to what Jesus said:
“The disciples said to Him ‘If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Matthew 19:10
“This is a pointless argument. No man would get married under your perspective.”
Most men and women at my church are married, and get married in their early 20s.
Women don’t leave their husbands, and husbands don’t leave their wives, since they understand it will put them not only in a state of continual sin, but will also lead to their excommunication from the church and will lead to their family avoiding them until they reconcile.
Which is exactly the utopian patriarchal society you’re trying to create, right? It would behoove you to understand what living in such a society is actually like.
Well, if nothing else this thread has proven without a doubt that men just will not collate together. Which is why feminism is running amok.
The real laugh is of course if that for those who think Jesus answered the Pharisee’s questions in Matthew 19:11.
He didn’t. Jesus made a point of not answering these questions designed to trap him.
They asked : Is it lawful under any circumstances to divorce ?
His reply didn’t answer that question AT ALL. He didn’t say Yes or No or under circumstance xyz.
He said (and read it slowly) : whoever divorces his wife without fornication happening causes adultery to occur in the next marriage for both.
He didn’t rule out divorce or remarriage. He didn’t change Moses law, it still stood.
What fantasy land is this I’m expatting today
AT, you addressed me twice in your post at August 27, 2014 at 7:43 am. For the record, I do not disagree with anything you wrote in the first section (addressed to @Lyn87, @BradA, @Shammahworm, et al…). I don’t believe I gave you any reason to doubt that I disagree with anything written in that section of your post.
That was easy.
You came back later in that post to address me individually and asked me to address your contention that no Christian may ever remarry after divorce under any circumstances.
This won’t be as easy.
I’ll be honest, I don’t read everything you write in all of your posts. I’ve been known to put up some long posts to cover complicated issues – or to offer point-by-point explanations or rebuttals – occasionally, but you seem nearly incapable of expressing your thoughts in a cogent manner. Many of your posts on the topic are longer than everything the Bible says about it – combined. And you have a lot of posts like that: walls of text. Good grief, man. just get to the point already.
The other reason I haven’t engaged you directly over this is that others have already written what I would write myself, and you remain unconvinced. I have no reason to think that you’re going to accept my take on the topic any more than that of the other guys who quoted the same scriptures I would quote.
But since you asked… I was going to respond, and then I noticed that Feministhater had responded with the basic argument I was going to make. I’ll be brief: Jesus gave the general rule in Matthew 19:6 (“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder), followed by the exception in 19:9 (And – or but, not that it changes the meaning either way – I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.)
General rule – followed by exception. Not a contradiction…the exception to the general rule.
Since I’ve read your attempted rebuttals before, I’ll just preemptively answer them now:
Hosea The story of Hosea and Gomer is a unique case in scripture – there are numerous occasions in scripture where God told His prophets do things that were, shall we say, unusual, to make a point. This is one of them. Hosea could have legally had her stoned to death, but God demanded that Hosea enter into, and remain in, a marriage to a slut to illustrate a point about His forgiveness for the Children of Israel, not to serve as a model for Christian matrimony that others were bound to follow (Hosea 1:2 makes that clear, and He reiterates the point in Chapter 3). Note that God told Hosea to go buy her back from the whoredoms she had sold herself into (3:1), not get a second wife to attend to his sexual needs until she repented.
1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 does not address the issue of adultery at all. Paul is addressing the general rule that goes back to the Garden of Eden – not the exception Jesus himself provided in Matthew 19:9. No contradiction there, either.
Dear Grey Ghost:
Please see below…
That was me who said that shit.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with you guys. I would be very stressed out if I was a married man, and doubly so if I had young kids that would be the bitch’s hostages. If I was married to an empowered feminist woman, my first instinct would be to grasp at all the straws I see you guys reaching for (polygamy, dread game, etc. etc.).
MGTOW/PUA is the natural choice for aspergers types and shallow thinking reductionists. A lot of guys (like you) who are otherwise too smart to fall for this tend to do so, driven either by hormones or fear of the divorce courts. Again, I sympathize.
Lots of guys think they can plug human behaviour into an algorithm. beep, boop… marriage is not logical captain, computer advises never doing it.
I have lived the PUA/MGTOW lifestyle. There’s nothing there. In fact, I’ll tell you a secret: Even when I was into it, I saw hardened playas who had been doing it longer than I had getting into relationships and settling down into monogamy. This foreshadowed my own eventual realization that the benefits were largely illusory.
The issue on this blog is that it is largely dedicated to people with a wider temporal perspective than the MGTOW/PUA. The primary audience is people who are already married. A secondary one is guys like me, who want our society to survive past the next couple of generations. It does no good to fight divorce by encouraging men to divorce their wives to take up MGTOW or PUA lifestyle.
It’s the power of social norms enforced rigorously, with minimal institutional intervention. It works.
We’ve all been conditioned that it is “mean” to shun single-parents; but, we’re finding that it is cruel to be kind. Is it unjust to make people fear breaking up their families, if future generations get to live in intact homes?
We’re a very decadent society, and we think of everything in terms of capital, and satisfying the self, and the eternal present. A more realistic outlook would come with the acknowledgement we owe future generations a healthy upbringing. This includes two parents, not one (not even one male parent is the equal of a traditional couple — I’m sure Dalrock can run some statistics to back this up). It includes extended families made up of two parent households, so that in the event of death or a divorce for cause, there is a support network that these unfortunate children can draw upon. It also includes a cultural and legal framework designed to support the family, rather than what we have today — which is a bunch of parasites who feed off dysfunction.
Always enjoy your contributions here, by the way.
Boxer
Greyghost said: “here I am talking about artificial womabs and surrogates to have a family with no wife and you guys are having a serious biblical discussion on polygamy.”
I believe it is a profound sin to seek out surrogates and artificial wombs to have children just so you can avoid having to deal with a wife. It makes children into a commodity, denies them the natural family structure ordained by God, and makes them into something frightful. God wants godly offspring. I think you don’t care two shakes about God, His wrath, or sin. You want what you want with the least bit of trouble. You are god now and you make families how you choose to form them; you judge good and evil; you are the standard of all things. It is profane to stand in the place of God and proclaim a new order in the universe.
AT said: “You’re trying to claim that she owns him and can prevent him from banging anybody else but denying the fact that he owns her by refusing to meet his needs. ”
No, I’m not. She can’t prevent him from doing a single thing; he can’t prevent her either. I am simply saying that vows do not dissolve just because your wife weasles out on the sex part. It is sinful to deny a spouse. Moreover, it is sinful to be the source of temptation for another, for example by immodesty or denial. (Luke 17:1) You people who love God, do you not trust Him for vengeance? Do you not trust Him for your daily needs? I remember reading some post linked off (I think) Free Northerner about how men react to displays of vulnerability. Turning the other cheek is the display of vulnerability that likewise pleases God.
Dear Lyn87:
I actually did some work on this, so I’ll give you my take…
Albert Sidney Johnston was ordered to ride into Deseret (this was our own independent state) in 1857 facing a society that had a long history of guerrilla actions in Missouri and Illinois. It was a suicide mission on his part.
The Mormons in Salt Lake City announced that they were prepared to burn the city to the ground, and then were going to fan out across the United States as suicide troops. They did this before and would have done it. General Johnston, with a good bit of wisdom and cunning, went around Salt Lake City, camped in the desert, and then went unarmed and with only a couple of other guys, to negotiate. The Mormons ended up selling him supplies. He cabled back to Washington that he found Salt Lake City abandoned (which was largely true), and thereby sidestepped what may have become the beginning of a Civil War.
Johnston was ordered by the Confederate Government to return to wherever (Virginia?) when the Civil War actually broke out. The “revelation” you speak of was entirely political. It encouraged the expansion of Deseret into Canada and Mexico (that’s how my family got to Alberta) and got Utah a lot of free money.
Polygamy actually was abolished by the Utah branch of Mormonism in the 20th century, under the direction of a man named David O McKay. This was the first guy who actually punished Mormons in Mormon courts for the practice. The reason he took this sort of action was not due to government pressure, but as a pragmatist, he saw what I’m telling you guys.
Polygamist households are simply inferior to traditional families, by pretty much every metric you want to use to measure success. Polygamist husbands are more overworked, less respected, have less money for their kids, have less time to spend with their kids, etc. etc. Kids who grow up in these households have more health problems, more psychological problems, are more dysfunctional. It isn’t a total failure, but it doesn’t work as well as traditional monogamous pairing. I’d also argue that there’s a biological component. Human beings are designed (by god and/or evolution) to pair bond. Five people all having sex with each other (a man with four wives, in other words) isn’t in line with this framework we were born with.
Spinning plates and whorish behavior — in either sex — is chaotic and not conducive to becoming our best selves. This is why the bible forbids it, and why the bible encourages those who practice it to stop.
Best, Boxer
AT,
I recall you bringing up the David example before. It never said it was a good thing to have that many wives. The commands to kings are clear that it is a bad thing in fact, for kings at least. The Scripture you note says that God would have given David other wives if that was the need, not that it would be good for David to have more wives. You are completely misreading that.
Got any other Scriptures or is that the limit of your “polygamy is good” Scriptural argument?
And note that you did say it was a good thing, almost to the point of commanded, above, though perhaps your words were not as tight as they should have been. I am not going to dig through the whole thread just to dig that out now, though the fact that several of us saw it would indicate the communication challenge is on your end.
Now is time for the surrogacy/ artificial womb/ designer baby choir to crow about there being no verse in the Bible directly opposed to it.
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten” Rev 3:19- a very good choice indeed, AT. I look around and the men simply don’t tell the truth any more. They don’t rebuke, and they don’t chasten those they love. Even their children. That is why spreadsheet guy’s tactic was a moderate success. He told the truth. Men significantly underestimate the power of speaking the truth with conviction. Modern men are a bunch of ear-ticklers and they wonder why they can’t lie and manipulate their women into doing what they want them to. Women were told to silently serve their husbands in order to witness to them, not men. Too many of you also seem to be looking for some magical incantation to use to get your wives to not be frigid feminists. And if you “tried” it and it does not work, that means it is not true.
Boxer,
Thanks for the inside information.
In 1894 Congress Passed an “Enabling Act” setting out the conditions whereby Utah would be admitted to the Union (there were many issues over many years, but most were moot by then and the tide was turning toward statehood). One of those stipulations was that the Utah state constitution contained a provision forever banning polygamy (Section 3, First Clause of the Enabling Act). The Enabling Act was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on July 16, 1894.
In March 1895, the delegates to the Utah Constitutional Convention met to craft a state constitution. In late Fall of that year, the delegates ratified a constitution that contained that provision.
On January 4, 1896, Utah was accepted into the union.
We may make a convert out of you yet Boxer. You sure say a lot of the things I would say, except for the “wild” background. (I have been relatively clean my whole life.)
Is any Mormon here familiar with the 1913 Musical by Sidney Jones and Paul Rubens entitled The Girl from Utah. I have a piano reduction of its Waltzes (my grandmother preferred music in three quarter time).
Dear Lyn87:
Yup. All that is absolutely true. The manifesto of 1890 was the precursor to what you mentioned. Wilford Woodruff invited some government officials to the show trial and excommunication of a couple of prominent Mormons, who, shortly after their “excommunication”, immediately went to the Salt Lake Temple for endowments.
It was theatre back then, and politically expedient for both sides. Our form of Taqiyya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
The second great shift, in the 1950s, was when the Mormon hierarchy actually started shunning polygamists. This had never happened before, and was quite shocking in many quarters. We had sanitized names for it (Correlation, correctionism, etc.) I’m convinced that the underlying motivation for it was pragmatic. Polygamy simply doesn’t work well, and if Mormons wanted to compete with other Americans, they’d have to give it up.
Best, Boxer
Ellie,
Those males who want to raise children purposefully on their own are just as selfish as women who seek the same. A child needs a mother and a father for proper balance. Some may get by without it, but the ideal is one of each.
General question on the issue of remarriage:
Was the sin of adultery Jesus mentioned ongoing or a one time thing? Is it proper to take His discussion of that to mean the remarried couple should split up? I don’t find that consistent with Scripture, but I am curious what some of you may think about it.
The only thing I can think of is that He told the woman at the well she had 5 (6?) husbands. Not 1 husband and a lot of not husbands, but 5 husbands. That would seem to place it in the one time sin category – a bad thing, but not an ongoing bad thing that must be left.
And if you “tried” it and it does not work, that means it is not true.
What is not true? What have they tried? What is not true? Could you explain that last paragraph a little more? Have you considered the faults of women in your analyses? Pronouns can be confusing.
BradA mentions the woman at the well, “The only thing I can think of is that He told the woman at the well she had 5 (6?) husbands. Not 1 husband and a lot of not husbands, but 5 husbands.”
Keep in mind that the English (KJV) translation puts His quote in the past-perfect tense, “you have had…”
As noted before, a woman can’t really have more than one husband, since wives are required to submit to their husbands, and a subordinate can only have one direct superior at each level of a hierarchy (“cannot serve two masters”).
I’m inclined to think that Jesus chose His words to highlight the absurdity of her situation, rather than to make a technical point about the dissolution of her multiple marriages… Something along the lines of the following (with a tone of incredulity): “You have no husband? Madam, you have had FIVE!…”
I can’t confirm that with scripture, obviously, but that makes sense to me given the context.
greyghost: USA and Canada.
Roughly 500,000 church members. If you include kids (who aren’t members) it would be about a million.
Caveat: You have to actually believe in God, believe in Jesus Christ, and live a life in service to Christ. This seems to keep a great number of people out of our community, and no, you can’t just show up and poach our women; they cease to be women of virtue once they cease believing in Christ.
@Lyn87
your contention that no Christian may ever remarry after divorce under any circumstances.
That is not my contention and I have not said that.
Just to be clear, here is my contention in one paragraph: In Matthew 19 Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about a specific judgment of Moses that permitted divorce. Jesus ignored Deut. 24:1-4 and instead, from Genesis 2:14 said there was no divorce because what God joined together man was not to separate. Moses (not God) changed that and Jesus clearly laid the responsibility for doing so at his feet and pointed out that from the beginning it was not that way. Then, because Jesus was at that time under the authority of Moses, He interpreted the judgment in the strictest possible terms. It’s the part about “For hardness of heart Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it was not this way” that causes me to believe 1st Cor. 7:10-11 was the Lord overturning the judgment of Moses because Paul takes pains to point out “To the married I give instruction, not I, but the Lord…” So this was not Paul speaking and he left out the exception because Jesus had already stated it, this was the Lord revisiting the issue. This special point that it was the Lord instructing married believers in the midst of all the marital instruction by Paul, but only in these two verses and only on the subject of divorce means that not including the exception should speak to the removal of the exception for Christians.
Your answer cast this as a general rule stated and then the exception to the rule provided, but you gloss over the origin of the exception. When He identified Moses as the source of the exception, Jesus made the point that from the beginning there was no exception to the rule. Why, as the Risen Lord giving instruction to His bondservants did He revisit the issue and only *that* issue unless it were to overturn Moses?
Obviously I believe that’s what happened and I doubt I’ll change your mind or any other person here, but as iron sharpens iron and all that.
Boxer
This is why I post the comments I post with confidence and faith. Beta men can’t help but maintain an orderly society. War time and peace time What is normal and good in war is not in peace and a wartime soldier and a garrison soldier are two different types and both are a problem in the opposite of who they are.
I’m rather past having a happy marriage and fear of divorce I’m more interested in wrecking the status quo of misandry as a normal way of life. I say things and encourage things as a warrior at war. In no way can what I’m advocating be a sustainable way of life in a polite society. At this time MGTOW/PUA are changing things actually for the better. A blue pill man that chooses MGTOW out of frustration is dangerous. The one we have todauy are MGTOW/PUA out of red pill knowledge and logical conclusion and that is healthy masculinity. In the end they settle down as you say. I wonder who with. And are those women of the type a churchian can love, (trick question they love and worship anything female) would the woman be of a worthy type ?
What would make a woman find staying in a two parent house hold with laws of misandry in place for the sake of the next generation?. (almost made myself throw up typing what I know is in violation of female nature)
The men here are not the men that will change the laws of misandry. The roll of the men here is to be the cultural leaders to show the light in the chaos of darkness. These are garrison soldiers. The wicked selfishness of a woman breast feeding a mans child and showing him dutiful physical and emotional affection with the same motivation and desire as a skank planning a frivorce complete with the accusation of molesting the children and drained joint accounts.
@Ellie
I remember reading some post linked off (I think) Free Northerner about how men react to displays of vulnerability. Turning the other cheek is the display of vulnerability that likewise pleases God.
Well said. Men who want women to submit to them should first consider how Christ submits to God, and then consider how they can submit to Christ. Christ expects to display vulnerability to him.
Now is time for the surrogacy/ artificial womb/ designer baby choir to crow about there being no verse in the Bible directly opposed to it.
Indeed. There’s no Bible verse against artificial insemination, either. We have an awful lot of men who see the sinfulness of modern, feminist women, and seem to be doing their best to emulate that sin, rather than leading by example.
Men significantly underestimate the power of speaking the truth with conviction.
I watched one young man tell another young man, flat out, to quit using tobacco products. He ignored the latter young man’s rationalisations and just told him to knock it off. Watching masculine power and authority in action is truly awe-inspiring.
It should shame those of us who comment here that we need a woman, Ellie, to teach us these truths, whilst serious men debate the virtues of polygyny or running “dread game” on their wives by dancing with other women.
JDG, My apologies for the fuzzy thought. I was referring to the verse. Marriage is a mission field for most of us, even if our spouse is saved. Men have the position of leadership in churches- preaching the word, proclaiming the truth; how much more so should they be doing it in their families, washing them in the word. When one declares something as sin, explains it, preaches about it continuously, a choice is given. An opportunity for the hearer to repent or to turn from God. Women are not supposed to do this (from what I understand). If my husband strays from God, I am to submit humbly and silently and cheerfully to him, allowing God to convict. Men have no such restriction. But there is the danger of a spouse hearing, and rejecting God further, and then God turning them over to their sin. It is a very real danger. But it does not relieve men of God from the responsibility to speak the truth and to pastor their families. Men are afraid to chasten and correct because they fear women more than God. Women are afraid to be silent because they are arrogant, selfish and prideful.
@Brad A
General question on the issue of remarriage:
Was the sin of adultery Jesus mentioned ongoing or a one time thing? Is it proper to take His discussion of that to mean the remarried couple should split up? I don’t find that consistent with Scripture, but I am curious what some of you may think about it.
If your wife sleeps with another man, over and over, do you consider it a one-time thing the first time she sleeps with him, and each act of adultery after that to be no big deal, or repeated acts of sin each time she sleeps with him?
If a man divorces his wife and remarries another man (and this is not a hypothetical scenario anymore – there is a minister not too far from me who has done this exact thing), is his act of homosexuality and remarriage a one-time act, or is he in a continual state of homosexual sin and remarriage?
The only thing I can think of is that He told the woman at the well she had 5 (6?) husbands. Not 1 husband and a lot of not husbands, but 5 husbands. That would seem to place it in the one time sin category – a bad thing, but not an ongoing bad thing that must be left.
Jesus act with the woman in adultery was to tell her to “go and sin no more”.
In our church fellowships, churches who decide to accomodate remarried couples (usually, starting off with couples who got divorced and remarried long before becoming Christians) eventually end up having the same rot of single motherhood acceptance, feminism, and rampant divorce that our mainstream culture does.
Judge the fruits.
John Nesteutes,
We are in the fight of our life against false doctrines in the church, which are cherished by proclaimed Christians. In the majority of churches, the men do not love God enough to even speak out if it means the loss of some woman’s esteem. They don’t love Jesus. It saddens my heart deeply. Most of these men who have “christian” wives with all of these problems should think for a minute or two about whether they really have a Christian on their hands or a pagan mission field. Not all who claim Christ are serving the Jesus in the Bible… most kind of made him up from an amalgamation of ideas and do not even know that they are apostate.
“Have you considered the faults of women in your analyses?” How can they know it is sin when it is congratulated from (nearly) every pulpit? The desire to rule and be worshiped are *encouraged* instead of spoken against. Every like on every facebook selfie is a deposit left at the alter of some woman’s personal temple. Women especially like to gain access to “elite christian” status… going to conferences, reading the books, doing the rituals, listening to the music, being their family’s personal holy spirit in person… they don’t realize that it is the merchandising of the church that they are participating in and the grasping for divinity has corrupted their souls. And who will tell them now that the visible church has been taken over by those who hate it?
Ellie
She is a helper. By law that women have voted for there is no wife. By law, family law children are a monetary commodity for women now. No man avoiding those pitfalls and the statistics of the child of the single mother is in any way responsible. As far as godly family goes it starts with children having a secure father. Any female that doesn’t have authority over the well being of the children will do. In fact if you want to get nasty about it house keepers and nannies seem to give more of a damn about the well being of the husband of the house than any “loving” wife. It was Robin Williams house keeper that was checking in on him that found him not the loving wife. Even children born in marriage at around the youngest 5 birth day that child is about to go through a divorce. This is the reality of the desire to use an artificial womb or surrogate. I am a married father of 3. I know what I’m talking about.
If you believe you are a Christian wife. Then be than worthy woman be the woman that a man will marry and trust to have children with. You are a helper not a necessity, at this point in time you are and look how women behave when needed.
@greyghost
I’m not sure how you can assess the problems of kids growing up with divorce, and then assess that surrogate wombs with no mothers at all are an improvement.
@Ellie
Be encouraged that there are quite a few of us, both men and women, who recognise this and that I have run into many truth seekers who are looking to exit congregations full of false doctrine and seek out fellowship where men and women are preached the truth.
@greyghost
If you’re serious about what you’ve said, email me a zip code or metropolitan area to john_nesteutes@yahoo.com and I’ll do my best to point you in the direction of some people who live out the stuff we’re talking about.
My experience is that most people are just talk, and wax thunderous denunciations about what women shouldn’t be doing… but when challenged to actually join a fellowship of Christ-followers, find all manner of excuses why they are, apparently, the only man alive on the earth today who is seeking to follow God, and the rest of us are too legalistic, or too libertine, or too liberal, or too spiritually dead, or have too much Holy Ghost holy roller stuff happening, or are too cult-like, or don’t have enough close community, or too big of a building when we should be meeting in house churches, or read the Bible too literally, or we don’t read the Bible literally enough.
Quit complaining and become part of the solution.
Well, you could truthfully say that women commoditized the children first. Some (long) time ago, I read a book about why women choose to be single mothers and it appears that women wanted someone who would love them unconditionally and who would not abandon them and chose to get pregnant to create that person. Damn the child’s well being. Damn the God-given order of the universe. Profane and being profaned.
John Nesteutes
So you are saying this group of 500k has a reduced divorce rate with wives regularly fucking their husbands huh. And we’re talking Canada too? I don’t really believe what you are saying because I haven’t heard of any repeals of any laws of misandry. In fact last I heard on line is Canada is looking to pass a law that there can not be a real doll type sex toy for men. I know that offends the righteous Christian man but what that tells me is Canadian women and manginas are full of crap and that is where that church is I wonder where the heads of the female members are.
Men overall are much better parents than women. Children with men (fathers) in there lives have much better stats. Also Families are much more stable and permanent when the woman has no say so over the children. All current marriages are shaky and insecure and emotionally unhealthy due to they all being based on the authority of the wife. There are no exceptions any where in the west. You can talk about god all you want that is the way it is . Every women reading and commenting on this blog knows it. It is emotionally sickening to them and many women do not want the authority(responsibility that comes with the authority). The kids are yours things are different. This is reality and the elephant in the room we are not allowed to talk about. Ignoring this makes everything a lie. Including the righteous man thinking he is living by the bible. Tell your wife thank you for letting you play Christian man next time you see her. Very un healthy foundation for a civilization. And it is crumbling.
As noted before, a woman can’t really have more than one husband, since wives are required to submit to their husbands, and a subordinate can only have one direct superior at each level of a hierarchy (“cannot serve two masters”).
Plus there is this:
Deuteronomy 24:
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
I get the impression that it is not good for a woman to have intercourse with one guy, then another guy, and then go back to the 1st guy. I think that may also be a reason that polyandry is a no no.
take a look at this
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-difference-between-promiscuous-men-and-promiscuous-women/
All current marriages are shaky and insecure and emotionally unhealthy due to they all being based on the authority of the wife. There are no exceptions any where in the west.
I stand in awe of your godlike omniscience, greyghost.
Your logical and grammatical skills, on the other hand, don’t impress me much.
Ellie says:
August 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Thank you for the clarification.
I agree with most of what you wrote here. I have one small quibble with this:
Men are afraid to chasten and correct because they fear women more than God.
Many men are afraid to confront their wives for fear of her nuking the family. They aren’t afraid of confronting her so much as confronting the black robes and blue suits with guns that work for the state.
Ellie says:
August 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm
How can they know it is sin when it is congratulated from (nearly) every pulpit? The desire to rule and be worshiped are *encouraged* instead of spoken against.
At the church I attend they know and have been told. Some take heed, but others continue to add chaos to the lives of their husbands and children. Even after direct confrontation by the pastor they do what they want. One woman we are dealing with right now at least has admitted what she is doing is wrong, but she still rationalizes that it is her husbands fault (kind of like you are doing in the comment at 1:34 pm). Other women we have dealt with absolutely refused to take ANY responsibility for their actions.
Have you considered that women were also instructed to teach younger women how to behave? And if your going to give women a pass for not having been instructed, then you should give the same pass to the ear-tickling modern men who wonder why they can’t lie and manipulate their women after having been raised by single mothers (who chose to have sex without a husband and/or kicked the child’s father to the curb).
I’m not saying men are without fault here, but neither am I giving women a pass.
Point taken, JDG.
Thank you pancake I’m not the greatest writer in the world. But you should see me troubleshoot a JW5 Kawasaki robot
Greyghost writes, ” In fact last I heard on line is Canada is looking to pass a law that there can not be a real doll type sex toy for men.”
The “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” was a hoax that went viral last year, and a lot of man-o-spherians fell for it. Even the Canadian Parliament has better things to do than that. I understand that some apparatchiks in Ottawa got really confused when people starting calling in about it when the “story” spread across the internet, though.
@ John Nesteutes,
August 27, 2014 at 12:10 am
August 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm
I see that you have started taking shots at those of us trying to hold the line on unbiblical beliefs, because of the “oh so much more important” work you’re doing by making pronouncements, relaying your observations, and hinting at the existence of some truly God-fearing group with a million attendees – whose name you won’t disclose. That’s a pretty big group – so telling us the name of that group won’t compromise your real-world identity… and if you just tell us who they are we can judge for ourselves whether they deserve the praise you’re heaping on them. It will also give us more insight as to your own starting place. Most of us have laid our cards on the table with regard to our “theological pedigree” – will you? How about it? Is your group up to facing scrutiny from men who know their Bibles and have the ability to work with statistics?
I’m sure nobody minds you saying what you think, but before you take any more shots at those us in the doctrinal fight, perhaps you would deign to be more of a sail and less of an anchor. As much as I disagree with AT on divorce, at least he has the humility to quote scripture when he makes his assertions, rather than just making pronouncements as if that settled the matter. Although I think he’s making good-faith errors by focusing on the trees while missing the forest, he quotes more scriptures in one post than you have all week.
John, homosexual relations is always wrong, thus his ongoing relationship with another man is always wrong.
Relations between a man and wife are right in a marriage, making that a different situation.
Lyn87,
I meant “had” in what I posted. I was not trying to claim she had multiple active husbands, but rather that it seems to imply Jesus viewed each as a valid marriage, even if it started incorrectly. That is the root of my question.
The fact that Jesus said “marries another man” in His example implies that it is valid, even if started sinfully. At least that thought just came to mind.
Someone else:
> Men are afraid to chasten and correct because they fear women more than God.
Not this man. You don’t know me very well. I will live with the consequences, but I will not live a cowed life.
Though knowing when an issue is important and when it is not is part of being a growing up and being a man. I am still walking that one out. Withdrawing can sometimes be as effective as interaction.
I should clarify that I am referring to verbal correction in my last quote. I do not think other things are appropriate for adults in a marriage context. Light humor can also be appropriate in a case like that. Telling someone that they are being silly (or worse) does not need to be as strong as we sometimes think.
What happens between consenting adults is a topic I will not discuss however.
BradA,
Got it. The inability to edit once one hits the (Post Comment) button has bitten me in the Fourth Point of Contact a time or three, as well.
As I noted earlier with Boxer, my comment wasn’t directed so much at the person whose post I was responding to (in this case, you), but to others who are reading. There are several people who I assume will pick up on my nuances while many will not, and occasionally I insert an explanation directed to the latter group while responding to someone from the former group.
You’re in the former group.
Lyn87
I thought it was out there and it was. But it was a believable hoax coming from Canada. Thanks.
@GreyGhost
“”And we’re talking Canada too? I don’t really believe what you are saying because I haven’t heard of any repeals of any laws of misandry. In fact last I heard on line is Canada is looking to pass a law that there can not be a real doll type sex toy for men””
I have also heard of the laws that are going to be passed about the “dolls for men”.Look at the current anti-prostitution laws that are being passed.Who did our “Attorney General” Peter MacKay consult on this subject?….Radical Fem-Tards! I assure you that prostitution is alive and well in Canada.I could walk you a few blocks from my office and we will have 18-25 year old “crackwhores” offering us blowjobs for $20. I find most Canadian men to be a bunch of spineless manginas.Even in business I much prefer to deal with American men than Canadians.I heard a 2 sayings about 20 years ago that I will never forget….and it is true! …..”The American dream is to own your own business and become financially independent. The Canadian dream is to land a Government job…and the win the Lotto 649″……Another….”The American Banker is a business man….the Canadian banker is a bureaucrat”…both very true statements! Look at what we elected in our last Provincial Election as Premier of the Province of Ontario….Kathleen Wynn….a pathetic rug munching pig of a skank! Also,when Peter MacKay got married?…he married an Iranian woman….go figure!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacKay
@BradA
The Scripture you note says that God would have given David other wives if that was the need, not that it would be good for David to have more wives. You are completely misreading that.
I guess your analysis stands or falls on whether God was talking about good things He’d given David or bad things, but the whole “show me an example” is a straw-man. Think about this, Brad. God had two wives, Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 3:6-10 is clear that while God divorced Israel He didn’t divorce Judah). The whole “Polygyny Is a Bad Thing” (TM) argument fails when you consider that. Still, consider who the most vocal opponents of polygyny are: women and white knights. Sometimes I think you and Ellie are still mad at me over that post from last year over at SSM’s.
I did say that *given the current legal environment* a polygynous marriage would offer significant advantages over monogamous marriage. Multiple wives means at least one of them can be the full-time worker in the home. The rest can work outside the home. Combined with their husband’s income they have a significantly higher income and greater job security because if anybody loses their job it’s not the catastrophe it would be for a single and their standard of living would be a lot higher. The state can’t really recognize it as a marriage so it can’t get nuked in divorce court. In such a situation the husband would have a far higher chance of getting custody of the kids if one of the women decided to leave. The husband isn’t going to be an incel. I could go on, but you get the picture.
So, just to be clear, I’m talking about a moral arrangement that answers the problem of the incel husband, puts the incentives in line with staying in the marriage, offers more stability and financial security for everyone and isn’t illegal in any way. An economic and legal solution to the current problems monogamous marriage faces, including the subject of the OP, the incel husband. Given an environment in which the women are allowed to be feral, it works to solve the problem. Show me an environment where the patriarchy actually works and while I believe it’s still an individual choice I’d say monogamy is better.
@Lyn87
As much as I disagree with AT on divorce, at least he has the humility to quote scripture when he makes his assertions, rather than just making pronouncements as if that settled the matter. Although I think he’s making good-faith errors by focusing on the trees while missing the forest, he quotes more scriptures in one post than you have all week.
Heh. Well, I think you’re making the error on the divorce issue, and I gave you my best answer in my last response to you. I even tried hard not to wall of text you. In any case we’ll have to agree to disagree, but both of us can’t be right. Anyway, since you think I’m making good faith errors (plural) does that mean I’m fighting the doctrine issues from the dark side?
BradA says:
August 27, 2014 at 11:54 am
How about the example of divorce in the Scripture is found in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13. After the Babylonian captivity, when Jerusalem was in the process of restoration, it was discovered that many of the children of Israel had married foreigners, in direct contradiction of the Law. Deut. 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them…
So Ezra and Nehemiah insisted that the mixed marriages be separated.
Ezra 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.
Neh. 13:3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.
This example is interesting for a number of reasons.
Could this be a precedent for divorce? For example; unsanctified marriages to be terminated?
I wonder if the Church would ever rise to such a position, and demand that unsanctified marriages be terminated? If the New Testament Church is founded on better promises than Israel’s covenant, why is the current standard so slack?
David did as much when he forced the separation of his first wife with her second husband. 2Sam.3:13
@JDG
Many men are afraid to confront their wives for fear of her nuking the family.
“If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”
Never before has this been so true. It really, truly stinks what is demanded of men to be men of God right now, but in order for us to serve God and to build the church, we must be willing to lose our wives and families and children.
@greyghost
Yes, this group of half a million people has a sharply reduced divorce rate. As far as whether or not women regularly have sex with their husbands – there are sexless marriages, but less so than the overall culture.
You seem to want a life of guarantees:
– Wife who will be eternally faithful to you
– Wife who will regularly want to have sex with you
– Children who are guaranteed to belong to you
But you seem reticient to engage in any acts of personal honour in return:
– Believing in God, who created the family
– Believing in his son, who makes it possible for men and women not to descend into sin
– Choosing not to engage in acts of fornication and adultery
– Choosing to trust and serve God first, even if it means that you must leave your family, wife, children, and lands
In short, you are not ready to be a disciple of Christ, and that’s why women who choose to be disciples of Christ will not choose to be your wife.
Good luck with your carousel riding, surrogate wombs, and trying to raise children in a debauched, wicked society.
@Lyn87
I apologise for my condescending tone. I had thought the specific vein of faith I am a part of would be relatively obvious – but I was wrong. The distinctives we have versus general Western Christianity are:
Nonconformity to the world; nonresistance; separation of church and state (or “Two Kingdoms”); permanence of marriage; the headship veiling; and the role of men in leadership.
The latter three distinctives were universal to Western Christianity until the 1960s. The first three distinctives has made this vein of Christian faith quite peculiar since its inception in the 16th century.
Our population was roughly 400,000 – 500,000 active members in 2012. Guesstimates about attenders who are not enrolled members plus children who are too young to be baptised and become members would put numbers at about one million. Estimates on the number of converts into the faith is around 1,200 – 1,400 per year.
The population doubles every 20 years, mostly due to large family sizes and a high retention rate of children who become members.
I would consider about half of our population, whilst cultural avoiding divorce, remarriage, etc., to be in sects with whom I have fundamental doctrinal differences and neither they nor I would be in spiritual fellowship with one another.
If you’d like to read more, including find good references, Volume 1, Issue 1 over at http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/54888 is an excellent place to start with the articles “Who Are The Plain Anabaptists?” and “Where Are The Plain Anabaptists?”
Regarding problems in marriages – I would say the biggest problems we face are dead-bedroom marriages and marriages with physically abusive husbands/fathers. Much like the rest of society before the 1960s, and exactly how the theoretical patriarchal utopia discussed around these parts would be in the future.
Never before has this been so true. It really, truly stinks what is demanded of men to be men of God right now, but in order for us to serve God and to build the church, we must be willing to lose our wives and families and children.
John we get to hear about the faults of men everywhere else all the time. What is demanded of women, in these trying times, in your view?
and that’s why women who choose to be disciples of Christ will not choose to be your wife.
Where are these women? How does a guy who married before he became a Christian get one of these?
I would say the biggest problems we face are dead-bedroom marriages and marriages with physically abusive husbands/fathers. Much like the rest of society before the 1960s, and exactly how the theoretical patriarchal utopia discussed around these parts would be in the future.
John you are referring to your denomination when you say this, correct?
John Nesteutes
There are no guarantees in life but there is blind stupidity. Losing my children needs to be based on some real failing on my part not some chicks boredom. That is all there is. Once a man is in charge of his children the other stuff from the wife goes away. Her selfish interest takes over. Women do everything in their own interest Building a family and raising children is the lord’s work can’t get any more Christian than that. BTW I’m a beta chump male The kind that pays for his wife’s college education and helps with her home work. The most hated and despised man in America only less hated than a child molester. All we have is honor because we damn sure don’t have the respect and admiration from our society. Hell our own wives don’t even like us.
@JDG
John we get to hear about the faults of men everywhere else all the time. What is demanded of women, in these trying times, in your view?
Women? Women need to become disciples of Christ, need enter into Christian fellowship and be accountable to and learn from older women, need to turn away from sin, allowing the ministry of Christ to change and deliver them, need to exhibit signs of turning towards righteousness and away from sin as part of evidence of conversion and baptism. In short, be Christians. I think we’d all agree on that.
Where you and I would agree, but most churchians would not, is that Christian women need to understand their position in headship relative to men, Christ, and God; need to dress themselves modestly and discreetly; and must reject immorality and even the slightest hint of moral impurity.
Where you and I would probably part ways is that we would believe that Christian women need to obey 1 Corinthians 11 and wear the headship veil, and need to do so in a manner accountable to their local church body. Christian women would need to dress in a manner distinctive from the world, and distinctive from the way in which men dress. In practical terms, this just means not wearing pants other than culottes. Christian women cannot remarry after divorce, other than to be reconciled to their husbamd, and Christian women cannot marry a man who is divorced. Of course, Christian women would need to comply with the same standards Christian men should such as nonresistance, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to this discussion.
Where are these women? How does a guy who married before he became a Christian get one of these?
Well, these women would be at church regularly, living with their families or husbands, or else off at Bible school, teaching school, working, etc. (College attendance is not common of our culture, and is especially not so for young women.)
If you are married, you are married. If you want “one of these” then I would advise you to pray for your wife’s salvation and sanctification. I would not let her state of sin discourage you from seeking salvation and sanctification for you, yourself; “For… the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”
We have our share of divorced/remarried couples and cohabiting couples who attend church, and divorced men who attend church. The former cannot become members unless they turn away from their sin, but I consider them part of the body – just like people struggling with any other kind of sin. I like to believe that my example will help guide them into repentance.
John you are referring to your denomination when you say this, correct?
Yes, I am referring to my particular vein of faith. I would hesitate to call us a “denomination” as the only large, unified denominations (the MCUSA and the Church of the Brethren) are no longer plain Anabaptist. The plain fellowships, conferences, etc are quite decentralised.
@DonQuixote
So Ezra and Nehemiah insisted that the mixed marriages be separated.
The marriages were invalid for miscegenation, the same thing one is getting a license for when one obtains a marriage license. (c.f. Black’s Legal Dictionary, 5th Edition). That’s as close as I’ll get to the Catholic doctrine of annulment.
@John Nesteutes
I already provided a Biblically permitted solution to the dead-bedroom problem in which the wife is refusing to meet her conjugal duties. However, since I know others here are sensitive about such subjects (cough, cough) so I can also suggest better living through chemistry.
PT-141 will turn just about any woman into a raging nympho, about 4 hours after taking it. It apparently short-circuits the *attraction* issues. I would love to see a study on how well this drug worked on the libido of post-menopausal women, but it’s never going to fly with the FDA so nobody will spend money on that stuff. It is available as a peptide and you mix it yourself. Google is your friend.
PT-141 is a derivative of another drug, Melanotan, which was designed to increase melanin in the skin (give you a tan), and later became known as the “barbie drug.” The FDA shot it down because it had too many side effects, such as weight-loss and an increase in libido. So… this stuff gives you a tan so you look better, helps you lose weight so you look and feel better and increases your libido.
WAIT!!!!!!!
STOP!!!!!
Please ignore what I just said. This is hypergamy on steroids.
@greyghost
Losing my children needs to be based on some real failing on my part not some chicks boredom.
We don’t live in the world of “needs to be”; we live in the world of “is”, and our world is debauched and wicked. You and your wife both need to become followers of Christ. When a man converts to and starts living out Christianity, his wife and children usually end up converting too. (The reverse is not true: women who convert rarely get their unsaved husbands to convert.) Just talking plain statistics here.
@Artisinal Toad
Doctrinal opinions of polygamy aside, I am interested to discuss with you what you think the impact of polygamy would be on plain Anabaptist communities.
Mormon life in the 1900s was similar to plain Anabaptist life today, and Boxer’s description of polygamy is that it was wholly negative.
In short, I don’t believe Scripture supports that idea that every Christian male is entitled to an attractive, sexually willing female. And I think it’s impossible to create any kind of social or religious order that accommodates that.
@John Nesteutes
For over five years I lived in the middle of an Amish community with a Beachy Amish community on the ridge and a huge Mennonite community on the other side of the river. There was literally more horse and buggy traffic on my road than cars. My major problem with the Anabaptists is they’re pacifist, and that’s not Scriptural. Some take it to the extreme.
There was an Amish family in my neighborhood that suffered a home invasion by a couple of drunks that were (in the beginning) just being assholes. The lack of resistance and pacifism caused the wife and one of the daughters to be raped while the husband and father stood by and did NOTHING. They quickly sold the farm after that and moved to another community. Yeah, you can turn your own cheek if you think that’s appropriate, but refusing to defend your family is cowardice of the first order.
I may not be describing the beliefs of your “group” but in situations like that, I will never stop being one of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children. You loot, I shoot. Besides, pacifism is a total libido killer for women so your dead bedroom comment squares with what I’ve seen.
Oh, just to be clear on dead bedrooms:
Dead bedrooms are as much a problem for women as they are for men (e.g. husband doesn’t want to have sex anymore). The other problem is closeted homosexuals who marry women, and then a few years down the road won’t to have sex with them anymore.
Major issues for our people. I am open to suggestions about how to fix these problems. My personal hope is that the more liberal denominations become so gay-affirming that the closeted homosexuals just all go over there.
@Artisinal Toad
Do you have any basis to back up “pacifism is a libido killer”? My experience is most Mennonite men are busy hunting, fishing, and generally shooting stuff.
Plain anabaptists are not pacifists; they’re nonresistant, which is a cultural distinctive. Pacifists would engage in political activism; nonresistant people do not. You are correct, though, that I would not shoot a home intruder, although I would be willing to notify civil authorities. (Please read up on “Two Kingdoms” doctrine to gain an understanding of why.)
Anabaptists historically have looked to obey the injunction that “when they persecute you in one city, flee to the next” and find civil societies to live in that welcome them and where civil government does its part to enforce law and order. The rape and murder and home invasion rate in areas dominated by the Amish is lower than it is in, say, a ghetto in Detroit. Why would this be?
(I’m also not Amish and agree with most Amish groups on very little, doctrinally speaking.)
I find it interesting that I am arguing that nonresistance is not scriptural with someone who is willing to defend the idea of Christian men marrying multiple wives.
Where you and I would probably part ways is that we would believe that Christian women need to obey 1 Corinthians 11 and wear the headship veil, and need to do so in a manner accountable to their local church body.
You and I would also agree on the head covering and the Christian wife not marrying after divorce.
and that’s why women who choose to be disciples of Christ will not choose to be your wife.
Where are these women?
Well, these women would be at church regularly, living with their families or husbands, or else off at Bible school, teaching school, working
If what you say is true then how do you account for the high divorce rate among church going women and women in general? How do you account for the high number of church going married women who won’t submit to their husbands much less dress appropriately? How many genuine Christian female disciples do you think there are there among all the feminist women attending Bible schools, teaching in schools, and working these days?
@Dalrock
On the cross-dressing theme:
I’ll give my two cents – if it’s worth that!
Given that low-libido men as well as women are an issue, I wonder if there might not be too much social pressure to marry in your community – people will do a lot of things they don’t really want to in order to fit in (or so I have been told!). Affirming that celibate singlehood is a laudable choice for those few who don’t burn (or have misdirected sex drives) rather than encouraging everyone to get married is important in a marriage-oriented society, I would think. Particularly, having a social “place” and role for such singles to fill would help them feel accepted and valued by the community as they are.
I wonder if monastic life served as an outlet for such people during the Middle Ages? /musing
@John Nesteutes
Dude, I dedicate this comment to a sparkly little 14-year-old girl names Sarah, who forever had her life changed by her father’s un-biblical doctrine and cowardice. (Details changed to protect privacy, it happened.)
In short, I don’t believe Scripture supports that idea that every Christian male is entitled to an attractive, sexually willing female. And I think it’s impossible to create any kind of social or religious order that accommodates that.
I won’t disagree on the “attractive” part of your statement but the “sexually willing female” flies in the face of 1st Corinthians 7:4. Period, full stop. It was not a polite suggestion, it was a commandment. Not just to the women but to the men as well. And having witnessed some of the shrewlike-porkers in these communities, we’re talking about walking, talking boner-killers; so while I can understand the problem the men have (in not being obedient) their women need to take heed to “The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” and keep it in shape. Oh… they won’t touch a drop of alcohol, but they’d be pulling the hog-scale at 250 pounds plus if they ever got hung on it.
You are correct, though, that I would not shoot a home intruder, although I would be willing to notify civil authorities.
Then you are truly naive and a fool. I stand by the comment. (Google is your friend. Google “The Wichita Massacre” or “Knoxville Horror” if you’ve got a strong stomach to know what kind of threats your are faced with.) If you do not defend your family against an invasion of your home (or anywhere else for that matter) you are not loving them. You have failed them and you have betrayed them. Does that sound harsh? You can turn YOUR cheek, but your job as a husband and father is to DEFEND your family. To refuse to do so for any reason is cowardice of the first order.
Long, long ago and far, far away I signed a check to this country saying “Any amount, up to and including my life.” The idea that my family is of lesser value than my country is ludicrous and to say you would not defend your family from a home invasion and instead attempt to rely on others is cowardice. It is not Biblical. You’ve seen me patiently defend my position on marital structure, but if you think I’ll stand by and allow anyone to say a husband and father is not to defend his family UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES where there is a threat simply makes my blood boil.
Dead bedrooms. NO SHIT!!!!! Those women know you won’t defend them. Consult the manosphere about that because I don’t think I can stomach much more of this. She’s your WIFE!!! She’s your DAUGHTER!!! Does the non-resistance extend to watching your sons get anally raped????? Are you a man? This whole “non-resistance” indicates terminal testicular atrophy.
I find it interesting that I am arguing that nonresistance is not scriptural with someone who is willing to defend the idea of Christian men marrying multiple wives.
(Wipes forehead, rubs the stain from his clothes, continues in the hope of a breakthrough)
Interestingly, the two are related. There was a huge problem caused by the Geneva Bible, which had marginal notes written by Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. It identified major issues that had serious political implications. The only problem with obtaining such a Bible was that it was expensive. John Bunyan preached from a Geneva Bible. The homosexual James of England assembled a group of scholars to translate the Bible into English and offer them for sale at a price far, far lower than the much higher quality Geneva Bible.
Among the errors politically introduced was “Thou Shall Not Kill” which was a direct contradiction of the text of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. God does not tell people not to kill and then list offense after offense of death-penalty offenses saying “Thou shall not suffer evil to flourish within the land.” Look at the prior issue of Genesis 9:16.
Another example: Look up Numbers 25 in an original King James translation. (Keep in mind I’m quoting from memory here) Baalam had gone back to Balack, the king of Moab and told him that the only way to defeat the Israelites was to get them to offend God. He told him to send in the young nubile women and lure the men out to commit idolatry with baal. It worked.
What did God tell Moses? Look it up in any decent modern translation (amusingly, the NIV is one of the best). God told Moses to execute (crucify, actually) the leaders of the people before the entire assembly in the morning. Moses refused and INSTEAD ordered the leaders he was supposed to have killed to execute any of their men who had joined themselves to Baal-Peor. Yet, how is this described in the original King James? “And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying ‘Hang ye the heads before the sun.” What the hell does that mean? The people were supposed to understand that? No marginal notes, no nothing, but the Geneva Bible had extensive notes saying that GOD HELD THE LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SIN OF THE PEOPLE.
Who, sir, were the Mighty Men of God? Were they not all WARRIORS? They received honor and fame for all time, their names recorded in God’s Word. Can you point to any single pacifist, anywhere, that had that distinction? If you say Jesus you will get the spanking of your life.
As I said, I go by what the book says, not by several millennia of accumulated errors. Your plain anabaptist folks might have a lower rate of divorce, but women want MEN who will defend them. It’s a factor of attraction.
OK… if any of you women are still with me, want to comment on the attraction to a man who would not defend you in a home invasion because of his commitment to non-resistance? John, this should be amusing.
I met an Amish fellow on a bus once. I told him I was a Bible believing Christian of no particular denomination and asked him if we were brothers in Christ. He said no.
Could one of you guys who know a bit more about the Amish give me a little insight on this? Thank you in advance.
Artisanal Toad @ 3:59 pm:
“I did say that *given the current legal environment* a polygynous marriage would offer significant advantages over monogamous marriage.”
Sure, if you’re the one guy with four wives instead of the four guys sharing the ugly leftover. Official polygamy would entrench our current troubles, not solve them.
All men have a real and legitimate need for sexual release… “one man, one woman” is the only foundation capable of that. This is why we Christians hate polygamy even though the Bible technically allows it: polygamy is guaranteed to force sexual privation on a lot of men. That’s as cruelly immoral as Marriage 2.0.
“Think about this, Brad. God had two wives, Israel and Judah.”
Accepting this statement at face value, that two-wife marriage ended with God killing Israel. Polygamy doesn’t work even for the Almighty.
—
John Nesteutes @ 5:36 pm:
“Where are these women? How does a guy who married before he became a Christian get one of these?
Well, these women would be at church regularly, living with their families or husbands, or else off at Bible school, teaching school, working, etc. (College attendance is not common of our culture, and is especially not so for young women.)”
Respectfully, John, I think you’re living in a bubble. It sounds like a nice bubble so I’m happy for you but I question your ability to relate to American society and its considerable issues.
Where I live, 2/3 of women have visible tattoos, half have visible piercings, shaved heads are more common that shoulder-length hair and feminine dress means hiphugger denim. I’ve worked through eight churches in nine years, watching one after another embrace feminism, start editing the Bible and shame the men away. The divorce rate in my area is estimated at 80%, because the California government won’t release the data, and women brag to each other about their settlements. I have never been respected or kindly treated by a woman younger than my mother, never, and the question has been put to me: “Do I live a completely sexless life or do I sterilize myself to protect my kids from divorce and marry as best I can?” That is not an academic question. That is my future and it’s a typical one for Christian men in America.
And then you say foolish things like:
“I would say the biggest problems we face are dead-bedroom marriages and marriages with physically abusive husbands/fathers. Much like the rest of society before the 1960s…”
and “You and your wife both need to become followers of Christ. When a man converts to and starts living out Christianity, his wife and children usually end up converting too. ”
and “Dead bedrooms are as much a problem for women as they are for men…”
I do not believe you understand what the rest of us are going through. Enjoy your cloistered community and please don’t act like you have the answers we need.
Psalms 24:7-10: (NASB)
7Lift up your heads, O gates,
And be lifted up, O ancient doors,
That the King of glory may come in!
8Who is the King of glory?
The LORD strong and mighty,
The LORD mighty in battle.
9Lift up your heads, O gates,
And lift them up, O ancient doors,
That the King of glory may come in!
10Who is this King of glory?
The LORD of hosts,
He is the King of glory.
I love the argument that the God of Joshua, Judges and David somehow has a problem with physical violence, when used to the proper ends. Though I imagine the heretical argument takes Paul, paraphrased, saying “don’t do revolutions” as somehow being “don’t defend yourself”.
I’ve always hated the “Christian Pacifism” BS, but it’s in the water in a lot of parts of the Church. We should, generally, not be aggressive, but the Lord of Heaven’s Armies ain’t no wimp. Nor are we ever called to be.
Where’s Sarah’s Daughter when I need her?
Though the article has a few oblations to the feminist deity inserted at the beginning, this is still an interesting read: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=crsj
Who the hell posted that. Look here you blast the shit out them. Use a shotgun 12 Ga with 27 pellets of #4 buckshot or 12 pellets of 00 Buck shot Make a mess of the intruder. You won’t last long here in Texas.
John Nesteutes
You post like you don’t live under the laws of misandry. total blue pill blissful ignorance. I wouldn’t touch your church with a paint ball gun doing drive by vandalism. That is just irresponsible arrogance that is going to get some young man listening eaten by the misandry monter
I do not believe you understand what the rest of us are going through. Enjoy your cloistered community and please don’t act like you have the answers we need.
Yes, this would explain much of what John has commented about. It does seem like he does not know what is going on outside of his circles, but In all fairness he did say that he was referring to his community when he listed the marriage problems they face.
the misandry monter
Misandry Monster should be trade marked. May I borrow it?
yeah go ahead just make sure to avoid the typo
OK… if any of you women are still with me, want to comment on the attraction to a man who would not defend you in a home invasion because of his commitment to non-resistance?
I wouldn’t know, I don’t actually know any men who are pacifists, unless they’re keeping it a secret. But theoretically? A pacifist man would’ve been NEXT’ed as soon as I found out about it back when I was husband-hunting. The church I grew up in is pastored by a black-belt NRA member with a gun collection, so… yeah.
@Gunner: if you’re serious about looking for a suitable woman, move elsewhere already! Or search for a wife online – that’s what my dad did after he was widowed. That way the fact that his second bride lived literally across the country wasn’t an insurmountable barrier and they found each other anyway. You have to hunt where the game is, which is not necessarily the place most convenient to you!
@Greyghost
Who the hell posted that. Look here you blast the shit out them. Use a shotgun 12 Ga with 27 pellets of #4 buckshot or 12 pellets of 00 Buck shot Make a mess of the intruder. You won’t last long here in Texas.
No. #6 or #7 shot. Dumps maximum energy into the target and no surgeon will put that back together. Doesn’t tend to penetrate 2x drywall/stud wall and kill your kid in the next room. Center mass or head shots, there is no recovery. “Hunting weapon” loaded with birdshot means the cheesy district attorney doesn’t get to hammer away at how you were “prepared to kill” with a weapon designed to only kill people. Home invaders are extremely unlikely to wear body armor unless they belong to the badge gang. If that’s the case, .308 AR10 is an appropriate response.
OK churchian exigical interpreters, I have one for you after just a brief study of the Sermon on the Mount- the main point you churchians are arguing is crap. A total twisting of the actual meaning and context of the Lord’s words. Honestly some of you sound like ascetic Buddhists rather than believing Christians. Do you really think you earn extra crowns by committing yourself to suffering for no reason?
Jesus said: “If thy right eye offends you, pluck it out and cast it into the fire…for it is better that a part of the body burn than have all of it cast into hell.”
My Bible drops a footnote right there: “Jesus is not arguing for self mutilation but is illustrating the gravity of sin with hyperbole.”
THEN THE VERY NEXT THING HE SAYS: “Moses said to give your wife a bill of divorce…but I say that anyone who divorces his wife excepting for marital unfaithfulness causes her to commit adultery…”
Strangely there is no footnote saying: ‘Jesus is not arguing the ridiculous proposition that a shrewish, harpy, disobedient, sex denying, frigid wife who undermines you and destroys your home cannot be divorced but is illustrating the gravity of sin with hyperbole.’
I believe Jesus was setting out guidelines for Holy living, not cataloging a list of sins. He was instructing men that they could not put out their wives to beg on the streets (except for marital unfaithfulness) and His intent was to protect women who needed protecting, not bind men to the feminine imperative for all time.
You have to hunt where the game is, which is not necessarily the place most convenient to you!
It’s also not necessarily in any modern Western society.
@BluePillProfessor
Are you actually following this thread? We just went from incels to husbands who won’t defend their families because they’re “non-confrontational” but still have the balls to tell others how to arrange their marriages. WTF?k
Your weird interjection is out of character and off point. Read.
I wrote a post exploring some of these issues and clarifying my statements and questions that were often deliberately misconstrued by the moralists and the self proclaimed uber righteous. Because I respect Dalrock’s work enough to not sully up this topic further with questions the moralist are afraid to address without resorting to shaming language, I suggest for those who want to explore some of these real questions that men are asking themselves and facing to stop by.
So while the moralists spin up their own hamsters and fabricate stories about my past comments and articles in order to fit their own morally superior attitude and to make themselves look and feel good so they can pat each other on the ass and tell each other how awesome they are, I will clear up a few things.
My wife left because I told her we were going to another church, not because she refused to do freaky shit in the bedroom, as one comment on another site with a post dedicated to me proclaims. Other than that and her general lameness in bed we actually got along pretty good. She also was frigid and used sex as currency. Yes I looked at porn because of this. So what? I dealt with that crap for too long and I was sick of it (her refusals of sex and the porn), so I was trying to fix the real problems. I will mention that had she not sucked (ok maybe sucked more) in bed I would not have needed to look at porn because sex with a real woman is better, duh. It was either I end up leaving her or having an affair or we go to another church that actually taught the bible, strange and rare as that sounds. I figured some Baptist “keep the marriage bed hot” sermons might just fix her up. That same comment also stated that I refused her churches counseling, when in fact as I have written about in the past; it was I who approached her church leaders to ask them why they teach unbiblical messages of mutual submission and why do they promote divorce. They said they don’t like to get involved in such things as marital issues and my wife was spiritually more superior to me and other similar feminist crap. We then had a great 2 hour debate where I showed them biblically where they were wrong. I rebuked their errors in private as the bible directed because I was tempted to interrupt a Sunday service and do it. Yes, I have the balls to something like that unlike most men. So just to make it clear neither her church nor my ex wife mentioned counseling prior to her leaving and the only talk of counseling afterwards was with the typical feminist Christian counselor. She left because of her wanting to control me and her churches unbiblical teachings. Oh she is a leader there also. My wife pulled a Jenny Erickson to say it simply although I was not the pushover like Leif. I’m sure if I submitted to her the church would have been all about our reconciliation.
As for my sex life because that came up, yes I was spinning plates after she left because women I knew and who knew she had left, me called me in droves to make me feel better. Many good backrubs later I am much happier without her than with her. To clarify, my sexual past did not affect our marriage to the same extent hers did. If anything my past was a positive and hers a negative, speaking in a biological and emotional sense. She was the typical born again slut and feminist that populates all of today’s churches. I find it disturbing that supposed red pill women make the accusations (elsewhere) that her pre marital sluttiness was somehow my fault. Hmm.
Just to be clear for several years I went to many other churches alone and held an interdenomininational bible study at my business where we studied the bible in great detail and where most of us men were red pill’ers to one degree or another.
So when I question Christianity and the moralist’s general hypocrisy and limited point of view about reality I have very good reason to do so as does many other men. The moralists show that they use the same public shaming and discreditation techniques the feminists use with someone who disagrees with them and when their arguments are weak or simply wrong. If people really have a desire to use me as post fodder and click bait (DG that was lame and I expected better from you) at least use the truth about my past. It’s only Christian after all. I have never hidden it, or downplayed my own mistakes in my marriage blowing up. So for the people having to make things up about me to fit their narratives and get some loollzzz, you are in fact morons and hypocrites, but most of us knew that already. Otherwise I have nothing to prove and only want to help other men which I do on and off line.
Otherwise carry on, I am enjoying the show.
BTW, the link to my post
http://thereinventionofman.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-moralists/
@GreyGhost
“”You are correct, though, that I would not shoot a home intruder, although I would be willing to notify civil authorities.””
I would shoot him! But things are alot different in Canada.If I shoot a ‘home invader’ with my 12 gauge,I will get charged with attempted murder.If I kill him ..”manslaughter”.Our gun laws are draconian.Your NRA is always pointing to Toronto as a result of ‘anti gun laws’ because Toronto is
“Home Invasion Capital of North America”.Now here is the irony.Is there illegal guns on the streets of Toronto?….More than you can possibly count! They are smuggled over from Detroit and Buffalo.
They crucify the legal firearms owners.Hell,if a home invader falls down my stairs and breaks his leg he can suit me…and will likely win! This is beyond Liberal insanity!
@JDG
I was unclear. When I meant “at church regularly”, I meant “at a church I would attend regularly”.
I don’t want to stray into the topic of who’s saved/who’s unsaved, but I generally consider church going married women who won’t submit to their husbands or dress appropriately to be very, very lost and in need of santification, if not outright salvation.
The Amish essentially believe nobody except them are saved, and essentially live like their own ethnic group. They are very comparable to Orthodox Jews in a variety of ways. Non-Amish anabaptists who would reject divorce and remarriage number about 200,000-50,000 members, half a million if one includes children and regular attenders.
@Gunner Q
I wasn’t born in America and was not raised in an Anabaptist household, although for reasons I’ll never know they bought a lot of Anabaptist books and left them lying around, which I ended up reading. I do not live in a bubble, although many of my fellow churchgoers do. I wasn’t part of an Anabaptist fellowship until I was old enough to drive, although I did my best to live an Anabaptist life when I was in my early teens.
I’ve also worked through my share of churches and am painfully aware of the destruction feminism causes to them. I spent a number of years of my life in my 20s backslidden. I am no stranger to mainstream Canadian and American culture.
You should pause to consider that women with visible tattoos, multiuple piercings, and cropped hair can be saved. Regarding life inside the “bubble”, I am simply trying to give you an awareness of the problems we face inside our community. I am well aware of the complete chaos in greater North American life, including in the church.
@greyghost
You post like Christians haven’t ever had to live under wicked, sinful, oppressive governments before. We must obey God rather than men.
@MarcusD
I had an ancient gentleman expound to me at prayer meeting tonight that “Women wear pants and look like men, and men shave their faces and look like women”.
He has a point.
@pancakeloach
Singlehood is actually considered a worthy calling, and many people are wary of marriage because the risk of marrying the wrong person is so bad. With that said, singlehood combined with fornication is not acceptable.
Nobody is asking you to marry a nonresistant man. Most people in my community either marry within the community, or leave it permanently.
@Artisinal Toad
1 Corinthians 7:4 does not guarantee that my wife will actually submit to me, and certainly does not guarantee that every unmarried man will find a wife. The idea every Christian male is entitled to a sexually willing female is utterly absurd.
I agree our community (the same as broad society right now) has quite a few members who engage in the sin of gluttony. I don’t consider it acceptable in my own life, and choose to lead by example in this regard.
You are welcome to your own opinions concerning the use of force. You seem to have decided you are part of man’s kingdom and this world. You decided to pick up arms on behalf of this country’s government; you think God’s kingdom consists of followers who are willing to kill in his name.
You engage the feminist fear of rape to try to instill fear into me to abandon being a follower of Jesus. I follow in the footsteps of those who came before me who gave their lives in order to confess that they are followers of Christ, just as many of my brothers are facing around the world right now.
Tell me, how well is your plan of self-defence working for Christians facing forced conversion or execution at the hands of ISIS?
And now I’m forced to debate whether or not one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”.
And please cite a single “warrior” who was a follower of Christ. Most Christians in the New Testament ended up martyred. Jesus told his disciples to put their swords away when they wanted to defend him. Acts accounts for Stephen’s martyrdom. Generally accepted church history is that Paul and Peter were martyred.
Self-defence, indeed.
You can keep your women who are attracted to you because you’ve got your AR-15 ready to go. I’ll go to my death not to deny my Lord, and I don’t care if you use fear of rape, sodomy, or death to try to get me to profane Christ.
monkeywerks – not sure if you meant me or not. I don’t even know what click bait is. All I know is that “the Church” is God’s bride. It is made up of God’s faithful. It’s not fair to lump every follower of a false teaching in the same category with faithful Bible believing Christians and then say: “You can’t trust anything the church says”. It’s just not true.
@Mark
Americans seem to think self-defence is some God-given right that cannot be taken away by governments–as you and I know, it’s rather limited and the right can be stolen at any time.
Thankfully, Jesus gave us a better way to live, even when governments revoke man’s natural rights. We can be masculine men even in a society that does not allow men to use self defence for themselves and their families.
@monkeyworks
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
You seem to believe that our current times are somehow more wicked than Corinth or the Roman empire. I would argue marriage, the family, and man’s kingdoms were just as wicked and evil then as they are now. That’s why Christ came to earth: to save us.
No matter how much you try to rationalise it, fornicators and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. You may have been one of these. Seek to be washed and to be sanctified and seek justification.
Or spin plates and enjoy the decline.
Your choice.
monkeywerks – not sure if you meant me or not. I don’t even know what click bait is. All I know is that “the Church” is God’s bride. It is made up of God’s faithful. It’s not fair to lump every follower of a false teaching in the same category with faithful Bible believing Christians and then say: “You can’t trust anything the church says”. It’s just not true.
JDG,
Although we don’t necessarily see on to eye on everything, but I don’t mean you. I always found your post to be quite good here and elsewhere. The people I mentioned know who they are. I only want to call them out on their BS because they were wrong. Disagreement and good debate is positive and should be encouraged but feminist shaming language and outright lying is unacceptable.
Now if they call me an unrepentant sinner and man whore, I will agree with them.
*You seem to believe that our current times are somehow more wicked than Corinth or the Roman empire. I would argue marriage, the family, and man’s kingdoms were just as wicked and evil then as they are now. That’s why Christ came to earth: to save us.*
*No matter how much you try to rationalise it, fornicators and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. You may have been one of these. Seek to be washed and to be sanctified and seek justification.*
*Or spin plates and enjoy the decline.*
*Your choice.*
I dont think that at all actually. I think the civil authority no longer matches the religious authority concerning marriage and divorce. The difference was that back in the day civil law was a check against hypergamy and now civil law is subservient to it. I will disagree that there were time in US history were sinfulness and wickedness was more in check.
Anyways to me the argument is apples and oranges.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Dalrock wrote:
> John Nesteutes commented: “@monkeyworks Or do you not know that the > unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; > neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor > homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revile” >
@Artisinal Toad
OK… if any of you women are still with me, want to comment on the attraction to a man who would not defend you in a home invasion because of his commitment to non-resistance? John, this should be amusing.
This is the equivalent we deal with in the manosphere all the time from feminists of “You must just be a neckbeard virgin who lives in his mother’s basement and can’t get any girls to like you”.
Do we live our lives based solely on what women claim they find attractive? Do we even trust what women say? And looking at experience – most men in my community are married, have many children, and are not divorced.
Yet instead, AT appeals to a woman to back up his position.
AT, I like you, but take a step back. I honestly had no idea so many here would disagree so vehemently with me. I have been reading this blog for over a year, and the commenters keep crying out for a church and for a culture which doesn’t allow women to sleep around, shames them for divorcing their husbands, etc. Now that I’ve finally opened my mouth and told you one exists, you want absolutely nothing to do with it.
Maybe there’s a reason things are the way they are.,
@AT
” Yeah, you can turn your own cheek if you think that’s appropriate”
Actually Christian churches nowadays misunderstand turning the other cheek:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php
It is not pacifism it is how to react to personal insult and perfectly legal impositions on the person.
I dont think that at all actually. I think the civil authority no longer matches the religious authority concerning marriage and divorce.
What would you prefer? An established state church? Pre-reformation universal catholicism? Sharia law?
The difference was that back in the day civil law was a check against hypergamy and now civil law is subservient to it.
Yes. Man’s kingdoms continue to be wicked. They always have been, and they always will be, until Christ’s kingdom is brought to earth (or replace this whatever your own doctrine teaches about Christ’s return).
The wickedness of man means that man will always eventually enslave himself to feminine impulses and imperatives, thus sowing the seeds of his own destruction.
I will disagree that there were time in US history were sinfulness and wickedness was more in check.
I think the time in US history when we had widespread slavery was a time of great sinfulness and wickedness. Or perhaps when this nation went to war with itself, and killed off a great deal of its young men. Or perhaps the 20th century, when this nation started killing 1/3 of its unborn children?
@infowarrior1
Pacifism and nonresistance are not synonymous. J. C. Wenger’s “Pacifism and Biblical Nonresistance” explains it well: http://www.bibleviews.com/Biblicalnonresist.html
What would you prefer? An established state church? Pre-reformation universal catholicism? Sharia law?
No. I don’t agree that we should ever support any type of theocracy. Anytime you have an “official” church or faith you see things like Sharia in Muslim countries and their really inflexible ways and on the other side the basterdization of Christianity via the Catholic church. Same BS different name.
*I think your mentioning specific issues. I am talking about as a whole and peoples everyday behavior. There were more social pressures to act right then there is now.*
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Dalrock wrote:
> John Nesteutes commented: “I dont think that at all actually. I think > the civil authority no longer matches the religious authority concerning > marriage and divorce. What would you prefer? An established state church? > Pre-reformation universal catholicism? Sharia law? The diff” >
@John Nesteutes
“And please cite a single “warrior” who was a follower of Christ. Most Christians in the New Testament ended up martyred. Jesus told his disciples to put their swords away when they wanted to defend him. Acts accounts for Stephen’s martyrdom. Generally accepted church history is that Paul and Peter were martyred.
Note:
Matthew 26:52-56
” 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.”
This non-resistance is to fulfill prophecy not a command to all to be pacifists.
And if the disciples were supposed to be pacifists why would Jesus command them to buy swords if not to be able to defend themselves:
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
Oh and the fact that Christians aren’t warriors is bunk:
Ephesian 6:11-13
“Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.…”
Of course we don’t use physical weapons since we are in a spiritual war. But you haven’t demonstrated any evidence from scripture that pacifism is commanded
@Boxer
“‘It does no good to fight divorce by encouraging men to divorce their wives to take up MGTOW or PUA lifestyle.”‘
I agree!……but,it does do a lot of good to explain the laws to men before they do get married and let them know that there is no ‘pot of gold’ at the end of the rainbow.I thank the older guys who explained them to me when I was between the ages of 18 & 23.They saved my life!
“”I have lived the PUA/MGTOW lifestyle. There’s nothing there. In fact, I’ll tell you a secret: Even when I was into it, I saw hardened playas who had been doing it longer than I had getting into relationships and settling down into monogamy.””
Agreed! I don’t think that the MGTOW life style is the end all and be all.But,what is my other choice? Get married or “shackup”; only to be robbed financially,emasculated emotionally,thrown in jail over a false DV charge?…NO THANKS!!!!!! Being a PUA is not my style.Just constantly gaming women in bars and using them? I have no time for that. I see too many single women everyday.I know which ones have not been laid for awhile.Those are my target…and I keep them coming back.Today is a great example.My cutie pie from the bank downstairs texts me at 11:00am..”wanna get together for lunch”?….She comes up to my office…I do her! She goes back to work. Another cutie pie I know(and screw) from the tax office around the corner texts me at 3:30pm..”want me to come and see you after work”? She comes up to my office…I do her also!…All in a days work! Now this is not the ultimate lifestyle but,I get more sex than any of my married friends.In fact,most of my married friends keep gf’s on the side.Why is that?
I could see my self in a monogamous relationship.Would I allow her to move into my house?…..NO WAY! After 30 days my house becomes her ‘permanent resident address’ and after 6 months of living together it leaves me wide open for a vagimony suit?….NO THANKS! I have counselled with my personal attorney on this about 5 years ago.If I got married,after 3 years,then divorced.The outcome(and this is the low end).It would cost me half my house….$600,000.I would also have to pay vagimony(to keep up her lifestyle) to the tune of about $20,000/month for a minimum of 36 months.But,because of the family that I am from it would likely be 5 to 10 years.Here is the kicker.I would have to pay her legal bill in order for her to rob me.Oh Boy!..What a deal! I am a businessman.I know a good deal from a bad deal from a “sucker’s deal”.Any man that gets married in Canada under Canadian law I consider to be a “illiterate moron who is not worthy of respect who is too stupid to read that laws that will eventually crucfy him”.
I can assure you as I am sitting here typing this post that I would not pay any of this money out.I would take another route.I would go see some Jewish Mob pals of mine,that I have known all my life,and I would have them deal with the situation for me.She would not make it to court.She would be going for a swim in the Toronto Harbor.Now,this might sound drastic but,I guarantee you that this would be the route that I would take.So as you can see MGTOW is not the best lifestyle but,it sure as hell beats all the drama and bullshit that getting married or ‘shacking up’ would cause me.MGTOW is not the ”easy way out”.It is the ”astute observation” of choices that lay in front of you….Choose wisely!……Shalom!
@John Nesteutes –
And now I’m forced to debate whether or not one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”.
Because it’s not. It’s better translated as “Thou shalt not murder”. The Hebrew verb רצח, which the KJV translates as “kill”, has connotations of a killing that bears bloodguilt. The Mosaic Law allowed killing in self-defense under some circumstances, e.g. during a home invasion at night. Exodus 22:2-3 – “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.”
I have a high opinion of the Anabaptists I know personally, but on this one, their (and your) exegesis is just plain mistaken. I know I won’t persuade you, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re misreading that commandment.
As for your challenge to “please cite a single “warrior” who was a follower of Christ,” there was the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed, about whom He said, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.” And there were many Roman soldiers in the early church who became martyrs for their faith because they refused to worship the Roman emperor as divine, and the stories of their courage were passed down in church tradition. None of those stories mention “… and they refused to serve as soldiers any longer.” They saw no contradiction in engaging in warfare and in following Christ. Again, this is not going to persuade you, because you’re just going to argue that they were mistaken in seeing no contradiction. But you should know that the “all Christians should be complete pacifists” position that you seem to hold (please contradict me if I’m mistaken on that point) is a historical novelty, and was not held by most Christians throughout history.
@Everyone –
Look. Though I disagree with the Anabaptists’ position on pacifism, they’re in the right about the roles of men and women and actually give good examples in that regard. If we’re going to argue about pacifism, let’s keep it on a good, reasonable level, rather than shoot at some of our best allies in this intellectual war for the culture.
@infowarrior1
Pacifism, nonresistance, and the like are not the topic of this blog, and I’m really not here to try to defend the position or persuade anyone. If the topic fascinates you, please read other Anabaptist writers on the topic.
The question at hand is if biblical marriage exists at all in western culture. My assertion is that it does within the plain Anabaptist subculture of North America.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not really trying to convert anyone to my belief system with my comments here (although if you feel so inclined, feel free to reach out to me). Rather, I would ask that you seek to understand why Marriage 1.0 still exists in this subculture, and consider how you might replicate that in your own cultural and religious contexts.
My agenda here is to try to offer an alternative to MGTOW/PUA, involuntary celibacy, and frivolous divorce / broken families and destroyed dads.
@John Nestuetes
“”The Amish essentially believe nobody except them are saved, and essentially live like their own ethnic group. They are very comparable to Orthodox Jews in a variety of ways.”‘
First time I have ever heard this!…L* ….As an Orthodox Jew I would be very interested in hearing a comparison!….Shalom!
AT, even if your single analysis point was true and those were all completely wonderful things, it is only one point and hence not sufficient to build doctrine.
Don,
That example was about Israelites returning to their purity, not on the general subject of divorce. It would be a huge stretch to apply that to the general case and even then would only be a single factor which is insufficient for core doctrine.
@Mark
We might be neighbours, and to my American friends: as Canada goes today, so will America go tomorrow.
@Robin Munn
Thank you for your kind words. I would like to know who else is getting men, women, marriage, family, and church discipline right who isn’t nonresistant, and has maintained large enough numbers for marriage within the faith to be possible without rampant first-cousin marriage.
Surely we can’t be the only ones.
Lyn87,
My point was just one of clarity, not arguing. I am fine with your points.
Gunner (quoting AT),
> “Think about this, Brad. God had two wives, Israel and Judah.”
I had missed that. This is a ludicrous point, they were still the same core nation, just with the unfaithful in the north (Israel) and the faithful in the south (Judah). Read about what happened right after the split. The faithful from all tribes went south. The unfaithful stayed north and it is quite possible some unfaithful in the south headed north.
Same basic nation overall, one part just went into captivity and ended its separate existence afterward. Note that both names are used for them in the Epistles, for example.
@Mark
Comparable elements:
– Distinctive religion leading to a distinctive culture, including unique manners of dress
– Reputation for being hardworking, frugal businessmen who deliver a quality product, but also drive a hard bargain
– Disdain for outsiders
– Large family sizes, with marriage almost always happening within the group, not outside
– Very few conversions from the outside
– Willingness to up and move a community to a new place amongst hostile outsiders and establish new settlements
– “Drift” of young people out of the group goes to similarly-minded but slightly less isolated groups, such as Orthodox to Conservative to Reform to mainstream non-Jewish culture
– Languages used in the home based on high German (Pennsylvania Dutch and Yiddish)
– Religious texts and services conducted in a language nobody speaks (standard German and Hebrew)
– A part of American culture that everyone is aware of, but knows surprisingly little accurate information about
– Women are not allowed to divorce – Orthodox “get”, anabaptist “permanence of marriage”
– Avoidance of blue pill sort of frivolous divorce, carousel riding, etc sort of problems
– Imaginative ways of complying with the letter of rules yet circumventing them
There are many differences as well.
Robin,
The problem is that you need to stand up for truth no matter where it is. Once you start compromising it ends in a mess. All issues are not worth going to the mat for, but all are worth proclaiming.
I will gladly state what I believe to be right. I will change my views if I am convinced I am wrong, but that won’t change the stance.
I don’t think that is quite as at odds with your underlying theme, but we do need to watch we don’t fall into the “why can’t we all get along?” meme that ends up letting those who would pervert everything prosper.
@Robin, Brad A
Proverbs 27:17
17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.
@John Nesteutes
“‘We might be neighbours, and to my American friends: as Canada goes today, so will America go tomorrow.””
Born and raised in Rosedale….. http://www.rosedaletoronto.com/.Live in Mississauga now.
Thanks for the comparison.I see a lot of that and understand where you are coming from.I like the Amish.About a 90 minute drive west of me there is the town of Elmira(Just North of Kitchener-Waterloo) There is a Mennonite community.i love going to their sales.All the fresh home made pies,candy etc.They see the Jew with his wallet in hand coming.I load up my car with stuff.It is great.I also find the Amish very friendly towards us Jews as compared to most Christians(especially Roman Catholics)
Pacifism is merely cowardice. If my ancestors were pacifists I would not be here. It’s as simple as that.
@BradA –
I never said “Don’t stand up for the truth” — I would absolutely repudiate that stance. What I said was let’s have a good, reasonable argument. In other words, refrain from name-calling, argue the topic rather than the personalities, all those things that you do when you’re trying to do debate “right”.
And it’s quite likely that you’ll end up saying “Well, we won’t persuade each other, and we’re starting to return to our original arguments, so I think it’s time to agree to disagree.” That’s not compromise, it’s agreeing that the debate has reached its natural end and that going further would be counterproductive, or at best a waste of time for no further benefit.
You make a good point about the “let’s just get along” meme sometimes being deployed to try to prevent people from speaking the truth, but there’s a far distance between “let’s get along, so let’s not argue this point” and “let’s try to argue this point without name-calling”. I’m advocating the latter.
@feministhater –
While the are people who wear the label “pacifist” to hide their cowardice, there are also plenty who are not in the least cowards. Some of those who were hiding Jews during WW2, at great risk to themselves, believed that their duty as Christians was to be pacifists. I will argue that their stance was mistaken, but those people I will never call cowards.
feministhater says:
August 28, 2014 at 12:53 am
“Pacifism is merely cowardice. If my ancestors were pacifists I would not be here. It’s as simple as that.”
Reasonable to a point, FH. I’d add that they’re also free riders, a type of parasite. Further, when they’re remotely prideful about it, they’re the worst kind of hypocrites.
To quote the science fiction author and USN veteran Robert Heinlein:
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
I feel sad about the state of marriage these days
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905365
Relationship Issues
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905352
is your spouse your BEST friend?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905445
Can/Should I get an annulment?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905447
Teen-aged Children and Sex
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905520
Bible and Divorce?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=905539
I concur with Mark’s comment. MGTOW/PUA is a lifestyle based purely on the laws of misandry. Involving yourself with a woman in Canada is death sentence for a man, by law. The orthodox religious lifestyle is another work around for the laws of misandry.
My ideas on father hood are just a MGTOW style of fatherhood based purely on the laws of misandry.. The goal of an MRA is not to figure out how to have a wife under misandry but to give the little cunts a selfish reason to do away with the laws of misandry they voted to put in place.
The alternative is Detroit with out the rest of the country to feed it. In other words the whole country run like the socialist feminized utopia of equality. All fully enforced at government gun point with ar-15’s and armored vehicles. Misandry doesn’t end because it is not founded in any kind of law or logical sustainability. Misandry is founded on the feelings of women with the full support of white knights and manginas.
Pacifists are cowards simply because they would not be able to be ‘pacifists’ were it not for other people having to put themselves in harms way to protect them. When that protection falls away, one of two things happen to pacifists. Either they grow a backbone and defend themselves, with violence and weapons, or they will die.
@John Nesteutes
As I said, I have lived in an Anabaptist community. I have seen with my own eyes and I have testified to the things I have seen.
@Artisinal Toad: “OK… if any of you women are still with me, want to comment on the attraction to a man who would not defend you in a home invasion because of his commitment to non-resistance? John, this should be amusing.”
This is the equivalent we deal with in the manosphere all the time from feminists of “You must just be a neckbeard virgin who lives in his mother’s basement and can’t get any girls to like you”.
Do we live our lives based solely on what women claim they find attractive? Do we even trust what women say? And looking at experience – most men in my community are married, have many children, and are not divorced.
Yet instead, AT appeals to a woman to back up his position.
John, we were talking about dead bedrooms. If you learn anything from the manosphere, it’s that women are attracted to thugs. I’m not saying to be a thug, but “non-resistance” as a doctrine that causes a man to refuse to defend his family is a damn good reason for a woman to have zero attraction to her husband. What I wanted was for any of the women to try explaining that to you. After all, I’m a man so why not get a woman to explain it?
I cannot comprehend nor imagine a husband and father standing by and watching his wife and daughter being raped in his own home and even restraining one of his sons to keep him from interfering. Yet, it happened within my community. Afterward I listened to various men actually DEFEND what the man did as being Biblically correct. It was at that point that I lost all respect for the Anabaptists. Complete.Loss.Of.Respect.
Let’s go back to the beginning, which is what Jesus did in Matthew 19. Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it. John, to subdue and take dominion requires a struggle, which often requires violence. Did not Samson, filled with the Spirit of the Lord, smite his enemies hip and thigh?
As I said, I lived in an Anabaptist community. The Beachy Amish drove cars and had electricity. The plain Amish were really plain (no electricity, no natural gas or propane) and the Mennonites accepted electricity but not cars. Yes, divorce was almost unheard of. Yes, they have large families. I bought my house from a guy named Enos, and he had 12 children. Jake, who lived down the road from me had 16. When my wife was in the maternity ward with #5, there was a 50-something year old Mennonite woman in the next room having her 21st child.
Dude, I get it. OK? Within your group, marriages have an extremely low chance of being nuked. I’m simply saying that a wife who KNOWS her husband will not defend her and a daughter who KNOWS her father will not defend her are both suffering from abuse. Does God not defend us? Is that not enough of an example for you? Of course it isn’t. You’re like a woman and you listen to the herd.
In this thread I have repeatedly rested everything I’ve said on Scripture. I have quoted extensively to support any assertion I’ve made. I am far more concerned about what God thinks than about what anyone else thinks. I do my best to find out what God actually said than simply listen to someone else prattle on about what God said. I study to show myself approved.
Dead bedrooms? Damn right you’ve got dead bedrooms and the reason is simple: Cowardice. Women are not attracted to cowards, regardless of the reason for their cowardice.
I am not a pacifist and am against pacifism.
Instead of trying to convince me that nonresistance is wrong, could you point me to another established religious / social system which results in strong families and no divorce? I am having much more success converting men to be adherents to my belief system (anabaptism, including nonresistance) than you seem to be having converting men and women to your belief system (polygamy). If you can find a way to succeed, I will cheer you on. But so far I don’t see it.
And regarding your assertion that nonresistance causes dead bedrooms: you have no actual evidence that this is the case. It’s never been a problem for me. Of the men I know who have shared to me their struggles with dead bedrooms… the genesis for one was one who had a porn addiction, and another was when he had an affair. This is what the men have told me. I don’t talk to other women about their marriages or sex lives.
@feministhater
When that protection falls away, one of two things happen to pacifists. Either they grow a backbone and defend themselves, with violence and weapons, or they will die.
Please read some history on anabaptists since the 16th century. They suffered a great deal of persecution and martyrdom, yet their numbers continued to grow by both children and conversion. They eventually settled into a pattern of migrating to a new country whenever the persecution got really bad. Even in America, they had to deal with young men being imprisoned en masse in World War I, and dealing with a lot of abuse from their neighbours in World War II and the Civil War when they wouldn’t take up arms. By the time the Vietnam war hit… pacifism was the cool, in-thing to do, and taking a peace stand doesn’t mean as much as it used to.
Please also tell me how Christians in Iraq should take up arms against ISIS. Or how Christians in Palestine should take up arms against Israel. Or tell me that Christians in China should pick up weapons to try to overthrow the established government, which doesn’t permit them to meet in churches. Many Christians are powerless and don’t have access to arms, and you call them cowards and accuse their men of having no backbone.
You would do well to learn more about how Christians actually deal with persecution and violence. You have decided to live by the sword. Your handle is “feministhater”. Jesus died for and loves feminists. The feminists are winning our culture wars right now, and if you continue on your path, you will die by their sword as well.
Pacifism is cowardice, for in order to survive, you rely on others to defend you. There is no way out of that conundrum. The word of Christ is that Christians shouldn’t be aggressors, not that we shouldn’t defend ourselves. If no one defended themselves, they wouldn’t be able to pass on their genetics or save future generations for God. It is our duty and privilege to defend the Faith. Death comes to everyone, I would rather die fighting for my beliefs than hang my head in shame when some ISIS troll severs it with a rusty knife..
As for hate, there is a time and place for everything under heaven. Hate is a human feeling just like any other. I hate evil, feminists are part of that current evil, hence why their hate is so richly deserved.
There is nothing wrong with your assertions of how your Church runs. If it truly works, good for you and I truly hope it stays that way. The rest of us, however, did not grow up in such an environment, and as we already have too much wrong with us to join yours, we have to make our own. That means taking a stand and fighting. We don’t get to be ‘Pacifists’ in order to make our future. We don’t get to migrate, there is no where else left to go…
I see a lot has happened since my last post. And since I’m the guy who asked John Nesteutes about his “theological pedigree” so that we could examine his claims, I think I’ll jump in myself. It sounds like the Plain Anabaptists have a pretty good feel for how marriage ought to work. Perhaps we could learn a few things from them. But they’re so wrong on so many other things, that joining them is probably not worth the gain. John Nesteutes noted that they have “few converts” from outside their faith community – yet the Great Commission is to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
How’s that working out? The parable of the talents comes to mind. The master was none too pleased with one of the servants – the gist of His judgment was, God gave you the means of doing His work, and you decided to hide them away rather than use them for the purpose for which I gave them to you. Depart from Me. I dunno’: I don’t think I want to stand before God and tell Him, “I spent my entire life withdrawn into an insular community – protected by the courage and blood of others – and did nothing to reach a lost world… but Hey God! At least my wife didn’t get a tramp-stamp!”
I was going to write about the so-called “pacifism” aspect – as if calling the authorities to do violence on your behalf is any different that doing it yourself, but decided it would detract from my point. This is not a solution – if Christianity can only survive by abandoning the Great Commission – withdrawing from the mission field so that our women stay in line, then Christianity itself is fraudulent, since believers have no power but to hide. My Bible says different – 2 Corinthians 10:4 says, “(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)”
Obviously that means that the Gospel is not spread through force of arms (sorry, Urban II), but toss in Ephesian 6 and it’s clear that spiritual warfare is our lot – not hiding from the enemy lest our women be corrupted. As a Bible-believing Christian man, I’ll pass on looking to the Plain Anabaptists as a solution.
Does anyone have any good ideas?
Yeah I have something. They have surrogacy clinics in Mexico.
@feministhater
If no one defended themselves, they wouldn’t be able to pass on their genetics or save future generations for God
Plain anabaptists have plenty of people bearing their DNA, in fact, their numbers double every 20 years. I’m not arguing in favour of pacifism; I am, however, arguing that whatever the mainstream alternative is (evangelical fundamentalist Christianity without nonresistance) is not performing better than plain anabaptism.
Let’s answer Lyn87’s call for good ideas. Polygamy isn’t a good idea. You folks have decided joining existing plain anabaptists isn’t a good idea, so you’ll need to either reform your own sects or start new ones. It will be 20 – 30 years until you have young women who have grown up in that faith, so you’ll need to start winning a lot of converts unless you plan to be celibate. (Which would be a really, really good thing…) We have excellent examples of what not to do, like the fundamentalist LDS sects, Bill Gothard’s ATI, or Doug Phillips’ patriarchy movement, which have barely retained any children at all in the faith. See http://hslda.org/courtreport/V30N2/V30N202.asp
@Lyn87
Thanks for getting back on track. I don’t think pacifism/nonresistance is particularly relevant to the mission of Dalrock’s blog. I do think permanence of marriage, headship veiling, leadership of man, distinctive dress, and modest dress are extremely relevant. I think we should discuss those things.
Instead, this conversation has consisted of bleating about how I want people’s daughters/wives to get raped, which is exactly what feminists tell me about any Red Pill beliefs or non-feminist beliefs. Let’s agree to stop talking about it.
@greyghosts
I don’t think surrogacy clinics fix anything, although no one will stop you from pursuing that.
John Nesteutes says,
Let’s answer Lyn87’s call for good ideas. Polygamy isn’t a good idea. You folks have decided joining existing plain anabaptists isn’t a good idea, so you’ll need to either reform your own sects or start new ones. It will be 20 – 30 years until you have young women who have grown up in that faith, so you’ll need to start winning a lot of converts unless you plan to be celibate.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Personally I think we ought to drop the pacifism thing – as much as I have VERY strong reaction to it (retired field-grade officer), it is tangential to our subject – and John isn’t condoning it anyway. I’ll agree that it alone is enough to take Plain Anabaptism off the table for serious Christians (if it a condition of joining, that is), but just because they’re wrong about that doesn’t mean we cannot learn from them about other things.
But even their solution to culture comes up lacking in my view. Withdrawal is not a strategy that is consistent with the mission of the church to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” You can’t win converts while you’re hiding from sinners.
So… how do we have a lot of good marriages that are more-or-less immune from feminism and Dalrock’s Threatpoint, while not abandoning our “Prime Directive” as Christians to spread the gospel – which requires going to where the sinners are?
Well, we have scripture for that. John 17: 15-19 reads as follows:
It may sound “trite,” but there it is. In the world but not of it. And either God means what He says or He doesn’t. But maybe we can learn from the PA’s after all. They take it too far by hiding from the world – but they not only keep themselves separate by shunning interaction with a world in need of a savior (not good), but they keep themselves separate from the most of the pollutions of the culture (good). I suspect more Christian families would stay intact if more Christians spent less time wallowing in the culture.
It’s easy to hide – and to stay safe while doing so (as long as others provide your safety). But God doesn’t call on us to hide, but to take the offensive – to leave the bunker and gain territory from the enemy. Our safety is not in hiding, but in HIM. So it’s not about joining an existing group that’s in hiding. Nor is it about forming a new one that will go into hiding. It’s about being a people apart – in the world but not of the world. But we have to do our part by not immersing ourselves in the enemy’s culture.
“A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.”
@John N, I don’t want to derail the topic by getting into too much detail about nonresistance, but I did appreciate reading the linked material describing it. I am afraid that I was not convinced by Wenger’s arguments – having read each of the referenced passages, it seems plain to me that they unanimously speak of nonresistance in the face of religious persecution, from either the government, or the surrounding society. And the total lack of reference to Luke 22:36 is telling. There is a huge difference between going peacefully to your death as a martyr because of government persecution (or submitting peacefully to unjust laws) and refusing to defend your family from random criminals intent on doing bodily harm.
Going back to the issue of the difficulty of maintaining Biblical marriage in a legal climate that encourages divorce, I’m going to put my judgmental hat back on. Even with the most “lenient” interpretations, divorce is forbidden except in the case of a wife’s infidelity (Matthew 19:9). Not only that, but in 1 Corinthians 6, believers are told not to take each other before the civil authorities! So the civil authorities have no business being involved in any kind of “divorce proceedings” between two people who claim Christianity. Any church that accepts civil divorce, therefore, is in danger of being a wellspring of false teachers (2 Peter 2) and a synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9). The only way for Christians to fix this problem is to stop being afraid of men (who will say “you’re not loving” and “you’re too judgmental” and “you’re not Christlike”) and start telling it straight – for those who teach false doctrines and accept sin, “Blackest darkness is reserved for them” and “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.” We need to start policing each other better, as Dalrock has been doing with this blog, pointing out the failing of mainstream “Christianity” to condemn women for divorcing their husbands and other marriage failures. On the individual level, if a man cannot find good teaching in his area, perhaps he ought to consider either moving to find a proper church, or starting one himself, especially if he has found likeminded people who attend the local churchian congregations for lack of alternatives.
@Lyn87
Now we’re definitely getting somewhere.
I do not condone many plain anabaptists. I don’t agree with Old Orders who completely isolate themselves from the outside world and do not engage in evangelism.
I also find myself not in close fellowship with strictly conservative Mennonites who do not use the Internet or e-mail and avoid occupations where they would have to work with a lot of unbelievers. I would hesitate to judge what they do, but it is not my calling to live that way. (They tend to engage in a lot of street evangelism. I have my doubts about how effective it is, but they’re trying.)
For me and my brothers I am in close fellowship with – we do what we can to reach an unbelieving world. We believe strongly in workplace evangelism. Some of us have jobs out in the great big world, and we do our best to set an example of how a Christian should act by our behaviour in the workplace. Some of us operate businesses. We hire outsiders and use the jobsite as an opportunity to witness. I challenge myself to use the Internet and Facebook to be an effective witness to others.
With that said, we don’t have the kind of amazing numbers of new churchgoers that a place like Mars Hill or Hillsong NYC has. We aren’t “seeker friendly”, although we love newcomers and welcome them. Many of them walk away disappointed, however, when they want to become members but find out they’ll have to change their lifestyle: they’ll have to quit watching TV, submit to fellowship and accountability to the other members of the body, dress modestly, stop sleeping with their girlfriend, separate from an adulterous remarriage, and adopt the headship veil in public. Many of these people attend every Sunday, and we welcome them. But it grieves me to know they will not abandon the lures of the world to become followers of Christ as it that is manifested in a particular body.
@pancakeloach
Thank you for agreeing to drop the topic of nonresistance. It’s a dead end for all of us here.
Not only that, but in 1 Corinthians 6, believers are told not to take each other before the civil authorities! So the civil authorities have no business being involved in any kind of “divorce proceedings” between two people who claim Christianity. Any church that accepts civil divorce, therefore, is in danger of being a wellspring of false teachers
I agree wholeheartedly with you, sister. Being a plaintiff in a divorce suit will result in church discipline and excommunication in virtually every PA sect – but then, so will be the plaintiff in any suit. We face challenges when someone who has remarried wants to repent. Usually, they end up peaceably working out a separation from the adulterous spouse and work out a settlement out of court with them.
We face challenges when a wife is dealing with physical abuse at home; if church discipline fails for a husband, eventually civil authorities end up involved whether we want them to or not. Most PA sects will counsel the wife not to press charges. With today’s D.V. laws, the civil authorities don’t really care and often pursue the case anyway, which I consider an example of God’s mercy and grace to our women. We also face situations when separation for a wife and children’s sake is warranted, or is mandated by court order. There is a good deal of division about the best way to deal with this. And we deal with ridicule from outsiders and feminists who claim we “condone abuse” or that we have a widespread abuse problem.
@Don Quixote
“That was from Don’s Paraphrased Version, comes in handy now and then.”
Accept you didn’t paraphrase. You altered. Fornication has NEVER EVER meant only premarital sex or the loss of one’s virginity. Premarital sex is a type of fornication and adultery is another type of fornication. A man not only has the right to divorce an adulterous wife, but also a wife who’s lied about her sexual history. It could be ten years after the fact and he still has the right of divorce. Fornication also includes other sexual acts which aren’t intercourse like oral, etc.
I lay this all out in my blog post. Obviously I can’t copy and paste.
“I agree with the above paragraph.
What point did you want to make?”
You agree with what I pointed out concerning Deuteronomy 22 and 24. The point I was making is that based on those passages your claim that Jesus was only refering to the loss of one’s virginity as grounds for divorce are false because at the time of the conversation women and girls who falsely represented their virginity were executed.
It’s also why the other gospels don’t mention sexual sin as grounds for divorce – because sexually immoral women were almost always executed and that meant most men wouldn’t even have the option of divorcing because of sexual sin. It was IMPOSSIBLE for them to spare their wives even if they wanted to. Almost all the divorces at the time of Jesus had nothing to do with sexual sin. Since Deuteronomy 24 made it clear a man could divorce a sexually sinful woman if the required witnesses to convict couldn’t be found, it meant there was no debate about divorce for that reason.
This means the only time in which a man could bibically divorce his wife was in the rare instance in which he had knowledge of her sexual sin but didn’t have the necessary witnesses to convict her. Your definition of fornication is false. Jesus was most definitely refering to consummated marriages in Matthew 5 and 19.
This means if a church doesn’t recognize biblical divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual sin, it’s going against the word of God. A church has a duty to recognize a biblical divorce and biblical remarriage. A woman who marries a man who divorced his first wife for committing adultery(assuming the allegation is true) is his wife before God and men.
@ Artisanal Toad
if you’d like to provide an alternate exegesis of Matthew 19:1-9
Been there…and explained your mistake.
Leave off the extraneous ref from I Cor. unless something in I Cor clearly and unambiguously references Mt. 19.
See also my convo with John Neustates where I point to the particle “de” as the key to understanding the passage–it’s about contrasting Moses and Jesus. Moses allowed divorce “for any reason at all”, while Jesus only allowed divorce for sexual immorality. Unless you see the big picture as being about contrast, you’ll err In understanding the passage.
The Genesis reference is a gibe at the Pharisees’ casual view of marriage. Jesus goes to the heart of marriage–“the two shall become one flesh”. Sexual immorality strikes at the heart of marriage–the sexual act as the union of two into one flesh. Hence,Jesus allows the legal invalidation of marriage by divorce because sexual immorality has already destroyed the physical basis of the marriage union.
@John Nesteutes
“If a man or a woman frivorces his spouse, marries another, and then repents, he has no choice but to attempt to reconcile with his spouse. We can debate until we’re blue in the face if he’s married to both – but he needs to go back to the first. A woman has no choice but to go back to her first, and to exit the adulterous relationship. ‘Whosoever marries a divorced woman, makes her commit adultery.’ No exception there.”
There is an exception and that’s fornication(aka sexual sin). Also, God prohibited a divorced woman from returning to her first husband even if her second husband died. So no. That’s false based on the scriptures.
Fornication has NEVER EVER meant only premarital sex. Read my blog and I’ll show you how based on Deuteronomy 22 and 24, the definition of fornication as only premarital sex is false. The plain words of Christ should be enough, but for those who are genuinely concerned(you being one of them I presume) feel free to read it. If what I wrote is false, you’ll have no problem refuting it. But if what I wrote is right, then you’ll be guilty of lying and spreading false doctrine when you and I stand before the white throne.
“This flies in the face of what every Christian believed until the 1950s (minus fringe groups started by people trying to justify their sin).”
This is also false(though I believe that you believe it isn’t). I can find theologians who held Christ’s teachings about biblical divorce and remarriage centuries ago. You can label them fringe all you want, it doesn’t change the scriptures themselves. Given the willingness of many throughout history to hold the opinions of clergy and politicians over the direct words of God, “fringe” was often a very good thing.
“The fruit of tolerating divorce and remarriage is churchianity. The fruit of believing Jesus’ and Paul’s words about divorce, remarriage, and sexual immorality is a church that is not full of single mothers, effeminate, virginal men in their 30s, carousel riders, and kids who who see their dads every other weekend.”
First and foremost, sola scriptura. The scriptures themselves are what decide. How many people you have in your church is irrelevant, your claims about churchianity are irrelevant and how many people historically held the biblical view(Christ’s actual words) are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not divorce and remarriage are ever biblical.
But I must say your position about divorce and remarriage is held by many in churchianity. It lays up heavy burdens on the brothers based on fundamental misunderstandings about the scriptures and demonizes victims for exercising their biblical rights. It tethers the wronged party to adulteresses and sluts and prohibits them from exercising their right of biblical divorce and remarriage. Your stance insures every unfaithful and dishonest person can hold the fear of excommunication over the head of the wronged party while continuing in their wickedness. Not only that, but it insures those same people will be among your church and your congregation. This isn’t to suggest that any of my implications or yours have any bearing on the actual issue. It’s only to point out that biblical divorce and remarriage in no way produce the fruits which you claim. If a woman saw more women divorced and/or excommunicated for adultery or lying about their pasts from the time she was young, it would reinforce the severe consequences of sexual sin and show her the importance of chastity.
Jesus’ words make it clear that divorce and remarriage are biblical in cases of sexual sin. Jesus – God in the flesh – reaffirms what He spoke to Moses in Deuteronomy 24.
God sanctions and recognizes divorce and remarriage in those cases and so must ALL churches and church leaders. A woman divorced by her husband because of her sexual immorality is no longer considered the man’s wife. Hence, Paul’s words about husband and wives who separate from one another are not referring to divorced fornicators. Don’t confuse physical separation with those who’ve been separated as Christ allowed due to sexual sin.
Read my blog if you want the facts on this. It’s too long to re-state here. I will say it shows via Deuteronomy 22 and 24 that definitions of fornication which claim it only refers to premarital sex or the loss of one’s virginity are impossible.
It would be a lot easier to wear a headcovering if other women were doing it too.
@John Nesteutes
John, I testified to my observations and history. I was not “bleating” as you put it, and by making such a statement I’m guessing you would take the same course of action? So, let’s just get an answer. Does your belief in non-resistance stretch to the level that you believe a husband and father should not defend his family in his own home? You cannot presume to discuss issues like marriage, divorce, fornication and adultery without taking a stand on that issue.
You said And regarding your assertion that nonresistance causes dead bedrooms: you have no actual evidence that this is the case.
John, you claim you’ve been reading this blog for a year. If that’s true you’d know women are attracted to masculine dominance (ALPHA) and repelled by cringing, supplicating, pedestalizing behavior (BETA). Women are attracted to thugs because their propensity toward violence is both a dominating and PROTECTIVE behavior. Yes, they may be violent, but they will protect what’s theirs.
Yes, the numbers in your sect are growing but it’s because the average number of children is 8+ and that’s the only reason you’re growing. You admit very few outsiders convert and I’ve witnessed that. I only know of two and they’re seriously damaged goods. I had an excellent relationship with my Amish neighbors (it had a lot to do with us homeschooling, no TV and other conservative beliefs) and their wives would gather at my house in the summer to can produce from the gardens. That probably had a lot to do with the fact I had two stoves on the porch and I’d welded up some massive vats for water-bath canning. They were able to prepare the produce in the kitchen (air conditioning!) and still knock out over 50 quarts an hour. Ever been in a house with no air conditioning in summer and tried to cook on a wood-burning stove?
I witnessed the Rumspringa stuff first-hand. The flip-side of that is after they join the church, it’s a cult. It’s all or nothing. Either toe the line or get shunned. I would honestly say that the much lower rate of divorce amongst the Anabaptist’s is the result of their non-participation in popular culture, but there’s nothing like fresh pavement to make the point. I can remember driving on fresh pavement (it’s very quiet) and seeing a young Amish or Mennonite girl/woman walking along the road ahead of us. I’d point her out to my wife and say “Wait for it.” When she was able to hear the sound of the vehicle, the hips suddenly went in motion. Boom, boom, boom. Every single time. Oh so plain, but oh so female.
My observation from living within one of these communities is that the tight social controls of a sect that is so far outside the mainstream is the major issue in keeping marriages together for your people. There are real social penalties for stepping out of line and they get enforced. Step over the line and you lose your family.
While this system that preserves marriage might be called good, I ask the question: AT WHAT COST? John, answer the question: if your home were invaded would you stand by and allow your wife and daughters to be robbed/assaulted/raped/murdered, or would you fight for them? Are you willing to lay down your life fighting for those you love? Isn’t that what Christ did for us? Yes, I know, He did it by allowing Himself to be sacrificed, but the principle applies. Are you willing to defend your loved ones?
The question is not irrelevant or trivial because it reflects the character of the man answering the question. Shall you suffer evil to flourish in the land, or will you fight against evil? Do you love your family enough to fight for them and possibly have to lay down your life for them in order to save them? Which is more acceptable in God’s sight, John; a man with multiple wives and many children he supports and is willing to defend, or a man with only one wife who refuses to defend his wife and children ’cause that’s against his religion?
To all concerned with Artisanal Toad and his words.
I already posted passages in regard to polygamy which anyone is free to read at any time. I believe they and others show polygamy to be a sin which Christians shouldn’t undertake.
AT is a liar because he continues to repeat the same falsehoods regarding divorce and remarriage which I’ve already addressed on my blog in a conversation we were having. Rather than address what I said, he chose to post on this blog and repeat the same falsehoods to which I’d already responded. He has since repeatedly lied by claiming to have addressed what I said and pretending I’ve made no response. If anyone on here wishes to read our conversation, feel free to click my name. No one who cared about sound doctrine would ignore the scriptures I provided and dump his already debunked response into another blog. Other users on here disagree with what I wrote but they are presumably making a good faith attempt to show via the scriptures why I’m wrong.
I’ll briefly address what AT said for any readers with genuine concerns.
“You make the blanket statement that Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 make it clear divorce is allowed for reasons of sexual immorality.”
It’s not a blanket statement. God says flat out that divorce for sexual sin is biblical twice in Matthew and sexual immorality certainly fits the impurity Deuteronomy 24 mentions as grounds for divorce.
“Jesus was very clear in saying ‘let no man separate’ and then identifying Moses as the source of the divorce ruling but ‘from the beginning it has not been that way.'”
1) Jesus states divorce in the case of sexual sin is biblical in Matthew 5 during his sermon on the mount as well as in his discussion with the Jewish leaders in Matthew 19.
2) Moses didn’t make the “divorce ruling.” It was the DIRECT command of God(Deuteronomy 1: 3). God made it clear a man could divorce his wife for impurity.
3) AT deliberately chops up Jesus’ answer and omits the next verse after “let no man separate” in which Jesus tells us a situation in which God sanctions and recognizes divorce. In those situations, it’s God who separates, not simply men. There was no sexual sin in the beginning. Sadly, because of sin, there are now consequences for that sin.
“That is completely in line with what He said in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 but these passages are in complete contradiction with verse 9 of Matthew 19. Care to clear that up for us without creating more contradictions?”
1) Since God sanctions divorce in cases of sexual sin, a woman who’s been divorced for this reason is no longer considered married to the man who divorced her. Hence, the words of Paul about a woman being reconciled to her husband aren’t applicable to divorcees who are fornicators and divorced for this reason. Many passages of Paul’s refer to physical separation or divorce which doesn’t fit the biblical grounds. There is no contradiction between 1st Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19.
2) AT has been shown this multiple times and continues to lie and call it a contradiction when it’s not. He makes no attempt to give additional information which would demonstrate what I wrote wrong.
“Who was Jesus speaking to? What is the context of what He is speaking about? What other passages impact what He’s saying? Please provide an exegesis that deals with the apparent contradiction of what Jesus said just in Matthew 19 that isn’t in conflict with 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and Malachi 2.”
I’ve literally answered all of these except Malachi 2(which AT mentions for the first time here). Yet, the same answers I gave him before apply to Malachi 2 as well. Malachi 2 isn’t referring to divorce in cases of sexual sin. Women at that time were under Levitical law and were almost always executed for sexual sin. Most husbands wouldn’t even have the option to divorce their wives for this reason because the law commanded they be killed. The only cases in which they could biblically divorce were for sexually sinful women who couldn’t be convicted in court. Divorce covers a man’s garments with violence, but in the case of sexual sin, that violence is justified and sanctioned by the Lord. These facts were already pointed out in regard to other OT passages and AT ignores them.
“If you seriously want to hold the position that Deuteronomy 1:3 means the judgment concerning divorce was commanded of God, please explain that in light of Numbers 25 where God clearly gave Moses His judgment and then Moses told the people the opposite.”
AT lies in regard to what Moses said, “4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. 5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.”
Once again, I’ve answered this very thing and AT continues to lie and act as though I’ve not. Deuteronomy 1: 3 specifically states it was a command of God. Therefore, the commands in Deuteronomy concerning divorce are the DIRECT commands of God. Numbers 25 describes what happened to the Hebrews in Moab, their sin and the wrath of God. Numbers 25 doesn’t say it’s the direct command of God. It’s that simple.
“Then explain why Jesus said ‘Moses permitted you’ because if it was commanded of God then Moses didn’t have a choice and couldn’t ‘permit’ anything.”
I already answered this for AT, Moses made no attempt to see if the Israelites’ divorces were in line with the actual commands of God. Since sexually sinful women were commanded to be executed, it meant virtually all divorces were against God’s commands. God commanded that a man could divorce his wife if he found some impurity in her.
By saying that the book of Deuteronomy is simply a “judicial ruling,” AT is literally stooping to a level even the scribes trying to trap Jesus in His words didn’t stoop to. They asked Him questions about the Torah precisely because they knew it was the word of God. Denying that Deuteronomy is the direct word of God is directly contradicting God.
The following passage is apparently only a “judicial ruling” to AT.
Deuteronomy 6: 4-7, “‘4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: 5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.'”
AT, you have way bigger problems with your theology than your stance on divorce. In Jesus’ name please repent.
@Ellie
It would be a lot easier to wear a headcovering if other women were doing it too.
That’s like saying it would be easier to wear a thong bikini if your butt wasn’t so big…
You do it because you’re convicted, not because of others and how they’d react.
@Shammahworm
You said:
August 26, 2014 at 9:35 pm
The scriptures are very clear in regard to polygamy. And yes, it’s now forbidden for any believer to enter into another marriage while still married.
Still waiting on the cite (that means show me, chapter and verse) on that statement from the guy who keeps calling me a liar.
You’re evidently too young to understand that believers can have a disagreement over what any particular passage of Scripture means. A good example is me and Lyn87. Notice how we aren’t name-calling? Notice how we each presented our line of thinking, backed up by Scripture? Politely? I’m convinced you’ve got a personal emotional investment in divorce that clouds your judgment and your latest screeching rant seems to prove it.
Still waiting on that “proof” and I’m sure it will get here real soon now.
Just a quick update on polygamy in the USofA:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html
@Artisinal Toad
I have little in common with the Amish and do not agree with much of what they do, just as I don’t agree with much of churchianity or mainstream western culture.
I never said that membership in a religious sect makes women quit wanting to show themselves or to be hypergamous. It simply creates a context where it is not encouraged or tolerated by the parents and leadership of the church.
As far as the self-defence issue goes, which you just won’t give a rest – please consider that I am from a nation where self-defence is basically a criminal act, and that any home invaders are likely to be much better armed than I could legally be. I hope you’ll forgive me for thinking it so irrelevant.
The fact women are attracted to thugs and violent men does not make me interested in being a thug or a violent man; I don’t really care about the feminine imperative enough for it to dictate my theology.
@Honeycomb
The people who warned us about same-sex marriage were right. Legalised polygamy is next.
It baffles me that Artisinal Toad thinks he’ll be the one coming out on top.
@Artisanal Toad
I provided two passages regarding polygamy earlier in this thread which I believe show polygamy to be a sin. Scroll up and read them. I’m not posting them again. A man is commanded to have his OWN wife and a woman is commanded to have her OWN husband.
I called you a liar because you’re lying repeatedly. Since you posses the qualities of a liar, you’re a liar. I’m simply describing the qualities you have.
“Notice how we each presented our line of thinking, backed up by Scripture?”
You’re line of thinking was demonstrated false and you were shown that scripture doesn’t back your position. Instead of demonstrating why scripture does, in fact, back your position, you dropped the same falsehoods into this article’s thread and acted like I hadn’t addressed them. You’d have attempted to address the things I said if you truly cared about sound doctrine or you’d shut up at the very least. This is evident from your posting history on my blog and this one.
“You’re evidently too young to understand that believers can have a disagreement over what any particular passage of Scripture means.”
Actually, this isn’t always the case. There are certain portions of scripture which are so clear-cut that disagreeing with what they say is an act of heresy. Someone who says Jesus wasn’t literally raised from the dead falls into this category for example. Deuteronomy 1: 3 is one such passage in which the meaning is so clear cut that it’s blasphemy to deny what it says. And what it says is God COMMANDED Moses to speak the words of Deuteronomy to the people. Hence, the passage in Deuteronomy concerning divorce is the direct command of God. Other posters on here don’t conduct themselves in such a manner.
“I’m convinced you’ve got a personal emotional investment in divorce that clouds your judgment and your latest screeching rant seems to prove it.”
Then you’ll have no problems refuting what I stated in the last post and from our original conversation on my blog for the benefit of all of Dalrock’s readers and not just me. That you started making sensational statements like “screeching rant”(no idea how one can tell that through the written word) and claiming my judgment is clouded without ever addressing the facts I presented shows even now you continue to lie. You’d rather make a baseless and false accusation against me than address the facts I provided.
You’ve tacitly said Deuteronomy 6: 5 is a “judicial ruling” made by Moses. This is heresy. You refuse correction and this raises far bigger questions than your stance on divorce and polygamy.
There’s really no reason to attempt any sort of discourse with you now that the facts have been presented to this blog’s readership. Any reader concerned about our conduct can simply read the post history of this blog and mine to see the truth about your lies and when divorce and remarriage are biblical.
The Lord Jesus rebuke you and may He help you. Even if you are trolling.
@Shammahworm
Are you female by any chance? I ask because you argue like a girl, with all the name-calling and all. Anyway, you said:
Once again, I’ve answered this very thing and AT continues to lie and act as though I’ve not. Deuteronomy 1: 3 specifically states it was a command of God. Therefore, the commands in Deuteronomy concerning divorce are the DIRECT commands of God. Numbers 25 describes what happened to the Hebrews in Moab, their sin and the wrath of God. Numbers 25 doesn’t say it’s the direct command of God. It’s that simple.
First, you might consider that you are not the greatest Bible scholar out there and just because you make the claim doesn’t mean you’re right. You appear to be making the same mistake the Scribes and Pharisees made, putting Moses on a pedestal. I’m pointing out that Moses didn’t always get it right. Consider other translations of Numbers 25:4:
http://biblehub.com/numbers/25-4.htm
The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.” (This is the NASB, because it’s what I use.)
You claim “Numbers 25 doesn’t say it’s the direct command of God.
What part of “THE LORD SAID TO MOSES” don’t you understand? If God tells you to do something, it’s a command.
God told Moses to kill the LEADERS of the people. But what did Moses do? He went to the LEADERS (the judges) and told them to kill anyone who had joined themselves to Baal-Peor. How did God react to that?
Notice verses 6-9. The anger of the Lord was not turned aside until one of the princes of the tribe of Simeon was killed by Phinehas. Obviously Moses DID NOT obey God, otherwise the anger of the Lord would have been turned away from Israel. We not only see in the text that God told Moses to do one thing and Moses did another, we also see the anger of the Lord was not turned aside and 24,000 people died.
There are several ways to take Deuteronomy 1:3. You want to say that EVERYTHING in Deuteronomy is a commandment of God. The most restrictive possible view. Yet, in the midst of Paul giving instruction to families in 1st Corinthians 7, you want to say that when Jesus pops in and gives His instruction in only two verses and limits it only to the subject of divorce and DOES NOT include a judgment of Moses… that not including the judgment of Moses was an oversight?
Basic hermeneutics requires us to consider who is speaking and who they are speaking to as part of the context. In Matthew 19 Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees on a legal matter concerning the Law. In 1st Corinthians 7 Paul is giving instruction on marriage and Jesus pops in to speak to believers on the subject of divorce, which He has already addressed, but this time what He says is different. That “exception” got left out. THAT is why you’re jumping through such hoops over Deuteronomy 1:3. If it was a judgment of Moses, I’m right and divorce is not allowed for any reason for two married believers.
You said By saying that the book of Deuteronomy is simply a “judicial ruling,” AT is literally stooping to a level even the scribes trying to trap Jesus in His words didn’t stoop to.
Cite, please. Where did I say the book of Deuteronomy is a judicial ruling? I said the ruling on divorce was a judicial ruling and Christ supported that view when He said: “Moses permitted you…”
Consider this: If God commanded Moses to make that decision, it was God, not Moses. Why then did Jesus give the credit to Moses if it rightly belonged to God? Are you saying Jesus made a mistake? The text of Deut. 1:3 can just as easily mean Moses spoke all the words God commanded him to give the people, but it doesn’t limit it to ONLY what God commanded him to give the people. Moses was a judge and he made judgments which got included in Deuteronomy.
So… go ahead and keep screaming that I’m a liar. I want you to link to where I said the entire book of Deuteronomy is a judicial decision… and while you’re at it I’m still waiting on you to show me where in the Bible it says polygyny is wrong. That will probably be real soon now…
We might be neighbours, and to my American friends: as Canada goes today, so will America go tomorrow.
And here I thought our fearless leaders were scampering to emulate Europe.
pancakeloach @ 10:29 am:
“Even with the most “lenient” interpretations, divorce is forbidden except in the case of a wife’s infidelity (Matthew 19:9). Not only that, but in 1 Corinthians 6, believers are told not to take each other before the civil authorities! So the civil authorities have no business being involved in any kind of “divorce proceedings” between two people who claim Christianity.”
Okay, so how do we enforce that? How does a church stop a feral woman from frivorcing her husband in civil court? She can be kicked out of the church but that won’t save the husband or kids.
Perhaps we should turn our churches into legal advocacy organizations. An army of Bible-thumping divorce lawyers ready to ruin any frivorcer’s life with extreme prejudice could be very useful. I suppose this comes back to the “Christians using threatpoint tactics” discussion of Dread game, only on the bigger scale of making good on the threats using litigation.
Eh, maybe I’m just tired of the American Church being a paper tiger. Watching evil run free in the halls of power isn’t fun.
John Nesteutes @ 2:36 pm:
“The fact women are attracted to thugs and violent men does not make me interested in being a thug or a violent man; I don’t really care about the feminine imperative enough for it to dictate my theology.”
That isn’t feminine imperative, that’s standard female nature responding to displays of strength and dominance. FI is the enslavement and general castration of men for the short-term benefit of women. You make enough good points I know you aren’t a white knight but I’m still not convinced you understand what’s going on.
One of the best ways for a Christian man to stabilize his marriage is becoming a thug to at least a mild degree. This is what we’re talking about: the GODLY thing to do in a modern Christian marriage, frequently, is to become MORE abusive towards your wife. Because she likes what isn’t good for her and you are not allowed by gov’t to restrain her… and you don’t want to end up a celibate husband.
The wayward wife has many options and allies. The loyal husband does not.
Dalrock, we’ve been round and round on this one. How about a new topic (please).
That’s just the sort of thing Matthew 18: 15-20 is meant to cover. (Since we’re talking about wives here – it can also actually apply to any professing Christian): a wayward wife could be spoken to by her husband (like spreadsheet guy?), and if she doesn’t listen, a couple of witnesses could be called in (elders perhaps), then if she persists in her rebellion she gets excommunicated.
There are two flies in the ointment, both of diabolical origin and Churchian acquiescence. The first is that most churches would never excommunicate a woman for anything, especially something like persistent denial of sex. The second reason is that, even if a church did so, she could just go a few miles in any direction and find another church that doesn’t believe in excommunication. Apparently these people fancy themselves to be more loving than God Himself, because excommunication has been declared “unloving” recently. Incredibly, most churches would consider her to be the victim, her husband to be a brute, and the other church to be a misogynistic cult. While my father used to be a pastor, if someone came from another church because of church discipline, he would insist on finding out why – was it a legitimate excommunication? If so, he sent them back to get right with their church rather than just taking them into fellowship. No church in our neck of the woods ever returned the favor – EVER. When we excommunicated people for (for example) embezzling about four or five million dollars, the church they went to accepted them (and their huge tithe checks) with open arms.
Until churches get serious about church discipline – including honoring each other’s rulings – this problem will persist largely unhindered.
@John Nesteutes
As far as the self-defence issue goes, which you just won’t give a rest – please consider that I am from a nation where self-defence is basically a criminal act, and that any home invaders are likely to be much better armed than I could legally be. I hope you’ll forgive me for thinking it so irrelevant.
I didn’t give it a rest because it’s so germain to the issue of marriage. What wife wants a husband who not only refuses to defend her, but points to a godless legislature that promotes that to support his cowardice? She’d rather have a criminal thug that loved her instead.
I already gave you the mission of the family, to fill the earth and take dominion over it. Your position seems to make a mockery of that. I don’t care what the laws of your country are, as a man… a husband… a father… your responsibility is to defend your family. Do you think the acts of your government can over-ride that? Consider the Word:
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
But you don’t have anything to bring to the table in this discussion, so you take issue with something God didn’t have any problem with:
The people who warned us about same-sex marriage were right. Legalised polygamy is next.
It baffles me that Artisinal Toad thinks he’ll be the one coming out on top.
Still waiting, John. Would you actually defend your wife and daughters if your home were invaded, or would you be like my Amish neighbor who restrained his son and allowed the intruders to rape his wife and daughter? I’d like you to answer that question and perhaps.. you know… just as a side exhibit… show me where polygyny is wrong.
Dalrock, we’ve been round and round on this one. How about a new topic (please).
Seconded!
I didn’t want to be the first to ask Dalrock to please, p-l-e-a-s-e ask for new grist for the mill – it’s his blog, after all, and I assume he’s crunching numbers for his next hard-hitting post. But, I guess I can be the third.
Until then: AT, do I understand you correctly that the Amish father used physical force to restrain his son so that his son would not use physical force to retrain the guys raping his wife and daughter? In the name of Christ?
I can almost imagine Satan howling in laughter at that. What are the odds that his son will stay in that cult once he reaches adulthood? I guess the inconvenience of a few rapists is a greater evil to that husband/father that his son’s likely rejection of a God he mistakenly believes demands such behavior.
I’m Army – you’re USMC (I won’t hold that against you): we see eye-to-eye on that. A few 115-grain +P semi-jacketed hollow-points to the center of mass would end that nonsense in a hurry. By the time the cops arrive all they would need is their chalk to outline the bodies. (And that’s assuming that my wife gets to her gun before I get to mine: otherwise it would be 185-grain projectiles instead).
do I understand you correctly that the Amish father used physical force to restrain his son so that his son would not use physical force to retrain the guys raping his wife and daughter?
I’m neither for or against pacifism or what ever never using force is called, but I don’t get this?
Lyn87,
Until then: AT, do I understand you correctly that the Amish father used physical force to restrain his son so that his son would not use physical force to retrain the guys raping his wife and daughter? In the name of Christ?
I think for most men killing the perps would be automatic. No thought, no feelings, just action. When faced with that kind of situation a man with even a little prior training will act. And acting, using violence to kill those men is the moral thing to do.
I’m neither for or against pacifism or what ever never using force is called, but I don’t get this?
That wasn’t supposed to be a question. I just don’t get it (statement).
@Lyn87
do I understand you correctly that the Amish father used physical force to restrain his son so that his son would not use physical force to retrain the guys raping his wife and daughter?
The Bishop told me the father tackled his son and held him down to prevent him from resisting the intruders. I realize that’s hearsay, but I have no reason to doubt it because it was said as a point of pride. The son was 17. His little sister was 14. Apparently the intruders separated the mother and daughter from the rest and when the daughter started screaming the son had had enough. Father restrained him in the name of non-resistance. If you want to call it restraining him in the name of Christ go ahead, but I’d consider that blasphemy. Keep in mind, I’ve gone hunting with these guys before and it’s not like there were no guns in the house. Father and son could have picked up rifles and blown both of those guys to hell.
What are the odds that his son will stay in that cult once he reaches adulthood?
About 100%
@Artisanal Toad
I’ll respond since you included some new passages.
At least this time you’re writing some new stuff. Yet, you’re still wrong. The reason why the scribes and Pharisees even mentioned Moses is because they knew he was speaking the direct words of God. That is made clear in Deuteronomy 1: 3. The ENTIRE book of Deuteronomy is Moses relaying the commands of God to the people. Deuteronomy 22 and 24 DO NOT include any judgments Moses made on his own.
When I said Number 25 isn’t a direct command of the Lord I meant in the way Deuteronomy 24 was. The book of Numbers doesn’t state in the beginning that everything contained in it is a command of God like Deuteronomy does. Only part of the chapter is God’s direct command to Moses. I quote the portion of Numbers 25 which is a direct command of God WITHIN a chronicle of various actions the Hebrews undertook that is not. Here are two quotes from two versions:
(ESV)Numbers 25: 3-5, “So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take all the chiefs of the people and hang[a] them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.’ 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.'”
(KJV)Numbers 25: 3-5, “3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. 5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.”
What becomes immediately clear is the leaders/chiefs/heads of the people are DIFFERENT from the judges. Moses goes to different people in order to exact justice and keep the command God gave him. This in no way is disobedience. It’s dishonest of you to conflate judges and chiefs when all three versions make it clear they are different people. Moses instructs the judges to kill those men who God sentenced to death.
Your paraphrase of verses 6-9 omits the fact that one of the princes of Simeon arrived with a wife AFTER Moses had obeyed God and carried out the commandment. Then once he was killed the anger of the Lord did subside. Moses DID in fact obey the command of God and the only reason why the anger of the Lord didn’t subside is because a prince of Simeon arrived with his wife as the people were mourning. Given your past lies, I have a hard time thinking this is a mistake.
Regarding what you said about 1 Corinthians 6,
A Christian divorcing for sexual sin would have to first explain himself to the pastors/elders of his church and demonstrate that he is in fact divorcing for a biblical reason. Then he’d be free to file for divorce. This verse refers to lawsuits in ancient Greece and not divorce. Ancient Greece was vastly different from modern law. Just because the US government has involved itself in marriage in no way implies a man cannot divorce.
“There are several ways to take Deuteronomy 1:3. You want to say that EVERYTHING in Deuteronomy is a commandment of God.”
No, there aren’t several ways to take Deuteronomy 1: 3. Verse 1: 3 makes it clear that all the commandments in Deuteronomy ARE commandments of God. The law and the commandments of God were one and the same when Jesus was speaking to the Jewish leaders in Matthew 19. In Matthew 5 and 19, Jesus reaffirms the same judgement He spoke through Moses in Deuteronomy 24. Divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual sin is biblical.
There was no judgment of Moses. It was God’s. It’s impossible for me to cite Deuteronomy 24 and put Moses on a pedestal because it was God’s decision and not Moses’.
“Cite, please. Where did I say the book of Deuteronomy is a judicial ruling? I said the ruling on divorce was a judicial ruling and Christ supported that view when He said: “Moses permitted you…'”
Moses permitted the Hebrews to divorce for reasons other than the biblical one(sexual sin). He made no attempt to try and enforce Deuteronomy 24. The law required sexually immoral girls/women to be killed in most cases which meant almost all divorces at that time were unbiblical because they weren’t undertaken for the reason provided in scripture.
Throughout your posts on my blog and then on this blog, you continuously claim Moses made a judicial decision concerning Deuteronomy 24. You also dismiss the fact that verse 1: 3 makes it clear that the entire book is directly from God. You made no attempt to show how one part of Deuteronomy is only a judicial decision and other parts aren’t. In doing this, you’re tacitly saying Deuteronomy is only a “judicial decision.” And that’s false.
I already explained 1 Corinthians 7. A woman who was divorced for sexual sin is no longer considered married to her ex in the eyes of God and as such God’s commands through Paul about husbands and wives reconciling aren’t referring to women who were divorced for sexual sin. But you again ignore this. It’s entirely consistent with Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Jesus’ commands through Paul aren’t different at all. You just fail to grasp the fact that a divorcee who’s been divorced for fornication is no longer married to her ex in the eyes of God. Of course Jesus doesn’t mention them. Because they’re no longer married.
“Consider this: If God commanded Moses to make that decision, it was God, not Moses. Why then did Jesus give the credit to Moses if it rightly belonged to God?”
God spoke through Moses and the Jews would say the law of Moses when referring to various parts of the Torah. That’s why. If Moses were simply making rulings on his own, His words would’ve meant nothing and the Jews wouldn’t have been able to even cite him. This was already explained to you multiple times.
“Are you saying Jesus made a mistake?”
Nope, but you’re either lying or have no idea what Jesus was talking about.
“The text of Deut. 1:3 can just as easily mean Moses spoke all the words God commanded him to give the people, but it doesn’t limit it to ONLY what God commanded him to give the people.”
Yes, it actually does limit him to only the words God commanded him to give the people.
(ESV)”Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the Lord had given him in commandment to them,”
(KJV)”according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them;”
“According” to all that the Lord had given him in commandment to them. Moses was speaking what God told him. That means Deuteronomy 24 was in accordance with what God commanded and it was DIRECTLY from Him. If Moses added to God’s words it wouldn’t be in accordance with God’s will and that wouldn’t fit the scripture.
“Moses was a judge and he made judgments which got included in Deuteronomy.”
For the last time, no he wasn’t. He made no judgements in Deuteronomy.
@AT:
My observation from living within one of these communities is that the tight social controls of a sect that is so far outside the mainstream is the major issue in keeping marriages together for your people. There are real social penalties for stepping out of line and they get enforced. Step over the line and you lose your family.
If we can learn from the Plain Anabaptists, this may be the most important lesson. Non-mainstream denominations often build very strong communities, and part of that is disfellowshipping/excommunication. Jehovah’s Witnesses do this too, to a lesser extent.
However, these denominations tend to interpret a specific verse or two of the Bible in a way that appears extreme and inflexible to people in the mainstream. For the PA, this relates to non-resistance; for the JW, it is blood transfusions.
There seems to be a problem too with numbers: if PA families typically have 8 children, but the number of believers only doubles every 20 years, most of the children must leave the denomination. In other words, if we wish to imitate the Plain Anabaptists, it would be no good trying to do so with only 2.4 children in a family: our denomination would die out within a couple of generations.
AT,
If you want to call it restraining him in the name of Christ go ahead, but I’d consider that blasphemy.
Just to be clear – I was trying to convey incredulity. As in:
“He did that in the name of Christ! What is he, nuts?”
Because for a man to use violence against his own son (and he did, assuming the details are correct), in order to prevent his son from using violence against the men who were raping his mother and sister – in the name of Christ – is a great evil in my estimation.
I imagine you already know this, but what monkeywerks wrote about violence being automatic in some cases is correct. I was in the front seat of the lead vehicle in a convoy on the Jalalabad Road in northern Afghanistan one fine day, and we rolled around a corner (adobe-style buildings on each side), and there was a kid (maybe 14 or so) pointing a pistol across the road where we were about to drive. My mind said, “AMBUSH!” and I figured the machine gunners were off to the left. The only thing that crossed my mind was that I had to kill that kid – he was the only target I could see. Keep in mind that only a few months prior I had been teaching algebra to kids that age (I got mobilized from my civilian teaching job). Without the slightest hesitation I started bringing my M-4 up to shoot him. My buttstock got wedged against my SAPI plate (… heart skips a beat…), so by instinct I released my M-4 and went for my secondary weapon: the M-9 in my thigh holster. At no time did I ever even think about NOT shooting. In one of those “blink” moments I realized the kid had a toy gun. He lowered it about the time we entered his field of peripheral vision and I stopped. It happened so fast that I never got my pistol out of the holster. The driver sitting two feet away never saw a thing. Weird.
A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C. You and some of the guys here can probably vouch for it. It wasn’t what I would call traumatizing, but it was one of those moments in time when one gains a profound insight into oneself. From that moment on it was no longer theoretical: I knew I was capable of killing without hesitation.
I’m surprised that you think the son will stay in that cult when he reaches his majority, though. I cannot imagine he would have any respect for his father or any “church” that demands such inaction in the face of such evil. About 10% of Amish teenagers leave around the age of 18 – I imagine he has a high probability of being one of them. If that were me, not only would I leave at the earliest opportunity, but I would never speak to my father again unless he shaved his beard and begged for my forgiveness on his bloody knees in sackcloth and ashes. If I remember NOT shooting a kid a dozen years ago like it happened yesterday – I cannot imagine what it must be like for the son.
@Shammahworm
You made the claim that polygyny is forbidden for believers. I asked you for a cite and thus far you have thus far refused to provide one. Still waiting.
You made the claim that I said the entire book of Deuteronomy is a judicial decision. I asked for a cite for that and thus far you have refused to provide one. Still waiting.
The next point hinges on Deuteronomy 1:3, which says (NASB):
In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that the Lord had commanded him to give to them,
I said The text of Deut. 1:3 can just as easily mean Moses spoke all the words God commanded him to give the people, but the text doesn’t limit it to ONLY what God commanded him to give the people. Moses was a judge and he made judgments which got included in Deuteronomy.
You responded and said No, there aren’t several ways to take Deuteronomy 1: 3. Verse 1: 3 makes it clear that all the commandments in Deuteronomy ARE commandments of God.
Are you even an adult? Let’s try a little logic test (I’m still not convinced you’re male). Look carefully at the following three sentences.
The King spoke to his minister, saying, “tell the servants ‘Alpha, Bravo, Charlie’.” The minister spoke to the servants and said “I will now speak to you all the things the king has commanded me to speak to you.” He then said: “Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta.”
1: Did the minister speak to the servants according to all the things the king commanded him to speak to the servants?
2: Did “Delta” come from the king, or from the minister?
In order to find out whether this certificate of divorce thing was a judgment of Moses, we look for it in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers. That is where God gave His Law to the people. Deuteronomy is a sermon Moses preached before his death in which Moses restated the law and included his judgments.
Your response thus far has been:
The ENTIRE book of Deuteronomy is Moses relaying the commands of God to the people. Deuteronomy 22 and 24 DO NOT include any judgments Moses made on his own.
That isn’t what the text says, so would you be so kind as to cite your proof of that assertion?
Discussing Numbers 25, you said:
What becomes immediately clear is the leaders/chiefs/heads of the people are DIFFERENT from the judges. Moses goes to different people in order to exact justice and keep the command God gave him. This in no way is disobedience. It’s dishonest of you to conflate judges and chiefs when all three versions make it clear they are different people. Moses instructs the judges to kill those men who God sentenced to death.
Who were those judges? Why, we have an answer to that, and it’s not my opinion! We begin in Exodus 18:21-23. This was the advice from the Father-In-Law of Moses, Jethro:
“Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. “Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. “If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people also will go to their place in peace.”
You’re so in love with Deuteronomy, so let’s see what Moses said he did:
First, Moses told the people:
“Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads.” Deuteronomy 1:13
They agreed and did so.
“So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and appointed them heads over you, leaders of thousands and of hundreds, of fifties and of tens, and officers for your tribes. Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him.” Deuteronomy 1:15-16
Heads = Judges. Get it? Moses was COMMANDED to kill the leaders/heads/judges. He didn’t do it and the proof of that is the anger of the Lord was NOT turned aside. But no, you doubled down on this one. Even more astonishing is this assertion:
the only reason why the anger of the Lord didn’t subside is because a prince of Simeon arrived with his wife as the people were mourning.
God commanded Moses to kill the leaders in order that His anger might be turned away. Moses didn’t do it and God’s anger didn’t turn away.
Where you get the idea that Zimri married this Midianite princess is beyond me (that in and of itself would have been a violation of the commandment not to intermarry with those people), but the obvious point of the story is the leaders of the people were just as much in violation as the people. Moses was commanded to kill those leaders/heads/judges and he didn’t do it. He protected them instead. Phinehas proved he had solid brass balls when he (without due process or anything like that) killed one of the leaders that Moses refused to kill, knowing it could mean his death by stoning. Maybe that’s why God immediately stepped in and Phinehas got God’s covenant of peace and became the head of the Phinehas priesthood, a permanent priesthood.
You said
Moses permitted the Hebrews to divorce for reasons other than the biblical one(sexual sin). He made no attempt to try and enforce Deuteronomy 24. The law required sexually immoral girls/women to be killed in most cases which meant almost all divorces at that time were unbiblical because they weren’t undertaken for the reason provided in scripture.
Genesis 2:24 gave the man the authority to initiate marriage. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, as Jesus said “Moses permitted [them] to divorce [their] wives, but from the beginning it was not that way.” If a man wanted to divorce his wife, he simply gave her a certificate of divorce. That judgment wasn’t “enforced” as you put it, it was legitimizing and adding a requirement to something the men were already doing. The requirement for at least two witnesses meant that a stoning for adultery was rare, but that doesn’t mean adultery was rare.
There were two major schools of thought about divorce at the time of Matthew 19. According to Hillel, a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. According to Shammai, divorce was only allowed for unfaithfulness (“indecency”). Ask yourselves this: If Jesus sided with Shammai but interpreted that school of thought more strictly, why did the disciples say it was better not to get married? Why was His answer so shocking to them?
Jesus said, of the practice of divorce, that Moses permitted it, but from the beginning it was not that way. If God is the same, yesterday, today and forever; and if it was not that way in the beginning (all the time up until Moses), and God did not command this anywhere in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers (where the Law of God was enumerated), why should we believe God changed His mind in Deuteronomy 24:1-4? If it was part of God’s plan all along, why did Jesus say “but from the beginning it was not this way?”
You actually have your finger on the critical issue. If this was part of God’s plan all along, then the Risen Lord’s instruction at 1st Cor. 7:10-11, in the midst of all of Paul’s instruction on family issues wouldn’t matter. He’d already stated His position in Matthew 19. However, if this was an oddball judgment of Moses that wasn’t part of the plan, then the fact the Lord chose to specifically revisit the issue of divorce for His bondservants and say there was to be no divorce without including the “exception” for sexual immorality means the exception no longer exists for believers.
Thank you Shammahworm. You’ve been a big help in clearing this up.
I would even consider the father actions to be very immoral and sinful. Think of the psychological damage that has now occurred to 3 people, 4 if you consider the father, because of the fathers use of violence against his son preventing him from defending his mother and sister. Now the sister, the mother and the son will live with a tremendous amount of guilt and shame because of that incident.
I am sure most of you men have thought about this, but the son and the father had a good chance at prevailing against the attackers had they worked together.
Its interesting to see how the blind obedience to a belief system would cause such a dissonance in a person. I have to imagine that most men posses a base instinct to protect our family members and this mans beliefs clashed with that base instinct.
@Lyn87
“To those who have lived close to death, life has a special flavor the protected shall never know.” Unknown Marine at Khe Sanh.
My apologies to regular readers of Dalrock. Us lunatics have taken over this asylum
The following has been rehashed so many times….
shammahworm says:
August 28, 2014 at 12:12 pm
I said the loss of *her* virginity, not *one’s* virginity. Using a generic pronoun implies that it could work both ways, it’s a common tactic with divorce apologists. Jesus gave an exception for *men* only. Agreed?
I don’t believe that Jesus was using the word the way you interpret it. No big deal.
Get over it.
Yes it was written in their Law, but I suspect it was rarely carried out in Jesus day. The Jews had to get permission from the Romans to execute people.
Most agree that Matthew’s gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The other gospels were written to Greeks, Romans whatevers. Jesus said; “publicans and Harlots get into heaven before the corrupt religious types” [Don’s paraphrase]. So there was no shortage of harlots in every country even Israel. History also shows this.
The prophet Malachi upbraided the Jews for divorcing their wives, it didn’t seem too difficult at the time.
Almost every book on this subject deals with the 2 schools of thought represented by rabbi Hillel and Shammai. Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, Shammai allowed it only for adultery. Your interpretation of the exception clause puts Jesus and Shammai in the same boat. But its obvious that Jesus distanced Himself from the argument and set a higher standard.
Yes, that is certainly possible.
[Q] If a girl has been fornicating and hasn’t told anyone, how would an unsuspecting groom discover her ‘uncleanness’?
[A] By marrying her, and by consummating the marriage he would discover that someone else had already been shagging her. [A blood stained sheet is the groom’s receipt!]
The Pharisees would have understood that Jesus was referring to the passage in Deut.22:13. And that also explains why it is only recorded in Matt’s gospel.
Almost every protestant church everywhere has a statement on divorce and remarriage that agrees with your position. You’re in the overwhelming majority. I don’t agree with you, or them. Pray for me.
Artisanal Toad says:
August 28, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“To those who have lived close to death, life has a special flavor the protected shall never know.” Unknown Marine at Khe Sanh.
Song about Khe Sanh:
Sorry, Jarheads, that’s another USMC myth. Oddly enough, it was a French author named Guy de Maupassant (b 1850 – d 1893) who is the original literary source for the famous quote:
“You’ve never lived until you’ve almost died. For those who have fought for it, life has a flavor the protected shall never know.”
Guy de Maupassant was an interesting guy, but one thing he never was was a soldier – or a U.S. Marine – and certainly not at the Battle of Khe Sahn, which occurred 75 years after his death. He was, in fact, a writer of fiction, some of which was set during the Franco-Prussian War – thus his famous quote, which he put into the mouth of one the fictional characters in his novels. He was a war correspondent in Tunisia in 1881, though, so it’s possible that he picked up the saying from a French soldier in that campaign.
His parents separated when he was 11, and he became what we would now call a PUA – and a drug addict. He suffered the ill effects of syphilis most of his adult life, and it caused his unbalanced mental condition and certainly contributed to his early death. He wrote of what some would call “gender issues,” and although some consider his to have been a misogynist (a meaningless charge now – like being called a racist), he wrote some things that would make any second-wave feminist squeal with glee. For example, he put these words into the mouth of one of his female characters:
“Now listen carefully: Marriage, to me, is not a chain but an association. I must be free, entirely unfettered, in all my actions – my coming and my going; I can tolerate neither control, jealousy, nor criticism as to my conduct. I pledge my word, however, never to compromise the name of the man I marry, nor to render him ridiculous in the eyes of the world. But that man must promise to look upon me as an equal, an ally, and not as an inferior, or as an obedient, submissive wife. My ideas, I know, are not like those of other people, but I shall never change them.” (from Bel Ami, 1885)”
Since I brought up Guy de Maupassant, as the source of the famous quote noted above, here are a few more. He was a prolific writer, that M. de Maupassant.
Guy de Maupassant the war correspondent – “Military men are the scourges of the world.”
Guy de Maupassant the PUA – “I hope you realize that you really hit it off with the ladies? You must cultivate that. It could take you far.”
Guy de Maupassant the red-pill prophet – “The simplest of women are wonderful liars who can extricate themselves from the most difficult dilemmas with a skill bordering on genius.”
And perhaps most germane to the current thread: Guy de Maupassant the debater of fine points – “The secret is not to betray your ignorance. Just maneuver, avoid the quicksands and obstacles, and the rest can be found in a dictionary.“
For those of you who wish for a new topic, I sympathize, but I do appreciate everyone’s long debates on this matter. Iron sharpens iron and all that. I see Lyn87 has answered Gunner’s question so all I have to say is “ditto” – the church can’t punish a frivorcing wife any more severely than it can punish any other sin. God himself doesn’t force us to do the right thing against our will! So there will be a great risk for men when it comes to getting married in our society. In past times and in other places, Christians risk death for following God’s commands; perhaps men would prefer risking martyrdom to frivorce, but we don’t get to choose our troubles. Although I suppose theoretically you could move to Egypt and marry a Copt girl.
I find myself convinced by these conversations that believers are not to divorce, not even for adultery. If Paul instructs the Corinthian believers not to divorce an unbelieving spouse, some of whom no doubt worshiped idols and committed sundry other “outrageous” sins (like sex with temple prostitutes, sodomy, or sacrificing children to Moloch!), then it seems pretty “small beans” by comparison for a Christian to remain in marriage with a cheating spouse as a witness of Christ’s sacrificial love. Of course, in today’s society, that believing husband or wife would do well to begin to arrange their affairs so that in the high likelihood of their cheating spouse initiating divorce, the damage will be minimized as much as possible. And love is not enabling, either, so that would be a difficult circumstance to navigate faithfully, especially in the midst of such a painful thing.
On the other hand, the specific problem we deal with today is men who are divorced by wives who claim the name of Christ, and yet break the Lord’s instruction twice over by initiating civil divorce proceedings. In these cases I think the “Biblical divorce” path is a recognition that the one who initiates the divorce – and especially a frivorcing wife – is not a Christian regardless of whether or not she claims to be so or is accepted by a heretical church (or “church”) as a member.* I hate to reference the much-abused Catholic practice of annulments even obliquely, but in this case it seems clear enough to me that the Christian husband may let the unbelieving wife go on her way and not consider himself bound from taking another woman as his wife.
And in the case of treating women who have previously divorced their husbands, in the rare case that they haven’t been off having sex with other men, they should be encouraged to repent and reconcile. But churches should teach women who have divorced their husbands that they may not remarry. (If the woman was the one divorced, rather than the one who initiated, then it goes back to being abandoned by an unbeliever.) Women who find themselves in intolerable positions of physical abuse can separate without divorcing, so the whole “what about wife beaters?!?!” question feminists love to bring up (as if many of those women aren’t head-over-heels in love with their thugs and probably just as abusive in return!) is a red herring.
Here’s the thing: I don’t think we can conflate the command “do not divorce” with “do not be divorced by your spouse” – saying that someone who was the victim of a unilateral divorce is in violation of the command not to divorce would be like saying a murder victim has broken the sixth commandment! But I get a very real sense that this is exactly the conflation that a lot of people make when they say “divorce is not allowed.” Well, neither is murder, but it still happens, and we don’t blame the victim for being murdered! We try to avoid being put in that situation, yes, but the responsibility for the sin lies with the one who committed it.
*To clarify, I’m not saying that such a person is definitely damned to Hell, because we can’t know for absolute certain-sure the state of another’s soul. But we can judge actions, and indeed, we are commanded to do so in Matthew 18, and given an example of this in 1 Corinthians 5.
Don Quixote@*August 29, 2014 at 4:03 am* said:
*“**I said the loss of *her* virginity, not *one’s* virginity. Using a generic pronoun implies that it could work both ways, it’s a common tactic with divorce apologists. Jesus gave an exception for *men* only. Agreed?**”*
*And…*
*“* *I don’t believe that Jesus was using the word the way you interpret it. No big deal. Get over it.**”*
*Don, you seem to have answered a question I was asking far up the thread. *
*I previously asked if there was a biblical directive for men to remain virgins when marrying. Lyn87 and others went on an anti-fornication tirade and said that premarital sex was forbidden for a man as much as it was for a woman. Other moralists then explained that in general, God wouldn’t promote a double standard for human sexuality. I do believe that the moralist’s hearts are in the right place, but these positions specifically are influenced by the egalitarianism that has infected the church and biblical interpretations for many years now.*
*Now we can see how theses popular interpretations are used by the majority of the Christian world to justify divorce. On the other hand the overall egalitarian attitudes in most churches continue to promote the oft discredited double standard in relation to sexual matters, when God himself designed two different standards, and different biological and emotional consequences into human sexuality and the misuse of our sexuality. *
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Dalrock wrote:
> pancakeloach commented: “For those of you who wish for a new topic, I > sympathize, but I do appreciate everyone’s long debates on this matter. > Iron sharpens iron and all that. I see Lyn87 has answered Gunner’s question > so all I have to say is “ditto” – the church can’t punish a fr” >
Something of interest that I note in regards to how a church community is tasked with disciplining their members is also when it comes to cultivating a proper atmosphere for the growth of families. Of course, “family” has been a very loose term and is now blasphemized and bastardized to all sorts of heresy. For once I would like to see a wedding where Mark 10:8-9 are discussed and addressed to the congregation. Wherein the minister/pastor/priest would actually take time out to go a little further into reading Mark 10:8-9 when he declares the the man and woman “husband and wife”. He would dispense a very disciplined and stern lecture upon the community of believers that were in the congregation witnessing the making of a marital covenant that as witnesses they were also their “brothers’ and sisters'” keepers in regards to upholding the honor of the commitments that were just made.
They’re not there for the free cake, finger-foods, and booze. When God said “let no man tear asunder what He has brought together” it wasn’t just a declarative statement of the holiness of marriage and His sovereignty in the institution of marriage but also a commandment to anyone with ears to hear that they have a responsibility towards their fellow Christian brother insofar as to doing what they can, within proper bounds, in upholding the sanctity of the marriage by preventing or intervening when they see or hear of someone coming between husband and wife..whether it be through an “empowered sister-suffragette” coaxing the wife to frivorce the husband or a woman trying to seduce the husband to infidelity. Because when I’m asked why I sat back and didn’t do anything regarding my fellow Christian brother’s marital breakup and his family being nuked by a frivorce, what am I going to tell God…”am I my brother’s keeper?” Last time I checked, that didn’t go over so well and I have nothing to indicate that it will be any different this time around.
By the way, it’s easy to kick a man in the balls when he’s down because, well let’s face it, between the white knight Churchians and the PUA thugs, that seems to be the overall soup du jour. It’s tougher but more just to confront the one who is trying to destroy the marriage in the first place. I have yet to see any “masculine manly man” in the church or elsewhere confront a seditious wife of a fellow believer and let her have it, out in public. You won’t be liked, but guess what, we’re not hear to win a stupid popularity contest. The church has, in my opinion, failed to uphold Mark 10:8-9 because they have let men (aka government) tear asunder what God had brought together, and to do so on grounds that are OUTSIDE of the few restrictions that God gave in regards to infidelity and lack of virginity on the first night of marriage. Her being “bored” because he’s not “manly” or “exciting” or “–enter useless and nonscriptural adjective–” enough is WELL outside and in COMPLETE DEFIANCE against God’s Word..point blank.
*“**On the other hand, the specific problem we deal with today is men who are divorced by wives who claim the name of Christ, and yet break the Lord’s instruction twice over by initiating civil divorce proceedings. In these cases I think the “Biblical divorce” path is a recognition that the one who initiates the divorce – and especially a frivorcing wife – is not a Christian regardless of whether or not she claims to be so or is accepted by a heretical church (or “church”) as a member**.”*
*[…}*
*“**And in the case of treating women who have previously divorced their husbands, in the rare case that they haven’t been off having sex with other men, they should be encouraged to repent and reconcile.**”*
*I had to chuckle at this, and not because you were being funny or what you said was funny. It is just most churches will never teach this. Furthermore most women in today’s society are not only out violating the one cock rule, their hearts have been so hardened to the point that any man who takes such a woman back is a fool.*
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Dalrock wrote:
> pancakeloach commented: “For those of you who wish for a new topic, I > sympathize, but I do appreciate everyone’s long debates on this matter. > Iron sharpens iron and all that. I see Lyn87 has answered Gunner’s question > so all I have to say is “ditto” – the church can’t punish a fr” >
@Pancakeloach
It’s kind of funny that you mention 1st Corinthians 5:1. The situation with the man who had his father’s wife was one in which the father’s wife was not his mother. The text does not say whether the father had divorced his first wife and married another or whether or not the father had two concurrent wives. Neither does the text indicate whether the father was still living.
The argument that polygyny didn’t exist in the NT might have a problem with this passage. And before BradA says anything, what Paul is describing is exactly how Reuben lost his birthright (he had sex with one of Jacob’s wives, but not with his mother). People are sinful whether in monogamous or polygynous marriages.
1st John 2:3-6 seems to be the definitive standard when it comes to taking a serious look at whether someone is actually a Christian or not.
@Monkeywerks
God himself designed two different standards, and different biological and emotional consequences into human sexuality and the misuse of our sexuality.
This is absolutely true, but these days folks don’t study their Bibles so they don’t even know what God said. Did you know God only placed three restrictions on the marriage bed?
1: No sexy-time when she’s menstruating. No oral, no finger-painting, don’t touch her.
2: If she gives birth to a boy, no sexy-time for 40 days and if she has a girl it’s for 80 days.
3: Do not profane the marital bed by committing adultery.
That’s it. The whole solo/PIV/oral/toys/anal/whatever arguments didn’t come from God.
If you ever want to see churchians come completely unglued, point out the following and then ask the question.
*Male-Male sexual anything = an abomination, prohibited, death penalty offense.
*Male-Animal sexual anything = a perversion, prohibited, death penalty offense
*Female-Animal sexual anything = a perversion, prohibited, death penalty offense.
The money-question: What did God leave out? The answer is simple: female-female sexual anything. Everyone wants to say that because Male-Male is bad… female-female must be bad as well. Problem is, God was careful when condemning bestiality to include both males and females. God is perfect and His Law is perfect, so the presumption must be made that God intentionally did not include a prohibition or condemnation of female-female sexual contact, otherwise He would never have specifically mentioned women in the prohibition of bestiality.
When I wrote and defended the post which must not to be named, I made three assertions:
1. Ephesians 5:22-24 is a command to women to submit themselves to their husbands in *everything.* Yes, dear, everything means *everything.*
2. God permitted and regulated polygyny and there is nothing in the Bible to say it’s wrong.
3. When a man has more than one wife, sooner or later he’ll most likely want them all in bed together. If he does, it isn’t a sin and girls, refer to point 1.
I made the case that the headship doctrine is so important that God did not prohibit or condemn female-female sexual contact, but I could have been wrong. It could actually be that as long as it happens within marriage… God simply doesn’t care. Upthread a woman mentioned she’s a married Christian woman who is also bisexual. Guess what? God doesn’t have a problem with that.
Nuclear fireworks resulted. Romans 1:26 got thrown at me, but the issue with that verse is the natural function of woman. What was she created to be? A helpmeet to a man. Ditch the man and forgo making babies in favor of rug-munching and she’s no longer engaged in the natural function of a woman. It’s not about sex, it’s about being obedient to God and His plan. The point is made because immediately following that verse, the homosexuals (the men) are mentioned, condemned and the penalty is declared. Where was the condemnation or penalty for the women?
*Crickets*
I’m convinced BradA, Ellie and a few others are still upset about that post and it’s been almost a year now.
AT asks, “Where was the condemnation or penalty for the women?”
Lyn87 hits his buzzer. “I’ll take Biblical condemnations for 1000, Alex.”
Alex: “Answer – This New Testament passage condemns lesbianism.”
Lyn87: “Question – What is Romans 1: 26 – 27?”
Alex: “That is correct. Lyn87 pulls further into the lead.”
Your acting as if it is not a condemnation doesn’t make it so:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 26 – 27 (KJV)
Nobody – including you – has any problem noting that the conduct in verse 27 is male-male homosexual conduct. Verse 26, which is the beginning of the sentence, refers to female-female sexual conduct. That’s why is says likewise. Just as women turned turned to homosexual perversions, likewise, so did the men.
_____________________________________________________________
Likewise – Strong’s Greek Lexicon # G3668
homoiōs – from the root word ὅμοιος (G3664)
Only one definition listed: likewise, equally, in the same way
Let’s just plug that in and see how it reads:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And in the same way also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
______________________________________________________________
It takes some mighty hamsterbating to come up with “God is okay with lesbianism.” That’s almost as bad as monkeywerks’ continuing hamsterbating that “God is okay with me fornicating, but not those dirty sluts I want to fornicate with.”
Its because even women find other women as beautiful. When compared to man’s body as utilitarian, like a truck, a woman is sexy and curvy like Porsche. Just saying.
Could this be why there are alot of women (incl. Christians) who struggle with the sexual feelings they have towards other women?
I would joke with one of my GF’s that if I could just have her and my ex my life would have been bliss. She could have given the ex some lessons on how to please a man, and likewise my ex could have schooled the GF on how to be a mother. So the family would have stayed together, I would have been happy and in the long run both women would have been happy.
Think of this hypothetical, GF was well past child bearing age and although wanted a child from me she could have helped raise my children with my ex who was substantially younger. In the alternative my ex could have carried the fertilized embryo of the GF and I which would likely minimize potential defects in the child.
Of course the moralist would reject all of this. However this is occurring alot today and this same thing has occurred throughout human history. It is even in the bible. Moralists would reject, or conveniently ignore many of these things because it does not fit with the feminine imperitive that must be upheld with ALL forms of modern Christian theology.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Dalrock wrote:
> Artisanal Toad commented: “@Pancakeloach It’s kind of funny that you > mention 1st Corinthians 5:1. The situation with the man who had his > father’s wife was one in which the father’s wife was not his mother. The > text does not say whether the father had divorced his first wife an” >
Lyn87,
It takes some mighty hamsterbating to come up with “God is okay with lesbianism.” That’s almost as bad as monkeywerks’ continuing hamsterbating that “God is okay with me fornicating, but not those dirty sluts I want to fornicate with.”
So as to make this clear, again, I was postulating an argument against marriage and again Lyn’s reading comprehension is again challenged. At no time did I promote or even mention male promiscuity, which is probably more in line with the biblical definition of fornication. My example of a man having sex in a committed and monogamous relationship while eschewing marriage does not. I will add that the female side of that equation would not be a slut in that circumstance. I would hope that most would agree that not every women who happens to not to be a virgin or who has had sex outside of marriage is not necessarily a slut.
The question I asked previously was “is sex outside of state marriage more practical and still moral in a committed relationship when it has been firmly proved that for the 90+% of men in this country biblical marriage no longer exists.”
You called that fornication and based your belief not on common sense but what you wished the world to be like. Every sex act committed outside of state marriage does not equal promiscuity, at least not for us who can think past our noses.
Also at no time did I mention that a promiscuous man has an absolute right to marry a virgin. I never mentioned promiscuity one way or the other. Going by your statements no man who is not a virgin himself should ever expect to marry a virgin, and that you find it offensive that a non virgin man would in fact might want to do so. That attitude is neither practical nor is it necessarily biblical. Going by your common moralist stance, a man who has an interesting past cannot be redeemed. This attitude suggests you see male and female sexuality as equal as you see the effects of same equal which has been thoroughly shown to not be the case.
If your going to use my statement at least try to be precise.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Dalrock wrote:
> Lyn87 commented: “AT asks, “Where was the condemnation or penalty for > the women?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE Lyn87 hits his > buzzer. “I’ll take Biblical condemnations for 1000, Alex.” Alex: “Answer – > This New Testament passage condemns lesbianism.” >
@Lyn87
What is the natural use of a woman? To marry and have children. God said it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helpmeet for Adam. Woman was created for Man.
Therefore, the unnatural for the woman is to forgo God’s purpose for her life, refuse to submit to the headship of a husband and refuse to make babies.
What is the natural use of a man? To be a husband and head of his family.
What is the unnatural for a man? To ditch the woman and focus on pleasure, with another man. Ever wonder why so many men want a female doctor to give them a prostate exam? The idea that they’ll get an erection and possibly blow a load because a guy has his finger up their ass is too much to bear. Better a female doctor if it happens.
The Men “burned with lust” and “Committed indecent acts” and “Received the penalty in their own bodies.”
This must be in harmony with the law, in which the men with men stuff was prohibited and condemned as a death penalty offense. What about the women in the law?
*crickets.*
Your own exegesis of “IN THE SAME WAY” makes my point. IT IS NOT about how the plumbing gets connected, it’s all about the relationship and whether it complies with God’s plan for mankind. The direct comparison of women to men in Romans 1 is illustrative. The women received no condemnation or penalty. The men did. This reflects the fact that homosexuals (defined as men with men) were condemned in the Law. The women were not. Do you not know how to read?
You stated It takes some mighty hamsterbating to come up with “God is okay with lesbianism.” That’s almost as bad as monkeywerks’ continuing hamsterbating that “God is okay with me fornicating, but not those dirty sluts I want to fornicate with.”
I did not say that. Lesbianism is women rejecting God’s plan for their lives by rejecting men, the men she was created to be a helpmeet for, compounded by being unchaste with other women. You are obviously intelligent enough to grasp the point, I think perhaps you simply don’t want to because the whole egalitarianism thing is so embedded in this culture that you can’t see it. What does God’s Word say? Perhaps Paul’s instruction in 1st Timothy 2:11-15 is appropriate:
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Monkeywerks, I agree that it’s a snowball’s chance in Key West that most churches would start teaching Biblical marriage rules. But if we are to improve matters, we may have to start by being voices crying in the wilderness, and not fear being labeled “judgmental haters” for telling mainstream churches outright that they are doing the Devil’s work and leading people astray.
*checks for new comments after writing TL;DR post* Thank you for clarifying your position – I thought that might be what you meant but I wasn’t sure, because of the confusion over what exactly you personally mean by “marriage” vs what everybody else means by it.
AT… yeeeeeeees, I am not surprised that people might still be mad at you over saying lesbianism in polygamous marriages is okay. You’re an excellent debater and more-or-less likable but that doesn’t make you NOT part of a lunatic fringe, IYKWIM? I get the sense that you like to take edge cases and expand them into guiding principles, while using word games to support your position. Now, if your position were one that was backed up by a lot of other testimony and evidence, that wouldn’t be a problem, but when you’re playing word games to justify engaging in titillating sexual practices – that’s the hamster spinning.
I’m not Catholic, but their position that some sexual activity is not licit by its nature, rather than because of who’s doing what to whom, is one that I agree with. Your interpretation of “natural” reads like pure rationalization and claiming that God doesn’t actually come out and say such-and-such is another example of your argument being based on an attitude that God has to tell you Every. Last. Little. Thing. as if you have no faculty of reason with which to guide you from the already-expressed general principles!
Tip: any potential exegesis that hinges on interpreting a word to mean what it obviously does not mean in context is not going to be convincing. Ever. And it shouldn’t convince you, either, no matter how much you really want it to be true, because having two wives who make out with each other on command like porn stars would be really gratifying.
And now for some humor.
Have you thought through what kind of chaos the combination of polygamy and lesbianism between “sister wives” would cause? I mean, it’s not like women aren’t radicalized into lesbianism by feminists already. And the mainstream churches are full of feminists. So what would happen? Some feminist women will get married, continue down the path of feminism to lesbianism, and then convince their husbands to marry a hot young thing to be sexually exploited by the first wife! Only she won’t tell him about that part. And then the the first wife will radicalize the second wife and they’ll BOTH divorce him in order to shack up with each other without the heteronormative* patriarchy* getting in the way! It would be chaos, chaos I tell you! DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER! /dramatic voice
*used ironically. But they would be dead serious.
And it would be all your fault for giving them the idea, too. /humor
@Lyn87
This is illustrative of the problem most modern Christians have with Scripture. Christians want Scripture to say what they want it to say and when it doesn’t, the desperate search begins. This is why I tie the issue of pologyny together with the issue of divorce. The two are such excellent points for comparison.
I laid out my argument about divorce and you ignored most of it. The origin of the “exception” is important in terms of how 1 Cor. 7:10-11 is comprehended. If the origin was Moses (and I don’t believe that can be denied) then Christ not mentioning it after He ascended and was restored to His glory is telling. If God was the source of the “exception” then it didn’t matter that He left it out. I’m not positive, but aside from Revelation 1-3, I don’t think there is any point in the New Testament in which the RISEN LORD gave direct instruction to His bondservants other than 1 Cor 7:10-11. Perhaps that is instructive for us. Ya think?
Might it be instructive, in light of what He said in Matthew 19, that He chose to address one issue only, that of divorce, and did not include the “exception” that Moses had stuck into the Law? I suppose someone who very much wants the option of divorce to be on the table will say one thing, but perhaps someone who is a bit more objective might say another.
I have stated that polygyny is an excellent lens through which to view the hypocrisy of the church with respect to divorce. The further I push it, the worse it gets and I watch you guys doubling down on… Nothing. Even BradA is willing to say you can’t make a doctrine out of one verse and I’ve already offered a credible explanation of Romans 1:26. Maybe the problem is you don’t want to be different. Maybe God, who said His ways are not our ways, really cares more about relationships than plumbing connections and cares more righteousness and holiness than fear of what others think. Just look at what He did for Phinehas.
@Pancakeloach
I am not surprised that people might still be mad at you over saying lesbianism in polygamous marriages is okay. You’re an excellent debater and more-or-less likable
Why, thank you! However, lesbianism is the rejection of a husband in favor of rug-munching with another woman. One is authorized, the other is not. A man can have more than one wife. A man can have all his wives attend his bed at once and there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that contradicts that. Sex within marriage is holy and sanctified. Outside marriage it’s fornication or adultery and condemned.
I get the sense that you like to take edge cases and expand them into guiding principles, while using word games to support your position.
Examine the evidence, dear. I can’t play word games because it’s God’s Word. He said what He said and He didn’t say what He didn’t want to say. If you can’t buy into that concept then you don’t truly accept the sovereignty of God. This is not a word game. God is *perfect* and if He said something it means He wanted to say that and if He didn’t say something it means He chose not to say it.
Tip: any potential exegesis that hinges on interpreting a word to mean what it obviously does not mean in context is not going to be convincing. Ever. And it shouldn’t convince you, either, no matter how much you really want it to be true, because having two wives who make out with each other on command like porn stars would be really gratifying.
OK, I’ll take the bait. Want to explain that one? What word have I improperly interpreted to mean something it does not mean in context? Did I say anything about being gratified with two wives who made out with each other like porn stars? No. Why would their attention to each other gratify me? OTOH, if they were focused on me and my gratification it would be a different story.
The question of whether I’m lunatic fringe because I’m more aligned with what God’s Word actually says should concern you. However, instead of asking yourself if I’m nuts, you should rather study to show yourself approved and draw closer to God.
You said I’m not Catholic, but their position that some sexual activity is not licit by its nature, rather than because of who’s doing what to whom, is one that I agree with.
Does God agree with you on that? Please cite chapter and verse. Please show me where God concerns Himself with specific sexual acts, as opposed to relationships.
You also said:
Your interpretation of “natural” reads like pure rationalization and claiming that God doesn’t actually come out and say such-and-such is another example of your argument being based on an attitude that God has to tell you Every. Last. Little. Thing. as if you have no faculty of reason with which to guide you from the already-expressed general principles!
If your previous statement is true, then explain the dichotomy. God said male-male sex is bad. God said male-animal sex is bad. God said female-animal sex is bad. If God cared enough to include females in the bestiality issue, why didn’t God have a separate ruling on female-female sex? My answer? Because women are subordinate to men. A man can have more than one wife. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord.” Where is the prohibition you so very much want to see? God chose not to include it.
As to your attempt at humor… Has your husband ever commanded you to strip and then put you over his knee and spanked you? Not playfully, but as a disciplinary measure. We both know the answer because if your answer was yes you wouldn’t be making these ridiculous assertions.
@Artisanal Toad
“You made the claim that polygyny is forbidden for believers. I asked you for a cite and thus far you have thus far refused to provide one. Still waiting.”
For the third time, I provided two passages in this thread. Scroll up and find them yourself. Enough with this lie.
“You made the claim that I said the entire book of Deuteronomy is a judicial decision. I asked for a cite for that and thus far you have refused to provide one. Still waiting.”
I’ll go ahead and cite a part of your latest post. “Deuteronomy is a sermon Moses preached before his death in which Moses restated the law and included his judgments.” This is false. Especially when one considers that the greatest commandment(Deuteronomy 6: 4-5) is only found in Deuteronomy. Moses wasn’t “restating the law,” he was telling the people more laws God was establishing. He certainly wasn’t giving his own judgements. Go reread your posts on my blog and the implication that keeps coming up is your dismissing the book of Deuteronomy as a judicial ruling. So my citation is the entirety of your posts on my blog and this blog.
“The next point hinges on Deuteronomy 1:3, which says (NASB):
In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that the Lord had commanded him to give to them,”
‘I said The text of Deut. 1:3 can just as easily mean Moses spoke all the words God commanded him to give the people, but the text doesn’t limit it to ONLY what God commanded him to give the people. Moses was a judge and he made judgments which got included in Deuteronomy.'”
Yes, it does limit Moses to only what God told him to speak. If Moses added anything, he’d be falsely representing what God said.
“You responded and said No, there aren’t several ways to take Deuteronomy 1: 3. Verse 1: 3 makes it clear that all the commandments in Deuteronomy ARE commandments of God.”
Yep, because that’s the truth.
“Are you even an adult? Let’s try a little logic test (I’m still not convinced you’re male). Look carefully at the following three sentences.”
Men understand basic English and how it translates into simple instructions. We don’t take too kindly to rationalizations which interfere with said instructions. The female sex by and large is the one that tends to do this. You’re latest insult is to imply I was female and this is hilarious in light of your “test.” The funniest thing is your terminology is wrong. It would be a reading comprehension/English test, not a “logic” test.
Onto the “test!”
“The King spoke to his minister, saying, “tell the servants ‘Alpha, Bravo, Charlie’.” The minister spoke to the servants and said “I will now speak to you all the things the king has commanded me to speak to you.” He then said: “Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta.”
1: Did the minister speak to the servants according to all the things the king commanded him to speak to the servants?”
Nope, he added “Delta” to the instructions and in so doing gave all the servants the false impression that the king had said “Delta.” The minister is insubordinate and a liar.
“2: Did “Delta” come from the king, or from the minister?”
Delta came from the minister and that’s exactly why the minister didn’t speak “according to all the things the king commanded him to speak to the servants.” Not like Moses, who spoke only what God told him to in Deuteronomy.
“In order to find out whether this certificate of divorce thing was a judgment of Moses, we look for it in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers. That is where God gave His Law to the people. Deuteronomy is a sermon Moses preached before his death in which Moses restated the law and included his judgments.”
No, we don’t. God need only say it once. Your entire premise that scripture is wrong just because God only commanded it once is false. According to this logic Deuteronomy 6: 5 is only a judicial decision made by Moses because it’s not mentioned in the other books of the Torah. And that’s wicked.
“Your response thus far has been: The ENTIRE book of Deuteronomy is Moses relaying the commands of God to the people. Deuteronomy 22 and 24 DO NOT include any judgments Moses made on his own. That isn’t what the text says, so would you be so kind as to cite your proof of that assertion?”
Deuteronomy 1: 3 makes it perfectly clear that the words Moses spoke to the people are the commands of God. It is what the text says.
Before I address Numbers 25, I have to point out that even if you were right about its meaning, you’re wrong about Deuteronomy 1: 3. This is because if the text of Numbers 25 demonstrates Moses sinned, it’s because the text itself makes that clear to us. Which means the text of Deuteronomy 1: 3 makes it clear Moses IS speaking the commands of God and not just pronouncing his own judgments.
The text of Deuteronomy 1: 3 is still the direct words of God and this makes it clear Moses stated exactly what God wanted him to state. Therefore Deuteronomy 24 IS the command of God and not Moses.
“Discussing Numbers 25, you said:
What becomes immediately clear is the leaders/chiefs/heads of the people are DIFFERENT from the judges. Moses goes to different people in order to exact justice and keep the command God gave him. This in no way is disobedience. It’s dishonest of you to conflate judges and chiefs when all three versions make it clear they are different people. Moses instructs the judges to kill those men who God sentenced to death.
“Who were those judges? Why, we have an answer to that, and it’s not my opinion! We begin in Exodus 18:21-23.”
That was almost forty years BEFORE the incident to which you’re referring. Those men were to die in the desert and were therefore not the same men as in Numbers 25. Don’t worry, I’m getting to the Deuteronomy passages you quoted.
“You’re so in love with Deuteronomy, so let’s see what Moses said he did:
First, Moses told the people:
“So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and appointed them heads over you, leaders of thousands and of hundreds, of fifties and of tens, and officers for your tribes. Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him.” Deuteronomy 1:15-16
Heads = Judges. Get it? Moses was COMMANDED to kill the leaders/heads/judges. He didn’t do it and the proof of that is the anger of the Lord was NOT turned aside.”
Yes, Moses most definitely did keep the command of God. If the judges whom Moses commanded were the same men that God commanded to be killed, the Lord’s anger wouldn’t have been turned aside until they were dead. Yet, we don’t see His anger continue until the judges whom he spoke to were dead. Rather we see His anger subside after Phinehas kills two people who arrive while the people are weeping at the tent(God says this is what turned back his wrath). This implies the guilty men were killed and the people were grieved at their breach of faith. Otherwise, you have to explain why God’s anger subsided while the men whom He commanded to be killed survived.
I’ll say it again. Your claim that Moses disobeyed God by not killing the judges he spoke to is debunked by the simple fact that the judges to whom Moses gave the order remained alive and God’s anger subsided after Phinehas killed two people. Remember it says Phinehas’ action caused God’s anger to subside, not the plague he sent that killed the 24,000.
Moses did kill THOSE leaders. Moses commanded the judges to kill “those among them.” That the Lord’s anger subsided means we must conclude they’d killed the proper people. It also explains why the Lord didn’t rebuke or punish Moses for that incident.
“Where you get the idea that Zimri married this Midianite princess is beyond me (that in and of itself would have been a violation of the commandment not to intermarry with those people), but the obvious point of the story is the leaders of the people were just as much in violation as the people. Moses was commanded to kill those leaders/heads/judges and he didn’t do it.”
I didn’t call her a “Midianite princess.” It says Zimri, a prince of Simeon brought a Midianite woman who was the daughter of a “tribal head” to his family. That implied marriage, it’s doubtful a tribal head’s daughter would be given as a concubine or prostitute.
“Maybe that’s why God immediately stepped in and Phinehas got God’s covenant of peace and became the head of the Phinehas priesthood, a permanent priesthood.”
It still doesn’t explain why God’s wrath subsided if indeed the men whom Moses commanded were the same men responsible for the breach of faith. It also doesn’t explain why Moses wasn’t even rebuked by God.
“Genesis 2:24 gave the man the authority to initiate marriage. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, as Jesus said “Moses permitted [them] to divorce [their] wives, but from the beginning it was not that way.” If a man wanted to divorce his wife, he simply gave her a certificate of divorce. That judgment wasn’t “enforced” as you put it, it was legitimizing and adding a requirement to something the men were already doing.”
I already explained this. From the beginning there was no sexual sin. Now that there’s sin, there’s consequences. That is often divorce in the case of sexual sin. Moses made no attempt to insure divorce was only taking place for the proper reasons and that’s what Jesus meant by “Moses permitted.” Divorces undertaken for reasons other than sexual sin(vast majority in Moses’ day) weren’t biblical. That men divorced before this is irrelevant to the commands of God. In fact, the command of God in Deuteronomy 24 made it clear any man who’d divorced his wife for sexual sin before was in fact acting biblically.
“The requirement for at least two witnesses meant that a stoning for adultery was rare, but that doesn’t mean adultery was rare.”
This just isn’t true. It would be very difficult for a woman to conceal her sexual sin at that time. Women often lived with extended families in tight knit communities and worked with others throughout much of the day. It would definitely be noticed if a man hung around her house in the daytime that wasn’t her kin. If a man found out about fornication, chances were good he had the two witnesses to convict her.
“Ask yourselves this: If Jesus sided with Shammai but interpreted that school of thought more strictly, why did the disciples say it was better not to get married? Why was His answer so shocking to them?”
I’ve already answered this on more than one occasion to you. There were numerous other reasons which would seem “good” to many devout men at the time. Sampson’s betrayal by his Philistine wife regarding his bet with the other Philistines and Solomon’s warning about marriage to a “quarrelsome” woman are two such instances.
But the fact remains, women at that time were usually executed in cases of sexual sin. Which meant very often men didn’t even have the option to divorce for fornication.
“Jesus said, of the practice of divorce, that Moses permitted it, but from the beginning it was not that way. If God is the same, yesterday, today and forever; and if it was not that way in the beginning (all the time up until Moses), and God did not command this anywhere in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers (where the Law of God was enumerated), why should we believe God changed His mind in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?”
First, God need only give a command once. Your supposition that He has to say it over and over again in every book is false. I answered this multiple times. Women were usually executed in cases of sexual sin. Also, your paraphrasing subtly alters how the scriptures read to favor your position. God didn’t change His mind. A man almost never had the option to divorce for sexual sin in the time of Moses through the time of Jesus.
“If it was part of God’s plan all along, why did Jesus say ‘but from the beginning it was not this way?”
The same reason why death didn’t exist in the beginning – sin. Now there are consequences for sin. Divorce is one of them.
“If this was part of God’s plan all along, then the Risen Lord’s instruction at 1st Cor. 7:10-11, in the midst of all of Paul’s instruction on family issues wouldn’t matter. He’d already stated His position in Matthew 19.”
I’ve answered this already and I’ll say it again. A woman divorced for sexual sin is no longer considered married to the man who divorced her in the eyes of God. 1st Cor. 7:10-11 refers to people who are still married to each other and this means fornicators aren’t included. Matthew 5 and 19 are clear. Divorce is biblical in cases of sexual sin. In those cases, God recognizes the divorce and Got separates them.
“However, if this was an oddball judgment of Moses that wasn’t part of the plan, then the fact the Lord chose to specifically revisit the issue of divorce for His bondservants and say there was to be no divorce without including the “exception” for sexual immorality means the exception no longer exists for believers.”
But He didn’t do this. Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 both reaffirm and clarify what Christ said in Deuteronomy 24. Divorce is biblical in cases of sexual sin. Divorcees who’ve been divorced for this reason aren’t husband and wife anymore. 1st Cor. 7:10-11 isn’t applicable to them at all because they’re not married. The other gospels don’t mention it because women were executed for those offenses and divorce for fornication was rare.
You’re perpetuating lies by constantly bringing up the same things I’ve already addressed. It doesn’t matter how many times you keep repeating yourself. The facts presented are as true now as the first time you read them. You can re-post this falsehood on a thousand blogs and a thousand times you’ll be lying. The only reason I’ve kept responding is you keep finding more scriptures to twist.
@Don Quixote
“My apologies to regular readers of Dalrock. Us lunatics have taken over this asylum
The following has been rehashed so many times….”
I’m not a huge reader of Dalrock, but I’ve honestly never seen anyone address the things I’ve pointed out about Deuteronomy outside of this thread. I got into a conversation on here about divorce a while back, but that stopped without much discussion of those passages.
“I said the loss of *her* virginity, not *one’s* virginity. Using a generic pronoun implies that it could work both ways, it’s a common tactic with divorce apologists. Jesus gave an exception for *men* only. Agreed?”
My apologies. You did say “her virginity.” The exception here most definitely refers to men. I was referring to the definition of the word fornication itself.
“I don’t believe that Jesus was using the word the way you interpret it. No big deal.
Get over it.”
It’s a huge deal when you also claim there’s no divorce with such certainty. I demonstrate via Deuteronomy 22 and 24 that your definition is false. It’s the right of any man to divorce and remarry in the case of sexual immorality. Any church which says otherwise is going against the word of God.
“Yes it was written in their Law, but I suspect it was rarely carried out in Jesus day. The Jews had to get permission from the Romans to execute people.”
John 8 demonstrated that executions were a real possibility, even lawless ones like that. The Jews would absolutely have been able to execute fornicators. The law of Moses required men to pursue this and if they didn’t they were violating it. Expecting wives to faithful and brides to be virgins was something the Romans wouldn’t have balked at.
“Most agree that Matthew’s gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The other gospels were written to Greeks, Romans whatevers. Jesus said; “publicans and Harlots get into heaven before the corrupt religious types” [Don’s paraphrase]. So there was no shortage of harlots in every country even Israel. History also shows this.”
It was possible for a woman to be a harlot without being married to a man or falling into the category in which a girl would be executed for falsely representing her virginity. A woman who was widowed early in life and became a prostitute or a girl who claimed she’d been raped in the open country(even if she wasn’t) would fall into this category.
“The prophet Malachi upbraided the Jews for divorcing their wives, it didn’t seem too difficult at the time. Almost every book on this subject deals with the 2 schools of thought represented by rabbi Hillel and Shammai. Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, Shammai allowed it only for adultery. Your interpretation of the exception clause puts Jesus and Shammai in the same boat. But its obvious that Jesus distanced Himself from the argument and set a higher standard.”
The prophet Malachi was referring to unlawful divorces. Not divorces for sexual sin. People were divorcing in the ways the scribes and Pharisees were advocating before the time of Jesus. It’s not at all obvious “Jesus distanced Himself from the argument and set a higher standard.” You’ve yet to show this. His own words suggest His stance allowed for divorce in cases of sexual sin.
“Yes, that is certainly possible.
[Q] If a girl has been fornicating and hasn’t told anyone, how would an unsuspecting groom discover her ‘uncleanness’?
[A] By marrying her, and by consummating the marriage he would discover that someone else had already been shagging her. [A blood stained sheet is the groom’s receipt!]
The Pharisees would have understood that Jesus was referring to the passage in Deut.22:13. And that also explains why it is only recorded in Matt’s gospel.”
It isn’t possible. Girls who fell into this situation were supposed to be executed, not divorced. That was the law. But it’s clear the Pharisees were asking about already consummated marriages in Matthew 19 and that meant Jesus’ answer was referring to adultery and also to women who somehow managed to deceive their husbands about their chastity(animal blood, etc.). Under the law, a man in this situation would be compelled to pursue the execution. There was no debate about this in Jesus’ day. This means Jesus couldn’t have been referring to the above situation as grounds for divorce and your definition of fornication is incorrect.
“Almost every protestant church everywhere has a statement on divorce and remarriage that agrees with your position. You’re in the overwhelming majority. I don’t agree with you, or them. Pray for me.”
I will pray for you. It’s irritating that you claim there’s no divorce in cases of sexual sin with such certainty and then turn around and simply say “I don’t agree” to the information I presented about the word fornication. If what I say is wrong, I must be corrected for my own sake. But if what I say is right, then you must change your doctrine. That isn’t lunacy.
God bless regardless of this.
@Shammahworm-brain
TL:DR
You have repeatedly insulted me, calling me a liar. You have made some rather bald assertions which I have asked you to cite. You refuse to do so. You’re obviously young and you obviously have some learning to do, but the way this works is if you make a statement and somebody calls you on it, you have to back it up or back off.
Woman, be silent. Men are speaking.
@Ellie
@Pancakeloach
@any of the other ladies reading through this.
Please exercise your Titus 2 duties and take this girl under your wing.
@Artisanal Toad
I’ve never insulted you. I’ve described you based on your actions. You’re a liar because you lie. You lie by saying I refused to answer you on multiple points starting before you even moved our conversation to this blog. I did answer and you kept repeating the same thing and said I never answered. My citation is the entirety of your posts on my blog and then this one.
To anyone who’s concerned with what I’ve written, simply go to my blog and read our conversation and then read our conversation here. Take special care to look at the timestamps.
“You’re obviously young and you obviously have some learning to do, but the way this works is if you make a statement and somebody calls you on it, you have to back it up or back off.”
I’ve been backing it up this whole time. The way you humiliated yourself with your own “test.” It’s no wonder you resort to this. No one genuinely concerned with sound doctrine would ignore the passages I cited, repeat the same things which were debunked and then post them in the middle of an entirely different blog like you did unless you had no regard for sound doctrine.
The Lord rebuke you.
shammahworm says:
August 29, 2014 at 5:34 pm
@Don Quixote
[remove previous comments]
Deut.22:13 is what Jesus was most probably referring to when he gave the exception clause.
Jesus said concerning Deut.24:1-4 it was “because of the hardness of your hearts”. Don’s Paraphrase says: “You can go to hell with the partner of your choice”.
God divorced Israel for this very reason. Jer.3:8
This is the only divorce in all history that has an ‘innocent party’ {{{{shudder}}}} hate that term. God didn’t remarry, instead He said Jer.3:14 “I am [still] married to you”
When Jesus returns and reigns in Jerusalem Israel will be restored, not by zionism but in righteousness.
Good example. Jesus said “neither do I condemn you go and sin no more”.
Naughty Jesus! I’m telling God!
When Jesus spoke with the ‘town-bike’ aka the woman at the well. He was well aware of her marital/sexual resume. When Jesus dinned with the pharisee and the woman washed His feet with her hair, everybody all the pharisees knew this was a woman of loose morals. Don’t tell me there weren’t any carousel riders in Jesus day.
[remove previous comments]
Isn’t possible aye? [eyes rolling]
You just cited the example of the woman caught in adultery, and I showed you she wasn’t stoned by anyone even Jesus.
When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant he didn’t want to make a scene, so he thought to divorce her privately. Go read it in Matt.1:19. He thought she had been fornicating. Notice that the word is even mentioned in the example of Joseph and Mary, but babies have to come from somewhere…
We have different views on the same verses. This is a common situation amongst protestant christians, that also helps explain why there are so many different protestant denominations. I don’t think your arguments are very convincing.
God bless you, and I mean it.
I didn’t know you were a moderator/author here.
@Boxer
Author, but not Moderator. This blog belongs to Dalrock and he controls it. Period. Your position as a self-professed agnostic (or was it athiest?) and your experience with polygyny has led (in your words) to opposition to what I’ve said based on that same experience. Yet, you have upheld the position of intellectual honesty and integrity. I think we can agree to disagree on the subject. I respect your insightfullness and ability to think well.
If you have a charge to lay against me with respect to intellectual honesty or integrity, bring it forward. Please.
I have suffered worm-tongue long enough and as nearly as I can tell I’m dealing with a female troll.
Artisanal Toad says:
August 29, 2014 at 7:37 pm
[remove previous comments]
I suspect you are correct that the poster called ‘shammahworm’ is a woman, but I don’t think she is a troll.
@shammahworm, I ask your forgiveness if I am wrong about your gender.
AT, once again, I’ll say: you have a propensity to play word games to back up your position. Female-female sexual relations is lesbianism, aka homosexual sex when women do it; whether or not the women in question also have sex with a man is beside the point. In fact, many “professing lesbians” have had sex with men in the past, and/or will have sex with men in the future. You have decreed the word “lesbianism” to mean something that I did not mean, and I do not agree to have my usage defined by you to suit your own argument. You may certainly quibble with the suitability of my word choices, but that leaves my meaning untouched. Therefore, when I say that your interpretation of the Bible sanctions lesbianism within polygamous marriages, I am simply describing what I understood from what you wrote: “God is perfect and His Law is perfect, so the presumption must be made that God intentionally did not include a prohibition or condemnation of female-female sexual contact, otherwise He would never have specifically mentioned women in the prohibition of bestiality.” etc.
I don’t consider two wives in their husband’s bed at the same time, both focused on him and not each other, as a situation involving female-female relations. The fact that you are using an alternative interpretation of Romans 1:26, backed up with an absence of evidence that female homosexual sex was considered a serious enough problem in Biblical times to warrant specific condemnation, as some kind of justification for polygamous threesomes (but then, “that’s not what I said!!!” when challenged on the implications of what you wrote) I find extremely suspicious. Perhaps we have merely suffered a miscommunication, but your position seems to shift ever-so-slightly every time someone pokes you. Since you are fully aware that your position is unusual, I recommend a bit more due diligence in presenting it the first time so that people do not mistake your meaning.
Not that I am entirely sure, at this point, what your meaning actually is.
I’m sorry you don’t appreciate my humor, AT; I must have stung a nerve for you to get so personal about my marriage! But as far as wifely submission goes, I am required to submit to my husband, and to his guidance in theological matters (as well as having vowed alongside my husband to submit to my church elders in the matter of doctrine when we joined!), so I am amused that you seem to think that receiving a spanking from him will suddenly make me start agreeing with you. I am not quite clear on the relationship between corporal punishment and… whatever it is that you’re actually arguing for.
Since my own grasp of hermeneutics is based upon what I learned under the teaching of my father, his church leaders, my husband, and his church leaders, I am afraid no amount of rhetorical flash and dazzle or shaming language from AT is going to convince me to throw over every lawful authority in my life for the opinion of some guy I read on a blog. Some of the things which he has said I find persuasive; others I find unpersuasive. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps not. It is entirely likely that we’re all wrong about something having to do with Biblical interpretation; however, everything that needs to be clear for the sake of salvation IS clear. So at least there’s that.
As far as this seemingly personal vendetta between AT and shammahworm goes, I must admit I have not been paying much attention but my impression is that their hermeneutics are sufficiently opposed such that one will never, ever convince the other – even to the extent that they are mutually discounting the other’s evidence. Given my own impression that AT does not always come out and clearly, directly explain what he means the first time ((aggravated glare)) I am not terribly surprised that shammahworm has come to the conclusion that AT is dishonest.
Sheesh, I really hate it when people end up talking right past each other; nothing good ever comes out of that. 😛
Dear AT:
Do you author articles here on Dalrock?
I’m just confused. If you’re an author here, then you should be able to edit/delete comments under the articles you author personally. Why be rude? Just use the software.
If you are a guest here, as I am, then it’s presumptuous and rude to tell other guests they aren’t welcome to comment. Sorta like fighting with another guest at a houseparty. The owner can throw out who s/he likes. In that case, you can always just move over by the stereo, ignoring the people who annoy you or who don’t teach you anything.
Best, Boxer
I invite anyone who cares about the spat between AT and me to click my name and read my entire post and our conversation. It’s very long, but that’s really the only way you can understand what’s going on.
AT’s post at August 23 at 6:09 p.m.(his first post in this thread I believe) is something he linked as a “response” to a discussion we were already having on my blog.
@Don Quixote
You have my forgiveness Don. I’m male and AT’s bit about me being female was only the latest in his personal comments directed at me. You can read them all if you check out our conversation.
“Deut.22:13 is what Jesus was most probably referring to when he gave the exception clause.”
That’s impossible because in that passage the girl had to be executed. A man had no option to divorce in that instance.
“Jesus said concerning Deut.24:1-4 it was ‘because of the hardness of your hearts.’ Don’s Paraphrase says: ‘You can go to hell with the partner of your choice'”
That’s not a paraphrase. That’s you changing the meaning. Divorce was almost never even possible for sexual sin because adulteresses/unchaste brides were commanded to be executed. That means your explanation of fornication is wrong and Jesus was most definitely referring to adulterers and women who lied about their sexual history(even if decades after the fact).
The divorces Moses “suffered(in the KJV at least)” were divorces which didn’t fit Deuteronomy 24. Jesus reaffirms the right of a man to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin.
“God divorced Israel for this very reason. Jer.3:8
This is the only divorce in all history that has an ‘innocent party’ {{{{shudder}}}} hate that term.”
Completely innocent party, yes. But there have been many divorces where a man is justly divorcing(Matthew 5 and 19).
“‘God didn’t remarry, instead He said Jer.3:14 ‘I am [still] married to you’”
The Lord is talking to his elect who are part of the bride. There were other Israelites who were never part of his elect. That the Lord never abandons His elect children in no way implies an obligation to stay with an adulteress bride.
Notice how there’s the wedding feast in the NT, but God sends Israel away in the OT.
“When Jesus returns and reigns in Jerusalem Israel will be restored, not by zionism but in righteousness.”
I completely agree. Many ethnic Jews will repent and be grafted back in also.
“Good example. Jesus said “neither do I condemn you go and sin no more”.
Naughty Jesus! I’m telling God!”
Jesus is God(just in case your one of those people who thinks He isn’t and you aren’t being sarcastic or someone like that is reading this).
I only brought that up to show executions did in fact happen in Israel. So my point about adulteresses and unchaste brides being executed still stands. The actual words of Jesus in the passage mean just what He says, “neither do I condemn you go and sin no more.” Divorce doesn’t condemn the woman. The death penalty condemns the woman. Divorcing an adulteress is still an act of mercy.
“When Jesus spoke with the ‘town-bike’ aka the woman at the well. He was well aware of her marital/sexual resume.”
And notice He said she’d had “husbands” and then He said the man she was with wasn’t her husband. It’s not clear if she was the “town bike” because we don’t if/how promiscuous the other people in her town were. That could’ve been the average for all we know.
“When Jesus dinned with the pharisee and the woman washed His feet with her hair, everybody all the pharisees knew this was a woman of loose morals.”
Yep, but there’s no indication she was an adulteress or that she’d ever falsely represented her virginity. Prostitution was a sin, but it didn’t carry a death sentence like adultery and falsely representing one’s virginity(for brides.). Unless of course the man was married.
“Don’t tell me there weren’t any carousel riders in Jesus day.”
I never said there weren’t. I did say at the time of Jesus adulteresses and girls who falsely represented their virginity were executed and they were.
“Isn’t possible aye? [eyes rolling]
You just cited the example of the woman caught in adultery, and I showed you she wasn’t stoned by anyone even Jesus.”
It isn’t possible. The woman was likely going to be stoned and Jesus stopped it. This shows there were in fact stonings in Jesus’ day and what I said about adulteresses being executed still stands. They were a mob who were going against God’s commands regarding stoning adulterers(where was the man and why wasn’t there a trial?). Jesus stopped it and gave her the opportunity to repent.
This in no way implies that a man can’t divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. Adulteresses can absolutely repent, but there are still consequences for their sin and that’s often divorce.
“When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant he didn’t want to make a scene, so he thought to divorce her privately.”
It was for Mary he didn’t want to make a scene. Not for himself. If he’d have taken her into his home to consummate the marriage and found she wasn’t a virgin(which is what he thought) he’d have had to report her to the leaders and she’d have been executed.
Mary could’ve claimed she was raped in the open country if they’d tried to execute her for her sexual sin since they didn’t have the necessary witnesses. Even if Mary had actually been raped, falsely representing her virginity was a death sentence.
“Go read it in Matt.1:19. He thought she had been fornicating. Notice that the word is even mentioned in the example of Joseph and Mary, but babies have to come from somewhere…”
Yeah, this would’ve been one instance(assuming Mary had actually been fornicating) in which divorce was in accordance with Deuteronomy 24 – sexual sin which didn’t have the necessary witnesses to convict. If Joseph had been vengeful, he could’ve tried to consummate the marriage with full knowledge that Mary would be executed(if she’d actually been guilty). That’s why he’s described as “just(translations of the word vary)” when it says he was unwilling to put her to public shame. Even though he thought she was unfaithful to him, he didn’t want to see her killed for it.
“We have different views on the same verses. This is a common situation amongst protestant Christians, that also helps explain why there are so many different protestant denominations. I don’t think your arguments are very convincing.”
First, I should say that we’re in agreement about frivorce being unbiblical. That being said your definition of fornication isn’t compatible with the passages in Deuteronomy. You also need to explain why the English translations say the word “fornication” instead of “the loss of virginity.” Fornication includes all sorts of sexual acts and not just premarital sex. My understanding is it’s actually derived from a word for brothel which of course includes sexual activity between married and unmarried people.
Also, I think if a man agrees to stay married to a wife who’s committed adultery he’s bound to that commitment. I don’t want to imply marriages are doomed if a man or woman commits adultery.
“God bless you, and I mean it.”
I know you do. God bless you as well.
My mistake on this.
“AT’s post at August 23 at 6:09 p.m.(his first post in this thread I believe)”
I now see he made an earlier post.
shammahworm says:
August 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm
But Joseph was going to do exactly that. He was going to divorce Mary privately. No option huh?
This is nonsense. Both schools of Jewish thought allowed divorce [and remarriage] for sexual sin. Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery. That’s why they wanted to rope Jesus into their argument, it was a trick question. Your interpretation puts Jesus into the same school of thought as rabbi Shammai.
No it doesn’t. Jesus distanced Himself from their argument and set a higher standard for the church. In the sermon on the mount Jesus repeatedly quotes Moses and says:
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There are a number of examples in the sermon on the mount like this where Jesus sets a higher standard than Moses. And this is where the exception clause first appears, as a higher standard.
You are arguing for the same standard as rabbi Shammai.
Go and read Jeremiah chapter 3 from the KJV. Here is the summary again:
God divorces Israel because of adultery v8.
God says He is still married to them in v14.
This marriage will be restored when Jesus returns and Israel is restored. How does that sit with your understanding of divorce?
Don’t side track into the doctrine of election. I’m asking about your understanding of divorce.
Except all the examples in the New Testament show them not happening.
Joseph thought to divorce Mary privately.
The woman caught in the act of adultery.
Publicans and harlots going to heaven before pharisees.
I agree with you. Divorce wasn’t mentioned concerning the woman caught in the act.
[remove previous comments]
Here are some generally accepted definitions:
Fornication = illicit sex without a marriage covenant.
Adultery = illicit sex within a marriage covenant.
We agree on a lot of stuff. I understand that a covenant until death is until death. For better or worse. etc etc. My views are expressed on my home page. Click on my name.
@ Artisanal Toad
With that background, Paul’s testimony in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 takes on new meaning. Paul is careful to say the instruction to believers is not from him, but from the Lord. Wives are not to separate from their husbands, but if they do are to remain single or be reconciled to their husbands. Husbands must not divorce their wives. Period.
Let’s look at the controlling context for this passage:
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. (v. 1)
Paul references some questions that the Corinthians had asked him. We infer that those questions tie into the statement that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman”. In vv 10-11, Paul is answering those questions when it comes to marriage–married people ought not separate just because even though ideally it would be better to avoid having sex–living as man and wife–presumably so as to be able to spend more time in church work. Jesus denied divorce for the reason of living ideally and avoiding sex–not for any reason.
Thus, we see that the imperative in vv. 10-11 is not overarching so as to apply to Mt. 19:1-9, but is tailored narrowly to the question which the Corinthians asked. Hence, it is an error to apply 1 Cor. 7:10-11 to Mt. 19:1-9.
You are concerned with avoiding antinomy: It also creates an antinomy with 1st Cor. 7:10-11. It is worth noting that if Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10 denied divorce for any reason, then He created a contradiction with Himself in Matthew 19:9 where Jesus allowed it in the case of sexual immorality. My reading avoids that contradiction.
What about the disciples’ question–“If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry”? How are we to read this? If the question is in relation to Jesus’ reducing men’s options from Moses’ broad tolerance for divorce to Jesus’ narrow tolerance, then it makes sense. You cannot divorce your wife for nagging, continual snark, mismanaging the finances, running up the credit card, etc. There is only one reason–sexual immorality. The disciples found this to be very strict compared with Moses.
The only dog I have in this fight is accurate exegesis.
@theasdgamer
It is worth noting that if Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10 denied divorce for any reason, then He created a contradiction with Himself in Matthew 19:9 where Jesus allowed it in the case of sexual immorality. My reading avoids that contradiction.
So does mine, but I think my reading holds a better line of exegesis. If the decision of Moses is of God, I’m wrong. If the decision of Moses concerning divorce is not of God, I’m right.
The only dog I have in this fight is accurate exegesis.
Well said. I hope it’s true.
1. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was a judgment of Moses. It does not appear anywhere in the statement of the Law in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers.
2. This reading is supported by Jesus, saying that “permitted” divorce, but from the beginning it was not that way. That statement, combined with His reference to Genesis 2:24, saying “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate” indicates divorce was not part of God’s plan for mankind and the implication is it would be corrected at some point.
3. Upthread I dealt with Exodus 1:3 and the fact Moses was not always faithful to apply the judgments God gave him, citing Numbers 25.
4. God said He hates divorce and did so in a very emphatic voice (c.f. Malachi 2:16) in the last book of the OT. That was the setup on the issue of divorce.
5. The marital relationship between husband and wife is described as a type for the relationship between Christ and the church. If divorce is part of God’s plan, how can Christ say He will never leave or forsake the believer?
6. Jesus was a man, born of the virgin Mary, filled with the Holy Spirit, but He was still a man under the authority of Moses during His earthly ministry.
7. When questioned about divorce, Jesus first gave the answer from God: no divorce.
8: When questioned about why Moses allowed it, if it were not to be, He answered “For hardness of heart, Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it was not that way.”
9. Being under the authority of Moses (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3) Jesus had no choice but to uphold and support Moses at that time. He did so, interpreting the Deut. 24:1-4 passage in accordance with Shammai.
10. The school of Shammai was widely known and understood at that time, yet the Disciples expressed shock and said “It is better not to marry.”
11. The judgment was overturned in 1st Cor. 7:10-11 by the Risen Lord and Paul then restated the law of the Bondservant in the next few verses. This is important because the servant who had been given a wife was given a choice. Leave the service of his master and leave the wife behind or choose to permanently stay in the service of the master in order to keep the wife and children.
12. Paul points out that the presence of the believer in the marriage to the unbeliever sanctifies the unbeliever and their children. When the unbeliever leaves, the believer in service to the master is free. This is the law of the bondservant in practice.
I have repeatedly used the practice of polygyny, something God never said anything bad about (and actually referred to as a good thing ) as a lens to examine the practice of divorce- which God said He hated. People see what they want to see and there has always been a strong desire to have the option of divorce. However, if a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church, there is no way he can divorce her for any reason. If she separates herself, regardless of what she does in the courts of the world, she’s still his wife. If she purports to marry another, it’s an invalid marriage and she’s an adulteress.
She is either the unbeliever who left or she’s the believing wife who separated herself. There are no other options. He can remain single or he can marry another wife, but he’s still married to the first one. A woman does not have the Biblical authority to divorce her husband (except in the narrow case of the unbeliever who left).
@ Artisanal Toad
1. Agree
2. Agree, except not sure when you mean by the implication is it would be corrected at some point.
3. Agree
4. God said He hates divorce and did so in a very emphatic voice (c.f. Malachi 2:16) in the last book of the OT. That was the setup on the issue of divorce.
Last book in whose OT? Order in the OT doesn’t have any traditional meaning that I can find. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence.
5. Not sure what you mean by “God’s plan”. I think you are probably heavily into theological presupps at this point.
6. He was still a man under the authority of Moses during His earthly ministry.
Jesus was under the authority of the Law, not that of Moses. Jesus called himself the “Son of Man” which is a title greater than Moses.
7. When questioned about divorce, Jesus first gave the answer from God: no divorce.
Actually, Jesus quoted and referenced Genesis. The meaning is a good deal deeper than “no divorce”. It includes an explicit reference to sex: “the two shall become one flesh”. Not only that, but that particular quotation is repeated, giving emphasis. You fail to read this at all. Why Jesus quoted the section related to sex. becomes clear later when he gives the one exception to “no divorce”–sexual immorality.
I have already explained why your reading of Mt. 19:1-9 has significant error and you have failed to respond. The main point of Mt. 19:1-9 is that Jesus has more authority than Moses.
8. Agree
9. Disagreement noted at 6
10. Disagreement follows 9
11. I refuted your exegesis of 1 Cor. 10-11 as being inapplicable to Mt. 19:1-9 in my previous comment.
12. Hence this is irrelevant.
I have no opinion regarding polygyny.
@Don Quixote
Porneia(same word as in Matthew 19) is the word used to describe the adultery in 1 Corinthians 5. It’s translated as fornication in the KJV. This makes it clear that yes, adultery is fornication. Even if the source I checked is wrong about the usage of the word porneia, it was still translated as fornication and understood to be synonymous with sexual sin.
I’ll address the things you said even though the above information proves that Christ was indeed referring to adultery in Matthew 5 and 19.
“But Joseph was going to do exactly that. He was going to divorce Mary privately. No option huh?”
No, Joseph wasn’t going to do exactly that. Deuteronomy 22: 13 refers to instances in which it’s discovered the bride isn’t a virgin at the consummation. Joseph wouldn’t consummate the marriage because if he found Mary wasn’t a virgin the law commanded her execution. And the following passage explains why Mary was with child, but wasn’t executed:
Deuteronomy 22: 25-26, “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death.
Mary could claim this if they’d tried to convict her. But if Joseph had taken her into his home to consummate the marriage and discovered she wasn’t a virgin(even if she’d been raped), the law commanded her execution. He would’ve had no option to divorce her in this situation. Hence, Jesus couldn’t have been referring to this in Matthew 5 and 19.
“This is nonsense. Both schools of Jewish thought allowed divorce [and remarriage] for sexual sin. Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery. That’s why they wanted to rope Jesus into their argument, it was a trick question. Your interpretation puts Jesus into the same school of thought as rabbi Shammai.”
Actually, I did a little search on Shammai and some of the readings I’ve found said he taught you could divorce for a “serious offense” and not just sexual sin. This explains why Christ’s apostles were shocked at Jesus’ answer because there were other “good” reasons for divorce like idolatry, betrayal(Sampson’s Philistine wife), etc. which Jesus said weren’t allowed.
Also, your summary subtly alters the meaning from the reading of the scriptures and I’m not saying or implying you’re doing it intentionally. There’s no indication in Matthew 19 that they were trying to “rope Jesus” into their argument. It was a trick question, but not for the reasons you’re saying. Some of the members of the Hillel crowd asked Jesus if a man could divorce his wife for any cause. When Jesus said no, they cited Deuteronomy 24 in an attempt to trap Him and vindicate their false doctrine. That was the trick about the question.
Then Jesus said Moses allowed for divorces because of “hardness of heart.” But here’s the thing, women were executed for adultery/sexual sin by Moses and this means the divorces to which Jesus was referring cannot be referring to those using porneia as grounds. You can disagree with the facts I presented which indicate executions were carried out in Jesus’ day, but I guarantee Moses carried them out exactly how he was told.
“No it doesn’t. Jesus distanced Himself from their argument and set a higher standard for the church.”
Yes it does. Jesus didn’t distance Himself from their argument. He settled it. He said divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual sin is biblical. Even if He did establish a “higher standard” regarding divorce, there is biblical divorce and remarriage because Jesus makes a point of stating there is. Biblical divorce and remarriage is included in Christ’s standard.
I can see how a Jew making a good faith effort to obey Deuteronomy 24 would have a hard time thinking it was only limited to porneia. Divorcing a foreign woman who worshiped idols would be a very compelling argument in light of divorces for that reason in the OT.
While it’s true Jesus established a higher standard in regard to many doctrines and beliefs, it’s false that this means doctrines Jews believed in the time of Jesus were automatically false. That’s what you seemed to be implying. Forgive me if you meant something else.
“In the sermon on the mount Jesus repeatedly quotes Moses and says:
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There are a number of examples in the sermon on the mount like this where Jesus sets a higher standard than Moses. And this is where the exception clause first appears, as a higher standard.”
Actually, throughout the OT a lot of these teachings are either stated or the logical conclusion of what’s written. Jesus didn’t establish a “higher standard” for every teaching. A lot of the things He said were things the Jewish leaders should’ve known.
“You are arguing for the same standard as rabbi Shammai.”
I don’t fully know what his position was. But like I said earlier, some of the material I found indicates that he allowed divorce for “serious” offenses and not just sexual sin. However, if he said divorce was biblical in cases of sexual sin, then he was right in that regard. The same way the Pharisees were correct that there is indeed a resurrection of the dead.
Your supposition that doctrine is wrong just because Jews at the time of Jesus held it is false. Jesus is harsh with the Jewish leaders not because He’s preaching new doctrine that they don’t yet have, but because they already have the doctrine and they’re twisting it and violating it.
“Go and read Jeremiah chapter 3 from the KJV.”
I did and you’re again presenting a summary that subtly alters the meaning of the text itself.
“God divorces Israel because of adultery v8.”
The physical nation of Israel and He’d already divorced her.
“God says He is still married to them in v14.”
That refers to His elect. God says He’s married to His “children.” Who are His children? Matthew 12: 49-50, “And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Not all of Israel is Israel. Romans 9: 6-9, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
This is critical because not all of the physical nation of Israel was taken back. This is the Israel whom God tells to return. Many of the Israelites died/stayed in captivity and weren’t taken back.
Romans 9: 26-27, “And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:”
God’s children whom He’s “married” to =/= Physical Israel.
“This marriage will be restored when Jesus returns and Israel is restored.”
Revelation mentions a marriage supper. That’s something which is done at the beginning of a marriage, not with an adulteress taken back. The physical nation of Israel will be grafted into the church and that is how many of the old prophecies pertaining to the physical nation of Israel will be fulfilled. But the church is a virgin bride and not an adulteress. “Love your wife the way Christ loves the church” doesn’t conflict with Christ’s commands in Matthew 5 and 19 because the church(entire body of believers) is a faithful virgin and is never unfaithful to God.
We are God’s disobedient children when we sin, not His wife. That’s why Christ tells the story of the prodigal son and not the prodigal wife. The church’s faithfulness to the end is a prophesied inevitability.
“How does that sit with your understanding of divorce?”
It in no way alters it. Even if what you said regarding Jeremiah 3 were right, a man would be under no obligation to take back a fornicator as his wife because of the direct words of Christ.
“Don’t side track into the doctrine of election. I’m asking about your understanding of divorce.”
It’s not sidetracking. It’s critical to understand who the Lord is referring to when He says He’s “married” to them.
“Except all the examples in the New Testament show them not happening.”
It nonetheless shows executions were carried out in ancient Israel.
“Joseph thought to divorce Mary privately.”
Only because he avoided consummating the marriage. If he’d taken her into his home and found she wasn’t a virgin, he’d have had to report her to the leaders and she’d be executed. This is why he resolved to divorce her “quietly.”
“The woman caught in the act of adultery.”
Jesus had to step in to deal with a mob in order to save her life. All signs points to her being executed if He didn’t save her. This shows executions did happen.
“Publicans and harlots going to heaven before pharisees.”
I gave you two instances in which a woman could be a harlot, while lawfully avoiding a death sentence. I’ll state again that it was possible to be a harlot without breaking the laws that commanded death.
“I agree with you. Divorce wasn’t mentioned concerning the woman caught in the act.”
I believe the text says the woman wasn’t the one who was married. Even if she were, adulteresses were executed as is evidenced by the crowd.
“Here are some generally accepted definitions:
Fornication = illicit sex without a marriage covenant.”
It’s not a generally accepted definition. Look no further than 1 Corinthians 5: 1, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”
This right here shows that the translators of the KJV understood fornication(porneia) to include adultery. And this alone makes it clear divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual sin is biblical.
“I understand that a covenant until death is until death.”
Except in the case of porneia. Accepting biblical divorce and remarriage isn’t a choice for us. If a man divorces an adulteress and marries another she is now his wife before God and men.
We do agree on a lot of stuff. I have a feeling we’d be saying a lot of the same things if we were talking about more fundamental doctrines like Christ’s literal death and resurrection and the fact He’s God in the flesh. And I think we’d both be shot, beheaded, crucified and flayed together for them. God bless you.
shammahworm says:
August 30, 2014 at 9:23 pm
I agree that porneia can be interpreted in other ways besides premarital sex. But it is also interpreted as premarital sex in John 8:41.
[remove conjecture concerning Mary and Joseph]
So that would put Jesus’ position just a bit more strict than Shammai. Ok we’re making some progress here.
I am assuming you’re aware there was approximately 1600 years between Moses and Jesus. During this 1600 year period the nation of Israel was notorious for not keeping the commandments of God. Insisting that adulteress and fornicating fiancees were stoned to death during this period is unconvincing to say the least. They were even keeping herds of pigs when Jesus arrived!
[circumcised to preserve sanity]
I partly agree with you here.
But Jesus introduced some doctrines that were previously unheard of, for example: All the Jews understood that a divorced woman was eligible for remarriage if she had the certificate of divorce from her husband.
But Jesus introduced a new doctrine when He repeatedly said: Whosoever marries a divorce woman commits adultery This was new to the Jewish audience.
[remove comments on election]
I see a problem here. We are using the marriage metaphor differently. This is how I understand the covenants as a metaphor.
God married Israel, they are divorced but the marriage will be restored at some point in the future.
Jesus is betrothed to marry the Church. This marriage has not occurred yet.
The marriage [Israel’s covenant] is until death. But the betrothed bride [Churches covenant] can be broken if she is not a virgin. This is reflected in the exception clause.
At time the KJV was first published [1611] there were some pre-dictionarys around, here are some quotes you might find interesting. The following quotes were compiled by Daniel R. Jennings in his book ‘Except For Fornication’:
Edmund Coote’s ‘The English Schoole-Maister’ 1596
fornication: vncleannes betweene single persons
Thomas Blount’s ‘Gloffographia Anglicana’ 1656
Fornication: Whoredom, Leachery, spoken of single persons, if either party by married then tis adultery.
R. Brown’s ‘The English Expofitor Improv’d 1719
Fornication: Whoredom committed between single Persons, whereas if either, or both Parties so offending be married, it is called Adultery, and punishable with Death by the Common Law.
I have posted these examples to show the common meaning of the word fornication at the time the KJV was published. I know the KJV uses the word in both definitions to mean only premarital sex other illicit sexual activity. However, because Jesus contrasted the word fornication with adultery implies another meaning. Most authors on this subject have noted that.
God bless you.
@Don Quixote
Please find a church fellowship that has a statement on divorce and remarriage you can believe in. You will be greatly blessed.
For those of you who think divorce and remarriage are acceptable and even sacramental – good news. You’ve got a culture, society, and Protestant church to live in that is in full harmony with you.
Enjoy the decline.
@Artisinal Toad
Still waiting, John. Would you actually defend your wife and daughters if your home were invaded, or would you be like my Amish neighbor who restrained his son and allowed the intruders to rape his wife and daughter? I’d like you to answer that question and perhaps.. you know… just as a side exhibit… show me where polygyny is wrong.
I would like to think that I would obey my saviour when my faith were truly tested like that… given my track record of sinning nearly every day in some manner or another, who knows what I would actually do?
I will, however, mock your assertion that anabaptist men are not masculine. (I won’t speak to the Amish, since I’m not Amish and don’t really spend much time around them.) I sometimes have difficulty relating to some of my brothers because I don’t hunt and rarely fish, and I have not gone to the same trouble they have to acquire many types of shotguns, rifles, and take opportunity or live on a large enough piece of land to shoot regularly (daily, etc).
If I valued my own life, I would certainly never stage a home invasion of any of the fellows I go to church with. I might find out that he struggles with sin in the area of nonresistance when I get a chest full of lead.
As far as polygyny being wrong – I don’t really care to debate this anymore. If you want to marry multiple wives, go right ahead. Go found your own church, disciple people, lead people to Christ. Frankly, I wish you the best of success. Just be careful not to fall into the traps polygamists seem to universally fall into.
@Gunner Q / @Artisinal Toad
What wife wants a husband who not only refuses to defend her, but points to a godless legislature that promotes that to support his cowardice? She’d rather have a criminal thug that loved her instead.
That’s a good question.
Nonresistant anabaptists have a stronger track record in the area of lack of frivolous divorce and raising large families than the broader community of people who wouldn’t believe in nonresistance. So the answer to your question is “almost every woman in the church” when you ask “What wife wants a husband whom I consider a wimp?”
You still haven’t answered my question of what people who live outside of the United States should do — e.g., Canada, Australia, etc. where self-defence is essential criminal, and where it is very difficult to be better-armed than criminals are.
I guess in those places, all women will just marry thugs instead. Christian men will have to become gangsters and go to war with the state.
Which is more acceptable in God’s sight, John; a man with multiple wives and many children he supports and is willing to defend, or a man with only one wife who refuses to defend his wife and children ’cause that’s against his religion?
What did Jesus do?
What did Paul, who told us to “imitate me even as I imitate Christ” do?
And why do you care so much what women think? At my church, we aren’t really concerned about dictating our theology based on what women find attractive. We expect women to obey God’s word. Women who want to be baptised and be church members either submit to what we believe is God’s word, or they can go elsewhere.
@Ellie
It would be a lot easier to wear a headcovering if other women were doing it too.
Indeed it is. Women function well in a herd of other well-behaving women. That’s why we have a consistent standard of the headship veil being practiced in public and at church in a particular, visible manner, and of practicing it at home in a less-particular manner.
However, older women are to lead and instruct younger women. Some of the best leadership is by example. Consider being someone who chooses to obey the Bible’s instruction for establishing proper headship of men, women, and Christ even when nobody else in your church does it, or when others in your church decide to admonish you for your sins of legalism and so forth.
@ John Neustates
Let’s deal with some of your unaddressed stuff.
Part of marriage is a public covenant recognised by a broad community, such as your neighbours.
Yeah, because that worked so well for Adam and Eve with their broad community in the Garden of Eden Homeowners’ Association.
I think you, as a married man of many years with children, are treading dangerously when you lecture me about “dread”. Unless you’ve been engaging in rampant affairs and adultery, you do not know anything about dread game and its actual praxis. I (to my great shame and discredit) do.
My pity for your shame. No sarcasm. You still don’t understand that Dread may have various flavors. Soft Dread is exemplified by the man in the Song of Solomon.
I have been married many years with children and no adultery nor even locking lips with another woman. Maybe you should be listening to me, if examples mean anything to you.
The “experts” I know are people in real life that I am in fellowship with and speak with face to face. I also see the kind of life they live and the example they live. They have wives who dress modestly and discreetly; the number of children they have makes it obvious they don’t use hormonal birth control; they are self-employed men; they are masculine. Their children grow up in the fear and instruction of the Lord. They fellowship with other men who believe the same way and raise their families and lead their wives the same way.
Unfortunately, while you may have sufficient evidence to believe what you do, it is insufficient to persuade me. “The testimony of two men is true.”
I see the life you live, which seems to consist of going to dance outings to make your wife jealous so that she’ll sleep with you.
Well, if we’re going to lives lived, let’s weigh adultery into the equation. Your argument doesn’t fare so well. And you mischaracterize my behavior. I’m following the biblical example of soft Dread.
Your attitude towards every other single commenter here is one of arrogance and pride.
What, are you like God, who can see the heart?
You seem to be looking for justification for your sin.
And you call something sin that the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn. Sounds very prideful and arrogant. Didn’t you just accuse me of that?
You also have self-proclaimed “Asperger’s social disorder”, going so far as to place it in your handle. I don’t have ASD. The way you interact needs adjustment.
Actually, ASD stands for “Autistic Spectrum Disorder.” Ok, you don’t have ASD. Here’s a cookie. Please be specific about what needs adjustment.
You know better.
Again with the claim of Divine telepathy. You really should stop that.
Stop hiding behind a made-up condition to justify your foul behaviour.
Ah, you are a crank. We’re done, I think.
John Nesteutes says:
August 31, 2014 at 7:09 am
Easier said than done. I live in Australia and the churches here tend to follow the trends from America. I do get together every 3 months for fellowship with likeminded believers, but in-between I attend a church that has regular divorce apologetics and they accept divorced and remarried couples. Thanks for your input on this discussion. God bless you.
@Don Quixote
“I agree that porneia can be interpreted in other ways besides premarital sex. But it is also interpreted as premarital sex in John 8:41.”
I don’t think I’ve ever the laid out an exact definition of porneia(fornication/sexual sin) as the scriptures indicate. I’m saying that fornication means both premarital sex and adultery(and not solely intercourse either) and is a general term used to describe all sexual immorality.
The reason why Jesus didn’t mention adultery as grounds for divorce and instead used fornication is because a man can also divorce his wife if she lied about her sexual past. Even if it’s years into the marriage and even if it technically isn’t sex. Technical “virgins” come to mind.
“[remove conjecture concerning Mary and Joseph]”
It’s important because it shows it’s highly unlikely Jesus is referring to the moment when the bridegroom discovers his wife isn’t a virgin as the only exceptable occasion for divorce. Especially in a dispute about the law itself.
“So that would put Jesus’ position just a bit more strict than Shammai. Ok we’re making some progress here.”
I’d have to read what he actually said to be completely sure, but yes, that’s what it looks like.
“I am assuming you’re aware there was approximately 1600 years between Moses and Jesus. During this 1600 year period the nation of Israel was notorious for not keeping the commandments of God.”
Yes, but it nonetheless shows Jesus’ comment about Moses’ “suffering” men divorcing their wives couldn’t be referring to instances in which there was adultery because Moses executed adulteresses.
“Insisting that adulteress and fornicating fiancees were stoned to death during this period is unconvincing to say the least.”
The scriptures I cited do illustrate stonings were carried out in at least some capacity. John 8 indicates that the woman was at least in danger of being stoned. Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus in John 8: 59 as well. All of these incidents imply it was possible to be stoned.
“They were even keeping herds of pigs when Jesus arrived!”
I’m not sure if the herdsman who saw Jesus drive out Legion were Jews. It’s interesting that he told the man/men to go and proclaim all He’d done in the decapolis, but told the Jews he’d freed/healed to tell no one. That itself is a great topic of conversation. Forgive me if I’m forgetting another instance of this.
“[circumcised to preserve sanity]”
Thank you.
“I partly agree with you here.
But Jesus introduced some doctrines that were previously unheard of, for example: All the Jews understood that a divorced woman was eligible for remarriage if she had the certificate of divorce from her husband. But Jesus introduced a new doctrine when He repeatedly said: Whosoever marries a divorce woman commits adultery This was new to the Jewish audience.”
I agree with this. But to say that these teachings mean all of the teachings in the law have changed doesn’t follow. Divorce in cases of porneia is one such case.
I do think a divorced woman can remarry if the man she’s divorced from dies.
“I see a problem here. We are using the marriage metaphor differently. This is how I understand the covenants as a metaphor. God married Israel, they are divorced but the marriage will be restored at some point in the future. Jesus is betrothed to marry the Church. This marriage has not occurred yet. The marriage [Israel’s covenant] is until death.”
This will probably spill over into a huge debate about Israel’s covenant that will put our current walls of text to shame and I don’t think it’s practical for us to pursue it. I’d be lying if I said I was entirely sure about the role of the physical nation of Israel. But I do think the “children” whom God said He is married to are part of the elect. This is as small a text wall as I can explain it.
The church is Israel. Faithful Jews returned to the land of Israel after their exile and rebuilt with the promise of the Messiah aka Jesus. Jesus came and the faithful Jews received Him and were forgiven their sins. Jesus issues the great commission(though Gentiles did worship God before this) to spread the gospel world wide. Gentiles have and continue to be grafted into Israel. Ethnic Jews have and continue to be grafted back into Israel. Someday the physical nation of Israel will be grafted back in by God pouring out His grace on the people who are there. But this is all one covenant. The physical nation of Israel will be saved because God’s grace will cause all the Jews to individually repent.
Those who headed the commands in Jeremiah 3 and repented were part of this covenant even before Christ came and these are the people to whom God said He was married to. These are some of the children of the promise. The gospel was preached “even to those who are dead.”
“But the betrothed bride [Churches covenant] can be broken if she’s not a virgin. This is reflected in the exception clause”
The church(body of believers is one church) is guaranteed to be a virgin. There’s no option for Christ to divorce the church because the bride’s faithfulness is an absolute certainty. This means the command love your wife as Christ loves the church doesn’t conflict with divorce for adultery or for lying about her past because the bride of Christ is and always will be faithful.
“I have posted these examples to show the common meaning of the word fornication at the time the KJV was published. I know the KJV uses the word in both definitions to mean only premarital sex other illicit sexual activity. However, because Jesus contrasted the word fornication with adultery implies another meaning. Most authors on this subject have noted that.”
But Jesus didn’t contrast the word fornication with adultery. He said fornication instead of adultery because premarital sex and adultery are both grounds for divorce. The evidence for this is the fact that porneia is used in multiple verses to refer to multiple types of sexual sin. The KJV translators understood the word to include both as they translated passages referring to adultery, premarital sex and sexual immorality as “fornication.” Fornication is used in reference to general sexual sin. The translators wouldn’t have done this if your claim about what Jesus said in Matthew 5 and 19 were true.
I don’t think it’s practical for us to debate the precise role of physical Israel on here. But I think the usage of the word porneia is enough to show divorce for adultery is biblical even if you’re correct about God being married to physical Israel.
As always God bless and I hope you’re having a great three day weekend.
shammahworm says:
August 31, 2014 at 7:57 pm
All of the examples including the latest one [3 in total] show that the stonings didn’t occur. It was possible, but if it happened it wasn’t recorded anywhere in the New Testament. You have convinced yourself but not me.
[remove sermon on election]
I was contrasting the 2 covenants [marriage & betrothal] as used as metaphors in the Bible. You keep wandering off into the doctrine of election.
The translators are limited by the vocabulary of the language they are targeting. I have shown quotes from the pre-dictionarys in use 400 years ago that clearly show that fornication was understood to mean sexual intercourse between single people, this was the generally accepted meaning at the time. Little has changed in 400 years.
Fornication = illicit sexual intercourse without a covenant, i.e single people
Adultery = illicit sexual intercourse within a covenant, i.e. married people
It’s unlikely we will agree on this point.
God bless you too. I don’t live in America, and its not a long weekend here [Australia]
Samantha Pugsley has done it: she has acquired her first Tattoo. Its on her right arm and reads “There’s no one road”. Heaven knows what it means but she is so enthused she wants another. She also has proof (apparently) that there really is a Rape culture, though I am sure she is not personally likely to be at any risk, not even from her husband.
shammahworm says:
August 31, 2014 at 7:57 pm
Some clarification is in order.
You are correct, there were some stonings in the New Testament.
They [the Jews] tried to stone Jesus for being righteous.
They did stone Stephen to death for being righteous.
And Paul was also stoned for being righteous, he survived.
However nobody</b got stoned for being a sinner in the New Testament.
Your claim that adulteress and fornicating fiancees were stoned to death is completely unsupported in the New Testament.
@Don Quixote
Luther engaged in this bit of mental gymnastics whereby he argued that, since an adulterous wife would have been stoned under Old Testament lie (which is a bit of a stretch – these sort of executions rarely happened then, and today in Saudi Arabia people go to a lot of trouble to prevent them as well, usually involving paying money to the aggrieved party), a man is justified in behaving as his adulteress of a wife is dead, even though she is actually alive.
(See Joseph Webb’s books for a more detailed look at this, if you haven’t already.)
@Don Quixote
Easier said than done. I live in Australia and the churches here tend to follow the trends from America. I do get together every 3 months for fellowship with likeminded believers, but in-between I attend a church that has regular divorce apologetics and they accept divorced and remarried couples. Thanks for your input on this discussion. God bless you.
Please get in touch with me at john_nesteutes@yahoo.com – if you’re at all near Tasmania or Victoria, there are some folks you should get to know.
@Opus
“There’s no one road” could well be described as the antithesis of Christianity.
@theasdgamer
Yeah, because that worked so well for Adam and Eve with their broad community in the Garden of Eden Homeowners’ Association.
Adam and Eve’s children married their brothers and sisters. Are you going to argue for that as well?
I have been married many years with children and no adultery nor even locking lips with another woman. Maybe you should be listening to me, if examples mean anything to you.
You regularly dance with other women in order to make your wife jealous. Is that an example I should be looking up to?
Well, if we’re going to lives lived, let’s weigh adultery into the equation. Your argument doesn’t fare so well.
I choose to live a life of repentance and do not justify affairs / adultery / fornication as “needed to engage hard dread”. You seem to be looking for excuses for what you do, like claiming the Canticles justifies “dread game”. The Canticles is about an unmarried couple, as far as I can tell.
Ah, you are a crank. We’re done, I think.
Sorry, but I don’t buy your “I have ASD” excuse – behave like a normal person, and don’t argue when told to behave like one.
@ John Neustates
You regularly dance with other women in order to make your wife jealous.
A lie. Still trying to horn in on Divine prerogative, I see.
tasdg: Yeah, because that worked so well for Adam and Eve with their broad community in the Garden of Eden Homeowners’ Association.
John: Adam and Eve’s children married their brothers and sisters. Are you going to argue for that as well?
Quit dodging the issue. The “community” doesn’t necessarily have any part in any marriage covenant as my Adam and Eve point showed. My point was on point and yours was off on the other side of the galaxy.
You seem to be looking for excuses for what you do, like claiming the Canticles justifies “dread game”. The Canticles is about an unmarried couple, as far as I can tell.
Looking for excuses in scripture for one’s actions? Kind of like looking in scripture for excuses to baptize and practice Communion. Good point.
I’ll happily discuss scripture with you. What kind of literature is Canticles?
Sorry, but I don’t buy your “I have ASD” excuse – behave like a normal person, and don’t argue when told to behave like one.
I don’t care about your crankery. You need to behave like an autist and don’t argue when told to behave like one. And I don’t buy your “normal” excuse either.
asdgamer:
Not a lie. You’ve made a number of different claims here to this effect. I do believe you were exaggerating and lying when you made them, but John here is merely paraphrasing what you said.
Yes, of course you will, you self-appointed expert in Biblical Greek, you. Nevermind that you can’t accurately translate a popular/funny aphorism.
Your antics continue to amuse and entertain. Carry on…
Boxer
@Don Quixote
“All of the examples including the latest one [3 in total] show that the stonings didn’t occur. It was possible, but if it happened it wasn’t recorded anywhere in the New Testament. You have convinced yourself but not me.”
The passages do indicate stonings were possible, even if only by a mob. I’m sure prominent people were in no danger. The scribes were asking Jesus in regard to the law and they all knew it was clear on the sentence for adultery. Divorce for adultery when there were two witnesses was actually unlawful because they were disobeying the Torah. It seems like those asking Jesus would’ve opened themselves up to that charge if they asked about divorce in that situation.
“I was contrasting the 2 covenants [marriage & betrothal] as used as metaphors in the Bible. You keep wandering off into the doctrine of election.”
It’s important to point out that God is referring to faithful Israel aka the church in many OT passages and only part of physical Israel. Those are who He’s married to. A lot of the people whom He divorced were cut off for good. The church is always faithful and there’s no equivalent between that and an adulteress.
“The translators are limited by the vocabulary of the language they are targeting.”
But there were many terms the translators could’ve used to distinguish between the two. “Unchaste maiden” or “unchaste bride” would’ve sufficed. Fornication is used in many passages throughout the NT in the KJV. The translators would definitely have drawn a distinction if the definition of fornication was as clear cut as the sources you quoted indicate.
“I have shown quotes from the pre-dictionarys in use 400 years ago that clearly show that fornication was understood to mean sexual intercourse between single people, this was the generally accepted meaning at the time. Little has changed in 400 years.
Fornication = illicit sexual intercourse without a covenant, i.e single people
Adultery = illicit sexual intercourse within a covenant, i.e. married people”
Like you said in one of your earlier posts, the KJV was translated with a broader definition of fornication than those sources use. I do vaguely recall finding old definitions of fornication which say “especially between single persons” without exclusively limiting it to them. In any case porneia is used to describe all manner of sexual sin. We know this based on its usage in scripture(Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 5). I wouldn’t be surprised if the KJV influenced the definition of fornication over the centuries. A lot has changed. Either the definitions you quoted weren’t as established as they’d have you believe or the KJV translators themselves decided fornication meant general sexual immorality.
The fact that the words are the same in Greek as well as English is the most solid reason to conclude that divorce for adultery is biblical. There are no mental gymnastics to that one.
“I don’t live in America, and its not a long weekend here [Australia]”
Sorry about this bit, but not about the God bless you.
@Boxer
Dance, Monkey
Not a lie. You’ve made a number of different claims here to this effect.
A lie. Not surprising that liars hang together. Dread is not about creating jealousy, no matter what you or the anti-Game nutjobs believe.
Yes, of course you will, you self-appointed expert in Biblical Greek, you.
Another lie. I never claimed to be an expert in Koine Greek. But liars will lie, n’est-ce pas?
You need some new dance steps. You are becoming less entertaining.
FYI:
Some Southern Baptist Convention leaders are now encouraging church members to get married at a younger age.
http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/2014/08/12/east-tn-southern-baptists-discuss-marrying-young/13984625/
Pingback: Begetting Unfaithfulness | The Society of Phineas