From the beginning complementarianism has been an effort to split the difference with Christian feminists (egalitarians). This comes naturally from their belief that feminism isn’t a manifestation of the same discontent that caused Eve to want to be like God in the garden of Eden. Instead, complementarians see feminism as a misguided (but entirely understandable) rebellion caused by the provocation of cruel men*.
Complementarians believe if they are nice enough to women, feminist rebellion will go away as the reason for the rebellion is thereby withdrawn (examples here and here). This requires compromise when Scripture offends feminists, and this has lead complementarians to invent novel interpretations of Scripture. But this compromise is by no means a one time deal. The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.
We can see this with the complementarian position on spiritual headship. Complementarians had to find an interpretation for Ephesians 5:26-27** that formally set them apart from egalitarians but caused minimal offense to feminists. But no amount of compromise with feminists will actually avoid offending feminists, and this has lead to multiple complementarian stances on the topic of spiritual headship.
In the latest CBMW quarterly journal David Croteau describes the two predominant complementarian compromises on spiritual headship, and then proposes rejecting the concept of spiritual headship altogether.
Croteau describes the first compromise position complementarians created on spiritual headship. This position frames spiritual headship primarily (if not entirely) as a club to beat husbands with. The focus is on declaring husbands as failures, while avoiding offending the feminists in the pews by pointing out that wives should look to their husbands for spiritual instruction (emphasis mine):
The first category I’ve called “Sanctification is the Husband’s Responsibility.” The following authors/pastors have been specifically chosen as examples because they are known for being careful expositors and have ministries that I particularly appreciate. The use of these men should not be seen as an indictment against them, but calling into question their particular use of Eph 5:26–27. “The man is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his wife. Her sanctification is his responsibility. There is probably no male task that has been more neglected in our society than this one.”[1]
But even constraining references to spiritual headship as a club to beat down husbands still will generate envy from feminists. This has lead to a further complementarian compromise position on spiritual headship:
The second category is a little more fuzzy, where it seems like the husband is responsible but the connection to Eph 5:26 is more ambiguous: “By Implication, the Husband is Responsible for His Wife’s Sanctification.” For example, “When a husband’s love for his wife is like Christ’s love for His church, he will continually seek to help purify her from any sort of defilement. He will seek to protect her from the world’s contamination and protect her holiness, virtue, and purity in every way. He will never induce her to do that which is wrong or unwise or expose her to that which is less than good.”[4]
Croteau rejects both of these compromises, and argues that we should get rid of the concept of spiritual headship altogether. To get here, he argues that Eph 5:26-27 is a diversion, and that while the Apostle Paul started making an analogy to Christ’s relationship with the Church in Eph 5:25, he has exited that analogy in verses 26 & 27 and is now talking only about Christ and the Church. Croteau’s claim is that verses 26 & 27 are a digression, and while sandwiched in instruction on husbands and wives have nothing to do with husbands and wives (emphasis mine):
The third category clarifies that the husband is to have a sacrificial love for his wife and the example of this sacrificial love is the way that Christ loved the church. All of the discussion about sanctification, presenting the church as glorious and without spot or wrinkle, is primarily about Christ and the church. Thielman says, “The analogy between the love of husbands for their wives and the love of Christ for the church leads to a digression on the relationship between Christ and the church.”[8]
He reiterates this in the conclusion:
Analysis of the structure and context of Eph 5:25–27 demonstrated that a husband is given only one command in the passage: love his wife. The rest of the passage used Christ’s love for the church as a comparison for the sake of explaining the depths of the sacrifice of this love. The sacrificial love of Christ is similar to the kind of sacrificial love a husband should have for his wife…
None of this means that a husband shouldn’t seek for his wife to become more like Christ daily. Since every Christian should desire the progressive sanctification of each other, how much more a husband with his wife. However, the main point of this paper is to say that Eph 5:25–27 does not directly address this issue…
…Attempts to apply the specifics in verses 26 and 27 are misguided as it is specifically talking about the way Christ loved the church. The application of verses 26 and 27 can be seen in what Paul says in 28–29. Therefore, Eph 5:26–27 does not describe as part of a husband’s duty the progressive sanctification of his wife.
This is not (yet) from what I can tell a widely held position by complementarians. Most complementarians still struggle to find a way to nominally support spiritual headship without supporting it in practice. However, the fact that the CBMW is publishing this argument means that abandoning the concept of spiritual headship entirely is a discussion they are quite open to. This is a formal announcement that the complementarian Overton window now includes the argument that there is no such thing as spiritual headship.
*An alternate rejection of the idea that feminism is women rebelling exactly as the Bible tells us they are most tempted to rebel is the claim that feminism is a scam men have run on gullible women. However, this is not the mainstream complementarian view.
**And related verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:35.
Pingback: CBMW’s evolving position on spiritual headship. | Alt-Right View
The paradigm of the West is feminism and leftism. It is not the same as a chosen worldview. It is the default setting, the colored glasses that everything is seen through. The best advice I have is to learn the Law of Moses in depth until the basic approach is internalized..
Slippery slope tactics, strategy, and scripture-twisting, for the fail…this and more from your fiendly, neighborhood Complementarian. [fp]
1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Pingback: CBMW’s evolving position on spiritual headship. – Manosphere.org
People who think of American Christians as judgmental, Bible-thumping bigots (such as everyone in media) have no idea how desperate Christians are to be liked and accepted by atheists. “Yeah, we’re Christians- But we’re *cool, progressive* Christians! Not like those mean hillbillies who think that homosexuality is wrong and that women should stay home and raise the kids!”
This looks like a trial balloon. Float it up and see who shoots at it. Possibly some of the older men associated with CBMW will criticize it hard enough to bring the balloon down to the ground…for now.
Funny thing, it’s not all that different from some of the positions that known feminists have taken; “If you were loving me like Christ loves the church, I wouldn’t be such a screaming bitch! Be my spiritual head the way I tell you to! Lead me the way I want to be led!” So we can expect to see more of this from the conservative feminists [*].
One thing this confirms: CBMW isn’t actively engaged in opposing feminism, therefore per my little observation of years gone by, CBMW is passively accepting feminism.
[*]Christian feminists (egalitarians)
IMO the egalitarians are indeed feminists, but more radical. The conservative feminists are the mainstream, becuase feminism is part of the mainstream. All those noice “complementarian” women in churches who make a show of “deferring” to men in public? Scratch the surface and see if you can’t find a feminist of some flavor or other.
Does the complementarian crowd also believe that I Peter 3 and I Corinthians 11 are “digressions”? This is one of the fundamental tells of false teachers…. Taking one passage in isolation, attempting to change its meaning, and refusing to look at other passages addressing the same subject. Paul clearly states in Corinthians that the husband is the head of the wife, and Peter clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands even if they are unbelievers. Both of these passages work in perfect unity if one understands Ephesians 5:26, 27 to refer to a husband leading his wife; to remove a husbands leadership from Eph 5 puts Paul at odds with his own statement to the Corinthians and Peter’s admonition to wives.
Additionally, when a writer starts accusing Paul of “digression” he is asserting that Paul made an error in his writing which causes misunderstanding; this tactic is itself an abandonment of sola scriputra and a move into the realm of “higher criticism” popularized by the Germans which rejects the authenticity and authority of scripture and eventually ended in atheism (see Metaxas’ biography of Bonhoeffer for details and an idea of where this leads.)
So the new view is that femdom marriage is so holy that it’s the spiritual example that Christ Himself sought to emulate.
Still, if Christ loved the Church as submissive men obey their wives, it’s hard to figure why the Gospels don’t record any cases of Him going around timidly saying to His disciples “I’m sorry, dear. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you, dear?”
Just one of those spiritual mysteries that you have to be The Only Real Man In The Room to understand, I guess.
Sola Scriptura anyway underwent several stages of modification.As the original church saw that verses without background can mean anything. The original solution was what the bishop said it meas. After Luther there came the “literal meaning”, “historical context”. what the author meant, author; another way was how people understood the author, etc and etc. and many other approaches–all which deviated from Luther..Nowadays there are paradigms, communistic paradigms as with the present day pope,, and many others..The varieties of sola scriptura increase exponentially every day..
Avraham,
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Croteau rejects both of these compromises, and argues that we should get rid of the concept of spiritual headship altogether.
Sure, why not? Given the direction in which things are currently headed, this printed nuisance called “The Bible” is going to be thrown away altogether too. After all, as Croteau points out, if Paul “started making an analogy” in Ephesians 5 that he never completed, that must mean that he was unsure of himself and his message. If he was unsure of himself, then that means he wasn’t divinely inspired, and if he wasn’t divinely inspired, then is ANYTHING he wrote possibly accurate? And if what Paul wrote is questionable, then why would anything else in the Bible be considered infallible? A “rabbit trail” that no complementarian could resist following, to a very “convenient” end.
Another well thought out and written post that is right on the mark.
[D: Thank you.]
@ Matthew Walker
“Still, if Christ loved the Church as submissive men obey their wives…”
I think you just found the end game. Not only does a feminized church allow women to lead from behind in marriage (and not be held accountable for their actions), but this new framework will also allow them to “lead God” from behind.
Christian culture today is women and men dancing around the “Golden Cow” of feminism. They have reverted to OT practise.
Over whom is God the Head?
These kinds of discussions (here and elsewhere) are always conspicuous by their lack of any attempt to define who is in the Church of which Christ is the head. But that definition has huge implications for the “husband is head of wife” discussion. Here is the gist of that argument, which helps to put things into their proper perspective.
The Church is the bride of Christ – united with Christ in a marriage of which our earthly marriage is a type. “Therefore, what God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.” This admonition is talking about a union between a man and a woman representative of the union between Christ and his Church / bride.
In that context, do we think that God will join together, in a union of which he says “let not man put assunder”, a believer with an unbeliever? In the context of Christ and his bride, the Church, is the Church comprised of unbelievers? Does God consider that even one unbeliever is a member of the Church, the bride of Christ? (Note that I’m saying “unbeliever” here, not “sinner”.)
It should be obvious to even a casual Bible reader that Christ is not the head of just anybody. And the Church is not comprised of all those who want to be in it … just because it’s the cool place to be.
A couple of thoughts. God’s promises are intended only for those who obey him. The first and greatest commandment is to love God (Matt. 24:34-40). Then, “if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). Reverse that: “if you don’t keep my commandments, what does that say about your love for me?” What of the Church that is neither hot nor cold (says nothing at all about whether they are keeping any of God’s commands): “I’m about to spew you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16)
There we have a few examples of how Christ exercises his headship, and what he exercises his headship over, who is actually allowed to be called his Church. That Church membership, and Christ’s subsequent headship, is confined to those who obey him; the rest he kicks away and doesn’t bother with. That is the example of how husbands are to relate to their wives – as Christ relates to his Church. Husbands are to deal with folks who rebel against them in the same way that Christ deals with those who rebel against him. At the judgement seat, who will get a free pass into eternal life by proclaiming that they rebelled against God because he pissed them off – so they shouldn’t be held to account? If that “logic” does not work for a rebellious would-be Church member, why do we think that “logic” is allowed / should be allowed in the union that is a reflection of the union between Christ and his bride?
What I have presented here is the model: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Those who don’t, are not considered by God to be part of his Church. That is the thing that distinguishes those over whom God is head, and those to whom God has said “depart from me …” That is the model to which “submit in all things …” points. There is no wiggle room. Even lukewarm doesn’t cut it.
If you love me, keep my commandments; if you love him, submit in all things. A rose by any other name …
@Okrahead
I don’t think this piece by itself is an attack on headship in general. It is specifically aimed at denying the concept of spiritual headship. Thus, in theory at least, complementarians could buy into this argument and still believe that the husband has a leadership role on non spiritual issues. This will be however a strange place to find themselves, and clearly sets the stage to deny headship entirely.
To clarify my closing comments above: Husband is head of wife as Christ is head of Church. “If you love him, submit in all things …” Just to be clear, the “submit in all things” has as its object, the one who is subject to Christ. Christ > husband > wife. If you think “submit in all things” was directed to unsaved husbands, ask yourself if there is ever an unsaved husband in this chain: Christ – head of – husband – head of – wife. Does God allow even one unbeliever to be a member of his Church?
Dalrock, thanks for this. But looking at Croteau’s word salad linked at that CBMW / JBMW blog entry, it seems that he’s referencing an “Ephesians” interpretive text written by one Clinton E. Arnold:
http://www.zondervan.com/ephesians-6
Trying to figure out who Arnold is, I found the following link:
http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/
Is this a “normal” teaching mode, or is it Churchianity extended? It’s not a world I’m familiar with…
Dalrock – what spiritual role does the husband play in the following exchange spoken by Jesus? Or were these scriptures directed to / meant only for men? In what way were the New Testament writers being consistent with what Jesus himself said, rather than contradicting him? Without being specific in your answer to my questions, writings like what you have presented above serve only to muddy the waters, not clear them up.
No man cometh unto the Father but by me (Jesus speaking. John 14:6; KJV) Yet –
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: (John 6:44; KJV)
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37; KJV)
@RichardP
A believing husband/father is the spiritual head of his family, just as a pastor is the spiritual head of his congregation; they have an obligation to lead those in their charge to Christ. None of this contradicts Christ’s role in our salvation, nor the individual’s obligation to follow Christ.
Pingback: CBMW’s evolving position on spiritual headship. | Reaction Times
This comes naturally from their belief that feminism isn’t a manifestation of the same discontent that caused Eve to want to be like God in the garden of Eden. Instead, complementarians see feminism as a misguided (but entirely understandable) rebellion caused by the provocation of cruel men*.
You know, this is a key insight. Because it places the blame for feminism totally upon men (so does the alternate fiction that Dalrock refers to in *footnote). So instead of feminist rebellion being a flaw inherent in female nature, like any other bad behavior such as greed, envy, anger, etc. it becomes something imposed from outside of women.
To me at this point such a view is rank, obvious, pedestalization. To those men and women who take this view, I assume it’s more like…kindness. “Oh, the poor weaker vessel, she can’t help herself after what the bad men have done”. They’re wrong, of course, and the results of their endless catering to the whims of women shows it. The “weaker vessel” files 65% to 70% of all divorces within the churchgoing population just as in the secular groups, for example.
Furthermore this explains why they can not, and will not, truly oppose feminism; because they accept feminist critique at some level. This also explains their utter horror at (gasp) (clutch pearls) (faint) patriarchy. And again it explains why the CBMW will inevitably drift further and further into full on feminism.
I’d like to have one of these conservative feminists explain certain choice verses from Proverbs some time…I’ll pick them.
Excellent insight, Dalrock. Well done!
So, so true Dalrock. You can never please women with THEIR way. That is why God made the commands to women black and white — “in everything” — no exceptions noted. Play it their way and all lose; it may take time, but all lose.
This is actually nothing very new. In a conversation I had with a coworker many months ago he brought up the same thing when I repeated the verses from Ephesians:
“…but Paul said, I speak of Christ and the church, it has nothing to do with husbands. Husbands cant sanctify their wives, that’s Gods responsibility and husbands cant do anything about it.”
I didn’t think about it at the time, but 1 Corinthians 7:14 specifically talks about a believing husband or wife SANCTIFYING their spouse!
“For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
This, to me, reinforces the verses in Ephesians because it says that a believing husband or wife CAN have an affect on their spouses sanctification, which makes the Ephesians verses hold fast.
Y’all should be tweeting this article onto CBMW’s Twitter :
https://twitter.com/cbmworg
Provoke them…
Can a husband have spiritual headship in a marriage without having legal headship, or even legal equality?
“The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.”
World history of feminism to date in one sentence.
This post prompted me to explore CBMW, since the organization is new to me. There was a time when I would have read the mission, vision, and core beliefs of this outfit fairly uncritically. But thanks to my studies at Dalrock University I can now decipher some of the codes.
From the CBMW mission and vision page:
>>> In 1987, CBMW was established primarily to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism.
>>>Ephesians 5 calls husbands and wives to relate to one another as a picture of Christ and the church. The picture involves the humble, sacrificial leadership of the husband and the joyful, intelligent submission to that leadership by the wife.
From day one they chose to undermine their stated mission by accommodating feminism. Use of the codewords [intelligent submission], makes the submission conditional, and contingent on the wife’s analysis of the husband’s humility and the adequacy of his sacrifices.
Thanks Dalrock, for all your efforts to shine a light into dark corners. It is appreciated.
The problem for the complementarians is that this verse undermines their definition of servant leader. This verse says that the husband’s headship and sacrifices are for the sanctification of his wife, i.e, removing sin from her life. Not helping change diapers or whatever they normally like to say a servant leader is supposed to do.
Dalrock,
Your first three paragraphs were absolute pure gold, truth and wisdom. I have a page where I keep copy and paste such truths and it will find it’s way there. Thanks
1 Peter 3:
3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
Okay, I agree. Us spiritual men are to progressively lead our wives to sanctification. There can be no higher calling.
So, can Mr Croteau and the CBMW. Tell us, pray, how we are to do that? It’s not as if the modern Christian woman doesn’t want to be sanctified. I mean, if she gets called out for bad behaviour and a husband calls her out, she then throws a “godly tantrum”, threatens marriage detonation, and generally behaves like a domestic terrorist.
So can the clergy kindly tell us how, what tools are we to use that are approved, whether they will support husbands, and that he duties of women are to fall in line (hupotasso) with husbands?
@Karen.
“As for Eve and Genesis, I cannot help but laugh at the concept of “original sin”.”
https://www.openbible.info/topics/original_sin
As for you.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/fool
From the CBMW mission and vision page:
>>> In 1987, CBMW was established primarily to help the church defend against the accommodation of secular feminism.
Although not a perfect parallel, I’m tempted to apply the legal-economic phrase “regulatory capture” here.
Good thing Eve got after that forbidden fruit otherwise we wouldn’t have iPhones, facebook, ar15’s or modern fashion to cover our nakedness.
He will seek to protect her from the world’s contamination and protect her holiness, virtue, and purity in every way.
Pardon me while I puke.
Spike has a point which I have noticed before. Critics of OT and NT morality assume the very morality they are denying, but saying it is so obvious they would have known it without the OT or the NT
Here are four very important questions:
Where did I come from?
What is life’s meaning?
How do I define right from wrong
What happens to me when I die?
Karen has challenged the authority of the Bible and the credibility of God Himself. She does so with out any qualifications, without establishing any foundation for truth, morality, justice, decency or mercy, and without answering any of the questions posted above.
As others have pointed out, she borrows from the Christian world view (like so many others) to claim that Christian teachings are without merit.
If God isn’t real, why does Karen care about anything? Why is theft, murder, or adultery wrong? Why do people have compassion for one another?
If God is real, why are does Karen use His standards with which to criticize His standards? Why does she question the very morals of the One by which morals come?
God has answered every question written at the top of this comment. Where are Karen’s answers?
Karen begins with this statement:
I mean, does anyone seriously believe that Eve….or Adam….could *Maintain* obedience over the course of Their Entire Temporal Existence? Adam lived over 900 years…that is quite a stretch to *remain* sinless.
So her argument is to claim that it would have been impossible for Adam and Eve to remain obedient for 900 plus years (never mind that she misses the fact that they would not have died at all if not for sin).
This is an interesting point because on the one hand she is foolish to suppose to know what Adam or Eve (not having been born into sin) would have or could have done. On the other hand we have good reason to believe that God knew all along what the parents of mankind would do.
One has to ask, why? Perhaps because in God’s creation it is not possible to genuinely love with having the ability to choose. If God had made Adam and Eve with out the ability to choose then they would have been unable to love with sacrificial love (having to choose between obedience and disobedience).
Perhaps, knowing Man would fail, God planned the redemption of mankind in such a way as to demonstrate genuine sacrificial love as no other could, while at the same time bring glory to Himself of which only those that Hate Him could despise.
God has a plan, but the world knows it not.
15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. – John Ch 14
Two questions for “Karen”;
1. Are you a man (i.e. dangly bits) who is angry with God, but came here ‘dressed’ as a woman to get a rise out of us, or just a woman who is rebellious and needs some manly attention?
2. Based on the answer in question 1, how many cats do you have?
We couldn’t have a better representation of the core of feminism than Karen. Why merely refuse the authority of one man in marriage, when you can go right to the top and place yourself as judge over God Himself?
All her thousands of words are just rationalization in service of that rebellion.
I still troll Craigslist, expecting nothing, but treating it as a lotto ticket. You never know …
I find many unmarriageable women, but this one is broken on so many levels: http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/w4m/5685284486.html
Karen wrote:
Did anyone ever consider what would have happened if Eve *resisted* the Temptation of The Serpent and failed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge?
All the People would still be walking around naked in a splendid Garden…knowing absolutely nothing…in either the intellectual or moral realm
Yet the Bible records:
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Gen :215 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
So Man had dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth, was working and keeping the garden, and Adam named every living creature that was brought to Him, yet to the world this is equivalent to knowing absolutely nothing, at least intellectually.
As for moral knowledge, Satan obviously wanted Man to be in possession of forbidden knowledge. Much of what Karen wrote is in agreement with the devil.
Karen:
Obedience to Jehovah would have meant continued bliss…but bliss with a heavy price tag….bliss accompanied by Utter Ignorance.
See what I mean? Karen and the devil know what is good for Mankind, but God does not. Who are you going to believe?
1. Are you a man (i.e. dangly bits) who is angry with God, but came here ‘dressed’ as a woman to get a rise out of us, or just a woman who is rebellious and needs some manly attention?
When I 1st read Karen’s comments my 1st thought was that this was a male using a female name. It is written like a man would write.
Marcus D if your reading this could you analyze the posts from Karen?
I first saw this post mentioned on Vox Day’s blog as “Orville” and I’m reposting what I said there.
As Christians we believe we are created in the image of God. Yet, we are not complementary to God. We don’t complete him. He is complete in and of himself with no need for us at all. Marriage is patterned after the relationship between Christ (God) and the church (man). Therefore marriage is not complementary at all, and men should make no exceptions to women.
http://www.besttoolsformen.com
Karen, you sound like me during my adolescence. I rejected Catholicism and became an atheist in high school. I read Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, George Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God. I even brandished Anton Lavey’s Satanic Bible for shock value.
I grew out of all that by my late 20s. I’m in my 50s now.
How old are you?
Karen, many of your “points” can be answered, but you’re not interested in answers. You already “know what you know.” You’re here to vent. I get it. I was like you at 15 and 16. Ayn Rand is heady stuff.
But some points…
Regarding Eve’s eating the fruit, you say that ignorance is never good. You overlook that all the knowledge we’ve acquired since Eden was unnecessary before the Fall. Man had no need for medicine, because sickness and death did not exist. Nor was there need for agriculture, plumbing, housing, public transport. All of Man’s needs were met.
You say Adam would have sinned eventually because he lived over 900 years. Actually, had he never sinned, he would never have died.
You criticize God for demanding tribute. You overlook that God created everything, so everything in Creation already belongs to Him. He created the soil and water, plants and animals, sunlight and oxygen, and our ability to use these things. Without Him, we’d have nothing. He’s only asking that we return a small portion of His property, as a gesture of gratitude and recognition.
It’s like when a parent gives an allowance to a child. It’s not unreasonable for the child to spend a small portion of it for a birthday present for the parent, and for the parent to be pleased with this gesture.
At the risk of claiming a “magic bullet solution” (which never exists), consider also 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” That is headship defined succinctly.
Karen:
Just a question. Why are you even here?
That should be obvious.
Don’t feed the troll, guys.
Karen:
Is ignorance, in any form, ever really good? I don’t think so…
1st – We are all ignorant in many things. No one (except God) has knowledge of everything.
2nd – If the creator of all things has designated a limit to the knowledge Man should have, is it right to call the lack of such knowledge ignorance? I don’t think so.
Karen:
…because much of Fear is rooted in ignorance (either in Not Understanding a New Situation or Not Knowing how to combat a problem)…and Fear…along with Pain…are the Twin Evils when one thinks of the Two Detriments to the Human Condition.
This is a prime example of the new “morality” at work in today’s servants of Satan. They would literally turn the moral realm on it’s head if they could. In their paradigm it’s lack of knowledge which cause detriments to the Human Condition, yet God has made plain that sin is the cause of the human condition.
Furthermore, God has remedy for the human condition, and it is working (though not in a way palatable to the Karen’s of this world). Knowledge has increased a thousand fold in the last two centuries. How has the Human Condition improved over that time?
I would argue that the Human Condition remains the same, because mankind is ever selfish, murderous, perverted, dishonest, envious, and arrogant.
Proponents of this new “morality” would have you believe that these are good things (look out for number one, abortion, sexual freedom, ends justifies the means, 1% vs 99 %, the “sin” of low self esteem), but the Bible tells us these things are evil.
The devil wants you to believe good is evil and evil is good. The world has taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
Isaiah 5:
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
Prov 2:
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
7 he stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
he is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
8 guarding the paths of justice
and watching over the way of his saints.
Red Pill Latecomer says:
July 17, 2016 at 8:07 am
Well said. Much better than I could have.
Karen is an obvious troll and I’ve removed her comments and blocked her.
Ahhh man, now we will never know how man cats Karen had.
My guess, 2. She’s still seemed semi lucid.
One of the most important things my father pressed to me is that we value things that we’ve earned. If I buy a car I buy with my own money that I’ve saved up over years I will treat it with the utmost respect. I will take care of it. It’s something I will be proud of. A car that is given to me I will run into the ground. There’s nothing invested. Men, by intrinsically enjoying and valuing work more than women, take the most joy in these earned-value pursuits.
Society has put men in an awful predicament with marriage. The church tells us to value our families, present our wives as spotless, sacrificing for her and laboring to perfect her. On the other hand, the legal system has completely removed any sense of ownership men have over their families. The church is the worst, because they are acting like they can have it both ways. They either insinuate or openly advocate that women are equals in the marriage, and that the husband has no pride in ownership. On the other hand they expect the husband to joyfully and enthusiastically labor and sacrifice for his wife and family in only a way a man with ownership would be compelled to do. This is blindness.
If a man owns his wife and children he is bound to rise to the challenge, having pride in those objects he has earned and taken into his possession. This is why the bible make it clear that wives and children are the husband’s legal property. In a rightly functioning society I am certain this would be the arrangement.
Frankly it makes me angry thinking of how our feminist society has cheated me out of my rightful possessions, and FURIOUS that the church has marched lock-step.
3 more cops murdered, this time in Baton Rouge. You know, the flag at my office has remained at half staff all summer. How many more will die?
As for the last comment I would not have said anything but since someone brought it up I thought to mention that it seems to me that two separate movements are converging to destroy the USA. Black power and Islamic Power.
Don’t feed the troll, guys.
With me it’s even worse. I’ve discovered that I like to play with them.
Karen is an obvious troll and I’ve removed her comments and blocked her.
Darn! I didn’t get to the part where she had us confused with the Religious Right before she got the ax. Oh well, it was for the best.
Is there any way to leave Karen’s comments up but close the thread to new posts, maybe with a
“warning” post at the end? Reading her stuff was very enlightening. She was very clever in how she wove so many lies into such tiny bits of truth. It’s the enemy’s native tongue.
RPChristian, I like how you put it, and am furious at the lack of church figh too. It’s why the D is good to read, because he wants to hold them accountable for their ideas I get some relief from the heavy burden the milquetoasts in the church throw on my neck. I used the possession language on a brother who was recently frivorced and it just seemed to make him too uncomfortable. The resistance is so heavy, you can see it in the exchanges in previous posts with Ken Alexander and a Doug Wilson supporter. I’m so glad Dalrock keeps at it, as do others.
Karen actually sounded a bit like a failed Mormon. Mormon doctrine holds that eating of the forbidden fruit was a good thing, because that was what made it possible for children and civilization.
From lds.org:
‘President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) taught: “When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they did not have to die. They could have been there to this day. They could have continued on for countless ages. There was no death then. But it would have been a terrific calamity if they had refrained from taking the fruit of that tree, for they would have stayed in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here; nobody would be here except Adam and Eve. So Adam and Eve partook.”’
Hi, Dalrock. I’ve been away from your blog for some time, and was just catching up this morning on my (Red Pill) “required reading”, and so got to this just now.
Seeing all the replies to a non-existent “Karen” confused the heck out of me, since a search of the page revealed no comment by him/her/it/them/whatever … and to a certain extent, none of the replies make sense in the absence of any context. Perhaps you should ammend the OP to tell readers about the deletion? Or something?
Thanks,
Yac-Yac
Karen actually sounded a bit like a failed Mormon. Mormon doctrine holds that eating of the forbidden fruit was a good thing, because that was what made it possible for children and civilization.
That or former Jehovah’s Witness.
But it would have been a terrific calamity if they had refrained from taking the fruit of that tree, for they would have stayed in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here…
This flies in the face of Scripture.
When God created Adam and Eve, He expressly told them to “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” That was not only a blessing to them; it was a command.
Eve was an absolutely stunning woman. She must have been a 10. There she was—standing stark naked before Adam, with not a thing out of place. Talk of a real boner. When Adam first laid eyes on her stunning figure, he began to spit poetry without prompting. It was only going to be a matter of time before he knocked her up. There was no need for them to disobey God in eating the fruit of the tree.
Joseph Smith was wrong. The terrific calamity was in their disobedience to a simple and direct command of God. By eating the fruit of the tree, they died instantly. The glory of God departed from them, and rather than enjoyed fellowship with God, they became terrified of Him, and began to hide themselves.
@ibb
3 more cops murdered, this time in Baton Rouge. You know, the flag at my office has remained at half staff all summer. How many more will die?
Never enough…911 false-abuse-claim enforcers aren’t the good guys
The church tells us to value our families, present our wives as spotless, sacrificing for her and laboring to perfect her. On the other hand, the legal system has completely removed any sense of ownership men have over their families. The church is the worst, because they are acting like they can have it both ways. They either insinuate or openly advocate that women are equals in the marriage, and that the husband has no pride in ownership. On the other hand they expect the husband to joyfully and enthusiastically labor and sacrifice for his wife and family in only a way a man with ownership would be compelled to do. This is blindness.
It is cowardice.
The church is afraid of both the culture and the State and is doing everything it can to walk the tightrope and avoid offending people it fears far more than it fears God.
Never enough…911 false-abuse-claim enforcers aren’t the good guys
+1000
*****YAAAWWWN***** … “YAFFO” (“Yet Another False Flag Operation”)
Come on now. Writing speeding tickets, issuing restraining orders for false abuse allegations from BPD feminist women (which happened to me), and removing men from their homes from said allegations (which did not happen to me) is not ALL that cops do. Did we hire too many of them because we want the revenue the create and carrying out the feminist imperative of a restraining order? Sure. Should law enforcement agencies across the country be dramatically reduced in size (to say 40% of what they are now) yes. But that doesn’t mean we have celebrate when they are ruthlessly murdered. That is wrong.
Perhaps being an abortionist is worthy of a death sentence. Being a cop is not worthy of death.
Yac-Yac – Why do single out the pedestalizers on the religious right? Pedestalizers are plentiful on the left, as well as in the moderate population. All men who worship and submit to women hurt the welfare of a nation regardless of their political leaning.
Hmm and Dave,
Yes that is straight LDS doctrine. They only talk of Adam’s sin, never Eve’s. And they don’t acknowledge Adam’s sin (listening to his wife) as sin. They added a whole bunch of other stuff for which Adam was sinful of…
The LDS do not generally dignify Genesis 1-28.
I didn’t read all the comments. Perhaps what I’m about to write has already been discussed.
Many of the council members of the CBMW either have heretical views of the Trinity, a checkered, unaccountable ministry, are confused about women’s roles themselves, or are otherwise kooks in some way.
Over time, I’ve come to see that parachurch organizations are unaccountable groups that exist to provide makework jobs for otherwise-unemployable people or to provide a marketing platform for big people to get even bigger.
The roles of men and women are explained clearly in the Bible or Nature. Too many are confused about gender roles because they want to be.
@Lost Patrol
Yes. It is in fact even worse. If you look at their founding document (The Danver’s Statement), they invented a new (feminist) sin for women, the sin of servility.
Thank you for the kind words.
In other news, the upcoming Star Trek TV Series will have LGBTQ characters :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(2017_TV_series)
We don’t even know if it is set in the 23rd, 24th, or 25th century, but it has LGBTQ, which is soooooo much more important…
Star Trek is more fun when it asks the question whether you can bone a gender-less species. That’s the important question in sci-fi.
Though the new Star Trek TV show is an interesting microcosm. The entire worldview that the series was built upon is in the rapid process of collapsing. So, even a modern take as a series is going to be pretty terrible.
It is completely wrong to say that police officers deserve to be murdered by surprise. Even if they enforce VAWA and child support, most are decent people and don’t deserve to die. The VAWA racket was passed by congress, so go there to overturn it (putting aside the fact that such laws cannot be overturned in a democracy), not at the enforcement level.
BUT, note that if Black Lives Matter and the police start having a real war, then the police might very well have less time/focus to enforce misandry-centric laws, which is the majority of police attention nowadays. This distraction might indirectly give persecuted men some breathing space. This is merely an example of how an unrelated issue creates an impact somewhere else.
Even if they enforce VAWA and child support, most are decent people and don’t deserve to die.
I must respectfully disagree. If most cops were “decent people,” they would have nothing to do with a “profession” that not only does NOT “protect and serve” the citizenry by protecting Natural Law rights of sanctity of person and property, or even make any real pretense of doing so, but actively and eagerly serves the institution charged with such protections (i.e., the State) in consciously destroying said protections.
The proof is very simple: how many cops make an active effort to put a stop to the criminal behavior engaged in by their fellow bullies in blue when the commit acts of criminal violence against the persons or property of the citizenry?
The answer is something very near ZE-RO. Why? Because the vast majority of the bullies in blue are engaged in criminal behavior on a daily, if not hourly basis! Any lone wolf Dudley Dooright is going to be turned on and torn apart by the rest of the pack for not conforming to the blue omerta under which this goes on, a blue omerta sanctioned and enforced by the very highest echelons of the Ruling Class for whom cops serve as enforcers/bodyguards, this being their primmary role above all else.
Ask any former Mafioso who develops a conscience and tries to leave “the Life” what it’s like to try to do that and live. It’s the same thing for a cop who takes the propaganda at face value and tries to “protect and serve” the citizenry rather than the Ruling Class. Both such individuals joined criminal gangs and found out what happens when you violate the gang’s code of loyalty (omerta), no matter how vile and criminal the acts it covers up.
“Decent” is the very LAST word that would apply to anybody who defends or plays a willing role in such a system.
This is a really fair question, I think. I’ll try to answer it, best as I can.
I think it’s like this: when you speak of the “left”, above, Bob, insofar as that is a useful and meaningful term at all (debatable, but let’s roll with it), it’s probably safe to say it includes the entirety of the self-styled “Progressives”, and their soft-Left (“Liberal”) allies — the Dan Rathers of the world — hence includes all of the Ideological Feminists.
So, I think you would agree we’re talking about the abortion-rights advocates, the supporters of economic socialism, the advocates of extensive government interventions not only in economic life but in social relations including family life, and so on.
Insofar as they’ll agree that Society (in “The West”, i.e., USA, UK, Europe, Australia, etc.) is headed in a particular direction, they’re probably all of them pretty happy with that direction.
And, to a womyn and mangina, they’re probably opposed to gun rights for law abiding citizens, have no real problem with open borders, and don’t mind at all that The Traditional Family is, if not quite yet destroyed, then is certainly under siege.
(Dalrock and commenters here have shared links to misc. quotes from that lot, about how they want men to “feel fear” in all their dealings with women, etc.)
So, there’s a deeply rooted misandry there, one that verges on the androcidal.
And, needless to say (as you imply) the pedestalization of women is built right in to all that.
Arguably, that lot sees, more or less, where we’ve have been for the last ~500-2000 years, they see, more or less, where we seem to be headed, and they like it.
[They don’t see it realistically, as we in this forum discuss constantly — expecting men to uphold their part of the old social contract even though the incentives are all gone, etc. — but I think you get what I mean …]
There’s no reason that I can think of why, given how they think about the world, they might see any need for (or utility to) any depedestalization of women.
They’ve got us on the Highway to Hell, and they’ve put us on Cruise Control, but all the Highway Road-signs of their [crazy] narrative say this is actually the road to Social Paradise, so they’re “happy”, in their own deluded way.
Indeed, note the constant effort on their part [well, the most “active” of them, with the express or tacit support of the rest] to invade, scent-mark, and if possible destroy, male spaces of any kind. The political-societal [Gramscian] objective, plainly, is to degrade all status that might accrue to any masculine virtue or endeavor whatever, and to demasculinize any endeavor to which apparent virtue might accrue.
The cognitive dissonance they should most naturally feel, is really at two steps removed from reality: first they have to realize we are on the Highway to Hell, and then only afterwards could they be in a position to have cognitive dissonance about their chosen Social Order, and their chosen methods of ordering society, given where they would (only) then see where these are taking us.
By contrast, the pedestalizers on the religious right know d@mn well we’re on The Highway To Hell. And yet they defend the Feminine Imperative in all its manifestations, anyway.
In fact, “they” need not be restricted, as a group, to the “religious” right: plenty of atheist “libertarian” pedestalizers out there, too, and so on.
For examples of the latter, consider e.g. the ostensibly anti-socialist Ayn Rand groupies aka “Objectivists”, they’ll defend “a woman’s right to abortion”, because FI, even though it is plainly the main thing (along with STI rates) driving constant government interventions in what might otherwise be a free market for health-care (and not just in the USA), which they claim they advocate also.
But as with all the religious Cuckservative hypocrites who howled with outrage and indignation when Donald Trump hinted that women might have some moral complicity in the aborting of their own children, they see the contradiction right there in front of them, and intellectually evade this contradiction of their own “values”.
So, what would have happened to the moral tone of the country if (completely implausibly, but bear with me) the “religious right”, or at least some significant fraction of it, had publicly agreed with Donald Trump about that?
If, as we discuss here so often in this forum, the culture has to change before the laws can (e.g., recriminalization of 99% of abortions, whatever), and if The Culture is — has been since at least 1965 — run by those of The Left, then doesn’t that mean we have to rely on the (2015) Counter-culture to lead us there, to that place?
Plainly, in the “culture wars” (as Pat Buchanan and others name it), in the USA at least, in 2016, if The Left is The Culture, then the “religious right” is main portion of The Counter-culture.
And yet, when it comes to the FI, which is the knife stabbing at the heart of Our Civilization (I think at least we here in this forum can agree), well — as Dalrock points out, the “religious right” will pull it out deeper, every time.
Every time.
…
The Left think there is no Problem.
The Right understand full f_cking well there is a Problem, and also that it is not just a “problem” but a Civilizational Existential Threat.
But, they apparently reason, if we’ll just accomodate the Existential Threat, make it feel safe, compromise with it (which is how it feeds and grows), well, “no problem”.
That’s why I single them out.
I hope that made sense.
Anyway, that’s why I hold Cuckservatives to a higher standard than I do SJW idiots.
You may want to learn to write more compactly Yac-Yac. TLDR comes to mind.
====
IBB,
The trend will likely continue, unfortunately. The police have lost their legitimacy in many areas. As long as it remains an us-vs-them mentality they will be in big trouble as the tide continues to turn.
I was just thinking today of the fact I have been arrested without a single charge noted and barely escaped a night in jail because I had money in an account I could reach with an ATM (paying an inflated “fee” for that ability, twice because they made it impossible to withdraw enough at one time). This was right before CPS stole our children away after false claims by my oldest daughter.
Nothing was on the arrest form, but that didn’t stop them for putting me through the process.
They lost a great deal of respect in my eyes after that, though it took a while to sink in.
Though I am just one, they are making lots of hostile parties with their military tactics and those are likely to really backfire as time goes on and people see it as a war, not a societal action.
Note that I do not relish that happening, but it is where we are headed.
====
I saw a clip of a BLM activist proclaiming “no justice no peace” all the while claiming she was peaceful. No one challenged her on the hypocrisy of that claim. We have given up peaceful ways to resolve things and things are likely to get quite nasty, whether we all want it or not.
(I certainly prefer peace, but will do what I have to do to defend myself and my wife. I am not going out looking for any trouble, but I suspect trouble will keep coming near to me.)
I tend to assume you can predict about 90% of human action if you understand the framework under which someone is operating. This is why understanding the cultural assumptions tells you a whole lot about the trajectory a culture is on. (It’s also important to realize some people can change a culture for generations by either positive or negative actions, given their place.)
I think the pathway that’s done Cops the most damage is that, via the “War of Drugs”, they really became a revenue operation. Over the 50 years since the start of that “War”, it’s completely ingrained in the mindset & operation. There’s a big difference between enforcing Order in a community and being an arm of the Government to extract wealth. It slowly seeps in to all interactions with the Police.
Obviously, we also understand the aspects involved with enforcement of things like the VAWA, “Child Protective Services” and the FI. But the biggest failure was the revenue aspect, I believe.
That came to mind when I recalled, since I have extended relatives from the region, of a lot of “Revenuer” jokes. Those would be Treasurer Agents enforcing Prohibition. That ended roughly in 1934, but the jokes still exist, 80+ years later. Why? Aside from enforcing a boneheaded set of laws, they also where Tax Collectors. Any Christian should understand how Tax Collectors always end up operating. The graft is *always* good in that field.
Graft & corruption are always present in any organization with Power, but the Police in this country suddenly had the ability to stick their hand in your pocket. That, while subtle, is a fundamental shift in the nature of the Police force, even if most Cops aren’t actively engaged in the practice. As the pre-law change Cops slowly retired, the new Cops simply are indoctrinated in that type of operation, thinking nothing of it.
This actually ties back, amazingly enough, into what is going on with the CBMW. The conceptions was always wrong, and since the assumptions were wrong, they were always going to drift into the culture. Since they refused to stand upon the Lord, they were always going to be moved by the shifting sand. It’s the exact same process. The “new guard” shifts further and further away from what is Good. Then we wonder “how did this all happen?”. Well, you didn’t bother to check your assumptions.
…how many cops make an active effort to put a stop to the criminal behavior engaged in by their fellow bullies in blue when they commit acts of criminal violence against the persons or property of the citizenry?
As was rightly answered, close to zero. And that is why a good American cop is rarer than a Unicorn. Although relatively few commit crimes, virtually all of them are accessory to those crimes, and actively work together to cover for their offending colleagues. If Hitler’s officers had no excuse for doing the wrong thing because they were “just following orders”, the cops have even much less to stand on for their state-sanctioned criminal behaviors.
So, now we’re justifying and cheering the murder of police officers. That’s Biblical.
So, now we’re justifying and cheering the murder of police officers. That’s Biblical.
Yes, this is getting pretty disgusting – didn’t think I’d find Shaun King types here, but then these are truly disturbing times. These people are also the same folks who claim to abhor abortion, by the way.
Think I’ll go elsewhere for a while.
Who is cheering them? Noting why isn’t an error.
The same type charges are regularly made against Dalrock and what he covers. Stating the problem and its basis is not saying the problem is a good thing.
I specifically noted I do not like the situation, but it is where we are at. It is connected to the male-female topics here because I don’t like a lot of those either, but they are also where we are at.
Worshiping anything but God gets to be dangerous, whether it is female or government force.
So, now we’re justifying and cheering the murder of police officers. That’s Biblical.
Who is cheering them? Noting why isn’t an error.
The same type charges are regularly made against Dalrock and what he covers. Stating the problem and its basis is not saying the problem is a good thing.
Thank you!
I would have thought that the regulars here, of all places, would understand that concept instinctively. How very disappointing that some here have chosen to follow the “brainstemmer” approach so popular with both tradcucks AND libtards by conflating explanation with justification. Very, VERY disappointing, but, I suppose, not really surprising.
BillyS says:
July 18, 2016 at 8:46 am
“Who is cheering them? Noting why isn’t an error.”
theasdgamer says:
July 17, 2016 at 4:33 pm
@ibb
“3 more cops murdered, this time in Baton Rouge. You know, the flag at my office has remained at half staff all summer. How many more will die?
Never enough…911 false-abuse-claim enforcers aren’t the good guys”
Wanna bet?
Worshiping anything but God gets to be dangerous, whether it is female or government force.
Exactly so. Worship of Caesar and his armed legions has become the new American State Religion, one that has thoroughly co-opted what were once (at least nominally) Christian churches. It goes hand in hand with gyno-worship as well, as Gynocracy without the armed force of the State behind it is an impossibility.
feeriker – You’ve been caught in a “Trump” trap. Which part of that statement are you disagreeing with? Have to be explicit. lol
@ feeriker
You’re projecting like an SJW. No one here is “worshiping Caesar and his armed legions”. Someone here DID claim that no matter how many cops are murdered, it’s “never enough”.
Oscar .. that comment has nothing do with you or the ignorant comment, complain to the moderator instead of derailing
@BillyS
The men setting out to murder cops (and specifically white cops at least in Dallas) are being encouraged by a campaign to demonize the police as racists who shoot blacks out of malice. This demonization has backing all the way to the white house. This isn’t about asset seizure or VAWA or even child support (the man shot while running away due to a child support warrant isn’t one of the cases the BLM group has really trumpeted).
Moreover, the anti father laws exist and are enforced the way they are not because of a push by the police, but because we as a nation despise fathers.
Then I will state clearly that I despise what goes on in the areas you note Dalrock. BLM is idiotic since all lives matter, not just certain ones.
The problem comes when some have been stupid (cops) and then reap what they sow.
The Biblical admonition is quite applicable:
It is kind of similar to ancient Israel and Judah where wicked peoples (the Assyrians and Babylonians) were used to chastise God’s people. The fact results for idiocy came doesn’t mean those who brought it were at all good.
Though note Dalrock that this issue is about police misbehavior, though that goes beyond the scope of this blog.
They may be unwilling participants in some things, but many who wear a badge have ruined the great deal of goodwill they have and that is leading to the mess we have now. They may have needed to respond in my case, but they had no reason to haul me off to jail (for example). They ended up being thugs (likely because they mistook me for someone else). One cop asked the other to fill out the paperwork in my case, even though the second admitted he had no idea what to put down. They left it blank, but they still arrested me. This was related to the topics discussed here and is thus relevant. (Unless you declare it out of scope of course.)
A system that loses its credibility will face some serious challenges if it seeks to maintain its position.
Moreover, the anti father laws exist and are enforced the way they are not because of a push by the police, but because we as a nation despise fathers.
That’s true, but as long as cops are willing to enforce what is clealy bad, immoral law, the status quo will continue. Without armed enforcers as they currently exist and operate, bad, immoral law would be nothing but loud legal-political flatulence emanating out of Rome-on-the-Potomac and the 50 state capitals and would be of no effect whatsoever on anyone.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/cleveland-cops-demand-emergency-suspension-open-carry-ahead-rnc
BLM is idiotic since all lives matter, not just certain ones
BLM now is what the Black Panthers were by the mid-70s when they finally collapsed: a compromised, Fed informant-infested front organization co-opted for COINTELPRO purposes. Nothing is what it seems, then or today.
@Dalrock, Karen is a chat bot. I’ve had to block multiple iterations of her from my blog. “She’s” been making the rounds on a lot of ‘sphere blogs in the past couple of months.
@BillyS
I think 1 Pet 2:13-24 is more relevant, especially keeping in mind that Peter already knew that Rome would crucify him.
“Therefore, Eph 5:26–27 does not describe as part of a husband’s duty the progressive sanctification of his wife.”
I mostly agree here. These verses are definitely descriptive, not prescriptive as most Churchians like to believe. Another quote from the linked article:
“Every Christian has a responsibility to live in such a way as to seek the maturation of each other. However, no person will be held responsible before God, ultimately, for the maturation of someone else. So to say “her sanctification is his responsibility” is overstating the responsibility each Christian has to one another.”
This is helpful as far as it goes but it’s a very long argument if his ultimate goal is “wives must be held responsible for her behavior”. Regardless, I don’t see the Churchian rank and file absolving husbands of responsibility for Princess’ behavior.
…
BillyS @ 10:55 am:
“BLM is idiotic since all lives matter, not just certain ones.”
It’s the sort of thing I’ve seen in Los Angeles for years. Race-baiters making a profit off teaching stupid people to hate. Part and parcel of the professional victim mentality.
“The problem comes when some have been stupid (cops) and then reap what they sow.”
I would like to see them reap what they sow, too. Police do a lot of thankless work keeping human trash off the streets in between those VAWA arrests. How odd that the media consistently reports only the worst of police behavior, never the best. Why don’t they treat their loyal enforcers better?
Love the sinner, hate the sin and remember Christ does it for you.
Seems I must play a bit of devil’s advocate again.
Someone earlier mentioned that explaining a position is not the same as supporting it. That is my stance here. I am sure some of you have tried to defend counter-feminist principles only to be called a misogynist, or some other term that implies you are a hateful bigot, offhand without the other person ever really stopping to consider your points and assessing whether your claims were valid.
Well, it seems the same thing is happening with “black lives matter”. The statement is not trying to say that black lives matter more than all other lives any more than saying you prefer the male to lead is saying you hate women. No. It doesn’t work that way. Instead, what it is trying to say is that black lives matter just as much as other lives. Why would they feel the need to say that? Because they feel that black lives are respected less than other lives. This notion they get from the fact that apparently policemen are more nonchalant about ending a black life than any other life. Their evidence comprises of the incidents they mention, which involve videos of black people murdered by police for actions that clearly did not deserve death. The perception is that had the victim been non-black, for that reason alone they would have stood a better chance of surviving that incident. This reflects an inherent racial bias within the police force. And this is the bias the BLM movement is trying to address. “Black lives matter” is a statement meant to remind policemen so that they think twice next time they have to confront a black person, to perhaps treat them with the dignity they would offer a non-black person. It is not meant to say blacks should be treated in any more special a way than other races.
The civil rights movement and feminist movement do have many parallels, but that is only because they are both activist movements trying to claim rights for its members. It doesn’t mean they are both right. One claims that blacks deserve to be treated with the same dignity as other races, which even the Bible agrees with (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), while the other claims that women are identical to men and should be given the same positions in terms of authority, which the Bible does NOT agree with (“the man is the head of the woman”). See the difference? There seems to be a gut reaction to group civil rights and feminism into the same pool of “activists fighting an evil fight believing themselves to be fighting for good” but that is not the case.
I suspect what is actually happening is a reaction I have often observed. When someone is attacked and they get a chance to fight back, they tend not to respond in moderation but to go all out in the defensive direction. Now while this makes perfect sense in a physical battle, in intellectual battles it often leads to extremist assumptions and beliefs being adopted. Statements that are pro-one thing are taken to mean they are anti-another. I reiterate: this is not the case. The ideal is for both parties to come together on the healthy middle ground. Unfortunately both parties are usually too upset to meet there, so they both remain on opposite, extreme ends of the debate. It is like a see-saw that will never balance, because one party will obviously be heavier (more influential) than the other. Unfortunately this will only keep the situation unresolved, causing the weaker party to continue protesting, further prompting the stronger party to redouble their stance at the opposite end and thus strengthening the imbalance. Ultimately the weaker party will realise it cannot get through to the other side and, unwilling to meet in the middle, will resort to drastic measures. This is when an arm of that weaker party will go militant. They take up arms against the other side. And this, I believe, is what is happening with the police shooters in Texas. It is also what happened with the Muslim world. An extremist sub-set (not the whole) of the weaker side resorts to violence in frustration. Obviously this only provides fuel to the justifications of the stronger side and they plant their feet more firmly on their extreme end of the camp.
TL,DR: Black lives matter is trying to get police and society to respect black lives as much as, not more than, other lives. Whites feel they are being demonised so they go on the extreme defensive. In frustration small wings of the BLM movement take up arms. They are not right to do so, but their cause is right. Not to be conflated with feminism.
Please note thal last bit is actually 3 paragraphs. Don’t know why my word editor let me down again.
@Gunner Q
There is a bit of a straw man here. He is grabbing on to the complementarian misuse of spiritual headship as a club against husbands (and a club against headship), and using this to claim that there is no such thing as spiritual headship. It is true that as individuals we are responsible for following Christ, but it is also true that our leaders will be held to account, as Hebrews 13:7 makes clear:
Black lives matter is trying to get police and society to respect black lives as much as, not more than, other lives. Whites feel they are being demonised so they go on the extreme defensive. In frustration small wings of the BLM movement take up arms. They are not right to do so, but their cause is right.
Meh. Call me when black-on-black violence goes down.
Also note the complete inability of BLM-type groups to recruit apolitical Hispanics and Asians as allies. There seems to be an assumption among blacks that Hispanics and Asians will make blacks the senior partners in some anti-white alliance, when observable trends indicate the exact opposite to be happening (black vs. non-black seems to be where the demarcation is forming).
@Anon, that attitude is exactly why BLM exists. It seems they are right about not being sufficiently respected.
To anyone who lives in the US, I would point out that your entire country exists only because white-on-white violence occurred in the UK. That blacks are violent to each other isn’t enough cause for others to consider them less than human.
Your first paragraph (below the quote) exemplifies the extreme defensive position I wrote about. You are unwilling to care that they are dying for nothing. The second paragraph is an example of the weak justifications people try to use to defend their positions. It does not refute the claim that black lives matter just as much as other lives.
It does not refute the claim that black lives matter just as much as other lives.
Then why is it now ‘politically incorrect’ to say that All Lives Matter? Even this is somehow offensive to blacks.
You are unwilling to care that they are dying for nothing.
By who’s hand? Again, when black-on-black violence rates drop down to the same levels as white-on-black violence rates, let me know.
Dalrock,
I don’t see that as inconsistent with what I wrote. I am submitted to the authorities. I just think they have a mess on their hands that they had a significant part in making.
Dave II,
I find that BLM may claim to counter bias, but usually just continues the “certain lives deserve special privileges.” Sometimes a specific reason is given for this, sometimes it is vague or not really covered.
I grew up believing what MLK Jr. said, about treating people by the content of their character, but many things have made me deeply wonder why some refuse to fix their own character. The clip I noted above played on CNN just after the clip about the shooting. She did not paint a good picture claiming she wanted peace, but would not get it until she got “justice” in here own terms.
Some instances were police brutality, others were stupid people getting killed doing stupid things. It is a mess and is likely to get messier as we go forward. Not a nice thing to look forward to.
We are unfortunately a long way from Mayberry and Andy Griffith….
Question re: Husband staring at other females
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1017967
Need Advice – Daughters first boyfriend visiting
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1018137
Question re: Husband staring at other females
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1017967
Am I the only wife who feels terribly hurt when their husband stares at the well-shaped bodies of other women in public? I don’t mean just a passing glance, but a long, fixated stare – so much so that their eyes often follow the (usually young) woman or girl as they walk until they’re out of sight,and they sometimes even adjust their stance or seat so they can ogle better and longer. This is most noticeable at the beach but also occurs in many other public areas as well, unfortunately. If I try to gently mention (in private) that it’s painful for me as a wife to witness, my husband insists he’s doing absolutely nothing wrong and harshly verbally admonishes me, even continuing to the point of giving me the cold shoulder for days afterwards as “punishment.”
Does this happen in other marriages, or is it just mine? Am I being overly sensitive? Can anyone recommend what I can possibly say to help him understand the hurt it brings me? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
((Imagining a CAF version of “Dear Abby/Ann Landers” responding:))
“Dear ‘bmaj’ (might that be a contraction of “bitch majorette?”):
“As the advice columnist to whom you have directed the above, I file letters like this under “not getting the full story.” Usually this sort of thing is written by women who look and act like the woman in the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ed6PSC1o7w.
“Is that you? If so, just go stand in front of a body-length mirror and stare good and hard at your reflection for about 30 minutes. You might first want to record yourself while talking to your husband, then go stand in front of the mirror and play that recording of yourself back while staring at your reflection. This will give you your answer as to why your husband stares so intently at “well-shaped bodies of other women” in public – women who probably also SMILE fairly regularly (Google it if you’re unfamiliar with the concept) and who can carry on conversations with men in voices operating somewhere below 70 decibels and in a tone of voice called “pleasant” (do a YouTube search for an example if you’re unfamiliar with the concept). Believe me, you don’t EVEN want to know what he’s thinking about the woman he’s staring longingly at, and most certainly not what he’s thinking about YOU at that same moment!
Now granted, I wouldn’t ever expect you to admit that the woman in the video segment is your identical twin/Doppelgaenger. Being a woman, you wouldn’t admit it even if it were true. But regardless, see if you can answer the following questions HONESTLY (I know, I know, I might as well be asking for a balanced federal budget, but please TRY):
1. When was the last time you had sex with your husband (I won’t unduly burden you be asking when the last time was that you MADE LOVE to him)?
2. If question number 1 wasn’t so long ago that you can’t even remember what sex is, did YOU initiate the sex, or did he have to beg you for it?
3. Was the sex “warm, lively, exhilarating, and intimate,” or was it “duty sex” in which you acted like you were a corpse with attitude (i.e., sex with a dirty, cracked concrete slab would have been more pleasurable and erotic for your husband than sex with you)?
4. Have you gained sufficient weight that your husband has to use a divining rod to “find the hole” on those rare occasions when you do have sex (duty or otherwise)?
5. Are the only sounds that you make during sex either flatulence or a 70-decibel “aren’t you done YET?!”
6. When was the last time you dressed up in something attractive and provocative for your husband?
7. More importantly, when was the last time you uttered so much as a kind and loving word to your husband?
“These are just rhetorical questions that you don’t need to answer, at least not for my satisfaction, because women who answer “last night – TWICE (and last night was a slow night),” “I never give him the chance to ask; he gets it whether he wants it or not,” “set the bedroom on fire,” “PENTHOUSE Model, BAYBEEEE!,” “Neighbors three houses down complained, told us to “go get a motel room!,” “Dress up?!’ Who needs CLOTHES?!”, and “the next UNkind, nasty word I say to him will be the first – AND THE LAST!” don’t write letters to Catholic Answers Forum whining about how their husbands silently wish that they’d drop dead so that they can hook up with a REAL WOMAN and get reacquainted with that thing called “regular sex” again.
“So, sweetheart, consider the above HINTS as a homework assignment as to how you might “un-fixate” your husband from staring at REAL women in public. Methinks it’s actually possible –heck, even probable— that you were once one of these at some point in your past, but that for some unfathomable reason you decided to … well, to put it crassly, “stop giving a fuck” (both figuratively and literally). It’s time to start “giving a fuck” again, both figuratively and literally. Full disclosure: it’s going to take effort on your part (***GASSSSSP!!!!*). If that’s a deal breaker, then, well … get ready to start finding strange phone numbers and condoms in your husband’s wallet and panties of a size smaller than yours in his car.
“Good luck in turning this around. I have a sickening feeling that you’re REALLY going to need it (the success track record in turning things around of women who write letters like yours is dismal – as in the very low single digits, percentage-wise).”
@ Gunner Q
“Love the sinner, hate the sin and remember Christ does it for you.”
“Hate the sin, love the sinner.”- Mahatma Gandhi
The Bible says
Malachi 2:17: “You have wearied the LORD with your words. “How have we wearied him?” you ask. By saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them” or “Where is the God of justice?”
God hates the sin and those who do sin. But because God loves us He did not leave us in our sin. That is why He sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our place. So His wrath for us and our wicked ways was placed on Christ.
Romans 5: 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
@freekier, this is what a husband does when his wife looks repulsive to him.
She is prob packing a few extra hundred pounds over what he is used too, and has marked this conversation “off limits” and under threat of divorce if he mentions it (I’ve known a few). So its broken down to him getting his needs in that way (as he is not allowed to watch porn obviously), and beating one off in private.
He is trying to send her a message and get what he needs at the same time. But she just wants to be wanted “as she is”.
Have to say, one of my great fears of ever getting married again (one of many) is being legally shackled to someone who has become physically repulsive to me.
Have to say, one of my great fears of ever getting married again (one of many) is being legally shackled to someone who has become physically repulsive to me.
As I’ve mentioned before, having a landwhale for a wife might be at least tolerable if she maintained a halfway decent disposition and still put out regularly. Unfortunately, once she packs on the extra layers of lard the sex dries up completely and the “bitch costume” is put on and never, EVER taken off. The former is easily explained, but there’s no logical explanation I can fathom for the latter being a regular side effect of obesity.
@freeiker, THat above scenario might be ok for some guys. Land whale+pleasant+sex.
For most I think – no.
But it is as you think, most morbidly obese females have shockingly bad personalities. I don’t know if their mental\emotional issues lead to overeating, or the obesity alters brain chemicals or that they are overlooked so much they just get so angry about it.
I’ve also noted morbidly obese guys are often flagged as incompetent, which is not far from the truth. Barring the rarity, extreme weight issues really show lack of will power, drive, intelligence, good character etc.
If your body is messed up so will be your mind. In short stay well clear.
@Anon,
All Lives Matter as a statement is not offensive. It is the way it is used that makes it so. The underlying message seems to be that black people should not expect any special priviledges relative to other races. Thing is, BLM is not asking for special priviledges, but for EQUAL priviledge in the eyes of the law along with other races. All Lives Matter in theory is true, but in practice it is not being effected, because apparently black lives don’t matter in the eyes of the law as much as all other lives.
As for at whose hands are they dying, have you not seen or even heard about the videos I just mentioned? The police.
Again, to say that their own intra-racial violence rates must go down before you’ll listen does not refute that their lives matter. It is an insufficient justification for ignoring their plight. When they get violent, know that it is that kind of attitude that frustrates some of them to that point.
Ironically, you protest against them as if they are protesting against you. They are not. White people need to understand this. They oppose disproportionate police violence against black people. Whites only rebut because for some reason they feel BLM is against them. Why? Who told you this? They lied to you.
@BillyS, please see my first paragraph above in answer to your comment.
Thanks for not letting this derail the comments thread guys. It is way off topic. I would appreciate not having to write another one, thanks.
You must be listening to a different BLM crew Dave II.
@Dave2, every liberal should be forced to serve as police in a black neighbourhood for at least 2 years. Bonus points for more.
Statistically whites are discriminated against by shooting way more than blacks (if you look at the murder rate per pop). They should consider themselves lucky.
It dosnt really matter the number of a population, what matters is the amount of incidences of crime they commit and therefore incidences that they get involved with the police chasing them down. If you commit murders at x4 the rate of whites, I would expect the same ratio in being shot by police – if all is fair. And if you commit assault at x7, sexual assault x10 etc… expect MORE and MORE police involvement and more things to go wrong, the more crime YOU commit.
Im starting to see that training ones children in gun use is prob very wise considering how things are developing. Even black police write about how despised they are in their own communities that they went in to serve.
Blacks as a whole DO NOT want “white man’s\European\christian” law and order.
They dont want it in africa nor anywhere in the world where they congregate (London\France\USA etc). Even the black police say the blacks dont want the police to sort out the issues they want to take care of it themselves with a bullet. In short they want the law of the jungle. But with the welfare and infrastructure of whites.
Turns out we have all been deceived by liberalism, you think things are difficult now? Just wait till the governments cant roll over their loans – thats when you then get no welfare or police.
As D frequents states, feminism is a massive pumping operation, this is also the same for blacks and muslims, and the pumps are running dry in both money and patience.
Over the last 50 years, we should have only let in those who were desperate for peace and European law and order, not for those who want the law of the jungle or shira law. No matter how bad things were before for limited groups it enabled the functioning and fiscal accountability of the whole society. This is now lost. We cannot afford to keep funding this mistake nor keep adding even more numbers to it.
Mary Kassian strikes again:
http://girlsgonewise.com/does-a-husband-have-the-authority/
Under the cover of her reading of Jesus, Kassian gives eight points about the nature of authority as she sees it. After I finished reading it, I questioned whether Jesus as she saw him would ever command anyone. Would he really have told that adulterous woman to “go and sin no more”? Sounds “domineering and dictatorial” to me….
Her bottom line: “According to the Bible, a wife’s submission is her choice alone. A husband does not have the right to force or coerce her to do things against her will. He does not have the right to domineer. He does not have the right to pull rank and use strong-arm tactics. He does not have the right to make his wife submit.”
My question to her: leaving aside the question of whether the husband has the right to “make” or “force” his wife to do anything, does he have the right to command her to submit? That is, to repeat to her Paul’s command to submit to her husband?
“Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” ” Luke 19:20-27 ESV.
Me thinks Mrs. Kassian doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. And her minas will be taken from her.
After I finished reading it, I questioned whether Jesus as she saw him would ever command anyone. Would he really have told that adulterous woman to “go and sin no more”? Sounds “domineering and dictatorial” to me….
The Gospel According to Saint Mary Kassian encapsulates perfectly how women view Christianity: as an optional and disposable philosophy that they can take or leave as the mood suits them, just so long as it doesn’t demand anything of them or hold them accountable for anything.
It wouldn’t surprise me if she were to establish her own gyno-centric cult in few years that won’t even make any pretense anymore of being Christian.
Hmm,LG, I cant really see what is wrong with the text in that article.
The only thing wrong is the pic of a man screaming at a female, i dont think ive ever witnessed this, although Ive witnessed most women (that I know of) screaming at their husbands. Ive actually found women in the church to be more abusive than those not classed as Christians, surprisingly. Although maybe not when you consider how they are brought up. And that women with personality disorders seem to be attracted into the church.
“Does a wife have the authority to take her husband’s phone away, preventing her from making calls?
Does a wife have the authority to take his husband’s car keys? House keys?
Does a wife have the authority to physically prevent his husband from leaving the home?
Does a wife have the authority to physically force his husband to accompany him when he leaves the home?
Does a wife have the authority to lock his husband out of the house?
Does a wife have the authority to keep financial documents away from his husband?
Does a wife have the authority to take the husband’s personal property without consent?”
I can pretty much guarantee that all women will absolutely entitled to do any of the above (and in fact ALL will probably be done during a divorce) and if that dosn’t work, call the police and alleged some form of emotional abuse.
“Projection” is a big thing with women, the abuse they deal out they project it as bouncing off you – classic BPD. I’m sure from her article, the “husband” being slandered has prob got very reasonable reasons for maybe asking her to take an hour off the phone for dinner after being on it all day (wouldnt want her to starve to death….) – husbandry at work.
“Soft” complementarianism:
http://babylonbee.com/news/complementarian-man-abandons-firmly-held-beliefs-sight-big-scary-spider/
(note that the Babylon Bee is a satire site – kind of like a Christian version of The Onion).
The only thing these women prove is that it is best not to marry. Please keep at it ladies.
That is a unique interpretation of what happened Dave.
I think I will instead believe that Saul simply rebelled against God’s command (through Samuel), as that is what is written.
Who is complicating things now?
Certainly not me.
Please read the passage again. King Saul did not set out to rebel against God or His prophet.
As a matter of fact, he insisted repeatedly that he had obeyed the word of God. His only sin consisted in his reinterpretation of God’s clear, but apparently “barbaric” command:
1 Samuel 15:
1. The clear command:
3. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
2. King Saul’s prompt obedience:
4. So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.
7. And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt.
3. His error: he spared the king and some animals
9. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
Isn’t this similar to what the theologians of today are doing? Thinking that God’s clear, unmistakable command to wives to “submit” to husbands as unto the Lord a bit out of place? That it is OK to reinterpret what God had said numerous times in His word? Aren’t they “sparing” the most plausible excuses of today’s rebellious women not to follow the word? By doing that aren’t they also in rebellion?
Saul’s excuse for disobedience: “This looks more enlightened/acceptable/sensible”
4. 15. And Saul said, “They have brought them [the sheep, oxen, etc] from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”
Notice the implicit belief by king Saul that God or His prophet must have beeen mistaken in their order to kill everything Amalekite, and his sensible explanation for his disobedience.
5. Saul’s claim of obedience
13. Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord.”
Ask any feminist-leaning Christian and they will insist they are following the(ir own version of the) Word of God.
Notice how eager Saul was to speak to Samuel! He felt he had obeyed the command of God that should have been given, not necessarily the one that was.
6. The trial: “You’re wrong, king Saul!”
19. Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”
7. Saul doubles down and insisted that he had been obedient
20. And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21. But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”
Since Saul obeyed (his reinterpreted version of) God’s command to him (the same way theologians of today do), he insisted that his version of the command should have been issued in the first place, and therefore he was in the clear.
8. The punishment: you’re no better than a rebellious and evil man, unfit to lead God’s people
23. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king”
Culture upholds authority as the right to rule and lord it over others, but Scripture paints a radically different picture about the true nature of authority. It teaches that:
•Authority is not self-appointed; it’s delegated by God.
•Authority is not personally owned; it merely stewards and manages that which belongs to God.
•Authority is not about rights; it’s about responsibility.
•Authority is not about seeking prominence; it’s about giving prominence.
•Authority is not domineering and dictatorial; it’s humble and gentle.
•Authority is not about getting; it’s about giving.
•Authority is not about selfish gain; it’s about selfless sacrifice.
•Every authority is accountable to a higher authority, and all are accountable to God the Father, who is the ultimate authority.
Actually, not really. Until an author who claims that Scripture says something, and goes on to give the relevant passages of that Scripture, all her assertions are nothing but personal opinions. That does not mean that personal opinions are bad though.
Mary Kassian, the founder of Girls Gone Wise…
How come every woman with a domain name and a few blog posts considered “a founder”?
I think I have to go with Dave on this point. It seems that Saul was in fact interpreting the word of God. In fact I think Dave opened my eyes to see this with clarity. It was not the same as simple disobedience. I do not think I ever saw that fact before.
As I’ve thought about it, the main thing I saw about the Mary Kassian link I posted was this:
In Jesus’ case, submission meant saying to the Father “Not my will, but yours be done.” Given Paul’s command for wives to submit to their husbands, is there ever a case where, in a conflict between husband and wife, Kassian would advise the woman to say the same thing to her husband? To simply put her will aside and do what he wants?
@Hmm
Thanks! I’ll do a post on that, but ended up writing another post involving Kassian that I’ll publish first.
Dalrock,
Things like this are why I have lost almost all my respect for police:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami-officer-involved-shooting/index.html
I would still not advocate violence against them, but it explains why so many are turning hostile.
I am not trying to stir up the debate, just note something I just saw via Google News.
“It is not the husband’s right to force or coerce his wife to submit. Submission is voluntary on a wife’s part, and her choice entirely.” – Jesus does not force or coerce the church to submit. Submission is voluntary on the church’s part, and the church’s choice entirely. True enough, but begs the point. The point is that the right thing to do is to submit and to not submit is sin.
Further if you do not want to submit to Jesus why are you in the church anyway (or are you?).
Prob alot easier to turn it around and ask what a wife would submit too. After they have balked at the suggestion, you will prob only find things she agrees with or rather wants to enforce.
No need for submission if you agree with someone though, its not “submit” to your husband if you agree with him on everything. Most women are in full rebellion anyway, whether they are aware of it or not. All the women I know would be absolutely horrified to carry out any task at all from their “husband” that they didn’t 100% agree with and would consider if abusive in every manner if he continued to encourage her to do what he asked, Most men I know in the church have given up completely asking their wives to do even the most simplest of tasks.
@BillyS, you sure you are not channeling your (rightful) anger at your daughter falsely accusing you of doing something to her into the police ?? They were after all just carrying out her orders.
Full sympathies BTW.
The white police are on edge as the aggression cues with threats of violence are very different from blacks than whites. They can’t interpret black behaviour correctly during high stress. And with the x7-x10 increase of violence for an individual black man compared to white, they are stressed to the max in this situation. Neither do blacks understand they need to bring down their aggression when dealing with white cops.