Cuckoo’s are diabolical parasites. The video below shows what happens after a cuckoo egg is laid in a Warbler’s nest.
The cuckoo chick ejects the real offspring so it can take their place. The truly disturbing part is that the parents care for the cuckoo as if it were their own. They have no idea the real chicks were pushed out by the fake, no matter how absurd it looks at the end of the video as the small warblers continue to feed the giant cuckoo as if it were a warbler chick.
The same thing has happened to huge numbers of Christians. We adopted the philosophy of courtly love, which is ironically itself a celebration of adultery, as if it were from God. How many even remember what was there before the parasite pushed out the real thing? As C.S. Lewis explains in The Allegory of Love:
French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first to express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.
This is why we have Christians teaching that romance sanctifies sex, and speaking of God honoring romance. You can see the same thing in the three part series on 50SOG at the Stepping Up® blog, with the implicit assumption that women’s sexuality is inherently pure and focused on “romance”.
It also shows up in the comments to the second post of the series. A 16 year old boy replies that unlike young men of the world he knows what God has taught Christian men to do; Christian men are to practice chivalry by opening doors for women, as God commands (emphasis mine):
As a 16 year old teen. I am often faced with choices that effect the kind of man i will be. At times my friends can persecute me for setting such high standards. I have made it my goal to respect and honor women for the true creation that they are as Gods daughters. Not just objects of my desire. In this age of time women have learned that men have fallen weak. To many women have to open their own doors. To many women have to raise their own kids. To many women disrespect themselves. It is our job as men to teach them to respect themselves. You should see the faces of the women i open doors for. We can make a big difference. As a 16 year old teen i am often assumed to be a disrespectful brat. But i have shown people that is not the case with me. Despite what this world will do i will follow Jesus in the way he would want me to follow him. I will treat women as God would want me to. If i a 16 year old teen can do this so can any man. Thank you guys for what you do praying for you.
The blog host replied (emphasis mine):
Keep stepping up, Kyle. And keep being a godly example for your friends and all us guys.
Never mind that the aspiring cuckservative doesn’t know the difference between ‘to’ and ‘too’ (another trait cuckservatives share with ‘feminists’ – horrendous grammar).
The good news is that cuckservatives are quite keen on picking up the tab, allowing the entire system to work smoothly :
Pickup artists want to have sex with women.
Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
Cuckservatives get to pick up the tab.
Everybody wins!
Everybody reaches their full potential, so everybody wins! Especially the cuckservative who gets to man up, step up, and enable a woman to attain what she wants. What could be better?
The entire blog is titled ‘MenSteppingUp’? Will the doubling-down never cease?
Since such behavior is repulsive to women, these cuckservatives are indeed terrorizing women all day long. The level of revolting treatment they heap onto women is analogous to if a man were forced to watch obese women dance naked in front of him all day long. They truly are terrorizing women.
Jesus HDMI Christ…..
I say we give the cuckservatives what they want. We need to keep sending them the tab for all the woman-rescuing casual sex that red-pill (single) men can have with women. Have the theraputic sex that heals women from cuckservative terror, and then send cuckservatives the tab.
Sunday Morning Nightclub, baby!
This 16 year old teen needs some spelling lessons.
“To many women have to open their own doors” I loved this! It speaks volumes.
Pingback: Cucked by Courtly Love. | @the_arv
I left a reply at the Stepping Up blog. He deleted it faster than a gamma male on estrogen.
When the discussion comes down to “opening door” and the lies me, I ask women to list the things men must do to honor women. After a half hour I stop,them. Women can go on forever in that topic.
Then, I ask women what women should do to honor men, as under chivalry. Silence and then ” What do you Meehan?” Women have never thought of men as something to honor.
Sorry for the previous comment. Autocorrect is killing me.
The part of Kyle’s comment which struck struck me was:
Kyle’s primary concern isn’t actually what women need. His goal is to be accepted by the “knights” at the “round table”. That is in addition to the natural inclination for men to want to please women, and happening just after he is off his mother’s apron…more or less. Modern schools are matriarchies, so he’s still a bit on the strings.
It’s a damnably efficient system for selecting recruits.
Melampus-
There is absolutely no place, no norm, no institution that contemplates men, manliness or masculinity as something to be honored in and of itself.
Hence, the catalyst for my own blog.
Great post, Dalrock.
The three part series on 50sog and stepping up are inlighting. I have never read 50sog. I have read the intire twilight series and hunger games and 5th wave books. The under lying trend in all of these books is a AF- BB story line. Weather it is Peeta or Gale in hunger games are weather it is Edward or Jacob black in the twilight books. There is always a under laying question of optimization of the hypergamic choice. The real story that females get when they read such books. 50 sog will no doubt have same story line if the writer continues. The book writers make the books that makes the movies that shap the culture.
Pingback: Manning Up – v5k2c2
CaneCaldo is correct. None of this embarrasing behavior has to do with truly desiring what is best for women. it has to do with a manboys all consuming need to protest their identity as a knight in shining armor who goes about rescuing damsels in distress .This self image is key to their emotional security, so they are zealous, often fanatical , about protecting it. Any challenge to this fragile self image will be met with harshness, contempt, and perhaps even violence.
We may have covered this topic previously, but are there any cross-cultural analogies to “courtly love” or romance-centered relationships in other places or times? Maybe it was adopted from the West, but there are a lot of Anime and Eastern stories that seem to be overly emo in their relationships with women.
Dear Melampus:
If you have a screenshot of your response, I’d be happy to post it here.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/manning-up/
Either way, thanks for doing this. One of the most powerful and important things we can do is to let these morons know we don’t accept their pretense of authority. Talking back to these idiots is absolutely essential. The founder of the blog is on Twitter at @DennisRainey, by the way. Show him some love over there if you get the chance. 😉
Regards,
Boxer
Someone give that kid a fedora!
Wow, a know-it-all teenager! I’ve never seen one of those before!
Apparently they don’t let links to CH through.
“To (sic) many women have to raise their own kids.”
Oh you mean after they cast the father from his home and have him turned into a slave, making it illegal for him to raise his own children, those poor poor women have to raise those children themselves?
Sixteen year old boys should know the difference between To and Too. They might also learn that opening doors purely on the basis of sex is sexist and that there are some women who will curse you out for doing so. The solution however is to ensure that every institution has separate doors for men and women: this was how thing were when the Conservatoire in Paris was opened in the early 1820s and Luigi Cherubini was its Director. One of the male students in full-on Rape-Culture mode decided that that was sexist and surely in breach of the equality-code and that he should have the right to enter in through the same door as the oppressed females; for this impertinence Cherubini found it necessary to reprimand the culprit, one Hector Berlioz.
The blog host replied (emphasis mine): Keep stepping up, Kyle. And keep being a godly example for your friends and all us guys.
Can’t help noticing that the host couldn’t even bring himself to refer to the the young writer — or even he and his “brothers in the faith,” for that matter — as MEN, not even when he was confronted with one performing what he thought were all the required duties that went along with the title. You know, it’s almost as if he thinks the term itself is something to be ashamed of . . .
Y’all might want to follow Dalrock’s lead and focus on this kid’s mistaken notions rather than his spelling and grammar. It’s not as if all the (adult) commenters here are paragons of literacy. And grammer notzees ar anoiying.
I have another Berlioz story involving a door: In his latter years Berlioz lived with a Spanish woman Marie Recio though married to famed Irish actress Harriet Smithson. One day there was a knock at the door. Marie went and opened the door (Hector being out) and a woman standing there enquired whether the person who had opened the door was Mme Berlioz. Marie Recio naturally replied in the affirmative to which the other woman replied ‘No, you are not. I am Mme Berlioz’ slapped Maire round the face and departed. You have to imagine all this with a strong Irish accent.
@Splashman
Agree. If this boy ends up with a ruined life at age 26, it won’t be because he spelled “prenup” incorrectly.
“The same thing has happened to huge numbers of Christians. We adopted the philosophy…”
No, Christians didn’t “adopt” it so much as they were taught this garbage and the teachings go back over 1500 years. The adoption of “courtly love” was a natural outflow of what was being taught by the church. The real problem is that Christians of today are unwilling to face the facts concerning where their doctrines of sexual morality came from. Further, unwilling to face the truth that the vast majority of their doctrine conflicts with what the Bible says, they hold fast to tradition and refuse to study their Bibles. I believe this is as much from guilt as anything else, the guilt of knowing they have accepted lies as truth and taught those lies all their lives to the detriment of those who listened to them.
Not surprisingly, we are forced to turn to secular historians in order to find honest historical description of our early church “fathers” and what they believed. James Brundage’s “Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” is excellent, although there are others. Interestingly, it’s the secular scholars who can read medieval latin and have read the writings of the early church fathers that point out exactly what they said… not the scholars of the church. Brundage’s work is extensive and his “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” was his magnum opus. It is required reading for any serious student of that portion of history.
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo5957131.html
Brundage:
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection (13).
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources (14). 14 But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential. (page 82)
“Ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation”. I should point out that it was Jerome who was tasked with the translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. His translation (the Vulgate) was adopted as *the* accepted text at the Council of Trent. As to whether his biases impacted his translation, one need go no further than 1st Kings 11:2 to see it, where Jerome translated the word “dabaq” as commitment (holding fast). As in, Solomon was truly committed to his 700 wives and 300 concubines. A far better translation of that is Solomon loved to have sex with them. Obviously Jerome didn’t choose to see it that way.
Again, Brundage explains where this attitude came from:
If fourth- and fifth-century patristic writing about sexuality was almost exclusively negative, the Church Fathers were emphatically positive in their praise of virginity. The notion that virginity possessed singularly powerful, almost magical, virtues was, like deprecation of sexual pleasure, a belief with pagan antecedents. Patristic writers diligently searched the Scriptures in quest of support for their exaltation of virginity. Not surprisingly they found what they were searching for, especially in certain remarks of St. Paul. Relying on Paul’s authority, patristic authors created a theology of virginity that portrayed the asexual life as the summit of Christian perfection (17).
But patristic sexual theories also owed more to heterodox teachings than orthodox writers cared to acknowledge. Gnostics and Manichaeans deeply influenced patristic theories of sexuality. The Manichaeans, whose beliefs Augustine had embraced as a youth, held that Adam and Eve knew no sexual desire, nor did they engage in intercourse, while they lived in Paradise. Human sexual organs are capable of coitus only when aroused by lust, they argued, and lust is a product of sin. Before the first sin, therefore, either there had been no sexual intercourse at all, or else arrangements for conceiving children must have been different than after the Fall from Grace (18). Jerome and many other patristic writers agreed with this analysis. Jerome understood the “innocence” of Adam and Eve primarily in sexual terms. Before the first sin there was no sex. The human race’s first experience of sexual pleasure took place after expulsion from the Garden of Delights. (pages 83-84)
As I’ve pointed out before, repeatedly, the current doctrines of sexual morality taught in the churches are in conflict with Scripture and much of what Christians hold as doctrine and dogma concerning sexual morality cannot be found in the Bible. In fact, about the only thing the modern church gets completely right is teaching that wives are not to commit adultery and men are not to have sex with prostitutes. Proving the point that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
What we are seeing at this point is the way of Baalam institutionalized by the modern church.
@ArtisalToad –
Yes. I would imagine the early Church fathers received much of their sexual ideas from the Stoics, such as Gaius Musonius Rufus and Epictetus. Those Stoics made the early Church fathers look like libertines!
Although, I think that St. Paul in Corinthians was referring to the ubiquitous temple prostitution in the city. Both admonishing the early Corinthian Christians to stay away from the lure of the worship of other gods/goddesses OR to not use prostitutes to get more Christians to join the new faith.
Interesting post Mr.”D”. At 16 this kid has good intentions but,he is incredibly naive.I have a 17 year old nephew and he is well on his way to becoming red pill.He is seeing first hand what “modern wimminz” are like. His little sister is well on her way to becoming the town bicycle.Hopefully this kid will have his eyes opened and within a few years he will start to see the way things really are….not the way he wishes that they were. Men who are 10 to 20 years older that have been through the Family Court meat grinder would be a good start for him.
“Kyle” says:
“As a 16 year old teen i am often assumed to be a disrespectful brat.”
Perhaps not a disrespectful one in your case, but most assuredly an ignorant, naive, and ill-educated one.
Kid, you’re 16. You don’t know shit. These cunts are raising their kids by themselves by their own choice. Most of them bring it on themselves.
So nice to see yet another little pussy being brought up to worship women (/sarc). This kid is going to get totally fucked over by a cunt one day.
The boy doesn’t need scolding or ridicule but help and mentoring. That doesn’t mean it can’t come with hard words, but it’s the sun and not the wind that convinces the traveler to shed his cloak. As Cane points out above, he’s desperate for approval, and I think he’ll take it from any source. The challenge will be to slip in a comment that passes the censor but that contains a kernel of truth that he’ll ponder on.
After re-reading my comment I think I wasn’t clear.
Kyle, the 16-year old young man, wants to be accepted by the other men. He’s picked up on the game, and generally how it works and he is trying to get acceptance by the men and to be let into the “round table”. That’s natural, good, and what is supposed to happen in a functioning patriarchy. What’s missing from this otherwise good and natural circumstance is that the older men have pulled up the ladder and demanded that Kyle “step-up” by demonstration of courtly love. Then they will let down the ladder, they swear.
Of course it’s not true; at least not at first. What they know, which Kyle doesn’t, is that he has a long and dangerous road ahead to prove his courtly bona fides. He has to woo a woman. Then he has to be her celibate boyfriend through the rest of high school and a far away college while she earns her degree; all the while woo-ing her so that she doesn’t lose interest or take up with another man. He has to do this without escalating physically with her; preferably from a great distance. She must get a degree because the men want her to be able to support herself so she doesn’t have to rely on a husband. Everyone should be independent all the time. It’s the American way. Kyle needs to learn not only to be ok without his possible future-wife’s support, and not only with the men’s subversion of the Biblical role of helpmeet generally, but he also needs to learn to love the idea of a woman who doesn’t need him, and to disdain the idea of a wife who does.
There’s a lot more obstacles ahead for Kyle that I won’t write out. The point is: The men aren’t going to lower down the ladder for Kyle until he is married (without their help) and starts saying things like, “She’s definitely the better half.”, or, “Let me check with the boss,”, when he means to ask his wife’s permission before he commits to a scheduled event. Then Kyle gets to sit at the “round table of knights”.
Pingback: Cucked by Courtly Love. | Reaction Times
Pingback: Cucked by Courtly Love. | Dalrock - Top
When I first read this I thought “Cucked by Courtney Love”. Would explain the shotgun exit by Kurt. That and the drug habits and undiagnosed stomach pain.
I predict women’s real nature will rip the heart and soul out of this kid more effectively than if Satan himself did it. By comparison grammar and spelling are non issues.
Cane, are you bragging or complaining?
Keith: Weather it is Peeta or Gale in hunger games are weather it is Edward or Jacob black in the twilight books.
Well, since part of this thread discussed grammar and spelling … it’s “whether” and not “weather.” And “or,” not “are.”
My views on women were similar to this 16-year-old boy’s at his age. Although at the time, I was going through a libertarian atheist phase, being heavily into Ayn Rand and Nietzsche.
It’s curious how one can be an atheist and still pedestalize women. (Rand and Nietzsche’s poor view of women left no impression on me.)
This boy has much frustration, heartbreak, and loneliness ahead of him.
What’s interesting to me about the Christian Bible is how very little it actually has to say on the subject of the love of a wife toward her husband.
While there are definitely some clear, brief passages that one can cherry pluck from the books of Ephesians (5:22-24) or Titus (2:4-5) or 1 Peter (1 Peter 3: 1-22), there is actually very little mentioned at all by God Himself, or by His prophets and messengers regarding or commanding a wife’s conduct and behavior toward her husband within a marriage. Such commands and sin warnings do exist aplenty within the Bible, but they are almost thoroughly reserved for, and direct at, men (the husbands).
So it seems to me that a Pastor’s task to preach to existing and future wives is handicapped from the start. Not enough material.
Jesus Christ Himself had essentially NOTHING to say on this question of wifely love, except indirectly in the context that husbands and wives should just stay together as “one flesh” and not be torn asunder “what God put together” in marriage. Thanks nice and vague Jesus.
The rest of His very few comments that one can relate to wifely love to her husband are about divorcing a wife or just not marrying a wife at all.
It is not difficult to glean chivalry, honor and leadership commands of husbands in the Bible.
But if you are a Christian pastor, trying to guide and instruct young women and wives about the importance of honoring, loving their husbands, and trying to point to Scripture as some kind of visual aide, God provides very little content. He damn well provides loads of content and brimstone for the guys in the audience though.
Biblical, “fire & brimstone” traditionalist Christian churches don’t exist anymore, or at least not for long anyway.
A Christian pastor could inject the above passages to Ephesians, Titus and 1 Peter into the most inspirational and compelling sermons that his flock will have ever heard. But the pews would be just as empty of wives and daughters as the offering plates empty of coins and envelopes of cash.
Human sexual organs are capable of coitus only when aroused by lust, they argued, and lust is a product of sin.
Interesting thought to me here is, since a woman can have reproductive intercourse without lust (in fact, she can hate every moment of it), whilst the prevailing thought has been that the man cannot do so without arousal…….guess then who bears the burden of lustful sin?
Jim: “Kid, you’re 16. You don’t know shit. These cunts are raising their kids by themselves by their own choice. Most of them bring it on themselves.”
Ah, but the boy has a ready answer to that: To many women have to raise their own kids. To many women disrespect themselves. It is our job as men to teach them to respect themselves.”
The kid might well know that women made these bad choices. But he also “knows” that it is men’s fault that women made these bad choices. And it is men’s responsibility to “teach” these women the right choices, but “teaching” women to “respect themselves.”
That article is two years old. I wonder where Kyle is now. The few that I could find of that name on facebook offer some interesting “rest of the story” possibilities.
Constrainedlocus:
“What’s interesting to me about the Christian Bible is how very little it actually has to say on the subject of the love of a wife toward her husband.”
Read Song of Solomon; and the story of Abigail, in I Sam. 25. At the time of the events in the story, Abigail isn’t married to David. But she shows her wife bona fides, and demonstrates her worthiness as a wife to David (albeit while forsaking and betraying her idiot husband Nabal).
@ConstrainedLocus
“What’s interesting to me about the Christian Bible is how very little it actually has to say on the subject of the love of a wife toward her husband. “
Actually, wives are not commanded to love their husbands anywhere. So… why would you want to add to Scripture?
Scripture is clear that prior to the fall the man was in complete authority over the woman. She was created to be his helper, not his equal. It was the judgment following the fall that really changed that, because women were essentially declared incompetent and man was placed in guardianship over said women. Numbers 30 lays that out quite clearly. Nothing changed in the New Testament, What churchians have forgotten (or never learned) is that obedience is not the same as submission. To submit is to subject yourself to the accountability of the person in authority over you. That is, to accept their rebukes or even punishment for disobedience. That’s best summed up in Revelation 3:19. How does Christ love His church? He holds them accountable.
Why would wives be commanded to love their husbands? They were commanded to submit to him and respect him, even if he is disobedient to God (1st Peter 3:1-2). God chose not to command wives to love their husbands and followers of Christ should not attempt to add to the burden women already have and demand that which God does not demand.
@Toad, you’re correct that nowhere in scripture are wives commanded to love their husbands. Just like nowhere in scripture are husbands commanded to remind their wives to submit.
“Christian men are to practice chivalry by opening doors for women, as God commands”
A clever turn of phrase. I had to laugh, loudly.
@Artisanal Toad
Incorrect. See Tit 2:4.
That article is two years old. I wonder where Kyle is now.
That hasn’t stopped Scott Williams from deleting non-conforming comments faster than a cuckservative gets on his knees to grovel to women (repulsing them in the process). So at least he knows that this article exposes him.
To moderate comments that disagree is :
a) cowardly
b) un-Christian
c) un-American
d) an admission that his views cannot stand up to logic or questioning
To behave the way Scott WIlliams is behaving is truly shameful.
@Artisanal Toad
I noted this relationship in my first post on courtly love:
I followed up on this in more detail with several posts. See the tag St. Jerome.
Here you go, your latest installment of feminist stupidity – TL;DR
Men are bad. Women are good. Managing and planning the household is a full-time job, so when those poor women who are managing and planning the household ALSO have to do the work, the men are big fat meanies because the woman has the REAL load and the MENTAL load.
https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/
@Dalrock, whoops, I forgot about Titus 2:4. Just looked up that instance of “love” in Strong’s, which is “philandros” in Greek:
One can only feel for Kyle: politeness – say opening a door – is good manners, but prostrating oneself which is what Kyle does isn’t, yet would I have been any different at sixteen? I am not so sure I would. I think of my late brother who was a Christian and who in one part of his writings tells the following: he had a date with a woman and some of her female friends came along as well. He does not say who was paying for all this. During the meal my brother comments on the slutiness of another female known to all of them but who was not present. His date then went into what I take to be feigned outrage and accused my brother of drinking too much which was absolutely true but immaterial to her friends promiscuity. Some sort of cock-blocking fitness test. Next day, feeling bad, he sent the young woman – a woman who had traveled a lot so you can guess what she was like – a card apologising for his behaviour. I would guess that on receipt thereof any possibility of sexual congress terminated yet he was forty years old at the time and keen to meet an as he put it ‘dream girl’ for a wife. Dream women – even for those who are as he was 6’1″ – only exist in dreams.
Ephesians 5:22 – “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.”
Ephesianbs 5:25 – “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”
I often teach that Paul doesn’t need to command women to love their husbands because love comes naturally to women; what he commands is respect and submission, which does not. How many women do you know that “love” their wretched or abusive husbands or boyfriends, even though they think the guys are jerks?
Men need to be taught to love their wives beyond the initial attraction of sexual “love”, because that attraction is fleeting, and our eyes and desires are easily turned aside. Jesus doesn’t turn away from his people because they are wretched or unattractive. He loves the unlovely, which is part of how he “gave himself up” for our sakes. Husbands need to learn Christ’s ways in our love for our wives. Those of us here that are long time husbands know the truth of this.
Of course, proper love for men means bearing with weakness and trouble (all those things in our wedding vows), but not abdicating by failing to lead or to deal with sin.
@Hmm, when you write “love comes naturally to women”, you might want to include what you mean by “love”. I’m not arguing your point; in fact I agree with it, based on my assumption of your meaning. But it has been noted in other discussion threads that there are multiple meanings, so it’s best to be specific.
Incidentally, when Jesus was around, there was no record that he opened the door for any woman. Rather, we read of a woman who washed his feet with her hair, and poured on him a most expensive cologne. Jesus was as redpill as they come.
Isn’t the authentic, Biblical, Christian perspective that sex within marriage is sanctified/good and virginity/chastity is better/best but not for everyone?
Jesus told the woman in John to “sin no more.” He didn’t take her out for ice cream or open any doors for her.
I’m rather sympathetic to this boy, because it’s how a lot of church-raised boys are taught to think. It is certainly the attitude that permeated church culture while I was growing up. The impression was that we needed to prove or demonstrate we weren’t the horrible monsters that feminists made us out to be, because they were blaming us for what non-christian men did, and if we could do that we’d stand apart from the real bad men – and the Christian girls would notice this and appreciate it.
However, at least with me, when they taught men and women were equal, I took that to mean that they must both be held to the same moral standards. Imagine my confusion when I tried to do so, particularly when it came to dating!
Christian boys will eventually unplug if they actually believe in holding men and women to the same standards. They remain plugged in if they accept that women aren’t responsible for their actions.
Red pill latecomer thanks for the grammar lesson. But I think you waste your time trying to educate me. Spelling and grammar ant my strong suit. But neither is math or science. Wouldn’t it be awesome if there was a red pill university where a man could receive a poon degree. Have it hanging on his wall. Yes I majored in PUA and have a doctorate in DPA. And about the comments about a woman loving her husband it is incestuous for a woman to love the man she is fucking she is not your mother she is your property. She should respect her husband. Respect =fear Fear equaling abandonment
@Dalrock
“so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children” Titus 2:4
Part of the instruction to older women to teach the younger women… and then only “encourage” the young women to love their husbands. This is not a command, it’s a suggestion. It’s a good one (duh!) and wives ought to love their husbands, but some husbands aren’t real loveable. Wives are not commanded to love their husbands.
dvdivx,
I thought the same (“Courtney Love”) myself. I only know of her peripherally, but it does seem a related good point.
I noticed that I have even changed some of my own internal programming in that I didn’t hold the door for a woman when walking into a bookstore the other day. I will always hold doors open for others as a general courtesy, but any internal programming for women to get more has definitely receded quite a bit.
Kyle.
Dude: Women DO NOT follow the same set of books (H/T Rollo Tomassi). The have NO morals, not even the “Christian” ones. If they had, they wouldn’t say, “Not on the first date!” on their internet dating profiles regarding sex. They say that in isolation but collectively you will see that message over and over. And over. They will heartlessly turn on you, even after years of devotion. You make their lives secure, and that very security will make their libidos flatline for you.
Look out. It’s a trap.
Regarding courtly, romantic love: Women BELIEVE it exists as an entity. So much so that they will attempt to prove it to themselves. They will do this by getting some hideous object, commit their desires and magically transform it by the ‘power of love’ (really, power of vagina). They will submit (yes – they will!) – to their boyfriends, adulterous lovers, Christian Grey and Edward Cullen archetypes, lesbian bull dyke lovers, Harley McRockbandrummer, the guy on the ‘Wanted’ poster – anyone EXCEPT their husbands.
Why?
Husbands make the world safe and secure for women so that they can have children.
In order to do so, they must give up their sexual autonomy to their husbands in exchange.
And they despise their husbands for it.
My own perception of matters are a bit colored by my family background. My parents married when my father was 21 and my mother was 18. I don’t think that I can imagine a pair of people more utterly bonded together; since I was home-educated, I pretty much saw every minute of home life for the first 17 years or so of my existence.
These two people were — and are — like the two sides of the same coin. Their loyalty to each other is so reflexive and complete that I don’t think it would even occur to them that a different situation would be possible; it doesn’t require any active submission on my mother’s part or any cuckish groveling on my father’s part. They would die readily to save the other, without histrionics, if that’s what it took. My father makes the major decisions and my mother accepts them cheerfully as natural and correct; I don’t think she even thinks about analyzing them, it’s just something that’s there and she does it. If he asks her opinion, she’ll give it, and if it’s logical he’ll adopt it, or choose his own idea if that seems better.
There’s a reason I’m nattering on here about all this family stuff — it causes me to have a theory.
My parents are clearly totally bonded to the point where cooperation without equality yet with total dedication to the other person is totally reflexive. And I suspect that age at marriage had a lot to do with it. My mother was 18, and my father 21, remember. I think there’s a biological reason why people become sexually mature before they are fully solidified into their adult mentality; there’s a biological window during which powerful, natural bonding occurs between pairs of young humans.
My parents were fortunate enough to fall into that. However, today, the university occurs at precisely that moment — and causes women in particular to “bond” not to a man, but to bizarre leftist ideologies. There’s evidently a secondary mechanism that kicks in at that point — since pair-bonding isn’t available in the current environment, people then switch over to a strategy of promiscuous, selfish reproduction in order to increase their chances producing offspring.
In effect, if the pair-bonding requirement isn’t met during that “window” from mid-teens to very early 20s, humans go “feral” and switch over pretty much permanently to a polygamous breeding strategy.
So, we’re doubly screwed over by today’s culture. The university ensures that women in particular pair-bond onto an ideology and/or the state instead of an individual male human, and the ready availability of birth control and abortion means that the polygamous behavior is nihilistically ineffective at producing children, thereby self-reinforcing — the failure to get children from each liaison encourages more liaisons as the underlying instincts attempt desperately to cause reproduction when it obviously isn’t working.
Thus, you get people who fail to bond at the correct time, then become progressively less able to do so as the reproductive instinct, short-circuited by birth control, makes them more and more mercenary and changeable in their pairing, as they unconsciously seek for a mate who actually WILL impregnate them.
An insidious trap, if this is even partially correct.
Poor misguided kid. He is in for a lot o’ hurt. Maybe he’ll reading this blog after he is divorce raped in about ten or fifteen years.
The warbler parents aren’t stupid, they know it’s not their chick. What happens is the cuckoo parents stay close by and make it crystal clear to the warblers that they can raise the cuckoo chick and live, or starve the cuckoo chick and die by the cuckoo parents. Getting “Arkancided” isn’t just for humans.
@AT
Neither. I told a story which I hope will help some people have some sympathy for Kyle and those like him.
AT, you are terrible at reading comprehension. Seriously. You should know this after carrying on for years that only women bedded as a virgin by a man are married, and also arguing that every bedded woman was married to the man with whom she first slept. Those arguments were in fact flat out wrong; as was known by everyone else for the last…all of human history. Not to mention your other comprehension errors which flowed from your obviously flawed assumptions. The problem appears to be reading comprehension of any text. It’s as if you think every word is actually the thing it means, or as if every document is a scientific treatise. Dalrock’s post is not a scientific text. My comment was not a scientific text. The Bible is not a scientific text.
Words are not precision instruments; they carry meaning. (This must be otherwise we couldn’t fit the world into a dictionary. The map is not–and cannot be–the territory) That’s ok because the thing to get is the meaning.
I don’t know why I’m writing this. It’s probably shouting at a deaf person.
It’s OK Cane, I don’t judge…
You would be surprised (probably not) at the number of so called Christian women that blew me off after I rejected their sexual advances. I cared enough to honor God, them and myself. They just wanted to see how I was on bed and to compare me with all their previous lovers.
Sine I found them out, some proceeded to try to soil my reputation.
“As I’ve pointed out before, repeatedly, the current doctrines of sexual morality taught in the churches are in conflict with Scripture and much of what Christians hold as doctrine and dogma concerning sexual morality cannot be found in the Bible.”
Artisanal Toad, you should check out this book written around 1840 by Isaac Taylor – as a response to the rise of the Newmanian Romanist school within the Church of England, he wrote a learned and passionate defence of Biblical Reformation principles, and directly attacked the un-Scriptural ideas that were widely entertained among the church fathers – especially concerning sexual matters, correctly seeing their sexophobic worship of ascetic celibacy and virginity as a semi-Gnostic attitude that abhors the material world itself.
Here Taylor starkly points out that the Holy Bible and the church tradition are saying the opposite things concerning the propriety of clerical marriage:
http://archive.org/stream/ancientchristia05taylgoog#page/n420/mode/2up
“On this point, immensely important as it is, the authority of Scripture, and that of the fathers, are directly at issue; – the one authority explicitly enjoining the very thing which the other discourages, condemns, and at length absolutely forbids, There is no middle ground to be taken here: there is no room to evade the practical question; for it touches the main pillar of the ecclesiastical edifice. Either it is good that a bishop should be a husband and a father; or it is not good.”
And while I don’t judge, I notice that you cannot refute me, from Scripture. In fact, you make really cringe-worthy statements like this:
“The Bible is not a scientific text.”
I presume that you mean the Bible is not accurate, complete and truthful? Please, Cane, tell me more. Go ahead, refute me from Scripture. Go to my blog and take the churchian challenge (linked at the top).
How else will others notice the deaf person is such?
Point proven. (try a search of “scientific text” on Amazon)
That kid needs to watch this important U.S. Navy documentary:
And to think we lost the war….
Most “conservative Christians” are just followers who go along with what the culture tells them but are a few decades behind because they are too dorky to be trendy. Their morality is just whatever was popular decades ago. So when they say in 2017 that hookups are bad and that if you are a real man you would be taking your best gal to the soda shop and holding the door open for her, they are just being followers but since they have a dorky inability to be current, they are following something from the 50’s.
In 50 years, they will be lamenting that girls no longer get the tingles and fun no-strings sex that comes with whoring themselves out on Tinder. Today’s sexual mayhem and rampant sluttiness will be tomorrow’s “good ol’ days” that the bumbling “conservatives” will be demanding a return to.
Taylor heartily bashes guys like “St.” Jerome, arguing that they set the Christian church on the wrong path of wretched superstition (like the cult of the saints) and pharisaical self-righteousness, or works-righteousness, that the Reformation finally corrected. This may sound a bit Jack Chickian, but Taylor backs up his claims with powerful documentation and bold logical consistency – he did not bow so humbly to famous names of church history as many others do.
That kid needs to watch this important U.S. Navy documentary
Except that the video is being sarcastic, it’s totally blue pill. It’s basically saying “this is what NOT to do on a date”. But that was 1962, as well, and women in 2017 don’t behave anything like women in 1962.
I just checked and from internal evidence that Naval video is not 1962 but 1966. Much as I love the hairstyles and the fashions indeed I am convinced I dated the brunette and if not her then someone who looked remarkably like her – take it from me – chicks in ’66 needed pimp-hand then as now – not of course that I was then able to provide it. My model for how a Naval Officer should handle his date would be Lt Cdr Bond.
thedeti @ 1:01 pm:
“(albeit while forsaking and betraying her idiot husband Nabal)”
In point of fact, Abigail saved her husband Nabal’s life with her actions. God killed him anyway. The Bible’s Cinderella story, I suppose.
…
Bruce @ 2:21 pm:
“Isn’t the authentic, Biblical, Christian perspective that sex within marriage is sanctified/good and virginity/chastity is better/best but not for everyone?”
Yes. Christ also allowed that chastity is sometimes forced upon men which more accurately describes the modern Christian celibate. It isn’t always a voluntary choice.
…
Ironsides @ 3:12 pm:
“In effect, if the pair-bonding requirement isn’t met during that “window” from mid-teens to very early 20s, humans go “feral” and switch over pretty much permanently to a polygamous breeding strategy.”
Occam’s Razor says young people simply can’t go longer than that without sex. Young men need to scratch the itch and young women are walking around with the sexual equivalent of a million dollars. If monogamy is not made available by society then they just start the random humping.
@Spike,
” They will submit (yes – they will!) – to their boyfriends, adulterous lovers, Christian Grey and Edward Cullen archetypes, lesbian bull dyke lovers, Harley McRockbandrummer, the guy on the ‘Wanted’ poster – anyone EXCEPT their husbands.
Why?
Husbands make the world safe and secure for women so that they can have children.
In order to do so, they must give up their sexual autonomy to their husbands in exchange.
And they despise their husbands for it.”
This is all too true.
All the more remarkable that there is no appreciation or acknowledgement that the husband sacrificed his sexual interests too and devoted his monogamy to her forsaking all others (i.e. gave up his own sexual autonomy).
Why no appreciation or acknowledgement?
Because “well, he’s just supposed to”, that’s why not. Or because his sacrifice is not as valuable or valid as hers.
This wholesale lack of appreciation and understanding just as easily breeds broad and deep contempt from the other side (from husbands), who foolishly held fest to the old set of books.
So it turns out that genuinely loving one another, with all of our flaws, ulterior motives, brokenness and immorality, can be an awful lot of hard work.
This the part where we cue the acolytes of marital bliss operatives to correct and scold: “well it shouldn’t be hard work at all!” and “not for me and my wife, for us love is easy!” and “God must not be in it”.
I think it’s been 20 years or more since James Dobson had Jim Ryun as a guest on Focus on the Family, promoting courtship. Enough time has gone by to see if the idea has worked. Have any studies been done to test its effectiveness, and is it still being promoted?
@Novaseeker, all about the sarcasm here.
It’s the latent expectation of courtly etiquette that seeps out of that video that stands out to me. I guess the Navy didn’t churn out enough “Officers and Gentlemen” to save feminism from the churlish louts set on destroying civilization. I wasn’t referring to Vietnam.
This Craigslist ad seems more delusional than usual, so I post it FYI: https://losangeles.craigslist.org/lgb/w4m/6143274020.html
A divorcee seeks to marry again. She’s 69 and wants a husband age 59 to 71.
She’s willing to marry 10 years younger, but no more than 2 years older. She even writes “please be stable and a homeowner. … this is only for a great guy who lives in LA county or Long Beach and older than 59!” As if she expects to be inundated with proposals from much younger male homeowners.
@Latecomer, also notice her description of her body: “average”
Nobody describes themself as worse than reality.
Best bet: she’s a 3, for a 69-year-old. And she’s hoping to score a financially stable, home-owning 59-year-old? Heh.
Red Pill Latecomer says:
May 22, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I guess she was forced to be honest:
body: average
height: 5’6″ (167cm)
status: divorced
CA: CA
age: 69
Notice that she didn’t include her weight or hair color in her profile. She probably also wouldn’t dare include a photo either, lest she out herself as an aged, ugly, obese slob (which she doubtless is).
As Anon would no doubt add, hopefully she’ll faĺl victim to a Nigerian romance scam. Anybody with her level of delusion makes for the perfect mark.
@Toad, you presume a lot of things that aren’t accurate.
Gentlemen, OT
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/legitimacy-and-freedom/
Carry on.
RPL,
I have seen the same age discrepancy in the 35-55 age range. They will go 6-10 years younger, but only 2-4 years older.
@BillyS @RPL @feeriker @Splashman
FWIW I gave up on dating sites a few months ago because it’s clear that most woman on them are (1) just using them for validation (hey look at all the messages I’m getting!); and (2) as this blog community has observed from the priceless comments thread on the “are-women-done-with-men-after-55”, women in the 40-50+ age range way overestimate their SMV and do not seem to understand that they simply cannot compete with much younger women. Women in their 20s and 30s, in my experience, seem to have a somewhat better understanding of their true SMV and will engage with old codgers like me if we are interesting and play the game.
Re: the whole courtly love thing, the cuckoo metaphor is very good and a nice contribution in exposing the ongoing fraud. I am no longer seduced by it though. I travel all over the country for work almost every week. I am astounded at how unattractive most women are these days. It’s as though they are deliberately trying to make themselves unattractive (tattoos, weird hair colors, piercings, and excess body weight). Generally their men outrank them in looks. Very few women are actually attractive enough to even tempt me to think about romance. I just don’t get it.
It’s amazing how the Cuckoo is hard-wired at birth to eject the other eggs from the nest as a tiny hatchling itself. Awesome. It must put a dent in the Reed Warbler population.
feeriker,
As Anon would no doubt add, hopefully she’ll faĺl victim to a Nigerian romance scam. Anybody with her level of delusion makes for the perfect mark.
Yes. While it is unfortunate that we should want anyone to be the victim of such fraud, it really is a necessary process towards the total destruction of ‘feminism’. A married couple where the man has even an iota of say in anything simply cannot be scammed this way.
Wives are not commanded to love their husbands.
Well there’s this little gem, spoken by Jesus Himself:
Mark 12:28-31
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
So even if you try to make the argument that women are only “encouraged” to love their husbands in Titus 2:4, here we are clearly commanded to love. One of the Greek translations of the word “neighbor” is “the one next to you.” And who’s more next to you than your spouse?
So at a bare minimum, God’s greatest commandments are that you should love Him, and love the one next to you as you love yourself.
Not, love the one next to you as you love yourself except if you’re a woman.
@Splashman
“you presume a lot of things that aren’t accurate.”
Really? Back it up cupcake. State my “presumptions” by quoting me from where-ever you got it and then explain why it isn’t accurate.
Perhaps you could be a hero and take the churchian challenge at my blog. It’s like an open-book test. All you have to do is back up your doctrine with Scripture. You know… that whole “chapter and verse” thing? The part where you explain exactly *where* you got the stuff you claim is what God said….
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it turned out that the delusional 69-year-old CraigsList cow is the same 18/19-year-old who appeared in the 1967 Navy video GiL linked on May 22, 2017 at 3:49 pm?
Did ya’ll know that “divorce coach” is a real life profession?
https://www.whenitsknotforever.com/
As seen on LinkedIn.
“When It’s Knot Forever is a resource to assist and empower those approaching, going through, or coming out of the divorce process. Its founder, Kim West, is a divorce coach based in Boulder, Colorado who offers her coaching services nationwide.
MEET KIM
I chose to leave the corporate world in 2017 to pursue what I feel is my mission in life — to provide guidance and support to those going through and coming out of the divorce process. Having gotten married and divorced in my 20s, despite having a law degree, I was astounded by how much I did not know going into my own divorce process. I additionally found that there were very few tools and resources available, particularly to younger people going through a divorce.”
I am astounded at how unattractive most women are these days. It’s as though they are deliberately trying to make themselves unattractive (tattoos, weird hair colors, piercings, and excess body weight). Generally their men outrank them in looks. Very few women are actually attractive enough to even tempt me to think about romance. I just don’t get it.
It’s an overt manifestation of women’s innate, default attitude that they don’t owe anyone anything, are not responsible for anything (including themselves), are not beholden or subject to any sort of social mores or standards, and can demand that men not only accept them as being ugly, slovenly, lazy, obese, entitled and bitchy, but that men LOVE them for these traits.
Until very recently such behavior was short-lived in most women, unless their life’s goal was to be alone and single (or lesbian). Men –and older generations of women– still had enough gumption and presence to put Snowflake in her place if she carried antisocial behavior too far. Not anymore. For a man, putting Snowflake in her place will get him arrested on VAWA charges. As for “older generations of women,” well … just take a peek inside the typical church (or anyplace else the hens hang out) today to see if you can spot any substantive difference between generations other than the piercings and tats – and even there the “generation gap” is closing rapidly.
TL;DR version: if you stop disciplining your toddler, odds are overwhelming that he or she grows up to be an uncouth, self-centered, violent sociopath, which should be a common-sense obvious outcome. If you stop training and disciplining your dogs, it should not surprise you if they revert to their innate feral instincts and become antisocial, nasty, and dangerous.
Did ya’ll know that “divorce coach” is a real life profession?
I’m only amazed that it took 50 years after the “Divorce Revolution” for this to become a thing …
@feeriker
Someone used to have a blog (gone now, long gone) and he tracked down women who had posed for playboy or other magazines like that back in the 60’s. For each one, he’d have the “phone book comparison” that was some random woman of the same age from the same area at that time. Whoever he was, he had access to some nice databases.
The women who posed naked were not as successful in life as their “phone book comparison” and not only didn’t have as many children, as a rule they’d gone through multiple failed relationships and had serious issues such as drug and alcohol addictions. To top it all off, after 50 years or so, they didn’t look nearly as good as their phone-book comparisons.
Anon is right, but not all scams are Nigerian. Following the invention of Fb I made contact (or perhaps she contacted me, I forget) with a former girlfriend who at least when I knew her had had the advantage of youth (and a stem degree from one of your top liberal arts college for the fair sex – so she was far from stupid). She explained her post-Opus car-crash of a life. Following her second divorce she joined a dating agency where a young good looking man of (((her own race))) showed interest. She wired over to him for investment her inheritance – and he lost the lot. No marriage resulted though I believe they never even met. Men of course also fall for Nigerian scams and I thus think there but for the grace of ….
‘Male Feminist’ disavows feminism, citing rise in hate.
One wonders what took him this long to figure it out. He was a participant in the Good Mangina project…
But at least he did was other manginas are unable to do.
I have seen the same age discrepancy in the 35-55 age range. They will go 6-10 years younger, but only 2-4 years older.
This also came out in the OKCupid data, as I recall — men maintained a strong preference for women in their early 20s throughout life, while women generally preferred men within 5 years of age *until* they themselves were above 45 or so, and from then on had a more or less absolute preference for men 5-10 years younger.
Anecdotally I know a woman who is around 60, divorced, and relatively attractive for that age (I don’t find her attractive, but for that age I suppose she is). She announced during a conversation at a work gathering that she is only willing to date men who are between 45 and 55, because “she doesn’t want to be with some old man”. This attitude is not uncommon among older women, in fact it’s very common.
I know another anecdote, also from the workplace, of a woman who recently turned 50 and is quite attractive. She is also divorced in the last 5 years, and only dates men who are in their 40s, which means she doesn’t date that much (“men are so shallow, like they all seem to think they’re entitled to women in their 30s!!” — one of many conversational jewels).
Needless to say, the meme is firmly entrenched among older single women that they are to date younger men. Cougar has become the expectation in this group, apparently. Rarely works out, but hey look at the incoming French President.
@constrainedlocus
God included Song of Solomon in the bible for a very good reason. All you need to know about Romantic/Erotic love in a marital context is there.
The Religion of Peace (TM) strikes again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/22/manchester-arena-evacuated-reports-gunshots-explosion/
@Artisanal Toad
You are nitpicking based on one way a single word is rendered in some translations*, and you have to avoid the context both before and after the verse to do even this. Some translations say “encourage”, others say “train”, and others say “admonish”. You don’t name the translation you are using, so take for example the New American Standard Bible. Even here it is clear this is what is to be taught if you go back to the preceding verse:
No matter how much you try to twist it, young women are to be taught to love their husbands, something you argued above it is wrong to teach Christian women, claiming it places a new, unbiblical burden to women:
Moreover, if you insist that Tit 2 verse 4 is merely discussing optional things, mere suggestions (Paul’s stretch goals?), then the same would apply to the items in verse 5:
If loving their husbands is optional in Tit 2:4, then surely the rest of the list in 2:5 is optional too. Yet we know it is not. For good measure, we are told at the end of verse 5 that the reason women must be taught to do the things listed in Tit 2:4-5 is “so that the word of God will not be dishonored”. Is it really optional for Christians to live in such a way that causes the word God to be dishonored? Of course not.
*If we simply go by the Strongs translation, the word is admonish.
Notice that she didn’t include her weight or hair color in her profile. She probably also wouldn’t dare include a photo either, lest she out herself as an aged, ugly, obese slob (which she doubtless is).
It’s hard to duckface your way out of 69 years old…
@Freeriker
Perhaps it is that as merely an average looking 69 year old woman, she knows she can’t compete with the 79 year old complete knockouts all of the men are flocking to.
note that women will readily say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in their attempts to get you to submit to their frame.
It sounds like overstatement, but turns out to be such a daily feature that you can easily provoke it for your own amusement.
@Novaseeker
You said: “…she is only willing to date men who are between 45 and 55, because “she doesn’t want to be with some old man”. This attitude is not uncommon among older women, in fact it’s very common.”
Your observation and the OKCupid data tracks with my experience on dating sites. However, in real life, face-to-face meetings older men are in a better position than on the dating sites. If you stay fit, dress well, are masculine and have a little game, and it’s no problem connecting with 20- and 30-year olds. I’m a Christian so I don’t take it beyond the flirting and conversation stage, but it’s fun and it keeps me confident. In general, in my experience these older single women on the dating sites are a disaster: products of frivorce’s they initiated, post-Wall alpha widows, entitled, angry, etc. Satan sowed this feminist evil among them in their youth, they watered and cultivated this bad seed, and now, by their fruits we know them. The reaping is at hand.
This reminds of the line in King Lear where the Fool says:
“The hedge sparrow fed the cuckoo so long that it’s had it bit off by it young”.
Sorry that should read “had it head bit off by it young”
“Sine I found them out, some proceeded to try to soil my reputation.”
I’ve actually been sexually harassed on the workplace by women like that. We live in an age where girls are never told “no” about anything, so rejection is something that they take personally.
Slightly OT; But saw this today and couldn’t help but remember what I’d seen in this post. Dal rock has written about how the church allowed itself to be cucked by the world’s idea that adultery is the truest sort of love, to the point where they’ll now preach it straight from the pulpits as if it were gospel truth. But if this headline is any indication, they may have just found a way to devolve themselves to an even lower level of religious cuckoldry:
Why Baptists Should Support Muslims’ Right to Build Mosques
Read more at:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445978/baptists-muslims-share-religious-liberty-concerns
With this piece showing up on the same day that Manchester was bombed, I have to say that their sense of timing is impeccable. But the real punchline is that the same story involves good old Russell Moore, whose “complimentarianism” didn’t prevent him from siding and sympathizing with “our feminist friends” (his words), and who will apparently now instruct us on how being a good and faithful Christian means doing proper homage to Allah and his prophet Muhammed, may peace be upon him!
@ Nova:
“Anecdotally I know a woman who is around 60, divorced, and relatively attractive for that age … She announced during a conversation at a work gathering that she is only willing to date men who are between 45 and 55, because “she doesn’t want to be with some old man”. This attitude is not uncommon among older women, in fact it’s very common.
…”woman who recently turned 50 and is quite attractive. She is also divorced in the last 5 years, and only dates men who are in their 40s, which means she doesn’t date that much (“men are so shallow, like they all seem to think they’re entitled to women in their 30s!!” — one of many conversational jewels).”
Do you know much about their post-divorce dating/sexual histories? The experience around here is that they meet a lot of men in their 40s and 50s, all of whom see these women as cougars and expect them to put out by date 3; and if they don’t, there’s no fourth date. A lot of the men are unattractive and so, sex won’t happen with them, ever. But if the man is attractive enough, they’ll sleep with him by the third date, because he’s attractive, and because they hope to keep it going. So, in many respects, these women act, or at least try to act, as if they’re on the carousel again, only a bit slower. And the men are pretty upfront – sex by date 3 or we’re done. The women are also upfront – “sex might be on the table” or, after the first date, “I’m not attracted to you, this isn’t happening, don’t call me again”.
Thoughts?
“she can’t compete with the 79 year old complete knockouts all of the men are flocking to.”
That thread always gets me.
Of note: The “Are Women Really Done with Men after age 55?” Thread is still going strong, after 6 years. Which makes that blogpost a senior citizen classic in blog years.
Thoughts?
Yes, it’s basically like that. The younger one, the 50 yo who is actually attractive, announced she’s in a dating hiatus because of how men behave. She won’t date older men in their mid-50s+, and the younger men are “shallow in what they want” (i.e., either want younger women themselves, or want a more sexually fast-paced thing with a hot older woman). So she wants the trappings of being a cougar (younger attractive man) without providing the cougar goods (reliably quick sexual access). Predictably that didn’t work out so well. I don’t know as much about the older one, although I do seem to recall she mentioned she hasn’t been on a date in a longish time as well.
It’s as Dalrock has said, the EPL myth is alive and well, it seems, and came come as a rude awakening when it is revealed as a myth. Still, they all put on a brave face and so on, so who knows. These women like attention, that’s for sure, but they don’t lack that — they get plenty of attention, and they don’t actually have to date to get the attention (this is also in real life, not just online dating). Sure, they’d prefer the hunky 40 yo millionaire handyman to their current situation, but it seems to me that they prefer their current situation both to being married to ex-H and to being involved with a man of their own age or older. Some women end up settling in this situation, others do not.
@Darwinian Arminian:
That repulsive article was written by a Timon Cline. Brief bio per conciliarpost website:
“Timon Cline is a native of Memphis, TN and grew up in Dakar, Senegal. He is a graduate of Wright State University, and is concurrently pursuing a J.D. at Rutgers Law School and a M.A. in Religion at Westminster Theological Seminary. He lives in New Jersey with his wife, Rachel.”
Ivory tower kid raised to accept Islam in practice if not theory. Bio picture has his wife literally looking over his shoulder… with a Skrillex haircut? Oh my cuck!
Nova:
I’ve said before, but what has surprised me is just how many of these women there are. Women between ages 35 and 55, divorced, who are reasonably attractive. Now, there are many who aren’t attractive. But there are plenty who are, or should be, attractive enough to get the attention of men who will want to date them and who will overtly express sexual interest in them.
You can tell by looking at many of them that when in their 20s and 30s, they were top 30% attractive, well above average, and most have still retained some of their good looks such that they are easily top 20% attractive for their age group. They still look put together and haven’t put on a lot of weight. For a woman around age 50, doing the makeup, hair and clothes, and keeping the weight down, keeps them near the top of their age range. And these women get a lot of male attention whether they date or not.
Your 50 year old work acquaintance takes the attitude she does because she’s quickly discovering that despite her good looks, she wields considerably less SMP power than she is accustomed to. It’s a culture shock to her. She’s not used to “average” men being upfront with her from the get go and attempting rapid sexual escalation. She’s getting acclimated to her new “league”, which is 40-something attractive men pushing hard for early sex and moving on when they don’t get it; and 40-something not so attractive men pushing AT ALL for early sex and them also moving on when they don’t get it.
Your 50 year old work acquaintance takes the attitude she does because she’s quickly discovering that despite her good looks, she wields considerably less SMP power than she is accustomed to. It’s a culture shock to her. She’s not used to “average” men being upfront with her from the get go and attempting rapid sexual escalation. She’s getting acclimated to her new “league”, which is 40-something attractive men pushing hard for early sex and moving on when they don’t get it; and 40-something not so attractive men pushing AT ALL for early sex and them also moving on when they don’t get it.
Very true. Of course the true league is men who are 55-60. She could find one there, but doesn’t want to go there because it makes her feel “old” (i.e., makes her feel her age). As Constantine said above, the ironic thing is that those 55 yo men can still date women who are younger, anyway, but that doesn’t seem to matter to peer-aged women. It’s the classic free dating market situation of women looking for what they can’t have and ignoring what they can. It’s no skin off my nose, personally, really, but it’s strange because you can see that they thought that their prospects would be better than they are because they do get lots of male *attention* (and did so before they decided to get their exit visas) — it just isn’t the kind of attention they want. The classic problem really.
Mark Steyn: “‘Dangerous Woman’ Meets Dangerous Man”
https://www.steynonline.com/7841/dangerous-woman-meets-dangerous-man
“As I asked around Europe all last year: What’s the happy ending here? In a decade it will be worse, and in two decades worse still, and then in three decades people will barely recall how it used to be, when all that warmth and vibrancy of urban life that Owen Jones hymns in today’s Guardian is but a memory, and the music has died away, and Manchester is as dull and listless as today’s Alexandria.”
Women in their 60s can indeed have younger men as long as they are willing to make significant compromises. We have a 60 year old friend who’s live-in boyfriend is 46. She is obese and he is in relatively good shape. She is a self-described strong Christian woman. He is a “seeker” whom she wanted us to help mentor into becoming a Christian. But we told her we would do no such thing and he needed to move out. He is abusive and has an alcohol problem. He can’t hold a job and depends on her for financial support. But at least the sex is good, I guess.
they do get lots of male *attention* (and did so before they decided to get their exit visas) — it just isn’t the kind of attention they want
attention =/= investment
Dalrock: Just found this one, and it takes the cake for the most outstanding case of feminist intrusion.
It is: Spiritual Abuse.
Yes, spiritual abuse. Preventing your wife or any woman from “practicing her religion, forcing her to conform to a part of your religion, even if it is shared, is illegal:
https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/types-of-abuse/spiritual-abuse/
Even more awesome: SJWs making this law are atheists, the type that will tell you to “Prayfor #…”, virtue signal by putting a background flag on their Facebook page, but being atheists the rest of the time.
Can’t even think of a funny gotcha here –
https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2017/05/23/maybe-women-need-men-not-stem/
Deti, Nova,
Over heard some later aged ladies talking at the coffee bar recently. All were in agreement, that if divorced, they would NEVER get married again, and definitely would only date guys who were at least 10 years younger then themselves.
All I could think was, ” if by dating you mean one night stands, then you may be onto something.”
From my work I know some cougar hunters, and believe me, they want an easy lay with no outlay.
@Dalrock
Contrary to your assertion, there was nothing there for me to twist. You mentioned context. As it happens, the context is that wives are not being addressed, the older women are. Yes it is a very good and sound practice for the older women to teach they young wives to love their husband. But, what does that mean?
The major problem I have with your assertion that wives are commanded to love their husbands, and the reason you should as well… If it’s a command, the wife is in sin for not loving her husband. The root word there is philos, the “brotherly love” form of love. Not agape, not eros, but philos. Keep that in mind.
As you know, the major passages of instruction to husbands and wives in the New Testament are at Ephesians 5, 1st Corinthians 7 and 1st Peter 3. None of these passages instruct wives to love their husband, but we notice that husbands are commanded to love their wives.
Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in everything and to respect their husbands. Addressing wives specifically in 1st Peter 3:1-6, the Apostle Peter states:
1 “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”
Observe that the wives are commanded to submit to their own husbands even if they are disobedient to the Word of God. That is, submit to all forms of sexual immorality, drunkenness, abuse, and bad behavior… in silence. And you get a wife who is doing that and she’s at the end of her rope but hanging in there… doing her very best to respect him… and she’s in sin for no philos? Not treating him like a friend and a brother? Really?
The most significant thing about that passage is it begins with the words “In the same way” (some translations have “therefore”). This refers to the passage immediately prior, specifically to this (1st Peter 2:18-25):
18 “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.”
That’s the standard for a wife’s submission. Paul just said to submit in everything, Peter gets pretty specific. And wives are commanded to respect their husbands even in the midst of something like that. While they submit to him. In silence.
But, hey, maybe I’m wrong and you’re right. By your logic, if Titus 2:4 is really a command to wives (even though it’s not written to wives) and it’s a sin for wives not to love their husbands, then likewise it must be a command for wives to call their husbands lord or master according to 1st Peter 3;3-6.
Personally, the most I require is sir, but I’ve got a couple who call me master when they want my 100% undivided attention. They use it like a code word. One of them likes doing it in public because of the reactions she gets from other women, but the reason it is a term of respect and honor is they are free to use it or not. When they choose to do so they honor me. If it were a requirement it would no longer be worth much.
I don’t believe wives are commanded to love their husbands because the text does not command wives to love their husbands. It’s a good idea and they should, but they are not in sin if they don’t. They are in sin if they refuse to submit to him or to respect him, which they are commanded to do. Likewise, I don’t believe wives are required to call their husband lord or master. I think they ought to if they can, but they are not in sin if they don’t.
That’s not twisting scripture, it’s taking it for exactly what it says. No more and no less.
Aren’t we all commanded to love even your neighbor? I don’t want to draw a Venn diagram between wives and neighbors, but sheesh….
AT is immune to correction. Every response is just an opportunity to perform context denial and pursue his mania.
Dear Toad:
I really enjoy these civil, middlebrow debates. You’re hobbling yourself right at the beginning, though.
Note that the topic has shifted from being taught to love, to loving. In any event…
I’m curious as to how you define philia, given that you’re leaning your subsequent arguments on it. You really ought to provide a definition for the word you’re working with, rather than simply assuming anyone else knows what your definition is.
Note to the uninitiated: there is no uniform definition of philia. See David Konstan (classical scholar and peer-reviewed author). This means that Toad is either ignorant of the meaning(lessness) of the word he’s using, or he’s lazy. I’m confident it’s the latter (which is a much harsher indictment than the former, by the way.)
http://www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/2/2-2-konstan.pdf
Regards,
Boxer
SirHamster:
Your inability to coherently argue any point, or to add anything substance to the discussion is noted.
Regards,
Boxer
Is that why you can’t provide evidence of my losing an argument with Lyn87 and my supposed lying about him?
Have you corrected that lie in your blog-post, or are you immune to correction too?
@Boxer
“Note to the uninitiated: there is no uniform definition of philia. See David Konstan (classical scholar and peer-reviewed author). This means that Toad is either ignorant of the meaning(lessness) of the word he’s using, or he’s lazy. I’m confident it’s the latter (which is a much harsher indictment than the former, by the way.)”
Boxer… God is not unjust. If He defines those things He requires of us. I stated clearly that I do not see a requirement (commandment) for wives to love their husband. It is noteworthy that the Bible does not clearly define this, inasmuch as I have clearly stated I see no such command to perform something that is not defined. You’ve been around long enough to know just how lengthy some of my essays can be, but I am growing and changing.
It wasn’t laziness, it was mercy for folks like you.
This lack of definition of the wives supposed “love requirement” draws immediate attention to the fact that husbands are commanded to love their wives… and the specific standard is they are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Which might cause us to search the Scriptures for examples of exactly *how* Christ loves His church and BOOM. We run squarely into Revelation 3:19 and Hebrews 12:4-11. Any discussion of that in a marital context immediately triggers our host’s commenting rules, specifically the rule prohibiting “Marital corporal punishment.”
@Hamster
Boxer and I disagree on quite a few things. However, I find Boxer to be intelligent and able to think. In other words, he’s not an idiot. I also find him to be intellectually honest. Unfortunately, given our history, I cannot describe you in the same terms. In fact, I rather agree with his assessment of you:
“Your inability to coherently argue any point, or to add anything substance to the discussion is noted.”
Dear Toad:
Well, I don’t think it’s pedantic to throw in two or three sentences, right at the beginning:
by philia, we mean…
You don’t need sources. Just give me something so that I know what you’re talking about and can follow along. Maybe if you want to push it to the limit, you can give an example and anticipate a counterexample from a critic, but you don’t need to do that here… As it is, when you use the word love, I don’t know for certain what you mean.
When I read this stuff, the word I associate with the ideal is στοργή, not φιλία. I’m not saying you’re wrong (I dunno what the word is in the NT) but in context, Uncle Saul is talking about something more than just social harmony or affection. Christ loves the church because it is a part of him. If a husband-wife pair is to do that, then each actually has to extend the boundaries of the individual ego to include the other. That’s much more deep and serious than brotherly love. It requires becoming “one flesh” in an instinctual, psychological way.
Anyway, keep arguing.
Best,
Boxer
@GunnerQ
He is supposedly a native of Memphis yet grew up in Dakar and lives in New Jersey. I think that sums him up well.
@ Nova:
These women like attention, that’s for sure, but they don’t lack that — they get plenty of attention, and they don’t actually have to date to get the attention (this is also in real life, not just online dating). Sure, they’d prefer the hunky 40 yo millionaire handyman to their current situation, but it seems to me that they prefer their current situation both to being married to ex-H and to being involved with a man of their own age or older. Some women end up settling in this situation, others do not.
Women who look very good as they age are generally presumed to be able to do so because of a fair amount of investment. Said resources should assume a certain level of intelligence. The women you describe, however, sound as dumb as a box of rocks.
This is “how to land a man 101”: When you are older, (or young-ish but bring a lot of baggage to the table), you shoot for a guy about a decade older. I have seen very attractive, pretty young, single mothers figure this one out and marry a 40-year-old guy when they are 28-30 year old. Or 40-year-old women marry 50-year-old men; not loser men either. Even my 60-year-old aunt (in-law) married a 70-year-old doctor just as he was retiring.
It is speculated that the smarter and more well-o-do people are, the less common sense they seem to possess. These women are NOT good catches no matter how well preserved because they are quite frankly, too stupid to figure out what women far less advantaged have managed to figure out.
Either that, or they really aren’t looking for commitment as much as the fulfillment of an unrealistic fantasy. Yes, I know that unrealistic and fantasy are redundant.
Artisanal Toad, as usual has some fantastic and erroneous interpretations of the simple, unambiguous word of God. His arguments, as usual, are wide of the mark of what the Apostles clearly taught.
1. A woman loves her husband through her service to him. Just because the word “love” is not often used to describe this does not mean she is not commanded or expected to love him.
How else does a woman show love to a man other than submitting to his wishes, whether sexually or in other ways? She cannot lead him; she can’t provide for him; she cannot defend him from attackers. She can only serve him and support him as evidence of her love. To claim that God expects a woman to submit her body and heart to a man, but not to love him, turns common sense on its head. How else exactly does a woman love a man?
2. It is silly to expect a Christian woman to submit to her husband’s sinning ways. By “submit”, in this regard, I mean to participate in his sins in any form. You cannot disobey one of God’s laws as you try to obey another. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” (James 2:10).
While a Christian woman should patiently, prayerfully and lovingly relate to her sinning husband, she is not to partake in any of his sins. If her husband were to ask her to engage in a threesome, for instance, or in anything which debases her body or violates her conscience (e.g. rob a bank), she is to refuse. She belongs to Christ, first and foremost, body and soul. God never intended that husbands would become little tyrants and demigods in the lives of their wives.
A wife is to follow her husband so far as he follows the word of God. If he deviates, she is to continue living right, showing him through her life what it means to live right, without lecturing him.
It is assumed that the husband would never lead his wife into sin. The command not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers is meant to prevent that possibility. If two believers were to marry, there is little expectation that one of them would want to lead the other into sin.
The failure of a wife to take a decided stand against participating in the ways of the sinning husband goes contrary to God’s command to her to demonstrate the Christian spirit to her husband.
How else would her husband “behold her chaste conversation, coupled with fear” if she commits the same sins which her husband commits, because he commanded her to?
Please let’s get rid of this erroneous and destructive teaching that has no basis in common sense or scripture.
3. Marriages between humans, when viewed in the light of eternity, is a temporary arrangement. Christians don’t marry in heaven. We cannot afford to allow a temporary arrangement to overshadow our eternal well beings.
4. The ultimate goal of a wife submitting to a failing husband is to win him over to the Lord, not that the wife should lose her soul by thoughtlessly and willfully sinning against God because her sinning husband asks her to.
And, BTW, husbands are to keep loving their failing wives too, because the husbands may be the only person who will end up saving their wives from rebellion and its eternal consequences.
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 1 Corinthians 7:16
DAVE!
Biblical Principals DAVE!!!
I thought I’d lost you. Wow.
“She cannot lead him; she can’t provide for him; she cannot defend him from attackers. She can only serve him and support him as evidence of her love. To claim that God expects a woman to submit her body and heart to a man, but not to love him, turns common sense on its head. How else exactly does a woman love a man? “
You don’t get out much, do you? Please explain the Biblical Principal behind the wife loving the husband. Please. Give it your best shot.
It is unsurprising to me that you are willing to buddy up with an unrepentant liar, and even call him intellectually honest.
For someone who claims to be saved by Christ, you spend too much time boasting and speaking ill of Christians who Christ died for.
I am not concerned about your judgment of my intelligence.
SirHamster’s endless kooky attempts to derail every discussion here continue to amuse and entertain.
Those who aren’t yet acquainted with SirHamster’s loose affiliation with the virtue he whines about will surely be amused at this:
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/
Regards,
Boxer
@Artisanal Toad:
This is the context of Titus 2:4:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Going by your erroneous and fantastic interpretations, where you claimed that it is not a sin for the women to refuse to love their husbands, because they were not commanded in the passage to do so, we must therefore conclude that God did not command these women to
1. Be sober (o yeah, they can get stoned any time they wished)
2. To love their children (they are free to abuse those kids)
3. To be discreet (they can be loud and stubborn)
4. To be chaste (they can rack up n counts, of course)
5. To keep the house (their husbands must do those chores)
6. Be good (they can be bad)
7. Obedient to their husbands (sure, they are free to rebel)
Therefore, it is not a sin for them if they failed to do any of the above.
Doesn’t that sound silly, and makes mockery of common sense?
The end result of your strange interpretations would be total dishonor of the word of God.
At least, we can clearly read from the passage that the older women were to teach the younger ones to love their husbands. My understanding of the passage was that the older women should teach these younger women how to love their husbands.
If these women were not commanded to love their husbands, why did they need to be taught how to do so? Moreover, as shown above, loving the husband was just one of many other commandments which these women were expected to obey. I think that is clear to any honest reader.
The older women, who were obviously more experienced living with men for many years, should teach the younger ones how to behave in the marital home. A lot of the young women getting married in the church had never had a boyfriend; they didn’t understand how men think; they were ignorant of what was expected of them. These older women were the best teachers they could have. Moreover, there were certain feminine things to be discussed which men were not supposed to be privy to. These women were to teach the younger ones how to do those things.
When you jumped to a conclusion that God did not command the wife to love her husband, but to submit to him, and serve him, and be faithful to him, and give him access to her body and heart, you’re not making any sense whatsoever.
Emperor Constantine
>Very few women … actually try to be attractive enough to even tempt me to think about romance.
FIFY. I agree that few women I see in the general population are attractive for marriage. This result is because of their own choices; it is unfortunate that they are deliberately sabotaging their lives with choices such as university instead of marriage in her youth, short hair, excessive weight, masculine clothes, and unpleasant attitudes.
FeeRiker added:
>It’s an overt manifestation of women’s innate, default attitude that they don’t owe anyone anything… and demand that men not only accept them as being ugly, … obese, … but that men LOVE them for these traits.
Yup. One overweight woman flat out told me that it was unreasonable for me to expect her to lose weight, and that I should love her as she is.
Now, love her as a neighbour? Sure.
But find her desirable for marriage? No way is an irresponsible, lazy, fat woman attractive for marriage. Or for sex, if she is wanting that without marriage.
Looks like I’m not the only one, here, who tried leaving a comment. Needless to say, it was not approved by the moderator.
@Dave
Titus 2:4
Funny but the more recent translations swapped out the word “obedient” to ”subject”. Which gives egalitarians more cover for their heretical doctrines.
@DamnCrackers
“Aren’t we all commanded to love even your neighbor? I don’t want to draw a Venn diagram between wives and neighbors, but sheesh….”
This sounds very much like Churchians using Eph 5:21 as the basis for their Submission preaching and claiming that eradicates the clear instruction to wives to submit to their husbands. In fact, I had a deacon ask me “Isn’t your wife a Christian? then submit to ONE ANOTHER”
“eph 5:21 Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ.”
Fact is AT is right. In terms of husbands and wives, it is not a sin for her not to “love” her husband. The sin is in disrespect and rebellion
I replied to poor, cucked Kyle Arne as follows:
“I’m trying to remember where we are commanded to open doors for women? Is that in the Book of Maps?
Women wouldn’t be single mothers if they weren’t sluts who dumped their husbands, or never married in the first place. I have known one single mother who was abandoned by her husband – they are rare as hen’s teeth, because divorce is profitable for women, and disastrous for men.”
Any bets on whether this makes it out of moderation?
@AT
Not to nitpick, but you must be using a perversion version Bible.
The verse is:
Titus 2:4 KJV
[4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Encourage versus teach. Interesting.
“I have made it my goal to respect and honor women for the true creation that they are as Gods daughters.”
Hoo boy. This kid will never, ever get laid. And women will use him and discard him.
He is in for a world of pain.
The matter of how the within-marriage commandments to “love” their wives for husbands and “obey” their husbands for wives has always intrigued me. This is an interesting conversation.
I always contemplated it as being written that way because these two things would be particularly difficult for each sex, based on their natural proclivities.
For example, as Dalrock points out often, “loving” your wife often means saying “no” to her under tremendous pressure to just go along with her wishes. If you have been married for more than a second, you understand. This is because it takes courage and a strong stomach to love like that, which is a tall order for most of us men.
On the other hand, rebellion, suspicion, and usurping is the default setting for women, (see the curse) and therefore, respect and obedience will occasionally take a huge effort for most women.
Under that rubric, “love” may or may not be present (from wife to husband) at any given time but it does not mean she is sinning. Since we know “love” takes many forms, it would hard to imagine a metric one could use there, so the scripture appears to dispense with it as an overt command within marriage.
Likewise, although “obey” doesn’t work, a basic “respect” for the humanity of your wife can be present or not–and ideally I figure it would be better, but not the the kind you would have for an authority figure. Its just not part of the sacrament. Obedience is not particularly difficult for me, and I figure, most men. In my line of work, taking orders from higher echelons even when I think it is stupid is as easy as putting on my shoes.
This was one of my first attempts to create a meme myself. Looking back, I’m not really happy with it, though. For example, because the male longing for this kind of stereotypical 50’s marriage is not the same as some stronk independent womyn’s degenerate desire to be a “feminist outside the bedroom” and tortured, humiliated and “””dominated””” by some bad-boy-psychopath inside the bedroom.
But I still think that “feminism outside the bedroom” and “bad-boy-BDSM psychopathy” inside the bedroom are the two sides of the same modernist coin that needs to be thrown away and replaced. And, of course, that men are the real romantics, in a way. Many men would kill (maybe even themselves!) for what they love – women just share a pic of in on instagram and then move on to the next thing.
It is speculated that the smarter and more well-o-do people are, the less common sense they seem to possess. These women are NOT good catches no matter how well preserved because they are quite frankly, too stupid to figure out what women far less advantaged have managed to figure out.
Either that, or they really aren’t looking for commitment as much as the fulfillment of an unrealistic fantasy. Yes, I know that unrealistic and fantasy are redundant.
Or, more simply, they have nice divorce settlements which set them up in such a way that they do not need to “marry well” a second time. They have the financial benefit of that already. So now they want hot and exciting and not “marrying well part two”. It’s not complex, really, and not hard to understand, and not necessarily dumb, given their circumstances. When women do not need men for resources/support/children, they choose men for fun/hot/sexiness, and when a woman is 50 or 60, that typically (barring exceptional cases) isn’t a man who is 60-70. It’s lane changing, as Rollo describes it, except it’s changing *back* from BB to AF, so the life cycle runs AF –> BB –> divorce –> AF. Some women who need companionship more than others or support more than others will eventually compromise and marry a second BB, others will get sick of being P&D by AF for the second period in their lives and just do the BFF thing with similarly situated sisters.
@Hose_B
Oh, women aren’t supposed to love their husbands in Christianity? Whew, I’m glad I never got married. I guess if I did I’d be a Churchian cuck!
Seriously, stating the greatest two commandments doesn’t mean you are agreeing to complementarianism. Remember, there is such a thing as tough love and self-defense.
@smultronsallet
All isms as we know it today egalitarianism and feminism. Originated in the enlightenment and had its manifestation in the French revolution and its attendent horrors not long after and the horrors of the 20th century onwards.
Of course the west had a more subtle more slower poison and its manifestation in russia led to the assassination of its Tsar prior to Nicolas the 2nd and the 1st international woman’s day. Leading its country into the cruel and vile hands of the bolsheviks.
Y’all still spitting cunt hairs over Titus 2 ? The question should be why do older females need to teach younger girls to love the husband ? Weman do not love the men they fuck When a young woman is first married she is at the top of her SMV. She will run circles around a young man. Manipulation at every angle. His biology works against his own best interest. A young wife cares more about what her social group thinks than what her husband thinks. Weman set the standard for other wemans behavior. She is just her husbands property one cow in the heard of cows. Where ever the heard goes she will follow
@Artisanal Toad
No, wives aren’t being addressed. Neither are older women. Titus is the recipient of the epistle. He is being instructed on how to instruct Christians in his charge. Likewise, the letters to various congregations aren’t technically written to us. If that is your gotcha, you have created (yet another) creative way to claim biblical instruction that you don’t like doesn’t really apply to you.
Even more absurd is the context of this discussion. As I pointed out upthread, this discussion began when you claimed it would be improper to teach wives to love their husbands, because this would be doing something the Bible didn’t call for:
In response, I pointed out where it is taught that we should teach wives to love their husbands. Your statement that it would be unbiblical to teach wives to love their husbands is entirely exploded, but as someone mentioned upthread, you are impervious to instruction. You have created your own set of rules in your mind, so any Scripture that disagrees with your own path simply doesn’t apply. You do the same thing on many other topics.
And unbidden you volunteer what this is really about, your fantasy of being a polygamous patriarch. Although, I notice that you are careful to only imply that you have multiple wives, while not outright saying it.
“Some women who need companionship more than others or support more than others will eventually compromise and marry a second BB, others will get sick of being P&D by AF for the second period in their lives and just do the BFF thing with similarly situated sisters.”
It’s a good summary. Still other women will return to the “serial monogamy” thing, dating and sexing attractive men for as long as they can in the hopes of extracting commitment from one, failing, and then resigning themselves at age 55 or so to the fact that they won’t ever remarry. So they continue dating a string of attractive men for varying lengths of time.
To me it all illustrates women’s prime dilemma: They’re not sexually attracted to the men who will commit. They are sexually attracted to the men who won’t commit to them (just like nearly all other women are). They can attract the attractive men for sex, but not for commitment. If they want commitment, they’ll have to compromise and settle. Most do settle for less attractive men, to whom they are certainly less attracted than the men they were having sex with; and some for men they really aren’t attracted to at all.
feeriker,
It’s an overt manifestation of women’s innate, default attitude that they don’t owe anyone anything… and demand that men not only accept them as being ugly, … obese, … but that men LOVE them for these traits.
I always found this strange. There are some women who go to great lengths to improve their appearance, while others go out of their way to worsen the single biggest determinant of their social status and success in life.
@Smultronstallet,
My opinion on the meme is that it implies that what men want is contrary to Christ’s example, when in fact Christ wants us to have character comparable to the devoted housewife. You could make the upper half “what men want” vs “what women want”, and the lower half “what Christ wants” vs “what Satan wants”. See if you can use similar pictures for upper and lower halves.
Perhaps I was thrown off by references to these women wanting to be courted, in effect, by these men: Taking it slow and showering them with attention without an early “payoff”. In other words, the opposite of AF.
Intuitively, I argue that these women are not honest with themselves. No woman (or a very rare few) is satisfied with merely time and attention from a man she is very attracted without his ultimate expression and affirmation of her worthiness. So again, I sense a deep lack of ability to think straight.
Yes, a 50-year-old woman is still a woman, but she should be a woman with a lot more insight into the way these things work than a woman of 20, and the behavior you describe seems to indicate no such increase in mental trajectory.
That’s just my take, though.
There are some women who go to great lengths to improve their appearance, while others go out of their way to worsen the single biggest determinant of their social status and success in life.
One of the biggest examples — and red flags, IMO — is when women dye their hair colors that are not found in nature. Bright blue, lime green, day-glo orange, fluorescent pink, cherry-red. Even worse, when incorporated into a bizarre hairstyle (e.g., half the head shaven, the other half bearing long hair of multi-colored stripes.
I guess it’s a shit test. Such women do seem to project an attitude of, “I dare you to criticize me. I just dare you.”
And just when I thought that women couldn’t sink lower in terms of hair dyes, I found this on YouTube:
@Hose_B,
Ephesians 5:21 is actually the LAST VERSE of a section that starts at 4:1. A section that discusses how Christians should relate to each other.
It is NOT the first verse on husband and wives, and it is not meant to be applied to marriage.
Read it, in context starting at 4:1. When you get to 5:21 it will be obvious it is part of the previous section, and that there is a context shift to marriage after 5:21 (no AT 5:21, but AFTER).
http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/08/ephesians-521-is-good-place-to-start.html
Pingback: The conspicuous absence of “love.” | American Dad
Els
Yes, a 50-year-old woman is still a woman, but she should be a woman with a lot more insight into the way these things work than a woman of 20,
Why do you believe this should be true? What mechanisms either internally (brain) or externally (social) would cause this to happen?
Anon
There are some women who go to great lengths to improve their appearance, while others go out of their way to worsen the single biggest determinant of their social status and success in life.
High self esteem vs. low self esteem to some degree. Different social circles to another degree. A young and very rebellious woman in a deep “F-U, DAD!” tantrum will choose a different apperance than a more demure woman who actually wants to marry a man. This can be seen in many colleges by simply walking around and listening to young women talk.
@ Red Pill Latecomer
What I think is interesting is that move away from everything natural. The hipsters were still kinda attached to that hippy thing with flowers and eco and folk music, and leaving the cities to go back to nature etc. You even had some of that spirit in the campaign of Bernie Sanders (maybe one of the reasons why he lost to the pantsuit; it was like a white hippie utopia.) But the most recent trend is neon colored hair and hormones from the medical industrial complex, all that high-tech transgender stuff with pills and artificial “””vaginas”””. And tumblr blogs where they indulge in their cyberpunk-fueled fantasies about transhumanism.
@infowarrior
Yeah, I agree. Although I’d add that Russia was a very wicked place even BEFORE the Bolsheviks came into power. Russian history is basically, a) “convert” to Eastern Churchianity because you needed a military alliance with Constantinople, b) install a kind of Orthodox dictatorship that required you to wear a beard and were positive remarks about Western institutions were outlawed, c) forcefully Westernize the military and the nobility, marry as many German princesses as possible but oppress peasants and Christians even MORE, d) get overthrown by Bolsheviks.
In Russia we can see that wicked trees bear wicked fruits. (And in a way it’s the same today with these OrthoLARPers converting to Orthodoxy. Western modernism is so terrible and wicked that some even people are getting so very desperate that they even start to idealize Orthodoxy and convert to it.)
And in a way it’s the same today with these OrthoLARPers converting to Orthodoxy. Western modernism is so terrible and wicked that some even people are getting so very desperate that they even start to idealize Orthodoxy and convert to it.
Careful.
There are Orthodox Christians who participate here. Generally here we try to avoid sectarian debate, as it is not the topic of this blog. Just saying.
@infowarrior, @Smultronstallet
This is not the place for a deep discussion of Russian history, but…neither of you really know what you are going on about. It might be good to just give that whole rabbit trail a rest.
Second Novaseeker’s comment. Some of the most useless comment threads on this blog have involved sectarianism or “my reading of the Bible is better than yours”.
“Ortho LARPers”
That’s one I haven’t seen yet.
Taking it slow and showering them with attention without an early “payoff”. In other words, the opposite of AF.
Els —
They basically want both: they want an AF type man who will go slow and court them and shower them with whatever they want at the time and then commit to them, if they want him to. They don’t want to be P&D by the AF, they want an AF to commit, if they want him to after he has shown himself to be worthy of them.
The problem is that they are not 22 anymore. They act like it, because they are at the top of their class in their age range in terms of SMV, so it “feels” like they are still at the top of their game when they look around at their peers in the neighborhood. Most of the women who are like this (truly attractive older ones) are women who have been attractive all the way through — they know nothing else. So this is their default setting, even as they age, because even though they are older they vastly outcompete women their own age physically, and are also physically competitive with women who are younger (note, physical, not really in other ways). This is also why they scorn men for looking for younger women, when they themselves are doing the same thing when it comes to men — they feel they are justified, because “I don’t look like other 50 yo women, so I shouldn’t be dating 50-55 yo men, but should be dating men who are as young as I (think) I look”. This leads to a vicious cycle.
It isn’t that they don’t know what they want — they do. They want a younger, hot, established AF man who will commit to them (and their kids) and bring their lives fun and excitement. They can’t GET that, however, for reasons that are obvious to men (the men like that will get women who are equally lovely and younger and more fertile and less baggage) and also to women who are not blinded by a lifetime of being among the prettiest women in the room at all times. That experience truly does blind women, I think, if they can maintain their looks as they age (which many now do, due to advances in health, nutrition, fitness and, in some cases, surgery) — they never really “hit the wall” in their minds, because they are turning heads of men from 25-75 when they are 50, and have done so since they were 15. That experience warps a brain, no question, and it’s something almost no man can relate to, I think.
@AR:
Luther’s Law: the Godwin Corollary of comments threads with Christians.
The longer a thread goes among Christians, the likelihood of arguing about the Reformation limits to 1.
I guess it’s a shit test. Such women do seem to project an attitude of, “I dare you to criticize me.”
Avoidance is much easier than criticsm.
they never really “hit the wall” in their minds, because they are turning heads of men from 25-75 when they are 50, and have done so since they were 15.
This is interesting. The epiphany never occurs. The insight that might normally develop over the 30 year deterioration was not required for the ones that have been attractive all the way through, and so never arrived.
This is interesting. The epiphany never occurs. The insight that might normally develop over the 30 year deterioration was not required for the ones that have been attractive all the way through, and so never arrived.
Right. Although it has to be said that this is really only 5-10% of women at the most who are in this category. It’s a very small set.
The problem arises, however, from other women observing these and at least some of them concluding that they, too, are in the same category, which almost none of them are. Not that the 5-10% women are in a great spot in terms of getting what they want, but they do get attention — the other women who are not in that category can be fooled into thinking they will even get similar levels of attention, which they don’t. So they cast a shadow over the behavior of older women who are dissatisfied and looking for reasons to bolt, unfortunately, even though these women are not really getting what they themselves want, either.
@OttoLamp
“Ephesians 5:21 is actually the LAST VERSE of a section that starts at 4:1. A section that discusses how Christians should relate to each other.
It is NOT the first verse on husband and wives, and it is not meant to be applied to marriage.”
You are absolutely correct. My point was to illustrate how Pastors will use an instruction to a large group to subvert instructions to smaller groups within the larger. And to testify to it being used first hand, in exactly that fashion.
Tactics on how men can address this sort of thing at their home church would be helpful. I was basically blacklisted as a troublemaker for questioning the use of Eph 5:21 as a substitute for the instructions to husband and wife.
One point of note……many translations insert a “heading” separation BEFORE Eph 5:21 that actually says “instructions to husbands and wives.” I now understand that these “Headings” are added by the publishers for “clarification.” To most people, the fact that ANY translation calls Eph 5:21 instructions to husbands and wives, It will be accepted without questions. And so the hamster wheel keeps spinning. And the pastor pats himself on the back for preaching “biblical submission”.
Hose_B and OttoLamp
This is not my area of expertise. But a little time with a search engine turned up three different translations, with three subtly different parsings. In particular where [21] is placed makes an obvious difference. Now I see a bit more why people can be very particular about translations.
KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=KJV
No subheadings. Text from [1] to [33] with no breaks.
NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV
Subheadings:
Instructions for Christian Households
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands…
ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=ESV
Subheadings:
Walk in Love
[…]
21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Then:
Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…
I’ll step out. Y’all comment.
I need to double check this with a 1984 NIV paper copy, but I suspect the headings for NIV were added in the 2011 revision.
Link.
More importantly, if you read without the chapter headings, it’s obvious that “Submit to one another” is a conclusion of the earlier instructions about how Christians relate to one another, imitating God as children of light.
To split it from the earlier section and framing it as the governing principle of Christian households is deceptive.
@Snowy, et al.
Most Christians don’t read their Bibles. That’s just the way it is. They can’t be bothered. They have a professional Christian who tells them what the Bible says and they are happy with that.
Some Christians actually read their Bible. While this is a good thing, it sometimes leads to problems with understanding what God requires of us, because sometimes it puts them in conflict with professional Christians. This problem is usually solved by a slick line of BS.
Very few Christians study their Bible. The ones who study, and I mean really study, quickly find that it’s not nearly as easy as one might think. I’m not talking about getting a “bible study” from one of the professional Christians, I’m talking about actually digging into the text and studying what it says.
One of the things one learns, when studying the Bible, is that sometimes what the Bible does not say is just as important as what it does say, and it’s important to understand what the text cannot say in order to understand what the text does say.
Case in point? Matthew 5:32 and look at this:
“whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
That does not mean what it most think it says, because it cannot mean that it is adultery to marry any divorced woman. Oh, of course, you can claim that. And you’ll have effectively destroyed Christianity because if Jesus meant that it was adultery to marry any divorced woman, He sinned. He was in violation of the Law. If you don’t understand that, you haven’t studied.
So, yeah… talk to me about how your version of the Bible is better.
Dear Toad:
Thanks for this post. I have a quick question, which you’ll likely make quick work of.
You write…
I always like to look these things up in the KJV, ‘cuz I’m old school, you know. Here’s what I’m getting:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
I’m curious as to any supposed ambiguity here. It seems to be a very straightforward prescription, when I read it. The text defines divorce as putting away, except for fornication… then it condemns anyone else for marrying a put away spouse.
I suppose we could read this charitably and give those who previously were divorced for fornication a second shot at marriage, since they’re technically excluded (though they don’t have a very good track record). All frivolous divorcées (the ones that remain) are viewed as still married, and as such, are untouchable by an observant Christian man who takes the text seriously.
Regards,
Boxer
P.S.: I’m going to play a fun game, called let’s ignore the idiots who constantly seek to derail serious discussions. I invite you to join me. They never add anything substantive, and the ones active this week aren’t even funny.
Boxer,
I will stay out of the spat between you and SirHamster, but siding with AT is a bit idiotic.
BillyS,
I’m not “siding with” anyone. Monsieur Toad made an argument, and I’m asking him to back it up with a source in the text.
Regards,
Boxer
You must see his posts as more authentic then….
Though I just don’t bother in most cases for the reasons others have noted.
I do believe Toad posts in good faith, and I know that he’s got the ability to support his contentions with valid arguments. That’s pretty much all I look for in a sparring partner.
Best,
Boxer
I’m curious as to any supposed ambiguity here. It seems to be a very straightforward prescription, when I read it. The text defines divorce as putting away, except for fornication… then it condemns anyone else for marrying a put away spouse.
I don’t consider AT to be an honest man. He does not read the scriptures to get divine instructions; he reads them to confirm his preconceived ideas, and that is not an honest approach to any enquiry. When anyone reads the scriptures the way AT reads them, they almost always remain in error, no matter what contrary evidence is presented before them.
The best approach is to read the scriptures with an open and honest heart, without reading questionable meanings into otherwise clear passages, and with a readiness to conform to what is learned, as soon as one learns them.
AT is repeatedly doing what some elders in Israel did many years ago: they first made up their minds on a matter, then they sought the advise of the prophet of God.
God referred to this practice as “setting up an idol in the heart”, an He promised to mislead those elders when they came to seek his guidance:
Ezekel 14:
In fact, throughout scripture, all those who had preconceived ideas before seeking the mind of God, ended up being misled. All of them. From Balaam, who had determined to go curse Israel, and kept asking God for permission to do so, until he got what he wanted (Numbers 22); to king Ahab, who had decided to go to war in Ramoth-Gilead, before asking the Lord whether or not he should do so (1 Kings 22:19-23); to the elders of Israel, as shown above.
If AT really means to gain anything from the Word, he must let go of his erroneous ideas, …and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save… his soul. (James 1:21). If he persists in his ways, he will continue to “feed on ashes”, and remain turned aside by “a deceived heart”, unable to discern that he is holding on to a lie in his “right hand” (Isaiah 44:20).
Artisanal Toad says:
May 24, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Matthew 5:32 got it right.
So did Mark 10:12.
So did Luke 16:18.
So did Paul 1Cor.7:39
The error in Toad’s reasoning is that he is trying to fit Jesus’ teaching into Moses’ teaching. But the New Testament shows it is clearly the other way round. Moses was only a servant. Jesus is the Son. Heb.3:3-6
@thedeti
To me it all illustrates women’s prime dilemma: They’re not sexually attracted to the men who will commit.
Over the years I’ve met three divorced women in their thirties and forties who would put out for an alpha male – or a woman. It is one of those unusual sexual “orientations” that doesn’t yet have “proud” advocates, and I wonder how common it is.
“Over the years I’ve met three divorced women in their thirties and forties who would put out for an alpha male – or a woman. It is one of those unusual sexual “orientations” that doesn’t yet have “proud” advocates, and I wonder how common it is.”
Others have written more about this and understand it better than I do. Let me weigh in with what I do know and what I’ve seen and read about in the ‘sphere. I think that women seeking out other women for sex is becoming more common because of the lack of available attractive men, and because society is becoming far less judgmental and much more permissive about women’s sexual conduct and expressions of that conduct in the public arena.
FIrst, have a read over at Rollo’s. Especially read the first article, eponymously titled “Sexual Fluidity”.
https://therationalmale.com/?s=sexual+fluidity
It’s always said that few people are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. Sexuality and sexual attraction tendencies lie on a sliding scale. That said, how those tendencies manifest themselves appears to express itself much more outwardly with a lot of women than it does for men. I have to say I know a lot more women who have, on occasion, had sex with women and expressed sexual attraction for women; than I know men who have had expressed sexual attraction for other men and have had sex with men. I know a lot more “bicurious” women than bicurious men.
Women are much more sexually fluid than men are. Women are more prone to seek sexual companionship and gratification from same sex attachments than men are. Women are especially prone to seeking same sex attachments when there’s a dearth of sufficiently attractive and dominant men. Note from Rollo’s article that the tendency is for such women to seek those attachments with “butch”, masculine lesbians. These women would rather couple with and have sex with men, but those men are for whatever reason, unavailable. Men aren’t there, they aren’t attractive, or they reject her. It appears to me that, for these sexually fluid women, masculine women serve as stand ins for men.
I think that it might also be a function of women being more prone to wanting the emotional connection and the intimacy with another human being; and men simply wanting the sexual release. When men are faced with a dearth of available and sufficiently attractive women, they don’t tend to seek out men for sex. They tend to use pornography and masturbation, and sometimes prostitutes (if available and the costs and risks are manageable). Women also resort to porn in the form of smut books, 50SOG, Magic Mike, etc. But they certainly don’t prefer it and it tends to be quite unsatisfying for them in the long run, so they (at least appear to) tend to seek out other women for a human connection that porn, books and movies don’t give them. Men don’t tend to do that — the sexual release and the orgasm are what men tend to want. Sex with other men, even more “feminine” men, is wholly unpalatable, because men aren’t sexually attractive to them in any way.
I have been considering what Jesus said on “putting your wife away” recently and much of the teaching in that area ignores the context of what He said. It was clearly based on a principle (God made marriage to be for life), but it is stretched to become another law of bondage rather than what He was focusing on (answering those who tried to trip Him up).
It reminds me of His statement that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Proclaiming lifetime celibacy as a requirement in the case of divorce is not what was being covered, yet that is what many take from it. It has become a new bondage, just like the Sabbath was to the Jewish leaders.
thedeti-
That idea that no one is 100% hetero is a total flat-out lie from one of the world’s chief liars, Alfred Kinsey …the mass child-molesting “researcher”
I can tell you that I have had absolutely zero homosexual thoughts/desires and I’m sure millions of men are just the same way.
That liar has probably CAUSED more child-molesting than anyone or anyTHING else ever has!!
I probably misunderstood your meaning but everyone should know about Alfred Kinsey, one of the world’s worst people, right up there with hitler(I’m not joking) ….and the mass-damage he has caused the world.
FWIW, Jesus spoke metaphorically in many places. If you disagree, find me an early sect of Christians who plucked their own eye out.
I can tell you that I have had absolutely zero homosexual thoughts/desires and I’m sure millions of men are just the same way.
Yup — for us.
For women …. not so much. I think Kinsey is pretty accurate for women, in my experience. Keep in mind that for most women arousal isn’t strictly visual, it’s also emotional. Women can fairly easily get emotionally wrapped up in each other and, in the right circumstances, that leads to arousal and sex happening and they “fall into” a same sex relationship. Nothing like that happens with men, because we are aroused very differently from how women are, whether we are straight or gay, it’s almost all visual. So there are lots of women who have actually had same sex flings or relationships who would still never say they are bisexual because they don’t go out looking for them. Again, that kind of thing is unheard of among men.
@deti
Thanks, Rollo has some interesting things to say. However, the women I mentioned do not conform to the pattern he suggests. They have rather strong characters, and seek either men who are stronger than themselves, or average/feminine women. They seem to avoid average men, but not average women, which is the bit that seems weird to me. Perhaps they just find beta men icky; or maybe it is the fact that the beta will want commitment, and will offer it with high pressure but disguised in courtly/romantic packaging.
” It was clearly based on a principle (God made marriage to be for life), but it is stretched to become another law of bondage rather than what He was focusing on (answering those who tried to trip Him up).”
No, Jesus said the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount.
BillyS @ 10:01 am:
“It was clearly based on a principle (God made marriage to be for life), but it is stretched to become another law of bondage rather than what He was focusing on (answering those who tried to trip Him up).”
Marriage being for life isn’t a form of legal bondage?
…
Jim @ 10:19 am:
“I can tell you that I have had absolutely zero homosexual thoughts/desires and I’m sure millions of men are just the same way.”
Can confirm. This from a California resident.
Women are especially prone to seeking same sex attachments when there’s a dearth of sufficiently attractive and dominant men.
Of course gays would like people to think so. But history does not seem to support that idea.
Women generally shut down sexually when there is no man around, until their sexual desires are awoken by another man. A woman’s desire for companionship is not necessarily sexual in nature. Women watching porn or seeking other women for sexual gratification is a more recent phenomenon.
In biblical times, virtually all homosexuals were males. Even in a situation where two sisters thought they would never have a man to be with, they decided to rape their father, rather than engaging in lesbianism. (Genesis 19:32-34).
@ Dave
“Women generally shut down sexually when there is no man around, until their sexual desires are awoken by another man. A woman’s desire for companionship is not necessarily sexual in nature. Women watching porn or seeking other women for sexual gratification is a more recent phenomenon.
I don’t know about that, Dave. Women, even hetero women, want the emotional connection and intimacy, and under the right circumstances will put a sexual connotation on it when a sexually attractive man isn’t around. I think this happens a lot with women who aren’t very sexually attractive to a wide variety of men. These women who “cant’ get a guy” can be persuaded to “go gay”. Or it can be a trendy thing, like the college girl LUG phenomenon (‘lesbian until graduation’) or “bicuriosity”.
Women are more fluid. Most men are either 100% straight (attracted to and sex with women only) or 100% gay (attracted to and sex with men only). There are a few bi men, but not too many, and there are more bisexual/bicurious women. Women are more prone to “try out” sex with a woman (see the LUG thing up there).
If faced with a choice of porn and no sex with women, or sex with a man, virtually all straight men will choose porn. Straight men will choose porn even if the choice is between porn, and sex with an unattractive woman. He’d rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a woman who’s not attractive to him.
Gay men would also rather do without or use porn than have sex with men they’re not attracted to. That’s much less of a problem for gay men, because gay men can almost always find other gay men they’re sexually attracted to for sex.
If faced with a choice of porn/50SOG/Magic Mike and no sex with a sufficiently attractive man, or sex with a woman, there’s a growing number of women who will choose sex with a woman. Because women are sexually aroused quite differently than men are. It’s all mixed together for them — some is visual, a lot of it’s emotional and having that emotional connection and bonding, there’s an attention/validation/affirmation component, and it’s intellectual as well.
Dave @ 11:29 am:
“In biblical times, virtually all homosexuals were males.”
Romans 1:26?
@thedeti,
So you’re saying this tendency of women to seek female-on-female sexual acts as a replacement for hetero sex is not a recent observation?
It’s probably a recent observation. It’s probably not a recent phenomenon. I’d suspect that more women than we know who couldn’t get married had close, intimate, perhaps even sexual, relationships with other women in ages past.
Human nature doesn’t change. If we’re seeing it now, odds are it happened in ages past too.
The only difference between then and now is that then, no one talked about it because any kind of homosexual conduct was way, way outside socially accepted norms. Now, it’s anything goes, and everyone talks about it. Everyone talks about any and all kinds of sexual conduct, no matter how extreme, unusual, deviant, or “outside the norm”.
@Gunner,
You’re right. There were some lesbians. But it appeared that male homosexuals were far more common though, going by biblical history.
Dear Dave:
Big deal. I’ve seen all you guys do that over the course of several years.
One of the hallmarks of a truly great work of art or literature is its invitation to a multiplicity of interpretations. For over a thousand years, great minds (much brighter than anyone on Dalrock presently) have argued opposing points about the text.
If you want to argue your own points effectively, you should construct a valid argument and debate Toad. Calling him dishonest, simply because he doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t convey any useful information.
I think Toad’s plan for a society based on polygamy is practically disadvantageous, based on personal experience (I’ve grown up around Mormon fundamentalists who actually live the lifestyle he promotes) but it takes more than an appeal to feelz to debunk his interpretation of the Bible.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Fellas:
Simon Sheppard’s old book All About Women is useful.
http://www.heretical.com/sgs-1998/aaw.html
The author’s hypothesis includes the idea that men and women have identical sex drives. Overlaid across women is an instinctive fear of sex, which evolved because sex is inherently quite risky for human beings, compared to other primates. This makes female psychology inherently neurotic.
Basically, women want to have sex like men do, but they also fear being knocked up and helpless. This ambiguity causes a lot of the familiar waffling we all know and love. “Can’t a girl just change her mind,” etc.
Bull-dyking may allow for sex while short-circuiting the danger of pregnancy.
Regards,
Boxer
Says the liar who won’t retract his lies.
Boxier is willing to use past behavior to prejudge posts: “let’s ignore the idiots who constantly seek to derail serious discussions.”
But now he tells you that you cannot judge Toad’s posts in context of his past behavior, because Boxer sez. Boxer sez Toad’s posts are serious arguments to be considered and not dismissed, and Boxer will tell you when you are allowed to dismiss someone’s ideas.
It sucks how churches are simply destroying future men.
May 22, 2017 at 10:34 am, Opus commented:
This is a tough one. I have tried several approaches, because on the one hand, I want to be helpful and considerate, and on the other hand I don’t intent to give the least trace of help to someone who thinks that help from me is their entitlement. Moreover, I’m not particularly interested in giving help to some ungrateful harridan.
So, for whatever it may be worth, here is My Solution®, release 7.3.2: I open the door for people with canes, very old people, and for very tiny people, — no problem; I open doors at random for women and for men; if the body language of some woman makes it clear I am expected to open doors for her, I don’t; if I can’t tell, and I feel like opening a door for her (on a whim, whatever), I do so; and finally if she decides to rant about my sexism, and why did I open the door for her, blah, blah, my stock reply is “Oh, I think I understand — you seem to think I am discriminating, but that’s not true: I open doors for polite people as well as for ungrateful people.”
What My Solution®, release 7.3.2, put into trial runs, has shown me, is that actually 97%+ of people just say “thankyou”. There is no issue, here, usually.
And if I get an angry glare for not opening a door as is (apparently) My Duty®, simply on account of having a dick, I completely ignore her glare — my take is, she’s just another woman demanding I pay attention to her emotional state. And, she can f*ck off, frankly.
Oh, and if people open doors for me, I say thank you.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
May 22, 2017 at 10:08 pm, Oscar shared:
Well, well — here:
… fixed it fer ya, “Kim”.
(Possible apologies to Opus et al.: no general condemnation of the mere practice of law being intended by me, here …)
If I don’t know her, I only open doors for a woman if she’s decent-looking and I want a closer look at her boobs. I’ve had women look questioningly at me when I didn’t hold a door for her when I could have, but never have said anything aloud to me. They can enjoy their equality all the way to sitting in the wheelchair shoved into the corner a room in a cut-rate nursing home, and no visitors ever.
Here is an interesting book.
http://dailysurge.com/2016/09/pussification-effeminization-american-male-new-book-doug-giles-destroys-political-correctness/
Gunner Q,
Not any more than having a Sabbath is.
Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage. It should be treated as extremely important, but a man does not remain in bondage because a rebellious wife chooses divorce.
Note that this is different than what Jesus covered since the women is the one leaving. The man is not the one forcing her to leave.
Something to consider for context at least. I really wish the Bible was several thousand times longer for more detail in things like this. We have to extrapolate, but we need to be much more cautious whenever we have to do so, at least for those who are Sola Scriptura.
Dear BillyS:
Does Sola Scriptura mean that you oppose the wisdom of earlier commenters? If I were a serious Christian, I’d be very interested in the arguments already made about the finer points in the text, whether or not I found the people authoritative.
Again, for a thousand years now, the greatest minds in the world have debated the minor points. You can find so much commentary on the bible it’s overwhelming. For example, while I’ve posted Tertullian many times in the past, I note that Toad has never deconstructed his interpretation:
We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. We grant, that among our ancestors, and the patriarchs themselves, it was lawful not only to marry, but even to multiply wives. There were concubines, too, (in those days.) But although the Church did come in figuratively in the synagogue, yet (to interpret simply) it was necessary to institute (certain things) which should afterward deserve to be either lopped off or modified. For the Law was (in due time) to supervene. (Nor was that enough:) for it was meet that causes for making up the deficiencies of the Law should have forerun (Him who was to supply those deficiencies). And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0404.htm
Best,
Boxer
Of course not Boxer, but any man is subject to being incorrect. We need to strive for being accurate to what is Written, not what we thought was written.
I note Sola Scriptura to differentiate from those (RCC and Eastern Orthodox) who follow tradition as much or more than what is written, no other reason.
Eastern Orthodox follow tradition, Catholics follow the magisterium of the Church.
Boxer,
If you want to argue your own points effectively, you should construct a valid argument and debate Toad. Calling him dishonest, simply because he doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t convey any useful information.
There is nothing to argue with AT about; he knows the truth, but continues to defend the indefensible. That’s why I called him dishonest.
AT has argued in favor of polygyny (and there are indications that he is probably married to multiple wives), yet he cannot point to any examples of any followers of Christ in the last 2000 years who did the same, or to any passages in the NT encouraging the practice.
AT has maintained that if a man has sex with an unmarried virgin, she automatically becomes his wife, based on the OT laws, though he balks at the idea of stoning adulterers, based on the same laws. Such mental hypocrisy.
AT has maintained that Christian husbands should be able to spank their wives, without citing any passages from scripture to support his insane statements.
There are many other foolish and damnable heresies which AT has embraced, and which he seeks to disseminate through this medium.
AT is definitely intellectually dishonest. He is not interested in learning from scripture; he prefers that the scriptures confirm his own ideas. I often respond to him to provide a counterbalance to his erroneous claims, lest an uninformed visitor to the blog thinks he is right.
Dear Dave:
I find it amazing that I have to defend Toad’s intentions (of all people – lol). Even so, please see inside text…
If you really felt this way, why would you dance for him above? Why not ignore him? (ex: you don’t see me interacting with SirHamster, do you? Why would I? He isn’t making any arguments… If Toad was simply spouting nonsense, then no one would worry about it. The problem is, he’s not. His arguments are logically valid and he cites sources for them.)
Yet you can’t make a meaningful argument against his position? (Again, calling him dishonest and other ad hom attacks isn’t an argument).
Actually, Toad (to his credit) retracted that argument some time ago, and wrote a detailed apology for spreading that nonsense on his blog. I respect his intellectual honesty in that regard. So, you’re basically lying about him here. FYI.
I haven’t seen him make any statements like this. I’d remember scoffing at him if he did so.
Again, I find it interesting that you can call them “foolish and damnable” but seem unable to provide any counterarguments for him.
Several here indulge in this sort of nonsense because they’re simply not intelligent enough to formulate any arguments contra Toad. You seem to be a lot smarter than those guys, so I’m unclear as to what the holdup is.
Again, the best way to do this is to cite some sources and make some valid counter-arguments. Either Toad will turn tail and run away, or he’ll do his best to debate you honestly. History makes me confident the latter will be his response. It’s not too difficult to demonstrate the weakness of a polygamist’s position. I’ve done it for years.
Regards,
Boxer
AT-
“One of the things one learns, when studying the Bible, is that sometimes what the Bible does not say is just as important as what it does say,”
So…you favor women serving in the military?
@Boxer,
I have provided counterarguments to many of AT’s strange views in the past, with the appropriate scriptural passages, and I really am not interested in doing so again at the moment.
As I clearly stated in my last response, my intention at this time is primarily to call him out on his errors, for the benefit of those who might be reading his writings in the future.
If AT has retracted one of his many previous erroneous assertions, I have yet to see it. And I am not lying by that statement. My apologies. However, that does not mean he is still not wrapped up in damnable heresies still.
Why not let AT deny writing/claiming all I said he wrote? I am sure he is of age; he can speak/write for himself.
AT’s talks on spanking:
“Many women and most men will object to this for many different reasons, but if a woman is sufficiently attracted to a man and desires to submit to him, she will submit [to spanking].”
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/you-need-to-be-spanked/
AT’s talk on polygyny:
“Become the man who can if you want it. If you want a successful marriage and children, poly is the only thing left that doesn’t get automatically destroyed in family court. It has to be done carefully to avoid potential problems, but it’s not difficult. If a man can spin plates it’s just a matter of spinning said plates into a poly relationship. If they are attracted enough, they’ll do it. Once they realize they get more by sharing, not less, they don’t want to leave.”
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/strategy-for-men-of-the-west-polygyny/
AT’s talk on sex = marriage:
“All the churchians want to stand up and scream “FORNICATION” but that cannot be. Neither is it “PREMARITAL SEX” because the couple isn’t engaged to marry. The point is that either the Apostle Paul is a liar and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 is a lie, or it is not a sin for a man and woman who are eligible to marry to have sex. If the woman is a virgin, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and consents to marry, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and does not consent to marry, the couple are not married (she did not consent) and neither are they in sin.”
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/women-commitment-and-sex/
From the above, it is obvious that AT still spouts his garbage all over the place, including his claims that sex with a virgin automatically equals marriage, though you said he has retracted it.
Dear Dave:
Oh LOLOLOL! Thanks for posting this thing. I hadn’t seen it before.
On a more serious note, this just serves to support my general contention about polygamists all being damaged in some fundamental way, or being otherwise defective. What person (male or female), who values his time and energy, is going to enter a relationship with a dullard who needs to indulge in physical violence? The whole scenario is ridiculous.
Only the most dysfunctional people would find something like this appealing. Unfortunately, by airing this dirty laundry, Toad is playing into the hands of our feminist enemies, who like to spread the meme that men in the ‘sphere are violent or otherwise mentally screwed up.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer,
Toad knows the scriptures are clear on all these issues. He cannot cite a single example from Church history over a 2000-year period where a follower of Jesus did any of the things he claims a Christian should be able to do.
Rather, he cherry-picked certain passages of the OT that support his personal ideas, so that he could have scriptural cover. As far as the Bible is concerned however, his actions are tantamount to idolatry, as shown before. He set up his idols in his heart, then went to the Bible to seek guidance. God promised to continue to confuse him according to the multitudes of his idols.
AT’s behavior was actually very rampant among the Jews throughout the OT; they would continue to live in sin and rebellion, while appearing to seek the Lord daily, studying His word, fasting, etc. They even expressed surprise when God didn’t answer their hypocritical prayers!
Isaiah 58:
It was similar to the behavior of those who “fear the Lord, and serve their own idolatrous gods at the same time” (2 Kings 17:33).
Arguing with AT is futile, as he is being willfully ignorant of the clear, unmistakable teachings of scripture.
Dear Dave:
My brother Toad doesn’t seem to pretend, even on his blog, that he can justify his spanking obsession with the text. Thus I suspect that he’d agree that this part of his content is motivated by his own weird paraphilia, rather than the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul.
It’s honestly embarrassing to read this stuff… I hope he’ll be motivated to take it down, or to open a second, unaffiliated, pornish blog to house his writings on this nonsense.
That’s not true at all. For better and for worse, many people arrive at Dalrock in a state of confusion. These people are easy marks for all manner of hustlers. Toad’s content is often heavily sourced and can be quite convincing to the uninitiated. Making coherent arguments about his positions is very valuable in rooting out what’s accurate and what’s not. It benefits more people than you’d realize.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer,
My brother Toad doesn’t seem to pretend, even on his blog, that he can justify his spanking obsession with the text.
Actually he did, though it is not clear if he did so intentionally.
When he supported some of his strange writings on a subject using bible passages, and then added his own personal ideas on spanking, without explicitly stating that they were his personal ideas, and not necessarily supported by scripture, he left his readers in a situation where they are likely to assume that those personal ideas have the force of scripture behind them, which is not true. If he wanted to be absolutely honest, he should have made it clear that those ideas were his own, and not supported by scripture.
Apostle Paul illustrated this beautifully when he wrote to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7, see especially verses 11-13) about marriage. After laying out what the Lord revealed to him about the matter, he went further to express his own opinions on the said subject. But he did not leave his readers in the dark as to which ideas the Lord had revealed, and which ones were his own opinion, as a well respected Apostle.
In the end, it didn’t matter in this instance though, because the Lord elevated the Apostle’s opinion to the level of scripture.
AT is like a broken record; he keeps repeating the same things, no matter often many people debunk them. He often tries to confuse his readers with empty and meandering arguments, based almost entirely on narrowly selected, and currently irrelevant, Bible passages.
The Christian is not under any OT laws. If he were, he would also be subjected to the punishments attached to those OT laws. For instance, even though adultery is forbidden in both the OT and the NT, the OT laws advocated stoning for adulterers, whereas the NT advocates repentance by, and mercy for, the adulterer (John 8:4-11).
Those OT laws, in their entirely, are obsolete and irrelevant to us in the NT. God has made the first (i.e. OT) old, that he might establish the second (i.e. NT). Those who subject themselves to any OT laws are under obligation to keep all the OT laws, and such people are not Christians, because they are still in their sins (Hebrews 8:13; 10:9; Galatians 5:2-4). Christ is completely useless to them.
No one alive today will be judged by the OT. Not a single one. As far as God is concerned, the OT is only good for one thing: for historical lessons. The OT was preserved for us to show us how God related to the people of old, so that we may learn some things from their experiences (1 Corinthians 10:11).
It is similar to why we still have the original Constitution of the US. No one alive today in the US is subjected to the original document. The amended Constitution is the relevant document. Everything in the original document that is considered useful is brought into the amended document, and modified as necessary; we all live under the amended Constitution.
For the Christian, the NT is our “amended Constitution”, and that is what we live by. Everything good under the OT was brought over into the NT, modified and re-presented. The original document, which is the OT, is completely obsolete, and only good for history.
Thus, the laws regarding virgins in the OT are irrelevant today.
The OT laws regarding divorce are irrelevant today.
The OT laws regarding marriage are irrelevant today.
The OT laws in their entirely are irrelevant today.
Even the appointed officials (e.g. priests, prophets, etc.) that administered the OT are irrelevant today. The earthly headquarters where the OT was supposed to be administered (i.e. the temple) is not in existence today.
As Christians, we are under Christ’s laws of love; not the OT laws of sacrifices.
Every doctrine that a Christian should obey must be established with the NT. If any doctrine cannot be established this way, then the Christian is not obligated to obey, or subject themselves to such a doctrine. For instance, all those doctrines about tithes, which a million preachers preach from a million pulpits every week, cannot be established by the NT, and are therefore irrelevant to the Christian. No one preached, paid, or collected tithes in the NT, because tithing was part of the OT, and has been done away in Christ (though the Christian is still expected to give to support the work of God, according to his personal choice, but is not paying a tithe. See 2 Corinthians 9:7).
In the same vein, all of AT’s strange doctrines are completely irrelevant to today’s Christian. Although he often quote scripture passages, they are generally taken out of context, and applied to a people they are not meant for.
We are called to confirm to the image of God’s own Son, not to keep some ceremonial rites, or torture Scripture to make it say whatever it is we want it to say.
@Dave
While the ceremonial law and punishments are abolished. The old testament law shows what is right and wrong and God’s provision for various social situations that arose. For example I believe that the law on virgins have a very good basis in that they deter single motherhood and deter irresponsible seducers. I mean there was this incident where a “christian” woman got pregnant out of wedlock:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/20/christian-school-punishes-pregnant-student-who-chooses-life/
Now how would such a situation be dealt with? Should she marry her seducer or should she be a single mom some years before she finds a suitable man at 25-30 as a single mother?
@infowarrior1,
Seducer?
There is the flaw in your entire argument. Certainly today women are not seduced, they are active, eyes wide open participants.
AT must be grinning from ear to ear, knowing that he is living rent-free inside the heads of so many people who claim to dismiss him as a charlatan and a liar, but who seem curiously obsessed with his “nonsense” to the point that they’ll derail a topic to debate it to death (even in his absence). Imagine the attention he’d be getting if what he had to say was taken seriously…
While the ceremonial law and punishments are abolished. The old testament law shows what is right and wrong and God’s provision for various social situations that arose.
Absolutely true, and the OT laws still form a foundation for many of our civil laws today.
However, the OT laws, as religious laws, today, are there only for “our admonitions”. We learn from them. But we are not subject to any of those laws.
When you are subject to a certain law, it also means you are subject to the sanctions of that law. As a matter of fact, the major difference between a law and a piece of advice, is that one has punishments attached if you don’t follow it, and the other doesn’t. When the Lord abolished the (immediate) punishments attached to the OT laws, he effectively relegated them to “admonitions”; the OT laws he wants us to keep are restated and modified in the NT. The Christian is not obligated to keep any OT laws which were not restated in the NT.
For example I believe that the law on virgins have a very good basis in that they deter single motherhood and deter irresponsible seducers.
I do too. But the NT has numerous laws regarding fornication, as we all probably know.
Now how would such a situation be dealt with? Should she marry her seducer or should she be a single mom some years before she finds a suitable man at 25-30 as a single mother?
There is no (Christian) law stipulating that she should marry the man who knocked her up. And, if indeed she is a Christian, she is not at liberty to have a needless abortion either.
Scripture is clear about who a Christian may marry: only a fellow Christian of opposite sex. Anything else is forbidden. Thus, if her “seducer” is a Christian, they should probably be encouraged to get married (my opinion), after repentance, but there is no law requiring that they do so.
This is one situation where young men should maintain personal standards in their choice of a mate. When a woman who allows herself to be seduced later realizes that neither her “seducer” nor other men want to commit to her afterwards, she will learn from the experience, and many other women watching her will learn not to do the same thing. Of course the man in question should also be shamed, and encouraged to turn from sin as well. Sometimes, public rebuke is necessary (1 Timothy 5:20).
This was similar to how Apostle Paul dealt with the polygamous men in the church. Even without so much as saying anything against polygamy, he rendered the practice unattractive to other men who might be thinking about trying it.
AT must be grinning from ear to ear, knowing that he is living rent-free inside the heads of so many people who claim to dismiss him as a charlatan and a liar…
I’m not so sure about that. While I am not really interested in arguing with the guy, I believe it’s rather dangerous to ignore AT completely. He could be very persuasive with his writings, particularly when the reader is not as versed in scripture as he is. It is always desirable to puncture a hole or two in his heresies, so that the future reader will have a saner view of the topic at hand. Even if all that is done is to state the correct view of scripture, without further arguments, it may be helpful.
Dear Feeriker:
Dennis Rainey must be grinning from ear to ear…
Matt Chandler must be grinning from ear to ear…
Glenn Stanton must be grinning from ear to ear…
This is a critical theory blog. The author of Dalrock does nothing but deconstruct arguments (and he does it way better than most other people).
In the first place, I don’t dismiss Toad. I actually quite like him, personally. He is the embodiment of what my polygamous cousins would be like, if they had the persistence to get an advanced degree, rather than to sit around on the dole. In the second, he’s neither a charlatan nor a liar. He never gets personal with his critics (unlike you, here). His arguments are logically valid, well sourced, and tend to have true premises. This makes him one of the more important and dangerous people in the sphere, and Christian men like Dave (and, I assume, you) should put some time into refuting them.
In the third place, he’s not absent. It’s the internet, on a holiday weekend. I’m assuming Toad has better/more enjoyable stuff to do than sit around with the rest of us paper-shufflers. No doubt he’ll be back, to expound on his polygamy proclivity (which ought to be taken seriously) and his weird spank-fetish (which is correctly described as nonsense).
If you don’t take Toad seriously, then you’re either apathetic, or you’re an idiot. (hint: the first possibility is much more damning than the last). If anything, Toad’s arguments ought to be seen as a stepping stone toward having one’s own Dalrock-type blog, where you critique the heavy hitters in the Christian feminist movement.
Regards,
Boxer
Dave,
That is wrong. It is certainly written in the Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean it is a command from God. Many things are accurately written that are not commands. We need to take it for what it says, Paul’s opinions (where that is noted). Don’t elevate it past what is written.
That is wrong. It is certainly written in the Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean it is a command from God. Many things are accurately written that are not commands. We need to take it for what it says, Paul’s opinions (where that is noted). Don’t elevate it past what is written.
I don’t understand your points here.
You do agree that Paul’s opinions that were preserved for us, became part of scripture, right? If so, are we required to follow them, or not?
If not, can you state where God said not to do so, in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
Paul, being one of the “chiefest Apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5) declared on several occasions that he had the authority to make rules for the NT church, and even punish the disobedient, and he proceeded to do so on more than one occasion (1 Corinthians 5:3; 7:25; 1 Timothy 1:20, etc). Of course other Apostles had similar authority (John 20:23).
I agree with you though that some of Paul’s rules were administrative in nature, and strictly applicable to the original recipients of his letters. But it will be a mistake to treat all of his stated opinions as mere pieces of advice; they are not.
Police officers don’t always have to quote laws to the motorist; they often have great latitudes to make rules on the fly as they see fit.
There is no specific law that says motorists must remain in their cars when stopped by the police officer, or that they must lie on their faces, with their hands behind their backs. The police officer came up with those rules, as needed, and are often backed up by the police departments and the law courts.
That is exactly how it is with high ranking ministers of the gospel. They can make rules for us, as needed, and we better remember that God would rather side with His high ranking minister, than with the rebellious guy who is looking for a loophole to enjoy the pleasures of sin.
@Dave
It does get pretty complicated when the male is non-christian. And since single mothers are not apt to get married because most men dont want that but may encourage more of the behavior if there is that escape hatch.
So what then?
Dave:
“The Christian is not under any OT law.”
Sin is most certainly germane to the Christian and their inheritance of the Kingdom, no? Sin = transgression of the law. ( 1 John 3:4) So, how do you come to the conclusion that OT law is irrelevant to the Christian?
It does get pretty complicated when the male is non-christian. And since single mothers are not apt to get married because most men dont want that but may encourage more of the behavior if there is that escape hatch.
So what then?
Frankly, I don’t consider a girl who gets knocked up outside of wedlock a Christian, particularly with an unbeliever, unless her pregnancy is a result of forcible rape. She is most likely a churchian, if she is that religious.
Pregnancies don’t just happen. It’s not like the flu that you catch just because you stay in the vicinity of someone with the condition.
In the link given, the woman in question was not even bothered about her state of being knocked up. She posed for the camera, with a self-righteous grin plastered across her face as a virtuous person. She ought to be hiding her head in shame, actually.
Dave,
I was referring to the idea that items labeled as Paul’s opinions (by Paul) were now requirements since they were written in the Scriptures. They remain opinions that have been listed in the Scriptures.
It may have just been the way you wrote it, but it sounded like you were saying Paul’s ideas were now requirements because they were listed in the Scriptures.
Does that help?
@Dave
Historically that pregnancy was either solved by a shotgun wedding or the child is sent away to an orphanage.
Rome had a male guardianship system(at least for the upper class):
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Nb3mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=rome+orphans+male+guardian&source=bl&ots=l010_6toEa&sig=5ST85iS5jgvvc_diURLx5zQ-htw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEzv27sJTUAhUEXbwKHRQMAiEQ6AEIKTAD#v=onepage&q=rome%20orphans%20male%20guardian&f=false
For all children who are fatherless are regarded by default as an orphan.
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/28) - Social Matter
That cuckoo video PROVES that self-delusion is a natural trait. A protective trait that can easily backfire.
A disturbing video that epitomizes what is happening in the world today.
Dalrock:
This is not an endorsement of Tony Robbins by any stretch, but I thought your readers might find the exchange at 1:00:38 entertaining. Even a man who regularly gets in touch with his feelings nailed this broad on her lack of respect for her cuckhold husband. The bitch . . . I mean woman, is obviously dumbfounded to be hearing this redpill truth from Tony Robbins of all people. Enjoy.
Pingback: Wilson, Lewis, and Pseudo-Christian Pedestalization Game | Dalrock
Pingback: Riding the security carousel. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why do Women Incite Others to Emote? | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Bible, Minus Cucks, Removes God - Derek L. Ramsey