And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
–Gen 3:17
Commenter Robert very politely disagreed* with my previous post on Pastor Tim Bayly:
I do not know much about this guy, but I’ve clicked on a few links from this post. Links that are supposed to be the evidence against this guy that he is sometimes not excellent…like what can wives do for unemotionally available guys. I won’t quote but in the two paragraphs it says she should submit to him, be sweet to him, pray for him and make sure she and their children honor him. Remind me again why this guy is having a post written about him and this is the evidence against him?
We all have blindspots. This guy, myself and Dalrock also. I think you are looking for a fight, or at least undercutting a brother, in this case Dalrock from someone who is friendly to our cause and is inline with God’s Word.
Novaseeker replied*:
I doubt you will find too many even here who disagree with the idea that there are many men who are also failing in their husbandly responsibilities. We all know cases of that, we are also not blind to them, either.
The jarring thing, however, is that the churches almost uniformly focus on these (and boy, do they) but almost never address what is happening on the other side of the sexual aisle. This is the overwhelming trend in the churches, and it is so ever-present that it can be hard even to notice it precisely because it is the default setting. There are many reasons for this, and Dalrock has discussed most of them on this blog at length. But the reason why he focuses as he does is because this is simply underfocused on the churches, and this blog is a kind of corrective to that overwhelmingly common tendency.
Novaseeker is right, but there is more that I would add. The problem isn’t merely that men’s sins are obsessed over while women’s sins are ignored. This would be bad enough, as it would only permit men the opportunity to repent while depriving women of the same. The much larger problem is that the mis characterization of feminist rebellion prevents both men and women from acknowledging what is really happening, and therefore prevents the opportunity of repentance for both sexes.
The general pattern of men’s and women’s sins goes back to Genesis, where Eve was easily primed to believe that something great was being unfairly withheld from her, and Adam chose to take the easy path and go along with her instead of putting his foot down.
This pattern is exactly what we see played out today. Women are filled with a spirit of resentment and rebellion (feminism), and men don’t address the issue because calling out women on their sins is extremely difficult and feels terrible. Instead, we find a way to call out another man, because that is easy and feels heroic. This pattern is so common we don’t even notice it, but perhaps the most ridiculous example is the complementarian response to women demanding to serve in combat. Instead of pointing out that women are rebelling and engaging in a form of cross-dressing, complementarians pretend that what is really happening is cowardly men are forcing innocent women into combat. As absurd as the claim is, it is widely popular because it avoids what is unpleasant and difficult, and elects instead to do what is easy and feels good. Note that both sexes are sinning in this dynamic; women are rebelling, and cowardly men are doing whatever it takes to avoid what would be the loving response.
Understanding this is critical if we hope to stop making the same mistake over and over again. For men, the problem is not that we are calling out their sins, but we are carefully avoiding calling out the sin enabling the recurring pattern.
For another example, this time I’ll share a post written by someone other than Pastor Bayly. This is a guest post by Pastor David Wegener on Bayly’s blog, and like Bayly’s writing, most of it is outstanding. The post is titled PCA debate over woman deacons: It’s about rebellion–not exegesis… and includes gems like:
Does anyone really think this issue is about what Scripture actually says? Would that it were true. Why is it that men all over the PCA are bringing up this topic at this particular moment in history? Might it have something to do with the air we breathe every day?
And:
Our pastors preach through books like Ephesians and Colossians and sweat bullets as they approach Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18. And if they do preach on the topic, they talk mostly about what submission does not mean. So the final result is, “wives, be nice to your husbands.”
Afterwards, when they greet the congregation, their mouth shows the same expression as a dog cowed into submission by the pack’s alpha dog. The non-verbal communication is obvious.
I highly reccomend reading the whole post. I’ve only included a few snippets for brevity, but the post is brilliant until Pastor Wegener gets to his diagnosis of the root of the rebellion:
But the roots of this rebellion are not in exegesis, and so we must not fight this battle only on that level. The roots lie in our sin. We don’t love our wives and sometimes they become a seething cauldron of bitterness. We love pornography or commit adultery and so we refuse to call our wives to submit (in any area of their lives). Guilt over our compromised state eviscerates our authority. Fathers sexually molest their daughters and bring rebellion into the church for generations to come. Fathers hold their darling on their lap and tell her how she can become president someday. Mothers push their daughters to get the education she’ll need so that she can earn a good living after her husband divorces her and leaves her with three children. Single women, whose fathers and mothers have failed to teach feminine deference, whine about lacking a voice in the church.
Notice that every time a woman sins in the quote above, a man made her do it. Wives rebel because their husbands don’t love them. Women rebel in church because their fathers sexually molested them. Mothers push their daughters to be career women because her future husband will abandon her and her children. Also note that it is true that men can sin in all of the ways Wegener blames for feminist rebellion. Yet this technical truth is used to sell the lie that women aren’t capable of sinning all on their own. Pastor Wegener rightly points out that we need to understand the roots of the rebellion if we are to address the problem, but then goes on to obscure those very roots.
This is something much worse than obsessing over men’s sins and minimizing or denying women’s sins. It is refusing to address the prevailing sins of men and women.
*These are only small excerpts. See the comment thread for the full exchange.
Pingback: Why the blind spot matters. | @the_arv
On my drive into the office I was listening to the news on NPR. The topic was women in the workforce, and the “expert” was saying that worldwide that more women than ever are working and “that’s a good thing”.
My first thought on hearing that is “Why is that a good thing?”
If women are working, they are not spending time with their families. This was a common complaint of a female coworker of mine. While she enjoyed adding her near six figure salary to her husband’s income, she did confide in me, more than once, that she was envious of stay at home mom and would rather stay home than work in the rat race.
She was recently laid off, and I teased her: “Why get a new job? Your husband makes bank. Sure, you’ll have to dial back on spending, but you can do it.”
Her answer was that she already suggested that to hubby and he said “No deal, now get back to finding a new job.”
So she’ll soon rejoin the workforce, even though she doesn’t want to do so, and “that’s a good thing”.
Very true.
As I’ve written before, I’m convinced that this besetting tendency to blame men for women’s own sins, or rather to see women as virtually incapable of sin unless there is a man who is ultimately responsible for her sin, is based on a fundamentally flawed reading of Genesis 3.
That flawed reading essentially holds that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin because Adam “failed to adequately supervise Eve so as to prevent her from sinning” — a novel idea that God Himself doesn’t actually mention in Genesis when he very specifically addresses the serpent, Eve and Adam and names their sins. It’s this misinterpretation of Genesis 3, which appears to be extremely widespread in American Christianity, that has become a fountain for all of this nonsense about never being able to say a woman sins without finding a man who is ultimately the cause of her sinning.
Is it a fairly new phenomenon or a result of feminism that women blame men for their sins? When Eve screwed up she didn’t actually blame Adam for it, she blamed the serpent.
Do modern women even know about Satan anymore? Or does feminism which oftentimes seperates good and evil by gender (men are evil, women are good)…really put the blinders on women?
@Dalrock, you said:
“Note that both sexes are sinning in this dynamic; women are rebelling, and cowardly men are doing whatever it takes to avoid what would be the loving response.”
I’m curious about the loving response part.
Can you provide an example of what a conversational exchange with a husband and wife would look like including that loving response from the husband?
Just an example.
I think this would be helpful.
Thanks.
@Dalrock and Frank K
I’ve had multiple similar conversations with women back when I worked in the corporate world.
One of the surprising things I’ve learned from working with college kids is that it is usually the father who pushes strongest for his daughter to go to college because her future husband might bail. I’m sure the mothers agree, but what I am told by the daughters (Whom I counsel to snag a husband at the first opportunity; degree be damned because it’s nowhere near as profitable as a husband.) is that it is their fathers who insist on the “backup plan”.
None of that is even a quibble with this excellent post. To my mind, it’s further evidence that, firstly Dalrock’s criticicism is spot-on and a grace to us all; and secondly that Christians don’t actually see what is in front of them when they try to be objective because they are so far down the hole.
I might agree with that theory if there was some semblence in reality…but we aren’t seeing 70% of divorces instigated by men.
Good for hubby, he pasted the shit test. Never, ever let a career gal slut get away from the rat race, she must lean in at all costs. The stress, the early death, the constant struggle must all be hers till the death.
@Cane_Caldo
My experience is that it’s mostly bitter divorcees that push the college route. Women that shouldn’t be trusted to be alone with your daughter: aunts, friends of the wife, old, bitter church marms, etc.
@Nova
I think that is the egg of the matter, but the fundamentally flawed reading (the egg) is laid by the chicken of men’s temptation to be weak under women, and to be proud over other men; including over the man Adam.
Another question:
Within protestant churches in the USA, when was it appropriate for pastors to address the sins of wives and daughters and women in general?
Would this have been pre-1980 time frame? Or even earlier?
I’m sure that discussions of female sins, calls for corrective attitude and behavior took place from the pulpit, but I ask this question because I grew up in the 1970s, confirmed as a Lutheran church member in the mid 1980s and frankly I cannot ever remember a sermon pertaining to the common, modern day sins of women. That wives should submit, yes. But never really any anecdotes or examples of female sin, wickendness, depravity.
I think that’s because it’s just one of the things even Pastors leave for behind closed doors and marital counseling, etc.?
Seems like any reference to this has been deleted from the modern day pastoral repertoire.
No wonder going to church is so much more fun for the ladies.
@squid_hunt
Certainly; that happens a lot. However; the reasoning given by those women to young women is they should go to college and career to “experience life”, “play around”, “be independent”, etc. What surprised me–though in hindsight it shouldn’t have–was that the backup plan reasoning is prescribed by fathers almost exclusively.
My first thought on hearing that is “Why is that a good thing?”
Frank, the reason they think that it’s a good thing is that if women earn as much as their husbands they have more equal power in the relationship. That is generally true, I think. Obviously since that equal power in the relationship is their goal, this is considered a good thing — whether women prefer it or not. Remember, it was noted feminist Simone de Beauvoir who famously said that women should not be given the option to stay home with their children because if given the option too many would choose to do so, which would undermine the whole program of equality between the sexes. In the end, it wasn’t necessary to mandate this legally, it was just necessary to jack up consumerism to the point where most people think they need two incomes to live properly, and most women feel “compelled” to work, either because husband demands it (as in your story) or material wants demand it.
Given the tendencies of women…you should probably protect your daughter from evil women as much if not more than protecting them from evil cads. We don’t often talk about how their friends or close relatives are often the ones giving them the bad ideas.
@Constrainedlocus
I think you are unintentionally conflating two different things. Calling out sin with the intent to lead a brother or sister to repentance is loving. As Christ explained in Matt 18:15-17:
And as the Apostle Paul explained in 1 Cor 5:1-5 :
But what I think you are asking is more of a Game type question. What phrasing would be most likely to be effective, and therefore felt as loving.
Certainly; that happens a lot. However; the reasoning given by those women to young women is they should go to college and career to “experience life”, “play around”, “be independent”, etc. What surprised me–though in hindsight it shouldn’t have–was that the backup plan reasoning is prescribed by fathers almost exclusively.
It makes sense when you think about it, right? Dad is being pragmatic, worried about providing for the daughter, making sure she can provide for herself in a world where lifetime marriage is far from guaranteed for anyone. Mom/Grandma is looking back wistfully at the “fun” she didn’t have “experiencing” lots of other men … erm, “life” … because she married at 23 instead of 30. Very different motives, both understandable. And both not really good, but understandable.
I think that is the egg of the matter, but the fundamentally flawed reading (the egg) is laid by the chicken of men’s temptation to be weak under women, and to be proud over other men; including over the man Adam.
Yes that’s an excellent point as to the motive involved, I’d have to agree.
@Nova
Precisely.
@Nova
“Precisely was in response to your comment
I think that reasoning right there is why I don’t see much difference between a player using game for sex or a man using gifts and prizes to attract a woman. Both camps often fight each other jockeying to be the ‘alpha’ of men and calling the others ‘beta’ basing it off how much sex or commitment from women they get. They are both still under the spell of women and the only difference is the means they go about getting them.
Lest this sounds like self-righteous tripe from a bitter man, make no mistake…I fall into this temptation as well.
I work with a young man. He lives in a house with a young woman, and they are both Christians. His house is rented by his girlfriend’s father for them both. He is also a Christian. Her father insists that she finish her degree before they marry, and that they merely live together while she does so.These are fly-over state gun-and-Bible-clutching country people.
It is the perfect example, but all the other heterosexual young women I work with live accordingly. Their fathers expect them to be whores, as long as they are profitable while doing so.
Men are not shirking their responsibility and forcing women to fight in their place (what a stupid statement). But, there is one way men are shirking their responsibility: men are refusing to call out the insanity.
The typical college age woman has the physical ability of a middle school boy. Anyone that suggested we send middle school boy’s into combat would thought insane, yet we send people with the physical prowess of a 12 year old boy (female soldiers) into combat.
Men should be screaming “NO”. Instead we just meekly go along.
Men’s inability to say no is their biggest modern failing.
It bears thinking….If the father is weak with his wife on moral matters…why would he suddenly be strong with his daughter?
Add on top of that a lot of fathers are de facto feminists and actually have the nerve they have no authority over their daughters and ‘they’ make the rules.
It just goes to show the overall state of moral and cultural surrender, even in flyover.
What I really don’t get is why they can’t marry while still students? People used to do that all the time and even had the parents help out financially while they finished school. I was an undergrad when I married, But now, even allegedly Christian parents aid and abet in premarital house playing. Is it because they don’t actually like the punk and are hoping he’ll eventually go away and that dear daughter, after “experiencing life to the fullest”, will then cohabitate with a much higher value man and hopefully stick the landing?
Sometimes people’s thought processes are perplexing. Or as Professor Kirk said in the Narinia Chronicles: What are they teaching in school these days?
Men’s inability to say no is their biggest modern failing.
Highest age-old failing too, see Genesis 3.
From time to time, I have heard from red-pill Christians the idea that husbands will be held accountable in some way that is above and beyond normal accountability for everything that happens under their authority, to include even what happens to the souls of their wives and children.
In fact, I have heard several Catholic and Orthodox priests talk like that as well. Hell, I have repeated it myself. But reading this post, I got to thinking, I don’t actually know where that comes from.
Now, I admit I do not scour over the texts like I used to, so it is possible I missed it. It also may be possible that it is a function of systematic theology, in which case I would need to see the thread that it runs through. The basis of the argument is most profoundly felt by those of us who have served in the military–because the stakes on the battlefield are such that the connection between responsibility, authority, and accountability that life depends on it. “We obey orders, or people die” says COL Jessup. Only in extreme cases is this not true, and those extreme cases are usually invoked under situations where a war crime is being ordered.
But my first question is this–where is this concept found? Book, chapter and verse, I mean. Or, if you are so inclined in the confessional faith traditions, I would accept the general consensus of the fathers.
And assuming it does exist, in the context of this post flows a heuristic syllogism that must be dealt with (I think).
Namely, if Adam (man) will be held accountable on an eternal level that is commensurate with his charge vis a vis his family what (if anything) does that do to the moral agency of those under him?
Here’s what I mean. Novaseeker points out that most American clergy (even my good friend and red-pill Orthodox priest) will say that what happened in the garden was that Adam shirked his duty to shield his wife from the Serpent. But when I try to get what “shield” means and its ramifications, it gets fuzzier. More specifically, was Adam literally standing right next to Eve while this was going on? (The answer is almost always “yes.”) If so, what was he supposed to do? If he DID do/say something and she ate anyway, and Adam turned down the fruit, would only Eve been kicked out of the garden?
And that rabbit trail goes on and on.
It is the hypothesis of this post that Eve sinned and Adam did not confront her (rather than “shield her” from the serpent). On some level this must mean that the assertion I mentioned at the beginning of this comment is true–Adam ultimately bears the responsibility, the buck stopped with him. Should he have physically grabbed the fruit from her hand and thrown it on the ground?
*note. These are not meant to be snarky or rhetorical questions. Guys here know me better than that by now. I still have issues trying to work this conundrum from time to time.
I think some men just don’t care, and believe that if some bulldykes are stupid enough to want to be in combat, then it’s their funeral. Of course, some would argue that female soldiers put their male comrades in jeopardy, in which case some men will say “Who cares? Those guys should have known better than to sign up and fight for a country that hates them.”
@Cane
This I don’t understand. This is a failure of preachers to preach the truth and the church to respond and seek God. These churches would be better off burnt to the ground. I wish God would shut them all down and send their lying preachers packing.
@Frank K
Because parents know married people tend to have children. They don’t worry about “unprotected sex” as much, and–Heavens no!–married women often get the urge to have babies. Husbands, too, tend to get ideas about expectations of children.
Marriage doesn’t derail college, but children do. So these (most) fathers would prefer their daughters be childless whores rather than married mothers because childless whores can go to college.
@Dalrock,
Yes. I’m asking about the delivery (by the male in the relationship).
Today, given common western female attitudes and the rather defiant and emboldened stance of the everyday, church-going Sisterhood, I really don’t see how one successfully conveys what is recommended in Matthew without the female subject declaring it a personal attack, a ganging-up-on-me tactic, and outrage that one might involve the church in a conspiracy against her, etc., etc.
I suspect it is challenging for husbands to call out their wives on these things. But now when I type that out, yeah, I can also see why Pastors might have similar trepidation in terms of raising these matters with their flock on Sunday mornings.
I think many husbands and boyfriends have solid, understanding relationships with their wives and can “talk about anything with her”. I don’t believe that’s the majority. A lot of men are weaker, and will go out of their way to not confront.
No. It’s not my job to run around policing lost people and telling them how to be culturally correct. If they want to be all gung-ho and scream for equality, I say sign them up for the draft. That will slow down the insanity when they are actually treated equally. Give them what they want.
If the Lutherans or the Methodists want to endorse women in the military or equality in general, it’s not my job to run around correcting them. If asked, I will state it’s wrong and here’s why. It will have nothing to do with real men protecting women or women being in submission to men. It is because God said women are not to put on that which pertains to a man. If they don’t listen, they’ve been warned.
If women in my church sign up for the military, it is possible I might counsel their fathers/husbands against it. But again, I’m not going to lose sleep over such stubborn silliness. It’s self-correcting on the individual level.
How does premarital cohabitation and sex prevent unwanted pregnancies? If anything, I would think that the risk of a young married couple having an unplanned oops is less, simply because they have demonstrated that they are more mature than their unmarried friends.
Wow, the posting and commenting are just top notch lately.
Well done, all.
Scott —
It isn’t really in the church fathers that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin — at least not prominently. Most of them as I recall follow the text, which is pretty specific about who did what sin. Adam’s sin was considered more serious than Eve’s because (1) he was not deceived (that is, he deliberately chose to defy God apart from being fooled by the tempter) and (2) as God himself says in the text, he preferred the will of his wife to the will of God, which is a second sin, quite apart from the eating of the apple, and a very serious one. Nothing is mentioned about Adam’s responsibility for Eve’s sin in Paul, the other letters, or in the Gospels, either. The “sin of Adam” is mentioned because, as I note above, it was the more serious sin because it wasn’t just the eating of the apple, and it also didn’t involve being fooled — it was a calculated deliberate choice of his wife’s will over God’s, and that is what led to the fall. It’s interesting speculation as to what would have happened had Adam not sinned — who knows? Not really important, I think.
In more modern times, we see clergy mostly making the argument that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin because it was a failure of headship, basically extrapolating backwards from Paul’s writings about marriage to impute a kind of responsibility on Adam for failing to protect Eve from the serpent, or from eating, or both (even though Paul doesn’t talk about this at all, or mention that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin or that a husband is responsible for his wife’s sin). It’s a very interesting theory, because it isn’t mentioned by God Himself in Gen 3 (and God is pretty specific and detailed about the sins everyone committed there as well as the consequences — and he doesn’t say Adam is responsible for Eve’s sin), or by Paul (or the other NT authors) or in the Gospels. Really it is something that has come out of an effort to make men responsible for women’s sins, in the context of the last few centuries where the church seems to have come to view women as holier, better, naturally good and so on as compared with corrupt, evil, weak men who are leading them to sin. It isn’t the tradition of the church and it isn’t in the text.
Now, that doesn’t mean Adam didn’t seriously sin! Of course he did, he caused the fall. His sin was more serious than Eve’s as I point out above. But that doesn’t mean he is responsible for Eve’s sin or that Eve would not have sinned without Adam being responsible for the sin. That just isn’t in the text and it isn’t in the tradition of the church, either, although it is in the contemporary Zeitgeist of Christian preaching in North America, in all parts of the Church — Protestant, Catholic (although it isn’t in the Catechism, you’ll find it written by Catholic priests online easily enough) and Orthodox alike.
@Frank K
First of all, we should reject the idea that pregnancy is an “oops”. That is what is supposed to happen, among other things, when we have sex. Likewise, biochemical reactions (pair-bonding) aren’t an “oops” of sex; however much libertines want it to be.
Second, many of those libertines are Christian fathers. They like the idea.
Third, There are rules for the whorehouse. The first rule is that it is Daddy’s Whorehouse. He pays, she plays, and so he can set the rule: “No kids”. Another rule is that Dad provides the health insurance that daughter uses for birth control. That can’t happen after marriage. A father loses authority over his daughter when she marries. Though a bad wife may cry to Daddy to get her way from time to time, such instances just emphasize the father’s loss of actionable authority to her husband. If a husband and wife decide to have a baby, who is her father to reproach them? But if she’s a college whore then–however regrettable–Daddy can still pull her strings.
Cane is certainly right about the fathers, they can be worse than the mothers and often are in promoting feminism to their daughters.
Whether they go as far as living in sin or not, nearly all of the dads I know currently in flyover country are the same way…”My little girl gets her degree first. Did you know she gets better grades than the guys? Gets that from her old man, heh heh heh.”
Just glad my father-in-law felt differently, and endeavoring to do differently with my own girls when the time comes.
@Scott and Nova
Agree with Nova.
As for the limits of responsibility: I would add that we cannot ignore that the responsibility of Adam was utterly comprehensive. We are all sinners because of him, and the earth groans under our injustice. Paul wrote in Romans 5 that just as death entered the world through the one man Adam, so justification and life is given to us through Jesus.
What should Adam have done in response to Eve’s sin? Anything but harken to his wife and eat the fruit. Eden was the most free country ever. Adam’s sin wasn’t that he failed to do the holy thing, but because he chose to do the unholy thing.
Cane is certainly right about the fathers, they can be worse than the mothers and often are in promoting feminism to their daughters.
Whether they go as far as living in sin or not, nearly all of the dads I know currently in flyover country are the same way…”My little girl gets her degree first. Did you know she gets better grades than the guys? Gets that from her old man, heh heh heh.”
Just glad my father-in-law felt differently, and endeavoring to do differently with my own girls when the time comes.
Yep. This single phenomenon, above all others has alienated me from most of the dads that I might otherwise have really strong relationships with (ballet dads, American Heritage Girl dads, etc). They cannot let this view go, mostly because their abstract future son in law might abandon them some day.
“We love pornography or commit adultery and so we refuse to call our wives to submit (in any area of their lives).”
-I’m sure the adulterers have no problem getting a warm dinner and clean house when they get home.
Scott-
Not only is it the issue of sons-in-law abandoning, it’s also a big man issue, and it directly relates to the main topic of this blog.
I think most men are that way about their daughters because they were the big man in their daughter’s life. Fair enough. But they want that to continue, even after their daughter gets married, because they were never the big man in their wife’s eyes. Ever. She doesn’t submit, never has, they don’t feel like the man around her, so they seek that in their daughter or daughters.
Thus, we see purity rings, purity balls, daddy/daughter dating culture and a bunch of other stuff weirdly born out of that.
They cannot let this view go, mostly because their abstract future son in law might abandon them some day.
Scott — Right. I think it’s just a part of their protective nature towards the daughters. They see the risk (and it is one, of course), and they want to mitigate it as a part of their responsibility as fathers. The business about “my daughter is better than the guys” is really just normal male pride — not good, but also not surprising.
As for the limits of responsibility: I would add that we cannot ignore that the responsibility of Adam was utterly comprehensive.
Cane — Absolutely — completely responsible for the fall and all the consequences of that, without question. It’s important to remember that lest people think that by saying Adam is not held responsible by God for Eve’s sin means that he is somehow let off the proverbial hook — not at all, because of his more serious, personal sin, the Fall ensued.
FWIW, conception only happens during a relatively small window during a woman’s fertility cycle, so It isn’t that hard at all for a responsible married couple to control when they will have a child without resorting to hormones or barrier type contraceptives. Heck, there are even smartphone apps for that. And most Protestants, even those of the most Fundamental stripe, have no qualms with contracepting. Only wacky Papists seem to object these days (Scott can fill us in regarding Constantinople’s position on that).
As for Daddy pulling strings on his unmarried adult daughter, face it, all of contemporary society and civilization is stacked against that. Heck, underage daughters can get an abortion without Daddy’s consent. Adult daughters with jobs? Unless you have a very well padded will you can cut her out of (and I have seen people do that), how will you control a rebellious adult daughter? I would hope that any sane father would be happy that his young daughter would marry a fine young man while still in school. And I simply don’t buy the “they’ll have kids too soon” argument.
But I do agree that modern society frowns on “high value women” having children or getting married before they’re 30. I can fully understand seculars and lukewarms worshipping at that altar, but there is absolutely no excuse for “Bible clutching” folk to encourage their children to cohabitate,
@ys
Bingo. Daddy’s Whorehouse is an excellent strategy to stay the Big Man in her eyes. You know, like a permissive and generous pimp is the Big Man to his girls. This may sounds gross and cruel to us, but fathers manage it by never asking his daughter what goes on at, you know, that place where she lives for which he pays.
OK, I am still going to get into this with you guys just a bit, because its important–
Cane — Absolutely — completely responsible for the fall and all the consequences of that, without question. It’s important to remember that lest people think that by saying Adam is not held responsible by God for Eve’s sin means that he is somehow let off the proverbial hook — not at all, because of his more serious, personal sin, the Fall ensued.
completely responsible for the fall and all the consequences of that, without question
How does this not render what Eve did or did not do right before what Adam did or did not do irrelevant, and ultimately take her agency from her?
It touches on one of the reformers great swords that they want to fall on–sovereignty. (At least the staunchly Calvinist ones).
When Moses said to Pharaoh “let my people go” did Pharaoh really have a choice but to resist? To that point in his life he was trained to believe he was god, and no one had ever stood before him with such a demanding tone.
Was Eve created to simply fulfill some historical arching, cosmic narrative so that billions of people could be born, live, die and be saved by Christ at the end of the world?
@Frank K
Not really. Society approves as long as Daddy is with the “experience life” college and career program. And, specifically, we’re talking about college women. Besides, it’s rarely a question of how a father controls his daughter, but how he can manipulate and tempt her.
I left this last because it’s ancillary. Surely you agree that when a man and a woman have sex, and she gets pregnant, that nothing physically went wrong with their systems, right? And you agree that when a man and a woman want to have a baby, the act they perform to make that happen is sex, right? That’s what I’m saying. It’s not an “oops” in the objective world. It’s only an oops in the subjective world of desires.
Then he isn’t really pulling any strings, is he? Unless you considering financing her carousel ride and obediently walking in march step with secular morality as “pulling strings”.
(Scott can fill us in regarding Constantinople’s position on that).
I’m no papist but contraception as sinful has been the consensus of the fathers across every century and every homily I am aware of.
In my own married life, I believe me and Mychael have been consistent about this. We don’t even use “Natural family planning” because the spirit of such practice is to purposely have sex without conceiving. There is no difference morally between that and “artificial” contraception.
And that’s why Mychael is pregnant, again. We neither “plan” nor “plan against” pregnancy. Pregnancy is the natural byproduct of acting doing things married people do.
By “oops”, I simply meant “unplanned”. You have injected more meaning into that word than I meant.
Sorry, the word “acting” should be deleted there.
@Scott
I don’t think this is an actually proper question. You seem to have conflated agency with consequences.
Say a woman speeds through a speedtrap, gets a ticket, and her husband pays the fine. She still has agency.
Same scenario, but the husband refuses to pay the fine, and she gets arrested on a warrant for unpaid tickets. She still has agency.
Same scenario, but after the ticket the husband jumps in the car and speeds past the same cop while giving him the bird, gets thrown in jail, can’t work, can’t pay the ticket, can’t make the mortgage, and so they lose the house and she gets thrown in jail too. She still has agency.
How does this not render what Eve did or did not do right before what Adam did or did not do irrelevant, and ultimately take her agency from her?
It’s an interesting speculation, as I said. It could be that her sin didn’t rise to the level of “Fall”-worthy, for example. It could be that if Adam didn’t sin, in other words, there would be no Fall, but some other punishment for Eve, short of the Fall of mankind. We do not know. I know that the Church (Catholic Orthodox) doesn’t teach that kind of free-will limiting/destroying sovereignty, but I also don’t think there’s been too much speculation about what if Adam had not sinned, and only Eve had. In the actual fact, we know that Adam actually did sin, however, and that his sin was more serious, and was the cause of the Fall according to Church teaching, so that’s what I go with.
@Scott
Every single person is descended from Adam. If Adam had not eaten the fruit, but Eve had, I’m not sure what would have happened. Maybe God would kill her and start over, who knows? When Adam sinned, the Bible says sin entered the world. We all got it from the same place, Adam. Not Eve. It’s why we need to die and be reborn, which happens at salvation, spiritually and the resurrection physically.
Romans 1 says that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation. And people know it. That includes Pharoah. He knew there was a God. He refused to submit.
God knew Eve was going to sin just like he knew that Pharoah would refuse. Revelation says the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. A way was already prepared to pay the way for sin.
That verse, in context, is talking about the Church. The church is the summation of God’s dealings with man. It says the purpose of the church in Christ is to make known the manifold wisdom of God.
I don’t know exactly what that means. I have some theories on the meaning based on what comes next. But the short answer is, yes. God created Adam and Eve knowing full well that they would sin. And knowing if they put their faith in God’s Saviour, through the promise of his coming, they would be saved out of it.
Just like if we put our faith in God’s Saviour, we will be saved out of it.
Every age has its myths and one of ours promoted with great zeal is that it is not only a good thing for women to work outside the home but were being held back from doing so and obtaining their natural and rightful place in the workplace by men but that in some unexplained manner women have now at last brushed aside this misogynist repression. How they got into the mess in the first place and how they got out of it is treated as one of life’s unexplained mysteries – like how toast always falls Marmalade-side down (do Americans eat Marmalade – or Marmite?) should you drop it – but there is no mystery about female employment for the founding premise is entirely false.
The fact is (and the figure is for Britain but presumably equally applies to America): that for full time work there are now no more women in full time work than there were in 1851 – I repeat as that is not a typo, 1851. This covers about 10-15% of women. The growth in female work is entirely in part-time work. These figures by the way are from a female sociologist at the LSE, Catherine Hakim thus not a lurid fantasy of internet misogyny and it is of course because men cannot afford the luxury (or the ignominy) of working part-time that there is the so-called Pay Gap – politicians (like I regret to say your former President) should know better than to promote this nonsense for it is clear that most women do not want to work full time and of those who do many would rather not do so. So once again a man is the oppressor.
There was however through the Nineteenth century by reason of the Industrial Revolution (which can, I digress, for the benefit of IBB, be dated to Abraham Darby in 1708 and his furnace at Coalbrookdale now known as Ironbridge in the County of Shropshire; Darby was a Quaker as were many of the early industrialists – for reasons I need not go into). I say by reason of the Industrial Revolution and the dangerous machinery employed and dangerous work such as mining (women were banned from coal-face work by The Mines and Colliery Act 1842 as a result of pressure by the Lord Shaftesbury and to prevent women-miners from – as they did because in the heat of the mine found like the men that it was more comfortable – stripping to the waist) which led to women in increasing numbers and with the rising prosperity occasioned by the said industrialisation being able to live without working. This was seen as ‘a good thing’ and gave such women who could attain it social prestige. It was what women aspired to; working was seen as low-class. Sadly, women like that had few children and seemed unable to amuse themselves and fell into misandrist substitutes such as annoying everyone with the unpopular movement for Female Suffrage, which turned to terrorism to achieve its goals. Quite why after 1970 women should have wanted to join the Rat Race (i.e. the male dominance hierarchy) – given that women do not need to achieve status (but merely be young, slim and pleasant) to mate with all attendant benefits has always been somewhat lost on me. Such women were like the person who stands up at a Baseball game to get a better view, however when everyone stands such advantage is lost which is what has now happened. Once upon a time being, say, a Shorthand-Typist or Flight Attendant (or do Americans say Cabin Crew) was desirable even glamorous work for a woman – but not now.
Genesis is the most succinct and persuasive explanation of the human condition, a condition which cannot be evaded or rather if evaded makes it impossible to avoid the consequences of the evasion. For a longer version try the Milton though I should warn *spoiler alert* Milton favours the anti-hero Satan – you’ll be rooting for him too.
Cane-
And that’s the rub. Each of those scenarios suggests a higher level of accountability, regardless of the agency of the woman/wife. Which in my mind again, requires the question of whether Adam was present while Eve was tempted to be tantamount, and then the what he was supposed to do of infinite significance.
If he was there, in order to protect himself from the all the consequences that were coming, he should have done everything in his power to stop it from happening, to include physical force. If that did not work, he would have to flee from her presence and explain to God what happened before he came calling.
If he was not there, and she came to him and told him all about the cool snake and how great the fruit was, again, he should have just said “well, you really screwed up. I’m out. Good luck dealing with God.”
This has ramifications for todays discussion–specifically how are men supposed to confront when pretty much any way they do so will be considered abuse and probably illegal?
@Frank K
Your boss offers you a bonus (his legitimate right) to do something unethical (an illegitimate act) at work. He will demote you (his legitimate right) if you don’t perform the unethical act. That’s pulling your strings. It’s carrots and sticks.
I understand. And what I’m saying is that planned and unplanned are matters of desire, but pregnancy from sex is plain old truth; the truth of which is obscured by the word “oops”. Thereby is our thinking corrupted and we make terrible and confused decisions about marriage, sex, whoring, and pregnancy. I’m saying when you wrote “oops” you carried more meaning in than you knew. I didn’t inject it because it was already there; only unknown to you.
Humanae Vitae is the encyclical about the church’s position on being against artificial birth control. Basically it gives the reasoning as to why and accurately predicted many things like the lowering of moral standards, marital infidelity, increase of divorce, men treating women like objects…even things like the increase of government power in marriage.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
@Opus – “Quite why after 1970 women should have wanted to join the Rat Race (i.e. the male dominance hierarchy) – given that women do not need to achieve status (but merely be young, slim and pleasant) to mate with all attendant benefits has always been somewhat lost on me.”
See Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24 – Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.
Cane Caldo said: “Because parents know married people tend to have children. They don’t worry about “unprotected sex” as much, and–Heavens no!–married women often get the urge to have babies. Husbands, too, tend to get ideas about expectations of children.
Marriage doesn’t derail college, but children do. So these (most) fathers would prefer their daughters be childless whores rather than married mothers because childless whores can go to college.”
This is right on the money. But it goes even deeper – in many cases, young women are discouraged from even having a serious boyfriend. Instead, (because Lord knows they cannot be expected to be celibate) these girls are encouraged to whore themselves out via the “hook-up culture”.
But here’s the unbelievable part: this pressure comes from their own parents! This is all shown in plenty of detail in the excellent book (I highly recommend) “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both”. You can pick it up at Amazon in Kindle format.
The book is not dry stats; it follows a number of high school and college girls for several years, interviewing them regularly. Their stories are shocking, in showing what whores our young ladies are today. But what shocked me even more is how THEIR PARENTS PRESSURE THEM INTO THIS BEHAVIOR!
You see, ever since high school, when one of these girls gets a crush or starts dating a boy…all she hears from her parents is “For God’s sake, don’t get too serious!” Because you see, getting serious can lead to marriage and babies…which would derail college, graduate school, and then “leaning in” to a high time-commitment, high-prestige career. These girls are told this so often, they begin to view an early marriage as an absolute failure, a catastrophe, worse than becoming a heroin addict. I’m not even kidding here!
These girls have come to believe that pairing off into an early marriage would mark them as a huge failure and disappointment in the eyes of their parents (and yes, they do care what their parents think of them). So the girls see hooking up as a way to keep real, true intimacy with a man – the kind that could lead to marriage – at bay. And their parents turn a blind eye to it, because they don’t expect their little princess is going to remain celibate from puberty in her mid-teens until the “right” age for marriage 15 years later. So better that she act the whore, but be able to go to grad school.
You gave to read the book and hear the stories of these girls for yourself to truly understand the depth of this…and how ugly it is. Again, the fruits of feminism are plain for all to see. As Our Blessed Lord said, “By their fruits you shall know them”.
@Earl –
Do you have any opinion about the Jesuits?
Interesting talks about the cohabitating examples and the father that I never took into account before. I’d agree that’s true…the father still has authority over the daughter since the guy living in sin isn’t her husband they are only sexual (or alleged sexual) partners. Another reason why I see no point in living with a woman who isn’t my wife…I would have no authority.
By the fruits of a lot of them, they are corrupt and like to rebel against church teaching. Fr. James Martin, SJ(W) is a prime example.
@Scott
You say, “Did you not know that God said…!” And you tell her to repent, and you ask God to forgive her.
We can only tell people the truth. That’s it, but I believe it is powerful to those who hear it. Christ is the Word Made Flesh; not the Arm made Flesh. We can’t really control anyone. I can cause a person’s eardrum or butt to shake, but I cannot make them obey. I can set fire to my house, but I cannot make the the individual flames do this or that because fire has a nature; like sin. Nevertheless, I am responsible if I set it alight. I can encourage, discourage, tempt, succor, persuade, dissuade, and all manner of things–but I cannot control.
That’s why sin and sinners are called stumbling blocks and not roadblocks. We may lie in another’s path to trip them up, be we don’t control where they put their feet.
Obviously, I’m not a Calvinist. But I find that Calvinists today are often more Calvinist than Calvin.
Jeff Strand-
I will pick up that book. I have nothing to add to your comment, really. Good stuff.
I sense this about the parents of daughters who I am surrounded by and I just can’t articulate it (or the right opportunity doesn’t present itself). “Don’t get too serious!”
Exactly right.
Earl–have you seen James Martins latest double down on the LGTB thing?
@Earl – “By the fruits of a lot of them, they are corrupt and like to rebel against church teaching. Fr. James Martin, SJ(W) is a prime example.”
Yeah, reading about Fr. James Martin led me to ask you the question. When did the Jesuits get so SJW? From my understanding they used to be the shock-troops of the Counter-Reformation.
DC-
I’m not Catholic but my whole in-law family is. My understanding is the Jesuits Original charge was indeed to defend the core orthodox teachings of the church. As to when they went all SJW, I have no idea.
I have. A group called ‘the Church Militant’ has actually been pushing back against this priest for his talks and as they have done so…they’ve actually ripped off the mask about what this guy thinks about the homosexual act.
No clue…if I had to take a guess it may of had something to do with the corrupt liberation theology that popped up in Latin America during the 50s and 60s. 2 of the 4 priest credited with starting it are Jesuits, one is a Dominican, and the other priest is a theologian but I don’t believe is in an order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
“When did the Jesuits get so SJW? From my understanding they used to be the shock-troops of the Counter-Reformation.”
Indeed. They were fearless. Google or Wiki “the North American martyrs” like St. Isaac Jogues and St. John de Brebeuf, the martyrs of England and Ireland like St. Edmund Campion and St. Oliver Plunkett, as well as the martyrs of Japan. The spiritual sons of St Ignatius Loyola and St. Francis Xavier were real men by any definition, and were happy to suffer persecution, horrific torture, and death for their faith and Holy Mother Church.
It is almost painful seeing what has happened to the Jesuits. Best embodied by the limp-wristed pansy James Martin, and of course, by the heretic-in-chief himself Antipope Francis.
Frank K says:
September 21, 2017 at 12:15 pm
[i]She was recently laid off, and I teased her: “Why get a new job? Your husband makes bank. Sure, you’ll have to dial back on spending, but you can do it.”
Her answer was that she already suggested that to hubby and he said “No deal, now get back to finding a new job.”[/i]
In event of a divorce, if they’re making the same money then alimony doesn’t come into play. This is the way women wanted it, now they have it.
As to when they went all SJW, I have no idea.
After their role in the counter-reformation (which itself involved a good deal of doctrinal hair splitting at times) they became, de facto, the leading intellectual priestly order of the Church. Over time, we know where that goes, and it isn’t toward tradition, generally. They do have rival orders, which are differently oriented (Dominicans being the main one, but also the Benedictines), but the Jesuits see themselves as the “smarties” of the Church generally.
You gave to read the book and hear the stories of these girls for yourself to truly understand the depth of this…and how ugly it is.
I actually did read it when it was released. I remember it was also roundly criticized by many media and academic women as being out of touch with the needs of young women and so on, and that young women were opting out of relationships for their own benefit (i.e., to avoid screwing up their future). It is very unfortunate what is happening, but it’s important to know it. Tom Wolfe also got it basically right, as he often does, in his novel “I am Charlotte Simmons”, which is basically about the hookup culture in college.
It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if Fr. James Martin is an active homosexual. The way he tries to rationalize it seems to me comes from a place of projection.
There’s been plenty of talk about a ‘lavendar mafia’ in the church where alleged homosexual priests are in positions of power. Another article I’ve recently read is how much money (~91 million) some American bishops received from the government for bringing in illegal immigrants in their parishes….that’s why they are so outspoken about Trump and DACA. I won’t trash the Catholic church and the teachings, but I’m also not blind to the fact there is corrupt clergy in it.
Earl: “It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if Fr. James Martin is an active homosexual”
You’re joking, right? OF COURSE he is. And I’ve got news for you, so was Montini (Antipope Paul VI, aka “Paul the Sick”)
Speaking of Mychael, in case anyone missed it she was sick this week, and is still recovering. Prayers are always appreciated.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/grateful-for-not-having-to-do-this-full-time/
Pingback: Why the blind spot matters. | Reaction Times
Novaseeker
That flawed reading essentially holds that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin because Adam “failed to adequately supervise Eve so as to prevent her from sinning”
Responsibility with no authority. Probably just a coincidence that reading has gained traction since the 1970’s. Couldn’t be the wider, feminized, culture affecting the churches, not at all.
I looked into that…it appears that was a writer who made that claim and the Pope denied it. Unlike Fr. Martin though Pope Paul VI reaffirmed Catholic church teaching when it came to sexual immorality in one of his homilies…plus wrote Humanae Vitae when it came to the church being against artifical birth control.
‘In 1976 Montini became the first pontiff in the modern era to deny the accusation of homosexuality. In January 1976, he had published a homily, Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics, that outlawed pre or extra-marital sex, condemned homosexuality, and forbade masturbation. In response, Roger Peyrefitte, who had already written in two of his books that Montini had a longtime homosexual relationship, repeated his charges in a magazine interview with a French gay magazine that, when reprinted in Italian, brought the rumors to a wider public and caused an uproar. He said that Montini was a hypocrite who had a longtime sexual relationship with a movie actor. Widespread rumors identified the actor as Paolo Carlini,[79] who had a small part in the Audrey Hepburn film Roman Holiday (1953). In a brief address to a crowd of approximately 20,000 in St. Peters Square on 18 April, Montini called the charges “horrible and slanderous insinuations” and appealed for prayers on his behalf. Special prayers for Montini were said in all Italian Roman Catholic churches in “a day of consolation”.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI#cite_note-77
The biggest danger when trying to pass responsibility of your sin onto the person you are under authority of (in this case women passing it on to men) is that you won’t repent and seek God’s mercy.
Novaseeker — “As for the limits of responsibility: I would add that we cannot ignore that the responsibility of Adam was utterly comprehensive. Cane — Absolutely — completely responsible for the fall and all the consequences of that, without question.”
Sounds like the Feminist position. Adam was completely responsible for the Fall and all subsequent consequences? Where does the Bible say that? In fact, it says the opposite —
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2)
Scripturally speaking Adam was responsible for sin and death entering into the world.
‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.’ Romans 5:12
To Scott, you might find this interesting. I read this a few weeks ago and your comment reminded me of it. https://www.garynorth.com/public/14684.cfm
Fine OP and discussion, as usual. Obviously most of you folks don’t need me around. That’s good for everybody.
One point left w/o full explication however is the issue of why American dads choose to whore out their daughters to the Mammonic College Path, instead of steering them to marry and settle down with a husband.
As has been discussed extensively in prior posts and comments here, modern American daughter- dads are conflicted and tempted on many levels. Including the Flyover ‘conservatives’, dads want to hold onto the authority (including sexual authority) lifelong over their precious princesses. Obviously, this cannot be discussed in public forums, much less in Christian churches, where such a truth is taboo even to forward as topic.
Add to this that satan has arranged modern Western societies to reward the parents of daughters with an endless array of benefits and privileges and incentives, paving the road to hell with bright and popular flagstones. Remember that in traditional cultures, the daughter has far less inceptive practical value than the son. Daughters typically were seen as a negative-drag on the birth family’s lifelong economic and practical prospects, particularly in agrarian cultures, and were married-off as fast as a suitable male candidate could be found.
Modern Western (satanic) cultures invert this completely, lavishing vast powers and benefits on the female, while ensuring that the male is kept in subservience to the dominant matriarchal culture . . . and American culture is the most matriarchal the world has ever seen. Or will ever see again.
Fathers are looking at the bottom-line here. They don’t want to turn precious princess over to some Other Horrible Male Thing, and to boot, all elements in the culture reward them for making the wrong and ungodly choice. Look. If princess does not marry young (and such is rabidly discouraged in our modern feminist societies, especially by the parents of daughters) AND she doesn’t bring in the dollars with her Glorious Career, then the main person stuck with her LIFELONG financial and psychological support is . . . yup dear ole dad. And he surely knows it, too.
Thus in a selfish, greedy, and rebellious age (ours) the mass default is for dads to push for Career Daughter, and more, to transform the entire culture away from the Scriptural Model, and towards the Satanic, Feminist Model. Which is what I witnessed in the U.S. over the past half-century. Many of the most virulent, if sub-rosa, modern feminists are ‘conservative’ and ‘Christian’ dads of daughters. They do NOT want, under any circumstances, to be stuck supporting princess financially lifelong, any more than dads did in ancient times. And modern America makes it ridiculously easy for them, too.
So they undercut and defeat traditional Christian mores and models at every opportunity, even while blustering about what hardass-trads and devout Christians they are. They and mommy live in denial of the truth that Career Daughter is a whore, but they are willing to trade that off in return for 1) assurance that they won’t be stuck with her lifelong financial support and upkeep; 2) peace in and out of the household with wife, daughter, and surrounding feminist culture; and 3) functional lifelong Numero Uno Male status with their daughters, because once she’s ridden the carousel, she will never truly bond with any male, i.e., she remains daddy’s lifelong. Commenter ys at 2:24 supra, gets this spot-on with the “Big Man” explanation.
Apologies for the length here. These ain’t simple topics.
I have never subscribed to the idea that Adam stood there like an idiot while his wife and this snake had a whole conversation which lead up to her reaching up, picking and eating the one thing God told them not to eat. The story is Christo-feminist pap meant to shame men while giving women more ammunition to be rebellious.
How about this? Eve eats of the fruit, her eyes are opened and she has knowledge of good and evil and so she runs off and tricks Adam into eating as well in the worlds first CYA move. That actually sounds more likely to have happened than Adam standing there with no more intelligence than a tree.
Or how about this one. Eve panics, finds her husband, tells him what has happened and then asks him to join her in her transgression because “don’t you love me?”. Remember, Eve had already eaten and gained the knowledge of good and evil, she could very easily, at this point, lied, cheated and finagled her way into getting her husband to join her, and she could have used any number of womanly wiles to get her way. Perhaps Adam, though he knew what his wife had done was wrong, decided to hop on board to “prove his love”, and thus “hearkened to the voice of his wife” when he should have chastised her and waited for God to deal with the situation.
Just my two cents on the subject.
The reason that most church going fathers approve of their daughters going to college, getting a degree and then seeking marriage is pretty simple. They are conservative feminists, and “everyone else is doing it”. We all have a habit of going along with the crowd, it’s human nature. We all swim in a lake of feminism, and the easiest thing to do is go along with that, too.
One can invent all manner of psychological analysis and conspiracies, but “it’s the socially approved path” is the easiest explanation.
One reason there isn’t more outrage about women in combat is that it’s an all-volunteer force. If they want to be stupid, that’s their lookout. Also, we are not fighting serious wars, i.e. those whose outcome affects the survival of the nation. So, if we lose because women soldiers can’t cut it, no big deal.
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.’ Romans 5:12”
Yeah I knew somebody would grab that one quick.
It says sin entered the world through one man. It does not say that Adam was ‘completely responsible for the Fall’, which is something very different indeed.
I think we can infer that if Adam had not gone along with Eve’s transgression, then ‘sin would not have entered into the world’, i.e., EVE’S TRANSGRESSION would not have been passed on ‘to all men’, probably meaning humanity inclusively, not males exclusively. That is, Adam telling Eve ‘no’ would have restricted the sin to Eve, and to Eden, and God being just would not have cursed the entire planet (including animals, plants, soil and minerals) with the consequent wages-of-sin — death, disease, pain, iniquity, so on.
However, 1 Timothy 2 is, by comparison, absolutely unambiguous: EVE (and not Adam) was in the transgression, period, via her being deceived, and acting out that self-serving deceit. When God read the sentences to them both, He read Eve’s sentence FIRST, specifically because she was the source of the transgression, although that is not specified in Genesis. Likewise, although God was wrathful (and hurt) that Adam followed Eve by partaking of the forbidden-fruit, He was primarily angry because Adam, in whom he had set planetary authority, had LISTENED TO (i.e., obeyed) the voice of the woman.
There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says that Adam was ‘totally responsible for the Fall’. That is satan’s (and feminism’s) position, not God’s.
SnapperTrx @ 5:03 pm:
“I have never subscribed to the idea that Adam stood there like an idiot while his wife and this snake had a whole conversation which lead up to her reaching up, picking and eating the one thing God told them not to eat.”
Assuming Eve was a naked hot 10, I would be surprised if Adam noticed anything else ever whilst in her presence. We all know the instinctive male answer to the dilemma “sinful hot sex or honorable frustration”.
People please realize with Genesis 3, Woman’s PUNISHMENT was that she was to be ruled by her husband. “your desires (which is the same “desire” in Genesis 4) will be for your husband and he will rule over you”.
God states that “he will rule over you”, implying that was not the case. PLEASE PEOPLE, STOP! stating it was Adams fault for not stopping Eve. Adam and Eve BEFORE sin is the closest we ever were to equality we can ever get until God renews everything again.
PLEASE STOP BLAMING ADAM FOR NOT STOPPING EVE! She especially had agency before the fall
Novaseeker: this besetting tendency to blame men for women’s own sins, or rather to see women as virtually incapable of sin unless there is a man who is ultimately responsible for her sin, is based on a fundamentally flawed reading of Genesis 3.
No, that might be the rationalization for blaming men. It’s not the reason.
The reason men blame other men for women’s sin is AMOG.
Men often “stand up to” other other in order to impress women. It’s the old bar stereotype. A man is talking to a woman. The moment the woman indicates the slightest displeasure, another man butts in with, “Hey, this guy bothering you?”
As others noted, it feels good for men to blame other men. But a Christian man needs justification to do so. So he twists Genesis.
Three possible models for the military.
1. Women are banned from serving. This means no women in West Point or any of the service academies. No combats medals. None of the honor of serving. No Memorial Day praise for “our fallen men and women.”
2. Women serve as equals. And return in body bags, or blinded, or with missing limbs, or maimed for life.
3. Women get to playact. They get impressive West Point uniforms and degrees. Cool combat uniforms. Medals and praise and honor. Military pensions and health benefits. But they don’t actually have to fight. Yet we’ll pretend the medals and praise and honor and money are earned, so the playacting remains fun for the women.
Model 1 makes the most sense.
Model 2 weakens the military, but has the merit of at least being honest.
Model 3 weakens the military, andis dishonest, yet it’s the one tradcons, feminists, and churchians prefer.
Agreed…God handed out curses to all the characters responsible for the fall. Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
I don’t know if this is the case, but it seems like feminism is all about ‘the serpent’ pitting men and women against each other and we tend to forget about Satan in the background. I mentioned before that even in Eve’s fault she didn’t blame Adam for eating the forbidden fruit.
SnapperTrx @ 5:03 pm:
“I have never subscribed to the idea that Adam stood there like an idiot while his wife and this snake had a whole conversation which lead up to her reaching up, picking and eating the one thing God told them not to eat.”
I have a different view myself. I believe that Man and Woman were clothed with light (like Moses face after he sees God, although it was his back). I believe that the serpent ran his game on Eve RIGHT IN FRONT of Adam. I even believe that Adam tried to stop her with words. Sort of like Eve is in the middle and on her shoulders are the red and white angels but one is Adam and other is Satan. She decided to listen to Satan, eats the fruit and looses her light. I believe Adam did try to stop her to the point that he couldn’t over rule her agency and free will.
It is at this point that Adam truly sees Eve naked for the first time. I think that Eve, now having the knowledge of good and evil realized that she was going to die, alone, outside of paradise (the garden of eden) and that was too much sin for her to carry by herself. With this realization, she sells up the idea of how much Adam loves her. That was his doing. Adam chose the love of woman over the love of God. That was his sin. He would rather die with woman than live with God.
This is the reason why I think scripture states that Adam was not deceived. He knew the lie being told because he heard it. He saw the light fade from Eve when she ate it so he as confirmation that something bad happens when you eat the fruit. He just loved woman more than God and acted on it, and ate.
You’re interpretation is an interesting theory…problem is when put against Scripture, it says their eyes were opened and both realized they were naked after Adam ate. We don’t really get any explaination of what state Eve was in before Adam ate, or if it was pretty much simultaneous that he ate…just that once he ate is when the fullness of sin was recognized.
“God states that “he will rule over you”, implying that was not the case. PLEASE PEOPLE, STOP! stating it was Adams fault for not stopping Eve. Adam and Eve BEFORE sin is the closest we ever were to equality we can ever get until God renews everything again.”
A bizarre and fitting irony, that the Holy Equality coerced by the spirit of this age, and embraced by moderns via both ‘law’ and custom, was most evident and natural on this planet before the Woman sinned, and the Man went along with her. After that, God greatly multiplied her dependence upon the male . . . sexually, psychologically, economically.
However, authority over the planet originally was given to the Man (NOT the Woman), and only after the Fall was authority transferred to satan, because it was satan’s will that humans chose, and choose, to follow.
So I don’t think that Adam and Eve were ever ‘equal’ because that’s an abstraction that is sourced in satan, not in God. God speaks of equity and iniquity, which is not the same as Equality, which ancient Babylon first practiced, and made into law, blossoming much later under the unholy ‘Enlightenment’. But what God subsequently did following sin was to magnify Eve’s dependence upon the Man.
I’ll give you the main reason why they weren’t equal before the fall…Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Logically Eve was dependant on Adam because she really was formed from a part of him. Equality is dependant on the law making everyone the same, which is not possible, equity is depedant on fairness and justice in the law.
@earlthomas786
Or it could also mean that BOTH eyes were open to being naked after Adam ate.
Genesis 3:6b-7a “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked”
What I mean is that when Eve ate, Her eyes were open to good an evil but , she would only see her own nakedness and not Adam. When Adam ate, He too would have his eyes open to good and evil and now he would and Eve would also see his nakedness. Its after he ate that THEN the eyes of BOTH were opened, which could also mean and yet at the same time does not exclude only one of them having their eyes open to nakedness.
@Ray
Authority originally given to man. I agree. Here is the thing that sort of trips me up and not completely agree with your statement that authority was given to man and only man. I agree that Authority was given to MANDKIND for the earth. WE were the original gODS of this world (both Adam and Eve, and theoretically their children if they never fell, and technically still are). You know the scripture that Jesus uses to trip up the teachers of the law about the Bible stating we are gods?
You know that part about Jesus being equal with GOd but not dwelling on it right? I would say, before the fall, Adam and Eve were Equal how God the Father and Jesus are Equal in the context of the scripture. Do you see why I would have a little hangup with completely agreeing with your assumption that Authority was only in the hands of Adam?
@Jeff Strand
“Marriage doesn’t derail college, but children do. So these (most) fathers would prefer their daughters be childless whores rather than married mothers because childless whores can go to college.” This is right on the money. But it goes even deeper – in many cases, young women are discouraged from even having a serious boyfriend. Instead, (because Lord knows they cannot be expected to be celibate) these girls are encouraged to whore themselves out via the “hook-up culture”.
You’re absolutely right on this; The only thing I’d add is that even here they’re going to resort to sticking the men with the bill for her sins. During my time in the evangelical church I saw more than a few occasions where the pastor would start a sermon by sharing an amusing bit of humor that he’d recently found on the internet, then reciting the now-famous “8 Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter” listicle in which the author promises a series of violent retributions upon any potential suitor who ends up making his little girl cry. As the congregation finished chuckling, the pastor would wag their finger and say with a glower, “Let this serve as a warning to our young men in the crowd!” It was a cheap shot to be sure, but I always found these threats towards the church’s single men for the sake of a laugh to be somewhat amusing, and the reason why was always the same: Because within the same year, I’d inevitably hear the same pastor in the same church give another sermon in which they’d bemoan how many single women there were in his congregation who were unhappy that they remained without a husband, and how the blame for this sad situation belonged to the church’s “boys who could shave,” that were just refusing to grow up and be men.
It know that the line about how “Women don’t understand cause and effect very well” is an old manosphere trope by now, but do you think we could amend it to include pastors too? Because I know that I never met even one who seemed capable of realizing that part of the reason they had to give the second sermon was because there were too many young men who had taken the lesson from the first sermon to heart.
@Scott: I don’t actually know where that comes from.
See Heb 13:15-17. I think that verse 17 is referring to church leaders, not to husbands, but at least the principle of being “men who must give an account” is at least applicable to husbands — we are responsible for how we lead. But not for the disobedience of wife or children to that leading.
Congratulations on your new child. I hope your wife returns to health and delivers in health.
“It’s this misinterpretation of Genesis 3, which appears to be extremely widespread in American Christianity, that has become a fountain for all of this nonsense about never being able to say a woman sins without finding a man who is ultimately the cause of her sinning.”
Same goes with NAMs, gay, Muslims, et. al.
Our leading (sic) straight, Christian, white men are falling all over themselves to take responsibility for them all. Vanity of vanities.
Pastors seem to be worried more about women/girl’s feelings and being the alpha male over all the other men in their congregation than their souls. Putting all the sin onus on men (for theirs and hers) and tearing them down does a big disservice to women. Why should women seek repentence for their sins if it’s always the man’s fault? Why would they be wrong if they think men are evil? Their pastor has planted that seed in their heads.
“These girls have come to believe that pairing off into an early marriage would mark them as a huge failure and disappointment in the eyes of their parents (and yes, they do care what their parents think of them). So the girls see hooking up as a way to keep real, true intimacy with a man – the kind that could lead to marriage – at bay. And their parents turn a blind eye to it, because they don’t expect their little princess is going to remain celibate from puberty in her mid-teens until the “right” age for marriage 15 years later. So better that she act the whore, but be able to go to grad school.”
(a) this is driven by smaller family sizes: families without sons turn their daughters into sons, particularly fathers
(b) what is little remarked upon, even here, is the utter havoc wreaked upon the psyches of the best young men, who are often inclined to take the unwillingness of young women to commit to them (mistakenly) personally.
Or perhaps she was so smoking hot, like 11/10, perfect beauty under the image of God, that how could you deny anything that Eve asks you to do?
I had heard the idea that Adam was standing there when he should have spoken up in the past and leaned towards it until I thought about it a fair bit more. You can be with someone in an area but not be physically close to them. A husband could be upstairs on a computer while a wife is downstairs watching TV. They are “with each other” but the husband is not seeing the same things the wife is.
We do know Even somehow botched what God said. The most likely thing is that Adam didn’t quite convey it correctly, but we can’t build doctrine on that since what is written doesn’t go into that detail. Her sin did become firm when she touched the fruit because she felt that was sin, and was willing to cross the boundary into sin for it. That wasn’t the sin, but eating was a small step after violating what she “knew” to be God’s words.
It has already been noted, but God pronounced judgment on all 3 parties (the serpent, the woman and the man), so all three had responsibility. Anyone who tries to remove it from any of them is going against that and other Scriptures.
I have also heard the “clothed with light” idea, but I don’t buy it and I find no Scriptural evidence to support it. I think it is just people making an excuse for the fact they see nakedness as a bad thing, when it originally was not.
I can’t see Adam getting all excite to see Eve for the first time if she was just a ball of light….
We need to go with what is written and not make up theories past that.
I also don’t buy the idea that Adam was so starstruck with Eve that he disobeyed just because she asked, with no thought at all. I do find the idea that Adam didn’t want to leave Eve more compelling, even though it was a stupid way to go about it. He should have talked with God first.
Though some of the worrying about it is irrelevant, since Jesus was slain “before the foundation of the world” and thus this was the way things would go. (I believe that was because God knew the choice Adam would make, not some Calvanist view, but it was going to happen whatever the cause or Jesus would not have been already planned.)
Fellow Dalrock readers, here’s something that would titillate blood pressure…
Teen Daughter Sexually Active, Wife and I Disagree on What to Do
This post and comments is a great example of why we come here. 2nding Deti, really top quality for this thread. A man can refine his understanding, fill the gaps in his knowledge, and practice communicating same with near real time feedback from thoughtful critics. Speaking of which, commenter Robert says this:
We all have blindspots. This guy, myself and Dalrock also. I think you are looking for a fight, or at least undercutting a brother, in this case Dalrock from someone who is friendly to our cause and is inline with God’s Word.
What I’m seeing is something different from that. It’s not undercutting but rather shinning light on the last blindspots that as Robert indicates we all have. The top professional athletes, those that are widely recognized as the among the very best in their particular fields and who have essentially mastered the required skills; retain coaches – because they can’t necessarily see the remaining holes in their technique but a coach will point them out. These people are the best, but want to become even better.
Where pastors, writers, or commentators espouse sound doctrine and advice, Dalrock acknowledges it and that he could or did learn something from them. He also shows the flaws in their arguments or techniques. We all learn from that, and the person being quoted or having their material scrutinized could as well. These may be men that are literally doing the Lord’s work, and doing it well, maybe among the best of breed; but they still could use, and ought to seek refinement in their techniques or presentation like the example of the top athlete.
The very best people at anything tend to want to continue moving forward and improve themselves, that’s why they are the best. Iron sharpens iron, eh what? There is always friction, heat, and maybe sparks in the process but the edge is honed. It’s better than it was before.
I love all these broken faggots in the comments, lambasting this poor schlub for (gasp!) telling his daughter to quit being a teenage whore, to close her legs, and exercise a tiny modicum of self-restraint. Lord help us if we give kids good advice, no?
Many (if not most) teenagers have sex. Nearly all of those teenagers can go on to a monogamous marriage, at that point, provided they have a grounded father and mother who properly shame them into compliance. This guy’s first mistake is marrying the wrong woman, who thinks slutting it up is cool.
Thanks for posting this. Simultaneously sad and funny, to see the state of the world today.
Boxer
desidarian
(a) this is driven by smaller family sizes: families without sons turn their daughters into sons, particularly fathers
It is even more obvious when the daughter is an only child.
@desiderian —
(a) this is driven by smaller family sizes: families without sons turn their daughters into sons, particularly fathers
Yes there is a substitution going on in that case, but even in families with sons and daughters it is present in the fathers. It has to do with (1) protectiveness as I explain above and (2) going with the strong horse (and “out of the stable” today between 18 and 28, daughters are the strong horse, boys get stronger later, but lots of Dads go with the earlier blooming strong horse girls).
(b) what is little remarked upon, even here, is the utter havoc wreaked upon the psyches of the best young men, who are often inclined to take the unwillingness of young women to commit to them (mistakenly) personally.
This is true. It’s hard for them not to take it personally, although I agree it is a mistake.
Frankly the best advice for a collegiate young man is either (1) find a willing young woman to marry before you are 22 or so or, failing that, (2) wait until 30 and marry a woman in her early 20s who is just out of college (she has lots of baggage from the sex party that college is currently, but still less than she will have at 30).
To all who responded to my long winded angels on a pinhead type of comments (BillyS, Dale, Squid_hunt, etc) I received and am processing your comments. Thank you.
Interesting thoughts on Garden of Eden. God gave Adam several rules- not just to avoid the fruit. He was also commanded to multiply and replenish the Earth.
Once Eve ate the fruit Adam faced a dilemma – Eve is cast out or dies and he is alone or he takes the fruit and joins her. He did not wait for Gods guidance – He decided on his own and sinned. But there was a dilemma because he was given a commandment in conflict once Eve ate the apple.
families without sons turn their daughters into sons, particularly fathers
Families without fathers turn their daughters into sons and their sons into eunuchs.
Novaseeker,
As I’ve written before, I’m convinced that this besetting tendency to blame men for women’s own sins, or rather to see women as virtually incapable of sin unless there is a man who is ultimately responsible for her sin, is based on a fundamentally flawed reading of Genesis 3.
Well, no. It predates Christianity altogether, as it is a fundamental aspect of the hardwiring of the human brain (and even other primates). Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, as you have often said.
Any deviation from the FI is a very infrequent exception across the eons of human existence, since that is the default.
Thanks Scott. I have long pondered this chapter in the word. There is so much there for us to take in. Sad to think the only Christian men who seem to seriously ponder these things are men I have never met.
Oh, look! Another badass grrrrl pwrrrr movie! And in this one the badass grrrrl is the only daughter of an apparently single father.
The church is stuck deep in a rut that it may not get out of without a hard reset. Someone else may have already pointed this out but the current situation is precisely described in 2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold.”
The formula that cures the problem is prescribed perfectly in 4:3
“preach the word; be earnest in season, out of season, convict, rebuke, exhort, in all long-suffering and teaching.”
“Convict” “Rebuke” women’s sin in this modern church? These modern ‘Christians’ will not take it, they won’t hear it. The women are rebellious brats raised to believe its always mens fault. The men who actually still go to church are there to serve the FI. The pastors are either deceived themselves or dishonest, most likely both. This is old news around here.
Now the pressure is on though and its intensifying. Men leaving the church can’t be ignored because they take their money with them. Eventually they’re going to be heard. It may take a tsunami of millennial MGTOW but the whole thing might collapse by then.
Sons of Liberty, lots of red flags in that post.
The father says: “I found Facebook messages between her and her cousin, who is an 18-year old, promiscuous, gay male. They have always been very close.”
* Facebook. Cause of so much evil in this world. So much infidelity. So much frivorce. So much fake news and toxic ideas.
* Older, promiscuous gay cousin. Never a good influence for any child, of either sex, at any age.
Father says: Her mother and I waited until our wedding night to consummate our love. She was 24 and I was 23. My wife … even went as far as to say that 16 is a normal age to start having sex, and that it wasn’t really a big deal.
The father seems to think his wife was a virgin on her wedding night, though from her reaction to their teen daughter’s sexcapades, I doubt it.
Now that Wicca (so-called “white witchcraft”) has gone mainstream in the West, it seems that explicit Satanism is next to come out of the closet: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4460136/black-witch-claims-she-can-cure-people-from-cancer-by-talking-to-demons-and-making-pacts-with-satan/
Savannah, 46, claims she recently helped to “heal” a 23-year-old Los Angeles police officer from acute Stage 4 leukaemia by talking to her “demon guide” Astaroth. …
The mother, who wishes to remain anonymous, wrote: “I knew in my heart that my son was healed immediately the night the Pact with Lord Lucifer was accepted by His Greatness. …
As well as healing spells, Savannah teaches people how to use demonic spells to gain money, power, revenge or success. …
Savannah admits that she has used her magic for darker purposes – including revenge – but insists it’s not always a bad thing. …
“It’s better to do revenge magically than what it is to do revenge in the real world where it is illegal,” she said.
“It’s healthy for you because psychologically your acting out and then you get closure on the things that you are obsessing about in your mind.
“You’re not doing it because you’re a bad person – it’s a consequence of the actions of another person. …
While there are no numbers on how many people practice demonology or black magic, Paganism is one of the fastest growing religions after Islam with an estimated 2 million followers in the USA – and 50,000 in the UK.
What I find especially interesting is that Satanists are using the same psychobabble jargon that New Age and secular leftists use (for instance, in the boldfaced sentence above).
The Jesuits have had a chequered history. Around the time of the French revolution they were disbanded later to be reformed. The Scottish Philosopher and Historian David Hume stayed for a while in a small French town which had a Jesuit College (this would have been in the 1730s) and regularly walked and talked with them. He described them as Wiley which perhaps was what spurred him to devise his famous and rather unarguable thought experiment as to belief.
When in America I knew, indeed lived in the same house as a Jesuit. He was a bit radical.
That on top of what the wife is suggesting birth control is why most daughters are being thrown to the wolves. With any promiscuous woman often there’s always some third party in the background whispering support be it her mother, her sister, her friends who want to take her down, or even a gay male. I commend the dad for standing up for what he believes in because he will get little if any support.
Sexual morality especially for females is all but being thrown out the window and sexual immorality is being celebrated and recommended. And with most of the posters suggesting ‘listen to your wife’…that was the specific thing that got Adam in trouble.
Scott says:
September 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Warning: Calvinism ahead
One aspect of this discussion that puts accountability into perspective is that God planned[?] the fall of man. It would seem to me that putting a naive couple into a situation with a very dangerous weapon [and a fallen archangel] was a forgone conclusion.
It’s kinda like putting children in a room with a loaded gun and telling them not to play with the gun, knowing that a full grown maniac is lurking somewhere in the room. It’s only a matter of time till the gun goes off.
God didn’t change to ‘Plan B’ when Adam and Eve fell, it was, and still is Plan A. If Jesus is the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world then all creation is just an outworking of God’s original plan.
So where do we draw the line between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty?
There is another problem with the dynamic in the original post.
A parable.
A single mother divorced her husband, and is raising two children, Billy and Sally.
Sally pushes mommy, hard, and on purpose. She gets a finger wagging, but no punishment.
Billy bumps into mommy, lightly, and on accident. He gets yelled at, not only for bumping, but “this is why sally pushes”. His bike is taken away, and sold to get toys for Sally.
After 20 years of similar treatment, how will Billy feel about mommy, and any other lessons she seeks to teach? He will likely be an emotional wreck who does whatever mommy says, or hate her and go as far away from her as he can.
I submit that this dynamic does not “present opportunity to repent” to the men, but rather encourages them to reject any calls from the church to… do anything really. Or they go through the motions to avoid punishment, with no appreciation for any system of values, since any such system or understanding there of is punished.
I, for one, seek to have a relationship with God, and do what I can to avoid his (at present) mentally unstable and abusive brides. At least I still have the book they wrote together back when the brides were mostly sane.
@Don Quixote
I see Molinism as a solution to Calvinism vs Armenian argument. It is a mystery how free will which gives right and wrong meaning and moral weight is able to be compatible with the sovereignty of God.
You cannot truly hold those without agency accountable.
God predestined those who would respond to his message. For he foreknew those who would love him. Just as he foreknew those who would reject his message and prepared them as vessels of wrath.
On the subject of fathers wanting their daughters to have an education as a “fall back”: I didn’t see any posters state the obvious: he doesn’t want her coming back home to live if there’s a divorce.
But if we want our daughters to marry early, and given our culture that lets the boys and girls choose their own mates, returning home is probably the best protection for our daughters. Problem is, most of us parents don’t want to risk that kind of cost for failure – we like the freedom of the empty nest. Our little girl returning home with two children in tow from a failed marriage is a price too high to consider – even if, for most young women, it would mean better and more stable marriages if they married young. And so we prepare her for failure by extending her time as a single.
On the Fall: I also believe that Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. Whether it was love for Eve, white knighthood, or whatever motive. he knew what he was doing and cast his lot in with her. He paid the higher penalty (although most modern women would chafe at the idea that hard work is a punishment for a man). But I think his undeception is also why men are granted leadership in the church – we own up to our sins and deal with them (if we are wise). We do not easily succumb to deception (if we have trained ourselves to know truth from God’s word).
Mark Twain, in his “Diaries of Adam and Eve”, retells the story of Eden and the fall with both humor and pathos, ending with Adam’s words over Eve’s grave: “Wherever she was, there was Eden.” I think this was a reflection of his own feelings for his wife Livy, and reflects a weakness in his thinking. I was about to say, “in his theology”, but he was an unbeliever.
@Oscar
The fact that this Lara Croft is also flatchested with a boyish body sends makes me suspicious.
I would say unbelievers and even a lot of Christians would think of woman as the paradise as that is often our weakness. Jesus said from the cross to the penitential thief that being with Him in His Kingdom is the paradise.
info,
Very true. Many forget that God is outside time and can see all points of it at the same time. Thus He knows what will happen, thus the “predestination.” It remains our choice, but He already sees what we will do.
Don Q,
Then God is at fault. It is called criminal negligence. Quit relying on blaming others. Hold people accountable for their choices rather than blaming it all on some vast conspiracy, by God in this case.
This is no different than claiming women are not at fault today. They couldn’t control themselves, right? Relying on that for men as well is not the answer. Take ownership of what you control instead of having a form of cosmic kismet.
Hmm,
Everyone has a theology, just like everyone has a diet. They believe something.
God gave sentient beings like angels and humans free will. We can choose with that free will to love God, rebel from God, seek God’s mercy through repentance, etc.
The one upside humans had over angels when we fell…we didn’t have complete knowledge of the fullness of God like Lucifer did. God gave us a way back…(Jesus). There’s nothing those angels can do to ever get back.
@BillyS: Everyone has a theology, just like everyone has a diet. They believe something.
True. Twain’s theology was a mish-mash of his Sunday school training as a kid, what he gleaned from Livy in her churchgoing, and his own freethinking prejudices. Of course, his wife wanted him to believe, but he refused (or was unable). He didn’t “listen to her”, I guess. Abusive!
“The Diaries of Adam and Eve” in their original form were not published until 1904 / 05, after Livy’s death.
@ JoshtheAspie says:
September 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
“He will likely be an emotional wreck who does whatever mommy says, or hate her and go as far away from her as he can.”
Or he’ll go Adam Lansa on her.
Off topic (and behind a paywall) but “Forget getting rich – sex and sleep are the real keys to happiness ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/forget-getting-rich-sex-sleep-real-keys-happiness/
It’s almost like the Bible is true- get rest on the Sabbath, have active and available intimacy w/ your spouse, and life is pretty good.
Add with that: men get a helpmeet/women get security, fellowship, purpose in life, comfort in death…and one might be convinced that Christianity has some real insight, and a civilization based on it would thrive.
God charged the man. God called to the man. God found the man guilty of disobedience. God cast the man out of the garden.
The woman was created to be an helper to the man. The woman lied, claiming that God charged her too, saying “Ye do not eat.” She had failed to help Adam, and led him astray. God simply asks her “What have you done?” The punishment for her sin was sorrow, not death.
The woman was banished from the tree of life because she was the man’s flesh and blood and shared his punishment.
“we like the freedom of the empty nest”
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
Like grandchildren. Best prepare yourself to die lonely and forgotten.
Nova,
“@desiderian —”
Thank you for the reply.The internet is a big place, but none outshine your wisdom.
“(2) going with the strong horse (and “out of the stable” today between 18 and 28, daughters are the strong horse, boys get stronger later, but lots of Dads go with the earlier blooming strong horse girls).”
Wow. Hadn’t considered that but that is exactly it. The system is biased in favor of hares (those who mature early) vs. tortoises (mature later and more fully) so naturally that means girls.
“Frankly the best advice for a collegiate young man is either (1) find a willing young woman to marry before you are 22 or so or, failing that, (2) wait until 30 and marry a woman in her early 20s who is just out of college (she has lots of baggage from the sex party that college is currently, but still less than she will have at 30).”
The most important thing is just understanding what is going on so it doesn’t hamper their personal and professional development. Of course I’m speaking of my own experience but I’ve also seen it quite a bit in others.
What I lucked into at 41 was finding a woman who had been raised by evangelicals (intact, healthy nuclear family) and so married early but poorly as it turned out (he decided belatedly to change his mind about children after making her wait for 12 years). Not ideal but worked out. She’s a tremendously faithful and appreciative wife and now mother of newborn twin boys.
Thanks be to God.
From time to time, I have heard from red-pill Christians the idea that husbands will be held accountable in some way that is above and beyond normal accountability for everything that happens under their authority, to include even what happens to the souls of their wives and children.
I think it might derive from Eph 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
Husbands are to play a role in their wives’ sanctification. And I can see a case that husbands will be held accountable for obeying that.
But Jesus isn’t held accountable for those who rebel and reject Him. Thus husbands won’t be accountable for wives who rebel and reject their leadership and direction.
I work with a young man. He lives in a house with a young woman, and they are both Christians. His house is rented by his girlfriend’s father for them both. He is also a Christian. Her father insists that she finish her degree before they marry, and that they merely live together while she does so.These are fly-over state gun-and-Bible-clutching country people.
Yes, this is the same thought process that squid-hunt gave some days back. See, the couple is young, and they might split up, especially after graduation, when careers call and life changes. So, better they don’t get married then divorced.
But the better question is, why didn’t this father raise a daughter to hold in high regard being a helper to her husband? And to know that submission honors God? So that when these life changes happen, she’s prepared to serve. That strife and conflict not only aren’t inevitable, but they are sins that can be avoided.
I get the gist of Dalrock’s focus, women aren’t called out for their sins by leaders (inside or outside of the home). I would add, that while much rebuke is heaped upon men, much of it is totally inappropriate, and men’s real sins are neglected. So maybe there is a push and pull in this dance. Many church leaders have their cartoon chivalry and heroic rebukes of men, but men actually like it b/c they know it’s not an indictment on them, or they can repent and turn away from those “sins” quite easily.
Daniel. You’re wrong. There is no difference, the consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge was death. Knowledge is the cause of their death. Whilst they only ate of the tree of eternal life, they would not die but as soon as they obtained knowledge, they could lie and cheat, steal and murder. The key is the knowledge to do such things, thus by their actions they both brought sin into the world. Eve ate the fruit and immediately thought about how to get Adam to do the same, she has already acquired knowledge to be able to do so. Once she ate that fruit, she could lie, she could manipulate, she was no longer the helpmeet God had designed for Adam. Adam should have cast her aside and not listened to her. That is when Adam went wrong, not before. The reason the focus is on Adam is because he is the first man. He is fully God’s creation whereas Eve was created from man. Eve could have died and Adam remained with God and sin would not have entered the world. However, as soon as Adam sinned, God’s creation, sin then entered the world through the birth of any children from Adam and Eve. If Eve had died from her sinning and then God created another woman for Adam, sin would not have yet entered the world because Adam was still sinless.
Think of it as a choice. God says it right there. They could have eaten the fruit of every other tree, including the tree of life and lived eternity with God in Eden or; they could choose to eat the from the tree of knowledge, gaining the knowledge and with it the ability to sin, all that free will stuff, but suffer the loss of eternal life.
Eve made her choice by listening to the words of the serpent and Adam made his choice by listening to his wife. Both ate the fruit and lost eternal life before God placed any curses on them. The fact that they immediately noticed their own nakedness which was not possible without the tree of knowledge that then allowed them the feeling of shame and guilt. After suffering the loss of eternal life, both got their infliction of their specific curse from God. Eve through the pain of child birth and Adam through the pain of work.
OT: Parody or not?
‘I’m a Marxist-Feminist Slut—How Do I Find an Open Relationship?’
https://www.thenation.com/article/im-a-marxist-feminist-slut-how-do-i-find-an-open-relationship/
At my place of employment, the front desk receptionist is a “woman who loves Jesus more than anything” and her 19 year-old daughter met a 23 year-old man on Facebook, and she moved to Texas to live with him. Not married to him. To live with him. She only knew him for a few months in this virtual reality.
She always says “If he cheats on, or hurts my baby girl I’m gonna make sure he gets castrated!” during breaks / lunch. I lightly asked “Sister, they are not married……they are boyfriend and girlfriend and the heart is fickle at that age….and have you even met this guy?”
She made even more clear that she “raised” her daughter right, and with excellent judgment, and “no” she has never met this young man……..but if this guy cheats on her, “he’s gonna get castrated! Nothing comes before her daughter!”
*she let her move three states away with a man she has never met
*the daughter has never been anywhere outside of Fresno, California before this move
*she raised her daughter right, but living with a man is ‘okay’ because “Jesus loves us, no matter what!!”
*she herself never married her daughters father, and the reason was because “he was abusive” (but she made three babies with said ‘abusive’ man over eight years)
*her daughter (when she was in high school) at church would be dressed like she was going to a nightclub on a Friday night in San Francisco
*she has no problem with ‘gay marriage’ and thinks the Salvation Army is wrong on this stance
yet in church, with the flock, with our Officers….notta one…..except myself has said “hey, that’s not right” and I am just laughed off and called “a legalist” and “you can’t judge people, Jesus said so”
So we’re at a huge crossroads now in Christian culture. Like the PC movement of the early 1990’s that has morphed into the “sanctioned” force that it is today: You disagree against someone’s feelings. You are smeared, and shut down.
Come Lord Jesus, come!!!!
RedPillPaul wrote:
I have a different view myself
You wrote that once before, and I thought it was great. Glad you were here to repeat it. I’m going to copy it to a file so I have it available.
Earl
‘I’m a Marxist-Feminist Slut—How Do I Find an Open Relationship?’
https://infogalactic.com/info/Poe%27s_law
Jason
She always says “If he cheats on, or hurts my baby girl I’m gonna make sure he gets castrated!” during breaks / lunch. I lightly asked “Sister, they are not married……they are boyfriend and girlfriend and the heart is fickle at that age….and have you even met this guy?”
You’re too kind. Laughing at such nonsense talk is not out of bounds – she will do no such thing, as her own history you shared proves. She’s just mouthing off, although I’m sure she believes that stuff at the moment she says it. If her “baby girl” comes home with a baby in arms and no man, that woman will take her and the child in without question. If “baby girl” gets pregnant by another man, repeating the cycle, it’ll be the same thing.
I have seen this play out with my own eyes in a couple of chuches. Talk is cheap. Action can be expensive.
@ DrTorch says:
September 22, 2017 at 12:50 pm
“I think it might derive from Eph 5: 25”
No. It derives from Romans 5:12-21. I’ll quote just a few parts of the passage.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
…
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Note that, even though Eve was deceived and sinned first, God holds Adam – not Eve – responsible for sin and death entering the world. Why? Because Adam was in charge. Authority and responsibility go hand-in-hand.
Obviously, God does not let Eve – or the Serpent – off the hook. He cursed both of them, after all.
So, what does that mean now that married fathers have so little functional, practical authority in their homes?
As far as I can tell, God only holds us responsible for what we CAN do. In other words, I can love and lead my wife, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, but I can’t make her follow me, respect me or stay clean. I can train up my children in the way they should go, teach them God’s Word diligently, talking of it when we sit in my house, when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up, but I can’t make them learn or stay in that path.
In fact, I doubt fathers could do all that back when those words were written.
@anon Reader
My first thought was parody…but Dalrock finds enough of this type of nonsense spouted by women that perhaps they’ve finally become self aware of the Marxist Feminist sluts they are.
DrTorch-
I get the gist of Dalrock’s focus, women aren’t called out for their sins by leaders (inside or outside of the home). I would add, that while much rebuke is heaped upon men, much of it is totally inappropriate, and men’s real sins are neglected. So maybe there is a push and pull in this dance. Many church leaders have their cartoon chivalry and heroic rebukes of men, but men actually like it b/c they know it’s not an indictment on them, or they can repent and turn away from those “sins” quite easily.
Wisdom there in that line of yours. The real sins of men are not called out, and those men permit rebellion from their daughters for the same reasons women are not called out in church. Fear of confronting women.
BillyS says:
September 22, 2017 at 8:38 am
I have a question for you Billy.
God chose salvation for His elect before the foundation of the world. Salvation from what?
Salvation from paradise?
Salvation from His presence?
Your reasoning is foolish.
God has commanded that all men [and women] repent [Act17:30]. We all must take ownership of our sins, and repent. If we don’t they will stick to us and take us to hell. On this much we agree.
The ‘Blind Spot’ has been correctly identified by Dalrock, it needs urgent attention. It helps to understand the chronological order of events so as to get the context correct:
1 Plan of salvation [secret weapon hidden = Lord Jesus Christ]
2 Create everything including Adam and Eve in paradise.
2a Put extremely dangerous tree in garden, and warn A&E.
3 Have clever nut-case running around doing his crazy antics.
3a Clever nut-case already serves the law of sin and death.
No need to go further with this plan here. It wouldn’t take long before A&E join in the service of sin and death. This context helps. If you have an alternative context please explain it?
earlthomas — “I’ll give you the main reason why they weren’t equal before the fall…Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Logically Eve was dependant on Adam because she really was formed from a part of him.”
Yeah agree, and that’s part of the reason that Adam and Eve were never ‘equal’.
Most of the Scriptural evidence comes from Genesis 2. In verse 7, we’re told that God directly breathed His Pneuma into the man — His spiritual quality or essence, corresponding in some ways to masculinity, which men and angels derive from Father, and from Father alone. This was NOT done with the woman; the woman, as you note, was derived secondarily FROM the man. Peter states clearly that ‘woman is the weaker vessel’ and elsewhere in Scripture woman is called a ‘helper’ or ‘helpmate’. An assistant or helper is not equal to the boss. No matter how many iniquitous ‘laws’ are passed, the man cannot transfer Pneuma to anyone, including the woman, because it’s a property of Father, and Father alone.
Further, in verse 15, we’re told: “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”
That is an assignment of authority, specifically and solely to the man. God did not repeat this process with the woman, because he did not place the planet under authority of the woman, partly because she did not receive of his Pneuma.
There was never either equality or equity between the woman and the man. The man was invested of Father’s Pneuma, and assigned authority over the planet, which subsequently included authority over the woman, as she was born of the man, not of the Father and his direct ‘breath’ or spirit.
Modern Christianity, and of course secular feminism, is an inversion and abdication of that authority and assignment. Modern Christians, certainly including ‘conservative’ males, use the ‘law’ and endless other pressure-tactics to coerce and steal the rightful authority and assignment of the man, and transfer it to females, especially their own daughters and wives. This inversion and rebellion then serves those men in a wide variety of ways — financial, psycho-sexual, social, and so on. This is why their false (un-anointed) pastors and ministers preach the things they do, and why in modern churches we hear The Chuckle from such men in the congregations when Some Other Loser is pummeled, while Precious Princess is awarded the authority that God gave specifically to the man, and to the man only.
The final outworking of that collective theft is alive and empowered before us, manifest everywhere in American culture, and in the cultures of other nations seduced by America. They are literally stealing the masculinity that Father gave to men and boys, and handing it to women and girls, while simultaneously shaming the males in the process. And that gets me worked-up in a big ole hurry.
Hope that helps, cheers.
@desiderian
Congratulations on your marriage and children!
And then Precious Princess wonders where all the good men have gone.
Scott:
That is a very tempting point of view to adopt, for modern people mired in moral subjectivity. But in fact there is a difference once we acknowledge that moral reality isn’t reducible to nothing but the subjective: that the objective behavior chosen matters.
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-tyranny-of-the-subjective-and-contraceptive-mentality/
The upshot (the RC view) is that if you have serious reasons to temporarily avoid pregnancy, NFP might be morally acceptable. Contracepted sex however is always immoral to choose. This is because NFP involves abstaining from sex, as opposed to choosing a deliberately mutilated sexual behavior.
And the spirit of choosing a deliberately mutilated sexual behavior is different from the spirit of choosing to abstain. It isn’t the remote intention to not get pregnant which is always immoral in contraception. (This could always be accomplished by abstaining from sex entirely). What is morally wrong is the choice to mutilate the sex act itself.
This is not to say that NFP is always OK. It isn’t. But it is different from contraception inasmuch as it is possible for it to be licit under some circumstances; whereas contracepted sex acts are never morally acceptable.
Pingback: Eliot, and redeeming time from rebellion. | Dark Brightness
DonQ,
From The Fall. God is outside time and can see it all at once. Thus He planned for what happened before it happened. I will repeat myself, quit blaming Him for what we choose.
Am I causing a heavy storm if I stock up on food and supplies before it hits? Of course not. That would be especially true if I could be certain it would hit and just what was needed to survive after that. I don’t have God’s status and can’t see all time at once, but He can and does. Thus Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world because God planned for what happened before it happened in our timeline. None of that is sufficient to accuse God of causing it. It just notes that He planned for what was coming. Don’t be dumb.
Who says sex always has to result in children? I cannot find that anywhere in the Scriptures.
It is both a reproductive avenue and a bonding agent between a husband and wife. Those may overlap, but they do not always have to do so.
Pushing that they must be the same would mean that sex should stop after menopause. That is very off from the plan.
Zippy–
That is probably a level of sophistication that we simply to choose to avoid and not worry about. And it would probably make sense if that’s what the NFP counselors were teaching.
During our brief stint through RCen route to Orthodoxy, Mychael and I actually visited one such counselor. And it was clear that the intent was to teach us how to have sex with the intention of not getting pregnant.
@Scott
FWIW…most Catholic couples I know who practice NFP also used it to increase their chances of conception as well. I suppose it depends on the intent.
Zippy-
If I may, I’ll speak anecdotally here, without getting too weird.
When we went, it was a 2 part training. The first part was an information session, in a large group. There was a video, and several real-life couples came up and gave their testimony and talked about their experience with NFP.
…aaaaaand the creepy level was basically a 10/10.
Without exception, each couple came across as what I can only describe as “worshippers of the womans reproductive system.”
“We are so much more in touch her body” was the most common thread. In each case the woman would talk and talk and talk and talk about her body, and having no barriers between them and sticky substances and taking temperatures and charting while the limp-wristed man would stand off to the side with that look of admiration for how awesome everything his wife had to say. I am not explaining this well. Do you know what I mean, though?
Then we went to the individual counseling session and the counselor would use phrases like “then on this day you would know that sexual activity, should you chose is not going to cause a conception.”
Again. CREEEEEEEPY.
So, we just decided to act like married people and whatever happens, happens. That way, we know we are not in any grey area, ever.
Might be simplistic, but we have found it to be the most exhilarating way to rid ourselves of any fear when we approach the priest on confession day.
Not to put too fine a point on it. Its as if the goal is to have the wife, enthroned on the bed, chart and thermometer in hand, while the man attends so carefully to her every bodily function, at her feet hoping that THIS is the night we get to do it!!
BillyS says:
September 22, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Not quite.
God didn’t plan to save us from the fall. He planned to save us from sin. A minor point.
Ok, now you just agreed with me. Well done.
If you go back and read what I said, you will notice that I didn’t “blame God” for what we chose. In fact we both used the words “planned” and “plan”. Remember we agreed?
Again we seem to be stating exactly the same thing. My previous paraphrase seems to have caused some angst. I assume you’re not familiar with Calvinist thought, no?
I would encourage you to have a look into it, even if you don’t agree with it, it will enlarge your views on christian thought.
Regarding time and eternity. We must live in time [for now], and therefore the chronological order of events matters to us, and if we search the scriptures we find that God also has a calendar for events that only He is privy to [Gal. 4:4]. Therefore it matters to God also.
P.S I don’t agree with all calvinism, but it is still foundational to my beliefs.
Scott. I like you and your wife’s stance, and attitude on this matter. Just saying.
BillyS @ 5:25 pm:
“It is both a reproductive avenue and a bonding agent between a husband and wife. Those may overlap, but they do not always have to do so.
“Pushing that they must be the same would mean that sex should stop after menopause. That is very off from the plan.”
It also implies men shouldn’t be allowed to have sex until they can afford a large family. Why should a poor man be forced to have many kids, anyway? Isn’t a life of morality and honor sufficient to please God?
And it was clear that the intent was to teach us how to have sex with the intention of not getting pregnant.
Yeah that was my experience as a Catholic, too. I remember specifically asking the priest in Pre-Cana (for the Protestants here, that’s Catholic pre-marital counseling) about why using NFP would be morally licit if the intention was to contracept, unless you had a compelling reason to contracept? He agreed that in most cases it would not be morally licit for people to use NFP to contracept, but that there might be some cases here and there depending on circumstances where a compelling reason could make it morally licit. That’s morally correct, I think, per Catholic doctrine, but most of the actual couples I knew at the time who were actually using NFP (there weren’t many of them, as we all know) were using it to contracept and were not in the kind of situations that would morally justify that decision. It seems like what gets imbibed by many is that “this is a licit form of birth control”, which isn’t really the Catholic teaching — the teaching is that it may be licit in a limited number of circumstances, whereas other forms of birth control are never morally licit. That “limited circumstances” bit tends to go missing.
I can relate to the priests in the position of that Pre-Cana priest though. I mean the poor guy knows that 95%+ of the couples he is preparing are going to use artificial birth control regardless of what he says, and that most of them completely disagree with the Church’s teaching on that. So in that context it makes sense to soft-peddle NFP I suppose.
@BillyS: “Who says sex always has to result in children? I cannot find that anywhere in the Scriptures.”
Children are a natural result of sex, not a failure to do it right. God designed sex as part of telling us to “be fruitful and multiply.” But we live in a society that first invented drugs and devices to separate sex from procreation, and then proceeded to worship the first and despise the second.
When Christians buy into this separation, it often means that the couple wastes their prime (and safest) reproductive years trying to keep the family size to zero, and then finds out there are problems later when they want children. I know – it happened to me. Five years on the pill made my wife infertile. I deeply regret taking things into my own hands (pun maybe intended).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911586/What-headteacher-Emma-Kelly-43-Amazon.html
Who says sex always has to result in children? I cannot find that anywhere in the Scriptures.
It says it in Levitoronomy 23:17. “Any sex that does not result in pregnancy is sinful and it means you did you wrong.”
Jason, thanks man! Mostly I’m just trying to make Orthodoxy look cool.
“you can’t judge people, Jesus said so”
BullSh!t.
In Matthew 7:1-3, Jesus says: “Judge not, lest you be judged“.
Or, in modern English: “don’t hold people to a standard that you aren’t prepared to live up to yourself“, ― which is a very different effing thing than “don’t hold people to a standard”.
This particular lazy, dishonest and slef-serving misquotation just drives me nuts. </extreme annoyance>
… apparently so nuts, I can’t even spell “self-serving” correctly. 🙂
Scott:
I agree that NFP is very often treated as “Catholic contraception”, just as annulment is very often treated as “Catholic divorce”. (Agree on the creepy factor of a lot of the ‘catechesis’ too). I’ve been a vocal critic of how both are actually practiced myself over the years.
But the basic, ultimately critical moral distinction between (1) choosing not to have sex and (2) choosing to engage in a mutilated sex act, remains.
People make the above issues out to be way more complicated than they need to be.
1) Is it okay to have (consensual, nonharmful, no other people or animals involved, etc.) sex with my wife? Yes.
2) Is it okay for my wife and I not to have children right now (due to catastrophic finances, both of being heterozygous for Tay-Sachs, or I secretly know she’s banging the a guy she met via Facebook and is planning to run off with him)?
3) So, it’s okay for my wife and I to have sex with each other that won’t result in pregnancy.
Next problem.
Pingback: Sins Of The Father | Donal Graeme
Scott:
hehe. Levitoronomy is an anagignoskomenon, so the verse applies only to the orthodox 😉
Good thing that’s not in the Bible. You’d be going to hell if you married a barren woman.
@Don Quixote
God didn’t change to ‘Plan B’ when Adam and Eve fell, it was, and still is Plan A. If Jesus is the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world then all creation is just an outworking of God’s original plan. So where do we draw the line between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty?
Calvinist (actually Augustinian) thought generally confuses foreknowledge with causation. It reasons that if God knows something before it happens, then He must therefore also be the cause of it. The rationale (and supposed “entrapment”) frequently proceeds as follows:
Man A: Does God know where you will spend eternity?
Man B: Yes.
Man A: Can you make a choice that will change this outcome and prove God wrong?
Man B: No.
Man A: Then you actually have no free will because you are powerless to change the outcome, and thus proving God’s sovereignty. Q.E.D.
(Calvinists have also hijacked the words “sovereignty” and “grace” to mean things never originally intended, but that is for another discussion)
What does not seem to occur to Calvinists is that knowledge and causation are decoupled all the time — except when it comes to God. Then they are inextricably linked in the Calvinist’s mind.
I know with perfect certainty what happened on Sept 11, 2001. And who won the 1934 World Series. And who the sitting POTUS was on Aug 2, 1809 at 2:56pm EST. And what price GE stock closed at yesterday. But I did not cause any of them.
In the same way, God can know what I will do tomorrow, or what Adam would do millennia ago,and make provision for redemption before the foundation of the world, all without causing my choices or interfering with my choices. Just because He possesses foreknowledge and I posses only post knowledge makes neither of us the cause of what we know.
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife\woman”
Were we supposed to keep going?
“Neither of us the Cause for what we know”
Excellent
That male Pill was an awesome invention as well…..
Scott. My cousin married into a “Greek Orthodox” family and I have been intrigued by the stance of “Holiness before the Lord” that more than a few live by. In The Salvation Army, there is a burgeoning movement called “primitive Salvationism” and it’s not recognized by “The Army” but its slowly growing in the flock (soldiers) and Corps (churches). It’s aim is to take the The Salvation Army “back” to its core of Holiness before the Lord and back to its roots in Victorian England. Saving the lost, broken, reclaiming the streets, REPENTANCE and not “doing the most good” but just “doing right”
The Soldiers involved tend to be under 50, and men.
The threat of divorce and the promotion of easy divorce has already warped the institution of marriage. As Frank K says, the husband can’t let his wife stay at home because the benefit he gives her of unequivocal financial support will be used against him if she decides to divorce. If he supports her in marriage, the legal system will force him to support her in divorce. Divorce is sold to women as Marriage *New and Improved, all the benefits of marriage with none of the requirements.
As for Adam and his moral obligations, God says that his punishment is for eating of the tree of which he was forbidden. The same sin as Eve. However, He clarifies that Adam ate from the tree because he listened to his wife, in contrast to Eve who was deceived by the serpent. There is a lesson here that we can be tempted to sin by evil, but also by the ones we love and who love us. But He does not place the blame of Eve’s sin upon Adam, as society tries to do today. He places Eve under the authority of Adam because she was deceived. Even though in Eden they were created equal in dignity, the differences in their sins created different outcomes for the genders.
One dangerous outcome is the temptation to blame all the sins of women on a man, essentially casting man in the serpent’s role, instead of as her loving partner. Dalrock has shined a bright light on this temptation. But another, one that I see even here in the comments, is to redefine the sins of the man, in order to justify the sins of the woman. Where is it written the emotional neglect is a sin? Where is it written that not catering to her emotional needs is a sin? And yet that ambiguous definition of emotional availability is used to cover all manner of sins women do. The fact is, men are allowed to go through tough times as well, to be emotionally distant and to be able to rely on the emotional strength and support of their wives. But instead of seeing an opportunity for a woman to love her man as Christ loved, it’s seen as an opportunity for her to destroy her family guilt free.
The reason the issue of discussing women’s sins in church never came up before now, was because that role had always been filled by a man. The church would teach the man, the man would teach the woman, the woman would teach the children. And back then, men and women knew, understood, and respected their positions. Also back then, the man had the legal, social, financial, religious tools at his disposal to enforce his position of authority. Those have all been removed. So now, the only way he can exercise his authority is if the woman allows him to, through her submission. But should she submit to a husband who is emotionally unavailable? Yes. Should she submit to a husband who is financially abusive? Yes. Should she submit to a husband who is no longer attractive to her? Yes. Physically abusive? Yes. Although she is entitled to her physical safety, his sins do not justify her sin against the marriage. Jesus suffered and died on the cross for our salvation, including the salvation of Pontius Pilate. So yes, God asks us to suffer for the love of others, even women. God knew we would sin against him and yet he created us anyway because he loved us and is willing to suffer with us.
In conclusion, I offer the movie “Don’t Breathe.” Spoiler Alert, but it’s probably not worth your watching. A criminal young girl schemes to break in and steal money from an army vet who lost his daughter in a terrible accident. A blind, sorrowful, army vet, who is also a bad ass is surely the protagonist of this movie, right? He’s there to teach the girl about how her actions have consequences, right? Wrong. It turns out he is a kidnapper and the girl is totally justified in robbing him, trying to kill him, and then getting off scott-free. What we learn here, is that the sins of the man justify the sins of the woman. That is why society tries to tie the sins of the woman back to the sins of a man, no matter how they have to stretch the definition of sin. Not to blame him, but to justify her.
I think you are onto something here. I’d take it a little further and say there’s a link between passing blame of your sin and trying to justify your sin. Put it this way…if you are blaming someone else, are you going to seek repentance from God?
Adam and Eve both passed the blame when they were up against God’s judgement. Adam even tried to blame God for his sin because God put that woman there. That’s why I cringe when I see people thinking they can blame God for their own sins.
Man commits suicide via self-immolation in New Zealand due to child custody battle.
Jim Gay-ratty and Brad Wilcucks were not available for comment.
I think you are onto something here.
‘On to something’??? This has been a core Androsphere 101 understanding for almost a decade.
Women are the scarcer reproductive resource. The number of babies born goes down only if young women die, not if men die. Since human hardwiring evolved under different realities (that existed for 99.9% of human existence), these biases persist. A man’s well-being is much less valuable than a woman’s. Almost every society around (including Muslim societies) would gladly send 100 men to die before a single woman faced harm.
While I don’t have a problem with people who don’t believe in evolution, this DOES lead to grossly incorrect assumptions like ‘women are attracted to virtue’ and ‘women sustain civilization more than men’. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth, a truth which is very evident once one understands the basics of evolution.
mrteebs says:
September 23, 2017 at 8:01 am
Thanks mrteebs for your thoughts.
I didn’t want to get into a discussion regarding calvinism, but rather draw attention to the strange circumstances that Adam and Eve found themselves in. And get people to think what is going on here. There is an old saying amongst traders that goes like this:
“If you don’t know who is the dumbest guy in the room is, it’s you!”
In the garden o Eden [room] the dumbest guy was Adam, and worse still he had his wife with him, a bigger liability. We know how it played out.
I suspect that A&E thought that their first born son [Cain] was the fulfilment of God’s promise “he shall bruise your head”, and things would get back to normal after that ‘payback’. Little did they realise that a portal to hell was opened and death and destruction would be the lot of all their descendants for many millennia.
The significance of what happened in the garden of Eden didn’t dawn on them until the death of Abel. And even then they had no idea what was in store for their descendants.
Would I be out of line to say it was a ‘set up’?
DonQ,
Pick at many nits? Sin would not be ruling without The Fall, so your point is irrelevant, not even minor.
Yes you did. You claimed God set things up so they would fall. That is not true. He knew it would happen, but He did not cause it. That is a very important difference.
I am reasonably familiar with it, especially with its core idea that God is in control of all our choices, which is complete and total bunk.
Some of it may fit from our limited viewpoints, but stepping back clarifies that, such as being chosen when it is our choice. This is not the forum to argue with it. Stand for whatever parts of it you like. I just dispute the fact that God set things up to purposely fail.
Hmm,
That is only a partial truth, as I already noted. Bonding and pleasure are not just a side effect of procreative, they are one of the main values of sex. All sex does not have to result in offspring. That has nothing to do with offspring being a failure. It has to do with a mindset that is dangerous that relegates sex only to procreation rather than the other merits it has in marriage.
You did not address the point about sex after menopause. It will not produce offspring then so it should cease if that is its only goal.
Scott,
Cute, assuming you really are joking. That is how some do take it however.
BillyS
Where is it written that in any particular instance of sex, it must serve one of several, mutually exclusive purposes?
(Bonding, pleasure or procreation).
And who on this thread endorsed that it cannot serve more than one of the purposes simultaneously?
There is an enormous moral gulf between enjoying sex that may or may not be procrearive and purposely trying to prevent a pregnancy.
It’s either disengenuous or intellectually lazy.
You can disagree that contraception is mutilated sexual activity but you can’t argue against positions nobody took.
BillyS says:
September 23, 2017 at 5:54 pm
I was being polite. I got the impression you were being illogical. [I could be wrong]
Your point was that God had planned us not to fall into sin. This is completely refuted by the circumstances. Any reading of the text shows that A&E were put into a situation that was very dangerous. All the parameters were specifically designed by God Himself. There was a warning given not to eat the fruit, but If God had planned them not to fall into sin He would not have put the tree there in the first place.
Not to mention the battle of wits between a fallen archangel and newly created Eve.
My more recent post would be a better example of me calling it [questioning] ‘a set up’.
Here is a challenge for you:
In the context of God’s foreknowledge of salvation, please try to construct a chronological series of events where God saves people from their sins, without them first being in sin.
Im trying only to deal with the events of A&E in the garden, and where to draw the lines regarding responsibility. I don’t want to discuss election, or other aspects of calvinism.
Well good for the Androsphere…I haven’t seen anything that ties blaming men’s sin with justifying women’s. Usually one or the other is pointed out.
Free will is simple. We all have it, but man that isn’t regenerated, i.e. dead in his sins, won’t choose God. He will always choose himself, which sometimes looks to outward appearance to be a choice for God, but he can’t actually choose God because he has no faith. Once God has regenerated him (because he chose him before the foundation of the world for regeneration) then his spirit is resurrected and he has the faith to be able to choose God. So everyone has free will, but some don’t have the ability to choose God.
And the saddest results from all of this rebellion. Here in Fresno, a local station just made and broadcasted a “news special” about STD’s / STI’s exploding higher than ever. California of course had to be “number one” but the special focused on Fresno County. The states’ now fourth largest city has some of the fastest rates of growth for STD / STI infection. Yes, and if course the demographic hit the hardest are teenagers aged 13 (THIRTEEN!!!!!) thru college age.
The local experts, public health officials, schools, women’s health experts, county and city officials, pastors, teachers all had their input….it was all about he same “more money for prevention and education” but no one dared asked: why are 13 year olds having sex to begin with….
Teachers blamed “Bush” for the abstinence programs….but California teachers never follow rules or regulations if their Union tells them to or if the person has a letter “R” for their political affiliation….
One pastor blamed men and boys for not having role models….
The usual drivel…..some good facts and stats on this program. The solutions though were not “a mother and father” but just “more money”
This consequence of sex today. Something created by God twisted by the devil and made into this….just sad and really depressing
That is not true. Adam was in charge, even in the Garden. The curse was that Eve would want to be in charge, not that their positions would change.
No perfect time existed after The Fall. Some things were certainly better before the modern system came into place, but other things were not as good. Female rebellion has been around since The Fall.
Scott,
It certainly can, but that is not relevant. Some (you included) implied that NFP was effectively wrong because it sought to avoid birthing a new life. Taking that position would require that sex must always (potentially at least) result in birth and that we can never do anything to control that.
I don’t see that requirement. Please feel free to correct me if I read the replies incorrectly.
NFP is now “mutilating”? Using a condom is “mutilating”? I am sorry, I don’t buy that. I also see problems with hormonal birth control, but I would not call them “mutilating” either.
DonQ,
Read the replies already made about correlation not proving causation.
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/ati/ibc/files/AdamEve%2BDevil.pdf
The twisting of it has gone from the possibility of life in a lifelong marriage to trying to prevent life regardless of what the relationship is…which is basically promoting death. And let’s not forget there’s big business who certainly profits off sexual encounters = death.
Sexual morality is not meant to repress your urges…in many ways it’s meant to free you from consequences such as those. It’s meant to have sex in the licit and lawful way.
What I really don’t get is why they can’t marry while still students?
I floated that idea here before as a sort of possible compromise in the mating market, a compromise that offers enough long-term benefits to both sides. Basically it’d mean college students marrying, cohabiting, but postponing parenthood for a couple of years, until both of them are sort of set in careers. Can’t be bothered right now to find the comment where I described it in detail.
I think the fundamental issue is that most women don’t want something like that. When a woman finally decides she’s ready for marriage, she normally does it under the unstated assumption that children will come in 1-2 years, not more. In her mind, that’s the husband’s way of holding up his side of the bargain. It’s her idea of getting paid, so to speak, in the deal she agreed to. Women usually marry in order to become mothers in a socially respectable way, to gain social status, to get approval form other women. If a woman gets married at a relatively young age but doesn’t get impregnated for years, she feels bad, wronged, used, “stiffed” in a fundamental way. She feels she got a bad deal, while the husband is getting the one main benefit of marriage (regular sex in a socially respectable way, having a mostly pleasant female partner at home in general, enjoying the social status that supposedly comes with being a married man) while avoiding all the costs (being a responsible father, having to help raise a small child, subordinating his needs and desires to those of a young mother and her child). That asshole dude is basically enjoying her young body for free. From a female point of view, it’s just bad optics, and a shitty deal.
I see your point…however if females think that exchange with their husband is such a bad deal…why do they rationalize doing the same thing while single with men who aren’t their husband. That’s an even bigger risk, worse optics and terrible deal.
OT: ‘A Priest Exposes the 5 Tenets of America’s Most Popular Feel-Good Heresy’
We need more priests to tell it like it is when it comes to ‘Churchianity’. He calls it ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.’
https://churchpop.com/2017/07/10/a-priest-exposes-the-5-tenets-hersey/
And he isn’t blind to the man exodus and explaining why:
I see your point…however if females think that exchange with their husband is such a bad deal…why do they rationalize doing the same thing while single with men who aren’t their husband. That’s an even bigger risk, worse optics and terrible deal.
She can only marry a man who proposes to her, and a man like that is never going to be as sexy as the man who just want to bone her. In the world of hookups, she has access to hot men who’d never marry her. And hookups are completely optional. It’s all about short-term pleasure, and she can end the whole affair whenever she wants, without any repercussions. Optics aren’t an issue. The hookup culture is socially accepted. In marriage, on the other hand, her priorities are completely different.
That is the lie being fed to women. There is always some sort of repercussion when they go that route. And even if the feminized society tries to paint a picture it is socially accepted…if you get a bunch of men like us in a forum to talk the truth, they don’t want to play captain save a ho or make a ho into a housewife.
Now it could be true she is more turned on by the men who just want sex with her than the ones who want to marry her…but it’ll bring no substance into her life and you’ll see it once the wall hits. And I get women don’t understand cause and effect well or look that far into the future…but men do. We have to keep hitting this part hard and rebuking the feminist drivel articles Dalrock keeps finding.
however if females think that exchange with their husband is such a bad deal…why do they rationalize doing the same thing while single with men who aren’t their husband. That’s an even bigger risk, worse optics and terrible deal.
What Hoellenhund said at 9/24 @ 7:31a.m.
Also, once again, the simple fact that women 1) never think long-term/big picture and 2) have no grasp whatsoever of cause and effect.
I posted this on another thread…but it also works in the current discussion. How artificial contraception became THE game changer with sex, marriage, and men-women relationships.
Full article here…money quote below, the woman’s explanation sums up what a lot of us talk about. I don’t know how often the Pill comes up as a reason (other than I and a few others mentioning it)
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/10/the-death-of-eros
BillyS
You added “potentially”effectively changing your characterization of the position. And of course, now we are talking about something else.
In other words, I can’t argue with you until you settle on what we are arguing about.
I pushed my daughter to go to college so she can be around a better pool of marriageable men. Same reason I pushed her to take all advanced classes In high school so she would be in a better group of people. Most of the girls I know go to college to get a MRS. degree any way.
I’m listening to the local Catholic radio station in Los Angeles: https://ihradio.com/
The male radio host was just now saying, How we love our wives, how we treat our wives, will often determine whether our prayers are blessed and answered.
Huh?
Hollenhund,
If a woman gets married at a relatively young age but doesn’t get impregnated for years, she feels bad, wronged, used, “stiffed” in a fundamental way.
I don’t think this is true. In ethnic groups where marriage is still considered a very serious matter, and divorce rates are low, the deterioration of the institution happens in other way. For example, people in such ethnicities still marry at age 26-27, but the woman does not have a kid until age 35 (often just one). So the ‘newlyweds’ were childless for 8 years, and only had a child when the woman’s time was running out. If her fertility was viable at 42, they would have waited until then (so 16 years of marriage).
This is how some ethnic groups that claim to take marriage very seriously still manage to sneak in some FI with female narcissism in a way that the untrained eye does not notice.
Keith,
I pushed my daughter to go to college so she can be around a better pool of marriageable men. Same reason I pushed her to take all advanced classes In high school so she would be in a better group of people. Most of the girls I know go to college to get a MRS. degree any way.
Fail. You still think the MMP is what it was around 1979 or so.
When the typical modern girl graduates college (age 22), she is still 10-12 years away from taking marriage seriously.
This is another reason that the 4-year model of college is broken, because the other big reason for the institution is no longer being met. Yes, it made perfect sense to at least be engaged at the time of college graduation, since you will meet the most people there, know some of the same people (making background checks easy), etc. But now, since marriage thoughts are 10-12 years away for the typical 22 y/o college grad girl, this model fails (and yet another reason for the university model itself to be done away with).
You still think that your daughter is going to marry a man she meets at age 17, 19, or 21. I assume you still think you daughter will marry as a virgin. I regret to inform you that this will not be the case.
Anon I see what your saying it’s a failure. In the current climate I think people are waiting until they are closer to 30 for marriage. It’s got nothing to do with riding the CC or hitting the wall it has I lot more to do with economics.
Disagree. Economics as having “everything ready” for marriage has always been impossible. There has always been job uncertainty. There has always been an over-saturated field. The economics you are speaking of is debt from useless degrees and people going to college who should have had a “rejection” slip instead of acceptance.
@RPL
It’s a reference to 1 Peter 3:7.
My guess is that the radio host is glossing over (or completely omitting) 1 Pet 3:1-6 and focusing exclusively on verse 7, which essentially (and for the one millionth time) supports Dalrock’s original points in this post, an excerpt of which is below…
The problem isn’t merely that men’s sins are obsessed over while women’s sins are ignored.
@Red Pill
Was he referencing 1 Peter 3:7? FWIW it is in Scripture.
I tuned in late. For the portion I heard, he wasn’t referencing any Scripture. He and another guy just talked about the importance of how a man treats his wife. I suppose it’s possible they referenced Scripture before I tuned in.
None of that will matter if she has no desire for marriage.
Keith,
It’s got nothing to do with riding the CC or hitting the wall it has I lot more to do with economics.
Completely false. Living standards are higher than they were before. There was always job uncertainty, and if anything, the young woman married a young man who was in a family business or farm (whether large or small).
You can’t possibly discount the media message that ‘feminists’ push onto young women. Female hypergamy matters too, as it is now revealed that most women have to marry men they are not attracted to (since all women are only attracted to the top 20% of men, as has been heavily proven).
Traditional Marriage itself required a lot of artificial forces in order to create the illusion that it was ‘natural’. This is why traditional marriage is not as great of a thing as people think either (even if it is much better than Marriage 2.0).
I note that the University has wrecked at least two major economies, by getting to the ‘victims’ first.
1) Getting $200,000 of debt for a useless degree is a very new thing in America. College was not that expensive even 20 years ago, and SJW indoctrination was not a feature. While not everyone with $200,000 of debt for a useless degree is female, the vast majority are. Many have no concept of how much debt that is relative to their future earnings, and the supply of cuckservatives willing to swoop in to pay off her debt are too few, and the number of women with liability too many.
2) Tacking on so much debt to young people surely delays their home-buying, and there will be far too few buyers relative to the number of baby boomers who have to sell when they get old, or just die. So the student loan scam got to the marks before the mortgage scam did. Too bad they both can’t lose.
At the moment, both universities and US real estate are being propped up by Chinese money. This is delaying the just desserts that many participants in both industries deserve to receive. But Chinese money is NOT saving young women, who have taken almost every imaginable action to reduce their suitability for marriage.
Take a couple of hypothetical examples :
1) Girl #1 with $200K in debt for a Bachelor’s Degree is Sociology. She wasn’t smart enough for higher education anyway, but got suckered into the deal. A government make-work job is the only thing that can pay enough to get her out of it. Barring that, she either has to be a debt slave for 20 year, or marry a cuckservative (both are equally appalling prospects to the girl).
2) Girl #2 was smarter and more assertive. She got scholarships, and decided to pursue law. So at 25 she is a JD from a school ranked in the 20-25 range, and has $300,000 in debt. But she did not get the BigLaw job. So at 33, she is earning $120K/year doing document review at a firm, and is unaware the AI software for eDiscovery is rapidly swallowing up jobs like hers. What will she do? Her N is also around 33 (the same as her age), so she can’t really bond with a man for marriage, and she is not attracted to the cuckservatives and manginas who are the only men who still want her.
What are the futures of both of these women.
@ Lance Roberts says:
September 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Good explanation.
There are a few reformed guys amongst the ‘Red Pill’ community. You might enjoy the following :
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Or if you prefer video check this out:
@ earl says:
September 24, 2017 at 7:01 am
“I see your point…however if females think that exchange with their husband is such a bad deal…why do they rationalize doing the same thing while single with men who aren’t their husband.”
For the same reason women have no trouble submitting to a man as long as that man is not their husband. It’s a spiritual issue (see Genesis ch 3). It has nothing to do with reason or logic, so don’t bother wasting your time trying to unravel the reasoning or logic behind it. There is none.
Actually I get it now…it’s another form of rebellion.
I was reminded of the movie ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’
Granted this was probably the beginnings of Hollywood feminist brainwashing…but other than the climatic kissing scene, the guy telling Audrey Hepburn off is as about as real as it gets when it comes to feminism and cinema.
Hollenhund,
If a woman gets married at a relatively young age but doesn’t get impregnated for years, she feels bad, wronged, used, “stiffed” in a fundamental way.
Anon
I don’t think this is true.
It is certainly true for American women. I’ve seen the extreme example in my social circle: two friends of mine got married while the man was still in college. He finished grad school, was working on a post-doc about 3 years later when she got very unhaaaapy. Long story short: she had baby rabies and for whatever reason he didn’t / couldn’t get her pregnant.
So she divorced him, and within about 18 months had remarried and was pregnant.
The fact that some upper crust arranged-marriage south Asians may put up with “married but not knocked up” doesn’t make it a universal. Not All Women Are Like That, y’see.
@ earlthomas786 says:
September 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm
“… it’s another form of rebellion.”
Yep. You got it.
@Earl
I watched that movie for the first time about 12 months ago in an airline seatback. I had heard about it for years, and wondered what all the fuss was about. How utterly depressing, but utterly prophetic of marriage 2.0.
For most of today’s women, she is the personification of poise, grace, and beauty who was completely justified in leaving Buddy Ebsen behind to shed her hillbilly past – on her way to an AMAZING life, as is the birthright of every living female.
For someone who has red pilled, she is the personification of hypergamy and solipsism. In fact, it is hard to think of a better way to convey those concepts than to sit a man down, have him watch this, and then segue into AWALT along with a peek 5-7 years into the future in the never-made sequel where Peppard gets left behind for the next rung on the ladder.
And her concern for the cat more than Peppard’s feelings is also spot on.
Sad fact is ‘Breakfast At Tiffany’s” is an America that is no more including in the lines of love and romance. It’s a classic story, and it holds up well for the fact that Blake Edwards did a fantastic job directing it, and Henry “our man in Hollywood” Mancini is a great, American composer, conductor and arranger (saw him conduct the Philadelphia Symphony in 1983) that everyone has forgotten about for the most part.
I tear up over this movie not because of the “love story” aspect but for the fact that Americans still knew how to dress back then. New York City was a safe place to walk, even in Harlem and people still somehow functioned. Just once guy’s opinion……and my opinions really don’t count for much of anything…..thanks for posting this clip. It is a pretty good story and does sum a lot of things up
The novel, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, was written by the homosexual Truman Capote. So the entire story is filtered through gay eyes.
In those days, gay writers often wrote about gay couple issues using straight characters, because gay characters couldn’t be sold to the public at large.
Edward Albee’s play, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe was allegedly written with two gay couples in mind, if not on the page. That actually makes sense, because the play is about a couple who can’t have children, so they pretend to have an imaginary son.
Jason, yes, I remember the 1965 blackout in New York City. I was 4. I remember sitting in the dark, my mother lighting candles. When I grew older, I learned that there hadn’t been much looting.
I also remember the 1977 blackout. Lots of looting and vandalism.
New York City changed greatly over those 12 years.
Now you know why the end of the flick was there. Ask any man who goes through and marries her and they’ll tell you it isn’t ‘happily ever after’.
Make this movie today…Peppard throws the ring at her, tells her he doesn’t want her anymore, and either serves the Lord or goes MGTOW because that type of woman isn’t worth the headache or heartbreak.
I’ll give you the background story as to why this movie popped into my head:
I was pursuing twitter earlier where I caught a young female who had a meme from this movie where Hepburn was freaking out the guy told her he loved her as a cover photo…she also mentioned in a post how she was alone drinking wine and ironing on a Friday.
Yeah they build their own cages and stick themselves in there.
Hepburn’s character was very likely a prostitute. Where do you think all the money came from to finance that faux sophistication? There are clues in the movie that this was the case, but of course she would be seen as heroic today to leave behind a child-bride marriage in pursuit of her birthright, and a woman has to do what a woman has to do. Strong, independent, and all that. She could be Exhibit A in the “man up and marry the slut” narrative about what a catch awaits the man with the guts to say yes: The 20th century’s most memorable sophisticate.
Peppard’s character was no better. Basically he had his own Mrs. Robinson that financed his writing non-career. I can only imagine the train-wreck their relationship would have been had the novella or the film had more chapters.
Like Jason, I like Mancini and the music was the movie’s one redeeming facet. Unlike Jason, it created no nostalgia for me even though I was born the year the movie was made.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-are-good-men-so-hard-to-find/article36365252/
She’s so close yet so far…
My dad told me that in 1962 he would go to NYC (he lived in Schenectady back then) to jazz clubs in Harlem and afyer closing at 2am….It was black. It was poor. It was safe walking around at those hours. Cafes / diners would be open. All black. He would walk in, be served given polite service, good food. He told me also about the 1965 blackout. He was not in NYC but he said there was no looting and crime / police calls were not any higher than a normal night.
I feel nostalgia for those times because it was the end of innocence overall for this country…… People may not have been devout church folk…..but there were the last remnants of general decorum and manners that people still had culturally from church. I also just like the style from back then. Class. Even a poor man until the late sixties owned one suit. We’ve just lost so much as a people in general. It makes me sad. Pictures of my father and mother from back then. Idk….something I wish I was just there to see. 🙂
@RPC
Total apex fallacy by the author:
“…online dating sites, which make it easy for men to find willing sex partners.”
No, it makes it easy for the top 5 or 10% to find sex.
“Today, most men can have all the sex they want for very little cost…. Men don’t have to prove themselves as providers any more. They can get all the sex they want anyway”
More BS! This author is totally out to lunch.
@RPC
Yup. Weak men screwing feminism up. If they would just play by women’s Queensbury rules instead of exploiting the natural consequences of rebellion, ignoring the SMP, and agreeing to a perpetually uneven playing field, all would be well.
That’s about what we come to expect when it comes to women trying to sort things out.
‘All the women want serious relationships that lead to marriage, but many of the men they meet do not. ‘
LOL…yeah blame men for the fact they built their own cages of solitude. They may want it and say it out loud…but when there’s a prospect who comes up with the moment of truth most likely he won’t be ‘attractive’ enough or she’ll come up with some other excuse to stay single.
‘Single women are more equal and empowered than ever before. They have unparalleled sexual, reproductive and economic autonomy. In many ways, they’re doing much better than the men. (Just look at the lopsided university graduation rates, which are now around 60-40). And yet, large numbers of young women admit their private lives are a sad mess.’
What is it we keep saying…women don’t understand cause and effect very well.
‘A lot of women seem to have their act together these days. But a lot of men don’t.’
If you call numerous sexual partners, loads of financial debt, and very little homemaking skills ‘their act together’. But of course they can justify that because men are playing vidya games, living in mom’s basement, and doing little/no work.
‘Since the women’s cartel collapsed, women’s bargaining power has seriously eroded. That’s why so many single women hate Tinder, which has further commodified sex for the benefit of men. Women are just another consumer good in the shop window.’
Sex for the benefit of the top 20%…which single women don’t seem to hate too much because they keep giving it to them. Thanks artifical birth control and sexual immorality disguised as empowered feminism…you sold women a lie and they continue to think they can live in that deception.
RPC finds another ‘why are good men so hard to find?’. These articles remind me of microwave food now, or just add hot water.
Canadian authoress.
“All the women want serious relationships that lead to marriage, but many of the men they meet do not.”———-That is, the men they are attracted to.
“Sexual liberation is a fabulous thing – in some ways. But it can also turn men into louts, because women don’t expect much in return for access.”———–Men are louts because women aren’t holding them to a high enough standard.
“A lot of women seem to have their act together these days. But a lot of men don’t.” ——Contrast with this line in the same short article, which no one proofread——-“And yet, large numbers of young women admit their private lives are a sad mess.”
There’s more, but you men have read it all before.
Yeah it’s almost like most women are giving it away for free (to fewer men than she thinks)…thereby driving down the price of sex so that men don’t need to prove their provision anymore. But it’s easier to blame men.
Imagine us writing the retort to ‘why are good men so hard to find?’ It would be two sentences.
You gave it away to men who weren’t ever going to commit and you either ignored or weren’t attracted to the men who wanted to commit.
correction…one long one
Like I said, it is weak men screwing feminism up. If men would just continue to act in ways that aren’t in their best interests, we could get back to business as usual.
The authoress might was well just say, “Don’t you just hate it when those pesky ‘natural consequences’ rear their ugly heads?”
Natural consequences were how I tried to discipline my son when he was growing up – as much as possible to not impose made-up punishments but to let certain natural consequences occur. Example: if you spend all your money on X, then there is no money for Y with your friends this summer.
Women generally want to impose silly punishments on kids instead of just letting real life kick in and teach the lessons. They apparently never grow out of this and expect it to work with grown men, not just children.
In another part of the web, this pastor stands for the truth of the Word. Women to stay home and care for the family; men to be providers.
Yeah……that article. Some don’t like Tinder???? Funny….Tinders own stays show that for every man on Tinder there are three women…..but they hate it! The article of course blots out about how many men have they turned down who actually had the “gonads” to approach them.
I can’t remember where I saw it. But it was a editorial styled cartoon / illustration. It showed Superman asleep in bed. He was obviously naked because his uniform and cape were hanging over the chair. An average looking woman wrapped in the sheets was sitting up in the bed….she had a pensive look despite just bedding “superman”
Above, thinking to herself she was sayingsaying something to the like of “I just know there is someone better out there”
Meaning, “superman” a hero, a man of steel. Good looking. Powerful……still just wasn’t “good enough” for her…..
This is the whole time of that article. No man is going to be good enough. My dad used to say about clients at his construction jobs “they all want Tiffany at a Woolworth price”
The authoress might was well just say, “Don’t you just hate it when those pesky ‘natural consequences’ rear their ugly heads?”
Except that women can’t even grasp the concept of “natural consequences.” That would require an understanding of cause and effect ….
It explains why women are generally such crappy disciplinarians. Not that they’re too lenient (in fact, they’re usually too strict), but that they aren’t really very good at it most of the time in terms of teaching useful life lessons. They can’t grasp the concept of cause and effect as it occurs in the natural world, so they have to construct bizarre unnatural consequences – and then wonder why their kids grow up to display a psychic twitch.
My wife was not a good disciplinarian. Way too strict. She actually believed that she was incapable of being overly harsh or of driving a child to exasperation (yet she did this ALL THE TIME) because she reasoned that Eph 6:4 only addressed fathers (not mothers). I had to explain to her that the Bible expected it would be Fathers that did the disciplining in the home and the mother derived her authority and power from the husband. She always felt that if I “got it wrong” she was free to step in. That was another long lesson, fraught with too much drama and fighting, to teach her that she was 100% wrong. Her church upbringing didn’t help as she felt “helpmate” means “show him how messed up he is” and “if God showed me you are wrong, I have to obey Him and not you.” That was all long before I had discovered the red pill. Today I would simply tell her to stand down and there would be no further discussion. She would likely still argue, but in those days I spent way too much time reasoning with her and treating her as having an equal vote. When I learned to simply walk away and not debate everything – and make it clear that she did not have veto power and everything was not a democracy – the marriage got amazingly better. Some would call it game. I would just call it biblical patriarchy.
‘The article of course blots out about how many men have they turned down who actually had the “gonads” to approach them.’
Oh but those men don’t count because they didn’t produce the right feelz. Where have all the good men gone?
How dare that bad things happen when you are in a state of rebellion against God…even though there’s plenty of warnings about it in the Bible and in natural law. Rebellion = death.
@Don quixote
Knox was a bit weak on the Deborah subject given that Deborah wasn’t even a “judge” that led the Israelite army but Barak who begged her to come with him as moral support. But the rest of his treatise was great.
And that the hierarchical role of husband and wife reflecting the relationship between God and his people, Christ and Church was there before the fall ever since marriage was instituted by God. This headship of Adam is further confirmed by his naming of his wife initially “woman”.
Scott,
I added that because I was allowing for the fact that a woman is only able to get pregnant in a window of several days once a month.
I have no real desire to argue the issue, though I would be happy to hear a Scriptural argument as to why sex is immoral if the husband and wife are just seeking pleasure, not children. Or why it is “mutilated” which I believe was the word you used in that case.
Don’t worry about it if this doesn’t make sense.
OT, but found this article interesting.
Remember the pastor, detained and tortured in Iran? he was released and his wife charged him with abuse allegations and filed for separation/divorce?
An interesting update. in 2014, a church raised $200,000 to buy a house for the wife and kids while he was imprisoned.
Wife kept putting off the home purchase. The money was never spent as is in legal limbo.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/church-files-lawsuit-to-determine-who-is-entitled-to-200k-raised-for-saeed-abedinis-family-180158/
The cynic in me says she held off because she didn’t want the money or house split because she was planning the divorce for years. Note: the money was explicitly raised to buy a house for the wife and kids. No mention about the husband. I don’t think the church really intended to cut the husband from the fundraising – it was probably just wording used to generate greater sympathy. Still, legally, the money was raised just for the wife and kids. If the money was spent before the divorce, it becomes a shared asset. If not spent before the divorce…it goes to buy a house for wife and kids.
Almost every one likes Enrico Mancini. I have a copy which I must have purchased at the time of a simple arrangement for Piano of Moon River. The exception is Alfred Hitchcock who sacked Mancini having listened to the title music for his movie Frenzy. ‘If I had wanted Bernard Herrmann I would have hired him”, said Hitch but actually he should have said ‘Had I wanted J.S.Bach I would have got on the celestial telephone’ for the title music with Organ and Orchestra is very baroque revealing Mancini’s compositional chops – he was after all a pupil of Catelnuovo-Tedesco (a real as opposed to an American Italian).
Actually, Hitch was right and the music just does not despite its technique seem appropriate to a flight up the River Thames.
NY Times notices something is wrong in US marriage stats. Stopped clock, etc.
Oh yeah, support themselves. Or perhaps women learned how much they can gain from divorce so that they won’t marry a man without a high paying job and assets because they won’t get much in a divorce.
@Anon Reader
Funny. I had just finished reading that article (linked from Drudge) this morning when I flipped back here and saw your comment. Note that the study they are responding to was done by Brad Wilcox.
Note that the study they are responding to was done by Brad Wilcox.
Thanks, I did not note that on the first reading. It would be a good thing if he learned something sometime.
From the NYT article:
Just 56 percent of the upper middle class is married. Which means that for the overwhelming majority of American adults that not even 40% are married,
But going back to to that 56%, it means that even for the Ivy League educated, six and seven figure income crowd, there is barely a 50% chance they are married, and I’ll bet that number is also falling.
They want to blame it economics, but they ignore the fact that the marriage rate is also collapsing for the upper middle class.
I’m sure that a sympathetic divorce court judge would have awarded her all of it anyway.
I’ve heard about this story before. I strongly suspect she has a replacement for dear hubby, probably was already sleeping with her lover while hubby was rotting away in a foreign jail.
It seems so simple and logical, but it reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quotation: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it”
Women have a huge, but short term, incentive to not understand: they want to ride the carousel.
Perhaps you should switch to a more Fundamental Protestant church. Or give Byzantium a chance. I know it’s psychologically easier for Protestants to journey to Constantinople than Rome.
England’s Bath College bans research on trannies who regret their surgery: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41384473
“A therapist says he is “astonished” by a university’s decision to stop him studying people who decide to reverse gender reassignment operations.
James Caspian wanted to write a thesis on “detransition” as part of his master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University.
He said it was rejected by the university’s ethics committee because it could be “politically incorrect”.
Well blaming sexually immoral women and no-fault divorce would elicit bad feelz…so let’s blame it on the money. I guess they needed a break from blaming men.
Doug Wilson takes on the unsubmissive wife:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/miserable-wives.html
I think the post is quite good in spots, but fails to answer one of the questions raised by earlier posts, “Who should tell a wife that she needs to submit to her husband?” In the post, Doug is neither her husband nor her pastor.
We’ve gone over some before but here’s the Bible verses about evil women again and that traits they have. Read them a lot because you aren’t likely going to have a pastor take them on…he’ll be too busy blaming me.
http://biblereasons.com/evil-women-and-bad-wives/
From what I read he was certainly making points it has to be her husband that stands up to her and set rules along with her submitting to him. It wasn’t directly stated that it is ‘her husband’ though. Doug in this situation however is just a messenger of Scripture and advice.
Overall though I’d give it high marks considering what a lot of advice is about.
Hmm
Doug Wilson takes on the unsubmissive wife:
It’s a cool story, bro. For once, Wilson does manage to come out and actually say something in the midst of his usual thickets of verbose hemming and hawing. He even typed out the words “submit” and “submission” directed towards a wife, for once. That’s good. Hope it didn’t hurt his fingers too much to do so.
But on the other hand, his fictional husband is just about perfect, which means the intended audience of contentious churchgoing women in rebellion will see how their own whats-his-name doesn’t measure up, so this doesn’t apply to me will be the immediate response. The women, both of them, in comments who sorta kinda supported him? Not the women who need to see the posting.
Yet on the other-other hand, he even mentioned how a conflict averse, gentle-man (too bad he didn’t use that term) is going up against pretty much everyone else in the culture by attempting to lead his wife. That’s very good. It shows he’s learning something even now. It would have been too much for Pastor Wilson to include the churches in the list of forces arrayed against the fiction Jon, I guess. Even though everyone under 40, and some number of those over 40 know it to be true.
If nothing else, Wilson at least he triggered yttik / InsanityBytes / etc. in her current version, “me-me”. Although a better handle for her would be “me-me-me” or “me-me-me-me” or perhaps “me-me-me-me-me!”. That’s worth doing, since “mememememe” is an almost perfect archtype of the aging, menopausal / postmenopausal 2nd stage mysandric feminist, who infests just about every church around. Getting her to reveal her inner mean streak once again is useful.
So I grade Wilson at 70% for this effort. That’s a gentleman’s C, an improvement from his previous D’s and F’s. Because I can’t see any of the usual pedestalization in this posting.
Frank K @ 3:00 pm:
“I strongly suspect she has a replacement for dear hubby, probably was already sleeping with her lover while hubby was rotting away in a foreign jail.”
In fact, I’m surprised that the name of Nag-Me’s lover hasn’t turned up yet. She seemed the type to remarry before the divorce was even finalized. Perhaps she was pump & dumped by Obama when they met privately a few months before she began the divorce.
Red PIll Latecomer
England’s Bath College bans research on trannies who regret their surgery:
Active suppression of research that might offend the Narrative has been happening here and there. We can expect much more of the same. He would have been replicating previous work (Sweden in the 1980’s if I remember right) and that’s a legitimate form of research, especiallly in that area.
There can be no doubt that if you are one of those people who see Trannies as anything other than empowered and courageous then you are surely a Nazi, but what I would very much like to know is why the female sex seem to have taken to this LGBT thing. What can an obviously heterosexual female (once we would have said normal female – and before that just female) get out of hanging around, bedecked in rainbow colours, probably singing songs, with butch dykes, men who have no interest in women and men who one cannot really mistake no matter their efforts for female. As for the Bs they are seen as G but in denial. I’d really like to know. Is it that Heterosexual behaviour is boring? – or is it that until one finds Mr Right (if even for the might ) all men are Rapists? or do they, privately, just see it as a freak show? – or is it just the latest South Sea Bubble or Tulip Mania and likely to vanish faster that a will-o-the wisp. Perhaps I am now too old to understand.
As I’ve said before I have known in different capacities a number of cocks-in-frocks and the last one I met told me that most days he just wants to be called ‘a sissy faggot’ – because that turned him on – so I told him what eh wanted to hear. How does that square with treating Trannies as one now must as deities?
Opus
As I’ve said before I have known in different capacities a number of cocks-in-frocks and the last one I met told me that most days he just wants to be called ‘a sissy faggot’ – because that turned him on – so I told him what eh wanted to hear.
When did you get elevated to the House of Lords? Was it recently?
For the same reason why they cozy up to hyper mysoginistic Islam, many even voluntarily donning Hijabs: because they are insane.
The heart of that movement is legitimizing and making normal all sorts of perverse sexual immorality. There’s where you start from.
Opus, I once knew a fairly conservative Catholic woman, very sheltered and naive. I suspect she was still a virgin until the day she died, still in her 30s.
How naive? In 2000, she was shocked to learn that Al Gore had lied. The thought of a politician lying was shocking to her. She was about 30 years old at the time.
This young woman loved gay men. She had little experience with them, but saw them on TV’s Will and Grace. She thought gay men were funny, and sweet, and delightful, and innocent. She couldn’t understand why anyone would hate them.
In her case, it was TV that caused her to admire gay men. She was a TV addict. Watched lots of TV (mostly sitcoms and romcoms), and got much of her worldview from them.
Opus @ 5:11 pm:
“What can an obviously heterosexual female … get out of hanging around [sexual freaks]?”
Drama. Lots and lots of endless lots of never-ending relationship drama. Women love evil because good is boring.
Gentlemen, please take a moment. Take care.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/a-framework-for-red-pill-therapy/
“…and Adam chose to take the easy path and go along with her instead of putting his foot down.”
I have seen this sentiment expressed before. I actually think Adam ate because when Eve ate but did not drop dead immediately, it filled him with a false sense of boldness he might not would have had otherwise. The Bible does not say that Adam’s sin was not “putting his foot down.” Genesis 3:17 says “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it…” as the reason why Adam was punished, because that was literally the only rule given to them.
Nowhere does the Bible suggest that it was Adam’s responsibility to lead Eve and make sure she did not eat the fruit. If it everything were ultimately up to Adam, why did God even create Eve with a freewill to begin with if she would not be held responsible for how she used it? It seems to me like it would be too much of a liability, given that Adam could not control her actions.
The exact circumstances of The Fall could have been such that Adam wasn’t even in a position to be able to stop her to begin with. If we’re imperfect but can still conceive that Adam could/should have stopped Eve from eating the fruit, is it not possible that Adam, being created innocent and without sin or a sin nature, could have conceived this as well? How much more so could the serpent, being craftier than any other creature in the garden, have perceived this possibility? Perhaps the serpent tempted Eve when Adam was not around. Then, when she and Adam were together after the fact, Adam was “with her.” Or, if they were together the whole time, she could have snatched that fruit off the tree and bitten it so fast Adam did not have time to react. But supposing that it were Adam’s responsibility to lead Eve, thereby constituting a failure to lead on Adam’s behalf, why was Paul more concerned about Eve’s being deceived and falling into transgression when assigning authority to men in 1 Timothy chapter 2?
We don’t know for sure that any of these possibilities are true anymore than we know that they’re not, so I don’t see why (seemingly to me at least) more and more Christians are pinning The Fall on Adam, rather than on both of them. The only reason I can think of is that (subconsciously, and without even being aware of this, provided there’s a grain of truth to it) people are trying to set the ultimate precedent by which to justify the Church’s one-sidedness and bias towards women. What better a way to justify a pattern of always bashing men for sins and evil in the world than to be able to blame a man for single-handedly introducing it to the world right from the very get go?
The only verse in the Bible that even remotely supports the idea of Adam being solely to blame is Romans 5:12: “…sin entered the world through one man….” But the statement that sin entered the world “through” one man may not necessarily mean that sin entered the world because of one man, or is the fault of one man. If a thief breaks into a home while the owner is gone, the fact that a door or a window provided a means for the thief to gain entry is not to blame; the thief is to blame. Likewise, just because all of humanity – and all the sins we have all committed by extension – entered the world through Adam, Adam is not to blame for our own sins, nor Eve’s sin. Yes, the fate of humanity was sealed only after Adam ate the fruit because he was our last hope once Eve had eaten it. But, as Paul stressed, Eve ate first and handed it to him. So despite the fact that Adam was solely responsible for his actions, I believe Eve still played at least an implicit role in The Fall, and that they both have some blame – even if Adam bears more of it. But I also believe that it is wrong to pin everything squarely on Eve, as so many people have throughout history – including Adam himself of course.
Dalrock, forgive the off-topic comment, but do you have any editorial control over who advertises on your site, or is it all Google’s analysis of my tracking cookies? I ask because for the last two weeks your ads have been for “Not A Typical Dating Site! No Credit Cards! No BS!” which I don’t see anywhere else, nor have I ever used /searched for such a thing.
Future Dalrock article :
Men must do more to confront men who disrespect women. This is the fight we really need.
Among all the stupid twats, this one ranks near the top of the list. If there is ONE thing that society needs less of, it is whiteknighting.
Scripture lets us know to stay away from evil women. They are greedy, rebellious, unsubmissive, wicked, adulterous, gossiping, slandering, and sexually immoral women.
That describes the typical North American woman to a T.
Here is a son by ELO from the mid 70s. Evil Woman. Still relevant (if not more so) today.
My favourite lines from the song,
Hah Hah woman what you’re gonna do?
You destroyed all the virtues that The Lord gave you.
So good that you’re feeling pain,
But you better get your place on for the very next train.
Sunnybutt
Dalrock, forgive the off-topic comment, but do you have any editorial control over who advertises on your site, or is it all Google’s analysis of my tracking cookies?
Not Dalrock but most likely it is the second case.
I read this site using Firefox with cookies off and high security. Everything including videos comes through. Other browsers can provide similar or better security.
Well, it is all very puzzling. I suppose that for a woman to hang out with Homosexuals (and I presume that there will in any LGBT gathering be a preponderance of Gs) is a form of birth control, or anti-slut signalling or maybe it is just because Homosexuals are better looking, or maybe as women always seek consensus they will do whatever everyone else is doing. I suppose that there are men who will thus hang out with the LGBT in the hope of gaining access to females, but I doubt that such extreme abasement (or sneaky-fucker tactic) would make them seem as other than eunuchs in the Harem.
Anon Reader has been watching too much Gilbert & Sullivan – the Lords (frequently Ladies) sit other than when Her Maj is present in ordinary clothes and – strange Constitution – those who do sit in the Lords are only Life Peers (a reward for good behaviour) that is to say no more a member of the aristocracy than you or I. The real Aristocrats are no longer allowed access. I passed the chamber once (on my way to the Parliamentary Library for which one is indeed elevated as one reaches it by lift – or as you would say elevator); it was not sitting and looked smaller than one imagined.
Just received one of the new £10 notes from the automatic teller. Women pictured on both sides, the new addition being the hetero-normative Miss Jane Austen. This Lesbo-phobia clearly will not do .
These three words, dear Americans, are all pronounce in the same way: Kew, Cue, Queue; and Aluminium has five not four syllables. What exactly is so difficult about that.
Yup, all women have had the capability to act like that, and when artifical birth control and no-fault divorce were introduced…it poured gasoline on that fire.
Something I haven’t noticed and perhaps it has been addressed…the concept of hypergamy being linked to sexual immorality. One of the sins I’ve noticed that could be in the concept of hypergamy along with lust is greed. Given the prizes women often get in no-fault cases…greed has to be one of the motivations.
Sunnybutt,
Looks like tracking cookies to me. I see ads for something I searched for on eBay (leather belts). Maybe one of your red-pill search terms triggered it.
@Anon Reader
Even worse, Pastor Wilson explains that if the husband isn’t just about perfect, the wife’s obligation is to “bring things to a head”.
This is not only a very bizarre interpretation of 1 Sam 25 (as Abigail did the opposite of bringing things to a head), it also goes against 1 Pet 3. Peter tells us that if a Christian wife has a sinful husband, she should win him over without a word via her submission. In this way she becomes one of Sarah’s daughters. Sarah in Gen 20 followed her husband’s instructions, stating to the king of Gerar that she was his sister. Had God not intervened, this would have resulted in disaster!
Wilson instead teaches Christian wives that if their husband sins they need to bring things to a head. They will be Abigail’s daughters if they proceed in all moxie. I haven’t had time to go through the comments over at Wilson’s blog. Has anyone noted this glaring contradiction with Scripture?
Another article where now women are too clever to find a boyfriend/husband.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4919208/The-women-clever-boyfriend.html?ito=social-facebook
Dalrock
Wilson instead teaches Christian wives that if their husband sins they need to bring things to a head. They will be Abigail’s daughters if they proceed in all moxie.
But only for the “bullies and thugs”! Don’t you remember that “abuse” is the get-out-of-marriage-free password, the “she’s not responsible” password? It’s in the Book of Oprah, I’m sure.
I haven’t had time to go through the comments over at Wilson’s blog. Has anyone noted this glaring contradiction with Scripture?
No, not even close. As with some other sites comments, it is one of the interesting things there; what is seen, and what is unseen. I suspect that some number of men identify with conflict-averse “Jon” but naturally don’t want to say so; one women has sort of identified with “Kate”. Even the conservative feminists can’t find too much to complain about Wilson’s OP.
On the other hand, you-know-who has sniffed out Wilson as either an abuser or some other bad thing. Apparently she’s still there to teach everyone else. So the comment stream there has that going for it.
Opus
Anon Reader has been watching too much Gilbert & Sullivan
Impossible!
Ta Anon & Hmm. That’s what I suspected.
Opus @ 3:41 am:
“These three words, dear Americans, are all pronounce in the same way: Kew, Cue, Queue”
Did someone call me?
“Aluminium has five not four syllables.”
I’m pretty sure we fought a war over this. One of the Intolerable Acts, yes?
Excellent post, Scott. Reading through it I thought of a distant-ish male relative who did, unfortunately, commit suicide, and he hit all three of the “risk factors” you describe. I am worried about his teenage son, who is being treated by his mother in much the same way that his father was, and the boy is angry and withdrawn.
Dalrock,
It seems most like a debate with MeMe (InsanityBytes?) with noting said about the incorrect characterization of Abigail.
Surprised no one quoted this from the NY Times article:
“A big reason for the decline: Unemployed men are less likely to be seen as marriage material.
“Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” said Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell who published “Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships” with Amanda Jayne Miller last month.”
Earl alluded to this section for a different reason but my take is: isn’t this distilled hypergamy? Or is this too hip for the room?
It’s certainly the case in China and Japan: women don’t want to hitch their wagon to an up-and-comer who’s not at her level, for him to qualify he has to be already THERE.
And you heard this bubbling up for years among the poorer population too. The entire book “Promises I Can Keep” is all about how marriage is not only revered, it is to be saved for the right man. But the right man just isn’t there now, but the women can’t wait to have a baby, but hope someday to find a worthy man to marry up and father their kids. The follow up book “The Best I Can Do” interviews the fathers in that same stratum who are trying (or failing) to hold their fatherhood together.
Both books are the most recent canary in the coalmine; certainly not the first. The “why marry just anyone” attitude chronicled there has percolated upward to the UMC and infected not only young women’s views of their prospects, but the young men who a decade ago would be collgrads by now. Except they aren’t, more and more they won’t bother. And why should they? So they can get their teeth knocked in “whiteknighting” and intervening in other men’s bro-casting? To win the gratitude of who exactly? The schoolmarm USA Today screedstress? The young woman in the couple who may well not want your help and certainly won’t date you out of gratitude? Because she’s Strong and Independent? Maybe you get a participation trophy declaring you a Weiner?
@Scott you are onto something there with your concept of RP Therapy. I hope you continue to get more insights as you go, and others join in. I would suggest one subset to the “Suicide Actualization” category among the severely depressed. That would be men who never want to top themselves, but who decide that their absence is the best “gift” they can provide the families and the courts who have rejected or blocked him. Not so much suicide as a one-way ticket to the dimension of the Disappeared, as in “The Leftovers.”
Never mind how I know.
By the way, Pastor Wilson’s blog comments are threaded but there is no indicator of the most recent ones. To check for new comments requires scrolling through the entire comment stream.
BillyS, it’s not all MeMe / yttik / Insanity, but she has taken over a couple of the subthreads with her misandric monomania. That’s what she does. It’s why she’s banned on more than one blog. I must say that WIlson’s commenters are remarkably patient with her.
Fred, you might want to leave that comment at Scott’s blog also.
@Anonymous Reader
She, and other women commenters like her, can be useful fools in the hands of a cynical blogger. They can be comediennes to his straight man routine.
@Anonymous Reader said:
It reads to me like they know they have a troll in their midst and seem to be having fun eating her lunch. It amazes me how she keeps switching topics and bringing in unrelated arguments to try to knock them off balance. For the most part, they have been easily dismantling every nonsensical thing she says. Awesome sauce.
And oh yeah that “clever boyfriend” Daily Mail piece? I believe the Brits say “bollocks”.
I have dated many so-called smart women, many times hitting it off nicely. I’ve never had a problem – so long as they were pleasant and engaging. I never minded them going off on a toot about some topic that interested them, be it schooling or work or current affairs. After all a key point of game is to let them talk, the more the better, they want to show off and qualify a little, up to a point it’s fine. Meanwhile you kino, etc., and they laud you for being a great conversationalist. (Since most of these women are taught to expect men to bloviate incessantly and step on their speaking efforts, when that doesn’t happen it’s a nice change-up).
Which I think is the point: something about the profiled gals in the article suggests two things: they may not be as pleasant or engagingly feminine as they should be. Locked into that mindset “I’m not changing for no man” and OK see how that insufferability works out for you. The obvious thing two: if she’s attracted to a lovable lunk for whom she has physical tingles, but tries to blind him with science to hook him in, uh yeah good luck with that too. Hard to imagine a bigger boner-killer, short of saying you’re the sex-assault complaint coordinator at University.*
*There was a link to a blogpost by a woman who had that job, who was upset that all the men ran screaming after she told them her job. Lamenting their “immaturity”. All right oh yeah okay. Or maybe they just wanted to preserve their ability to get their degrees.
Another article where now women are too clever to find a boyfriend/husband.
The really clever women can not only find and lock down a man among the less-brilliant-than-her, but can also teach him to do simple jobs.
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/09/26/womans-detailed-shopping-list-for-husband-goes-viral.html
“This is the task I gave to my hubby last weekend!!”
That’s most likely 99% of their problems. But it’s easier to blame men for the lack of their own femininity and couch it as they are too intelligent or higher class.
@Lost Patrol
It would be hilarious if the follow up was “I gave my husband this detailed shopping list and all he came back with was bratwurst and beer! And some weird fishing gear,”
Don’t you remember that “abuse” is the get-out-of-marriage-free password, the “she’s not responsible” password?
Don’t forget to put “emotional” in front of “abuse.”
– Another article where now women are too clever to find a boyfriend/husband.
All those “clever” women consider themselves smart because they take courses like feminism, gender studies, social work, etc. What man would want to hear their thoughts and ideas let alone have an easy shag with them?
PokeSalad
Don’t forget to put “emotional” in front of “abuse.”
How dare you limit the right of women to decide what is abuse! What about financial abuse, verbal abuse, condescending-chivalry abuse, not-being-chivalrous-enough abuse, and of course failure to provide fried ice in a timely manner abuse? Huh? What about that?
Me and my friends have made a hobby out of pretending to listen, before we bang them, then leave abruptly. They later go online to whine and kvetch. “No good men” &c.
Note well, all you married guys with daughters. This is the fate of your little princess when you tell her to hold off marrying that good earner, and feed into the feminist delusions that your Christian priests like to pay lip service to.
Regards,
Boxer
thehaproject
It reads to me like they know they have a troll in their midst and seem to be having fun eating her lunch.
Doesn’t look that way to me. I cannot tell how long MeMeMe! has been there, but some of the conservative feminist women are still trying to engage her emotional blowups in a logical, very earnest, manner. Some of the men are clearly being as kind as they can, going out of their way to give her the benefit of the doubt. No lunch eating is going on that I can see.
For the most part, they have been easily dismantling every nonsensical thing she says.
That’s not difficult though, because she’s not very smart and apparently doesn’t know any of the Bible at all. But none of that matters, because speaking logic and reason to a hyper-emotional person has no effect.
MeMeMe! / Insanity is an emotional ball of misadry with monomania. Her obsession with witch-sniffing out “abuse” in the words of any man who fails to agree 100% with her has become even more obvious this year. I truly wonder about her mental stability at this point.
This matters because aging, 2nd stage “1970’s style” feminists are embedded in so many organizations including churches, and they tend to look a lot like MeMeMe!. Imagine going to a church-suggested counselor and someone like her is across the desk, fuh, eh? Imagine being a college man who’s falsely accused of sexual misconduct, and the bureaucrat in charge is someone like Insanity. Too much fun?
@PokeSalad
Don’t you remember that “abuse” is the get-out-of-marriage-free password, the “she’s not responsible” password?
Even that little is going to be far more than she needs. When things go badly for today’s modern woman, the one iron rule that you can always count on is that there is no way in which she is responsible for any of it.
This holds for the church too. Behold the latest innovation in the perpetual innocence of women when it gets applied to the “interpretation” of scripture:
. . . . And from a pastor’s wife, no less! Scroll down and read the response tweets if you care to come away feeling even more depressed. I predict that by some strange coincidence we’ll see views like this becoming far more common at about the same time that we see larger numbers of modern women looking into prostitution as a viable business option. And why not? The church already found a way to rationalize how men are ultimately to blame when women engage in divorce and adultery; there’s certainly no reason why they can’t attempt to do the same for harlotry!
@ thehaproject
all he came back with was bratwurst and beer! And some weird fishing gear,
I LOL’d. Then I thought I really would like to meet the man that would do it. Damn the torpedoes Sir! Beer and fishing gear!
@AR
I truly wonder about her mental stability at this point.
I think that’s justified. It’s right there in the definition.
1 a (1) :exhibiting a severely disordered state of mind
b :unable to think in a clear or sensible way
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane
Well, now Insanity may have jumped the shark. She composed her own reply to Wilson’s hypothetical “Kate” and it’s the latest entry on her blog. Link is in the comments at Wilson’s, although if anyone wants I can paste it here.
The blog entry is like a “best of” compilation of InsanityBytes rants from multiple blog threads for the last couple of years. It is so far over the top it’s into Dworkin / MacKinnon / Shulasmith Firestone territory. It will be interesting to see how the regular commenters at Wilson’s blog take it, since even the conservative feminists have been backing away from Bytes in the current thread.
AR,
I was going to comment that they were wasting their time with logical arguments, but setting up comments requires still another account, so I skipped it. I doubt it would help anyway. Anyone debating with someone who has a name like “MeMe” is probably beyond hope.
Anyone debating with someone who has a name like “MeMe” is probably beyond hope.
As someone who has interacted with Bytes / yttik / MeMeME! / etc. in several fora over a few years I am qualified to make this statement:
Debating her with logic is like banging your head against a wall; it feels so good when you stop.
The more they try to rationalize or shift the blame of female sexual immorality onto men so they can justify it…the worse it’s going to get.
Oh, boy, someone fisked MeMeMe’s rant in comments on the thread at Wilson’s site.
It’s a good job, almost as thorough as one I did years ago. Excellent dissection of her logical contradictions. Of course she won’t even bother to read it, but other Wilson commenters might learn from it.
There’s a cycle to Bytes moods, this posting of Wilson’s just happened to drop right into her “getting shriller / meaner” phase. Be interesting to see if he continues to allow her to comment or not. She can be quite obsequious for a little while.
From that Daily feMail article cited above, about the too-clever women who are (cough) so unlucky in love:
OK. Unh-hunh.
So: isn’t the whole point about “priorities”, that those are by definition, “that which you put first”? Yet, Ms. Gould, at 41, has to have spent at least 6, and perhaps more than 8 years of her life — leave aside the financial cost — in getting her two degrees. Which means, that is what she genuinely longed for. If she “longed for” a family, she would have expended her effort (time, money, etc.) principally towards the attainment of that goal.
For her to claim otherwise is not tenable (he wrote, avoiding less charitable phrasings of the facts of the matter).
Adulthood is (supposedly) reached when you more or less consistently accept the consequences of the choices you make, and so accordingly try to consistently make the choices whose consequences you would prefer to accept, so far as you are able.
All Ms. Gould is really telling us is that she doesn’t doesn’t like the inevitable result of her actual chosen priorities. Or was she too gormless to realize those were her actual chosen priorities? Either way, she is a pitiable character, but not a sympathetic one.
Life is played for keeps, without dress rehearsals.
Three afterthoughts to my comment above, about the cited article about the too-clever women who are (cry me a river, sister) so “unlucky” in love:
First of all, implied — but never stated outright — throughout that article is that notion all of these women would in fact have been “happy” in a married/family/kids situation. … um, no. For the usual reasons the rest of the regular posters and lurkers here @ Dalrock know all about already, so there is really no need for me to repeat them here. So, the article is dishonest on that score.
Secondly, not merely unstated, but as unobserved and unacknowledged as a fighter jet with quantum stealth technology, is the matter of whether or not any man on the planet, however well-educated (and, perhaps, especially if well-educated) would in fact be happy to himself be ball-and-chained with any one of the supposedly-prize would-be-wives on offer here. [OTOH, this the Daily Mail …] So, the article is dishonest on that score.
[Also: weak men screwing up feminism, etc., etc. as per usual — yawn …]
Thirdly, where is the evidence here that these women would make good mothers? (And, no, multiple degrees, possibly in rubbish “disciplines”, very probably accompanied by a great burden of undischarged student debt — don’t count …). Fleetingly and crassly, it crosses my mind to wonder how many of them have already had some of their children killed (i.e., abortions)? Not none of them, I suspect.
So, a collection of women who in all probability would make their husband’s lives unendingly miserable, and some of whom have probably killed their own children already, wonder at the absence of men lining up to make them wives and mothers. And these women are presented to us as being burdened with too much intelligence. The mind boggles.
I guess it boils down to this: if you (genuinely) want to be married, then be marriageable. No evidence of that trait on display here, SFAICT (pretty faces don’t count, either).
@Dalrock, can you please approve this comment. This is from a United States IP address while I am logged into wordpress.
A test from my normal IP address.
Another test
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/09/23) - Social Matter
Pingback: How Do You Deal with Romans 14 Violators? | All Things Bright and Beautiful