Commenter thedeti wrote in response to A shortage doesn’t indicate a buyer’s market.
I seem to remember Cane Caldo saying something like this.
I had Cane’s comments in mind when I wrote the post but didn’t have the link handy. Cane kindly pointed to his post from April of last year titled This Weekend on: What’s the Real Tradition? (emphasis mine):
According to traditionalists (and others): Men are supposed to chase, and women are supposed to be caught. Or they might say: Men are to initiate, and women are to respond. Imagine a party. There are single men and women. The traditionalist wants the men to pick a woman, and then woo her. Then he (the trad) wants her to respond with a Yes, or No, or Show me more. That traditional mating ritual is wrong and foolish. Roissy/Heartiste’s maxim that “Men display, women choose” is much more true. Go to a party and see for yourself.
The traditionalist might counter, “Well, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. A real man pursues what he wants.” I say that is half-assed crossdressing. It is the man acting like a woman while the woman smirks and presides.
If you fancy yourself a traditionalist and disagree, then here is an exercise for you: Search your Bible for a story about a man who woos a woman directly. If it’s traditional it should be easy to do, right? If or when you find it put it in the comments and let’s see how that story plays out, and how it compares to the others. Let us discover what is the real tradition.
FIRST (from blue pill land in NYC)
The real world is shown in classical TVs and films (ie, pre-feminist PC era). Women decide to get married. They find a man, attract his interest, and marry him. If he doesn’t bite the hook, they find another guy and try again.
This explains the frequently seen herd effect among young women. One gets married, then several more in her group get married. Belief that suddenly guys start chasing this small group is absurd.
Women have a large array of behaviors to attract a guy’s interest, then deepen their relationship (at the speed they find comfortable). Much of this has been discarded as demeaning to their new selves. Now they are learning that the new system has consequences.
Pingback: A challenge to traditionalists. | @the_arv
Real tradition would be Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. The father of the daughters made the choice, at the end of the day.
I believe the initiation women do for a man was called IOIs (Indicators of Interest)…then the man responds. In any case, I do far better when she shows that than trying to ‘pursue’ a woman who may just in fact hate men because her father Joe told her to.
It’s not just the tv.
It may be hard for trad-cons to believe because they teach their daughters to hate men…but the friends I knew who got married young this was in fact the case. The woman wanted to marry them.
What Dalrock posted supports my main argument that Biblical marriage is completely different than marriage today. There were so many available women due to sickness, death, slavery, and wars that most Free men had the pick of the litter when it came to wives.
Since today’s Western idea of marriage is that the woman sleeps around until she finds a guy who will support her post-wall lifestyle has no precedent.
I am new to the manosphere but articles like this keep me coming back. I read this short article and had my mind blown. It is disturbing that I made it to 39 without ever hearing some of the things written here.
I fancy myself to be familiar with the Bible and I cannot think of a single counter example.
[D: Welcome Ben!]
Thanks Dalrock, and thedeti!
It’s been my experience and observation that the woman chooses the man is the way “it” works when it works at all. A woman who doesn’t actively pick either gets left alone, or gets stuck with a man with whom she is unhappy.
The “revenge of the nerds” trope (“nerds rule the world”, “rise of the beta male”, etc.) has amplified the Courtly Love gambit also. It discourages men from overcoming faults and encourages them to play-up their nice-guy and beta tendencies.
Black excellence at sports and lack of civilization in integrated schools play a role here, too. Are you a white boy of middling or poorer athletic ability and afraid of black hazing, degenerate music, and inveterate harassment? If you say so, you’re a raciss. Instead claim you’re a nerd and that one day you’ll get your revenge by being more successful and richer than “the jocks”.
Nerds have successfully used technology and pop culture to amplify their message of superiority (and whiteness), but it hasn’t helped women place good bets. It disrupts and confuses the signals a woman reads about at whose feet she should lay herself down.
Help me her for I am having trouble with the concept: PUAs approach and I have seen men approach successfully, indeed I have successfully done it myself any number of times. Being pursued by a woman is something that I and I think most men cannot abide.
I also have trouble with the notion that men display. I see little evidence of that yet women go to extraordinary lengths to stand-out and be noticed.
Where am I going wrong?
Isaac’s servant rolls up. Explains situation.
Rebekah says simply, “I will go,” to marry a man she had never met. No wooing, etc. She clearly could see the guy was loaded by the servant, but she chose to go and life proceeded.
@Opus
If you examine Game, you’ll see that it also requires being able to read the responses in your audience. The display element that Dalrock notes here is some form of peacocking. The woman has to know you exist first. She’s going to be constantly looking at the interactions on display around here. When a PUA or other Game aware guy approaches, all he’s doing is giving a woman a chance to evaluate him first, then choose to display IOI’s which he’ll read and respond to.
There was a much more formalized tradition to do this in the past, and when you look at the localized nature of society you’ll see that women often grew up with their potential mates and had a pretty good idea of who they wanted, and displayed the needed markers for the man to pursue.
Women have effectively lost so much of their opportunity to identify potential mates due to the atomization of society, have lost much of their ability to signal attraction through flirting, and have lost, or never been taught, that there’s a natural flow to life and a very definite window to maximizing it. Sexual market interactions now have to be much more forceful due to the extremely short time period to display higher mate value on the part of men, and to display IOI’s on the part of women to cue men’s response.
PUA or the Game-aware man can’t do anything without a woman’s signal. Sexual attraction can’t be negotiated. This is why a woman will move first to signal her interest.
Also understand that it’s not the man moving first; he’s just displaying his wares for any interested woman. He’ll pursue those that offer the highest value for him.
If an incredibly beautiful woman is pursing me, i’m down with that. If you’re uncomfortable with being pursued by women, you’re still trying to put their value over yours in your mind.
“Search your Bible for a story about a man who woos a woman directly. If it’s traditional it should be easy to do, right?”
Not when so few examples are given. Mosaic Law-style micromanagement was tried & failed and we shouldn’t/can’t follow Biblical examples such as David & Abigail. All we really need to do is end the welfare-industrial complex as an alternative to a provider-husband and punish adultery with death.
The solutions are simple enough. Implementing them with women holding the reins of power, not so simple.
…
Opus @ 12:37 pm:
“Being pursued by a woman is something that I and I think most men cannot abide.”
In today’s culture of false accusations, I fully agree.
…
ys @ 12:59 pm:
“Isaac’s servant rolls up. Explains situation.”
Abraham Rothschild’s chief of staff rolls up in a convoy. Explains “milord Master Abraham wishes to purchase a beautiful wife for his son and heir to his fortune”. Offers a suitcase of cash. Daddy said “I’m okay with this” and Barbie said “Sure, I’ll go!” Hardly a story of Bucky Beta searching the Amazon rainforest for the last virgin on Earth.
The only metaphysical part of the “search for Isaac’s wife” was Chief of Staff making the (Alan) Shepard’s Prayer: “Dear Lord, please don’t let me screw up.”
@Opus – I think one of the tenets of PUA and Game is to approach desirable women, but bluff or act like they are desiring of you.
OT – Many of the Church fathers (Jerome, Augustine, Tertullian) believed in separation/divorce for the apostles. Not in an official divorce, but forsaking the office of their marriages.
“In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage.”
Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I
Look, the problem speaks for itself. Women will only choose those men in the top 20% and that’s it. They settle for the bottom 80%. Tradcons know this; so in order to keep society moving, and to keep people getting married, they realise those bottom 80% of men will have to pursue women who would normally not choose them otherwise.
Dear Dalrock,
Thanks again for your work on how Christianity was corrupted and even replaced by the “religion of amor.” It’s an insightful angle!
Is this just something that happened? Were there forces actively vying for it? Is there some combination? Is this how societies decline in general? Who first began the transformation? Was it ever opposed by the church?
Thank you!
Da GBFM
The wife came after me (fairly aggressively) when we were teenagers – funny it never occurred to me that this is the way it’s supposed to be.
We have eight kids, she’s a stay at home mom who will be wearing a nice skirt and will have dinner for me when I get home, is never disrespectful towards me, thinks most women are unappreciative/crazy/etc.
You may be onto something.
@feministhater
The tradcon approach makes things worse for women in this regard, because they blame their own lack of interest in men in their own league on men somehow failing to pursue them. Look at Wendy Griffith. She is still unmarried in her 50s complaining that men have let her down. Had she started off with a proper understanding in her late teens and early 20s, she could have out-competed the other women for the best husband she can win. Instead of thinking she had all the time in the world to pursue feminist goals, she would have realized that “Those bitches are trying to steal my man!”
A woman who sets out to win a husband receives feedback that helps lessen her tendency to overrate her own attractiveness. As men understand, there is something very humbling about pursuing. This humbling is precisely what tradcons want to avoid (for women), even though it is women in general who most need this benefit.
GunnerQ-
Lol, Abraham Rothschild. Good one.
No, I thought the story illustrated Dalrock’s point to a degree. Rebekah’s response is foreign by our culture’s standards too.
At least one tradition was man observe a virgin and then appeal to the girl’s father. Being a woman of virtue she submits to her father’s wisdom, either for a life of marriage and caring for offspring or to wait for a more suitable suitor. But that tradition was based on the tradition of family primacy not individual primacy and the tradition of honor and respect. Men used to labor to provide for that family and would die to protect it, but all those traditions have become anachronisms in the new brave world where masculinity is toxic but concomitantly absolutely necessary.
Sure, this helps women get the best men they can when younger. It would have worked even better when women directly relied on men for survival. Now they don’t. They can choose to work instead, to pursue career and not family. This has placed tradcons in a difficult position. They can either admit that empowering women was a bad idea in regards to family formation or try and get men to pursue those women who otherwise would not pursue them. If they don’t do this, they risk a very true marriage melt down, not just on the fringes..
Furthermore, telling women they have a limited window to find a potential suitor, who covers at least some of their outrageous standards, doesn’t go over well. Women ignore this advice in droves and choose instead to empower themselves with credentials and freeze their eggs in the hopes Mr Wright will show up.
We all know what is in women’s best interest but the past 100 years shows that the average woman ain’t interested in hearing it.
So yes, if women had to pursue men they would probably have a more realistic outlook of who they could catch. However, this wouldn’t matter because women would rather choose to bitch and moan about the lack of options than settle for a man she deems unworthy. Griffith could have chosen a far better man when she was younger, she probably had a few pursue her too, she might even have pursued a few herself. None of that worked for her because her entitlements where way out of line. She is a bad example to use because she vastly inflates her worth to the point no man comes close.
Your point would work for the top 20% of either sex, probably even the top 40%. From then, I really just think women would rather be single and moan than settle.
In the end, it’s women’s empowerment that leads to their over inflated self worth. That and choice addiction.
The answer here depends on assumptions of what counts as pursuit or wooing. In Biblical marriage the father of the bride ultimately decided who married his daughter, whether there was wooing or not. Nevertheless, this doesn’t really address whether the husband- or wife-to-be, or neither, or both, could or should pursue.
However, the bride price, as codified by Law, is a perfect example of the man pursuing the woman. While the father of the groom could independently provide the bride price (e.g. Isaac), a free man provided his own bride price. There are cases where the father of the bride required the groom to work for the bride price (e.g. Jacob; David). It would be quite a stretch in these cases to say that the groom didn’t pursue the bride or that the bride primarily pursued the groom. The bride price is the best I could find in Law (rather than pure tradition) that would suggest that one party should/could woo the other. The modern analog is the man must proposing to the woman with an expensive ring.
You can find examples of all cases in the Bible: fully arranged marriages (for Isaac), where the man pursued the woman (Jacob; Hosea), where the woman pursued the man (Ruth; Esther), and where both pursued each other or it wasn’t clearly stated one way or the other (Samson; Solomon). I would argue that pursuit (by either sex) is neither condemned nor encouraged. Each situation is different and there is no rule one way or the other.
If you put a gun to my head and forced me make a binary decision according to biblical tradition, I’d say that the man is supposed to pursue the woman. Ruth and Esther are more ambiguous as counter claims.
@Jonadab
That’s too broad of a generalization, as there’s definitely differences in “Family Primacy” that depend on Hajnal or Non-Hajnal locations.
Those traditions are not just anachronisms but relied on an entirely different set of premises than anything today. Women were property. I’d also note that the woman would have the chance to observe the potential suitor, and offer IOI’s to the suitor or father. The modern tropes about fathers forcing daughters to marry a suitor not to her liking may have occurred, but between the effects of courtly love and feminism I think those tropes don’t resemble reality.
I think the same way about the historical tropes of “spousal abuse” or other evils of patriarchy; they’ve been magnified out of proportion to their actual occurrence. One may view the temperance movement that was at the forefront of feminism as a practitioner of such exaggeration.
I keep in mind that female signaling behaviors didn’t evolve overnight, and that there’s a massive genetic component that can’t be overcome in so short a time period to human mating behaviors. These work in concert with patriarchal, cultural, and religious practices throughout history, and still work today.
The one saving grace is that history rhymes.
FeministHater sez ..
Your point would work for the top 20% of either sex, probably even the top 40%. From then, I really just think women would rather be single and moan than settle.
I don’t think that’s what they have in mind .. (death to the 80% is on the table).
Yeah .. she’s been divorced .. she has one child (a daughter) .. she’s just misunderstood.
“PUA or the Game-aware man can’t do anything without a woman’s signal. Sexual attraction can’t be negotiated. This is why a woman will move first to signal her interest. Also understand that it’s not the man moving first; he’s just displaying his wares for any interested woman. He’ll pursue those that offer the highest value for him.”
Yes, this is very true. About 100 years ago, Bernarr MacFadden wrote about this in his book Manhood and Marriage. He mentions that it is woman who selects the man she wants to mate with and the man responds.
I would like to add that whatever the sexual attraction a man has which causes women to move first remains with the man throughout his life. So if women were interested in a guy when he was 20, they will be interested when he is 30, 40, etc. It’s not about physical attraction, but about sexual attraction.
@Dalrock
Yes, exactly. And she needs to learn it while yet remaining chaste; which is tough for her to navigate. She senses that if she spreads her legs for her quarry that he will like her more, but she also knows it’s a risk because men value chastity. If men and society valued virginity as they ought, then a woman would have a better sense of how to risk, and how not.
Under the current tradcon practice of “men pursue, women respond” women not only don’t learn humility, they can shirk responsibility. As the “responder” she can always claim she was seduced. I think that plausible deniability is not an accident, but a feature of Courtly Love. If a man wants to worship women he needs an extra-strength responsibility remover for her when she is caught in fornication or worse. “The poor angel was seduced; that dirty man practically raped her. Worse, he deceived her to like it!”
“The poor angel was seduced; that dirty man practically raped her. Worse, he deceived her to like it!”
When you get candid with women, you will hear at least one story of sexual assault. These girls have retconned their bad experiences with men into claiming sexual assault. And of course, the White Knights eat it up and excuse the women. “She’s not a slut! She’s been assaulted, like 50 times in her 20s.”
Damn Crackers sez
When you get candid with women, you will hear at least one story of sexual assault. These girls have retconned their bad experiences with men into claiming sexual assault. And of course, the White Knights eat it up and excuse the women. “She’s not a slut! She’s been assaulted, like 50 times in her 20s.”
This is the NUMBER 1 RED FLAG of any date or get-to-know-ya’ with a womminz .. if she sez she’s been raped / assaulted .. I’m out .. NEXT!
Consider Samson: he saw a wench he wanted, and sent his father to procure her. That’s how it was done, until modern feminism kicked in.
Pingback: A challenge to traditionalists. | Reaction Times
As men understand, there is something very humbling about pursuing.
Thus the reason why women (most of them) refuse to do it. It requires both effort and humility. Non-starters in today’s thot-centric culture.
Yes because you’ll never know if she’s turned into a predator looking for teenage boys. #metoo
Here is an interesting article written by a Christian woman, (Jory Micah) who pursued her man. She has trouble with complementarians and quotes Ruth. Oh and the fact her object had a “bad boy” vibe didn’t hurt.This was written in 2015 BTW.
http://jorymicah.com/where-does-the-bible-say-men-are-pursuers-oh-wait-it-doesnt/
But if they don’t want to pursue and the man doesn’t pursue…then they can’t ‘settle’. I could probably count out at least 80% of women based on their uglification physically and spiritually. I would hope they don’t pursue me.
@GunnerQ : “The only metaphysical part of the “search for Isaac’s wife” was Chief of Staff making the (Alan) Shepard’s Prayer: “Dear Lord, please don’t let me screw up.””
I think that misses the crux completely, and gives a wrong impression how to pursue a wife. Read Gen 24; it is a nice story with a beginning and a clear end. Abraham knows God has promised Canaan to him and his offspring, hence under no circumstances wants his son to leave. At the same time, he does not want him to marry any pagan wife. Therefore he sends his servant under oath to get a wife from among his relatives, knowing that a potential wife might not want to come over.
As such, this is a special situation where a father seeks a godly wife from a known foreign background to support his son in his divine mission.
“Then he prayed, “Lord, God of my master Abraham, make me successful today, and show kindness to my master Abraham.”
The servant knows he completely depends on the Lord, the God of his master, to guide him by providence to the future wife suitable for Isaac, and continues his prayer how he wants a confirmation from God:
“May it be that when I say to a young woman, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’—let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master.”
“Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder.”
The rest of the story confirms in detail that Rebekah is chosen by God to be the future wife of Isaac. The servant repeats towards her family how God by providence led him to Rebekah, and her family agrees:
“Laban and Bethuel answered, “This is from the Lord; we can say nothing to you one way or the other. Here is Rebekah; take her and go, and let her become the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has directed.””
Rebekah agrees to immediately leave towards her new land and her future husband.
Rebekah might have been quite young, because they send her nurse and her attendants with her.
This love story ends beautifully:
“Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death”.
Abraham, his servant, Rebekah, her family, and Isaac all knew God had shown that Rebekah should be the wife of Isaac, and all submitted to the will of God, which gave them a thankful heart towards the Lord, Abraham reassurance his own offspring would become as numerous as the stars in the land God promised, and gave Isaac comfort after the death of his mother.
Well your prayers have been answered (/s).
https://nypost.com/2018/08/20/woman-dupes-dozens-of-dudes-into-weirdest-tinder-date-ever/
“How ’bout you & him fight” ™ .. combined with chasing her prey .. Live on Pay-Per-View at Union Station .. $20 admission.
I’m sure whomever won that event was treated to her and her boyfriend laughing at him.
Damn Crackers –
“There were so many available women due to sickness, death, slavery, and wars that most Free men had the pick of the litter when it came to wives.”
I would agree that the current situation is unprecedented, or at least never lasted this long. We are in an age where there is an abundance of reproductive-aged males compared to reproductive-aged females. By the mechanisms you cited, Nature will eventually return us to a normal even ratio. Harems appear to have been commonplace in Biblical times. I can’t imagine the future being stable, as Heartiste suggests, that Alpha cads, their ability alone secures harems, while incels kick back and let it all happen. Today there are a lot of comforts and distractions that suppress or provide alternative outlets for the frustration. But those won’t hold back the growing tide, let alone other survival pressures, like ascendant Chinese reclaiming their perceived rightful place as conquerors and hegemon, the undisputed rulers of the civilized world. Many men will die. Prepare to survive and carry on.
This has probably what has lead, or at least helped, to women dressing slutty and narcissism. Gotta get those eyeballs on me, me, me! It also leads to pump and dumps. Once a man has pursued and made the kill, time to move on to other game. Or worse, a man gets stuck in a constant state of pursuing the rest of the relationship. No thanks.
The only women out of the >30 I’ve bedded (and many more I took out) that bonded worth a $&*% had two or more of these about them:
1) VERY few previous sex partners, like 0-2;
2) well under average in appearance (yeah, I have dumpster dived out of convenience);
3) believed they were getting the best sex they’d ever had, or were likely to get;
4) wanted kids with me BAD;
5) were raised in intact families;
6) REALLY liked sex in general.
That’s the raw data. Draw your own conclusions, but what I have seen out of women in my own life didn’t seem to me to violate any Red Pill corollaries.
“There were so many available women due to sickness, death, slavery, and wars that most Free men had the pick of the litter when it came to wives”
Depends on the time period. Genetic studies suggest that for a large portion of human history only 1 in 5 men reproduced.
Dalrock
Sorry to be off topic
http://www.unz.com/article/patriarchy-its-a-mans-world-and-sociobiology-says-its-womens-fault/
I just want to reiterate that this is a simple challenge: Find a story in the Bible of a man pursuing and wooing a woman.
I do not stipulate that women pursuing men is The Biblical Model for mating strategies. All I’ve pointed out is that:
1. At least there are a couple stories of women pursuing men to good ends for not only herself but her whole nation.
2. and that I can find no opposite.
Whoever wishes to forward the “men pursue, women respond” narrative needs to deal with that.
There are broader theological implications as well. The evangelical movement which poses the Jesus is My Boyfriend idea that God is in love with each of us individually and is waiting to change our lives takes its cues from this same false religion of romance. This corruption is not only old, but deep.
“There were so many available women due to sickness, death, slavery, and wars that most Free men had the pick of the litter when it came to wives”
Depends on the time period. Genetic studies suggest that for a large portion of human history only 1 in 5 men reproduced.
Survivors had plenty of females to choose from. That implies there weren’t many survivors – maybe 1 in 5?
Actually, I’ve read that the correct historical figures are 40% of men reproducing (and 80% of women), not 20%.
For Cane Caldo’s challenge, I point to Samson, who sent his father to her father to procure the wench he desired. That’s probably the typical story of a man pursuing a woman.
I don’t believe the book of Tobit is in the Protestant Bible…but it would be in the Catholic and EO bible.
The only one in the ballpark I can think of is Tobias and Sarah. But even then Tobias’s primary purpose was to get his father Tobit’s money. The whole Sarah part of the story came during his mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit
Here is an interesting article written by a Christian woman, (Jory Micah) who pursued her man. She has trouble with complementarians and quotes Ruth. Oh and the fact her object had a “bad boy” vibe didn’t hurt.This was written in 2015 BTW.
http://jorymicah.com/where-does-the-bible-say-men-are-pursuers-oh-wait-it-doesnt/
Has anyone read this? The author is a shill for the Presbyterian church’s agenda to get more women and gays as pastors and end the traditional views of Judeo-Christiandom. She herself is a “youth pastor,” and was looking for a man who would serve her agenda in ministry.
“At the time I was a youth pastor at a small Presbyterian Church and Luke had told me the night that we met that he helped with his youth group back home in Pleasanton, California as a young adult…
so I sent Luke a Myspace message and asked him if he wanted to help out. What better way for a woman in ministry to test the candidacy of a possible mate, right?”
Of course she’d be interested in the same topic Cane is by in dismantling Judeo-Christian traditions and turning biblical truths upside down.
Also interesting that both are operating under the premise that men aren’t the ones God intended to pursue. From the female pastor’s article:
“The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW) continues to claim that God has wired men to be pursuers and that this is their designed gender role, but cannot support such a claim with scripture.”
Since scripture doesn’t expound much on this topic directly, we don’t have many examples to conclude what was the norm. Esther’s story was certainly not a normal girl’s experience, having the chance to pursue a king. And Ruth was a widow and a Moabite, coming into their culture as a foreigner.
The key though is that Miss Female Pastor is trying to dismantle masculinity and couching this all as “Patriarchy is BAD for us… See??? Men weren’t made by God to be Masculine Enough to pursue! Us Strong Independent Women Need to Rebel and start acting masculine instead of feminine, and learn to be the pursuers to get them to follow us into our roles of leadership!”
From her article:
“The CBMW continues to make biblical inaccuracies because they are desperate to keep women “in their place” and promote an unhealthy, patriarchal system that continues to enslave God’s daughters. Sure, there are some men who seem to be “wired to pursue,” but this is undoubtedly due to their personalities or upbringings – not necessarily because God designed them that way.”
It’s ironic that Cane is essentially making the same argument a hardcore feminist is. That men were not wired to be the pursuers as part of their masculine design. It’s just too masculine. It’s just too patriarchal. Nevertheless testosterone itself propels men to take more risks, to pursue life and their hobbies and careers beyond what women every naturally desire – due to their design. Testosterone – the very hormone that masculinizes an unborn child in it’s mothers womb – by itself gives men their drive to “pursue.” Interesting that this female pastor is saying this is not how God created men.
And more from Miss Female Pastor:
“Dear sisters, maybe the man God has for you was not wired to make the first move. Perhaps you, my friend, were cut from the same cloth as Ruth and I were, and so many other strong and independent Christian women living in the year of 2015.”
Burner Prime, the author you linked to also has this to say about her husband from her blog:
“Luke reflected Christ to me in a way that I had never seen in a man before. He was kind, gentle, and selfless. He had a “Santa Clause” demeanor that made me feel I could run, jump on his lap, and hang on his neck without him getting annoyed. I was at great ease with him.”
“The funny thing is that Luke is nothing of they type I thought I was looking for. I was certain that I would marry a charismatic-evangelist-type with an ultra strong-willed personality; together we would travel the world as some sort of “power couple.” I now see that I wanted to marry someone like myself. Thank God He had a different plan.”
She also says he cleans better than her, too, but of course he would. Heh!
This particular post from that author is a minefield.
“When I was 18-years-old, I packed my little yellow Sunfire up and headed over 2,000 miles away to Dallas, TX to attend Bible college….
There was a teacher on campus who a lot of the guys loved because he was bold in his approach, confident, and manly I guess…. He was also a staunch Complementarian, which means that he believed men and women to be equal in “value,” but not in “authority.”
This teacher got a group of the “cool guys” all wound up one day and I got to be their lucky target. A brood of immature teen boys basically cornered me and asked me if I would come sit down and talk with them. I was a brave girl, so I agreed. For about 30 minutes, this group of guys attempted to explain to me why the Bible prohibits me from being a minister in the church over both men and women because I am a girl….
The moment I got into my apartment, I called my dad and sobbed….”
She then explains how it turned into an anger toward those boys that fueled her calling http://jorymicah.com/how-my-father-made-a-feminist-out-of-me-happyfathersday/
It’s already been pointed out by Derek Ramsey the stories of Jacob & David.
Not to mention the reverse can be shown as Lot’s daughters are portrayed as “pursuing” their father after the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah which is hardly an endorsement. Potipher’s wife also pursued Joseph while he was in Egypt and Joseph got punished for it.
Now twice while Abraham is hanging out in Palestine he chills in some neighboring nations other kings try and take his wife – showing that it was at least common around the area for men to go after women. Moses and Zipporah is… a grey area, granted, but Moses does white knight for her.
That’s not even getting into the prophecies and descriptions of God and Jesus pursuing their brides (Israel & the Church respectively). I mean, did you even read the book?
“Perhaps you, my friend, were cut from the same cloth as Ruth and I were, and so many other strong and independent Christian women living in the year of 2015.”
All the announcemenmts done by a middle aged know-it-all-voiced woman at every church
Anouncements at the Salvation Army Corps / Citadel here in Santa Rosa:
Next month we are cleaning up the store-rooms…..and since there are no men here to do the job, we’re recruiting men from the local rehab program in Napa to do it
Announcements at the Assembly of God church Santa Rosa:
Men, listen up, after you finish your honey-do list on Saturday……we need you here to load the trucks for the food distribution on Tuesday……and you single men….which is most of the boys in this church, you are not off the hook. Get here and help too, we need some strong backs…..your video games will be waiting for you at home when you finish”
We also are going to need some men to volunteer to do our landscaping outside…….our church is saving a lot of money by having the men here do it…..trees looking shabby…..the shrubs need trimming and lots of raking to do. We want this church to look welcoming to people
Next month Mens Group is going to be doing yard work for our senior citizens….and they are looking for more men here to volunteer for this. We’re a church family, there should be no openings on the list to help our seniors out
We need men to direct the traffic and be parking attendants here on Sundays, talk to the pastor if you are interested
United Methodist Church of Santa Rosa announcements:
The men of the church are brain storming (laughter from the congregation) on ways to get more men to come to church. We at our last yearly meeting told the Conference that we were not going to close, so we need ideas on how to grow. The men are taking ideas from everyone, and even asking the community / neighborhood what the church should do. We need men to volunteer to help canvass and knock on doors to get the neighborhoods important input.
Just three churches in Santa Rosa within three weeks………..
“Perhaps you, my friend, were cut from the same cloth as Ruth and I were, and so many other strong and independent Christian women living in the year of 2015.”
I ask the same question myself………………………………………………………………………..
“Luke reflected Christ to me in a way that I had never seen in a man before. He was kind, gentle, and selfless. He had a “Santa Clause” demeanor that made me feel I could run, jump on his lap, and hang on his neck without him getting annoyed. I was at great ease with him.”
She married the father she never had? Sex with Santa Claus? I wonder how that’s going. This is weird stuff. I may be terminally cynical.
Hi guys! Hi Dalrock! Apparently, old women spending money to be matched to to tier men is a trending topic.
Nick
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/spent-savings-elite-matchmaking-agency-meet-array-mediocre/
@ Nick MGTOW ..
yepper ..
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/what-millionaire-doesnt-dream-of-having-children-with-a-47-year-old-divorcee-with-three-kids/
She’s def’ been ridin hard and out away wet ..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/women/2018/08/17/TELEMMGLPICT000103517607_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqM37qcIWR9CtrqmiMdQVx7DPifYEpszX2XbMdgtNVyuk.jpeg?imwidth=1400
Not to mention the reverse can be shown as Lot’s daughters are portrayed as “pursuing” their father after the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah which is hardly an endorsement. Potipher’s wife also pursued Joseph while he was in Egypt and Joseph got punished for it.
Right. The Proverbs 7 Woman, the Seductress & Forbidden Woman, was always the pursuer and aggressor.
Her best years are 30 to 35 years ago. Damn that’s a hard 50!
Honeycomb: “This is the NUMBER 1 RED FLAG of any date or get-to-know-ya’ with a womminz .. if she sez she’s been raped / assaulted .. I’m out .. NEXT!”
You’re close – that’s actually the number 2 red flag. Number 1 is that she’s had an abortion. Because in that case, she’s very likely demonically oppressed. How could she not…when she killed her own baby?
Run. Far away.
@ Jeff S. ..
(re: abortion)
Yeah that’s my #2 red flag .. both are a hard next!
..
..
I’m willing to bet it may mostly be virtue signaling -v- actually happen ..
BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER .. real or deception .. it’s not my job to find out .. both are an ALL STOP .. About Face .. Your Left .. Your Left Right Left to a safe distance.
Paul @ 4:35 pm:
“This love story ends beautifully…”
The love story of a xenophobic father sending a third party to buy a wife for his son sight-unseen. That’s less romantic than mail-order. If Moses’ wife is any indication, God would have permitted Abraham (or Isaac) to choose a local.
It’s also hopelessly irrelevant to modern life. God is not in the habit of supernaturally arranging marriages and wasn’t back then, either. Following the Abrahamic recipe for getting married requires a billionaire father, disdain for the society you live in and a miracle.
It is YOUR choice whether to marry and to whom. Not God’s. Unlike the Patriarchs, you have the dignity of causation. You should be glad to live in NT times, when people are free to be participants in God’s Plan instead of acting out the script provided at birth.
Didn’t Hosea pursue his wife Gomer? And in that case, she was an adulterous prostitute.
The United Methodist Church allows women to wear the garb of and pretend to be clergy. They are apostate, and no longer Christian until they repent and turn away from their mortal sin.
I believe the man needs to ultimately pursue a woman because the man needs to take charge of the relationship once he asks his girlfriend to marry him. A fundamental change in the relationship needs to take place from an emotional connection to a bodily connection. If not, then you have an egalitarian marriage.
That change required my to soon to be hubby provide a place for us to live and support me as his dependent. No amount of romantic love would make sex moral until this change took place.
The danger for a woman such as myself is to pursue a man who doesn’t know what he wants and might crumble when the going gets tough.
Naama, I’m saying with this some empathy for you, since you seem mostly nonfeminist, to your credit. Is your position really that sex with your husband only became moral when he began to give you money? I would think the two of you taking public oaths to each other would be both essential, and more necessary. Extrapolating from your words, a man near the end of graduate school when he meets a woman who is employed, and she puts him through the last semester, would not be married, no matter a wedding. I have some trouble agreeing with this.
@Anon
”From the female pastor’s article”
All the information needed to show where her true loyalties lie.f
Eye opener. Thanks.
I’d agree with Luke here. While it’s prudent to see what traits the person you are choose to be a spouse show they are ready for marriage…that doesn’t suddenly make the marital act moral. It’s only when there is the public oaths are said and God joins the two together.
@GunnerQ : “The love story of a xenophobic father sending a third party to buy a wife for his son sight-unseen….”
You’re clearly not used to interpreting Scripture in the socio-historic context.
But I agree this is a specific situation where God elected Rebekah, which is not quite typical, and that’s why such stories end up in Scripture in the first place.
@GunnerQ : “You should be glad to live in NT times, when people are free to be participants in God’s Plan instead of acting out the script provided at birth.”
Ah, so God changed?
By serendipity I see that the estimable Heartiste ‘s latest post is on the same subject and he says that men need to Peacock – to stand out – to signal – and that some signals are just too expensive for lesser men to compete with. Presumably approaching a woman one finds attractive is itself a form of standing out from the crowd (literally).
Anecdote: reminds me of the time I went round one evening to see my friend. He had forgotten to tell me that he was away. His wife however was there and she was convinced that I had come round to seduce her and the proof to her of this alleged intention of mine was that I was wearing a pin-striped suit (I must have come straight from work). She did not appear to be too unhappy at my presumed intent and inviting me in became Coy. I made my excuses.
This conversation is interesting precisely because it has developed into a convergence of (and in some ways it conflates) two topics.
“How men and women actually find each other and mate” (which is what “game” ultimately seeks to teach men about) being the first. The second is the OT, or “which tradition/how far back/what culture are you talking about?” Put another way, a discussion about the layer upon layer of procedure that has been placed atop the first part, institutionally.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way. I just see a little talking past each other on those two topics.
It is alway, of course advisable to take ones personal experience with a grain of salt, as my lived life does not present itself as universal Truth about how the world works. However, I have never encountered a situation where I saw/noticed/was interested in a woman and then set out to pursue with the intent of winning her over that actually worked. In every case where an encounter turned into something more, the interest from her was overwhelming and I made a conscious decision to follow up.
Now, the overlay is important however. It provides the aesthetic that pretty much everyone in the modern world likes because it feels so chivalrous. The most profoundly ridiculous case of this from my own life was in my first marriage. There was absolutely no doubt what would happen if I stopped dating other women and turned my attention to the lifelong friend who was right in front of me the whole time. Everyone knew she had always wanted something more. But, I went through the motions and announced to her and her parents that I was going to try to do my best to win her over.
This took about .000003 seconds, because I already “had” her. Everyone knew it, but the courtship needed to be visible for the cameras. Every fiber in my body knew that as soon as we started dating it would catch fire and we would be married within a year. But I made the effort anyway because it was what I was taught to do over a lifetime of watching romantic comedies and such.
Now, the mysterious part is this. How, over the course of almost 8 years (dating/engaged for a about one, married for a little over six) did the tables turn on me without me even noticing it was happening? By the time I was hit with the divorce, I was 100%, head over heals, totally “in love” with my wife who had “checked out” over time and demolished me. I spent the next ten or so trying to figure that out. I have some theories about it, but then I remarried and it instantly became unhealthy and a really dumb idea to obsess over that stuff when I had a new wife. Mychael and I are together now for twelve years and all of that other crap seems like a really bad dream that happened to someone else.
I think Rollo’s writings on men loving idealistically, and some other things I have gleaned from him helped me put it all into perspective–however painful that stuff is to learn. Tradcons just refuse to learn those lessons. That makes them stupid.
One of the points I am making there is if she doesn’t make it really obvious that she is interested you should move on. It’s destined to crash and burn.
And even if she DOES make it obvious, the institutional and cultural mores place make it very easy for her to change her mind and it will crash and burn anyway.
Scott’s story part one, is a perfect example of how so many American men have been raised. It is his personal story but similar versions abound. Identify the woman you’re most interested in (and that has shown reciprocal interest in you – you can’t move forward without that part), pitch your woo, win her over with your chivalry and personal attentions customized to her tastes.
It’s a fast and efficient way to put the woman in the driver’s seat, where she is uncomfortable but nevertheless will try to control the situation with backing from society at large and often enough her church in particular. Results from this vary, but seem to trend towards unhappiness for all parties.
This has certainly been my experience.
I’ve had a number of women who had clear interest…but doing what our ‘cultural norms’ dictated seemed to make it crash and burn quickly. It was amazing to me how quick she can change her mind when it came to that.
@Naama: ” I believe the man needs to ultimately pursue a woman because the man needs to take charge of the relationship”
You’re misunderstanding the dynamic. The pursued has all the power. The pursued is a supplicant. If a man must take charge in the relationship, pursuing is a terrible way to start out.
This article made me laugh. “How dare men propose governmental solutions to societal problems like we feminists do!”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/socially-anxiety-dating-government-should-pay-women-date-men_n_3293626.html
@Name(required)
Yes, Samson chased women. As Dr. Phil might say, how’s that working out for you:
First ho:
Second ho:
Thus endeth the ball game.
“Find a story in the Bible of a man pursuing and wooing a woman.”
Just off the top of my head David pursuing Bathsheba and killing her husband. There are no stories that would match the current world of hookups. Maybe gay hookups in Sodom. Maybe before the flood.
“Naama, I’m saying with this some empathy for you, since you seem mostly nonfeminist, to your credit. Is your position really that sex with your husband only became moral when he began to give you money? I would think the two of you taking public oaths to each other would be both essential, and more necessary. Extrapolating from your words, a man near the end of graduate school when he meets a woman who is employed, and she puts him through the last semester, would not be married, no matter a wedding. I have some trouble agreeing with this”
So, repeating the magic words must make sex moral? Does the wedding cake make sex moral?
If no relational change takes place between non marriage to marriage then what is the sin of living in sin. If no change takes place from living in sin to marriage then marriage is redefined under the terms of sexual immorality. Your answers will probably consist of going back to our societies former practice of marriage and pretending it still exists.
Your example of the graduate school would be just cohabitation with a piece of paper.
Mems rights is essential feminist doctrine that can be exposed in the same way Dalrock exposes Complimentarianism. You just have to go another layer. Feminism is a fight against their own bodies and the men who support it.
BTW My hubby loves feminist gnostics because when I overhear other wives talking about work and dropping their kids of at thee day orphanage, well this instantly creates a burning urge inside of me that drives me into his arms….
Paul @ 5:13 am:
“Ah, so God changed?”
His plans did. Israel’s purpose was stasis, ours is change.
My experience supports that. After ten years of marriage, my ex-wife finally told me that she had had an abortion and had been raped twice.
I was too ignorant to have even thought to ask about these before marriage, and neither the pre-marital counseling weekend retreat with another church or the pre-marital counseling from our church pastor or anyone else suggest discussing the topic.
At some level, I am responsible for not asking, but shouldn’t the church and fellow Christians be helping couples better prepare for marriage?
Jory Micah is one of the more prominent feminist, progressive “Christian” women. If there is any value to anything she writes, it was unintended.
OKRickety sez ..
At some level, I am responsible for not asking, but shouldn’t the church and fellow Christians be helping couples better prepare for marriage?
I can see how you’d think that .. (It’s not in their best interest to do so and this is my complaint about the Churchian / Wedding Inc Criminal Enterprise.)
It’s big business .. and in their view you are just a spec of dust to grind into oblivion. Just like a good lil conformist (they want you to be).
It’s called a marital vow…not magic words. Sex outside of marriage is fornication.
@GunnerQ
It seemed to me you were suggesting a tension between OT and NT as being between free-will agents and non-free-will agents, or if you will, between free choice and predestination. Nothing changed in that respect between OT and NT. And I disagree the distinction between Israel and the Church is that between stasis and change; if you dig deeper you will see both dynamics at work.
To me the biggest difference between the “dispensations” of Israel and the Church are to be found in the role of the Holy Spirit has in the life of a NT believer versus an OT believer: “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Heb 8:10,11)
“Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (john 3:5)
Yes, but many churches don’t want to broach uncomfortable topics like premarital sex or abortion.
dvdivx,
David didn’t pursue Bathsheba, he just summoner her.
OKRickety,
Women lie all the time, so asking earlier may not have helped. They also diminish the impact of things that happened to them.
Earl,
Or necessarily truly support marriage.
The pastor’s wife who had told me she supported early marriage several months before was the one who counseled my wife in a reachable moment to stay away from me because I would “return to the way I was” after my wife filed for divorce. She never mentioned divorce being bad, she was more concerned about the “safety” of my wife, in spite of no true risk being present for my wife (other than interrupting my wife’s desire to be single again).
Those who claim to support marriage often do not today.
Churches suffer from what a lot of society suffers…they don’t want to ever offend a woman.
Problem is they don’t care if they offend God in the process…and that’s an even bigger deal.
Interesting article. This one will probably end up receiving more than the average number of comments.
It would be interesting ifLori Anderson made a follow up post to her Men prefer virgins over… and call it, Men would prefer Rachel, Ruth and Esther over Jezebel. Lori would still get attacked over this.
Hi guys!
A feminist profesor is complaining that responsible fatherhood is tool of bad masculinity.
Extract, straight from the coucou’s nest:
[…]
“Currently, the government funds 36 programs to promote healthy fatherhood. These programs vary in scope and mission, but must align with one of three federal goals: promoting healthy marriage, responsible parenting, or economic stability.
But, says Randles: these programs have a dark side.
Despite that they typically provide job training, education, or parenting classes for low-income fathers — resources that impoverished communities typically lack —Randles worries that these programs are actually warping masculinity.
“How can a seemingly progressive revision of fatherhood promoting men’s emotional engagement with children operate as a discursive mechanism for the reproduction of gender, race, and class inequalities?” asks Randles.” […]
https://pjmedia.com/trending/prof-claims-responsible-fatherhood-reinforces-patriarchy/
Here is a more complete list, including those given so far by myself, natewinchester, and dvdivx:
1) Abraham’s wife is pursued by other men.
2) Jacob pursued Rachel.
3) Moses white knights for Zipporah.
4) Samson almost certainly chased Delilah.
5) Boaz pursued Ruth as much as Ruth pursued Boaz. Ruth did what Naomi told her to do and Boaz played a very active role. Boaz had to manipulate Ruth’s rightful kinsman-redeemer into letting Boaz marry Ruth.
6) David pursued Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba.
7) Solomon must have pursued some of his wives, considering they captured his heart and he was a king who got what he wanted. At the very least, he decided who he would sleep with. It was probably mutual pursuit.
8) Hosea pursued Gomer (a prostitute) and possibly raised her two bastard children.
9) King Xerxes pursued Esther (she also pursued him, just in a different way).
10) God’s pursuit of Israel and his church is an intentional metaphor with the marital relationship, husband pursuing wife.
As I said previously, what qualifies as “pursuit” and “wooing” is somewhat subjective. We’ve already seen a few comments here that involve circular reasoning (i.e. defining the terms to exclude any evidence that might counter the definition of the term).
Potipher’s wife chased after Joseph and that went poorly also. It doesn’t logically follow that a bad match implies that the matching method is generally wrong. Dalrock asked for examples where a man woos a woman directly and this is just one example of many.
The rebuttals here are hilarious, and fall into two camps.
1. To some people the idea of “man pursues, woman responds” is so important to the arguer that he redefines woo to mean “bought”, and bride-price as “romantic overture”. Presumably these people have a very romantic life here in America; wooing gas out of the station attendant and seducing milk from the grocer with money.
2. Those who think the stories of: David and Bathsheba (adultery and murder), Samson and Delilah (never married), Hosea and Gomer (adultery, cuckoldry, polygyny) and Jacob and Rachel are instructive as Christian tradition.
Jacob and Rachel are fascinating because we are blinded by Courtly Love when we read their story.
Leah is not pretty, but she is a virtuous wife. She uses everything her power to get Jacob’s attention, and to serve him. She produces the line of priests in Levi and the line of kings in Judah, through which came the Christ. She is jealous of Jacob and his affections even though she is hated by Jacob. There is no mention of Leah causing Jacob any grief, or reproaching him for anything. Leah just wants Jacob’s love.
Rachel is beautiful. That is her one virtue. Otherwise: Rachel is a complainer and harasses Jacob. She steals her father’s idols and then hides them under her vagina while feigning menstruation. She’s fickle. She lets her father marry Leah to her betrothed (under subterfuge) without complaint, and is fine for Leah to sleep with Jacob until Leah is honored above her with children. Rachel wants children not so that Jacob will love her, but because she is jealous of her sister (that was probably the first time in her life for that experience) AND she blames Jacob for her barrenness.
The difference in character is stark when you compare what Leah and Rachel uttered when they named their children. Leah is joyful, and loves Jacob and the Lord, but Rachel complains and loves herself.
The Sons of Leah (including through the servant Zilpah)
Reuben: “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.”
Simeon: “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also.”
Levi: “Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.”
Judah: “This time I will praise the Lord.”
Gad: “Good fortune has come!”
Asher: “Happy am I! For women have called me happy.”
Issachar: “God has given me my wages because I gave my servant to my husband.”
Zebulun: “God has endowed me with a good endowment; now my husband will honor me, because I have borne him six sons.”
The Sons of Rachel (including through the servant Bilhah)
Dan: “God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son.”
Naphtali: “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed.”
Joseph: “God has taken away my reproach.”
Ben-oni: “son of my sorrow”, or “son of my strength”. (Jacob changes it to Benjamin: “son of the right hand”)
If you read about Jacob Rachel and Leah and see an aspirational love story, I pity you.
@Nick Mgtow – Tell that professor that the gov’t should sponsor this:
http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-incels-from-killing-people
Well, Damn Crackers, I don’t believe gov should do lot of things, that’s the stuff. They caue enough problems, don’t they?
Leah may have been blessed with many children, but she didn’t (in any way) pursue Jacob, so that is no arguing point. Plus her sons were such evil men, in large part because this model where Jacob didn’t choose her, led to him also not loving her and creating favoritism.
Leah is tragic, in the same way single women who never find someone to love them is tragic.
Rachel’s two sons were wholesome, especially in comparison to Leah’s treacherous and evil sons. Only good thing for Leah is that Jesus eventually came out of that line (Judah), but overall they were worthless sons.
Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known
Related
@feministhater
Agreed.
The ultimate irony is that women generally lament the dishonesty of men and how easily men will lie to their faces – be they men in the 20% breeding stock corral or the 80% draft animal corral.
And yet if you attempt to make an earnest appeal, and tell women openly the unadulterated truth, then they become indignant, galled and huffy. And suddenly you and your ideas are consistent with those of a misogynist pig.
The reason why that (the truth) “doesn’t go over well” with women is that women prefer to be lied to.
And even as a Christian man, if you’re not lying to her, well, then you, Sir, are an asshole.
I cannot agree. OT scripture speaks of sons “taking” wives and not wives taking husbands. That reeks of the woman leading.
There just aren’t enough examples in scripture to assume that men choosing or taking a wife for themselves is/was a bad move.
It comes down to a woman’s character, what kind of wife a man has. Whether by arranged marriage or by choice, her character is what will determine how she behaves toward her husband.
sipcode sez ..
I cannot agree. OT scripture speaks of sons “taking” wives and not wives taking husbands. That reeks of the woman leading.
Th Wimminz have been domesticating men since the beginning .. so .. yeah th wimminz have been leading the way, in deception, for a long time .. yeah .. all the way back to Eve.
The Jacob and Rachel story though, man.
Falling in love with an 18 year old hottie, slaving away for 7 years in order to earn her hand in marriage from his own Uncle (Laban), being duped into scoring with her older, uglier sister, then having to slave away another 7 years before being allowed to marry Rachel.
Your prize? Rachel is now 32 years old. Yeah, she’s a virgin (maybe) But 32 dude!
And your workload has only just begun…..Yeesh.
The price you pay to found the 12 tribes of Israel I guess.
Is this your idea of a trap question? The Bible doesn’t emphasize wooing at all, so the strict answer to your question is no, I wouldn’t necessarily expect the bible to directly answer this question. Tradition and marriage are so varied in the Bible that trying to say that there is a [single] tradition is probably unreasonable. This is essentially a false dilemma, but it is fun to play along anyway.
Many marriages mentioned in the Bible are merely mentions. There is little, if any, discussion about the details that would help us know if there was wooing involved. If anything, it is the exceptions that are highlighted, as you aptly noted in your comment. If we want an answer, we have to use deduction and inference. The Law, as relatively unhelpful as it is, indicates that the man should seek after the woman.
You seem to think that a bride price isn’t romantic when a show of wealth or power is often exactly that, especially in the context of a marriage proposal. In a proper functioning society, a woman prefers the man who can best provide for her. Sometimes he must actively prove himself (e.g. David) and sometimes he doesn’t need to (e.g. Solomon).
You’ve also presumed that when a marriage is arranged that there was never room for love, desire, and preference. While there were certainly many marriages of convenience and pure arrangement, there were also many marriages where both groom and bride knew each other well before the ceremony and had input into the decision. The biblical examples make this clear. Women were not merely chattel to be bought, but were treasured.
David had to acquire 100 enemy foreskins to win Michal, who we know loved David. It strains reason to claim that she didn’t find his actions to win her to be romantic. Brutal, sure, but what quality woman wants to marry a wuss?
Did you miss the fact that Leah, who pursued Jacob, failed utterly in her goal? To reiterate: just because a marriage turned out poorly doesn’t mean that the way the marriage was established was (il)legitimate.
@Cane Caldo
Hilarious!
Bathsheba also doesn’t fit the pattern since she did some strategic advertising to get the attention of the king. She was already ready to go at that point:
Then there is the romantic wooing of Gomer by Hosea
In this case we shouldn’t laugh, as this is the message conservative Christians are sending young men. Lori Alexander made the mistake of indirectly challenging this model of modern Christian marriage recently.
Have to remember though…Jacob took Esau’s blessing from Issac because of deception from his mother. Then Issac told Jacob to take a wife from among the daughters of Laban. Kind of funny how that came back to bite Jacob.
Dam Crackers, some reading for you about the derogatory, feminist term you used (incel):
http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/
Incels and the N-Word
The term incel has a lot in common with the N-word, because while it has seemingly benign definition (a black person), it also has a purpose–to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people. The term incel is now also being used with the same purpose–to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people.
GamerGate was the first major loss for feminism and SJWs in the culture wars. Who did feminist believe was behind GamerGate and handed them this loss? They stereotyped them as: nerds, men who lived in their mom’s basement, neck-beards, failures to launch, game-boys, or just plain old losers. This stereotype was far from true (for one, many GamerGate supporters were female), but it is the stereotype feminist had of their enemy.
And, make no mistake, feminist did consider this group of men enemies. Their defeat at the hands of these men has stuck in their craw ever since. The have never let go of it, and still want revenge. In the word incel they think they have a vehicle.
The definition of incel seems benign (involuntary celibate), but the word has a sinister purpose: to humiliate, degrade, and other a group of people. With othering being the most sinister purpose of all–to separate these men from society and make them untouchables. Consider former Reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao’s tweet:
CEOs of big tech companies: You almost certainly have incels as employees. What are you going to do about it?
It is a not so thinly veiled attempt to have these men fired from their jobs and make them outcasts–to other them.
Like the N-word, the word incel has no place in society. Rather than argue over its definition’s accuracy, we should reject it outright, because its purpose is evil.
@Nick Mgtow – It’s sarcasm.
@Nick Mgtow – Lighten up, Incel.
Earl,
Isaac was going against God’s revelation that the older would serve the younger. (The difference of a few seconds, not years as many likely think – they were twins after all. That doesn’t make the deception good, but it is not surprising.
Isaac also lied about his wife being his sister (as his dad Abraham did), so the trait was full in the family already.
Nick,
Jezebel was just misunderstood!
constrainedlocus,
I think you have the timeline wrong. I believe Jacob married Leah unknowingly (that must have been one thick veil and a very dark night for him not to know), a week later married Rachel, and then worked seven more years afterward.
I think Jacob should have sued for breach of contract as the agreement was seven years for Rachel. When Laban gave him Leah without any contract, that was a gift; There should have been no obligation to work seven years for her.
Pingback: *Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant. | Dalrock
@constrainedlocus
For the record, the timeline is:
-Jacob meets Rachel; asks to marry her in exchange for seven years labor
-works seven years; is married to Leah by ruse; demands Rachel and is granted her in exchange for seven more years;
-must remain with Leah for one week
-married to Rachel
-works off second seven years
@sipcode
You’re looking at this all wrong. Of course men take wives and not the other way around. That has nothing to do with it.
It is amazing to me: When you ask some people to imagine what it would be like when a woman placed herself under the authority of a man, their minds revolt and they twist whatever they have seen and heard so that it becomes a story about a man overcoming obstacles–including a woman–rather than a story about a woman who placed herself under a man’s protection and provision.
What Cane and Dalrock are saying, at least I think, is that the woman must first signal her interest in said man, that he is not to peacock for the woman of his desire but to let her come to him. In contrast to Dalrock, I think they need to do this overtly given the current #metoo climate, and not send subtle hints that men tend rarely to pick up and will often ignore for fear of picking up the wrong signals.
This tends to maximize the potential for fruitful marriage as women find it easier to submit to a man she desires. It also means she has to put herself in his way and not the other way around. She chases him but the man sets the tone of the relationship as he is the one desired.
The man who goes out and peacocks, trying to garner the attention of women who don’t find him attractive and have not given him signals, sets the stage for marriages where the wife leads, where the wife cannot submit on her own because she lacks the desire for her husband in the first place.
In plain terms, the one marriage is based of the wife trying to get and keep the husband and the other is based of the husband trying to get and keep the wife. We obviously know why one would work better than the other.
I still maintain that whilst this would probably work for the marriages of the top tier of attractive men, it would be sorely lacking of merit in the market for the bottom two thirds of men.
Cane,
I believe you are right that Jacob got Rachel after a week with Leah and then worked it off. The text allows for that and it is unreasonable to assume he had to wait another 7 years for her.
Though he should not have had to work for extra years since Leah was snuck in.
FH,
I did pursue my wife way back when and she was initially not interested, until another woman in the church started taking an interest in me. I do wish I had realized this at the time and dropped her, since she never did manage to submit, even to God, who specifically told her to not let me go (according to her).
She was getting close to the wall and that pressured her, but she never could really handle being a wife and ultimately bailed. I suspect many marriages are that way now.
Damn Crackers says:
August 21, 2018 at 1:38 pm
@Nick Mgtow – It’s sarcasm. – Lighten up, Incel.
Isn’t sarcasm supposed to be funny?
For Cane Caldo’s challenge, I point to Samson, who sent his father to her father to procure the wench he desired. That’s probably the typical story of a man pursuing a woman.
Right. And that didn’t turn out well, did it? Delilah was hot. Samson was too, but he wanted Delilah despite that he could have had pretty much whatever other woman he wanted. Samson gamed her. She nagged him and complained at him and manipulated him until he gave up his secret. And he lost his strength and got blinded as a result.
Calling a description word evil is stupid PC nonsense.
You are not a delicate snowflake, so don’t act like one.
If you read about Jacob Rachel and Leah and see an aspirational love story, I pity you
My comment re: had nothing to do with a mythical “love story.” For clarification, I intendedarranged marriage as the tradition. Thank you just the same for the pity.
Is it possible that the notion of male wooing of women during the Bronze Age Middle East probably didn’t make a whole lot of sense given that such marital, sexual relationships were often pre-arranged by parents and relatives, and men at this time actually did wield legal and financial authority, responsibility and accountability for their women during this period?
These illiterate nomadic dudes were already paying top price, bearing high burdens, getting some sex but pretty much only “Purpose Driven! sex”, i.e. procreational not recreational. And the whole while there are advanced to illiterate nomadic tribes on all sides that want to kill both him and any and all of his sons at any moment.
“I just got done holding off these Hittites and Amalakites and their 200 meter long bows, and now I have to sing to these chicks at the watering hole?”
What’s the point of that when your enemies will shoot 2 arrows through your larynx before you can say Nebuchadnezar?
I mean, I do understand the challenge.
I’m just saying, wooing women (as we know it today) for the purpose of securing their sexual interest and potential consent for marriage seems kind of dumb in an era of our human past when pair bonding and marriage was pretty much arranged anyway. Not only that, but EVEN IF YOU SUCCEEDED to woo these biblical babes, a man had about 12 to 15 months of a betrothal period (common for Hebrwes) where the parents haggled back and forth on dowries, living arrangements, debts, etc.. Marriage was not so much about love in biblical times as our modern day has conditioned us to believe. It was almost entirely about survival.
Now I’m sure modern day Christian ladies in their bible study groups project romanticism upon and just love the idea of Jacob slaving away 7 years to win (I mean pay for) Rachel’s hand, I mean Leah, no wait Rachel again,….oh nevermind.
Excellent comment constrainedlocus. Kinda leads right back to Chivalrous Courtly Love Replacement Theology.
Incel = Involuntarily Celibate
That sounds pretty damn insulting to me. Might as well just tell them that nobody is going to touch their creepy body with a ten foot pole. I would think that letting Feminists disparage men of any type is a battle we should fight. Otherwise they’ll continue to divide and conquer men. I think the best way to get the term “outlawed” is to start using it profusely on female fatties, and uglies. Then the PC crowd will figure out in a millisecond, that the term is “offensive” when it is used to shame women.
their minds revolt… a story about a woman who placed herself under a man’s protection and provision.
Because the notion is beyond the pale. Incomprehensible. Otherworldly.
Having a woman fall in love with you prior to marriage wasn’t a legal or social requirement. It would, presumably, make even less sense for a woman, who had no direct say in the matter, to woo a man. That said, we have plenty of Biblical examples of desire/love/attraction by one or both parties prior to betrothal and marriage. Most of these are of a man seeking after the woman.
Now is this seeking “wooing”, trying to convince the woman to marry him by having her fall in love with him? The man didn’t legally have to do so, but the comments here act as if he didn’t have to live with her. Every man wants his wife to love him. It is in his best interest to make sure she is amenable to marriage, and if that takes some convincing, he’s going to do it. We know that men tried to win their prospective women over. For sure, they sometimes used different methods than modern men used today, but this doesn’t change the fact that men were pursuing women.
The Bible is rarely equivocal on the subject either way, but it is in the case of David and Michal. David acquired 100 foreskins as the bride price (presumably not taken willingly and alive) and we are told that Michal loved David. He won her over.
“It’s called a marital vow…not magic words. Sex outside of marriage is fornication”
Earl
You are unwittingly making a reference to our societies former vision of conjugal marriage. This practice of marriage required both virgins and the sexually active to fundamentally change the nature of their relationship from the primacy of a romantic connection to organize around the primacy of the gendered personal body. This distinguished marriage from non marital relationships.
This change no longer exists because marriage is egalitarian and its based on the primacy of an emotional connection disregarding the body, This is why no relational change takes place at all from living together or marriage.
@constrainedlocus
Dude, in this time–when women (through the police and courts) actually wield legal and financial authority, responsibility, and accountability–male wooing makes even less sense now.
@Derek Ramsey
200; and everything else you said is even more wrong than that.
Pingback: Is it the man’s responsibility to pursue the woman, or the other way around? | WINTERY KNIGHT
You’re both off. The PRICE was 100, David OVERPAID with 200.
Man putting in twice the required work for a girl would be a pretty good indication of pursuit for her.
@natewinchester
Why are you so desperate to win an Internet argument that you say dumb things? Your comments are terrible; managing to be both utterly pedantic and utterly wrong.
That’s correct, except for the part where you said I was off. What Derek spoke of was how many David acquired; which is what I responded to.
Michal didn’t ask for the foreskins. Her father Saul did. David didn’t ask for Michal. Michal asked for David, and Saul wanted David to either be killed, humiliated, harassed, and all of the above.
1 Samuel 18
6 As they were coming home, when David returned from striking down the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments. 7 And the women sang to one another as they celebrated,
“Saul has struck down his thousands,
and David his ten thousands.”
8 And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him. He said, “They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands, and what more can he have but the kingdom?” 9 And Saul eyed David from that day on.
10 The next day a harmful spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand. 11 And Saul hurled the spear, for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” But David evaded him twice.
12 Saul was afraid of David because the Lord was with him but had departed from Saul. 13 So Saul removed him from his presence and made him a commander of a thousand. And he went out and came in before the people. 14 And David had success in all his undertakings, for the Lord was with him. 15 And when Saul saw that he had great success, he stood in fearful awe of him. 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came in before them.
David Marries Michal
17 Then Saul said to David, “Here is my elder daughter Merab. I will give her to you for a wife. Only be valiant for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “Let not my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” 18 And David said to Saul, “Who am I, and who are my relatives, my father’s clan in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?” 19 But at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife.
20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 Saul thought, “Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David a second time, “You shall now be my son-in-law.” 22 And Saul commanded his servants, “Speak to David in private and say, ‘Behold, the king has delight in you, and all his servants love you. Now then become the king’s son-in-law.’” 23 And Saul’s servants spoke those words in the ears of David. And David said, “Does it seem to you a little thing to become the king’s son-in-law, since I am a poor man and have no reputation?” 24 And the servants of Saul told him, “Thus and so did David speak.” 25 Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, 27 David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. 28 But when Saul saw and knew that the Lord was with David, and that Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him, 29 Saul was even more afraid of David. So Saul was David’s enemy continually.
Your just totally wrong, and like all of us you would benefit from re-reading the Bible with open eyes.
Seriously, an inane discussion about this rather than my actual and numerous points? The bride price was 100, which David acquired. Whether he actually killed 200 and overpaid is completely beside the point (as well as my bad attempt at a parenthetical joke). This is just as silly as saying that the Bible is contradictory because in one account there is one angel at the tomb and in another there are two.
So David didn’t love Michal but went ahead and paid the price anyway? But since you bring it up, he overpaid to show up his new father-in-law. He went to a lot of [extra] trouble for someone he wasn’t wooing. Like Samson, David has a clear history of deciding what he wants and doing what it takes to get it.
“20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul”
Of course he did. The father sets the bride price. But she and David wanted to be married and David was more than willing to pay the price.
‘You are unwittingly making a reference to our societies former vision of conjugal marriage. This practice of marriage required both virgins and the sexually active to fundamentally change the nature of their relationship from the primacy of a romantic connection to organize around the primacy of the gendered personal body. This distinguished marriage from non marital relationships.
This change no longer exists because marriage is egalitarian and its based on the primacy of an emotional connection disregarding the body, This is why no relational change takes place at all from living together or marriage.’
I don’t care what the herd, current year or society views marriage as…God constructed it and God made the rules about it. That’s the viewpoint I take.
@Derek
You completely misread the text because you think romance is all-important. What the text actually says is “And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law.“
“David didn’t ask for Michal.”
“20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul”
Who is they? The text doesn’t say, but the context around that line indicates that it wasn’t David. IT seems likely that “they” is the household of Saul. David resists Saul’s proposal, and–again–when he later accepts it is recorded that he did so because it pleased David to be Saul’s son-in-law. This fits with the rest of the story of David and Saul. David always endeavors to do Saul good.
We are never told that David loved Michal.
He paid the price for her. How much more evidence do you need? If he didn’t want her, all he had to do was… not bother with the effort. If it was an issue about saving face with the king then all he had to do would be to get a fraction of the requirement and claim he was unable to get the rest (or come back with 200 of the wrong thing). He not only went through the effort, he did twice the work.
And you call other people pedantic?
If anyone can think of a way to get natewinchester and Derek Ramsey to understand that what the Scriptures tell us is that David was more concerned with honoring his king and advancing his own position rather than with tingles, now would be a good time to do that.
If the clear text of the Bible can’t do the trick, then I’d say they’re a lost cause…
Yes, Michal loved David – but so did practically every other woman in Israel at the time (v. 7). There is zero evidence in the text that it was mutual – all the focus in the text is on David wanting to become Saul’s son-in-law. Michal was just the means to that end.
Cane,
We are not told many loved their wife, but it is almost certain they did. You are making a huge argument from the lack of evidence. This is not up to your usual standards.
This has no bearing on the first point. Love does not require tingles. That idea is falling into the idea that Dalrock writes against so much.
(I have not read all the conversation, so I may be missing some of the points, but these 2 stand on their own.)
It says in the text David’s motivation was to be the king’s son-in-law.
I can’t blame him…if a daughter of the king (legit daughter to a legit king…not what the ladies think daughter of the king is today) is in love with you…it would be a good perk to get in that line.
This is quite a hoot (and ironic).
But… you’ll tell us what it says anyway and based on conjecture you’ll declare it definitively. Pity the fool who does the same. The text is ambiguous and it can’t be stated definitively who “they” were.
Which is another way of saying that it pleased David to be married to the king’s daughter.
You read the words inflexibly, unable to read the sometimes ambiguous text for what it is: a story. The inability to read scripture pairs with the inability to read what I wrote. Here is what I said: “David had to acquire 100 enemy foreskins to win Michal” and “David acquired 100 foreskins as the bride price”. Both are true, confirmed by David in 2 Samuel 3 NIV: “Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to myself for the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins.” Your criticism of my comment was both petty and (ironically) incorrect. One must read into the text to avoid the conclusion: “Man putting in twice the required work for a girl would be a pretty good indication of pursuit for her.”
Saul personally tried to kill David twice. Saul reneged on his promise of a wife (Merab) for David. The overpayment proved that David was a better man. It proved his worth, which is, after all, the putative point of the bride price. David may not have done it maliciously, but it did, in fact, show up Saul.
I understand perfectly. You portray a caricature of David: he wanted Saul as his father-in-law so badly that he would kill 200 men just to impress his king and to marry someone (who had fallen hard for him) he didn’t desire. None of that makes sense. David was not a cold, dispassionate man. Your claim is contradictory: it implies that David was being ambitious, dishonest, and manipulative by feigning humility for personal gain in 1 Samuel 18:18,23.
David battled for Saul to win Merab. Then he overpaid the price to win Michal. Later he approached Abigail to be his wife. Still later he would, in a moment of irrational passion, claim Bathsheba for his own. You want us to believe that Michal fell in love with David without David actively encouraging it, seeking it out, or reciprocating in any way? That strains credulity. David’s wives did almost nothing in relative comparison to win him.
If David didn’t love Michal, then she couldn’t have wooed him. But let’s say, for sake of argument, that Michal wooed David. It is possible. A woman explicitly declaring her love for a man prior to betrothal/marriage is almost unheard of in the Bible. Considering how badly their relationship became at the end, would you consider it evidence against the notion that a woman should pursue a man, since she chose poorly?
Moreover, a man need not actually love a woman in order to woo her. Your original challenge required the latter, not the former. So while the evidence doesn’t absolutely establish that David loved Michal, it certainly establishes that he went out of his way to gain her favor.
Pingback: The wages of wooing. | Dalrock
David was pleased to become (not motivated to become) the king’s son-in-law. Are you using a different translation? Almost all use the word “pleased”. Young’s Literal Translation uses “right in the eyes [of David].” The biblical commentaries suggest that “pleased” here means “honored”. This is much more in keeping with David’s humility and desire to honor and serve the king.
It’s a house of cards. If David, perhaps the most important patriarch, pursued his wife or wives, it challenges a bunch of other presumptions. For prolific manosphere bloggers, that would be inconvenient.
Usual standards? Not too long ago I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I don’t know the practices and history of my (and my ancestor’s) Christian sect.
@stickdude90
Yes, exactly. In this dishonorable time and among us dishonorable people, David’s rationale is at least otherworldly, and usually unintelligible. Certainly honor is unintelligible to natewinchester and Derek Ramsey, and they are in the majority. Our churches are peopled with men who think just like them. They are our fathers, brothers, friends, and coworkers.
But the battle is not lost. The truth is on our side. Derek Ramsey and natewinchester put forward the same false ideas which have been put forth over the past few centuries, and especially decades. Those are the same centuries and decades which have seen the rise of the assumption of women’s moral superiority, Feminism, egalitarianism, and complementarianism. The foolishness is manifest now: the rotten fruit of their worldview is on full display.
@ Cane
I agree that it makes less sense today to marry than in Bronze Age times. Especially since all of the incentives and authority has been deleted, while all legal and financial accountabilties remain squarely on the shoulders of men/prospective husbands.
But here is why wooing still makes sense in modern times:
Today men have been effectively shepherded and cordoned off into two corrals:
a. Alpha breeding stock (approx 15% of us)
b. Beta draft animals (probably 85% of us)
If we are talking about marry-minded men in modern times – the numbers of which may still be significant but likely dwindling – the vast majority of these men are roaming around amongst the Beta draft animals.
If we then consider the number of available women who are even considering marriage AT ALL, then these are typically women aged 28 to 45 years old, with prolific foreskin counts of their own, not to mention a taste of entitlement and preference for Alpha.
So everywhere you look these marry-minded women are DEMANDING to be wooed by any and all potential suitors, or no sale.
In addition, they are very vocal and indignant about any shortcomings by men to woo them, and to woo well. They simply don’t care how ridiculous or nonsensical their demand sounds to our ears or the current field of play for men in terms of legal and financial accountability. They don’t even seem to realize that it is men who are the customers, not them.
This position and attitude is just about as far removed from and diametrically opposed to Laban’s daughter, Rachel, as anyone can imagine.
But as Dalrock has already correctly demonstrated, there simply is no evidence of marriage strike (at least not yet), and men (largely those from the beta draft animal pen) are continuing to comply with these demand for wooing (impressing, courting, dating, etc.) and succeeding to get married – IN SPITE OF their utter lack of authority and power in any marriage contract that might follow.
If these modern men want to get married today, and many still do, they know they have to woo these dried up retreads. Not in order to compete with other betas draft animals in their league, so much as to compete with HER lingering memories of Douchey McDouchmaster, the Van Halen tribute band drummer with an IROC-Z from Souix City, Iowa.
“I don’t care what the herd, current year or society views marriage as…God constructed it and God made the rules about it. That’s the viewpoint I take”
Earl
God constructed marriage because he created the body. The church and state getting into marriage is a very recent event.
If they removed themselves from marriage the distinction between marriage and premarital sex would still exist.
Marriage organizes around the primacy of the body while premarital sex organizes around the primacy of an emotional connection.
Marriage is now legally, socially and religiously defined by an emotional connection.
There is zero evidence in the text that it was mutual – all the focus in the text is on David wanting to become Saul’s son-in-law. Michal was just the means to that end.
I am myself one of the “fathers, brothers, friends, and coworkers” that was captured by the romantic love model that has become all the rage these last few centuries, so I have trouble parsing specific bible stories like this. Generally however, throughout most of human history marriages had little to do with love and – particularly among people with status – a lot to do with positioning, making or cementing alliances, or simply gaining an exploitable advantage of whatever kind.
Even among the Hoi Polloi the main goal of marriage was to better your chances more often than it was to realize your romantic love. Thousands of history books will back me up on this.
“Find a story in the Bible of a man pursuing and wooing a woman.”
Just off the top of my head David pursuing Bathsheba and killing her husband.”
Now, you don’t seriously think Bathsheeba was the pursued in that story, do you? She wasn’t bathing within sight of the king’s balcony in innocence. She was showing her availability. David fell for it. Come on.
I see nothing in the text that indicates David was driven by a drive to become the King’s son-in-law. Please site the specific Scriptures that say that. They should note that, not anything else, such as David generally asking about the rewards, which doesn’t prove the assertion.
Fair enough it seemed killing Philistines was more of the drive to become the son-in-law than anything.
‘Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law.’
@Lost Patrol
Well said.
And I was no different, either.
@Cindy
It is written:
@BillyS
You may be jumping into the conversation mid stream, and missed the first part. Cane was refuting the argument that David slew 200 Philistines as an act of romantic chivalry, to woo his one and only love
MerabMichal. As Cane pointed out the Bible only tells us that Michal loved David. David’s reply to Saul’s offer to have him marry Michal was the same as David’s reply to Saul’s offer to have him marry Mirab. Also, while a specific foreskin price wasn’t discussed for Merab, the general requirement was the same for both offers; Saul wanted David to kill Phillistines, for Saul.Posted for Nate Winchester and Derek Ramsey’s romantic enjoyment:
If that doesn’t prove that David was lovesick for
MerabMichal, I’m afraid nothing will!I am not sure I can agree with Lost Patrol. For most of human history and pre-history (I suppose) men have married the girl next door. Selecting ones spouse on the basis of preference or rather chance was thus as good a system as any. Unfortunately the girl next door has now gone off to the Big City and has jumped on the revolving Carousel. I don’t need at this blog to set out the consequences.
Dalrock,
You are right that I missed much of the conversation.
I would agree that the Scripture you note doesn’t prove courtly love from David. I see no evidence of that either. It doesn’t indicate he was solidly pursing being the king’s son-in-law either, it just shows he was motivated to do something.
It would indicate Saul thought his daughter had her problems that would ensnare David, but that is a different issue.
I see major flaws in the pursuit strategy as well. I do have trouble reconciling my past actions with what seemed to be God’s will at the time, but ignoring that (and accounting that I may not have paid attention to signs that God was showing me), I definitely pursued my wife and her fear of being the only single women remaining in the church was likely more a factor of winning her over than anything I did. Running away at all the red flags would have been a better option in many ways, even if frustrating for a time.
I feel a need to write on the topic, aiming at young single men (and possibly women), so that may be why God let me go through my own experiences. I may borrow many ideas from you if I do that!
I understand questioning her innocence at that point (especially in light of her subsequent behavior), but without knowing exact details, there is plausible deniability. Few commentators, if any, seem to think her bathing was intended as an enticement. It seems notable that David is lambasted but she is never stated to be at fault.
That is because God held David accountable. God didn’t harp on Rahab being a harlot either, yet she was.
Though David also failed (in my eyes) by claiming his only sin was against God. He effectively raped Uriah’s wife and then killed him, but he only sinned against God? I think Uriah may disagree.
I just reread the passage, and noticed something else. While Saul tells David in his first offer that he is specifically offering Merab, the second time around no one tells David which daughter Saul is offering. The only two mentions of Michal’s name are 1) To note that she loved David, and that Saul saw this as a renewed opportunity to get David killed. The second mention of Michal is after David has delivered the 200 foreskins. This doesn’t mean David didn’t know which daughter he was gathering foreskins for, but it does show that it didn’t matter to the story:
@BillyS
You are looking at this through a modern #metoo lens. The OT standard was clear. In the city she had to cry out. To assume she cried out and Samuel didn’t think that was relevant is a real stretch. By OT standards, it was plain old adultery.
@ OKRickety
Have you not learned yet that women who are most skilled at enticing men deliberately build plausible deniability into their seduction?
Because they’re steeped in the very “courtly love” ideal we’re discussing here. They believe (contrary to the Bible and observation) that women are inherently virtuous, and therefore Bathsheba’s enticement was nothing more than innocent bathing, because every woman bathed in sight of the king, not just the “very beautiful” ones who were looking to trade up.
See above.
Oscar:
Can you support your contention with the text? I just reviewed 2 Samuel 11. I can’t fault a married woman for assuming that some lerp isn’t going to climb up on his roof to gawk at her. What is she supposed to do? Never go outside?
Bathsheba wasn’t enticing anyone. She was in her own private yard, and she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to cite chapter and verse.
Boxer
@Boxer
Surely you must be trolling. She lived in the shadow of the royal palace. Obviously she was close enough for David to get a good look, which means she knew she was visible from his palace. You say “What is she supposed to do? Never go outside?”, but what you are really asking is “What is she supposed to do? Never go outside naked in view of the most powerful man in the land?”
The obvious answer is yes.
One thing I have learned about the Bible though is if that was her plan or knowledge it would have stated it.
For example:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+9%3A20-21&version=NABRE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5%3A1-2&version=NABRE
@ earl
Does the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) state the “plan or knowledge” of every character in every story?
Dear Dalrock:
That’s clever rhetoric, but your attempt to evade the question, on Oscar’s behalf, isn’t working.
Problem is, the text doesn’t support this. It tells us that the goon had to climb up on his roof to get a look.
So, what you’d like me to believe is that:
1. This woman chose to build her house in the shadow of the royal palace.
2. This woman knew, somehow, that her pursuer was gonna climb on his roof to check her out.
The text does not support either of these assumptions.
If it were obvious, you’d post chapter and verse, from the text, supporting your argument. You can’t, so you try to belittle and minimize me personally. This is poor form on your part, but I’ll leave it here.
Regards,
Boxer
‘Does the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) state the “plan or knowledge” of every character in every story?’
Again I’ll answer…
One thing I have learned about the Bible though is if that was her plan or knowledge it would have stated it.
Two women, Rahab, a harlot, and Bathsheba, an adulterer, are both in the lineage of Jesus. BillyS states “God didn’t harp on Rahab being a harlot either, yet she was.”, nor did God make any statements about Bathsheba’s adultery. (Note: Even at this time, the Jews did not follow the Mosaic Law and stone both David and Bathsheba for adultery.)
This suggests the possibility that God is more concerned about the heart and subsequent behavior of these women than in their past sexual sins. Why would that be?
@ earl
Except, that’s not an answer. “Yes”, or “no” would have been an answer.
‘This suggests the possibility that God is more concerned about the heart and subsequent behavior of these women than in their past sexual sins. Why would that be?’
I would think God is more concerned about the women who fear Him. Many women now certainly don’t fear God…you could make the case they actually hate God.
‘Except, that’s not an answer. “Yes”, or “no” would have been an answer.’
Yes it is…it states the plan or knowledge if it is part of the story (how else would we know what’s in her heart or knowledge unless it was revealed by the Spirit). If the plan or knowledge is not there…then it must not be part of the story.
@ earl
Every single time, in every single story? Are you sure about that?
@Boxer
Again, I’m not entirely convinced you aren’t just trolling us on this, but with that caveat in mind:
You are making some bad architectural assumptions. Think of a flat roof with some sort of railing to keep people from falling off*. It was more of a sun deck than what I think you are imagining.
If you’ve ever lived downtown, you know how easy it is at times for neighbors of tall buildings to see down into yards/balconies/sundecks. When you are in this situation you know you are in full view. Likewise you know if your windows let the neighbors see directly in unless you close the drapes. Amplify this by the fact that Bathsheba’s next door neighbor wasn’t just another apartment block, as she lived next door to King David’s palace.
*The railing was actually part of God’s building code for Israel. It was expected that people would be up on the roof, so a railing is specifically required in Deuteronomy 22:8.
‘Every single time, in every single story? Are you sure about that?’
Well why do we know why Eve ate the apple? The Bible told us.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A6&version=NABRE
I’m confident the Bible would tell us the women’s motivation in her heart if it was an important factor to the story. Certainly if Bathesheba knew David could see her from there and planned her bathing that way that part would have been taken into account. You can’t hide that from the Holy Spirit.
@OKRickety
Or it suggests that no one was prepared to drag the king out of his palace and execute him. Likewise for the king’s main squeeze, especially since executing her would point out the need to execute the king as well.
@ earl
Except that the Bible never told us that “Eve ate the apple”, so maybe your exegesis isn’t as good as you think it is.
You know what I mean, Oscar. Fine…forbidden fruit, whatever it was.
@ Earl
Much better. Now, let’s look at another story from Genesis.
Genesis 9:20 Noah, who was a farmer, was the first man to plant a vineyard. 21 After he drank some of the wine, he became drunk, took off his clothes, and lay naked in his tent. 22 When Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked, he went out and told his two brothers. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a robe and held it behind them on their shoulders. They walked backward into the tent and covered their father, keeping their faces turned away so as not to see him naked. 24 When Noah sobered up and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
“A curse on Canaan!
He will be a slave to his brothers.
26 Give praise to the Lord, the God of Shem!
Canaan will be the slave of Shem.
27 May God cause Japheth to increase!
May his descendants live with the people of Shem!
Canaan will be the slave of Japheth.”
What was Ham’s “plan or knowledge”? Where is Ham’s “plan or knowledge” explicitly stated?
@Boxer
I’m incredulous because here you are, a self professed “playa”, arguing that a woman taking her clothes off and making herself visible to the powerful man next door is assuredly innocent.
‘What was Ham’s “plan or knowledge”? Where is Ham’s “plan or knowledge” explicitly stated?’
He saw his father naked and told his brothers.
Dear Dalrock:
Now who’s trolling whom? 🙂 I said I’d leave it. Your subsequent article was considerably more interesting, and then you follow up with this…
You can equate those of us who get our needs met with voyeurs. If your point is that the text supports the general notion that all of us fall short of the ethical ideal, I’ll concede that general point. Even so, there are important moral and legal differences between playaz and peeping toms.
Boxer
‘One evening David rose from his bed and strolled about on the roof of the king’s house. From the roof he saw a woman bathing; she was very beautiful. David sent people to inquire about the woman and was told, “She is Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam, and wife of Uriah the Hittite, Joab’s armor-bearer.” Then David sent messengers and took her. When she came to him, he took her to bed, at a time when she was just purified after her period; and she returned to her house.’
Nowhere in that arc of a story do we have any plan, thought, or knowledge of Bathsheba. All we know is she was bathing and very beautiful. All we have is the plans of David there.
Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit would be in the dark that He wouldn’t know Bathsheba planned or had knowledge that David would get up and go to the roof see her bathing ‘some evening’ and he would send messengers to her so she could come with them in order to do the nasty with him…get pregnant out of wedlock…and have her husband eventually killed over it so she could become his wife.
Even the Holy Spirit knew what time of the month she was at.
@ earl
Those are actions, not a “plan or knowledge”. Likewise, getting naked in view of the king is an action, not a “plan or knowledge”.
No. Neither is the Holy Spirit in the dark about Ham’s “plan or knowledge”. The Holy Spirit chose to not explicitly state ham’s “plan or knowledge”, just as He chose to not explicitly state Bathsheba’s “plan or knowledge”.
Pingback: Cover Your Eyes – v5k2c2.com
@Boxer
My point had nothing to do with your moral/legal status as a player. My point was that you were making an absurd argument from the perspective of a man who has extensive experience with women’s sexual nature, especially in the area of women making themselves available to sexy men in plausibly deniable ways, especially married women. I would no more expect you to make the naive argument you make about Bathsheba being totally unaware a sexy powerful man could see her naked when she undressed in full view of the king’s palace than I would expect Roissy or Roosh to do so. The question isn’t player vs peeping tom, the question is an innocent bath vs exhibitionism.
You deprecate me as a troll; but, the only reason I come here so often is to learn about the text. Does the text support the notion that Bathsheba knew that David was looking at her? This is the question I’ve been repeatedly asking.
You can call it trolling, or whatever you like; but, I don’t know this book as well as many others here (yourself included). If there is another account of her, which describes these ulterior motives, I haven’t seen it.
Fair enough. This conversation inspired something I wrote about modesty on my own blog, so it’s a worthwhile discussion.
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/08/23/cover-your-eyes/
I remain convinced that the burden of modesty is weighted toward the potential viewer, rather than the exhibitor, when the latter is in her husband’s house. I tried to explain my reasoning in that article.
Best,
Boxer
And Lo it came to pass, that I venture on to the slippery slopes of Biblical exegsis.
I am puzzled as to why David was in bed in the eveningtide. I am puzzled as to why if it is dark that even going up to the roof presumably for fresh air that David can actually see Bathsheba washing, further puzzled that at what might be quite a distance he can form such a view as to her beauty and as to why he seems confident she will come to him, and further if it is night why Bathsheba is washing at such a late hour. To my mind the text leaves all that and quite a lot else open to ones musings but to which there can be no definitive answer. It is at least in the KJV beautifully written. Is there a Victor Mature movie to make it clearer?
It also reminds me of Ovid’s tale of Actaeon and Artemis where Actaeon watches Artemis bathing surrounded by her servants but Artemis being tall… Artemis is very angry and Actaeon is shot with an arrow and turned into a Stag or as the Bible might say smighted.
Not Mature but Peck and at about the fifteen minute mark.
Had David gone to battle, instead of sending Joab and his servants in his stead, the whole Bathsheba fiasco would’ve been avoided.
@Opus
I would guess that in the morning the servants would fill the tub on the roof with fresh water and allow the sun to heat it all day. After the sun goes down, there is more privacy for bathing, and after a long, hot day it is undoubtedly very refreshing to bathe prior to going to bed.
Maybe Bathsheba could be seen by the light of the moon?
The Bathsheba story is more complex than I had thought. Caught between woman good, man bad theology of the current day; and plausibly deniable IOIs from women to desirable men, I can’t figure out which side of the unknowns I should be standing on.
These bible commentaries (are all such written by tradcons?) absolve Bathsheba of any connivance.
https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/11-2.htm
Boxer @ 2:09 pm:
“Does the text support the notion that Bathsheba knew that David was looking at her? This is the question I’ve been repeatedly asking.”
Yes but implicitly, not explicitly. She had to have known the king could see her where she’d chosen to bathe; that’s not the kind of thing women do accidentally. When David moved to take advantage, she didn’t object… which she easily could have, her husband being the equivalent of a Navy SEAL (1 Chronicles 11, specifically v. 41). Getting pregnant after the one boink was most likely good timing on her part.
That fits female behavior as we know it today: IOI, plausible deniability, baby trap.
@Gunner Q
I am ignorant of this business of conception but I notice that one translation I forget which referred to Bathsheba washing because she was on her period – is that a good time for conceiving? but the KJV merely says she was washing. I prefer the KJV.
Susan Heywood seems to know exactly what she is doing.
So let me get this straight. If Bathsheba was intentionally showing off her goods, David didn’t pursue her, but if she was innocently taking a bath, David did pursue her? I’d say he pursued her either way. He was the king who did what he wanted to do. David was not some innocent virgin. He had a man killed over this. David also had a pattern of going after women. Those eight wives were not forced on him.
I’m with Boxer, the text is not clear enough to blame Bathsheba. Bathsheba’s only explicitly stated motivation was to purify herself from her period, which she had to do.
If this were a case of reasoning from Law, then why was she not punished in accordance with the Law? David was judged directly by God, bypassing the Law. No punishment was given to her, implying that God himself did not find her guilty. I doubt that anyone will suggest God was giving the women a pass because it could be blamed on the man.
Furthermore, I read the 11 commentaries on biblehub.com and the Pulpit Commentary had this to say:
No. That would be pretty much the most-impossible time to conceive.
‘Those are actions, not a “plan or knowledge”. Likewise, getting naked in view of the king is an action, not a “plan or knowledge”. ‘
Then in your case if you want to compare it to Bathsheba you make it sound like Noah got purposely drunk, took off his clothes, laid in a tent…so that his son would catch him and then he could curse that line.
@stickdude90
As I read it, she was bathing after having been ceremonially unclean. So I think this would be 7 (or 8?) days after her period ended.
Boxer (Secret King of All Gamma Males) says:
I said I thought you were trolling us, because your position is ridiculous and goes against what I would expect you to understand. How is it out of line for me to ask? Your very name is trolling. I wasn’t threatening to ban you. I believe you have stated multiple times that you like to toy with others online at times.
The text doesn’t say one way or another. I and others are taking what is there and applying what we know about women’s sexual nature, and human nature in general. Also, you persist in claiming that it was weird for David to be up on his roof, despite my explaining it. It was normal. Moreover, it wouldn’t be a bad assumption that she was on her roof too. See the video clip from Opus.
I’ll put it to you this way: How many times have you exposed yourself to your neighbors? I’m in my late 40s and have never done so. My wife is a bit younger, but she has never done so either. You may find us odd in this regard, but I don’t think we are.
Regarding your post, I’m not an expert on Iranian culture, but I think you may be overstating Iran’s encouragement for women to open the door stark naked. According to the site I found, the question is does the woman need to put on her hijab before opening the door: https://iranluxurytravel.com/travel-to-iran/iran-travelogue-17-male-female-doorknockers-iranian-customs/
Original Laura — “Maybe Bathsheba could be seen by the light of the moon?”
LOL. She shopped her wares in front of the king, and got what she wanted. There wasn’t too much public bathing in that time and place. To say the least. Just happened to be in David’s sightlines, who coulda guessed!?
God in heaven the extent Americans will go to absolve females of responsibility. With Christians among the worst.
Dear Fellas:
I’m going to answer everyone. I’m snipping all the personal sniping, obvious logical fallacies, etc…
This text is important, not only to Christians, but to everyone else in the English speaking world, also. It’s one of our founding ethical documents.
I don’t think it’s terrible for you to interpret this text through your own lens; but, you should admit that you’re doing so — and it took several responses for you to finally make this admission.
The text describes her as bathing, in her own home. I’ve “exposed myself” to potential peeping toms, given that I’ve done the same thing, every single day of my life. I’m guessing you and your wife have also.
The fact that voyeurs might peek in through the blinds doesn’t morally obligate us normals not to shower.
Again, the fact that some perv might peep through your ceiling while you’re washing your ass — in your own shower — doesn’t make you culpable for indecent exposure. It makes him culpable for voyeurism. The law doesn’t always line up so clearly with moral principles; but, in this case, I think they’re pretty close.
We’re all just sorta talking past one another, at this point; so, we’ll all just have to agree to disagree.
Best,
Boxer
Dalrock,
Speaking of assumptions, I’m quite certain no one has video of the events, nor do I think anyone has photos, diagrams, blueprints, or maps of the king’s palace and Uriah’s house and the environs. We know King David saw Bathsheba bathing, but it is purely conjecture as to whether this was her intent or if she even realized it at the time. I am not going to claim to know the full truth of the events based on assumptions. That seems illogical to me, which is supposed to be inconsistent with the usual traits of men.
Roofs are cooler at night than building insides are, during nonwinter months in countries with no air-conditioning, as ancient Israel was. People in many places used to go on roofs a LOT, for that reason.
I’m with Boxer and earl on Bathsheba. The Bible makes no mention of her intentionally enticing others. If we believe that, we need to acknowledge that it is entirely our own idea that we are reading into the story. I do however believe that she should have told the king, my husband is off, right now, putting his life on the line for the safety of our nation, and you’ll have to kill me, before I’ll be unfaithful to him and commit adultery, with even you, before the eyes of God.
She also seemed to be conniving enough, that of all David’s wives(most of whom were likely not adulterers), her son ended up on the throne. But that too is just speculation about her character.
Luke is right and if you search the scriptures you will find many examples of such.
As to conjecture .. yes .. I’ve beenntold not to ask questions to which nonanswer is given in The Holy Bible.
BUT .. we can draw some very easy conclusions.
1) He was KING .. no aubject would resist him. Especially if that was her goal.
2) She knew anyone above her line -of-sight could see her. (Case closed.) She also knew where the Kings palace is.
3) Women expose more skin when ovulating (it’s science .. look-it-up.)
4) She was alone (noticed I didn’t say lonely). Without any male supervision.
5) I think it is very hard for us to truly underatand the dynamics of the King and his subjects (and servents). That would be a long topic .. so I’ll stop there.
6) They were punished .. in partucular King David .. please read that .. all the way to the end please. (2 Sam 12)
What did Nathan tell King David? .. who was responsible? Did God hold it against him? Did she bare another son? What was his single biggest blind-side?
We are left to draw our own conclusions. I’ve drawn mine years ago. Pray and search the word of God. So you can rightly divide the word. Prove all those things my brothers. Leave conjecture where it belongs.
2 Sam 12:10
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
This is the passage that should be studied .. when you TAKE something .. as a KING .. (the above verses state GOD gave unto King David all things he needed and if he needed more it would’ve been given to him.
So does this one word put Bath-she-babe in the clear?
Is it possible to come to a con-sense-us?
Me thinks we will never come to a con-sense-us. Prove me wrong.
I stand corrected. The death of her child does, potentially, qualify as her punishment for adultery. It’s still not definitive that she was complicit, but I should have considered this and didn’t. Apologies to all who may have been misled by my comment.
In our discussion of 1 Timothy 2, I was lambasted for deviating from centuries of majority belief. This time it is for accepting centuries of majority belief. Standards are a’changing for the needed interpretation. I’ve made one logical inference after another. You did point out an error in my argument, which I fixed, but otherwise your argument is a combination of an argument from silence and begging the question. The most blatant false idea was the incorrect foreskin “refutation.”
What about honor? You said “David was more concerned with honoring his king and advancing his own position” to which I replied that the latter half of that statement is contradictory with the former. Rather than humility and honorable service to the king, he was in it for personal advancement using feigned humility. That’s creative theological innovation.
Consider Earl’s reasonable, measured response: David honored Saul by killing more of his enemies. It was not for personal advancement. But he also desired a bride, since he didn’t have to marry to kill Saul’s enemies. His motivations were complex and not mutually exclusive.
If nothing else, at least we can agree on that.
So what? This is both an argument from silence and incorrect (see below). “Benefiting the nation” is curious, since few marriages can foresee such a possibility. By historical standards (the Biblical Model?) the “good end” for marriage is providing sons. Most cases of men pursuing women had this result. Are you implying that if the marriage did not involve tingles, it was unsuccessful?
Moses’ life was saved by Zipporah and she gave him children. Rachel became the mother of the most important branches of the nation of Israel. I’ve argued elsewhere that Boaz actually sought out Ruth (I’ll make the case here if needed) and they were ancestors of David. David’s wife Abigail, whom he sought after, is a famed Jewish prophetess who gave David a son. Even David’s illicit pursuit of Bathsheba led to Solomon, who was undoubtedly a benefit to the whole nation, even when factoring in the punishment. Xerxes and Esther chose each other and that went well for them both. Even Hosea’s wife Gomer gave him a son and God told Hosea that he must love her unconditionally. I doubt tingles were a factor there.
I’ve never arguing that David was lovesick or overcome by romance. Neither Courtly Love or the raised alternative are biblical. David doesn’t have to be lovesick to prove that men in the Bible pursued women and that it is perfectly fine to do so. It is more difficult to show that women should pursue men. If you think I’m defending courtly love, then we’re just speaking past each other on that point. The Bible does show that men pursued women, just not with the much later defined courtly love model.
Well why do we know why Eve ate the apple? The Bible told us so.
Not to pick on anyone as most people use the word apple. I will give a kilo of gold if the word apple is found in the bible KJV. You can tell I am not that crazy about apples. I consider them to be fancy hog food like spuds.
Ah yes! King David, King of the Peeping Toms! All hail, King of the Peeping Toms!
@Derek Ramsey
The problem between you and I is that I challenge your worldview, and then you make a series of wrong inferences born of your own emotional baggage. What is hilarious is that–as you fulminate against me–YOU MAKE MY OWN CASE BACK TO ME!
For example, I wrote: “Scriptures tell us is that David was more concerned with honoring his king and advancing his own position rather than with tingles.” i.e., doing both.
Somehow, you decided that what I meant was that David was a deceiver. To wit: “What about honor? You said “David was more concerned with honoring his king and advancing his own position” to which I replied that the latter half of that statement is contradictory with the former. Rather than humility and honorable service to the king, he was in it for personal advancement using feigned humility. That’s creative theological innovation.”
Then–in the next paragraph!–you write: Consider Earl’s reasonable, measured response: David honored Saul by killing more of his enemies. It was not for personal advancement. But he also desired a bride, since he didn’t have to marry to kill Saul’s enemies. His motivations were complex and not mutually exclusive.
Yes exactly, and duh. Multiple goals can be attained and yet NOT be mutually exclusive. Just as when any man goes to work, if he is an honorable man, he goes there to please his employer and to advance his own station. That’s what good and honorable work is. From your writing, an observer must deduce that you don’t get that.
Here’s another one: I stated–correctly–that the text never says David loved Michal. Pay attention because this is super tricky for you: I did not say David did not love Michal. I SAID THE TEXT NEVER SAYS HE DOES.
But you had the gall and blindness to write: You read the words inflexibly, unable to read the sometimes ambiguous text for what it is: a story. […] One must read into the text to avoid the conclusion: “Man putting in twice the required work for a girl would be a pretty good indication of pursuit for her.”. Which is totally wrong. IT IS YOU WHO READ INTO THE STORY THAT DAVID MUST HAVE LOVED MICHAL! Not only that, you wrongly accused me of reading into the text IMMEDIATELY after accusing me of being inflexible with the text. Pretty stupid of you, Derek.
Derek, you have made this same kind of error, and then argument at me, because of your own false assumptions multiple times. In this thread there are two or three more instances of this same nonsense.
But, to get back to the main topic, what you have missed all along is that you were so high on your own smugness of what the word “pursue” means, that you never tried to understand that I and Dalrock both used pursued SPECIFICALLY in the Courtly Love and modern traditional conservative sense which everyone understands. YOU CHOSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEANT because you are arrogant, and believe that you know what the word “pursue” means and you want us to know we used it incorrectly according to the magnificent glossary in Derek Ramsey’s head.
Get bent, you twerp. We used it in the way it has been used from the pulpits, and within seminars and video series across this nation for decades. We do so because we are speaking to the men who have been told these lies in these terms, from those pulpits, and in those seminars and video series. And the way pursue is used in those sources is descended straight from the false religion of Courtly Love. You know: The topic we’ve been discussing for days; not to be confused with the muddled bullshit in your head.
What the Bible actually reports is:
1.That Michal made it known to Saul that she loved David, and so Saul offered Michal to David; for Saul’s own reasons.
2. Ruth actually went and laid down at the feet of Boaz on his threshing floor, as an overture of submission and availability.
3. Eve was presented to Adam after she was fashioned for him.
These are but some of the many stories which illustrate that a woman is not merely at the mercy of men’s choices, but she can use her submission to get what she wants; she is not doomed to wait around for a man to chase her down. Rather, she can throw herself in his path. She can BOW DOWN, and win a man over.
In real-world experience it is observable that such a scheme works out better for a husband and wife in the long run because:
1. She gets to satisfy her desire for a higher quality mate than herself (including that she puts in some work for it and thereby increase the perceived value).
2. She gets to be a player in her own story instead of a passive princess pretending to be stuck in Lonely Castle. She learns and practices humility, responsibility, and cleverness.
3. A man is more likely to feel acute responsibility for someone who overtly submits to him and depends upon him. He gets to satisfy his desire to be useful and respected.
Boxer appears to have both over-examined and misconstrued the text and reinterpreted the text as if Bathsheba were in an apartment somewhere in NYC and David a loser and pervert and potential entrant for the sex-offender’s list. There is not, contrary to his assertion, any suggestion that Bathsheba is in her house or indeed in any house nor does Samuel give any indication of the amount of light available or how visible to David, Bathsheba would be. The text says merely that David from the roof of the King’s house observed Bathsheba bathing. Hollywood which tends to get a lot of flack for playing fast and loose with canonic texts has her on a lower level than David inside a building where the walls are pretty much open to the sky and that seems to me a most convincing dramatisation of the brief description in Samuel. Susan Heywood clearly and of course with much plausible deniability is aware that she has been observed indeed seems to welcome being seen; at least she is not in any rush to hide. Gregory Peck does not hide in the darkness but in approved Heartiste-style as would any Alpha dude stands his ground and holds her gaze as he watches Bethsheba. He is receiving IOIs.
Here is the very first thing I said in this thread: “The answer here depends on assumptions of what counts as pursuit or wooing.”. I then explained that the Bible does not demand that a man woo a woman or that a woman woo a man.* I finally concluded with this: “If you put a gun to my head and forced me make a binary decision according to biblical tradition, I’d say that the man is supposed to pursue the woman.”. Just in case this wasn’t completely clear, I made yet another comment: “What qualifies as “pursuit” and “wooing” is somewhat subjective. We’ve already seen a few comments here that involve circular reasoning”
If you can’t understand this, you have no one to blame but yourself.
* The Bible cannot promote Courtly Love, so trying to prove it is silly. Nobody in this thread has tried to meet your challenge as you originally intended. I, and almost everyone else, moved to the next most interesting and closely related thing: seeing if men pursued the women in the Bible (or the reverse), as evidenced by the use of the word “pursue” instead of “woo”.
And I truly appreciate this. It is the only reason I engage you, despite your mockery, false accusations, willful misunderstandings, avoidance of my arguments, and emotional outbursts. I will continue as long as you are willing to reciprocate.
These are but some of the many stories which illustrate that a woman is not merely at the mercy of men’s choices, but she can use her submission to get what she wants; she is not doomed to wait around for a man to chase her down. Rather, she can throw herself in his path. She can BOW DOWN, and win a man over.
Imagine if such a thing were taught to young Christian women. Of course it is outrageous and would bring down untold church lady and white knight wrath upon the perpetrator.
This illustrates once again the incongruities and unintended consequences of Evangelical, CBMW, Complimentarian, et al type pastors and their modern teachings on intersexual dynamics. Under the courtly love, men do all the pursuing model, a woman must stay stuck in Lonely Castle until some equally ill-informed man comes after her. Thus the endless harping about “Man Up”. Until he does, the woman is helpless. There is nothing she can do. Why, it’s practically sexist to paint such a picture but that’s romantic love for you.
It’s another one of their policies that seeks to serve women and keep them on a pedestal but harms and insults them instead.
Paging Lori Alexander. If she hasn’t done this particular subject yet…she’s got another viral post in her back pocket.
@ earl
That’s a ridiculous non-sequitur.
You claimed that the Bible explicitly states every character’s “plan or knowledge” in every story when that “plan or knowledge” is part of the story. I showed you a story in Genesis where that is not the case.
Either show me where the Bible explicitly states Ham’s “plan or knowledge” (not his actions), or admit that you were wrong about the Bible always explicitly stating every character’s “plan or knowledge” in every story where that “plan or knowledge” is part of the story.
By the way, a wise young man once wrote that…
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/the-wages-of-wooing/#comment-283289
Where’s that guy when one needs him to explain to you that a naked, “very beautiful” young woman is just about the best possible bait for an apex status, high-testosterone man like King David?
Oscar ..
link to what I’m about to cut and paste ..
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/08/23/cover-your-eyes/comment-page-1/#comment-2982
1 Sam 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
The “heart” and “mind” are used interchangeable in The Word of God (our Holy Bible).
Regardless of whether Bathsheba knew or did not know King David would see her .. How does God see this event?
The answer is in 2 Sam 12 when King David and Nathan discuss this issue. Now the pertinent parts …
1 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.
then
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
then
5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
I can stop here .. GOD sent Nathan to deliver the news .. GOD judged King David’s heart (and mind). King David even called it like it was. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.?
Check that order .. “despised the commandment of the Lord” and then “evil in His sight” and “he took his wife” and “he had him slain”.
Bathsheba suffered the loss of their child. But, nothing else tells us she had any more punishment or any fault in this event. If you have scripture that tells us otherwise please let me know.
I think that GOD knows better than any of us when He can judge the heart .. which we could never do with what info we have.
Take your personal beliefs (1) and wimminz knowledge out of the equation and Trust GODs Word on this matter .. I do.
(1) I personally believe she knew she could be seen by King David by timing her bath with knowledge of his habits to walk the roof. But, I can’t prove that with scripture.
@ Honeycomb
You don’t think that’s enough?
Where did I state otherwise?
‘You claimed that the Bible explicitly states every character’s “plan or knowledge” in every story when that “plan or knowledge” is part of the story.’
Yes…I claimed the Bible explicitly states it when it is pertinent to the story because God would know more about the matter than we would. Specifically the heart (thoughts). You wanted to take it to every single story in the Bible.
‘I showed you a story in Genesis where that is not the case.’
Then you can come to the conclusion that God did not need to go into more details about that particular matter. What happened, happened.
@ OKRickety
Congratulations, you’re not doing what everyone else is not doing.
No where in the Scriptural texts did it say Bathsheba knew David would see her, or she positioned her bathtub so he could see her, or she thought the sight of her birthday suit would entice David to send his wingmen to her. It’s all implied because we assume wimminz can plan anything for their hypergamous ends, but God never mentions anything to that effect. So much like courtly love bias…we have hypergamy bias in Bible stories.
@ earl
No. I asked you if it was the case that God reveals “he heart (thoughts)” in every story in the Bible where the “heart (thoughts) are important to the story, and you claimed it was. I showed you a story where that was not the case, and you still can’t show me where the Bible reveals to us Ham’s “heart (thoughts)”.
You even came up with some outlandish non-sequitur about Noah to try and distract from your inability to support your claim.
Yeah, no kidding. Like I wrote earlier: Neither is the Holy Spirit in the dark about Ham’s “plan or knowledge”. The Holy Spirit chose to not explicitly state ham’s “plan or knowledge”, just as He chose to not explicitly state Bathsheba’s “plan or knowledge”.
So, now you agree with me, but you still insist on arguing with me. Why?
@ earl
It also doesn’t say anything about a bathtub. Why are you assuming she was in a bathtub?
‘So, now you agree with me, but you still insist on arguing with me. Why?’
Because the thoughts here are that Bathsheba had this elaborate plan in her mind to entice David when there is no Scriptural proof of that.
Just like there was no elaborate plan by Ham to get his father drunk so he could see him in the tent naked .
There was however an elaborate plan by David to try and get Uriah to think he impregnated his wife and then eventually a plan to kill him.
@ earl
Who said anything about “elaborate”?
Nobody claimed anything about an “elaborate plan” here either. However, there was obviously wicked intent, which is why Noah cursed Canaan (Ham’s son), which set up the eternal enmity between the Canaanites and the Israelites (descendants of Shem), which is one of the central themes of the Old and New Testaments.
So, Ham’s wicked intent set in motion (arguably) the most important story line in history, yet the Holy Spirit chose to not explicitly state Ham’s intent. What makes you think the Holy Spirit would have to explicitly state Bathsheba’s intent if it was wicked?
Sharkbait — “I’m with Boxer and earl on Bathsheba. The Bible makes no mention of her intentionally enticing others. If we believe that, we need to acknowledge that it is entirely our own idea that we are reading into the story.”
We do? Who is ‘we’? That’s the kind of assumptive grammatical construction the fems like to us. ‘We need to’ means ‘you better because I said so’. Thanks but I don’t need your commandments.
Oscar .. easy brother.
You don’t think that’s enough?
The scripture does not say Nathan told her that the child will die .. It was directed at King David. We indirectly place this death on her .. which is unwise .. because the scripture does not say what we infer.
and
Where did I state otherwise?
You did not .. and I hope I didn’t make that claim. I’m just extrapolating on the topic.
‘Who said anything about “elaborate”?’
The thought that Bathsheba knew where to set up everything for David to see her so she could fulfill the hypergamous desire we all assume or imply she has. If that was the case it would have been revealed. Just like David’s plans were revealed to get himself out of what he committed.
She is compared to a LAMB by Nathan.
Is a lamb considered “INNOCENT” in the bible?
I am, and so are you. Making logical inferences based on evidence and argument is perfectly justified in a debate. It isn’t just me pointing out that your refutation is based on an argument from silence.
You are begging the question. The “they” who made it known were either members of the household (e.g. servants reporting) or David and Michal announcing their intentions.
1 Samuel 18 did not use those exact words, but it doesn’t have to. It can be shown through other words and actions. To wit:
In v17-19, Saul offered Merab to David, but Saul married her off to Adriel. Merab was now out of the picture. The next event is this: “20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.” The immediate context of “they” is Michal and David. There are no other parties in view. They told him (v20), Saul thought it over (v21), and then let David know that he agreed (v22-24). Saul set the bride price (v25) and David agreed (v26). David then voluntarily paid double to marry Michal (v27).
I don’t have to read much into the story. He (1) was loved by her, (2) informed the king, and (3) overpaid for her. That he loved her (love; not tingles/romance) is the most straightforward explanation. We don’t have to read this in an historical vacuum either. David had many wives and we can read how he pursued Abigail and Bathsheba. Is this an open-and-shut case? No, of course not.
David was pleased to join the king’s family and happy for its benefits. He probably hoped that marrying into the king’s family would heal their differences (Saul did try to kill him twice). To say that personal gain was his motivation is not in keeping with his statements of humility (v18,23). Personal gain is not stated explicitly; where is the evidence to support it? David joyfully accepted the honor being afforded to him to which he felt unworthy. To say that it was his motivation goes too far. Perhaps you could make that case if there was some evidence that he directly sought out being married (*ahem* v20).
Dalrock has Bethsheba indulging in ‘strategic advertising’; Boxer has Bethsheba ‘going outside’. How easy it is to import into well known stories details which are not in the original. I understand that A’ level students of Eng Lit are marked down as they have Mr D’Arcy emerging from the lake naked from the waist up – but it is not in the blessed Jane’s text of Pride and Prejudice merely in the Hugh Grant movie version. Likewise there are many mis-remembered movie quotes – ‘Play it again Sam’ is not what Bogart said – though one would have sworn that he did.
I think however that the 1951 movie accurately captures the feel of the text even though one cannot say more than that David saw Bethsheba from the roof as she was bathing.
The culpability of Bathsheba reflects our own assumptions on who is responsible for adultery.
“It’s his fault for seducing her!” – but why was she in a position to be seduced?
When David’s later daughter Tamar was raped, the text is clear that it was rape and against her will.
The Bible also describes that force was used when Shechem slept with Jacob’s daughter Dinah. Was Bathsheba raped by David?
The text doesn’t say force was used as it does in other instances. Combined with the fact that the affair and her pregnancy is kept secret between the two, and that it led to wifery, suggests that she became a willing participant earlier than later.
Perhaps kings are “irresistible” to a beautiful woman. Still, she has moral culpability, and we are not tempted beyond what we can bear.
SirHamster ..
Perhaps kings are “irresistible” to a beautiful woman. Still, she has moral culpability, and we are not tempted beyond what we can bear.
This is what I was talking about when people who have never lived in a true MONARCHY behave.
The dynamic of a KING to a Subject is foreign to those individuals. No one living today understands this dynamic .. just like the relationship of Master / Slave .. which was understood very well during and before the writing of The Holy Bible.
It’s not that he is “irresistible” because of hyper-gammy .. It’s because of their King / Subject relationship. And, yes she would keep that from her husband. This whole topic requires a much longer response than I’m willing to offer today.
God thru Nathan claimed she was a “LAMB”. What more do you need? Do you not believe the scripture?
Oscar,
If you think I am white-knighting for Bathsheba, I’m not. She has some degree of culpability in going to the king, having sex with him, and hiding her sin from her husband. Which is why I don’t understand why there is no statement in the Bible about this. I think there should be.
If you don’t, for example, see claims by many of absolute certainty of Bathsheba’s motives without clear evidence in the Bible, then I suggest you read through these comments again. If you still don’t see it, then I think the problem is your comprehension.
‘She has some degree of culpability in going to the king, having sex with him, and hiding her sin from her husband. Which is why I don’t understand why there is no statement in the Bible about this. I think there should be.’
Yes she does have culpability in that regard…but the previous stuff which led to that is only implying (without any Scriptural proof) she had any culpability planning that scenario to happen.
Let’s compare it to a hypothetical situation where she’s actively trying to seduce the king through dressing immodestly and whispering sweet nothings in his ear to get his baby batter. That’s a different situation.
So, we are left with two options.
A) David was intentionally evil and used his power to force Bathsheba to commit adultery with him. That he could force all the women, married or not, to have unwed sex with him at any time. Master/Everyone Else Slave. No matter how you slice it, that is rape.
B) Bathsheba had some culpability setting herself up to have a chance at the King.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyconj.html
Hope this helps,
Boxer
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
Regards,
Boxer
I offered no reference to hypergamy. Kings are resistible, as Nathan himself demonstrates. Minimization of culpability encourages yielding to temptation.
What does the story of Bathsheba have to teach young women today?
Is it, “Not your fault, how could anyone expect you to resist sexing the KING whose attention you caught?”
If the king’s attention is irresistible, don’t catch his attention.
The point of the parable is to convict David of his own guilt, not assign proportionate blame or correspond exactly to his situation. The picture is that he is a rich man preying upon his poor neighbor and deserving of death for his injustice.
The lamb in the parable was consumed as food for a traveler. Was God claiming Bathsheba is dead and cannibalized? Did David commit bestiality, or offer her to some guest visiting him? Or is David actually two people?
Option A
Option B
That’s circular reasoning.
Boxer, rather than post some vague critique bordering on laziness. Expand your mind, create viable options or correct the ones given.
Dear Opus:
This will be fun…
straw man
it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing (2 Samuel 11:2)
Which is a criminal offense in every state and province in North America. Read RCW 9A.44.115 for an example.
Habermas (my Frankfurt School brother) calls this sort of postmodern nonsense “jiggery pokery”. You’re simply playing meaningless games with words, rather than giving the text you’re pretending to interpret its due respect.
When you’re ready to teach me something about the Hebrew Bible, or about literary criticism, let me know.
Regards,
Boxer
Someone should arrest that perv! Haha!
Merely observing someone bathing does not constitute a crime.
Voyeurism.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Intimate areas” means any portion of a person’s body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;
(b) “Photographs” or “films” means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;
(c) “Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy” means:
(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;
(d) “Surveillance” means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;
(e) “Views” means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.
(2)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the first degree if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:
(i) Another person without that person’s knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or
(ii) The intimate areas of another person without that person’s knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
(b) Voyeurism in the first degree is a class C felony.
(3)(a) A person commits the crime of voyeurism in the second degree if he or she intentionally photographs or films another person for the purpose of photographing or filming the intimate areas of that person with the intent to distribute or disseminate the photograph or film, without that person’s knowledge and consent, and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
(b) Voyeurism in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(c) Voyeurism in the second degree is not a sex offense for the purposes of sentencing or sex offender registration requirements under this chapter.
(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.
(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.
So David is ‘guilty’ of this because he is on his roof and sees a woman bathing? No, doesn’t work that way.
SirHamster sez ..
The point of the parable is to convict David of his own guilt, not assign proportionate blame or correspond exactly to his situation. The picture is that he is a rich man preying upon his poor neighbor and deserving of death for his injustice.
The lamb in the parable was consumed as food for a traveler. Was God claiming Bathsheba is dead and cannibalized? Did David commit bestiality, or offer her to some guest visiting him? Or is David actually two people?
The Word of God should not to be mocked brother. The verse is very clear regarding guilt. VERY clear. Using the word LAMB is not an accident or an oversight.
Prove me wrong.
180 for a solid argument. I completely missed that allusion.
I’d agree…when God references even things like plants in Scripture…it’s meaning is not meant to be thrown away.
So the use of lamb (verses oh let’s say a goat)…is important.
I don’t see the ‘innocent lamb’ part. It calls David out for taking what was not his. When he had plenty and took from someone else who didn’t. A comparison is just a comparison. In the parable, who is the innocent party? It’s not the lamb. The lamb gets eaten. Who is the innocent party in the parable?
If we are going to skewer the modern courtly love bias we have in Scripture when there is no proof of it…certainly we can do the same with our modern hypergamy bias when there is no Scriptural proof of it.
And as I understand modern hypergamy it’s the woman actively seeking higher value men.
Who would get paid the price of four lambs?
So, if a goat was used in the parable, would that make what the rich farmer did okay?
feministhater sez ..
Who would get paid the price of four lambs?
Try here ..
2 Sam 12:
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
feministhater sez
So, if a goat was used in the parable, would that make what the rich farmer did okay?
Nope.
honeycomb. That’s not what I asked. Who would get the four lambs in the story of the parable as payment for having their lamb stolen..
You’re just explaining David’s punishment. Who was the wronged party?
Of course it wouldn’t honeycomb. David would still be guilty and would still be punished as he was. The lamb then has little meaning beyond being a comparison.
I admit that I completely missed this. The lamb is THE quintessential Jewish symbol of innocence and purity (e.g. the Passover lamb). Not a single Jewish listener would ever mistake the symbolic meaning. Had the story used, say, a goat, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
FH sez ..
You’re just explaining David’s punishment. Who was the wronged party?
He’s dead. But, moreso this too ..
2 Sam 12:
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
FH sez ..
The lamb then has little meaning beyond being a comparison.
Incorrect.
I knew, indeed I have placed a bet on it at my local bookie on which I will now collect. that even the mildest rebuke or rather correction and any following observation would be met by Boxer with howls of protest and girlie-like insult, diversionary fusillades and with the predictable appeal to one of his Pantheon of Gods, on this occasion Habermas as if somehow clinging on to Habermas’ coat-tails will restore the mound of Boxer’s belief system. Please continue but wake me when its over. zzzzz
(Phew – Thankfully I dd not mention that the fence on the roof is also one of Boxer’s own concoctions and nowhere to be found in Samuel – excellent though that fence otherwise is as the movie attests, thus keeping date rapist David apart from #metoo Bathsheba.)
Prove it.
Adultery be bad! Murder be bad! Who was the wronged party? It’s not the lamb.
FH ..
You lack the depth required for this subject brother. I have nothing to prove to you. Pray to GOD for discernment.
You’ve been provided all I’ll provide you .. you have look-ups and praying to do.
Lol. You have nothing. Prove it then.
FH sez ..
Lol. You have nothing. Prove it then.
Ditto. Prove it. No.
You made the statement that the lamb in the parable is the innocent party. However, that’s not what the parable states. The parable states the poor farmer is the innocent party, David even going as far to state that the poor farmer should be given four lambs as compensation for his loss. If the lamb is a stand in for BathSheba then the poor farmer is a stand in for Uriah. Uriah is the innocent party. You know this.
Why all the pussy footing around? BathSheba is not innocent. She committed adultery.
The hell are you talking about?
Right in front of your eyes.
Your interpretation is not the Word of God.
You say that the choice of lamb proves Bathsheba’s innocence. What animal choice would prove her guilt? Why do you ignore the significance that the lamb is consumed? That the rich man was entertaining a traveler?
Are those accidental details, where the object choice of lamb is not?
That is inconsistent with your claim that the verse is very clear.
Why even ask for proof? Quote the verse as is and it would automatically prove you right and all other interpretations wrong.
SirHamster sez ..
Your interpretation is not the Word of God.
You’ve yet to prove me wrong about Bathsheba purposely exposing herself for the King. That’s what we are talking about here .. right?
I deduce she did not purposefully do so .. it was King David’s lust that got the better of him. Tell me again how you interrupt 2 Sam 12. I’ve offered mine. Prove me wrong that Bathsheba was enticing the King.
She was innocent.
By using the lamb (and not anything else) to represent Bathsheba in the story, she was being called innocent and pure. This symbolism of the lamb is not something you need *a* verse to prove. It’s found all over Jewish literature and culture. The lamb is central to the Passover celebration and the Day of Atonement precisely because it symbolizes purity and innocence. The book of Isaiah a great example of its symbolic use. But Nathan didn’t just use any old lamb. It was the ewe lamb, the purest and most innocent (and female) of the pure and innocent.
But perhaps you still need verses to prove it. We’ve got that too. Earlier Dalrock pointed out the Law, which states that the punishment for adultery is death. If Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, the Law demanded that she be put to death right along with David. Examine 2 Samuel 12 closely. David is condemned to death, but because he repented God stayed his hand (v13). Even so, he still had to be punished with the death of his son (v14).
Bathsheba was not condemned (put to death or punished) because she was innocent. She was given the highest honor that a woman could hold: mother to the heir to the throne and mother of Solomon, the greatest king in history, a man truly favored by God (v24-25). If her goal was to ditch her husband and hook up with the king, then she succeeded with God’s approval.
That is what you are talking about, but it is not what I am talking about.
I am skeptical that the parable’s word choice “lamb” proves Bathsheba’s innocence. You find it clear, but I and others do not.
More than one person can commit sin at a time. Both can be in the wrong.
Judging women as one would judge men, Bathsheba was just innocently taking a bath.
Knowing that women are cunning, have feminine wiles, and operate under plausible deniability …
When one judges by her fruit – she is known for beauty, adultery, and marrying up.
In terms of moral lessons, the former interpretation gives the excuse, “it just happened!” as it does for all the sluts out there. Bathsheba’s story has no cautionary value, only a celebratory “You go Grrl!” for wifing the King.
@ SirHamster ..
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/a-challenge-to-traditionalists/#comment-283377
Please re-read my posts and this one in particular .. the one labeled (1).
Opus,
The closest reference to a fence that I find on this post is this:
Who said that? Dalrock!
I should get some popcorn, but that’s not in my nature. Instead, I seem have some degree of masochism, inflicting pain on myself by reading the comments.
@ SirHamster ..
While your at it .. re-read this ..
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/a-challenge-to-traditionalists/#comment-283329
You (like me) have to remove your modern spider-senses (about th wimminz) when evaluating the ORIGINAL TOPIC ..
I’m not wading into the adultery side of this .. but be reminded that you don’t have the frame to underatand her position at the time .. you’ve never lived as a subject or slave to a Monarch. So .. remove your biases and re-read what God says thru Nathan to King David.
Remember King David initially responds in the role of King .. the authority .. the law and order .. then Nathan tells him he is that man he condemed for this act. Re-read how Nathan tells him (ie King David) how GOD ALMIGHTY will deal with him.
He never mentions Bathsheba. This is important too.
So, right now we are just establishing her role in King David’s lust. Nathan says .. she was a LAMB of a poor man and TAKEN by a rich man. I can only draw one conclusion. It was intentionally said that way for a purpose.
We can talk about a Kings and his domain of his subjects and slaves later.
Boxer — “When you’re ready to teach me something about the Hebrew Bible, or about literary criticism, let me know.”
Well my name’s not Opus but I’ll take some of that.
1 Samuel 6 describes the Philistine ‘diviners’ as they attempt to rid themselves fast of their latest prize, the ark. Two part question.
1) Why does the text refer to the ark as ‘he’ and ‘him’? Be specific.
2) Why do the Philistine ‘priests’ arrange the test that they did? Explain why the Philistine ‘priests’ advised that cows be involved in determining whether their plagues arose from the ark, or from mere chance.
I’ve got plenty more to examine your comprehensive and perfect knowledge of Scripture. You mentioned about having ‘fun’ bloviating to another commenter concerning your superior understanding. So let’s see it.
I am a slave to King Jesus. Also lived in British or formerly British possessions, so go figure.
That is entirely expected. David’s actions as King are the subject. At least he was man enough to own his faults.
Yes, you’ve established that it is clear to you and that you draw that conclusion. I don’t agree. I’m not going to elevate Bathsheba to Jesus-hood because she was represented with a slain lamb.
Unlike others ….
This is the modern chivalrous church mindset that Dalrock and Cane are writing against. I’m honestly flabbergasted at the bizarre insertion.
Did she die for your sins, too?
Lazy Hamster sez ..
I’m not going to elevate Bathsheba to Jesus-hood because she was represented with a slain lamb.
Unlike others ….
She was innocent.
By using the lamb (and not anything else) to represent Bathsheba in the story, she was being called innocent and pure.
This is the modern chivalrous church mindset that Dalrock and Cane are writing against. I’m honestly flabbergasted at the bizarre insertion.
Did she die for your sins, too?
You didn’t go back and read all of or the listed posts I’ve made on this topic. You’re so lazy you couldn’t lift a box of lint out of your dryer .. much less elevate thoughts and ideas (re: Bathsheba).
And NO .. you haven’t lived a true Master and Slave or King and Subject / Servent role .. even your pretend ones.
And that’s obvious by your response.
You’re dumber than I gave you credit. I now have a new level of dumb .. it used to be .. dumb as a box of rocks .. and now .. dumb as a box sirhamsters.
OBTW .. BFYTW
Calling Jesus a pretend king, are you?
Imagine trying to impress a hamster with namecalling.
OKRickety
I should get some popcorn, but that’s not in my nature.
Here’s someone who can help. Just in time, too.
Does the immaculate conception count?
Dalrock,
Uriah still ended up dead. My position is not the @metoo junk, but logic. I may be missing the point, but killing someone is pretty much a sin against them.
This thread or rather its latter part is surely proof of the wisdom of The Holy Roman Catholic Church in firstly not translating into the vernacular Scripture and secondly leaving the last and first word as to what The Bible says and what it means to its priestly class – although I cannot but praise myself (and Hollywood) as being the only one to correctly explain the relevant verses of Samuel.
@Opus
I did not have the same thought, but it rhymed: This was a pretty good case for preserving the Scripture from the laymen. Even so, I am glad it was done and the benefits outweigh the harm.
@honeycomb & Sir Hamster
I just did a search of BibleGateway for the word “lamb”, and read each instance in its context. In all but two places, lamb is tied to establishment of a covenant or a sacrifice. In no instances are lambs symbolic of innocence, but in a few lambs symbolize helplessness or meekness. Stupidity could be inferred several times. Perfection and comeliness are other common themes.
Honeycomb, wherever you got the idea that lambs in the Bible are bright symbols of innocence, it wasn’t from the Bible.
“In all but two places, lamb is tied to establishment of a covenant or a sacrifice.” should have been written “In all but a few places, lambs are tied to establishment of a covenant or a sacrifice.”
This satirical fictitious piece really should have had a woman interviewed, but it still shows the Churchian/feminist type clearly:
https://babylonbee.com/news/casual-sex-drug-use-now-covered-local-mans-definition-christian-liberty/
Casual Sex, Drug Use Now Covered Under Local Man’s Definition Of ‘Christian Liberty’
September 6, 2016
“ANN ARBOR, MI—Sources confirmed Tuesday that unrestrained sex and drug use are now covered as acceptable behaviors under local man Aiden Pearson’s ever-expanding definition of “Christian liberty.”
“I’m just trying to really live into my freedom in Christ while purging myself of any hint of legalism, and doing lots of recreational drugs while fornicating as frequently as possible are effective ways of doing that,” the 24-year-old University of Michigan student noted to sources, adding that he is “completely free” and “unstained by toxic fundamentalist hypocrisy.” “I try to sprinkle some porn and some larceny in there too, just as reminders that I’m not some holier-than-thou, plastic churchgoer.”
Pressed by a source about the physical and spiritual danger of his habitual, unrepentant sin, Pearson cursed him as a “Puritan Nazi” before punching him in the face.”
Okay. You do need to prove it. The Bible states that David and Bathsheba slept together whilst she was still married to Uriah. Thus she was an adulteress. She was not innocent and she was not pure. Both are conjecture on your and honeycomb’s part. The lamb means little in this story other than an object being taken that belonged to another.
Done and dusted. There, she met David one night and slept with him on the same night. Are you now going to call David a rapist?
Thank you. Let them continue to call an adulteress pure and innocent. Fun times indeed!
Either call David a rapist or realise she was not innocent. Those are your two choices.
Just in case others think the Bible isn’t quite clear when force is used to acquire sex.
Doubly innocent then? Haha! An ewe lamb is merely a female baby sheep. It isn’t more ‘innocent’ or ‘pure’ or ‘meek’ or anything compared to another lamb. Mere conjecture. Are you saying that Bathsheba was more pure and innocent than Jesus Christ? Saying ‘no’ or ‘incorrect’ is no good here because you have actually just said that..
Do you read that? ..’a lamb without blemish or defect’…? Thus a ‘lamb’ can have blemish or defect and is not pure and innocent…
Only Jesus Christ was and he was compared to a lamb because he was the sacrifice for our sins. Bathsheba was not innocent, she was not pure, she was an adulteress. The text states so.
You guys are inferring something I never argued.
Her not being an adultress.
The subject I was discussing was .. did she expose herself intentionally. David is the sheppard in Nathans story. She is his subject .. the lamb. David took another shepards lamb when he had plenty.
And .. yes when I think of a lamb .. I think of innocence. Not innocent of sin .. that’s a fiction you have created. Why would you make a sacrifice with a naturally evil animal? So don’t tell me lambs are not associated innocence.
She was not guilty of enticing King David anywhere in the scripture. And that’s the only topic at hand. You are making false arguments that I have not made.
SO find where I have said she is INNOCENT of adultery .. or STFU.
And for those that don’t like the lamb example .. tell be where I’ve said she was a perfect lamb. Show me where I said lambs weren’t a sacrifice. Establish where I’ve made any link outside she was his subject. My comments were strictly for whether she pranced around for King David to see her.
Does a lamb care if someone is watching it? Nope them dang things will wander off in a second and get themselves lost without a shepard.
A good number of you have inferred more than I have implied.
As for King David being a rapist. LOL .. ok I’m sure you have scripture for that .. right?
All Nathan said was he TOOK dominion of a wife he wasn’t given by God. He calls David EVIL .. for his deed.
Agree or disagree honeycomb?
@honeycomb
This thread gets funnier the longer it goes. You are now saying Nathan’s parable was about David seeing Bathsheba from his roof, and assuredly not about the crimes Nathan specifically and repeatedly tells David it is about (adultery and murder):
Still, for full fledged absurdity, Derek Ramsey’s comment about female lambs being biblical imagery for ultimate innocence edges you out.
I have to confess that I didn’t see Boxer’s full vision on the topic. It doesn’t take much to get Derek Ramsey to go full nutter, since he pretty much starts there. But Boxer can surely take credit for luring so many others into the absurdity. This is magnificence in trolling!
Thanks for the legwork.
As is often the case, it all starts from an unchallenged starting assumption:
No.
Dalrock — “But Boxer can surely take credit for luring so many others into the absurdity. This is magnificence in trolling!”
Oh he’s a magnificent troller all right.
He’s not much on backing up his brags, however. Who coulda guessed?
He’s not a Christian, either. A small thing, I’ll grant, next to the magnificence of his trolling.
Hey mebbe Boxer and the Supreme Dark Lord could start their own movement? Call it the Magnificent Braggarts Coalition? Doubtless it’d be quite popular. :O)
@ OKRickety
Then it’s a good thing I never accused you of “white-knighting for Bathsheba”, isn’t it?
Or, maybe you’re projecting “claims… of absolute certainty” onto others, just as you projected accusations of “white-knighting” onto me.
@ earl
Since when is showing off the goods an “elaborate plan”? Do you wear a blindfold when you walk outside? Are you typing in braille?
You keep making that claim, yet you still can’t point out where the Bible explicitly states Ham’s intentions. Clearly the Bible doesn’t always explicitly state every character’s intentions, even when the character is central to one of the most important story lines in history.
Oscar says:
August 25, 2018 at 10:52 pm
@ earl
‘Who said anything about “elaborate”?’
“The thought that Bathsheba knew where to set up everything for David to see her so she could fulfill the hypergamous desire we all assume or imply she has.
Since when is showing off the goods an “elaborate plan”?”
A woman who was 1) MARRIED 2) bathed IN A PUBLIC PLACE 3) where she undoubtedly knew the KING could see her, 4) at a TIME the king (a presumably busy man, with a very possibly publicly known schedule) would likely SEE her there.
Yeah, pretty elaborate and intentional IMO.
@Luke
Your 2,3 and 4 are pure supposition. 1 may also be inaccurate as Bathsheba being married is merely supposed in fact not even that but queried by David’s acquaintance (‘is this not’) who for all David knew may have been mistaken.
What I like about the passage is its suggestiveness. Had Samuel been more detailed it would have lost much of its evocativeness.
“This thread gets funnier the longer it goes.”
I wish I agreed.
I always thought 2 Samuel 11 was a pretty straight forward, easy to understand passage.
Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Dalrock
Pingback: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure | Σ Frame