The wake-up call.

Even as wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their husbands, the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife.

– Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

There is a tendency to downplay the magnitude of what Christian wives are called to do compared with Christian husbands.  Wives are merely called to submit, we are told, while husbands are called to something higher.  This diminishment of the purpose and the difficulty of submission is both inaccurate and unfair to Christian wives.  Scripture calls Christian husbands to actively lead their wives to Christ (Eph 5:25-27), but it also calls on Christian wives to use submission to inspire their husbands to follow Christ (1 Pet 3:1-2).

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.

Both husbands and wives are called to lead their spouse to Christ through love, but since the roles of husbands and wives are different the method is likewise different.  However, the idea of a wife submitting to a failing husband is extremely unpopular in our modern era, and probably always has been.  This is if we are honest not an easy thing for a wife to do, or for men or women to accept.  

Replacing submission with the wake-up call narrative

Because submission to a failing husband is something we find difficult to accept, modern Christians have substituted the exact opposite in its place. In the new narrative what failing Christian husbands need is a wake-up call from their wives.  In the wake-up call narrative, the husband is making his wife unhaaapy but is blissfully unaware of what he is doing to her.  Founder of Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson explained this over thirty years ago in his book Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives; What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women (H/T Ballista74).  Dr. Dobson starts by describing an event where his father inadvertently tortured a cat while preaching:

During the course of his sermon, one large alley cat decided to take a nap on the platform. Inevitably, my father took a step backward and planted his heel squarely on the tail of the tom. The cat literally went crazy, scratching and clawing to free his tail from my father’s 6-foot 3-inch frame. But Dad could become very preoccupied while preaching, and he didn’t notice the disturbance. There at his feet was a panicky animal, digging holes in the carpet and screaming for mercy, yet the heel did not move.

Dad later said he thought the screech came from the brakes of automobiles at a nearby corner. When my father finally walked off the cat’s tail, still unaware of the commotion, the tom took off like a Saturn rocket.

He tells us the suffering cat and the unaware man causing the misery is a metaphor for the problems in modern Christian marriage:

This story typifies many twentieth-century marriages. The wife is screaming and clawing the air and writhing in pain, but the husband is oblivious to her panic. He is preoccupied with his own thoughts, not realizing that a single step to the right or left could alleviate the crisis. I never cease to be amazed at just how deaf a man can become under these circumstances.

In the new narrative (the one which replaces Scripture), what is required to fix the husband is for the wife not to submit but to give him a wake-up call.  Joel and Kathy Davisson are the most overt with this message, going so far as to directly advocate that the wife first threaten and then if needed carry through with divorce to lower the boom on the unresponsive husband.  However, the much more common narrative is more subtle.  Whatever sinful action the wife takes to give her husband the wake-up call typically isn’t overtly sanctioned, but it is consistently presented as the required catalyst to change both the man and the marriage.  Because of this, we end up with a celebration of the outcome of the wife’s sin while either ignoring, minimizing, or paying lip service to the sin itself.

The wake-up call sin from the wife can take many forms, but the sin is always designed to cause the husband discomfort and very typically it is something which directly or indirectly threatens to destroy the family.  FamilyLife describes how this works in Cycle of Unresolved Issues:

The cycle goes something like this: a problem surfaces in your relationship, and one of you says, “We have a problem…” but the other person does not take it seriously so the problem is not really addressed. This happens again, then again and again! Despair takes over. One day the one that has been saying, “I need help” gives up and says, “We’re done!” or leaves a note that says, “I’m gone!” This finally gets the other person’s attention, but it may be too late.

“What will it take to get your attention?” In the book The Meaning of Marriage, authors Tim and Kathy Keller relate how Kathy got Tim’s attention by lining up some of her good china, and as soon as Tim walked in the door, breaking it with a hammer. She got his attention!

Dr. Albert Mohler offers instead that wives should get their husband’s attention via denial of sex:

The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

In the Stepping Up™ advertisement the wake-up call to the husband came when his wife threatened to move out.  As commenter Michael observed in the discussion of the video:

Why does the husband have to be “harangued by his ballbusting wife”?

Answer: Because he is not doing what he is supposed to do. He isn’t taking the initiative with his son. He isn’t being a man. He’s a fat slob parked on the couch watching T.V. eating Cheeto’s and drinking beer.

This guy, this fat Dad with a bad back, this guy isn’t a real man. He is a lazy ball-less slob.

Pastor Driscoll prayed for a wake-up call:

Lord God, as well, I pray for those men who are here that are cowards.  They are silent passive impish worthless men.  They are making a mess of everything in their life.  And they are such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them on that.  I pray for the women who enable them, who permit them to continue in folly, those who are mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives.

In Fireproof the wake-up call came in the form of the wife filing for divorce and starting an affair.  In the advertisement for ReEngaged the wakeup-call came in the form of the wife having an affair.  In the case of Bill and Vonette Bright, Vonette gave Bill a wake-up call by packing the kids in the car and threatening to leave him.

The wake-up call narrative by the numbers.

  1. A poor excuse for a man and husband does something (often something mysterious) to make his wife unhaaapy.
  2. As a result, the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
  3. Her sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required to shake her complacent husband into attention and get him to seek out God.
  4. His seeking out God (triggered by her lack of submission) fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.
About these ads
This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, FamilyLife, Focus on the Family, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Lowering The Boom, Mark Driscoll, New Morality, Rebellion, Submission, Threatpoint, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

300 Responses to The wake-up call.

  1. Lol, getting married seems like an awfully large amount of fuss for an infinitesimally small amount of reward.

  2. TLM says:

    The Driscolls of modern churchianty are just following in the footsteps of the trail-blazing beta-riddled para-church organizations like Focus on the Fag and its feminine Athena worship. The lack of discernment by those in the church is legion. They sh*t themselves over petty frontal attacks on Christianity by clowns such as Dawkins etc, but are clueless to the demonic subversiveness that thrives within the pews. And it ain’t hard to notice, Christ very specifically warned of these wolves in sheep’s clothing. And yet they’ll deny the truth when it’s easily observable for all to see to make some poor sap twice the son of Hell. A good rule of thumb for discernment would be to not listen to any “Christian” that’s had a best selling book published and sold in a Lifeway or other “christian” bookstore.

  3. jf12 says:

    No True Man has a bad marriage, therefore if the wife seems to be the problem then it must be the husband’s fault for being No True Man.

    In the same way, No True God has lousy followers. Right?

  4. Well said. A wife’s unhappiness, and whatever actions she takes to alleviate it, are seen as symptoms of her husband’s failure as a man. As you say, if she has an affair, their attitude is, “Well, of course that’s wrong, but….” The assumption is that a woman will always be happy in her marriage as long as her husband is doing his job. So if she’s unhappy enough to lash out, the clear implication is that he’s a horrible husband who forced her into it, whether they say so in plain words or not. He’s standing on her tail, torturing her innocent soul day after day, without the basic human sensitivity to even realize he’s doing it, so what else could she do?

    If they really think it’s common for marriages to be a constant source of torture for the woman, akin to a cat screaming in pain, how on earth do they justify encouraging anyone to marry? These people make MGTOWs seem optimistic about marriage, when they talk like that.

  5. PuzzledTraveller says:

    Yep. This is pretty much the narrative I got from the people at church over this whole thing when it went down. What’s that saying? At church men are forced to attend accountability groups, women go to spiritual exploration meetings. Feelings, feelings, feelings.

    I mean if it’s such a great thing, then heck, why not have a party with a cake to celebrate?! “Yay! Your wife slept with the neighbors! Finally you guys can have the marriage you were meant to have!!!!!!!!! Yippeeee!!!!!! Oh this is a happy day brother! Let’s celebrate this great awakening!”

    Thus was the beginning of red pill journey for me and the realization of what a bunch of ball-less bunch the people at church were, me included at the time. They didn’t worship God as much as they worshiped their wives moods. If I ever go back to a church and see men crying in the pews while their wives rub their backs, I might puke.

    I wasn’t a perfect husband, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t get drunk, or hit people, or cheat, or ignore the kids or spend the mortgage money on a new bass boat. Unfortunately, and I say this because I know this now, I think my number one crime was that I was dependable and I was boring in a good-natured suburban dad kind of way. Knowing what I know now, it would have been better for me if I had done those bad things. It would have virtually guaranteed my then wife’s undying devotion.

    With the women I have dated or mini-LTR’ed post divorce, I have generally been cold, rather impersonal and decidedly not giving a crap about their wants, feelings, etc. I have never been more beset by female attention in my life. There are women that I have summarily dumped out of my dating pool on the flimsiest of reasons, who still “check in” three years after the fact.

    The little blue pill guy still running around in my brain at times thinks the whole thing is ridiculous. The red pill guy running around in there just laughs.

    I really feel bad for guys who go through the experience and internalize the message that their wife’s bullcrap is all their fault and that they must spend the rest of their days repenting for her sin and making offerings at the altar of her moods. What a frigging miserable way to live.

    No thanks.

  6. deti says:

    excellent post. Just excellent.

  7. feeriker says:

    What, no quotes from Gary Smalley, one of the churchian punditry’s most prominent spokecreatures for the “problems-in-a-marriage-are-entirely-the-husbands-fault-because-he’s-obviously-a-spiritual-failure” brigade? I feel cheated. CHEATED!

    Seriously, though, well said! I do especially hope that someone rubs this in Mohler’s nose.

  8. deti says:

    “ So if she’s unhappy enough to lash out, the clear implication is that he’s a horrible husband who forced her into it, whether they say so in plain words or not.”

    I think that’s the key to this whole concept. If she is unhappy, if she has lashed out, if she has sinned, then it is – it MUST BE – because he has done something to precipitate it. To me that was the whole point behind the Re-engage video – the implied message was, well, she was bad, but he was bad first, so that excuses, explains and justifies her bad behavior. She wouldn’t have sinned if he hadn’t sinned first, so her sin is his fault.

  9. crowhill says:

    I think this is a much clearer presentation of your case than the previous post, and you continue to raise an important issue — viz., the modern Christian church is afraid of preaching submission.

    The passage in 1 Peter clearly teaches that a wife’s submission to her husband is at least one way that a husband who is disobedient to the word can be changed. I don’t know that it requires us to believe it is the only way. It seems to me that it is possible for a wife to give her husband a “wake up call” without sinning — e.g., without having an affair, threatening divorce, refusing sex, etc. And that in some cases a wake up call is exactly what is required.

    Some husbands will be deaf to the silent suffering of their wives, and all the submission in the world isn’t going to alert him to that. I note that 1 Pet. requires the husband to “observe” the wife’s chaste and respectful behavior. Some people aren’t very observant.

    Mt. 18:15 seems to apply to husbands and wives as well as other people. So there certainly can be a point where a wife tells her husband his fault, just between the two of them.

    So, while I applaud your efforts to destroy the phony “wake up call” approach, do you have something to put in its place other than silent submission?

  10. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Cail
    “A wife’s unhappiness, and whatever actions she takes to alleviate it, are seen as symptoms of her husband’s failure as a man”

    That’s exactly the stuff I got from people. Maybe there is a nugget of truth in that to a degree, but the basic premise people give off to you is this:

    Man Cheats: “He’s a bastard. His poor wife having to put up with that man, what a saint.”

    Woman Cheats: “Her husband is a bastard. Got what he deserved. I can’t believe she put up with him this long, what a saint.”

    Now, in an interesting plot twist, my then wife who thought I was the worst sort of person on Earth, that is to say, a man who would deign to marry her, has changed her tune. See what I’m getting at there? I have a firm belief that a woman thinks less of a man that she can convince to offer her marriage. Yeah I know it’s a bit twisted, but it’s that old Russian saying, “A woman can love any man, except the one who loves her.”

    So anyway, these days, whenever I see her she is effusive with kind words, and stories of regret of how foolish she was to let “such a good man” go. Now, I don’t hear a lot of words from her about how she has regrets harming me and my kids with her behavior, but only words about how the repercussions of her actions have negatively effected her, and her life is changed for the worse. Yep. It’s tough out there having to work for a living and support yourself ain’t it?

    Matter of fact she blames me for the divorce. Says things like “I wasn’t the one who wanted to get divorced! You did!” Really? Did you really just say that? Yup. She sure did.

    That’s one of many, but a main reason of why I would never reconcile with her. I don’t think it’s possible. My theory being, that a person capable of cheating and blowing up their family, is by their nature not a person capable of fully understanding the impact of their actions on others. They just can’t. Their brain doesn’t work in the same way as someone who could never do that. If they were capable of fully understanding what they did to others, they would be incapable of doing it. By the same token, if you were to cheat on a person like that, it would not impact them to any similar degree, because again, they aren’t capable of processing to that depth.

  11. fh,

    Lol, getting married seems like an awfully large amount of fuss for an infinitesimally small amount of reward.

    And the more this comes to light, the more sudden and dramatic the marriage rate decline becomes…

    …I was discussing this with my father-in-law this weekend about all the young men in our group at work who aren’t married. Listening to their complaints as to why they wont marry (much of it boils down to her debt.) I mentioned them to F-I-L and you know what he says to me? “Yeah they are just being too fussy. They are worrying about stuff they needn’t worry about…” So I said, it doesn’t matter if you or I think they are fussy or worried about silly stuff, ultimately if they don’t want to take a wife for any reason no matter how silly, they wont. And there are going to be a lot of single women. So he just smiles and says “…yeah but those guys you work with are just nuts. The problem is theirs and it is probably best that they stay single, screw ‘em.” So I said if this becomes a trend and he says “no chance, men are are too horny for that to happen.”

    Sometimes beta males just. Don’t. Get it.

    But for now guys, this MRM movement and the manosphere is much “too small” and much too “denigrated” to matter. I showed Dalrock’s blog to my friends and you know what they said to me? “IBB, why are you blogging on women hating websites?”

  12. Sarah's Daughter says:

    This diminishment of the purpose and the difficulty of submission is both inaccurate and unfair to Christian wives.

    Absolutely.

    I spent many wasted years in rebellion to God without an understanding of how important this is: Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,

    Even if = no matter what, without exception, even when it’s hard, even when you don’t want to, even when he’s a big poopyhead, even when you’ve determined he’s unworthy (especially then). Because it’s not about him. It never was. It has always been about God.

  13. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Crowhill

    You bring up a thought for me.

    And that thought is, when we talk about a wife’s suffering, if we exclude cases where the husband is a cheater, a drunkard, a drug addict, or a man who beats his wife, what are we really talking about here? I mean really, what suffering is she enduring?

    I think we’re talking about middle and upper middle class, white people first world problems. Wherein the wife is upset that her real life marriage doesn’t measure up to the soap operas, Oprah or Cosmo magazine stories of how “love” and marriage should be. We’re talking about suffering boredom, or day to day minutia that adults have to do to put bread on the table.

    What is all this suffering that the preachers and teachers would have us believe that these poor women are enduring like martyrs in the coliseum?

    I think it is the suffering of:

    1. Hypergamous regret.
    2. Longing for dongs past.
    3. Boredom.
    4. Jealously or envy of neighbors possessions or Bahamas vacation.
    5. Anger at self for not thinking they are living up to the “you can have it all” feminist doctrine.
    6. Anger at husband for not being exciting enough. See item #1.

    Thoughts?

  14. feeriker,

    What, no quotes from Gary Smalley, one of the churchian punditry’s most prominent spokecreatures for the “problems-in-a-marriage-are-entirely-the-husbands-fault-because-he’s-obviously-a-spiritual-failure” brigade? I feel cheated. CHEATED!

    I read that book. Yes almost all the blame goes to HIM.

    The actual quote was something along these lines:

    In most cases, the problem in a marriage stems from the husband’s failure to show his wife genuine love. The most important part of that all important sentence is the second word: most. We leave the door open to the women who are persons of the lie.

    In this case, she probably had a terrible relationship with her father (or no relationship at all) and thus, there was nothing her husband could do and the marriage was doomed to fail.

    What Gary Smalley was doing was leaving a very small window for her culpability describing her as Dr Peck’s “person of the lie” but the more accruate clinical definition of her behavior is that she is BPD. If you marry a BPD, your marriage is HELL.

  15. jf12 says:

    Re: The Suffer-ring. “This is NOT the ring I wanted. You stupid, stupid man. When I gave the hints about the ring that I wanted, you me got the ring next to it instead.”

  16. Apart from in a few very rare relationships, there must always be someone fulfilling the role of an Alpha and someone fulfilling the role of a Beta (not common meaning, but the original meaning, where the pack Beta is “second in command” and a potential replacement for the Alpha should s/he disappear). When a woman rejects the role of submissive/female/Beta/den-mother or the man rejects the role of dominant/male/Alpha/leader, the balance is thrown off. Someone has ceased to do (or has never performed) the role of the Alpha, so the other person attempts to take over. This results in a Beta husband submitting to an Alpha wife or an Alpha wife taking over where a Beta husband left off. Then, the Alpha wife notices the passivity of her husband and becomes even more dominant, or the Beta husband notices the wife becoming more dominant and becomes more passive. They attempt to “balance out” the inequality in their relationship by picking up the tasks the other left. The cycle continues until one or the other becomes displeased. If, instead, they were to embrace their natural roles, they would force their partner to embrace their own roles (however reluctantly), correcting the problem.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @PuzzledTraveller

    What is all this suffering that the preachers and teachers would have us believe that these poor women are enduring like martyrs in the coliseum?

    I think it is the suffering of:

    1. Hypergamous regret.
    2. Longing for dongs past.
    3. Boredom.
    4. Jealously or envy of neighbors possessions or Bahamas vacation.
    5. Anger at self for not thinking they are living up to the “you can have it all” feminist doctrine.
    6. Anger at husband for not being exciting enough. See item #1.

    Check out the link for the Dobson quote. This is exactly what he was talking about. He even alludes to “The problem with no name” by referencing what he calls the defunct women’s liberation movement:

    A woman’s satisfaction with her home (which represents the primary job for a homemaker) is never higher than at the time she gets married. But alas, her attitude is likely to slide…

    Obviously the point of greatest danger occurs in the late thirties and forties, when the wife is most dissatisfied with her assignment and the husband is most enthralled with his. That combination is built for trouble, especially if the man feels no responsibility to help meet his wife’s needs and longings. (Please remember that these studies merely reflect trends and statistical possibilities. Individuals may respond very differently.)

    In the absence of strong and loving support from husbands, how do women cope with the circumstances I’ve described? We all know that behavior does not occur in a vacuum; it is motivated by powerful emotional currents running deep within the personality. Thus, I’ve observed eight avenues of response that may be taken by a depressed and frustrated wife. They are nonexclusive; in other words, more than one approach can occur simultaneously, or one can lead to others. The eight are as follows:

    1. A woman can detach herself from home and family, reinvesting her emotional energy in an outside job. The “back to work” phenomenon by Western women is, in part, a product of this coping mechanism (combined with the pressures of inflation).

    2. She can become very angry at men and society for their perceived insults and disrespect. This source of hostility helped to power the now defunct women’s liberation movement and gave it an aggressive character. Fortunately, both men and women quickly recognized that that was not the answer.

    3. She can remain at home in an atmosphere of great depression or despair. Depression is “anger turned in-ward,” and is usually related to low self-esteem. This woman often becomes a classic nagger.

    4. She can attempt to meet her pressing needs by getting into an illicit affair. This disastrous avenue usually becomes a dead-end street, leaving her more depressed and lonely than before.

    5. She can turn to alcohol and drugs as a temporary palliative. Many homemakers are yielding to this alternative, as evidenced by the rising rate of alcoholism among American women.

    6. She can commit suicide (or make a suicidal attempt as a call for help).

    7. She can denounce the responsibilities of mothering, by either remaining childless, or by failing to meet the needs of her kids at home. Or she can run away and let Dad take over.

    8. The depressed woman can, of course, seek a divorce in the hope of starting afresh with someone more understanding and loving. Today, more than ever, this final alternative looms as the accepted method of coping with marital frustration.

  18. Badpainter says:

    And despite it’s great wealth, many fine entertainments, and a vast selection of breakfast cereals Western Civilization was destroyed by the feather light weight of the incurable ennui of its women.

  19. crowhill says:

    @PuzzledTraveller, there is certainly a lot of phony suffering, trivial suffering and so on. Some wives are drama queens, and as a general rule we are very spoiled people.

    Let me give you an example from my own life. My wife has a very hard time enjoying sex if she’s upset about something. I might have been a jerk, or she might have misinterpreted something, or it might be something that has nothing to do with me.

    The solution is usually just a matter of talking about it.

    In our case, she told me about this, so now I’m on the lookout for it and I try to make sure things are all clear. It’s better for her and for me. Sometimes I forget, but … I try.

    No amount of submission or godly conduct on her part was going to make me realize that this was going on. She had to tell me about it.

    This is a very small example, of course, but my point is that wives do have to have a way to tell their husbands if they’re unhappy. And let’s be honest — husbands don’t always get it the first time, so things will escalate emotionally.

    Obviously this isn’t grounds for divorce or breaking china or affairs or any of that nonsense, but there are times when wives need to try to get their husband’s attention. The husband can’t just think “submit to me and everything will be okay.” The wife has every right to tell her husband if she thinks he’s not treating her appropriately. She has to do it the right way, in the right spirit, and so on, but she should tell him if she’s not happy, and sometimes that means telling him more than once.

  20. Tam the Bam says:

    IBB is your wife’s pa from the 1830s?
    “probably best that they stay single, screw ‘em.” So I said if this becomes a trend and he says “no chance, men are are too horny for that to happen.””
    Even if he’s 200 years old, he’s way, way off beam. Or were there no whores, in history? Just like now, the place was awash with them. Do you live in Graham Land or something?
    You can not be serious, man! (/mcEnroe)

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Crowhill

    Obviously this isn’t grounds for divorce or breaking china or affairs or any of that nonsense, but there are times when wives need to try to get their husband’s attention. The husband can’t just think “submit to me and everything will be okay.” The wife has every right to tell her husband if she thinks he’s not treating her appropriately. She has to do it the right way, in the right spirit, and so on, but she should tell him if she’s not happy, and sometimes that means telling him more than once.

    Strawman. No one is arguing that wives can’t talk to their husbands. I offered many examples of what I was talking about.

    Next.

  22. Farm Boy says:

    How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

  23. The problem with all of these scenarios is that the wife’s best interests are still these male pastor’s and counselor’s priority. So insaturated has the feminine imperative become for the modern church that even the men, calling other ‘failing’ men to Man-Up and do what she says, have no other mental model to work from. There literally is no other concept than feminine-primacy for them to consider.

    This is precisely what I mean when I say that whatever benefits the feminine imperative IS the Holy Spirit and God’s will. The men advocating for the FI are fish that don’t know they’re wet.

    Furthermore, these men presume a default condition of male-qualification to the feminine imperative. Every man is a failure and must endlessly requalify himself to the feminine purpose. The cat metaphor is a good example of this. God forbid a man be preoccupied with anything other than the betterment of the feminine, but the default presumption is that men are self-absorbed and oblivious to the wailings of women. The unfortunate truth is that most troubled marriages are the result of a (christian) Beta husband’s over extending himself to qualify for his wife’s approval.

    The trope that the likes of Driscoll love to sell (in their own christianized white knight version of not-like-those-other-guys Beta Game), because he knows women align with it, is the caricature of the listless, beer swilling, Archie Bunker sitting on his easy-boy and barking orders for pizza from his slave-wife. The reality is they’re getting tithe checks from men who are regularly busting their asses to provide the best life for the kids and the home that he can be removed from with a phone call. The real men are killing themselves to provide the best life possible while rat SOBs like Driscoll and co. can tell him and his wife he’s never going to measure up to the feminine imperative’s standards.

  24. feeriker says:

    If they really think it’s common for marriages to be a constant source of torture for the woman, akin to a cat screaming in pain, how on earth do they justify encouraging anyone to marry? These people make MGTOWs seem optimistic about marriage, when they talk like that.

    Excellent question, Cail. If I had to hazard guesses as answers:

    1. Much of it is secular TradConism conflated with Christianity, the idea that it’s every man’s obligation to marry in order to save Western civilization (the idea that God couldn’t give less of a rip about Western civilization, or that He considers it too sinfully corrupt to be worth saving, never intrudes upon their solipsistic little brainlets). Similarly, those parts of the New Testament containing epistles by some guy named Paul, within one of which he admonishes Christians not to marry unless they “burn with passion” for a member of the opposite sex, either were omitted from their Bibles due to misprint/improper collation or just aren’t like, you know, fun or inspiring to read.

    2. Given the domination of the FI in the Western (especially North American) churches today as a direct result of their capitulation to secular modernism a half century ago, what deh wimminz want, deh wimminz get. This goes for marriage as with everything else. If the born-again good girl, after “seeing the light” at 35 after two decades of carousel riding wants a good churchboy beta provider, then dammit, she’s ENTITLED to one and the gelded “leadership” of the church had better make sure she gets one. Otherwise, collection plate yields are going to take a southward turn once the ewe herd decides that their “needs” aren’t being met by the “body of Christ.” That marriage is not the satisfying, idyllic experience the typical Daughter of Christ[TM] just knows it hasta be doesn’t mean that she’s been lied to (“my church leaders LIE to me? What a blasphemous thought!”). No, no, no. She just got stuck with a “bad model” that needs a warrantied repair.

    3. As Rollo has asked rhetorically on numerous occasions, how do Christians (at least in America) manage to reproduce at all? Apparently churchians are asking themselves this question too, at least on some level, so the “man up and marry those sluts!” pressures eventually build up.

    None of it makes sense, but I don’t think logic or cognative harmony play much of a role in the realm of churchianity anyway.

  25. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    That’s one of many, but a main reason of why I would never reconcile with her.

    Aren’t you Roman Catholic?

  26. Highwasp says:

    jf12 says:
    “No True Man has a bad marriage, therefore if the wife seems to be the problem then it must be the husband’s fault for being No True Man.
    In the same way, No True God has lousy followers. Right?”
    ——————
    f#ckbuddyrockbanddrumer sittin’ in the back pew whispering in your b#tches ear : and by extension : No True Church fails, therefore if the congregation seems to be the problem, then it must be the Church’s fault for being No True Church…

    [got to keep them sheep in line]

    In the same way, the No True God would use the feminine as shit test to separate the chaff from the seed… or would “She”?

    note : # = u and i.

  27. Ras Al ghul says:

    IBB:

    “If you marry a BPD, your marriage is HELL.”

    There must be a lot of BPD women out there . . .

  28. jf12 says:

    @ Dalrock “4. She can attempt to meet her pressing needs by getting into an illicit affair. This disastrous avenue usually becomes a dead-end street, leaving her more depressed and lonely than before.” As you said recently, it’s men’s fault that women can’t even get a *proper* pump-and-dump any more.

  29. Tam,

    He just doesn’t understand that young men have “options” outside of marriage. And the fact that they choose those options (instead of marraige) is a non-starter in his mind.

    SO be it.

  30. Farmboy,

    How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    The whole point of using that term is that it can NOT be defined. If it is properly defined, well formed, with an absolute set of criteria, then men can game themselves to live within those boundaries. And as such, women would no longer have churchianity as their allies because men will have stepped up putting the onus on women for their own happiness.

    That can NEVER happen in a world of the feminist imperative.

  31. Novaseeker says:

    This is going to be up there with your post about how serial monogamy is promiscuity a la woman. Great work in spelling out something you’ve been talking about for a while with such clarity.

  32. Ras Al ghul says:

    “But for now guys, this MRM movement and the manosphere is much “too small” and much too “denigrated” to matter. I showed Dalrock’s blog to my friends and you know what they said to me? “IBB, why are you blogging on women hating websites?””

    It doesn’t matter because on a gut level many know something is horribly wrong with the world. They might not travel to these webs, but men under 30 know its a bad deal to get married, they know what women are like far better than the over 30 crowd do.

    There’s still thirsty men desperate to get married, but they get punished for it. I am only half joking about there being a lot of BPD women out there.

    With a single mother rate of 40% there are a lot of women with “father issues” the “people of the lie” so to speak.

    People talk with concern about the single mother rate, but consider this:

    40 percent (minimum and growing) of the women in the United States do not have a healthy (or otherwise) male-female enduring relationship modeled for them. Which makes them incapable of doing it themselves.

    Which is one of the primary reasons that female centric custody is so damaging. Daughters with a father are more stable. So are the sons.

    I personally think the number is closer to 60% for any girl 30 or younger.

  33. Highwasp says:

    Crowhill : “So, while I applaud your efforts to destroy the phony “wake up call” approach, do you have something to put in its place other than silent submission?”

    get the hell out – Go Your Own Way. Stop participating. Remove yourself ASAP. Be selfish. Take care of yourself first… men : stop creating a surplus of wealth to share with women and children. Don’t get married. Don’t have kids. Do whatever you want after that… The world awaits you and it’s a wonderful place without the ball and chain, the CS, the jail time, the divorce, the false allegations ruining your life and reputation, the lack of freedom and choice, the financial ruin… the world is a much better place once men remove themselves from marriage, wife, children and slavery. This is your chance. Feminism has opened the gate. RUN!

  34. Farm Boy says:

    How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    The whole point of using that term is that it can NOT be defined.

    Then presumably it is whatever the wife thinks it is. Convenient.

  35. Ras Al ghul says:

    IBB:

    “The whole point of using that term is that it can NOT be defined.”

    Absolutely correct.

  36. Desiderius says:

    “So, while I applaud your efforts to destroy the phony “wake up call” approach, do you have something to put in its place other than silent submission?”

    Calling rebellious women to repentance. You might be surprised at the response you get.

    They don’t much like men who continually fail their fitness tests.

  37. Desiderius says:

    Cheap grace ultimately does not serve womens’ needs. You get what you pay for.

  38. tz2026 says:

    Sit in front and pull out your phone and tablet and watch the game (with the sound up) INSTEAD of telling the pastor his sermon is boring.
    Jump up and call the pastor a fool and point out the exact text when he stumbles and misquotes.

    Repay evil for evil, Escalate. Confront, but in a backstabbing way.

    WWJD? Not that. He was direct.

    If you could rewind the tape in the situations, you will probably see the wife NEVER telling the husband specifically and directly, but reasonably some specific fault and why it is OBJECTIVELY bad, only “I don’t like it when you do that”.

    But let me step back a second. They are right when they say Men – husabands – fathers – will be held to a higher standard. The servant given one talent needed only return one more, but the one with 10 had to produce 10 more. Paul warns against many being teachers – yet husbands are requred to be teachers to their wives.

    Women are merely required to submit to any lawful command (anything not obviously and objectively sinful), and to bear (will be saved through childbearing) and train up children. Women are designed to nurture life – but do not assume it ends with the child’s body. Spirit echoes matter. If she cannot save the husband, she has a responsibility to fill in with the children. And even if he isn’t living up to the model, the children will either learn to respect their father because she respects the OFFICE of husband, or learn to rebel and to question and pick apart and require justification for every suggestion – since mom requires it.

    “Withholding sex” has completely different meaning if contraception is not in the picture. Let the wife rejoice at the suggestion of the husband cooperating with her and God to produce a new soul, or merely pointing out she has not been tracking her cycles so doesn’t know if she is fertile or not. And let the Husband continue. I could not legitimately order my wife to use contraception (no more than I could order her to murder one of the already born children or to have an abortion). So I have to respect her body, her fertility, and her as a person, not as some kind of free vibrator I could order from an xxx site to gratify myself.

    What our Lord himself said about divorce is that you will damn your soul by it (not quite, but will for any frivorce). But note the strange juxtaposition – Gay Marriage is an abomination, but the serial polygamy, or as our Lord put it, adultery, is not merely tolerated but encouraged. That is talking out of both sides of your mouth where a demonic tusk is protuding.

    Pray (pun and literal) tell, if the wife threatened to become a whore, (I mean a plain slut, not having a “romantic” affair, or the post divorce infidilety) would it be acceptable?

    A wife is not a concubine with a contract or a few vows. She is the other half of your one flesh. The one that God put together, and no man has the authority to put asunder. As husband, if ever I find myself in the position, I must respect her, her body, her fertility, and her complimentary genius. One holy mother is worth 25 of the best teachers.

    There are stupid, foolish, and/or evil men and women. If they were Christians at the time of marriage, they took the vows as they might take any other cross and agreed to the self-sacrifice. If they weren’t, it might be a problem, but Christ through Paul commands what to do in such situations.

  39. Highwasp says:

    “How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    1. financially, 2. socially, 3. personally, 4. sexually, … not necessarily in that order.

  40. Thank you Ras,

    There’s still thirsty men desperate to get married, but they get punished for it. I am only half joking about there being a lot of BPD women out there.

    If you asked Gary Smalley or the late great Dr Peck, they would both say that women who are “people of the lie” are BPD. And (quite often, dare I say ALWAYS) women who didn’t have a father (or a dad who was never married to mom, a dad who got drunk and beat mom, or a dad who sexually assaulted them) become BPD.

    So yeah, there are a lot of BPD women out there because such a large percentage of women out there had father’s who never married their mothers.

  41. Desiderius says:

    “I showed Dalrock’s blog to my friends and you know what they said to me? ‘IBB, why are you blogging on women hating websites?’”

    Keep hanging around here, you’ll find yourself with a better class of friends. Alternatively, you could challenge their misconception.

  42. Farm Boy says:

    They don’t much like men who continually fail their fitness tests.

    Indeed. Even if the fella is an excellent provider. Which one would think would be the primary fitness test in the modern world, as protection from bears is not really needed.

  43. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Cane Caldo

    I think you confused Cail with me.

    I said:

    “That’s one of many, but a main reason of why I would never reconcile with her.”

    Nope. Not Catholic.

  44. Cane, you got your attribution mixed up; that wasn’t me who said I wouldn’t reconcile. Yes, I’m RCC.

    The unfortunate truth is that most troubled marriages are the result of a (christian) Beta husband’s over extending himself to qualify for his wife’s approval. — Rollo

    Exactly. He tries to hard to make everything perfect and comfortable for her, which takes away the drama and allows her to take him for granted. It’s like her romance novel ended halfway through the first chapter with “and they lived happily ever after” before she got to go through all the exciting ups and downs with him.

    As Badpainter said, “ennui.” I know married women who are “depressed.” Now, there may be some physical component to this, with the effect that gluten and processed foods have on the brain. But mostly they just seem unhappy for no reason they can really articulate. Their husbands aren’t any less devoted or worthy than other husbands. They don’t have less money or crummier houses or worse kids than their peers. They aren’t overwhelmed with work — certainly not compared to their great-grandmothers who started the day by hauling water in from the well and heating it on the woodstove. But they’re depressed, and nothing anyone does to help makes more than a temporary difference.

    The funny thing about that is, it’s well-known that one of the best treatments for depression is exercise and keeping busy. And you can see that in these women, who are usually most content when they’re hugely pregnant or busy with a new baby who occupies their attention. A few more kids and a milk cow would probably do many of them a world of good, so they didn’t have so much time and energy to sit around feeling bored and trying to figure out what’s wrong.

  45. deti says:

    “ Obviously this isn’t grounds for divorce or breaking china or affairs or any of that nonsense, but there are times when wives need to try to get their husband’s attention. The husband can’t just think “submit to me and everything will be okay.” The wife has every right to tell her husband if she thinks he’s not treating her appropriately. She has to do it the right way, in the right spirit, and so on, but she should tell him if she’s not happy, and sometimes that means telling him more than once.”

    There’s a difference between a wife bringing genuine concerns to her husband, on the one hand; and committing sin as a “wake up call” with the backing of family and the Church, and with the intent of using the wake up call to manipulate the husband into doing her bidding and getting him to submit to her, on the other.

    The first is speaking truth in love. The second is sin.

  46. Farm Boy says:

    why are you blogging on women hating websites?

    Such a simple viewpoint. The people here don’t hate women, they just don’t like the attitudes and behaviors of many modern women. Quite the difference.

  47. Anonymous age 71 says:

    In a patriarchy, boys and young men receive their socialization from older men. They are taught how to be a husband; what their duties are, by men. Not by feminist school teachers and feminist Sunday school teachers. A man’s father and uncles would clue him in if he was not taking care of his wife’s needs.

    Today, when men are taught how to be men, by women, hey, most of them don’t do a very good job. No surprises found here.

    An intellectual I know, who has read the Bible very well, says that women are supposed to submit to their husbands, who are also supposed to live in submission to God. He laughs at the insane theory that when a woman sins, its because her husband is messed up. Thus, that means when a man sins, it is because God is messed up. Right?

    The ultimate book, reasonably priced at Amazon and I believe back in print is ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a Baptist minister’s wife. An old book, same Bible. Be sure to get the second edition, because she reports the whining and balderdash from wives after reading the first one. It is Bible based, and she nails it.

    >>There must be a lot of BPD women out there . . .

    BPD is a buzz word that means ornerier than a junk yard dog. And, it is usually a woman who was not beat enough as a child…

    >>Sit in front and pull out your phone and tablet and watch the game (with the sound up) INSTEAD of telling the pastor his sermon is boring.

    Quote of the day! Love it!

    A man told me last fall he was approached by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Needing fellowship they went to their church, and for a while all was well. One Sunday, a Sunday School teacher was referring to the place in the Bible where it tells women to dress modestly. Instead of addressing that, he started in on the need of men to dress modestly. Five minutes he lambasted men for immodesty.

    I simply cannot remember the last time I saw a man in church with his codpiece hanging out. Maybe JW do things differently?

    Eventually, the teacher told them that, yes, a man is supposed to be the leader. But, before he makes a decision he is supposed to ask his wife’s opinion, because after all otherwise he may make a mistake. The man ended up leaving the church.

    I have a young woman who calls me Grandpa, here in Mexico and has since she was a baby. She is JW. I asked her and she said here in Mexico they teach the man is to be the leader and the woman is to submit, period. So, I assume it is the US feminist influence.

    tz2026 says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    ,,,I must respect her, her body, her fertility, and her complimentary genius.

    WTF? Hey, man, better think that over again.

  48. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    Cane, you got your attribution mixed up; that wasn’t me who said I wouldn’t reconcile. Yes, I’m RCC.

    Ok, good.

    Nope. Not Catholic.

    Ok, good.

    Ha.

  49. Highwasp says:

    “the late great Dr Peck, they would both say that women who are “people of the lie” are BPD. And (quite often, dare I say ALWAYS) women who didn’t have a father (or a dad who was never married to mom, a dad who got drunk and beat mom, or a dad who sexually assaulted them) become BPD.”

    Dr. Peck – “People of the Lie” (great book)

    and the sons, the boys, who didn’t have a father or a dad who never ‘married’ to mom, got drunk, beat mom, or who sexually assaulted ‘them’ = paranoid schizophrenic boys with insecurity, low self esteem and the ‘little man’s disease’ thrown in on the side.

  50. Anonymous age 71 says:

    What most women and even men don’t understand is what happens to a man when his wife submits. it is pretty much like a young woman who has her first baby. She is just a ‘dumb ole’ girl’ but when she realizes that baby in her arms is helpless and is going to die if she doesn’t take care of it, it’s as if she popped into a phone booth and came out wearing a blue mom suit. Except in abortion cultures, of course.

    Just so men, except those in a misandrist culture, when they realize their wife is truly submitting change and start worrying what to do and how to do it. And, men do make mistakes at first. A submissive wife will understand this, and will not divorce him the first time he makes a mistake, but will help and motivate and encourage him while he fixes his mistakes.

    In my younger years, I read a lot of management books. Top CEO’s wrote about seeking next generation executives. They did not expect new guys to avoid all mistakes. They knew that the best executives who were aggressively trying new things were going to make mistakes. There is that place in the Bible where the master gives each underling a quantity of money, and then punishes the one who was afraid to take a risk to make more money. What they wanted to see was how they dealt with their mistakes.

    Today, women are told if their husband makes a mistake in the first few weeks of marriage, they must take charge to save themselves.

  51. So, while I applaud your efforts to destroy the phony “wake up call” approach, do you have something to put in its place other than silent submission?

    First of all, “silent” is a bit of a misnomer here. It’s more like “without preaching at him.” The Douay-Rheims translates Peter 3:1-2 thus:

    In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear.

    “Conversation” is from “conversatio” in Latin, meaning one’s regular dealings with a person. “Word,” (verbum), on the other hand, refers to the Word of God, not the wife’s speaking. So it’s saying, if a man doesn’t believe the Word of God, he can be won over without her preaching the Word to him, by instead showing it through her virtuous behavior toward him — including the way she talks to him. It doesn’t require that she never say, “I really enjoy when we do X together; could we do that more?” or whatever she wants, if she does it in a submissive way.

    Second, you may be selling the power of submission short. It’s not necessarily a direct thing, where she’s submissive and virtuous so he sees that and changes his ways. It’s probably more likely to be indirect: she obeys God’s Word by being submissive and virtuous, and God answers her prayers by softening her husband’s heart and making him more loving. But even the direct effect can be very powerful, especially in today’s climate where it’s so unusual. Don’t assume it’ll be easy for a man to overlook the fact that his wife is making that kind of effort.

  52. HawkandRock says:

    @Rollo: “The reality is they’re getting tithe checks from men who are regularly busting their asses to provide the best life for the kids and the home that he can be removed from with a phone call. The real men are killing themselves to provide the best life possible while rat SOBs like Driscoll and co. can tell him and his wife he’s never going to measure up to the feminine imperative’s standards.”

    Amen.

  53. David J. says:

    Dalrock: I have to disagree with point # 3 of your summary: “Her sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required . . . .” Short of physical adultery, her sinful actions are in fact sanctioned. At most, her sinful actions will go unremarked, but more likely they will garner anything from mild to enthusiastic endorsement. No one will say anything approaching “of course we don’t sanction her actions.”

  54. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I remember the first time I heard about wifely submission. A pastor’s daughter, a friend of my daughter’s, was marrying, They had that part of the Bible read. I noticed with interest that as it was read, she was relaxed. He looked scared, which meant he understood the enormity of his job as leader.

  55. Every time I read the advice pastors have for young men wanting to get married, or men in a marriage wanting it to be better (i.e. more sex, less denial), their unqualified ‘advice’ about women always amounts to some effort in negotiating for her desire.

    I have heard pastors advise almost word for word the trope that women are more inclined to be sexual after their husbands help out with the dishes or some other form of the now thoroughly debunked Choreplay:
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/30/choreplay/

    In virtually every sermon or talk show advice I hear pastors speak about ‘how to make good with a woman’, they rattle off, verbatim, the nonsense he picked up from Dr. Phil or his ilk, which always falls back on making appeals to a woman’s reason.
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/07/appeals-to-reason/

    Women don’t want to make deals for their desire. Women don’t want have a disingenuous talk about what ‘he should be doing’ – they want him to Just Get It. As I said, if a man has to be told how to be masculine, he’s not the man for her, and least of all to be told by a pastor without the experience with women enough to know how to be either.

  56. Tam the Bam says:

    Hay Cail, their greatgrandmas or whatever didn’t have that burning sense of hypergamic Fail eating away them as they plucked that fowl or carded that wool.
    Never saw nobody stronger, smarter or more dashing than their Man, apart from maybe the Minister at funerals, and to tell the truth, he weren’t all that.

    I blame the talkies. Before that, It was just some silly foreign man on a screen clowning about. Oh and I also blame wireless, and jazz, and TV and rock’n’roll and railroads and airplanes and automobiles and th’ interwebs and Betamax and VHS and DVDs and email and facebook and bloodyTwitter and .. and .. and ..
    It’s out of the box now, and women have ONE (1) irresistible driving force. Whatchagonnadoboutit?

  57. DeepThought says:

    As a Muslim, I have enjoyed reading your site. Even though we do not share the same faith, I find your writings to be insightful and accurate in many ways but sometimes this depresses me. I was brought up in America and as a proud ex-Marine I value this countries values. A core component of America’s success was its adherence to traditional religious values. These values led to strong family connections allowing for well rounded children, stable social environments, and safe neighborhoods.

    The attack on traditional Christianity (mark my words they will attack us all eventually), is an attack on the core bedrock principles of the family and the stabilization that a strong family provides. Why are Christian men putting up with these attacks?

    Dr. Albert Mohler and Pastor Driscoll are Blasphemers They ridicule and lead people from your Bible’s key principles. Why not call them out for what they are? A disgrace. Their attacks will only get worse and other pillars of your faith will fall if you do not start fighting back.

  58. Luke says:

    Farm Boy says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm
    “How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?”

    To most Ameriskanks, that would be a guy under a “10″ (in their opinion in all respects) to whom they’ve been married more than six months.

  59. PuzzledTraveller says:

    Here’s a question that just popped to mind. Because someone asked about being Catholic. Which I don’t really know much about other than they aren’t supposed to get divorced ever. (Annulments instead?)

    Let’s say for the sake of argument I were to reconcile with my ex-wife and take her back.

    Wouldn’t that be failing the second biggest shit test in history? (The first being if I would not of divorced her when her cheating ways were discovered.) I think it would.

    It seems that it has been pretty well established that a woman can’t love a man she doesn’t respect. What woman would respect a man who would not only marry her, but would take her back after all that? I think it would be a recipe for disaster. I mention that point, because the same situation has happened to some friends in the ensuing years since my own, and my advice has always been to get rid of her, no matter how much it costs you, unless you just want to stick it out until the kids are 18.

    Maybe other people might think that advice is harsh or un-biblical. I dunno. I have seen situations where the husband has cheated and it wasn’t the end of the marriage, and the wife though hurt, seemed pretty happy again after a time. I have seen situations where the woman cheated, and the guy tried to stick it out and they both seemed like the walking dead.

    Sometimes people give me crap like “Wow, you must be really unforgiving. I mean, you’re not perfect either you know.” Yeah I know.

    But I think about these things, and it seems germane as I’ve been kind of examining my situation out loud in comments these last couple posts. Interested in other’s thoughts on that.

  60. Martel says:

    Much of the reason for modern womanly dissatisfaction lies with the mass media.

    Women are competitive, and there are thousands of (often fictional) women they discover in magazines, online, and TV who’ve “found it all” and are much happier than they are. Thus, an eternal standard of perfection that seems more plausible and attainable than it actually is.

    A “bored housewife” in 1882 Arkansas (assuming she had any time to navel-gaze) had no such standards of perfection with which to compare her own “humdrum” existence.

  61. Tam the Bam says:

    DT: Why are Christian men putting up with these attacks?
    Because.. because .. ‘fairness’, equity, honor, chivalry, stoicism, faith, charity, even democracy, and socialism, the stuff that stops us declaring another Crusade, or (re-)enslaving the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa, with a side order of Opium Wars and genocide of various indigenous primitives.
    You wouldn’t be having this distressing intellectual problem with the Golden Horde, I’ll warrant. Or the DPRoK.

  62. Dalrock says:

    @PuzzledTraveler

    Let’s say for the sake of argument I were to reconcile with my ex-wife and take her back.

    Wouldn’t that be failing the second biggest shit test in history? (The first being if I would not of divorced her when her cheating ways were discovered.) I think it would.

    There are two questions here. 1) Is this commanded? and 2) Is this good Game/wise from a secular perspective? There is some difference of opinion amongst Christians on #1, and I won’t try to solve that difference here but will merely note it. If the answer to question #1 is yes, the answer to question #2 doesn’t matter.

    But to the gist of your question (question #2), I don’t think the conflict is as great as you might think. The key is in her repentance. There is also the question of whether you should legally rearm the family court detonator. We discussed this on the post several months back regarding Jenny Erickson. There is a larger exchange, but for a taste see this comment by Cane for an example of what he would require to show repentance, and here is my comment on rearming the detonator.

  63. jf12 says:

    Re: “What woman would respect a man”? Let’s chop the thought off right there. Women do not naturally respect any man, but will respect a man whom they dread disrespecting.

  64. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post!

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    @PT

    Let’s say for the sake of argument I were to reconcile with my ex-wife and take her back.

    Wouldn’t that be failing the second biggest shit test in history? (The first being if I would not of divorced her when her cheating ways were discovered.) I think it would.

    It doesn’t have to be.

    “You really want me back? Are you willing to come over here, get down on your knees, beg my forgiveness, and ask me to have the mercy to take you back? Are you sure? Prove it.

  66. jf12 says:

    Re: “1) Is this commanded” No. Most relevant is 1 Cor 7:6.

  67. MarcusD says:

    Annulments aren’t divorce. They only recognize formally that a marriage never existed.

    That said, they’ve been so often abused in the past 30 or so years such that they can, in some senses, be called “Catholic divorces.”

  68. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Cane, Deti, Novaseeker, and Mark (and any others I may have missed).

  69. Let’s say for the sake of argument I were to reconcile with my ex-wife and take her back.

    Wouldn’t that be failing the second biggest shit test in history?

    It very easily could be, but it doesn’t have to be. As Cane and Dalrock said, is she crawling and begging for forgiveness and showing unqualified repentance? Is she naming specifics about how she intends to change her ways and make restitution? If you bring up marital roles, citing Ephesians 5 and Peter 3, does she waver and break in with, “yeah, but,” or does she sign on enthusiastically?

    The thing is, if you’re obligated to take her back by God’s law, then by the same law you’re obligated to lead her in the right direction. You can’t do that if you shrug off her sin and the damage she did; you can only do it if you stand strong and set high standards before agreeing to anything.

  70. jf12 says:

    On the question of taking a wife back after she is adulterous. One atypical Biblical solution is to “put her away privily”. More typical, especially when long married (e.g. w/ children) is to make the adulteress publically divorced (Matt 5:32; Jer 3:8), since having sex with another man essentially already makes her that other man’s wife (1 Cor 6:16, Rom 7:3). One too-prim but almost proper solution to a repentant adulteress is to take her back into your home to provision for her but never have sex again (1 Cor 7:5) if you were up to it, essentially defrauding the public if not yourselves, unless you made a big show of moving her into a separate bedroom and let everyone know you wouldn’t actually be having sex. Another solution, too not-prim, but which I could justify as Biblical, would be to take her back provisionally as a concubine, after first shaving her head to toe and waiting at least a month before allowing her to crawl into your bed. Provisioning for your concubine is subpar for provisioning for your wife.

  71. Smithborough says:

    Hey, apparently divorce is now good and holy!!! See:

    http://thechristianpundit.org/2014/01/22/when-divorce-is-good-and-holy/

  72. Novaseeker says:

    Ah yes, the porn divorce.

  73. Tam the Bam says:

    “You really want me back? Are you willing to come over here, get down on your knees, beg my forgiveness, and ask me to have the mercy to take you back? Are you sure? Prove it.
    As we all know, any undertaking or “promise” that any woman, including every NAWALT ever born, is undertaken with fingers firmly crossed behind her back.
    It’s always a lie. Even tho’ they can’t understand that! lol. It’s only true till “things change”.
    So what’s it to be, churchboys? How is there the slightest hope of enforcing even temporary conditional integrity?
    Send her back to her father’s house? Sue her? Put her to the blood-eagle in front of witnesses, for oath-breaking? Drown her in a bog under a hurdle, with her head half-shaved?

    Women lie. Lie, lie, lie. It’s what they do. Because it works.

  74. Aquila says:

    Marriage in America, including the Christian community, is like living in a country with so many laws that any time the government wants to they can lock you up and have an excuse. Churches have made it so the wife always has an excuse to betray her vows to God and husband.

  75. Dalrock says:

    @Farm Boy

    How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    As was noted by others this is deliberately vague. Any husband who is making his wife unhaaapy is guilty and in need of a wake-up call. If you look at the examples I offered in the OP the sin of the husband is typically quite vague, and if not unstated generally fairly mild in the scheme of failing husbands (see the astonishing Dobson link to get a sense of where this all comes from). The husband in Fireproof was guilty of watching porn and not submitting to his wife (he didn’t spend the money the way she wanted, he didn’t do the housework, he didn’t do the shopping, he didn’t support her career, etc). The video for ReEngage used a twist where they started with a generic “not haaapy” situation but it turned out the reason for the “distance” was her husband having cheated.

    For a similar take see how the Kendrick brothers did the same basic narrative on fatherhood in Courageous that they did on marriage with Fireproof. The main character in that case is a really good man, the kind of man a father hopes his daughter will one day marry. But for the movie to work at cutting good fathers off at the knees it had to crush this quite good father. He of course needed a wake-up call of a different sort, and a quite nasty one at that. After that we learn he was a terrible father, and his smallest flaws are exploded while his wife coldly tells him he can still change to become a good father.

    As for whether wives are called to submit to failing husbands, if the part of 1 Pet 3 I quoted isn’t enough, see the lines which follow. Peter offers as the model Sarah, whose husband not once but twice had her tell powerful men she was his sister (out of his own fear of the men). Sarah submitted, with this very nearly resulting in her being taken sexually by the men in both cases. This is the example Peter calls Christian wives to follow.

  76. Badpainter says:

    “Marriage in America, including the Christian community, is like living in a country with so many laws that any time the government wants to they can lock you up and have an excuse.”

    Conversely living in America today is like being in a marriage where you can be expelled from your home, separated from your children, detained, arrested, potentially disenfranchised, and denied certain constitutional right all on the flimsiest of accusations, and whims.

  77. Cane Caldo says:

    @Tam

    As we all know, any undertaking or “promise” that any woman, including every NAWALT ever born, is undertaken with fingers firmly crossed behind her back.
    It’s always a lie. Even tho’ they can’t understand that! lol. It’s only true till “things change”.
    So what’s it to be, churchboys? How is there the slightest hope of enforcing even temporary conditional integrity?

    There are no guarantees. I don’t care if you make eyerolls by wives punishable by death: There is no guarantee. So, setting that aside…

    I have a hard time imagining a woman–known to be haughty or condescending–who will beg on her knees, yet who is also not ready to actually be submissive. Kneeling will shatter that haughty spirit.

  78. whatever says:

    Hypergamy Speaks:

    “How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    1. financially, 2. socially, 3. personally, 4. sexually, … not necessarily in that order.

    Allow me to translate these words, which if you notice contain no goal, no “do this and you are a good husband”. This is, of course, because Hypergamy is relative.

    “How do we exactly define a “failing husband”?

    1.Less money than the richest man who ever slept with me once and never returned my calls.

    2.Less popular and charming than the biggest player who I slept with after knowing for four hours. He never returned my calls.

    3.Less compatible than the nicest, most decent, beta-orbiter I never slept with. When he got married after orbitting me for four years I was devastated.

    4.Less good in bed than the musician who I slept with. I knew better than to even call him.

    The interesting part is this “standard” is not only completely unobtainable by the woman demanding it, even the men she uses as her “example” failed in three out of four categories. The rich man was less charming than the player. The beta-orbiter…. well who knows, maybe he is better in bed than the musician. She should ask his new wife. :)

  79. sunshinemary says:

    You know, that “wake-up call narrative by the numbers” thing…I’ve seen that a lot, as I think about it. Not just in movies. I’ve seen couples give their testimony in church that fits this exact thing. Once it was a wife who had committed adultery and once it was a husband who had a drug and alcohol problem, but in both cases the narrative went according to what you’ve outlined.

    Here is one I haven’t seen yet:

    1. A poor excuse for a woman and wife does something (often something mysterious) to make her husband unhaaapy.
    2. As a result, the husband lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
    3. His sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required to shake his complacent wife into attention and get her to seek out God.
    4. Her seeking out God (triggered by his lack of leadership) fixes their marriage, makes her a better woman, and brings them both to God.

    I lol’d even writing this.

  80. jf12 says:

    Re: beta orbiters are better in bed than anyone else. They are the gender equivalent of an infatuated prostitute who pays her john to let her do things to him for his pleasure, and cooks him breakfast in the morning and buys him flowers. The funny thing is, women do not actually care if their man is good in bed. Older women have the highest proportion of orgasms, but insist on unilaterally decreasing sexual frequency. Perhaps the most interesting feminist counseling trend is against shaming women for choosing thugs who are lousy in bed, because according to the counselors the women’s orgasms are not as important as her feeling of having satisfied her man.

  81. Pingback: Man Up And Marry Those Subs! | Hipster Racist

  82. For all the comments above on the idea that if a marriage is a failure it is the man’s fault, the one word that popped into my head was an Old Testament reference: Hosea.

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    1. A poor excuse for a woman and wife does something (often something mysterious) to make her husband unhaaapy.
    2. As a result, the husband lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
    3. His sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required to shake his complacent wife into attention and get her to seek out God.
    4. Her seeking out God (triggered by his lack of leadership) fixes their marriage, makes her a better woman, and brings them both to God.

    That is “Dread Game”, and “Black-knighting”. The particular lacks of leadership including: threats, separation, divorce, etc.

  84. greyghost says:

    I would love to print this up and drop it in the literature box at the front of the church in the lobby.

  85. feeriker says:

    I have a hard time imagining a woman–known to be haughty or condescending–who will beg on her knees, yet who is also not ready to actually be submissive. Kneeling will shatter that haughty spirit.

    You make the fatal mistake here of underestimating the acting skills of the average woman. A woman kneeling in “broken supplication” before the husband she has wronged is no more a sure sign of repentance than is the child who says he’s sorry after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Neither one is “sorry” about anything other than 1) getting caught and 2) being faced with immediate punishment for their transgressions (think of the weeping and pleading you did as a kid right before you were about to get your bare arse pummeled by a wooden spoon; you weren’t the least bit sorry for what you did, and would do it again and again if you knew you could get away with it. You just wanted to avoid your just punishment).

    I think Tam is right about this one. As the old saying goes, “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”

  86. infowarrior1 says:

    Reblogged this on Breaking through illusions and commented:
    The insidious nature of feminism in the church.

  87. illuvitus says:

    @Feeriker:

    “1. Much of it is secular TradConism conflated with Christianity, the idea that it’s every man’s obligation to marry in order to save Western civilization (the idea that God couldn’t give less of a rip about Western civilization, or that He considers it too sinfully corrupt to be worth saving, never intrudes upon their solipsistic little brainlets). Similarly, those parts of the New Testament containing epistles by some guy named Paul, within one of which he admonishes Christians not to marry unless they “burn with passion” for a member of the opposite sex, either were omitted from their Bibles due to misprint/improper collation or just aren’t like, you know, fun or inspiring to read.”

    Christianity has always held marriage in high regard in both the East and West (well, maybe not so much in the modern West). Paul says exactly what you refer to, but the Bible mentions marriage in more than one location. Even sinless Adam who was in the presence of God was said to be in need of a helpmeet and God created Eve for this purpose.

    I don’t think Christians are wrong at all for thinking marriage is one of the highest callings a man or woman can be called to. I think it is wrong that marriage, considering how highly God esteems it, has been bastardized.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Ah, the Gospel According to Fireproof…

  89. ballista74 says:

    Thanks for the link. For those keeping score, the text Dalrock linked to was also covered in #6 of my series., but I recommend the whole thing if you want a feeling of how Dobson treated this back in 1980 when the book was published.

    The text on wife and family was disgusting enough in 1980, I’m sure the re-write will be even worse, given the garbage that Focus On The Family is peddling today, and that the fruit of the “Christian” woman’s rebellion has ripened so much since then. I definitely pray that anyone that ends up with this new version of the book will read our opposition as voiced to it.

  90. ballista74 says:

    Speaking of which, I’m sure the text covered in #7 will be a lot stronger given all the man-up garbage peddled by all the usual suspects.

    Remember, Dobson even said then (p 157) that drug abuse, alcoholism, “sexual intrigue” (single mothers, fornications, adulteries), “job instability” (unemployment), and “agressive behavior” would all just go away if all the single men out there would just man-up and marry those sluts like the good little tools they’re supposed to be.

  91. ballista74 says:

    In other words, the answer to all the evil in the world is for men to just man-up and marry those sluts.

  92. tsotha says:

    Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

    Does this actually work… ever? Only the most whipped beta man is going to fall in line when his wife uses sex as a bargaining chip. It makes me angry to the point where I lose any interest in the “marriage bed”.

  93. ballista74 says:

    Does this actually work… ever? Only the most whipped beta man is going to fall in line when his wife uses sex as a bargaining chip.

    It actually works, because the majority of men are to put it nicely “sex-addicted” from teenage years where the acceptance of a woman to the point of sex is built up to be the be-all and end-all of human existence, and consequently a man should do anything and everything to get it, including debase himself into scum. This is part of how traditional feminism works. To go off of another blog I won’t link here, submission to a woman is almost assured in the face of such a sex-controlled weak-willed man. “If he won’t do what you want, ladies, let him argue with his d***.” is a common tactic, and is repeated much for that reason. It works.

  94. Caspar Reyes says:

    Rollo Tomassi: “The unfortunate truth is that most troubled marriages are the result of a (christian) Beta husband’s over extending himself to qualify for his wife’s approval.”

    May be the most succinct, distilled essence of everything I’ve read since discovering the Manosphere a year and a half ago.

  95. PuzzledTraveller says:

    Thanks everyone for commenting on my question. That’s something I’ve struggled with a lot. The marriage is forever thing, but how can you stay married to a woman who does that? Coupled with this whole forgiveness thing, etc. Is God really pissed off at me because I got divorced?

    Yeah. Stuff like that. Lot of stuff rolling around in my brain.

    Eh. I’m getting a bit nostalgic today. These last couple posts have struck a nerve.

    Anyway, you’ve given me good things to ponder.

  96. @Crowhill,

    So, while I applaud your efforts to destroy the phony “wake up call” approach, do you have something to put in its place other than silent submission?

    I’m not sure why this question is even asked in the context of a believer. In light of:

    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
    (1Pe 3:1)

    Do we have to have something else to put in place besides what the Bible clearly states? If you want to promote egalitarianism it is only ethical to do your own heavy lifting.

  97. Longtorso says:

    @Dalrock “As was noted by others this is deliberately vague. Any husband who is making his wife unhaaapy is guilty and in need of a wake-up call. If you look at the examples I offered in the OP the sin of the husband is typically quite vague, ”

    “The conventional word that it employed to describe tyranny is ‘systematic’. The true essence of a dictatorship is in fact not its regularity but the unpredictability and caprice; those who live under it must never be able to relax, must never be quite sure they have followed the rules correctly or not. Thus, the ruled can always be found to be in the wrong.”
    ~Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

    It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.
    – Ayn Rand

  98. Farm Boy says:

    the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.

    It is odd that they are seemingly never called on this. Mothers are supposed to be the most family oriented people in existence.

  99. @Farm Boy, that is why they never get called on it. They get an automatic bye. If they wreck their families they were driven to it by a bad husband.

  100. Farm Boy says:

    The crux of the problem seems to be women’s expectations. Fellas normally do not have such expectations. Why do women?

  101. Expectations are how a woman is taught to define herself. If they are low she has sold herself short and that is what makes her trashy. Not her own behavior or choices. Driving a hard bargain and being highly demanding have no down side in the book of Oprah.

  102. Johnycomelately says:

    Here’s a sad personal testimony of what a husband goes through, the man is trying his best.
    http://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/i-cant-unscramble-eggs.html#more

  103. BikerDad says:

    “Re: “1) Is this commanded” No. Most relevant is 1 Cor 7:6.”

    Wrong. Most relevant is the command to love you wife as Christ loves His Bride. He will ALWAYS reconcile, WHEN the wayward Bride is repentant.

  104. imnobody00 says:

    because the majority of men are to put it nicely “sex-addicted” from teenage years where the acceptance of a woman to the point of sex is built up to be the be-all and end-all of human existence, and consequently a man should do anything and everything to get it, including debase himself into scum.

    This is one of the features of American culture that I have been unsuccessfully trying to understand for years

  105. BikerDad, the question is repentant of what? Jesus Christ won’t reconcile with an non-submissive bride. There is no marriage in that case, sorry.

  106. Cane Caldo says:

    @feeriker

    You make the fatal mistake here of underestimating the acting skills of the average woman. A woman kneeling in “broken supplication” before the husband she has wronged is no more a sure sign of repentance than is the child who says he’s sorry after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    This strikes me as paranoia.

    1) I’m sure such women exist, but that is not most women; not even close. Such a display of abject humility will affect her whether she likes it or not.

    2) What we want is obedience. You seem to be concerned about whether “deep-down she really wants” to be obedient. I can’t give a damn for deep-down feelings. If I see obedience, then I’m getting respect, and if I’m getting respect, then she’s doing well. Everything we feel “deep-down” is deception anyways; not just to others, but to ourselves.

    @PT

    Thanks everyone for commenting on my question. That’s something I’ve struggled with a lot. The marriage is forever thing, but how can you stay married to a woman who does that?

    The question you need to ask is: “How can I stay married to a woman who does that?” Only you and God can answer that, and it will be a daily answer, not a once-and-for-all answer. I do not mean to be flippant, so I hope I don’t come across that way.

    Coupled with this whole forgiveness thing, etc. Is God really pissed off at me because I got divorced?

    The question is: “Am I being obedient to God?” It’s not a matter of whether God is angry with us, but whether we respect him enough to be obedient; to put our feelings aside and do what we are told because we know our feelings are fleeting, and deceiving. We practice our faith in God by being obedient; not by feeling the right feelings, or by trying to make God not be angry at us.

    Just to be clear: I am not saying the Bible commands you to remarry that woman, or that the Bible commands exes to remarry each other. It does seem crystal clear to me:

    1) We’re not to divorce.
    2) If we do, we cause the other to commit adultery.
    3) If we do, we are not to marry another.
    4) Reconciliation is possible.

  107. imnobody00 says:

    The crux of the problem seems to be women’s expectations. Fellas normally do not have such expectations. Why do women?

    They are constantly bombarded with high expectations. They are their father’s princesses, beta orbiters cater to every whim of theirs, players make them feel special, they fuck men way out of their league, chick flicks say they can realistically land an alpha, mass media tell them they are special snowflakes, feminists tell them they are superior to men, churches tell them they are the most spiritual sex, they are daughters of the King, Jesus understand them and are unique for Him, Jesus will give them the perfect man, every thing a woman does is celebrated and praised, even becoming a whore is empowering, you, go, girl!!

  108. Matamoros says:

    MarcusD: Annulments aren’t divorce. They only recognize formally that a marriage never existed.
    That said, they’ve been so often abused in the past 30 or so years such that they can, in some senses, be called “Catholic divorces.”

    That is true. The Novus Ordo revolution allowed women to annul their husbands for little or no reason.

    My understanding is that the reason why originally the annullment process was made easier was because of psychological impairment to fully understand what is being consented to in marriage. So women grabbed it to get out of their marriages.

    However, considering psychological impairment, one might ask how many women in our day and age, or from the ’60′s onward, tainted by women’s lib, hypergamy, etc. really have the ability to really consent to a life long, non-endable marriage. I would doubt that the percentage would be high. Previous generations of women were taught by their mothers and female relatives what marriage entailed, what was expected of them (including the marriage debt, obedience, etc.).

    Consequently most women enter marriage with the idea that if they don’t like it they will end it, if the husband doesn’t please her, she’ll end it, on and on. Modern women are psychologically and spiritually impaired. I applaud women like SSM who have found their way back. But any man who deigns to get married should recognize this damage, the probability of divorce/annullment, and take definite steps before the marriage to protect himself and his children.

  109. HawkandRock says:

    1) We’re not to divorce.
    2) If we do, we cause the other to commit adultery.
    3) If we do, we are not to marry another.
    4) Reconciliation is possible.

    My wife cheated. I did not file for divorce (4 kids). She did on the grounds that the marriage was “irreconcilably broken” (i.e., no fault). According to you and God, I can never marry again even though I never sought or wanted a divorce.

    Seems incredibly harsh but nevertheless correct since in the eyes of God, what he joined cannot be dissolved by men…. I guess. Said another way — if you marry a faithless skank and she leaves you, you have consigned yourself to a life of single celibacy.

    Like I said — harsh.

  110. Novaseeker says:

    However, considering psychological impairment, one might ask how many women in our day and age, or from the ’60′s onward, tainted by women’s lib, hypergamy, etc. really have the ability to really consent to a life long, non-endable marriage. I would doubt that the percentage would be high.

    Right, which is the main explanation given for why annulment rates in the United States in particular are so high compared to other parts of the world, and also the past. The idea is that a large number of couples do not have the proper understanding when entering into the marriage, so there is a failure of actual consent, and therefore the marriage was null ab initio (the tribunal does not annul marriages, it simply declares which ones were always null). In effect, what this means is that a lot of people (Catholics) who appear to be married actually are not married because their marriages are null, de facto, even if a tribunal has not declared them as such, due to the deficiencies of understanding/consent. Of course, if the marriage doesn’t run into trouble, this is less of an issue, but it is the underlying context of believing that so many people have a deficient consent.

  111. Cane Caldo says:

    @HawkandRock

    My wife cheated. I did not file for divorce (4 kids). She did on the grounds that the marriage was “irreconcilably broken” (i.e., no fault).

    Brutal. Whenever I hear stories like yours, I wonder if anyone besides the aggrieved told her what a cunty thing that is to do; just disgusting.

    Seems incredibly harsh but nevertheless correct since in the eyes of God, what he joined cannot be dissolved by men…. I guess.

    Those four points I listed are what is clear, but they are not the whole of the matter. You should talk to the people around you; the people who will live with whatever decisions you make. I’m just a guy on the Internet.

    Said another way — if you marry a faithless skank and she leaves you, you have consigned yourself to a life of single celibacy.

    We shouldn’t shift the blame to the victim; in this case you.

  112. jf12 says:

    @BikerDad there comes a time when supposed repentance is too little too late. Matt 7:19-21, etc. For example, deathbed conversions can bear no marriage fruit and therefore do not count for marriages.

  113. hurting says:

    PuzzledTraveller says:
    March 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    I think the stats bear it out – yes, most people who divorce and/or cause strife in their marriage (read: women) are suffering at worst from truly first world problems, and a great many of those are of their own making, most notably ridiculous expectations of what marriage is or ought to be.

    There are a great many women who hold their boring but hardworking husband in contempt, for Pete’s sake. No, indifference or resigned acceptance will not do. Only active hatred will fill the void.

  114. jf12 says:

    Cane Caldo is of course correct, but here is another correct: a *properly* divorced man, which is to say he did not cause the divorce but merely allowed her to leave (1 Cor 7:15), e.g. because of her unrepented adultery, IS Biblically permitted to marry again even if he will be counted as having more than one wife. Perhaps this is a concession to men’s higher sex drives.

  115. hurting says:

    Dalrock says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Seconding that.

    Reminding readers of the other red herring about communication problems in marriage. She does not want you to give her the message in a different manner (e.g., more “I” statements). She wants you to STFU and do it her way.

  116. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Indeed. A few more kids per family would cure a lot of ills.

  117. hurting says:

    Matamoros says:
    March 4, 2014 at 12:17 am

    Catholics might be some of the most at-risk for divorce looking forward giventhe Church’s propensity to move the goalposts.

  118. Farm Boy says:

    Consequently most women enter marriage with the idea that if they don’t like it they will end it

    This does appear to be true. It is sad commentary that their vows are essentially lies.

  119. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    1. A poor excuse for a woman and wife does something (often something mysterious) to make her husband unhaaapy.
    2. As a result, the husband lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
    3. His sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required to shake his complacent wife into attention and get her to seek out God.
    4. Her seeking out God (triggered by his lack of leadership) fixes their marriage, makes her a better woman, and brings them both to God.

    Of course, it breaks down at #3. If a demon… er, man sins against an angel… er, woman harsh sanctions from the church follow, up to and including “Yeah, divorce is bad, m’kay, but you should really divorce/annul him.”

    But I have lived, seen, and read of men being in an intolerable marriage, reaching the point that they no longer give a sh!t, and using their lack of sh!t giving to prolong the marriage via dread/red pill knowledge.

    “And they lived happily ever after” does not appear to be part of that scenario, but “And he managed to keep the marriage together and bearable until he died” is a better ending then some of the others on tap, if your faith rules out the “And he dumped the b!tch” path.

  120. Farm Boy says:

    Consequently most women enter marriage with the idea that if they don’t like it they will end it

    Put into a contemporary terminology, “If you like your husband, you can keep your husband”

  121. Novaseeker says:

    This does appear to be true. It is sad commentary that their vows are essentially lies.

    Yes, but it’s an old saw that women have the prerogative to change their minds, and all that. In the past, that was *before* the marriage, however that is now more broadly applied.

    The issue when it comes to the annulment process, which is what Matamoros was talking about, is that this general tendency to reserve the right to change one’s mind, in the context of a legal system which permits unilateral divorce on demand, can now be seen as a fatal flaw from the outset of the marriage, such that it was always null. In other words, in the past, because divorces were harder to obtain unilaterally (at least for all but the wealthy who could afford good lawyers without much financial pain), the mindset entering marriage was that it was more permanent, and so fewer people had a “defective understanding of what they were consenting to” when marrying than is the case today. So what’s happened is that the legal system and the culture have made it much harder for anyone to have the requisite understanding and intent to validly enter into a Catholic sacramental marriage, per this view. Likely most of the Catholics who never managed to get divorced still have the same problem (again, the issue of whether a marriage is null or not depends on the situation when the marriage occurred, not on the subsequent history of the marriage), really, although you don’t know because a tribunal has not declared that these were null ab initio (yet).

  122. As others have touched on, the Catholic annulment problem is really a “failed catechesis about marriage” problem. Many Catholic marriages (especially mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics) are clearly not valid by the Church’s own rules. Many aren’t even hard decisions for the annulment boards. When people don’t even know what the rules are, it’s hard to say they’ve given informed consent to them.

    So there will continue to be lots of annulments, because there will be lots of invalid marriages, until the Church starts teaching correct marriage doctrine again. If that means in the meantime people snicker at us and accuse us of allowing “Catholic divorce”…. well, that’s what we get for discarding our own doctrines for several decades.

  123. sunshinemary says:

    HawkandRock:

    My wife cheated. I did not file for divorce (4 kids). She did on the grounds that the marriage was “irreconcilably broken” (i.e., no fault).

    Cane Caldo:

    Brutal. Whenever I hear stories like yours, I wonder if anyone besides the aggrieved told her what a cunty thing that is to do; just disgusting.

    I highly doubt that anyone told her that it was a cruddy thing to do. Because that would involve making a judgment, and Christians are only supposed to love, never judge, especially when the recipient of the judgment is either female or homosexual. 100% of non-Christians believe this and seemingly 99% of Christians (including, when you really get down to brass tacks, many “red pill” Christians or whatever you want to call them) believe it, too.

  124. Farm Boy says:

    women have the prerogative to change their minds

    If they have this privilege, should they be allowed to take vows?

  125. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    If they have this privilege, should they be allowed to take vows?

    Absolutely, because sexist.

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    A married, churchgoing man I know recently participated in “Weekend To Remember”, I believe that’s a Family Life / Dennis Rainey operation. I’ll try to get some sort of a debrief from him.

  127. Thinkn'Man says:

    26 I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare. 27 “Look,” says the Teacher, “this is what I have discovered: “Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things– 28 while I was still searching but not finding– I found one [upright] man among a thousand, but not one [upright] woman among them all.
    Ecclesiates 7
    (emphases mine)

  128. jf12 says:

    Re: prerogative. This IS the argument of annulers: Since she changed her mind afterwards, that is prima facie evidence that she was psychologically impaired PRIOR when she made her vows.

  129. Thinkn'Man says:

    @jf12 :
    “Since she changed her mind afterwards…”
    Sounds like the same argument they use after alleged RAAAAAAAAPE accusations.

  130. Hawk,

    My wife cheated. I did not file for divorce (4 kids). She did on the grounds that the marriage was “irreconcilably broken” (i.e., no fault).

    I am so sorry. You were being the stand up guy and your wife couldn’t deal with the fact that she ruined everything, so ruined it even more. And I doubt that anyone gave her any grief over it.

  131. Novaseeker says:

    This IS the argument of annulers: Since she changed her mind afterwards, that is prima facie evidence that she was psychologically impaired PRIOR when she made her vows.

    One of the pieces of evidence, yes. But it seems to be an inconvenient truth — if she didn’t have the requisite understanding to properly consent, it is what it is. The issue, as Cail notes, is that too many people are too poorly catechized such that they do not have the proper consent.

  132. Athor Pel says:

    “HawkandRock says:
    March 4, 2014 at 1:55 am

    My wife cheated. I did not file for divorce (4 kids). She did on the grounds that the marriage was “irreconcilably broken” (i.e., no fault). According to you and God, I can never marry again even though I never sought or wanted a divorce.
    …”

    Sorry but that is an incorrect apprehension of what the Word says.

    The man CAN marry another woman, provided she is not a wife of another man. In fact, he can legally marry another woman while married to the first wife, otherwise King David would not have been a man after God’s own heart; nor would God have had to deal with Aaron and Miriam over Moses’ second wife. Many folks may not like it but it is what the Word says.

    Biblically women cannot divorce their husbands. Only a husband has the authority to divorce. The wife can leave, just as Moses’ first wife did, but she cannot, on her own, divorce, not in the eyes of God.

    As soon as a woman, without a Biblcial certificate of divorce from the first husband, takes up with a second husband, has intercourse with another man that is not her first husband, she is committing adultery.

    Marriage in the purely earthly sense is a man centered thing.

    In your case HawkandRock your wife committed adultery as soon as she took up with another man. You are free to marry again in the strictest Biblical sense.

    Lastly, according to the Law, if a woman does take up with another man, even if she is legally divorced, she cannot go back to the first husband, ever.

  133. Marky Mark says:

    Perfect solution is just avoid marriage. Simple. Done.

  134. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 4, 2014 at 8:56 am

    I’d challenge the idea that people really don’t know what they’re signing up for in Catholic marriage. The poor catechesis argument is cover for the apologists for liberal divorce (and subsequent liberal annulment pastoralism) with the Church proper. The Church long held that the requirements of marriage were understandable by young teenagers; only since the mid-60′s has the Church held otherwise in the tribunal system.

    The overwhelming majority of Cathiolic annulments are granted on the basis of defective consent pursuant to canon 1095 (the residual defect of form cases are expediently handled, but they are a small minority of the total in the US). As Vasoli documented in his seminal book on the topic, the tribunals use this canon as license to declare null essentially any case that comes before them. I’ve done of great deal of reading on the matter, and the best analogy for a defective consent annulment as typically granted is that of a temporary insanity defense; it is essentailly the conversion of sin (breaking vows) to one of syndrome. It is often argued that one or both of the petitioners were not so much ignorant of the requirements but rather too mature to understand them.

    It pains me greatly to say this (as a cradle Catholic perhaps albeit somewhat poorly catechized at least initially), but the tribunal process in the US at least is de facto Catholic divorce.

  135. Farm Boy says:

    an old saw that women have the prerogative to change their minds

    They also seem to have the prerogative to not plan and to not prepare.

  136. jf12 says:

    @Athor Pel, correct, Deut 24:1-4.

  137. Cane Caldo says:

    @Athor Pel

    The man CAN marry another woman, provided she is not a wife of another man. In fact, he can legally marry another woman while married to the first wife, otherwise King David would not have been a man after God’s own heart; nor would God have had to deal with Aaron and Miriam over Moses’ second wife.

    This is a gross conflation. The fact that David was a man after God’s own heart is not related to David’s marriages. Neither did Moses’ marital woes have anything to do with the fact that he was God’s chosen prophet. The fact that God, in His grace, does not choose to smite us dead, remove His grace from us, or otherwise overtly punish us does not mean that He approves of everything we do.

    Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    &

    Mark 10:2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

    &

    Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. 15 And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

    16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

    18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

    Note that the pharisee’s love of money leads directly to their practice of divorce, and that the Law and prophets were pointing to the good news of the kingdom of God; grace, faith, and forgiveness in Christ. The Law and the prophets are not the borders of the kingdom of God, but signposts.

    &

    1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

    12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    Are you both believers? Divorce should not be undertaken.

    Many folks may not like it but it is what the Word says.

    Every bit of the Law in the OT points to Christ and the New Covenant; which is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The fact that you are prioritizing the OT over the NT is an exact demonstration of why the Law is a stumbling block meant to show the need for grace, faith, and forgiveness; that we cannot fulfill the law and so Someone Else must. Here, it is you who must learn to like what the Word Made Flesh said.

  138. In fact, he can legally marry another woman while married to the first wife, otherwise King David would not have been a man after God’s own heart; nor would God have had to deal with Aaron and Miriam over Moses’ second wife. Many folks may not like it but it is what the Word says.

    Just because it is historically accurate in the Bible, it does not mean that this was the Will of God.

    King David was a dispicable human being. There was nothing rightous about him, not since he killed Goliath. What he did with Bathsheba was completely indefensible.

  139. Hurting, I don’t doubt that annulments are being used as de facto divorce by liberal tribunals. But I can assure you that people don’t know what they’re signing up for in a Catholic marriage, because I didn’t. I was a cradle Catholic who had never been taught what made Catholic marriage different from secular marriage or that of other groups. I’d been taught that things like the requirement that Catholics need a dispensation to marry non-Catholics were “old ways” like veils and Communion on the tongue. When I entered into what was (I know now) clearly an illicit marriage, not one Catholic friend or family member objected or offered a word of warning.

    Yes, even children are able to understand the requirements for marriage, but you can’t understand something you were never told because the people in charge refused to teach it. Children who were catechized with the Baltimore Catechism, which included all American Catholics prior to 1970 or so, couldn’t have argued that they didn’t know the basics, because they were right in there in black and white. It’s not anymore. I don’t know how a tribunal can tell the truly ignorant from the few who did know better but ignored it; leaving them little recourse but to give people the benefit of the doubt.

    The catechesis is still terrible outside some traditionalist groups, so it’s not going to get better anytime soon.

  140. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    King David was a dispicable human being. There was nothing rightous about him, not since he killed Goliath.

    You never miss an opportunity to express the most incredibly dumb sentiments.

  141. What Cane, you LIKED King David?????? Did you read the same Bible I did?

  142. Desiderius says:

    “Perfect solution is just avoid marriage. Simple. Done.”

    Your grandkids aren’t fans.

  143. Desiderius says:

    “One of the pieces of evidence, yes. But it seems to be an inconvenient truth — if she didn’t have the requisite understanding to properly consent, it is what it is. The issue, as Cail notes, is that too many people are too poorly catechized such that they do not have the proper consent.”

    Ignorance has become too advantageous.

    Moral hazard.

  144. Desiderius says:

    When TradCons/GOPers/regular old Christians wonder why they’re not so popular these days, keep in mind that most of the contact people have with those groups consists of folks like IBB.

  145. jf12 says:

    @Cane, I like you better the more you’re down in the trenches with us. Re: “Are you both believers? Divorce should not be undertaken.” Let’s annullitize this, shall we? If, say, the wife decided to get divorced, that proves that she either isn’t a believer or never was really married because of her deformed consent or whatever.

  146. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    The source of David’s righteousness (yes, he was righteous) was his irrepressible love of God. His actions with Bathsheba were risible, but they do not nullify David’s greatness; a greatness given to him by God because it pleased God to recognize David’s love for Him. I have read the Bible. Have you read the Psalms? It was David who wrote this:

    Psalm22 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
    2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
    and by night, but I find no rest.

    3 Yet you are holy,
    enthroned on the praises of Israel.
    4 In you our fathers trusted;
    they trusted, and you delivered them.
    5 To you they cried and were rescued;
    in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

    6 But I am a worm and not a man,
    scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
    7 All who see me mock me;
    they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
    8 “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
    let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

    9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
    you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
    10 On you was I cast from my birth,
    and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
    11 Be not far from me,
    for trouble is near,
    and there is none to help.

    12 Many bulls encompass me;
    strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
    13 they open wide their mouths at me,
    like a ravening and roaring lion.

    14 I am poured out like water,
    and all my bones are out of joint;
    my heart is like wax;
    it is melted within my breast;
    15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd,
    and my tongue sticks to my jaws;
    you lay me in the dust of death.

    16 For dogs encompass me;
    a company of evildoers encircles me;
    they have pierced my hands and feet—
    17 I can count all my bones—
    they stare and gloat over me;
    18 they divide my garments among them,
    and for my clothing they cast lots.

    19 But you, O Lord, do not be far off!
    O you my help, come quickly to my aid!
    20 Deliver my soul from the sword,
    my precious life from the power of the dog!
    21 Save me from the mouth of the lion!
    You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!

    22 I will tell of your name to my brothers;
    in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
    23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
    All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
    and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
    24 For he has not despised or abhorred
    the affliction of the afflicted,
    and he has not hidden his face from him,
    but has heard, when he cried to him.

    25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
    my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
    26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
    those who seek him shall praise the Lord!
    May your hearts live forever!

    27 All the ends of the earth shall remember
    and turn to the Lord,
    and all the families of the nations
    shall worship before you.
    28 For kingship belongs to the Lord,
    and he rules over the nations.

    29 All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
    before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
    even the one who could not keep himself alive.
    30 Posterity shall serve him;
    it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
    31 they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
    that he has done it.

    “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is what Jesus said while He was on the cross, pierced in hand and foot, surrounded by bulls and dogs.

    Yet you say David’s righteousness ended at Goliath. Is that your final answer?

  147. Matamoros says:

    Novaseeker: Of course, if the marriage doesn’t run into trouble, this is less of an issue, but it is the underlying context of believing that so many people have a deficient consent.
    and
    Hurting: I’d challenge the idea that people really don’t know what they’re signing up for in Catholic marriage. The poor catechesis argument is cover for the apologists for liberal divorce (and subsequent liberal annulment pastoralism) with the Church proper.

    As Novaseeker mentioned in one of his posts, catechesis is sorely lacking in the Church today because of all the kumbaya liberal b.s. taught in its place. It is not a “poor catechesis argument” it is reality. Talk to Catholic women and ask them about things like no divorce, what is required for an annulment, obedience of the wife, the marriage debt, etc. and you will quickly find out that these women are all heavily indoctrinated in feminist shtick. It colors their Catholicism and they do not rationally apprehend what is what. They will take the vow thinking they can always get a divorce or annulment.

    “[I]f the marriage doesn’t run into trouble” is another way of saying if the putative husband doesn’t rock her boat, and she doesn’t “Fireproof” him. The signs are there before the marriage, and more open after the marriage when she has his name on the dotted line. Does she want to keep her own name? Does she ever mention divorce positively, or tell you that she is considering it? Does she complain about sex, or “always doing what you want”? Did she live up to her marriage vows or slut around?

    The thing about the annulment tribunal is that all of this indicates deficient consent, and if the putative husband files for annulment she will be questioned about these things under oath. Without the will to contract a lifelong marriage with the duties of a wife, there is no marriage and it is annulled as never meeting the Church’s (God’s) standards for a sacramental indissoluble marriage.

    Hurting: Catholics might be some of the most at-risk for divorce looking forward given the Church’s propensity to move the goalposts.

    No, that’s not true. The goal posts are where they have always been. The motto of the Church is semper idem, always the same. The problem is liberal clergy who refuse to perform their duties according to the rules of the Church. And, of course, the neo-pagan culture of feminism we live in.

    I read a Japanese saying the other day. “Many married women are not wives.” All too true.

  148. Anchorman says:

    Piper lays out a fairly convincing argument in “What Jesus Demands from the World” (available free for download from desiringgod.org) that ANY divorce and ANY remarriage (except after death of spouse) is sin.

    I’ve read Instone Brewer’s book. As a frivorced man, I found comfort in what he said.

    However, I found Piper’s work/argument stronger.

    Adultery and desertion and not legit grounds for divorce.

    A frivorced man or woman is not free to remarry.

    I’ve read the arguments here for years. I find them comforting. However, I think Piper’s work is stronger, even if a dose of tough medicine.

    It doesn’t have to be that way, as he explained in Demand 42.

  149. feeriker says:

    I wonder if anyone besides the aggrieved told her what a cunty thing that is to do; just disgusting.

    Maybe someone has told her this to her face, but I doubt she would have listened or cared if they did. Such women who blow up their families so blithely and for such selfish reasons seldom ever care about the consequences of their actions (accept to themselves, usually many years after they pull the trigger and start reaping the bitter fruit of the seeds they’ve sown, at which point they start whoring for sympathy, often from the very people whose lives they’ve ruined).

  150. Jack Amok says:

    There’s two problems with the “it’s always his fault” narrative. The first is that usually, the advice for what he should do differently is terrible (typically be more Beta, when if there’s a problem today it’s usually because there’s not enough Alpha). The second is that women hear that and think they have no responsibility for their own actions and can misbehave to their heart’s content.

    The real message probably needs to be delivered separately to each sex. Both need to be told they are responsible for upholding their end of the partnership, and both need to be told failings are their responsibility to fix. It’s counter-productive to let women think men have all the responsibility, and vice versa too.

    Plus, giving men Alpha Up advice where women can hear it can be counterproductive. Few women like to be reminded of their inner natures. Co-Ed sermons probably need to be limited to non-marriage topics…

  151. tz2026 says:

    I should have been stronger. I said the wife only says she doesn’t like something.

    No, she doesn’t even do that. Like a baby that gives the same crying regardless of what is upsetting him, the wife “screeches and claws”. The cat in the tail tale was not capable of saying “you are standing on my tail and it hurts”. Women supposedly are. But they often screech, do petty offensive things, generally be in a bad mood, and when the husband asks what the matter is, she replies “nothing” while seething inside that he might have been a bit late, didn’t pick up his clothes, take out the trash or something he would be able to act on or discuss rationally

    So men learn to expect women to be irrational bitches all the time – for if someone who seems to be having a psychotic episode tells you “nothing is causing this”, the logical conclusion is that she is psychotic. And she is. Instead of simply saying clearly what is wrong, she (and he – sometimes men, especially the feminized risk averse ones) prefers to bathe in the anger and count it is his sin toward her. Never giving repentance and forgiveness a chance – either direction.

    We are fallen and annoy others all the time. Your choice is to take it as a cross to bear, or confront the problem without being confrontational. The solipsism works also to assume because something is annoying you, that it is knowingly being done by the other to annoy you. But that is the devil speaking.

  152. HawkandRock says:

    “I wonder if anyone besides the aggrieved told her what a cunty thing that is to do; just disgusting.”

    Not to my knowledge. It was nothing less than shocking to me how much support she got from many fine ‘Christian’ ladies that I thought were my friends too (LOL). “Life’s too short to be unhappy.” “You are such a strong person.” “Your kids will happy if you are happy…” etc. etc.

    One person — ONE — out of a group of about 15 close Christian families has disassociated themselves socially from her.

    I have come to the conclusion that people mostly just want to be liked. Nobody wants to know too much about what went on because then that would mean that they might have to judge or take sides. People just want to go to work, come home, watch TV, have friends and enjoy life. I can’t blame them but I would be lying if I said it didn’t hurt like hell and feel like a second betrayal. It did.

    The man she was screwing was younger, better looking and much, much wealthier. She traded up in pretty much every way as long as you don’t count the effect on the children (ages 3, 6, 8, and 11 at the time). Lately, though, he has left the picture — he has his own problems 2 divorces and 2 kids from different mothers, one of whom he was never married to.

    Maybe it won’t work out so rosy for her after all. Time will tell.

    By the way, she was a pastor’s kid. I didn’t find out until her affair (from her mother) that her dad, the shepherd (LOL) had multiple affairs with both men and women during their marriage.

    You can bet your @$$ that if I make sure I teach my children anything it is that you MUST know everything you can about your potential spouse’s family. There are no do overs. This stuff matters and if you make a mistake, the effects will be very, very bad and multigenerational.

  153. Farm Boy says:

    women hear that and think they have no responsibility for their own actions and can misbehave to their heart’s content.

    When considered for any length of time, this is ludicrous. Some humility would go a long ways with these women.

  154. Cane,

    The source of David’s righteousness (yes, he was righteous) was his irrepressible love of God. His actions with Bathsheba were risible, but they do not nullify David’s greatness;

    I don’t even know where to begin. Yes I do….

    Love of God Almighty, does not make one rightous, not if you behave in the manner that David did. By the same token (your words Cane), Hawk’s wife (who frivorced him) could be as equally rightous if (and only if) she had this same irrepressible love of God. And we both know that this is NOT the case.

    What is the matter with you? You know better than this.

  155. Des,

    When TradCons/GOPers/regular old Christians wonder why they’re not so popular these days, keep in mind that most of the contact people have with those groups consists of folks like IBB.

    The reason why Trad Cons are not so popular these days is because far too many of them (dare I say almost all of them in Congress) don’t have a clue WHY they are supposed to be conservative and WHY the conservatives that elected them are so angry with them and want them replaced. They are this way because they don’t know history and they are afraid (yes afraid) of saying the wrong thing in public and giving the media ammunition that the media would gladly use to assassinate them.

    Dan Quayle was right. The people who alienated him and hated him for saying what any Traditional Conservative knows to be true, those people would never have voted for him for even a dog catcher. Quayle did not care if what he said (publically) brought nothing but anger out of them. Quayle knew that because in this one thing, he knew right from wrong and knew that the Traditional Conservatives would respect him for it….

    …we don’t have Trad Con GOP people like him in Congress. We have cowards OR people who don’t have a clue what it means to be a Trad Con.

  156. Farm Boy says:

    One person — ONE — out of a group of about 15 close Christian families has disassociated themselves socially from her.

    Fortunately, it is not all that way. In my case, our mutual friends disassociated from her, some of them mentioning Anna Karenina. Her parents and sister gave her tongue lashings. Some people still understand.

  157. Farm Boy says:

    She traded up in pretty much every way as long as you don’t count the effect on the children (ages 3, 6, 8, and 11 at the time).

    It is odd how the tingles can be significantly more powerful than maternal instincts.

  158. HawkandRock says:

    “Fortunately, it is not all that way. In my case, our mutual friends disassociated from her, some of them mentioning Anna Karenina. Her parents and sister gave her tongue lashings. Some people still understand.”

    My wife’s mother and sister did the same…..at first. But when they saw that her mind was made up, they supported her 100%. Her mother still sends me religious books and wishes me “peace” because I know she feels bad and she knows I was a very good husband and father….. but she is nevertheless 100% in support of her daughter.

    That’s just the way it is.

  159. Athor Pel says:

    Cane,

    Dude, slow down. You’re talking about avoidance of sin, the heading off of divorce, the utter superiority of the grace and power provided in the new Covenent.

    I was talking to a man that has ALREADY had his marriage wrecked. He needed to know where he is RIGHT NOW. Because if you don’t know what the offense is then you don’t know what to repent of.

    Many previously intractable situations leading to death under the Law can be covered and healed by the blood of the Messiah provided there is true repentance.

    You can’t fully understand the magnitude of the grace extended to us by Christ’s gift without first studying the Law and the prophets. The Lord Himself said He was going to write His Law on our hearts. And that doesn’t absolve anyone from learning all of His Word that is humanly possible.

  160. HawkandRock says:

    “It is odd how the tingles can be significantly more powerful than maternal instincts.”

    Profoundly shocking is what it is.

    When I saw the movie many years ago, I did not like it. However, Kubrick was absolutely brilliant in capturing the idea of what a woman is willing to do and give up for the famous 5 minutes of alpha. It really is a horrifying (and brilliant) scene and even Cruise is excellent in his reaction:

  161. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    @Cane, I like you better the more you’re down in the trenches with us.

    I get that a lot.

    Re: “Are you both believers? Divorce should not be undertaken.” Let’s annullitize this, shall we? If, say, the wife decided to get divorced, that proves that she either isn’t a believer or never was really married because of her deformed consent or whatever.

    I think that would be the Protestant version of RC annulment (as it is practiced), yes. It remains that we cannot know from just the divorce if someone is not a believer anymore than we can know from any other sin. We can’t just prnou

    But that is not the only option. We are empowered and commanded to treat them as an unbeliever by casting them out of our churches, and out of our fellowship so that their flesh may be destroyed, but their soul saved. More than anything else around divorce: This is what the church fails to do to those who pursue divorce.

    @HaR

    I have come to the conclusion that people mostly just want to be liked. Nobody wants to know too much about what went on because then that would mean that they might have to judge or take sides. People just want to go to work, come home, watch TV, have friends and enjoy life. I can’t blame them but I would be lying if I said it didn’t hurt like hell and feel like a second betrayal. It did.

    You are right, and you are being betrayed by those “friends”. If they still associate with her, then they are persisting in betrayal.

    The man she was screwing was younger, better looking and much, much wealthier. She traded up in pretty much every way as long as you don’t count the effect on the children (ages 3, 6, 8, and 11 at the time).

    Cut that out. He’s a scumbag. A piece of garbage that fucks sluts is not “trading up” from a father of four who has the divine favor and calling of Almighty God to raise up those children, who are from the Lord.

    By the way, she was a pastor’s kid. I didn’t find out until her affair (from her mother) that her dad, the shepherd (LOL) had multiple affairs with both men and women during their marriage.

    Sounds like a sheepwolf. Also: What a queer.

    You can bet your @$$ that if I make sure I teach my children anything it is that you MUST know everything you can about your potential spouse’s family. There are no do overs. This stuff matters and if you make a mistake, the effects will be very, very bad and multigenerational.

    Multigenerational is right. We have to keep perspective.

    25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30 saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

    @IBB

    Love of God Almighty, does not make one rightous, not if you behave in the manner that David did. By the same token (your words Cane), Hawk’s wife (who frivorced him) could be as equally rightous if (and only if) she had this same irrepressible love of God. And we both know that this is NOT the case.

    If HaR’s ex-wife does love God she WILL be made righteous, and thank God for that because so will HaR, and so will I, and so will all who call upon His name.

    I’ve told you before that you don’t know what Christianity is, or what it means. You don’t actually know Christianity; not Orthodox, not Catholic, not Protestant, not anything. Whatever it is that you think you know is not what Christ taught.

    What you have, I gather from your comments, is a bastardized worship of the culture of Christendom (not the same thing as Christ), Americanism, and humanism.

  162. TWS says:

    Very well written. The call to chaste submission for the wife is clear and unequivocal. Calling evil good, and good evil has its own ‘rewards’ (well merited I might add). And my own wife’s chaste submission helped bring me back to church after some years.

    I am not sorry God made the world the way he did. I am only bothered that people are so willfully disobedient to the plain and clear word. Women are the weaker vessel in all ways. Men are called to be kind to them. Both sides of the coin are important.

  163. Cane Caldo says:

    @Athor Pel

    Dude, slow down. You’re talking about avoidance of sin, the heading off of divorce, the utter superiority of the grace and power provided in the new Covenent.

    I was talking to a man that has ALREADY had his marriage wrecked. He needed to know where he is RIGHT NOW. Because if you don’t know what the offense is then you don’t know what to repent of.

    There are clear imperatives in the Bible (real imperatives; not some melange of things we don’t like about women) about how we are to behave, and treat the divorcing Christian, and how we should respond to that. That does not include relying on the OT law anymore than salvation in Christ relies on circumcision of dicks. Where he is right now is divorced. Where he is forbidden to go (unless she rejects the faith) is marriage to another. She ought to be hounded out of every church until she makes a choice.

    Your way is to excuse further adultery because it feels good. What is needed is corrective pain for her; not pleasure for aggrieved. Your way denies not only the clear Word, but also chance for her correction.

  164. alauda says:

    A world without baptists is a beautiful world.

  165. Snowy says:

    We men really do cop it from all sides, even the idiotic church. It’s no mystery that men go through with suicide far more often than women. The denial or withholding of sexual intimacy by the wife to/from her husband is soul-destroying to the man. I’ve experienced it myself. It’s an all-too-common strategy among wives to destroy their man, particularly in this femcentric world in which we live, where women view themselves as the ‘gatekeepers’ of sex.
    This is a powerful sermon on 10 traits of a Godly woman:
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=6213171363

  166. hurting says:

    Matamoros says:
    March 4, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    In theory, you are correct that the Church’s teaching on the requirements for marriage, but your earlier paragraphs clearly confirm the position that the goalposts have been moved by the clergy you reference. These clergy are quick to, at a minimum, stand aside and let marriages be destroyed by abdicating their role to adjudicate separations falling even short of divorce; they may actually encourage divorce. They are also then likely to advocate for pastoral healing via a declaration of nullity granted on specious grounds; of course, what is missed here is the grave injustice rendered to the party who didn’t want, nor likely deserve, the separation/divorce/annulment.

    The liberal clergy and their willing accomplices in the tribunals have most assuredly effectively moved the goalposts for the overwhelming majority of Catholics.

  167. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 4, 2014 at 11:39 am

    I agree the catechesis could be much better, especially as it relates to the idea of the marriage debt and some of other tenets of the faith, but the annulment explosion occurred in the 1960′s amongst people who were catechized properly (or at least putatively properly). I really believe that set the tone for what we see today.

  168. feeriker says:

    H&R said It was nothing less than shocking to me how much support she got from many fine ‘Christian’ ladies that I thought were my friends too (LOL). “Life’s too short to be unhappy.” “You are such a strong person.” “Your kids will happy if you are happy…” etc. etc.

    I’m sure you now realize (at least I hope you do) that these were all churchians rather than Christians. You’ve probably also figured this out by now, but the safest course of action to follow when you walk into any established church franchise for the first time is to assume that 100 percent of the congregation shares the “values” of your erstwhile “‘Christian’ friends” unless individual members prove themselves otherwise (and if at least a few don’t within a few weeks of your first attendance, WALK AWAY). It’s a sickening and sad attitude to have to take, but in my nearly 40 years of adult dealings with organized churches in America, I’ve found that, unfortunately, it’s the only way not to ultimately get burned or led astray by false teachings.

    One person — ONE — out of a group of about 15 close Christian families has disassociated themselves socially from her.

    Again, sadly, that is to be expected from the typical churchian franchise, which is, by its very nature of being, thoroughly immersed in and co-opted by the prevailing secular culture, of which feminism/the FI is a very prominent and dominant feature. Since in that culture “woman/wife = good/pure/blameless, man = bad/nasty/root and cause of all evil,” this will be the default attitude of the herd in nearly ALL cases involving divorce (the Jenny Erikson case, in which the pastor of her church outted her plans to frivorce her husband by forewarning the man and which led to her being “de-fellowshipped” from the congregation was a rare, precious, all-too-tragically-uncommon event).

    I have come to the conclusion that people mostly just want to be liked. Nobody wants to know too much about what went on because then that would mean that they might have to judge or take sides. People just want to go to work, come home, watch TV, have friends and enjoy life. I can’t blame them but I would be lying if I said it didn’t hurt like hell and feel like a second betrayal. It did.

    That’s generally exactly how it plays out, but I also think that in many cases, people who are friends of the divorcing couple just feel plain awkward and don’t know what to say or do once the couple splits (it’s like comforting a terminally ill friend: what do you say to them to make them feel better without it coming across as awkward?). They are often just as blindsided and hurt as the party on the receiving end of the divorce and, depending on how close they were to either the husband or the wife, feel like part of their own family has been shattered. So they begin to distance themselves from one or both parties, often to avoid the pain of having to reconcile themselves to the changed nature of the friendship they had and to avoid the awkwardness of the new friendship dynamic. This is not to justify the isolation you felt and the genuine betrayal you experienced from their abandonment of your friendship; what you went through REALLY hurts the soul like hell. Like the old expression goes, “success has a thousand fathers, but failure is a bastard orphan.”

    Where the churchian franchises are concerned here, because it is the woman/wife who in most families ultimately decides what church the family attends (and thus who ensures that Sunday morning collection plates stay full), these organizations are not about to judge/shame/censure a female congregant. It’s just “bad for business.” Ergo, any “judging” or “taking sides” in such situations is going to be full force against the man/husband.

    By the way, she was a pastor’s kid.

    Man, that has ALWAYS a been very big red flag for me. My personal experience with “preacher’s kids” (by which I mean the children of churchian franchise CEOs, not those of the dedicated shepherds of the Body of Christ who walk the walk) is that they are usually either insufferable churchian hypocrites like their daddies or amoral connivers who have completely rejected the facade of faith Daddy preached and are worse than those who have never believed. Very few, IME, grow up to be normal, well-adjusted adults. I’m so sorry to hear that your ex lived down to the stereotype.

    I didn’t find out until her affair (from her mother) that her dad, the shepherd (LOL) had multiple affairs with both men and women during their marriage.

    Not at all surprising, unfortunately, for a churchian CEO, especially if he was the CEO of a “mega-church” and succumbed to all the trappings of the cult of personality and power that comes with such a position. Small wonder the little she-apple didn’t fall far from the rotten tree.

    You can bet your @$$ that if I make sure I teach my children anything it is that you MUST know everything you can about your potential spouse’s family. There are no do overs. This stuff matters and if you make a mistake, the effects will be very, very bad and multigenerational.

    It’s doubly depressing for us to contemplate, but, alas, not really surprising if we stop denying the painful experiences we’ve lived, that the filth, rot, and corruption of the secular world has so completely subsumed most churches that there is effectively NO spiritual refuge from the toxic storm that is destroying the world. Far from “salt,” most churches are dispensing sand. The full fallout from this half-century abandonment of the Scriptures and accommodation of the prevailing culture has only begun to be felt.

    My wife’s mother and sister did the same…..at first. But when they saw that her mind was made up, they supported her 100%. Her mother still sends me religious books and wishes me “peace” because I know she feels bad and she knows I was a very good husband and father….. but she is nevertheless 100% in support of her daughter.

    That’s just the way it is.

    Yes, alas, blood is still thicker than water (or faith) – even in “Christian” families.

  169. hurting says:

    Matamoros/Cail/Nova,

    To clarify, my beef is primarily with the ‘capacity to consent’ argument, not with the idea of faulty consent per se. It is important to note that the BXVI had some pretty strong words on the concept of capacity to consent – essentially he described it as far more debilitating and life-encompassing than the tribunals’ standards.

    Another point, one who professes understanding and/or consent to the terms of marriage but secretly plans not to abide by same would be guilty of either total or partial simulation and/or fraud. Either of these circumstances potentially impair consent, but they are of a different type and kind of deficiency and have not been the vehicle for chicanery like the problems arising from Canon 1095.3.

    If the Church were really serious about avoiding defective consent annulments, it would require psychological evaluations on the front end. Certainly the cost of such examinations would be far lesser that the monumental costs of even the comparatively few annulments – and such costs could easily be absorbed by scaling back the big day a bit. But that would remove too valuable an arrow from the pastoralism quiver.

  170. hurting says:

    HawkandRock says:
    March 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Blood is usually thicker than water.

  171. hurting says:

    Sorry, didn’t see feeriker make the point about blood and water.

    Seconding the point about the reaction of friends. I must say that the mutual friends of my ex and myself have been very supportive of me, but definitely understand that they were in a tight spot (my situation was not nearly so cut and dried as HandR’s though). Also, understand that it takes great strength to reach out to those of us who are “drowning”. They may feel like marginal swimmers who jump in to save drowning victims (who often end up drowning themselves).

  172. Farm Boy says:

    where women view themselves as the ‘gatekeepers’ of sex.

    The law says so. And the law has always said so. The aspect that is different now is that they are allowed to leverage this for all that it is worth.

  173. Athor Pel says:

    “Cane Caldo says:
    March 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    There are clear imperatives in the Bible (real imperatives; not some melange of things we don’t like about women) about how we are to behave, and treat the divorcing Christian, and how we should respond to that. That does not include relying on the OT law anymore than salvation in Christ relies on circumcision of dicks. Where he is right now is divorced. Where he is forbidden to go (unless she rejects the faith) is marriage to another. She ought to be hounded out of every church until she makes a choice.

    Your way is to excuse further adultery because it feels good. What is needed is corrective pain for her; not pleasure for aggrieved. Your way denies not only the clear Word, but also chance for her correction.

    Do you even read your Bible?
    Did you even read what I wrote?

    I don’t think you’re reading comprehension achieves a level sufficient to participate responsibly in this discussion.

    You also seem to like to put words in people’s mouths, because I didn’t say anything about excusing any sin for any reason. You see, that kind of thing is called lying.

  174. Farm Boy says:

    because it is the woman/wife who in most families ultimately decides what church the family attends

    And why is that?

    Was it always like that?

  175. AP,

    Do you even read your Bible?
    Did you even read what I wrote?

    I don’t think you’re reading comprehension achieves a level sufficient to participate responsibly in this discussion.

    If you are talking about Cane (and it appears you are) then you are correct. Cane most certainly has NOT achieved a reading level sufficient to participate responsibly in this discussion.

    Instead, Cane has developed a Pride Level sufficent enough for him never to admit he is wrong about anything. In his own mind, he can hamster himself out of any logical argument.

  176. jf12 says:

    Re: “(unless she rejects the faith)” is an interesting use of the phrase for a Catholic, although it certainly lines up with the unbelieving in 1 Cor 7:12-14.

  177. herbie says:

    http://womensinfidelity.com/

    “Women’s relationships today follow a very
    predictable pattern:

    ◾They push men for commitment

    ◾They get what they want

    ◾They lose interest in sex

    ◾They become attracted to someone else

    ◾They start cheating

    ◾They begin telling their partners that they need time apart

    ◾They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after a long time of vacillating back and forth, they end their relationships or marriages.

    If you’re a male, like most other males, you would probably never suspect that your partner is cheating, not only because of your wife’s or girlfriend’s seeming disinterest in sex; but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.” Unfortunately, males are frequently left/divorced by their wives and girlfriends without ever knowing about their wives’ and girlfriends’ infidelities.”

    BTTT

  178. jf12 says:

    @Herbie, yes the pattern of women’s preferred serial monogamy is very clear when women are enabled to pursue it. In particular, a woman’s loss of interest in a man after a short (couple years) honeymoon period is the most predictable part of the pattern, being apparently based on a biological clock that starts upon 24/7 exposure to a man. Interestingly, this most predictable part that is most firmly the “fault” of the woman is exactly the part that the woman always says is the fault of the man. Maybe better educating women to expect their drop in interest would help …. nah. Women never listen, and never learn. Maybe, instead, monogamy pills would help.

  179. jf12 says:

    Re: wake-up call and ultimatums. Re: SSM’s. I’d like to post there “Stop giving ultimatums, or else!”

  180. because it is the woman/wife who in most families ultimately decides what church the family attends

    And why is that?

    Threatpoint.

    Was it always like that?

    No. We’ve only had threatpoint for the last 40 years.

  181. Farm Boy says:

    Maybe better educating women to expect their drop in interest

    That would be their fault, this drop. What would the hamster say?

    Why do modern women expect continual tingles? Because of Cosmo, etc? Are tingles in women more powerful than the equivalent in men?

  182. FarmBoy,

    Why do modern women expect continual tingles?

    They don’t expect them. Instead, they elected legislators to change the laws to empower their tingle. They have no-fault-divorce and cash and prizes when they no longer get them. Then they get to go full cougar and get their gina tingling fulfilled by the local alphamc-harely-bad-boy-stud who moves into hubby’s house but never marries here because that would void her alimony.

    Because of Cosmo, etc? Are tingles in women more powerful than the equivalent in men?

    It is not that they are more powerful. They are simply empowered by policemen, judges, and politicians (and sadly churchianity) the way men are not.

  183. Farm Boy says:

    but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.”

    It would seem that modern girls receive the training as to how to act like one when they need to; in the olden days they received training as to how to be one.

    Presently, women are still partly living off of the reputation of the women from the past. It is interesting how resiliant it is.

    “No, I am not like those bad girls”.

  184. herbie says:


    Cutting onions…pardon.

  185. Farm Boy says:

    It is not that they are more powerful. They are simply empowered

    Perhaps. I do know that as a fella, I was expected to be self-disciplined in all areas, including this one. And there was no way that a hamster was allowed to develop in myself or other guys. Maybe the difference is that women’s hamsters are strong to begin with, and are encouraged to grow.

  186. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Re: wake-up call and ultimatums. Re: SSM’s. I’d like to post there “Stop giving ultimatums, or else!”

    Women are fond of writing checks that men have to cash. It’s a feature of the Female Imperative, part of the “Let’s You And Him Fight” function.

  187. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    I think that IBB is misnamed. He should be rather called “Vizzini”. As to his perpetual, unteachable ignorance regarding the definition of “moral agency”, there can be but one answer:

    The Princess Bride

    It’s obvious that IBB is not a “rational actor”.

  188. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    It’s amazing to me the number of churches that simply refuse to read and teach from the Bible. There is no better way in my experience to determine if there is value within the walls than to determine if they teach from the Book, or rather leave it on the shelf in favor of a recommendation from Oprah’s Book Club.

  189. seth says:

    In ancient times before Christ, the Pharisees (lawmakers) of the time had invented debt-based currency and a code of laws for all to follow. Christ was the first real competition they had and the first real political revolutionary. So this ‘Synagogue of Satan’ killed him. In time, they had poisoned all religions, including Christianity, with truth mixed in with lies. They could not hide Christ’s existence, so they sought to sully his teachings, and deceive others’.

    By the 330AD, Constantinople was founded, alongside ‘Roman Catholicism’, which became a proxy for a new re-imagined Roman Empire. This new Christianity had false teachings mixed in with truth. The capitol was moved from Rome to its new site, with a further 1/3 move left to put the capitol where it was really wanted by the ‘elite’ of that time. In Jerusalem. But all roads lead to Rome, and the Roman empire collapsed as the trade routes to Constantinople were not favourable.

    Over the next century and a bit, many wars were fought in the subverted Christianity’s name. The Muslim religion was founded by the elite as an antidote to Christianity.

    By the late 1700s, the House of Rothschilds had beaten Napoleon and gained control of all of Britain through financial manipulation. They established a mighty empire, with the Satanic aim of re-establishing the third temple at Jerusalem, where Constantine had failed. They financed both sides of all wars and continue to do this in the present day, having staged the Ukraine anti-government ‘revolution’.

    The UK is the financial power. The Vatican is the political seat, where the last Pope (Petrus Romanus = Peter of the Roman/US empire) is bringing in ecumenical teachings, into the Church, which arguably goes against Christianity. Lastly, the US is the military arm, and has been used in the last few decades to establish dictatorships in various nations, with the excuse being given to the general public that ‘a world police’ is needed.

    We are now in the end-game. We all know the bankers are the hidden hand that controls society, for none of the big names were prosecuted following the financial crisis. We can see/feel something is wrong. Kissinger had recently suggested that ‘Israel will cease to exist in 10 years’. The Iraelis are actually Edomites from the Caucausus, and are being used to establish the third temple from which the fabled Antichrist will rule. The real Israelites are spread all over the world, with only a handful in Israel. In any case, we will see scripture be fulfilled at some point in the next few decades, but the cost in terms of human suffering will be immense. People of all races and creeds will suffer and fight, at the beckoning of the Satanists, who see themselves as the true rulers of the human race and as benevolent people.

    Truth is hard to find in the modern era, but this researched account is as close to the truth as we will get.

  190. TFH says:

    After too many years of full democracy (94 for the US now)…. a society inevitability becomes a goddess cult. This is what we are seeing here…

    Note that 70-80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women. But that would be bad enough even if we spent just $1 for each $1 collected in taxes. In reality, we spend $1.60 for each $1.00 collected in taxes, and 70-80% of that THAT $1.60 is a transfer from men to women. So the federal deficit (the extra $0.60 of spending above the $1 that taxes cover) is really just the most perverse and extreme forms of transfer from men to women.

    I remind you that the National Debt has risen from $9T in 2007 to $17.2T today. The extra $8.2T took just 7 years to accrue, and all that is spending in excess of taxes

    What an expenditure has been wasted just to create this upside-down goddess cult of a society…

  191. Cane Caldo says:

    @Athor Pel

    Do you even read your Bible? Did you even read what I wrote? I don’t think you’re reading comprehension achieves a level sufficient to participate responsibly in this discussion.

    What you said was this:

    The man CAN marry another woman, provided she is not a wife of another man. In fact, he can legally marry another woman while married to the first wife

    Which is completely untrue; according to the words of Jesus and Paul.

    You also said:

    Only a husband has the authority to divorce.

    Which is also untrue. A Christian husband does not have authority to divorce. No Christian does.

    As soon as a woman, without a Biblcial certificate of divorce from the first husband, takes up with a second husband, has intercourse with another man that is not her first husband, she is committing adultery.

    In your case HawkandRock your wife committed adultery as soon as she took up with another man. You are free to marry again in the strictest Biblical sense.

    You repeatedly fly right by the fact that if the wife divorce causes the husband to commit adultery then he is guilty of adultery if he marries another. He is not free to do so. What I said is true: Your way is to excuse further adultery because it feels good.

    You also seem to like to put words in people’s mouths, because I didn’t say anything about excusing any sin for any reason. You see, that kind of thing is called lying.

    The lie here is the accusation that I put words in your mouth. I did not. I said, “Your way…”, not, “You said…”

    And, yes, your way–the result of anyone following your advice to remarry, excused on the basis of laws of which we are no longer bound to, and which were meant to point to Christ rather than legalism–is further adultery. That’s not putting words in your mouth. That’s paying attention to what you said.

    @IBB

    Instead, Cane has developed a Pride Level sufficent enough for him never to admit he is wrong about anything.

    This is demonstrably false.

  192. MarcusD says:

    CAF strikes again:

    S/O of feminist thread – What is the job description for the “spiritual head” of the family? (Yikes. BTW, first commenter is a major crypto-feminist)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=864514

    female led relationships
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=864330

    Sample:

    i was just wondering if it is ok for a woman to be the “head of the household”?
    basically if it would be ok for a man to submit to his wife or even take her name? for instance could someone marry a woman with plans to be a househusband who would take his wife’s surname and submit to her?

  193. MarcusD says:

    At least we’ve identified one reason for the marriage crisis.

  194. greyghost says:

    Cane Caldo
    I have watch your comments here change from an arrogant churchian know it all to a man of this world that has chosen a foundation in the word of god. Never lose your worldliness and faith.
    MarcusD
    I haven’t gone there yet, but do those Catholics(?) really believe themselves? I feel like joining up and making this comment to the guy that posted up the sample. “God damn muthafucka what the hell happened to you? Are you hurting that bad for pussy or is this some kind of S&M fetish?”
    To All
    Nobody other than government is responsible for what is going on in the west. Do not let the government get away with allowing anyone to believe corporations and bankers control a damn thing. It is government and always has been. Every crisis is founded on government policy or direction.

  195. Opus says:

    Amazing the things one learns at Dalrock, such as ‘By the late 1700s The House of Rothschild had beaten Napoleon and gained control of all Britain by financial manipulation’. I must immediately make certain corrections and additions to my books on History (scrub that entry for 1815 on Waterloo).

  196. Tam the Bam says:

    @Farm Boy:- Please sir, me sir, sir, I know .. “Why do modern women expect continual tingles? Because of Cosmo, etc?”.
    Because they’ve got nothing else to do. Zip. Diddly. Niente.
    Or think about, except where their next hit is coming from.

  197. Tam the Bam says:

    What happened just then??. I really got to get a grip on this, sort meself out. Was it the round green ones with a star on them, or the triangular pink ones ..?

  198. Tam the Bam says:

    Ahahahhhhaa sorry Farm Boy, smartass gets caught out. This hallucination was the one that was really bothering me.

  199. jf12 says:

    Hallucinating round green tingles vs triangular pink ones is so 60s, man.

  200. Farm Boy says:

    Why do modern women expect continual tingles?”

    Because they’ve got nothing else to do. Zip. Diddly. Niente.
    Or think about, except where their next hit is coming from.

    Perhaps you are on to something. “Tingles as a drug addiction”.

    Causes problems with the family as does drug addiction.
    Can cause problems at work.
    Can cause financial problems.
    Addicts always looking for the next hit.

  201. Pingback: the Revision Division

  202. Farm Boy says:

    It’s amazing to me the number of churches that simply refuse to read and teach from the Bible.

    Especially about the “submission” part. Churchill once said, “Either the Hun is at your feet or at your throat”. This seems to be the way with women. It was better for everybody when they were submissive.

  203. jf12 says:

    Re: “The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet”. Great application to women.

  204. Matamoros says:

    Hurting: clearly confirm the position that the goalposts have been moved by the clergy you reference

    I confirmed no such thing. The fact that Obama ignores the constitution doesn’t mean that there is no constitution, or that it is not the law of the land, or that it is a good document.

    The same with Church teaching. The fact that some priests are ignoring the Church’s teachings merely means it is they who are causing problems, not the Church

  205. Matamoros says:

    Seth: By the 330AD, Constantinople was founded, alongside ‘Roman Catholicism’, which became a proxy for a new re-imagined Roman Empire. …this researched account is as close to the truth as we will get.

    You need to study real history and real Church history and not these stupid canards that you want to pass off as history. This merely shows you are uneducated and against the truth.

  206. GK Chesterton says:

    @Anon 71,
    I have a young woman who calls me Grandpa, here in Mexico and has since she was a baby. She is JW. I asked her and she said here in Mexico they teach the man is to be the leader and the woman is to submit, period. So, I assume it is the US feminist influence.

    As our token former Witness (how we would refer to ourselves as a collective noun) I’d say you are noticing some of the cultural creep. The Witnesses are by far one of the more conservative groups on sexual relations. They are beat only by hard core Methodists and the like. As little as ten years ago my uncle, who was an elder like myself, complained that the body of elders giving his mother-in-law advice when she lived in his house violated his headship and they needed to stop. They did because they were.

    As I was leaving there was some feminist rot creeping in like the advice you heard. It had also become more common to describe wives as “partners” in the official teachings. This was unfortunate and will likely harm them long term.

    when they realize their wife is truly submitting change and start worrying what to do and how to do it. And, men do make mistakes at first. A submissive wife will understand this, and will not divorce him the first time he makes a mistake, but will help and motivate and encourage him while he fixes his mistakes.

    This. Men mature a great deal when they are married. Women do the same when they have children. Of course the ends of that maturation depend on the moral fiber of the person but they aren’t adults really until they’ve done those things or committed themselves to some equivalent cause. Which is why contra some here I do see MGTOW as a disaster equivalent to the pill for women.

    @Puzzled
    Let’s say for the sake of argument I were to reconcile with my ex-wife and take her back.

    Wouldn’t that be failing the second biggest shit test in history? (The first being if I would not of divorced her when her cheating ways were discovered.) I think it would.

    I’m less inclined than Dalrock to be careful and answer one in the affirmative and note in agreement with Dalrock that two doesn’t not not matter but is of far less consequence. I’d also hesitate on using “Game” for reasons Dalrock understands.

    SSM has a post up recently about a guy who is getting divorced telling his new-ex he won’t just be around for her its either marriage or nothing. That is a reasonable and Christian stance to take. You are grafting her back in as wife or she can stay on in the fire pit. There is no other path.

    @Tam,
    As we all know, any undertaking or “promise” that any woman, including every NAWALT ever born, is undertaken with fingers firmly crossed behind her back.
    It’s always a lie. Even tho’ they can’t understand that! lol. It’s only true till “things change”.

    That is just as true of men. We are all fallen. We all lie to ourselves and others. If women have more difficulty in this we should compare the relative difference between their difficulty and ours with ours and God’s. That is, don’t ignore it, but recognize that we have the same problem when looking _upward_.

    @Cane,
    Everything we feel “deep-down” is deception anyways; not just to others, but to ourselves.

    And is oddly feminine. We should as men care a bit more about the action. We shouldn’t discount motivations, but if the action doesn’t matter at all we are all well and truly screwed.

    @Nova Seeker,

    The idea is that a large number of couples do not have the proper understanding when entering into the marriage, so there is a failure of actual consent, and therefore the marriage was null ab initio

    Which while I understand it I think is pure bunk. “Oh gee I just didn’t know” has become a get out of jail free card. Most of these people know. There is a law written on the hearts and it condemns. The Church and its lavender mafia however has lost its collective balls.

    @Hawk

    Said another way — if you marry a faithless skank and she leaves you, you have consigned yourself to a life of single celibacy.

    Which is why we have confession. You are right that it sucks. It does suck a bit less than getting burned alive like some of the first martyrs but only a little. God does not expect you to be super human and he will make a way out. And you will probably even stumble. The East has allowed for remarriage for this reason, as a form of stumbling. I’m against it but understand why it happened.

    @JF12,

    which is to say he did not cause the divorce but merely allowed her to leave (1 Cor 7:15), e.g. because of her unrepented adultery, IS Biblically permitted to marry again even if he will be counted as having more than one wife. Perhaps this is a concession to men’s higher sex drives.

    That doesn’t say what you say it says.

    @Cail,
    are clearly not valid by the Church’s own rules

    If one extends that all marriages are not valid given the current cultural climate. Which is why the Church of the West needs to stop the nonsense. And we in the East need to undo some of the damage we’ve allowed.

    @Cane,

    Will the neo-polygamists ever stop? Are they really that hard headed that they miss the whole “Bride of Christ” thing?

    @IBB,

    King David was a dispicable human being. There was nothing rightous about him, not since he killed Goliath

    This is the opposite and equal error. David did many noble things. He saved his first wife in battle and took her back after she had been taken by another man and only banished her after she usurped his place in the family. He did not kill the man hunting him because of his faith in God. He risked his life over most of his days in defense of God’s commands. He was on the whole a noble man. He was however _a man_. Not a plaster saint. If I am half as good as him when I die I’ll be very happy. So far it is quite a bit less but I still hope.

    @Hawk,

    Not to my knowledge. It was nothing less than shocking to me how much support she got from many fine ‘Christian’ ladies that I thought were my friends too

    That’s terrible. I’ve seen it myself and had to stop such mindless talk. It even happens with otherwise good women because they are creatures of the social climate.

    I can’t blame them but I would be lying if I said it didn’t hurt like hell and feel like a second betrayal. It did.

    You can actually. You can say, “your support of her betrayal is wrong” not that it hurts me but is wrong. Heck, evil is better. That will sting but I would bet some of the men will note the problem. And once they note it their wives will. Don’t feel shy about speaking the truth. Don’t call names but be willing to call a spade a spade. There is no guilt in that. And think about the _next_ guy that you have protected.

    And, her life won’t be rosy. Look back at some of Darlock’s articles on economic outcomes. She’s condemned herself.

    Her mother still sends me religious books and wishes me “peace” because I know she feels bad and she knows I was a very good husband and father….. but she is nevertheless 100% in support of her daughter.

    Send them back she is not your friend and she is betraying her own family (you). You can include a nice card that says when she repents of her choice for evil you will accept your gifts. Do be the prophet in the wilderness.

    @IBB,

    If you are talking about Cane (and it appears you are) then you are correct. Cane most certainly has NOT achieved a reading level sufficient to participate responsibly in this discussion.

    Uh-huh. Yeah. You are an idiot.

  207. MarcusD says:

    I haven’t gone there yet, but do those Catholics(?) really believe themselves? I feel like joining up and making this comment to the guy that posted up the sample. “God damn muthafucka what the hell happened to you? Are you hurting that bad for pussy or is this some kind of S&M fetish?”

    It seems that they do. I mean, it explains part of the marriage crisis the Church is having. The Duluth model is mentioned a lot – keeps the ‘sheep’ quiet on the topic of submission…

  208. Athor Pel says:

    I hope this side conversation between me and Cane about divorce and marriage Law has motivated some readers to do some research for themselves. Study what the Word actually says. Pray to be given understanding and the truth will be made plain.

  209. AP,

    Cane and I disagree frequently on the interpretation of the Bible. And when we do, we are very exact in our disagreements such that everyone else is free to make up their own minds.

    Forget about Cane for the moment. It would help everyone here if you take the time to very carefully define exactly (PRECISELY) where you and Cane differ about divorce and marriage Law from a scripture standpoint. That above anything else will motivate the readers to do their own research.

  210. Farm Boy says:

    You can actually. You can say, “your support of her betrayal is wrong” not that it hurts me but is wrong.

    Hawk,

    Tell them this. And also tell them that this is the path to the peace that they desire for you.

  211. herbie says:

    I think I like that there saying, Farm Boy.
    “path to peace that they desire”
    Wish I said that.

  212. jf12 says:

    @GKC re: “That doesn’t say what you say it says.” Yes it does.
    1 Cor 7:15 A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases
    this bondage is ONLY the bonds of matrimony. It means nothing else.
    1 Cor 7:27 Art thou bound to a wife?
    1 Cor 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
    “At liberty” meaning “not under bondage”. It means nothing else.

  213. BikerDad says:

    @jf12 re: Deathbed conversions…
    Essentially moot. While I can see practical reasons for reconciling in such a case, I can also see practical reasons for not doing so. Given that any remarriage can reasonably be made dependent on a certain amount of demonstrated repentance, death is likely to resolve things in it’s implacable way before remarriage. And then the abandoned spouse is free to marry someone else.

    But not until one party or the other kicks the bucket.

    For those on the “remarriage while my spouse is living is hunky dory with God” bandwagon, I encourage you to look at the differences in EXACTLY what Jesus says when speaking directly on the topic of divorce. Consider EXACTLY who He is speaking to in each instance. (Matthew twice, Mark and Luke).

    For those who aren’t Christian, well, the problems of remarriage after divorce is a piddly insignificant matter in your relationship with God. It will be helpful for you to consider the standard that Paul refers to in his instruction to husbands. How much does Christ love His Bride?? It is a love that He will extend to everybody…

    Grace and peace.

  214. jf12 says:

    @BikerDad moreover another clue that remarriage is not hunky dory with God is all the “husband of one wife” verses regarding qualifications for spiritual leaders. Polygamy was virtually unheard of in Roman Palestine, and would no more warrant warning against than child sacrifice “must not be a sacrificer to Moloch”. But divorce was all too common, as Jesus said.

    But hunky doriness is NOT the be-all and end-all, SPECIFICALLY in the case of marriage. 1 Cor 7:40, 1 Cor 7:38, all of 1 Cor 7:25-35, and several other places, explicitly make the case that is is explicitly BETTER not to marry, but it is ok enough to marry, and indeed to remarry. It is ok enough.

  215. BikerDad says:

    “but it is ok enough to marry, and indeed to remarry. It is ok enough.” – Not to remarry, at least not if your spouse is still alive. That’s what ” ’til death do us part” means… And no, having sex with somebody other than your spouse does not mean you’re married to the other person, it means you’ve committed adultery.

  216. jf12 says:

    @BikerDad your call to a higher standard than required Biblically is commendable.

  217. GK Chesterton says:

    @Jf12,

    “God has called us to live in peace”

    Note the “remarry” bit missing that you keep reading into it. Contra the scripture and the universal teaching of the Church. But, hey, blame everyone else for not being literal enough (like Biker Dad) when they are being way more literal than you.

    And again you miss what marriage is an icon _of_ and what that _means_. St. Paul explains that. You should read him more.

  218. jf12 says:

    Marriage is an icon of the heavenly marriage between Chrsit and His people of the New Jerusalem, after He divorced the Old Jerusalem.

  219. hurting says:

    Matamoros says:
    March 5, 2014 at 9:24 am

    The ‘some priests’ to whom you refer, as well as their bishops, are the embodiment of the Church for the faithful and do effectively control the environment in which marriage exists in the modern RCC.

  220. DeNihilist says:

    Interesting -

    http://time.com/12087/men-want-to-be-bosses-says-study/

    Interesting view on the interesting article about the interesting study –

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/

  221. jf12 says:

    Besides there simply being so many of them, beta men make especially good mentors for young women since betas are so used to doing for women without being appreciated by them.

  222. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    Marriage is an icon of the heavenly marriage between Chrsit and His people of the New Jerusalem, after He divorced the Old Jerusalem.

    This is in fact the opposite. Christ brings together what had been divided. You could make a stronger case for straight-up polygyny than for divorce.

  223. jf12 says:

    @Cane, the new Catholic teachings regarding Jewish co-salvation are new.

  224. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    the new Catholic teachings regarding Jewish co-salvation are new.

    One never knows quite what the RCC means when it says these things, but Paul says:

    Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

    Called into ONE body. Not a discarding of the old, but a joining and transformation of Jews and Gentiles under the New Covenant.

  225. jf12 says:

    @Cane, better (i.e. more direct, more forceful, about the saving of Jews) is Romans 11:15-32. But still, Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 4:30 (among others) say that the saved Jews will have been Christianized necessarily.

  226. GkChesterton says:

    So many “grafted on” lies I guess. And no, that doesn’t have to mean universal Jewish salvation.

  227. jf12 says:

    Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

    Clearly, Christians are “grafted on” to Christ, after the other branches were cut off. What did you think you were grafted on?

  228. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    Clearly, Christians are “grafted on” to Christ, after the other branches were cut off. What did you think you were grafted on?

    Do you know how to graft branches onto a plant? You cut the vine, and splice the branch into it. Cutting off the old branches is unnecessary.

    There were (and are) a lot of branches cut off, but that was because they didn’t bear fruit. It was not to make room for a graft. Among the branches cut-off are both Jews and Gentiles.

  229. jf12 says:

    “Cutting off the old branches is unnecessary.” but it was done. The branches were cut off.

  230. I’ve never had a high opinion of Mohler and he has given another good reason to ignore him. Mohler needs to read 1 Corinthians 7.

  231. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    “Cutting off the old branches is unnecessary.” but it was done. The branches were cut off.

    You’re deliberately confusing teachings to try and justify divorce not just in your own mind, but to make it seem as if God justifies it.

  232. Pingback: Don’t Kiss Ass. Kick Ass Instead. | The Society of Phineas

  233. jf12 says:

    @Cane, not justifying divorce, but justifying the need for a bride.

  234. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    If that is true, you shouldn’t be misapprehending parables; especially in emphasis of divorce, cutting off branches, etc.

  235. jf12 says:

    @Cane, fair point, I’ve been too gleeful in pointing out the errors of those who piously claim eunuchization in marriage is ok.

    But I think it good to keep in mind that the “far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife” is shown in the Bible to include His demand of His Bride’s respect and submission, going so far as to get a new covenant people for Himself.

  236. jf12,

    @Cane, fair point, I’ve been too gleeful in pointing out the errors of those who piously claim eunuchization in marriage is ok.

    The justification of the eunuchization in marriage goes something like this…

    boy and girl meet
    boy falls in love with girl
    boy and girl have chaste engagement (no sex)
    boy and girl get married
    that night, boy and girl have honeymoon, girl refuses to have sex
    boy (now sexually frustrated) asks why
    girl admits that she was raped by (whomever) and (as a result) sex disgusts her, she only married him for his financial security and refuses to have sex in marriage because in her mind sex = evil/domination/violation

    Now that is ridiculous but the chivalrous man who takes the marriage vow he said a few hours earlier (the one about in sickness and in health, because she is sick) seriously, he is stuck in a eunuchized marriage. This is more-so the case if she is BPD as a result of her rape, particularly if it happened in childhood by a relative of hers (if she was incested)

    so, for those who think this is okay, this is their justification.

  237. MarcusD says:

    @IBB

    For Catholics, that would (almost certainly) be a violation of Canon Law (e.g. Canon 1098 – “A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.”) on the wife’s part, thus allowing the man to remarry.

    Incidentally (and unsurprisingly), I debated a CAF member on this topic – he felt that such a reason for annulment was unjustifiable (along with a woman lying about her sexual history, including STDs).

    That men are avoiding marriage is to be expected in the face of that kind of idiocy.

  238. jf12 says:

    @IBB and MarcusD, I mean eunuchization ex post honeymoono. After the wife unilaterally decides to decrease the sex from a couple or so times per week to a couple or so times per month, all men everywhere correctly account it as her successfully making a semi-eunuch of him, maybe cutting off just one instead of both.

  239. Marcus,

    Incidentally (and unsurprisingly), I debated a CAF member on this topic – he felt that such a reason for annulment was unjustifiable (along with a woman lying about her sexual history, including STDs).

    Once again, chivalry. The chivalrous man would take it on the chin and just masturbate in marriage if he didn’t want her STD.

    Bottomline here is sickness. He already said “I do” and one of the vows is “in sickness” which means he is contracting with the knowledge that if she IS sick (be it mental/emotional sickness with the BPD girl who refuses to f-ck because she was incested or physical sickness by way of STD) that is on him. A chivalrous man would just accept his lot in life the moment he said I do and shut the f-ck up about it.

  240. MarcusD says:

    The chivalrous man would take it on the chin and just masturbate in marriage

    Which is a sin for Catholics.

    Bottomline here is sickness. He already said “I do” and one of the vows is “in sickness” which means he is contracting with the knowledge that if she IS sick (be it mental/emotional sickness with the BPD girl who refuses to f-ck because she was incested or physical sickness by way of STD) that is on him.

    But she can’t lie about it in order to secure marriage. If she does, she violates Canon 1098 (and possibly others). If she gets sick after marriage, then yes, the husband must deal with it.

  241. Tam the Bam says:

    “A chivalrous man would just accept his lot in life the moment he said I do and shut the f-ck up about it” … or murder her, if he was Sicilian-chivalrous, and infused with cavalleria rusticana.

  242. jf12,

    @IBB and MarcusD, I mean eunuchization ex post honeymoono. After the wife unilaterally decides to decrease the sex from a couple or so times per week to a couple or so times per month, all men everywhere correctly account it as her successfully making a semi-eunuch of him, maybe cutting off just one instead of both.

    You are not married are you?

    All men everywhere would not account it as her successfully making a semi-eunuch of him. Most men everywhere would account it as her being tired because she’s worked all day, picked the kids up from school, and brought them to whatever extra-ciricular that have, came home, worked at home all night (cooking-cleaning-whatever) and the kids don’t fall asleep until 10:30 PM and she exausted at that point so there is no way she is up for sex. It is not that she is not interested. It is impossible for her to get in the mood (and women need to be in the mood.)

  243. Marcus,

    But she can’t lie about it in order to secure marriage. If she does, she violates Canon 1098 (and possibly others). If she gets sick after marriage, then yes, the husband must deal with it.

    Okay.

    Just playing devil’s advocate here, but is a lie of omission the same thing as a lie? Does a lie of omission violate Canon 1098? While we are at it, does the husband get to tell her father (who may have incested her) that he is annuling the marriage to his daughter because he went and raped her when she was 12? Do we go for dueling pistols now and hopefully you shoot the f-cker for ruining your life before he kills you? Or just call the police (provided there is no statuate of limitations) and destroy her family forever?

    See how this (in the real world) can go from bad to worse to impossible?

  244. jf12 says:

    @IBB “It is not that she is not interested.” You’re joking, right? or in one of your feminine alter egos?

  245. MarcusD says:

    Just playing devil’s advocate here, but is a lie of omission the same thing as a lie? Does a lie of omission violate Canon 1098?

    It’s a lie. Omission is deception. And if the husband, being a reasonably intelligent man, did his part in asking her the question (prior to marriage), than she is lying by commission.

    While we are at it, does the husband get to tell her father (who may have incested her) that he is annuling the marriage to his daughter because he went and raped her when she was 12?

    He doesn’t have to tell the father anything, regardless of whether the father played a part or not.

    Do we go for dueling pistols now and hopefully you shoot the f-cker for ruining your life before he kills you? Or just call the police (provided there is no statuate of limitations) and destroy her family forever?

    See how this (in the real world) can go from bad to worse to impossible?

    What are you talking about?

  246. Tam the Bam says:

    ” she’s worked all day, picked the kids up from school, and brought them to whatever extra-ciricular that have, came home, worked at home all night “
    lol like that ever happens, outside of some supermarket checkout-bin novel about Victorian mill-girls.
    Unless he works in some deskpiloting public sector 9-3 sinecure, he’s the one falling asleep on the couch in front of the TV news with drool running out of the corner of his mouth. And tomorrow he has to get up and do it all over again. Till he dies, oftentimes..

  247. Marcus,

    What are you talking about?

    If there is a problem in your marriage and it stems (entirely) from the damage caused to your wife by your wife’s parents, how do you confront them about it in a way to get them to help you fix it?

  248. MarcusD says:

    @IBB
    If there is a problem in your marriage and it stems (entirely) from the damage caused to your wife by your wife’s parents, how do you confront them about it in a way to get them to help you fix it?

    Well, that assumes that they are capable of helping you fix a problem they caused (…and that somehow would merit or necessitate their assistance).

    Per your example, if a father has raped his daughter, he’s the pretty much the last person the husband should be going to.

  249. Mrs. IBB, the slow cooker analogy is very out dated. Your description of a home scenario is applicable mainly in one way, that is that the women who do the things you describe are doing it because they have chosen to do it, and would truly not be able to comprehend not doing it because all the other moms in the play group from yesteryear are doing it too. The things she is doing are not really some altruistic sacrifice for the family, and the husband who views them as actually being coequal parts of raising a family is as jacked up wrong as the woman doing all that extra crap and therefore may deserve his declining sexual frequency.

    Late baby boomers on down have created that mess ourselves. And believe me that mess can be undone. The harried mother frazzled by the oppressive day is a huge sink hole for empathy, and she loves empathy.

    What the hell is she “working all night” on anyway? Or where those words like adding “whatever” at the end of an argument. If that’s your wife’s day, that’s your problem man because youve both got your priorities being set by the rest of the automatons around you.

  250. shammahworm says:

    Cane Caldo,
    God does justify divorce in Matthew 19.

    Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    There is biblical divorce and remarriage. A man not only has the right to divorce his wife for fornication aka premarital sex or adultery(whether in the form of intercourse or oral sex, sodomy, etc.), but he has the right to a church wedding with another Christian woman.

    Remarrying if you were the wronged party in the case of fornication IS NOT adultery.

  251. Some Guy says:

    @shammahworm –

    You have a very liberal reading of these passages. Here is a more conservative one:

    Fornication occurs before marriage. It is like the case where Joseph found out Mary was with child after getting engaged. In that situation, it was okay for him to put her away. But note that he was not married to her yet. If he had been, the rule would have been that “what God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Yeah, that’s a pretty tough view of marriage. You look at it and think… “if that is the way it is, then it is better to not get married at all.” And that is exactly what the people listening to Jesus said.

    It never ceases to amaze me how prevalent the doctrine of “once saved always saved” is. Not so common is “once married always married… until death.” However, these two themes are indeed interwoven because they are both covenantal in nature.

  252. jf12 says:

    “it is better to not get married at all” correct. But we can get married anyway, even though it’s not better.

  253. Cane Caldo says:

    @Shammahworm

    Start here, and then keep going.

  254. shammahworm says:

    @Some Guy
    It’s not a “very liberal reading.” It’s the reading. Fornication has always meant more than just premarital sex. It is only in modern times that idiots/liars have tried to change the definition of the word fornication to mean only premarital sex. It has never meant this.

    I’m not calling you an idiot, there are entire denominations that spread this false doctrine and that’s probably where you got it.

    People who say Jesus is only referring to the period before a couple consummates the marriage are adding a context to the passage that simply isn’t there. The question posed to Jesus by the Pharisees is “for every cause.” This means the question is in regard to married people who have consummated the marriage. And it’s here that Jesus(God in the flesh) makes a point of saying that fornication(sex outside of marriage) is grounds for divorce and a man who divorces for this reason isn’t guilty of adultery. Jesus is sanctioning divorce and remarriage in this situation. And hence it is God who is specifically saying that a man can be put asunder from a wife who’s guilty of fornication.

    If Joseph were simply engaged to Mary, it would not be possible for him to divorce her. It’s not possible to divorce a woman unless you’re married to her. The fact that it’s even possible for Joseph to divorce Mary shuts down any notion that “it was a betrothal period” or “they weren’t married.” The only situation which seems to match Joseph’s in a modern marriage is the hours between the time a couple says “I do” and the wedding night.

    There are plenty of other reasons for a person to say “it is better not to marry” than having to stay married to an adulteress.
    -She can scream and nag for hours everyday and no divorce.
    -She can squander your hard earned money and no divorce.
    -She can curse you or mock you in front of your children and no divorce.
    -She can give information to your enemies(like Samson’s first wife) and no divorce.
    -On and on.

    Jesus says flat out that divorce in the case of fornication(sex outside of marriage) isn’t adultery. Adultery is a violation of the marriage covenant and grounds for divorce. It always has been and it always will be. It’s a falsehood to say “once married, always married” without acknowledging the fact there is indeed biblical divorce and remarriage in the case of infidelity. The text is clear.

    Saying that salvation and marriage are interwoven because they are “both covenantal in nature” really doesn’t mean anything because some covenants can be broken as God makes clear in the prophets. In the case of fornication, marriage is one of those.

  255. Some Guy says:

    I’m using liberal and conservative as descriptors– to denote how wide a door our respective readings leave for divorce and remarriage.

    It appears to be that the more liberal take on these passages is a big part of their rush to sanctify women’s preferred form of promiscuity.

  256. Some Guy says:

    their = the modern church

  257. shammahworm says:

    @Cane Caldo
    I kept going and lo and behold everything I wrote still stands. I’ll address two of your points in regard to a couple scriptures you cited.
    1) 1 Corinthians 7 is referring to PHYSICAL SEPARATION of the wife and husband. Not a case of sexual immorality. For example if a woman gets angry at her husband and moves back in with her parents, they are still married and cannot divorce as long as there is no fornication(sexual sin). It’s not talking about sexual sin. And in this case, yes she should be reconciled to her husband.
    2) The one passage in Matthew 19 is all the proof we need to see that there is biblical divorce and remarriage(though there are more). The reason why Mark and Luke don’t specifically state that a man can divorce his wife is because under the law of Moses women who had sex outside of marriage would be dead. It wasn’t just that men were allowed to kill women had sex outside of marriage, they were required to. At least wives and women who were promised to other men.

    I can write you treatises pointing out “contradictions” from various passages throughout the bible because there a often extenuating circumstances addressed in one passage which aren’t mentioned in another passage dealing with the same subject. But that doesn’t mean the scriptures are any less True.

    The Word Made Flesh gives every Christian man the RIGHT to divorce a wife for sexual sin and marry another Christian woman. It’s not adultery. This is new testament teaching.

  258. shammahworm says:

    @Some Guy
    “It appears to be that the more liberal take on these passages is a big part of their rush to sanctify women’s preferred form of promiscuity.”
    Let me be clear. Apart from sexual sin, there is no divorce. It doesn’t exist in the church. Other than sexual acts(intercourse, oral sex, sodomy, etc.) there isn’t divorce. The “etc.” are those things which aren’t technically intercourse, but everyone knows are sexual.

    I also want to say that my position is based on the scripture and I had it before I made any of the observations I’m going to write below. My position would be the same regardless of whether I made them or not.

    What I’ve found is that what you call the conservative position enables female promiscuity far more than the actual reading because it implicitly signals to adulterers and adulteresses that they can force their husband or wife to choose between tolerating their behavior or being ostracized at their church(I’m not sure if women even have the right to divorce). It also rewards a woman hiding her past because she can turn much of the church community against a man who tries to exercise his right to divorce.

  259. Cane Caldo says:

    @shammahworm

    The one passage in Matthew 19 is all the proof we need to see that there is biblical divorce and remarriage(though there are more). The reason why Mark and Luke don’t specifically state that a man can divorce his wife is because under the law of Moses women who had sex outside of marriage would be dead. It wasn’t just that men were allowed to kill women had sex outside of marriage, they were required to. At least wives and women who were promised to other men.

    That is a surgically lethal misunderstanding of not just that bit of Scripture, but of the concept of Scripture itself. The Bible is not your personal cadaver upon which you can cut out one organ and declare it the “brain of divorce”. Whatever conclusions you reach must account for the whole body of work. That includes Mark, Luke, the OT laws (which do not say what you have lied that they do), the reports of how God dealt with people (say, Bathsheba), Hosea, John 8, 1 Corinthians…on an on.

    The Word Made Flesh gives every Christian man the RIGHT to divorce a wife for sexual sin and marry another Christian woman. It’s not adultery. This is new testament teaching.

    It is this kind of pronouncement that gives Scripture the appearance of lies, contradictions, and judgment; when It actually is all pointing to repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, understanding, and obedience. Those things are opposite divorce.

  260. jf12 says:

    @shammahworm re: “What I’ve found is that what you call the conservative position enables female promiscuity far more than the actual reading because it implicitly signals to adulterers and adulteresses that they can force their husband or wife to choose between tolerating their behavior or being ostracized at their church” correct.

  261. Some Guy says:

    Finding a right to divorce and remarry in the New Testament is sort of like finding a right to abortion in the constitution.

  262. jf12 says:

    People break covenants all the time. The non-breaker is not at fault, and is free to make another covenant with another.

  263. Some Guy says:

    Check out these answers to the question: http://www.christianforums.com/t7555612/

    Look, ya’ll. I think we all understand that if she wants to divorce, then she has grounds for it if the guy ever once looked at pornography after his marriage. If she commits adultery, then the guy will be pointed to Hosea… and will be told this is a great chance for him to work on his marriage. If she leaves him for the other guy, it’s going to be those two still sitting on the pew and not the guy that got left. (Leif Erikson is the exception that proves the rules in that last case.)

  264. jf12 says:

    Re: “If she commits adultery, then the guy will be pointed to Hosea… and will be told this is a great chance for him to work on his marriage.” Yes, exactly. And your solution for making adultery more consequential is …???

  265. Some Guy says:

    Here are my suggestions:

    1) Women should be taught 1 Cor 7 and 1 Peter 3. If a woman wants marriage counseling, she should pretty much just be pointed to these two chapters.
    2) The church should support husbands rather than sucking up to women and cutting men off at the knees. This means retiring the assumption of guilt on the part of the husband the first moment a Christian wife gives any indication of unhappiness.
    3) Women that divorce and remarry should be excommunicated and shunned.
    4) Women should be removed from all teaching positions within the church and it should be taught that men are more discerning when it comes to doctrine– and that therefore, the husband should be “allowed” to pick the church rather than deemed as being unspiritual when he chooses a different one from what his wife would prefer.

    And so on.

  266. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    People break covenants all the time. The non-breaker is not at fault, and is free to make another covenant with another.

    No. Rather: “People break covenants all the time. The non-breaker is not at fault. Don’t break covenants.” The New Covenant is a fuller revelation of the Old Covenant. The fact that we can see more now does not change the covenant; only our understanding of it. Jesus was always the plan. Divorce is never the plan. Separation is sometimes necessary to contain corruption.

    @Some Guy

    If she commits adultery, then the guy will be pointed to Hosea… and will be told this is a great chance for him to work on his marriage.

    For sure Hosea is not a time of celebration, i.e., not a “great opportunity” for happy feelings. Rather, a time to say, “This is terrible, but don’t let that dissuade you from the Lord and His commandments.” It is also a time to tell the wife, “See this whore in Hosea? That’s you. Cut it out.”

  267. deti says:

    “The Word Made Flesh gives every Christian man the RIGHT to divorce a wife for sexual sin and marry another Christian woman. It’s not adultery. This is new testament teaching.”

    No. All that’s said is that in that specific situation, divorce is ALLOWED. It’s not affirmatively referred to as a right, which would suggest divine approval of divorce. It’s not approved, it’s only allowed, and only because we are sinners with hardened hearts. Remarriage isn’t specifically sanctioned.

  268. BikerDad says:

    @shammahworm :
    regarding the verse in Matthew 19; Whose question was Jesus answering?

    The Pharisees. Consider how Jesus answered the same question when posed by his disciples. I know from which camp I’d rather find guidance.

  269. jf12 says:

    @Cane Supersessionism is the relevant Biblical doctrine. The New Covenant is not better by virtue of being merely a more mature version of the Old, it’s better by virtue of superseding (Heb 8:13).

  270. Pingback: Denying the existence of feminism. | Dalrock

  271. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    The New Covenant is not better by virtue of being merely a more mature version of the Old, it’s better by virtue of superseding (Heb 8:13).

    1) You’re focusing on the wrong person’s view and part of the covenant. If you’re not, then you’re saying that this verse:

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

    Means that God’s contribution to the covenant was faulty; that He did not hold up His end. That’s not what the author is saying.

    2) A covenant can be both new and a continuation.

    Engagement, or betrothal, is one kind of covenant, and it means specifically an impending marriage between a man and wife. Then there will be a new covenant of marriage wherein the marriage is actually made. Then there will be the consummation of marriage (which has not yet happened). It still remains that betrothal has always meant–has always been pointing towards–marriage and consummation.

    You’ll notice that some people make the opposite mistake, and assume that sex makes marriage; or that engagement and marriage aren’t really necessary, but it’s the sex that’s important. That’s lawlessness.

  272. jf12 says:

    One version of the argument makes the following point: an adulterer is not part of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). And as a means to become estranged and to depart from a marriage, adultery is unparalleled (Eze 16:32, 1 Cor 7:15). If policies are in place such that the adulterer believes she remains part of the kingdom and that her former husband is obliged to take her back, she is not merely sadly mistaken but she will undoubtedly take others to hell with her (Jer 3:6-9).

  273. jf12 says:

    Re: lawlessness. The fault in Heb 8:7 is human nature being unable to fulfill the law. The new covenant is explicitly “not according to” the old covenant (verse 9).

  274. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    One version of the argument makes the following point: an adulterer is not part of the kingdom of God

    How long will you continue to rationalize the view that repentance and forgiveness are getting into the way of your desire for revenge and bloodshed? The repentant and forgiven are no longer adulterers. Therefore some who once were will indeed inherit the kingdom of God; because they are no longer adulterers. If you don’t like this, then you don’t like the Gospel! You seem always hungry for the destruction of your brothers and sisters.

    Hey, I feel you: There have been times I haven’t liked the Gospel either, but I know this is because of my own sin nature, and not because my feelings ought to inform the truth of the Gospel.

    Re: lawlessness. The fault in Heb 8:7 is human nature being unable to fulfill the law.

    Yes, exactly. Humans could not fulfill their part of it. God is not throwing out His old promises, but bringing the promise of engagement to fruition in marriage to His people through Christ.

    The new covenant is explicitly “not according to” the old covenant (verse 9).

    In the same way: Sex within an engagement is wrong. You must enter the new covenant of marriage first. Things change in this new arrangement, but the promise of the engagement does not pass away because the promise of engagement was the very thing that is being lived now.

  275. I like the way the CF thread starter says her and her husband have dated others, he has been intimate, and she segues to, “Ive met a wonderful CHRISTIAN MAN”.
    Even secular law, back before NF divorce, in some states recognized so called condonement, or that his adultery and hers cancelled each other out. She has to carefully frame her question so as to not cast a blur on what is a straightforward allowance for her. Its time for her to fly.

    Its all good girl. Personal Jesus sees your point, feels your pain, and bends your way. No yoke, no burden, heavy vs. light irrelevant

  276. jf12 says:

    @Cane, In the same way that a formerly believing unbeliever could theoretically repent, the never-believing unbeliever could theoretically repent. That is in fact the situation contemplated by Paul in 1 Cor 7:16, referring to the unbelievers of verses 12-14 who would wish sanctification/reconciliation. But “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases”. The believer is NOT commanded to wait forever.

  277. shammahworm says:

    @Cane Caldo
    [QUOTE]“That is a surgically lethal misunderstanding of not just that bit of Scripture, but of the concept of Scripture itself.”[/QUOTE]
    I already told you that there are other places in the scripture which are consistent with Matthew 19. Let’s look at Deuteronomy 24: 1, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
    When Jesus reiterates that a man can divorce his wife for fornication and remarry without being guilty of adultery, He is saying what is already said in this passage. But go on, keep pretending I’m lying in regard to OT laws giving the right for a man to divorce. It doesn’t change the fact that a man has the RIGHT to divorce his wife for fornication.

    I already discussed Mark and Luke to which you had no response.

    [QUOTE]“the reports of how God dealt with people (say, Bathsheba), Hosea, John 8, 1 Corinthians…on an on.”[/QUOTE]
    In no way do any of these passages imply. much less dictate that a man must stay with a wife guilty of fornication(sexual sin). The actual words of Jesus still stand.

    [QUOTE]It is this kind of pronouncement that gives Scripture the appearance of lies, contradictions, and judgment; when It actually is all pointing to repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, understanding, and obedience.[/QUOTE]
    Again, you don’t actually give scripture for this. You take a very broad brush and try to extrapolate concepts around the SPECIFIC words of Jesus that divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual sin is allowed.

    That Jesus allowed it means that I and every other Christian man have the RIGHT to undertake it if we are married to a woman guilty of fornication. It means that the pastor, elders, or the entire body of believers have no choice but to accept Christ’s words and acknowledge that the man who is wronged is no longer one with his unfaithful wife and that if he marries another woman she is now his wife before God and men.

    FYI, I’ve never been married. Also, I don’t know any friend or family member who has undertaken divorce under these circumstances. So I’m not trying to retroactively justify the behavior of someone I know.

  278. shammahworm says:

    @Some Guy
    “Finding a right to divorce and remarry in the New Testament is sort of like finding a right to abortion in the constitution.” More like the right to keep and bear arms. Jesus allowing a man to divorce in the case of fornication(sex acts outside of marriage) means that if a man chooses to divorce for this reason there is nothing church leadership or members of a congregation can do. They can investigate cases of alleged sexual sin, but once it’s established the decision is wholly up to the wronged party. Church members must acknowledge and abide by his decision.

    The fundamental difference between what I’m saying and what people who say that you can divorce for usage of pornography(which is clearly a sin) is that physical sexual acts join a person to the other(and they shall become one flesh) whereas a person who uses pornography is not physically joined to whom they lust after. So the implications of the two sins are different.

    That being said porn is a huge problem and shouldn’t be condoned.
    I completely agree with your points 1, 2, and 4. And I tend to agree with 3. The only thing that gives me any pause is that men were executed in the same fashion as women for adultery in the Old Testament(at least they were supposed to be).

    @Biker Dad
    Jesus wouldn’t change His doctrine based on who He was talking to. He said divorce and remarriage in the case of fornication is allowed and that means it’s allowed. I already explained in another post how Mark and Luke aren’t contradictory.

  279. shammahworm says:

    @deti
    “No. All that’s said is that in that specific situation, divorce is ALLOWED. It’s not affirmatively referred to as a right, which would suggest divine approval of divorce. It’s not approved, it’s only allowed, and only because we are sinners with hardened hearts. Remarriage isn’t specifically sanctioned.”
    What I mean by divorce being a right is that a man who is the victim of fornication by his wife has the choice to divorce his wife regardless of what any other believer or organization has to say about it. Once fornication is established, the decision is up to the wronged party(ie the husband) and pastors and elders have no authority to tell him “no, you can’t divorce” or “no, you can’t remarry.”

    Reread Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
    Jesus specifically says that if a man divorces for the cause of fornication he can marry another and it’s not adultery. So yeah, there is biblical divorce and remarriage and they are specifically sanctioned. If they were sins, Jesus would’ve been immovable and not permitted them.

  280. BikerDad says:

    “jf12 says:
    People break covenants all the time. The non-breaker is not at fault, and is free to make another covenant with another”

    You confuse a covenant with a contract. Contracts are mutually dependent obligations, where if one party does not perform, the other is not obligated to do so. Covenants are non-dependent obligations. It does not matter whether or not the other party performs.

    Study every covenant in the Bible.

  281. BikerDad says:

    Mark 10:10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Note that under Jewish law, wives could NOT initiate divorce. Unlike when He answered the Pharisees on the question of Jewish law, Christ here is talking about the standard for His disciples. Paul echoes what Christ has said here in his instruction in 1 Corinthians.

    Remarriage (while your spouse lives) = Adultery. Period.

  282. Cane Caldo says:

    @BikerDad

    Remarriage (while your spouse lives) = Adultery. Period.

    Yep, and nothing contradicts that.

    @shammahworm

    Reread Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    This verse is saying more than one thing. It is saying:

    1) Don’t put her away except for reason of fornication.

    2) If you put a wife away and then marry another, you commit adultery.

    3) If you marry a divorced woman, you commit adultery.

    Note that in the OT, a divorced woman was free to remarry another man. Is Jesus contradicting this? Your interpretation has Jesus thwarting the Law, the other Gospels, and Paul. Mine doesn’t.

  283. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    But “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases”. The believer is NOT commanded to wait forever.

    And?

    1) We are talking about two believers…just like when we went over this the other day.

    2) There’s no allowance for the believer to divorce the unbeliever; only the other way around. That makes sense as belief obviously cannot be a binding force on an unbeliever.

    3) Preceding those instructions, Paul specifically says, “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.”

    This follows directly after Paul had said, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

    This seems to me like Paul following a bit of Moses because of the hardness of the Corinthians hearts; though I am not saying Paul should not have done so.

  284. shammahworm says:

    @BikerDad
    Unless you’re typing out your response to my past post, it has gone unanswered. I don’t know how to indicate that I’m replying to posts on here so my apologies for that.

    In regard to your two recent posts, covenants can be broken. The simple fact that God makes a point of saying EVERLASTING covenant throughout the OT means they can be. The following passage makes it clear covenants CAN be broken.

    Zechariah 11: 10-11, “And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might BREAK MY COVENANT which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord.”

    I already said in another post why there is no conflict between Matthew 19 and what is said in Mark and Luke. But I’ll say it again. The reason why divorce in the case of fornication isn’t mentioned in those passages is because the law required adulterers and adulteresses to be killed. The husband couldn’t spare his wife even if he wanted to and still keep the law of Moses. The only time it would even be possible to divorce for adultery would be in a situation where the husband couldn’t get the witnesses to condemn his wife to death.

    There is one standard from God which applied to both Jesus’ disciples and the Pharisees. That was the law of Moses. Your attempt to say that Jesus was talking about Jewish law with the Pharisees and something else with His disciples is false because the Tanakh wasn’t (and isn’t) just Jewish law, but God’s standard of right and wrong. The Pharisees were falsely claiming that passages like Deuteronomy 24: 1, which granted the right of divorce to men wronged by their wives’ fornication, applied to all sorts of other things like overcooking dinner, etc.

    Nagging, blowing all your money, betraying you to your enemies(like Sampson’s first wife), etc. weren’t and aren’t grounds for divorce. But fornication(sexual sin) is grounds for divorce. Which is why Christ’s disciples were shocked at Christ’s teaching because it means a wife can do anything in the confines of marriage and her husband is stuck with her.

    Show me where in Corinthians Paul says a man cannot divorce his wife for fornication. Someone else on here confused staying married through a physical separation with an obligation to stay married despite adultery. Unless you give specific passages, that’s all I can say.

    Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” If divorce and remarriage in the case of fornication, Jesus wouldn’t have allowed it.

    Divorce and remarriage(while your former spouse still lives) IS NOT adultery. Period.

  285. shammahworm says:

    Just a correction to the tail end of my last post, I meant to say that divorce and remarriage in the case of fornication isn’t adultery. But it is in other situations. If divorce and remarriage(of the wronged party) in the case of fornication was adultery, Jesus wouldn’t specifically allow it in the NT.

    @Cane Caldo
    I’m going to go portion by portion of Matthew 19: 9 and show you its meaning.

    “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,”
    This applies to anyone divorces his wife.

    “except it be for fornication,”
    Jesus is distinguishing a man who divorces his wife for sexual sin from a man who divorces for any other reason. This means what He says after it IS NOT applicable to men who divorced their wives for fornication.

    “and shall marry another, committeth adultery:”
    The men who DO NOT meet the exception that He just gave for fornication and who marry.are guilty of adultery.

    “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
    Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Notice how the actual words and structure of the sentence specifically name and exclude a man who divorces because of fornication from other men who divorce. A man who is the victim of fornication can remarry and it IS NOT adultery. Your interpretation directly contradicts the words of Christ Himself.

    On to your other points:
    1) Adultery IS a type of fornication. Case closed.
    2) Not if it’s because of fornication.
    3) Completely agree. It might not be if her ex is dead.

    “Note that in the OT, a divorced woman was free to remarry another man. Is Jesus contradicting this?”
    Nope. Because the OT makes it crystal clear that a man can divorce his wife for sexual sin(and this could only lawfully occur if the man couldn’t acquire the witnesses to execute her, if he was like Joseph and didn’t want to, or to be blunt if he found out years ago she gave some guy a blowjob on the threshing floor, or other sexual sins).

    Jesus no more contradicts the OT in what He says in Matthew 19 than Paul contradicts the OT when he says every man shall have one wife. David had multiple wives and he didn’t sin in doing so. Yet, if I try to practice polygamy I sin because God no longer permits that. In the same way, God gave divorced women in the OT the opportunity to marry again.

    You failed to address what I said regarding Deuteronomy 24: 1. And it still stands. In the OT, women who weren’t virgins when they married or committed adultery were killed. This meant that most women who were divorced were divorced for reasons other than the biblical reasons. But in those rare cases a man could biblically divorce his wife for fornication.

    “Your interpretation has Jesus thwarting the Law, the other Gospels, and Paul. Mine doesn’t.”
    I find it curious that you say this, yet you haven’t written a response to anything I’ve written concerning these. I haven’t figured out how to flag posts to tell the poster I’ve responded to them. But I have written responses to everything you’ve said in regard to the other gospels, Paul and the OT. In no way does my interpretation(the actual reading of the passage) contradict the other gospels, Paul or the OT.

  286. jf12 says:

    @BikerDad, almost all covenants are extremely conditional. The biggest difference is that a broken covenant is a bad thing, a positive evil, not merely a nullified nothing like a broken contract. In Exodus 34:10 God emphasizes again (and again, and again) the conditional nature of the covenant: He promises to drive out all the -ites in the land to which Israel is travelling on the condition that Israel keeps covenant. But Israel doesn’t, as we know, and as God knew. In fact He told them repeatedly they would break covenant, e.g. Deut 31:16-21. And of course they did break it, so God also was not bound by His promise e.g. Judg 2:20-22.

  287. jf12 says:

    @Ca, “There’s no allowance for the believer to divorce the unbeliever; only the other way around.” I agree. And when that “allowed” divorce happens, hardness of hearts and all that, “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases”.

  288. Pingback: The Great Douchebag Mystery | Dalrock

  289. Pingback: #poutyface | Dalrock

  290. Pingback: Why are modern Christians so delighted with current divorce rates? | Dalrock

  291. Pingback: Worse than fear. Worse than malice. | Dalrock

  292. Pingback: A husband’s plea to Catholic Answers Forum: Stop sowing discord in my house! | Dalrock

  293. Pingback: Is marriage just a piece of paper? | Dalrock

  294. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Late to the party but love the blog, Dalrock. Another great piece.

    @Crowhill (way at the top): “No amount of submission or godly conduct on her part was going to make me realize that this was going on. She had to tell me about it. This is a very small example, of course, but my point is that wives do have to have a way to tell their husbands if they’re unhappy.”

    Submission does not mean the man becomes an overbearing, cruel master with a docile, silent slave woman. The word “submission” has been bastardized to such as extent it is not recognizable. OF COURSE a wife should talk to her husband about what is making her unhappy. THIS IS PART OF BEING SUBMISIVE!! (Note I said TALK, not NAG).

    Athol Kay translated Paul into modern English with his Captain/First Officer analogy. I prefer the Captain/Executive Officer label because as the husband I am the Captain of the ship, in charge of the direction and course while my wife is my invaluable Executive Officer (EO) subordinate to the Captain but with wide ranging authority to do what she thinks is best for herself or the family. (Plus we agree that releasing the nuclear weapons requires mutual concurrence).

    My EO is also a Fleet Admiral (tax lawyer with a huge income etc) and she may even technically outrank me. In fact she commands a fleet of ships- BUT on MY ship she is the Executive Officer. I don’t answer to her but you damn well better believe that I listen to her. If there is a problem the EO is expected to bring it to the Captains attention immediately and directly. No bullcrap, no playing games. What is the problem? If it is I am not haaapppy for whatever reason I take her into my arms and hold her while listening to her vent. If there is a dispute, the Captain asks for input (“Options, number one”) and resolves it, hopefully to the satisfaction of his trusted crew. This is “submissive.” This is “loving as Christ loved the Church.”

    Questioning authority- respectfully as a point of order and clarification IS submissive because you are acknowledging the authority and asking for help from he who holds it. Remember, the Lord even questioned the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane and he was not failing to submit at any time.

  295. Bluepillprofessor says:

    IBB and Cane: Your argument about whether the wife or husband gets to file for divorce is superfluous: Keep in mind the biblical and cultural model at the time was for the husband to take care of the wife. IF she became unmanageable or denied him sex he could not divorce her…BUT…he COULD take another wife and make his first wife sleep in a closet in the back room. I and most other Christian men are down for a Biblical solution to this problem of refusing wifely submission but you fellows are ignoring the obvious.

    In your model the wife has ALL the power to destroy the family on a whim. In the Biblical model of the 1st Century the wife could certainly stop sleeping with her husband. She could be a bitch from hell and the husband was still bound to her to provide her support and upkeep. He was NOT bound to be faithful unto death, supplicating at the sacred feminine in hopes of getting a semi-lubricated squibby thrown at him every month or so when he brought his little shrew something extra or begged on his knees for some female attention hard enough.

    In fact, the Biblical answer was the same as the PUA response to Last Minutes Defenses- freeze her out, ignore her COMPLETELY until she starts acting the way you need her to act. This was easy when a man could just take another wife. Imagine that 1st Century Hamster spinning as another woman moves in. Imagine how the tingles would be magically regenerated when she has to lay alone on her mat in the closet, listening to how a loving couple interact with passion.

    Now it is impossible under the Churchian model for a man to maintain his dominance UNLESS he employs the hard dread- something else that Churchians abhor, probably because it works so well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s