How to make Glenn Stanton’s day.

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas

–Matt 12:39

Should you ever cross paths with Mr. Glenn Stanton, Director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, be sure to brighten his day by telling him:

38% of the most devout Christians have divorced at least once!

You may be wondering how this could possibly brighten his day.  For most people the fact that Christians (especially the most devout Christians) are flouting Christian sexual morality in such incredibly high numbers would be considered extremely shamefulThis is what an adulterous generation looks like.  However, don’t worry;  by saying this to Mr. Stanton I’m confident that you will make his day.   Mr. Stanton seems quite proud of this fact, because less devout Christians and non believers divorce at even higher rates!

That’s right, the most devout Christians are slightly better at obeying God’s command for sex and the family than non believers!  Here is how Mr. Stanton phrases this:

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population — not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.

Keep in mind that it is only a subset of Christians who divorced at the excitingly low rate of 38%.  Another subset of Christians divorced at 60%, while non believers in the same study divorced at 50% (source).  But Glenn Stanton is a glass is half full kind of man.  A subset of Christians divorcing at only 38% is good news he wants to share!  Christians everywhere rejoiced when he wrote about this triumph back in February 2011 in his article The Christian divorce rate myth (what you’ve heard is wrong).  Lest the celebration end after only one year, he wrote about it again in April 2012, The Christian Divorce Rate Myth – it is LOWER than the general population (H/T Empathologicalism).

So go ahead fellow Christians, take a moment to celebrate that the most devout amongst us violate God’s command for marriage slightly less than those who don’t believe in such a command at all, while other Christians violate the command even more often than non believers!

This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Foolishness, Glenn Stanton, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to How to make Glenn Stanton’s day.

  1. El Bastardo says:

    LOL

    I guess I better throw a party, I’m sure all my “Christian” friends will attend!

    The sad thing is marriage, even in the Church with a “devout” believer, is like texas hold em! You have “to pay” to see the other’s cards! There is no guarantee, and 38% is still an epidemic!

    We are in trouble folks if this is cause celebre’ for marriage!

  2. Opus says:

    I have had a look at the BARNA report, and in particular have read the quote from Ron Barrier of American Atheists in which he praises Atheists for having better ethics. May I as a non-believer dissociate myself from such (to my mind) self-serving and arrogant nonsense.

  3. bskillet81 says:

    Once again we see how Churchianity is actually cheerleading for frivolous divorce: “See, we’re not as bad as the overall population. Therefore, we don’t have a divorce problem! Let’s celebrate! Pass the cash and prizes!”

    Over the weekend I noticed that on one Christian facebook group of which I’m a member, a woman had posted asking for prayers that her daughter would be able to get the money necessary to file to divorce her husband (not prayers that she wouldn’t divorce him, but prayers that she would). Allegedly the husband had been in and out of rehab since the wedding.

    A day later she posted something praising God that her daughter had filed for divorce against her husband. I pointed out that, even if the divorce were for Biblical grounds, we ought not be praising God that a marriage has died. She responded that she had been praying for her daughter to divorce her husband since they had gotten married!

    Note that: Not praying that her son-in-law overcomes his substance addiction that required him to visit rehab. Praying for divorce. She wanted the marriage to end.

    Divorce is seen as female empowerment in our culture, and Churchianity is playing along. Divorce is a pornographic lust fantasy for women, and Churchianity Incorporated wants only to appeal to the desires of its consumers. All Stanton is doing is trying to spin the Churchian women’s hamsters so they can still feel self-righteous even while they militate for greater divorce.

  4. Jim says:

    This guy impresses me. The other so called reverends don’t even come close.

  5. BlackCat says:

    Ah, yes, the good Reverend Jesse, as opposed to the other one.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I have had a look at the BARNA report, and in particular have read the quote from Ron Barrier of American Atheists in which he praises Atheists for having better ethics. May I as a non-believer dissociate myself from such (to my mind) self-serving and arrogant nonsense.

    Thanks Opus. In my own experience most Atheists don’t have the kind of venom against Christians that some quite loud voices express. One thing which strikes me about my post after reading your comment is that I used the term “unbeliever” which may be seen by some as inflammatory, while you use the term (which I also used) non believer. Hopefully my intent here is clear.

    What is striking though is that Christians were rebuked by non believers for not following truly clear Scripture, because we (as a group) are being so obviously rebellious. Instead of feeling convicted, the response by Christian leadership has almost unanimously been to circle the wagons and engage solely in a “we’re better than you are” discussion. Christians aren’t called to this. It is an embarrassment.

  7. koevoet says:

    @bskillet – What does that tell us when people are praying for demonic things? Christ asked once if He would find faith when He returns. I sometimes think that the question was rhetorical.

  8. freebird says:

    Man up, man up dammit!
    Divorce never happens to “good men.”

  9. tacomaster says:

    Luckily in my church the women er, princesses won’t be getting married anytime soon so they won’t be getting divorced. They are still waiting for the 6’3 perfect man(asexual, athletic, professional career, home owner, always funny, never says “no”, doesn’t expect them to know how to cook, etc) to show up and take them away to their magical palace in dream land. Oh, and they are waiting for their burning bush moment for God to tell them which man is worth dating.

  10. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    The term Atheist has always had a certain sting in it (rather like Satanist): strictly speaking it is nothing more than a lack of belief in a God or gods. If you acknowledge being Atheistic, then, by reason of the way language works, it inevitably tends to look as if you have a certain belief – Atheism! – as if you have (like a good Hegelian) negated the negation.

    Be that as it may, it does seem to me that various prominent Atheists and Atheist groups seem to be accruing (like barnacles to a ship) varying beliefs – largely of a cultural-marxist or egaliterian type. Mr Barrier for example, waxes lyrical about ‘equality’ within marriage and praises Atheists for their lack of ‘submission’ – words that might have come from Betty Freidan or some other Feminist! If Atheists divorce rates are lower, there may of course be other reasons for this beyond a lack of belief. I tend to find, that by saying that I am not a believer or that I am a non-believer (although I am not being explicit as to what it is that I do not accept to be true) then I am not offensive to others or confusing to those who, like myself, do not believe. Unbeliever, of course, has connotations that it is difficult to avoid.

    For what it is worth it seems to me that a lot of Atheists are essentially Christians who have merely chucked out a literal reading of Genesis (and are very pleased with themsleves in doing so – like Elevator Skepchick); at the very least they are (as I am) culturally Christian – not very atheistic at all really.

  11. Matt says:

    Brett Erlich should just get it over with and put on a skirt and some lipstick.

  12. El Bastardo says:

    Oh hahahahahahahahaha, he said waht? Oh like I just need him to come over and say something like a crazy uncle ooh hahahahahah

    In all seriousness, it was not that long ago that feminism really took hold. These idiots cannot fathom what he is saying because it is so counter to the marxist upbringing they have been taught to accept as truth regardless if an opposing argument might have merit! Whether this reverend does or not, for some remains to be seen. For me, I have lived it!

    Women should not vote. The early Christians were not women haters/abusers! They just understood what women are, and acted accordingly. Honestly, a woman can get a PHD in astrophysics, and still get enthralled about the enquirer she sees while checking out for her groceries. TV, magazines, sitcoms, shopping malls, all democrats, most (90%) republicans, advertisements, products, civil court, welfare, now most college programs; this list will go on forever so I will stop. Oh yeah, EEO laws, sexual harrassment laws, “gender neutral” laws, Im sorry, I’m sorry, I said I would stop-furniture for houses, MSNBC, ABC, TLC, Lifetime, HGTV, QVC channel, psychologists (shrinks/counseling), “liberal” education (read brainwashing.

    Ok really, I’m done, and my point is that all of these things are things we can do without! Also, compounding that, is that all of these things require a mass of “people” (read women) to follow blindly, and pay for it. Since women spend 80% on average of the wealth for consumerism, all of these institutions wax politic about DV, VAWA, way more money is spent on their health and well being/we a re a dime a dozen to be killed in war or at work, Social Security (75-85% in favor of women, even when workers comp is coupled with EEOC’s), and the like. I swear, I’m done!

    The reason all of this is in place is because is because they spend OUR money FOR us! If they spend our cash, but we save it, it behooves these institutions to seperate them (women) with our cash (alimony/un-regulated Child Support. Ok, now I’m done!

    Heatlh care, the pill, nuva ring, diaphram, female condoms, adoption up to 30 days after, abortion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    You know, you should all just go, I can’t stop!

  13. The Continental Op says:

    ‘One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.’

    Paul, to Titus in Crete (1:12-14), on dealing with the church in Crete.

    The assessment of Cretans (by one of their own) in general was also true of Christian Cretans, and Titus was to rebuke them sharply so it wouldn’t be true.

  14. Crank says:

    I consider myself a non-believer. But, like Opus, I find the strident atheists to be even more obnoxious than many of the more vocal Christians.

    What the more obnoxious atheists don’t seem to get is that atheism can work for large numbers of high IQ people who have strong impulse control and are otherwise socialized to have a moral foundation of some sort. But without genuine religious belief, the lower IQ masses would run amok. Have a look at the inner cities for an example.

  15. Brendan says:

    For what it is worth it seems to me that a lot of Atheists are essentially Christians who have merely chucked out a literal reading of Genesis (and are very pleased with themsleves in doing so – like Elevator Skepchick); at the very least they are (as I am) culturally Christian – not very atheistic at all really.

    It’s really just a reflection of the post-Christian ambient cultural values, in many cases. The “common morality” of the West is basically a loosely Christian morality, provided one chucks most Christian morality about sex. This is the case whether one is a believer or a non-believer, I think — it’s just the ambient culture about “ethics”. There aren’t that many cases outside the sexual area where non-believers are arguing for an ethics that is remarkably different from Christian ethics, and most of these are outside of the daily kind of moral/ethical concerns that most people have in the routine of daily life — almost all of the issues where this a distinct non-Christian alternative ethics being argued that are not directly sexual in nature, such as the permissibility of fetal fetal stem cells and the like, touch somewhat on Christian sexual ethics such as abortion anyway. The main issue of divergence is sex, and this again draws from the ambient cultural mores which have, in the realm of sex, decisively moved away from Christian ethics. It’s quite ironic that many of these same secular ethicists accuse Christians of being uniquely obsessed with sex when they themselves have their own sexual ethics as their primary “distinctive”, ethically, from Christians.

  16. koevoet says:

    The only standards of Christianity that Churchians have held over the years have been the sexual ones. Is it really any surprise that these have gone out the window when they challenge that core belief of Churchianity – the Prosperity Doctrine? Christianity fails when everyone is allowed to be “his own pope” and interpret the Scriptures in any way he or she pleases. Before too long, the religion ceases being a path to salvation because everyone can write their own path to salvation – and salvation = haaapiness. But alas, all these rules and traditions are too stringent, and the youth pastor needs a new sports car!

    If I may paraphrase St. Theophylact – May the Churchian heretics and their followers perish!

  17. sunshinemary says:

    What is striking though is that Christians were rebuked by non believers for not following truly clear Scripture, because we (as a group) are being so obviously rebellious. Instead of feeling convicted, the response by Christian leadership has almost unanimously been to circle the wagons and engage solely in a “we’re better than you are” discussion. Christians aren’t called to this. It is an embarrassment.

    It’s like the bumper sticker I’ve been seeing lately which says “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven!” It’s like saying Yeah, we’re so lame we can’t even live by our own belief system, so don’t judge us, but remember you’re going to hell if you don’t accept Jesus. I guess it’s no surprise that agnostics and atheists look at us, shrug, and say “OK if you say so”.

  18. Binks Webelf says:

    Many modern Westernized women opt for security over freedom: big-gov, more free stuff, more laws, the paid-for opportunity to have it all. Part of the Rev’ds point above is lost in the blanket-statement.about all women (I’m a socially conservative Christian with at least a few sensible women-friends). How do we help women to re-learn and re-love trust, duty, sacrifice, the real-world consequences of carousellism, all the rest? Right now, the majority of converts to Western Islam are women.. so that yearning for a “more traditional life” is there. How do we translate that into Christian, or good-willed secularist terms?

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I tend to find, that by saying that I am not a believer or that I am a non-believer (although I am not being explicit as to what it is that I do not accept to be true) then I am not offensive to others or confusing to those who, like myself, do not believe. Unbeliever, of course, has connotations that it is difficult to avoid.

    Fair point. I already used the term “non believer” at least once in the post above. I’ll replace the instances of “unbeliever” with it as well.

  20. bskillet81 says:

    @ SunshineMary:

    Kind of like someone once said, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” —Rom. 2:24

  21. sunshinemary says:

    bskillet81
    Yeah, I guess if there’s a silver lining, it’s that first century Christians were messing up as badly as we still do today if Paul felt the need to remind them of those Old Testament scriptures.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 is often comforting to me when I’m thinking that a world can’t be more messed up than the one we live in…What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

  22. Comment_Whatever says:


    What the more obnoxious atheists don’t seem to get is that atheism can work for large numbers of high IQ people who have strong impulse control and are otherwise socialized to have a moral foundation of some sort. But without genuine religious belief, the lower IQ masses would run amok. Have a look at the inner cities for an example.

    I suppose you mean like high IQ business men like Enron and Long Term Capital Management and Bernie Madoff.

    Or maybe Obama’s daddy. Or Obama’s mommie. Or pretty much all doctors. Go ahead, call me on this. Did I fire one bullet, or two? In the confusion, I seem to have forgotten myself. The question is, are you feeling lucky?

    Oh no! I forgot the saving grace of intelliegent people! Lawyers!

  23. The Continental Op says:

    Intelligent people are more successful financially, so they are able to insulate themselves better from the consequences of their actions than can unintelligent people. Even it that involves just bringing in a battalion of lawyers. Insulate, insulate, insulate!

  24. DC Al Fine says:

    @ Jim

    Watched the 2nd video. I like how the female news anchor plays the clip of the Reverend saying that women cannot handle the vote… and then proceeds to giggle and joke without ever addressing the issue. Sometimes it’s sad how these people are so unaware.

  25. ballista74 says:

    Lest the celebration end after only one year, he wrote about it again in April 2012, The Christian Divorce Rate Myth – it is LOWER than the general population (H/T Empathologicalism).

    From following the evangelical front, I noticed most of them usually wash and recycle articles they’ve written previously for different venues (or formats in the case of the Boundless “how to marry well” guides), or reprint them if they get enough people asking for them. They usually edit them slightly without changing message if they find there’s language that brought about some foot in mouth disease. The Albert Mohler articles I’ve commented on in the past have made the rounds at least twice that I’m aware of, edited differently, even changing some foot and mouth statements (like Mohler lamenting that the 16-18 year old boy set isn’t marriage-minded).

    Not to throw any water on this, but it seems in studying the two articles that there are several common passages that read word-for-word identical. So it seems this is likely the case.

  26. Perhaps he would be pleased if Christian fornicators only inserted 38% of the penis into their their supposedly chaste daughters.

  27. Jason says:

    A collection of random thoughts on this.

    I would be interested To see the divorce stats broken down by cause. Although given that many states dont seem to bother to even keep serious stats and with the idiocy of no fault divorce, such stats are likely impossible to get, but still it would be interesting. After all perhaps (probably not) the high divorce rate among “devout Christians” is faithful spouses kicking unfaithful ones to the curb. I know that that is extremely unlikely but then again what does it mean to be a “devout believer”. I am sure some of those grossly heretical prosperity gospel loons have plenty of “devout” followers that qualify as “Christians”. Plus regular attendance is hardly a qualifier for “devout”. I doubt it is even a very good proxy in somewhere like the united states, unlike in some other places.

    Still, it would be interesting to see a more nuanced set of stats, which might be revealing. Although it would probably need to include data like partner count before and after conversion etc. data tat would be likely impossible to acquire without omniscience.

    Also on the question of “ethical atheists”. Good observation about the distinctive being their sexual morality. Although there are serious atheist ethicists like Peter Singer who has attempted to formulate a serious consistent purely naturalistic ethic based on utilitarianism. I think he fails utterly because he still smudges in external first principles that he can’t ground, but that and other attempts do exist. Though they all fail in basically the same way. The ethic that is arrived at is barbaric and evil in the extreme but it does have the virtue of being honest and consistent.

    I am all for atheists being ethical but I don’t think in practice they can mange to do so without “dining on a stolen credit card”.

    Hopefully I haven’t just derailed the thread with that comment.

  28. pugsfugly says:

    As a non-believer who married a lapsed Catholic, I’m still amazed by the level of vitriol I recieve from the sisters, aunts, and female cousins (all Catholic) of my ex-wife, all of whom have been divorced at least once. Some of them are on their third or fourth marriage.

    It was these same women who insisted we get married in the first place, as opposed to just living together. Not a day went by that I didn’t hear about the conversations she had to have, all of them essentially ganging up on her with shaming language to the effect of “why won’t he marry you? Is something wrong with you? With him?” etc.

    They were all repeating the same mistake over and over again (seeing marriage as an end in and of itself instead of a means to an end) and insisting she do the same. Unfortunately, I eventually caved.

  29. Jason says:

    @pugsfugly,

    I think you’ll find they are all pretty nominal catholics if they are repeatedly divorced. It is strange that supposed catholics would see marriage as an end in itself. I’m guessing they are just culturally catholic? Attending mass at christmas and easter?

    It seems the “cultural christians” (or churchians as some call them, although most dont even rise to that level) are the worst of the lot. Getting just enough of the message (and basically non-essentials at that) while skipping over all of the important stuff.

  30. imnobody says:

    @pugsfugly
    Unfortunately, I eventually caved. Why unfortunately? Has marriage been bad for you? Or is it only that you are against marriage in general?

  31. Jason says:

    @imnobody,

    Follow the link to his blog. Although if I had to guess, it probably would have ended roughly as badly without a marriage anyway.

  32. Flip says:

    This just makes me ashamed and depressed. And it’s something that, try as I might, I don’t understand. Call me naive, but I’ve always thought that if you’re a Christian, you should act Christian. It’s not that hard to get. And I’m not always the best at it, but dammit, I try, and I take serious things seriously.

    I checked out the Australian Christian rates for comparison and they ranged from 12% to 19% (the median being closer to 19%) depending on which subgroup of Christianity we’re talking about. That was in 2001, though. (link here if you’re interested – see pg 18 http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/diversity/15divorce.pdf) I’m relieved that it’s lower than America, although that still means nearly two out of ten Christian marriages would be ending in divorce. For anyone who’s interested, the Catholic divorce rate was aroung 16%.The Presbyterians were the highest.

    I should probably find some more current stats but Google’s not turning up anything at the moment.

    I have to say, the verse you quoted at the start has some pretty interesting theological implications, since we’re the adulterous generation.

  33. imnobody says:

    @Jason.

    Thank you. I will see. I haven’t realized he had a blog.

  34. “It seems the “cultural christians” (or churchians as some call them, although most dont even rise to that level) are the worst of the lot. “

    Exactly. One of my issues with the Barna study is how it lumps all those who claim the “evangelical” mantle regardless of their actual behavior in practice. Those that walk the walk…i.e., regularly attend church and pray, etc…have divorce rates far less than the 38% mentioned in the Barna study.

  35. pugsfugly says:

    @Jason

    I know several of them attend mass regularly, although my ex-wife never did. Religion and church were never a big part of our lives (which would explain a lot). The case with my ex-in-laws had more to do with two generations of women; one, a ground-floor group of early 60’s feminists, and two, the daughters they raised. Also, part of it was your basic, general hypocrisy that abounds whenever your stated belief system contradicts what you think you’re entitled to. It’s the way that some people can justify anything, when they feel that they’re in the right. In our case, it included causing unnecessary drama whenever things were going even remotely good between us.

    Dalrock explained it far better than I can here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-whispers/

    While I’m happy about my divorce in the sense that I no longer have to struggle every day with an untennable, unfixable situation, I can’t justify it as anything other than a failure, because that’s what it is. Although I’m convinced that I tried everything I could, including marriage counseling and an impossible fight to get my ex into AA, I’m still not, and will never be, happy about failing to make it work.

  36. pugsfugly says:

    @imnobody

    I’m definitely against Marriage 2.0, but I say “unfortunately” because looking back, it seems to have been doomed from the beginning. Too much I didn’t know, too many red flags ignored or glossed over, and far too many attempts to make someone see logic where it serves their purposes to intentionally ignore it.

  37. Jason says:

    @Flip,

    Take a little heart. At least in my experience as a Sydney Anglican, the divorces I have seen have usually results from one partner walking out (often because they were being adulterous) and they leave the church as well as the marriage. Even where adultery wasn’t involved, the leaving partner has always left the church as well. So to presume “devout christians” divorce in Australia may not be entirely accurate as the party that breaks things up has often abandoned their faith as well. This isn’t a good thing, but it is one variable that probably needs to be controlled for in these statistics. I’m not sure such cases count as “devout christians divorcing” or even as “unbiblical divorces” as the unbelieving spouse left.

    This is obviously still not a good thing, but it seems to be less clear cut than the really horrific cases you hear in the US of one partner (usually the woman) divorcing her husband for “any cause” and then remaining in good standing in the church. I don’t think i’ve ever seen that at any of the three churches i’ve attended but in fairness, I didn’t really know much about the whole thing until my wife asked for a divorce a couple of years back (We are moving towards reconciliation and she is moving home in a few months when her lease is up).

  38. bskillet81 says:

    This is obviously still not a good thing, but it seems to be less clear cut than the really horrific cases you hear in the US of one partner (usually the woman) divorcing her husband for “any cause” and then remaining in good standing in the church.

    You forgot to add the part where the innocent husband is shamed out of the congregation and has to find a new church or quits going altogether.

  39. Jason says:

    @bskillet81

    Yeah I did leave that bit out. Seems to be a perfect inversion of what should happen doesn’t it. The wronged partner is divorced, rather than doing the divorcing and then the wronged partner is shamed and ejected rather than the partner doing the wrong. Lunacy.

    Seems like Eden was the template for how things go wrong. they end up inverted.

  40. an observer says:

    Maybe we should encourage Mr Stanton to post on rad femhub.

    His views certainly seem compatible.

    http://mobile.news.com.au/top-stories/carnivorous-men-v-lying-bitches-in-sex-war/story-e6frfkp9-1226427879838?from=public_rss

  41. Flip says:

    @bskillet81: What you said above (ie the innocent husband leaving) applies to the single divorce I’ve seen in my church experience. It was very sad. My church doesn’t really know how to deal with the wife and her new husband either. They don’t come very often (and really, what do you say when they do? How do you keep people in the fold but still say, ‘what you did was wrong’?). Their daughter, whom I used to be quite close with, just left the church and moved away to study, and she’s just formed this shell around herself which won’t let anyone in. She’s mad at her parents for divorcing and forcing her to pick up the pieces of her siblings (during her final year at school, too) and she’s mad at the church for not approving of her mother. I’m going to the same university next year, so hopefully I’ll be able to re-connect. But it’s just so sad to see the effect a single divorce can have on people. I can’t imagine what is going on in the US.

    @Jason:

    I guess what’s also getting me down is that we’re meant to be showing an example and these US ‘cultural Christians’ who are divorcing in such a way are definitely not. Especially since God created marriage, and these people seem to be actively trying to destroy it by not taking it seriously. Basically I’m complaining about that whole ‘how can people be taking Christianity seriously if Christians aren’t taking it seriously?’ Feminism has such a lot to answer for. I’m trying to think of a more damaging ideology to hit the world throughout history, and the only one that even registers on that scale seems to be to be the ideology surrounding evolution. But maybe we shouldn’t get into that.

    So to presume “devout christians” divorce in Australia may not be entirely accurate as the party that breaks things up has often abandoned their faith as well. This isn’t a good thing, but it is one variable that probably needs to be controlled for in these statistics. I’m not sure such cases count as “devout christians divorcing” or even as “unbiblical divorces” as the unbelieving spouse left.

    Yeah, most surveys don’t seem to go that in-depth, unfortunately. It’d be an interesting thing to have a look at, although the results wouldn’t be surprising. Like Elusive Wapiti said, I’d expect much lower divorce rates among the devout.

    May I say, I’m also very happy for you that you and your wife are moving towards reconciliation, and I’m sorry you had to go through that trauma in the first place.

  42. Jason says:

    @flip,

    Take heart a little with regard to “cultural Christians”. They aren’t Christians at all. A bit like C & E’s in that regard. I think I’d agree that Feminism is one of the most evil ideologies to spring up in human history (at least to this point) but in fairness most of the -ism’s that sprang up in the post enlightenment world that jettisoned the idea of “the falleness of man” all have ended in fire and blood. Feminism is not really any different in this regard.

    It is depressing to hear that the innocent party left your church while the wife still attends sporadically. If I can ask, what uni are you off too and what part of Oz are you from (I’m from Sydney, myself).

    Thanks about me and the wife. We both made plenty of mistakes and honestly it is probably better to have gone through this. I’ve learned a lot and can share what I’ve learned with others, plus I’m definitely stronger for it. Also apparently I’ve served as a good example to many people of perseverance and trust. So God knows what He is doing even if I’ve got no freaking idea what is going on😉

  43. Flip says:

    @ Jason:

    I know they’re most likely not Christians at all, but if they say they are, people will judge them as Christians and–oh,
    grump, grump, grump. I may just have to take a little heart as you suggest. God’s got it down and all we can keep doing meanwhile is praying.

    A bit like C & E’s in that regard.

    I don’t think I’m familiar with that term. What does it mean?

    in fairness most of the -ism’s that sprang up in the post enlightenment world that jettisoned the idea of “the falleness of man” all have ended in fire and blood. Feminism is not really any different in this regard.

    You’ve got a point. All of the ideologies that deny that we tend to suck, tend to, well, suck. (Why not bring in communism at this point. Seriously, Marx. Where did you think that was going to go?)

    Although feminism seems to be the most insidious. (and especially the brand of American feminism. Who commented recently about America having a particular cocktail of social influences including Social Conservatism that meant that feminism in the US was particularly poisionous?)

    It is depressing to hear that the innocent party left your church while the wife still attends sporadically. If I can ask, what uni are you off too and what part of Oz are you from (I’m from Sydney, myself).

    Although I don’t know that his faith in God was strong, I’m fairly sure that she’s the one who initiated the divorce. I want to try and limit the amount of identifying details I post about myself, so I won’t post the uni, but I live in Western Australia and will be studying in Perth.

    Thanks about me and the wife. We both made plenty of mistakes and honestly it is probably better to have gone through this. I’ve learned a lot and can share what I’ve learned with others, plus I’m definitely stronger for it. Also apparently I’ve served as a good example to many people of perseverance and trust. So God knows what He is doing even if I’ve got no freaking idea what is going on

    Ain’t that the truth!😛 I’m glad the positives are so strong for you and that you’ve turned a terrible thing into a marriage-strengthening thing. That’s always a wonderful thing to hear.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @Elusive Wapiti

    It seems the “cultural christians” (or churchians as some call them, although most dont even rise to that level) are the worst of the lot.

    Exactly. One of my issues with the Barna study is how it lumps all those who claim the “evangelical” mantle regardless of their actual behavior in practice. Those that walk the walk…i.e., regularly attend church and pray, etc…have divorce rates far less than the 38% mentioned in the Barna study.

    I’m pretty sure you are linking to the same data from Stanton I reference in the OP, which is where the 38% figure comes from (not from Barna). The link in your post doesn’t work for me but the text you quote is straight out of Stanton’s article. Google (with quotes) “It’s one of the most quoted stats by Christian leaders today. And it’s perhaps one of the most inaccurate.” and you will get Stanton’s Feb 2011 Baptist Press article. You will also find the next paragraph you quote word for word in the same article.

    Regular attendance, prayer, etc. truly does correlate with lower divorce rates. That is the 38% Stanton is so giddy about. Those believers who didn’t fit that category divorced at 60%.

  45. Jason says:

    @Flip,

    C&E Christian is a “Christmas and Easter Christian”. Someone who attends church twice a year and isn’t really a christian at all, they just do it out of tradition.

    Marxism denies the fallenness of man as well. Or as it is more commonly put, they affirm the “perfectibility of man” (or humanity). I agree of all of these ideologies feminism will probably be seen in hindsight as the most catastrophic. Though communism has over 100 megadeaths to its name so I think it may be a contender for a long time.

    So WA, no worries. No need to identify yourself further🙂 So not a church I know then and you and I are never likely to have crossed paths. That was all I was wondering.

    Thanks again about the wife and I🙂

  46. Allow me to present scriptures that is “going against the grain”. Dont shoot the messenger.
    I have meet quite a few ethical atheist and agnostic people over the years in my profession that had very high ethical values & principles as well as so called “Christians” were absolute wolves in sheep clothing.

    With that being said – the worse offender that is presented in the scripture is the “luke/puke warm” cross-less Christian who is a fantastic pew warmer.

    Rev 3
    15“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!
    16So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

    It would appear Jesus would prefer a staunch atheist over a luke warm person who IS in the body of Christ and called by HIS name. Btw, the majority of America is primarily “Christian” whether practicing or not.
    Hence, given there is only a slightly better lower rate of divorce is something to be ashamed of and not proud of. It would appears to be smoke and mirrors and raises eyebrows on the validity of the data and the study.

  47. Jason says:

    @Dalrock,

    I’d wager that the 60% divorce rate comes from getting just enough “christianity” to get the idea that marriage is a good idea, but not enough to understand the whole covenant/submission/leadership thing.

    Although generally speaking I don’t think the whole “divorce rate” statistics that lump large groups together are very meaningful. Seems like they would need to be broken down a lot more to yeild useful data.

  48. Flip says:

    @ Jason:

    “Marxism denies the fallenness of man as well. Or as it is more commonly put, they affirm the “perfectibility of man” (or humanity).”

    Exactly. Going on about a utopian state that will govern itself because everybody’s just going to fall in line. That’s so why we’ve had a need for rules and law for thousands of years… I think communism’s the most delusional of the lot.

    “I agree of all of these ideologies feminism will probably be seen in hindsight as the most catastrophic. Though communism has over 100 megadeaths to its name so I think it may be a contender for a long time.”

    It depends on how much you want to put down to communism in its purest form (Marxist, possibly even Marxist-Leninist when Lenin didn’t actually have power) and how much you want to put down to the real-world totalitarian application of what were originally (but no longer bear much resemblance to) communist ideas.

    That’s interesting actually–the question of where does communism’s responsibility for those deaths begin and end? A lot of atrocities were committed in the name of communism, but were actually not technically communism.

    Um. You may have gathered that I like discussing semantics.

    Also that comment got me thinking, comparing communism and feminism… They’re definitely two different types of catastrophe – the slow decline of civilisation and the principles upholding it, leading to a slow decreasing quality of life for many/most, a slowing economy, and death, all due to a number of indirectly linked factors–so slow that most people don’t even realise how far-reaching the consequences are; versus immediate physical discomfort, immediately screwed-up economy, and loss of life all caused by very directly linked factors and an obvious controlling body.

    With communism, as soon as it’s applied, it’s immediately obvious that it’s not going to end well. The twisted beauty of feminism is that it looks as though it’s promising everything, it makes you think you’re winning, it makes you think you’re developing as a person/as a society and yet it takes away so much. But both seem to have the same results, just in slightly different form.

    But I’m getting wayy off topic…🙂 It was fun, though.

  49. Flip says:

    @ Michael Singer: That is a very good point.

  50. Dalrock

    I wonder, did you happen to have any dialogue with the folks who wrote the books/studies from which his data was taken? I’ve only had one response and she referred me to her partner who is yet to respond.
    I was just curious if you had looked at what they had as evidence for even the 38%?

    And I also wonder if you accept the 38% at face value and if so why? I have not yet found any good substantiation.

  51. the response by Christian leadership has almost unanimously been to circle the wagons and engage solely in a “we’re better than you are” discussion. Christians aren’t called to this. It is an embarrassment.

    ———————————————
    Dadgummit the big blogger got to this cookie first.
    Longer arms

  52. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    I’d wager that the 60% divorce rate comes from getting just enough “christianity” to get the idea that marriage is a good idea, but not enough to understand the whole covenant/submission/leadership thing.

    But where are their bodies of Christians in the west who really do accept the Biblical frame of marriage? I don’t see this as a case of the Pastor and core followers getting this right with some less dedicated not getting it. Many give lip service to the idea of headship/submission, for example, but if you look at what they say closely they almost always mean the opposite of Biblical frame. I showed how Sheila Gregoire approached this in her books in my recent series. Put another way, the assumption is that Christian Forums is an anomaly. But if so, where is the site that all of these true Christians are going to? I know Empath and several of our fellow readers/bloggers in the Manosphere were active in that space; where should they go instead aside from the manosphere? If the churches were getting it right but some less interested members were getting it wrong, it wouldn’t look like this. The church has been corrupted by feminism, full stop. There are Christians who are still faithful to the Biblical frame of marriage, but they are fighting against what is being taught. We need to acknowledge this.

    Although generally speaking I don’t think the whole “divorce rate” statistics that lump large groups together are very meaningful. Seems like they would need to be broken down a lot more to yeild useful data.

    Absolutely. Elusive Wapiti shares some data in the link from his comment above which might help here.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    I wonder, did you happen to have any dialogue with the folks who wrote the books/studies from which his data was taken? I’ve only had one response and she referred me to her partner who is yet to respond.
    I was just curious if you had looked at what they had as evidence for even the 38%?

    And I also wonder if you accept the 38% at face value and if so why? I have not yet found any good substantiation.

    I haven’t drilled into this at all. Elusive Wapiti has done some drilling here, so I would check out his link. It is a good question, but even without drilling into the data the problem with the response is huge. I will be interested to see what you find in your investigation here. The post of yours I linked to in the OP is Part 1, so I assume you are planning follow on posts, right?

    Dadgummit the big blogger got to this cookie first.
    Longer arms

    Thanks for the chuckle. I didn’t intend to steal your fire here though. It sounds like we came to the same conclusion (not surprising).

  54. Phantasmagoria says:

    I wonder when the line “to death till us part” will be replaced by “until such a time as one party is the slightest bit unhappy” in the traditional wedding vows?

    I mean, we may as well be realistic about the whole situation.

  55. We just had a round of talks about that issue, where do we go to post in a forum format. Honestly, I cannot recommend a single site, and we have all looked and tried.
    The outcast feminists from CF have roosted somewhere, not surprisingly they were tossed when we were tossed, and they have found a left wing atheist-ish site that is comprised of others tossed from CF but because they were too liberal/feminist. Sheesh double mindedness abounds.

    To the point of this thread and the research I am doing, I am finding that the correlations between so called faithful or serious believers is no such thing simply because there is no metric for that.
    It is no surprise that they gynocentric churchian crowd like Stanton though have assigned seriousness to those who follow what is largely the female prescription for husband as spiritual leader.
    That is the common thread in all the refutation Im trying to make. I do not believe the 38% number for that reason and many others. OR, if it is true, its indicative of something else besides fealty to marriage as a Christian institution. In other words, I submit that a large portion of those marriages staying together is because they have adopted the female view for what the husband does and doesn’t do, and a man sufficiently pandering to that will (for a time) lower his divorce risk. That is NOT a statistic based on being faithful, its a statistic based on pandering, it is sort of like the so called saved marriages Joel and Kathy tout, where the husband is in full supplication and that appeases the wife.

    I’m waiting on an answer from one researcher and I may have to break down and buy a book listed as it was only excerpted partially online that I can find. But I am confident in where this is headed, and it is not that the really really really believers have 38% divorce rate. Sadly, the really really believers may even have a very low rate of divorce, but its not easy to pick them out. The metric used in the 38% number measures how sold out they are to gynocentrism in church, not to God

  56. koevoet says:

    From what I have seen of the Orthodox Church, it can go either way. I have seen enough of the Greek fairy-tale weddings that I have a bad taste in my mouth. But the church I attend has a very old school, Old World, Priest. About two years ago there was a Bible study at the church that went over Christian marriage.

    “We see here, brothers and sisters, that husband and wife are not to refrain from each other except for spiritual reasons, and only then with consent and for short period of time. Not because ‘I have headache’. If you are not in mood. Get in mood.”

  57. Dalrock

    You didnt steal anything, I was poking fun. You have no need for scouring others blogs for ideas, yours are fine by themselves.

    Yes, mine is part 1. The rest are more time consuming as I want to be a thorough as possible. In my post above Ive posited my alternative theory, though that will likely remain a theory for the reasons I explain. However, Im sure I will counter the 38% claim because Ive already researched enough to cast massive doubt on it, qualitatively and quantitatively.

  58. koevoet says:

    @Phanta – “I wonder when the line “to death till us part” will be replaced by “until such a time as one party is the slightest bit unhappy” in the traditional wedding vows?”

    Henry VIII. Yeah, I know it’s simplistic but I think it highlights one of the major issues. Divorce became frequent because people can now change the Bible to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

  59. sunshinemary says:

    If the churches were getting it right but some less interested members were getting it wrong, it wouldn’t look like this. The church has been corrupted by feminism, full stop.

    This right here is what I did not really understand until I stumbled into the manosphere. Since opening my eyes and really taking a look around me in church, I’ve had a bit of a rude awakening. It upset me enough to start my own blog dedicated to this issue, but instead of reading my blog, I would encourage your silent readers who maybe aren’t sold on the idea that feminism has almost entirely rotted the western church from the inside out to head on over to “Christianity Today” and read basically anything in the “her-meneutics” category. I dissected one of their articles recently on my little blog and my conclusion was there was no detectable difference between full-on feminist ideology and what was being sold to evangelical women at “Christianity Today”, which by the way is considered to be the largest and most influential source of news and thought from the evangelical movement. Scary indeed.

    [D: Good post. Here is a link for those who want to read it: Should Christian Women Have it All?]

  60. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    wonce upon a time mens wents 2 church 2 find a good wownenez lzozlzlzloz

    wonce upon a time mens wents 2 church 2 find a good wownenez lzozlzlzloz to be a wife and mother and faithful honor cherish lzozlzzozlolzozlz

    today woemnz go 2 churrhc 2 find a beta or gammamale to pay for their three children forrm three fatehrs who pumped dand dudmped theier zazzez afetr asszzcockcing them lzozlzlzlzo

  61. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    The modern “Christian” woman is just like the classical “Christian” woman, other than that she has had a lot of cocks in her butthole in college, whence she was desouled in secretive tapings of butthext and converted into a vehicle of wealth transfer, trained to hawk subprime loans in short skirts, while divorcing her husband, forcing him to give his assets to the fiat buthexting state, and seizing the children so a to drug/slut them up and dumb them down in the Corporate-State daycare system.

    The modern fiat dollar is just like the classical gold-back dollar, other than that the central banks can print more at whim and give the dollars to their friends, thusly buttfucking the common man, in addition to his future wife.

    zlzozzlzzoozzozlzo

  62. Thanks D for pointing out that my link is broken. I did some spadework, and found this resource that sheds some more light on today’s discussion around pages 9 and 10.

    I’ll throw a post up on it later today or tomorrow morning.

    [D: Thanks EW. Looking forward to it.]

  63. Elusive Wapiti
    Yes that is one of the first sources I came across. One of the authors is the author of a book cited by Stanton (or his, ahem, assistant(s)) which I found a large excerpt from online, however the crescendo of the section I need was omitted. That author has been requested to send some info, his previous assistant told me he would. So lets see.
    I am glad to see this back on the radar of everyone because the drumbeat of the faithful having strong marriages by design , in other words get MORE churchianity and you too can be haaaapy is reminding me of that old classic
    MORE COWBELL

  64. Footnote 4 on page eleven flirts with the problems of the whole analysis. Page eleven also goes into some refutation of Barna.
    Some of what is in footnote 4 can possibly be statistically unpacked rather than just listing it as qualifier or disclaimer. I am trying.

  65. Dalrock says:

    EW and Empath,

    I’m all for the data analysis (as you might guess), but I do think that the analysis can easily fall into the pattern of trying to prove that Christians are better at following God’s commands than those who don’t believe in the commands. This isn’t a bad thing to understand, but the frame of circling the wagons tends to drown everything else out. It certainly did for Stanton in my opinion.

    Somewhat related, a commenter mentioned a while back that Churches of Christ has a verified low divorce rate. With some searching I found the document I believe he was referencing here. It does have some impressive data, but it is also fairly vague. I can’t tell how long the people in the group measured had been married or how old they are, for example. Still, the comparison with graduates of Christian colleges from other denominations was impressive. They seem to be doing something right there. I’m not sure if I will do a post on it or not, but I at least wanted to share the link in case you or others want to write about it.

  66. Pingback: Oprah 3:16 and the Christian Divorce Machine | Christian Men's Defense Network

  67. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    The divorce rate in modern churches is inversely proportional to the degree to which a man will accept an asscocked, embittered, vengeful, desouled, bernankified wife as his slave master.

    lzozozozlzoz

  68. bskillet81 says:

    @sunshinemarry

    Yeah, I guess if there’s a silver lining, it’s that first century Christians were messing up as badly as we still do today if Paul felt the need to remind them of those Old Testament scriptures.

    It would seem that way, except in context Paul was referring to Jews specifically rather than Christians per se. The only time in the first century church that I can think of where Paul seems concerned that Christians are causing a mockery of the faith is with the church at Corinth (even there, I can’t off the top of my head cite chapter and verse).

    Of course, it appears the church at Corinth was typified by 1) widespread sexual promiscuity, 2) various forms of sexual perversion, 3) various doctrinal heresies, and 4) widespread frivolous divorce.

    Now that I think about it, I guess not much has changed in the past 2,000 years.

  69. Dalrock
    I agree, I have no interest in choosing up sides in the superficial culture war so to speak. We already fail big time in that…pick your issue and we wear it on our sleeves, and leave the charge of hypocrite at worst and misplaced priorities at best ready to be levied against us.
    I believe that deconstructing the myth that being churchian helps marriage is part of deconstructing churchianity itself. Whether it is ever torn down is beside the point, largely I look into it for my own reasons, and if others of like mind either look into it or read whats been found here, there, and anywhere in this sphere its written about, all the better.

  70. The divorce rate in modern churches is inversely proportional to the degree to which a man will accept an asscocked, embittered, vengeful, desouled, bernankified wife as his slave master.
    ————————————————————-
    yessir, this is one way of stating what I am asserting as well.

  71. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    ummm people

    did not jesus say that he had come to fulfill the law, and not abolish it?

    was he not speaking of the law of the old testament?

    so, in order to follow jesus, do we not follow the ten commandments?

    why does this seem to be news to so many people?

    lzozozozoz

  72. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    ummmm dalrock, i think that a post quoting a biblical passage might be pertinent to a discussion on christianity? just sayin’

    what the churches no longer teach is the fundamental law that jesus came to fulfill–from the KJVB GENESIS:

    “16 Unto the woman he said,

    I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
    in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
    and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
    and he shall rule over thee.”

    by eliminating MOSES and GENESIS from the CHURCH, the CHURCH is now serving SATAN, as the bankers enslave men to gina tingles and butt tingles while deconstructing and denying God.

    women are taught to first and foremost serve the corporate-state’s bottom, line after their own bottoms are lined with semen, as they are methodically desouled in neocon asscocking sessions which are really just typical preemptive neocon wars waged against both the soul and the butthole.

    neocons profit via debasement and debauchery of both the currency and the culture. in the same way they profit by turning education and healthcare into debt-creating vehicles, they also profit by transforming marriage into a debt-and-debauchery-creating system.

  73. an observer says:

    The bankers must love poor people. Their fiat currencies and central banks are creating ever more of them.

    They may be subject to assessment by Proverbs 11.1.

  74. sunshinemary says:

    GBFM wrote: did not jesus say that he had come to fulfill the law, and not abolish it?
    was he not speaking of the law of the old testament?
    so, in order to follow jesus, do we not follow the ten commandments?
    why does this seem to be news to so many people?

    It always startles me when you turn lucid for a moment. Of course you are entirely correct and have exactly explained the problem; we are supposed to follow the ten commandments; although we are no longer bound by ritual law, we are indeed bound by ethical law. It is news for so many people because of the movement to make churches more “seeker” friendly and non-judgmental (for women at least) and this has resulted in pastors becoming willing to tolerate a lot of blatant sin in the congregation. But sometimes tolerance, as CL has pointed out, is not a virtue.

  75. sunshinemary says:

    Oh, GBFM, one quick thing – thanks for visiting my little nothing of a blog and leaving me a poem. The thing is, my husband doesn’t read manosphere blogs frequently enough to understand about your, uh, unique communication style, and if he saw that I had approved a comment about @$$c*cking, he would shut my blog down quicker than you can say “fiat currency”.

  76. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    hey dalrock!!!! i have soelved da promblemz!!!

    since so many “christain” women are buttcocked by dozens of douchebags before marriage and deosuled, why not bring back prima noctcae which menas dat only one douchebag can buttckcone buttcocke her lzozozozoz

    Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding.” lolzlz!

    “Longshanks: Nobles. Nobles are the key to the door of Scotland. Grant our nobles lands in the north. Give their nobles estates here in England, and make them too greedy to oppose us.
    Advisor: But sire, our nobles will be reluctant to uproot. New lands mean new taxes, and they are already taxed for the war in France.
    Longshanks: Are they? Are they? The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots. Perhaps the time has come to reinstitute an old custom. Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding. If we can’t get them out, we breed them out. That should fetch just the kind of lords we want to Scotland, taxes or no taxes.
    Advisor: A most excellent idea, sire.
    Longshanks: Is it? “

    –From Braveheart

    I wish they would bring Prima Noctes back!!

    Imagine just one other man having rights to your wife, for one night, before you got her.

    That would rock!!

    Today the master fiat class gives the first rights of your wife to an endless array of douchetards, starting in elementary school, commanding her to see lying, peacocking, manipulative, girly beta males as alphas, while seeing manly alphas as betas; as her mother exiled her true father long ago, under command of the fiat masters.

    From an early age they teach her that her ginatingles rule the world, not Jesus, nor Thor, nor Zeus, nor Moses. When she gets knocked up, they reward her with fiat dollars which Ben Benanke hand delivers in his helicopter.

    Today, when she kisses those kids and sends them off to school, she leaves traces of dozens of other men on their cheeks.

    Make no mistake–she is working for the Fed, and if you question any of this she will take your children away and the feminist police will search your home to determine how many assets of yours she will get. For again, all the Fed can do is create debt, and to convert this debt into physical wealth, they need men, like you, to work and labor for it. lozlzlzl!

    You know you tasted it when you kissed her a couple times on those early dates–that salty prima nocta form those who violated her orfices a few minutes before. And now she pwns u, the kids, and the home! And you have to pay 4 ur own cuckolding!!

    lZooozolzzl

  77. GBFM, here is an even better idea. Have husbands deflower their wives. We can have a custom. Perhaps girls can get married in a colour to symbolise purity. Maybe white?

    Imagine the great roleplaying opportunity. The husband can say, “I am a noble lord, come to take your virginity, my dear”. As good as a romance novel. And real.

  78. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    sunshinemary, yah i understandeth u lzozoozoz

    jesusth also knew dat da people tend to shoot the messneger

    when there is buttcocking and sinning goingz on

    and da gbfm say “shame on da buttoccking and sinning sinners!”

    da gbfm is perseucted for using da word buttcocking

    while those performing

    the physical act

    of buttcocking

    are blessed by da mangina preacherz lozzozzozozolz

  79. sunshinemary says:

    For most people the fact that Christians (especially the most devout Christians) are flouting Christian sexual morality in such incredibly high numbers would be considered extremely shameful. This is what an adulterous generation looks like.

    This upsets me. I am advocating a small act of resistance on my latest blog post. Maybe we can be the Christian version of culture-jammers…

  80. farm boy says:

    “I wonder when the line “to death till us part” will be replaced by “until such a time as one party is the slightest bit unhappy” in the traditional wedding vows?”

    Make that “until such a time as the women is the slightest bit unhappy”. I wonder how some people, like my ex-wife, can live with themselves. If they can’t live up to their vows, maybe the law should treat them as children.

  81. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    loozlzzo yah David Collard!

    yes! thta is much petter dan prima nocte!!

    instead of giving your wife to another man to dvriginize, why not just devigriniie her yorselfzz?

    yes david collard, my prima notactae suggestons was a better dan da ben beranke fed lostass cockas carosule carossule they putda womenz on, and your idea of keeping all in da sacred holy bond of matrimony is even better dan my ideaz!! zzoozozozo

    and maybe, someday, we can just kee p all of doa cockas outta all da womenz buttholez in da churches!!!

    though one thing at ta time🙂 (just like one cocaks at a time and hopefully your husbandz!! ) zlozlzlz
    🙂

  82. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    Ministers should say the following at modern weddings, “What the Lord has joined together,let not man put assunder, unless the corporate-state can profit by encouraging the woman to destory the family in the service of her butt and gina tinglellzozzlzizlzolozlzozlzozzoz”

  83. an observer says:

    Eaps already make covenant with Caesar. Its called democracy.

    Stealing from the men that have, to give to the eaps that want. More like Marxism, really.

  84. A♠ says:

    @sunshinemary {July 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm}

    “It always startles me when you turn lucid for a moment”

    I’m fairly certain that’s exactly why he does it that way.

    Having read his comments for a couple years now, I see that he really is very observant and insightful.

    And I think his schtick is akin to Andy Kaufman, in that there is a message within his madness.

    However, having been in countless bands and having done stand-up, I believe he needs to pay more attention to his particular audience depending on the venue.

    In short, GBFM, keep up the good work – but change your style to suit the crowd.

    Artistic integrity is great up until the point people stop paying attention.

  85. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Hot, Hazy, Lazy, Crazy Days of Summer Edition « Patriactionary

  86. an observer says:

    He wouldn’t be the first person to use a lot of parables…or be misunderstood.

  87. Young mghow says:

    http://9gag.com/gag/4793755

    This belongs here….

  88. Je Suis Prest says:

    I think Glenn Stanton’s satisfaction with a 38% divorce rate among devout Christians is a symptom of a larger problem. We live in a culture that, generally, does not value excellence. We no longer want kids to win, we want them to participate. We no longer allow schoolchildren to fail a grade, that might be harmful for their self esteem. Even parenting books are suggesting that it is not appropriate to praise your child for achieving something, they are to be praised for the effort they put in. Somewhere in all of this, we have forgotten that self esteem is built when we take on something challenging and succeed, not when we make everything easy so that success is all but assured in all things. In this kind of climate, it is not surprising that some would be satisfied with a 38% divorce rate – I mean, look at how many people are trying! We couldn’t acknowledge that some need to be trying harder or that this represents failure on a significant scale, someone’s feelings might be hurt. If we were to acknowledge that this is a serious problem, then we would have to actually do something about it and that would mean that a lot of people would have to face some uncomfortable truths… that might make people feel bad.

  89. Anyone know anything about this new movie with Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones which is about a couple in marriage counseling? That is going to be fun.

  90. bskillet81 says:

    Think about this from Focus on the Family’s fiscal perspective for a second. FotF, as anyone knows, is largely a group designed to sell publications, raise donations to pay people like Stanton, and to pimp the services of feminist Christian “marriage counselors.” These counselors are expected to ride in on a white horse and save struggling Christian marriages by teaching men the art of supplication and re-organizing the marriage on the grounds of femDOM (which of course leads to more problems down the road, but they’re fine selling Christian husbands into slavery for their 30 pieces of silver).

    So, what Stanton needs in order to justify his existence, is to show that FotF and others are having some sort of affect. But he also needs to make sure that Christian marriages are still frequently frought with problems, or else he and FotF and Christian femDOM counselors will be without jobs. So he has to strike a balancing act. There is a certain level of Christian divorce that will allow people like Stanton to say, “See! Christian marriages are struggling! That’s why you need ME to study ‘Family Formation’ [whatever the hell that is] in order to figure out therapeutic ways to fix your husband, errr, I mean, marriage.”

    But if there were the same or more divorces within the Christian church than without, people would wise up and respond, “Hey, you and your like-minded ministries aren’t doing a damn thing to help this! In fact, you’re making it worse!” So Stanton and his ilk have to show that the institutions of Churchianity can decrease divorce rates slightly, but they also have to make sure divorce is still prevalent.

    It is telling that, in the First Century, the Apostles didn’t have to write books on “Family Formation Studies,” (which is probably just a sub-set of wymmins’ studies). Instead, their marriage advice was a few simple lines in their epistles, lines that, if obeyed, would indeed fix everything.

  91. Kai says:

    “Je Suis Prest says:
    We live in a culture that, generally, does not value excellence. ”

    Could it be more that we live in a culture that does not believe in true excellence? It seems we do value ‘excellence’, as every person now expects to be excellent at everything just for trying. Average is considered unacceptable for most students, and both students and parents expect an A just for giving it a shot. Excellence seems to be valued but become meaningless.
    I definitely see the self-esteem problem as part of it. People have taken confidence in oneself and turned it into infatuation. It’s no longer acceptable to dislike anything, or have a failure. “Love your bodies! (even when they are so obese they are killing you)”, “trust your intuition (at the expense of evidence)” and other such recent calls.
    When anyone says that x is not ideal, people (largely women) in situation x cry out that they are doing their best and how dare anyone criticize?
    I think we’ve really lost something when we can’t admit that one can do his best and still not do well, and that failures should teach lessons rather than be denied.

  92. Lovekraft says:

    The nature of mass media is that it controls the message, insofar as it will not allow any message through that contradicts its own. So this is why stories that follow-up foolishness are few and far between.

    There really needs to be an ingrained opinion in society that states “unless and until I am able to see the long-term repercussions of this or that lifestyle choice, I will reject it.”

  93. FNG says:

    I studied for four years to be a Christian counselor in what i thought was a generally Scriptural environment. The marriage part wasn’t quite right. Just sayin’…..

  94. tweell says:

    There will be no slut-walks protesting against Muslims. Feminists prefer to protest when there is no danger involved in protesting about danger. A policeman stating the obvious is no threat, thus the protest. A Muslim preaching women’s dress, on the other hand, will happily beat up women who get in his face. He will also call for friends to join in. Feminists won’t provoke Muslims unless they have a superior force of white knights readily available.

    One of my sisters learned this back in the 70’s. A group of Iranians decided that she was dressed like a prostitute and so should be treated as one; when she protested she was badly beaten. Unfortunately for them my father found out and put most of them in the hospital (the ones who were stupid enough to think numbers would win against a man berserk with rage and able to squat 1000 pounds). There are more Muslims around these days, and my father passed away earlier this year, but my sisters are also older and not objects of interest any more.

  95. Pingback: Some Legal Minefields We Face « stagedreality

  96. Pingback: Some Legal Minefields We Face « stagedreality

  97. Aunt Haley says:

    A useful metric for data about committed Christians and divorce would be whether the divorce occurred after conversion/recommitment. Many committed Christians have divorces in their marital history due to divorces before conversion or returning to the fold. I’m curious how much that would alter statistics.

  98. UK Fred says:

    To get back to the original subject, does anyone (Mike McManus of Marriagesavers for example) have any details of the statistics for the breakdown of marriage in a town with a Community Marriage Policy, especially a breakdown between genuine believers, nominal believers (C&E Christians or churchians if you will) and non-believers? Between those married in church and those married under basic state provision (in a registry office in the UK but probably by a judge in the States).

    Stries me we have the same problems bnoth sides of the Pond, that churches do care what the people believe so long as they give sufficient and the church leadership would prefer to wring their hands and wail “Woe is me” than do anything constructive.

  99. csglife says:

    No sarcasm in these discussions… yikes.

  100. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  101. Pingback: BD #5 – It’s All Your Fault For Not Submitting To Your Wife. | The Society of Phineas

  102. Pingback: The Cowardly Pastor | Sunshine Mary

  103. Pingback: Why are modern Christians so delighted with current divorce rates? | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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