The Christian alternative to 50 Shades Of Grey.

It is hard to tell for sure from the trailer, but hopefully this isn’t selling the message:

Man up and marry that free spirit.

Either way, at least it doesn’t appear to be a Christian divorce fantasy, and I didn’t see anything tearing down Christian fathers.  Despite it being a Christian chick flick, in the scheme of Christian films this one looks like a cut above the usual fare.

This entry was posted in 50 Shades of Grey, Christian Films, Movies. Bookmark the permalink.

256 Responses to The Christian alternative to 50 Shades Of Grey.

  1. ballista74 says:

    FWIW, here’s a review. Typical romantic garbage from what it appears.

  2. Pingback: The Christian alternative to 50 Shades Of Grey. | Manosphere.com

  3. Neguy says:

    I noted many pieces of feedback to the guy telling him that he needed to improve in some way. I don’t recall any such feedback directed the girl’s way.

  4. TFH is certainly correct. The line ‘believe in’ [romantic] ‘love again’ should make it clear that this romantic dramedy follows the script that the world has been following for many years now. The only saving grace this movie might have is the celebration of Christ’s redemptive work in the lives of broken men & women.

  5. ballista74 says:

    So these Christians have still swallowed large parts of ‘feminism’ whole.

    It looks like the standard “romance” formula. It’d be half-interesting to see the plot, but it’d be hard pressed now to prove itself any different than the typical feminist garbage.

  6. blairnaso says:

    He’s got the alpha serenity, at least.

  7. I look forward to the day when Vivid Video discovers the niche of producing Christian Kosher® porn for the Evangelical culture. The story arch would always be about a newly wed, hot young Christian couple coming home from Bible study or Sunday worship to delight in each other in the marital bed in order to show other soon to be married Christian couples what awaits them and how they should go about it… once they’re married of course.

    All very tastefully done of course, multiple camera angles, soft lens effects, you get the idea. You scoff now, trust me, it’s coming.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo, didn’t Driscoll already try to write his own marital sex book? Not a big step from text to video in the modern world. He’s out of work currently…

  9. It looks okay. Its kind of like a made-for-tv movie. I don’t know if I would go see it with my wife in the theater. But I might rent it at the Red Box.

  10. At least they realise that it’s 50 shades of kak!

  11. Its not going to do very well.

  12. imnobody00 says:

    Target demographic; women waiting their beta bucks. After all years of carousel, chivalry makes a comeback

  13. I don’t think there is any target demographic here.

  14. embracing reality says:

    His love interest, she says at 1:53 “don’t even tell me you found Jesus or something”. Does this not imply that she is not a believer? Unless this is about two unbelievers it’s starting to stink of ‘missionary dating’ which is always a bad idea. Maybe this is a Churchian movie about to lost people finding Christ, baby Christians looking to fix their past, usurped headship and legal bias by getting married, yeah, thats worked like magic for the people I know who tried it {sarcasm}.

  15. embracing reality says:

    At 2:29 our heroic white knight asks “when did treating women with respect become a joke?”

    Um, well champ, I think it became a joke around the time women started giving sex away for free yet still demanded men marry them up in white dresses and pay a premium for used goods. Thats an absurd joke. How can anybody still not get the joke?

  16. Dave says:

    Yeah, this movie is just a Churchian informercial about how men who were in limbo until 35 need to ‘man up and become beta bux’ for some woman who is also 35.

    While this woman in the film is portrayed as wholesome, most remotely attractive church sluts age 35 have an N that rivals their age.

    I think folks are being too cynical. The truth is, many women are not having nearly half as much sex as is being portrayed. If the author actually talks to church women, he might discover that many of them have not been on the carousel at all. I recently read a testimony of a 28 year old Christian woman who received the “Sex talk” from married friends just before her wedding, because she was never on the carousel. She was not alone. There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them (No, I am not referring to those who conveniently became Christians when they felt it was time to get married).
    Let us not be unbelieving, seeing only the bad, where there are lots of good. If we mean to receive the gift of good marriage from God, we must believe that God is able.

    And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. Hebrews 11:6

    If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Isaiah 7:9

  17. Splashman says:

    @IBB, “Its not going to do very well. I don’t think there is any target demographic here.”

    It does have a target demographic (female churchians), but no female churchian will even notice the Old Fashioned poster on their way into the Cineplex for the 50 Shades premiere (“He’s a Christian, after all!”, wink wink). When they get home, after changing their panties and ordering a bunch of BDSM stuff, they may soothe their conscience by watching the Old Fashioned trailer — twice, if they splurged on the deluxe whip & gag combo. (In other words, you’re right; it won’t do very well.)

    I really, really want there to be Christian-oriented movies that do well. But unless “Old Fashioned” is much better story & production than the trailer suggests, I won’t shed a tear when it bombs. It’s hard to imagine any man with intact testicles would be drawn to a movie with a female character like the one in this trailer. She gives me the dry heaves.

  18. Splashman says:

    @Dave, that’s some pretty funny stuff right there.

  19. embracing reality says:

    @ Dave

    “The truth is, many women are not having nearly half as much sex as is being portrayed. If the author actually talks to church women, he might discover that many of them have not been on the carousel at all.”

    No disrespect Dave but it just ain’t so about most attractive Christian women, even the ones raised in church. Sure they exist, usually quite young, like high school but even those are rare unless they’re obese. How do I know? Real world experience in the field. I’ve dated these women, for decades! In my early 20’s rarely did I date a Christian single woman who was a virgin, even when I was dating girls who we’re 17.. I made a point to bring up the conversation early, usually didn’t need to, they bragged about it. I thought it was just the churches in my area so I eventually took up online dating. I’ve been on many sites, Dated women in numerous other states, talked to and dated many Christian women. Dave, the 40 and below women, it’s an absolute disaster out their with single Christian women. We’re living in the “vile and perverse generation”. It’s not just in the world, not just in the churches, it’s right their in the pulpits too.

  20. Don Quixote says:

    A wise man once said: “christians should not be allowed to make movies”.

  21. Don Quixote says:

    I would exclude the Passion of the Christ from the above statement

  22. JF says:

    Before i go hazard even a momentary look at this, i would have to first play it safe: I would need to know for a rock-solid, incontrovertible fact that no one involved in any way, shape, or form with the movie FIREPROOF had been involved in this movie in any way, shape, or form. Do you know where i can find such preliminary, cautionary information?
    The folds of my brain that house my sensibilities have only so much more non-damaged tissue surface area left to spare anymore. All that scar-tissue in my skull–that was all done by FIREPROOF.

  23. Splashman says:

    @Neguy, “I noted many pieces of feedback to the guy telling him that he needed to improve in some way. I don’t recall any such feedback directed the girl’s way.”

    And the review (which ballista74 linked to) agrees with you. It’s the guy’s old-fashioned rules that are the problem, not anything the girl is doing. And of course “Clay had spent his college days sowing his wild oats, whilst Amber had been traumatized by her past relationships” — in other words, he was a total scumwad in the past, while she was an innocent victim. We certainly can’t place any blame on her for riding the carousel with predictable results.

    Sounds like tingle-bait to me. Note that the female reviewer concludes her review by saying, “The ending is perhaps too fairy-tale-ish, but I can’t help being swept-off my feet by the film’s undeniable charm.”

    There’s your target demo right there. Unfortunately for those who financed the production, that entire demo will swimming in their own juices following back-to-back viewings of 50 Shades on Valentine’s Day.

  24. Splashman says:

    @Don Quixote,

    A wise man once said: “christians should not be allowed to make movies”.

    Agreed, unfortunately.

    I would exclude the Passion of the Christ from the above statement.

    Agreed. Awesome movie.

  25. infowarrior1 says:

    Slap a Jesus fish symbol on it and there you go. Churchian approved entertainment.

  26. jack says:

    50 shades of slut…

  27. Zelcorpion says:

    A good looking guy, who was a Player in college lives 9 years as a monk because he found faith. A woman of similar age goes through countless men and 2 bad boy relationships (the ones that left her traumatized – but I guess it was no fault of her own that she chose guys like that for LTRs?). Then they meet as her SMV starts to wane for real and thinks that she is ready for a “good” boy. Ah – but he is more than that – he is a former Alpha Player who is now tamed and a quasi saint.
    That movie has the right amount of manic pixie girl, Alpha gone faithful provider & marry that aging born-again virgin memes in it to be actually appealing enough for the wide majority of people who are not aware of the dark Red Pill truths lurking in the shadows.

  28. Random Angeleno says:

    @Dave, that’s some funny stuff right there. I gotta have whatever you’re drinking.
    Such women as you posit may actually exist … but in fewer numbers than you think they do. Further they don’t look at the men sitting near them on Sunday mornings because those men are mostly too unattractive to them. Recall that OKCupid article about how women rated 80% of men as below average? Well the same thought process applies to single women in churches. I wouldn’t mind meeting one of these women … but they would mind meeting me. Cuz they mostly have the Christian equivalent of George Clooney or Brad Pitt on the brain. So I go looking elsewhere.

  29. Spike says:

    From the looks of it, it is a Christian chick flick. It also has the obligatory drama. While I agree that it’s refreshing not to have fathers sidelined or thrown under the bus, it does suffer a glaring issue obvious from the trailer: the protagonist listens to his ancient grandmother for advice. Would it not be better for him to get advice from an elder Christian man?

    Call me “old fashioned”, pun intended, but from my youth I remember marriage advice in an awesome film with a Christian message. Witness James Stewart from the 1965 movie, “Shenandoah”

    Watch Stewart’s character, Charlie Anderson, in this clip (or the whole film if you can find it). He is resolute, powerful, unflinching, courageous, and a man of peace even though war rages around him. A chick flick it ain’t, but you will be moved by it.

  30. finndistan says:

    Looks like “Zack and Miri make a porno” just with a bit of biblebubble inserted.

    She doesn’t believe in jesus. He is lectured and ridiculed. she needs to forgive him. She is definitely experienced. She is aging and needs to find love again…

  31. @RandomAngeleno so what more do you want from attractive christian women who don’t spend their youth fornicating? This is what has always confused me about the manosphere, do you want to empower women to change their ways or do you want to empower men to change their ways? Is it about negotiating attraction, something often said to be impossible, so that good beta Christian men can marry early and marry well? Or are you more interested in becoming an alpha male yourself? Those good church girls are looking for an equivalent of George Clooney, Brad Pitt so why not be that? Yes it’s a hard thing to do, but if I’m not mistaken that’s what game is all about correct? The girls who desire to obey God should not be the ones who end up spinsters, but the ones who disdain God’s law and saving work. Proverbs 30: 18 & 19 make this abundantly clear.

  32. Opus says:

    One has to admire a man who writes, produces and even takes the lead – even with a Bob Redford/Owen Wilson wig – in his own movie. Personally I am a huge fan of Edward D.Wood Jr. Actors always play characters younger than their real age – for some reason it is more believable. Once a leading man, always a leading man.

  33. earl says:

    Hey at least he told her that life isn’t just about “meh feels”. That’s something you never hear in these type of movies.

    Looks like two people who have built up walls in their hearts. Contrary to popular opinion being a ‘free spirited’ person (aka promiscous) builds up those walls. Pretty much standard in today’s world.

    There is only one real free spirit around…and it certainly isn’t what the world says it is.

  34. DrTorch says:

    I like how the old lady lectures him in her kitchen. Because nothing says “Contemporary Christian” more than women instructing men.

  35. Looking Glass says:

    On the “Christian” movie bits, One Night With The King was pretty decent. Story of Ester, which is probably why it can get made. (Beautiful Woman gets Apex Alpha/King) But they got good actors and it tells the story well. Plus John Rhys-Davies as Mordecai gives one of the all-time great smirks as Haman walks him around. (That’s also a personal favorite Bible story)

    In general though, the real problem is not that people want to make “Faith-based movies”. The real problem is two fold: 1) they’re terrible at making movies and 2) they’re terrible at writing scripts because they *really* don’t want to deal with Faith there is truly exists.

    In general, they try to make everything Christian Kosher, not Christian. I’m amazed no one has made a Hollywood Blockbuster about King David. David the Alpha of all Alphas. Kills 10s of thousands in battle. Entire Harem. Screws it all up with Bathsheba. There is action set piece after action set piece, along with copious amounts of sex. You have God’s proxies with Samuel & Nathan, so even the Hollywood producer can be roped into leaving the “God” bit involved. Heck, you can even have the scene where Saul talks to Samuel after he’s dead. That’d be a great one.

    But, we won’t get those. Somehow you have to “clean up” the Bible to present it. God doesn’t need cleaning up. He tells it to you straight.

  36. crowhill says:

    Based on the trailer I think I like his standards, and I find her annoying.

  37. JF says:

    Hollywood made KING DAVID with Richard Gere, but it was amazingly historically inaccurate. For starters, they showed the Hebrews with a flag of today’s six-pointed star. The Hebrews never had that under David. That is purely a modern logo of the Rothschild’s. The only ancient lineage it may have is that of the pagan “Star of Remphan” warned about in the Book of Amos, in which case it could have infected the Hebrews under David’s son Solomon and his multitudes of pagan wives.

  38. Hmmm,.. Maybe Tim Tebow could get into writing Christian movie reviews now that his ABC gig has come to an abrupt end? This sounds like the perfect movie to get started with.

    http://dailyleak.org/2014/11/tim-tebow-arrested-for-soliciting-prostitute

    [D: According to snopes dailyleak is a satire site and the story is untrue.]

  39. Dave says:

    Random Angeleno says:

    @Dave, that’s some funny stuff right there. I gotta have whatever you’re drinking.
    Such women as you posit may actually exist … but in fewer numbers than you think they do. Further they don’t look at the men sitting near them on Sunday mornings because those men are mostly too unattractive to them.

    Those men are not attractive because they are generally not manly–or they do not emit the scent of masculinity. Unless thse men want to be with lesbians, it will take a miracle to get a woman to be romantically interested in their wishy-washy self. Let any of them learn to act manly, and they will attract more women.

    Recall that OKCupid article about how women rated 80% of men as below average?

    The women on OKCupid are not the types of women you’d want to date or marry. OKCupid is nothing but a meat market. Please do not equate what the trashy women on this website said or wrote with what American women in general would say or write.

    Well the same thought process applies to single women in churches.

    If you knew as much about women as you are letting out, you’d agree with me that what attracts women to men is not just money and looks. The first and most important basis of attraction is masculinity. An unapologetically manly man will cause gina tingles in virtually all women, irrespective of his social or economic status. If the guy in church displays the manhood that was evident in Christ, most of the sisters would swoon over them.

    I wouldn’t mind meeting one of these women … but they would mind meeting me. Cuz they mostly have the Christian equivalent of George Clooney or Brad Pitt on the brain. So I go looking elsewhere.

    You’ve met plenty of these women; you only didn’t recognize them. They are everywhere in churches, hoping and praying that the timid, overly cautious, “I-don’t-want-to-step-on-your-toes” Random Angeleno would throw caution to the wind for once, and take the lead, and sit them down, and tell them exactly what he wants from these women.

  40. Dave says:

    Hmmm,.. Maybe Tim Tebow could get into writing Christian movie reviews now that his ABC gig has come to an abrupt end? This sounds like the perfect movie to get started with.

    http://dailyleak.org/2014/11/tim-tebow-arrested-for-soliciting-prostitute

    You do understand that this is a satire?

  41. Hank Flanders says:

    @Dave

    There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them

    How do you know they’re beautiful, or are you merely speaking of their spirits being beautiful? If the women are physically beautiful, then they’ve at least had quite a few interested parties in whom the women simply weren’t interested themselves.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Dave

    I think folks are being too cynical. The truth is, many women are not having nearly half as much sex as is being portrayed. If the author actually talks to church women, he might discover that many of them have not been on the carousel at all.

    I have no question that there are Christian women who seek out husbands at a young age without going the boyfriend/hookup route first. However, it is worth noting that when Christians make movies for other Christians these women aren’t considered important enough to build a plot around. Modern Christian culture is sick, which is why Christian movies are so reliably terrible when it comes to issues of the family, Christian sexual morality, etc.

  43. ballista74 says:

    An unapologetically manly man will cause gina tingles in virtually all women, irrespective of his social or economic status. If the guy in church displays the manhood that was evident in Christ, most of the sisters would swoon over them.

    Ahhhhhahahahahahahahahahhahahahhaa! Or as da GBFM would say… lzolzoozlzolzozozlozolzoozlzoozlzozlzolzolzozol!

    Dave’s not here man!

  44. Lyn87 says:

    Some great comments here (and a few no-so-great ones). I watched the trailer and read the review that Ballista linked, and I only saw one thing that immediately struck me as objectionable: her snarky, “Don’t tell me you found Jesus…” Frankly, that alone is more than enough to disqualify a woman from dating. The fact that she’s past the wall doesn’t help, but people can’t control their age, so I I’m too worried about that, except insofar as it perpetuates the falsehood that women who spend their 20’s screwing around or pursuing careers can easily find a great guy in their 30’s.

    There were three things I did not notice until I started reading through the comments:

    1) A grown man being instructed by a woman… yeah, very churchian. I assume it was his grandmother telling him to lower his standards, no, wait, ignore her whorish past, no, wait, ManUp and Marry that Slut Born-Again Virgin!

    2) I also didn’t notice that in the review Clay was a player who “sowed his wild oats” while Amber was “traumatized by her past relationships.” His actions were volitional while she was victimized by bad men (of course). How convenient.

    3) Finally, it didn’t occur to me that Clay is the same tamed alpha that is the staple of secular romance novels and Rom-Coms. In this case the woman – Amber – doesn’t even have to tame him herself: he’s a confirmed alpha who is already tame by the time they meet. All she has to do is get him to “let go off his pain” so he can begin living as Christ means for him to live by experiencing the joy of wifing up a post-wall carousel rider who becomes a Born Again Virgin in the second half of the movie. In a real sense, it is she who redeems him. Ugh.

  45. Dave,

    There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them

    What church is this? What state and what denomination? In most cases, the beautiful daughters of God in America that want to get married and bother attending church to find that husbands… from what I have seen, they are mostly all single moms looking for financial resources.

  46. theasdgamer says:

    Dave,

    Sure, there are some unicorns out there. Few and far between. I married one, but I found a lot more sluts. One of my woman friends is 65, divorced, and has an admitted notch count of 4. Very religious/spiritual. Almost all of my dance friends have been divorced. I know of two couples out of all my dance friends who have been married at least two decades and have never divorced.

    Unicorns who attend college tend to choose places like Bryan College, Hillsdale, and Bob Jones. We’re talking about 4% of the female population when it comes to unicorns.

  47. Rollo, not sure your idea would go according to plan. Porn makes sex look effortless and carefree, when in reality it’s often boring, messy and with strange odors and sounds. People could be caught off-guard.

    And Dave, the women you describe seem to be on the wane. It’s been my experience that the “big blessings” in life happen in such a way that God obviously had a hand in it so He can get the credit and boost my faith in the process. I’ve resolved myself to only give LTR a chance if He makes me cross paths with someone who makes it obvious that He made it happen, because He wouldn’t set me up with someone with a promiscuous past or who will divorce me when she gets bored.

  48. Escoffier says:

    Dave, I actually clicked through and read that link, then four others which she linked. The “thinking”, if it can be called that, is a confused mess. I still have no idea what those women are trying to say. The seem very resentful of the fact that Biblical morality reserves sex for marriage and insists that women (and men) be virgins at the altar. From what I could tell, they all abided by this rule anyway, and sorta-kinda deny regretting having done so, but still seeth with resentment over the rule itself and the feeble ways in which it upheld today.

    Rather illustrates Dalrock’s point about the sickness of Christian culture. Here are four Christian women all of whom claim to have an N=1 (husband) but are angry about that. They can’t quite articulate why but the subtext seems to be: We missed out, damnit, and it’s the fault of these harsh, antiquated Christian rules and the Christian patriarchal meanies who brainwashed us!

  49. JF, you could go to Internet Movie Database and compare the credits of both movies to see if anyone was involved with both.

  50. Elspeth says:

    From what I could tell, they all abided by this rule anyway, and sorta-kinda deny regretting having done so, but still seeth with resentment over the rule itself and the feeble ways in which it upheld today.

    I read a couple of the links, Escoffier and what I read was indeed a confused mess, but I didn’t get that there was “regret” about having done things the right way.

    Rather, what I got was that these women were told that waiting and marriage would automatically lead to awesome and earth shattering intimacy and then they were let down. They were ill prepared for the reality that like everything and anything in life, proficiency comes with practice. That abstinence before marriage is about obedience and protection rather than a guarantee of any type of temporal satisfaction, although that often comes.

    It just seems as if Christian parents have a hard time figuring out the balance between instilling truth and morality while at the same time painting marital intimacy as desirable pleasurable and beautiful. As a parent of young adult daughters I know it’s a fine line, but it is doable.

    I really think it’s terrible that the women who counseled this woman instilled fear and an anticipation of something less than joyful.

  51. feeriker says:

    “Chivalry makes a comeback”

    BAD omen right there. I was actually willing to overlook most of the other “red flags” in the trailer, but seeing this at the very end scraped the last bit of frosting off the turd. This is clearly NOT a movie that any red-pill Christian man will be able to sit through.

  52. Escoffier,

    Rather illustrates Dalrock’s point about the sickness of Christian culture. Here are four Christian women all of whom claim to have an N=1 (husband) but are angry about that. They can’t quite articulate why but the subtext seems to be: We missed out, damnit, and it’s the fault of these harsh, antiquated Christian rules and the Christian patriarchal meanies who brainwashed us!

    I think this is more “learned behavior” that these women are expressing windows that they “missed” based on what they know now (probably having talked to a few other Christian women with N counts in the tens or twenties) and they regret it. They heard from the others with higher N-counts how much more fulfilled they are in life, they are envious that they don’t have that “experience”, and they blame that on these Christian rules that (deep down) they don’t really believe in them in the first place.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @freeriker

    This is clearly NOT a movie that any red-pill Christian man will be able to sit through.

    Of course not. It’s a chick flick. No man should go see such an abomination. And as a Christian movie, it is reliably terrible on issues of sexual morality, marriage, men and women, etc. But it isn’t directly undermining husbands and fathers in an effort to tear the biblical family apart. For this reason alone it is a cut above other Christian movies.

  54. John Nesteutes says:

    At some point, Christians will figure out they don’t need to watch movies or TV.

  55. Hank Flanders says:

    Elspath said:

    Rather, what I got was that these women were told that waiting and marriage would automatically lead to awesome and earth shattering intimacy and then they were let down.

    I don’t really understand rants against the True Love Waits movement or other general abstinence teachings other than it’s unwise to make certain vows. When I took the abstinence until pledge in the mid-90s at the age of 14, I don’t remember ever thinking doing so was going to make my love life perfect in the future. In fact, the same church staff who spread abstinence messages were likely the same ones who would preach sermons on the necessity to get saved immediately, as one could leave the service and die that night. In other words, they would stress that there are no guarantees in life, not even another day on this Earth. Were people really told that their love and sex lives would be perfect someday if they followed a formula, or was that just their own naive, teenage perceptions filling in the blanks?

  56. At some point, Christians will figure out they don’t need to watch movies or TV.

    Not new movies for sure. But this was excellent. They should show this movie in churches but they wont because churchianity would not stand for it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible:_In_the_Beginning

    The above movie could never be made today because it was too on the nose, far too Biblically accurate. And there is zero chance anyone immersed in blue-bill-feminism is making a Biblical movie portraying women in the manner that they portrayed Eve, in the manner that they portrayed Noah’s wife, in the manner in which Ava Garnder absolutely nailed the role of “Sarah.”

    I would have given George C Scott an Academy Award for his role of Abraham.

  57. John Nesteutes says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    A. W. Tozer’s “The Menace of the Religious Movie” seems more apt today than ever.

    An easy test for men considering marriage to a young lady would be: does she choose to wile away her time reading questionable novels and watching TV or movies, or does she find more worthy pursuits? Is she willing to be a member of a church that preaches against TV and attendance at movie theatres, or is the cross just plain too heavy for her?

  58. earl says:

    “We missed out, damnit, and it’s the fault of these harsh, antiquated Christian rules and the Christian patriarchal meanies who brainwashed us!”

    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
    Genesis 3: 4-5

  59. Dave says:

    Concerning Christianity in America, I have the following observations:
    1. Many people who claim to be Christians in America are not Christians at all. Until a person has a definite, life-changing experience of salvation in Christ, they are not Christians, even if they were born into Christian homes, and they attend church regularly. I was exactly in this position before I met Christ many years ago. I was even a member of the church choir, but had no knowledge of salvation.
    2. A lot of the so-called Christian religious leaders in the US (including conservative leaders) have never had a personal, life-changing experience of conversion to Christ. Thus, like the Pharisees of old, they are “blind leaders of the blind”.
    3. In my dating experiences, I have met countless women who claim to have been Christians “all my life”. I am currently speaking with a decent, church-going woman who adamantly told me she has been a Christian since birth, and would not budge when I pointed out her errors to her.
    4. Much of what is referred to as “churchianity” in America is the natural expression of unsaved, church attending religious people. No surprise here. All they know about Christ is
    5. I agree with Dalrock that “Modern Christian culture is sick”. However, the next pertinent question is, why is this? My opinion is, the true Christians in America are largely on the sidelines. They have kept quiet for too long and have allowed unsaved but religious people to frame the standard of Christianity for them.
    6. Many of those who argue that Christian women are riding the carousel as often as other women are not talking about true Christians. They are talking about religious people who attend church. There are still very many women are genuine followers of Christ, and would not engage in fornication or adultery. Same with men.
    7. Even among true Christians, there is a lowering of the standards. This is largely due to the paucity of true, God-fearing leaders in positions of authority.
    8. America needs more evangelizing now more than many heathen countries in the deepest jungles of Africa.

    I think we need to be careful of falling for the enemy’s tactics. One of his most effective tactic is to make us think our situation is hopeless, that there is no one left who lives right, that there is little to aspire to, and that we might as well give up. He tried this with Elijah as well, when the devil made him believe that the whole population of Israel had gone into idolatry, and no one was living right. The prophet got so discouraged he wanted to die. But God had to reassure him that it had not come to that; that He had thousands still who were living right, and would never go astray.
    So it is today (1 Kings 19: 9, 10, 18).
    Right as we speak, there are literally millions of Americans, both men and women, who are living right, and faithfully serving God. They are not unicorns, but are everywhere you turn.

    Where are these people? For starters, check out this church:
    1. The Apostolic Faith Church of Portland Oregon
    This church teaches lifetime marriage and no divorce for any reason.

    Apostolic Faith Church is a pretty big church, with branches all over the world.

  60. Random Angeleno says:

    @dave
    The only difference between a Christian woman and a secular woman is that the Christian woman might keep her legs closed more. That is it. In every other way, they are as much obsessed with status and alpha as their secular sisters. Perhaps even more so because they hold themselves so highly. Hence it is correct to apply the OKCupid women mentality (80% of men they see are below average to them) to Christian women. Because Christian women think the same way about the men they see around them. That mentality is what most men have to deal with …

  61. Anchorman says:

    Clay had spent his college days sowing his wild oats, whilst Amber had been traumatized by her past relationships that her first inclination is always to run away.

    Gender-bending modern dating roles!

    Daring!

  62. earl says:

    “Until a person has a definite, life-changing experience of salvation in Christ, they are not Christians, even if they were born into Christian homes, and they attend church regularly.”

    That’s called Baptism.

  63. crowhill says:

    However, it is worth noting that when Christians make movies for other Christians these women aren’t considered important enough to build a plot around.

    That’s not a fair way to evaluate the situation. Books and movies aren’t about real or normal or average life. They rely on odd characters and conflict. A movie about real people would be incredibly boring.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @Dave

    If the author actually talks to church women, he might discover that many of them have not been on the carousel at all.

    You’ve met plenty of these women; you only didn’t recognize them. They are everywhere in churches, hoping and praying that the timid, overly cautious, “I-don’t-want-to-step-on-your-toes” Random Angeleno would throw caution to the wind for once, and take the lead, and sit them down, and tell them exactly what he wants from these women.

    But then you explain that
    1) Most churches aren’t populated by real Christians
    2) Most real Christians don’t follow Christian sexual morality very strictly.
    3) Large numbers of women who claim to be lifelong Christians don’t see a conflict with riding on the carousel and being a Christian.

    Many of those who argue that Christian women are riding the carousel as often as other women are not talking about true Christians. They are talking about religious people who attend church.

    Even among true Christians, there is a lowering of the standards. This is largely due to the paucity of true, God-fearing leaders in positions of authority.

    You are I would say all over the map on this issue. This isn’t to say that earnestly looking for such women isn’t the right choice for a Christian man who wants to marry. But you discount others when they point out that churches are filled with women (and men) who aren’t following biblical sexual morality, only to make the same point in different words later on in the discussion.

  65. unsigma says:

    going out on a limb and saying it will not be a movie worth seeing.

  66. feeriker says:

    [T]hey blame that on these Christian rules that (deep down) they don’t really believe in them in the first place.

    Yup. Never forget that The Hamster is the one true god above all others. Our forefathers knew this instinctively, yet we’ve succeeded over the last half century in erasing this immutable law of human (female) nature completely from the societal collective memory.

  67. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    If the Apostolic Faith Church that you recommend is so theologically sound, why do they have so many female pastors? A fairly good method to determine whether a congregation / denomination is serious about following the Word is whether they apply the same criteria for leadership that is found in the Bible. The Apostolic Faith Church fails that test by ordaining women as pastors. And considering that they do that, it is certain that women fill many sub-pastoral leadership positions as well. That’s one of the problems with most mega-churches like Apostolic Faith: in order to get large congregations they compromise on the fundamentals.

    1 Corinthians 14: 34, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

    1 Timothy 2: 11-14, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

    I’m not single, but if I was I would sooner date a single mom than attend a church with a female pastor.

  68. Peter Blood says:

    Note the musical “Man of La Mancha”, wherein romantic dreamer (therefore noble and heroic) Don Quixote saw a whore, Aldonza, as the lady Dulcinea. Dream the Impossible Dream! Women gobble this garbage down.

    Cervantes’ novel “Don Quixote” was a satire, in which a man’s mind shriveled up and he took up the cause of chivalry and he went about various misadventures with comical commentary from his sidekick Sancho.

  69. Matamoros says:

    Dave: There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them
    This is true. I know two traditional Catholic women, one 30 and the other early 20s.

    Both are virgins, refuse to date guys whose only interest is sex, they love children, and want a husband. They are having a lot of trouble finding a husband because of the feral guys having been raised by single moms, who don’t know how to be a man, are used to sluts and not marriageable girls.

    There are more good women out there who haven’t put out than one would think, but you have to find them.

  70. Show me a church that allows women to lead, and I’ll show you a church that will eventually deny the Resurrection.

  71. earl says:

    “If the Apostolic Faith Church that you recommend is so theologically sound, why do they have so many female pastors?”

    Also it was founded by a woman.

    http://www.apostolicfaith.org/OurFaith/History.aspx

  72. Dave says:

    The only difference between a Christian woman and a secular woman is that the Christian woman might keep her legs closed more. That is it.

    Again, that simply isn’t true, unless you admit that it is true of American men also, including Christians. I maintain that there are genuine Chritian women in this country still, and those women will not generally open their legs even for the so-called Alphas. I am not taling theory here; I have met some of these women.

    In every other way, they are as much obsessed with status and alpha as their secular sisters. Perhaps even more so because they hold themselves so highly.

    I admit that this may be partially true, and it reflects a defect in our leadership. Even the best of Christians, if not properly taught, will go astray. It is no coincidence that Chrityians are often referred to as sheep. See John 10:27; 21:17

    Hence it is correct to apply the OKCupid women mentality (80% of men they see are below average to them) to Christian women. Because Christian women think the same way about the men they see around them. That mentality is what most men have to deal with …

    As I stated earlier, many of those who profess to be Chritians are nothing more than mere church goers and religious folks. The beginning of their Chrstian faith only dates back to their parents baptizing them as infants. Thts is not true Christianity. Anyone who has not had an definite, personal encounter with Christ, and committed their lives to Christ as a result, are not Christians. If jesus were here, I am sure He would ask some of these people in the church and their leaders that “Are you a teacher in Israel, and you did not know these things?” (John 3:10).

    Even then, many of those who are genuine Christians are defective in their faiths because of poor teaching post-conversion. That is why there is so much of carnality and fleshly living among followers of Christ. Many of these Christians are still babes in Christ. They can’t endure “strong meat” because they are not accustomed to it. They are saved alright, but they are carnal (1 Corinthians 3:3), and live like unbelievers. There may be difficulty in differentiating between carnal Christians and unsaved religious people.

  73. earl says:

    “Anyone who has not had an definite, personal encounter with Christ, and committed their lives to Christ as a result, are not Christians.”

    What would you say is a definite, personal encouter with Christ?

  74. Dave says:

    “If the Apostolic Faith Church that you recommend is so theologically sound, why do they have so many female pastors?”

    Also it was founded by a woman.

    http://www.apostolicfaith.org/OurFaith/History.aspx

    I cannot answer those questions. But I am confident that if you ask the church leaders, they might be able to explain their stance on that issue. I do not pretend to speak for the church, as I am not even a member.

  75. feeriker says:

    There may be difficulty in differentiating between carnal Christians and unsaved religious people

    I can’t imagine why you would think there’s any difference between the two.

    Show of hands, please: how many here think that the term “carnal Christian” is an oxymoron? (I think the term Dave is looking for is “carnal churchian.)

  76. myrealitie says:

    I have a question. And if you feel inclined to spew abuse at me, please just refrain from responding.
    Question: Do you recommend to men that they try to be content with an average looking or slightly below average looking woman if she has all of the required religious and character qualities that you are looking for?
    I am curious about this, because it does seem to be the groups prescription to women that they marry young to men who would make suitable husbands and ignore their self-sabotaging biological instincts to get involved with unreliable men. I don’t disagree with that sentiment necessarily. But I am wondering if you think using your head to make a decision about your mate should go both ways.

  77. feeriker says:

    But I am confident that if you ask the church leaders, they might be able to explain their stance on that issue

    Not trying to pick on you, Dave, but are you equally confident that the answer they would give you would be grounded in clear scriptural truth?

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, it could be that Dave has a touch of the “is / ought” going on. That and a rousing game of No True Scotsman. It is probably a phase most men will go through, once they put on The Glasses.

    On topic:
    Might be interesting for someone to try to crowdfund a film like “Fireproof” but from the perspective of truth about men and women, just to see what the response would be. With digi-cams and editing software the mechanics of creating a film are not that big now, it’s the script and the actors that matter.

  79. Dave says:

    Dalrock says:
    But then you explain that
    1) Most churches aren’t populated by real Christians
    True. Relatively speaking, a lot of those who profess to be Christians in churches are merely religious. But this does not mean there are not true Christians among them, and many are easily spotted, if you know what to look for.

    2) Most real Christians don’t follow Christian sexual morality very strictly.
    I cannot remember making this argument. I did say that due to defects in Christian leadership, there are corresponding defects in the faiths of American Christians. These defects are not necessarily in sexual matters. When Christians still bear grudge, quarrel, have uncontrolled anger, speak evil of others, allow favoritism and racism in their hearts, etc, it shows they are not properly taught by their leaders.
    Recall that God still guides His own, even those exposed to poor teachings. Questions about sexual morality are universally settled among people generally such that those who violate the simple rules cannot feign ignorance. My point here is, poor teachings or not, true Christian do not need anyone to teach them about God’s expectations in their sexual behaviors.

    3) Large numbers of women who claim to be lifelong Christians don’t see a conflict with riding on the carousel and being a Christian.
    Again, I cannot remember making this argument.

  80. Dave says:

    Not trying to pick on you, Dave, but are you equally confident that the answer they would give you would be grounded in clear scriptural truth?

    Full disclosure: I used to attend the church many years ago, and I agreed with many of their teachings, but not all. They did hold to the strict teachings of scripture. But they added a few interpretations where the Bible was either silent or unclear.

  81. Anchorman says:

    Question: Do you recommend to men that they try to be content with an average looking or slightly below average looking woman if she has all of the required religious and character qualities that you are looking for?

    All actions should proceed from faith and glorify God.

    Does the man’s association with the woman glorify God?

  82. Dave says:

    Dalrock, it could be that Dave has a touch of the “is / ought” going on. That and a rousing game of No True Scotsman. It is probably a phase most men will go through, once they put on The Glasses.

    Haha. What does this mean? Can you elaborate a bit more?

  83. Peter Blood says:

    true Christian do not need anyone to teach them about God’s expectations in their sexual behaviors.

    You make St. Paul out to be a liar, then?

  84. Anchorman says:

    “If the Apostolic Faith Church that you recommend is so theologically sound, why do they have so many female pastors?”

    “They did hold to the strict teachings of scripture.”

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means*

    * Borrowed the line for dramatic purpose only.

  85. AnonS says:

    Dave: There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them

    And who told them to wait? The scripture doesn’t. Any girl like you claim that is young and pretty enough will have their pick on any online dating site. Guys are trying to find the 4% of marriageable women, all they have to do is raise their hand and be vetted.

    Whenever people say this they strategically leave out a location. As if guys with good salaries in top school districts will leave their jobs to flood into Midwest rural areas. Girls are normally unwilling to move because they are too attached to their careers, school, or family.

    This is true. I know two traditional Catholic women, one 30 and the other early 20s.

    Both are virgins, refuse to date guys whose only interest is sex, they love children, and want a husband. They are having a lot of trouble finding a husband because of the feral guys having been raised by single moms, who don’t know how to be a man, are used to sluts and not marriageable girls.

    There are more good women out there who haven’t put out than one would think, but you have to find them.

    And what was the 30 one doing for ten years?

    Their first problem is that they are Catholic. Men that are more intellectually devoted to the faith are protestant (including Anglicans), and don’t want their kids raised Catholic.

    Why don’t they move? Are they expecting good guys to move to an area populated by ferals/sluts?

  86. Lyn87 says:

    Dave, you wrote:

    Right as we speak, there are literally millions of Americans, both men and women, who are living right, and faithfully serving God. They are not unicorns, but are everywhere you turn.

    Where are these people? For starters, check out this church:
    1. The Apostolic Faith Church of Portland Oregon
    This church teaches lifetime marriage and no divorce for any reason.

    Apostolic Faith Church is a pretty big church, with branches all over the world.

    But that church is actually hip-deep in feminist heresy. When I pointed that out you wrote:

    I cannot answer those questions. But I am confident that if you ask the church leaders, they might be able to explain their stance on that issue. I do not pretend to speak for the church, as I am not even a member.

    There is no “stance” on this topic that requires explanation – there is only right and wrong. Biblically, women are not permitted to be pastors, and any church that ordains women as pastors is wrong… and not just a little wrong, either. Of all the bad doctrines floating around out there, one of the most dangerous ones for marriage-minded men is for a prospective wife to attend a church with a female pastor.

    It’s okay if you want to back off your recommendation of this group (you should), but if you didn’t know what they stood for, why did you write that they are faithfully serving God? It took me less than five minutes on the website that you linked to discover that the Apostolic Faith Church embraces feminism.

    I’m not looking to pick a fight: I just question your belief that there are large numbers of women who are ready for Christian matrimony, with ALL that implies. As for me: I found a unicorn, but I don’t accept that such women are “everywhere you turn.”

  87. tacomaster2 says:

    @ Rollo–

    Per your comment above “I look forward to the day when Vivid Video discovers the niche of producing Christian Kosher® porn for the Evangelical culture. The story arch would always be about a newly wed, hot young Christian couple coming home from Bible study or Sunday worship to delight in each other in the marital bed in order to show other soon to be married Christian couples what awaits them and how they should go about it… once they’re married of course.

    All very tastefully done of course, multiple camera angles, soft lens effects, you get the idea. You scoff now, trust me, it’s coming.”

    It’s funny you say this because I often joke about this being my plan C if the whole nursing thing doesn’t work out–I’ll make “Christian porn” (hence plan C). To add to your ideas, I envision the movie as showing the wedding scene (the I-dos?) and the signing of the marriage documents to show it is truly a married couple. It’s only a matter of time before this becomes a thing. Say 10 years?

  88. Dave says:

    Show of hands, please: how many here think that the term “carnal Christian” is an oxymoron?

    Paul did not think so:
    For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Corinthians 3:3

  89. Anchorman says:

    Men that are more intellectually devoted to the faith are protestant (including Anglicans), and don’t want their kids raised Catholic.

    Disclosure: Former Catholic, now Southern Baptist.

    That said, say what? I know four of Catholic men with religious intellectual depth and think that statement is too broad and needlessly insulting. I don’t agree with certain tenets, but the men I know (my child still attends a Catholic school) are no slouches. I’ve found good and bad Protestants and our weekly Bible study to be curiously small at times. And, no, it’s not Churchian.

  90. Escoffier says:

    Elspeth:

    I see what you are saying and you seem to be right about what they are trying to say.

    But I am still skeptical of the message. First, I’ve never quite understood the “sex is so difficult” argument. That is, there are all these people unfulfilled because their partner is so lousy. I mean, no doubt it happens. But it’s not like trying to hit a 2-iron. Sex is pretty easy. It would have to be or the species would have died out long ago.

    What’s much more likely here is that these women married the kind of men they were brought up believing they were “supposed” to marry and now find that they just ain’t all that hot for them. No doubt in many cases the men could improve that by getting fit and taking a more active role and so on. But that’s probably the real source of the let-down, not some lack of sexual adventurism in their late teens and 20s.

    And, I think we would agree, a carousel ride is NOT likely to make that situation better. If they find their husbands “blah”, how much worse would that feeling be if they had 10 or so hot lovers in their past to reminisce about?

  91. AnonS says:

    Dalrock, it could be that Dave has a touch of the “is / ought” going on. That and a rousing game of No True Scotsman. It is probably a phase most men will go through, once they put on The Glasses.

    Haha. What does this mean? Can you elaborate a bit more?

    It means you seem to firstly be stressing that not all women are like that. Instead of calling for more restrictions on female behavior, you point out that some women have gotten it right (even if the percentage keeps shrinking).

    Even if the disease is spreading it is still taboo to talk about treatment because some parts are still healthy… for now.

  92. Anchorman says:

    As to why my child attends Catholic school: Family court ruling. Continuity of education and all that. I am under no obligation to take my children to Catholic mass. I don’t. They attend services at my church.

  93. myrealite,

    I have a question. And if you feel inclined to spew abuse at me, please just refrain from responding.
    Question: Do you recommend to men that they try to be content with an average looking or slightly below average looking woman if she has all of the required religious and character qualities that you are looking for?

    I would never recommend to any man that he try to be content with any woman. I would tell him to wait (his whole life if needs be) before marrying any woman until he finds the one that makes him happy. And then I would tell him to stay with her (his whole life or her whole life) even if she no longer makes him happy. Starting at “contentment” is no place to start.

  94. Dave says:

    Lyn87 says:
    But that church is actually hip-deep in feminist heresy.

    Actually, no; it is not. Again, I used to attend the church many years ago, and there was not even a hint of feminism in their teachings. Also, I don’t know if the church has ever ordained a female pastor in its more than 100 years of existence. I know for a fact that it has never ordained a female general overseer (akin to worldwide leader of the church organization).
    Things could have since changed; I left the church more than 20 years ago.

  95. Dave says:

    It means you seem to firstly be stressing that not all women are like that. Instead of calling for more restrictions on female behavior, you point out that some women have gotten it right (even if the percentage keeps shrinking).

    Even if the disease is spreading it is still taboo to talk about treatment because some parts are still healthy… for now.

    Not at all. I was merely trying to say that we should not assume that all 35 year old American Christian women have been on the carousel. It is actually my belief that, with the rise of Christian men in the manosphere, things are bound to change for the better in the churches, because the church leaders, saved or not, will become more emboldened to raise the moral standard, and more true Christians will be more likely to assume leadership roles and speak up in those churches.

  96. AnonS says:

    Disclosure: Former Catholic, now Southern Baptist.

    That said, say what? I know four of Catholic men with religious intellectual depth and think that statement is too broad and needlessly insulting. I don’t agree with certain tenets, but the men I know (my child still attends a Catholic school) are no slouches. I’ve found good and bad Protestants and our weekly Bible study to be curiously small at times. And, no, it’s not Churchian.

    It was too broad. But do you draw a distinction between intellectual depth and doctrinal knowledge? I agree many bright thinkers are attracted to the Catholic church for reasons other than doctrine; I just think deep thinkers are going to be doing their own interpretation anyways. I haven’t seen a Catholic think clearly about how interpretation works, that having Church statements do nothing to remove individual interpretation.

    If any Catholic you know has a red line that if the Church crosses they will leave (allow gay female priests); then they are Protestants waiting to happen. They already believe the Church isn’t a 100% reliable source of authority.

  97. Lyn87,

    Biblically, women are not permitted to be pastors, and any church that ordains women as pastors is wrong… and not just a little wrong, either. Of all the bad doctrines floating around out there, one of the most dangerous ones for marriage-minded men is for a prospective wife to attend a church with a female pastor.

    When you are right, you are right. And on this, you are completely right.

    Unfortunately, I’ve known entirely too many women who claimed to be pastors. And in my much younger blue-pill days of pure ignorance that A is A, I even attended a church with a female pastor. (Never again, obviously.) After she came off her lithium and physically attacked a congregation member in the building, I learned a valuable lesson. Female pastors = pure feminist churchianity. There can be nothing Christian there.

    For the women out there who want to become ordained pastors, I really just have one question for them: why on earth would she ever want to sermonize to men about anything spiritual? I just can’t see any good coming of that. By doing so, she has to disavow so much of the Holy Book it boggles my mind as to why she even wants to bother. Seriously, what does she gain be this? She has to know that she is NOT doing what God wants of her, she can’t be that ignorant. Its either that or she thinks that she is smarter than God and she can rewrite all God’s rules to accomidate her own principles. Either way, its heresy.

  98. feeriker says:

    I did say that due to defects in Christian leadership, there are corresponding defects in the faiths of American Christians.

    And I will dare assert that this is true mostly because the average Christian/churchian is simply too lazy to pick up their dust-covered Bible, open it up, engage their attention span, and read its clear message and meaning for themselves (and I won’t even be so foolish and naive as to suggest that they pray earnestly beforehand for the Lord’s guidance in this endeavor).

    The problem is that most “churchgoers” in Norteamerika (and probably everywhere else in the western world where churchianity is institutionalized), immersed in and captivated by the larger culture as they are, want quick and easy answers. In this case they prefer having pre-chewed/pre-digested pablum fed to them, in the form of some Divinity Diploma Mill recipient shoving his/her (usually deeply flawed) interpretation of Scripture down their throats rather than have to make an effort to find solid “organic” spiritual food and feed themselves. Spiritually lazy people neither demand nor get spiritually healthy and robust leadership.

    To bring this back to topic, the trailer for this cheap piece of churchian feel-good entertainment serves the same basic purpose as the pre-chewed pablum dispensed by a churchian CEO on a Sunday morning: pseudo-spiritual junkfood for people too shallow and lazy or too immature or weak in their spiritual walk to seek real answers to the problems from the true source.

  99. Lyn87 says:

    Dave wrote,

    I don’t know if the church has ever ordained a female pastor in its more than 100 years of existence.

    How can you not know? It’s a basic fact about a very large group that you endorsed. It’s right there on the website that you linked. It was you who first inserted the link to the official website of the Apostolic Faith Church… I just followed your link and looked around for a few minutes. I clicked on the page that lists their pastors to see if they ordained women, and I found at least seven female pastors (there may be even more than that – many of the names are too foreign for me to tell if they are male or female).

    There’s no other way to say this – a denomination that ordains women as pastors has embraced feminism. You say that you’ve been gone for more than 20 years, and perhaps they used to be theologically sound, but they certainly aren’t now.

  100. thedeti says:

    “Do you recommend to men that they try to be content with an average looking or slightly below average looking woman if she has all of the required religious and character qualities that you are looking for?”

    Yes. I’ve been pretty consistent on this. I’ve long said that a man will be happier with an HB 5 (average woman) who actually loves him, than with an HB 8 (a woman of well above average attractiveness) who does not.

    And the “average looking or slightly below average looking woman” doesn’t even have to have all those religious and character qualities. She just has to be attracted to him and care about him and love him. If she is attracted to him, cares about him and loves him, then he will be of sufficient value to her such that staying with him is a more appealing alternative than NOT being with him. And if she is attracted and has deep feelings for him, she can learn and improvise the rest.

  101. Anchorman says:

    If any Catholic you know has a red line that if the Church crosses they will leave (allow gay female priests); then they are Protestants waiting to happen. They already believe the Church isn’t a 100% reliable source of authority.

    Interesting point. I’ll have to give it some thought.

  102. thedeti says:

    But in addition, I’d also say that for the relationship/marriage to work, he has to be sexually attracted to her. She has to be on or above his “attraction floor”. Most men’s attraction floor in reality extends down to about HB 4 or 5. She’s not the hottest woman around, but she is sufficient; and sufficient is all she has to be.

    The “attraction floor” is a low bar to meet. It is NOT necessary that a woman be a supermodel with 5% body fat to attract a suitable man. That’s a myth that too many people perpetuate.

  103. Anchorman says:

    Again, I used to attend the church many years ago, and there was not even a hint of feminism in their teachings.

    I read a few sermons. Without a clear statement contrary, I get the impression they embrace egalitarian marriage. The sermon on serious dating and marriage and the sermon on being a servant avoided what is often the elephant in the room: male headship of the family.

  104. feeriker says:

    For the women out there who want to become ordained pastors, I really just have one question for them: why on earth would she ever want to sermonize to men about anything spiritual?

    One word: power.

    Someday, on my own blog, I’m going to write an extended commentary on how to tell if a “pastor” is one who was genuinely called by God to serve, or one who went to seminary just to fulfill a career ambition or massage their own ego. This topic (women “pastors”) will no doubt be part of the piece.

  105. theasdgamer says:

    @ deti

    I’ve long said that a man will be happier with an HB 5 (average woman) who actually loves him

    HB5 at 25
    HB4 at 35
    HB3 at 45
    HB2 at 55

    Somewhere along the line, she might get traded in on a new wife. Better to hold the line on all requirements. IDK, maybe wife goggles will carry him all the way.

  106. thedeti says:

    @ Elspeth, Esco:

    “What’s much more likely here is that these women married the kind of men they were brought up believing they were “supposed” to marry and now find that they just ain’t all that hot for them. No doubt in many cases the men could improve that by getting fit and taking a more active role and so on. But that’s probably the real source of the let-down, not some lack of sexual adventurism in their late teens and 20s.”

    Precisely. This is much, much more common than most women want to admit. Most women are marrying men they are not all that sexually attracted to (as in the case Elspeth and Esco are discussing). Or, women are marrying men they are less sexually attracted to than the men they had sex with before they got married.

    In the latter case, the marriages are not completely wasted or unsalvageable, but a few things need to happen: The women need to let go of their dashed hopes and their unrealistic expectations, and they need to live up to the promises they made. They either will be wives, or they won’t; and their husbands need to hold them to the promises they made — they agreed to be WIVES, with all that that term entails, including sexual access. The husbands need to stand up and insist that their wives live up to the title “wife”.

  107. For the women out there who want to become ordained pastors, I really just have one question for them: why on earth would she ever want to sermonize to men about anything spiritual?

    One word: power.

    If that is true, then that is terrible. That is the worst reason to pastor people. It’s almost satanic, actually.

    Someday, on my own blog, I’m going to write an extended commentary on how to tell if a “pastor” is one who was genuinely called by God to serve, or one who went to seminary just to fulfill a career ambition or massage their own ego. This topic (women “pastors”) will no doubt be part of the piece.

    Don’t wait too long. Get writing.

  108. John Nesteutes says:

    OT, a 26 year old is due to be wed to Charles Manson, just in case anyone needs a reminder of the truth of Red Pill.

  109. Dave says:

    There’s no other way to say this – a denomination that ordains women as pastors has embraced feminism.

    That the church was founded by a woman does not make it a feminist-oriented church, any more than saying a business founded by a woman will be invariably feminist in its orientation. If you really dig into its history, you’d discover that it was actually founded by a man. However, there was a disagreement of sorts between the original founder, Mr. Seymor, and Ms. Crawford, who took the list of subscribers to the church magazine with her to Portland, Oregon, and started this church. Throughout my years of association with the church, I did not see or read about any female pastors being ordained there. Also, their worldwide presidents have always been men.
    Women are always “co-founders” of all Christian families; that does not make every family a feminist-oriented organization.

  110. thedeti says:

    Dave:

    Most folks have responded to you about your posts. I’d just say the following:

    1. I think you’ve vastly overestimated the number of Christian women who adhere to biblical sexual morality, or who even give passing observance to it.

    2. The “no true Scotsman” argument falls flat when we talk of biblical sexual morality. We can’t really say that if a woman has sex before marriage, she’s not really a Christian. By that standard there are no true Christians at all; there never have been and never will be. (Hence, Christ’s birth, death and resurrection.)

    3. One of the reasons why Christian men are not sitting women down and telling them what they expect of their girlfriends, wives, etc. is because they’ve been specifically trained NOT to do these things. And pretty much everyone in their lives told them not to do these things — their parents, their pastors, their teachers, other civic authorities, the media. They were told that actually having expectations of a woman is mean, cruel, heartless, devoid of compassion, etc. So you have to change the training and the culture if you’re going to expect men to do these things.

  111. Dave says:

    The husbands need to stand up and insist that their wives live up to the title “wife”.

    Precisely. Many women are little children at heart. They need men to lovingly but firmly hold them to their responsibilities. If anything, a woman is never equipped to handle power, especially over a man. It’s like a loaded gun presented to a 4 year old.She will either harm herself, or harm those that are close to her.

  112. John Nesteutes says:

    I recently asked a female pastor if she could lead a girls’ Bible study, as I would prefer not to try to lead a group of teenage girls.

    She declined because “I’m so busy with my kids”. Not too busy to preach Sunday morning sermons or be on church payroll, though.

    The good news is the girls in question are reading the Bible on their own and coming to scriptural to conclusions, such as “hey, I just read the women shouldn’t speak in church or be leaders so why do we have a female pastor?” I just nod and say that not every church is perfect. God bless those girls. I hope quality men find them someday.

  113. feeriker says:

    Don’t wait too long. Get writing.

    Actually, I don’t think it would require an entire article; a paragraph would probably suffice.

    The former (called upon by God to serve) give tirelessly of themselves without demanding anything in return. They do not hesitate for a second to proclaim the unvarnished, unadulterated Gospel to whomever they meet, wherever they are, no matter how hostile the audience (yet they also, being filled with the Holy Spirit, are generally able to share the Word in a non-confrontational manner that so many “professional” evangelists are unable to execute). While not perfect human beings by any stretch of the term, they are clearly different from those around them, their walk with Jesus evident in the way they live their lives and inspire and lead others in the Word and the Way.

    I don’t think I need to describe the second type, as we have all known and met far too many examples. Suffice it to say that their ubiquity makes the rarity of the first type a very painful thing to contemplate.

  114. MarcusD says:

    @MarcusD

    Here is a good link for you………

    http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/08/29/republicans-court-female-voters-by-promising-more-husbands/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=republicans-court-female-voters-by-promising-more-husbands

    How the Republicans are going to pull this off?……I have no idea.

    Well, the article is by Amanda Hess. A radfem/prig-prog like her isn’t likely to have anything logical to say.

    There does seem to be a too-close similarity between radfems and neocons, though – especially on the notion of “man-up.” I seem to recall a comparison between Puritans and radfems…

  115. Well, the article is by Amanda Hess. A radfem/prig-prog like her isn’t likely to have anything logical to say.

    She will have nothing to say because she is a radfem and doesn’t want the GOP to pull it off….

  116. Joe says:

    50 Shades of Gray is 90 minutes of inexplicably popular sadomasochism.

    The Christian version of that is to go to church and get lectured on your responsibility not to abuse women, to man up & etc. I sat through just that a couple weeks ago. Now that’s 90 minutes of sadomasochism right there.

    Makes it hard to keep the faith and to pass it on to your son in an environment where all men are held collectively responsible for the bad acts of a few. Makes me wonder if the padre is going to roll out a sermon in a few weeks lecturing the women in the parish not to act like whores.

  117. theasdgamer says:

    @ deti

    Most women are marrying men they are not all that sexually attracted to (as in the case Elspeth and Esco are discussing).

    I’m seeing a lot of women eventually marrying the live-in bf. So, was there ever sexual attraction? If so, did it wane?

  118. Joe,

    The Christian version of that is to go to church and get lectured on your responsibility not to abuse women, to man up & etc. I sat through just that a couple weeks ago. Now that’s 90 minutes of sadomasochism right there.

    Did you talk to the pastor about it afterwards? I would have. I don’t mind the lecturing on my responsiblies (I don’t think anyone here does) so long as what he is saying, is Biblical. So often it isn’t. Its something else, churchianity. That is where the problem starts.

    The very few sermons that I have written, I have had to be oh so very careful what I was saying because the words, the very meditations of my heart are supposed to be Christlike. It simply must match scripture, must be with respect to God’s Law. Its not my law, its not man’s law, its His Law. Even if it is not what the people want to hear, you have to speak truth to power. And far too often pastors forget this very thing. They try to be political instead of spiritual for fear of offending people who take the time to listen. They get caught in that conflict of interest. That is why I have insisted that when I was asked to speak, that I would never be paid. I tend to think the best pastors are the lay pastors.

  119. So let me get this straight: you have a young man who is paying penance for his unbiblical, sinful and disgusting past lifestyle during his younger years and a sweet Churchian Born-Again Slut (or is it supposed to be Virgin) supposedly interjects into his life and “frees him” and “absolves him” so that she can pursuit him and he can make an “honest woman of her” and in turn save her from her past indiscretions (oops, I mean past hurts)? Oh yeah, this definitely reeks of Churchian Theology alright. This is a real weak attempt at discrediting the MGTOW lifestyle. Gents, this is a warning message that they aren’t satisfied with going after you financially and sexually, they will go after you spiritually. This young man, from what I can tell from Ballista’s linked review, is dutifully and righteously living a life in penitence for his past sin’s so that he can be closer to God and has truly had his life transformed by the Gospel only to have it potentially poisoned by a “free spirit” (aka Jezebel). She doesn’t “free him” to love again..ONLY CHRIST CAN DO THAT! She is in no earthly or spiritual authority to do such a thing, and to boast or claim so definitely demonstrates that she has absolutely ZERO Christian inclinations towards the redeeming and sanctifying Gospel. This movie may not show up on the radar for married blokes, but for MGTOW, this movie should be a huge red flag warning that they are coming after us, one way or another and we need to be steadfast in our Christian convictions to resist this sort of evil.

  120. Peter Blood says:

    There does seem to be a too-close similarity between radfems and neocons

    “Ever since I can remember I’ve been a neo-Something. A neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-Liberal, a neo-Conservative.”

    Straight line back from neo-Conservatism to neo-Marxism.

  121. Lyn87 says:

    In response to my assertion that,

    There’s no other way to say this – a denomination that ordains women as pastors has embraced feminism.

    Dave wrote,

    That the church was founded by a woman does not make it a feminist-oriented church, any more than saying a business founded by a woman will be invariably feminist in its orientation. If you really dig into its history, you’d discover that it was actually founded by a man. However, there was a disagreement of sorts between the original founder, Mr. Seymor, and Ms. Crawford, who took the list of subscribers to the church magazine with her to Portland, Oregon, and started this church. Throughout my years of association with the church, I did not see or read about any female pastors being ordained there. Also, their worldwide presidents have always been men. Women are always “co-founders” of all Christian families; that does not make every family a feminist-oriented organization.

    But that doesn’t counter my assertion. I didn’t say anything about who founded the organization in the 19th Century: I pointed out that they ordain women right now, as a matter of policy. And yes, a church that ordains women has embraced feminism to a large degree. The Bible specifically prohibits women pastors in at least four places that I can think of just off the top of my head, so for a denomination to install women as pastors means that it has rejected the unambiguous teaching of scripture in favor of placing women in positions of authority over men and other women. As for women being “co-founders” of Christian families, that is utterly beside the point. Women have a valid place within families – they do not have a valid place in church leadership. I grew up as a preacher’s kid, and I can assure you that my mother never considered herself a “co-founder” or a “co-pastor” or anything of the sort – she was the pastor’s wife… period.

    The main reason I brought this up was that Dave maintains that there is a large pool of suitable Christian women “everywhere you turn” – and his example was the Apostolic Faith Church… but the only example he proffered has publicly embraced the feminization of the clergy. I didn’t read through any sermons like Anchorman did, but he confirmed what I suspected: their commitment to marriage is silent when it comes to male headship. If that’s the best example of a place where a man can find good Christian virgins looking for Biblical matrimony out there, maybe there aren’t that many out there.

  122. thedeti says:

    “I’m seeing a lot of women eventually marrying the live-in bf. So, was there ever sexual attraction? If so, did it wane?”

    There was probably some sexual attraction at the beginning, but not as much as other men she had had sex with before when she was younger. Most of the time, women go to the live in BF phase in the late 20s. Live in BF is the guy she happens to be dating when she goes into Epiphany phase, or just decides it’s time to get married. They are already “married” in every sense of the word except legally as far as society and the culture is concerned.

    What I’m also seeing happening is that the woman decides it’s time to get married, so she specifically sets out to find a man to marry. She finds a guy who is OK, nothing special, but is looking to lock in a sex partner. They stay together, they get serious, they marry.

    They’re getting married primarily because SHE has decided SHE wants to marry. HE is getting married because he’s getting sex, and he wants the sex to continue. He well understands the undercurrent she sends him after a year or so of “dating”. The very, very clear message she sends him is:

    “we are either getting married or I’m breaking up with you, and it will be a long, LONG time before you are getting laid again. I know it, and you know it. So one of two things is happening: either I’m getting a ring and a date, or we will be breaking up. I will have a new guy inside of a week. You will not have a new woman for months, if ever.”

    That, I think, is how a lot of marriages are getting started these days.

  123. Anchorman says:

    Lyn,
    All I’d add is to allow Dave some time.

    Almost all of us swam in that water and never noticed it. I think the person noted something similar about first impressions when the “glasses” go on. NAWALT.

    Maybe the church is on firm ground. I know I wouldn’t vouch for a church I hadn’t stepped inside for 20 years. I saw my neighborhood church go “south” in less than five.

  124. Dalrock says:

    @Crowhill

    However, it is worth noting that when Christians make movies for other Christians these women aren’t considered important enough to build a plot around.

    That’s not a fair way to evaluate the situation. Books and movies aren’t about real or normal or average life. They rely on odd characters and conflict. A movie about real people would be incredibly boring.

    Nonsense. Christian movies are filled with the same cliches as secular movies:

    • The bumbling husband/father: Moms’ Day Out (comedic) and Courageous (dark)
    • The unhaaapy wife/divorce fantasy: Fireproof
    • The 30 something career gal and/or carouseler who finds the man of her dreams to marry:  Christian Mingle movie, this one.

    This idea that Christian movies are so bad at representing biblical values because Christians are just too darn good is flat out absurd.

  125. Lyn87 says:

    Anchorman says,

    “Lyn,
    All I’d add is to allow Dave some time.”

    Agreed. I’ve been picking on Dave quite a bit over the Apostolic Faith Church, but the AFC isn’t all that different from most other churches these days. Very few of them are overflowing with women suitable for marriage (which was the underlying point). When my wife and I met both of us were attending Nazarene churches in different cities. Having said that, I have never considered myself a “Nazarene” even when I sat on church boards or taught Sunday School – I have only considered myself to be Christian. The Nazarene denomination has its own problems: they also ordain women, for example. (None of the local churches I attended had female pastors, or I would not have attended them.) I recall once when our pastor moved away and the board was conducting a search for a new pastor. The District Superintendent (roughly the equivalent of a Bishop in the Catholic Church) brought us nine dossiers to look at to begin our search. After he was finished reading them to us I got up, walked over to a bookshelf and pulled down a Bible. Then I went back to the table, opened up to Titus chapter 3, and waited. It didn’t take long before the DS asked what I was thinking. I read the first seven verses and then said something like, “Based on that, we can eliminate four of the nine from consideration.” The DS wasn’t expecting that and said something like, “These candidates have all been recognized as qualified by the denomination.” So I picked up a copy of the Nazarene Manual and said, “I care a lot less about what it says in here than I do about what it says in here” (gesturing toward the Bible). We dropped the four in question then and there. I’m sure other churches picked up some or all of those four, but as long as I was attending that church, it wouldn’t be us.

    So… both my wife and I went to a church that was part of a denomination that ordained women, but there’s no way either of us would have sat under a female preacher ourselves. We talk about red flags around here a lot, and I think that a woman who willingly attends a church with a female pastor is waving a red flag, and a denomination that ordains women is in the wrong.

  126. Gunner Q says:

    Looking Glass @ 7:39 am:
    “I’m amazed no one has made a Hollywood Blockbuster about King David.”

    *shudder* Oh Dear Lord, don’t give them the idea! If there’s anything the Church doesn’t need it’s giving the Bible’s #1 sociopath even more attention. One of my tests for a church’s moral conduct is the degree to which the pastor teaches on King David. If he’s rarely referred to, fine. If the pastor is going through a four-month series about how awesome David was, big red hypergamy flag.

    myrealitie @ 12:52 pm:
    “Question: Do you recommend to men that they try to be content with an average looking or slightly below average looking woman if she has all of the required religious and character qualities that you are looking for?”

    Absolutely. Give me an average-looking girl who looks up to me like I was God Himself, makes my success her success, is eager to please me physically and is horrified at the very thought of divorce and I’d be happy to not only marry her but also buy her that face lift and boob job that’ll make her look good. (Note, I’m not even wealthy.) All she needs is top character and meet the “attraction floor” thedeti mentioned.

    I treat my employees the same way. Give me a good attitude and I’ll twist you into a perfect subordinate I can trust and enjoy, including company-paid training.

    Feeriker, might you be willing to write that article anyway? I’m debating whether to start my own blog as a New Year’s resolution and might include it as a guest post if I do and you’re willing. New blogs need plenty of opening content, I hear.

  127. MarcusD says:

    Real Genius: Feminism Leaves Science in the Dirt
    http://thewilderness.me/real-genius/

  128. earl says:

    “Gents, this is a warning message that they aren’t satisfied with going after you financially and sexually, they will go after you spiritually.”

    Actually I think going after men spiritually was the endgame all along. Turn men either bitter-cyncial or apathetic-lazy.

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    And as a Christian movie, it is reliably terrible on issues of sexual morality,

    Anyone remember Tom Selleck as Quigley? Wonder how that movie would go over with 20-something churchgoing women… come to think of it, that might not be a bad movie to use as a test. Either a woman gets it, or she doesn’t.

    Which reminds me of one of my favorite “rainy Saturday afternoon movies” from cable TV land, Winchester ’73. Choices matter, some men and some women choose poorly. Some get another chance, and some don’t.

    Both these movies are clearly better than Fireproof at presenting basic human nature as it really is. The rifles are the real stars, of course, but most viewers don’t need to know that.

  130. thedeti says:

    OT but timely:

    The actress in the “Drunk Girl on Hollywood Blvd.” confirms what we all knew already: the video was a “prank”.

    I’d like to know why it is that some won’t believe it until the woman involved comes forward, when

    1. at least two of the “actors” had already said it was fake
    2. there was a Facebook message from one of the filmmakers to one of the “actors” confirming the latter was playing a role

    Some folks are just determined to believe the worst.

  131. Elspeth says:

    But I am still skeptical of the message. First, I’ve never quite understood the “sex is so difficult” argument. That is, there are all these people unfulfilled because their partner is so lousy. I mean, no doubt it happens. But it’s not like trying to hit a 2-iron. Sex is pretty easy. It would have to be or the species would have died out long ago.

    It’s the unrealistic movies (even the cleaner ones) and the smut we read as teenagers. And I include in that stuff that most people wouldn’t readily identify as smut. But it is. I know because I read it too. It sets you up for some pretty sky high expectations. I’m not even certain that many people even overtly gave them the impression that waiting would make it somehow less uncomfortable, although I have actually heard marriage teachers and youth pastors assert that.

    The romantic fantasies women harbor are some heady stuff. They won’t admit it, but it’s true. So when it doesn’t pan out and they aren’t rewarded for their obedience with their dream wedding night experience, then they feel as if they were lied to.

    It’s not that unusual a thing; people being told that obedience to God’s law will give them everything they ever wanted in the here and now, and disillusionment when it doesn’t work that way. It just so happens that for some reason in the marriage/sexuality arena the disillusionment takes on a particularly resentful tone.

    I will say this: marrying the kind of man that you’re told you are supposed to marry rather than someone who curls your toes isn’t necessarily a bad thing- when your head isn’t filled with unrealistically romantic notions. You can build a grand romance within the confines of your marriage without all the baggage and be happy. Unfortunately there aren’t many of us without that handicap.

  132. Elspeth says:

    the Bible’s #1 sociopath

    What?

  133. “Might be interesting for someone to try to crowdfund a film like “Fireproof” but from the perspective of truth about men and women”

    Yes, definitely. Why not try to make the sort of movie you’d like? There’s a milion out of work actors out there.

  134. Spacetraveller says:

    “She doesn’t “free him” to love again..ONLY CHRIST CAN DO THAT! She is in no earthly or spiritual authority to do such a thing, and to boast or claim so definitely demonstrates that she has absolutely ZERO Christian inclinations towards the redeeming and sanctifying Gospel.”

    This point by Crimsonviceroy is an excellent one and is the reason this film does not appeal, now,(having initially thought: ah this sounds like a great movie!).

    It is a subtle issue, one that passes under the radar unnoticed until you realise that there is an implication that an earthly woman can ‘save’ a man through romance.
    I have noticed that no man has this attitude towards women (if it happens, it seems to me to be exceedingly rare), but ‘churchianity’ has strong links to feminism of course, and this notion is being emmitted to women, as part of the ‘she can do it all’ meme.
    Sneaky…
    Well spotted, Crimsonviceroy.

    I have to admit also that combined with her ‘so you have found Jesus now, have you?’ snarky comment to him (also spotted by others) makes me think that this woman is not actually christian at all…if she were, she would be pleased, rather than annoyed that he ‘had found Jesus’.

    I was absolutely delighted to discover (I think it was on our second date) that my husband was Catholic, like me, and a fervent one at that. I am still thanking God about that…

    As to Elspeth’s point about (aherm) expectations…if I may recount my own (relatively recent) experience of this: I did always expect pain, and yes, whilst I got pain, (but let’s face it, that’s surely to be expected), it was nonetheless a wonderful experience. I never really did understand why women who were brought up to ‘wait’ later ‘diss’ the experience. If this is because of pain, then either it is a serious medical/gynaecological issue (so don’t knock the ideology, just get the problem fixed instead) or just accept it as natural and normal, which it is.

    But the question of attraction may be an important issue here, of course.
    I can well imagine that if one is not attracted to the husband in question, then it is a tough road to travel, and the negative experience may therefore be psychological rather than physical. In which case, begs the question: why marry a man to whom one is not attracted?
    Not a nice thing to do. Two lives are ruined. Possibly more, if you count the children too.

  135. Elspeth,

    the Bible’s #1 sociopath

    What?

    GunnerQ is talking about “David” (as in King David, the David that killed Goliath and then went and married Bathsheba adter he killed her husband.) Yes, he was probably a sociopath.

  136. Elspeth says:

    I understood that he was referring to David. I’s simply never heard anyone refer to David as a sociopath.

    The Bible calls David “a man after God’s own heart”. Because despite his flaws, he owned up to his sins.

    Psalms and the life of David shows us a man with some issues, but also a man who was willing to take responsibility and repent.

    David is among my favorite Bible patriarchs. Second only to Joseph.

    3,2,1…

  137. enrique432 says:

    http://eagnews.org/teacher-breastfeeding-in-class-draws-criticism-from-students-parents/

    White Night Chump of the day (accidentally making Red Pill argument):

    “Arguan Modeth · New Era University

    “People seem to be saying that women should be oppressed because they have babies. It’s a boob, get over it. Demonstrating the consequences of unprotected sex is a healthy learning experience for the children. A woman having a job and caring for children is also a good example. Prudish people think that any distraction from their activities is inappropriate. The students are responsible for learning the material and will bear the burden of not knowing it. The teacher can help the students learn, but if they are looking for excuses not to learn, the students can tell prospective employers that they have a great reason for not being qualified for work life and can’t deal with distractions and still get their work done at their interview.”

    from his own posting: https://www.facebook.com/arguan.modeth

    Is that funny or what? He doth not see the unintended humor of his posting.

  138. David is among my favorite Bible patriarchs. Second only to Joseph.

    3,2,1…

    Heh. That’s fine. 🙂

    no comment.

  139. feeriker says:

    Feeriker, might you be willing to write that article anyway? I’m debating whether to start my own blog as a New Year’s resolution and might include it as a guest post if I do and you’re willing. New blogs need plenty of opening content, I hear.

    Not sure that I can really add much more of substance to the paragraph that I posted, but if you’re still interested, I’m willing to give it a shot.

  140. @innocentbystanderboston

    “But now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.”

    God called David a man after His own heart.

  141. Elspeth says:

    Heh. That’s fine.🙂

    no comment.

    Okay, but you know these things go, IBB.

    I thought I might add one more comment because I know the Bible scholars here will be quick to point out that David was referred to in that favorable way by God before he became king and allowed himself to be seduced by the power and acclaim that it offered him.

    But no one here would assert that the sins David committed came as any surprise to God, I’m sure. David’s heart was pointed towards God, any cursory reading of Psalms reveals that. Was he what y’all call “alpha”? Yep. Scripture says he was good looking too. Did he use those traits in damnable ways? He did.

    But none of that changes the legacy that Scripture gives of David. The good as well as the bad. And the Psalms stand forever as a testament to his love for God.

  142. Dave says:

    Lyn87 says:
    …a church that ordains women has embraced feminism to a large degree.

    This is not entirely true. The Bible is chock full of examples of women who were active in the local churches and who occupied leadership roles. Some were pastors; others were prophetesses; yet others were teachers. There is really no law in the NT where women were forbidden from occupying pastoral positions or other positions of authority.
    Yes, I know and agree that paul said he did not want a woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    But how do you explain the following:
    1. The ministries of Priscilla and Aquila, a couple who were co-workers with Paul. Both of them pastored a church in their house, as shown in Romans:
    Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Romans 16:3-5
    See also 1 Corinthians 16:19

    2. Who was the “Elect Lady” of 2 John 1, who happened to be the person addresed directly by Apostle John? What was her function in her local church if not a pastor and teacher?
    The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;… 2 John 1:1

    3. What exactly did Euodia and Syntyche do together with Paul? The man said they labored in the gospel:
    I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
    And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life.
    Philippians 4:2–3

    4. Prophets were leaders in the early church, and women clearly occupied this position:
    Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. Acts 21:9

    5. Nympha was a woman. She pastored a local church at her residence:
    Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.
    Colossians 4:15

    6. Sister Jezebel originally a good Christian woman, and was a teacher of God’s people, before she backslid and began to seduce other leaders to commit sin. See Revelation 2:20–24

    Where exactly did Paul said a woman could not be a Pastor? How about a Teacher? or Prophet? If you are looking to 1 Timothy 2:12 as a basis, you’d be wrong, because you simply cannot build a doctrine on a single verse of scripture. You need at least 2 different passages to do this, since “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”. (2 Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 17:6). I will need you to show me additional passages where Paul expressly told other churches that women could not be leaders in the local church. There is none.
    As a matter of fact, and as God is concerned, there is absolutely no spiritual difference between men and women, Jews and Gentiles. We were all sold under sin, and were redeemed by the same blood.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

  143. Elspeth and popcorn,

    David was…. not a nice guy. Okay, sociopath, yes maybe. It wasn’t until GunnerQ called him that before I started to look at him that way.

    We all know what the Bible says about the King of the Jews, a man affter His own heart. That’s fine. We all know the Bible here. Still… a terrible person. I’m sorry, but ladies (today) riding the cock carrosel pales in comparison to someone murdering someone and then taking the murdered man’s wife as one of his own (4 wives I count.) I mean how could anyone today defend the actions of David, he was a murderer. There was nothing at all wholesome or rightous about his marriage to Bathsheba.

  144. Dave says:

    Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 was very specific to the local church, and for specific reasons. He never told other churches the same thing. Certainly, he never rejected women who were pastoring local churches at their respective houses.
    In the early church, Christians did not have huge church buildings. Their local church services took place in the members’ houses. So, “church in her house” would be equivalent of any small local church today.

  145. Dave says:

    My personal take though is that a woman who would be a leader in the church will have to answer to a male authority in some way. For instance, if a woman is ordained to lead a local assembly, she will need a male overseer in some way. Just my understanding at this time.

  146. Dave,

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

    This means that all who believeth in Christ (be they man or woman, slave or free man, or any nation on this planet) their souls may be saved. The concept here is eternity, not equality.

  147. Elspeth says:

    I mean how could anyone today defend the actions of David, he was a murderer. There was nothing at all wholesome or rightous about his marriage to Bathsheba.

    Who defended his actions? Simply stating what Scripture says about him, what God says about him, is not defending his actions. Straw man, anyone?

    None of us has any idea why God chose David and Bathsheba’s son, who wasn’t in line for the throne, to be the next king. The fruit of that unholy union!

    Our ways are not His ways. Neither or our thoughts His thoughts. Who gives mercy to whom He will. When we’re self-righteous, we rather hate the thought. But who are any of us to decry what Scripture explicitly declares?

    David should be a sign and beacon of hope for the rest of us, if you ask me. But no one did, did they? LOL.

  148. Elspeth says:

    What I’m trying to say IBB is that the life of David is recorded. His legacy is settled in the Book. The good, the bad, the ugly. No one is denying the bad, but I don’t see what it serves to decry what the Bible clearly states. To pretend as if the tens of Psalms and prayers that David wrote and that we quote and pray to this day aren’t part of what God wants us to remember about him makes no sense.

  149. Here’s what happens when you try to force fit Christianity into already horrible secular pop-culture:

  150. Legion says:

    “If any Catholic you know has a red line that if the Church crosses they will leave (allow gay female priests); then they are Protestants waiting to happen. They already believe the Church isn’t a 100% reliable source of authority.”

    Yeah, the big worry is Catholic priests and women. lolzlolzlolz

  151. I have to second IBB when it comes to the idolization of David. I can understand that we read and identify with his story from the perspective of how we too can experience our faith in God through lamentations as well as praise but we need to make sure that the focus is always on Jesus. Often when I hear folks talk about their favorites in Scripture, it’s amazing how all the patriarch’s of the Bible are listed but Jesus hardly makes the cut. Could just be my experience, but extensive is that experience. Our entire focus and directive should be upon Christ. Else we fall into the same error that the Catholics do when it comes to overly focusing and almost deifying figures in the Bible such as Mary. David died, Abraham died, Mary died, even Lazarus who was raised from the dead by Jesus eventually died. But Christ is ever-living, and so it shouldn’t be too much of a theological leap to understand that if we, too, want life that we have to give it up to Him..in everything, ESPECIALLY our focus and idolization.

    True, the Messiah came from a direct bloodline leading back to David, but greater is God’s glory and the glory of the Risen Messiah that He is able to take the earthly costs of David’s weaknesses, failures, shortcomings, and sin’s and molds them into something divinely beautiful. The focus, is to ever be upon the awesome majesty and grace of Christ…not on those whom He has chosen to forgive and bless.

  152. thedeti says:

    Based on what we know of King David from Scripture, I cannot conclude he was a sociopath. The sum total of Scripture paints a picture of a deeply flawed man of equally deep faith in his God, who God used to fulfill His purposes, who sinned grievously, who repented of that sin, who then lived out the consequences to the end of his life, and whose consequences were visited on his family and his kingdom for generations. That’s the lesson to take from David’s life; not that he was an umempathetic sociopath.

  153. Elspeth says:

    It wasn’t really about idolizing David, CV. I was simply responding to the assertion that he was a sociopath because I found the assertion unBiblical.

    I agree with you about the pre- eminence of Christ. I understand and am fully persuaded that Jesus is the only name which saves.

  154. Blake says:

    “…a cut above the usual fare.”

    I originally read that as “a cut above the usual farce.”

    Either way, I suppose.

  155. infowarrior1 says:

    @Looking glass

    If the bible honestly got made into a series of films or an entire TV series with attempts to sanitize it. It will be rated R.

  156. @IBB
    David’s life was that of a fallen human being who committed a sin worthy of capital punishment by the authorities in Israel, and an eternity of God’s righteous judgement. That being said, God gave His promise to those of the house of David. A promise that eventually led to the birth of Christ. To say that David was a terrible person is to tell the truth. However, to insinuate that because he sinned we are excused from following the Godly behavior he otherwise showed through the rest of his life. The slaying of Goliath, the defending and expansion of Israel’s borders, the reclamation of the ark of the covenant, the gathering of the materials necessary for building the temple, &ct. These are things to be celebrated because they were done in obedience to God.

  157. Gunner Q says:

    Dave, women hosting a church in their home is not the same thing as holding authority over men. If I rent a widow’s garage to use for a workshop then she does not become my employer.

    Women can be prophets but prophecy is not leadership. Prophecy is the spiritual equivalent of delivering mail; it doesn’t require the prophet(ess) to give orders. Note how Paul separated prophecy from leadership while discussing spiritual gifts. Similar argument for the evangelism efforts of Priscilla and Aquila. Telling people about Jesus is not leadership.

    Argument #6 actually works against your position.

    “Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 was very specific to the local church, and for specific reasons.”

    You mean the reasons in 2:13-14: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”? Paul justified the command by referencing the behavior of our shared progenitors… how can such a reason not apply to us today? How do you go from “because Adam and Eve were like this” to “this is a temporary command, which most Christians may disobey at will”?

    Also, note that almost the entire New Testament is written in the form of letters to specific groups of people. Nobody at Dalrock’s lives in Rome or Corinth… do we get to ignore Romans and Corinthians?

    “you simply cannot build a doctrine on a single verse of scripture.”
    I’m sympathetic here; a lot of cults get established this way. Well then, let’s look at all the leaders of the Bible.

    Adam first, then Eve. Eve was specifically created as an assistant (“helpmeet”) to Adam.

    The Partriarchs rule their families. The one example of a Matriarch leading her husband is Sarah’s “Ishmael” incident.

    Only male Levites were permitted to act as priests.

    All the Judges of Israel are male. Some claim that Deborah was a judge but the Bible names only Barak in 1 Samuel 12:11 and Hebrews 11:32. When Barak refused to fight without Deborah, he was punished (Judges 4:9).

    There were no queens of Israel unless one counts the wicked Jezebel.

    All major and minor OT Prophets are male. Nehemiah, too.

    Meanwhile, Queen Esther refuses to stop the genocide of her own people because she thinks the king might kill her (his favorite sex toy, according to early Esther) if she shows up unannounced. Mordecai threatens her into telling her husband.

    Jesus is male. His inner circle of 12 disciples are male. The 12 Apostles who founded his Church are male. Paul’s successors, Timothy and TItus, are male.

    And then Paul said women are not to lead men. That command is consistent with the entire Bible; therefore, we may build a doctrine on this single verse with confidence.

  158. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    you asked for two scriptures where women are forbidden from pastoral roles. I already gave you two: 1 Cor 14: 34 and 2 Timothy 2: 14. I’ll give you two more: Titus 1:5-7a and 1 Timothy 3: 1-5. Not one of the women you mentioned from the New Testament was identified as a pastor. Hosting a group of believers in one’s house is not the same as being the pastor of that group… at all.

    I gave you four scriptures* that absolutely preclude women from holding pastoral positions, and the best you could come up with is a few women who performed non-pastoral functions such as hosting meetings in their homes or exercising the gift of prophecy. I challenge you to show me a single example of a woman pastor anywhere in scripture. Even one. Not a hostess… not a woman with the gift of prophecy… but an actual pastor. You will not find one.

    God doesn’t contradict Himself – He would not tell women to be silent in church (twice) and give instructions through Paul in his pastoral letters (again, twice) to only ordain men as pastors, if He was going to call women as pastors.
    ________________________________________________

    * For anyone who doesn’t know the relevant scriptures that preclude women from being pastors, here are the four I mentioned. Note that there is not a single example of a female pastor anywhere in scripture.

    1 Corinthians 14: 34, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

    1 Timothy 2: 11-14, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

    Titus 1:5-7a, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop…”

    1 Timothy 3: 1-5, “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husban of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”

  159. infowarrior1 says:

    Oh and to inform you guys. Perhaps the church that Dave cites and many other churches like it probably uses the 2011 NIV feminist translation:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf

  160. Lyn87 says:

    Infowarrior,

    … and we wonder why the church was so easily co-opted by feminist thought. Guys like Dave even come here and claim blatant falsehoods in support of female pastors. There are at least four scriptures in four different books of the Bible that rule out female pastors, but the mere mention of a few female names is enough for some to declare that those women must have been pastors, despite the fact that they are never identified as such.

    I’ll say it again: Any church or denomination that ordains women as pastors is already seriously compromised by feminism.

  161. Hank Flanders says:

    Multiple scriptures describing time periods after David’s death refer to David as having done was right in the sight of the Lord, and he was often the standard to which successive kings were measured in terms of their righteousness. However, there was sometimes the caveat of “except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” Anyway, given this scriptural evidence, calling David a sociopath, let alone the Bible’s #1 sociopath, makes no sense, especially when many successive kings were said to have committed more evil than all the kings before them.

  162. SirHamster says:

    Anyway, given this scriptural evidence, calling David a sociopath, let alone the Bible’s #1 sociopath, makes no sense, especially when many successive kings were said to have committed more evil than all the kings before them.

    The alternative, is that sociopathy is something Christians are to imitate. (Shouldn’t Christians be following God’s heart?)

    But more seriously, take Psalm 51, written after David was called out by God through Nathan. Lack of remorse or moral responsibility is not in evidence.

    I’m sorry, but ladies (today) riding the cock carrosel pales in comparison to someone murdering someone and then taking the murdered man’s wife as one of his own (4 wives I count.)

    Are you saying that David stole 4 wives, or are you complaining that he has more than one?

  163. Maunalani says:

    David wins the prize for how many of the 10 Commandments you can break in one crack:
    1. Adultery
    2. Murder
    3.Theft
    4. False Witness
    5. Coveting

  164. Hank Flanders says:

    SirHamster

    Lack of remorse or moral responsibility is not in evidence.

    Exactly.

  165. SirHamster says:

    David wins the prize for how many of the 10 Commandments you can break in one crack:
    1. Adultery
    2. Murder
    3.Theft
    4. False Witness
    5. Coveting

    I’ll dispute (4). Who did he bear false witness against? Though on further thought, I guess we can ding him on the attempted cover up when he tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bethsheba after her pregnancy.

    Stealing is also different than adultery (they get separate commandments), so that one’s also questionable, but I can understand it being included.

  166. BradA says:

    The point with David is that he repented when caught in sin, unlike Saul who blamed everyone else. Study things and you will see that Saul could have been established, something that is rather surprising to note.

    theadsgamer,

    You are wrong about the decline. I don’t know my wife’s exact rating when we married, but she is quite good looking now, at least to me. She has aged quite well, thank you. She seems to have her mother’s genes, which is a very good thing in my view. She is not a special snowflake though, so they don’t all decline.

    How many men are as hot later on as well? You need to compare things of the same age, not just one aging.

    A man should certainly be attracted to his wife, but that is not nearly so hard as is noted above.

  167. I’m sorry, but ladies (today) riding the cock carrosel pales in comparison to someone murdering someone and then taking the murdered man’s wife as one of his own (4 wives I count.)

    Well no, David did many bad things which just made him more attractive in the eyes of the women around him. I don’t get your comparison though. Sins are sins, you repent or not. And you’re comparing apples and oranges. No man is expected to marry David, nor is any women but for some reason women like men like that. However, men are expected to marry modern women.. who have been riding that cock… and are unfit for marriage and wifely duty as they come.

  168. Maunalani says:

    I’m going to side with Dave on this one. I know a number of solid Christian women who did not spend their single days sleeping around. And the problem the attractive ones have is they get hit on all the time by guys with less than honorable intentions. I think the main thing I have noticed with such women is some get to a point where it is a reflex reaction by them to reject all advances by guys and completely take themselves out of the “available” pool. Some of them never end up finding anyone as a result.

    If you ask me, how do you find such women, it’s simple: look for the ones that actually read their Bibles and have them marked up, not the ones who are just putting on the act every Sunday. My experience is if you see a woman who is actually putting the effort into studying the Scriptures and know them, they are going to have a whole different attitude than the Christian posers.

  169. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “There are still beautiful daughters of God in America who are living right and serving God faithfully. Many of them are waiting and praying for brothers to step up and marry them.”

    There are also Unicorn farts and Pixy poop that smells like lemon. Almost all of your daughters of God might as well have a toilet paper roll duck taped to their forehead- the one that fools you into thinking it is a horn until after the wedding.

    From the earlier review of the movie:

    “The film doesn’t shy away from the faith elements, showing scenes and conversation about Christianity and the Bible, but they’re not done in a preachy manner. In my conversation with writer/director/star Rik Swartzwelder, he mentioned that he wasn’t interested in a faith propaganda story, but he was inspired by people he knew”

    I don’t like this at all. The “star” wouldn’t shy away from global warming propaganda or whatever anti-capitalist flavor of the month- but showing religion in a positive light is “preachy.” I will wait until I can see it at home on cable and probably not even then. Hope it flops.

  170. theasdgamer says:

    @ maunalani

    I know a number of solid Christian women who did not spend their single days sleeping around.

    They are part of herds that are invisible. Just not available and never seen by most men.

    And the problem the attractive ones have is they get hit on all the time by guys with less than honorable intentions.

    All men want sex. What planet do you live on?

    it is a reflex reaction by them to reject all advances by guys and completely take themselves out of the “available” pool.

    So they have a bitch shield. Not unusual. If they hide at home, that’s a problem. Got to get out in public where men can find them or they are irrelevant to the discussion.

    If you ask me, how do you find such women, it’s simple: look for the ones that actually read their Bibles and have them marked up, not the ones who are just putting on the act every Sunday.

    My college gf was an avid Bible reader and marked up her Bible. And she wanted sex. This was decades ago. Not unusual these days.

    Attractive women need to advertise that they want marriage and men will come. When I was first dating my wife, casual sex was off the table and sex was understood to be reserved for the context of marriage.

  171. theasdgamer says:

    @ BradA

    You are wrong about the decline.

    No, all women decline in beauty per the Bible.

    I don’t know my wife’s exact rating when we married, but she is quite good looking now, at least to me.

    Wife goggles.

    A man should certainly be attracted to his wife, but that is not nearly so hard as is noted above.

    Try putting together an actual argument that a 5 at 25 won’t be hideous at 55.

    Mrs. Gamer dropped 4 points since I married her. She’s still pretty, but she started as a 10.

  172. JF says:

    Fireproof feminist neo-con evangelicals have flipped the Scriptures upside down. Far out.
    Just keep me away from them.
    Like, for the rest of my life.
    If i could ever date again, i would have to travel far the hell outside the U.S. and order out.
    How utterly tragic: unequally yoked notwithstanding: better a respectful, properly submissive buddhist female helpmeet than a disrespectful, ungodly competitor American “christian” Jezebelmeet.
    This will not end well.
    But, historically speaking, it will end soon.
    In national captivity.

  173. MarcusD says:

    cannot take much more of this
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=922514

    The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1414784111.abstract

    New Jersey judge orders parents to pay estranged 21-year-old daughter’s college tuition
    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/14/new-jersey-judge-orders-parents-to-pay-estranged-21-year-old-daughters-college-tuition/

  174. infowarrior1 says:

    @Gunner Q
    Concur:
    As John Knox says:
    ”To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

    In the probation of this proposition, I will not be so curious as to gather whatsoever may amplify, set forth, or decor the same; but I am purposed, even as I have spoken my conscience in most plain and few words, so to stand content with a simple proof of every member, bringing in for my witness God’s ordinance in nature, his plain will revealed in his word, and by the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers.

    Anyway he lays out his argument in this letter:
    http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

    And notice what the blessing of God to David is:
    ”1984 NIV 1 Kings 9:5 I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised
    David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.”

    Which the bible feminazi’s edit out in the NIV 2011. Replacing “Man” with “Successor”
    ”2011 NIV 1 Kings 9:5 I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised
    David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor on the throne of
    Israel.’ (same as TNIV)”

  175. JPOutlook says:

    “MarcusD”

    What’s that about you disliking Puritans? Since you like “relevant” links so very much…

    http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm

  176. JPOutlook says:

    Thanks, “Dalrock.” I’m going to recommend this blogpost to a friend.

    J.P.O.

  177. Exfernal says:

    Re: the story of David and Bathsheba. Women like it, because they cast themselves in the role of Bathsheba and then (paraphrasing) squeal internally in delight:
    “Yay me! I am so much better than the rest of his wives. A king had to kill another man to make me his wife. So romantic!”

    Not to mention that men ruled by their emotions are easier to manipulate than those acting from their principles…

    As an aside, personality disorders in general are ‘recurrent, enduring patterns of behavior’. One atrocious act is not enough to label someone as a sociopath.

  178. ballista74 says:

    Women like it, because they cast themselves in the role of Bathsheba and then (paraphrasing) squeal internally in delight: “Yay me! I am so much better than the rest of his wives. A king had to kill another man to make me his wife. So romantic!”

    Just read it in a book I got for finding out what women are being taught in church to make them what they are. Women want to be desired and pursued…what makes a woman tingle more in her solipsism than the thought of a man who desires her so much that David would go to all that trouble? Women like the bad boys after all…especially if they’re bad for her sake.

  179. Uhm, maybe it’s just me but the Christian alternative just seems to be getting Anastasia once Christian Grey and all his pals are finished with her… yeah, great deal there..

  180. feeriker says:

    Uhm, maybe it’s just me but the Christian alternative just seems to be getting Anastasia once Christian Grey and all his pals are finished with her… yeah, great deal there..

    Yup – plus throw in a heavy helping of shaming for not groveling sufficiently in abject gratitude for the privilege of being considered worthy of these sloppy sixths, sevenths, and eights …

  181. earl says:

    “Uhm, maybe it’s just me but the Christian alternative just seems to be getting Anastasia once Christian Grey and all his pals are finished with her… yeah, great deal there..”

    So stand for your principals. If you don’t want an aging Anastasia…don’t get involved with Anastasia’s no matter which propaganda source is telling you to do so.

  182. Anne says:

    In my experience of Christian movies and books, they generally have at least one main character who is not Christian so that they can expound the gospel. In the case of Christian romances, they generally pick one of the couple, making most Christian romances (including this one) celebrations of missionary dating. Additionally, this movie seems to want to attack the courtship movement, since that’s what the guy seems to be following at the beginning before he gets “fixed.”
    As for the target market of the trailer, it is beleaguered Christians who want more Christian/family friendly movies. You can clearly see them setting themselves up as David against the 50 Shades of Grey Goliath. The next thing I predict is they will encourage churches to bring groups to see it to make sure it makes enough money that Hollywood will see that these are the types of movies we want.

  183. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anne

    Better that we do our own thing than to buy into the modernist frame of the spirit of the age.

  184. Anne says:

    @infowarrior
    I’m unsure as to how that connects with what I said. Could you elaborate?

  185. theasdgamer says:

    @ deti

    What may be going on with some women is simply hypergamy. Here I’m thinking of fairly attractive women in their early/mid 50’s. They live in with a passable beta, then marry him, staying home all the time. Then staying home gets old and they go out dancing, to clubs, etc. and see men with higher SMV’s than their husbands. Dissatisfaction sets in and hypergamy raises its head.

  186. JF says:

    @JPOutlook:
    I hear you, JP. I’m right there with you.
    But while you’re at it, why don’t I help you turn over another rock:
    http://www.reformation.org/lincoln.html
    Ah, but there are so many, many others.

  187. Dalrock says:

    @Gunner Q

    Dave, women hosting a church in their home is not the same thing as holding authority over men. If I rent a widow’s garage to use for a workshop then she does not become my employer.

    Women can be prophets but prophecy is not leadership. Prophecy is the spiritual equivalent of delivering mail; it doesn’t require the prophet(ess) to give orders. Note how Paul separated prophecy from leadership while discussing spiritual gifts. Similar argument for the evangelism efforts of Priscilla and Aquila. Telling people about Jesus is not leadership.

    Argument #6 actually works against your position.

    “Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 was very specific to the local church, and for specific reasons.”

    You mean the reasons in 2:13-14: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”?

    Exactly.  To the extent that this proscription is “local”, it is limited to those of us who are descended from Adam and Eve.

    Note also that in the passage referenced above (1 Tim 2:8-15) Paul describes how Christian women should conduct themselves.

    I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    This echos the description the Apostle Peter uses in 1 Peter 3 when explaining what is beautiful to God in a woman, which also emphasizes silence and submission:

    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. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

    Feminists want to waive away this verse like Dave does Paul’s words, claiming it is local to the time of the letter. Yet like with 1 Tim 2:8-15 the verse is clear that this is timeless, with a reference to Genesis. God is unchanging, so what is beautiful to Him is true yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

    Given the way that Dave has repeatedly contradicted himself, I am starting to wonder if he is a troll.  He started by presenting himself as more patriarchal than everyone here.  To read his early comments, there is nothing wrong with our feminist society so long as a man is significantly patriarchal and belongs to a patriarchal church.  His example of a patriarchal church is The Apostolic Faith Church of Portland Oregon.  When challenged that this church isn’t very patriarchal if it has women pastors, he starts by claiming no knowledge of such a thing.  Only several comments later does he start to defend with sudden earnest the ordination of women.  Suddenly Patriarchal Dave has believed women should be pastors all along.

  188. ballista74 says:

    Off-topic (sorta). But relevant. Get some antacid and sit down first.

  189. Don’t most Apostolic churches subscribe to the whole Modalism view of the Godhead? I’m not sure about that.

  190. Phillyastro says:

    Can we please retire the word “neocon” now? Once you’re applying the term to liberal pastors of Protestant denominations, I think the word has lost its meaning.

  191. Can we please retire the word “neocon” now? Once you’re applying the term to liberal pastors of Protestant denominations, I think the word has lost its meaning.

    Don’t retire it. Just CORRCT the person who uses it INCORRECTLY.

    For the record: neocon (n) a former liberal/Democrat who was so horrified by September 11th, 2001, that the shock to their system made them a conservtive hawk and pro-US-policy person at least from a waging war with Fundamental Islam standpoint

    That is “neocon” a NEW-conservative (not a Traditional one like me or a Paleo-Conservative like Pat Buchanan)

  192. Anchorman says:

    No, IBB. The history of the word goes back further. It refers to the likes of Irving Kristol.

    He was a liberal who “became” a new conservative.

    When applied to the Bush era, it refers to the same group who co-opted the conservative agenda to advance traditionally liberal agenda items.

  193. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ November 19, 2014 at 9:14 am:
    “Given the way that Dave has repeatedly contradicted himself, I am starting to wonder if he is a troll.”

    I’m not as certain. His arguments are the exact same, down to the choice of wording, as an Assemblies of God church I recently attended. The denomination allowed female clergy but this particular church was not only avoiding that but has some excellent principles. I joined because I thought the church was worth defending from the inevitable assault of feminism and tried to work into low-level priesthood in order to have some clout.

    The attempt failed. Eventually, a feminist faction managed to get a female pastor appointed to running adult Bible studies as well as periodic guest sermons. When I talked to the leadership, they made precisely the same arguments as Dave, only they wouldn’t even let me finish my sentences during the “discussions”. I had to leave.

    There are many people like Dave in the Church; therefore, this debate is worth having.

  194. Dalrock says:

    @Gunner Q

    I’m not as certain. His arguments are the exact same, down to the choice of wording, as an Assemblies of God church I recently attended. The denomination allowed female clergy but this particular church was not only avoiding that but has some excellent principles. I joined because I thought the church was worth defending from the inevitable assault of feminism and tried to work into low-level priesthood in order to have some clout.

    The attempt failed. Eventually, a feminist faction managed to get a female pastor appointed to running adult Bible studies as well as periodic guest sermons. When I talked to the leadership, they made precisely the same arguments as Dave, only they wouldn’t even let me finish my sentences during the “discussions”. I had to leave.

    There are many people like Dave in the Church; therefore, this debate is worth having.

    I’m not sure this really explains his large shifts in stance. He started by lecturing everyone on the need to stick to biblical patriarchy and the collapsing culture won’t matter. When challenged on women pastors his first response was to deny knowledge of it and distance himself from the church he had offered up. Only later did he suddenly start arguing quite earnestly for women as pastors. It doesn’t fit. It isn’t just that his arguments aren’t logically consistent, they don’t fit with him being a single person. The perspective is constantly shifting. I haven’t banned him, but something feels off.

  195. No, IBB. The history of the word goes back further. It refers to the likes of Irving Kristol.

    He was a liberal who “became” a new conservative.

    Yes.

    When applied to the Bush era, it refers to the same group who co-opted the conservative agenda to advance traditionally liberal agenda items.

    No.

    The war on terror is NOT a liberal agenda item. But neocons (neocons could be pro-abortion, pro-taxes, pro-welfare, perhaps even atheist) support the war on terror specifically because they understand Fundamental Islam.

    Neocons did NOT support TARP (which was a traditionally liberal agenda item during the Bush era.) I didn’t support it either but it turns out that TARP might not wind up costing the taxpayer a dime (as the banks paid back ALL the loans PLUS interest) so I would have been proven wrong on that.

  196. Anchorman says:

    IBB, the neo-cons of the Bush administration pushed more than the war. The media pushed “neo-con war” because it was an attempt at “othering” the opposition with a cryptic word. In short, the media deliberately misapplied the word in order to undermine the war.

    The neo-cons pushed his “compassionate conservative” platform of expanded domestic spending, prescription drug bill, etc.

    This is all an aside. I don’t want it to distract from the thread.

  197. BradA says:

    theadsgamer,

    No, all women decline in beauty per the Bible.

    I wasn’t denying a decline. We all decline with age. I was denying the 6 -> 2 decline.

    My wife was definitely not a 10 when we married, but she is definitely not 4 points lower. It is not just wife goggles, her figure is quite nice thanks you and the visible female part is larger than it was when we wed, so that is an added bonus.

    Thanks for playing, but your assertion of a massively horrid decline is simply not true. I didn’t know her until 27, but I know she didn’t drop significantly in the 2 years prior. She is pushing your latter range now.

    Her face is a family face (from her father) and would not win her magazine covers, but she looks quite sharp and could certainly draw attention in public if she dressed accordingly. Much of this is because she remained thin. Those who let their weight go might follow the path you note, but all are not that way and this is my point. It is not just a NAWALT argument either. I am disputing the depth of the decline, not its existence.

    It may be that starting nearer the middle means less wild swings. I do not know. I only have one direct individual to compare.

  198. BradA says:

    IBB, the prescription drug benefit and the principles of No Child Left Behind were not “traditional conservative principles.” Bush II was not a conservative.

    Kind of ironic so many get into contortions calling him that.

  199. Dave says:

    Dalrock says:

    He started by lecturing everyone on the need to stick to biblical patriarchy and the collapsing culture won’t matter.
    My intention was not to lecture anyone, but merely to express my personal opinion on the matter at hand. I am in total support of biblical patriarchy, and I do not support feminism in any shape or form.

    When challenged on women pastors his first response was to deny knowledge of it and distance himself from the church he had offered up.
    Well, I still don’t see the benefit I hope to derive by lying on this issue. Until yesterday, I have never even seriously thought about the issue of female pastors in this church, or in most churches I have been for that matter. Even now, I cannot recall seeing any female pastors in the Apostolic Faith Church while I was there. I left the church before I left for college in 1985.
    I brought up the church because someone had written that virtually any 35 year old professed Christian woman in America is a reformed carousel rider, and I wanted to counter that. Just because some folks do not know many of these conservative women does not mean they do not exist. They may be relatively few, but in absolute numbers, there are many of them.

    Only later did he suddenly start arguing quite earnestly for women as pastors.
    I did a quick study on the issue and I forwarded my findings to the forum. I have to admit however, that I have learned quite a bit in the responses of Lyn and Gunner, and I hope to do further study on the topic of female pastors, and adjust my theology according my new understanding of the topic.
    Even then, there are questions–honest questions, about some of the passages previously put forward.

    It isn’t just that his arguments aren’t logically consistent, they don’t fit with him being a single person.
    As far as my faith is concerned, I don’t hold on to any belief system unless I can see it in the Scriptures. Granted that my understanding–like that of every other Christian–is limited (1 Corinthians 13:9), I still try to stay true to what I know—or think I know. There is nothing inconsistent in this. For every view, I try to find supporting evidence in scripture.
    As per my singleness, I don’t know how you arrived at this conclusion, that my stance is inconsistent with being single. But I don’t have anything to prove here. For the record though, I am as single as single can be. I hope to marry in the coming year, all things being equal.

    The perspective is constantly shifting. I haven’t banned him, but something feels off.
    My views are exactly consistent with all I have said earlier; nothing changes, unless new light is shed on the topic being discussed.

    This is a very active forum, and it is not always easy to reply to every topic one is interested in, particularly while at work (this might explain why I respond irregularly and incompletely). Moreover, there are many well thought out responses that take a while to digest, and offer meaningful lessons to me personally.
    You talked of banning me from the site? Well, it’s your forum, and you can exclude whoever you think is causing distractions. But I don’t know what my crime is at this time though, and I don’t honestly think I deserve to be banned from here.

  200. jeff brown says:

    I need help.

    We have started nouthetic counseling, which is ok with me. The pastor agrees with what is on the manosphere, but disagrees with how to go about solving it within marriage.

    Point is…. married 20 yrs. both saved within last 15. Wife acknowledges her sexual refusals were sin and does not “reject” me out right anymore.

    She does come to bed later most times (i go to bed early), and 9/10 times when I initiate she accomodates, but just lays there. She is 51 and I have heard that it is even harder to get them reved up. Not sure if this is accurate, don’t care either.

    Problem: I do not want to initiate if she is just going to lay there…

    If you guys say that it’s ok, keep getting it, then by all means I will. I can see it as a gift, but have thus far seen it as mercy sex.

    She told pastor that she feels dirty when she concedes without feeling loved. I am not here to debate why she is doing that. I think we all know why. I am here to ask if I should just keep initiating and “using” her body as a release?

  201. Spacetraveller says:

    Dave,

    “For the record though, I am as single as single can be. I hope to marry in the coming year, all things being equal.”

    The very best of luck to you! And I hope (and pray for you) that you will (if not already) find the good Christian woman that you hope for, and who you believe still exists, to marry and have a wonderful life together.
    Amen.

  202. Dave says:

    “Given the way that Dave has repeatedly contradicted himself, I am starting to wonder if he is a troll.”

    Troll:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

    I am not a troll, and I don’t think it is fair to characterize me as such. It is OK to disagree with me on matters of faith, and even disprove my assertions, provided you can provide scriptural evidence to back up your views. I am actually open minded and eager to learn from others. It is never smart to silence dissenting opinions. That is exactly what the feminists are doing, and it has left them in a bubble of their own making.

  203. Dave says:

    Spacetraveller says:
    Dave,

    “For the record though, I am as single as single can be. I hope to marry in the coming year, all things being equal.”

    The very best of luck to you! And I hope (and pray for you) that you will (if not already) find the good Christian woman that you hope for, and who you believe still exists, to marry and have a wonderful life together.
    Amen.

    Thank you, Spacetraveller. I appreciate your well prayers and wishes.

  204. Hank Flanders says:

    Dave

    As per my singleness, I don’t know how you arrived at this conclusion, that my stance is inconsistent with being single.

    hah, I think he meant “single person” as in “the same person,” meaning your account is possibly being used by more than one individual.

  205. Hank Flanders says:

    Of course, maybe you were just being funny.

  206. Opus says:

    I have just finished watching the 1965 Hammer Production of H.Rider Haggard’s She (who must be obeyed). Surprisingly I had never previously viewed it. She rules over an obscure and mythical city where all the men (black men) do as they are told (by white men all dressed as Roman soldiers); a matriarchal society and horrible it is too where She happily sends the entire black contingent to their deaths for disobedience. The High Priest however has other ideas as to who should be in charge; meanwhile She has fallen for the prettiest man to grace the screen since Tyrone Power was young and the feeling is mutual, that is until owing to a tragic accident She withers with age to the disgust of the young man. It all goes a bit Countess Dracula/Eliana Makropoulos at that point.

    Earlier today I picked up (as you do) in the second hand book dept at Tesco a novel entitled The Secret Billionaire. The plot according to the back cover is that a woman – a grieving widow, a mother to a small boy is holidaying (as you do) in Acapulco and in the next bungalow or hacienda is a man who is this secret billionaire. He is looking for Miss Right and thinks that the woman with the small boy (not that he knows that or that she is a grieving widow) is just the girl for position of Billionaire’s wife. I laughed as I replaced the volume and then reflected that the story is really not so different from the true story of how Billionaire businessman Richard Branson (whose spaceship crashed last week) himself married a divorcee single-mum and bought her an island in the Caribean named Neckar – and they are still together.

    The Church of England (who have women Priests) have just announced that they are now permitting the installing of women Bishops. Can they really do any worse than their current crop of Male Bishops? It’s a tough challenge but I feel confident that they will.

  207. theasdgamer says:

    @ BradA

    Post pictures of your wife then and now on HotOrNot under two different aliases. You doubtless have wife goggles. I did too.

    Check out Rollo’s graph: https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/smv_curve_peaks.jpg

    I was being generous. Certainly, a trim figure is more appealing and so is a feminine disposition.

  208. theasdgamer says:

    @ Jeff

    She is 51 and I have heard that it is even harder to get them reved up. Not sure if this is accurate, don’t care either.

    Not necessarily accurate. YMMV.

    Problem: I do not want to initiate if she is just going to lay there…

    Do you typically flirt with your wife most of the time and vice-versa? Have you read the Song of Solomon?

    Mrs. Gamer and I flirt with each other all the time and we are older than you all.

  209. Anchorman says:

    Jeff Brown,
    I encourage you to continue for several reasons.

    First, it is Biblical.

    Next, it is important to you to continue sexual relations with your wife and is critical to a healthy marriage.

    Next, biologically, you are providing testosterone which she can absorb. This, in turn, provides hormones she is especially lacking in later years and is important to stave off conditions, such as depression.

    Finally, there are many testimonials of women who practiced the “Just say Yes” to sex method for a year and have done complete 180s to the point at which they began to really enjoy sex again and want it.

    That said, you should still look to develop yourself and strengthen your masculine traits.

    You are very lucky, in a way. Your wife hasn’t quit. That is a huge blessing. Appreciate the blessing, thank God for it, acknowledge her continued dedication to her duty.

    Most of all, pray. Pray for hearts to be open to receive God’s call to full marriage. Pray for both of you to gain strength, wisdom, and the ability to be thankful for having strong spouses.

    There’s more, of course, but it begins with prayer and Scripture.

  210. jeff says:

    Thank you. And yes, for a 51 year old she has a nice figure. Her whole family is blessed with physique… 2 sisters and 2 brothers and all of them look younger, act younger and are fit.

    I will continue and pray. God bless you and keep you.

  211. Dalrock says:

    @Jeff Brown

    …married 20 yrs. both saved within last 15. Wife acknowledges her sexual refusals were sin and does not “reject” me out right anymore.

    Problem: I do not want to initiate if she is just going to lay there…

    If you guys say that it’s ok, keep getting it, then by all means I will. I can see it as a gift, but have thus far seen it as mercy sex.

    She told pastor that she feels dirty when she concedes without feeling loved. I am not here to debate why she is doing that. I think we all know why. I am here to ask if I should just keep initiating and “using” her body as a release?

    I don’t have time to do this justice, but I’ll quickly point out that this is the wrong frame of mind. A husband and wife becoming one flesh is something of profound beauty. Don’t let her or anyone else convince you that it is dirty or you “using her body”. What she means by “feeling loved” is almost certainly about her not feeling desire/romantic love towards you. There is a popular misconception that Romantic love (passion/desire) makes sex moral.  It isn’t true.

    A few posts which might be helpful:

  212. John Nesteutes says:

    Can we avoid lynching Dave as a troll? Trugingstar was likewise exiled, and either she’s very good at running a fake blog, or she is a legitimate person and commenter.

    Many people have never heard of the concept that the Bible teaches against women in leadership before.

  213. Jeff,

    Point is…. married 20 yrs. both saved within last 15. Wife acknowledges her sexual refusals were sin and does not “reject” me out right anymore.

    She does come to bed later most times (i go to bed early), and 9/10 times when I initiate she accomodates, but just lays there. She is 51 and I have heard that it is even harder to get them reved up. Not sure if this is accurate, don’t care either.

    Problem: I do not want to initiate if she is just going to lay there…

    If you guys say that it’s ok, keep getting it, then by all means I will. I can see it as a gift, but have thus far seen it as mercy sex.

    Continue getting it. Every night if possible. Twice a night if possible. You should get it even if she just continues to “lay there.” Because (after a while) two things will happen….

    #1) She will grow to expect this behavior from her husband which will be a fundamental block in rebuilding your marriage to your wife (it will give her her union to you more purpose in her mind if she no longer loves you) and

    #2) She will talk to other women and learn that they are NOT getting sex every night (or twice a night) or maybe, none at all and she will start to develop very new feelings for her husband absent the love you think she might have lost: gratification. She will feel grateful for what she has (because so many other wives don’t have even that.)

    There is only one thing worse for a woman who feels she is forced to have sex with her husband (a man she no longer loves), that of course is getting no sex at all or for her to be put into a position where SHE has to ask for it all the time. If she doesn’t have to initiate (ever) she is going to LIKE that. It makes her feel desired which starts to rebuild feelings of love.

  214. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    That is one of the problems. After taking the redpill, maybe I went overboard. Anyway she thought she was getting a beta when we were dating because of how “nice” I was. The manosphere explained my relationship with my wife from day 1.

    Any way we have argued for what seemed like 20 years. Are all those shit tests? I don’t know. I can say that I’ve read all of the blogs and many others. None of it is clear as of yet… NONE!

    Why? My wife seems to think I am a hero when I agree with her… about everything! If I do exactly what she asks, when, where, and do it the way she wants we have amazing sex. When I disagree with her or what you call shit test, she goes bat shit crazy to the point of throwing things and slamming doors and leaving for a walk. I am the picture of calm and always have been which use to drive her completely insane (when I would sit and talk even toned etc.)

    So how is it that when I concede to her wishes we have great sex, but when I disagree with say which church to attend (she wants A and I want B), she goes ballistic! I mean I am the meanest unloving person she knows. I agree and go cheerfully…. blowjob.

    I still get to go hunting with buddies, go shooting. I go to the movies and resturants I want and she gets to go with me, but things like where we go to church, where my son goes to school, what college my daughter attends can send her through the roof. Listen and agree? blow job…

  215. ballista74 says:

    @jeff A shit test or fitness test isn’t when you disagree with your wife. It’s when she does something unreasonable that puts you in anything other than a dominant frame. You can agree to do things for your wife, but if it puts you in the place of her servant instead of a dominant graciously extending her your help, then it becomes a fitness test. The idea is to not put yourself in a submissive position where you are doing things in an attempt to please her.

    The goal to have is recognizing what is reasonable and dealing with it in an adequate way. Here’s some more reading that should help.

    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2011/09/fitness-testing-fail-to-comply-with-the-request/
    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2011/10/fitness-test-vs-reasonable-request/
    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2010/05/some-common-fitness-tests-and-what-isnt-a-fitness-test/

  216. Exfernal says:

    It looks like an attempt at operant conditioning by positive reinforcement. The proverbial “sex as a carrot”. Funny in its way…

  217. JF says:

    @Jeff Brown:
    Couple of things:
    A) Nouthetic Counseling is great and all, but don’t forget the fact that your pastor doing the counseling is still unequally yoked to the State via his 501c3 and State Incorporated status. Don’t think you’re going off of Caesar’s Reservation that easily or anything. That man who will be counseling you, that man who was hired to receive a regular salary, he has to say only what the State has approved for him to say.
    B) If your wife offers you her body, take it and be gratefulo, no matter how much she just lies there. Take it from a man who’s been married to a frigid “christian” woman who does nothing but withhold her body outright, except when the seasons change every three or four months, if I am lucky. Literally.
    Oh, how I used to long for a woman who would just lie there, instead of being ball-and-chained for so long to the equivalent of what that Spreadsheet Guy had to deal with. Straight up refusals and put offs.
    Jiminy Xmas, had my wife just lain there and did the robot act, I seriously think I would have been overjoyed compared to what I was getting.

  218. Gunner Q says:

    Elspeth @ November 18, 2014 at 4:33 pm:
    “I understood that he was referring to David. I’s simply never heard anyone refer to David as a sociopath.”

    David’s first public act was killing Goliath in a duel… bringing a gun to a knife fight.

    In 1 Sam. 18, he was reluctant to marry into Saul’s family until Saul set a bride-price of one hundred counts of premeditated murder. David then committed TWO hundred counts of premeditated murder.

    When Saul chased David off, he didn’t go back to sheep. He founded a gang of outlaws who ran a protection racket. When the wealthy Nabal refused to pay up in 1 Sam. 25, David swore to murder every male in Nabal’s house. Nabal’s wife Abigail quickly paid up in his name, begging David to not cause unnecessary bloodshed (v. 31). When God killed Nabal anyway, David celebrated his death and took his wife (v. 39-40).

    After that, David leaves Israel to become a full mercenary in Philistine land, endearing himself to Achish while murdering Achish’s people. 1 Sam. 27 records David’s habit of killing every man and women taken in his raids so none of them could inform Achish, who believed David’s lies.

    Later on, in 1 Sam. 29, David marches to war with Achish AGAINST ISRAEL. In v. 8, David begs for the chance to kill his own countrymen.

    In 2 Sam. 3, David has Michal taken from her husband Paltiel by force. This makes Bathsheba the second time he took an innocent man’s wife. Paltiel has the good sense to let her go after a warning.

    In 2 Sam. 12, God sends the prophet Nathan to David to EXPLAIN why killing Uriah was bad.

    And in 1 Chronicles 22:8, God refuses to let David build his Temple because of all the blood David had shed.

    That doesn’t include David’s endless military campaigns, tendency to kill messengers of bad news or imprecatory psalms. (Some of the psalms David wrote beseeching cruelty from God are quite remarkable.)

    That sounds like textbook sociopathy to me. Imagine what the modern Church would look like if we all followed King David’s example: building our reputations by killing, paying the bills by killing and securing our own little kingdoms by killing until God doesn’t want our fingerprints on His house.

    There’s your Christian alternative to 50 Shades of Grey: King David, Corpse Factory.

  219. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anne

    The fact that the christians tries to be relevant to culture by conforming to its norms even as they try to make Movies Kosher.

  220. Don Quixote says:

    Gunner Q says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    In 2 Sam. 3, David has Michal taken from her husband Paltiel by force. This makes Bathsheba the second time he took an innocent man’s wife. Paltiel has the good sense to let her go after a warning.

    Hi Gunner, just for the record…
    Michal was always David’s wife. They never divorced. And her marriage to Paltiel was a sham from the outset, another invention of Saul’s madness. David’s marriage to Bathsheba wasn’t adultery because David murdered her husband.

  221. Anne says:

    @Gunner Q,@Don Quixote
    1) While true that marrying Bathsheba after murdering her husband was not adultery, the previous sex that caused him to want to do it was. Furthermore, Gunner Q didn’t say the word adultery, he said taking an innocent man’s wife, and in the case of Bathsheba he did just that. Other than that, I agree with Don Quixote.

    2) Much of the killing Gunner Q mentioned was of Philistines, with whom they were at war. It is not murder to kill an enemy during a war. Achish’s nobles were however right not to trust David to come with them in the war, he probably would have betrayed them during the battle. This however does not make David a murderer, it makes him a double agent or something similar. The narrative clearly shows that David’s loyalty never changed, and that he was always on Israel’s side even when he feigned loyalty to the Philistines.

    3) Nabal’s servants did not think what David was doing was wrong. They said it was Nabal who was being unreasonable.

    Furthermore, the Bible clearly says in 1 Kings 15:5

    Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

    so I would hesitate to condemn him in these other matters, especially in such stark terms as you are using.

  222. JDG says:

    Dave – As far as my faith is concerned, I don’t hold on to any belief system unless I can see it in the Scriptures. Granted that my understanding–like that of every other Christian–is limited (1 Corinthians 13:9), I still try to stay true to what I know—or think I know. There is nothing inconsistent in this. For every view, I try to find supporting evidence in scripture.

    Here is a link to a book that refutes (using the Bible) most, if not all, feminist / egalitarian claims of interchangeable male / female roles:

    http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Male-Female%20Roles/evangelical_feminism.pdf

  223. Gunner-Q, that was a lucid, intelligent, and yet maddening account of King David. Yes, he was sociopath wasn’t he?

  224. theasdgamer says:

    JDG, thanks for that reference.

  225. Gunner Q says:

    “Michal was always David’s wife. They never divorced.”

    They never married. David paid the bride-price but, when it came time to marry her off, he was out of Saul’s favor. I suppose, technically, Saul owed David a refund.

    One possible explanation for God being okay with this blatant adultery is because Michal was David’s hereditary/sexual claim to the throne of Israel. Some of the ugliest bits of human history involve power, wealth and loyalty being transferred by royal bedroom behavior. This was God’s invention so I can’t say it’s wrong but makes me appreciate American meritocracy.

    “It is not murder to kill an enemy during a war.”

    It is murder to kill an enemy for personal gain, which is what David did. Humans are made in the image of God; even the worst of us cannot be hunted like a game animal. Things were different back then, yes, but that’s part of why David is a bad role model.

    “Furthermore, the Bible clearly says in 1 Kings 15:5… so I would hesitate to condemn him in these other matters, especially in such stark terms as you are using.”

    Since we’re talking movies, you know who King David reminds me of? Rambo. God wanted a killer to soak the earth with Philistine blood. David was a man after God’s own heart so he let God turn him into one of history’s most remarkable killers. Then the colonel, er, God no longer had a war to fight but his pet monster couldn’t go back to being human.

    You can see this process in David’s life. Formal Goliath duel -> military leader -> outlaw leader -> treacherous outlaw leader -> highly political civil war against Saul’s house -> warlord of Israel -> Bathsheba incident when he tried not waging war -> God no longer eager to have his pet killer around -> David is killing people even on his deathbed (1 Kings 2:8-9).

    Sad story.

  226. JDG says:

    theasdgamer – Glad I could help. If only more Christians knew what kind of fluff we’ve been sold.

  227. Imagine what the modern Church would look like if we all followed King David’s example: building our reputations by killing, paying the bills by killing and securing our own little kingdoms by killing until God doesn’t want our fingerprints on His house.

    We wouldn’t have feminism, we wouldn’t have rebellious women and we wouldn’t have an issue with Islam or atheism…

  228. Of course, those are the pros, the cons are that you will probably lose your soul, your sanity and everything else, which is why I think God chooses very specific people for the kind of task David was chosen for..

  229. Don Quixote says:

    Gunner Q says:
    November 20, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    They never married. David paid the bride-price but, when it came time to marry her off, he was out of Saul’s favor. I suppose, technically, Saul owed David a refund.

    One possible explanation for God being okay with this blatant adultery is because Michal was David’s hereditary/sexual claim to the throne of Israel. Some of the ugliest bits of human history involve power, wealth and loyalty being transferred by royal bedroom behavior. This was God’s invention so I can’t say it’s wrong but makes me appreciate American meritocracy.

    </blockquote.

    Dear Gunner, please consider the text in 1Sam19:11
    David and Michal were living together and the scripture calls her “David’s wife. That ticks the boxes as far as I’m concerned.
    What makes you think they never married?

  230. fh,

    which is why I think God chooses very specific people for the kind of task David was chosen for…

    God did not choose David (or anyone ever) to kill anyone for anything. David simply did that of his own free will. God was a spectator there.

    God does not mess with Free Will. If he did, the first thing he would have done was stop Eve from walking over to that tree.

  231. Explain prophets IBB.. Of course God chooses specific people for tasks, that doesn’t mean they still can’t do things that God doesn’t approve of. My meaning, however, was that most normal humans wouldn’t be able to do what David did. God specifically calls on people in the Bible to kill other people. Do you really want to debate that?

  232. SirHamster says:

    @ GunnerQ

    I hope that list is tongue in cheek, because it requires ignoring so many of the Biblical details. First off, sociopath is defined as “a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.”

    1 and 2. Killing Goliath and Collecting 200 Phillistine foreskins – Killing enemy soldiers is not murder, nor is it sociopathic. Protecting one’s own society by fighting its enemies is not sociopathic.
    3. Wanting to kill Nabal – You ignore the servant’s own testimony regarding David, “these men were very good to us. … Night and day they were a wall around us the whole time we were herding our sheep near them”. He gave them actual protection, and was insulted for it by their master. David also DOES NOT KILL Nabal after being persuaded by Abigail. Does a sociopath listen to reason?
    4. Working for Achish – Raiding/fighting was part of life in those places. David did lie to Achish to protect himself, but he was consistently acting for his own people. You can call it morally wrong, but it’s not sociopathic.
    5. Wanting to fight against his own people. Look at what David said: ” Why can’t I go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?” It’s ambiguous in the statement who he considers his lord the king – in the context of his life history – it’s probably Saul and/or God. He didn’t actually want to fight against his own people, and he did not fight against his own people.
    6. Taking back Michal – David’s wife (daughter of previous king, with all the implications of succession) was given to another man. Considering he was king of Israel at that time, it’d be pretty reasonable for him to kill the other man to tie up loose ends. He did not. Not sociopathic – but merciful.
    7. Nathan calling him out. Yes, David sinned. Getting accountability from an external party is not sociopathic, though. He also acknowledged his sin right away, rather than stubbornly denying it and killing the “messenger of bad news”.
    8. Couldn’t build temple. Shedding blood is violent, but not necessarily sociopathic.
    9. Military Campaigns – lump it in with 1&2. Protecting your own society against hostile neighbors is not sociopathic.
    10. “tendency to kill messengers of bad news” – I have never heard of this in my study of the Bible. Please provide references.
    11. Imprecatory psalms – please explain why asking God to punish wickedness demonstrates a lack of conscience or antisocial attitude.

    So to sum it up, out of all of your examples, the one charge that kinda sort of sticks is killing Uriah. That can be called a sociopathic act – but as far as his life goes, David is not fairly described as a sociopath.

    Should I call you a lifelong liar for a single post completely filled with factual errors?

  233. Gunner Q says:

    “What makes you think they never married?”

    I was thinking of 1 Samuel 25:44 but on re-reading it, it seems the marriage was formalized prior to Paltiel after all. Okay, Don Quixote caught me on that. My impression had been that they were basically fiancees. Jewish marriage customs had many steps between engagement and consummation, or so I’ve been told.

    IBB, Samson would be a good example of what FH is talking about. God decreed he was to be a Nazirite from birth. His free-willed disobedience didn’t stop God from making use of him.

    “God does not mess with Free Will. If he did, the first thing he would have done was stop Eve from walking over to that tree.”

    There’s do-as-you-wish free will and course-of-human-history God’s will. When those are in conflict, God overrides the human. He did it explicitly with Pharaoh during the plagues and there are relevant Proverbs. The Fall is an excellent example of this but I’m already clogging Dalrock’s bandwidth. Work slows down when the holidays come, sigh.

  234. fh,

    Explain prophets IBB.. Of course God chooses specific people for tasks, that doesn’t mean they still can’t do things that God doesn’t approve of. My meaning, however, was that most normal humans wouldn’t be able to do what David did. God specifically calls on people in the Bible to kill other people. Do you really want to debate that?

    I don’t want to debate that God has called others to kill. He demanded that Abraham (a prophet) kill his own young son Issac. What I would debate is that God forced man to kill anyone. I would say that has never happened. Ultimately, prophet Abraham had to decide for himself if he was willing to kill his own son. God only watched Abraham do whatever he was going to do. Abraham had free will. Prophet Abraham was still free to disobey God. Do you really want to debate that?

    Prophet Moses’ task was to deliver God’s people from slavery in Egypt. Prophet Moses killed to save Joshua’s life. That doesn’t mean that God approved of that behvior. It was years later when God spoke directly to Moses telling him directly THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

    You are right that God has specific tasks for people in the Bible. He actually has tasks for all of us (and most of us spend our whole life either trying to figure out what that task is OR we figure out what it is and we go way out of our way to rebel against Him.) But in the end, we all have exactly as much free will to disobey Him as Adam and Eve had. God lays it all out fh, but we play it out….

  235. GunnerQ,

    There’s do-as-you-wish free will and course-of-human-history God’s will. When those are in conflict, God overrides the human. He did it explicitly with Pharaoh during the plagues and there are relevant Proverbs. The Fall is an excellent example of this

    No. “The Fall” is a perfect example of free will. God just punished women with pain in childbirth and men with a life of hard labor as a result OF that free will. That was our doing (well actually Eve’s doing), not God.

    An example of God’s Will is the flood. That was all God being angry at what He built and wanting to fix that. And even then, that was still partially our doing because God was angry with His children for using their free will to live lives that disgusted God. He was “done” with almost all of His children (for what they were doing) and it was up to Noah and his 3 sons and their wives to carry on.

    With Pharaoh, the plagues were signs that He gave Pharaoh telling him that he better listen to Moses and let His people go. But ultimately, it was Pharaoh (not God) that freed God’s people, just not in time enough to save his own son’s life. Pharaoh let the Jews go, not God.

    but I’m already clogging Dalrock’s bandwidth. Work slows down when the holidays come, sigh.

    I don’t think Dalrock will hold any of this against you.

  236. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock, there’s an unusually aware article published at The Federalist I think you should read:

    “We Can Either Have Sex Like Animals Or Like Humans”, D.C. McAllister
    http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/19/we-can-either-have-sex-like-animals-or-like-humans/

    I left a (longish) comment – it was informed somewhat by my reading and participation on your blog.

  237. Gunner Q says:

    “1 and 2. Killing Goliath and Collecting 200 Phillistine foreskins. Protecting one’s own society by fighting its enemies is not sociopathic.”

    There are soldiers, mercenaries, vigilantes and trophy hunters. David was the latter when he killed (and scalped) to buy himself power and a hot chick. Because Saul was trying to get David killed, I doubt he did it as part of his normal military duties. And why, if he did not enjoy the killing, did he kill twice as much as needed?

    3. “He gave them actual protection…” Yes, protection rackets defend their turf; however, David clearly hadn’t been hired by Nabal. “David also DOES NOT KILL Nabal after being persuaded by Abigail. Does a sociopath listen to reason?” David swore to kill every male heir of Nabal, too, and held back after being PAID by Abigail.

    “4. Working for Achish – Raiding/fighting was part of life in those places. David did lie to Achish to protect himself, but he was consistently acting for his own people. You can call it morally wrong, but it’s not sociopathic.”

    Living a lie and hurting someone you pretend is your ally are classic sociopathy indicators.

    5. Wanting to fight against his own people. Look at what David said: ” Why can’t I go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?” It’s ambiguous in the statement who he considers his lord the king – in the context of his life history – it’s probably Saul and/or God. He didn’t actually want to fight against his own people, and he did not fight against his own people.”

    There’s no ambiguity. David was talking to Achish, who was king of the land David was living in and leader of that military formation, about Achish not allowing him to go and fight Achish’s current target: Israel.

    “7. Nathan calling him out. Yes, David sinned.”
    Except Nathan first told a story then called David out by comparing him to it. Why not simply state “God knows you killed Uriah”? That plus the fact that killing Uriah was lengthy and public, as murders go, strongly suggests that David did not understand that killing Uriah was wrong.

    “8. Couldn’t build temple. Shedding blood is violent, but not necessarily sociopathic.”
    Jesus had no trouble associating with Roman Centurions. God strongly approved of Phineas’ and Samson’s killings. Why would God single out one of his top favorites for such specific, negative treatment except that David was so drenched in blood that he could no longer stop?

    “10. “tendency to kill messengers of bad news” – I have never heard of this in my study of the Bible. Please provide references.”
    2 Samuel 1:1-15, 2 Samuel 4 (particularly v. 10).

    “11. Imprecatory psalms – please explain why asking God to punish wickedness demonstrates a lack of conscience or antisocial attitude.”

    I can pick out a couple good ones if you want but basically, there’s a difference between wanting evildoers punished and giving God helpful advice on exactly how He should do it. We aren’t supposed to take pleasure in the death of the wicked; David set his pleasure in their death to music. This isn’t proof of sociopathy by itself but, taken together with David’s amazingly violent life, it’s hard to claim David was not an exceptionally eager butcher of human life.

  238. RandyJJ says:

    II Samuel 1:1-15, II Samuel 4 (particularly v. 10):
    David ordered the messenger killed not because he was a bringer of bad news, but because this “messenger” had killed God’s anointed leader, Saul (he actually didn’t, but he claimed to have done so, possibly to curry David’s good favor by killing David’s “rival”). Notice how earlier in the Bible, David had two opportunities to kill Saul himself, but declined. Also note chapter 1 verses 14 and 15: And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed? And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
    Cause => effect. You slew the Lord’s anointed? Someone kill this man.

  239. SirHamster says:

    @GunnerQ:
    I’m going to file this under Devil Advocacy from boredom. I do not believe you believe those points.

    1&2: When soldiers kill more of the enemy, they’re labeled heros, not sociopaths. As for enjoying killing, men enjoy violence and winning. It’s not unique to sociopaths.

    3: You didn’t answer the question. Whether hired or not, Nabal enjoyed the benefit of David’s protection. He wasn’t even thankful, but explicitly insulted David for the favor. Revenge for insults is par for an honor/shame culture. If David was running a racket, he wouldn’t wait for the insult before using force.

    4. The people he was raiding weren’t Achish’s people. Achish probably benefited from the spoils. The main thing is that the lie protected David and his actions did not harm Israelites.

    5. Ambiguity is there whether or not you acknowledge it. He doesn’t name Achish as the king he is serving, and David never raised his hand against Saul when he had the chance.

    7. Or Nathan was going for dramatic effect of having David condemn his own actions.

    8. None of the people you listed had a hand in building the temple. David was described as a man after God’s own heart – and you want to say that he has less favor than them?

    10. Those men were bringing him good news – political competition for the throne of Israel had died. His execution of those messengers was based on the morality of their actions, not anger. I wondered if you were going to misrepresent those events, and you did.

    11. You got nothing, in other words.

  240. rawr says:

    i met a fantastic christian girl not long ago. she doesn’t really go to church often and says she disagrees with the way a lot of the members of church behave themselves and how they don’t follow most of the doctrine anyway being hypocrites. she tbh behaves like a true christian in my book, she’s gentle and submissive, obedient, lives to please others, always wanted to be a wife and mother despite her own mother expressing disdain at her not wanting to be more independent and her father pushing her to basically be more manly because while being masculine he’s blue pill. she was 19 when i met her, at least a solid 6 or 7 on looks which can get better once i start training her a bit, her parents didn’t teach her good eating habits so she’s got a little pouch action up front, just a bit. doesn’t equate self esteem with a job in fact she’s scared of the workplace because other women are aggressive harpies, and also believes that she should give everything she has to the man she will belong to who marries her someday, and finds modern promiscuity disgusting. i can see a little hamster in her but she’s as close as i can see to a real unicorn, and the fact that she’s unspoiled and eager to be under a man’s authority(probably craves it cuz of not ideal parents), i can train her to be a good wife all she has to do is obey.

    i think the best kind of woman is the kind who is less susceptable to mainstream crap and who can form her own opinions to at least some degree. modern women are shit because they are all part of the herd, find the ones who didn’t always fit in with the crowd and who didn’t look for validation from alpha cock. it’s actually mystical how she’s both a pleaser yet also has boundaries, like game does help with her yet whenever i escalate a bit she has boundaries up and honestly i actually respect her enough to not push them hard or just walk. there’s a very little chance that she’s been on any sort of carousel but if i did find that out i would walk at that point. either way the point is the best religious people i’ve ever met weren’t standard church goers. the thing is more people in the world are average, as a red pill man, you have the foundation to be a top quality man. average women are not good enough for you, so no matter where you go most women will not be good enough whether it’s a club or a church or whatever, that’s just how it is. i hope my oneitis doesn’t get bad cuz really it’s very hard to find a woman who isn’t a porker and who isn’t a slut with quality traits in a single woman. as much as i’d like a virgin scarlett johanson i’d settle for a good 7 or 8 who is worthy to be mother to my children and who actually earns my provision. really all i can say is keep your filter strong during the search, and don’t equate pursuing her when she pulls back as a sign of neediness. she pulled away from me at one point and me pursuing her in a grounded manner she basically responded by telling me that while she’s had other guys into her i’m the only one who she was interested in who actually took that extra step instead of nexting her like some pua, and i did it in a way that showed that while i had options i didn’t see her as just a walking vagina.

  241. Tam the Bam says:

    David=bronze age tribal war-chief. Psycho is part of the job description, else he’d have been nowhere. Sacked (in favour of a crazier relative). Down the road with his jotters in his (remaining) hand.
    Can you honestly say he was worse that say Menelaus, Ramses, Hector, Achilles (ask da GBFM) or any number of truly hideous Assyrian beast-kings? No Cuchulainn, for certain. Limp-wristed appeaser and politician, by the standards of the time.

    Anyway that old girl in the trailer is hot as far as I’m concerned. Could be Abbie Smith’s twin sis.

  242. Gunner Q says:

    “Whether hired or not, Nabal enjoyed the benefit of David’s protection.”
    You don’t understand what a protection racket is.

    “The people he was raiding weren’t Achish’s people.”
    Then why did David lie to Achish about his raids and kill women to keep his raids secret? Where else in the Bible does God sanction lying and deceit?

    “His execution of those messengers was based on the morality of their actions, not anger.”
    I thought so too for a long time. It doesn’t hold up when you look closer.

    The Amalekite killed a dying man when the dying man asked him to–not murder and it barely qualified as killing, as the Bible also says Saul committed suicide. So why should the Amalekite have known “not raise a hand against the Lord’s Anointed”? David’s own men saw no reason not to (when Saul wandered into David’s cave, for example). David’s accusation makes no sense.

    Saul and David were mortal enemies, at least in Saul’s mind, and his manhunts for David were public enough to make regional gossip. That would be how the Amalekite knew David was the guy to tell in the first place. The Amalekite brought David news of Saul’s confirmed death and Saul’s crown, probably hoping for a small reward for saving David some effort. Instead, David blamed him for Saul’s death and killed him on the spot. Why? To ensure that nobody would blame DAVID for killing Saul, and perhaps to whitewash Saul’s death. Suicide was embarrassing; killed in “combat” sounded much better. That’s the Occam’s Razor explanation. (Not that David had actually killed Saul, but having a scapegoat was good political insurance.)

    Now the second case. David was fighting a full civil war against the House of Saul (2 Samuel 3:1). Ish-Bosheth, leader of the House of Saul, was therefore David’s top enemy. Rekab and Baanah killed Ish-Bosheth and told David the war could be over (2 Samuel 4:8). David immediately blamed them for killing an “innocent man”, which Ish-Bosheth definitely wasn’t in the eyes of God and David, and then executed them immediately. Again, why?

    Rekab and Baanah unintentionally gave David an excellent political opportunity. If David accepted their offer and stopped attacking the House of Saul then the remnants of Saul would have blamed David for Ish-Bosheth’s killing and the civil war in Israel would probably have continued. Also, Rakab and Baanah were leaders of raiding bands… questionable allies and possibly even David’s competitors from his own outlaw days. By accusing R&B of murder, Ish-Bosheth’s followers would have a third party to blame instead of David, taking some heat out of the civil war and dividing the House of Saul against itself.

    Both were smart political moves. Both were false accusations and cold-hearted killings. Don’t just listen to David’s words… we know from his Achish days that David was an accomplished liar.

  243. SirHamster says:

    You don’t understand what a protection racket is.
    You’re ignoring Nabal’s insult, and that God avenges David. So David appears to have a God sanctioned case for vengeance against Nabal.

    Then why did David lie to Achish about his raids and kill women to keep his raids secret? Where else in the Bible does God sanction lying and deceit?
    So that he seems like he’s killed his own kin and burned all bridges, assuring his loyalty to Achish. It’s spelled out in the context – how do you keep missing this?

    As for sanction, God does not command us to lie, but there have certainly been cases where lies have not been punished. Rahab was saved from her city’s destruction for protecting the Israelite spies, which she did through lies. You can judge this wrong – but it’s not evidence of sociopathy.

    What should the Christian make of this? We follow a God of Truth, whereas Satan is the father of lies. We have no need to lie, and lies do not glorify God. So let us imitate God, and not the liars of the Bible.

    The Amalekite killed a dying man when the dying man asked him to–not murder and it barely qualified as killing, as the Bible also says Saul committed suicide. So why should the Amalekite have known “not raise a hand against the Lord’s Anointed”? David’s own men saw no reason not to (when Saul wandered into David’s cave, for example). David’s accusation makes no sense.
    You’re so eager to label David, a man after God’s heart, a murderer, but will make any excuse for any other figure. This is ridiculous.

    The Amalekite was lying, because Saul did indeed commit suicide by falling on his own sword. (1 Samuel 31:4) On the flip side, David had such respect for the office of King of Israel as the Lord’s anointed that he slew the man according to his own testimony. You may consider this to be an error in judgement, but it is not sociopathic – it was based on a desire to honor God in all aspects, even when persecuted as an enemy of God’s appointed king.

    David immediately blamed them for killing an “innocent man”, which Ish-Bosheth definitely wasn’t in the eyes of God and David, and then executed them immediately. Again, why?
    Because David was not a sociopath, and did not reward traitorous actions, even if they happened to benefit himself.

    Both were smart political moves. Both were false accusations and cold-hearted killings.
    Agreed that they were smart political moves. They were also the moral choices and demonstrated David’s sense of morality. Again, not sociopathic.

    They were not false accusations. The Amalekite perhaps did not really deserve to be killed – but his death was appropriate to his claimed actions. The two raiders who murdered their master (hired mercenaries, not a random 3rd party) were dishonest traitors. The executions were an attempt at justice – which a sociopath would not be interested in pursuing. You continuously misrepresent the facts and destroy your own “David is a sociopath” thesis.

    I tire of answering your incoherent accusations. In one answer, you will appeal to God’s judgement to accuse David, while ignoring God’s judgement in another situation to also accuse David. It is dishonest – and I hope that you do not actually believe what you write.

  244. Gunner Q says:

    I do believe what I write but agree this debate is winding down.

  245. SirHamster says:

    Then that’s a pity. You’ll note that God punishes many of Israel’s later kings for being wicked – if David is a sociopath, God was overall approving of his life, meaning we should be imitating that “sociopathy” if we seek God’s approval.

  246. Gunner Q says:

    …Or not. Look, it didn’t matter to God that David was a sociopath. He loved David despite his flaws, not because he had no flaws. Most of God’s favorite men were deeply flawed or outright rebellious in their own ways, from the drunkenness of Noah to the idolatry of Gideon to the carelessness of Jephthah to the pogroms of Saul of Tarsus to Peter’s recklessness. There are important lessons here: the worst of us can still please God; the best of us is still fatally flawed.

    Why am I being insistent on David being a cruel, conscienceless man? Because the Churchians actually believe “…David is a sociopath, God was overall approving of his life, meaning we should be imitating that “sociopathy” if we seek God’s approval”! The story of David is incredibly popular with modern women. Churchian pastors love to teach about how great David was. And the Church is failing. That’s no coincidence.

    When trying to date, I kept encountering Christian girls “looking for their King David”. In hindsight, they were justifying their thirst for Dark Triad men. Even Alpha-thug domestic violence could be excused by their women drawing parallels with King David.

    The leaders of our Church continually highlight King David’s life and character as something women should look for in men… and by doing so, they lower the status of we Steady Eddies who work hard, serve Christ and keep civilization running. This is part of why pastors and missionaries get mobbed by women while the ordinary guys in the pews are neglected… because they look like Kings and Generals while we don’t.

    I daresay one reason women have begun converting to Islam is because they expected Christian warlord harems to join. They’re raised on King David crushing his enemies (and “rescuing” women from boring husbands!) then try to date Joe Sixpack with an office job. Muslims still believe in the “lie to your enemies as you kill them off, God loves you if you win” paradigm so it’s easy to rationalize the decision.

    The Church’s women use David to justify lusting for Dark Triad. The Church’s leaders use David to emphasize their social status. And unless this false teaching is confronted, I fear ordinary, desperate men will soon use David to justify a lifestyle of gang/racial warfare.

    I doubt God will be pleased. Even in David’s time, God built His house by Solomon’s wisdom, not David’s conquests.

  247. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Rawr,

    Thank you for the stoy about the girl you met. I like hearing stories like this (especially of young women) because that gives me hope that all is not lost.
    I really hope that she is indeed a good, christian girl, and that she is also a virgin. All the evidence I have (anecdotal, scientific, social, etc.) tells me that virgins do make the best wives, and are preferable to those women who have given their virtues away to other men. I know there are exceptions, sure, but I am talking generally.

    I also like what you say about being able to ‘train’ her as your wife. This is true! Go for it!
    It is a very manly attititude to have, and I can vouch for the fact that a woman who actually loves you back will respond favourably to this.
    I was always a ‘Red Pill’ type of girl myself, but I have to say that my husband’s manly role in my life has ‘moulded’ me into a better woman, in my humble opinion. His influence has helped me to become more of a useful wife to him, in the sense that he ‘trained’ me to be *his* wife, by taking me in the direction *he* wanted to go in our life together. I have always loved his leadership and I enjoy it immensely, always have, even before we were married.
    A woman needs to start the process herself, yes, absolutely. I already knew the right way to behave before I met my husband, for example.
    But it sure helps when a man like you takes things further with her, as my husband did with me.

    So I wish you all the best with this girl, and wish that with her good feminine traits and your obvious masculinity, it all works out beautifully and she does become your wife and mother to your children.
    This is something I like to see/hear more of in the Manosphere.

    Thank you for making my day!

  248. SirHamster says:

    Why am I being insistent on David being a cruel, conscienceless man? Because the Churchians actually believe “…David is a sociopath, God was overall approving of his life, meaning we should be imitating that “sociopathy” if we seek God’s approval”!

    I used quotes for sociopath because half of the things you say indicate David’s sociopathy are no such thing. I don’t believe that he’s a sociopath at all, nor do I believe that we need to be sociopaths to please God. I find it highly disturbing that you are unjustly accusing a man “after God’s own heart” of being a sociopath. It indicates to me that you prioritize not being a “sociopath” over what God desires from a man, as if there could be a higher calling or moral standard.

    Unfortunately, it seems your concept of sociopath includes actions such as doing justice (executing traitorous mercenaries) or righteously honoring God (fighting Goliath). Even if other people are doing wrong based on their understanding of the life of David, that does not justify slandering David because you don’t like what those other people do. You have a clear bias against David, and the appeal to the sins of the modern church is irrelevant.

    If you want to argue that David was a very sinful man – I would agree with you. But “sociopath” is right out.

    I doubt God will be pleased. Even in David’s time, God built His house by Solomon’s wisdom, not David’s conquests.

    God granted the honor of building a temple to Solomon. But Solomon enjoyed the peace that David won. As for Solomon’s wisdom, God granted it to him after he asked for it. Solomon deserves no credit for having wisdom – the only credit he should get is for recognizing God as the source of wisdom. And where would Solomon learn that regard for God but from his father, David?

  249. Gunner Q says:

    “If you want to argue that David was a very sinful man – I would agree with you. But “sociopath” is right out. ”

    I think we’re only butting heads over the definition of sociopath. Sociopathy isn’t necessarily evil, no more so than a pyromaniac becoming a firefighter. There was a pyromaniac arson investigator in Los Angeles about 20 years ago who stopped controlling himself. He repeatedly got away with arson because he was the investigator of his own fires. It was a scandal when he was finally discovered.

    David was like that… a driven killer who found himself in the relevant, Godly role of soldier but didn’t control himself. Like an addiction, he began lying and breaking laws to shed more blood, first of the people God didn’t care about and then of the people He did.

    “You have a clear bias against David, and the appeal to the sins of the modern church is irrelevant.”

    From your 11/21 post, I thought we were having a secondary discussion about implications. My main argument is incidental to current events. To the extent that I have a bias against David, it’s only in God giving his treachery and bloodshed so many passes that untangling the mess became a burdensome chore.

    God gives each of us Christians many free passes on the evil we do. That doesn’t make the evil respectable.

  250. SirHamster says:

    I think we’re only butting heads over the definition of sociopath.

    Not quite. You’re not willing to define it precisely, but you seem quite willing to use contradicting methods to support using the label on David. It’s not a neutral word. (THAT guy is a sociopath – that’s shameful, don’t be like him.)

    Your motivation? You think the current conception of David leads to women not caring about guys like us. That doesn’t make what you accuse David of true. Does saying true things not matter to you?

    David was like that… a driven killer who found himself in the relevant, Godly role of soldier but didn’t control himself. Like an addiction, he began lying and breaking laws to shed more blood, first of the people God didn’t care about and then of the people He did.

    You’re extrapolating a lot from the actual Biblical evidence. Your earlier list didn’t hold up to scrutiny, and I see you’re not trying to back up this summary either.

    To the extent that I have a bias against David, it’s only in God giving his treachery and bloodshed so many passes that untangling the mess became a burdensome chore.

    Holier than God, and it’s his fault that you’re biased against the facts? I’ve said my piece, and I don’t think there’s anything more that I can add to this discussion. May you reconsider your position – and start by seeking God’s heart, not the heart of females.

  251. KP says:

    Jeff, from the other thread:

    take her and pin her down…

    Context, presentation, and attitude are what matter here. If you do it in grim-and-determined fashion, of course it’s going to be awful for her.

    But (assuming it’s ok to quote CH around here?) the recent post on CH about playfulness comes into play.

    If I may share a bit of personal history…

    For our honeymoon, my wife and I stayed at a hotel/resort that had a swimming pool. She, a fabulous and dedicated swimmer, grew up in an era when women’s sports were minimal, and swimming wasn’t one of them. So one day, two or three days into our time there, she suggested we go for a swim in the afternoon.

    Which was fine by me, but as I stood there watching her change into her suit, I couldn’t resist a bit of grabbing and so forth, and despite her protestations that she really wanted to swim… pretty soon it was too make it to the pool and still keep our dinner reservations.

    But here’s the point: 37-and-some-years counting, she still brings that up from time to time, and over the years has mentioned it way WAY more than our wedding night. Relaxed playfulness really counts.

  252. jeff says:

    KP,

    Thanks. Yes that makes sense. I was alpha turn beta oneitis with gf/fiance/now wife… to blue pill so much that I felt bad for not being blue pill enough.

    I am coming back a little bit at a time. Groped in a fun way yesterday and had her grinning. This morning she said she got her exercise in last night!

    I would hate to be called the minute man, but in reality men can orgasm quick, and that was kind of what I was asking. A little foreplay, then 3-5 minutes DONE. Now sometimes I like to go long, but usually I am just starving and want to stuff myself, other times nibble for long periods… No what I mean? So should I care and just do what I want that night?

  253. KP says:

    Anchorman,
    say what? I know four of Catholic men with religious intellectual depth…
    Indeed. I have just one URL to add in agreement: http://www.firstthings.com

  254. Pingback: Old Fashioned Grace | The Society of Phineas

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