He left out harlots.

Deep Strength pointed out a blog post by NYC Pastor which has feminists (Christian and otherwise) up in arms:  10 Women Christian Men Should Not Marry.  As Deep Strength notes, there is a massive imbalance between the 643 (and counting) comments the post on selecting a wife has generated and the mere 26 comments on a similar post on selecting a husband the author wrote previously.  In fact, the post on selecting a husband received only one comment prior to the publication of the post on selecting a wife, and this one was an objection to headship in marriage:

I agree with most of those statements except for the husbands controlling their wives part. In theory it should work out if the man is godly and good. However, there are men that will take advantage of that statement and use the Bible as a means for covering up abuse, neglect, rape, and whatever else to claim his “dominance”. Better I say, to have the relationship an equal partnership, lest one take advantage of the other.

As is so common, the uproar on both posts is that Christian women are called out.  There is no outrage when you call out Christian men, and in fact doing so will make you wildly popular with Christian men as well as Christian women.  But calling out women, including Christian women, is extremely difficult and will result in an extended emotional outburst.  Making this worse, it feels heroic to call out other men, and it feels cruel to call out women.  Thus, when faced with the choice of doing something which is easy and feels heroic, or something which is very difficult and feels unkind, it isn’t surprising that men will nearly always focus their criticism on other men, and do whatever it takes to turn a blind eye to the sins of women.

However, it is important to remember that this is unkind and unloving to women, and it involves a terrible lapse of leadership by Christian men.

See also: Single mothers and the failure of Christian men; it is time to Man Up!

This entry was posted in Feminists, Feral Females, Finding a Spouse, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

202 Responses to He left out harlots.

  1. Pingback: He left out harlots. | Manosphere.com

  2. Guy Buttersnaps says:

    I love the classic appeal to authority from the chick with the doctorate in theology. Nothing screams churchian feminazi like a doctorate in theology.

  3. Pingback: He left out harlots. | Neoreactive

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    The comments are rather like watching some bad movie from the 70’s about piranha fish – foaming water and flashing fins. It would be even more better if all his responses were from Proverbs. Starting with “It is better for a man to live on a rooftop…” and then moving on to “like a ditch”.

    It is always interesting to watch agnositc and atheist comments on an overtly religious weblog, it’s the “skim until offended, then screech” approach. Well, ok, on an overtly Christian weblog.
    I doubt any of the SJW feminists spend much time screeching at Moslem sites. Can’t imagine why.

  5. JF says:

    National captivity.
    Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
    And under the banner of equality, let these unsubmissive, un-head-covered, un-silent, rebellious evanjezebel females defend themselves when it comes.
    Or else maybe their LJBF personal Jesus will protect them.

  6. tz says:

    He also left out those so young as to be considered statutory rape. Allow the obvious…

  7. Weenis says:

    He forgot “every woman who is not a virgin”

    Not going to pay premium pricing for used goods.

  8. JF says:

    10 Reasons Why Churchian Women are Inferior to Foreign Women of ANY Other Religion.

    Beyond tragic.
    But utterly true.

  9. ar10308 says:

    Can anyone still leave comments? Or did he shut that down?

  10. tz says:

    Also in the 10 men a woman should not… he did not list cowboys, bikers, or other masculine icons.

    For all the noise, the man is to be the head – whether he wants to be or not – and the woman is to help him and respect him in that role – whether she wants to or not. Happiness is not achieved by getting every desire, whim, nor wish fulfilled, no matter how stupid or evil.

    Things can be safe, stable, provide contentment and satisfaction.

    One thing libertarians realize but don’t often clarify is that true freedom involves responsibility, and pain and suffering for mistakes. What feminism says is you can and need to be more free – but that means severing the support. The man is the trunk, the woman the branch. Guess what happens when the branch is sawed off from the trunk. Marriage isn’t “slavery”. The husband is head, not master. But that also means being equal in the sense of complimentary, not identical.

    Wyoming is “The Equality State” and passed Women’s suffrage before the amendment (note it was a “states rights” issue who got the right to vote before). Even today, in the Rodeos there, you don’t see the ladies riding bulls. Or even roping calves. (Oh, the black-knighting…). I point this out because the various fauna that would consider the proper lady as mere lunch, and the other hard work insured a rather different woman would stay. In Powell, there is a Pioneer museum with a pic of a husband and wife, with their two children, and each with a coyote they shot with their rifles.

    There is also a surplus of men in Alaska… As much as some deep chivalrous instinct says not to, and I don’t believe in “Darwinsim” perhaps encouraging women to go somewhere where they could win “The Darwin Awards”, which are all posthumous, would very quickly improve things.

    Another aside, the pastor is pro-fertility, marriage is for children.

  11. tz says:

    @Weenis – good point. To all sides (e.g. atheists who hold evolution, as well as churchians) I note the Hymen can be considered as “Sealed for your protection” for the man. It is still possible to sin and repent, but it is different from a tabla rasa.

  12. Also something we already knew. It’s women who slut shame not men. Status being the main reason it appears.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/29/slut-shaming-study.html

    The link(s) to the study are there but I’m too lazy to pull it out and look at it.

  13. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Weenis

    He forgot “every woman who is not a virgin”

    I injected that into a comment on that thread yesterday. It seemed too important to leave out.

  14. illuvitus says:

    As long as he doesn’t take this post down, I will advise single Christian men to read the article as a theologically and Biblically sound approach on what to avoid in women. I will advise them to read the comments if they have any second thoughts.

  15. Ang says:

    I liked the list of 10…
    Kinda reminded me of all the top ten lists in Cosmo that educated young ladies how to rock their mans world in bed.

    The best comment I can make here… I’m Giving the list to my sons

  16. “It’s women who slut shame not men. ”

    Shocking! To anyone who just arrived on Earth, that is.

  17. Exfernal says:

    @FBNF
    Cut widows some slack.

  18. Striver says:

    @tz

    Libertarianism basically fails with any issues involving children. They are not autonomous agents, they require tending to grow. Of course some libertarians don’t seem to care about future generations at all, the world can burn tomorrow if it means impacting their freedoms today.

    Frivorce and its impact on children matter above anything else. Breakups involving childless couples matter much less. A lot of other things going on are leading to the frivorces.

    I realize you’re not really endorsing libertarianism, but this issue is one of many why I will never be a libertarian.

  19. JF says:

    Other types of women that Christian men should avoid:
    11. The “Equal Partnership” wife
    12. The evanjezebel woman who has ANYthing positive to say about the movie FIREPROOF
    13. Female listeners of Focus on the (Feminist) Family, Inc.
    14. The Churchian Princess
    15. The Church, Inc., social do-gooder who puts community and churchian charity activity ahead of husband and family (see Martha from Scriptures, or see my abandoning wife)
    16. The sexless ice queen (also see my “wife”)

  20. cecilhenry says:

    Great post, both of them.

    Badly needed to be heard in the larger culture. But we live in such a free and open society. Hah!! Just disagree with PC!!!

  21. greyghost says:

    Just go to a surrogacy clinic

  22. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Exfernal

    Cut widows some slack

    I did. I even mentioned widows specifically as being an exception.

  23. MarcusD says:

    Francis noted there were more men than women in the crowd and that it was a little girl who was able to move everyone.

    ‘Women have much to tell us in today’s society. At times we are too “machista” and don’t allow room for women,’ he said, using the Spanish term for male chauvinist. The crowd laughed.
    ‘But women are capable of seeing things with a different angle from us, with a different eye, and pose questions that we men are not able to understand … so when the next pope comes to Manila, let’s please have more women among you,’ he said.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915281/Pope-Francis-addresses-record-breaking-crowd-SIX-MILLION-devotees-Manila-driven-rain-drenched-masses-Popemobile.html

  24. Oscar says:

    I’m not so sure that “he left out harlots”. After all, he did list the divorcee, the feminist, the sexy dresser, the wander luster and the loud mouth. Put two or more of those attributes together and you’re almost guaranteed to find a harlot (of the amateur variety).

  25. Mrs. Thiry says:

    Good heavens, what a great list that pastor created! Apparently there is one non-cowardly pastor left.

    One woman was so enraged by his post that she wrote a response:

    How I Will Never Be a Match for a Good Christian Man

    An example of her reasoning, and I use the word “reasoning” in the loosest possible sense here:

    6. The Loud Mouth

    I am one. Christian Men should stay away from me!!!!

    Well, Christian Men, do you think you can manage to stay away from a prize like her?

    Alas, probably not. She’s fairly attractive and some foolish man will want her for that reason alone and probably pass over a quiet, plain girl for the loud-mouthed hottie.

    But really, it would be nice if more women were honest in disqualifying themselves for marriage like that. It would make it easier for good, marriage-minded men to avoid them and look for women who are truly serious about biblical marriage.

  26. Oscar says:

    tz says:
    January 18, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    “I point this out because the various fauna that would consider the proper lady as mere lunch, and the other hard work insured a rather different woman would stay. In Powell, there is a Pioneer museum with a pic of a husband and wife, with their two children, and each with a coyote they shot with their rifles.”

    As I’ve pointed out before, men long prized strength in a wife, because it was necessary for survival, and resulted in strong children who were also more likely to survive. Prov 31 states that the ideal woman’s “arms are strong for her tasks”. When Abraham’s servant prayed for guidance in choosing Isaac’s wife, the test he chose was a feat of strength (Gen 24).

    It’s only recently, and only in the wealthy West, that people have lost the appreciation of strength in both women and men.

    “Another aside, the pastor is pro-fertility, marriage is for children.”

    He’s pro fecundity, which is closely related, but not the same thing. I assume he’s also pro adoption. He seems to be pro child rearing in general.

  27. greyghost says:

    Oscar
    So it looks like this pastor will approve of a man going to a surrogacy clinic rather reward some unworthy slut (just about any woman). I like it.

  28. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    January 18, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    “So it looks like this pastor will approve of a man going to a surrogacy clinic rather reward some unworthy slut (just about any woman). I like it.”

    I don’t know this pastor’s position on surrogacy, but I’ll state that intentionally depriving a child of a mother is just as evil as intentionally depriving a child of a father.

  29. honeycomb says:

    Oscar ..

    It isn’t evil … she died in child birth .. ;@)

    Frankly I don’t think it wise (re: depriving a child his mother). I just don’t it’s evil.

    As for th wimminz .. choices have outcomes .. be a good lassey and take your lumps like an adult .. or just continue to cry me a river .. like on the NYCPastor’s comments section. WOW was that a great read ;@) .. compare.that to the companion piece for women. America.is.burning and I know where the blame lies.

  30. I don’t ever recall the Bible condemning being childfree. Otherwise, good list.

  31. feeriker says:

    Is the woman having a regular, daily devotional time with her God?

    Oh, yes indeed she is. That “god” is called the Hamster, and it guides her every conscious and unconscious thought and action. As for the God of Abraham to whom she pays lip service (occasionally) … well, He just doesn’t really “do it for” her. She especially doesn’t much care for His idea of what a “godly” woman is.

    As for the comments following the list, it’s obvious that Modern American Woman[TM] doesn’t grasp the concept of irony any more than she grasps cause and effect. The author couldn’t have prayed for better examples of what he was talking about than the ones that these godless harpies so generously and eagerly contributed.

  32. herbie31 says:

    There was a time in the not too distant past when the pastor’s words wouldn’t have sparked so much ignorant vitriol. They were assumed to be consistent with Christian teaching. But now….up is down, left is right, etc. One comment from a female pre-med student caught my attention. She mentioned that med schools are becoming majority female with the understanding that the medical community will eventually follow suit. Now it’s none of my business who decides to go to med school as long as they can handle the academic rigor, but I keep thinking that as fewer male doctors are represented in the medical, we will see a lowering of standards, most importantly in the doctor-patient relationship.

  33. @ herbie31

    One comment from a female pre-med student caught my attention. She mentioned that med schools are becoming majority female with the understanding that the medical community will eventually follow suit. Now it’s none of my business who decides to go to med school as long as they can handle the academic rigor, but I keep thinking that as fewer male doctors are represented in the medical, we will see a lowering of standards, most importantly in the doctor-patient relationship.

    That’s not the biggest problem with women in med school. Most of the specialty/skilled positions such as neurosurgery, orthopedics, and the like are still predominantly male.

    The biggest problem is that some sizable majority of female doctors end up getting married and then only working part time or not at all. Basically, med schools are accepting women to med school only to have them cut hours or not work after 5-10 years to raise their children. This is considered “good” because women [get to have it all], as opposed to having more men fill the gaping shortage in medical personnel across the board in the US.

    In terms of dipping standards, the more worrying issues are (1) Obamacare and (2) shortage of medical personnel forcing more people to work to cover shifts. Increased shifts lead to fatigue which leads to mistakes.

  34. Oscar says:

    honeycomb says:
    January 18, 2015 at 9:29 pm

    “Frankly I don’t think it wise (re: depriving a child his mother). I just don’t it’s evil.”

    How about intentionally depriving a child of his/her father? Is that evil or merely unwise?

  35. Oscar says:

    Chris Dagostino says:
    January 18, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    “I don’t ever recall the Bible condemning being childfree.”

    I don’t recall any Bible verses condemning child-free marriages either. But I do recall that every Bible passage that deals with childless marriages treats the situation as a negative. Am I missing something?

  36. I think the majority of the women screaming at the pastor in his comments section are doing so for one reason, and one reason only: they are scared. He scared them because these women look back on their lives and realize (by their own actions, priorities, or circumstances) that it would be impossible for them to be an acceptable Christian wife. They have been cut down (perhaps for the first time in their lives) by his not so nicey-nice, straight forward evaluation of what women NOT to marry. Nothing brings a chill down a woman’s spine faster than a man looking at her and objectively determining that she is NOT worthy, and then telling her that.

    They are just scared.

  37. herbie31 says:

    Yes, Obamacare and its consequences will be a near-term concern as it pushes some doctors to retire early or just leave the profession because of the cost of complying with some of the new rules and female doctors leaving the profession early to start a family can throw a wrench in the gears if enough do it in a certain timeframe. But I was considering something different and I didn’t complete(or really even start) my thoughts on it. Its just some thoughts I have about a female dominated medical system that I need to think about more before I post.

  38. embracing reality says:

    Chris Dagostino says:

    “I don’t ever recall the Bible condemning being childfree. Otherwise, good list.”

    The bible doesn’t condemn being childfree and there was plenty of opportunity to do so in the book of Leviticus, or more pertinent to our age, the New Testament. It’s not in there. The pastor is probable in league with various other Baptists or Calvinists and their ‘marriage mandate’ along with the “be fruitful and multiply mandate’ because marriage and making make babies suits their most important constituents. Women run the church, fill the church and the pastors wives run most them, one way or another. These pastors and church counselors have legions of overweight and various un-marriageable women crying about the consequences of their bad choices and apparent destiny as spinster cat ladies. The solution for a few years has been trying to make men settle for the exceedingly low quality merchandise available for wives. It’s not been working very well to my knowledge.

  39. herbie31 says:

    Innocentbystander,

    I think you hit the nail firmly on the head. Those were my sentiments as I was reading the replies to the pastor.

  40. MarcusD says:

    @Mrs. Thiry

    “How I Will Never Be a Match for a Good Christian Man”

    What I noticed immediately was the use of strawman arguments. She didn’t actually deal with any of the categories – every response seemed like an emotion-driven response. It’s like she only read the category names without reading the accompanying explanation.

  41. tz says:

    I stand corrected – it is fecundity.

    @Striver – libertarianism is a wide set of beliefs, some do take children into account, however I generally describe myself as believing in The Natural Law – having both freedom and duty. Most won’t want complete off the grid isolation and not even trade. Natural Law asks what does reason say is the right thing – not try to reduce it to something absurd. But it also says if it is the family, tribe, nation, church or state that is competent to rule and take action.

  42. embracing reality says:

    @ IBB

    Yes they are scared. “I think the majority of the women screaming at the pastor in his comments section are doing so for one reason, and one reason only: they are scared.”

    Links to his page must have found there way around the web and women are indignant as usual. I’m noticing this more and more. Moving forward in the next few years I think things are going to get interesting. Young men in increasing numbers are taking red pills and realizing this is damn good medicine. I find it all very delicious. Men are finally starting to wake up and women are taking notice, they’re worried. MRA’s, MGTOW’s are still rather obscure but if you worked in male dominated industries like I have you’ve been hearing red pill truths from men for decades, they just didn’t call it that. The PUA movement has been a social phenomenon. Having studied it casually myself I can tell you marriage is generally considered stupid in that camp. Add it all up and the youngest couple of generations of women might be smelling smoke. Their future fairytales might just be smoldering.

    Comparing the two articles at the pastors website might be a stretch since they probably didn’t get equal circulation but I think we can all agree it’s women in general who are worried about marriage in the future, not men. Men are worried about sex, many secular men and many ‘churchian’ men are already getting that as singles. Devout single Christian men don’t want to marry whores and they’re learning to go without sex in the prime of their lives. Why would they need a wife at 34 or 44? Few in either group wants an obese wife or a sexless one or a nag, manipulator, selfish shrew etc, or to lose everything in a divorce. We’ll see but the tide may start to change soon. The tide of men coming into marriage is definitely slowing, a tide of men walking away might be the only thing that can change the current failure we call marriage (2.0) in the west.

  43. @ Oscar:

    You’re conflating “childless” with “childfree.” The former is an oftentimes unwanted state that is out of the hands of the individuals involved (i.e. Sarah and Abraham), while the latter is a conscious decision.

  44. Fred Flange, inherent viceroy says:

    @embracing reality:

    The SJW mobbing up you see here is why Facebook and Twitter are dying, and why the hip kids rely on Snapchat and Kick to share things through photos, tags and Snapchat Stories.
    Why? Because they are ephemeral – gone in 24 hours – and as private as you want to them to be. No way to get SJW flamed like you can with a Tweet or status update, which can be tagged and retweeted, and which can go round the world in hours,living on even if you pull them down, getting you fired, your data doxxed, you banned by a self-appointed Twitter tribunal, and threats to your family and clients far more hateful than whatever un-PC thing you unfortunately typed..

  45. Pingback: Feminist Degree will always lose to scripture. | Dark Brightness

  46. feeriker says:

    10 Reasons Why Churchian Women are Inferior to Foreign Women of ANY Other Religion.

    Beyond tragic.
    But utterly true.

    Yep. To that I can attest from personal experience. Also disturbingly common these days is the likelihood of encountering more and more self-proclaimed agnostics and atheists who demonstrate something closer to a Christian attitude and lifestyle than most of the self-proclaimed “genuine articles.”

  47. Oscar says:

    Chris Dagostino says:
    January 18, 2015 at 11:38 pm

    “You’re conflating “childless” with “childfree.” The former is an oftentimes unwanted state that is out of the hands of the individuals involved (i.e. Sarah and Abraham), while the latter is a conscious decision.”

    I understand the difference between the two. Do you understand why the Bible treats the absence of children (in marriage) as a curse and the abundance of children (in marriage) as a blessing? Is it possible that, in Biblical times, fecundity was so universally acknowledged as a blessing (i.e., something to be desired) that there was no need to explain that the opposite was to be avoided?

  48. Johnycomelately says:

    Now let me count how many women I know who aren’t on the list….sheesh, the wanderlust point pretty much knocked out all of them.

    At least he didn’t mention single mothers, so that at least leaves some options….

  49. Lyn87 says:

    Striver says:

    …Libertarianism basically fails with any issues involving children. They are not autonomous agents, they require tending to grow. Of course some libertarians don’t seem to care about future generations at all, the world can burn tomorrow if it means impacting their freedoms today.

    TZ already addressed that, but I as a libertarian myself I’ll chime in. The plain-text is true of pretty much every political group: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Commies, conservatives, liberals… you name it. In fact, given the major-party complicity in running up tens of trillions of dollars of debt that those future generations will be stuck with, it is demonstrably more true of them than it is of us. As for the rest of what you wrote about what you think libertarians stand for, I can assure you that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. We have our own books, magazines, chat rooms, message boards, websites, and even a political party with an official platform. Even then, most libertarians are not members of the official Libertarian Party (I am not) and we do not agree on everything amongst ourselves – just like every other political movement. Maybe you ought to become acquainted with some of what libertarians say and do before you write nonsense that demonstrates your ignorance of your subject.
    ________________________________________________

    Back to the topic at hand:

    Oh… pretty solid list for the most part by the NYC pastor. Occasionally I wander over to Reddit and I saw the original article pop up. One of the reasons I don’t spend much time there is that it’s full of libtards and strident atheists, and I’ve heard quite enough from cocksure-bit-painfully-ignorant people in my life without seeking it out, TYVM. I am also mystified why so many non-Christians (more accurately, anti-Christians) feel the need to scream bloody murder when a Christian leader speaks to Christians about things pertaining to living a Christian life. Why in the world should they care? I thought they were always going on about how intolerant we are. Those people are a joke. Shouldn’t they be out looking for that ever-elusive missing link or something, rather than whining about what Christians are saying amongst ourselves?

  50. Lyn87 says:

    As for the re-emergence of the marriage without children isn’t a real marriage stuff… sigh.

    I think that everyone who’s been here very long knows that I’m a sola scriptura, knows-his-subject, kind of guy… I’m also both childless and childfree. My wife has a couple of medical conditions that would have made pregnancy a life-and-death issue for her, and she would almost certainly have miscarried if it didn’t kill her outright. So we are almost certainly a “barren” couple (we never tried to put the matter to the test). But neither of us has ever felt the slightest pull toward having children of our own – even before we met. It seems to me that God knew what he was doing (big surprise, right?), when He made us this way.

    Philippians 2:13 says this, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Since He gave me a barren wife, I’m grateful that He didn’t give either of us a desire to be parents. And by the grace of God, our marriage is the envy of almost everyone we know.

  51. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice find Mr. ‘D’…and great post.Kudos to this Pastor…he has balls,that is for sure.He is not afraid to speak the truth.Got to love that! I read the comment section and I have to admit that the hamsters are doing cartwheels over that article.I also read the other post of “10 men to avoid”.Interesting note,there are 12 times as many comments from the wimminz versus the men’s article?…Imagine that?

    @IBB

    “”They are just scared.””………Exactly!

    @ER

    “”Young men in increasing numbers are taking red pills and realizing this is damn good medicine””…..Yes they are!

    “”The PUA movement has been a social phenomenon.””………Agreed! But,preying on women like they do for sex is not what I would call a “benefit to society”.But,on the other hand, women wanted “unrestrained sexuality” for themselves.Well,they got what they asked for.In fact,I believe that they got a lot more than they bargained for.Such as “unforeseen consequences”.Consequences,meaning that no man wants to wife them up all they want to do is use them for “sport sex”.Which looks damn good on them.The moral of the story?…”Be very careful of what you ask for….because you just might get it”.

  52. feeriker says:

    Now let me count how many women I know who aren’t on the list….sheesh, the wanderlust point pretty much knocked out all of them.

    I’m prompted to believe, based on observation and experience, that the “career woman” category knocks most of them out of contention, even more so than the wanderlust one. Then again, those two categories tend to be related. Unless I’ve miscounted, it appears that most of the hate mail has been prompted by the “career woman” flag (surprise, surprise).

  53. Phillyastro says:

    “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!” I think most people read this as a rebuke against sexual excess of the male members of the Church. But remember in context, St. Paul was also talking about bringing loose women into the Church (where he calls the Church in many places the Body of Christ). Christian men need to realize that they are better than getting one-nitis (as the PUAs call it) with women that have been around the block.

  54. MarcusD says:

    Relationship Ended – Hurting so bad
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=939210

    Marital harmony in front of children?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=939188

    My mentally ill spouse and contraception…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=938871

  55. greyghost says:

    The key to the house hold is the father. Mothers are helpers The well being of a child comes from the father. Women require civilization to keep them in check. Beta men are the civilization. Surrogacy is a future for western men. It will be very interesting to see the stats on the well being of those children. And also the effects it will have on the relationships the fathers have with women and their behavior.

  56. ballista74 says:

    TFH:

    This blog and the Christian commenters on it should reach out to this Pastor :

    Perhaps so. What I’m seeing is a good indication that perhaps most pastors pick up their feminism after dealing with such things. Case in point is our NYC Pastor, who was trained by Albert Mohler, yet wrote the farthest thing I would expect from him.

    The traps and snares of becoming a pastor illustrated.

  57. Bee says:

    @Lyn87,

    “My wife has a couple of medical conditions that would have made pregnancy a life-and-death issue for her, and she would almost certainly have miscarried if it didn’t kill her outright. So we are almost certainly a “barren” couple (we never tried to put the matter to the test).”

    As a teenager, did your wife get a second opinion from a doctor at a different clinic/practice?

  58. Johnny Doe says:

    Yes they are scared. “I think the majority of the women screaming at the pastor in his comments section are doing so for one reason, and one reason only: they are scared.”
    ====

    Absolutely! Why else would so many women have the gall to try and impose their standards–or lack thereof–on men in a thread aimed at men?

    If they were so concerned about the welfare of women, the thread aimed at women should have been just overwhelmed with posts sharing their alleged wisdom, no? Yes.

    But, that is not the case.

  59. Katie says:

    There are valid reasons people are reacting to this. It’s insensitive and much of it is unbiblical. There is biblical & unbiblical divorce–a subject that needs to be treated more thoughtfully than a bullet point saying “the divorcee” as a person to avoid.

    Then there’s the tortured difference between working and liking career TOO much–a distinction no one seems to have ever figured out.

    Finally there’s the utterly absurd idea that to marry someone more than x number of months older (woman) is “not God’s ideal.” I realize some who follow this blog have had women decide they wanted to get married quickly in order to have children, then divorce, etc. My sympathies are with them. But not every relationship in which the woman is older deserves to be classified that way.

    As far as why there’s more of a response to his bullet list on women than men, I think it’s probably because women read these blogs far more.

  60. new anon says:

    The title should be changed from “He Left Out Harlots” to something like “At Least One Pastor Still Has a Spine.”

    There are some things I disagree with, but why nit-pick the good just because it isn’t perfect?

  61. ballista74 says:

    As for lessons to be taken out of our NYC Pastor’s list and the response (predominantly from women), it gets pretty shop worn (I can annotate with numerous links both from here and my place).

    1. Women and a great number of men as well are not Christians even though they believe themselves to be. Rather the women follow The High Holy Hamster in the person of the Personal Jesus. To that end, the Hamster’s machinations guide her every thought and action, to the point that the will of “Jesus” is hers. It can best be thought of as the perfect romance where “Jesus” affirms her in every thought and every action. Those sins are gone, including all the consequences, and everyone else better recognize it.

    2. Men are to listen to the women as if they speak the very word of God Himself – this is their function of following the Personal Jesus. This was NYC Pastor’s sin that drew all the responses. He didn’t know his place as a “good man” recognizing his need for absolution for being born a man. His proper function was to affirm women in all their thoughts and actions, and he failed in doing that by bringing the real Jesus into play.

    3. This is reflected in hearing them talk about “love” and “grace”, instead of matters of discipleship, or loving Jesus. Therein, Jesus proclaims his friends as those who “do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14) and those that love him “keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and puts the premium on hearing his sayings and doing them (Matthew 7:24-27). John furthermore lays doctrine as the measure (2 John 9) of whether you have Jesus, and Paul lays out that if you have grace to cease sinning (Romans 6). This is warped by the Personal Jesus (as they never accepted the real one in the first place) into self-esteem and personal affirmation. Therefore women are without sin and are not broken or failed. Most of the commenters affirmed that they hate Jesus.

    4. Therefore, since women are without sin (and therefore have absolute authority as the Vicars of Christ) and men are base depraved creatures who are incapable of nothing but sin, they have the authority to both approve the standards that they have on men as husbands, and the standards by which men may judge women as wives. This was the major affront (i.e. unbiblical) in the minds of most of the commenters that posted as self-professed Christians. Since they are without sin, they get the right to pick and choose what is “biblical”. They do not follow Christ, but rather their own selves.

    5. This is rank naked truthful feminism we are witnessing in action in the comment section – in other words female-supremacist hatred. Most are blind to it for numerous reasons (namely it’s coming from a moral stance), and deceptions (namely that it has to do with “equality”). But in other words, it’s pure naked rebellion against the Father on full display. The sad state of the Church as illustrated in so many places puts Matthew 7:21-23 in full view. There will be those that will cry “Lord Lord” and he will say “away from me evildoer, I never knew you”.

    There are those that will appropriate the name but will have nothing to do with the real Jesus of Nazareth. Do not expect that He will have anything to do with you, if this is the case.

  62. new anon says:

    @IBB,

    They are “scared” because the core concept of the article undermines the Feminine Imperative: a man should make a decision to marry based on how marriage will benefit him. A man should consider his own self interests when choosing a wife? Gasp! Marriage should be about love and sweep off your feet by emotion, not logic.

    Of course, his article on choosing a husband gives the exact same advice to women. But, somehow a woman considering her own self interests when it comes to marriage isn’t so controversial.

    “Don’t marry a divorcee.” Imagine how much more stable our society would be if people followed that advice. Yea, I know there are a few biblical grounds for divorce, but the divorce rate isn’t 50% because of some epidemic of men abandoning their wives. It’s 50% because frivorce is rampant, even among Christian marriages.

  63. thedeti says:

    Christian men should remember that most Christian women agree in full with the prevailing sentiments expressed in the comments to the “Men Shouldn’t Marry These Women” post.

    Remember, men: These are the “Christian” women you’re being encouraged to date, demonstrate provider cred to, and marry. These are the women you’re being told to “man up” and marry. These are the women you’re told will love you forever, will never leave you, and will never treat you poorly. These are the women you’re being told are the very pinnacle and paragon of virtue and Christian goodness.

    These women will never, ever say the things to you or out loud that were being said in the comments to that thread. And if you ask them, they’ll deny deny deny that they hold those opinions until their faces turn blue and they go hoarse. They believe it fully – it’s just that they don’t comment on blogs.

    If you showed your average age 20s single Christian woman, she’d deny out loud that she believes any of it. But in her mind and heart, and if you watch what she does, she will demonstrate that she believes ALL of it.

    Make no mistake about it – better than 90% of women you go to church with believe EXACTLY what was said in that thread, even though they’ll deny it to high heaven.

  64. ballista74 says:

    @thedeti Yes the comments are a giant red pill against marriage. These are what “Christian” women are. If my Lord didn’t speak against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-18), I’d be openly encouraging Christian men to stay away from the Christian women (as I’ve stated before, they’re worse than the unbelieving women). Better before my Lord to be pleasing to Him than be married and consign myself to hell. So here I am.

    Regarding the third paragraph, what I write above is true in the same vein. No one will readily admit that they believe that way, but one look at their actions betray them.

  65. thedeti says:

    Katie:

    People don’t need their sensitivities coddled any more than they already are.

    The advice is completely biblical. It also has the advantage of being pragmatically sound.

    As for women and work – no one ever says a woman cannot work or shouldn’t work. All that a woman needs to know is where work as a priority fits into her life. A woman can live however she wants, but she needs to be a grownup about it and not expect to avoid consequences for her decisions. If work is the most important thing to her, then she should live as such and avoid marriage and children. If work is not more important than marriage and children, then she should act accordingly and not complain about less pay or sluggish advancement.

    As for your bleat that “not all relationships are like that!” regarding marrying an older woman: Generalizations are just that. They get to be generalizations because they’re generally true. The fact that you know of exceptions or believe exceptions exist simply proves the rule’s validity.

  66. Lyn87 says:

    Bee,

    My wife saw doctors and nurses several times starting around the time she hit puberty, because every month when she got her period she became so violently ill that she had to leave school. After a while they figured that was “normal” for her, so she just went to the Principal’s office to lie down until she could go home. I don’t know how many doctors she saw, though, since that was before I met her. She also grew up very poor in a rural environment, so shopping around for doctors wasn’t an option, even if her parents had the knowledge or the money (they had neither) to do so.

    The nearest facility that would have had specialists for her condition was an entire day’s drive away – each way – and there’s no way her parents would have been able to afford the trips, much less the medical bills themselves, even if they had been inclined to do so. Sometimes you just have to play the cards you’re dealt, and “be fruitful and multiply” wasn’t one of those cards for us. Fortunately, neither of us ever had any inclination toward doing so, so it seems that God mercifully withheld a desire from both of us that could only have been pursued by putting her in mortal danger – and would almost certainly have resulted in miscarriages anyway. Also, keep in mind that God said “Be fruitful and multiply” exactly twice: once in the Garden of Eden when the world’s population was two, and once right after the flood when the world’s population was eight. Since the current world’s population is nearly a billion times what it was the last time God gave that command, I’d say we made it.

  67. BuenaVista says:

    I think the comments are shrill, and rife with the “you sound so judgmental” rejoinder, because the women a) worship themselves and their feminist entitlements (most of which are profoundly secular); and b) have therefore settled into a weird situational religious practice. So the pastor just busted them, because narcissism, entitlements, optional state-sponsored assaults on men, and situational devotions are not Christian.

    The cognitive dissonance is revealed by their reading a Christian blog of this stripe. What did they expect to see? Contortions that make them feel great about their pseudo-faith? (I guess they did.)

  68. thedeti says:

    ar10308 said something on that thread that caught me.

    Once again, we’re being shown that women have absolutely NO problem telling men what men should want.

    Women arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to men what men should find attractive.

    Men are pummeled and pelted with invective and insult for the mere suggestion that maybe they have something to say about what THEY want from their women. Men are shamed and sullied for asserting that the relationships they enter into should serve THEIR interests as well as the women’s.

    It never seems to occur to most women that men have wants, needs, hopes, dreams and desires of their own, and that maybe the relationship should address men’s criteria as well.

  69. thedeti says:

    “The cognitive dissonance is revealed by their reading a Christian blog of this stripe. What did they expect to see? Contortions that make them feel great about their pseudo-faith? (I guess they did.)”

    Well, YES. Of COURSE. You’ve been to Christian church services. The MC/pastor runs the show and makes scripture jump through the hoops. Thus, all the women feel good. They lift up “holy hands” in shameless flesh displays to 90s style rock to show themselves and the world how much they luuuurve their Jeeeeezus. Cuz they’re soooo much holier than you sticks in the mud people singing hymns to pipe organ music and kneeling, you know. And the MC/pastor preaches the sermon to make everyone feel good about their sins. You can always sin and you can always come back. So don’t worry ‘bout your sin, because feelings, and that’s all that matters.

  70. BuenaVista says:

    Deti, particularly the self-described Christian women seem fluent with the concept of defining male utility and value. I’ve yet to hear from any pulpit any direction to women to live up to their men’s needs or standards; in discussions of sin and failure, the conversation is always gender neutral and abstract, or tied explicitly to male failure. The elders tend to be guys who celebrate their definition of ‘servant-leader’, which in conversation just means they pray on deep concepts such as ‘happy wife, happy life’ and add, ‘Thank you Jesus.’

    I do think secular feminist women do a better job of admitting male agency. After all it’s how they live and what their crowd admires in women. But the churchian women, and their Disneyfied Boyfriend Jesus, think they’re princesses in a Christian RomCom, and deserving of a man properly subservient to her superior moral and religious cast.

  71. Lyn87 says:

    Although I read the original piece right after it came out, I have made a conscious decision to not read through the comments – I know what most of them will say, and I know where and why most of them are wrong, because I’ve seen this argument play out dozens of times already. Nothing new here.

    What IS new – and refreshing – is that someone had the guts to stand up and say the truth out loud in a forum that got widespread attention. Although I cannot agree with him 100%, he’s batting around an .800, which is excellent, and the areas where he’s on shaky ground are relatively minor.

  72. BuenaVista says:

    Strange times when a conservative pastor notes that it’s possible for men and women to be unworthy — of each other, of God and therefore of Life — and self-described believers cascade forth anointing themselves, now and forever, worthy.

  73. Lyn87 says:

    Like thedeti and ar10308 noted, nobody seems to have a problem with anyone (including women) telling men what they need to do to be “worthy” of women. Indeed the default position of our culture and most churches is that such is right and proper. What God says is given short shrift, of course: it’s all about what men can do to serve women, children, society, and God.. in that order.

    But not only are men being told that what “makes them worthwhile” is at odds with what God demands, but apparently nobody is allowed to say anything about what women ought to do or how they ought to behave… not even God Himself. That’s misogynist… or something… I guess. It’s almost as if they’ve bought into the absurd idea that women have no agency – they are blank slates upon which men write… except when they’re not, because they are so busy being FAAAAABULOUS, and morally superior to those nasty eeeeevil menz who just want to sex them up and then run off with their secretaries.

    We’ve all heard the constant refrain that women tell each other: “You deserve a great guy!” said without any examination or caveat. But what if they don’t? Great guys – like beautiful and virtuous women – are rare by definition, and not everyone gets one. But women are rarely (if ever) told that, if you want to win the big prize you’d better bring your A-game. And the people who award the prizes (the “great guys” themselves) get to decide what constitutes a winning performance, and they have as much right to withhold their affections from people who don’t meet their standards as the “great women” do. Men tend to understand that from an early age – the nerds, the short guys, the studious guys, the geeks, all know that they’re not going to take the captain of the cheer-leading squad to prom. Why? Because they are in demand and can choose “better” – or at lest was passes for “better” in the minds of young girls. They are thus familiar with the idea of SMV, since they apply it ruthlessly when it benefits them. Why are so many people confused and hurt that good men – who become highly valued later in life – are entitled to be picky as well, especially when divorce is both prevalent and devastating?

  74. BradA says:

    Oscar,

    I’ll state that intentionally depriving a child of a mother is just as evil as intentionally depriving a child of a father.

    That is a point I keep making when greyghost pushes surrogacy. Single parenting may happen, but it should never be sought and is a disservice to the child, ultimately only focusing on the “needs” of the parent choosing that route, whatever their sex.

    ChrisD,

    Yes, my wife and I raised someone else’s children (adoption), but we remain childless as the plumbing never worked. It was definitely not an intention on our part to not have children.

    I do feel slightly “cursed” because of it. I will not blame God (and hence I have issue with those who believe in God’s complete sovereignty, but it is not a good state. Adoption is not an equally good way to get to the same goal either.

    Lyn87,

    I think you may let too many libertarians off the hook a bit too quickly. I have heard a lot more irresponsibility there than anywhere else. It does tend to be more in the “anarchy wing” of the view, assuming that is not “true” libertarianism.

    I agree with a good chunk of the things I hear at the Mises Institute, for example, but not the more radical “completely eliminate governments” as I find that at odds with a Biblical worldview. You do constantly have to watch that a government does not exceed its bounds, but that is life.

    It seems to me that God knew what he was doing (big surprise, right?), when He made us this way.

    I would only grant that (per my reading of the Scriptures) if you were more dedicated to the Lord. Few in such a state are. Perhaps you and your wife are, I do not know. My wife and I are not, though we did attempt to raise a family, so that was a different case.

    I have heard/read enough stories where God has intervened in such “impossible” situations to know it is not inevitable, no matter how much doctor’s assert that a women will die in pregnancy. That does remain an individual call though, as I would not presume to tell anyone how to walk out their faith in that matter.

    You are weaker because of your lack of children, as I am. No one will be there to take care of you, most likely, when you are past the point of caring for yourself. That is something many fail to account for when they are still relatively young and could do something about it. (Your story may have more twists of course.)

    Since He gave me a barren wife

    I will accept that He gave you your wife, but I do not believe that He made her barren. (And I can DIRECTLY relate to this as noted above.) Too much possible argument here, but blaming Him is not the way to resolve things. (I regularly ask Him now why I am childless at this point, in spite of raising children. Though He is not subject to me and I see that more as me coming to terms with things than really expecting an answer from Him.)

    Mark,

    Sin is pleasurable for a season, but bites in the end. We are seeing that work itself out now.

  75. theasdgamer says:

    I posted the following over at the NYC Pastor’s site:

    If a woman is in love (lust) for her husband, she isn’t gonna want to wander. Rather, she will crawl on her hands and knees over jagged obsidian to be with him. Too bad so many 30-something women settled for their unsexy plowhorses.

    Let’s see if he lets it loose.

  76. Lyn87 says:

    Edit,

    The sentence that reads, They are thus familiar with the idea of SMV, since they apply it ruthlessly when it benefits them.”

    Should say, Women are thus familiar with the idea of SMV, since they apply it ruthlessly when it benefits them.”

  77. BradA says:

    I agree with almost all the pastor said, though being married after divorce is not the unforgivable sin and I am not convinced that splitting up in that case, especially if children are involved, is really the appropriate response. The limited example of the Jewish people returning from exile does not fit the modern situation.

    Tearing up a second family is not the answer except in a very few limited cases. Note that the OT Law did not allow a women to return to her first husband after an intervening marriage, something that would go completely against his assertion there.

    That would be the only issue I saw however and is relatively minor. I find the number of comments to be astounding, though not surprising. I only read a few and doubt I would wade farther.

  78. ballista74 says:

    @BuenaVista Such is what you get with the typical false gospel that’s been going around. One that doesn’t focus on the insufficiency of men before God, but one that emphasizes connectedness (hearkening both to Gnosticism and the Goddess Cult) instead. Such is the Personal Jesus, the one that you have a personal relationship with.

  79. feeriker says:

    . If my Lord didn’t speak against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-18), I’d be openly encouraging Christian men to stay away from the Christian women (as I’ve stated before, they’re worse than the unbelieving women)

    Hmmm, well, given their scribblings in the response column, I didn’t see but perhaps one or two of these women who would qualify as Christian, their own insistant assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. It would appear that strict adherence to the admonishment against unequal yoking means that fewer than five percent (perhaps even this tragic figure is overly optimistic) of young Christian men stand even a remote chance of finding and marrying a genuinely Christian woman.

    Pure travesty, on so many levels. And Judgment Day’s gonna be even uglier than we imagined.

  80. theasdgamer says:

    @ Thiry

    She’s fairly attractive and some foolish man will want her for that reason alone and probably pass over a quiet, plain girl for the loud-mouthed hottie.

    Give me a sweet, warm, fun 6 over a bitchy, cold, boring 8 every time.

  81. BradA says:

    Katie,

    My wife is 2 years older than I am and I would assert it is not the ideal in any way. Even just look at the practical element of sexual drive. The women is already fading faster than the man is almost all cases.

    I firmly believe God put my wife and I together, but we have had many challenges and many of them were due to things that are noted in lists like this. Age is definitely a factor, as the blog writer noted. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    Ballista,

    This is reflected in hearing them talk about “love” and “grace”, instead of matters of discipleship, or loving Jesus.

    Why can both not be preached? An ongoing message without both is missing a key element. We need more of the latter, not less of the former. Though I would agree that the focus on the former by some is incorrect as they leave out the latter.

    Lyn87,

    Your story illustrates one of the reasons I have such opposition to those who fail to even seek God for healing. Your wife’s situation was not a good state in any way. Lots of things can complicate God’s healing, but not diligently seeking it is foolish. (I would hold your wife’s Biblical teachers more than her for this.) We still need an active healing hand, as medical science can still only do so much.

    thedeti,

    Women arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to men what men should find attractive.

    That is an unfortunate truth and should be appropriately opposed when it comes up.

  82. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    You and I usually agree, but you’re all wet here. Anarchism and libertarianism are two entirely different things. This isn’t even a topic of debate among either anarchists or libertarians, so your conflating of the two is meaningless. As for irresponsibility, the United States national debt is now more than $18 TRILLION dollars, all incurred without a single Libertarian ever having been elected to national office. And the debt follows the same parabolic curve no matter what combination of Republicans or Democrats control Congress or the Oval Office. Source 1950-1999 and Source (2000-present). THAT is irresponsibility on stilts… something worth consideration, since future generations will be stuck with that bill… and that will materially impact their ability to care for the elderly, which leads me to your other comment…

    …As for “weaker because I lack children” – perhaps you are unfamiliar with something we refer to as the man-o-sphere. Men who sire children routinely loose contact with them, not only don’t they have what I don’t have, but they have to pay for the privilege of not having what I don’t have, making then materially weaker than if they sired no children at all. As you – above all of us – should know, having children is no guarantee that you’ll have someone to take care of you later in life. Anyway, my Bible says that we have no guarantee of tomorrow, much less something that’s unlikely to happen for several decades.

  83. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    We’ve all heard the constant refrain that women tell each other: “You deserve a great guy!” said without any examination or caveat. But what if they don’t?

    How dare you question the narrative! They all deserve the best, just like everyone in Lake Woebegon (sp?) was above average.

  84. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    I am never afraid of disagreeing. 🙂

    What sources do you have for libertarianism? I don’t quite count the Cato Institute or such as much any more, as I think they have sold out quite a bit to big government today. I find the Mises Institute stuff to be closer to a core message, though they are definitely far more anarchistic, hating almost any government.

    I find this to be a human condition rather than a huge failing of theirs. I can pick out a great many flaws with social conservatism, something I was much more aligned with earlier in my life.

    I would agree that no true libertarians have been elected. Those the party with that name pushed are often a bit on the wacko side. I supported Ron Paul and his ideas more than anyone else, but he had no overall chance and the system would have muted him even if he had deified the odds and won.

    I see this as applicable to the topic at hand because many who choose the libertarian label often want no rules. That is why I ask who you believe is best representative of it. What resources do they have available to find what they believe?

  85. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    We were typing at the same time. I’ll say this now and hopefully we can drop it here: 1) you are not nearly as good at mind-reading as you seem to think you are, and 2) you are being both presumptuous and insulting to me, my wife, and our marriage.

  86. BradA says:

    Sorry you feel that way Lyn87.

    I guess I don’t know anything that is applicable beyond my life. Glad you have it all figured out.

  87. Boxer says:

    Sorry for being off topic so much, but the news is too funny not to share, these days…

    The conservative woman behind several viral photos cheated on her combat veteran husband repeatedly & then lied about it, Gotnews.com has learned.

    Conservative social media phenomenon Holly Fisher repeatedly insisted to Gotnews.com editor-in-chief Charles C. Johnson that she had not cheated on her husband but broke down and admitted the affair on Facebook to her supporters after our interview.

    Good looking, politically conservative, probably a virgin on her wedding night, married to a war hero. (You can’t really get more “alpha” than that). What could possibly go wrong?

    http://gotnews.com/breaking-exclusive-tea-party-photo-military-wife-caught-cheating-combat-vet-hubbie/

  88. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    I appreciated your comments.

  89. BradA says:

    Note that I was not trying to offend anyone, including Lyn87. I was just talking in an area I have done a great deal of thought in. He is certainly free to ignore my comments in that and any other area. Perhaps I don’t really know much at all, perhaps I do. It doesn’t matter if I speak to those who don’t want to hear whatever it is I say. Though participating in a public discussion forum opens you to input, whether you want it or not.

  90. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    Your comments about your family have been consistently humble yet without falling into despair. Because of that, I have meditated on you many times. Whatever goodness you poured into your children will not be wasted; though you may not personally benefit at this very moment. I believe when the haughty are brought low you will be raised up.

  91. Hank Flanders says:

    illuvitus

    As long as he doesn’t take this post down, I will advise single Christian men to read the article as a theologically and Biblically sound approach on what to avoid in women. I will advise them to read the comments if they have any second thoughts.

    Haha! Thumbs up!

  92. Boxer says:

    In case anyone’s in need of more entertainment, ChristianForums found NYC Pastor’s blog.

    Oh Brother.

    The regular posters on ChristianForums are good only for entertainment. Most of them are feminist types who are forever getting “offended” which leads to an endless series of internet slapfights. I trolled the place once. It was fun for a couple of days, but in the end they’re a bunch of SJW fags who sit around whining and offer very little in the way of substantive argument for their positions.

    NYC Pastor could have a good time there, but only if he’s the sadistic type.

  93. The Brass Cat says:

    thedeti says:
    January 19, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Once again, we’re being shown that women have absolutely NO problem telling men what men should want.

    Women arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to men what men should find attractive.

    Men are pummeled and pelted with invective and insult for the mere suggestion that maybe they have something to say about what THEY want from their women. Men are shamed and sullied for asserting that the relationships they enter into should serve THEIR interests as well as the women’s.

    It never seems to occur to most women that men have wants, needs, hopes, dreams and desires of their own, and that maybe the relationship should address men’s criteria as well.

    Deti, this needs to be posted at NYCpastor. Women apparently need to be introduced to this concept.

  94. Boxer says:

    Dear Brad A.:

    I agree with almost all the pastor said, though being married after divorce is not the unforgivable sin and I am not convinced that splitting up in that case, especially if children are involved, is really the appropriate response. The limited example of the Jewish people returning from exile does not fit the modern situation.

    I noticed that also, and I’m glad someone said something. (As I’m not much for religion, I try not to criticize others and their practice of it).

    Ethically it would really be an issue only in the case of children to the second marriage. I guess I have a problem with someone divorcing a faithful, otherwise decent spouse, and leaving a bunch of divorce orphans in the wake of that. “Sorry honey, I gotta follow the bible, which says I’m still married to that crack-ho despite divorcing her after I sobered up and left Las Vegas, three weeks later” etc. That’s sorta dramatic, but not outside the realm of possibility.

  95. thedeti says:

    Brass:

    ar10308 did say that at NYCPastor’s blog, in so many words.

  96. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    Don’t worry about me – I’m a big boy. I just assumed that if you were being unknowingly insulting you’d want to know. I know I would, but maybe you don’t care about giving offense when no fault has been committed. Just the other day I wrote something that was unintentionally hurtful to Renee Harris – I criticized her for something I didn’t realize she had no control over – and as soon as I discovered that I had done so I walked it back here. What you and some others wrote is nothing we and every other infertile couple has not heard 10,000 times over from well-meaning people, especially in the church. It’s not about me “having everything figured out” – I know I don’t… it’s about hearing the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as if we were too stupid to see what’s been right in front of our faces our entire lives. So yeah, this is an open forum and my comments are as subject to critique as yours or anyone else’s, but I’m trying to tell you that you don’t understand what both infertile and child-free couples go through, nor the constant judgmentalism we encounter, year after year, from people who ought to know better. There’s a particularly nasty heretical belief about everything “bad” in one’s life being the fault of the person experiencing it because of a lack of faith. I know you’re not one of those loonies, but your language is similar (here, for instance). Perhaps I’m more inclined to perceive it, having been attacked by “Christian” people for so long… I’m just letting you know in case you want to reconsider.

    And I wouldn’t take any solace from the fact that Cane Caldo is agreeing with you – he’s been silent lately, but he has a history of looking for any reason to snipe at me, always without a valid cause: he is an amusing Javert to my Valjean.

    That said, I’ll have to get back to you on your libertarian question. It’s still pretty early in the thread and I know Dalrock prefers the comments to stay on topic until a hundred or so comments are up.

  97. Everyone seems to be praising the pastor for having a spine, but I think he merely sort of has a spine, because he didn’t overtly slut-shame. And both of his lists have problems. Obviously, the part about not wanting kids is kind of questionable. There’s just not much biblical basis for any of that. But what’s revealing to me is the fact that he never directly addressed sexuality in either of his posts. As Dalrock has said before, Paul recommended that no one get married, because you could always devote more time and energy to God if you are single, but IF YOU BURN WITH PASSION, you should get married to avoid temptation. This pastor is denying the roles of sex- as something with hazardous potential to lead young horny people into fornication and as a great gift that God gave to enjoy with your spouse, not a marital duty that can only be justified by child-bearing.

  98. ballista74 says:

    @feeriker
    Indeed. And that’s just one example out of legions.

    @BradA
    The problem is that they have a screwed up view of love and grace. Both meanings become more evident when one is in the correct faith. Love, instead of being something one does in view of the truth of God becomes “feeling loved”. In other words, when they say “Jesus loves me”, they really mean “Jesus makes me feel loved”. Love is about feelings instead of deed and truth.
    Grace is along the same lines. Grace means “let me do whatever the hell I want and make me feel good about it”. There’s legions of examples of that, including Katie up above crying about what NYCPastor wrote being “insensitive” (that was her whole problem) and TRing on my own blog. It’s not a problem that requires a patch (so to speak) to fix in the lives of these people commenting on NYCPastor. It requires a complete tear down and redesign, as few of them even have first base down to know what love and grace is, even though they use those words.

    @Boxer
    Sadly enough, that’s how all “Christian” fora are. Entertainment value only. All feminist, all nonsensical, very little use since they aren’t in the truth. Much less be a place to have any formative Christian discussion or growth. Really haven’t found anything that’s different than that.

  99. Renee Harris says:

    On the ” you deserve a great guy” point:
    Not true. Just as having student loans does not mean you deserve a job, NO woman deserve a great guy. According to this Jewish carpenter who died 2000 years ago, great and good are attribute of God, His first born Son and His spirit.
    There are no “Great guys” out there. Just sinful women and men who have accepted both Salvation and Lordship of Christ of Christ .
    Darlock, what are the works of godly woman that Christian men should be looking for? Should she able to pray for him? I mean really pray: proclaiming the promises of God over him, his life. If he is sick, can she pray his healing or is that bitching?
    I get you guys don’t want a slut. So what do single Christian man want their Virgins be like in deeds?

  100. Hank Flanders says:

    The Brass Cat

    Deti, this needs to be posted at NYCpastor.

    I tried commenting on there, but mine’s still tied up in moderation, while other posts with time stamps later than mine made it through. I simply objected to the title of the article, not the content of it.

  101. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Hank

    The same thing happened with the comment that I posted over there, but it *eventually* passed moderation, well after a lot of comments that were written after mine was. Hopefully yours will too.

  102. Renee Harris says:

    @ Jf The evanjezebel woman who has ANYthing positive to say about the movie FIREPROOF
    The tran scene was awesome and kirk is hot. But over all it’s salvation porn ….

  103. Lyn87 says:

    Andrew Brookes writes, “This pastor is denying the roles of sex- as something with hazardous potential to lead young horny people into fornication and as a great gift that God gave to enjoy with your spouse, not a marital duty that can only be justified by child-bearing.

    That’s awesome analysis, there. I’ve been through a lot of this over the years, but that’s the best single-sentence explanation I’ve ever seen. Dalrock has written posts about how people now consider love to be the thing that sanctifies marriage and sex, rather than marriage being the thing that sanctifies love and sex. You have pulled off a similar coup: many Christians (like NYC Pastor) consider that marriage and child-bearing sanctify sex, rather than the Biblical model that marriage and sex sanctify child-bearing. Well done, Sir.

    That said, I’m still in NYC Pastor’s corner overall. He wrote some truths that are clearly ruffling churchian and feminist feathers. People who read it have to decide whether God is right or they are. By (what I’ve heard about) the comments, it’s clear how most of them feel about that.

  104. I think that beyond the Christian angle, there is a far more basic issue here revolving around women who don’t really want to be mothers and view having and raising children as a liability that will ruin their lives. The Western world (including highly Westernized nations such as Japan and Singapore) have below-replacement birth rates and if they aren’t shrinking in population, it’s because of immigration and often their birth rates are inflated because of higher birth rates among immigrants. In short, the Western world has collectively lost interest in having a future.

    Sha-la-la-la-la-la, live for today
    Sha-la-la-la-la-la, live for today
    And don’t worry ’bout tomorrow, hey, hey, hey

  105. Boxer says:

    Everyone seems to be praising the pastor for having a spine, but I think he merely sort of has a spine, because he didn’t overtly slut-shame.

    I disagree. I think he called out the libertines in both articles in a very effective manner. He told them bluntly what they were doing wrong, and why they ought to be ashamed of it, with sources in the text for every point he made. Then he offered his readers an incentive to change (i.e. marriage to someone in the faith).

    Is the point of Christianity to make its adherents feel badly, or is the point to make its adherents better people? The point of shaming is to open the eyes of the shameful person, but also to offer them a road to becoming more respectable.

    Being overtly negative rarely influences smart people. It more often causes a reaction in which the target shuts down and wanders off. Shame is a good thing, but like everything else, it’s best in moderation.

    Boxer

  106. Gunner Q says:

    One thing I would add to the list is a Proverbs 31 woman. Without having any objection to the verses themselves, I’ve come to believe that women are using those verses to justify the “Strong & Independent” lifestyle; a superwoman who does it all, with her husband reduced to a cheerleading role.

    Give me a 1 Peter 3 woman instead.

    “‘Since He gave me a barren wife’

    I will accept that He gave you your wife, but I do not believe that He made her barren.”

    Why not, Brad? God routinely does harmful, even cruel things to His followers. It’s a dangerous theological error to believe that suffering or infirmity is always the result of sin or inadequate devotion.

    Frankly, not having children these days could be considered a kindness from God. There’s no Hell like watching Sodom pull your kids away from you & Christ.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @new anon

    The title should be changed from “He Left Out Harlots” to something like “At Least One Pastor Still Has a Spine.”

    There are some things I disagree with, but why nit-pick the good just because it isn’t perfect?

    I can see where the title would look harsher than I intended. The post isn’t a criticism of his, but an explanation of why and how Christian men learn to self censor. I meant it more ironically. But it still is worth noting that something obvious couldn’t be said. TZ (when not fantasizing about the tough coyote shooting women of WY) claimed NYC Pastor left it out for the same reason he didn’t mention under age women. But the truth is the opposite. Some things can’t be said. Calling harlots harlots is today deemed too cruel, largely because there are so many of them that saying such a word is now deemed an insult to all women. Imagine the controversy if he had used this biblical term. Imagine the wailing if he had said not to marry harlots, instead of not to marry women who wear the uniform.

    I noticed that he has approved pingbacks from blog posts written before and after mine, but so far at least hasn’t approved mine. I suspect the offending word is the biblical one, and that it would be too much to allow even in a pingback.

  108. theasdgamer says:

    @ TFH

    There are few approaches more productive than pickup up church sluts from Sunday Morning Nightclub.

    Email me. I wanna come visit and see it.

  109. In theory it should work out if the man is godly and good.

    Not to mention a True Scotsman.

  110. theasdgamer says:

    we will see a lowering of standards, most importantly in the doctor-patient relationship.

    Monday morning clinic nightclub.

  111. Hank Flanders says:

    Feminine But Not Feminist, thanks for the head’s up. I wonder if maybe a commenter’s first comment needs approval, but after that, the comments go through automatically for that poster, assuming there were no issues the first time.

  112. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    January 19, 2015 at 3:47 am

    “The key to the house hold is the father. Mothers are helpers The well being of a child comes from the father. Women require civilization to keep them in check. Beta men are the civilization. Surrogacy is a future for western men. It will be very interesting to see the stats on the well being of those children. And also the effects it will have on the relationships the fathers have with women and their behavior.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s an indirect answer to my direct question. That question, again, was…

    Is intentionally depriving a child of his/her father evil, or merely unwise?

    And it was in reference to my previous statement that intentionally depriving a child of his/her mother is just as evil as intentionally depriving a child of his/her father.

    Unfortunately, on this subject, you sound very much like a feminist in reverse. You’re just as willing as they are to trivialize the role of the parent whose sex is the opposite of yours in order to advance your personal agenda. Apparently, according to you, God erred in his design of the family.

    In fact, you’re even as willing as feminists are to play social engineering games with children, as evidenced by this statement… “Surrogacy is a future for western men. It will be very interesting to see the stats on the well being of those children. And also the effects it will have on the relationships the fathers have with women and their behavior.”

    You sound just like a feminist stating that, “Single motherhood is a future for western women. It will be very interesting to see the stats on the well being of those children. And also the effects it will have on the relationships the mothers have with men and their behavior.”

    Bravo, sir! You’ve accomplished what few men have. You’ve elevated your own haaaaapiness above the welfare of children to a degree equal to that of feminists!

  113. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Hank

    You’re welcome. And yes, that is typically how comment moderation goes, though it can be set up differently if the blog host or hostess chooses to.

  114. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    [Cane Caldo] has a history of looking for any reason to snipe at me

    “Sniping” is misrepresentative of the form of my attacks on your false bravado.

    NYC Pastor and BradA are right: Any view of marriage that does not include children is wrong. Children are not the sole reason for marriage, but we must number children among the fruits of marriage. Avoiding children in a marriage is like avoiding sex, charity, respect, or any of the other good fruits of marriage. When we marry we are to engage in all those things; not pick from among them.

    What I appreciate about BradA’s comments is that he did not–and does not–rationalize their inability to birth children into a personal memo from God that He didn’t want BradA to have children. Instead he sought out children, fed them, clothed them, housed them, and gave them to the Lord. His marriage is a fruitful tree even if his children do not appreciate him, or even if he was imperfect. He is in an illustrious line of hardcore yet unappreciated patriarchs like Joseph of Egypt, and Joseph, husband of Mary.

  115. Bee says:

    @Lyn87,

    Proverbs teaches us that we should make important decisions based on “an abundance of counsel.” Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6. In deciding whether or not to try to have children, an abundance of counsel would be wise. Consulting different doctors and nurses at the same practice/clinic would not count as an abundance of independent opinions. From the information you have shared, I can not say if your wife got an abundance of counsel or not.

    “The nearest facility that would have had specialists for her condition was an entire day’s drive away – each way – and there’s no way her parents would have been able to afford the trips, much less the medical bills themselves, even if they had been inclined to do so.”

    I understand and agree that as a teenager with her parents she could not access specialists. But after you were married you could have taken her to specialists. That would have been a way to get more counsel.

    “Also, keep in mind that God said “Be fruitful and multiply” exactly twice: …”

    Paul wanted widows to re-marry and have more children. He thought this was very important. 1 Timothy 5:14. Also Scripture says women will be saved through childbearing. I Timothy 2:15. My wife had health issues that would have had made pregnancy difficult for her. but based on these two Scriptures I pushed and convinced her to try to get pregnant with me. Not every couple can have children, but it was important for us to try to get pregnant.

  116. JDG says:

    Unfortunately, on this subject, you sound very much like a feminist in reverse. You’re just as willing as they are to trivialize the role of the parent whose sex is the opposite of yours in order to advance your personal agenda.

    I can’t speak to greyghost’s agenda, but I can say with confidence that single fathers do much better with kids than single mothers. That’s not to say that mothers aren’t important, but default status should be kids belong to the father regardless of the system being used.

  117. honeycomb says:

    Better wife-up these two sluts quick while there is still time.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/2-teachers-arrested-on-allegations-of-sex-with-students-in-california/ar-AA8lF6d

    Nothing to see or worry about. Just two faithful, submissive and full of love hotties sharing their insight to fruitful companionship. /sarcasm

  118. Bee says:

    Important note to Christians in their teens, twenties, and thirties:

    Some medical doctors believe it is their duty to secretly, deceitfully, limit the earth’s population by discouraging women from having children.

    A popular textbook used in many medical schools promotes this mission.

    If you are told you can not or should not have children, get at least 2 other opinions from fertility experts. Could be doctors, could be doulas, midwives, etc.

  119. Pingback: A birthday and a funeral. | Dark Brightness

  120. Hank Flanders says:

    Well, it looks my comment didn’t go through on that blog. I noticed some of my comments getting eaten on Matt Walsh’s blog, too. I don’t get it.

  121. Pingback: Turning a blind eye. | Dalrock

  122. ballista74 says:

    @Dalrock

    I suspect the offending word is the biblical one, and that it would be too much to allow even in a pingback.

    Indeed. There is some of Dr. Mohler in this man. But if he didn’t let that one through it’s likely not for vulgarity sake as I see the 4 letter F word in two of the comments on his blog.

  123. Scott says:

    D-

    Not sure if the pingback feature is working from my site.

    http://courtshippledge.com/2015/01/support-traditionalists-with-red-pill-truth/

    [D: Thanks. I checked the spam bin and it wasn’t there.]

  124. Opus says:

    NYC Pastor limited himself to a mere ten red flags (personally I think a wife should be shorter than her husband and preferably of the female sex) but despite these omissions it is a long time since I have learned so much up-to-date theology, such as (from one of the commenters) that Jesus wanted women to be in positions of leadership (I am guessing to the exclusion of men). This was a revelation to me seeing that the only appointment I can immediately recall J.C. making was that of Peter. ‘You are Peter (petrus) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church’ – never let it be said J.C. lacked a sense of humour or some knowledge of Greek.

    Another commenter announced that she wanted to be a Surgeon (presumably not dental). Why is it that I never see women demanding the right to dig roads or sweep the streets – do they think these things happen by magic?

    What is surely most remarkable is that these women commenters seem to think that their behaviour, whatever it may be, can have no bearing on their chances of finding a suitable husband, even as they announce that male headship is tantamount to abuse. One wonders why they want to marry at all.

  125. Lyn87 says:

    Bee,

    “Abundance of counsel…” Trust me, you have no earthly idea how much counsel we’ve been given over the years: solicited or otherwise. I get that you and Cane think you know more than God does about how child-bearing sanctifies marriage and sex – I just can’t agree… as Andrew Brookes noted above, Paul exhorts marriage to alleviate sexual tension, not to produce children (1 Corinthians 7:9). It is marriage that sanctifies sex and child-bearing, not the other way around. Note that Paul did not encourage marriage for procreation, although the drive to become a parent is incredibly strong for many people (so they tell me). I also can’t agree that my wife’s Roman Catholic gynecologist was secretly trying to prevent her from getting pregnant after we got married. To the contrary, we suspect he may have attempted to sabotage our attempts to avoid putting her in such a life-or-death condition.

    There is literally nothing you can say about this that I have not heard dozens of times. I, my wife, our Bible, and an abundance of counselors are okay with where we are on this.

  126. ballista74 says:

    What is surely most remarkable is that these women commenters seem to think that their behaviour, whatever it may be, can have no bearing on their chances of finding a suitable husband, even as they announce that male headship is tantamount to abuse. One wonders why they want to marry at all.

    Welcome to their conception of “grace”, as I illustrated up above. “I can do whatever I want and no consequences shall come to me.” And given the nature of feminism and how insinuated it is in society in all levels, everyone else will do everything they can to make that come to pass, including denying the truth in numerous ways, even inventing new concepts like the born-again virgin, when simply lying about it or forgetting about it won’t get the job done.

  127. BradA says:

    Cane,

    Thanks. I have been told that many times, though it is very hard to see now. I did have my youngest son get back into contact via Facebook recently (something I normally spend very little time on) and he credited my wife and I with doing well in his life and making him who he is. We still have a long ways to go, I believe, but that is a huge shift from where we were.

    I need to see more of the “half full” stuff at times. Having a prophetic bent means I usually see things before they happen and that means I am often working through issues before they come about. This can also tend to focus on the bumps and I definitely need to stay focused on the good things.

    BTW, I believe you are the reason I came to this site in the first place. You had a post Vox referred to here that started me following what Dalrock and you both write.

  128. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    I gave up about 35 minutes of my life responding to a couple of respondents there.

    A hit dog will holla, and there are nothing but packs of them there – protesting waaaay too much.

  129. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    I at least share your situation, though we went the adoption route and had our own bumps along that way, so my comments are not as disconnected as those of someone who has not faced that. Hopefully you consider them in that context. (And they may not really apply, that is really up for you to figure out of course.)

    I have been told many times “children you birth can go bad too,” which is a similar type issue. They don’t realize that those children don’t have another father to run to, as mine do. A man who really messed up in life gets all the credit and I get very little to none, at least outwardly, especially reading below the lines. (Their situation was bad. He is not solely to blame, but having 5 children by 19 causes some blame to rest with him.)

    I recall Cane taking issue with stuff I have said in the past as well, though what he says here fits with what I have heard from others. I am not sure I believe it yet, but many have said God must consider me special to walk through what my wife and I have faced.

    Hope that makes sense. I do pray you and your wife find the proper place and long term support we all need.

    No rush on the libertarian stuff. I would be glad to know more to listen to. I have just seen what I noted quite a bit on Mises Institute stuff and they are great overall otherwise. Sorry Dalrock for contributing to any derailing.

  130. BradA says:

    Ballista,

    Love, instead of being something one does in view of the truth of God becomes “feeling loved”. In other words, when they say “Jesus loves me”, they really mean “Jesus makes me feel loved”. Love is about feelings instead of deed and truth.

    I do agree with the core of what you say here and in the rest of the reply. The message has been twisted and I think ironically it also hides the true meaning of the love and grace we have received. That is a double shame since it promotes the wrong direction and hides the dramatic truth of those concepts.

    My wife and I have even been talking about the “Jesus as my boyfriend” aspect of many current Christian songs. I personally prefer that general style of music, but the content is getting too me as well and she is starting to get away from it as well. (That and having to have a hard driving beat in every other song.) I have been around Christian music since the late 1970s and it is definitely different today.

    I still see a need for a personal connection, but it should never be used to excuse things. He is our Lord, not our puppy. We need to know Him personally so the desire to not displease Him is more personal, not so we can excuse open rebellion.

  131. BradA says:

    Renee,

    So what do single Christian man want their Virgins be like in deeds?

    I would not be your prime target and I doubt I would remarry if I were to suddenly find myself single. That said, I would look for a woman who was interested in me, was attractive to me (not a super high bar, but body weight would be a big factor), and had interests that complemented mine.

    As we noted in another thread, what things do you like or could you like that men like a lot more? That may be a great thing to develop more. You will still watch and filter out many men, but you should help if you become on of a limited number of women who like X rather than just a face lost in a crowd.

    Hope that helps. You are later in the path, but you still do have hope if you pursue it. Meditate on what the Scriptures say about being a godly woman and seek to build those traits in yourself. Find an older women who has her head screwed on right to work with who can help mentor you.

  132. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    I need a favor from you.Have you seen the TV commercial from http://www.cougarlife.com? I have seen it 3 times now.I believe it was on the History Channel,Discovery or NatGeo.It is a joke.It starts off with a woman(23) asking a guy(23)…I guessestimate…”so are you going to buy me a drink”?…She is pushed away by a 40+ blonde woman,who says…”let me buy you a drink”….and then the narrator says….”Older women know what they want…and they want you”…..TV has hit a new low! Have you seen it?…if not?….Please do me the courtesy and find it…you are great at doing searches.I do not have the time.Then when you find it…send it to Mr.’D’.I believe that this will be a prime post. And,I would like all the regular posters to see it…if they have not.Thanks.

    @Dalrock.
    No thread hi-jacking intended here Mr.’D’…..just something that I would like your comments on….as well as all the other regular posters.Thanks……and carry on gentlemen!

  133. BradA says:

    GunnerQ,

    Why not, Brad? God routinely does harmful, even cruel things to His followers. It’s a dangerous theological error to believe that suffering or infirmity is always the result of sin or inadequate devotion.

    I find that to be completely contrary to the essence of what is written in the NT.

    [Mat 7:11 KJV] 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    This and the parallel verse in Luke indicate God is a better Father than even the best earthly dad and does good, not evil. Scriptures such as James indicate that we should not blame God for the “bad stuff” even though it can and will come.

    [Isa 53:10 KJV] 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

    Then dig a bit deeper into areas like this and note that it is ludicrous for God to be pleased about piling it all on Jesus if it was not solved there.

    [2Co 5:19 KJV] 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

    Note that God is not imputing the sinner’s sins to them, at this point. It ALL went on Jesus. Thinking otherwise is maligning what was done. A terrible time of judgment is coming, but we are not there yet.

    I cannot find a single example in the Gospels where Jesus told someone they were suffering of God and should therefore stay in it. We are told He exhibited the perfect will of the Father, so I take that to be true for us as well.

    I see such accusations against God as being just as bad as accusations against my earthly father. They are not accurate from what is revealed about them and end up being an excuse for either the sinful and broken world we live in, or more commonly our own failures. We make huge mistakes and chalk them up to the will of God or we reap the results of living in a nasty, evil world and blame God for what happens. It may not be our fault in the latter case, but my heavenly Father is better than any earthly one and we know that an earthly one who did anything like these would be evil.

    Hope that helps explain it, I don’t want to go off on too much of a treatise as it is very OT. I suppose I should start blogging more and I could point to a discussion there instead.

  134. Yes, women are afraid. This NYC Pastor discussed something that women never want discussed because they are afraid that their actions will cost them (or the people they are supposed to care about) in this lifetime. Look at this studio full of people missing all moral agency….

    ….this mangina/white-knight priest did all that he could to reframe this debate in such a way to make it personal. Ann would have none of it, kept returning to the statistics which are cold but entirely correct. The entire audience was terrified of what was said, terrified. They wouldn’t be so emotionally bent if they were afraid of her words.

    Scared. Women get really scared when a definitive position is produced such that it categorizes them as a lesser woman.

  135. BradA says:

    Cane,

    I am not too great. I just did what seemed right at the time. I would have pursued infertility stuff a lot more at the time had I known this outcome. I have a firm ongoing argument with God on why it had to work this way. He is unlikely to ever answer me, especially in a manner that will satisfy me. I just pray that I don’t ever get (or stay) too bitter because of it all.

    I would not encourage adoption to anyone else. It really sucks for children stuck in the system, but the system is very much against those who would really help them.

    I am convinced the overall reason for marriage is the next generation and that is what frustrates me the most. Really easy to fall into anger there, so I will stop.

  136. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Does the fact that things turn out a certain way mean that God decreed that to happen? I know many believe that, but I find that to be at complete odds with the entirety of the Scriptures. I agree that telling you that you should have “tried harder” is not productive, but are you asserting that God wanted this outcome just because that is what happened? Is that what you are saying? (I am trying to distill your assertion down to its core, not argue the point here.)

    I find that many do that in other areas of life and we tend to inconsistently accept the excuse. Sometimes we say, yes, God always get what He wants. Other times we acknowledge that people get the consequences of their actions or the actions of others (including indirect things like genetics and disease). I am reading you to be taking the first position here, but please correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.

  137. Gunner Q says:

    Renee Harris @ 12:23 pm:
    “I get you guys don’t want a slut. So what do single Christian man want their Virgins be like in deeds?”

    Give us respect. That alone will put you in the top decade of American women.

    A good start is calling all men “sir”. If a man does something nice for you, now matter how repulsive he is, at least give him a smile and a touch on the arm or shoulder. (Practice gratitude in general.) Always wear something on your head as a sign of submission–a hat, modest jewelry, even just a band of twine, and be ready to tell people what it means. That’ll get you started.

  138. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    I know you’ve had a tough row to hoe. I don’t envy you your scars. When you brought up the idea that I wouldn’t have anyone to care for me when I’m older I thought of this. In the child-free community there’s a running joke about all the ways people try to convince us that we’re somehow wrong to be the way we are. Some people pop these ideas out rapid-fire as if they are trying to cause us to experience an epiphany by presenting something we’ve never considered before… usually while being completely unaware that every child-free adult has encountered those same thoughts countless times.

    By way of analogy (and not to lump you in with atheists), I get a similar feeling when some atheist tries to explain to me that God doesn’t fit into a test tube, as if that never occurred to me and that that statement settled the matter of God’s existence… as if I wasn’t already light-years beyond the level of understanding of the person making the statement.

    Trust me, if anyone on the planet is inundated with advice from a multitude of counselors, it is child-free couples in Christian circles. Sadly, we get a LOT more static than “choice mommies” do. In matters that are not clear-cut (like this one), my normal stance is to seek the will of God as written in scripture (God will never contradict that), common sense, careful analysis, prayer, and the advice of people whose theological opinions I have reason to respect. I suspect most Christian guys here do something similar.

    To bring this back around to the topic of the post – speaking truth is a radical act these days when it comes to what women ought to bring to the table. The Bible is not nearly as silent on that subject as feminized Churchians would like it to be. Of course the Bible doesn’t contain a “10 things to look for” list like the NYC Pastor does, and I have some minor disagreements with his list – but I don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and he did very well indeed. I assume we can all agree on that.

  139. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    I have a firm ongoing argument with God on why it had to work this way.

    I cannot fault you for that.

    The Book of Job says Job was a righteous man because he offered sacrifices for his children in case they had not; not because he raised great children.

  140. JDG says:

    Opus –
    One wonders why they want to marry at all.

    For more than a few, my guess would be:

    a) the thrill of the wedding experience.
    b) cash and prizes.

  141. Opus says:

    @JDG

    It is remarkable that for ten suggestions which are not in any sense binding on them and which along with the NYC Pastor’s blog they can ignore, that so many women and a few Manginas should have been whipped into Caps-locked foul-mouthed fury. Few men (to take one of the examples) marry women older than themselves and when they do it always looks odd – as if he cannot do better or worse as if he has been bought; everyone, whether Christian or not knows this, yet that and the other anodyne suggestions had the commenters foaming with ire and indignation.

    If marriage (for whatever reason) is so important then it would surely be wise to attempt to attract your potential mate: loud mouths, brash clothing (not to mention gross promiscuity) and the like tend to put guys off for anything other than a short term assignation indeed they shout short-term. How come a generation of women, at least those commenting at NYC Pastor, seem unable to grasp the very basics of the market in which they are competing – it’s a buyer’s market and they are the product for sale.

  142. Hollis says:

    Hello, Dalrock. I’m a lurker and occasional reader.

    I’ve noticed that many men from the sphere have been commenting on NYCPastor’s page (it appears that he’s still open for comments). At first glance, he appeared legitimate to me, and I was going to comment a word of support. I agree with him, for example, that remarriage is a serious issue. I also align with his views about fertility, even though it’s not a deal-breaker for my faith.

    However, I like to be safe. Once I started reading between the lines and doing a little background research, I realized that my perception of him was colored by my own opinions. This does not exclusively apply to his post, but also to his website. He is of the opinion that women should rarely leave the house for any reason, although I took one of his points to mean that a woman should not be out clubbing or drinking with her friends. He requires churchgoers to divorce their second spouses before becoming members. That somehow doesn’t sound right to me.

    There are other strange views expressed. http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/04/where-do-dead-babies-go/

    From what I’ve seen in the media section on the page, he appears to be a new convert.

    Point is, I did not leave a comment on his page, because upon reflection, I was on neither side of the argument. I agree with his patriarchal sentiment, but I have very different views than he does. On the surface he looks great, but I hope the manosphere doesn’t think of him as a kind of hero.

  143. ballista74 says:

    How come a generation of women, at least those commenting at NYC Pastor, seem unable to grasp the very basics of the market in which they are competing – it’s a buyer’s market and they are the product for sale.

    Feminism has caused women to not have to consider what they have to offer when dealing with men. Other women, men, and society at large enable them in doing this. They don’t have anything to offer, and furthermore don’t even conceive that they have to offer anything to a man in order for him to wife him up. In fact, her mere Glorious Presence is enough. Again the church and society supports them in this thinking.

  144. Hollis says:

    Should read: “I originally took one of his points to mean that young men shouldn’t select a wife who clubs and drinks with friends.”

    His real sentiment, of course, is that women should rarely leave the house for any reason.

  145. greyghost says:

    Oscar

    Bravo, sir! You’ve accomplished what few men have. You’ve elevated your own haaaaapiness above the welfare of children to a degree equal to that of feminists!,/blockquote>

    The whole purpose of surrogacy is the well being of that man’s child. Look around you. See Detroit, Stockton Ca. “the hood’ of any city or town with more than 40k people. Think of why this block exist and what has happened to the Christian church. It is pure romance of the female. Playing house isn’t going to cut it I will not tell you to dump your wife I will advise a young man to think about having his own child. I guarantee all if you reversed the single mom single dad ratio you will not get a “hood” . The very men that desire families that built the suburbs for their families will do the same for their own children Just the way the beta male rolls. this is where we are now and as we discussed here the churchians are no different http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
    a beta male turns to surrogacy to spare his child that. To bad it has come to that because nowhere in western civilization is any help for a man in his quest for a thriving progeny. He is laughed at and deemed some kind of selfish criminal misogynist.
    men are going to use birth control pills and surrogacy in the future that is certain. Young men have no delusions of a loving family. Doesn’t exist by law and the one thing about beta males they are some social get along with others types and will choose MGTOW just to be nice. And that will include becoming fathers. The beta male will be free to love with the same motivation he had as a loving husband.

  146. JDG says:

    How come a generation of women, at least those commenting at NYC Pastor, seem unable to grasp the very basics of the market in which they are competing

    In hopes of sounding completely sexist to any feminist lurkers, I would like to modify your generalization to include western women as a whole.

    Where:
    a = women don’t do cause and effect very well,
    b= the hamster is strong with western women,
    c = a generation of women are unable to grasp the very basics of the market in which they are competing,

    My answer to the question would be: a + b = c

  147. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    I never thought ill of a childless married couple. You seem like a straight up solid guy to me and speak well of your wife. Stay hard and on course.
    I personally love being a father. Right now I have a 14 year daughter. So next few years will be fun. MGTOW is going to be a challenge for my daughters. They will need to be very red pill to be attractive to a man that has it together enough to be MGTOW. And coincidentally that kind guy may have the mojo to keep my little pumpkin red pill and worthy of being a wife. (I’m under no delusions even my little princess needs to be guided especially in this environment)
    I didn’t mention it but will add the MGTOW man must be grounded in Christian faith to make those hard decisions. The last thing the world needs is another man that is pleasing to his wife.

  148. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    I need a favor from you.Have you seen the TV commercial from http://www.cougarlife.com? I have seen it 3 times now.I believe it was on the History Channel,Discovery or NatGeo.It is a joke.It starts off with a woman(23) asking a guy(23)…I guessestimate…”so are you going to buy me a drink”?…She is pushed away by a 40+ blonde woman,who says…”let me buy you a drink”….and then the narrator says….”Older women know what they want…and they want you”…..TV has hit a new low! Have you seen it?…if not?….Please do me the courtesy and find it…you are great at doing searches.I do not have the time.Then when you find it…send it to Mr.’D’.I believe that this will be a prime post. And,I would like all the regular posters to see it…if they have not.Thanks.

    I haven’t seen it. But, I hardly watch any TV, so that’s to be expected.

    Anyhow, I’ll give a shot at looking for it (sounds like a pretty good post🙂 ).

  149. MarcusD says:

    Is this the one?

    It’s not a perfect match, though. Still, quite amusing.

  150. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    That is one of them….but,not the one that I described.I will be watching for them as well as the channel.Again,TV has hit a new low…..and the women that go for this BS are even more pathetic.

  151. Boxer says:

    Cougar Life. Fuck’n LOL!

    Desperate old overweight 40-something grannies (who look nothing like that model, mind you) will be swarming that site to find one of you young bucks to help raise their teenage kids, all sired by different fathers. You brothers need some of that sour old skankmeat now, don’t deny it.

  152. thehaproject says:

    @Bee said:
    “Also, keep in mind that God said “Be fruitful and multiply” exactly twice: …”

    That may be, but Psalm 127:3-5 says:
    3 Children are a heritage from the Lord,
    offspring a reward from him.
    4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
    are children born in one’s youth.
    5 Blessed is the man
    whose quiver is full of them.
    They will not be put to shame
    when they contend with their opponents in court.

    Various other places in the Bible make it quite clear that God intends marriages to be fruitful.

  153. @innocentbystanderboston

    What Ann Coulter needed to ask the single mothers is (A) if, given a choice, they’d choose single motherhood over having a spouse, (B) if they want their children to be single parents, and (C) if they think it’s generally easier to be a single parent or a married parent or do they think it’s the same. If they answer answer no to (A) or (B), then they are judging marriage better than being a single parent and if they answer that being a single parent is harder, the follow-up is whether they expect the average person to do as well at something that’s harder as they do with something that’s not as hard.

  154. DeNihilist says:

    Dalrock – “it isn’t surprising that men will nearly always focus their criticism on other men, and do whatever it takes to turn a blind eye to the sins of women.”

    Your supposed alfalfa PUA’s. The Beta’s built this world, yet now they are turned upon, not by true Alpha’s, but the poser omega alfalfa’s, just for the poosy.

    Yup, top notch.

  155. thehaproject says:

    @Bee, I see now that you were quoting @Lyn87

  156. Lyn87 says:

    thehaproject,

    The quote was from me, not Bee. As for Psalm 127: nobody is disputing that. I was responding to the people who decided that the Bible didn’t go far enough for their tastes, and insisted that I was wrong for, essentially, not wanting or trying to have children with my wife, even though those pregnancies would have almost certainly ended in miscarriage and/or killed her.

    Miraculous healing is possible, but there is no indication that it happened in her case. To those who say we should have had faith that God would work it out, I will respond with Deuteronomy 6:16 – “Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah.” (NIV) You will probably recognize that as one of the scriptures Jesus quoted to Satan during his time in the wilderness.

    Paul described the purpose of marriage in sufficient detail in 1 Corinthians 7:9 – it is better to marry than to burn (with unrequited passion). Marriage is not “sanctified” or “justified” or “made complete” or “made right” by children – the Bible simply does not say that anywhere, and I refuse to accept a doctrine that somebody just made up.

    Contraception has been around since the earliest days of recorded history (although with wildly varying degrees of effectiveness) – and yet the topic is foreign to scripture. If God intended for us to consider it to be a sin, isn’t it reasonable to think He might have told us? One should be VERY circumspect about pronouncing judgements about morality and sin in the absence of scripture, and especially directly contrary to scripture like Cane did here.

  157. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    That is one of them….but,not the one that I described.I will be watching for them as well as the channel.Again,TV has hit a new low…..and the women that go for this BS are even more pathetic.

    They have a YouTube channel (the video above is on it). As I said earlier, I haven’t seen these commercials, so you may have to go looking for it yourself…

    Interesting to see, anyhow.

  158. illuvitus says:

    @Lyn:
    “I was responding to the people who decided that the Bible didn’t go far enough for their tastes, and insisted that I was wrong for, essentially, not wanting or trying to have children with my wife, even though those pregnancies would have almost certainly ended in miscarriage and/or killed her.”

    Historically and consistently, going into a marriage without the intention of producing children would have been like going to a job without the intention of working. It is one of (but not the only) reason for marriage. The same-sex marriage debate has made me realize just how closely raising children was tied to marriage. It’s been done away with here in the post-Christian west, but nowhere else.

    That is not to say that it is immoral if one refrains from producing children for medical reasons once married. That’s a bit fuzzier, but also rare. I would assume – though I don’t have any Scriptural or theological examples on hand – that it is not quite the same thing.

    ———————————
    “Marriage is not “sanctified” or “justified” or “made complete” or “made right” by children – the Bible simply does not say that anywhere, and I refuse to accept a doctrine that somebody just made up.”

    Well, Scripturally, you have this from 1st Timothy 2:
    “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 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. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

    You also have virtually every woman in Scripture who is childless desiring to have a child. It is natural. A family without children is not immoral or evil, but incomplete. The verse is not talking about Salvation; it is more akin to how man is meant to work. This is the parallel for women. But It isn’t something to mock or shame or ridicule, but to feel sorry for. And I do, if you and your wife are unable to have children. There’s an incompleteness there. I don’t mean that lightly, and I don’t mean that it is somehow immoral.

    ——————————–
    “Contraception has been around since the earliest days of recorded history (although with wildly varying degrees of effectiveness) – and yet the topic is foreign to scripture. If God intended for us to consider it to be a sin, isn’t it reasonable to think He might have told us?”

    I’m not familiar enough with the topic of contraception to have a good answer from Scripture. From what I gather, the case against modern contraception would be similar to the case against “same-sex marriage”: neither one is really discussed because it is assumed that the purpose and structure of marriage cannot truly permit either one. The natural law case against contraception, however, is compelling.

  159. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    I would agree the risk is that children you birth will not care for you, but no one will definitely be there if you have none.

    Big issue for me now as I thought I provided an alternative for that and it turns out to not be there. Note that having adopted children go bad gets similar comments as well.

    greghost,

    You are right that your daughter has little to look forward too. She also has no mother (if you walked out what you propose all the time) to help guide her in righteousness. Sucks to be her, or her husband for that matter.

    (It sucks to be many modern women of course, for other reasons.)

  160. new anon says:

    @thehaproject,

    The scripture you quoted said children were a BLESSING. It never said children were mandatory.

    If having children is mandatory for a man, then Paul’s advice that it is better not to marry would be in conflict, since Christians then (and today for that matter) were expected to remain celibate outside of marriage.

  161. Scott says:

    The Ann Coulter/Fr. Albert video is pretty depressing. With that much moral confusion, we are doomed.

  162. Cane Caldo says:

    @new anon

    If having children is mandatory for a man, then Paul’s advice that it is better not to marry would be in conflict, since Christians then (and today for that matter) were expected to remain celibate outside of marriage.

    The idea you are supposedly countering has not been put forth. No one said children are mandatory for men. Children are supposed to issue forth from a marriage; meaning they should be pursued. Illuvitus’ comparison to work was apt.

  163. Hank Flanders says:

    RE: Ann Coulter video

    It seems very difficult to appeal to women’s senses of logic (when they have any). The women in the video kept going back to the same emotional arguments instead of attacking Coulter’s argument on its own merits. If I were to argue against Coulter, I would argue with her based on the numbers.

    For instance, her statement that 70% of juvenile delinquents come from single-parent homes doesn’t necessarily address the overall population of single-parent homes. That is, what percentage of children coming out of single-parent homes actually become delinquents? Is it in the majority? Is it less 50%?… Much less?

    All that that 70% figure she quoted tells us is that a delinquent is more likely to have come from a single-parent home, but that stat only tells us something about correlation, not necessarily causation. We can probably surmise that delinquents are also likely to have come from poorer families and areas, but can we also surmise that being a delinquent is more likely a result of having come from a single-parent family, or is it more likely a result of simply having come from a poor area? I’d guess it’s the latter.

    Now the counter-argument to my counter-argument would be that it doesn’t matter whether being raised by a single parent is what causes the delinquency, considering that adoptive parents would probably be putting the child in a better environment, anyway, negating both possible contributing factors to the child’s delinquency. That would be fair enough, but how many non-white American children would be adopted by well-to-do families? That would be my question if I had to argue against Coulter on this subject, and I might not even be a good argument there, but at least I’d have one. I’d like to give the audience in that clip the benefit of the doubt by saying maybe they just didn’t have time to formulate a decent counter-argument, but I wonder if that would have even made a difference.

    My overall point, though, is that women don’t seem to think in the above terms, if the women in that Coulter clip (other than Coulter) are any indication of female logic. Those women were hearing something different than Coulter was actually saying. (Maybe some husbands here are familiar with that phenomenon.) The audience members appeared to think Coulter was attacking them for being single mothers or that she was attacking their mothers for raising them by herself. It didn’t matter that Coulter said she wished single mothers the best or that she didn’t recommend someone put her 14-year-old up for adoption. She was merely arguing against society’s glamorization and subsequent perpetuation of single-motherhood and the consequences it can be more likely to bring.

  164. SGT Caz says:

    You live in a culture dominated by the idea of championing the underdog. Men are safe to criticize because they are assumed to be empowered while women are not, and the romance of telling truth to power always captivates.

    Maybe we should be considering a different social goal than just re-familiarizing people with male headship in a marriage and go a little more general. Children should respect fathers, employees should respect bosses, citizens should respect cops, etcetera. Formal power and rank SHOULD be deferred to if you want your society’s institutions to work, including marriage.

  165. Lyn87 says:

    First, an acronym: CFBC = Child Free By Choice. (That will save me from having to keep typing it out if this discussion continues.)

    Now, since we’re discussing Psalm 127: 3-5, I’ll repeat it here:

    Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.

    Solomon penned that, and since we’re quoting scriptures about things that entail blessing and favor, let’s go all the way with it (we don’t want to be churchians who pick-and-choose among scriptures, do we?). So I’ll add another scripture penned by Solomon to this mix:

    Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD. – Proverbs 18:22

    That seems to put men who choose to not marry into a similar category as couples who choose to not have children… MGTOW is the rough equivalent of CFBC, yet I don’t see a lot of criticism of MGTOW around here for some reason. In fact, it would be accurate to call MGTOW’s Wife Free By Choice (WFBC). Considering both Psalm 127 and Proverbs 18 together, how can we logically say that WFBC is acceptable while CFBC is bad, or wrong, or sinful?

    Another factor to consider is that the only legitimate way to receive the blessings of having children is to be married, so by the logic of those criticizing my position, the MGTOW / WFBC man is worse than the CFBC couple, since the CFBC couple only forwent one blessing (children) while the MGTOW / WFBC forewent two blessings (both marriage and children).

    We are (mostly) men here; let’s think like men. MGTOW and CFBC: defend both or defend neither. I defend both.

  166. Lyn87 says:

    Cane writes,

    The idea you are supposedly countering has not been put forth. No one said children are mandatory for men. Children are supposed to issue forth from a marriage; meaning they should be pursued. Illuvitus’ comparison to work was apt.

    Houston, we have a (logic) problem. If women are supposed to bear children, and only married women may bear children without committing the sin of fornication, and Paul advises men to generally avoid marriage, and there are roughly equal numbers of men and women in the world… then taking Paul literally, he and Cane must be advocating widespread polygamy, since that’s the only non-sinful way for most men to remain single and all women to bear children. But now we have yet another problem, since only men married to one wife may hold the offices of deacons and elders in the church (I Timothy 3 and Titus 1).

    Are you advocating polygamy, or did you just not think this through before you hit the “Submit” button?

  167. Laura says:

    BradA:

    When you look back, do you and your wife feel as though the social workers handling your adoption were truthful and straightforward as to the reasons that the children were removed from their birth home? How “open” was the adoption during the years that the children were being raised by you?

    People from both sides of the experience (those who have had their children removed by CPS, and those who tried to foster/adopt) seem to agree on only one thing: the social workers are often completely devoid of moral character, and say/do whatever they think will advance their position at any given moment. Lies are told, promises are broken, critical information is withheld, “misunderstandings” always seem to benefit the social worker & CPS, etc.

    Adoptions from foster care seem to work out well for some people, but I have heard of many disasters as well.

    Although your children have limited contact with you at this point, the fact that your son has acknowledged that you made a big positive impact on his life should be a source of honest pride for you and your wife. I hope the kids re-establish their relationships with you as time goes by. Lots of 20-somethings distance themselves from their parents and then re-establish contact by their thirties. I have a cousin who suddenly started feeling closer to her father when she was in her late 40s/early 50s.

    In the Lord’s economy, the good work that you have done, and the gospel message that you have shared with the children will never disappear without a trace.

  168. “Better wife-up these two sluts quick while there is still time.”

    You think they’ll get as much of a punishment as two male teachers would? Me neither.

  169. Scott says:

    Hank Flanders-

    Trust me, I’m tracking. The idea of thinking through all your opponents possible responses and being able to actually argue their case for them is totally lost on most people now.

    Ann Coulters argument is: “All things being equal, its best if you are born to parents who are married to each other.”

    The response is:

    “You are being mean and judgmental.”

    This is reinforced by the entire audience nodding and clapping. Sigh.

  170. Gunner Q says:

    illuvitus @ 6:20 am:
    “Historically and consistently, going into a marriage without the intention of producing children would have been like going to a job without the intention of working.”

    But Biblically, the purpose of marriage is avoiding sexual temptation. Contraception is never even brought up in the Bible and, considering how many sex laws it contains, that can’t be an oversight.

    In this modern day, when many good men are unable to afford families and have legitimate concerns over being allowed to guide their children well, forcing a Christian man to choose between lifetime celibacy in a sex-drenched culture or having kids he cannot provide for & protect is an act of callous cruelty.

    Let the young marry, be continent and dedicate themselves to demonstrating Christian marriage to a world gone feral. It is a good deed for Christ, no kids required.

  171. Lyn87 says:

    Correction: I wrote, “…and taking Paul literally…” when that doesn’t accurately convey my thought. Yes, Paul ought to be taken literally… what I should have written was, “…and taking Paul as many people do…” instead.

    I don’t think it is accurate to say that Paul was either anti-marriage or pro-polygamy, especially since he told both Timothy and Titus that only monogamously married men could be deacons and elders (which includes pastors).

    Sorry for any confusion.

  172. Scott,

    Hank Flanders-

    Trust me, I’m tracking. The idea of thinking through all your opponents possible responses and being able to actually argue their case for them is totally lost on most people now.

    Ann Coulters argument is: “All things being equal, its best if you are born to parents who are married to each other.”

    The response is:

    “You are being mean and judgmental.”

    This is reinforced by the entire audience nodding and clapping. Sigh.

    It is even worse than that. It was reinforced by the catholic priest who was supposed to be the moderator. He kept reframing her issue, reframing everything Ann said in her book right along with everyone in the audience. It was mostly his fault. If the priest had stipulated to the women that Ann wasn’t attacking any of them individually and was infact wishing them the best (she was) but was instead attacking the whole concept of celebrating single-motherhood, he wouldn’t have even had a show!

  173. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    January 19, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    “The whole purpose of surrogacy is the well being of that man’s child.”

    Again, you sound like a feminist. You disguise your own selfish desires behind a thin veil (and wail) of “it’s all for the children!” You’ve become that which you criticize. Good luck with that.

  174. illuvitus says:

    “But Biblically, the purpose of marriage is avoiding sexual temptation. ”

    Biblically, there are several purposes for marriage:

    1. To complete both the man and woman (this was the case even before the fall)
    2. To bring forth and raise the next generation
    3. To reflect the relationship between Christ and the church

    The only reason we have sexual temptation is because of the first and second items. Marriage doesn’t exist to help “avoid sexual temptation”. It exists for positive reasons, and sexual temptation is merely a corrupted form of those positive reasons.

  175. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    Ann Coulters argument is: “All things being equal, its best if you are born to parents who are married to each other.”
    The response is:
    “You are being mean and judgmental.”
    This is reinforced by the entire audience nodding and clapping. Sigh.

    Sure, because of the crime of “causing bad feelings” trumps pretty much all else in the Oprahfied world of media. It’s a symptom of the larger feminization of culture.

    Attempting to counter emotion with logic is often a waste of time. The same data could be presented in an emotion driven form, possibly, along the lines of “It’s mean to handicap children on purpose, babymommas are handicapping their children for selfish pleasure, stop babymommas from being mean!”. This may be useful to think about – emotional counters to emotional arguments. We have enough logical counters, they just are ignored.

  176. greyghost says:

    BradA
    She has a mother, I am a married man. But I have ask this. What is the world makes you think a mother today can guide any girl to righteousness? You have got to kidding me. Women don’t think like that and never have. Her mother is going to tell her to get a good education and fuck every body like any other good woman today. That is why I’m still married. A woman is righteous when hypergamy leads to righteousness. Why do you think they are shitting on the church now? because it doesn’t mean anything to them other than have some chump call them a Christian woman. The world isn’t what you think is. The only thing a young teenage girl needs to know is to be worthy of a red pill man. There is not one bitch in western civilization capable guiding a girl like that. we don’t have a civilized society where a woman can raise a red pill child. When red pill becomes the cultural norm women will find a way to hypergamy that to the fullest. That is one thing you can count on from woman
    Red pill by the way is based on truth and reality. Looks like Christianity will be making a comeback over todays churchianship.

  177. greyghost says:

    Oscar
    I’m not going to change your mind. I don’t want to. Reality just doesn’t allow for that pretty picture, and I know it is not bad for civilization for a man to have a child with out a woman. I do know how bad it is for civilization for a woman to have a child with out a man.
    Stay hard man

  178. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Looks like Pastor Kim has written a new piece, referencing the previous one..

    http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/20/4-purposes-of-marriage

  179. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    As Illuvitus wrote marriage is a positive endeavor; meaning you have to pursue it, or accomplish it.

    While you have insisted upon logic several times in your posts, there is not even a shadow of logic in your comments.

    1. You have said that because God told Adam and Noah to be fruitful and multiply, it was restricted to them, or that we should consider the mission accomplished as there are (around) 7 billion humans now. How did you arrive at this number? Did God reveal it to you as you say He did of your personal preferences against children?

    2. What of the Great Commission?

    16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    Jesus only said this once–surely you must maintain that its uniqueness signifies that He meant it only for those eleven men, and only until some set number of people have been made disciples. Do you also claim to have this number revealed to you in private moment of warm feelings about yourself?

    3. St. Paul specifically calls marriage a mystery (sacrament) that reveals the relationship of Christ to His Church. Applying your keen sense of logic and powers of personal revelation: Has it been made known to you that a failure to even pursue children is a mystery, likeness, or even simile of Christ and His Bride? Logically, making disciples–children of God–is precisely like the produce of children in a marriage.

    4. There is zero evidence–within either Testament–of affirmation for childless marriages. Children are always spoken of as desirable, with the exception of where the wicked are called out for mistreating, killing, or despising them.

    MGTOW is an off-topic ruse. Polygamy is an off-topic ruse. Married women being saved through childbearing is an off-topic ruse. All of that brought up to cobble together a facsimile of a system that pretends to be Biblical. In fact it all just a mockery to demonstrate against with your claims of “personal revelation”; to give them and you the sheen of legitimacy, but you seem pretty dull to me.

  180. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    I am not sure where the logic leap happens where we have lots of polygamy because Paul advocates some remain single. The number is implied to be relatively small and is not inherently limited to men, so I am not sure where the imbalance would be read in.

  181. BradA says:

    Laura,

    When you look back, do you and your wife feel as though the social workers handling your adoption were truthful and straightforward as to the reasons that the children were removed from their birth home? How “open” was the adoption during the years that the children were being raised by you?

    I believe they didn’t tell us that the children and all involved were being aimed at reunion just prior to the children coming to us. I cannot completely validate that, but it would explain why several large signs of that were present early on.

    We had no contact with the birth family until my oldest daughter was 18 and I gave all of them their original birth certificates, which I had acquired earlier. I did even make a trip with 3 of them to see the birth family after this, but the birth father regularly undercut our role in their eyes even while pretending to work with me. He ceased the latter charade once all the children were over 17 and we had no legal way to force anything. (It is legal for a child to leave home at 17 in Texas.)

    I have also gone through a brief period (2 weeks) where the children were removed due to false claims and the fact that we lived in a house where a family that looked similar to my wife and I had long term run-ins with CPS. They confused us with the previous family and acted stupid on no charges. A horrid time in my life and something that completely demonstrated that CPS is there to destroy families.

    You can’t completely believe children’s claims in that case any more than you can believe them of a hostile x-wife. Both have biases to make up lies.

  182. BradA says:

    Greyghost,

    She has a mother, I am a married man. But I have ask this. What is the world makes you think a mother today can guide any girl to righteousness? You have got to kidding me. Women don’t think like that and never have.

    Then you advocate what you have not even done.

    [Tit 2:3-4 KJV] 3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    Note that this is the standard. It may not get followed today, but it is the standard.

    You err by comparing what we have with what we should have. It is as bad as IBB’s claim that women can make no moral choices on their own.

    My own wife would have given the advice you mention a couple of years ago, but I expect it is very different now as I have walked her through some of the process of taking the red pill. People can change, but it takes time, effort and a willingness to follow. Men can be just as bad at this, as Dalrock regularly notes. Women don’t have a lock on being stupid.

  183. BradA says:

    I know it is not bad for civilization for a man to have a child with out a woman.

    An you know this how? You assert it, but you can’t even note your own situation since that wasn’t the case for you.

  184. “Marriage doesn’t exist to help “avoid sexual temptation”. It exists for positive reasons, and sexual temptation is merely a corrupted form of those positive reasons.”

    You sound like Origen here.

    Sex isn’t the only reason for marriage, but it’s definitely one of the reasons for it. And God’s Word certainly suggests that it’s the only outlet for it.

  185. Major Styles says:

    We live in a country where male sexual preference is demonized. We are supposed to believe that our expectations are evil, while hers are saintly. It makes me fucking sick. I am so tired of hearing about how I have no right to demand something from the woman I dedicate my life to. Meanwhile, I must meet her every whim and demand, or else…
    There is a mean spirited attitude in so many of today’s modern women. Incapable of truly loving a man.

  186. Brilliant. This list should not just be framed and hung on every single Christian man’s bedroom wall, but it should also include a #11 category: Any woman who shrieks when they read this list.

    As Whittaker Chambers observed, “innocence rarely shrieks. Guilt does.”

  187. BradA says:

    Many should keep in mind that helping with passion does not mean removing it. No wife can fully sate a man’s sexual appetite if he will not also subject it to the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ!

  188. ballista74 says:

    NYCPastor’s commentary on the comments and response posts he was seeing.

    http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/23/when-christians-turn-on-christians/

    Note the most interesting/supportive voices, as he mentions, came from the Atheist community – basically “while I don’t agree with what you espouse, we know you are accurately repeating what the Bible says”

    Sick sad world isn’t it, when the atheists are against Christianity for what the Bible says, and the “Christians” are against Christianity because they don’t know and won’t accept what the Bible says.

  189. JF says:

    @ballista:
    And we wonder why Jesus hung out with the wayward people and the derelicts, and told the “religious people” of his time to basically get lost?
    Same old, same old.

  190. Pingback: Proclaimed Christians Aren’t All Christ Followers | The Society of Phineas

  191. dvdivx says:

    This is why I’m truley wondering if the bible is being misused or the Christian God is some uncaring tyrant. So from my take on this is if I’m in a sexless marriage I’m supposed to endure this for the rest of my life or if I get divorced I’m then committing adultery. Looks like in modern Christianity there are two ways of going to hell, one is disbelief and the other is walking down the aisle to get married. At least my son will learn early what marriage really is all about.

  192. Lyn87 says:

    I didn’t realize Cane and Brad responded to my earlier comments until just now. Here goes:

    First, Cane:

    1. You have said that because God told Adam and Noah to be fruitful and multiply, it was restricted to them, or that we should consider the mission accomplished as there are (around) 7 billion humans now. How did you arrive at this number? Did God reveal it to you as you say He did of your personal preferences against children?

    I didn’t need God to reveal it to me: the world’s population is well-known and accessible from any number of reputable sources. And I have no “personal preference” against children – once again you attack the straw-man that is Lyn87 in your head rather than anything I wrote.

    2. What about the Great Commission? … Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    The answer is contained in your own question: while humanity has successfully populated the Earth, the church has yet to make disciples of all nations, therefore that commandment remains in force.

    3. … a bunch of off-topic stuff that doesn’t make sense…

    Please rephrase your question so that it is an actual sentence in the English language – I literally don’t know what your point is. And when you do that, try to restrict your paraphrasing of Paul to what he actually wrote, rather than what you want him to have meant.

    4. There is zero evidence–within either Testament–of affirmation for childless marriages.

    Not so fast… although not specifically about child-free marriages, Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, and Luke 21:23 (the Olivet Discourse) all mitigate against unqualified pro-natalism.

    Now BradA,

    I am not sure where the logic leap happens where we have lots of polygamy because Paul advocates some remain single. The number is implied to be relatively small and is not inherently limited to men, so I am not sure where the imbalance would be read in.

    Context is important. I was responding to something that Cane wrote, where his position – when taken to its logical conclusion – would perforce lead to widespread polygamy. I’m not advocating that, by the way.

  193. Scott says:

    I know this is an old thread. Just kind of wanted to get some wisdom from Dalrock and readers on this.

    http://courtshippledge.com/2015/01/the-rules-of-the-dating-game-a-story-from-our-own-home/

  194. Boxer says:

    Scott:

    Your son dodged a bullet. She sounds like a nut, with a long and sordid history (relative to her age, of course).

    Boxer

  195. Hank Flanders says:

    I agree with Hollis about this “NYCPastor,” who believes (or claims to believe) that dead babies go to Hell and that if they were to go to Heaven, then aborting them and sending them straight to Heaven would be “the BEST gift for a baby because in killing the child, you send him to immediate heaven without giving him an opportunity to grow up and possibly reject the gospel in the future” (http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/04/where-do-dead-babies-go/#comments). He also thinks people who are in second marriages should get divorced, because they’re supposedly living in an adulterous relationship. (http://nycpastor.com/2015/01/26/divorce-remarriage/) After the baby thing, it’s hard to take anything this person says seriously, whether it’s meant genuinely or not.

    Also, about the second marriage thing, don’t people have cause for divorce if one of them commits adultery? What difference does it make whether that adultery takes place before or after the divorce from the first marriage happens or whether or not the marriage papers for the second marriage are signed? The first time the new couple commits adultery, then the first marriage can be biblically dissolved, yes?

  196. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    I responded because of his overall sentiment (not particularly because I have parsed all of his views and concur with them), as well as in solidarity against what appears to be a torrent of criticism from both so-called believers (babes, un-converted, apostates) to non-believers.

    I did shoot him a note and ask him for clarification on the dead infant thing as well as some specifics on women’s roles outside of the house and dissolution of 2nd marriages for victims of transgression. Crickets.

    I don’t interpret his words as indication of a woman never leaving the house as much as the fact that she should make the needs of the household a solemn priority…which, I guess, would entail not spending a lot of time in the streets unless absolutely necessary. And I think a woman that has a 9-5 to support the needs of the home would be legit as a necessity.

    And yes, the Pastor is definitely a noob, but he is quite bright.

  197. Lyn87 says:

    I did shoot him a note and ask him for clarification on the dead infant thing as well as some specifics on women’s roles outside of the house and dissolution of 2nd marriages for victims of transgression. Crickets.

    Well he IS one the most famous people on the interwebs this week and is probably being bombarded with thousands of e-mails a day. But of course he could be dodging you because he’s just never been asked to explain his position before.

    Yeah… that’s probably it. /sarc

    FWIW, the Bible does not say what happens when the unborn, or very young children, die. The only thing that even comes anywhere near the subject is 1 Corinthians 7:14, which reads as follows:

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    That’s it: the sum total of everything the Bible says on the matter, and it is eminently unclear (to me, anyway) what bearing (if any) that has regarding salvation of the souls of fetuses who die before birth. If includes both spouses and children, yet nobody would suggest that a person who rejects Christ would be saved because of a Christian spouse (two verses later – 1 Cor 7:16 – categorically rules that out, in fact), so the meaning of “unclean” with regard to the unborn in this context is not clear-cut. Anyway, it’s not a lot – certainly not enough for me to feel comfortable building a doctrinal statement about it – but it’s all we have, and I’m sure that’s what NYCPastor is referring to.

  198. Hank Flanders says:

    Lyn87,

    I wouldn’t say that scripture is the ONLY one we have. For me, the first one that comes to mind is Mark 9:40 – “Anyone who is not against us is for us.” Have babies had a chance to be against Christ yet?

    As to NYCPastor’s assertion that aborting babies would be a gift to them if they were to go straight to Heaven so that they couldn’t one day reject the gospel, let’s follow that line of thinking to its natural conclusion. By that logic, we should murder ANYONE who claims Christ so that one day they can’t possibly reject the gospel one day, either.

    This guy has a problem with his thinking, and while I do agree with some of his list about women to avoid marrying, I also know that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  199. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Paul talked about being alive before sin made him dead, implying a certain state for those prior to an age of accountability. Though the overall discussion requires a lot of indirect reading and thus is dangerous ground to make firm religious proclamations.

    I recall a few others, but not enough to argue the point that it is not a direct argument either way.

  200. Spike says:

    Regarding 643+ vs 26: if the model of male disposability favoured by feminism is correct, women will see themselves as valuable and men as disposable tools. The numbers of women complaining then makes sense and is completely consistent. As a woman you can marry a thug for “love”, because his sperm will produce good offspring. He can then be discarded through “no fault” divorce. The now-single mother can use “abuse” and “violence”, protected by the beta males of the State (police and lawyers) as a cover. It’s perfect: she gets the thug spawn AND an intact, or redeemed, reputation.
    Churches fall for it, not just because of the hideous hybrid of Christian and Feminist “theology”, but because we are in the business of saving souls. How do we change it? Probably by seminaries teaching courses on the complete repudiation of feminism. When will that happen? Don’t hold your breath.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s