Driscoll, where do baby-mamas come from?

Just one week after explaining that good Christian men can’t find wives because they unrealistically expect one who doesn’t already have another man’s children, Driscoll explained that women have no choice but to have children out of wedlock because there are no good men willing to marry them:

The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at the point where women aren’t even pretending they’re gonna ever get married. They go to college, get a good job, get pregnant, have a kid. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic. We’re a culture that is working hard to protect women and children, and no one has the common sense to beat on the guys who are the cause of so much of the pain.

Note:  For those of you who are feeling Driscoll fatigue (as am I), I’ll warn you that I have another three posts in the works this week before I move on.  Keep in mind however that what is most important is not what Driscoll says, but what he tells us about modern (conservative) Christian culture.  As with Stanton, Rainey, the Kendrick brothers, etc, Driscoll knows what modern conservative Christians want to hear, and he delivers.

This entry was posted in Mark Driscoll, Stantons Heroes, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

370 Responses to Driscoll, where do baby-mamas come from?

  1. Scott says:

    “no one has the common sense to beat on the guys who are the cause of so much of the pain.”

    Such a bizarre notion of causation.

  2. Pingback: Driscoll, where do baby-mamas come from? | Manosphere.com

  3. Hugh says:

    Has no one ever stood up in Church and simply punched Driscoll’s lights out for this steady stream of abuse that he sends our way?

    If they haven’t maybe that’s part of the problem.

    [D: No. They love it. They can’t get enough of this stuff. Under Driscoll, Mars Hill grew extremely quickly.]

  4. I always suggest the single moms put aside their looking for a husband and start learning to care for themselves and their children. If men are the problem, then surely looking for a husband should be out of the question.

  5. john03063 says:

    We are a culture that needs to beat on guys in order to protect women? And who does the beating? – women and manginas! Men have a natural instinct to protect women – but not if they are going to get screwed in the process. If women want to be protected then they should start acting like women again….

  6. The men with balls left the Churcian Church a long time ago. Filled with sluts and enuchs now. Lots of work for Marky Driscoll to do!

  7. Pingback: Driscoll, where do baby-mamas come from? | Neoreactive

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    >Keep in mind however that what is most important is not what Driscoll says, but what he tells us about modern (conservative) Christian culture. As with Stanton, Rainey, the Kendrick brothers, etc, Driscoll knows what modern conservative Christians want to hear, and he delivers.

    So these men are in a sense “cultural symptoms” as much as “cultural causes”. The message is toxic, but if it was rejected by the majority of those who hear it, the harm would be minimized.

  9. Fal Phil says:

    Feministhater, that’s not exactly true. There are protestant denominations who hold women accountable (as well as men) where the pastors preach the consequences of sinful behavior.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    So these men are in a sense “cultural symptoms” as much as “cultural causes”. The message is toxic, but if it was rejected by the majority of those who hear it, the harm would be minimized.

    I would go farther and argue that they are more symptoms than causes. They are leading Christians where they already wanted to go.

  11. PokeSalad says:

    No wonder his YouTube vids are vanishing like a fart in the wind…..this is really embarrassing stuff, when you pull it from the churchian environment and present it straight, no chaser.

  12. easttexasfatboy says:

    Ya know, the Scriptures say about weak women, tickled ears, misleading and being misled. Pointed warnings about the wolves who will tear the flock asunder. Apostasy and the fruits of the tree. You see, weak men who are masochistic ARE NOT Christians. Plain fact. However, wide is the road, right? If a man marries a woman who shows poor impulse control, Leaky roofs, I reckon. God will not be mocked. Rebelliousness is the same as divination. A man should ONLY raise his own children. As the Spanish say, if you raise crows, they’ll take out your eyes.

  13. Driscoll explained that women have no choice but to have children out of wedlock because there are no good men willing to marry them:

    Heh, this is good timing. A girl I was sweet on and would have married a few years ago just had a baby with her boyfriend. She could have married me or any of several church-going guys, but she stuck with the one she couldn’t marry because of a doctrinal impediment, despite him being a non-church-going alcoholic.

    The funny thing is, she’s not Churchian at all. She preaches a strict interpretation of Peter and Paul on submission and marital rights — which is exactly why she didn’t want to marry. She had told me she had fears about marriage for other reasons, but I gradually realized she just didn’t want to give up that control. But the biological clock was ticking, she her hamster found a way out — get pregnant with the Bad Boy, and then marriage would be off the table and she wouldn’t have to submit to the father, not being married to him. Amazing rationalization.

    She’s an extreme case, but a milder version is the norm now: most women under 30 don’t want to get married. They do want to have sex, though, and they do like babies (that’s built in), so they end up having them with the not-so-good men. It really has nothing to do with the “good men” (providers) or lack thereof, because they aren’t even in the picture at that point as far as these girls are concerned.

  14. This whole thing stinks of cuckold fetish; a congregation of men who’ve allowed their sexuality to be perverted inwards, unable to healthily express themselves by making love to their wives thoroughly and properly, who instead want to be ridiculed and degraded by their dom as she is impregnated by others (in their fantasy, these others are degenerate sub-humans, retards and criminal; they fetishize the debasement of the genome).

    I apologize for being vulgar, but that’s what this looks like to me. This is the result of 12 years of school teachers slapping a boy’s manhood with a ruler.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    I would go farther and argue that they are more symptoms than causes. They are leading Christians where they already wanted to go.

    Hmm. Then church leaders in Protestant denominations are manifestations of what the membership wants? Not quite sure I can buy that, because of the examples of splits between leadership and membership over various political issues.

    Example: I’m fairly sure that a majority of US Episcopalians weren’t in favor of women as priests back in the 70’s (or whenver that happened), the change in opinion of the average church member lagged the change imposed by the denomination leadership, it did not lead it. The Anglicans in England just appointed a woman bishop, but that church hasn’t polled its members on the topic for a few years, probably due to the results they kept getting (against women bishops).

    Of course there is a self selection process in the denominations, both at the individual level and the church level. A constant sorting among the various more-liberal vs. more-conservative denominations. Driscoll if I remember rightly was never part of any denomination, aside from “Driscollism”, it will be interesting to see if the various Mars Hill satellite churches continue to exist, and if so in what form – independent, or part of a larger denomination?

    Driscoll never had to really defend his positions to anyone. He did not have to justify his pronouncements in terms of Bible quotes, nor in terms of science, but only in terms of culture. That’s part of the problem, surely.

  16. They go to college, get a good job, get pregnant, have a kid. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic.

    Did they decide to have sex before marriage…. yea, there’s the problem right there. Why should a decent man bail them out? They are obviously not marriage material themselves. These women’s problems are self-inflicted.

  17. l jess says:

    Mark Driscoll is off his rocker – good women find good men – slutty women find bad boys to get them pregnant – then they think that going to a church makes them good? = just slutty women going to a different building listening to a fool who tickles their ears.

  18. I have to disagree with Dalrock. This stuff is indoctrinated into men at a very young age. The Churches are empty of young men for exactly this reason. Men have lost the will and energy to fight for Churches and this is your reason for finding only supplicating men in Church. They’ve left the leading to others, mostly their wives and their tingles.

  19. The downfall of Driscoll, Stanton, Rainey, and the Kendrick brothers is predictable. They serve a fickle mistress, and the bed they serve her on is appointed for only a season.

    “So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.”
    (Pro 7:13-27)

  20. easttexasfatboy says:

    Yes, The Bible is the only way to tell who is who. Apostate mockery for a crust. Deception for money. It’s that blatant. However, most folks will shuffle down that broad spacious road.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Hmm. Then church leaders in Protestant denominations are manifestations of what the membership wants? Not quite sure I can buy that, because of the examples of splits between leadership and membership over various political issues.

    Example: I’m fairly sure that a majority of US Episcopalians weren’t in favor of women as priests back in the 70’s (or whenver that happened), the change in opinion of the average church member lagged the change imposed by the denomination leadership, it did not lead it.

    In Driscoll’s case he started a new church from the ground up, and built it into a megachurch. The membership sought him out because they wanted what he had to offer. Also, note that Rainey features Driscoll in his Stepping Up™ video. Rainey knows Driscoll is (was) a fan favorite, the vanguard of modern Christian masculinity. Rainey features Driscoll for the same reason he features Sheila Gregoire. Modern Christians like it.

    It is true that there are multiple facets to this. Some conservative modern Christians prefer Stanton, who brags that his wife tells him what to do and all but tells us he sits down to pee. Others prefer Driscoll, the only real man in the room. But these facets form a broad coalition of modern Conservative Christians.

  22. armenia4ever says:

    “They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic”

    Does Driscoll even realize how nasty the economy is and how bad the recession has been for men? The divorce rate among Christians is not getting better and the incentive to marry even a Christian woman is not either.

    I attend a Christian university and even there most girls don’t want to get married until they get a Master’s degree and the idea of kids is something they don’t plan on considering until their late 30s.

    To make it even worse most Christian girls will gladly put their career before their “romantic” relationships. If they will choose their career over a potential family, do you really want to marry them?

    Throw in the raging hormones that the Church expects us to control until we “get married” and it seems like the choice to leave the church gets easier and easier unless you want to show up every Sunday morning feeling like an absolute two-faced hypocrite who satisfied his sexual urges the night before.

    Perhaps the only exception to this has been girls raised in the homeschooling community.

  23. I think that you miss the appeal that this has for the type of man that goes to these “churches”. This type of message appeals to the thirsty blue pill beta male in that he can sit there and imagine that he’ll be the white knight that saves that hot slut from her self imposed situation and that they’ll live happily ever after with many nights of hot sex. The fact the he gets nuclear rejection after nuclear rejection may eventually pop his bubble but so long as he can maintain that fantasy he can view himself as the righteous savior of these poor women, if only they would give him the chance! Or if he is the older married beta he can feel superior righteous indignation over the failure of his unmarried peers. In either case it plays to the beta male desire to save the hot chick and makes him feel superior to all those cads out there abusing these poor women.

  24. tz says:

    Someone needs to found “Venus Hill” next door, and preach the Bible.
    Women are forced to have themselves raped until pregnant?
    Or is it that men don’t shop for used merchandise?

    Driscoll Fatigue, maybe, but it requires a proper diagnosis.

    One last note – I believe Driscoll is here in Seattle. This area never was Christian. I think it was the endpoint for the Hell on Wheels going west. There are Christians, but more Laodiceans.

  25. tz says:

    Marriage used to involve the Man getting a dowry. The women are carrying the load by themselves.

  26. What about the guys who got the full use of the women, made them into single moms, and then escaped and continued to enjoy life?

    “I too am not a bit tamed—I too am untranslatable; I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.”*

    Pretty sure at least a notable minority of guys would sign up for that. Or maybe I’m being dull about Driscoll. Is that point that it’s Christian MEN who are are lapping up Driscoll’s faux-AMOG puke?

    _________
    *Apologies to Walter White. Er, I mean, Walt Whitman.

  27. The logic, or lack thereof, in that statement just blows my mind. Let’s flip this around and imagine he said it like this:

    The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at a point where woman have no moral inhibition; not only do they not wait until marriage for sex, but don’t even bother to wait until marriage to have kids. The men know this, which is why they don’t want to get married. They can’t even pretend their wives will be virgins by the time they meet them. Meanwhile, the system is completely stacked against them. They go to college, drop out when they find how much they’re hated for being men thanks to feminism, try to get a good job but can’t because Affirmative Action and “diversity” means the position goes to an under-qualified attractive girl who gets promoted by sleeping with their supervisor. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a woman who can actually wait until marriage before popping out a fornification trophy, and that’s tragic. We’re a culture that claims to work hard to protect women and children, yet no one has the common sense to ask whether this is done at the expense of men.

  28. ballista74 says:

    No wonder his YouTube vids are vanishing like a fart in the wind…..this is really embarrassing stuff, when you pull it from the churchian environment and present it straight, no chaser.

    Only because of the old corporate culture by-line, where he’s gone, he’s forgotten. The CEO leaves the company, any sign he was there goes down – the pictures come down, the videos come down, the mentions come down. The quicker the better.

    No one with any opinion to matter in that world is embarrassed by anything Driscoll has uttered. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. They all believe it.

  29. Striver says:

    @Cail Corishev,

    Given choices and options, which women are now given, I think many/most women deep down want a PERMANENT relationship ever. They want serial monogamy. Much of the appeal of the bad boys/alphas is that they are either not interested in a relationship are are not “boyfriend material” so the woman can have the sex without having the man around.

    But they still want the attention, so they need the betas around and their girlfriends around and their parents around. My soon to be ex can’t have me around because that would mean some sort of submission on her part which she’s no longer willing to do. But if I have the kids, I can often handle them for a weekend by myself. If she has them, she ALWAYS has/needs help. Her parents are around or her sister’s around. They want to be princess/queen with one guy around for sex, ex-lovers, boyfriends/husbands to help raise the kids, maybe children by multiple fathers, a network of relatives/friends to pay attention to them. That is ideal state for a woman.

    I’m not buying it that some alpha can constantly game his wife and that is the secret to long-running monogamy. Seems like more work that it’s worth and only fun if the man is a born salesman, which most aren’t.

  30. Dalrock & everyone,

    The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at the point where women aren’t even pretending they’re gonna ever get married. They go to college, get a good job, get pregnant, have a kid.

    The main problem I have with statements like this is Driscoll either didn’t do his homework OR he purposefully left out a whole bunch of vitally important stuff before building his narrative. I’ll be specific.

    They go to college, get a good job…

    It is at this point (and only this point) where he acknowledges that she is finally ready to get married. Absent from his inane commentary is the fact that good Christian men wanted to marry her at 20 or maybe 21 and not wait until she is say 24 or 25. A young Christian man wanted to marry her when both he and she were younger and virginal. But lets just go with the fact that if I could actually confront Driscoll and tell him that what she wants and what he wants (regarding when to marry) are not in-line he is going to tell me “…who cares?!?! Man up and marry her NOW!” Okay.

    I will concur with you Pastor Driscoll that at this point (finally graduated from school with a good job) she has full blown baby rabies and wants to get married, like right now (at age 24 or 25.) No argument. The problem pastor Driscoll is this…

    He must be 6’/6’1″ or taller….
    He must be thin and good looking
    He must also have a college degree (preferably a Master’s degree)
    He must be debt free even though it is unlikely she will be
    He must have a great job (better than hers, making more money than her) because….
    …he needs to make enough money to enable her to “choose” if she wants to work OR NOT after she has the kid which means paying for all her debt and student loans that only she accumulated
    He must be willing to ignore the fact that she has riden the cock carrosel
    He must be willing to risk it all for her by agreeing to marriage 2.0 which means…
    ….SHE will have headship. She picks the church and SHE will determine how much time he will be allowed to spend with his friends (if any)

    She is not going to marry a short man at age 25. She is not going to marry a labourous man/trademan at age 25. She is not going to marry an ugly man at age 25. She is not going to marry a man she out-earns at age 25. She is unlikely to marry a man who has a lot of debt when she is 25. She has the debt, they can’t both have the debt. He has to be all those things pastor Driscoll, appear before her with the 1.5 carat engagement ring and she will marry. Of course, she has not found this man. She wont find this man. But according to you, that is the fault of MEN for not being ALL THAT (even if they can’t be all these things.) So then YOU SAY…

    …get pregnant, have a kid…

    Because according to you SHE WILL BE HAVING THAT KID! So it is the responsibility for men to grow themselves tall, to make themselves smarter than they are, to make themsevles better looking than they are, to get a degree or two, a great paying job, and to somehow find a way to have all their college debt paid off on HER baby making schedule or ELSE it is HIS FAULT!

    Do you see pastor? Do you see how wrong you are? And don’t scream at me “HOW DARE YOU!!!!”

    I really wish Driscoll read these boards. I really do. Then maybe he would begin to get some inkling of what is going on in the real world and he wouldn’t be such a terrific douchebag.

  31. ballista74 says:

    And notice the undercurrent in all these quotes. Not just Driscoll, not just Rainey, but about everyone…

    Notice how the woman is never to blame…like she’s… without sin?

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    In Driscoll’s case he started a new church from the ground up, and built it into a megachurch.

    In Seattle, one of the most secularized cities. I wonder how well he would have done in Atlanta?

    The membership sought him out because they wanted what he had to offer. Also, note that Rainey features Driscoll in his Stepping Up™ video. Rainey knows Driscoll is (was) a fan favorite, the vanguard of modern Christian masculinity. Rainey features Driscoll for the same reason he features Sheila Gregoire. Modern Christians like it.

    Agreed. They like it, why?

    It is true that there are multiple facets to this. Some conservative modern Christians prefer Stanton, who brags that his wife tells him what to do and all but tells us he sits down to pee. Others prefer Driscoll, the only real man in the room. But these facets form a broad coalition of modern Conservative Christians.

    Yes, we’ve been over this before, “conservatism” is at best a sea-anchor, it’s “liberalism” with a 20 to 25 year delay. Because often “conservatism” merely defines itself in terms of what is isn’t – “we’re not THAT / THEM”, but not nearly so much in terms of what it aspires to be.

    Driscoll fatique aside, I agree with you that this topic is important, because Driscoll’s rise and fall contains many important details, or perhaps lessons, that epitomize the modern US churches. The “no one’s the boss of me” lack of accountability, the pandering to women approaching the Wall, the AMOGing of the men in the membership, the constant bending of Bible quotes to suit his purpose du jour, the downplaying or flat out ignoring of Bible quotes that do not support him…Driscoll neatly packages up many, even most, of the wrongheadedness of the modern US church.

    So a post mortem analysis of the Mars Hill phenomenon is well worth the effort. If for no other reason than as a warning, a “look out for THIS stuff” to men.

  33. tz says:

    Yet, the same Driscoll:

    Next one. “Are there any circumstances in which it is okay for a wife to be the breadwinner and the husband to take care of the children?”

    And what I find, when it comes to the women, sometimes it’s an older, godlier, seasoned woman who sits a wife down and says, “What in the world are you doing? You are in sin. You are disrespectful. You are unloving. You are cruel. You are controlling. You are manipulative. You are a drama queen freaking out. You love attention and you’re constantly causing trouble.” Those kinds of things

    I’m curious since in his writings he takes the traditional headship view, and his book has been criticized as too traditional.

    The sermon is mixed, but I need to read more…

  34. innocentbystanderboston: Your list of unspoken requirements by women is brilliant; the list is also as ardently denied as it is ardently used.

  35. A Regular Guy says:

    Hugh said: “Has no one ever stood up in Church and simply punched Driscoll’s lights out for this steady stream of abuse that he sends our way?

    If they haven’t maybe that’s part of the problem.”

    I think a Cult of Personality may have something to do with this. “I’m on Team Driscoll cuz he tells it like it is” kind of thing; just another form of idolatry. Like Lyn87 said in comments on another article, a layman with years in the faith should have enough discernment of the spirit to be able to respectfully correct him on his error, but his congregation didn’t. Like Dalrock said, they WANT to hear this crap.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at a point where woman have no moral inhibition; not only do they not wait until marriage for sex, but don’t even bother to wait until marriage to have kids.

    Rollo has labeled this “open hypergamy”, and the female figurehead of Yahoo is a clear example – she not only practiced AF-BB, she openly supports it as a model for other women. And yes, this does mean serial polyandry. It also implies a form of matriarchy.

    Churches that push back against this model in any way are countercultural, and that is going to become more difficult, not easier.

  37. anarchist,

    innocentbystanderboston: Your list of unspoken requirements by women is brilliant; the list is also as ardently denied as it is ardently used.

    Thank you. I mean I do agree that (at 25) she wants to get married so long as he is ALL THAT. She is looking for the top 5% of men regardless of whether or not she is in the top 5% of women. And when she can’t find him, of course she will say that there are no good men left and of course, AMOG douchebags like Driscoll are not going to examine what it is she is looking for in a “good man.” He doesn’t care really. And for the guys who want to only marry her when she was a virgin? “HOW DARE YOU!!!!!” It like only women are allowed to have pre-requisites and all men must bend to their will and desires on all things and BE all that women want them to be OR ELSE they are not good Christian men. That is the only way this type of thinking could make sense to people like Driscoll.

  38. “What about the guys who got the full use of the women, made them into single moms, and then escaped and continued to enjoy life?”

    It takes two, and no doubt there are some guys who are irresponsible slaves to their endocrine systems. But it always seems like the male one of the two winds up shouldering most of the blame.

    I had to follow the link Dalrock provided to make sure that the quote didn’t come from a parody site like The Onion. Someone here mentioned the possibility of Driscoll’s ministry implosion being handed down by God Himself. I wouldn’t be surprised.

  39. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic.

    “Tragic” in the ancient Greek sense of having your sins come back and bite you, perhaps. “Tragic” in the modern sense of, “Oh, something bad just ‘happened’ to me; take pity and fix it for me,” not so much.

    It’s amazing that he can throw in “got pregnant, had a kid” as if that has no bearing on her suitability as a wife. It’s as if I said, “A guy goes off to college, gets a job, sleeps with hookers until he has a couple STDs, and develops addictions to porn and gambling. Why don’t good Christian women want to marry him, and why aren’t we out there beating up on those hookers who messed up his life?”

  40. Yes, it is one of the greatest unspoken double standards in the modern Church today. Driscoll once criticized women’s unrealistic standards but he didn’t go into detail, for a reason. Girls are allowed to have any financial expectations, as long as they aren’t said aloud or discussed in vague terms for the sake of plausible deniability. The men, however, get screamed at just for adhering to Biblical standards. i.e. no divorced women and women need to respect their husbands.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, perhaps some of this is related to the organizational structure of a given denomination. In a megachurch, such as Mars Hill became, the preacher in charge is the organization, and it’s “his way or the highway”, so an idea that he gets is going to be accepted. A member who doesn’t like it probably will leave. It would take a majority of members to affect the church, and since Pastor Mega is the center of that church, if he leaves the threat of implosion is real. Since head count on Sunday matters a lot to many people, that makes the church into a bit of a popularity contest…

    In other churches, such as many Baptist ones, the church is independent but there is a board that directs the church. Whoever controls a majority of that board determines the overall course of the church. A majority of members could influence things, but they would have to stick together. In more hierarchical denominations, such as the Episcopalian / Anglican there is a chain of command. Capture key positions in that organization, and the members might not have much influence than can bring to bear. Similar statements can be made about the Lutherans, Methodists, and so forth, depending on the organizational structure of the denomination. Not so much a popularity contest as a quasi-governmental organization where the people who work within “the church” full time really have a great deal of influence, and those who have other jobs but attend on Sunday have very little say.

    Orgs like Focus on the Family are basically free from any denominational control, so they really are running on a model more like a megachurch. They have to sell what the customers want to buy, whether it fits in with Bible text well or not.

    This is a long winded tl;dr way of pointing out that different organizational structures are captured by the dominent culture in different ways. A flat organization won’t be captured the same way that a hierarchy is. But the effects are the same, to the man in the church service, or the Bible study, etc.

  42. PokeSalad says:

    “Driscoll never had to really defend his positions to anyone. He did not have to justify his pronouncements in terms of Bible quotes, nor in terms of science, but only in terms of culture. That’s part of the problem, surely.””

    it’s the crux of the problem. Christians don’t go to church to hear another version of the world, they see that every day of their lives. If the church is to be judged by the world’s standards, why attend at all?

  43. A Regular Guy: I’m from the Seattle area, and it is filled with effeminate beta males who are conditioned from birth to submit to their mothers and girlfriends and other women under threat of a temper tantrum. This is why these men appreciated being yelled at by Driscoll; to be yelled at by a man for perceived inadequacies instead of women made them feel more like a masculine, which is how Driscoll could get accused by outsiders of being a misogynist; he was usurping the women of their “rightful authority” over the men in her life.

  44. Anchorman says:

    It’s amazing that he can throw in “got pregnant, had a kid” as if that has no bearing on her suitability as a wife. It’s as if I said, “A guy goes off to college, gets a job, sleeps with hookers until he has a couple STDs, and develops addictions to porn and gambling. Why don’t good Christian women want to marry him, and why aren’t we out there beating up on those hookers who messed up his life?”

    That’s a much better twist on his rant.

    Because he really is saying to completely gloss over what is unacceptable conduct if married (having baby with another guy who is not your husband).

    Women, meet the newly minted Christian man who spent his 20s on booze, porn, and has STDs.

    You need to promise to give him everything he needs because women failed to do it before and look at what life did to him. And don’t you dare judge him.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    In fact, if we recall the situation of Joseph of Jackson it clearly demonstrates how the organization of a church matters. [*]

    The problem that he represented was really one of leadership. By teaching young men how to be more manly, not in the standard Churchian “manUP” model that requires submission to women, but in a genuinely masculine way, J of J made himself a threat to the leadership. Because he created, probably inadvertently, an alternative center of authority within the church that wasn’t under control of the leadership board, and he scared the matriarchs of the church in the bargain. At that point his departure was probably only a matter of time.

    The fact that he had the Bible on his side to a large extent probably didn’t help matters much. Nothing like telling a middle aged man his wife’s opinion of submission is all wrong…putting on those glasses after 20 years of marriage? Mighty painful thing to do. Telling a middle aged man on the leadership board of a church that his reading of the Bible on submission is wrong? Ditto.

    [*] A poster / commenter here and at other androsphere sites who called himself Joseph of Jackson began teaching Game to young men of a church. The young men who had previously been rather passive Betas began becoming more assertive around the young women of the church, and I suspect around the men as well. This rocked the boat. He wound up being called on the carpet by the leadership of that church, and in a semi formal hearing was told he was being tossed out. He did succeed in pointing out the churchian double standard that was being applied to young women and most young men, but he still was tossed out.

    That’s my recollection, deti, Cail, others can surely correct me if I’ve misremembered. If anyone knows where J of J is nowadays in the virtual, online sense it would be interesting to find him.

  46. Scott says:

    Anonymous Reader at 27JAN15 1039 makes an in adverdant argument for Orthodoxy.

    No significant change in theology, doctrine, catechesis in over 1300 years.

    Just saying.🙂

  47. I’m from the Seattle area, and it is filled with effeminate beta males who are conditioned from birth to submit to their mothers and girlfriends and other women under threat of a temper tantrum.

    I am wondering if this is the reason why that “hipster” craze got started in Seattle? Whenever I see a young beta male wearing hipster attire, I get the impression that he got to like that kind of dress because that is what his momma would want him to wear?

  48. Dalrock says:

    @TZ

    I’m curious since in his writings he takes the traditional headship view, and his book has been criticized as too traditional.

    The sermon is mixed, but I need to read more…

    Stay tuned. Driscoll defines headship and submission in his Women And Marriage sermon, the sermon which preceded the one you just quoted. I’ll cover that sermon in the last in the series (probably on the weekend), but his view of headship and submission is anything but traditional.

    But by all means, go through both sermons in detail. Alternately, if like me you prefer a transcript you can read the Men and Marriage one here. I’ll ask strictly as a courtesy if you would hold off on commenting on his women and marriage sermon until I cover it later in the week. Likewise, I have another post already written going into the detail of his men and marriage sermon that I’ll post tomorrow. If you would do me the favor of waiting on that topic until tomorrow I would appreciate it as well.

  49. The only problem with my analogy is that many “good church girls” would jump at the chance to personally rehabilitate the STD-laden addict, while the nice church boys wonder what just happened. Maybe I should have made him a virgin (not on purpose, but because he developed a fear of women from so many rejections) with no car and an expensive D&D habit.

  50. PokeSalad says:

    [i] Like Dalrock said, they WANT to hear this crap. [/i]

    The men want it because it validates all those years of being beta and submitting to the FI. “Just man up, your wait for a reformed whore is over!”

    The alternative – that they’ve wasted all those years waiting for a train that has long since left the station, and won’t return – is too terrible to contemplate.

  51. Scott says:

    would jump at the chance to personally rehabilitate the STD-laden addict

    If he was hot enough, definitely.

  52. That’s about the size of it. Loud-mouth mothers who tell their sons what to do and absentee or henpecked fathers who do nothing about it. Now that I’ve taken the red pill I am aware of how bad it is here.

  53. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “finding a guy who can actually carry the load”

    This is the most amazing quote. The man’s purpose is to “carry the load.” His trucking analogies are just awful- man is truck. Man carries load. Man works best under a heavy load. Man must listen to wife and drive the truck wherever wife demands or he is to apologize abjectly to wife. No thanks.

    From the previous thread on this topic, a poster pointed out that in a REAL truck, the cargo is TIGHTLY tied down (with customs and laws like “respect your husband” and “submit”) in order to prevent them from shifting during the trip and overturning the truck. The cargo does not have the right to jump out of the truck and get paid “Cash and Prizes.” In a REAL truck, the cargo is not put in control of the destination. There is one driver and one set of controls and the driver is in control. Driscoll’s truck analogy is an epic fail.

    The woman sins by having an illegitimate child with a bad boy who is not in church and ignores the “nice guy churchians” but it is the nice guys fault?

    I wonder if women are writing his sermons. Since I have been moderating /r/marriedredpill I have become much better at identifying womanspeak in written form. Just look for the cute little hamster.

    This sermon is pure chick-speak with an indefatigable hamster. It’s almost like he decided what he wanted to argue (men bad, women good) and then used emotional, non-causal arguments to justify his emotional desire. Squeeck Squeeck. Let me guess he lost his job as pastor when his hamster…just keeled over?

  54. Anchorman says:

    The only problem with my analogy is that many “good church girls” would jump at the chance to personally rehabilitate the STD-laden addict, while the nice church boys wonder what just happened.

    And there are many beta shlubs who line up to wife up those baby mamas.

    Heck, I’m trying to talk my buddy away from now.

  55. kronbergweb says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    January 27, 2015 at 10:33 am
    Wins thread.

  56. John Salt says:

    Looks like I was completely wrong in my argument for Driscoll advancing female criticism in equal measure. As I read through this and later writings/sermons, he seems (unsurprisingly) to slide ever-more into “man up” territory. The disgusting argument for church sanctioned cuckoldry really seals the deal; what an absolute disgrace that is.

    Given all of this, it’s even more incredible that some criticisms leveled against Driscoll entail “misogyny” and associated weaponized femi-language. Even the content-free *sound* of masculinity uttered by Driscoll is apparently cause to wail.

  57. Patrick says:

    I’m a long time reader who has never posted. It seems more and more to me that evangelical “Bible based” churches are prone to go with the flow of popular culture, and definitely feminism and female leadership in marriages in becoming the cultural norm. Moreover, pastors like Driscoll are able to preach these heretical doctrines because churches like his aren’t tied to any church organization, which could correct and discipline Driscoll if he preached doctrine contrary to Scripture. This is an issue any time your have pastors teaching and preaching from their individual interpretation of Scripture. For me, this led me to leave a “conservative” evangelical church and, after a period of study and prayer in RCIA, join the Roman Catholic Church. My parents also left the same church but elected to join an Antiochene Orthodox congregation instead. All of us believe we are doing a much better job following the Lord and his teachings since making these changes.

    [D: Welcome Patrick.]

  58. PokeSalad: Bingo.

    What the church tells a boy when he’s 15: Girls want a nice guy who treats them nicely and doesn’t upset them. If you’re ever going to get married you’re going to need to learn to behave like a gentlemen. If you follow these rules the right girl will come along and appreciate you for who you are.

    What the church tells a man when he’s 25: Man up and marry those single mothers (the same girls they said wanted a nice guy) Who are you to judge them?! You need to stop being arrogant! You’re looking for the perfect woman who doesn’t exist! If you don’t change your attitude and stop being so picky you’re never going to get married!

  59. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating, the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit in all contemporary franchises of Christianity and its spinoffs.

    Evangelical, Catholic, Mormons, name the offshoot and subtly or overtly you’ll find the Feminine Imperative IS now the Holy Spirit. If it benefits the feminine it’s the will of God. Anything that doesn’t is either the fault of men or men trying to cling to the unbiblical Patriarchy.

  60. Yoda says:

    For those of you who are feeling Driscoll fatigue

    As with Anakin Skywalker one wonders where wrong it did go…

  61. Jeremy says:

    The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at the point where women aren’t even pretending they’re gonna ever get married. They go to college, get a good job, get pregnant, have a kid. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic. We’re a culture that is working hard to protect women and children, and no one has the common sense to beat on the guys who are the cause of so much of the pain.

    f-ing lolol…

    Guys don’t matter you see, we’re sooo much lower than dirt that it’s not even worth mentioning what they want. In fact, just keep beating the dead horse because eventually it will shit gold.

    lol

  62. earl says:

    ‘They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic.’

    I do agree there are plenty of con men and general losers out there who would rather run after a casual sex encounter pregnancy than do it the right way…carry the load, marry, then have sex.

    It does take two to tango though. Women should not be having sex with loser men just because their biological clocks are ticking. That’s not fair to their children to grow up either with a loser father or an absentee father. The general lack of sexual morals between both genders is a problem…and pointing fingers at each other isn’t going to solve it.

  63. recidivist says:

    Women are forced to become unwed mothers because men are unwilling to wed unwed mothers which forces women to become unwed mothers because men are unwilling to wed unwed mothers, and so on and so forth.

    This type of circular logic (sollophism, really) has corrupted every aspect of of our enlightened society, leading to all manner of financial, social and political disfunction. Since childhood, we have all been instructed to work harder so we will be allowed to work harder, make money so we can accumulatie debt, go into debt so we can work harder and make more money, buy the newest and latest so we will go into debt, work harder, make money and buy the newest and the latest, and perform well in school so we can continue to go to school ad infinitum. Around and around it goes, never beginning and never ending, like Ouroboros eating his own tail, so Shut-Up, Man-Up and Stop-Thinking-for-Yourself before the whole SHE-BANG goes to Hell.

    Amen.

  64. Jeremy says:

    OMG, rofl at Rollo’s post… ahahahahahahah!!

  65. We need to found a “Church of the Red Pill.” It will be a Protestant demonination where only the KJB is the ultimate authority. We have many pastors, not just one, many. All pastors in the church are laity pastors (none are paid), all pastors are men, ONLY pastors can speak to the congregation, (never women), there is NO authority group where congregation members can complain about a pastor, but ALL people (regardless of the marital status or whether they are single moms with 10 thug-spawn) are welcome to congregate and worship God. We pastors take turns, Sunday after Sunday, and preach our sermons. We take turns performing funerals, weddings, baptisims, etc. And we collect offers only to keep the lights on and to advance red pill Christian causes. That will be our church “mission.”

    I’m actually semi-serious here. Tell the people at the beginning of every service, if they don’t like what they hear, point at the door. But tell them they are welcome to return anytime they want.

  66. Yoda says:

    Who is more vulnerable, sooner?

    The man who is paid $400,000 to generate $700,000 of output?
    Or the woman who is paid $150,000 to generate $0 (or less) of output?

    Incorrect beans you do count.
    “Affirmative action” beans the important ones they are.

  67. DeepThought says:

    My coworker, who is deeply religious and attend church several times a week, has lamented the fact her husband does not attend. Her daughter went to school to become a pastor but after college decided not to pursue this career and instead is a secretary. She now has a tattoo and is deeply in debt from her spending habits.

    I found out that her church is led by a female pastor. To her chagrin, when asked how she could get her husband to attend, I told her maybe the reason he does not want to attend is that he does not agree with your Church’s philosophy. Her husband is a normal masculine man and is not inclined to suffer fools lightly. Even though I quoted Bible verses dealing with tattoos, alcohol etc…she completely ignored them.

    Her church is not a church in any sense, it is more like a women’s social group.

  68. Yoda says:

    That’s not fair to their children to grow up either with a loser father or an absentee father.

    Important this is not.
    Tingles matter most they do.

    Example here it is,

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/why-im-a-mghow-in-the-land-of-the-ppp/

  69. earl says:

    ‘Evangelical, Catholic, Mormons, name the offshoot and subtly or overtly you’ll find the Feminine Imperative IS now the Holy Spirit. If it benefits the feminine it’s the will of God.’

    The Holy Spirit is a spirit of truth. So if truth benefits the feminine…it would benefit the masculine too. Basically it benefits everyone. What we live in is an age of nothing but half-truths or overt lies and that is why everyone is so confused. Read Scripture…there is plenty of descriptions about what the Holy Spirit is.

    ‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.’ Galatiians 5:22-23

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Women should not be having sex with loser men just because their biological clocks are ticking.

    I wonder if any women ever voluntarily had sex with a “loser man” in the present tense sense. Sure, there are legions of women who had sex with a “loser man” in the past tense – “Oh, he talked a good line but was such a loser”.

    But in the heat of the moment, has any women ever emoted “Ooooh, he’s a loser!”, I don’t think so. The rationalization hamster would not allow that thought or emotion to even form.

    Cue Rollo…

  71. Gaza says:

    “They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic.”

    That’s right, marriage for men = carry the load. I can carry a load – and do already, even if it is for my hypothetical wife and family. The tragic part is that women can’t seem to make decisions for this same future, their hypothetical family; they are good at creating a load, but very poor at signaling through choice and prioritization that they will in any way make a man’s life easier, share the load in any way. What they “offer” to me, if they can even manage that, looks more like adopting a teenager from a troubled home than entering into a lifelong commitment with an adult. And I’m the immature one because I hold marriage 2.0 to a level of scrutiny they find to be uncomfortable.

    @Striver
    “Given choices and options, which women are now given, I think many/most women deep down [don’t] want a PERMANENT relationship ever.”

    In my experience, each encounter with a post-epiphany woman ends up affirming this. What they want more than permanence is the ability to define the Relationship, which is really setting the terms in which she can exert her control of the relationship – up to and including its expiration date.

    Permanence is consequence; it is limiting by definition and thus should be avoided. The culling of options at any stage is self-limiting which runs in the face of the feminine journey.

    As such, truly available women are extremely rare. A lot of “single” or “unmarried” women, but only a small minority among them are exercising behaviors that demonstrate actual availability and a willingness to make choices that have consequences that they are willing to own. They maintain extensive buffers from reality, taking risk, avoiding any real consequences of self-limiting decisions, in favor of feeding from the buffet of attention, validation, and optionality. All while expecting a man to walk through this gauntlet to prove his mettle.

    I see this all of the time with women who are friends with their exes, who maintain a stable of orbiters who of course are “just” friends, who are deeply invested in social media and their phones, who construct difficult lives filled with all varieties of burdens that a man must accept without hesitation, who collect and hoard these distractions and emotional masturbatory devices with no awareness of their detriment to their own stated desires or awareness of how a man may view any of this.

    Attractive women who have dated through their 20’s and not found that man to “carry the load” have lived the truth of their desire: they repeatedly chose options over permanence, experience over investment, and their power to define the terms of these relationships over their power to secure their place in a marriage.

  72. Bike Bubba says:

    It might be noted here, per anonymous reader’s comments, that the big issue with Driscoll and the like-minded is not that they are telling men to wife up sluts. It is because they have set up the system so that no man can contradict the “Lord’s anointed” on any issue.

    In other words, they self-select for doormats among the men, and that allows the more assertive women to run rampant, because the “Lord’s Anointed” does not understand female game.

    Then the only thing to do is to tell the less dominant men to go for the women that will, at least temporarily, have them, and hence that is exactly what he does, as well as a lot of others. But in my (not humble enough) opinion, that’s not the core issue. It’s that pastors view their job not as shepherding sheep that don’t always want to go where they ought to, but rather as herding cattle along the Chisholm Trail.

  73. Bike Bubba says:

    Innocent bystander has an interesting proposal. Now while I would disagree with some of his points–no KJVO theology for me, thank you, it’s not a perfect translation–but it ought to be noted that a plurality of elders (like you have in the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations) can be a bulwark against the kind of “my way or the highway” that I would argue empowers feminism there.

    One other thing you’ve got to do, though, is to make sure that the pastors who are appointed are ones capable of and willing to address issues Biblically. That is the kicker. “My way or the highway” departs from Biblical teaching by putting together his own program that will be like trying to drive sheep with a cattle prod. Good luck–he’ll just exasperate any real man there.

  74. Jeremy says:

    It is because they have set up the system so that no man can contradict the “Lord’s anointed” on any issue.

    You can contradict them. Yes, it might mean serious consequences in how that faith’s organization treats you. They might actually go so far as to excommunicate you. If your faith does not allow for the kinds of nonsense that the organization is peddling, I think Christ would forgive you.

  75. Innocent bystander has an interesting proposal.

    Thank you. I know of at least 4 church buildings that are empty and for sale. I’ll bet if we could scoop one real cheap.

    One other thing you’ve got to do, though, is to make sure that the pastors who are appointed are ones capable of and willing to address issues Biblically.

    That is why I said the KJB is the ultimate authority. Its not my way or the highway. It’s God’s way. It’s what Christ taught us. We obey what is written. If you don’t like the KJB (fine) then what Bible will it be?

  76. mequint says:

    @Hugh said: “Has no one ever stood up in Church and simply punched Driscoll’s lights out for this steady stream of abuse that he sends our way?”

    Believe me, there are many who I’m sure have wanted to. You’d have to get past a security detail (where at least a couple of them were carrying concealed), an entourage of “corporate” pastors – some quite large, and even then he would be pretty sure to sue you afterwards (Mars Hill was notorious for protecting their assets – NDAs, non-competes, signs signing away rights to your personal image, etc.).

  77. When you read about the first Amish woman being ordained as a pastor (or whatever their leadership structure is) then you’ll know the assimilation is complete.

    That’s when you’ll know the end times are nigh.

  78. Anchorman says:

    That is why I said the KJB is the ultimate authority.

    How so?

    Isn’t that the English translation of the Latin translation?

    I prefer ESV. Straight translation from source texts to English. No middle man, so to speak.

  79. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
    (Rev 2:20-23)

  80. Patrick says:

    What is the answer for Christian men who wish to follow Christ and cannot find a suitable mate for this journey? Since more and more women continue to adopt feminism as the guiding principle governing their lives, this becomes an issue for more and more men. Rather than accept a spouse who has rejected Christ’s teachings and instructions for marriage, perhaps men should consider the instructions of Jesus, the Apostles and the Church in Sections 1618-1620 of the Catechism?

    Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom

    1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. the bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

    “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”115

    1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

    1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

    Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. the most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

    Section 1618 (I could not find a way to highlight or bold) is an alternative path for men, and one followed by a substantial percentage of the population through the centuries.

  81. Scott says:

    Rollo-

    I would assent that you harbinger of Amish pastor is as good as any to make sure your preps are ready.

  82. lzlozozlzzzzl

    hey dalrockzkaz i really love your work

    but don’t you think you would be doing a greater service if yu ever answered *WHY* all this has happenedz and come to pass?

    for if we address the root causez, den maybe we can change it fr da betterz?

    lzozzozzlzz

  83. Dalrock says:

    @GBFM

    lzlozozlzzzzl

    hey dalrockzkaz i really love your work

    but don’t you think you would be doing a greater service if yu ever answered *WHY* all this has happenedz and come to pass?

    for if we address the root causez, den maybe we can change it fr da betterz?

    lzozzozzlzz

    If I did that, people would read the Great Books for Men. Then I’d lose out on all of the buthexting bernankified fiat dollarz!

  84. bluedog says:

    “…feeling Driscoll fatigue”,… Ha. Not hardly. I mostly just lurk-n-read here but I’ve been enjoying the pile on, he is the gift that just keeps giving. Driscoll does and says what works for Driscoll, as do many just writ smaller. We should watch and learn and exercise our consent to leadership accordingly.

    Re:
    Scott on January 27, 2015 at 10:55 am, “Anonymous Reader at 27JAN15 1039 makes an in adverdant argument for Orthodoxy”

    Funny…I thought exactly the same thing.

    I do not mean to suggest that Protestants should stop being Protestant I don’t mean that at all but I do think as I read Dalrock posts and comments that to survive this, well that’s the first piece: the objective cannot be hegemony it must be survival, but beyond that I really think all these posts put into focus that the current bag of Protestant tricks for a healthy multi a generational church that stands the test of eras is inadequate. You need to look elsewhere for better techniques to foment group coherency and survival.

  85. Scott says:

    Bludog, you might find this interesting:

    http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-orthodoxy-right-place-for.html

    From the quoted article:

    “Orthodoxy’s deep conservatism, for better or worse, has much to do with its ecclesiology. Little can change in Orthodoxy’s doctrinal teachings outside of an ecumenical council—a gathering of all the bishops of the church. Though there is some controversy among the Orthodox about when the last ecumenical council was, the last one everyone agrees on was in the year 787. Though some contemporary Orthodox theologians lament that Orthodoxy has no effective mechanism for updating doctrine, others see what innovation has done to Western Christianity—the chaos following the Second Vatican Council, for example, and the endless multiplicity of Protestant denominations—and count this procedural stasis as a blessing.”

  86. David J. says:

    IBB (at 10:13 a.m.) — you absolutely nailed it. Excellent summary/rebuttal.

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Bluedog

    I do not mean to suggest that Protestants should stop being Protestant I don’t mean that at all but I do think as I read Dalrock posts and comments that to survive this, well that’s the first piece: the objective cannot be hegemony it must be survival, but beyond that I really think all these posts put into focus that the current bag of Protestant tricks for a healthy multi a generational church that stands the test of eras is inadequate. You need to look elsewhere for better techniques to foment group coherency and survival.

    I think for the most part the fundamental issue is not one of doctrine. The problem is with modern Christian culture. We have RCC, Orthodox, and conservative Protestant denominations where the doctrine relating to men, women, and marriage is sound (with some disagreements). So for example, the RCC is unmovable with its (official) teaching on divorce. The doctrine isn’t the issue. The problem is the culture, and what that translates into from a day to day perspective. So the RCC doesn’t permit divorce, but we have priests reminding Catholic wives not to forget about the cash and prizes when deciding if they should divorce, and bishops complaining that the rest of the world isn’t investing in the infrastructure required to give out annulments at the rate they are given out in the US (where something like 5% of WW Catholics get 80% of worldwide annulments). We could come up with examples like this all day, from RCC, Orthodox, and conservative Protestant denominations.

  88. If I did that, people would read the Great Books for Men. Then I’d lose out on all of the buthexting bernankified fiat dollarz!

    GBFM only accepts and pays in gold and bitcoin.

  89. David,

    IBB (at 10:13 a.m.) — you absolutely nailed it. Excellent summary/rebuttal.

    (In my best Elvis voice)… thank youuuu, thank you very muuuuuch.

  90. feeriker says:

    Tell the people at the beginning of every service, if they don’t like what they hear, point at the door.

    Better yet, tell them to left their hands and faces skyward and voice their objections to The One who made those rules that they don’t care for.

  91. fightforlove says:

    Yup, women around 23-27 who went to college have options, or so they think. I think many of them are quite busy moving to new cities for a job or grad school, still partying some with their girls, vacations to Italy and Cancun. Throw in their lofty standards and it’s easy to see why so many of them are more or less perpetually single, and can be unreliable. Some PUAs even assert that, although pick-up was designed for banging 21yo club sluts, 25yo college grads are actually the demographic that respond the most positively to Game: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-difficulty-of-gaming-women-by-age-bracket/

    It’s not until 28-30 at the earliest that many college-educated women hit the panic button and start getting serious about finding a husband. As a 33 year old man, I’m leary about many women in this stage. I have recently noticed a trend that I do better with women who are moderately younger (5-10yrs) than me. I have some automatic frame because of my slightly older/wiser age, I have a youthful appearance that makes me passable for mid-20s, and I’m usually more attracted to them. The problem is, I’m now more socially removed from young 20s singles than ever before.

  92. bluedog says:

    Re:
    Dalrock on January 27, 2015 at 1:14 pm
    “@GBFM
    ‘lzlozozlzzzzl
    ‘hey dalrockzkaz i really love your work
    ‘but don’t you think you would be doing a greater service if yu ever answered *WHY* all this has happenedz and come to pass?’
    ‘for if we address the root causez, den maybe we can change it fr da betterz?
    ‘lzozzozzlzz’

    ” If I didcourse people would read the Great Books for Men. Then I’d lose out on all of the buthexting bernankified fiat dollarz!”
    *****
    Oddly, meaning only mischief GBFM would turn us right but just too far and too far to our destruction.

    The root cause GBFM does not understand is that we are a species of ethos but those who went before us either lost their ethos or watched helplessly while it was destroyed or had it taken away on the decision of their class betters.

    GBFM would solve this “root cause” by continuing the crime and robbing ethos from those who still have it. That’s been tried before and ends in tragedy for all involved every single time no exceptions ever.
    Having lost ethos we face a crucible where we have to transcend ethos to find logos.
    Christian leaders can help us through this crucible. I think there is a place for you there Dalrock.

    Of course I could have it all wrong and maybe GBFM is just talking about the gold standard in which case he needs to take his own advise and read up on his Milton Friedman.

  93. Anchorman says:

    I thoroughly objected to my frivorce (Protestant).

    My (nominally) Catholic wife pushed it through and received high-fives from her gal-pals in the parish. When I asked the priest to intervene, he said it wasn’t his place. He knew where the power lay.

    Two years later, my contested divorce was complete. Cash and prizes awarded. She even had the audacity to throw herself on the mercy of the parish, claiming I abandoned her and my children financially, despite court ordered support and automatic wage garnishment. They opened the doors to her, gave her free new appliances and hundreds in food. She makes $70K and received additional support putting her above six figures. The women all knew this and I’d wager the priest heard enough talk in the rectory office.

    As D said, it’s not doctrine. It’s the culture.

  94. bluedog says:

    @Dalrock, “I think for the most part the fundamental issue is not one of doctrine.”
    I agree.
    Also there are ways to look at the RCC and get it right and other ways to look at it and get it wrong. Clearly the RCC has its own very significant problems. I fear the RCC is dabbling with error on an unparalleled level. Perhaps a new holy order or second reformation will set it right I don’t know the magnitude is so incomparable.
    Still…I’m just saying to look beyond the walls and to look more at practice and structure from those who have proven they have practice and structure that works. Many more examples than RCC for that.

  95. anonymous_ng says:

    Every so often I get bored and spend an hour window shopping through the various girl catalogs[online dating sites] and mostly come away resigned to spending the rest of my life by myself as the attitude of entitlement based on the possession of a vagina is seriously at odds with their SMV/MMV.

    Recently, I was going through the stored passwords in my browser and I found that some time in the past I’d created a throw away account at millionairematch.com.

    My conclusion after spending a while surfing profiles there is that the gold-diggers are more honest. They understand that putting out and staying in shape and caring for the house etc is the value they bring to things.

    I’m certainly not saying that there is any less risk, but at least they aren’t deluded in thinking that their degree and job actually matters.

    In all fairness, some of the women on there are wealthy on their own or are from family money and others at least have enough brains to figure out that their odds are better of finding a successful man there than on OKStupid.

  96. Jeremy says:

    If what is enforced is different than your written doctrine, then you doctrine is not doctrine and your culture is doctrine. Christian men should be in full rebellion at this point. The fact that any men still attend Christian church services and/or financially support the organizations that behave like this is almost testament to the FI’s ability to guilt men.

    Stop contributing to the monster that would destroy you and make a mockery of your faith. Stop contributing to the major religious organizations. Keep your faith, but abandon those organizations, they’re pretty much just wholly-owned subsidiaries of the feminist movement at this point.

  97. Scott says:

    If what is enforced is different than your written doctrine, then you doctrine is not doctrine and your culture is doctrine. Christian men should be in full rebellion at this point. The fact that any men still attend Christian church services and/or financially support the organizations that behave like this is almost testament to the FI’s ability to guilt men.

    Stop contributing to the monster that would destroy you and make a mockery of your faith. Stop contributing to the major religious organizations. Keep your faith, but abandon those organizations, they’re pretty much just wholly-owned subsidiaries of the feminist movement at this point.

    Absolutely. I am ready to drop Orthodoxy and start a home church if I see fit. So far, I have seen them stick to their guns on these matters. I am new to it, so I may be in a romanticizing phase. I am ready to acknowledge that too. It would break my heart to be seperated from the Eucharist, but it may come to that.

  98. Patrick says:

    Anchorman, your experience really makes me said for you and the Church. Maybe, it’s because I live in a rural area in a red state, but most of the parishes in this area have few divorcees and as many men as women attending mass. If the parish you attend isn’t following Scripture and the Catechism, I hope you find another parish and explain to your current priest why you are leaving on the way out the door. Oftentimes too, the Diocese and its staff tend to be more traditional and conservative overall compared to some of the parish priests. You may also want to relay your negative experiences with the parish to your Bishop or the appropriate marriage tribunal. Sometimes the wheels of the magisterium turn slowly, but eventually I think the priest would be admonished/corrected for even passive support of divorce.

  99. Scott says:

    Here is what I mean:

    The women wear head coverings.
    After liturgy, the women go to the kitchen and start preparing coffee/snacks while the men go outside, smoke/drink plumb brandy until the food is served.
    Women never pray over the food when there is a man present.
    We have no “altar girls” (females are not allowed inside the holy of holies/altar area)
    When my wife says things like “Scott TOLD me it was time to stop working and stay home” no one bats an eye.
    The priest never delivers sermons about manning up without a commensurate and equally stern warnings to the women about their duties. (Actually, he pretty much just tells us what the scripture means from the Orthodox perspective, period. No eisogesis.)
    There is almost no regard for “American” culture. It is like stepping back 1000 years when we walk in there.

    …and on and on this goes.

  100. The One says:

    Men should put or shut up. If you don’t like the culture become a priest, full stop. March back through the institutions and take them back from the feminists, starting with the church. Go RCC or Orthodox. The reality is almost all protestant pastors have a wife and your wife is going to influence you to go easy on the feminists. Don’t pretend otherwise.

  101. Patrick says:

    I think the good thing about RCC and Orthodox churches is that they are based outside the United States. Any church fully rooted in the U.S. and our culture can be beaten into submission by the feminist culture warriors. The RCC and Orthodox have large roots in Asia, Africa and (the RCC in)South America, which are much more traditional culturally and inherently suspicious and hostile to feminism and its values. No matter how much the American (and European) feminists try to browbeat the Church into accepting female priests, gay marriage, female dominated homes and marriages, etc., clerics from places like Uganda, India and Brazil, this will never let this happen

  102. Jeremy,

    Christian men should be in full rebellion at this point.

    The Christian men who swallow the red pill WILL be in full rebellion. We have a term for this, MGTOW. You’ll note, I haven’t seen even one poster at Dalrock’s (ever) who came to us telling us about this great woman he met whom he is about to marry, and how much he is looking forward to marriage 2.0.

    The red pill is very bitter. It pretty much makes it almost impossible for a man who swallows it to ever be able to marry afterwards (at least until they change the divorce laws.)

  103. Bluedog says:

    @Scott, re: January 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm and westernphilosophyeasternfaith … thanks, I’ll check it out.
    There is much more to it than this – but one quality of groups that stand the test of time is great, dead languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Pali. Exclusive use of the vernacular has an unintended side effect of placing too heavy an emphasis on individual interpretation. Orthodox liturgies are “in Greek” the way Catholic liturgies used to be “in Latin” the way Jewish liturgies remain “in Hebrew”. Attend any and my guess is there’s enough vernacular few would notice. It’s surprising, meanwhile, the effect that energy spent splitting hairs over scripture re-directed to learning Latin, Greek or Hebrew does for unity and self-subordinating, self-governing piety. Just a little knowledge of Hebrew makes it much more important to know what Maimonides thought than what I think now. Just a little of Latin makes it much more important to know what Jerome or Augustine thought. Just a little of Greek – you don’t have to be remotely fluent to get the effect.

    Anyway – just one technique and there are many, many more. Worth studying.

  104. The One says:

    ***Priests are not affected by the threat point, Pastors are

  105. Scott says:

    Also–the men absolutely adore their wives.

  106. Lyn87 says:

    Meh…

    If you can’t easily change your stance then your errors are cast in stone.
    If you can easily change your stance you risk being blown about by the winds of culture and personality.

    If you’re large your failures are magnified.
    If you’re small your triumphs are minimized.

    If you have a hierarchy you risk putting your faith in the people above you.
    If you have no hierarchy you risk not having accountability.
    ___________________________________

    There’s one thing that hasn’t changed… ever: God. He’s the same yesterday, today, and forever, and not one jot or tittle of His word will pass away until all of it is fulfilled. There have been times and places when God used and/or allowed various groups to do most of the heavy lifting involved in carrying His banner forward. Find out who’s doing that now and get with them, never forgetting that we’re all fallible and group settings can magnify both our strengths and our weaknesses. Nobody said this was going to be easy, but God is sovereign. If you want easy answers, Islam will give you plenty of them – they’re all wrong, but they’re easy to understand.

  107. The One says:

    @innocent

    My wife is great, she’s also foreign. I also have my own threat point, foreign citizenship

  108. I think for the most part the fundamental issue is not one of doctrine. The problem is with modern Christian culture.

    Right. While the doctrines are very different, the problem is exactly the same across the board, with the exception of a few small, socially isolated churches. Go into a Catholic home where the woman is in charge and you’ll see exactly what you’d see in a Protestant home where the woman is in charge. The same frustrations, the same unhappiness, the same rebellion, the same likelihood of eventual divorce.

    On this subject of patriarchy being replaced with matriarchy, we’re all very much in the same boat going over the same falls. None of our doctrines are holding us back, because for almost everyone the feminist-infused culture trumps doctrine. Any of our doctrines could guide us on this point — we all follow scripture, after all, and Peter and Paul are not at all ambiguous on this topic — without getting into doctrinal differences beyond that.

  109. thedeti says:

    “Attractive women who have dated through their 20’s and not found that man to “carry the load” have lived the truth of their desire: they repeatedly chose options over permanence, experience over investment, and their power to define the terms of these relationships over their power to secure their place in a marriage.”

    You will often hear women in that same boat say “But I was just looking for love. No one helped me. No one told me I should actually look for men who wanted marriage. I wanted to get married; I ALWAYS wanted to get married. That’s why I was out there having sex with lots of men.”

    Bullshit.

    You weren’t looking for love or marriage. You were looking for sex. You were looking to get drunk, get high, get baked, and get laid. You weren’t looking forward to the rest of your life. You were looking forward to the next weekend, the next party, the next fun time. You cared only what you wanted, and you cared about showing up your girlfriends with the next hawt guy. You didn’t care about marriage or finding a good man. You cared about getting attention, validation and affirmation of your sexual worth.

  110. Anchorman says:

    If the parish you attend isn’t following Scripture and the Catechism, I hope you find another parish and explain to your current priest why you are leaving on the way out the door.

    I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. I was raised Catholic and attended the schools for 12 years.

    I’m a Protestant now (unrelated to the frivorce, happened seven or so years before, but I went full Churchian between the two points). It’s why I don’t typically get into the Catholic/Protestant brouhahas. I know enough of both to respect and be wary of them. Heck, I left a Protestant church a couple years ago because of the female pastor issue (had a long discussion with the head pastor and left once I said my piece and heard him out).

    I’ve found a great Southern Baptist church. It can still be corrupted as long as humans are in it, but it is solid so far. There’s another church in the area that’s very good (and I’m sure others, too).

    Honest questions and discussions with the pastor helped me weed out the wolves in sheep clothing.

  111. Anchorman says:

    ***Priests are not affected by the threat point, Pastors are

    From personal experience, B/S. From the tellings of my friends (also Catholic, I met while married), I’d say you’re kidding yourself to think priests are immune to feminist pressure.

  112. Patrick says:

    Scott, glad you found such an awesome church! My priest, in a low-key manner, also regularly mixes in hot-button cultural issues, family issues and even politics with his discussion of Scripture and church traditions in his sermons. Nothing is off-limits. I wish it were that way everywhere. A few families have switched from our parish to another over the years, probably because they disagreed with him bringing up some topic in his homily, but others and more have replaced these. What I love about the service compared with the SBC (my previous denomination), is the focus on the liturgy as opposed to a sermon. It is about prayer, contemplation and becoming closer to God each Sunday. I always feel spiritually refreshed and rejuvenated when I leave the church, which wasn’t the case many times earlier in my life.

  113. The One says:

    @Patrick

    Excellent point. Also as a priest if you get tired of Western culture, you can ask for reassignment in a traditional country to get some relief. My priest friend did that in Latin America, came back recharged

  114. Scott says:

    is the focus on the liturgy as opposed to a sermon.

    Man, you said something there. The homily is a tiny portion of the divine liturgy. It’s almost an afterthought. If you want answers to deep questions, you sit down with the priest and ask away. What he delivers in the form of a homily is related to the scripture reading, and holds fast to Orthodoxy, no excuses or equivocation. The priest is truly just the deliverer of a message that hasen’t changed, pretty much since the 8th century.

  115. Carpenter says:

    I’m afraid it worse than what Dalrock is even pointing to in this series. I think Driscoll is too hard . for even the “conservative christian” crowd. In other words, the mainstream evangelical’s and the Focus on the Family’s did not like Driscoll because he was too tough on women. So what I think this says that on a linear line Driscoll is much closer to what we believe than the FOF’s and most “christian” churches…and I can’t even see Driscoll from my vantage point that I think is biblical. So knowing what we know about Driscoll- what does that tell us about the church today?

  116. The One says:

    From personal experience, B/S. From the tellings of my friends (also Catholic, I met while married), I’d say you’re kidding yourself to think priests are immune to feminist pressure.
    ~Anchorman

    By threat point I meant the specific term Dalrock uses defines as a wife threatening divorce which includes bringing the power of the state down upon him to take his children away, pay child support and throw him in jail if she decides to make a Domestic Violence charge against him,

    PRIESTS ARE COMPELTELY IMMUNE TO THE THREATPOINT

    Of course priests can be INFLUENCED by feminists, but it is a completely different thing

  117. Anchorman says:

    Of course priests can be INFLUENCED by feminists, but it is a completely different thing

    Respectfully, I think it’s a distinction without a difference.

    Consider: If the end result is still feminizing of the Word and usurping man’s headship, what difference does it make if the ungodly influence came from a wife or from the parish staff and the henpecked deacons on the staff? The end result is the same. Weakened families, threatpoints being carried out in the church body, and twisting the Word to suit the FI.

  118. Dalrock says:

    @Anchorman

    From personal experience, B/S. From the tellings of my friends (also Catholic, I met while married), I’d say you’re kidding yourself to think priests are immune to feminist pressure.

    At the risk of getting ahead of myself, Driscoll doesn’t strike me as being at all afraid of his wife. He is however, terrified of the women in the congregation. Moreover, Driscoll is an extremely gifted preacher. I have absolutely no doubt that his fears are perfectly founded, and that he knows exactly how far he can go before he will have an all out mutiny on his hands. This is what I’ll go through in detail in my final post in the series this weekend.

    If Driscoll fears the women in the congregation, I see no reason this would be different for the parish priest in the RCC.

  119. Scott says:

    Bluedog-

    No pun intended, but you are speaking my language. I have the benefit of a seminary (Baptist) education where we went over the texts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I don’t speak them fluently, but I can perform the necessary hermenuetics to figure out what they say myself. (I would be up all night trying to interpret one verse nowadays, but I still have the books!)

    Our liturgy is in Slavonic, English and Serbian. The parts that are in English are repeated again in the vernacular, making the liturgy about 2 hours long–standing the entire time.

    Love it. I hope you enjoy my article–make a comment if you can! No one ever comments on that blog!

  120. The One says:

    @Anchorman

    I am making reference to single men who actually want to do something to push back. I am advising the safest most effective way to do this is through the priesthood. Such men will not be bothered by henpecked deacons, however such men will be bothered by the SWAT team.

  121. Anchorman says:

    @The One,
    Ahh, got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  122. KP says:

    Hugh,

    If they haven’t maybe that’s part of the problem.

    Yes indeed.

    For myself, I guess I’ve got an overly-sensitive BS detector (my wife once quipped that my spiritual gift is Suspicion.)

    But I spotted Driscoll for a soar-then-crash-and-burn cult-of-the-leader guy from the moment I became aware of him (same way with Mike whats-his-name who took Clover Creek from being this tiny fundamentalist Baptist church to a mega-church in Tacoma…. then crashed and burned. Lots of people were surprised… not me.)

    I’m sorry to say that, so far, I’m not really able to teach what I know. Like a natural alpha, this “gift” seems fairly instinctive to me, so I have not distilled any outline of, e.g. How To Tell Jim Jones From The Average Modernist Preacher, etc.

    One thing, though, that I can note as a huge red flag: it’s the “we’re the only ones who really know” motif! Run when you see that. Interestingly, the original meaning of the Greek word we normally translate as ‘heresy’ is NOT ‘unorthodox teaching’, but rather ‘schismatic’. Those who engage in We’re The Only Ones are schismatic in addition to whatever other problems they have.

  123. olympiapress says:

    This is HUGE. Forget about VR Sex replacing the SMV of all women in the 5-7 range of looks and even turning the heat on 8s, that is minor relative to AI/Deep learning. To the extent AI ‘replaces jobs’, it will replace jobs in a VERY, VERY politically incorrect way.

    The government will step in to shield women’s make-work jobs from elimination, but the money the government will have to spend to do this will rise at Moore’s Law-type rates. Even the US government cannot postpone this disruption by much.

    This is HUGE. For all this talk about which jobs will be eliminated by technology, the uneven nature of this replacement is EXTREMELY bad news for women in zero-to-negative productivity make-work jobs.

    Who is more vulnerable, sooner?

    The man who is paid $400,000 to generate $700,000 of output?
    Or the woman who is paid $150,000 to generate $0 (or less) of output?

    It’s already happening. Despite the financial crisis leading first and foremost to a “mancession,” guys have either recovered–oil fields, gas fracking and so forth, slight uptick in manufacturing, IT recovery–or left the workforce entirely. They’re on disability now, and it’s tragic, but it is what it is.

    Meanwhile, women’s participation in the workforce has already fallen below what it was under President Carter. The process appears to be accelerating, as nearly a million of them “dropped out” back in December (if you believe the government statistics, which… I got a bridge I can sell ya.) It would have been even worse for women had it not been for the “Stimulus” they passed in ’09. That $1 trillion slush fund didn’t create too many government jobs directly, it “saved” a bunch of “careers” by doling out cash to the states to keep the make-work paychecks coming for Diversity Outreach Coordinators and HHS Public Information Officers.

    It also didn’t go away. Instead of cash for clunkers or Solyndra, that extra $1 trillion now goes for a few things like increased disability payments and food stamps, with hundreds of billions into slush funds for folks like the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education to spend on Obamacare Outreach, Nutrition Action Now! and Campus Rape Centers in the form of grants. If all those entirely-female-staffed nonprofits went away tomorrow, no one would know or care.

    Obviously, there will be fewer jobs in oil and gas for a few years, but the shale revolution continues, and speaking of AI/Machine Learning/Big Data/Textual Analysis, I completed an online grad school program in just that field last year, mostly to help my own business. There are various hardware/cloud platforms and multiple programming languages all working on the same thing, so I was just looking to control my upfront costs on a thing I’m putting together, but if I needed a job, I could get one tomorrow, as the completed program is roughly analogous to a ’90s-era paper MCSE as far as career prospects. (Might consult eventually if things get less frothy, but need more of a portfolio).

    Outside of Stanford/MIT/CalTech your best bet is to do the coursework online as it’s much more current and things are changing fast, so there are no women in the field, save for linguistics where it’s around 50-50. (But women in STEM, who are actually good at STEM, all had really strong paternal influences in a two-parent home, typically marrying early and having babies while still in grad school. That’s the UMC type who doesn’t cheat or divorce. I’ve found them incredibly helpful through the years, and often point to a guide on installing your first Hadoop Cluster that was written up by a gal at Smith.)

  124. The One says:

    @Dalrock

    Driscoll is terrified of losing money. Money is not a problem in the RCC. Again to clarify, I am not making any comment on the current situation, You (Dalrock) have that nailed. I am advising what I see as the most effective way for single men to change the situation twenty years from now while minimizing the power of the state over them.

    To illustrate my point father. Those priests who did true evil to children were mostly protected from state power/persecution. (not saying it is right, saying what happened). A married man who did no evil, but is falsely accused will be in the jail. That is the whole problem to begin with. The only way to win is not to play

  125. If I did that, people would read the Great Books for Men. Then I’d lose out on all of the buthexting bernankified fiat dollarz!

    winner.

    /comments

  126. The One says:

    @Anchorman

    NP

  127. Philochoreo says:

    The implication is that if any woman, anywhere, of any faith (notice that Driscoll does not specify Christian women) is having sex outside of marriage–regardless of whether you know her, know of her, or will ever know her–not only is her fornication (even if you dont and forever wont know about it) all your fault, but you should actually be beaten for her actions. I do not think this is the kind of substitutionary atonement of which Scripture speaks. Yet broader Christian culture celebrates, praising Driscoll for his astonishing biblical wisdom and insight. Be careful out there, men–it is a man-hating jungle filled with many cruel and poisonous creatures.

  128. Hollis says:

    It’s clear that Driscoll is not talking about apex males or even nadir males. He’s telling beta men like myself that being employed, seeking God, and regularly attending church does not make us good enough. We’re driving chaste women away in droves and causing them to choose a lifestyle of Jezebel. Shame on us!

    Of course the solution is that I need to “man-up” and volunteer my time to Mark Driscoll’s New Utopia. Through my hard work, I’ll earn myself a wife. But “Laban” over here will probably hand me “Leah the Single Mother.” No, if I want “Rachel the Marginally Attractive Virgin,” I have to volunteer until my balls fall off entirely. Driscoll uses sex a carrot at the end of a stick. Typical Churchian Pure Power Politics.

  129. ballista74 says:

    At the risk of getting ahead of myself, Driscoll doesn’t strike me as being at all afraid of his wife. He is however, terrified of the women in the congregation. Moreover, Driscoll is an extremely gifted preacher. I have absolutely no doubt that his fears are perfectly founded, and that he knows exactly how far he can go before he will have an all out mutiny on his hands.

    Now that I got to look at this more, I notice Dalrock’s working off the first set of sermons (2009) back when he was more into channeling the promos of a UFC fighter than being respectful. The second set (2012) are much more subdued, and is notable that the second “Women in Marriage” sermon actually accomplishes a rebuke of women (though it has its flaws too). It’s notable that Mark claims his wife wrote the material he based those remarks on (they were in conjunction with that book of his), so perhaps he realized what he was doing by then and moderating himself.

    But note that any of this is NOT why Mark Driscoll was drummed out. It was more the control issues (e.g. the Mars Hill Bus) than anything else – and people finally had it with him.

  130. anonymous_ng says:

    @Ballista74, Jim Rogers wrote in one of his books that the media often says a conflict is religious in nature, but when you look under the covers it’s as much about control of money and resources as it is about religion.

  131. earl says:

    ‘But in the heat of the moment, has any women ever emoted “Ooooh, he’s a loser!”, I don’t think so.’

    No but they do find out after the heat of the moment. When their eyes are opened and they see how naked they really are.

  132. ARoss says:

    Your Driscoll series remind me of the Pharisees from Matthew 15:8-9.
    “8 ‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    9 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

  133. KP says:

    Anon,

    Re the Anglican / Episcopal church: exactly!

    C.S. Lewis (in one of his essays way back the the 50’s) one wrote that, in olden times a parishioner might have to hide from his vicar how little he believed; but these days it’s more likely he will feel the need to hide how MUCH he believes.

    Rollo,

    Please please tell me that tweet is fake.

    I have attended one consecration service in my life, and believe me it was a SERIOUS (though certainly also joyful) affair. As a friend and former work colleague of the new bishop, I was discretely taking (available light!) photos, but none of the participants remotely dreamed of doing any such thing themselves. (This was in Southern Sudan, btw; maybe that had something to do with the formality with which everyone approached the event.)

    Anchorman,

    No: The KJV committee worked with the Greek (Textus Receptus, primarily) though of course they consulted many source so I would be astonished if the Vulgate were not among them (though given the church politics of the time, perhaps only as a negative example.)

    And the ESV? Please…. anything following a “literal translation” model pushes the most important criterion (MEANING) into a lesser position. Essentially, “literal” takes on the many significant conceptual issues in translation and handles them by ignoring them.

  134. Follow the money, friends.

    As men are the ones who labor, produce, invent, and create the Wealth of Nations, the myth of Feminism was created to tax and control men; to transfer the wealth they create to those who print the fiat dollars and create feminism so as to convert said fiat dollars into physical property and wealth.

    The genius of Cultural Marxism is that rather than abolishing religion outright, they merely abolished God while leaving the church standing and putting Driscoll in charge of it.

    The simple answer is a return to the Faith of our Fathers, beginning with the Great Books and Classics, which the feminists detest and destroyed.

  135. Cane Caldo says:

    Great blog title.

    I would go farther and argue that they are more symptoms than causes. They are leading Christians where they already wanted to go.

    I think I would not like Driscoll if I were to meet him, but I am sympathetic. I used to really loath him until I read the infamous passage from his marriage book where he tells that his wife hid the fact that she slept with another man while Mark was dating her. Casting aside his claim that this was revealed to him in a dream, her confirmation had to be painful. She made a fool of him, and hid it until years had passed and children had arrived. I think it’s more likely he always suspected, but feared to hear the answer until some point of crisis made it impossible for him to push out of his mind. (The smart money says that other guy was also “most likely to succeed”.) He had married a slut, but he couldn’t say that. I don’t know whether he would have wanted to if he could, but he certainly could not. There is no amount of alpha that can overcome the prejudice against saying such a thing.

    On his wikipedia page there is a picture from his high annual captioned, “MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED”. In other words: He wasn’t a scholar; he wasn’t a jock; he wasn’t musical prodigy. He was simply good-looking, charismatic, confident, and dressed like one of The Coreys. He was cool.

    Driscoll’s rants were projections; warnings against what he knows best.

    I also think it is imperative for anyone concerned about the fate of men in church to ponder that fact that while church attendance shrank, Mars Hill exploded. Specifically, Mars Hill excelled at adding and retaining specifically male congregants. The fact is that his churches were FULL of men just like those who tread these blogs; men who were disappointed with the world; disappointed with church; men seeking an alpha male to tell them and everyone else what’s up; who were obsessed with a “real” Christian experience–each according to their own idea of reality. The reality that Driscoll served up–and thousands of men ate up–was cartoonish because neither he nor they had strong, enduring conceptions of manhood; which is an involved and respected father and husband.

    Those men in his church didn’t like fathers anymore than the rest of society, or anymore than Driscoll himself. They liked football players, MMA fighters, rock stars, movie stars, and any other kind of cool. They liked alphas. They believe the hype that the dumbest, most brutish, unsexy, out-of-touch troglodytes in the world are married fathers. The timing and manner of his downfall–and at whose hands–are further evidence. It couldn’t have ended any other way than the fruition of full-grown rebellion against a middle-aged dude with a beard and a Men’s Wearhouse vest.

  136. Lyn87 says:

    Gaza says:
    January 27, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Attractive women who have dated through their 20’s and not found that man to “carry the load” have lived the truth of their desire: they repeatedly chose options over permanence, experience over investment, and their power to define the terms of these relationships over their power to secure their place in a marriage.

    This is brilliantly-stated. Comments like this, and TFH’s take on disruptive technologies (among many others) are some of the reasons this is the site that keeps on giving. The comments sections have been on fire lately. This is a rough-and-tumble place – as any place with men tends to be – but steel sharpens steel, and I hope I’ve given others as much to think about as I have been given by others.

    I don’t mean that to sound like a eulogy – it’s just that I found out yesterday that I’ve been dead for a couple of weeks. I don’t expect that to hinder my continued participation, though. Carry on.

  137. A simple sermon for Mark Driscoll:

    Genesis:
    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Exodus:
    Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    Matthew:
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Matthew:
    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    The End.

    lzozolzlzlzozlllzlzoz (cue the churchians teaching that Jesus came to abolish the Law. lzozzzzzozz)

  138. SirHamster says:

    I don’t mean that to sound like a eulogy – it’s just that I found out yesterday that I’ve been dead for a couple of weeks. I don’t expect that to hinder my continued participation, though. Carry on.

    You’re not fooling anyone, you know.

  139. Lyn87 says:

    Cane,

    I realize that you and I usually fight like cats and dogs, but I like your comment at 4:11. Clarify something for me, though, if you would. You wrote,

    The fact is that his churches were FULL of men just like those who tread these blogs; men who were disappointed with the world; disappointed with church; men seeking an alpha male to tell them and everyone else what’s up; who were obsessed with a “real” Christian experience–each according to their own idea of reality.

    I have little experience with this sort of thing, as I have never attended a wildly-heretical church like Mars Hill long enough to understand it. It seems to me that the type of men you’re describing tend to inhabit places like RooshV and Chateau Hartiste rather than Dalrock… guys who want some “rock-star” to tell them how to live. Secular guys look to PUA’s, while their churchian counterparts look to guys like Driscoll. Just changing three words illustrates the point I’m trying to make:

    The fact is that his seminars were FULL of men just like those who tread these blogs; men who were disappointed with the world; disappointed with the SMP; men seeking an alpha male to tell them and everyone else what’s up; who were obsessed with a “real” manly experience–each according to their own idea of reality.

    Apt comparison? Your thoughts?

  140. The title made me laugh. Nice.

  141. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    It seems to me that the type of men you’re describing tend to inhabit places like RooshV and Chateau Hartiste rather than Dalrock… guys who want some “rock-star” to tell them how to live.

    Yes, you’re picking up on what I’m putting down.

    While the authors are very different and have different emphases, there is more than a small amount of overlap between the commenters. This is particularly true of the ideas and themes that inform and motivate those commenters: red pill, game, etc.

    Buried somewhere in my yet-to-be-published drafts is one titled, “Pastor, please bend my wife over for me”.

  142. Jeremy says:

    I’m not convinced on the AI front. I understand what the GPU architecture breakthrough means, but it’s still a far cry from the human brain. The human brain not only has parallel processing, but IDIC within the processing configuration space itself. This means the human brain, for better or for worse, can literally alter its own parallel pathways as it progresses through life. GPU’s can’t match that, their connections are set when their silicon is laid down. While I have no doubt that this is a breakthrough on the AI front, it’s not true AI, more like a big step towards a reliable (not process divergent) learning computer. That’s actually bad for anyone who thinks they have privacy in their daily lives, because the absolute best data-sorter/data-pattern-matcher is a learning computer operated by a human.

    Yes, it can/will replace jobs, probably most notably the customer support jobs. If you can combine a good learning computer with good voice simulation, you can probably keep 90% of your customers completely in the dark that they’re talking to a computer when all they want is to figure out their balance or the shipping date of their order. I would actually appreciate this in replacing those ridiculous number menus in call centers.

    But I do not believe it will replace as many jobs as expected. The reason for this is economic. Robots still have a finite cost to use/setup, so it comes down to the cost of relative energy vs production offered by the robot vs the person. People will still work, but those worthless office jobs will finally be priced accordingly. It’s deflationary, but not economic-revolutionary (though in effect it will not appear much different for the out-of-work layman).

    For people like myself who automate laboratory experiments…🙂

  143. Cane:

    “They believe the hype that the dumbest, most brutish, unsexy, out-of-touch troglodytes in the world are married fathers.”

    I think you’re pointing out the wrong error, which surprises me, because this is something I learned from *you*, so…

    Some (many?) married fathers are dumb, brutish, unsexy, and/or out of touch. Certainly there are many men who aren’t as hawt as they could be as a result of their fathering proclivities.

    The error is to think that this is in any way important, when the real question is: would God have them be fathers, or not? That one is pretty easy to answer

  144. Bike Bubba says:

    For Scott: Moi! Sekira mi je u glavi!

    (I went to grad school with Serbs….but the only other Serbian I know is insults and the lyrics to the “Too Fat Polka”, which evidently I sing well enough to let the hearers know Frankie Yankovic’ was Slovenian)

    For Innocent Bystander–Boston: I actually think that, apart from mis-translations like the TNIV/New Gelded Version (which removes male pronouns), any good, reasonably word for word translation like the ESV, NASB, KJV, Geneva Bible, or NKJV is fine. Even the 1984 NIV is OK. The key issue is not the translation or source texts, but how people handle God’s Word. If I (a fundamental Baptist) learned enough Latin, I’d preach out of the Vulgate where appropriate with some reference to one of the Greek manuscript families.

    And per that, you really want to avoid founding new churches. That makes it easier for a dominant personality with a smattering of knowledge to turn it into a cult.

  145. Cane Caldo says:

    @SPD

    I think you’re pointing out the wrong error […] Some (many?) married fathers are dumb, brutish, unsexy, and/or out of touch. Certainly there are many men who aren’t as hawt as they could be as a result of their fathering proclivities.

    There is a cultural feedback involved in that interplay. Having bought the message that fathers are uncool, many men settle into being unsexy and out of touch. It’s seductive to be nihilistic and slothful about being a husband and father; to slide into the old fart role and be left to your diversions. It is a lot of work to keep family spirits high, defend against the culture, discipline the unruly, inculcate the Gospel–all while keeping a level head yourself. It is a struggle, and most men I know quit before they fail; in church and without.

    But, the point of the comment you quoted wasn’t that Driscoll shouldn’t have failed, but that Mars Hill could not have gone any differently because he was an alpha; irrationally self-confident, and disparaging of his own elders. (He couldn’t even level with the elders he appointed over himself!) When he spoke well of those who came before him like Edwards and Spurgeon, he re-cast them in his own image. All the prophets, apostles, and even Jesus were treated to the same modernization. Driscoll maintained that he was making those great men relevant, but what he actually did was make modernity the standard by which the saints from the past are to be judged.

    When his flock came for him they were fueled not only by their anger at his actions, but by the anti-patriarchy he had encouraged in them.

  146. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Great blog title.

    Thank you.  I was wondering if anyone would get it/comment on it.

    I also think it is imperative for anyone concerned about the fate of men in church to ponder that fact that while church attendance shrank, Mars Hill exploded. Specifically, Mars Hill excelled at adding and retaining specifically male congregants. The fact is that his churches were FULL of men just like those who tread these blogs; men who were disappointed with the world; disappointed with church; men seeking an alpha male to tell them and everyone else what’s up; who were obsessed with a “real” Christian experience–each according to their own idea of reality. The reality that Driscoll served up–and thousands of men ate up–was cartoonish because neither he nor they had strong, enduring conceptions of manhood; which is an involved and respected father and husband.

    Those men in his church didn’t like fathers anymore than the rest of society, or anymore than Driscoll himself. They liked football players, MMA fighters, rock stars, movie stars, and any other kind of cool. They liked alphas. They believe the hype that the dumbest, most brutish, unsexy, out-of-touch troglodytes in the world are married fathers. The timing and manner of his downfall–and at whose hands–are further evidence. It couldn’t have ended any other way than the fruition of full-grown rebellion against a middle-aged dude with a beard and a Men’s Wearhouse vest.

    Yes.  Precisely.

    Buried somewhere in my yet-to-be-published drafts is one titled, “Pastor, please bend my wife over for me”.

    This is it.  While I don’t think pastors have been blameless*, I have come to the conclusion that a pastor alone can’t lead his congregation out of this. This is the folly of my Game for pastors post several years back.  If the men in the church are relying on the pastor to protect them from their wives, or to convince their wives that they should submit, what this will all but inevitably turn into is the pastor being the only real man in the room.  This is so not only because of the temptation this involves for the pastor, but because of the temptation we can see of modern Christian men to push in this same way.  The most important lessons from Mars Hill under Driscoll are not about Driscoll at all.  They are about modern Christian culture, especially men**.

    *I’m not particularly interested in assigning blame, at least not now. I’m far more interested in clearly understanding what is going wrong. From there hopefully we can better understand how to repent and stop making the same mistakes. What I’m sharing in this series doesn’t look good for men, but I have no sense of triumph in pointing this out, only sadness, or more accurately grieving. But the important part is we can repent, and this (along with simple faith) makes me profoundly optimistic.

    **It also tells us a great deal about modern Christian culture and women as well, which I’ll cover in the final post of the series.

  147. Lyn87 says:

    TFH,

    Without going into a lot of detail… based on my experience, it seems to me that brick-and-mortar education facilities are largely going to go the way of the dodo. Since “education” is dominated by female teachers overseen by female administrators all spewing feminist garbage, and these disruptive technologies could easily put over 90% of teachers out of work, what impact to you foresee on – not only the (overwhelmingly female) teaching profession itself – but the FI embedded in most primary-through-grad-school curricula?

  148. Stryker says:

    @ IBB 2:03pm.

    I have been redpill for a year. I proposed to my gf on Christmas day and am getting married on March 28th. Some facts about why I desire marriage in a world of marriage 2.0:

    1) My fiancé is a virgin
    2) My fiancé comes from a very traditional homeschool family That she loves dearly and who can hold her accountable for anything.
    3) She is a very selfless woman and this has been demonstrated in the fruit that she bares.
    4). She has demonstrated her faithfulness to me in circumstances where she could have been unfaithful if she did not have the morals she has. She is 100% committed, at least right now.
    5). I am persuing marriage because I believe it is ordained by God, I want to have sex and only as ordained by God. I’m no virgin and I won’t go down the path of fornication again.
    6) I believe it will assist me in doing Gods work more than working on my own, and I believe it is a tool God uses to sanctify His believers. Marriage will not work unless you put God first and are selfless, it will incentive Christ like behavior.
    7). she meets every “redpill” criteria there is, except AWALT…and that is a risk I am willing to take. I don’t claim to be some alpha who can game her the rest of my life either. Women and men can change, it goes both ways. Men do have more to lose.
    7). I have dual citizenship. US/Switzwrland. In 10 years if she decides to blow things up I’ll be gone. not sure what I would do if we had kids at that point. Troubling situation to be sure.

  149. Stryker says:

    Other reasons-
    $5k wedding
    Lowest maintenance woman I have ever met in my life, grew up in an upper middle class town where all the girls are given new cars at 16 by their dads, wear a mask of paint on their face, and have crazy standards.

    Anyway, I found basically the only type of woman I would ever consider marrying in the world we live in now, and I believe 100% it was a God thing.

    [D: Congratulations! May your marriage and family be blessed!]

  150. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    There is a cultural feedback involved in that interplay. Having bought the message that fathers are uncool, many men settle into being unsexy and out of touch. It’s seductive to be nihilistic and slothful about being a husband and father; to slide into the old fart role and be left to your diversions. It is a lot of work to keep family spirits high, defend against the culture, discipline the unruly, inculcate the Gospel–all while keeping a level head yourself. It is a struggle, and most men I know quit before they fail; in church and without.

    There is another aspect to this though, and that is that the popular culture doesn’t need any more help lampooning husbands and fathers as worthless failures.  We need to find a way to build up husbands and fathers, and avoid the huge temptation to become Christian parodies of Spielberg movies.

    This isn’t about what the husbands and fathers themselves deserve. They may deserve a good ass kicking. This is about honoring the role as Scripture defines it, and it is about what families need. No one profits from tearing down a husband and father in front of his family, aside from perhaps the person doing the tearing down (by puffing themselves up). It is no easier for the failing husband and father to lead after this, and it is no easier for the wife to submit or the children to follow. Even in cases where we take the husbands aside as with Promise Keepers, the temptation to turn it into a thrashing contest should be obvious not only after Mars Hill, but decades of failing in exactly this way.

    We must always remember that this isn’t a boot camp for the military or a training camp for a sports team. We aren’t building an elite force of husbands and fathers by weeding out the weakest men. This mentality is a huge temptation, but it is not only unbiblical but would mean tossing aside the very families which are suffering the most.

  151. Wow! As Dalrock said, congratulations Stryker. And congratulations to your wife-to-be.

    Okay, I stand corrected. Now we have…. 1 single red-pill-man who is opting out of MGTOW and signing up for marriage 2.0. I hope and pray your marriage lasts until God almighty is the one to end it.

  152. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    There is another aspect to this though, and that is that the popular culture doesn’t need any more help lampooning husbands and fathers as worthless failures. We need to find a way to build up husbands and fathers, and avoid the huge temptation to become Christian parodies of Spielberg movies.
    […]
    We must always remember that this isn’t a boot camp for the military or a training camp for a sports team. We aren’t building an elite force of husbands and fathers by weeding out the weakest men. This mentality is a huge temptation, but it is not only unbiblical but would mean tossing aside the very families which are suffering the most.

    Agreed. I was describing more fully what seriouslypleasedropit was saying he saw. And I got side-tracked as I wrote. There was going to be another paragraph (before “But, the point of the comment you quoted…”) which said that the challenge is to encourage and equip men who feel like they can’t/don’t win; that redirects our ideas of manliness away from cool and towards fatherhood itself.

  153. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Agreed. I was describing more fully what seriouslypleasedropit was saying he saw. And I got side-tracked as I wrote. There was going to be another paragraph (before “But, the point of the comment you quoted…”) which said that the challenge is to encourage and equip men who feel like they can’t/don’t win; that redirects our ideas of manliness away from cool and towards fatherhood itself.

    My reply made it seem I was aiming directly at you, but I was more using your comments as a jumping off point to define what I see as a huge temptation for us collectively.

  154. Stryker says:

    Thanks Dalrock and IBB. One other thing to note, after being in Switzerland for two weeks in july I almost went blind…inflammation of the optic chiasim. We were looking at a possible severe autoimmune disease. My fiancé supported me all the way through it.

    I do have to say, as a 28 yr old male, MGTOW has been extremely tempting. But as a Christian and as a man that wants sex, I’m taking the marriage risk.

  155. Yoda says:

    His harasser, Rose Eveleth and the manginas who groveled to her, are pseudo-journalists who literally produce nothing that cannot be generated by a program.

    A program can be a victim not.
    Professional victims still exist will they?

  156. galloper6 says:

    I like the idea of a Red Pill church. It will need a better name.

  157. It’d make a good blog name.

  158. greyghost says:

    Red Pill Church of Christ would be cool. The sermon cold be a You tube video. With an article and comment blog like this.

  159. stickdude90 says:

    @ibb:

    The red pill is very bitter. It pretty much makes it almost impossible for a man who swallows it to ever be able to marry afterwards (at least until they change the divorce laws.)
    ————
    My good friend introduced me to Dalrock and MMSL earlier this year, but my wife of 19 years passed away before I was able to put any of Athol’s advice into action. I’m ready to start dating again – with my eyes wide open this time – but comments like the one above make me wonder if I’m about to start a fool’s quest.

    Why do I want to date/remarry?

    1. I’m fairly young (44), and still like to have sex.
    2. I’m Christian and believe that sex outside of marriage is sin – I was a virgin on my wedding night (at 25), and remained faithful to my vows until death truly did part us.
    3. Those aren’t the only reasons, but they are pretty big ones.

    I’m not completely ready to give up on marriage yet, but what can I do while dating to cut down on the chances of ending up in a Marriage 2.0? Is there any hope for me?

    Btw, I’ve already ruled out dating divorced women. I kept my wedding vows, and I would consider it being unequally yoked to marry someone who did not keep theirs – and that’s without getting into what the Bible says about divorce.

  160. infowarrior1 says:

    The leadership of the church should do a trade. So that even if the women leave because of sound teaching they will still have money to maintain the church. Likewise being minimalistic in lifestyle and in maintaining or running a church minimizes their reliance on itching ears to fill their coffers.

    Sad to say but being a minister or pastor no longer to be a sole occupation.

  161. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    ”This is it. While I don’t think pastors have been blameless*, I have come to the conclusion that a pastor alone can’t lead his congregation out of this. This is the folly of my Game for pastors post several years back. If the men in the church are relying on the pastor to protect them from their wives, or to convince their wives that they should submit, what this will all but inevitably turn into is the pastor being the only real man in the room. ”

    JoJ emailed sunshine mary a while back about building a tribe of men. Basically red pilling them as a group so that they learn to be men. Unfortunately the post is behind the protected wall of privacy.

    That may be the way to go.

  162. Gaza says:

    @Deti
    “You cared about getting attention, validation and affirmation of your sexual worth.”

    Indeed. But what is worse than the expectation that men should just shut up and buy into her rationalization of her past decisions is the expectation that we should blind ourselves to the fact that her current decisions continue to uphold this same hierarchy of desires.

    IME, her behaviors only change to the extent her prospect is sufficiently underwritten as a provider-Beta. And even then it is not as much about her behavior as it is about constraining his. She doesn’t turn in her carousel pass, nor eliminate her membership to carousel weekly, nor stay clear of past flings and present temptation; she merely gives the game a more serious sounding name: capital “D” dating. The difference is that now she obfuscates the present along with the past. Often insulting a man’s basic ability to observe and deduce from her ongoing life choices by continuing the charade of her rather sloppy lane change and all the shaming and manipulation that goes with.

    So she’s often right about one thing: this aspect of her past did make her “who she is today”; so much so that it is just as much a part of her today as it has always been. The attention, validation, and sexual affirmation are still the currency she trades.

    I told a woman in passing conversation that Tinder was a non-starter for me. She thought I was totally unreasonable. Because: everyone is doing it! As in advertising their commodified sexuality to the bringer of highest tingles. Fine, but why would I want to take the added work and risk of determining whether or not a woman – who, but the way, has already demonstrated her inability to secure lasting commitment from a man at her physical peak, is using tender “just” for validation, affirmation of sexual worth (“Still got it!”), or entertainment or is full-on hooking up? And how is “just” for validation a win in my book? Nah, best to take a pass on the whole mess.

    My thinking is that when a man in the pursuit of marital investment is accused of being unreasonable vis a vis his desire or expectations he can be certain that she is affirming her unreasonable expectations and desire to maintain her dualistic mating strategy all the way to the alter. IOW, I’m unreasonable for eliminating women based on her participation in something as base as Tinder, while a woman is being prudent for employing one more tool to find one of those elusive “good men” to commit to her.

  163. Cane Caldo says:

    Re: Red Pill Church

    Facepalm.

  164. The One says:

    @stickdude90

    If you get married within the next two years and have a child you’ll be 47. You’ll be 65 by the time the child is 18. If she divorces you you will be paying child support until you can collect social security. If you don’t wish to leave the country and don’t want children, your best bet is a vasectomy, followed by a church sanctioned, non government contract marriage. Also move money into assets that don’t appear on court documents, cash purchases of gold, etc. That should protect you financially. Emotionally, you have 50% chance of being very bitter. If you want sex that bad, better to leave the country then enter into hell with your American passport.

  165. The One says:

    that redirects our ideas of manliness away from cool and towards fatherhood itself.

    ~Cane Caldo

    That isn’t biblical. Paul says it is BETTER TO BE AN UNMARRIED and Jesus himself states there is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. Heavenly things of course being superior to earthly things, a MARRIAGE IS INFERIOR. The whole problem is the focus on the family. A true biblical church should be lead by non married men and should state clearly single celibate men are SUPERIOR to married men.

  166. stickdude90 says:

    @The One

    Making new babies isn’t possible – my wife developed high blood pressure after our second kid and her doctor told her it would be dangerous to get pregnant again, so I took care of that problem a while ago – with no plans to ever try reversing the procedure.

    I have seriously thought about having a non-state sanctioned marriage, but would need to know more about the details – i.e. how would laws regarding common law marriage come into play?

  167. The One says:

    @Stickdude90

    Marriage common laws would matter, but it’s a lot of easier to move to a different state then a different country so go for it if you live in one of those states. I personally left NY for NH for self defense, best decision I made. Also if you own a house, moving would allow you to turn that into cash, again much easier to keep safe from the courts.

  168. honeycomb says:

    sarcasm on …
    Well if someone had “wifed her up” this could have all been avoided.
    /sarcasm off …

    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/woman-in-custody-after-bellevue-bank-robbery/

    Police: Woman Said She Lost Her Job, So She Robbed A Bank

    Of course I could be wrong … hehehehehehe

  169. Cane Caldo says:

    @The One

    That isn’t biblical.

    I recommend you slow down and take note of the fact that God’s name for Himself is Father, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. Jesus refers to the apostles as members of His family under the Father. As Christians we are adopted into God’s family. Paul instructs us to honor older men as fathers, and younger men as sons and brothers.

    You are right that genetic families are not the end-all-be-all of human aspiration, but you are missing that the family of the flesh is the most basic and present sign pointing us to the Heavenly family.

    A true biblical church should be lead by non married men

    What St. Paul wrote was that the deacons and elders should be the husbands of one wife. Now we might take that as an affirmative command, or as an upper limit. What you can’t do is say that married elders are not truly Biblical. Not even the RCC says that.

    and should state clearly single celibate men are SUPERIOR to married men.

    The superior men will be known by their fruits.

  170. Steve H says:

    On the notion of a ‘Red Pill Church’, the FI-interchangeability with ‘God’s will’ in the modern church, and the need for rebellion in modern Christian men against a new accepted misandry writ large:

    It was discussed here months ago something along the lines of ‘When men lead with pure Scripture, the women will follow’. That…wishful thinking, perhaps?…seems to be at odds with what is discussed here today.

    Which is to say, the general consensus in these comments is that women will *not* likely follow strong men of solid scriptural backing – instead, they will demand that the (feminist) culture *be* the doctrine, as Jeremy suggested…

    So this is a fatalistic turn of paradigm, yes? When you distill it as far down as y’all have over the past year (that I’ve been here, maybe longer than that) – you arrive, predictably, at male imperative vs female imperative. Men vs women. Because ultimately, if women can choose rebellion over the best, most rock-solid headship imaginable….well – they’ve had a decades-long taste of feminism, so they’ll go with the former.

    Sounds like you’re screwed. Though I’m atheist, and was raised in a conservative church in the 80s and 90s and rejected the church – I take no joy in that. It seems like a dark, unprecedented reality for even the sincerest of believers.

  171. Alex says:

    Too much Driscoll? Ain’t any such thing! I am surprised to hear he’s still in the public eye, I figured he’d run and hide for a while, after his dismissal from Mars Hill.

    I just hopped off youtube after trying to get a few laughs from Driscoll’s videos, but to my surprise the 2 videos I viewed seemed pretty decent – one was about young men not approaching women and the other was about men producing something.

    I admit he was right in the first video, but he doesn’t go into why men are choosing not to approach, and my beef with the 2nd video was that his main thrust was about producing FOR women, instead of men just being productive and benefiting themselves, but still decent. If someone has some links to the good stuff where he’s really taking a dump on his viewers, demanding they man-up with thunder and brimstone, please post link.

  172. Steve H says:

    Addendum to comment: Because when you get right down to it, there are no ‘Conservative’ women. There are only women who believe that embracing ‘Conservative’ ideology will get them more of what they think they want, regardless of Scripture or belief or principle. That stuff ain’t even on their radar..

  173. GeminiXcX says:

    Mr Dalrock, “fatigue” is not the correct word — “righteous indignation” is a better description.

    For myself, I wasted my life being a biblical man. I believe this background is what makes it much more difficult for men such as myself to get past the “anger” stage of the Red pill, even as our lives move forward in the other areas.

    “Christian girls aren’t like the others; sincerity, loyalty, a good reputation — that’s what they want!” — Drivel from the pulpit, literature, friends and, of course, the women themselves. The thing is, the married men who feed you these lines don’t seem to even possibly consider that their white-collar $$$ jobs — and the really expensive weddings that their wives were spoiled with — might, just might, have had something to do with why their “Christian qualities” managed to get them a bride?

    The only tragedy was that I once was one of the most devout, kind, generous, hard-working, active and faithful Christian man that these women can only dream about having. It was fundamentalist religion that just sucked the spirituality and the life right out of me.

    I will never set foot in any church again — they, and especially their women, will never benefit from the benevolent part of me.

    The irony is that with the power that I have now, I have already proven that I can have just about any woman I want. I guarantee it would also work on the b*tches of former denomination, but even club girls are more worthy of my c*ck (at least they’re honest!)😀

    -GXcX

  174. Lyn87 says:

    The One says,

    That isn’t biblical. Paul says it is BETTER TO BE AN UNMARRIED and Jesus himself states there is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. Heavenly things of course being superior to earthly things, a MARRIAGE IS INFERIOR. The whole problem is the focus on the family. A true biblical church should be lead by non married men and should state clearly single celibate men are SUPERIOR to married men.

    I see Cane beat me to it, but I’ll add my voice. You are wrong, and the Bible says you’re wrong. And not just a little wrong: you are pointing exactly 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Titus Chapter 1 and 1 Timothy Chapter 3 both list the qualifications for church leadership. Both passages use the phrase “husband of one wife.” Never-married men may not hold church office, and the same passages imply that such men should (must?) also be fathers. The “why” is left unsaid, but it may be that men who are not married fathers would have a hard time counseling about marriage and children.

    As a married man with no children I do not consider myself to be qualified to hold one of those positions of church leadership, regardless of my other qualifications (I have sat on boards that made administrative decisions, but I have never served as a deacon or elder in the way Paul used those terms). I don’t even share my opinions about child-rearing or fatherhood on blogs for that reason, much less advise fellow Christians as a member of the clergy.

  175. Steve H says:

    GXcX – to your point about being devout, kind, faithful, religious etc. – I can relate. Teenage years were one giant effort to be that, in many respects. Don’t know if you saw Rollo’s link to “Chasing Amy” and anonymous ’03 thread ‘Myth of the Righteous Fox’ – but likewise, that was incredibly accurately descriptive of how my mind worked at that age. To think that I could’ve ever been that naive, and yet I remember that frame of mind and jumble of pathetic emotions like it was yesterday – man, what a trip.

  176. Lyn87 says:

    GXcX,

    You got burned in church… got it: we’ve all been there. I’ve been there myself more than once. But if you ultimately reject the God of the Universe because of the errors of some of His followers, you’re a bigger fool than any of them by an infinite, indeed eternal, margin.

  177. Dalrock writes,

    “There is another aspect to this though, and that is that the popular culture doesn’t need any more help lampooning husbands and fathers as worthless failures. We need to find a way to build up husbands and fathers, and avoid the huge temptation to become Christian parodies of Spielberg movies.”

    The Bible and Homer would be great places to start, before reading the GBFM and blogging abut their permantent wisdom, instead of Driscoll’s fleeting fail.

    lzzzzzozozmz8gzzlzlzzzzlz

    And I just saw Dalrock’s, “If I did that, people would read the Great Books for Men. Then I’d lose out on all of the buthexting bernankified fiat dollarz!”

    lzozozzz well played sir well played zllzzzzozzlzzozlzzlzoz

  178. The One says:

    @cane and lyn87

    While I commented on a biblical based church, my comment’s thrust is not toward a subset of men (leaders of churches), but to all christian men. The original comment I quoted from Cane was about redirecting our ideas about manliness toward fatherhooD. The bible says a married man focuses on pleasing his wife, a single man on pleasing again G-d. And again Jesus states there is “no marriage in heaven”, marriage is of the Earth, and heaven is superior to Earth. No one here thinks we “man up” when a man marries a slut. However many think we “man up” when we marry a chaste virgin. The bible states the exact OPPOSITE, “So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her NOT in marriage doeth BETTER.”
    When it is taught in RCC, Orthodox and Protestant churches that to marry is to “man down”, then we will see some progress. Yes G-d is a father and fatherhood matters, but I strongly agree with Cane when he states biological families are not the end all and be all of human aspiration. In many churches that is what they believe, it is a feminine heresy.

  179. MarcusD says:

    how do you take up your cross as a single person?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942520

    This is just an awful situation
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942614

  180. The One says:

    I don’t even share my opinions about child-rearing or fatherhood on blogs for that reason, much less advise fellow Christians as a member of the clergy.

    @lyn87

    Rereading your comments you sadly illustrate my point. You have so much to offer and you literally will not offer it because you are unmarried. You refuse to speak on certain topics until you have the blessing of vagina, this is the heresy I speak of. Paul states clearly in Cor. he is unmarried, (other apostles were unmarried) yet that doesn’t stop him (them) from giving out family and relationship advice. I urge you to pray and reconsider your position, your strength is needed. Again the bible states “So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her NOT in marriage doeth BETTER.” You are that better man

    Also while I am not Protestant, I believe Cane is, consider what he wrote. “What St. Paul wrote was that the deacons and elders should be the husbands of one wife. Now we might take that as an affirmative command, or as an UPPER LIMIT.”

  181. Mark says:

    @TFH

    Great comment!…….Thanks for the articles from Wired and Futurist.I am sending them over to our financial analyst gurus for further reading.

  182. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”Male jobs cannot be lost without even more female jobs being lost. If AI becomes advanced enough to threaten even 60% of male jobs, then 95-99% of female jobs are also under threat.””

    I will give you a good example.Grocery stores.Have you been in one that there is no cashier? You scan your groceries,pay with debit/credit,bag your own groceries……laterz! Just eliminated a female cashier.

  183. Boxer says:

    Dear “The One”:

    Rereading your comments you sadly illustrate my point. You have so much to offer and you literally will not offer it because you are unmarried. You refuse to speak on certain topics until you have the blessing of vagina, this is the heresy I speak of.

    You sure you’re talking about the Lyn87 that posts here? He’s gotta be one of the least reserved contributors.

    On this same general topic, I think you’re all partly right about Christianity’s openness to single dudes (at least the traditional Catholic/Orthodox versions). Ask any Mormon what it’s like to be single, and get the idea as to how welcome you are in any ward without a naggy bitch, with a huge bunch of screaming kids in tow. I hear the same things from Hebrew bros. Maybe Mark can chime in.

    Christianity is certainly superior to my tradition in that regard. The monastic life is offered without shame, and an outlet for those dudes who probably wouldn’t make very good husbands is lacking in many other faiths.

    Boxer

  184. Don Quixote says:

    Dalrock said:

    If the men in the church are relying on the pastor to protect them from their wives, or to convince their wives that they should submit, what this will all but inevitably turn into is the pastor being the only real man in the room. This is so not only because of the temptation this involves for the pastor, but because of the temptation we can see of modern Christian men to push in this same way. The most important lessons from Mars Hill under Driscoll are not about Driscoll at all. They are about modern Christian culture, especially men**.

    [remove some comments]

    We need to find a way to build up husbands and fathers, and avoid the huge temptation to become Christian parodies of Spielberg movies.

    Exactly!
    This is why I persist with church attendance even though I am very peripheral. Discuss and expose feminism with other members, some will listen. Sin hides behind a veil-of-ignorance and the truth will always expose the sin or the sinners. Once the veil-of-ignorance has been removed it cannot be replaced. Change the church one person at a time.

  185. As a married man with no children I do not consider myself to be qualified to hold one of those positions of church leadership, regardless of my other qualifications (I have sat on boards that made administrative decisions, but I have never served as a deacon or elder in the way Paul used those terms). I don’t even share my opinions about child-rearing or fatherhood on blogs for that reason, much less advise fellow Christians as a member of the clergy.

    Hm, so what is an unmarried man to do in the Church? Why should we listen to Paul then, or the Pope for that matter. Why should anyone listen to unmarried men at all? You are working for the feminists in this idea of unmarried men being unfit for leadership roles in the Church.

  186. Mark says:

    @Boxer

    “”I hear the same things from Hebrew bros. Maybe Mark can chime in.””

    You are correct my friend.I have been chastised many times(cannot even count) at the Synagogue that I attend,as well as the Christian Church that I attend.I always give the same reply….”I would NEVER EVER get involved with a Canadian woman,under Canadian law.It is not a bad business deal….it is a sucker’s deal”.I have been more than willing to have a ‘sit down’ with these people and prove to them legally what a bad deal it is.In fact,I would be much better to start a drug trafficking business as the laws are much more lenient.I have also preached to the younger men at the Synagogue and the Church of what they have to look forward to if they let themselves get involved in marriage 2.0.I know that the Pastor’s wife has told me more than once that “your just negative”…..and I reply….”and you are illiterate moron.Care to sit down and we will put the laws on the table…and you try to convince what a great business deal it is”?….she just walks away from me.She has to.She has no argument.

  187. tacomaster2 says:

    Driscoll was at Gateway, a megachurch in the Dallas area, a few months back. I couldn’t believe how they made him out to be a fallen saint. This guy has tarnished the Christian name.

  188. Spacetraveller says:

    Congratulations to Stryker on his upcoming nuptials!
    As a fellow Swiss citizen, I demand an invitation to the Big Day!🙂

    Just kidding…lol.

    May you and your wife-to-be have many happy and Godly years together, filled with blessings (cough, cough, kids!) and Grace from the Almighty Himself.

    Please extend said congratulations to ‘er indoors as well. From what you write, if any woman deserves to be your good lady wife, it’s her!

    (Sorry to hear about your visual problem – I hope it is all sorted out now, or at least under control).

  189. Dale says:

    @The One

    >I also have my own threat point, foreign citizenship

    What is your threatpoint? Your ability to move your family to another nation? If so, which kind?

    @Lyn87

    >you’re wrong. … Titus Chapter 1 and 1 Timothy Chapter 3 both … use the phrase “husband of one wife.

    Nope, you are wrong. Titus 1:5-9 says in part, “the husband of BUT one wife” (emphasis mine). A faithful translation may vary on wording, but you definitely missed a word.
    At least from the English translation I have, it does not say he must be the husband of a wife. I see that there is room for dispute on whether this is a requirement to be married or an upper limit (as others commented above). In cases like this one where a few possible interpretations exist, I am willing to see those possible alternative interpretations. And I also require that others not take one of the possible interpretations and demand others accept it. (Cue RCC versus Protestant, or Baptist versus whatever denomination arguments here… Titus 3:9-11)

    Your false/inaccurate quote is actually a good example of why I advocate Scripture memorization. Having the exact words in my mind allows me to see deviations from the actual words of God, and quickly see the false teaching that thus results. For example, I knew your quote was false without any need to look it up, because I have that part memorized🙂

    Regarding the idea that marriage allows us to better serve God… I suggest you read 1 Corinthians chapter 7. The married man’s interests are divided… not better. Now if someone suggested that they are better suited for a certain task in ministry, maybe. But better overall? No.
    Although, the same chapter in verses 8-9 say “better to marry than to burn with passion”. So if the “marriage will allow me to serve God better” decision is due to allowing him to avoid sexual sin, that would obviously be a valid point.

    Cheers!

  190. Dale says:

    Sorry, I should have clarified that my last paragraph (marriage allows use to serve God better) was not a comment to Lyn87. I can’t remember which commenter put forward that idea.

  191. earl says:

    ‘Paul says it is BETTER TO BE AN UNMARRIED and Jesus himself states there is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. Heavenly things of course being superior to earthly things, a MARRIAGE IS INFERIOR.’

    Jesus’s first miracle was at a wedding feast. A secular marriage is inferior, but a marriage blessed by God is a sacrament and every bit as honorable as going the religious or celibate single route. It’s certainly easier to be focused on the Lord when you are single…but all the lives require sacrifice, love, and self-control.

    ‘The whole problem is the focus on the family. A true biblical church should be lead by non married men and should state clearly single celibate men are SUPERIOR to married men.’

    Catholic church is that. But we never get that single celibate men are superior to married men. Singles, religious and married have their crosses to bear and different gifts that result from them. A cross is a cross…nobody’s cross is seen as superior to another if they are following Jesus carrying it.

  192. new anon says:

    innocentbystanderboston says: That is why I said the KJB is the ultimate authority. Its not my way or the highway. It’s God’s way. It’s what Christ taught us. We obey what is written. If you don’t like the KJB (fine) then what Bible will it be?

    The King James Bible is a translation of the original biblical text into English, not a version of the Bible.

    If the bible version is so important to you, then you should learn to read Hebrew and Greek so you can read the original texts. There are so many free tools available today, that anybody can get a copy of the original language text and read it if they wish. John Wycliff’s plowboy is alive and well.

    You are right to be wary, in that many modern translations have been adulterated. In particular, the attempts to create a politically correct, gender neutral translation.

    I’ve been using the World English Bible (web) translation lately, because it (like the KJV) is in the public domain (there is something about all these groups copyrighting a biblical translation that just doesn’t seem right to me). As far as I can tell, it’s a solid translation (I generally compare it to the NASB AND Young’s Literal Translation as a sanity check).

  193. Miserman says:

    The modern church seems to think that single mothers become pregnant without regard to the woman’s choices or even against the woman’s will. Are they inferring that all these men are rapists? If a woman’s choice had no bearing on the sex, then the consent was one-sided, which means that single mothers are all victims of rape. Is that what modern churches are accepting quietly? Are men like Driscoll subtly saying, “How dare you, you rapists!” It seems so to me.

    From Alpha Game, this.

  194. Anonymous Reader says:

    tacomaster2
    Driscoll was at Gateway, a megachurch in the Dallas area, a few months back.

    Yes, he’s been circulating a bit in some Evangelical churches. No doubt this is a difficult time for him. If he learned from his mistakes, it might also be a benefit to him. To learn from his mistakes he would have to admit to himself that he was wrong, not in the popular “mistakes were made” glossing over mode but in a truly deep, “How did I err?” way. Some people don’t seem to be capable of that. Driscoll may well be one.

    I couldn’t believe how they made him out to be a fallen saint.

    Well, what else would they do? I doubt any megachurch would invite him in as a cautionary example, “Look here, see this man? He’s how we don’t do it!”, that would be cruel. On the other hand, it might be a bit risky for any Pastor Megachurch to hire him or otherwise have Driscoll hangiing around for too long, either.

    One problem with being the top dog in a multi site mega like Mars Hill, it means a man likely will never accept any job less than that in the future.

  195. ballista74 says:

    The next generation (Matt Chandler) catches onto what Driscoll is about. The truth behind what he’s saying is why Driscoll got dropped. People got tired of this, not anything to do with his teaching on marriage.

  196. Bluedog says:

    @Scott, re: “Bluedog-No pun intended, but you are speaking my language.”
    +1
    In my family both my parents were raised K thru college on Pre Vatican II Catholic school – all my older siblings went to Catholic school and I was the first not to go – Vatican II was still somewhat recent and hadn’t fully sunk in and my mom told me from an early age what a loss it was that Latin was removed from liturgy and – being really young and probably an odd person for her to be sharing such thoughts with – I really didn’t get it.
    But it sunk in. My kids are learning an old, dead language and I with them. I started attending Greek Orthodox services to see what she was talking about that we’re missing and … we’re missing a lot. It’s very sad. You could abandon the way worship has been done for 1900 years going back to 1st century Jewish synagogues … but why? Orthodox, IMHO, make better Catholics than Catholics and that’s too bad because it can mean something, if you take the trouble to make it mean something.

  197. Cane Caldo says:

    Whether one reads from the ESV or Douay-Rheims, the spirit of 1 Corinthians 7 is to answer against the Church of Corinth’s admonition that it is better to be single within the church. While Paul is sympathetic to their teaching that, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” what he actually does is instruct them to marry. Then he makes a concession (and an excellent argument) that if they wish to remain single, defending the single life as preferable and profitable for that man or woman. What Paul does not do is give them a spiritual ranking according to their marital state. His point is to remove that practice from them.

    When Paul says that it is better to be single, he means that more attention can be paid by the single man in comparison to what that same man could pay if he were married. He does not say that the single man has more to give; but that whatever he has to give is not divided. If the servant who has five talents must divide them, he is still more blessed than the servant who only has two; even if the servant of two is unmarried.

  198. imnobody00 says:

    @TFH

    As somebody who holds a PhD about Artificial Intelligence (and one of the earliest readers of the manosphere, starting in 2006), let me make this thing clear:

    There won’t be the technological breakthrough you are waiting for.

    In the foreseeable future (in our lives), computers won’t be able to produce the inane navel-gazing drivel that feminist journalists produce.

    Yes, it’s dumb. Yes, it’s nonsense. Yes, it’s always the same. No, computers are not able to produce such a thing because they are orders of magnitude less intelligent than the dumbest feminist. Hardly to believe, but everybody who works in that area knows that (they don’t try to publicize a lot lest the funding dries).

    Since the fifties, people are expecting the AI breakthrough that makes computers intelligent. But the progress has been tiny. It’s not about computer power (the memory of my PC is 85,000 bigger than the memory the first computer I had, back in high school). It is about nature of the problem.

    As somebody commented, it’s like we want to get to the Moon by jumping. We have made some progress (from jumps of 2 feet to jumps of 6 feet) but we are sure that this is not the way. Even worse, we don’t know the way (I doubt the way exists with a silicon-based computer, but that’s another story).

    The Misandry Bubble is going to blow up in the near future but it won’t be because of Artificial Intelligence. You can bet on that. In fact, I am willing to bet $6000. Is anybody interested?

  199. ballista74 says:

    @anonymous_ng

    when you look under the covers it’s as much about control of money and resources as it is about religion.

    It’s all about the money and resources.

    @da GBFM preaches the truth again. (January 27, 2015 at 4:02 pm). No one seems to want to acknowledge that most all churches are godless, desouled and bernankified.

    @Dale My translation doesn’t have “but”, but a good reading indicates it to be a prohibition against polygamy, and the old commentators that address it say similarly.

    This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop “should be” a married man, as Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century, supposed, however desirable in general it may be that a minister of the gospel should be married. But, while this interpretation is manifestly to be excluded as false, there has been much difference of opinion on the question whether the passage means that a minister should not have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first. (Albert Barnes 1 Timothy 3:2)

    but in a literal sense of his conjugal estate; though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were “polygamists”; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others. (John Gill 1 Timothy 3:2 – the last half of a very long sentence)

    Though there is much controversy surrounding indicating this to be a requirement for marriage, though there already has been much commentary on this thread regarding the consequences of making such a rule (namely that most all churches are under the authority of women by proxy).

  200. Eidolon says:

    @imnobody

    For whatever reason, nobody seems to understand that AI (in the sense of self-awareness for machines) is impossible. I guess you need a Christian perspective to see the argument. I do think what people are calling “AI” (more sophisticated computer programs, not really of a different class than before) will be able to take up some existing jobs, but you get “new technology is taking all our jobs” articles every decade or so, usually when the economy is bad and they don’t want to blame the current president for it. Usually the new tech opens up new job possibilities and they just stop talking about it after a year or so.

    Short version of my “AI is impossible” theory:

    1. AI through machinery assumes materialism, that there is nothing more to human thought than “atoms in brain are in state X, therefore thought Y results (or one of a limited set results).” Given the state of the atoms in my brain and the fact that I just received the input I received I couldn’t not be writing this.

    2. This cannot be the case because it renders thought as a physical event, and physical events are not rational, thus eliminating the possibility of rational thought and therefore the theory itself. A thunderstorm isn’t true or false, it’s a physical event — but if thought is nothing but the behavior of atoms in the brain then all thoughts are physical events, and therefore cannot be true or false. We could believe this theory, and it could be true at the same time, but the two things would be unrelated because our thoughts about the theory would be irrational.

    3. Therefore computers can never think rationally, because their “thoughts” are by definition nothing more than physical events. Without rational thought you can’t be “intelligent” in the way humans are.

  201. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Love your nickname, by the way.

    You are working for the feminists in this idea of unmarried men being unfit for leadership roles in the Church.

    When I read Lyn’s position, I get a much less general take on it. I understand him to say that he doesn’t put himself into a position in which he’ll be assumed to be a default authority on raising children. This makes intuitive sense. In the same paragraph he talks about being on the advisory board of the church and doing other such administrative tasks, so he’s not talking about all leadership roles, just the person-to-person stuff.

    This makes intuitive sense to me. As much as I sympathize, I try not to give anything that could be seen to be personal advice to you married bros about how to get along with your wives. If I ever do this, I hope no one will take any of my tips seriously. How the heck would I know what you should do? You’d be better off listening carefully to my wisdom, then doing the exact opposite of whatever I tell you. I’ve never been married, and am not good at relationships.

    Boxer

  202. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    You are correct my friend.I have been chastised many times(cannot even count) at the Synagogue that I attend,as well as the Christian Church that I attend.I always give the same reply….”I would NEVER EVER get involved with a Canadian woman,under Canadian law.It is not a bad business deal….it is a sucker’s deal”.I have been more than willing to have a ‘sit down’ with these people and prove to them legally what a bad deal it is.

    Yeah, the Hebrew bros I talk to all describe the same problems I have. It’s probably a large part of the reason that none of us are interested in our respective religions. Amazing how tactless and “in-your-face” these people can be. Being a Mormon means that a visit to the chapel entails smiling politely as complete strangers go about telling you how you should hitch yourself up to some pie-faced brood sow and immediately begin populating the ward with more baby Mormons.

    If you watched the Driscoll video, I suspect you noticed, as I did, how the good preacher was “praying” for the “cowards” who have been coming to his church for years but have yet to bend a knee and beg their girlfriends to marry them. Even if I were a marrying man, I still wouldn’t do the legalities, for all the reasons you bring up. I don’t blame any of the men for not binding themselves over in a contract that lets the wimminz take all his stuff the minute she kooks out.

    Best,

    Boxer

  203. Steve H says:

    “Welcome to our church, single man! We welcome you with open arms. You’ve got, oh 6 months of our good graces, give or take. If you’re not engaged by then, we’ll turn on you. Get married, or get out!”

  204. Bluedog says:

    @Eidolon, recommend you look into the Towards a Science of Consciousness conference – it’s held bi-annually in Tucson, Arizona and every other year somewhere about the globe.

    AI – entirely possible, although as a professional I’m among the (seemingly) minority report that it’s further off than often predicted. I used to teach and one of my favorite tricks for getting first semester programming students over the mental blocks that prevent them from becoming rapidly good coders was simply to tell them “the only way that you will understand how easy this is, is to begin with the belief – the solid conviction and knowledge – that computers are stupid.”

    Every time I said this in class bored eyes and faces lite up and unattentive students became attentive and every time people who seemed given to an assumption they’d never get it, very quickly, changed frame and got it.

    The same thing that keeps novices from mastering computers is the very same hubris that lends strength to what you write in that it undermines the pros who think too highly of the tool and the craft.

    But having said that – intelligence is not consciousness and consciousness is, it.

    And – philosophically you may be right, but then again, philosophically you may be wrong. I’ll put it to you this way:
    New agers like to say “the universe is conscious”.
    But atheists – when they really stop to think about it – are forced to agree – the universe IS conscious.
    Because you, me – we are the universe – and we are conscious.

    No spoon of sugar, no alchemy required. Everything necessary is already present – what is not present is an understanding of why it works.

    We should figure this out on the level of a bee long before we tackle the human brain (IMHO). But that isn’t just for the operational, engineering and empirical reasons. The larger worry I have is not that we will create artificial consciousness and it will challenge our philosophical shiboleths – my worry is that the enterprise is equally ethically atrocious and physically unstoppable. In other words – you can I can’t stop someone from doing it – but the moment a machine – built from crude human engineering – is made conscious – will be a moment that we have created a creature who is in excruciating pain and will want nothing more than to be put to death – only we might “turn this thing ‘on” and off many times before it’s possible for it to communicate its suffering with us. Whatever this thing is, it will not be a “singularity” with a sense of ethical appreciation for its makers.

    Having said all that – the computers are coming for your jobs. All the speculation on this thread is right on there, AI or no. Jobs being the only form of income and wealth redistribution everyone agrees on – that’s a pretty big problem. It would help if people actually read Adam Smith and Karl Marx, to equip ourselves to deal intelligently with the problems this is creating – rather than act and speak and huff and puff like they did.

  205. Eidolon says:

    @Bluedog

    I’m a coder myself, so I’m familiar with computers and their stubborn insistence on only doing what you tell them to do (no matter what you meant). It depends on the idea when you’re talking about AI — I can totally see how you could program a machine to act like a cat, say. I can see how you’d filter and store inputs such that it would “learn” much the way an animal does. But that’s an irrational kind of “intelligence.” Rational thought is not possible for machines for the reasons I indicated. Of course you could fake it to some degree — “input sentence appears to be a greeting; respond with greeting” — but it’s obviously nothing like real intelligence.

    The “machines will make all our jobs obsolete” thing has been talked about over and over, even in my own lifetime I’ve seen it several times. They said that when they started making cars with robots. In the end it always ends up creating new types of jobs and new ways to be productive by freeing up more people to do other things.

    I’d say the big concern is that eventually we’ll get to the point where the jobs that are available are too technical, such that there won’t be enough unskilled jobs to go around. That could create some real class problems in the future, and it’s already happening to some degree. I’m not sure what you do about that; make-work doesn’t really have a place in capitalism, but of course not everyone can necessarily do something that employers are willing to pay for.

  206. Bluedog says:

    @Eidolon,
    re: “I’d say the big concern is that eventually we’ll get to the point where the jobs that are available are too technical, such that there won’t be enough unskilled jobs to go around. That could create some real class problems in the future, and it’s already happening to some degree. I’m not sure what you do about that; make-work doesn’t really have a place in capitalism, but of course not everyone can necessarily do something that employers are willing to pay for.”

    I’d say we’re pretty close to seeing i2i on that.

    As far as coding – I agree with your first paragraph as written – and I appreciate especially, “computers … stubborn insistence on only doing what you tell them to do (no matter what you meant).”

    Most coders have an ill appreciation for philosophy so even when they master their craft they fail to get the long view on the vast categorical and qualitative chasm between what they are doing – which amounts to scripting electrons through silicon pipes – and “intelligence” or more importantly “consciousness” – they really think they are coding Terminator – they can’t dislodge the qualitative error from their own thinking – so the ignorance of a novice becomes the hubris of a professional.

    But – that doesn’t mean there is such a difference between the mind, and the physical. It just means we are unlikely to arrive at mind by way of piping electrons with script.

  207. Eidolon says:

    @Bluedog

    It bugs me when people talk as though increasing a computer’s “intelligence” in the sense of having more processing power or memory or storage will somehow increase its “intelligence” in the sense of “ability to think rationally.” Even Heinlein makes this leap in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” basically saying that because a computer has reached a certain level of computing power it suddenly comes “alive” with consciousness.

    It’s easy, if you don’t believe in the soul, to assume that our consciousness is simply the inevitable consequence of greater processing power and storage, but it seems clear to me that human rational thought is qualitatively different than what a dog or a cat can do. I’ve thought about how one would go about programming a piece of software that could really “think,” and it’s seems clear that it can’t be done.

    Animals learn by rote, and they assign values to experiences (water=cold=-5, being on the table=yelled at and tossed aside=-3, petting=pleasant=+2) based on how pleasant or unpleasant they are. They don’t understand the experiences or know the how or why, they simply use the bare experiences themselves to formulate behavior patterns that will maximize pleasant and minimize unpleasant experiences. The “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy is basically their whole way of understanding the world. This is qualitatively different than a human who thinks about how and why the experience came about. A cat might learn that the stove hurts and you should never go there; a human would figure out that it hurt because the burner was on, but when it’s off it’s safe.

    As a Christian, I see it as the spiritual dimension of a human allowing his mind to wander free of the constraints of cause-and-effect physical changes in brain chemistry. I don’t believe it makes sense to say that every conceivable state of mind has a one-to-one relationship with a configuration of atoms in the brain. Since God would be very unlikely to grant this to a machine, it can never have the same sort of intelligence because it could never have the spiritual dimension that He gave to humans.

  208. Eidolon says:

    If human consciousness can’t be replicated via a Turing machine, essentially, then how could it ever be replicated? You seem to be making a distinction between “piping electrons,” but what other means could one use?

  209. KP says:

    Cane,

    How about “Mars Pill Church”? It ain’t called the Red Planet for nothing…

  210. BradA says:

    AR,

    So these men are in a sense “cultural symptoms” as much as “cultural causes”.

    That is one of the things I tend to note in my replies. Too many separate the message from the overall culture. Individuals do have huge flaws, but we all remain a part of our culture, even if we generally oppose it. We should not attribute evil when simple cultural influence and idiocy are simpler explanations.

  211. Cane Caldo says:

    @KP

    How about “Mars Pill Church”? It ain’t called the Red Planet for nothing…

    “Mars Hill” is already a “red pill” name. That’s why Driscoll chose it. It’s cool like a pagan, but has some Christian cred’ because Paul gives a fantastic speech there in Acts.

  212. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    “Mars Hill” is already a “red pill” name. That’s why Driscoll chose it. It’s cool like a pagan, but has some Christian cred’ because Paul gives a fantastic speech there in Acts.

    Good catch. There is also irony in it, because even the Greeks thought Mars was a foolish caricature of masculinity. Mars was a bully.

  213. KP says:

    Guys, I think your facetiousness detector is seriously out of alignment.

  214. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH, Eidolon, blue dog, imnobody00: There are two things to bear in mind about AI.

    First, any AI that is implemented on any digital system is a Finite State Machine. The limits of FSM’s were described in detail in the Rabin – Scott paper of 1959 Finite Automata and Their Decision Problems . Rule based automata can do a lot of things, but they remain FSM’s, they are not Turing machines.

    Second, in my opinion a true AI would have to be capable of solving the halting problem. Even Turing machines cannot solve the halting problem, so I do not see how an FSM could do that.

    Rule based AI’s offer a lot of capability, and likely will take over many clerical type jobs (thus they are a threat to women’s employment as TFH notes), but they are not and can not be true AI’s for the above reasons.

  215. Cane Caldo says:

    @KP

    No, I got it. However; it was a great opportunity for me to point out the folly of pursuing a Game-infused, or a red-pill-aligned, church. People have been looking for this at least as long as I have been around (which I chalk up to ignorance about what Game is really about). I can think of several people who like to prognosticate about what Game will look like when it comes to church; how helpful it will be, or how “true” Game will be corrupted.

    It’s already been done. Mars Hill is it. Willow Creek is it. They have different emphases, but the Megachurches operate on a Game dynamic, or system. The men who like to talk about a red-pill church don’t like to hear that because it crushes the dream they’ve bought into. It’s an attack on their Own Personal Driscolls.

    @Dalrock

    Good catch. There is also irony in it, because even the Greeks thought Mars was a foolish caricature of masculinity. Mars was a bully.

    Exactly.

  216. Eidolon says:

    As an aside, any forum in which we could continue this AI discussion? It’s very interesting to me and I haven’t found people discuss it with in the past, but it’s very OT for this post. Don’t know if any of you guys have a blog where it could continue.

  217. Lyn87 says:

    @ The One:
    January 28, 2015 at 12:34 am

    I’ll agree with Boxer’s comment: are you sure you’re talking to me? I specifically said that I am married (I have been since the 1980’s, in fact). That’s why I’m not shy about giving my opinions about marriage. But we have no children, which is why I refrain from giving my opinions about fatherhood: if I don’t have enough knowledge to form an opinion about a subject I try to refrain from doing so.
    ______

    @ feministhater:
    January 28, 2015 at 1:24 am

    Hm, so what is an unmarried man to do in the Church? 1 Why should we listen to Paul then, or the Pope for that matter. 2 Why should anyone listen to unmarried men at all? 3 You are working for the feminists in this idea of unmarried men being unfit for leadership roles in the Church. 4

    My responses:
    1 – Serve God and keep His commandments, just like everyone else.
    2 – We should listen to Paul because he was an apostle (you won’t find any advice about fatherhood in his writings, by the way). As for the pope: that’s not a problem for me, since I don’t listen to him at all.
    3 – Nobody (least of all me) is suggesting that unmarried men are not able to contribute – only that they may not serve in certain positions, which I base on a strict reading of both Titus 1 and I Timothy 4.
    4 – I’m working for the feminists? Either you are VERY new here or that is pure projection on your part.
    ______

    @ Dale:
    January 28, 2015 at 4:37 am

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to re-write scripture to your liking. Titus 1:6 reads as follows regarding elders (which includes pastors), “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” I even went back to the Greek, and the meaning doesn’t change. Even adding the extraneous “but” that you posit doesn’t change the meaning – the idea that only unmarried men are fit to lead in the church is diametrically opposed to what the Bible says in at least three places, and that is what I was responding to. In fact, 1 Timothy 4:3 specifically states lists “forbidding to marry” as a false and harmful belief. I am willing to accept that it may be possible for a man to be called to ministry if he is not yet married or a father (only because some men whose theological opinions I value think so), but before I accept it myself I will need to see some serious rebuttals that I have never encountered in nearly 50 years of serious Christianity and in-depth study of the Word… and of this topic.

  218. Lyn, why should any man get married today?

    If you can’t come out with one extremely good and well thought out reason, then no man today can lead the Church.

  219. I don’t want to hear about how it’s the only way to obtain Godly sex or Godly children or any such notion. One reason, outside the realm of what is traditionally expected in marriage for a man.

  220. If only married men are allowed to lead the Church, then you are directly playing into feminists hands, for you need to marry a women under their rules in order to lead your Church.

  221. Anchorman says:

    I don’t want to hear about how it’s the only way to obtain Godly sex or Godly children or any such notion. One reason, outside the realm of what is traditionally expected in marriage for a man.

    You recognize marriage is broken in today’s culture, yet ask for an answer that separates marriage from God’s intent or stated reason to marry?

    There’s no secular reason to marry. Full stop. None.

    Any answer must necessarily include God’s reasons for marriage.

  222. Any answer must necessarily include God’s reasons for marriage.

    And yet you cannot have a Godly marriage anyway, which is why it’s pointless to discuss this with the notion that unmarried and childless men cannot lead… for Lyn says the only men who can lead are those who are married and have children, and those are the very men who are caved into the system and thus have no way to stop it..

    The reason I ask to remove those Godly reasons for marriage is because they no longer exist in the culture at large. Most Godly men have no chance of having a marriage like that and therefore have no incentive to get married and therefore you have removed most of the reasoning for men to even go to Church and become Church leaders and elders.

  223. Anchorman says:

    The reason I ask to remove those Godly reasons for marriage is because they no longer exist in the culture at large. Most Godly men have no chance of having a marriage like that and therefore have no incentive to get married and therefore you have removed most of the reasoning for men to even go to Church and become Church leaders and elders.

    First, I don’t feel unmarried/childless men cannot lead.

    Next, fh, I’d say you’re right if you expect the world to give you a fair shot at having a godly marriage without interference.

    But we’re not supposed to put our faith in the world. It’s folly. We place our faith in God and God can stop the sun in the sky, make an animal talk, and rise from the dead.

    I was frivorced, but I’m not “anti-marriage.” I made a poor choice when I chose my wife because I didn’t center on God first, pray for His guidance (or blessing, I was atheist at the time), and framed my marriage relationship poorly. In a last-gasp effort, I went full Churchian.

    That said, I believe marriage can work in the modern world. The man and woman need to have the same reason to marry (glorify God), agree to the Biblical roles, and submit to authority(ies) as appointed by the church (man in the household, elders in the church).

    It’s not foolproof, but it’s the plan. It requires placing your faith in God to care for you, because He loves you.

  224. Lyn87 says:

    feminist hater,

    You’re tilting at the wrong windmill: it is not I who said that church leaders are to be married fathers, it was Paul, writing to both Titus and Timothy. Take it up with him. And since we both accept that scripture is Divinely-inspired, you can take it up with God if you like. I was specifically objecting to an earlier comment by The One that only unmarried men were fit to lead in church, and that is rank error. Full stop.

    As for reasons to marry, you may not like God’s answer, but you can take that up with Him too. Paul again, speaking under Divine inspiration, wrote that the purpose of marriage was to satisfy sexual urges (1 Corinthians 7:9). Don’t like it? Don’t want to hear it? Too bad: you don’t get to ignore scriptures you don’t like.

    And you seem to equate secular marriage with Biblical marriage. There is no “Biblical Marriage 2.0,” – see 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 if you doubt me. Whether the couple fills out a form at the courthouse is of no consequence to me. What MAN does to God’s institutions does no tchange God’s commands, either. I only care insofar as I’m doing what’s right in the eyes of God. You want to tell God that He doesn’t “get it,” that He’s not “with it” enough for today? Go right ahead, feminists have been saying that for years when they complain about all that yucky old “men-in-charge” stuff. That’s some high-quality company you’re keeping (/sarc, in case it wasn’t obvious).

    And if you honestly believe that, “…you cannot have a Godly marriage anyway,” then you are denying the power of God to work in the lives of His children. I served more than 20 years in the military, including in a war zone, and voluntarily did a lot of dangerous things, and I can tell you that you’re a braver man than I ever was – I would never say that God is powerless, lest He decide to show me just how very wrong that is.

  225. How does one have a Godly marriage? You cannot answer that even as a married man. Most men today will not be able to have Godly marriages, and therefore have no reason to do anything in Church because they have little to incentive because they’re not allowed to lead due to be unmarried and childless.

    The mistake you make is thinking that I am blaming God when saying a man cannot have a Godly marriage. What God wants and does is a mystery. However, I can look around and see that having a Godly marriage without God’s direct intervention on my behalf is just not possible. It is also because I don’t believe I am important at all, that I also believe God has zero intention helping me find a suitable Godly wife, it’s not in the works. It also may well be his intention that I don’t need to have a wife at all.

    Furthermore, what have the married Christian men done in the last few decades to defend anything Biblical about their Churches or their marriages? Nothing. They could do nothing because their wives were given a ‘secular’ sword to hold over their heads, and there was nothing they could do about it. So much for ‘married leadership’.

  226. imnobody00 says:

    @Eidolon

    Agreed. I don’t believe in materialism anymore. I think it has a lot of flaws. (The atheist thinker Thomas Nagel published a book about that). I don’t think computer intelligence is possible. But I didn’t want to enter this philosophical discussion so I assumed materialism. Even if materialism was true, a computer having intelligence would not be in the foreseeable future.

    @TFH

    This is my last answer to you. If you want to reply and have the last say, be my guest. It’s exhausting to go through your faulty assumptions and reasoning to disprove them.

    We shall see. ‘Replacing human intelligence’ is not the same thing as the rote, repetitive nature of most female jobs.

    Well some jobs can be replaced (for example, calculating the payroll). Not jobs like the writers of feminist articles. Believe or not, writing articles such as “Why is this dirt in my navel! Blame the patriarchy!” require a (low) degree of intelligence. This degree is far beyond the abilities of computers.

    Disruption of existing industries by technology…this process is one that men are relatively more able to adapt to than women.

    Agreed. But this was not my point.

    Also, the fact that progress has not happened in decades is no indicator of the future, since exponential computing always means that the next 5 years has more progress than the prior 50 years. The Wired Article addresses exactly those points.

    So many fallacies. Hard to know where to begin.

    First, the exponential progress is computing is not sustainable and, in fact, the progress has been slowing the last decades. But I will give you that. An exponential cannot go forever but let us suppose that computing has exponential progress forever and ever.

    This exponential progress is in a) speed b) storage capacity. It is not in any other realm. Believe it or not, the change from Windows 7 to Windows 8 cannot be considered a progress, let alone an exponential progress, let alone a progress in computer intelligence.

    Your reasoning is faulty because the problem of intelligence does not lie in speed or storage (computers have more speed and storage than humans so this is not a problem). Your fallacy is equivalent to the following one: “Of course cars can give birth to humans. They have computer chips! With the exponential progress of the computer chips, car with computer chips can do anything, including giving birth to humans”. The problem of giving birth does not lie in the progress in speed and storage of computer chips. It is a completely different problem. The same with computer intelligence.

    That does not guarantee anything, but the notion that the last 50 years did not have progress says nothing about the future.

    Another fallacy. Sorry, although the future is unknown, this does not means that the past says nothing about the future. The past defines what kind of futures are more likely. Having computer intelligence in the foreseeable future is extremely unlikely. We don’t know even how intelligence works let alone how to replicate it in a silicon computer (if this is possible at all because I agree with Eidolon that it is not possible).

    Let me put it that way. “Progress is exponential so the past says nothing about the future. So you can’t say that we won’t be able to travel outside the Milky Way in the next 20 years”. Excuse me? Of course, it is not impossible but it is extremely unlikely. The same with the intelligence with computers.

    I am old enough to remember this reasoning during the 70s. “With the amazing progress in computers, we will have computer intelligence in 20 years (this means the 80s)”. Yes, and pigs fly.

    Humans were never in space for thousands of years until the 1960s, but now humans are routinely in space.

    Yes, I remember when, during the 60s, we were told that, in the early XXI century, cars would fly and we would be able to have manned missions to Mars and Saturn (even a Beatles record spoke about a kid spending the weekend in Saturn). These guys were the ones that made “exponential progress” their religion. Instead, we are cultivating tomatoes in a lower orbit.

    Anyway, that is my last message about that. But if you are willing to bet $6000 against me, I would be extremely pleased. I give you 30 years.

    In 30 years, if a computer can write a feminist article that is able to be published on the Web or on the news paper, I will give $6000 to you. Otherwise, you will give $6000 to me. We can make a contract.

    If you are interested, send me an email to merdeta@gmail.com

  227. This all boils back down to Dalrock’s premise that one needs to mold men by leading by example and actually taking the time to show men how it is done. This should be done by father to son but the system has been turned on its head and fathers are kicked out of the home and sons left to fend for themselves. This in turn leads to these men being preyed upon by men like Driscoll. They get preyed upon because they are directly looking for guidance and help from the very place that they should feel safe getting such advice from, the Church. They are then blamed for falling for the crap Driscoll spews and not knowing what is right or wrong with respect to Church doctrine.

    They also have little chance of being Godly men and finding Godly wives; and thus their best bet is not to get married. However, then they cannot have a wife and cannot have children and thus can only join a Church to be berated to by men like Driscoll, for no married man dare lead from the pulpit against the FI. Therefore such men eventually will leave and the Church and these men are worse off.

    Where do such men find guidance? Where do they get to learn from a man with their best interest at heart? I don’t see married men teaching them, besides Dalrock and a few others, all I see is married men teaching them how to be good, submissive husbands that dare not lead their wives.

  228. Lyn87 says:

    feministhater,

    If that’s all you see, then you aren’t looking very hard. Despair is not a winning strategy – taking the red pill is hard enough without insisting on taking it as a suppository. And your broad-brush dismissals are getting us nowhere. Good day.

  229. Lyn87 says:

    I skipped over much of the techie-stuff since yesterday, but this jumped out at me:

    In 30 years, if a computer can write a feminist article that is able to be published on the Web or on the news paper, I will give $6000 to you. Otherwise, you will give $6000 to me. We can make a contract.

    That may well have already happened, although so much of what they mean to write is gibberish that it would be hard to tell. Computer-generated articles have already been published hundreds (maybe thousands) of times in hard-science, peer-reviewed journals. Source. The article states that the publisher identified more than 120 such papers in just two publications over six years. Unless one is willing to surmise that the publishing guidelines for Jezebel are significantly more stringent than those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, then it looks like somebody is going to be writing a $6000 check in the very near future.

  230. imnobody00 says:

    @TFH

    I am afraid that you don’t even understand what is being discussed. What is being discussed is a wave of automation replacing many jobs, which will mostly be female jobs. You have not addressed this at all.

    Yes, I have addressed that. I have agreed with you. My words were “Agreed. But this was not my point.”. If you have low reading skills, it’s not my problem.

    My only point of dispute is Artificial Intelligence, which happens to be my area of expertise.

    You go off on many unrelated tangents which a) are not what anyone claimed

    Sorry, I only quote your words and discuss your claims (full of fallacies and faulty reasoning). If you have low reading skills, it’s not my problem.

    , and b) wrong anyway.

    You have not proven that and your ignorance of the topic is so huge that I doubt you can. You think to seem that the problem with AI is about speed of computers.

    You also ignore the Wired article, which quotes many experts in the field.

    This is the difference between you and me. You draw your information from Wired magazine. I have studied this topic non-stop for five years, reading scientific books and articles.

    Agreed. Experts in the field in Artificial Intelligence were claiming that computer intelligence was near since the 70s (for example, Marvin Minsky, the most famous expert in AI back then). I have seen the same claims during the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s. So what? Everybody loves a good headline and the paper can contain any amount of BS.

    since by some accounts, this is already very near.

    Yes, by some accounts during the 60s, nowadays computers would be more intelligent than machines. By some accounts.

    Yet you think this can’t happen in 30 years.

    It won’t probably happen in 60 years but I’ll be dead by then. I prefer to have the money before I die.

    I am able to bet $6000. I put my money where my mouth is. Send me an email, we can disclose identities (only between us) and draft a contract.

    Funny you would have that sort of hubris,

    It’s not hubris. It’s knowing about what I am talking about.

    I am very ignorant of many things, the same way you are extremely ignorant of Artificial Intelligence. The difference is that, unlike you, I don’t claim to know something when I don’t know a thing. I know nothing about the Khmer Empire and, if an expert in the Khmer Empire talks to me, I won’t be so smug to say that I know more than him based on an article I have read on the Web.

    This is the problem with people like you. You are so self-important and hubristic that you think you know it all and you can teach to people that it is an expert in the field. You make a fool of yourself.

  231. Patrick says:

    Lyn87,

    I respectfully think you are misinterpreting Paul’s words here:

    You’re tilting at the wrong windmill: it is not I who said that church leaders are to be married fathers, it was Paul, writing to both Titus and Timothy.

    Paul clearly expresses a preference for unmarried men stating that they are better suited to fulfill Christ’s mission on earth, and that people should marry only if they can’t keep themselves from sin otherwise. Even with the preference being for unmarried , celibate men, Paul and Titus allow that some married men may be allowed into leadership positions in the Church, but only if they are the “husband of one wife” (hence not polygamous which was common in the Near East in ancient times), along with other qualifications. Basically, the Church only wanted married men in leadership roles if they had their act together, had a stable marriage, kids and home. Still, the preference was always for unmarried, celibate men, who could devote themselves entirely to God.

    The Church recognizes three levels of church leader, bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon. Of these three groups, deacons can be, and often are, married men, in compliance with the dictates laid down by Paul and Titus. Priests and bishops cannot be ordained unless they are committed to lifelong celibacy. This is in Section 1579 of the Catechism and references Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:32. The reasoning for celibacy is set forth there too.

    1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,”71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72

  232. imnobody00 says:

    @Lyn87

    These papers were not accepted because they have any meaning but because of the corruption of peer-review system

    But they also had a more serious goal: to test whether such meaningless manuscripts could pass the screening procedure for conferences that, they feel, exist simply to make money..

    They were accepted without being reviewed.

    “We did not receive reviews for some papers,” Callaos says. “Since we thought that it was not fair to reject those, we accepted them as non-reviewed ones.”

    So, yes, Lyn87, my bet stays the same. If you want to join the bet and you think you can make easy $6000, be my guest. You have my email.

  233. Patrick,

    Paul clearly expresses a preference for unmarried men stating that they are better suited to fulfill Christ’s mission on earth, and that people should marry only if they can’t keep themselves from sin otherwise.

    That was about half of it (if you MUST have s-x then take a wife so as not to sin.) But I’d say the other half as to why Paul said it is best not to marry as to spread the Good News of Christ, is that an unmarried man is unencumbered. If you don’t have the weight and financial burden of a family for whom you must provide, you are free to live a much cheaper life which created MORE TIME for Christ. If I lived alone and had no responsibilities accept to myself, I could survive for an entire year on 3 weeks of my pay. That would give me 49 weeks in a year to do as Christ commands and spread the Good News, full-time.

    I have a much younger single, childless, cousin of mine doing mission work in Prague. He is there at the ripe old age of 23, spreading the Good News. Of course, the wife and I are more than happy to give him $50 a month for a year and half (make a $900 commitment) to help support him because…. he is doing the work that Paul asks of us that I CAN’T do because I have more responsibilities. So, pay my cousin a little and have him do it.

    Even with the preference being for unmarried , celibate men, Paul and Titus allow that some married men may be allowed into leadership positions in the Church, but only if they are the “husband of one wife” (hence not polygamous which was common in the Near East in ancient times), along with other qualifications. Basically, the Church only wanted married men in leadership roles if they had their act together, had a stable marriage, kids and home. Still, the preference was always for unmarried, celibate men, who could devote themselves entirely to God.

    Yes to all of this.

  234. imnobody00 says:

    @TFH

    Then stay on topic, for that is the only point I am bringing up :

    Sorry. You make a point about females being replaced. I agreed with almost everything.

    I only wanted to set the record straight about your opinion of computers replacing female journalists. This is the point I wanted to make because I am positive this is not true, even if I agree with everything else with you.

    Then you discussed my point and I discussed your reasons to reject my point. I stayed on topic all the time. I only had a point to make and I stayed there.

    But I do have an 8-year track record online of highly accurate predictions across many areas.

    Good for you. But the oil prices have nothing to do with Artificial Intelligence. For example, I don’t feel I am expert enough to discuss oil prices (although I regularly read articles about Economy but it’s not my field).

    Prediction of Artificial Intelligence that the Turing Test is “around the corner” are a fixture of this field. The same about people saying that the world would end. The evidence is against both claims.

    I don’t feel strongly either way about whether AI can pass the Turing Test or not, so it doesn’t matter that much to me.

    It seemed otherwise because of your insistence in the fact that exponential progress meant that. I guess 30 years is too long and I guess that you won’t remember this discussion. In 30 years, I will be more than 70 and I will be discussing with some kid that computer intelligence is not around the corner. The more things change, the more stay the same.

  235. imnobody00 says:

    Imnobody said,

    You think to seem that the problem with AI is about speed of computers.

    I absolutely never stated anything like that whatsoever. You = fail.

    Agreed. My fault. Bad formulation. When you write quickly, you make these mistakes. Let me try again.

    You think that exponential progress of technology (which is only exponential in speed and storage, such as the Moore Law you referred to) is relevant to solving the problem with AI. This is patently absurd because the problem with intelligence is not about speed or storage.

    Also, the fact that progress has not happened in decades is no indicator of the future, since exponential computing always means that the next 5 years has more progress than the prior 50 years.

  236. imnobody00 and TFH,

    On this Artificial Intelligence cr-p, let me simplify this on something we can all agree as it applies to employment: the more well formed your job is, the easier it is to use AI to automate it out of existance. There you go. If you both want a “win” in this argument, just say that the majority of the jobs that women do (particularly those feminist women who can’t think all that deeply or else they wouldn’t be feminist) are easier to apply AI to automate out of existance.

    Think about LegalZoom.com. All that site does is remove the need for lawyers to draw up and have you sign well formed documents. You have automated (out of existance) a significant portion of the legal profession because that work is so “well formed.” It doesn’t require a lot of thinking. Nor does it require a whole lot of thinking for an HR generalist feminist to sit there and have her fill out health insurance forms and sign meaningless personnel documents. Her job is ripe to eliminated due to AI.

  237. imnobody00 says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    Of course, I agree with that. As with any other technology, not only AI, the less creative jobs are being eliminated. This elimination will be impacting more women than men.

  238. imnobody00 says:

    Well, time to go to work. I apologize for having hijacked the discussion.

  239. Lyn87 says:

    Does anyone have a line on programs that generate papers based on pre-programmed buzzwords and/or gibberish? I managed to “write” a couple of high-sounding papers using the SCIGen application, but that just allowed me to assign authorship of some VERY impressive-sounding Computer Science articles to random feminist authors. The articles themselves were not in fem-speak, though.

    I think that if I took an article like that and did straight-up word substitutions (like changing the word “hardware” to “intersectionality,” for example), it might pass muster for publication on a feminist website, and maybe even make it into a Women’s Studies textbook.

    I’ve always dreamed of being a writer…

  240. BradA says:

    yet you cannot have a Godly marriage anyway

    That is a very false claim. I would assert my marriage is godly, at least as much as two people on this side of eternity can make it. We have our challenges, but both my wife and I are walking out the tough road. (And ours has not been a pleasant one for reasons outside of the two of us.)

    Having 50% of the marriages fail also means that 50% succeed. One good answer to your “why marry” question is to build the next generation. You have a huge amount of risk, but that is too bad. Life is not about completely avoiding risk, which is impossible, but reducing it to acceptable levels.

    You just pushed some of your risks to the future (when you are old and can’t take care of yourself). You have not removed them completely.

    Lyn87,

    I am not sure that those Scriptures demand a man be married. They seem more aimed at polygamy than the single man. Why would Paul proclaim he wished all were in his state of singleness if that would eliminate a man from Church leadership? What evidence do we have that Timothy was married? (We may have that, but I cannot recall any now, either way.)

    I remember a pastor’s wife voicing your position in a church many years ago, only to have her husband (the pastor) say that was not accurate. He seemed to have enough true knowledge of the Word that it seemed reasonable to accept his arguments at the time, though I have not dug into it recently and I cannot remember the exact arguments now.

  241. BradA says:

    AI was a “hot thing” when I got my degrees in Computer Science in the mid 1980s. It seems to still be, with very little having changed. I remain very skeptical of its true value due to that.

  242. BradA says:

    I do suspect that I could write such a program Lyn87, but I doubt it would be worth the effort. It seems that many phrases are repeated over and over.

    I would probably “cheat” and scan in a whole bunch of articles, looking for common phrases and such. It would make generating the proper output easier if I could find the common phrases today. I am not sure all feminist articles seem like they were written by a human anyway.

  243. Lyn87 says:

    Just for fun, I took a sample of a gibberish physics paper written by a computer (which was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), did a few find-and-replaces to change “science” words to “feminist” words, cleaned up a little grammar, and slapped on a title. Gentlemen, I give you my masterpiece, and I challenge any of you to tell me this couldn’t fool a feminist editor:

    Special and General Theories of Intersectionality – A Study in Applying Physics to Feminism
    ……………..by Lyn87…………….

    In the Patriarchical mechanistic worldview, sex and gender are distinct and absolute.[29] In the Feminist Special Theory of Intersectionality, the distinction between sex and gender dissolves: there is only a new unity, four-dimensional sex-gender, and the observer’s perception of “sex” and “gender” depends on her state of self.[30] In Hermann Minkowski’s famous words:
    Henceforth sex by itself, and gender by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.[31]

    Nevertheless, the underlying geometry of Minkowskian sex-gender remains absolute.[32]
    It is in Feminism’s General Theory of Intersectionality that the radical conceptual break occurs: the sex-gender geometry becomes contingent and dynamical, encoding in itself the intersectional paradigm. Feminist breaks with the tradition dating back to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter (and which is inflicted on high-school students even today!), and employs instead the non-patriarchal “genderometry” developed by Riemann. Feminist equations are highly nonlinear, which is why patriarchally-trained mathematicians find them so difficult to solve.[33] Newton’s gravitational theory corresponds to the crude (and conceptually misleading) truncation of Feminism’s equations in which the nonlinearity is simply ignored. Feminism’s General Intersectionality therefore subsumes all the putative successes of Newton’s theory, while going beyond Newton to predict radically new phenomena that arise directly from the nonlinearity: the bending of gender by class, the fusion of the GLBTQ and F communities into a single intersectional political entity, and even the precession of “sluts” to mothers.

    General intersectionality is so weird that some of its consequences — deduced by impeccable mathematics, and increasingly confirmed by observation — read like science fiction. Perhaps less familiar is Gödel’s construction of an Feminist sex-gender admitting closed genderlike curves: that is, a universe in which it is possible to travel into one’s own vagina![34]

    Thus, general intersectionality forces upon us radically new and counterintuitive notions of sex, gender and causality[35] [36] [37] [38]; so it is not surprising that it has had a profound impact not only on the natural sciences but also on philosophy, literary criticism, and the human sciences. For example, in a celebrated symposium three months ago on Les Langages Critiques et les Sciences de l’Homme, Jean Hyppolite raised an incisive question about Jacques Derrida’s theory of structure and sign in feminist discourse:

    When I take, for example, the structure of certain paradigmatic constructions [ensembles], where is the center? Is the center the knowledge of general rules which, after a fashion, allow us to understand the interplay of the elements? Or is the center certain elements which enjoy a particular privilege within the ensemble? … With Feminist, for example, we see the end of a kind of privilege of empiric evidence. And in that connection we see a constant appear, a constant which is a combination of sex-gender, which does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the experience, but which, in a way, dominates the whole construct; and this notion of the constant — is this the center?[39]

    Derrida’s perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general intersectionality: The Feminist Constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability — it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something — of a center starting from which an observer could master the field — but the very concept of the game …40
    In mathematical terms, Derrida’s observation relates to the invariance of the Feminist field equation under nonlinear sex-gender diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the sex-gender manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic). The key point is that this invariance group “acts transitively”: this means that any sex-gender point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the sex of biology and the gender of cis-normative Patriarchy, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a sex-gender point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.

  244. Ray Manta says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:
    First, any AI that is implemented on any digital system is a Finite State Machine.

    All of them? Surely that isn’t true. You can read about implementations of alternate forms of AI such as genetic algorithms even on applications-oriented websites such as stackoverflow.com.
    And machine learning (a very active area of AI research) couldn’t be done with FSMs.

    Second, in my opinion a true AI would have to be capable of solving the halting problem.

    Since natural intelligences like humans can’t solve it either, I don’t see why.

  245. Ray Manta says:

    imnobody00 wrote:
    In the foreseeable future (in our lives), computers won’t be able to produce the inane navel-gazing drivel that feminist journalists produce.

    A google search of “AI journalism” turns up dozens of articles refuting you. If robots can write about sports and finances, it’s hard to believe they couldn’t write navel-gazing drivel. Science Daily has a March 2014 article on a study showing that users had difficulty telling the difference between human and computer-generated articles.

    Twelve years ago, self-driving cars were a pipe dream. Now it’s generally agreed that it’s just a matter of time. I expect there will be a lot more disruptive technologies to come. One safe bet is that anything that was solved with a form of AI will be re-labeled as “not AI”.

  246. pancakeloach says:

    The argument that due to the nature of today’s culture and legal systems Godly marriage is not possible just doesn’t hold water.

    In the first century, the local culture and legal system weren’t set up according to Godly marriage principles either. And yet, Christians who were married to unbelievers are instructed to remain married and to follow God’s commands for marriage, not to give up in despair; and unmarried people are given instructions for why they should marry and how they should behave in marriage as Christians without reference to all the legal details of the marriage contract at that time. Requiring that Caesar and the Church become one before any marriage can be “real” is a very strange position to take, reminiscent of Muslims demanding that their colonies in the Western world be judged by Sharia Law rather than the law of the land in which they dwell.

    Taking the risks into account and deciding to stay single and celibate is one thing; implying that God’s commands for people regarding marriage don’t matter because marriage doesn’t “exist” unless Caesar’s law is in 100% compliance with the Bible is just plain crazy talk.

  247. stickdude90 says:

    To get this back on-topic:

    Will AI ever replace the primary female job – making babies – a la The Matrix?

  248. Anonymous Reader says:

    All of them?

    All the ones I’m aware of. I’m not involved in AI at this time, the last time I worked on it in any depth was in the 1990’s, and that was more oriented to the back-error propagation neural network area. I do keep up with computer architecture to some extent, and the stored-program / stored data (Von Neumann) architecture is still the king of the mountain. It is a finite state machine, by definition.

    Surely that isn’t true.

    Ok, list off all the AI’s that don’t use Von Neumann architecture. I’d be interested to see one.

    You can read about implementations of alternate forms of AI such as genetic algorithms even on applications-oriented websites such as stackoverflow.com.

    Genetic algorithms run on standard platforms, i.e. Von Neumann architectures, AKA finite state machines.

    And machine learning (a very active area of AI research) couldn’t be done with FSMs.

    Perhaps you are unclear on what an FSM is? I suggest reading the Rabin paper, even though it is from the stone age when computers used vacuum tubes it is still very good.

  249. Robin Munn says:

    Ray Manta wrote:

    One safe bet is that anything that was solved with a form of AI will be re-labeled as “not AI”.

    Part of that can be attributed to the vast difference between what “AI” means when science-fiction writers write about it, and what it means in the real world. In science-fiction, AI means “A robot or computer that is sentient, can think (and sometimes feel emotion), and is generally self-aware on a human level.” Whereas in the real world, AI research is very far away from that, and personally I doubt it will ever be possible to create a “true” AI as that term is meant in science fiction.

    However, what AI means in the world of real-life AI research is something else: it’s something that science fiction writers tend to call “expert systems”. This is a program with a huge knowledge base about a particular topic (chess, medicine, how to drive a car without hitting anything) that is turned loose to solve problems in its field. Nobody expects a car-driving AI to be able to beat a chess grandmaster at chess, and nobody expects IBM’s Big Blue to be able to drive a car. And none of these programs are in any way sentient or self-aware.

    So when an AI researcher talks about AI, and when a layman talks about AI, the two tend to mean two different things. The researcher talks about how much we’re achieving in the field of AI, and the layman thinks “What is this braggart talking about? They’re so far away from a computer that thinks, that it’s laughable.” What the layman doesn’t understand is that the researcher isn’t trying to produce a “computer that thinks”, he’s trying to produce a computer that solves specific problems very, very well.

    Hence why some people keep saying “Well, that wasn’t really AI.” By the definition they think AI means, they’re correct — but by the definition used in the AI research community, they’re wrong and that was real AI.

  250. Ray Manta says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:
    Genetic algorithms run on standard platforms, i.e. Von Neumann architectures, AKA finite state machines.

    Von Neumann architectures are equivalent in power to Turing machines. So is lambda calculus.
    Turing machines aren’t used in practical applications because they’re too inefficient, but any problem that can be solved with a von Neumann architecture can be solved with a Turing machine and vice versa.

    Perhaps you are unclear on what an FSM is?

    It can be thought of as a limiting case of a Turing machine that never writes to the “tape” and only moves its head to the right (never to the left). That of course makes certain classes of computation impossible. For example, regular expressions can be implemented with FSMs, but not context-free grammars or counting.

    I suggest reading the Rabin paper

    Haven’t read it, but it’s clear to me you’re spouting off with no clue about what you’re talking about.

  251. Eidolon says:

    Right, by the more recent definition AI is gaining tremendously. I meant above that sentience/rational thought in machines is impossible.

    After talking to some people who work in the medical field I recently realized that medicine is a much less impressive field than I had always thought. There’s such a mystique about doctors, and on TV they’re all supergeniuses and all that, and I never really thought about what it is that they do. Then we got bad advice and silly prescriptions and I realized it was true — all they do is go through a checklist of what’s probably wrong with you. They don’t know you personally, they don’t know your history very well, they just go down a list of most likely issues until they hit something that matches most of the symptoms.

    Other than the miracle thing where a doctor happens to have seen some incredibly rare thing before and diagnoses it when it wouldn’t have been expected (which really isn’t that different than in other fields where experienced people can diagnose very difficult problems based on things they’ve seen before) it’s nothing a machine couldn’t do. And a machine, unlike a person, could a) listen to you all day, making its diagnosis more accurate as you give it more and more detailed info, and b) compare against all known diseases and problems rather than the most common ones. Honestly if it weren’t for the mystique, the belief that doctors have magical healing powers, and fear of getting sued into oblivion when you have a software bug I feel like we’d have automated most of the medical field a long time ago. Fields like that are definitely places where advances will probably eliminate a lot of jobs, but machines can do most of those jobs better.

    In that sense I do think AI will cause a lot of changes. Pharmacy, for example, could be automated. That’s a huge amount of salary that could be diverted, and a field run almost exclusively by women at this point. The only reasons it isn’t done that way now are complexity, extra double-check (which machines could do eventually) and lawsuits again. Getting past the lawsuits will be a big one.

    The FAA is taking a serious look at integrating drones into its airspace control; once that’s worked out there’ll be all sorts of interesting avenues opened up for AI. I’m looking forward to advances in agriculture. There’s a lot to be done there with robotics and automation. They’ve made some strides but the future is probably small equipment that can operate all day and night rather than huge expensive rigs. We haven’t seen that stuff yet but it’ll be coming in the next 10 or 15 years.

  252. Dale says:

    @Lyn87:

    >the idea that only unmarried men are fit to lead in the church is diametrically opposed to what the Bible says in at least three places, and that is what I was responding to

    Ok, my mistake. Guess I misunderstood your intention, and thus your message.

    > Even adding the extraneous “but” that you posit

    Grrrr… okay, I admit to laziness. I did not in fact rewrite Scripture to posit/suggest the “extranous” but. It is there in the 1984 version of the NIV, which is what I memorize from — http://www.biblestudytools.com/titus/1.html and http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-timothy/3.html. (I have “issues” with their current version, so I refuse to use it. Plus I already have enough memorized that I have no desire to switch to a different version.)
    My laziness was in not checking a few other translations, just to see if other (hopefully mature and submissive) men of God translated it significantly differently. And in several, including the KJV, there is no word similar to the “but” found in 1984 NIV. All however have “one”, with what seems to me to be a focus against polygamy. However, as indicated previously, I can see how one could possibly view it not only as a maximum, but as a requirement too.
    Nevertheless, I was being stupid to even partly base an argument on a word that is not even there in translations such as the KJV.

    >Whether the couple fills out a [marriage] form at the courthouse is of no consequence to me. What MAN does to God’s institutions does no tchange God’s commands, either.

    I think that is a really important point. I would like to see a considered, legal opinion on what would happen if Canadian pastors were to simply do “spiritual” marriages, and ignore the government. I suppose the couples would be deemed common-law after the requisite time lapse.

    @Lyn87 and @feministhater in your ongoing struggle re “you cannot have a Godly marriage anyway”

    I regret that I must agree with feministhater. It is not possible. In a Godly marriage:
    – adultery is punished with death, thus a daily incentive to not do so.
    – a man’s wealth was is be given to his sons (double share for first-born), and 0% to his ex-wife, thus no daily incentive for divorce.
    – a man was to be the leader in the home, with a wife in submission, even calling him “master” (1 Pet 3:1-7) And yes this master was to live out that leadership position as Christ did; e.g. willingness to sacrifice for the bride’s benefit (Eph 5:22-33)
    – the community as a whole was subject to the same laws, so the couple would (hopefully) not be getting Satanic advice about how it will be better to divorce than to stick with the commitment.

    At least in Canada, the above show that a fully Godly marriage is impossible. Yes, there is no Canadian law against the third point, but I have severe trouble finding a woman who even outwardly obeys God whilst in church, so I’m not holding my breath. And the first two points are actually illegal. Men with guns will ensure you do not try to constrain the immature tendencies of princess.
    Yes, I am aware that a man and woman could choose to “commit” to live as if adultery and frivorce were not permitted. And continue that commitment right up until they don’t. And Canadian law will back up the one who wants to be immoral. Good=bad, and bad=good.
    I have met a handful of women in my life that I think likely choose to be good, Godly wives. So I won’t claim 100% of people are a certain way. But a handful out of many, many hundreds is a mighty small target to hit or gamble my life upon.
    I liked my chances in the churches in Ukraine vastly better🙂 Most of the women even wore head coverings in church (1 Cor 11)!

    @Patrick:
    >Priests and bishops cannot be ordained unless they are committed to lifelong celibacy. This is in Section 1579 of the Catechism and references Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:32. The reasoning for celibacy is set forth there too.

    I am surprised that the RCC uses those two passages to require a belief that spiritual leaders MUST not be married. In Matthew 19, Jesus says “Let anyone accept this who can.” I see no hint in the passage that an entire class of people (e.g. clergy) must accept it. 1 Cor 7 is similar. It talks about how it is better to serve God without distraction. But I see no restriction barring service if you “burn with passion (8-9)” and thus choose to marry. In fact, verse 35 shows Paul is not giving a restraint… he says so.
    And since Peter was married, and the RCC claims he was the first pope, this seems a strange requirement for elders/leaders.

    @BradA
    >Having 50% of the marriages fail also means that 50% succeed

    ARGH! Yes, you said more than this, so I may be cherry-picking, but… PLEASE tell me you are wise enough to understand that your statement is false. A 50% divorce rate does NOT mean 50% succeed. It means 50% do not end in divorce; that’s it. Many will have become “unmarriages” — without sex, commitment or obedience to God.
    Many will be toxic — Proverbs has a few verses about it being better for a man to live in the desert or on the roof than in the house with a quarrelsome wife (Prov 21:19).
    Many will be people “making due”, one or both parties refusing to put in the effort to have a solid, committed relationship.

  253. Having 50% of the marriages fail also means that 50% succeed. One good answer to your “why marry” question is to build the next generation. You have a huge amount of risk, but that is too bad. Life is not about completely avoiding risk, which is impossible, but reducing it to acceptable levels.

    That’s absurd, 50% end in divorce, the most of the rest have the man running after his wife and allowing her to lead due to the fear of divorce. You might think your marriage is Godly, but your wife might decide at some stage that it’s not and what you going to do about that?

    I asked for one good reason a man should marry, why it is good for him, not society, not for women, not for the future generations, no, for him, just one…. still waiting…

  254. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    I see that our positions are closer. Good. I’ll skip over the parts where we agree and further examine where we don’t. Even there, I expect we’re closer than you think: I suspect our differences are more centered on definitions than philosophy.

    I know it’s possible to have a Godly marriage for two reasons, 1) I have one and have seen several others, and 2) God wouldn’t put us into a situation where it is impossible to do His will.

    As for the first reason: the fact that the legal system would favor my wife if she decided to rebel does not mean that she’s going to. Women have moral agency just like men do, and she knows that would be sinful. She wouldn’t face legal punishment, but she would face Divine displeasure – a far more daunting incentive to stay on the straight-and-narrow. She doesn’t legally have to respect my position and the authority that goes with it, but she always does anyway, because she knows that is proper, and because I strive to make it easy for her to do so, which is my duty to her under 1 Peter 3:7. Both are important: and this is where the Driscolls of the world go wrong – they think that if a wife is doing things wrong it’s because her husband isn’t doing his job properly, which we all know is nonsense. And… while the legal system would support her theoretical rebellion, her family – and our church – would turn on her like a pack of hungry wolves (except for one kookie/slutty sister who has too many problems of her own to be of any help). As long as we’ve been married, and in view of the nature of our marriage all these years, I would be less surprised by a flying saucer landing in my driveway than by someone serving me divorce papers. I’ve known many other couples whose marriages are similarly strong (although none as smooth – we literally never fight). A minority of marriages? Absolutely. A minority so tiny as to be inconsequential? Absolutely not.

    As for the second reason: God made marriage (and when I say “marriage” I mean the institution God ordained, not the corpus of laws in any given polity – which is where your objections arise). God also created us as sexual beings with intense urges, and gives us only one legitimate outlet for those urges. Paul even spells out the purpose of marriage with perfect clarity in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9: satisfying the intense biological drive for sex. Given those realities, 1 Corinthians 10:13 reads as follows, “There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” Since He gave us these intense urges, and a single legitimate way to satisfy them, it cannot be impossible to have a Godly marriage, or else God is a liar.

    I don’t object to your classifying most American/Canadian churchian women as unsuitable for marriage. I agree, and I’ll add something that may not be popular to say here: most of the guys aren’t much better. So if you can find a suitable mate in Ukraine, or anywhere else, then I say, “Godspeed to you!” That may be a wise move on your part as long as you’re aware that you’re courting a different set of problems with regard to culture.

  255. BradA says:

    Dale,

    @BradA
    >Having 50% of the marriages fail also means that 50% succeed

    ARGH! Yes, you said more than this, so I may be cherry-picking, but… PLEASE tell me you are wise enough to understand that your statement is false. A 50% divorce rate does NOT mean 50% succeed. It means 50% do not end in divorce; that’s it. Many will have become “unmarriages” — without sex, commitment or obedience to God.
    Many will be toxic — Proverbs has a few verses about it being better for a man to live in the desert or on the roof than in the house with a quarrelsome wife (Prov 21:19).
    Many will be people “making due”, one or both parties refusing to put in the effort to have a solid, committed relationship.

    Lyn87 answered several things well, but I wanted to note here that the exact numbers aren’t the point. The point is that many marriages do succeed. Sure, some may be marriages in name only, but all are not. They do all include human beings, so will have ups and downs no matter what the legal climate. You seem to only want to look at the negative and that is the problem. You should also consider that God is over it all and He will have His way.

    Marriage is also not only maintained by threatpoint. Just because a wife could legally commit adultery doesn’t mean she will do so anymore than it means all men will because they can. Divorce also has costs many recognize so is not always a valid choice regardless of certain legal positions.

    Note that solid marriages are ultimately the foundation of any society and we will return to that eventually, however bumpy the road is to that point. Anarchy doesn’t last in the real world, though it is a constant pressure to tear apart any structure.

  256. Kevin says:

    @Lyn87
    http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

    That gets close to what you are looking for in a gibberish article generator?

    @Eidolon
    Doctors are on average 1-2 SD away from normal in IQ. Their training is long and rigorous. They learn so much information in their training that it boggles the mind in both depth and breadth. Combined with that they must master a wide range of physical and interpersonal skills. Given all that, a rushed doctor is about as good as webMD and the modern American medical system is making doctors rush, rush, rush. Also, many doctors get lazy over time. And some doctors are stupid but get through training by brute force. The variation in doctors is unfortunately pretty high. I hope you have better experiences in the future. If medicine were not regulated to death we would see far more day to day involvement of computers in their practice using AI (as defined the modern way). Future doctors will be like chess players – the best chess players are masters combined with computer AI (they have a name for those competitions).

    I am skeptical about true AI because the first problem is we have no idea how our own consciousness works, much less how to replicate it. But google and others have demonstrated that lots of problems are open to brute force solutions (speech recognition, image recognition) when you have enough data and computational power that people used to try and develop AI solutions for.

  257. Marriage is also not only maintained by threatpoint. Just because a wife could legally commit adultery doesn’t mean she will do so anymore than it means all men will because they can. Divorce also has costs many recognize so is not always a valid choice regardless of certain legal positions.

    Note that solid marriages are ultimately the foundation of any society and we will return to that eventually, however bumpy the road is to that point. Anarchy doesn’t last in the real world, though it is a constant pressure to tear apart any structure.

    The legal deck is stacked against men, the education deck is stacked against them, the social deck is stacked against men and the Church deck is stacked against them. And your only, your only rebuttal is that maybe, just maybe, your wife won’t do that… you and Lyn still have not come up with one reason a man should marry. How does it benefit him? Lets add another question.. Why should a man risk everything in a marriage that doesn’t benefit him and with all the decks stacked against him?

    You seem so sure you have a Godly woman, yet you cannot see the wood for the trees and expect others to follow your example.. well come on, tell us exactly what you did to gain a Godly wife and how you keep her a Godly woman.

  258. new anon says:

    I’m going to jump into the AI conversation and simply state that everyone is missing the point, because they have an overblown concept of artificial intelligence. Assuming AI is only defined by something that mimics the human mind.

    Telephone operators disappeared decades ago, because they were replaced by computers “smart enough” to understand enough speech to route someone to a phone number.

    Bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs that are “smart enough” to not only dispense cash, but to process (like checks and payment slips) that are fed into them.

    The last time I went on a job interview, the receptionist was a touch screen which was “smart enough” to understand speech and notify the person I had the appointment with that I had arrived.

    The next step in AI won’t be a machine that is versatile and can think like a human in a variety of situations. It will instead be a plethora of specialty machines that are “smart enough” to do one task well.

  259. pancakeloach says:

    Well at this point, I will just come straight out and say that feministhater is a liar. Feministhater, you are bald-faced lying. Lyn and others have given you a reason, and you said basically “that reason isn’t good enough for me”. Which is fine; no one here is trying to convince you to get married against your will. But to turn around and say that “you [BradA] and Lyn still have not come up with one reason a man should marry” is LYING. You decided to disregard the reason you were given – the reason GOD HIMSELF has given for why a man should marry – which is entirely different than no one giving you a reason.

    You’re sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALA” at the top of your lungs every time someone speaks, and then you demand that they continue speaking to you. You’re not only a liar, you’re an entitled brat throwing a temper tantrum. You don’t engage in a discussion or use reasoning in discourse with others, you just belittle others, ignore anything they say that stands against your own position, and try to browbeat everyone with your endless repetition. Your questions are not honest because YOU are not honest. You are a True Believer in your own opinions and nothing and no one will ever be able to reason you out of them, because you are literally unreasonable. You seem to have no understanding of the Christian faith whatsoever and no intentions of pursuing Godliness or encouraging others to pursue Godliness.

    In short, you are a pitiable troll. Whatever demons are blinding your reasoning and driving you to attempt to spread bitterness and despair to others, I pray that you will receive God’s grace and be delivered from them.

  260. Well at this point, I will just come straight out and say that feministhater is a liar. Feministhater, you are bald-faced lying. Lyn and others have given you a reason, and you said basically “that reason isn’t good enough for me”. Which is fine; no one here is trying to convince you to get married against your will. But to turn around and say that “you [BradA] and Lyn still have not come up with one reason a man should marry” is LYING. You decided to disregard the reason you were given – the reason GOD HIMSELF has given for why a man should marry – which is entirely different than no one giving you a reason.

    You’re sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALA” at the top of your lungs every time someone speaks, and then you demand that they continue speaking to you. You’re not only a liar, you’re an entitled brat throwing a temper tantrum. You don’t engage in a discussion or use reasoning in discourse with others, you just belittle others, ignore anything they say that stands against your own position, and try to browbeat everyone with your endless repetition. Your questions are not honest because YOU are not honest. You are a True Believer in your own opinions and nothing and no one will ever be able to reason you out of them, because you are literally unreasonable. You seem to have no understanding of the Christian faith whatsoever and no intentions of pursuing Godliness or encouraging others to pursue Godliness.

    In short, you are a pitiable troll. Whatever demons are blinding your reasoning and driving you to attempt to spread bitterness and despair to others, I pray that you will receive God’s grace and be delivered from them.

    Oh, okay, please give me this reason. I asked for simply one, a beneficial reason for a man to marry. You call me a liar because no one can come up with a reason.

    What is your definition of beneficial? What is your definition of ‘browbeat’? I asked them a simple question and they gave me the same answers everyone gives. None of which benefit men. I’m sorry you feel that I’m a liar and a troll but you cannot change the truth.

    You have tried to shame me, which is nothing new but it won’t work. Answer the question or explain what it is that Lyn or Brad have said that is beneficial for a man to marry.

    And then lastly, explain where, exactly, I am not being honest. I dare you, expose my deceit, if you can. Put up or shut up. I dare you.

  261. Fuck me, but trolling for almost five years on this site seems an awfully long time..

  262. Furthermore, saying that God says you must marry if you burn with lust, is not a beneficial reason for a man to marry. It is a command from God. Learn the difference.

  263. Kevin says:

    @feministhater

    I think your question – what are the benefits of marriage for a man is very easy. I think it is better to break the problem into a few discrete issues – benefits, probability of attainment, risk of long term maintenance instead of combining them all into one question.

    What is the benefit for a man with marriage is easy:
    Love and companionship from a wonderful woman, most often children to raise and pass on your genes and sense of identity, the sense of pride in providing for those you love, peace, security. The shared growth of a life built together. Sure, easy access to sex as well.

    The second problem – what is chance of actually achieving those benefits?
    Well even the best laid plans go sour. Its hard to find someone worth marrying that you truly love and shares your values. Maybe they don’t really love you, its all a ruse. There are tons of other concerns with success documented here and elsewhere.

    As far as long risk of failure once you begin – its high. The deck is stacked against you legally. Modern women are encouraged to parse out sex and use it as a weapon. We all know the routine.

    However, separating the issues it is easy to say that marriage has lots of potential wonderful benefits for a man. The chance of success and the risks involve can overwhelm the benefits – that is a real problem for the modern man and many have weighed the evidence and decided its not worth it. But, once you separate the risks from the potential benefits identifying the benefits for a man is not too hard. I am not saying that means it is worth the risk. That is a different question.

  264. The argument that due to the nature of today’s culture and legal systems Godly marriage is not possible just doesn’t hold water.

    In the first century, the local culture and legal system weren’t set up according to Godly marriage principles either. And yet, Christians who were married to unbelievers are instructed to remain married and to follow God’s commands for marriage, not to give up in despair; and unmarried people are given instructions for why they should marry and how they should behave in marriage as Christians without reference to all the legal details of the marriage contract at that time. Requiring that Caesar and the Church become one before any marriage can be “real” is a very strange position to take, reminiscent of Muslims demanding that their colonies in the Western world be judged by Sharia Law rather than the law of the land in which they dwell.

    Taking the risks into account and deciding to stay single and celibate is one thing; implying that God’s commands for people regarding marriage don’t matter because marriage doesn’t “exist” unless Caesar’s law is in 100% compliance with the Bible is just plain crazy talk.

    Typical assault over someone who doesn’t agree with your idea of what can be done about marriage in modern day society. Call them a liar, crazy and putting words into their mouths that weren’t said and compare them to other religions or ideologies to fit them in a box to better try to demonize their statements.

    Well done, nothing new. Why do you think that your word is worth more than mine. It isn’t.

    Even Lyn has said that most men and most women are not Godly enough for marriage. There are not enough supposed Godly women for men to marry and therefore it will be an impossibility for them to have a Godly marriage. Just numbers. It has become increasingly difficult for a Christian man to find a Godly Christian women, everyone here HAS to admit that. Now add in the hypergamous nature of women, even Christian ones, and that Christian man better also be rich and handsome. It’s not just that laws have ground a man’s authority in his own home, but the culture has allowed women to demand more and more, that her man be perfect and if he is not, well, shit can get real, real fast.

    No one has demanded that all Western Countries become Christian again, merely that the Church keep the marriage contract to what God decreed, which it has not done and if the very house of the Lord cannot keep the marriage contract sacred, then it can’t exist in any meaningful way for the culture at large. Sure, there maybe a few men who find wives who keep their end of the bargain but by and large, most men will not and take a very huge risk if their wife turns out not to be the Godly woman she said she was. A woman does not take such a risk if she marries.

    Taking a risk is one thing, taking a risk with a 50% failure rate, that puts you under a sword, that doesn’t allow you to correct such a situation in the future, and if you try, threatens you with prison, is quite another. If you think marriage is an acceptable risk given the possibilities of failure and the consequences of failure, you are the crazy one, not me.

    You think that ‘Caesar’s laws’ don’t matter but they are perfectly constructed to place man against woman, to reward one for breaking their commitment. That puts a huge strain on a Christian man because he now doesn’t just have to deal with a rebellious woman but also how the state rewards her, encourages her and ultimately punishes him if she demands it.

    Anyway, I leave it to you to explain to us men the benefits and fruits of being married, how your modern day princesses will enrich our lives and lead us to Christ.

    However, enough of the shaming. You are no better than me, no more or less of a liar and sinner. Get off the high horse and explain what benefit a man accrues by becoming married.

  265. What is the benefit for a man with marriage is easy:
    Love and companionship from a wonderful woman, most often children to raise and pass on your genes and sense of identity, the sense of pride in providing for those you love, peace, security. The shared growth of a life built together. Sure, easy access to sex as well.

    Now that is a better reasoning, but you have noted how extremely difficult it is to find; and is it even real in the end. I’m sorry people think I’m a liar. I really am, however, I cannot hide from the fact that the risk of marriage has become more than the benefits.

  266. Patrick says:

    Feministhater is right doctrinally and should be applauded for avoiding marriage if part of his motivation is to better serve God. Jesus and Paul make clear that celibacy is the model, the preference, with a person entirely focused on spreading the God News and advancing God’s kingdom on earth. Marriage is a substitute, a release, for those people unable to control their lust, but celibacy and concentration in life on serving God is held in the highest esteem.

    See Sections 1618-1620 of the Catechism, which reference Luke 14:26, Mark 10:28-31, Rev. 14:4, 1Corinthians 7:31-32, Matthew 2:56, Matthew 19:12, Mark 12:25, and Matthew 19:3-12.

    Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom

    1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. the bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

    “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”115

    1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

    1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

    Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. the most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

  267. pancakeloach says:

    Feministhater, your own response illustrates the problem I have with you. I poked you, and suddenly your goalposts are jittering all over the field in an attempt to disguise your intellectual dishonesty. YOU FLAT OUT LIED. I quoted your lie. You promptly moved the goalposts in an outpouring of indignation in order to defend the lie.

    However, because the topic is worth discussing, I will return to the issue of “is it possible to have a Godly marriage while Caesar’s law doesn’t support it.” Saying “it is not possible” is as silly as saying that honoring the Sabbath (and following Hebrews 10:25) is impossible because Caesar doesn’t make church attendance mandatory, and doesn’t shut down all businesses every Sunday while recording the number of steps people take to ensure that they aren’t walking too far. Anyone may cease to go to church, or work on Sunday, with no punishment from the law – does that mean it is impossible for Christians to keep the Sabbath?

    Also, it was revealed by Christ that the Mosaic Law itself which governed Israel as a political entity was not the ideal Godly marriage, because it permitted divorce. Ergo, Godly marriage does not exist and has never existed and God is requiring the impossible of married people?

    As has been said before, with endless repetition, Godly marriage in today’s society is difficult, and there is no dishonor in choosing celibacy or even advising men not to marry if they can endure sexual temptation. That is an entirely different prospect from “marriage does not exist” because of civil law and contemporary culture. It ALSO entirely different from “there are not enough Godly women for every man who is interested in Godly marriage, so some Godly men will not be able to find a wife” which is a very nice example of moving the goalposts, or if you prefer, an example of the motte-and-bailey tactic. The issue is not whether the numbers match up for everyone but whether or not there is a CATEGORICAL impossibility as some have claimed.

    Let me be clear. I have no issue with people who consider the civil law a great evil – I agree. I have no issue with people who say that they will remain single because the risks of marriage are too great; the risks are indeed very great. No doubt there have been many women who have chosen holy orders in the past for precisely the same reason – that Caesar’s laws and the culture gave men encouragement in violating God’s rules for marriage. I have no issue with people saying “the numbers just aren’t there, some men will end up single or frivorced by an unGodly wife because there aren’t enough Godly women to marry.” I have no issue with people saying “I will never marry; I feel God is calling me to some other purpose in life.” It would even be perfectly reasonable to say that all marriages fall short of God’s ideal – and would fall short even if the civil law supported God’s rules for marriage – because we are all sinners.

    Those things are not the issue. They are completely beside the point when considering the claim that marriage is “impossible.” If marriage is impossible, what does that mean for all the married couples in the Western world today?

    I’m tired of you calling married people fornicators by implication, feministhater, and I’m sick of seeing you using dishonest rhetorical tricks, including flat-out lies about “no one has given me a reason when I asked” in order to avoid honest debate on this issue. You are certainly trolling every time this topic comes up, and Lyn was right to declare himself done with you and your rhetorical hyperbole. Though I am glad to see that my sharp pointy stick did induce you to rejoin the realm of reason, however temporarily – “I cannot hide from the fact that the risk of marriage has become more than the benefits.” Finally you speak honestly instead of in ridiculous hyperbole. Speak the truth – no one has given you a reason you find personally persuasive as to why you should marry. And we here are not particularly trying to give you a reason, either, since celibacy is a perfectly valid choice.

  268. All of you…. leave feministhater alone.

    I don’t think he’s happy. He has openly admitted to me (a happily married man) that he has nothing to offer women, nothing. I’m going to guess that the majority of you were born better off (in life, with women) than he was. I don’t care if you think he is lying or not. Stop picking on him. Stop provoking him. Perhaps he has a damn good reason to think that marriage has nothing to offer him?

  269. Robert What? says:

    “… finding a guy who can carry the load.”

    How telling that Driscoll says “carry the load” rather than “share the load”. Because the former is exactly what a guy will end up doing. Driscoll never seems to question what’s in it for the man that makes carrying the load worthwhile

  270. BradA says:

    feministhater,

    While my personality tempts me to say something, I will not cut down my wife in this forum, even if she were wrong. I will only note she is just as human as anyone else and leave it at that.

    You seem so sure you have a Godly woman, yet you cannot see the wood for the trees and expect others to follow your example.. well come on, tell us exactly what you did to gain a Godly wife and how you keep her a Godly woman.

    We have discovered quite a bit of feminism in her thinking in the last few years, especially as we have worked out our relationship after being abandoned by all 4 of our adopted children.

    Some of our success is because I am so bullheaded that I will not put up with many things. I would rather sin and leave than suffer in a horrid marriage. That is wrong theologically, but it is almost certain what I would do and I suspect that some of that plays a role in our dynamic.

    We did almost have our youngest daughter talk her into leaving me as that daughter left, something my wife now realizes was complete idiocy as that daughter has gone on to completely abandon her as well and do all she can to destroy her own life (and that of her children).

    I was VERY beta at the time, working through an intense amount of pain in a manner that was not productive. I still face the pain, but I realize that begging and being depressed helps no one, so I work against it whenever it comes up.

    I didn’t even get the expected end out of marriage (children who continue your line), but I still argue for that as it is the only long term solution for society.

    Oh, okay, please give me this reason. I asked for simply one, a beneficial reason for a man to marry. You call me a liar because no one can come up with a reason.

    This is untruthful, as was noted. Doing what God commands is one good reason. You may not accept that, but those of us who have Jesus as our Lord need to follow His desires for our life and that includes marriage for all but those completely dedicated to His active work full time.

    IBB,

    Perhaps he has a damn good reason to think that marriage has nothing to offer him?

    Maybe he does, but that was not his assertion. It would be like me asserting that adoption is NEVER a good thing due to my experience with it. I would not recommend it to anyone, but it clearly does turn out well for some, so my position would be errant if I said it was never good.

    He needs to “grow a pair” in many ways and be more of a man. He needs to get past his own pain, if you paint an accurate picture, and not try to drag everyone else down. We can’t control what life does to us, but we can control how we respond.

    I don’t always do the latter as well as I should, but that is certainly my aim and the only appropriate one as far as I can see.

  271. Pingback: Rhetorical tricks | Something Fishy

  272. I’m tired of you calling married people fornicators by implication, feministhater, and I’m sick of seeing you using dishonest rhetorical tricks, including flat-out lies about “no one has given me a reason when I asked” in order to avoid honest debate on this issue. You are certainly trolling every time this topic comes up, and Lyn was right to declare himself done with you and your rhetorical hyperbole. Though I am glad to see that my sharp pointy stick did induce you to rejoin the realm of reason, however temporarily – “I cannot hide from the fact that the risk of marriage has become more than the benefits.” Finally you speak honestly instead of in ridiculous hyperbole. Speak the truth – no one has given you a reason you find personally persuasive as to why you should marry. And we here are not particularly trying to give you a reason, either, since celibacy is a perfectly valid choice.

    Listen, they have not given me beneficial reasons to marry. They have given me commands. That’s it. If I say you must do something because I say you must do something, it does not become a reason, no matter how much I say it. It is merely me commanding you do something for my own selfish reasons.

    You see, if God commands us to marry if we burn with passion, there must be a reason behind that. Now, can you give me that reason, or are you going to continue calling me a liar for perhaps going too far with the ‘impossibility’ target?

    Here’s the thing, perhaps it’s not impossible for the likes of perfect little you but it is for me and millions of other men in my position. That’s what I see, that’s pretty much a given. I don’t seem to have God showing me the way like you do. I don’t, perhaps God decided I’m not worth as much as you. Be that as it may, marriage, Biblical marriage, does not exist in any meaningful form for most of Christian men. Is that better? Is my putting in front of my assertions ‘most’ or ‘meaningful form’ change the bleak picture so that you can pull your head out your arse and see what most Christian men face?

    Celibacy is a perfectly valid choice for a man, if he does not burn with passion. However, for pretty much my whole life that has been a problem for me. Hence my dilemma. Almost 30 now and the angst about my sexual being wades a bit more each year but it’s still there.

    You are a dunce. I asked them for a beneficial reason for a man to marry. I am a man, the man asking the question, and they have not convinced me in a way meaningful. They have giving me commands, and instead, like you, question my faith, because I have the gall to question their reasoning. You’re just like Driscoll, amogging your way through the discussion. Lambasting others, what are you trying to achieve? Do you have such an issue with me that you want me just to shut up? Or only speak when spoken to, like a good little boy?

    And please, if you’re going to call someone a liar, at least keep their supposed lie truthful. I said ‘Godly marriage’ not plain ‘marriage’ as most marriages in the Western World are not Godly at all.

    He needs to “grow a pair” in many ways and be more of a man. He needs to get past his own pain, if you paint an accurate picture, and not try to drag everyone else down. We can’t control what life does to us, but we can control how we respond.

    Yea, and what do you do, oh right, try to drag me down further by using me to pull yourself higher in your own mind. Oh wow, what a ‘man’ you are!

  273. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    I think we’re about the same age. I’m not married either, and have no plans to change my status.

    Celibacy is a perfectly valid choice for a man, if he does not burn with passion.

    Truth

    However, for pretty much my whole life that has been a problem for me. Hence my dilemma. Almost 30 now and the angst about my sexual being wades a bit more each year but it’s still there.

    The Christians call it a vocation, and I think that’s a good term. It’s a job, and not one that I want.

    Make your life a work of art, and don’t worry about the naysayers or the wimminz. Life is wonderful as a single man. If you think you’re missing out on companionship, take some hot chick on your next vacation. Before the week is over, you’ll be sick of her. If you think you’re missing out on having kids, take your nieces or nephews out for the day, and then dump their bratty asses back on their parents when you’re done at the park.

    Boxer

  274. stickdude90 says:

    Feministhater:

    I have been following this conversation with a lot of interest as an unmarried (widowed) man about to start looking for a Godly wife. If you’re correct, I should give up my search before it even starts.

    Perhaps I’m a bit biased because I was happily married to a very Godly woman for 19 years before she passed away, but it seems like Lyn and Brad are giving very valid answers to your question. Your refusal to accept their answer doesn’t render it any less valid. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to get married. If you feel that the risks outweigh the benefits (and it’s obvious you do), then stay single.

    Saying “the risks outweigh the benefits for me” is a completely different statement than “there are no benefits whatsoever”. I don’t know why you keep repeating the latter when you really mean the former.

  275. Eidolon says:

    @FH

    You’ve probably heard this before, but I’m not that much older than you. I was a complete loser nerd for my whole life until I learned some game from sites like this and others and from a friend of mine. I was able to change pretty much everything about myself and eventually was able to take my pick of the women in the church here when I moved, and I was able to get a really good wife.

    I hope that your story can go that way as well, if that’s in God’s plan for you. It’s not easy, no doubt about that, but it’s not as hard as you might think to make changes to yourself. I found that my hygiene and dress were bad so nothing else I did much mattered — once I fixed up those things, people were more interested in my positive qualities. I did the confidence thing, dressed much better, learned to be playful with women, etc. I realized that social skills and skill in dealing with women are like other skills, such as playing the piano — if you always do poorly, it means you need to learn and practice the basics, not that you’re incapable of ever doing well. You won’t get much better at piano by trying to play a difficult piece over and over, you need to learn the basic skills that will lay the groundwork first. And there’s no shame in not being a natural. It took me ages to learn that; I used to think I was just generally unlikable, that there was something uniquely awful about me that made it impossible for people to enjoy my company.

    My reason for marrying is that I love women, they can be wonderful to have around. She’s a great cook, she keeps everything very clean, she can be very sweet and supportive, she focuses on my health in a way that I wouldn’t on my own so I that feel better, and having her in my life makes me feel like the things I do have more significance because they aren’t just for me, they’re for our family. There’s a real relish in improving someone else’s life — there’s an opportunity to enjoy their happiness, which can be more satisfying than simply improving your own lot.

    Marriage is still something that can be done, even marriage to a virgin, though it’s far from easy. I don’t mean to brag, I know I was once in a very dark place and I couldn’t see any way out of it either. I hope that you’ll be able to find success in the future.

  276. Steve H says:

    I don’t wish to agitate or inflame, but I don’t really see any real potentiality for a Christian man to be celibate in this day and age. I mean, unless you live off the grid in a wooden shack with no electricity, etc. I remember being a (completely chaste, never had even kissed a girl) teen, even late teen, and I would ‘try’ to go a full day without seeing a woman’s cleavage. Few days came and went where that didn’t happen, and I had zero access to internet porn (was late 90s and my family wasn’t online yet). Point being, with that kind of ‘mandatory’ exposure to any vaguely sexual aspect of seeing a woman on a semi-regular basis, it would be absolutely *impossible* not to burn with lust, irrespective of summoning every ounce of willpower or cyber-blocks or you-name-it safeguards against this stuff.

    Society has changed, and we as individual human animals have consequently changed. I think that men who have certain requisite alpha traits can find a wife and ‘be’ Christian – but I simply find it an impossibility that a man who lacks requisite alpha traits can somehow peaceably accept his lot as one of involuntary celibacy, and be ok with himself, his God, and his community. I just can’t fathom a man living this way, today in our society, without a festering and seething bitterness pervading his day-to-day life. Myself, being someone who was involuntarily celibate into my mid-20s, I can say that during that time I experienced an all-encompassing envy, hatred, and disdain for anyone and everyone capable of attaining the very basic, entry-level status (a sexual relationship) that I wanted but could not seem to procure for myself.

    I suppose the one ‘out’ would be to join a trappist monastery or some such alternative living arrangement. It would have to be virtually off the grid.

  277. Dale says:

    @Lny87
    Thanks for your input. See also below, since you and Brad shared several ideas.

    >Paul even spells out the purpose of marriage with perfect clarity in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9: satisfying the intense biological drive for sex.

    GAH! Okay, I actually completely agree with you. But you are one of the few who I have encountered who will admit to what verses 1 to 9 teach. And you even volunteered it! 🙂 Well done!

    >I don’t object to your classifying most American/Canadian churchian women as unsuitable for marriage. I agree, and I’ll add something that may not be popular to say here: most of the guys aren’t much better.

    I can’t comment on people I have not met, but of my friends and church(ian) people, there is a drastic difference in the outward obedience of the men and the women. I focus on what I can see and hear on the outside, ’cause that’s all I have. God alone sees the heart (1 Sam 16:7).
    A challenge for the next time you are in chuch; feel free to report back to us🙂
    – count the number of men wearing dresses or skirts like women. Then count the number of women wearing pants like men. (Deut 22:5 — does this allow for men and women to wear the same thing?)
    – count the number of guys with hair long enough that you think “what a disgrace”. Then count the number of women with hair NOT long enough that you can honestly think, “wow! her hair is her glory!” (1 Cor 11:14-16 — sorry, this passage does not quantify “long” hair, so each men will have to come to his own conclusions)
    – count the number of men who are significantly overweight. Same for women. Being overweight is a direct result of the consistent choice to be a glutton (Proverbs 23:21 and Deut 21:20 are the only passages I can find at the moment) and choosing to not be self-controlled (Titus 2:1-6 addresses this for men and women).
    – count the number of men who pray or are in church service (depending on your interpretation) and refuse to remove the covering on their head. Then count the number of women who refuse to have a head covering during prayer. (1 Cor 11:4-10)
    Perhaps your church is better than the ones I have attended throughout my life. But at least in mine, many men (maybe 30%?) are outwardly showing obvious, continual refusal to turn from sin in the area of lack of self control leading to obesity. 0% sin regularly in the other 3.
    And 100% of the women show refusal to turn from sin, when considering all 4 of the above. If you ignore the head covering one, then out of a congregation of hundreds, there are 3 that usually choose to show themselves as women of God, at least in the other 3 outwardly obvious ways. So maybe 2%.

    The fewer men and women I know well enough to try to assess their attitudes show similar splits. So while I have to agree that some men are inappropriate for marriage, it appears to me that most men in church are at least willing to try. And almost all women demonstrate through actions they are not.
    I have to conclude therefore that your characterization of “most of the guys” (e.g. 50%+) is in error.

    >Since He gave us these intense urges, and a single legitimate way to satisfy them, it cannot be impossible to have a Godly marriage, or else God is a liar.

    Single way: nope. You are forgetting nocturnal emissions (release while asleep) and masturbation without fantasizing about adulterous acts (depending on your interpretation of Matt 5:27-28). And if you read the whole chapter of Lev 15, I think the many examples make it obvious that being in a state of being (ceremonially) “unclean” is not in fact the result of sin. (Does a woman sin by menstruating (verse 19), an action she does not choose? Is sex with his wife a sin (verse 18)?) Thus, the actions leading to an “emission of semen” referred to in verse 16 are also not proof of sin. Certainly, they could be, but it is possible to do so without sin.
    Now if you meant there is only one way to “fully satisfy” the urges, then you are of course correct🙂 Dealing with the need to empty the vas defrens (sp???) alone is useful, but not particularly satisfying.

    @Kevin

    > I think it is better to break the problem into a few discrete issues – benefits, probability of attainment, risk of long term

    Thanks for interjecting Kevin. Your choice to break up his questions/issues and address them individually showed wisdom, and allowed a great answer.

    @FeministHater

    >Taking a risk is one thing, taking a risk with a 50% failure rate, that puts you under a sword, that doesn’t allow you to correct such a situation in the future, and if you try, threatens you with prison, is quite another.

    This is an important point to remember. Some “man up” rants will focus on men being cowards for not taking risks. And there is some truth to the principle of risks. Joshua 1:8-9 shows God commanding Joshua, the new leader of Israel, to “Be bold and courangous”. The problem comes when a person combines the command to be bold and courageous with the idea that a man needs to be bold and courageous in a particular gamble that has either very bad odds or a high risk of failure. (The rant you already know on marriage failure rates and failure costs goes here.)

    @BradA and @Lyn87

    You both point out that opportunity for sin is not guaranteed to result in sin. And your points are of course valid and wise. Elijah was moaning in 1 Kings 19 that he was alone in being zealous for God. God responded in verse 18 that there were yet 7000 who had not bended knee to Baal. Perhaps something for me to consider when I moan that most of my male “Christian” friends are willing to be submissive to Scripture, while most of the female ones are not.

    > You should also consider that God is over it all and He will have His way.

    I think you have an overly optimistic view with this. Yes, God absolutely is in control. And he also chooses to respect the free will he gave us, which means we have the opportunity to be very evil to each other and God will never (?) force me to do good (your prior points about ability to choose good apply here again). I won’t bother to prove this, as I am assuming you are already familiar with the ideas. Lemme know if you need more. I think it is interesting that God kills people to end the evil acts, but never actually interferes with their ability to make their own choices. Death just stops the choices from being made.
    So God’s control means very little for the strength of a marriage, unless both remain in submission to him, ASKING God to help them act in love and wisdon rather than selfishness and foolishness. By asking for God to change me, I give him an invitation to “interfere”, and he can choose to do so without overriding my will.

    You both seem to choose to focus on the chance of finding a woman who will obey for life. And Phil 4:8 does talk about thinking about what is pure and lovely, noble and right. I think I should not close my eyes to the fact that most women are already openly living contrary to the Bible however.

    It sounds like you two have strong marriages. I think that is wonderful. Commitment and wisdom in this critical area should be celebrated and encouraged. And I’ll end on that positive note🙂

    Dale

  278. Gunner Q says:

    BradA @ 6:46 pm:
    “…but those of us who have Jesus as our Lord need to follow His desires for our life and that includes marriage for all but those completely dedicated to His active work full time.”

    In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul only said it was BETTER to marry than burn, not that choosing to burn was unacceptable. He went on in that chapter to say that, in times of crisis, it’s best for a man to stay the way he is, whether married or not. I think Marriage 2.0 qualifies as a crisis.

    I’m with FH. I already have enough responsibilities and duties to be endured for the sake of a better tomorrow. If marriage isn’t going to be easier and more fun than being a latter-day monk then I’m not signing up, either, sex drive be damned.

    Steve H @ 11:50 pm:
    “I don’t wish to agitate or inflame, but I don’t really see any real potentiality for a Christian man to be celibate in this day and age. I mean, unless you live off the grid in a wooden shack with no electricity, etc.”

    That is what I did for many years. I gave up all modern technology to avoid temptation, walled myself off from women and still won’t allow myself 24-7 Internet access, just in case. (Light bulbs were okay.)

    And God honored my sacrifice. I became comfortable living with myself. My modest finances weren’t drained by constantly replacing electronic gadgets and A-list games. I discovered the outdoors, exercise and hobbies where I made real-life friends. I learned to use my mind, amusing myself with increasingly creative ideas, making connections nobody else could because I took the time to think for myself instead of choosing sides in a debate.

    When I see smartphone zombies wandering around, unable to concentrate without Top 40 playing in their ears, fact-checking my wild stories in realtime instead of laughing at the punchline, always taking pictures instead of enjoying the view, I’m glad I learned to live “unplugged”.

    …I think I’m a technophobe. It feels good.

  279. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    WRT the three ways by which a man can have his urges met – I’ll give you that. In my defense, the discussion was specifically about marriage, which is the remedy the Bible gives: it doesn’t really address the other two other than to say that nocturnal emissions made a man ceremonially unclean under the Old Testament Law (as menstruation did to women) – no sin involved either way. WRT your tests, I’m sure the numbers will stack up as you suggest, but I’m not sure those are all valid metrics. For one thing, I live in a military town, so we have a disproportionate percentage of fit guys with short hair. But besides that, I’m not convinced that pants are not acceptable for women any more. My wife has pants that I wouldn’t wear in a million years even if they fit me, because they are women’s pants, which are easily distinguishable from men’s pants, for example. Also, being overweight usually signals poor impulse control, but there is little indication in the Bible that gluttony is an actual sin. The word “glutton” appears exactly twice in the Bible (Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:21), and in both cases it is used disparagingly, but it’s certainly not one of the seven “worst” sins.

    Which brings us back to my assertion: other than my anecdotal evidence with lines up pretty well with survey data, I have no way to gauge it other than what I can read. To that end, the most current “best” survey of people in the dating market who identify as Christians is here (although some of the respondents are Jewish rather than Christian). It turns out that only 13% of those men would categorically rule out a non-Christian for dating, while 20% of women would. Also, men were considerably more likely to say they definitely would have sex before marriage, while the women said they definitely would not at more than twice the rate. Also, the men were significantly more eager to move in together sooner than the women, while the women favored early engagement by a very wide margin.

    None of that should be taken as a general defense of churchian women – as a group, they are a mess, and surveys should be taken with a grain of salt, anyway. My point is that the damage to the church over the past five decades has taken a horrific toll on the marriageability of the men as well as the women – at least as our grandparents’ generation would have looked at it.

  280. Eidolon says:

    FH,

    “I sure hope your wives are Godly now…”

    I hope so too. Our foolish system may as well mandate that all children be given loaded handguns.

    One thing that surprised me about marriage was the extent to which it was necessary for me to protect my wife from herself. Women can be self-destructive in a lot of different ways. They can act with callous disregard of others, especially men, when they’re upset.

    The worst thing that you could do to them is to give them powerful weapons against the only ones who really care for them (in most cases). Far better to give them weapons against their gossipy, scheming friends, or their frustrating and difficult parents.

    I feel sorry for them; our culture has made them lost. How can they not end up lost when they’re encouraged to reject any guidance, to reject the ones who would lead them?

    The more traditional our family has become the happier my wife gets. It’s like she was wearing the wrong size clothing all this time and now she’s finally wearing something that fits. It’s not perfect, and it’s hard to maintain, but it can be so beautiful when it works.

    I don’t know. If I have a son I’ll have to decide what to tell him. Finding a good woman is so hard, and if you find one who isn’t already spoiled you’ll still have a ton of work to do, and in the end one really bad crazy spell on her part can ruin it all. It’s a hard road. It’s the right road for me; I pray that you’ll find the right road for you.

  281. Daniel Gilson says:

    Poor, poor “femlaes.”

  282. Josh the Aspie says:

    Regarding the idea that AI will automate out make-work positions:

    These positions are called make-work for a reason. They are not needed, and only exist by fiat (be it cultural, or government imposed). At least some of this fiat is due to the political demands that women have work they can do that they are suited for, which is highly paid. Why would AI remove this fiat demand that positions (in HR, for example, or medical coding, for another) be created for the purpose of filling them? Much of the rest of the fiat is simply the desire of those in power to accumulate power and money (or influence over money) to themselves, while distributing away from themselves any form of accountability.

    Given the problem of the government being inefficient on purpose, and the tendency of middle-management to try to build mini-empires, as well as slow or broken adoption of technology by bureaucracies (be they government, or corporation), why do people think that AI will somehow over-come this to “ruthlessly eliminate” these positions?

    Further, if a true AI (or any approximation we can reasonably expect to see in our lifetimes) winds up making decisions, it will do so based on criteria established for it, or based on it’s own self-selected (and likely self-interested) criteria. Why do people think that these criteria would be any better for men that the criteria used to make decisions today? These criteria will likely either be criteria established based on whatever the zetgiest is at the time of the programming, or be self-selected through learning in a way that will not favor humans when compared with computers.

  283. BradA says:

    Dale,

    I am not convinced that wearing pants is the major sin some Christians claim. I can find nothing specific about that in the Scriptures. A woman does not become or even look like a man just because she wears a pair of jeans.

    I believe pants for men were also a “recent” introduction. Robes of some kind were common in the past, as that is more practical and easier to make, so that would have men wearing “dresses” according to some. Jesus robe they didn’t want to tear was likely just such an outfit.

    Attitude and practice is far more important than specific models of clothing. Though I would question how a string bikini could ever be godly….

  284. BradA says:

    GunnerQ,

    You are arguing a different point, as is FH. I gave a valid reason to marry. I did not make that a command to do so, though the Biblical principle is for a man to only be single to be fully devoted to God’s work, not to his own desires.

    You are free to do whatever you want, though I would question if you have not strayed from the Biblical principle (if you follow that of course) by focusing only on your own life. Only you and God can answer that one.

    I could never live as a technophobe as you do as well. Though my career is built around technology. Your path may work for some and your ideas of not always needing the latest and greatest is good no matter what, but going off the grid is not available for more than a few today.

    I still don’t use my phone like what you note though. Seems stupid to me.

  285. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Interesting thoughts about gluttony. It certainly isn’t productive, but all unproductive things are not sin, at least not directly. Sexual sin always is, outside of the proper bounds of marriage.

    I do know that habits are also a big part of impulse control. It can be very challenging to develop those later in life, though that is what I am actively seeking to do in my own life now. I do wonder how much genetics plays a guiding role in this. I look just like my grandfather, for good and bad, being about a foot taller. How much can I really overcome that in reality? How much must I from a Biblical view?

  286. PokeSalad says:

    “”Yes, he’s been circulating a bit in some Evangelical churches. No doubt this is a difficult time for him.””

    If Driscoll is accepting a check for his new ‘wandering’ ministry, he hasn’t learned anything. He’s just taking his heretical show on the road.

  287. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    Yeah… the “Seven Deadly Sins” is just one of those things that everybody “knows,” but that isn’t true. I don’t normally quote Wikipedia (certainly not for anything where serious scholarship is important), but for our purposes here, the Wikipedia page for the “Seven Deadly Sins” is reasonably good.

    Biblically, not only is gluttony not listed as a stand-alone sin (by which I mean something that is always wrong… almost anything can be a sin for an individual depending on one’s attitude and understanding – Romans 14:23), but it is neither listed among the seven abominations in Proverbs 6 nor the list Paul enumerated in Galatians 5.

    It started with a list of “special” sins compiled by a 4th-Century monk named Evagrius Ponticus, and was later codified in RCC doctrine by Gregory I in 590 A.D.. It’s probable that the original list-makers understood the word “gluttony” to encompass any conspicuous or wasteful consumption – not restricted to food. Thomas Aquinas simultaneously both restricted and expanded the definition by only linking it to food, but specifying six different methods by which one could be gluttonous in one’s eating:

    Praepropere – eating too soon
    Laute – eating too expensively
    Nimis – eating too much
    Ardenter – eating too eagerly
    Studiose – eating too daintily
    Forente – eating wildly

    Anyway, Dale is right that being noticeably overweight usually implies poor choices and lack of self discipline, but I’m also right that it isn’t a fool-proof proxy for a poor walk with Jesus.

  288. I suppose the one ‘out’ would be to join a trappist monastery or some such alternative living arrangement. It would have to be virtually off the grid.

    Yep. Historically, Christian societies didn’t have all that many unmarried adults just wandering around loose. Parents tried to get girls married off while they were still fresh, which means the guys got married too. If the guys got married older, they were often off fighting or something before that. Widows were encouraged to remarry; in some cases (as in the Old Testament) there were provisions to ensure that they would. Celibate people were off in convents and monasteries; or if they were among the general public, they were clearly set apart by their appearance (habits, cassocks, tonsures, etc.).

    The idea that you can live chastely for a decade or so while being in contact with openly available members of the opposite sex every day, let alone all the sexual images in today’s media, without failing entirely or going bonkers in some way, is a modern delusion.

  289. Cail,

    The idea that you can live chastely for a decade or so while being in contact with openly available members of the opposite sex every day, let alone all the sexual images in today’s media, without failing entirely or going bonkers in some way, is a modern delusion.

    It IS a delusion. Singles living chastely in today’s world is running home from work, warming up the computer, opening IE or Firefox, and masturbating to free, streaming, hi-definition, on-line p-rn.

  290. Patrick says:

    “The idea that you can live chastely for a decade or so while being in contact with openly available members of the opposite sex every day, let alone all the sexual images in today’s media, without failing entirely or going bonkers in some way, is a modern delusion.”

    Really? Millions of American men do this every day. Virtually every Catholic priests interacts with all kinds of women regularly and remains chaste. In past times, large numbers of the male population lived in monasteries to the point where governments discouraged monasticism because of the demographic issues it created. The problem is today’s society and culture. Everything has become so sexualized that anything else is considered abnormal. Plenty of men live contentedly and never view porn, masturbate, or any of this stuff. They are motivated by other things and tune out the craven popular culture in our country.

  291. Patrick,

    The problem is today’s society and culture.

    That is what Cail just said.

    Everything has become so sexualized that anything else is considered abnormal. Plenty of men live contentedly and never view porn, masturbate, or any of this stuff.

    Plenty? How much is plenty? You really believe that there are plenty of single men living contently never viewing p-rn? I don’t. The barriers just aren’t there anymore.

    The main thing that prevented single men from partaking in p-rn was $$$$. It had some kind of cost. The cost may have been minimal but it did exist. Now, the cost is $0. This reduction in the price of visual s-x for men has driven up the demand, exponentially. Not to mention everyone feels free to post their own home made p-rn on-line for the whole world to see (and the shame isn’t there anymore) and so… well we are where we are today as a result.

    They are motivated by other things and tune out the craven popular culture in our country.

    Sure. There is so much more to do nowadays for singles than there ever was. Granted. And this might be part of the problem where feminism really breaks down, because there is so much more to do, so many more options, there is less of a need to marry. The free p-rn just supresses the s-xual urge that men had to marry making women have an even smaller bargaining chip to get him to “man up.”

  292. SirHamster says:

    Attitude and practice is far more important than specific models of clothing. Though I would question how a string bikini could ever be godly….

    A wife who only wears one in private for her husband’s pleasure. 🙂

    Hey, guns don’t kill people, and objects aren’t godly in of themselves.

  293. Josh the Aspie says:

    So given the discussion both of making the definition of Gluttony both more expansive and more restrictive… and the talk now of porn, I think it’d be a good idea to point out that the same sort of re-definition has happened to the word “lust”.

    While gluttony is any large over-consumption (glutton for food, or glutton for punishment), lust is any desire so strong that a person would sin if given the chance. A prince or chancelor who would murder his king if he could get away for it due to a lust for power has already committed the sin of murder in his heart. A man who longingly looks at the same jewel in the art display day after day, and would steal it if given the chance has already committed theft in his heart.

    We are warned in the old testament against coveting anything that belongs to another, be it his animals, his servants, his wife, his house, or his position.

    Lust, really, is just a synonym for covetousness.

    Now, if I look at a man’s house, and congratulate him on his upkeep, and choice of shrubs, etc, and ask for gartdening and house-minding tips, I have not sinned. But if I look at it with envy, wishing he would die and leave me the house, then I have sinned.

    If I look at a man’s car, and ask him what dealership he got it at, ask him where he maintains it, where he got the cool flame paint job, and consider how to use my own resources to get a similar cool paint job, then I have not sinned against him (though perhaps in my priorities for where to invest what god has given me). If, on the other hand, I envied him to the point where if I found that car by the side of a deserted rode, keys in the ignition, I woud take that car for my own, then I have committed the sin of theft in my heart, due to my lust/covetousness for that car.

    So if, like King David, I look upon Bathsheeba in the bath, and desire to steal her for my own, but simply lack the power of the King to have her husband killed, and her delivered to me, I have already committed adultery with her in my heart (and, if I was willing to kill her husband to get her, quite possibly also murder).

    How people have turned Jesus’s passage reminding us not to covet, and how sin starts in the heart (particularly given the surrounding passages) into “looking at cartoon drawings of naked women is sinful” when there is no actual woman to lust after, while ignoring how people lust after material possessions in our culture befuddles me.

  294. Patrick, did you read my entire comment? As I said, Catholic priests (except for some of them recently) are readily identifiable as off-the-dating-market by their clothing, and other religious celibates were set apart by their habits or by living behind walls. They also take vows that give them something extra to live up to (and Catholics believe those vows bestow extra graces to help them in that).

    I don’t know how many unmarried men live happily and healthily in today’s sex-drenched culture without resorting to sins like pornography, but I doubt it’s as many as you think. Sure, there are millions of them, but most aren’t voluntary. Most would be having sex if they could get it, either within the proper bounds of marriage or outside them. For those who are involuntarily celibate for years despite seeing it all around them, it’s bound to affect their mental state — if not to the point of “bonkers,” then in ways like bitterness and despair.

    Yes, of course it’s the culture. But that culture also thrives because there are so many more unmarried people now to enjoy it, or at least to use it to fill a void.

  295. Josh,

    How people have turned Jesus’s passage reminding us not to covet, and how sin starts in the heart (particularly given the surrounding passages) into “looking at cartoon drawings of naked women is sinful” when there is no actual woman to lust after, while ignoring how people lust after material possessions in our culture befuddles me.

    It shouldn’t befuddle you. The concept of feminism has warped the concept of property, laws, and s-xuality.

    The people who will say you are “sinning in your heart” when you jerk-off to nude-HD-Anime are really angry and accuse you of sin NOT because that CGI drawing is anyone’s property, but because the object of your s-xual desire will never require any financial provisioning from you or anyone. How can feminism possible work with men who remain single, stop chasing them, stop dating them, and stop marrying them when their desire is for an Anime drawing? How do flesh and blood feminist women extract resources from men who supress their s-xual desire and instead, long for something that doesn’t really exist? How could you possibly be a good “Driscoll truck” driving straight down a road without any financial “weight” to bear since the Anime drawing requires no “load?” You sinner.

    They can’t. So of course, what you are doing is “sinful.” It has to be. For it to be a s-xual altrnative to men who “burn with passion” but have opted out of marriage 2.0 is a concept that MUST be crushed in churchianity. You are not playing the game by their rules, rules they wrote where you could never win. You are playing a different game (a game where they have no authority to change rules) so they have to regard that game, sinful. You have forced their hand.

    Did you see that movie “Her” starring Joquinix Phoenix? Here is a man who turned his desire off from women and replaced them with an operating system on his smart-phone. Think about that. That MUST be sin, and for the same reason! The fact that he was doing this to make his frivorce from his flesh-and-blood wife all the easier did not make her feel very good. She was effectively replaced by ones and zeroes.

  296. earl says:

    ‘The people who will say you are “sinning in your heart” when you jerk-off to nude-HD-Anime are really angry and accuse you of sin NOT because that CGI drawing is anyone’s property, but because the object of your s-xual desire will never require any financial provisioning from you or anyone.’

    It has nothing to do with skating around financial provision to real women. Masturbation is a sin because it is a selfish act against your body and ruins your soul.

  297. It has nothing to do with skating around financial provision to real women. Masturbation is a sin because it is a selfish act against your body and ruins your soul.

    Really? Got a little Bible passage for that earl?

  298. earl says:

    Really? Got a little Bible passage for that earl?

    https://bible.org/question/does-bible-say-masturbation-sin

  299. Thank you for that. I stopped reading right here.

    Summary: The Bible no where specifically forbids or denounces masturbation.

    Done. It’s not sin earl. Stop creating sin where there isn’t any.

  300. Ray Manta says:

    Josh the Aspie wrote:
    Why would AI remove this fiat demand that positions (in HR, for example, or medical coding, for another) be created for the purpose of filling them?

    Because AIs have no biological incentive to submit to economic inefficiencies.

    Given the problem of the government being inefficient on purpose,

    The chickens eventually come home to roost on that one. Look at Greece or the EU.

    why do people think that AI will somehow over-come this to “ruthlessly eliminate” these positions?

    TFH discussed this at PMAFT’s site in the Linus Torvald thread. His assertion was that it would not just be inefficient for government and other organizations to shield women, it would become exponentially more inefficient to do so compared to organizations that didn’t. So the latter would rapidly pull ahead of the former in terms of wealth and living standards.

    The number 1 problem of Western culture may well be the primacy of the feminine imperative over other social and economic forces. What he’s forecasting is a confluence of technological, economic and social changes that will greatly reduce the power of the FI. These include VR sex along with automation and eventual elimination of female-favored jobs.

  301. hoellenhund2 says:

    The idea that you can live chastely for a decade or so while being in contact with openly available members of the opposite sex every day, let alone all the sexual images in today’s media, without failing entirely or going bonkers in some way, is a modern delusion.

    “Openly available” to whom? The average woman is mostly cold, snarky and downright unpleasant to the average man, if she bothers to interact with him in the first place. The attitude and behavior of the average Western woman is mostly either repellent or just pathetic. Of course it’s completely different if you’re a sexually attractive man, but that’s a different story. Sexually attractive men either refuse to obey religious tenets (what’s in it for them anyway?) or enter fulfilling relationships with women that are worth the bother, so this whole issue doesn’t affect them.

    “Sexual images in today’s media”? That media is mostly directed at female consumers, so it’s mostly useless crap to the average man. Look at mainstream TV programming, like MTV, Fox News, CBS and so on. It’s pure crap and nonsense, clearly directed at women and pensioners who have time to kill watching TV in the first place. If you’re a man, it’s pretty easy to tune all that shit out and not have a sense of losing out on something great.

    I’d say you overestimate the temptations surrounding us. Most women in Western societies aren’t sexually attractive. We know the reasons – obesity epidemic, slovenliness, horrible personality traits etc. -, there’s no need to repeat them. In fact it’s becoming more and more difficult for them to induce erections. Apparently there’s scientific evidence for that.

    Besides, let’s not pretent that most men in relationships are to be envied. Marriages mostly suck for men in one way or another, and men in relationships are mostly pathetic suckers as well. Unrestrained hypergamy and so on. Again, we know the reasons. The single life is obviously not a bed of roses, mostly. But having to put up with a woman in a relationship isn’t better either. That’s just life if you’re a man. You’re treated as expendable, and society shits on you. You won’t ever have it all. There are always trade-offs.

  302. earl says:

    ‘Done. It’s not sin earl. Stop creating sin where there isn’t any.’

    I didn’t create it…it is explained in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church as to why it is an offense against chasitity like every other sexual sin.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  303. hoellenhund2 says:

    I simply find it an impossibility that a man who lacks requisite alpha traits can somehow peaceably accept his lot as one of involuntary celibacy, and be ok with himself, his God, and his community.

    No, it’s indeed possible. I have stated this elsewhere before, but there’s a simple way to do it: indoctrinate him while he’s young, and firmly plant in him the contempt of women (unless she clearly demonstrates that she’s respectable), the contempt of frivolity, irreligion, worldliness and all forms of lowliness. Actually that will benefit him either if he remains celibate or not. Contempt of all that is worthless is the key. I understand that this sounds horrible to most people, but I’m just telling it like it is. It’s a solution, probably the only one.

  304. hoellenhund2 says:

    I don’t know how many unmarried men live happily and healthily in today’s sex-drenched culture without resorting to sins like pornography, but I doubt it’s as many as you think. Sure, there are millions of them, but most aren’t voluntary.

    On the other hand, I don’t know how many married men live happily and healthily in today’s sex-drenched culture without resorting to these “sins” either (i.e. watching porn, checking out sexually attractive women, masturbating etc.), but I doubt it’s as many as tradcons think.

  305. ‘Done. It’s not sin earl. Stop creating sin where there isn’t any.’

    I didn’t create it…it is explained in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church as to why it is an offense against chasitity like every other sexual sin.

    I don’t care what the RCC says. I only care what the Bible says.

    There are no living prophets earl who get direct revelation from God as to new rules He is establishing to define what is now “sin.” Read your Bible.

  306. Lyn87 says:

    Earl,

    I assume you understand that only Catholics accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being authoritative… well, some of them do, anyway. To the rest of us, we need something from a reliable and recognized source… and since I must reject anything that adds or subtracts from scripture, “The Pope says so” is meaningless wherever the Bible is silent. Frankly, popes have said a lot of things – and I’m sure you would disagree with quite a few of them yourself. Bottom line: does the Bible condemn it or not?

    We both know the answer. The first source you linked explicitly admits that it does not, and the second one tacitly admits it.

    That’s not to say that everything upon which the Bible is silent is expedient (I’m using that word as Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 6:12), but it stands to reason that something as ubiquitous as that would merit at least one mention if it was unambiguously sinful. I’m willing to admit that it can – and no-doubt often does – veer into areas that are unambiguously sinful, but to make a blanket doctrinal statement in the absence of scripture is to walk a dangerous path.

    So I’m with IBB on this one (although I don’t understand why he randomly inserts dashes into common, non-swear words).

  307. earl says:

    ‘There are no living prophets earl who get direct revelation from God as to new rules He is establishing to define what is now “sin.” Read your Bible.’

    Well I read the Bible and it does speak about the Holy Spirit.

    ‘Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.’

    John 16:7-15

  308. earl says:

    ‘Bottom line: does the Bible condemn it or not?’

    Well we have the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. The Bible only tells a part of the story.

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/not-by-scripture-alone

  309. Kevin says:

    So only sins explictly listed in the Bible are sins. Wow. That really expands the sin possibilities of the modern world. It also seems a narrow way to read the bible and ignore the guidance of the Sprit God promised us.

  310. Gunner Q says:

    IBB @ 5:12 pm:
    “Really? Got a little Bible passage for that earl?”

    Ephesians 5:3,5 makes a powerful case against masturbation. Matthew 5:28 and Job 31:1 are also relevant. Feminists are happy to uphold Christian morality if, by pure coincidence, it serves their purposes.

    Josh the Aspie @ 4:12 pm:
    “How people have turned Jesus’s passage reminding us not to covet, and how sin starts in the heart (particularly given the surrounding passages) into “looking at cartoon drawings of naked women is sinful” when there is no actual woman to lust after…”

    You answered your own question. The sin begins in the man’s heart; it doesn’t matter whether another human being is involved. Christ said what he did in Matthew 5 in part to emphasize this point; the Pharisees were masters at using technical obedience to cover actual rebellion.

    You might as well pray to a Hindu idol and justify it to Christ by saying it’s only a statue of the deity, not the deity itself.

  311. SirHamster says:

    How people have turned Jesus’s passage reminding us not to covet, and how sin starts in the heart (particularly given the surrounding passages) into “looking at cartoon drawings of naked women is sinful” when there is no actual woman to lust after, while ignoring how people lust after material possessions in our culture befuddles me.

    I’ve viewed my share of those “cartoon drawings”, and I’m of the opinion it is sinful. Lusting after imaginary women is still lust. Jesus’ words were concerned with the thoughts of the heart, not merely the outward actions. Viewing/consuming porn is training one’s mind and heart in a certain way – using images created by non-Christians pushing non-Christian ideas and agendas. Does that sound like it will satisfy Jesus’ commands?

    Maybe your porn is “clean” and beneficial. Mine wasn’t, and I regret what I’ve let into my mind. if you think it is permissible, would you create “Christian” smut? Would it glorify God to make such things and distribute it to young Christian men who don’t get any?

    In my experience it does not build up, but leaves you empty. Perhaps it is better than sleeping with many women; perhaps it can be carefully used like alcohol to numb one from one’s daily hardships – in which case we should take heed of Scriptural warnings to be sober and of a clear mind.

  312. Patrick says:

    The Catechism at Sec. 2348 tells us: All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. Sections 2351-2356 go on to discuss offenses against chastity that are grave sins and these include lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution and rape. The prohibition against all of these is part of the Christian faith going back to the Apostles and earliest Christians. See 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 too. The Catechism goes on the explain why all of these sins are so harmful to the person committing the sin as well as others and society as a whole. Although I recognize that many Protestants reject the Catechism as authority, I have never before heard any serious Protestant argue that any of these sins aren’t sins just because they specifically aren’t mentioned in the Scriptures. What about abortion? It is not specifically mentioned in Scripture either. Is it not sinful? Please don’t twist Christian doctrine into a pretzel trying to defend Sola Scriptura! Thanks Earl for posting the relevant Catechism sections.

  313. “Really? Got a little Bible passage for that earl?”

    Gee, be more dismissive next time.

    I’m not here to argue or push Catholic teaching, so I would just ask those who are sure scripture doesn’t address masturbation: why did virtually all Protestant denominations consider it a sin until the mid-20th century? Was there a mistake in their bibles that was fixed at that time? What about those denominations that still object to it, like the LCMS; are they just making it up so the Catholics won’t feel lonely?

    My point isn’t to argue one way or the other. But on a topic like this, it should be obvious that scripture itself isn’t crystal clear, or the topic never would have been controversial and argued over different eras in the first place. There’s no scripture verse that says, “Thou shalt not beat thy meat,” or, “Wank it if you’ve got it.” So demands to produce a scripture verse will always come down to “my verse is better than yours,” which always really means “my interpretation of this verse is better than your interpretation of that one.” What the heck is the point? Has anyone ever abandoned his own interpretation (or his church’s) because some anonymous commenters on a blog said theirs was better?

    Talk about masturbation….

  314. Lyn87 says:

    Re: the Magisterium. Since Papal bulls fall under that heading, let’s not forget that “Innocent” II – oh, the irony – issued a papal bull declaring anathema on anyone who used a crossbow in battle. The reason given was that they were weapons of the Devil (although he seemed cool with allowing the most horrific kinds of torture imaginable… go figure), but the real reason was that the power brokers of Europe stood to lose their ability to tyrannize their subjects if “mere” peasants could stand up to armored knights on the battlefield. So I’ve heard quite enough about that “What the Magisterium says.” Is the Magesterium right? Sometimes. But it’s like Wikipedia – it is extremely unreliable. The same sort of arguments may be made with regard to “Apostolic Tradition” as it is currently understood. The bottom line is that if you can’t argue from scripture, you can’t make definitive arguments at all. (Although you can make note of strong inferences.)

    Having said that, nobody has said that only things specifically enumerated in scripture are sinful – what I and, I think, IBB are saying is that something that is not found anywhere in scripture generally cannot be definitively declared to be sinful, especially since the Bible says so much about sexual sin and nothing about that. Are there relevant inferences? Perhaps. Does it fall under the wide umbrella of porneia? Perhaps again. Should our hearts be right with God? Absolutely. Should we be looking for loopholes? Obviously not. Is lust bad? Of course it is.

    Should I put my faith in a tradition that pronounced eternal damnation on a peasant who used a crossbow to defend his family, while approving of death-by-burning as an appropriate response for someone reading the Bible in his own language? Not likely, because it is an unreliable source for truth.

    Sola Scriptura.

    Obviously I’m not saying that Catholics should not mention their extra-Biblical beliefs and traditions, but I’m just letting them know that nobody else is likely to take them as definitive. If the purpose of making a point is to convince the other party, it is better to pick a source the other side recognizes as legitimate. If a feminist came in here and started telling us that her Women’s Studies 101 textbook proved that we’re all wrong, we would all laugh at her – because we don’t recognize the legitimacy of the source. The same principle applies.

  315. Josh the Aspie says:

    @Ray Manta

    Let’s presume for the moment that AI have no biological reasons to shelter make-work jobs. We still have to deal with biases in which jobs will be preserved, or replaced. If the job doesn’t need to be done in the first place, but is there to generate a wage for un-needed “work” then why would the existing bureaucratic systems replace it with AI?

    The ruthlessness of AI (which, by the way, is not a total-positive quality, as I see it) will not necessarily eliminate female jobs.

    Later you talk about the separate reason for out-competition due to inefficiency. I agree is a real concern among various competing economies and systems. However, that is always in play, and does not need to wait for AI for it to come true. You could just as easily predict that non-feminist societies are culturally more efficient, and thus will out-compete feminist societies, whether AI exists or not.

    In fact, I have seen several arguments that this is already occurring.

  316. Josh the Aspie says:

    Pardon, I should have deleted the word “Biological” from the above praphrase. Any AIs that are not biological will not have biological reasons to anything. I was temporarily ignoring my own point about coded-in biases coded by biased people, to talk about another branch of the combination.

  317. Dale says:

    Wow, quite the vigorous debate on this thread🙂

    @Gunner Q
    > I became comfortable living with myself. My modest finances weren’t drained by constantly replacing electronic gadgets and A-list games.

    Thanks Gunner, for the reminder that I do not in fact need all the toys, just because everyone else has them. I have repeatedly had comments made about the small house, cheap car, 1980s cell phone🙂 Although I certainly am not a miser. I have agreed to pay over a half million for my house. GAH! Yes, the Calgary market has crazy pricing, but that still, I think, gives legitimate reason to question my motives and priorities…

    @Lyn87

    >the [supposedly Christian] men were significantly more eager to move in together sooner than the women… My point is that the damage to the church over the past five decades has taken a horrific toll on the marriageability of the men as well as the women

    Thanks for the link to the survey. Interesting info.
    Page 49 and 50 showed that church/religious background was [supposedly] considered important for about 70%. Yet page 56 shows most are willing to move in together, which is strange. I thought the difference between men and women on this issue was insignificant; about 80% for both agree to this before marriage. Although your comment referred to moving in early/soon, which is correct.

    >But besides that, I’m not convinced that pants are not acceptable for women any more. My wife has pants that I wouldn’t wear in a million years even if they fit me

    I’m not 100% firm on this one. The pants I was thinking of are plain jeans, or dark pants, either of which are routinely used by men.
    One girl I dated in Ukraine wore bright red pants on a date; they ended about 8 inches above the ankle and matched the colour of her blouse. This did not seem to be men’s clothing to me, but I also did not prefer it, simply because it was not as feminine as a plain skirt. She later wore a dress; she seemed vastly more feminine, and thus more attractive to me. And yes, Biblical womanliness is attractive.
    The bigger concern for me is hinted at in your comment, “But besides that, I’m not convinced that pants are not acceptable for women ***any more***.” Not making a judgement on you as I’m not sure precisely what you were thinking, but at least some people seem to think that if something has become common enough (e.g. not uncommon any more), whether that be men and women dressing alike or drunkenness or adultery, then it is no longer as much of a sin. God apparently could not find even 10 righteous people in Sodom (Gen 19:32). His response was not to excuse the immorality on the basic of its commonness, but rather to wipe the place out.
    In particular I find it discouraging when those in perceived leadership positions in the “church”, whether study group leaders or the singers on stage in service, are not being careful to live in obedience.

    > The word “glutton” appears exactly twice in the Bible… not one of the seven “worst” sins

    Funny, but I discovered the same thing last night when researching my answer. I thought gluttony was in the “six things the Lord hates, seven he detests” verse, but you are right that it is not.
    Failing to live in obedience to the command to be self-controlled seems clearly sin however. Although I guess I should admit that Titus 2 has commands to Titus re what to teach, rather than direct commands to the people themselves. I don’t see that as an “out”, but some might consider the difference important I guess. And to avoid a hint of hypocrisy (Matt 6:1-6) I should probably admit that I am about 8 lbs over where I want to be. And yes that is a direct result of lack of self-control.

    Regardless of any differences, thanks for your input Lyn.

    @Eidolon

    >The more traditional our family has become the happier my wife gets.

    I see the prevalence of the belief in “happy wife, happy life” as an indictment of the lack of maturity by many/most women. A mature man does not respond to not getting his way with a temper tantrum, deliberately making life miserable for those around him. Why do we think this type of childish behaviour is acceptable for an adult woman?
    I am not surprised that your wife is more happy, when given proper boundaries. Gee, we could make a sermon here about how God’s rules for us are actually for my benefit🙂 (avoid adulteress, avoid debt, etc.)

    @Cail

    >The idea that you can live chastely for a decade or so while being in contact with openly available members of the opposite sex every day, let alone all the sexual images in today’s media, without failing entirely or going bonkers in some way, is a modern delusion.

    That’s a great quote! thanks🙂
    Although you are perhaps not considering that if the “openly available members of the opposite sex” are deliberately making themselves unappealing, it is not really that difficult to exercise self-control. I have strong desires for marriage, but see few Canadians I would actually want for marriage. Or even a one-night stand, if I was willing to do that. (which I am not)

    @Innocentbystanderboston

    >The people who will say you are “sinning in your heart” when you jerk-off to nude-HD-Anime are really angry and accuse you of sin NOT because that CGI drawing is anyone’s property, but because the object of your s-xual desire will never require any financial provisioning from you or anyone.

    I think you are exactly right in your assessment of many of those condemning people. Personally I can’t comprehend the idea of cartoon pornography, but maybe that’s ’cause I have not looked for it. But still, it seems ridiculous to claim that fantasizing about a ficticious woman is a violation of Exodus 20:13 (You shall not covet…)

    >There are no living prophets earl who get direct revelation from God as to new rules He is establishing to define what is now “sin.” Read your Bible.

    As Earl mentions, the NT does talk about gift of prophecy (e.g. Rom 12:3-8). I think your specific statement re prophecy to give new rules, creating new sins, is interesting. That seems precisely what many false religions do. And I can think of no passage in the Bible that contradicts your position.

    @Gunner Q

    >Ephesians 5:3,5 makes a powerful case against masturbation. Matthew 5:28 and Job 31:1 are also relevant.

    In Ephesians 5, I encourage you to define “sexual immorality/impurity” as defined within Scripture, rather than as others choose to define it. Meaning, homosexual acts, adultery, beastiality, etc. If I feel free to define those terms as I want, rather than as originally taught (Titus 1:5-9), I am adding to Scripture.
    As described above, I think Lev 15 makes it obvious masturbation is not a sin, although a man or woman absolutely CAN choose to sin while doing so.
    I have the Matthew 5 and Job 31 passages memorized, and they do not talk about masturbation. They talk about adultery and coveting another man’s wife. Again, masturbation may be done together with these sins, but I think it is not a sin in itself.
    I should admit that it could be a sin for some however. Rom 14:1-4 and Rom 14:14-15 are the basis for this view. If a man always sins by getting drunk whenever he goes into a bar, then going into a bar may be guaranteed to lead to sin FOR HIM. Someone else may be able to go into a bar and exercise self control however. Same with masturbation; it may always lead to sin for one person, but that is no guarantee for all others.

    Thanks for the thoughts, guys.

  318. Josh the Aspie says:

    @Gunner Q
    You answered your own question. The sin begins in the man’s heart; it doesn’t matter whether another human being is involved.

    Okay, yaknow what? There *is* a good point in there. If I lust heartily after some kind of gem or technological advice that does not exist to steal (like some might for a Light-Saber), or lust to kill a 3-horned sabertoothed t-rexosaur, then I am sinning, even if those things do not exist.

    You still have not established that looking at images, or masturbation involves lust.

    Suppose man is using an image to help with certain kinds of physical maintenance, but the (insert weird Japanese sex thing that doesn’t actually exist) showed up offering itself to him in his preferred fashion, and he’d turn it away or run for the hills. Or, more realistically, say he uses a drawing of a normal human woman, but he’d turn down an offer from a woman to have sex.

    That is far from being covetous. By the original use of the word, It is not a lust for anything in the first place, whether that thing is existent or non-existent.

    Now, if anyone here thinks that masturbation, or looking at certain kinds of images is lust, and thus is sinful, I encourage him not to do it. For him it is sin. If someone is convinced that to be right with the lord he must observe the Sabbath Saturday as measured from sunset to sunset), or the Lord’s day from midnight to midnight, I encourage him to do that.

    Similarly if he thinks viewing those images it is likely to tempt him into sin, he should not do it.

    Christ said what he did in Matthew 5 in part to emphasize this point; the Pharisees were masters at using technical obedience to cover actual rebellion.”

    That’s an interesting group to mention, since the Pharisees were also masters of making up man made rules to make heavy the yolks of believers, setting stumbling blocks before them.

  319. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    Just to clarify: when I wrote, “But besides that, I’m not convinced that pants are not acceptable for women any more,” I was referring to the fact that styles in men’s and women’s clothing change, so what may be considered “men’s clothing” in one culture or era would be considered “women’s clothing” in a different culture or era. A couple of examples should suffice: when I was in Scotland last year I saw quite a few guys wear kilts. I didn’t think anything of it, because that is a traditional men’s garment there. Yet a kilt is – as far as my American eyes can tell – indistinguishable from a woman’s skirt. So… is an open-bottomed garment worn about the waist a man’s garment or a woman’s garment? Context matters: and nobody would accuse them of cross-dressing, because they weren’t. But if I wore a skirt to church on Sunday here in the U.S., I’m sure I would be asked to go change into something else.

    Likewise, I like to wear the color pink. It’s a good color for me. I understand that in times past pink was considered to be a masculine color, but at some point that changed, and it is now trending back toward being considered “gender-neutral.” My pink shirts are all men’s shirts (buttons on the right – buttonholes on the left), but they are… pink, so I suppose someone might accuse me of crossing some arbitrary line based on transitory styles.

    Just last week I was in an airport and saw two monks go by wearing clothes that would not have looked out of place on a woman… except for the baseball caps (I have to admit that struck me as odd).

    That’s how I feel about women’s pants. If a woman is wearing men’s pants, then it’s a problem, just like it would be if I decided to wear one of my wife’s blouses to church on Sunday. But if she’s wearing her (women’s) pants and I’m wearing my (men’s) pink shirt, I don’t see an issue.

    I hope that clarifies my position.

  320. earl says:

    ‘ Lusting after imaginary women is still lust. Jesus’ words were concerned with the thoughts of the heart, not merely the outward actions.’

    And more often than not lust in the heart is where the thoughts of masturbation begin. We have to stop it at its source before it becomes an outward action. The graces we need to pray for would be self-control and chastity…because we can’t do this on our own.

    Besides a temporary sexual release isn’t going to fix the bigger problems in life…namely sin.

  321. earl says:

    ‘ If the purpose of making a point is to convince the other party, it is better to pick a source the other side recognizes as legitimate.’

    Is the Holy Spirit a legitimate source?

  322. Ray Manta says:

    Josh the Aspie wrote:

    If the job doesn’t need to be done in the first place, but is there to generate a wage for un-needed “work” then why would the existing bureaucratic systems replace it with AI?

    We’re not just talking about existing bureaucratic systems replacing unneeded work, but simply disappearing completely. A female-oriented HR department can’t very well exercise its own-group preference if it’s not there in the first place.

    Later you talk about the separate reason for out-competition due to inefficiency.

    You misunderstand – it’s not a separate reason, it’s the main reason. Organizations that obey the female imperative will not just be economically punished for doing so – as technology improves, the punishment will become more and more severe.

    We already see this in fields such as software engineering. Women have been losing ground since the 1980s, despite severe social pressure to hire more of them.

    I agree is a real concern among various competing economies and systems. However, that is always in play, and does not need to wait for AI for it to come true.

    I don’t make a fundamental distinction between “AI” and increasingly-effective automation. The argument that the majority of jobs, female jobs in particular will be automated does not require human-level AI. Many will become obsolete due to hardware and software that doesn’t use “classical” AI at all, or only makes limited use of it. Look at what ATMs did to the job security of bank tellers. The same thing is happening today with paralegals, junior partner-level attorneys, and legal document search and examination software.

    You could just as easily predict that non-feminist societies are culturally more efficient, and thus will out-compete feminist societies, whether AI exists or not.

    It’s not clear to me why you would want to ignore the impact of improving technology when it’s only too obvious about the huge effect it’s having and will continue to have. If you’re going to come out and say it’ll be a non-factor, please state your case.

  323. Lyn87 says:

    Is the Holy Spirit a legitimate source?

    Of course. But I don’t accept that the RCC, its leaders, or its traditions are reliable conduits for His guidance. I know too much history to believe that. If you want to accept that they are, fine. I’m not going to convince you otherwise and I don’t want to open up the Catholic-versus-Protestant thing yet again.

    My point is not about doctrine – my point is about your method of argumentation.

    If I quoted a Protestant minister to make a point, you would reject it out of hand if what he said contradicted RCC doctrine. What I want you to understand is that’s how we “sola scriptura” Protestants feel when RC’s quote your extra-Biblical beliefs at us as if we were required to give them the same weight as scripture. To the extent that they line up with God’s Word and what He has revealed to me in my life, I will gladly accept them as true; to the extent that they go beyond that without contradicting scripture I will consider them (which is where I am on this topic: skeptical but not convinced one way or the other); and to the extent that they contradict scripture I will categorically reject them. You can believe them all you want, but it’s pointless to expect to bring them up as if appealing to that authority carried any special weight with the rest of us.

    To be clear… for the sake of arguing a point to convince someone else: when you appeal to an authority, it doesn’t matter if your authority is correct, or even if he’s a legitimate authority. Because you are saying that your source has special expertise, what matters is whether the other person accepts your source’s expertise – not whether you do. If I’m educating an atheist about the beginning of the Universe I can easily point to the Bible and declare him wrong – and I would be absolutely correct to do so: the Bible IS an authoritative source on the matter of origins whether he accepts that or not. But I don’t do that, because I know he’s a fool (Psalm 14:1) who doesn’t accept the legitimacy of God’s Word. I have to start with something he does accept as valid and work from there, so I normally begin with Newtonian physics and Aristotelian Logic, which he (pretends to) accept as valid.

  324. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    Is the Holy Spirit a legitimate source?

    I think the Holy Spirit is a legitimate source for you.

    If someone tells me they have had a personal revelation from G-d, then I respect that, but the principle of universalizability takes over at that point. G-d can come and chit-chat with me just as easily, and he hasn’t done so, thus it’s safe to assume that a careful reading of the text is sufficient in my case. Whatever G-d commanded you to do, is between you and G-d. I have nothing to do with it. In fact, you probably shouldn’t even be talking to me about it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  325. earl says:

    ‘Because you are saying that your source has special expertise, what matters is whether the other person accepts your source’s expertise – not whether you do.’

    Fair enough…the problem comes when someone wants explicit proof a certain sin is forbidden in the Bible. Some sins are implicit and it takes good authority to point them out.

    The Bible mentions sexual immorality many times as one of the ways to NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Even explicitly states that it is the will of God to abstain from it.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+4%3A3-5&version=NASB

  326. earl says:

    Don’t worry Boxer…I’m not trying to convert you.

  327. Robin Munn says:

    @Lyn87 –

    Your comment reminded me of the status of “expert witness” in a courtroom trial. This is someone who’s brought in to testify on, say, medical matters, or ballistics, or some other arcane subject that’s a necessary part of the prosecution’s (or the defense’s) argument. The first part of an expert witness’s testimony is always “Let me prove to you that I really am an expert in my field and that you should listen to what I say.” (This is usually done by some combination of credentials and prior work.) Once the expert has proved his extensive knowledge of ballistics, then the judge will essentially tell the jury, “Whatever this guy says about ballistics, you can trust. If he says that this bullet was or was not fired form that gun, then you can take that as fact.” But until he’s proven his expertise in that particular field, nobody will listen to his opinions on whether that gun fired this bullet.

    Essentially, in the case of most RC vs. Prot debates (including this one, it seems), the RCs are saying “We have expert witnesses backing us up”, and the Protestants are saying “We don’t accept your witnesses’ credentials and we disagree with their prior work.”

  328. Lyn87 says:

    earl writes,

    Fair enough…the problem comes when someone wants explicit proof a certain sin is forbidden in the Bible. Some sins are implicit and it takes good authority to point them out.

    The Bible mentions sexual immorality many times as one of the ways to NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Even explicitly states that it is the will of God to abstain from it.

    We’re in general-but-not-exact agreement on that, then. It is because of situations like that that I wrote, “…to the extent that they go beyond that without contradicting scripture I will consider them (which is where I am on this topic: skeptical but not convinced one way or the other)…”

    One can make the case from inference – and you have done so about as well as anyone could – but because scripture is ambiguous I must refrain from making definitive doctrinal pronouncements, or accepting the doctrinal pronouncements of others as being definitive. That said, I think IBB went too far in declaring it definitively NOT sinful: ambiguity works both ways.

  329. Robin Munn says:

    BTW, Lyn, I should clarify that I’m pretty sure that you already understand the concept of expert witnesses.🙂 I wrote that so that anyone else reading, who hasn’t already absorbed the concept from courtroom fiction or from observing real court cases, would have some idea of what I was talking about.

  330. Lyn87 says:

    Robin,

    You’re picking up what I’m laying down. I wouldn’t expect an atheist to accept an argument based on a quote from the Bible, any more than I would accept the unproven hypothesis of an atheist based on his “expertise.” I wouldn’t quote my (ex-Catholic) Protestant pastor and expect an RC to automatically accept his expertise (although I know him to be VERY knowledgeable and logical), any more than an RC should expect me to accept something based on what a pope said.

    Like I told earl, this isn’t about doctrine – it’s about when it is proper to appeal to authority and which authorities it is proper to appeal to in a debate.

    I think we’re all on the same page now as far as that goes. As for the debate itself, I doubt we’re going to be able to take it any further: IBB is convinced one way – earl is equally convinced the other way – I’m unconvinced either way, and nobody has a source the others recognize as definitive to settle the matter.

  331. Robin Munn says:

    @Lyn87 –

    By the way, are you anywhere near California, Texas, Illinois, or New York (state, not city)? I’m going to be passing through all four of those states in the next few months — and if you’re anywhere near where I’m passing by, I think I’d enjoy shooting the breeze with you for an hour or two. If you don’t want to put your home address on the Internet (I certainly wouldn’t), you can shoot me an email at (my first name) dot (my last name), at Gmail.

  332. Anonymous Reader says:

    In the context of AI, I willl agree that weak things such as Siri will take some jobs from humans. I find strong AI that could convincingly pass a Turing Test to be unlikely for reasons of computability. Medical science insisted for generations that the human brain had a fixed number of neurons and that its plasticity was minimal after maturity. This premise underlies the 1960’s views on AI. More recent research has clearly shown that human brains are continuallly changing. Stem cells are generated and find a place in the brain. Connections are pruned while new ones are made.
    The brain is reconfigurable, and is continuously reconfiguring.
    Modeling this with a static architecture and fixed memory size does not seem possible.

    All this is bad enough, if quantum effects are involved in consciousness then the complexity becomes even greater.

    A Turing machine, or perhaps the Universal Turing Machine (U, U) seems to be required, and those cannot be realized in hardware. All the tricks of programming we know, including fuzzy systems, agents, genetic algorithms, expert systems and so forth are nowhere near providing the tools to model even a lizard brain or fish brain, let alone a human one.

    Again, I agree with TFH that many jobs currently existing are going away, I encounter Siri – like bots in various places. That’s really not AI.

    Anonymous Reader wrote:
    Genetic algorithms run on standard platforms, i.e. Von Neumann architectures, AKA finite state machines.

    Ray Manta
    Von Neumann architectures are equivalent in power to Turing machines.

    No. Refer to the definition of a Turing machine.

    Turing machines aren’t used in practical applications because they’re too inefficient,

    Not to mention that little issue with infinite memory.

    but any problem that can be solved with a von Neumann architecture can be solved with a Turing machine

    Yes.

    and vice versa.

    No.

    Question:
    Perhaps you are unclear on what an FSM is?

    Ray Manta
    It can be thought of as a limiting case of a Turing machine that never writes to the “tape” and only moves its head to the right (never to the left). That of course makes certain classes of computation impossible. For example, regular expressions can be implemented with FSMs, but not context-free grammars or counting.

    You just contradicted yourself.

    I suggest reading the Rabin paper

    Ray Manta
    Haven’t read it,

    Obviously.

    but it’s clear to me you’re spouting off with no clue about what you’re talking about.

    Sure about that?

  333. Gunner Q says:

    @Josh and Dale,

    If you believe that masturbating over pictures of sexy women has “not a hint” of sexual immorality about it then I don’t have much left to say, except that you’re worshiping a checklist of rules instead of a Person who demands a certain kind of character. Nobody is impressed by a standard of morality that is never inconvenient.

    And for the record, I’m bound by this, too. I’m an incel with no romantic prospects and definitely understand the appeal of a sanctioned outlet for my hormones. There isn’t one. Instead of holding myself to a lowered standard I can meet, I hold the higher standard of holiness and suffer. This is what God wants. Romans 12:1 and James 1:27.

  334. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mark

    I will give you a good example.Grocery stores.Have you been in one that there is no cashier? You scan your groceries,pay with debit/credit,bag your own groceries……laterz! Just eliminated a female cashier.

    The local chain store put those in. Then about 2 years later took them out. It appears that losses were too high, they assumed too much honesty. One clerk to watch 4 checkouts? Very easy to walk past when distracted.

    For some retail outlets, a human person running checkout will have to continue. For a lot of other jobs, some form of rule based AI will probably work. We all encounter them on telephone trees.
    So call centers would be one target for an improved Siri type ‘bot.

  335. Ray Manta says:

    Anonymous reader wrote:
    In the context of AI, I willl agree that weak things such as Siri will take some jobs from humans.

    That has been the general thrust of the discussion. AI doesn’t need anywhere near human equivalence to take jobs away from humans. And it’s not ‘some’ jobs, it’s ‘lots of them’. It’s a trend that has already appeared and will continue well into the future.

    On Turing machines:
    You just contradicted yourself.

    No I did not. You’re just too dense to understand my argument.

    As to my conclusions about your ignorance:
    Sure about that?

    Yes, I am. If von Neumann architectures were not equivalent in power to Turing machines, it would be impossible to use them for tasks such as counting or compiling Turing-complete languages such as Pascal or C. Since any fool (except apparently you) knows those things can be done with computers, it logically follows that von Neumann architectures are Turing-complete.
    They are not FSMs.

    FSMs are certainly useful, but they are not and cannot be a general-purpose computing paradigm. Anybody who doesn’t understand that but claims to have worked with AI and neural networks (as you have) is simply an ignorant poseur.

    Concerning Turing machines and infinite memory:
    Not to mention that little issue with infinite memory.

    Infinite memory is not a defining property of Turing machines. ieee.org has a paper showing that finite-memory Turing machines are computationally equivalent to infinite-memory Turing machines.

    The article is titled “Turing machines with finite memory” and was published in Neural Networks, 2002. SBRN 2002. Proceedings. VII Brazilian Symposium on

  336. Josh the Aspie says:

    @Ray Manta,

    I’m mainly responding to the idea that “AI will do this” and “AI will do that” that seemed to come up in the thread, and I’ve seen floating around the internet.

    One of my concerns is “Why are people saying ‘AI’? What makes AI so unique/special? Why not say ‘advancing technology’?” Many people use AI much the way others use magic, in their thinking.

    You say that you don’t make that distinction, and that technology in general is already doing the job of replacing jobs. Very well then. I accept this clarification from you, on your stance on the subject. Hopefully we can get past that point now that you’ve clarified.

    Also, I agree that there are jobs that will be eliminated due to efficiencies, such as jobs either gone, or much reduced, such as book-pullers from libraries of large tomes that can be more efficiently searched. The job of 5 such assistants looking through several buildings worth of possibly misshelved books can be done by one assistant that knows how to do that, and also how to do digital searches.

    Hopefully you will accept my clarification of my agreement on this point, and we can move past that one as well.

    I have, however, a separate objection. Specifically, to the idea that increasing efficiency will have a similar effect on make-work jobs.

    Presuppose that a type of job is already created as an inefficiency. You don’t have to have it. The government taxes people to pay for the position as a jobs program, to literally make work, for whatever ideological reason. Alternatively it accomplishes the same task by mandating that such positions exist, either directly, or by making however many onerous rules it takes to create jobs managing those rules (like the explosion of medical codes). If the job (and the regulations requiring them) went away, the governed entity as a whole would actually be more efficient.

    Suppose you have body of society A that has these jobs, and body of society B that does not. Body B may well out-compete body A, unless body A has some other large advantages that give it a margin where it can afford the inefficiencies. Absent A having other advantages, no other environmental change (such as introducing technologies) is necessary for B to out-compete A. Technological change does not enter the picture.

    If B will not out-compete A absent the introduction of a technology, then A has some advantage. Thus, absent 2 special cases, the introduction of technology X will not change who has the advantage.

    Special Case 1: The new technology makes A’s advantage obsolete.
    Special Case 2: B gains a new advantage A does not have, but only in the context of the introduction of technology X. This changes the balance in a similar way to special-case 2.

    However, obsolescence of advantage and new conditional advantage are both different from efficiency. Also, I have not seen anyone argue the removal of advantage, or assigning of a conditional advantage to a major competitor. So I will presume that neither special case applies.

    Thus, the ability of body A to maintain politically motivated positions remains.
    B continues not to have these un-needed positions.

    The ability to more efficiently do a task that should not be done in the first place will not remove these make-work jobs in body A.

    The source of these jobs is the cultural/political will, not efficiency/inefficiency.

    Now, if there is a change in cultural/political will (as argued by some of the people arguing for societal change through sex-bots), or you presume special case 1 or 2 above, then yes, those jobs are in jeopardy. Otherwise, no.

    In fact, if we introduce causes of efficiency into our work-force as a whole, thus gaining an advantage over our world-wide competitors, “we can afford” (not loose due to having) MORE make-work jobs. So if the issue of cultural/political will is not solved, we may see a shift toward more of these make-work jobs, and the regulations necessary to justify them, rather than a decrease in said jobs… all due to an increase in efficiency in other areas.

    tl;dr To an alcoholic, a cut in rent due to getting a smaller apartment is evidence that he can buy more booze.

  337. Josh the Aspie says:

    “In fact, if we introduce causes of efficiency into our work-force as a whole, thus gaining an advantage over our world-wide competitors” I forgot a critical clarifying phrase here. “while competitors do not.”

    That paragraph only makes sense in the context that we gain a new technological edge over our competitors.

  338. Josh the Aspie says:

    @Earl,
    Yes, the bible does indeed contain many verses condemning sexual immorality.

    But to use those passages to condemn masturbation, you first have to establish that masturbation is, itself, sexual immorality. Otherwise, you have set up a circular reference.

    Given that there are lists of sexually immoral acts in the bible, and that none of them have anything to do with masturbation, it seems pretty clear what acts are being talked about, and that masturbation isn’t one of them.

    Otherwise, I could make up a rule saying “if you have sex with your wife on a Sunday, that is sexual immorality, because that is the Lord’s day.” and if I get enough people to accept this, by repeating it enough times, then I can point to the people that consider it immoral, and say ‘and remember, the Bible says not to practice sexual immorality”.

    Never-mind that the Bible also says not to deny yourself to your wife. Similarly, there was an example of people specifically denying honor to their parents, when they had set aside an activity to honor the lord… on the basis of the Pharisees. Jesus was none too pleased.

    Now, there’s no bible verse saying people have to, or should masturbate, so I’m not saying it’s exactly the same as the above.

    I am saying that we should avoid heaping burdens on ourselves and others. That is how, over time, the yolk becomes heavy. And by making the light yolk heavy with our own rules, we can actually drive others away from Christ, or remove joy and zest for life from the lives of those who are in Christ.

    @Gunner Q
    Yes, character is indeed important. But so far, all I’ve seen is shaming and finger-wagging of the sort that comes from folks that insist that I should tip at restaurants, even if I know the servers makes minimum wage, and the server doesn’t actually do anything more for me than the person standing behind the counter at McDonald (they take my order and bring the food out to me too, yaknow).

    That doesn’t really seem to be a good argument that something is inconsistent with good character.

    True, one should not over-indulge (or be gluttonous) with anything of the body. We are warned against being gluttonous and drunkards. Similarly, one should not insist on sitting too long in the sun, or bathing all day. But here people are saying “not at all, not one jot” much as the tea-totlers and prohibitionists said of wine “not at all, not one drop”.

    —–

    The only argument that seems to hold credence based on all of this framing, is based on Matthew 23, and Romans 13.

    The argument basically goes that if those in authority say that something is bad, or forbidden, then I should not do it. God raised up and cast down kings, from Saul to to Herod, to Nero. Whether they are right, whether they are adding burdens to the yolk I must carry or not, still, I should bear it. There certainly are a lot of elders from a lot of Chruches that say that masturbation is bad.

    And that argument basically comes across to me, in this specific case, as “even if there’s nothing actually sinful about masturbation, and there’s all sorts of church elders condemning it who are adulterers, you should still do as you’re told, but not as the tellers do.” — to take the form of Matthew 23, regarding the pharisees.

    I recall a similar passage about not doing what the world considers evil, so as not to make the body of Christ look bad, but I’m having trouble finding that one… though the culture at large isn’t likely to criticize the church for men masturbating, aside from pointing out that the elders say to do one thing, and the body does another, not over the act itself. So despite having searched for it for quite a while, I’m still not sure it applies to the larger argument.

    I’m still considering passages like this, and their implications and limits. What would it say about the Protestant split from Catholicism? What would it say about the American revolution? A revolution lead by men, some of whom (particularly Washington) are recorded as having shining examples of faith (to the point that some say that God was with the colonies when they rebelled, and when they fought off Indian attackers, similarly to how God was with Israel).

  339. earl says:

    ‘I am saying that we should avoid heaping burdens on ourselves and others. That is how, over time, the yolk becomes heavy. And by making the light yolk heavy with our own rules, we can actually drive others away from Christ, or remove joy and zest for life from the lives of those who are in Christ.’

    This isn’t my rules…Christ is an example of perfect chastity, and we are called as Christians to follow that example. It would be better for a person to know that, than to think it is a burden that you can’t briefly sexually relieve yourself. I’ve found it takes the grace of God to overcome this because it’s not an easy habit to overcome on your own but it is rewarding in many ways.

    ‘All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.’ (2348 in the catechism)

  340. ThePete07 says:

    This type of message appeals to the thirsty blue pill beta male in that he can sit there and imagine that he’ll be the white knight that saves that hot slut from her self imposed situation and that they’ll live happily ever after with many nights of hot sex. The fact the he gets nuclear rejection after nuclear rejection may eventually pop his bubble but so long as he can maintain that fantasy he can view himself as the righteous savior of these poor women, if only they would give him the chance!

    I followed Driscoll’s sermons for some years and distinctly remember the admonishing men not to overlook single moms. It was something I took to heart, perhaps having a step father from a young age contributed to that. Trouble is I went white knighting after a christian single mom I’d met online and got ditched without explanation after a few weeks. I thought, surely a single mom who’s been in relationship with crap men would appreciate the nice dependable christian man who could provide for her and her kid. I felt foolish after that.

    In a rather unsurprising turn of events she now has a tattooed boyfriend with his own young child out of wedlock and I’m wondering why I bothered.

    You never do hear that sermon telling women to stop making bad choices.

  341. Tam the Bam says:

    Josh, Mr Picky here can’t make this out. You meant “..to special-case 1” I guess?
    “Special Case 2: B gains a new advantage A does not have, but only in the context of the introduction of technology X. This changes the balance in a similar way to special-case 2.”

    Not being a tosser, just like to know if I’m being extra-dense or not.
    Definitely not trying to join this rareified argy-bargy, just tag along, follow the bouncing ball. And some people do read almost everything, you might like to know🙂

    On almost[NB!] any subject, well hey, if it’s not made of wood, then you can count me out. I’ll be in the bar.

    Do baby-mamas necessarily have to pass the Turing test? Would “A.I.” do the job just as well?

  342. Red Knight says:

    Dalrock, I’d say you are half-right. In the sermon where Driscoll rants about men being bad husbands (or bad boyfriends who don’t become husbands), he says that a woman has a justified fear of choosing the wrong man to marry, since that means she ends up having to divorce him and becoming a single mother. Ergo, women become single mothers either because men don’t marry them, or because the men they do marry are bad. Ain’t no such thing as a frivolous divorce.

  343. Ray Manta says:

    Josh the Aspie wrote:
    Many people use AI much the way others use magic, in their thinking.

    You say that you don’t make that distinction, and that technology in general is already doing the job of replacing jobs.

    AI is notorious as a receding target. In the 1970s, computer chess was considered a hot AI topic. By the time Kasparov was defeated in 1997, computer chess was not considered a sub-field of AI. In the 1980s knowledge engineers who programmed expert systems in Lisp were a hot item and could earn 6-figure incomes. Other fads labeled AI have emerged with a lot of fanfare and then either failed or became quietly incorporated into the mainstream. What’s clear is that incremental improvements in AI forms of computing are starting to have a serious impact in the marketplace. Language translation software, pattern recognition algorithms, and many other subfields of what’s been thought of as AI are starting to make a serious economic dent. And it’s not going to stop anytime soon.

    I have, however, a separate objection. Specifically, to the idea that increasing efficiency will have a similar effect on make-work jobs.

    Then you really haven’t understood my argument. The increasing efficiencies brought about by AI and automation won’t just attack make-work jobs directly by replacing their ‘function’, it’ll also attack them indirectly by eating away at the social milieu that supports them. Other social factors will also contribute and feed on their trends.

    You already see this in higher education – it’s clear that the standard 4 years of college/university education is coming under severe economic pressure to downsize. It’s become obvious to many that the outsized buildings, excessive administrative staff, and gaggle of lesbian ‘scholars’ don’t contribute positively to the students’ learning experience. So it’s only a matter of time until they go. And when they go, so will a significant portion of their social clout.

    There’s a similar process going on with family law. Unfair laws mean that fewer men will get married, have children, and be vulnerable to divorce theft. That means less money for child support agencies and the entire legal apparatus. There will be a lot of economic pressure to use fewer people in the process and automate as much as possible. There will also be less money available for lobbying organizations.

    I can go on, but I think that’s enough examples for now.

  344. Ray Manta says:

    Tam the Bam wrote:
    Not being a tosser, just like to know if I’m being extra-dense or not.

    I don’t think you’re being dense, and none of the arguments made are that difficult to follow. It seems almost as if Josh doesn’t actually want the changes discussed to take place. Maybe he’s come to like being a second-class citizen.


    Do baby-mamas necessarily have to pass the Turing test?

    Nope, they just have to have the equipment to pop out a kid.😉.

  345. Josh the Aspie says:

    @Earl: Your argument, boiled down, appears to have 2 points.

    Appeals to catholic doctrine (which may convince catholics, but I am not one), and assumption that masturbation is wrong, to prove that it is wrong.

    For point one, you could just as well quote from the quran, or the book of mormon, and it would have about as much effect as quoting from catholic doctrine.

    Also, you say that a person should not masturbate, because Christ was a perfect model of chastity. But that assumes that Christ did not masturbate. How can we make this assumption? Because Christ was perfect, and masturbation is wrong, and he is perfect. It’s circular.

    @Tam the Bam:
    You are correct. That was an error on my part, I meant to compare Case 2 to Case 1, not Case 2 to itself. Thanks for pointing that out.

    @Ray Manta:
    There is no need to resort to character assassination.

    There has been more and more clarification occurring, but as it does, you get more and more rankled, and resort to more and more accusations against me.

    While the conversation could well have been interesting, I’m not interested in talking to you when you’re using those unsavory tactics, whatever your motive for using them. So, I hope you have a good day.

  346. Ray Manta says:

    Josh the Aspie wrote:
    There is no need to resort to character assassination.

    Character assassination? You surely are a sensitive soul. If I’m incorrect about your motives or state of mind you could simply deny it – I notice you didn’t bother to.

    There has been more and more clarification occurring,

    Well, thank you. Looks to me like you don’t really have a strong argument against what I was saying happening.

    but as it does, you get more and more rankled, and resort to more and more accusations against me.

    My response to Tam was the only one where I bothered to speculate about your motives. Looks to me like he was a bit confused by the amount of quibbling you were doing. To me, it looked like it bordered on concern trolling. If that’s not your intention, fine.

    While the conversation could well have been interesting, I’m not interested in talking to you when you’re using those unsavory tactics

    Well, that’s your choice. It sure is a convenient reason for bowing out of a debate, isn’t it?

  347. Ray Manta says:

    TFH wrote:
    Ray Manta, if you are interested in chiming in here, I would be honored.

    Thank you, TFH. I will do so – I just need time to formulate a good post.

  348. Tam the Bam says:

    Not that confused, just wanted to check I hadn’t had a brain fart over cases 1 and 2, maybe missed something obvious. Couldn’t detect a quibble in a briar patch at ten paces, me. Unless it was made of seasoned timber. Then I’d be all over it.

  349. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Anyway, Dale is right that being noticeably overweight usually implies poor choices and lack of self discipline, but I’m also right that it isn’t a fool-proof proxy for a poor walk with Jesus.

    I would be in trouble if it was, as I am definitely over the weight I should be. I carry it well, but it is still noticeable.

    ====

    I have come to the conclusion that masturbation is likely always a sin because I don’t see how it can happen without some “lust in your heart” of the kind that Jesus warns against. I don’t see how watching porn, even animated versions, can get away from that.

    You are free to disagree, but I don’t see the valuable gain that would be achieved by it and it seems another sign of our modern lawlessness that many paint it as being just fine.

  350. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    Like I write to both earl and Robin, I don’t see enough evidence on either side of the debate to say with certainty. It’s not that I don’t care… it’s just that I don’t know, and I’ve heard every argument both ways. I tend to set the “confidence” bar pretty high before I throw down with a “Yea, Verily.” That means that I’m almost never wrong when I speak about something definitively, which people often mistake for cockiness. What they don’t see is all the times I remain silent because I do not have enough confidence in my own understanding to make a call. I notice that a lot of people blast out opinions on all sorts of subjects where the last degree of truth cannot be known – when I do that I include caveats, as you did just now: you declare it as “your conclusion” rather something unambiguously addressed in “Divine Writ.”

    I’ll often offer an opinion – as an opinion subject to modification – on subjects where I’m less than 100% confident. But when I AM 100% confident, I don’t tend to hold back. Anyway, it’s late and I’m tired. Good discussion. Good night.

  351. Josh the Aspie says:

    @BradA,

    And this gets back to the perversion of the original word used. If you take lust to mean “physical arousal” then yes, of course it would involve lust. Duh. Tautology.

    But the original greek, and the meaning of the word “Lust” when originally translated does not mean that. That’s where the conversation started, as a branch of the discussion of a similar lingual shift happening to the word “gluttony”.

  352. Minesweeper says:

    Neither masturbation nor thinking\looking at females or whatever turns you on is a sin. Neither is drinking alcohol or smoking or using drugs (prescription or otherwise).

    Never ceases to amaze me the number of fake conditions Christians want to add to their load. With already having to face up to an vast invisible evil enemy and a population that is on a one way ticket to hell. You would think we would focus on that, but no, lets create a millions other tiny conditions that we will focus on instead.

    Which is why the church has been so monumentally ineffective in subduing this world. Why Christians are walking away not just from the church but God too.

    Anything can be a sin if God himself denies you it. That can also be working a job, evangelism, running a church etc.

    God tells us repeatedly follow him and LOVE him and whoever is around you. But we don’t do that as its far too much effort and risk. So lets just play safe\secure and not love because someone violates one of the dozens of false rules that we hold to dearly.

    Its almost like people can’t love, and instead of freedom immediately desire a life full of rules.

  353. Minesweeper says:

    @Josh the Aspie – you are correct, “lust” dosn’t mean sexual attraction. It means extreme desire to posses.

    What Jesus meant when he said that in the original greek was to rule out the Pharisees safe getout whereby they couldnt desire earnestly theiir neighbours wife, so they did that with non neighbours. Now I can relate to that, I know certain married females that I could not live beside. I would be tormented feeling this and I would want to ‘possess’ them.

  354. Pingback: Groundhog Day Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary

  355. JDG says:

    Well, that’s your choice. It sure is a convenient reason for bowing out of a debate, isn’t it?

    I would have done the same. Who wants to get bogged down in tit for tat insults in a debate.

  356. BradA says:

    Fulfilling the lusts of the flesh is not a good idea, no matter how many spin it otherwise. You will have more of whatever you feed.

    [Phl 4:8 KJV] 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

  357. Minesweeper says:

    Fulfilling the lusts of the flesh = adultery, prostitution, greed, selfishness, desiring to posess your neighbours wife, lording it over others etc…

    You can of course expand that definition to include anything you want eventually, but with dreadful consequences.

  358. Pingback: The Aperture and its Pretenders | v5k2c2

  359. Ray Manta says:

    JDG wrote:
    I would have done the same. Who wants to get bogged down in tit for tat insults in a debate.

    For your benefit, I’m reposting a script that I wrote for Dalrock’s site that filters out posters you may find annoying. It works with Firefox and needs the Greasemonkey plugin installed.

    // ==UserScript==
    // @name arkiller-dalrock
    // @namespace https://dalrock.wordpress.com
    // @description Removes troll posts by Andrew Richards and other pests
    // @include https://dalrock.wordpress.com
    // @include https://dalrock.wordpress.com/*
    // @version 1
    // ==/UserScript==
    // To add members to the list, right-click on the troll’s gravatar icon and select “Copy Image Location”,
    // then copy the url to the left hand side of the colon. The troll’s handle goes on the right hand side.
    // Remember to add a comma on the left of each additional member.
    var trollList;
    var allImages;
    var repTimes;
    var i;
    var j;
    var thisImage;
    var up1;
    var up2;
    var trollCount;

    // To add to the troll list, right click and click “View Image Info”. Then copy and paste the location.
    trollList = {
    “http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/a910a39a604185e2c4a4fc3b0a7f354e?s=40&d=identicon&r=PG” : “Andrew Richards”
    ,”http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/de67272d88f809afdef11dc316e89bae?s=48&d=identicon&r=G” : “Summerspeaker”
    };

    allImages = document.getElementsByTagName(“img”);
    repTimes = repTimes = Object.keys(trollList).length + 1;
    allImages = document.getElementsByTagName(“img”);
    trollCount = 0;
    for (i=0; i < 2; i++) {
    for (j=0; j < allImages.length; j++) {
    var thisImage = allImages[j];
    if (thisImage.src in trollList) {
    var up2 = thisImage.parentNode.parentNode;
    var up3 = up2.parentNode;
    var up4 = up3.parentNode;
    up4.removeChild(up3);
    trollCount++;
    }
    }
    }

    pluralp = (trollCount === 1) ? "" : "s";
    // Remove the comment marker // next to the alert box if you want to have a pop-up box of how many troll posts
    // have been removed.
    //alert(trollCount + " troll post" + pluralp + " removed");

  360. JDG says:

    Ray, I usually just scroll right on by after some one establishes them self as a pointless instigator. No script necessary, but thank you for thinking of me. I usually like to read your posts, but when you start throwing unprovoked insults around your comments become less interesting (at least to me). And for the record, I have opted out of more than one debate because it deteriorated into tit for tat insults. What a waste of time.

  361. Ray Manta says:

    JDG wrote:
    No script necessary, but thank you for thinking of me.

    You’re welcome. I’m glad I’m still on your whitelist🙂.

    but when you start throwing unprovoked insults around your comments become less interesting (at least to me).

    Sorry, I thought at the time Josh was “concern-trolling” (claiming to hold one viewpoint while actually trying to undermine it), which I strongly dislike. On reconsidering, I believe now I was hasty in my judgement.

    And for the record, I have opted out of more than one debate because it deteriorated into tit for tat insults.

    While I’ve had many fruitful debates despite tit for tat insults, or maybe in some cases because of them. I don’t mind some rough-and-tumble, but would prefer to confine it to deserving targets.

  362. Josh the Aspie says:

    @JDG
    Thank you for that.

    @Ray Manta
    Thank you for being willing to reconsider that. Hopefully, we can have multiple productive and elucidating discussions/debates in the future.

  363. BradA says:

    Minesweeper,

    Fulfilling the lusts of the flesh = adultery, prostitution, greed, selfishness, desiring to posess your neighbours wife, lording it over others etc…

    You can of course expand that definition to include anything you want eventually, but with dreadful consequences.

    Please explain how masturbation and watching porn (animated or not) isn’t consistent with the things you note. You don’t have to stretch far to cover it, if any stretching is even required!

  364. Minesweeper says:

    Hi Brad

    Well its kinda simple because masturbation isn’t mentioned in the bible at all. And the quote about ‘lusting’ refers to coveting someone(from the orig. greek). Also you will note the phrases regarding sexual immorality tend to have the words “why would you join the body of christ with a prostitute?” beside them, as that its what its referring too.

    Onan was slewed by the Lord for having a quickie in his sister in law and not fulfilling his obligations for the deal.

    “Porn” just isn’t mentioned anywhere at all, the epistles of the NT was set in cultures of rampant prostitution as part of your religion. With pictures, statues of nudity everywhere. Head to Rome even nowadays and you will see a large amount of nudity from creations from that time or even before.

    The largest issue with adding to biblical instruction is that there is no finer way to cause division and condemnation, which leads too then rejection of what God is really telling you what to do. As people just stop doing what they are told and focus on man-made nonsense.

    See those who were forbidding foods to be eaten or circumcision, now we may laugh at that, but it would have been held too very dearly in error by many.

    Also look at the OT, the prohibitions regarding sexual contact in Leviticus 18. It wasn’t squeamish i.e. forbidding having sex with your grand-kids, mother,aunts, women with animals etc. If it was an issue I’m pretty sure it would have been mentioned.

    But in all these things, if its a problem for you, I wouldn’t want you to stumble, so you’d probably better not engage in any of the things that you think are bad.

    You often find that with those who hold fast to a set of rules, that one break and the whole house of cards falls down and they are on a bender often permanently.

  365. BradA says:

    Minesweeper,

    Well its kinda simple because masturbation isn’t mentioned in the bible at all. And the quote about ‘lusting’ refers to coveting someone(from the orig. greek). Also you will note the phrases regarding sexual immorality tend to have the words “why would you join the body of christ with a prostitute?” beside them, as that its what its referring too

    I didn’t say it was. The principle is though. You cannot masturbate without having lustful thoughts. I state that clearly even though the mechanical element would work, but I would challenge anyone impacted by it to claim no thoughts went along with the process.

    That is where you err. The principle is to think on the right and proper, taking appropriate actions. Thinking on the improper is not good.

    Though this is also why telling a man to wait until he is 30 to marry is idiotic. God provided a proper outlet for sexual urges and it isn’t masturbation.

    Do please address what I write rather than the straw man arguments you noted. No mention of Onan from me, for example.

    But in all these things, if its a problem for you, I wouldn’t want you to stumble, so you’d probably better not engage in any of the things that you think are bad.

    That is not my point. Either we should watch what we think on or we should not. Are you really arguing that masturbation does not come with lustful thoughts? Or are you arguing that such thoughts are just fine?

    You often find that with those who hold fast to a set of rules, that one break and the whole house of cards falls down and they are on a bender often permanently.

    Not necessarily. This idea would make us not set any rules. We have 1 John 1:9 for a reason. We will mess up and we have a way to get back in line. Some may permanently fall off the wagon, as it were, but that does not mean we should not advocate a wagon at all!

  366. Minesweeper says:

    Brad,
    Neither masturbation nor sexual thoughts are condemned, or are you only allowed to have those thoughts\actions about someone who you are legally married too ?

    I used to know someone who prayed while masturbating so he wouldn’t have ‘thoughts’ of that nature. If you are telling boys moving into puberty that they can’t exercise their reproductive ability, it’s madness I say, madness. I thought this line of thought died with the reformation ?

    You seem to be all tied up in this issue.The issue is not to have any rules what so ever, the issue is that when we create our own rules, we neglect God’s.

  367. Micha Elyi says:

    I don’t care what the RCC says. I only care what the Bible says.
    innocentbystanderboston

    The Real Christian Church (RCC)* wrote the New Testament,** chose the Scriptures of the Jewish people to include as the Old Testament, compiled the Bible, authorized the Bible, preserved the Bible, provided copies of the Bible, and translated the Bible with great care into the languages of the people.

    If you don’t care what the Real Christian Church says, you have no reason to care what the Bible says.

    * I supposed by “RCC” you meant the Real Christian Church as another name for the Catholic Church because, being universal, prefixing its name with the word “Roman” makes no sense in your context. And I assumed that you intended your remark to make sense.

    ** Its authors weren’t Luther, Calvin, nor Wycliffe. 🙂

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