The only real man in the ashram

If this is true, it would certainly top Driscoll.  From The Independent:  Spiritual leader allegedly manipulated 400 men into removing testicles to be ‘closer to God’ 

This entry was posted in The only real man in the room. Bookmark the permalink.

269 Responses to The only real man in the ashram

  1. Pingback: The only real man in the ashram | Manosphere.com

  2. lgrobins says:

    Christians do it symbolically, this one literally—its all the same; rejection of the masculine. I wonder if this has anything to do with the myth that women are closer to God and since women don’t have testicles, that must be the major roadblock between a relationship with God.

  3. MarcusD says:

    ====

    Lying is a pervasive phenomenon with important social and economic implications. However, despite substantial interest in the prevalence and determinants of lying, little is known about its biological foundations. Here we study a potential hormonal influence, focusing on the steroid hormone testosterone, which has been shown to play an important role in social behavior. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, 91 healthy men (24.32±2.73 years) received a transdermal administration of 50 mg of testosterone (n = 46) or a placebo (n = 45). Subsequently, subjects participated in a simple task, in which their payoff depended on the self-reported outcome of a die-roll. Subjects could increase their payoff by lying without fear of being caught. Our results show that testosterone administration substantially decreases lying in men. Self-serving lying occurred in both groups, however, reported payoffs were significantly lower in the testosterone group (p<0.01). Our results contribute to the recent debate on the effect of testosterone on prosocial behavior and its underlying channels.

    Wibral, Matthias, et al. “Testosterone administration reduces lying in men.” PloS one 7.10 (2012): e46774.

  4. jgarveyrose says:

    Huh, 400? That’s nothing. How many has the present day ‘Democratic party’ taken?

  5. earl says:

    Well this makes me glad that God actually wants to take our sins away in order to deepen a relationship with Him.

  6. A Visitor says:

    This is why modern new age religions, among many other reasons, must be avoided like the plague.

  7. Dave says:

    Our results show that testosterone administration substantially decreases lying in men.

    Does this explain why it is almost effortless for many women to lie without even blinking an eye, since they do not have testosterone to ay degree in their system? Or why masculinized women tend to be insufferable, because they reveal what really is going on in many female minds, though the more feminine women hide it so well?

    Note to self: the next time you want to extract the truth from someone, just inject them with the good old T.

  8. Lyn87 says:

    Just goes to show you that a lot of people are prepared to believe the most patent nonsense.

    I once had an entire classroom full of 8th Graders convinced that the oceans were filled with fresh water prior to WW2, but the German submarine fleet sank so many ships filled with SPAM on the Atlantic crossing that they’re now filled with salt water.

    So 400 guys volunteered for castration? That’s nothing. Nearly the entire “Scientific Community” pays lip service to the idea that the universe can be explained without a Creator – all evidence to the contrary… and they, of all people, ought to know better.
    _____________

    But more to the point: what kind of weird head-space would a guy have to be in to do that to himself? I had an uncle who chose to forgo castration for testicular cancer because he would rather die as a man than live as a eunuch. He got his wish – he died.

    If some fat weirdo in a flowery dress told me that I could get closer to God by having my testicles cut off, I would have to say, “I think I’m close enough right here.”

  9. The Brass Cat says:

    Singh – who has more than 87,000 Twitter followers but is not a follower of anyone – describes himself on a social media bio as a “spiritual Saint/philanthropist/versatile singer/allrounder sportsperson/film director/art director/music director/script writer/lyricist/autobiographer/DOP”.

    That’s some hardcore AMOGing.

    Figuratively deballing the competition wasn’t good enough.

  10. Josh says:

    It gives new meaning to “taking one for the team” or “there’s a sucker born every minute”. If Driscoll ever thought of this, he’d probably have the men hand over their testicles in a jar to their wife.

  11. Maunalani says:

    Obama and Congress?

  12. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I just want to know if the deballed dudes get T shots. I also thought circumcision was a cut below what one could expect but actually full blown castration? Jesus talked about ripping out your eye and cutting off your hand but even He never suggested the unthinkable. I guess if cults can make guys poison their families it makes sense you could get them to deball.

    @Lyn: “Nearly the entire “Scientific Community” pays lip service to the idea that the universe can be explained without a Creator – all evidence to the contrary… and they, of all people, ought to know better.”

    The molecular biologists and medical doctor researchers are much more likely to agree with us than all the behavioral and social science fools who dominate research in the academy. I once suggested to an M.D. researcher I was working with that I thought physicians find God because they have to deal with death but he told me I was wrong saying: “There is a huge number of believers among the non-physician medical researchers and among the molecular biologists.” Then he gave me his characteristic neurosurgeon smirk and continued. “We are just smarter than the atheists in the social sciences. Obviously.” Yes, obviously.

    Also, 8th graders? That would be a great mathematical proof to assign. Run those numbers. With they can figure it out in a few minutes. Say 1 gram of salt per package of Spam, how many grams of salt would you need to change the salinity of the oceans?

  13. infowarrior1 says:

    God created Man hence he also created masculinity. To say that masculinity is evil is to say that God created evil.

    Yet in an evil male body did God incarnate. And in a Masculine body did he do his ministry. Christ still kept his testicles throughout his human life and onwards.

  14. Dave says:

    So what will happen to all them 800 balls? And these 400 eunuchs of men?

  15. pdwalker says:

    And did he get to bonk all the leftover women afterwards?

  16. terrifictm says:

    What Christian man has not struggled with his testicles? Against his testicles?

    From the beginning of our Christian life, starting with the woefully misinterpreted Matthew 5:28, we are told – and feel within ourselves – that our lust is a major stumbling block to our relationship to God. We experience the POWER of our lust every single day of our lives. It DRIVES us. Consumes us. Casts a shroud over our mind, driving rational thought and sexual “purity” from us.

    We watch TV shows and movies like Law & Order SVU and see story after story about men destroying lives because of their sex drive. While our own fantasies, now fueled and twisted by porn thanks to the Internet, go places our fathers could never even conceive.

    We are never, ever taught what to do with this lust-energy. Why? Because no one, not one of the older men in our lives knows! How long have boys been growing into men? And yet there is no one to teach us how to manage our lust? Direct our masculine energy? Amazing!

    I realized more nearly fifteen years ago that with the advent of Internet porn the church of the 21st century was going to face the greatest challenge in its 2,000 year history. No man but a masochist will stay in the church if it means enduring a lifetime of condemnation over a sinfulness he cannot contain nor overcome, even if it is only in h s mind. In the past a man could hide it. It was between just him and God (read between the lines from some of the great reformers like Martin Luther!). But today, no man dares declare himself “victorious” over his lust. We simply have a tacit agreement not to speak of it. And if any man did make such a claim, only a naive fool would believe him!

    There are answers. They start with taking the Red Pill and reclaiming your masculine identity. Embracing the masculine energy of lust. Accepting it but also treating it like antimatter. A great source of power if harnessed and directed, yes. But also very dangerous and deserving of great respect.

    It will be interesting to see how the Church survives this test. How it will change the living out of the gospel.

  17. MarcusD says:

    Fiance angry cause i wont marry him
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949026

    A Woman Writes: How Having a Baby Demolished My Marriage.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=948987

    Lonely sexless marriage–how to cope
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=948892

  18. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    @Lyn: “Nearly the entire “Scientific Community” pays lip service to the idea that the universe can be explained without a Creator – all evidence to the contrary… and they, of all people, ought to know better.”

    I recently heard Bill Nye (The phoney science guy) on CBC radio, promoting his new book on evolution and talking about phoney global warming and making fun of Christianity with the male CBC host, who was quite guidy to have Nye (the arrogant science guy) on. I think the host peed on the chair he was sitting on as he seemed so excited.

  19. Dalrock, you should really read that last link of Marcus’. It is about a woman who has to initiate sex with her husband because of his low libido. It has the hallmarks of ‘he is sinning against you’ and if the tables were turned and the woman has the low libido, he would be called a potential rapist.

    Notice though, that the man doesn’t reject her, he just doesn’t initiate sex with her. He still does have sex when she actually asks for it, i.e. he actually isn’t sinning at all. She just wants him to put in all the effort.

  20. Ironically the Bible does talk about this directly in Deuteronomy 23:1. “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”

  21. Lyn87 says:

    Booch Paradise,

    Not that you were suggesting otherwise, but for the sake of clarity about that passage in Deuteronomy for those with less Biblical knowledgeable: it concerns being ceremonially unclean, not barred from salvation.

  22. Novaseeker says:

    Does this explain why it is almost effortless for many women to lie without even blinking an eye, since they do not have testosterone to ay degree in their system?

    I’d say it’s more likely that it was selected for, because women, as the weaker sex physically, needed certain other characteristics to compensate in a world that was more or less controlled by men. These included superior abilities to dissemble (to keep men to a certain extent bamboozled and project power in a way that doesn’t involve physical strength), and a more flexible conception of loyalty (to take into account survival when forcibly taken by a different tribe of men, etc.). It may be that the physical aspect of this was to select for lower T women, because they had these external characteristics which helped them survive more effectively as the physically weaker sex in human society.

  23. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    “It is about a woman who has to initiate sex with her husband because of his low libido…. Notice though, that the man doesn’t reject her, he just doesn’t initiate sex with her. He still does have sex when she actually asks for it…”

    That’s extremely interesting to me, as I’ve more or less adopted the same approach with my wife. Though in my case she used my need for sex as a weapon against me, and once my libido fell to manageable levels, I had a great deal of incentive to cut her off altogether. In deference to God, though, I “only” no longer initiate.

    My wife’s response has not been to become upset about loss of intimacy, but she keenly mourns her loss of power.

    I’ll have to say, the lack of burning has led to much greater freedom and dignity for myself. Too bad there wasn’t some kind of pill or something for my earlier years. Or that a real marriage wasn’t in the cards.

  24. LiveFearless says:

    Hey, do you remember Matt Walsh, the “male” that’s sold his soul to teach “Beta Game” to “men” and women?

    Another one has made a deal. Hope you’re on twitter. The funding is huge for this one:

  25. Krul says:

    1) He looks exactly like The Love Guru.

    2) If this sounds bad, imagine how many men get sex reassignment surgery ever year, and ask yourself whether Western mainstream cultural leaders are any better than Singh.

  26. earl says:

    ‘A great source of power if harnessed and directed, yes. But also very dangerous and deserving of great respect.’

    Yes…it’s the difference between using it for the construction of civilization and helping others, or using it for yourself to take in only pleasure and destroy others.

  27. earl says:

    ‘Deuteronomy 23:1. “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”

    Excellent example of using Scripture to foil the devil’s plots. If these men had it, they would have seen through the con job.

    It also should make you rethink vasectomies. An ultimate example of emasculation.

  28. Phillyastro says:

    Didn’t Matthew 19:12 discuss eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Does this contradict Deuteronomy 23:1? Is Origen a saint or a heretic?

  29. Joe says:

    Say what you will about this cult, that place sounds nuts.

  30. Lyn87 says:

    It also should make you rethink vasectomies. An ultimate example of emasculation. – earl

    As a guy who got a vasectomy more than 25 years ago, I can assure you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Definition of vasectomy.
    Definition of emasculation.

    Ultimate example? Those definitions do not even overlap.

  31. Lyn87 says:

    Plillyastro,

    See my post at 7:28. The passage in Deuteronomy concerns being ceremonially unclean, not barred from salvation.

  32. earl says:

    ‘Ultimate example?’

    Alright…an example.

  33. Phillyastro says:

    Lyn87,

    I never understood Deuteronomy 23:1. If you were an Old Testament Jew who was wounded in his “privy member” in battle, let’s say, would you not be allowed in the Temple? How could a eunuch ever have a place in Jewish society?

  34. Scott says:

    Dalrock ,
    Sorry to Hijack your post, but I have question/ plea for help/ topic suggestion. Is there an email address to contact you? It involves this link of interest http://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/husbands-love-your-wives-11574723.html

  35. Lyn87 says:

    earl,

    It’s not even an example – the two definitions do not overlap at all.

    Phillyastro,

    I’m not an expert in OT law, and I don’t “get” all the subtleties of ceremonially uncleanliness, but a wound in the flesh cannot damn the soul. An orthodox rabbi might be able to give you a better explanation… I would be out of my depth if I tried to answer – so I’ll leave it at that.

  36. Gunner Q says:

    lgrobins @ March 2, 2015 at 5:56 pm:
    “Christians do it symbolically, this one literally—its all the same; rejection of the masculine.”

    Christianity does not reject masculinity. The current situation makes it look that way but an honest reading of the Bible is sufficient to know it isn’t true.

    Phillyastro @ 9:10 am:
    “Didn’t Matthew 19:12 discuss eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Does this contradict Deuteronomy 23:1?”

    No because Christians are not bound by Mosaic Law. Ancient Israel was a strange society, one designed to be insular, long-lasting and extremely symbolic. It necessarily gave eunuchs low status. Outside ethnic Judaism, God went on record appreciating eunuchs for their devotion to Him, not having family obligations.

    The takeaway here is God never claimed the Mosaic Law to be humanity’s ideal situation. He created Israel to serve certain purposes; as a result, He approves of eunuchs/celibacy in general but not in the specific context of Israel.

  37. earl says:

    ‘It’s not even an example – the two definitions do not overlap at all.’

    There is some overlap…it’s a willful interruption of part your fertility. Perhaps not to the point of eunuchs…but I would say it’s like a half-eunuch.

  38. Ang Aamer says:

    Interesting social commentary, but many radio shows covering this have basically said.
    “Ya know this would make men closer to divine ideals”

    The obvious implication is that a man’s libido is the root of all his evil. I intellectually understand their point. BUT, I would have to say that any man who would openly say these statements has been completely coopted by the Feminine Imperative. I mean really a woman does not have man parts… are all females incapable of law breaking, sin or evil?

    It’s really just a signpost indicating how far our society has slid in the demonization of masculinity.

  39. Lyn87 says:

    You’re reaching earl,

    Eunuchs do not have testicles – that’s what makes them eunuchs. That’s what the guys in the OP did. Eunuchs do not produce sperm or, from what I understand, experience significant sexual desire. A vasectomy does not remove the testicles, or affect them at all. The ONLY thing a vasectomy does is interdict the passage of sperm on its passage from the testicles through the vas deferens – which is why it’s called a vasectomy.

    After a vasectomy:

    Testicles? Yes.
    Sperm production? Yes.
    Sexual desire? Unchanged.
    Testosterone production? Slight increase.

  40. Virtue says:

    Ay yai yai. That reminds me of the guru who died and started to decompose, but his followers wouldn’t admit that he was dead, and claimed that he was just in a really deep meditative trance.

  41. Terrific Tom says:

    Churchianity has always had trouble with the male sex drive. Let’s face it, most of society has. The one who doesn’t seem to have a problem with it is God. Look at one of the few men the Bible specifically says God liked: King David! “A man after my own heart.” No higher praise in the entire Bible.

    David was undoubtedly the most AMIB (Alpha Male In the Bible) and he was one HORNY dude! Yet God doesn’t seem to have a problem with that UNTIL he takes Bathsheba and kills her husband. In fact, God compares his 500 wives and concubines to a man owning a lot of sheep! A lot of sheep, that’s a good thing, right?

    The more I have read and learned about King David the less I like him. He is a total tool! And I certainly wouldn’t like to sit next to him in church (check his story out closely before you tell me I’m wrong. David was an asshat!). Nevertheless, GOD liked him.

    Why?

    The only reason I can see is because of his Alphatude. He embraced his masculinity, as most men had to in those days, and directed it towards God. He used it to fight God’s battles. He didn’t see his consequent horniness as something to hide from God or anyone else, but as a part of how God made him.

    And even as I say this it scares me to think what some misguided ass might do in the name of God and justify it by claiming he was just being “Alpha for God.”

    The fact is, fundamentalism is wrong to think you can interpret the Bible by mapping across the centuries. Not everything, every story in the Bible can correlate to today. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that, however you might apply it to today, God liked David’s masculinity. He approved of the boldness that came from testicles!

    And that scares both left and right. Feminist and manginas.

  42. Phillyastro says:

    Even in the post-Christian world, men have realized you can sublimate one’s sexual energies for constructive purposes (see Freud, Nietzsche, et. al.) You don’t have to “cut it off” completely by any means. You don’t have to be a believer to understand it is good to channel your desires into something productive instead of destructive, which really is the whole point of “avoiding fornication.”

  43. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Phillyastro

    God’s ethic is that sexual energy be directed at one’s own wife:

    Proverbs 5:18-20 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love. For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?

    1 Corinthians 7:2-5 … because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    The modern problem is that the feminized church has taught that wives should expect their husbands to constantly earn sex. Thereby husbands become functional eunuchs, often going months with out sex and living their lives to serve their queen. This modern marriage expression is an abomination!

  44. Reluctant Neo says:

    Lurker here.. not sure if I’m ready for the red pill. I see a lot of truth, and am fascinated by the ideas of game and fitness testing in marriage. Other things I’m less wild about, like the fact that virtually every marriage ministry I know of (including some that seem to do good things) get knocked here. You would probably call me a “Gilligan” from a previous thread. Still lurking though.

    As to eunuchs, there is a real progression biblically. In the OT law, they were excluded from the assembly– “cut off.” In Isaiah, there’s a prophecy about hope for eunuchs, about a time when eunuchs would no longer say “I am a dry tree.” And Jesus actually holds them up as people that can be used for God’s glory. I see it as a beautiful example of how Christ redeems even what has been corrupted.

    [D: Welcome.]

  45. MarcusD says:

    “If this sounds bad, imagine how many men get sex reassignment surgery ever year, and ask yourself whether Western mainstream cultural leaders are any better than Singh.”

    It should be noted that MtF is more common than FtM.

  46. Marissa says:

    A man’s fertility is a part of his essence. A man who can’t produce children lacks an essential part of his masculinity. It’s even worse for women who are made for carrying children and caring for them. God didn’t say “be fruitful and multiply” so that men could castrate themselves and the women poison their wombs.

  47. But today, no man dares declare himself “victorious” over his lust.

    Yes, that’s been a big change. When I was growing up 30 years ago, boys and men didn’t admit to masturbating. It was seen as weak, or as a sign that you couldn’t get a woman. We were often lying, of course, but at least we were lying in service of a higher standard. But sitcoms and other entertainment changed that, and now giving in to the urge is practically something to brag about.

  48. Spike says:

    Whatever these men have done to themselves, it won’t get them closer to God.
    For the Hindu, God is part of creation and not separate from it (Monism). It is a totally different concept from the Biblical God, who can only be approached through Jesus Christ.
    Hindu culture is prone to extremes in sexual behaviour. On the one hand, you have the Karma Sutra, a sex manual for courtesans of rich Moguls. On the other hand, you have the imposition of life long celibacy and, in ashrams devoted to Hindu wrestling – bans on masturbation. In these, the Master wakes up early and ensures each man isn’t ‘taking matters into his own hand’ with beatings and whippings.
    This is where you realise that the Christian view of sexuality is actually balanced and right. It’s just that its’ mixture with chivalry / feminism has perverted it.

  49. earl says:

    ‘ A vasectomy does not remove the testicles, or affect them at all.’

    Fair enough…but it does remove a man’s fertility so it’s basically shooting blanks. A man loses something when that happens.

  50. earl says:

    ‘But today, no man dares declare himself “victorious” over his lust.’

    Because it would be a lie. The only way to be ‘victorious’ over your lust is by the grace of God. No man can do it on his own.

  51. earl says:

    I recently read a book who is authored by a priest. He mentioned just because he’s a celibate priest doesn’t mean he still doesn’t struggle with sexual desire and thoughts.

  52. Chris Dagostino says:

    “I recently read a book who is authored by a priest. He mentioned just because he’s a celibate priest doesn’t mean he still doesn’t struggle with sexual desire and thoughts.”

    And he and countless others like him still took a vow of celibacy anyway, thinking that such a vow would perhaps make them asexual over time.

    I know I’m not alone in thinking that forced celibacy led to the child molestation cases in the Catholic Church that came to light a few years back. Even Bill Gothard found out the hard way that repressing certain desires only causes them to come out in bad ways.

    Tom is right. Christ’s words about lust and anger were meant to knock self-righteous Pharisees off their high horse.

  53. BradA says:

    Tom,

    You may want to read a few more times.

    David was a man after God’s Own Heart because he repented when he was confronted with sin. No man is sinless and David definitely had his share, but he aimed his heart the right way in regards to God. He had many people deeply committed to him and I would argue his godly focus was a big part of that.

    I don’t see 500 wives and concubines for him, can you provide a reference for that? His son Solomon did go off the deep end, but that was not David.

  54. Terrific Tom says:

    Cail Corishev: Remember the old saying, “Hypocriscy is the tribute that vice must pay to virtue”?

    Not anymore.

  55. MarcusD says:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-catholic-churchs-priest-shortage-crisis-a-self-inflicted-wound

    Men thrive in brotherhoods. Not peoplehoods, but specifically brotherhoods. See Tom Sawyer, Gilgamesh, the Germanic comitatus, the Japanese samurai, the monks of Saint Benedict, the fishermen of Newfoundland, the Plains Indians, the cristeros of Mexico, and, in a human sense, the apostles of our Lord Himself. So what have we done?

    We have obliterated the brotherhoods. We got rid of most of our high schools for boys. We got rid of every one of our colleges for young men. We dissolved the brotherhood of acolytes – the altar boys. We did this at the worst imaginable time, just when everybody else was doing the same thing, so that now in most places CYO Basketball is but a memory, Boys’ Clubs are Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, which means Safe Small Children’s Clubs, and the Boy Scouts have been sued clear to the precincts of Sodom.

  56. daimos7 says:

    @Cail Corishev

    I remember the change-over period. In high-school, it was something you’d never admit and if someone found out you did m-b, you’d be heavily shamed for it. Then a few years later, even friends of mine would openly speak of it and young men now discuss it like just another hobby.

    I think it was the (weirdly out of place) Seinfeld episode that broke the ice and then every show/movie followed suit. People really just don’t understand the power/influence of media.

  57. Novaseeker says:

    It’s also the rise of internet pornography. That was the real game changer when it came to masturbation and people’s views of it, because it made porn itself (which is, in its essence, a masturbation aid) ubiquitous. Porn existed before that, but it wasn’t accessible in a private way like it is with the internet. That changed everything, and we’re still coming to terms with the impact of that sea change on human sexual behavior, well beyond masturbation and attitudes towards it.

  58. Terrific Tom says:

    You are right. David only had seven recorded wives and an unspecified number of concubines.

    The reference to his heart does says he would fulfill all of Gid’s will ( which he didn’t). It was at the time God took the kingdom from Saul, which was long before he repented for murdering Uriah.

    My point was that David was not a nice man. He would not be welcome in our churches today. In many ways he was an alpha ssshole.

  59. Tom, thanks; I knew there was a saying about hypocrisy that fit, but I couldn’t think of it.

  60. Terrific Tom says:

    Excellent points. The brotherhoods are gone while the sisters still have their sisterhoods because what man would want to be a part of that? Women ruin everything.

    Now the only friend a man is allowed to have is his wife!

    A while back, before I knew better, I posted a craigslist ad in “Strictly Platonic” looking for a friend/hang out bro, listing my interests, etc. I’m sure most of you know what happened.

    100% of the responses were from homosexuals looking for a fuck buddy! Thank God I didn’t post a picture with it.

    I change the headline to read: What Part of ‘Strictly Platonic’ Don’t You understand?

    I got ZERO responses.

  61. Gunner Q says:

    “Lurker here.. not sure if I’m ready for the red pill.”

    Give it time, Neo. The mind has trouble letting go….

    And it’s possible the local marriage ministry in your area is a good one. Not 100% of Christendom is feminist gamma rabbits but it gets tiring to qualify every broad statement. Human behavior always has exceptions.

    Terrific Tom @ 12:21 pm:

    “The more I have read and learned about King David the less I like him.”

    Hey, I’m not alone! Just last November (“Christian Alternative to 50 Shades of Gray”) I spent some bandwidth making the case David was a bona fide sociopath. However, God loved David despite his murderous tendencies rather than because of them. It is evolution, not Christ that measures the worth of a man in wives and skulls.

    “The fact is, fundamentalism is wrong to think you can interpret the Bible by mapping across the centuries. Not everything, every story in the Bible can correlate to today.”

    Can you give an example? What part of the Bible used to be God’s will and no longer is? Which parable has changed its meaning or is no longer understandable?

  62. lgrobins says:

    “Christianity does not reject masculinity. The current situation makes it look that way but an honest reading of the Bible is sufficient to know it isn’t true.”

    Should have said Churchians instead to clarify the difference.

  63. Terrific Tom says:

    Let’s see. Would we allow a president who murdered a man to say he was sorry and the complete his term?

    How about an elder who sacrificed his daughter to the Lord because of a rash vow? Would you pay attention to a naked man wandering the streets crying judgment?

    I have a book in my library called, “Biblical Crimes.” It looks at things some of the patriarchs did that were criminal offenses even in their day. I don’t have it in front of me so I can’t cite references. But the fact of the matter is your average Christian today is a lot holier than some of the Bible heroes we were raised to look up to.

    David was alpha toward God. But his testosterone still caused him trouble, just like it does to us.

  64. JDG says:

    Let’s see. Would we allow a president who murdered a man to say he was sorry and the complete his term?

    Sad to say, but yes most of the the fine upstanding citizens of this country probably would.

  65. Lyn87 says:

    Marissa says:
    March 3, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    A man’s fertility is a part of his essence. A man who can’t produce children lacks an essential part of his masculinity. It’s even worse for women who are made for carrying children and caring for them. God didn’t say “be fruitful and multiply” so that men could castrate themselves and the women poison their wombs.

    ___________________________________

    Great… another woman coming here to tell me what my masculinity consists of… /sigh

    Whatsa’ matter, Marissa? Slow day at Sheila Gregoire’s’ blog, or is it HUS? You didn’t stray here from CAF, did you?

    Not that I have a parental bone in my body, anyway… but my wife could well have died if she had tried to carry a pregnancy to term. So tell me, Marissa-who-knows-more-about-masculinity-than-a-retired-Army-lieutenant-colonel, exactly what part of my masculinity did I lose when I got my vasectomy? Please be specific – I’m ready to take notes. (earl can answer as well.)

    You may also wish to note that the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” occurs exactly twice in the Bible. Both times are in Genesis. Once was in the Garden of Eden when the world’s population was TWO, and the other time was right after the flood when the world’s population was EIGHT. We are well over SEVEN BILLION now, and increasing by about 37,700 every day. I think humanity pretty much succeeded in accomplishing that command.

    And anyway, for the FOURTH time… vasectomy and castration are two entirely different things.

  66. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    I can’t believe you need to explain. I think they are just playing to mess with you. ha ha ha ha .

    Do you think BradA will dig this? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/03/men-will-someday-have-kids-without-women.html
    If I was Sgt Greyghost again I would have so much red pill fun with those boys.

  67. MarcusD says:

    Saw this on CAF:

    She was one of Las Vegas’ top prostitutes… until the cocaine, abortions, and abuse caught up with her: that’s when she met Jesus
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-founder-of-hookers-for-jesus-talks-with-lifesitenews-about-sex-abortion

    Here’s a fun guess you can make before clicking the link: did someone convince a guy to marry her?

  68. Highwasp says:

    Circumcision wasn’t enough, now the balls are preferred as sacrifice for the almighty – what’s next ? lop it all off and install a vagina and/or tits – that’ll get ’em into heaven fer sure.

  69. feeriker says:

    If Driscoll ever thought of this, he’d probably have the men hand over their testicles in a jar to their wife.

    The men of Mars Hill Church had testicles? Who knew?

  70. embracing reality says:

    Seems obvious to me that removing one’s testicles in an attempt to be closer to God has long been a trend among the churchian evangelicals. How else does one explain so many nut-less wonders in the pulpits?

    As for the severed appendages of these “men”, well, I think we all know who’s wearing them now..

  71. embracing reality says:

    (..)

  72. MarcusD says:

    I don’t know how to hold my boyfriend accountable
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949102

  73. BradA says:

    I remain skeptical that it will work Greyghost. I suspect some things will be a lot harder to make work in practice than in theory.

    Though it wouldn’t change my position if shops offering that were on every corner. Many bad things prosper, for a time.

  74. BradA says:

    Tom,

    You are judging David by modern standards. That is in error. God’s standard isn’t on a scale, but people still live in the time they live. I am sure I could pick many things bad about you or other more holy ones.

    The repentance was a heart thing in David that existed long before he needed it for murdering Uriah. His situation also points out that even the holy can fall. He refused to kill Saul, who was trying to murder him. Clearly the ease got to him before his fall with Bathsheba. You need to view the whole situation, not cherry pick a few parts to slam him. You also should remember that Jesus will reign on the Throne of David, whether you like him (David) or not.

  75. Terrific Tom says:

    BradA: You wrote;

    “You are judging David by modern standards. That is in error. God’s standard isn’t on a scale, but people still live in the time they live.”

    Which was entirely my point. David was, by modern standards, a tool. And worse than a tool. A murderer and an adulterer.

    “I am sure I could pick many things bad about you or other more holy ones.”

    And your point would be. . .what?

    “The repentance was a heart thing in David that existed long before he needed it for murdering Uriah.”

    You are begging the question. Are you saying David was a humble, repentant soul when he was stealing Uriah’s wife and plotting his murder? And interesting idea.

    “His situation also points out that even the holy can fall. He refused to kill Saul, who was trying to murder him.”

    A red herring. Saul was God’s anointed. David recognized his position (and wasn’t feeling horny or scared of being discovered as an adulterer) and feared to touch God’s anointed. His murder of Uriah demonstrated he did not value the loyalty and service of his general and instead saw him as a pawn, easily sacrificed. The depth of conniving depravity necessary to plot and carry out this murder is astounding.

    “Clearly the ease got to him before his fall with Bathsheba.”

    And you are defending him? Justifying his vile murder of s loyal officer?

    “You need to view the whole situation, not cherry pick a few parts to slam him.”

    Cherry pick? I don’t have to cherry pick. David’s life was a moral disgrace. One failure of character after another. I recommend Chuck Swindoll’s sermon series on King David. He does not give David the pass you do.

    You also should remember that Jesus will reign on the Throne of David, whether you like him (David) or not.

    Which is irrelevant to my criticism of David. Jesus is not David. Nor is his throne. His throne is his position, not his character.

    And you completely ignore what I clearly said, that GOD liked him.

  76. Marissa says:

    I’m a Catholic so I take my understanding of masculinity from the Church, not ignorant Protestant women (and men). The most masculine Christians throughout history have been Catholic, like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski (a little more impressive than U.S Army lieutenant colonel–unless you were infantry?)

    There is a reason all throughout history that infertile men and women have been mourned for or snickered at. It’s a sad state.

    If your wife would have died from pregnancy, the Church would have called you to be celibate. God didn’t make sex for your pleasure, he made it pleasurable so that humanity would procreate, work with Him in the creation of more souls to go to Heaven.

    Fertility is part of the essence of both sexes. I don’t need to be a woman to know that poisoning my womb destroys an essential part of my femininity and I don’t need to be a man to know that mutilating the loins destroys an essential part of masculinity.

    If you don’t like it, that’s fine but there’s no need for the overemotional bluster.

  77. Marissa says:

    Also, for whoever said that celibacy caused the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal, look at the demographics. More than 2/3 of the children abused were boys aged 12 or older. The problem was homosexual in nature and I blame the seminaries that to this day turn away normal, orthodox men for liberal faggots.

    It also doesn’t explain the widespread abuse and coverups in the public teaching sector, among men AND women who have made no vows and can indulge their sexual desires on a whim.

  78. Dave says:

    On another note:
    A man murdered his kids and then himself. As usual, the frivorcing wife never made the connection between blowing up the man’s family, taking away his kids, and turning him into a walking ATM machine could force him to take desperate measures with fatal consequences.

  79. A 12-year-old is still a child.

    And your posts reek of the kind of bitterness common to Spinsters. There are worse things than being single.

  80. Dave says:

    Also, for whoever said that celibacy caused the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal, look at the demographics. More than 2/3 of the children abused were boys aged 12 or older. The problem was homosexual in nature and I blame the seminaries that to this day turn away normal, orthodox men for liberal faggots.

    But remember that it is well known that heterosexual men in prisons tend to engage in homosexual sex because of what could be termed a “forced celibacy” during their imprisonment.
    Also, the priests who engage in sexual abuse of kids could not have been expected to sexually abuse adults. Kids are far easier to manipulate and control and they are much less believable than adults, even if they report the abuse.

  81. Lyn87 says:

    Marissa,

    That explains it – you choose to believe that pedophiles in crimson dresses can define masculinity better than professional soldiers. Fine. I’m not going to abuse the patience of our host by responding further to your ignorant and hateful swipes at true Christianity. I guess I could ask you what Martel or Sobieski said about vasectomies, but we both know they didn’t say anything, as the procedure had not been developed during their lifetimes, so your assumption that they would have had a problem with it is just that – the assumption of an ignorant and heretical woman. Don’t bother to answer the question that you dodged – you have demonstrated your ignorance and bias well enough already.

    In keeping with the internet-theme-of-the-week: what color is this dress?

  82. Lyn87 says:

    By the way, if your church is so good at defining masculinity (as you posted at 8:26 a.m.), why do your seminaries “turn away normal, orthodox men for liberal faggots” (as you posted a mere seven minutes later).

  83. Dave says:

    She was one of Las Vegas’ top prostitutes… until the cocaine, abortions, and abuse caught up with her: that’s when she met Jesus

    Somehow I knew it! A man must be responsible for making her make all the wrong decisions that she made. Yes—the culprit was her own dad who was “raging” at her when she was growing up. That was a vewy, vewy bad dad.

  84. Escoffier says:

    Marissa, our host really doesn’t like it when the Reformation and the 30 Years War are re-fought in the comment threads. His reasoning is sound but, even if it weren’t, this is still his sandbox.

  85. Scott says:

    D- Email sent.

  86. Lyn87 says:

    One more thing: Marissa-the-expert-on-what-dead-heretics-would-have-thought-about-vasectomies wrote:

    If your wife would have died from pregnancy, the Church would have called you to be celibate.

    Not only does that violate 1 Timothy 4:3 and 1 Corinthians 7:9, but I seem to recall a few married women in the Bible who were infertile for some, or even most, of their lives. Sarah (Genesis 16-21), for example… Rachel (Genesis 29), for another… Hannah (1 Samuel 1), for a third… and Elizabeth (Luke 1) for a New Testament example. Before God miraculously opened their wombs, they and their husbands had sex like other married couples – despite the fact that the women were known to be barren. I guess it’s a good thing the RCC didn’t exist until the 4th Century A.D., or else the line of patriarchs never would have existed, since Abraham would have been celibate and therefore Sarah would have never become pregnant with Isaac.

    Who’s the ignorant one now?

  87. Opus says:

    Got to say that I am with Marissa on this one.

  88. Lyn87 says:

    That’s okay, Opus… you drive on the wrong side of the road, too. 😉

    I know why earl and Marissa feel the way they do: they’re both Catholic. But you’re not, so I have to ask, why do come down on that side of this question? The men in the OP didn’t have vasectomies… they had their balls removed.

  89. Gunner Q says:

    Terrific Tom @ March 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm:
    “Let’s see. Would we allow a president who murdered a man to say he was sorry and the complete his term?

    How about an elder who sacrificed his daughter to the Lord because of a rash vow? Would you pay attention to a naked man…”

    Ah. Yes, my favorite rebuttal to people who claim the Bible was written only by the human Elites of the day is how unflattering the Bible is about the conduct of those Elites.

    Marissa @ 8:26 am:
    “There is a reason all throughout history that infertile men and women have been mourned for or snickered at.”

    Were you more ignorant like Protestant me, Marissa, you would know that eunuchs routinely held positions of high authority in human gov’t. When wealth and power were transferred by heredity, those who had no heirs could be trusted as the treasurers and secretaries of kings.

    Do you think the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts learned literacy and purchased a chariot by being a shunned charity case?

  90. DeNihilist says:

    Lyn. I think the conundrum here, is that Catholics are taught that sex is to be participated in only for procreation. That to use sex for personal pleasure or to further the depth of your love with your mate is sinful.

    This of course most Catholics know is just wrong. Look at the percentages of Catholics in the west that use birth control methods beyond the rhythm method.

    The sex for procreation only is not biblical, it is a manipulative function of control brought about by worried popes.

  91. Scott says:

    The sex for procreation only is not biblical, it is a manipulative function of control brought about by worried popes.

    I tend to agree with this assessment. It occurred to me there is an inherant contradiction to this foundational concept even when using methods like NFP. When my wife and I were still Catholic, we had a session with the NFP counselor and it hit me as she was going over the very complicated rules. She used the phrase “on this day, you would know that sex is available without pregnancy.”

    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the philosophical arguments against birth control? (As opposed to the bio-ethical ones).

    To be fair, there is a body of literature within the RCC that addresses this, but it didn’t really convince me.

  92. Boxer says:

    Scott & De Nihilist:

    I tend to agree with this assessment. It occurred to me there is an inherant contradiction to this foundational concept even when using methods like NFP.

    There’s no philosophical contradiction. Sexual intercourse serves multiple inherent purposes, among them *affection*, *recreation* and *procreation*. A consistent appreciation requires that one not be elevated above the others. That’s all Catholic doctrine seems to teach.

    Of course, if you have other information, please post sources. It’s an interesting topic.

    Boxer

  93. Scott says:

    A consistent appreciation requires that one not be elevated above the others.

    Right, but by this rubric, non-abortefficent birth control, when you don’t want to have babies because at that moment in your marriage you are focused on affection or recreaction would be OK.

  94. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer asks for sources, and Lyn87 delivers:

    Okay, I’m kidding. You’re correct, AFAIK, that nowhere in current official RCC doctrine is sex limited to procreation. What Scott and De Nihilist (and Monty Python… and me) are noting is that a great many Catholics speak as if they believe that (even the the vast majority of western Catholics do not practice that belief). If attempting to avoid pregnancy is wrong because it seeks to separate the act of sex from the possibility of life, then NFP (also known as “Vatican Roulette”) seems to violate the spirit of the general prohibition against artificial birth control, if not necessarily the letter.

    The rationale (and that’s all it is) for condoning NFP while condemning other methods of birth control is that pregnancy can occur if God wills it if no “unnatural” methods are used. I’m not sure why sticking a thermometer into one’s vag and tracking the results is considered “natural” but, hey, I’m just an ignorant Protestant.

  95. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    That is precisely what I meant. There is nothing natural about NFP. In fact, it is downright weird.

    On a related note, the couples who were brought into the marriage encounter class as exemplars of this method were full-on beta blue pill guys. Very smarmy, limp wristed guys, with their Tevas ans cargo shorts staring longingly at their wives and nodding while she went on about how it helps facilitate “communication” about sex.

  96. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    You really ought to take a look at Orthodoxy. I know you arent a big fan of apostolic succession, but if a died in the wool Church of Christ guy can take the plunge, surely you might give it a whirl.

  97. Opus says:

    @Lyn 87

    Well obviously I don’t agree with everything that Marissa said, in fact I agree with very little of it. To begin with every one knows that the most masculine man ever was Sir Walter Raleigh (or it may have been Sir Francis Drake) and they both hated Catholics. FWIW I neither like the idea of Vasectomies or Castrations though far too many men give the impression they have had either or both. Surgeons (even Dental Surgeons) are people best avoided.

    Remember: Britain welcomes careful drivers.

  98. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Right, but by this rubric [Boxer’s rubric of “A consistent appreciation requires that one not be elevated above the others.”], non-abortefficent birth control, when you don’t want to have babies because at that moment in your marriage you are focused on affection or recreaction would be OK.

    Is that true? I don’t see how it can be. Things that are together are equal, but there is no equality in separation. Separated things are–by their natures–different, and what things are different cannot be equal to each other. The only way to not elevate one aspect of sex over the others is to keep them all together all the time; to keep them one thing.

  99. Lyn87 says:

    Scott,

    Although I appreciate the venerative aspects of Orthodoxy, I can’t get behind the doctrine. One of the regular commenters at some other blogs like this – he calls himself Bulldog or something like that – switched to Orthodoxy a few months ago.

    It’s odd… we used to work in the same (very small) organization, and he got transferred to a different unit across the country. We knew each other well. He eventually came back to the same post and by that time I was going to the church that he had been going to when he left the first time. I wrote a piece about a sermon regarding sophroneo on a different blog and he saw it. We had never discussed anything related to the Red Pill with each other. Given the level of detail, he figured that whoever wrote that post must be someone in his church, and he narrowed it down to three of four guys he figured would be able to write like that, and by the process of elimination he figured out that it was me.

    I haven’t run into him since then, but I can’t help but wonder if the fact that Orthodoxy is touted so often in the Christian manosphere might have been contributory. Our pastor (my current – his former) is about as solid on patriarchy as anyone I’ve seen, though.

  100. earl says:

    ‘I think the conundrum here, is that Catholics are taught that sex is to be participated in only for procreation.’

    If you read the actual teachings you will see it is not only for procreation.

  101. Scott says:

    Is that true? I don’t see how it can be. Things that are together are equal, but there is no equality in separation. Separated things are–by their natures–different, and what things are different cannot be equal to each other. The only way to not elevate one aspect of sex over the others is to keep them all together all the time; to keep them one thing.

    This is an interesting point, but I think it is one reasonable people can disagree on (and we do). It utilizes an additive principle where others use an either/or. Basically, the argument is that sex must be this + this + this every simgle time. Whereas I (and Lyn87 et al) argue that it can be this and/or this and/or this as decided by the couple.

    But this already reaches a level of esoteric sophistication not available to the average person, who’s IQ is 100. This is a bummer as we Californians say, but it is what it is.

    But I would say you are actually arguing the same thing I am when you add the churches santioning of NFP or Rythm to it’s teaching on “openness to life.”

    It has to do with what Lyn87 identifies as the “spirit” of the teaching. It seems to me that if I take your position, and then do anything that is intended to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy, (and lets be honest, the couple is actively hoping one will not occur) I am violating this principle. If there one thing all Christians (Prot/Cath/Orth) can agree on it is that God can see right into the intentions of your heart. He is not fooled by a couple who uses these methods while saying “but we are open to life because we didn’t use birth control.”

    Therefore, the church would be more consistent with your position if they just came out and said “no NFP, No rythm, no nothing.” Your position seems to be arguing that all things being equal, the same chance of pregnancy should exist each time the couple comes together.

  102. DeNihilist says:

    Earl, yes officially. Wish my child molesting priest had knowledge of this, as his sexual relief was for pleasure only. He expounded to us young men of 13, that even a kiss was sinful outside of wedlock. That sex was to provide for children only.

    Great basketball coach though!

  103. Scott says:

    I would add this one thing to my previous comment. “This and/or this and/or this as decided by the couple. And for Orthodox, you can never go wrong consulting your priest on such a heavily weighted moral matter.”

  104. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    But this already reaches a level of esoteric sophistication not available to the average person, who’s IQ is 100. This is a bummer as we Californians say, but it is what it is.

    It is the the “either/or paradigm” of thought that sophisticates the simple idea that having sex is for union, and joy, and children. The “additive paradigm” just says go forth and do. 100 IQ people understand this.

    But I would say you are actually arguing the same thing I am when you add the churches santioning of NFP or Rythm to it’s teaching on “openness to life.”

    Yes, we agree that the intent of NFP matters, and that the RCC–even the writings of the Magisterium–is divided and confusing (talk about esoteric sophistication!) about the nature purposes of sex. I wrote some posts against NFP last year. If I wrote them tomorrow I might be a tad less provocative, but just a tad.

  105. Scott says:

    Cane-

    Exactly. All I care about is internal consistency, not neccessarily the teaching. Hell, I am 43 and Mychael is *cough cough** similar in age and we have # 4 on the way. And we aren’t even Catholic anymore!

    But if the intent of the couple is to have sex and not get pregnant, the method is morally irrelevant. They are not open to life.

  106. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    More pedantry…

    But if the intent of the couple is to have sex and not get pregnant, the method is morally irrelevant. They are not open to life.

    I would say it as “But if the couple intentionally acts to have sterile sex, the method is morally irrelevant. They are not open to life.”

  107. Scott says:

    That works for me. Because I would include NFP in that group. Because in general, they believe they are having sterile sex. One of the selling points for it is “it is scientifically proven to be more effective than then the pill!”

  108. Novaseeker says:

    I remember posing that exact question, Scott, to my priest in Pre-Cana in the mid 1990s: “But, father, if you are using NFP to avoid having children, even for a time, doesn’t that mean you have a contraceptive mentality towards that specific sex act? How is that morally licit?” The answer was an admixture of the church says its ok, on the one hand, and, on the other, you have to be open to life at some point (i.e., can’t have an entire marriage avoiding kids unless there is a truly dire reason). It’s not a great position, really. NFP is new, too — the traditional teaching was no contraception, natural (phase-based) or otherwise. So, yes, I agree with your view on this.

  109. Scott says:

    can’t have an entire marriage avoiding kids unless there is a truly dire reason

    This is the “this and/or this and/or this” position I mentioned upthread expressed with the added “truly dire reason” caveat.

  110. Novaseeker says:

    This is the “this and/or this and/or this” position I mentioned upthread expressed with the added “truly dire reason” caveat.

    Right.

    I can imagine an Orthodox bishop permitting some form of “ongoing use” of contraception in the case where a pregnancy would result in dire health issues for the wife as a form of ekonomia.

  111. Scott says:

    Yep. That’s why I love Orthodoxy!

  112. SirHamster says:

    Hey, I’m not alone! Just last November (“Christian Alternative to 50 Shades of Gray”) I spent some bandwidth making the case David was a bona fide sociopath. However, God loved David despite his murderous tendencies rather than because of them.

    Your examples of sociopathy included killing Goliath, enemy of Israel. Judging from your examples, your definition of “sociopath” was awfully broad and included righteous actions.

    Whereas the definition of “sociopath” is:
    “a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

  113. Mark says:

    @lyn87

    “”After a vasectomy:””

    Vasectomy: $400

    Not telling women about it: $0

    Staying single: $0

    Living alone: $0

    Freedom: PRICELESS

  114. Lyn87 says:

    Mark,

    I got mine in, I think, 1989. I commonly refer to it as, “The best $158 I ever spent.

  115. Chris Dagostino says:

    Only $158, Lyn? Did the use things you’d find in a tackle box?

  116. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 4, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    ‘Whereas the definition of “sociopath” is:
    “a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”’

    Yep. That totally describes David in Psalm 32

    1 Blessed is the one
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
    2 Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord does not count against them
    and in whose spirit is no deceit.
    3 When I kept silent,
    my bones wasted away
    through my groaning all day long.
    4 For day and night
    your hand was heavy on me;
    my strength was sapped
    as in the heat of summer.[b]
    5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
    and did not cover up my iniquity.
    I said, “I will confess
    my transgressions to the Lord.”
    And you forgave
    the guilt of my sin.

    No sign of a conscience there.

  117. Boxer says:

    Reminding you guys of the original question, asked by Scott.

    Doesn’t that fly in the face of the philosophical arguments against birth control?

    Novaseeker writes:

    “But, father, if you are using NFP to avoid having children, even for a time, doesn’t that mean you have a contraceptive mentality towards that specific sex act? How is that morally licit?” The answer was an admixture of the church says its ok, on the one hand, and, on the other, you have to be open to life at some point (i.e., can’t have an entire marriage avoiding kids unless there is a truly dire reason). It’s not a great position, really.

    It’s perfectly reasonable, philosophically. If we’re philosophers (as Scott is), then we have to deal with objective reality, rather than our feelz, or whether those fuck’n Catholics are idolaters (as my people say they are) or whatever else. These things are irrelevant to their views on sex.

    If sex is the set x, with elements {a,b,c}, then you’re allowed to declare a<b,c ; but, you're not allowed to take the subset {a} and call it set x.

    Removing procreation from the act through artificial contraptions is the equivalent to calling a subset the set, in other words. The Catholics have a perfectly logical understanding of the matter and they have a well-reasoned philosophical argument against hormonal birth control, with an allowance for NFP.

    Best,

    Boxer

  118. Looking Glass says:

    Wow, Set Theory. I think this thread has everything now.

    Except for the testicles of those 400 men. Those are long gone.

  119. Scott says:

    with an allowance for NFP.

    OK agreed. But even Cane (a well-read Catholic) points out this allowance is an equivocation of sorts that is somewhat incoherent from the Magesterium (the Magesterium is something the Orthodox do not have, by the way which is important to my final point here in just a second).

    The NFP allowance is not really morally different from the position Novaseeker and I laid out, which is arrived without dogma. It is reasoned through between the priest and the couple.

  120. Scott says:

    Man I wish we could all sit around a table and discuss this stuff. One day, after the bullets start flying I guess.

  121. Scott says:

    Also Boxer–I don’t generally attack Catholics. My wifes entire family Catholic. I was for a couple years and then we both landed in Orthodoxy as a couple.

    The Catholics are truly just separated brethren to me. We recognize each others holy orders, sacraments (for the most part) and that is a really big deal. It is a very special relationship.

  122. Lyn87 says:

    Chris Dagostino asks:

    Only $158, Lyn? Did the use things you’d find in a tackle box?

    Like I said: 1989. I won’t go into all the screw-ball things we had to deal with in the first few years of our marriage, but finding a doctor to do that simplified things for us a lot. The clinic was in a mall of the city where we lived, next to Target if I recall. One fine Friday I went to the mall, got the snip, wrote a check for $158, and walked out. One minor complication (a hair got into the incision and I had to pull it out by hand). A semen sample a couple of weeks later confirmed that I was shooting blanks, and that was that.

  123. SirHamster says:

    @Oscar
    No sign of a conscience there.

    Well, shucks.

  124. Novaseeker says:

    The NFP allowance is not really morally different from the position Novaseeker and I laid out, which is arrived without dogma. It is reasoned through between the priest and the couple.

    Yes.

    It’s not the argument against contraception that is incoherent, it’s the exception for NFP (not a traditional part of Catholic teaching on sex, anyway) that is odd. If NFP is as effective as it is claimed to be (and it’s claimed by proponents to be more effective than artificial birth control), then it seems that the same arguments against it would apply — that is, even though there is no physical/chemical/artificial block to conception, you are finagling the timing of sex specifically to avoid conception using a method that is claimed to be more effective than the artificial ones. I fail to see how this is “open to life” to a greater extent than artificial methods which, it is claimed, are less effective. I see the formal difference (i.e., no “artificial” block in a physical sense), but this isn’t very convincing to me as a morally relevant distinction — particularly since the behavior involved in doing NFP properly (yes, I have done it in the past) is something that can only be described as highly contrived and not particularly “natural” to begin with.

  125. Dave says:

    However, God loved David despite his murderous tendencies rather than because of them.

    You can’t make this case using the Scriptures. When David died at age 70, he had lived almost his entire life in the public eye. Throughout this time, there were only TWO instances where he committed serious sins.

    David committed adultery, no doubt, and, like everyone who sinned and was under the weight of their guilt, he tried to cover it up. This led to more sins and eventually a murder. However, he broke down and admitted his guilt once confronted by Nathan the prophet (2 Samuel 12 ).

    There were two other instances when he acted badly–once losing his temper, and would have killed Nabal because he felt he had been taken advantage of by the man.
    Note that David’s request to Nabal was more than a mere request. He and his men had kept vigil, protecting the man’s servants in the field for months. It was custommary in those days for him to request a form of payment for his labors from the man (1 Samuel 25:16, 21, 22). Again, we cannot use our current practices to judge the people of those days. Notice that Nabal’s servants, and his wife recognized that Nabal should have paid David for his labor. Abigail, the man’s wife at the time, did not want David to “avenge” himself at the hands of Nabal (v. 26). Although David did not kill Nabal, God struck him dead within 2 weeks (v. 38, 39).

    Then, another time, during his run away from king Saul, he ran to Gath in Philistine, and pretended to be mentally retarded, so that he could escape being killed by the king (1 Samuel 21: 12-14). It is even difficult to make the case that his behavior at the time would qualify him as a sociopath. He was trying to preserve his own life.

    Everything else he did was in line with the rules of the time. Yes, he fought wars. Yes he burned cities. Yes he wiped out villages. Those were all within acceptable behavior in those days. I don’t think anyone can use today’s standard to judge the peole of those days. You might as well claim that Abraham Lincoln’s doctor was guilty of medical malpractice because he treated the president under a much lower standard of care compared to today’s. That would be wrong.
    By any standard, David was the best king that Israel ever had, and God testified to that fact. He certainly was no sociopath, if we follow the dictionary definition of the term:
    Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

  126. DeNihilist says:

    Looking Glass – “Except for the testicles of those 400 men. Those are long gone.”

    Best line of the thread! Thanks for the out loud laugh!

  127. DeNihilist says:

    Lyn, mine probably cost more then that, but living under socialized medical, I was never made aware of the cost.

    My Doc did this vasectomies, and only this vasectomies. He was hell bent on helping to bring the population under control. I was one of his last patients, as when he worked on me, telling really bad jokes the whole way, he had inoperable cancer. From what I understand he worked up to a week before his death.

  128. An orthodox rabbi might be able to give you a better explanation

    Fascinating. I thought this was a Christian blog, but apparently many here think that Judaism – not Christianity – is the final word on Old Testament Hebrew law. Considering that the religion of Judaism – the religion of those orthodox rabbis – wasn’t even invented until about 200 years after Christ – and the fact the religion is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament – would seem to indicate that the opinions of orthodox rabbis are irrelevant to the meaning of Scripture.

    It’s amazing how “X-ian Zionism” has replaced Christianity in America in the last 100 years.

    While I hardly consider myself an “expert” I can tell you the logic – anyone handicapped, crippled, diseased, or similar was banned from the Temple. The New Testament, of course, shows Jesus healing the sick and explains that it is not what goes into a man, but what comes out of a man – his actions – that makes him clean or unclean.

  129. Lyn87 says:

    HR,

    Unlike many (too many), when I don’t know something, I don’t pretend that I do, or offer an opinion as fact. One of the reasons I sometimes come across as strident is because of that – if I haven’t thought something through I keep my fingers off my keyboard, or I express my thoughts with lots of caveats. The corollary is that when I do type something definitive, I am very confidence that I’m correct.

    Of course there are always the unknown unknowns (sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know), so on rare occasions I have to retract, but I do so willingly when I’m shown to be wrong. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. But the ins-and-outs of OT temple procedures are a known unknown to me (I know that I don’t know very much about them), so I punted to whom I figured would know more. I assumed an Orthodox rabbi would fit that bill, but I’m willing to be wrong about that. I don’t know many Christians who spend much time with that, but if you do, by all means inform Phillyastro of that source. I’d like to know too in case the question comes up again.

  130. a
    I assumed an Orthodox rabbi would fit that bill, but I’m willing to be wrong about that.

    a

    The problem is that the orthodox rabbis follow a religion that was invented years after the Temple was destroyed. Judaism was, in fact, invented precisely because they Temple was destroyed. The religion of Judaism was invented specifically to reject Jesus Christ – the “New Temple.”

    Judiasm is to Christianity was Mormonism is to Christianity, a cultic offshoot where they wrote a new Bible; in the case of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, in the case of Judaism, the Talmud.

    It’s just amazing to me to see how this 100 year old false religion of “Christian Zionism” ala the Christ-denying John Hagee has taken over the American religion and all but replaced Protestant Christianity. You can see it everywhere with this preoccupation with the false religion of Judaism.

    You can no more be a Christian and a Zionist than you can be a Christian and a Muslim – they are opposing beliefs. To accept Zionism is to reject Jesus Christ.

  131. Boxer says:

    Also Boxer–I don’t generally attack Catholics. My wifes entire family Catholic. I was for a couple years and then we both landed in Orthodoxy as a couple.

    It’s all good. I was just throwing that out there for the people who think “they’re weird” is a valid argument (not you). We all come from different traditions, and NFP is no weirder than all manner of stuff that other groups do.

    The NFP allowance is not really morally different from the position Novaseeker and I laid out, which is arrived without dogma. It is reasoned through between the priest and the couple.

    I guess from a philosophical perspective (which was what brought me into the argument) we’d have to find some inconsistency in the doctrine, which (unless there are sources I don’t know about) doesn’t seem to exist.

    The Catholic view of sex, with its various functions, is perfectly rational. The license of sex by scripture then refers to sex, and not to sex-like acts (which, strictly speaking, include acts the rest of us would consider to be sex with birth control added).

    Best,

    Boxer

  132. Scott says:

    I would argue again that the inconsistency lies in how to interpret “openness to life” as an aspirational ideal.

    If it means what it plainly sounds like, then any sex where the couple does not intend to get pregnant (and is proverbially crossing their fingers behind their back hoping to not get pregnant) they are violating the spirit of this principle. At least for that particular “sex-like” act. It is “sex like” because it purposely removes procreation (or has the intention to) from the act.

    My position (and Novaseekers) is why not just call it “family planning” and take away the intellectually dishonest “natural” part out. That word is placed there to make it seem like “not” birth control.

  133. Gunner Q says:

    @Sir Hamster, Oscar & Dave,

    I don’t have anything to say that would not rehash an old thread. If you would rather believe David was an honorable man who made a couple mistakes instead of a man so drenched in bloodshed that God began to shun him, go ahead.

  134. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    But even Cane (a well-read Catholic) points out this allowance is an equivocation of sorts that is somewhat incoherent from the Magesterium

    For the record: I am not a Roman Catholic, but an Anglican (an Episcopal who is still in communion with the Church of England, but not with The Episcopal Church of the United States) who was raised Southern Baptist. At heart I still am Southern Baptist, but Anglicans have accepted me, and tolerate my Bible-thumping.

    I have never been a Roman Catholic, but I have investigated them seriously with an eye towards conversion. The research was worth it for its own sake, but unless there is a fundamental change (a reformation, anyone?) in the RCC, conversion is not in my future. I say all this because many people seem to think I am Roman Catholic, and I don’t want that held against them. Ha.

    @Hipster Racist

    Fascinating. I thought this was a Christian blog, but apparently many here think that Judaism – not Christianity – is the final word on Old Testament Hebrew law. Considering that the religion of Judaism – the religion of those orthodox rabbis – wasn’t even invented until about 200 years after Christ – and the fact the religion is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament – would seem to indicate that the opinions of orthodox rabbis are irrelevant to the meaning of Scripture.

    Excellent observation and reminder.

  135. Scott says:

    Cane, I stand corrected. But you know more about Catholicism than most of the deacons who taught my RCIA class.

  136. Lyn87 says:

    HR,

    You’re poking at what you term “Christian Zionism,” but you’re not offering Phillyastro anything useful. He wants an explanation about a certain OT temple concept.

    You seem to have strong opinions about this. Fair enough. This is a simple question seeking a simple answer: since Phillyastro wants to know more, who – specifically – should he ask? NOT, “Who should he not ask? or, “This is the wrong person to ask because…”

    What is your simple answer to this simple question: where should he go for the information he seeks? (I’d like to know as well so I can evaluate it myself.)

  137. SirHamster says:

    I don’t have anything to say that would not rehash an old thread. If you would rather believe David was an honorable man who made a couple mistakes instead of a man so drenched in bloodshed that God began to shun him, go ahead.

    You never explained what you mean by “sociopath”, and I still don’t know what you mean when you use the word.

    I already know it doesn’t match the dictionary definition – but I’d rather you lay out the case for your personal definition than to play a guessing game.

    The uncharitable interpretation of this situation is that you’re willing to twist the meaning of words to falsely slander David’s character. If I’m missing something, help me out here.

  138. who – specifically – should he ask?

    The Christian Church, which would point to what is written in the Pentateuch.

    Asking a Jewish rabbi makes about as much sense as asking a Muslim imam.

    “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?”

  139. Lyn87 says:

    Q) Who – specifically – should he ask?

    A) The Christian Church.

    So… you don’t have a specific answer. You could have just said so.

  140. So… you don’t have a specific answer. You could have just said so.

    I thought that answer was pretty specific. There was a question about the Old Testament, it was suggested the answer was to be found by asking Jewish rabbis. I countered this suggestion, saying one should stick to Christians.

    A Catholic priest, a Protestant preacher, or a Christian Bible scholar. Not a Jewish rabbi or a Muslim imam. I’m not being pedantic or anything, I’m simply making the point that if you want an authoritative religious answer about the Bible, the authoritative answer is to be found in Christianity, not another religion.

    I bring up “Xian Zionism” because they are the ones looking to the non-Christian religion of Judaism, as they are not actually Christians.

  141. Oscar says:

    @Gunner Q says:
    March 4, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    “If you would rather believe David was an honorable man who made a couple mistakes…”

    David did not “make a couple mistakes”. He committed serious sins. He stands as an awesome (in the classic sense of the word) example of God’s love, mercy, grace and faithfulness towards his people, despite their sin and unfaithfulness.

    “…instead of a man so drenched in bloodshed…”

    David was most definitely drenched in bloodshed, as are most combat soldiers after a lifetime at war. That doesn’t make him a sociopath, anymore than it makes me a sociopath.

    “…that God began to shun him…”

    God never shunned David. He punished David, and punishment is the opposite of shunning.

    Proverbs 3:11 My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline,
    and do not resent his rebuke,
    12 because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
    as a father the son he delights in.

    Hebrews 12:8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.

    God did shun some of David’s descendants, but did not remove the throne from them FOR DAVID’S SAKE.

    1 Kings 11:9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep theLORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, FOR THE SAKE OF DAVID your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe FOR THE SAKE OF DAVID MY SERVANT and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

  142. DeNihilist says:

    and now for something completely different – http://dangerousminds.net/comments/bank_of_canada_urges_star_trek_fans_to_stop_spocking_their_fivers

    Live long and prosper

  143. Lyn87 says:

    Phillyastro was looking for someone who would be an expert on OT temple rites… someone who studied the history and understands the why’s and wherefore’s. You didn’t like my answer so I asked you to provide a better – and specific – answer instead. Where can he find that expertise? You gave him a hand-wave answer to search among a group of people that includes, by some estimates, over a billion people.

    But… never mind. I visited your website and I see now that you’re a garden-variety Jew-hater and tin-foil-hat wearer. Now I understand why you think a Muslim Imam would know as much about Jewish temple rites as a Jewish expert on Jewish Temple rites.

    But since you referred to the Pentateuch, here’s something else from the Pentateuch: Genesis 12:3, where God was speaking to Abraham and telling him how He would deal with those who had dealings with the chosen people who would spring from his loins:

    “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

  144. Phillyastro was looking for someone who would be an expert on OT temple rites… someone who studied the history and understands the why’s and wherefore’s. You didn’t like my answer so I asked you to provide a better – and specific – answer instead. Where can he find that expertise? You gave him a hand-wave answer to search among a group of people that includes, by some estimates, over a billion people.

    Yes, and as I explained, a Jewish rabbi would not be an expert on the OT in a religious sense, any more than a Muslim imam, or a secular Bible scholar. Your suggestion was that a Jewish rabbi would have some sort of unique and authoritative insight on the Bible. I mentioned that Judaism isn’t even based on the Bible, but the Mishna and Talmud, books that were written long after Jesus Christ. Judaism is a religion that was formed after the Temple was destroyed.

    But… never mind. I visited your website and I see now that you’re a garden-variety Jew-hater and tin-foil-hat wearer. Now I understand why you think a Muslim Imam would know as much about Jewish temple rites as a Jewish expert on Jewish Temple rites.

    Oh my! A Muslim imam can read the Old Testament just as easily as a Jewish rabbi. So can a secular person for that matter. Now I see it wasn’t a mistake on your part. Then again, I’m not arguing my personal opinions, I’m merely reiterating what the Christian Church has taught about the Bible for 2,000 years.

    But since you referred to the Pentateuch, here’s something else from the Pentateuch: Genesis 12:3, where God was speaking to Abraham and telling him how He would deal with those who had dealings with the chosen people who would spring from his loins:

    Yes, as I mentioned, it’s amazing that the Christian Church has taught one thing for 2,000 years, then 100 years ago a new religion – that of “Xian-Zionism” – was invented. They claim that the Christian Church, all the Church Fathers, and Jesus Christ himself were all wrong, and Jewish rabbis were right.

    It’s interesting too that the go-to-text for Xian Zionists – the Scofield Reference Bible – is set up in the same way as the Talmud and Mishna – it’s a reinterpretation of the Bible, “interpreting” it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

    The answers that Phillyastro seeks are to be found in Christianity, not Judaism.

    By the way, Genesis 12:3 is about Christians, not Jews. That’s what the Christian Church, and the New Testament, teachers.

  145. Opus says:

    I amongst others had always assumed that Cane Caldo was a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and thus I am both surprised and confused that in fact he is in fact an Anglican (I know a lot of those and one of them taught me all about the baby Jesus; my mother – though I always thought even aged four that it was all very odd and unlike anything else I knew) and I am confused not because he says he was raised Southern Baptist but because he says that he is in communion with the Church of England not with the Episcopal Church in America. How, I wonder, does that work? – given there is a rather large pond between The Deep South and The British Isles – and how does he feel (if I may ask) about women Bishops let alone female vicars?

    It disgusts me, and talking of disgust I was just looking up on-line a church in or about Washington D.C. where I was an invitee at a Mennonite wedding – the 6’3″ tall groom coming from Texas and having that deep drawl seemingly typical of the state – and I notice that a few years back they hired a lesbian preacher. How that can be squared with the Gospels I cannot even guess? My view is that lesbianism (which seems to be on the increase and is thus not in my view anything other than a misandrist life-style choice) is merely the para-military arm (in both senses) of the radical feminist party. Did I say they disgust me? oh good – because they display lack of control, lack of submission and of course are really secretly desperate for a man to 50-Shades-of-Grey them and I say that as I once knew an american Lesbian who would have been outraged had I said what I thought and yet a few years after I last saw her I received a letter reading ‘Brad and our two wonderful children’ – not a lezzie at all, having ditched her girlfriend, just an over tall skinny girl initially having been passed over by men until Brad saw what other had missed and made his pitch.

  146. MarcusD says:

    And, related:

  147. MarcusD says:

    This proliferation of in-your-face sexual identities [among students] is all posturing, just part of the dance between students desperate to find one last means of being transgressive and college bureaucrats eager to show their sensitivity and to justify their six-figure salaries. Students who should be studying European history and the roots of the novel — would that such subjects were still taught — are instead combing the farthest reaches of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Manual for ways to distinguish themselves. By posing what they hope will be rejected demands on their administrations, they seek only to prove that they are living a life of oppression.

    http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2015/03/elsewhere-152.html

  148. HawkandRock says:

    I haven’t looked at hipster’s website so I can’t claim to know who or what he hates or what kind of headgear he prefers.

    I do note, however, that from what I can discern, not a single thing he has written here is untrue. As always, I welcome reasoned, respectful correction. Hysterical ad hominem and other emotional bluster will be politely ignored (with amusement). Outright lies, however, will exposed.

  149. Novaseeker says:

    My position (and Novaseekers) is why not just call it “family planning” and take away the intellectually dishonest “natural” part out. That word is placed there to make it seem like “not” birth control.

    I think that the hat is hung on the formal distinction — i.e., in the case of ABC, there is some “extra” block (physical/chemical) which is introduced, whereas with NFP, it is simply following the natural rhythms of the female fertility cycle. I get the distinction, but from my perspective when the “attitude” or “intention” in both cases is 100% “contraceptive” (i.e., pregnancy avoidant), I just don’t see the formal difference amounting to a meaningful moral distinction, It seems an empty distinction to me if in both cases the intention is the same contraceptive one, because it is that attitude and intention which betrays a lack of “openness to life” (unless one really does think that NFP, when properly used, is simply less effective … the cynic in me thinks that this is part of what’s going on with NFP advocacy, but it seems more charitable to take the arguments on their face).

  150. Novaseeker says:

    of course are really secretly desperate for a man to 50-Shades-of-Grey them and I say that as I once knew an american Lesbian who would have been outraged had I said what I thought and yet a few years after I last saw her I received a letter reading ‘Brad and our two wonderful children’ – not a lezzie at all, having ditched her girlfriend, just an over tall skinny girl initially having been passed over by men until Brad saw what other had missed and made his pitch.

    Women are more fluid, sexually, than men are. I mean, when men are frustrated/annoyed with women (see parts of the manosphere, for example), they don’t opt to have sex with other men. Not really even an option for almost all men, so women are different in this way. Most of the behaviors, however, are not indicative of a true “lesbian orientation”, but are rather situational and based on the fluidity women have — the percentage of women who are lesbian or bisexual in orientation is smaller than the percentage of men who are gay or bisexual, but because of the fluidity that women have, many more of them have lesbian experiences over the course of a lifetime than men have gay experiences, because men are less fluid and more fixed orientationally. I suppose this could be described as a type of bisexuality, but it seems different in that it seems to “come and go”, in many women, over different life phases, rather than be a persistent attraction to people of both sexes. When SATC’s Cynthia Nixon described her own situation this way, she was shouted down by Gay, Inc. because it didn’t match the script of “born that way”, which has been critical for their political case (by trying to make orientation akin to race or sex, and innate), but I think as gay marriage becomes normed, we are going to see more women come forward like Cynthia Nixon and say that they were not born that way, and were not attracted to women before they met X and so on. Lo and behold, male and female sexualities are, yet again, different, and trying to force the same paradigm onto their respective homosexual behaviors seems inapposite.

  151. Isa says:

    @Novaseeker
    The openness to life is a touch more subtle than that. The contraceptive mentality regardless of the means is sinful. However, we are called to use the reason that G-d gifted us with to protect the health and wellbeing of the family through spacing, avoiding, or doing nothing depending on the situation.

    So to simplify, Mary and Jim want to be childfree so they can travel to Africa… wrong. Susan has uterine cancer and is undergoing serious radiation so she and William decide to postpone having/having more children. No logical person would say that was an incorrect choice. The rub is that many situations aren’t clear cut. Is paying off debt sufficient? What about being tired from having 4 little ones under 5?

    The overall benefit to NFP, as contrasted to other things, is that each month (roughly) the should we have more children conversation will come up, and recalibration due to changes in circumstance is much easier. Perhaps in the end it’s as simple as the attitude of the couple that desperately desires more children but must postpone vs the “I’ll be on the pill for 3 years after the wedding so we can ‘get to know each other’.”

    Also from a scientific perspective, the various forms of NFP (and there are of course quite a few) are far better for women’s health, because at least you can see if there’s something wrong and target more easily what it might be. There’s basically a giant coverup of all sorts of medical conditions from acne to PCOS, and doctors are generally uninterested in determining root causes because taking a little pill each day is so much easier to prescribe than to do in depth research to properly treat issues rather than mask them. I do have to admit to being highly biased against the medication, as it causes me to become suicidally depressed and the rest of the women in my family as well (with a smattering of less severe things such as anemia and non-existent libido.) The whole thing just pisses me off.

  152. Luke says:

    Isa says:
    March 5, 2015 at 6:21 am

    @Novaseeker
    “The openness to life is. a touch more subtle than that. The contraceptive mentality regardless of the means is sinful. However, we are called to use the reason that G-d gifted us with to protect the health and wellbeing of the family through spacing, avoiding, or doing nothing depending on the situation.”

    Except that contraception, like resorting purely to oral sex, is arguably just another “avoiding”, if done between married couples. Likewise, it reduces the temptation for infidelity (to say nothing of porn/masturbation), so has much to be said in its favor for couples judging that they need to be “avoiding” conception currently.

  153. earl says:

    ‘He expounded to us young men of 13, that even a kiss was sinful outside of wedlock. That sex was to provide for children only.’

    And when I was 13 my father told me to not have sex unless I’m ready to have a kid. 13 year old boys need more straight talk at that age when hormones are all over the place.

  154. Opus says:

    @Novaseeker

    I am with Father Scalia (Antonin’s son) though perhaps with slightly differing reasoning that there is no such thing as a Homosexual; homosexual acts certainly but I am afraid I am utterly unpersuaded by the ‘born that way’ assertion or as justification (as it fit justifies anything) that the Gay Lobby use to bulldozer their way through the legislature.

    I tend to see the friends of Sappho as merely conducting the ultimate in fitness testing.

  155. Scott says:

    Isa-

    All of that may be true (and I have no reason to doubt it). But the problem is all the caveats and exceptions about when NFP is OK and when it is not are the second part of the problem.

    The point you are making is that, all things being equal, as long as you are not using NFP for this, this, this, or this. AND you are using it for this, this, or this. AND your intentions are pure then you may proceed and not be sinning. What is the definition of “open to life?” 2 Kids? 7 kids? How will I prove it to God? It becomes an unworkable rule.

    Which is why I come back to it being something to discuss with your confessor and your spouse. Too many loopholes makes it not useful for the common parishoner.

  156. Lyn87 says:

    HawkandRock,

    Visit HipsterRacist’s website since you seem to like him so well. See for yourself. He has written several things that are wrong in this thread, and he still has not answered the simple question that I asked of him. I’ll rephrase it… again… to make it even more simple and precise: what specific source would be most likely to have the historical information needed to explain the reasoning behind the provisions in ancient Jewish Temple ceremonial rites that pertain to men who have had injuries to their genitals?

    Since he declared that my answer was wrong, I have repeated asked him who might be able to provide a better one, and every single time his response was “NOT JEWS!” Hipster Racist is a garden-variety Jew-hater, political liberal, and conspiracy theorist (when it comes to Teh Jooz, anyway), so he can only do one thing: attack anyone who suggests that a Jew might know something useful, without being able to answer the question himself.

    I’m not surprised that he re-wrote Genesis 12:3 to suit his ideology – I anticipated that he would, since that “interpretation” is common among Jew-haters like him. But it says what it says and it means what it means, and it was an unconditional promise by God to Abraham regarding his bloodline… as HR will eventually acknowledge, in this life or the next.

    But I won’t take racists very seriously, nor will I take their defenders very seriously, as neither deserves it. You ought to join me rather than make pissy little comments about your “amusement” and your so-called stand for “truth.”
    ______________________________________________

    It’s bad enough that Luke sprinkles his racism around here on a regular basis… do we really need two more people doing the same thing?

  157. Luke says:

    So, Lyn87, you deny that in terms of central tendencies, there are substantial different average capacities, behaviors, and outcomes between different racial groups? That’s either rather dishonest or very badly-informed.

  158. Lyn87 says:

    Luke says:
    March 5, 2015 at 8:39 am

    So, Lyn87, you deny…

    No, I do not, and I never have. Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein (oh, horrors! A JOO) wrote what everyone knew to be true, and were vilified for it. But saying that certain identifiable demographic groups have somewhat different I.Q. bell curves (which is true), is not the same as saying that one group has a monopoly on brains and everyone else is an idiot, which is the de facto position that some people take, including – occasionally – you.

  159. Scott says:

    Luke and Lyn87

    Sigh. I like much of whay Lyn87 writes, because it well thought out, linear and logical. I don’t always agree with the outcome, but the basic rationale is easy to follow.

    However, as a psychologist, I am trained in intellegence and personality testing. I can administer, score and interpret just about every mainstream test of cognitive abilities, state/trait variables and even projective hypothesis based stuff out there. The literature is pretty clear. There are mean differences on those variables between age, sex, race (which is a real thing) and just about any other dimension if people care to tease apart the normative samples.

    It flies in the face of socilogical dogma though, so we just use the norms/tables when scoring and don’t talk about them much.

    And yes, there are a lot of jew-hating going on in the HBD community. That doesn’t make them wrong about everything else.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    Scott, we’re pretty close on this,then.

    Scott: Sigh. I like much of what Lyn87 writes, because it well thought out, linear and logical. I don’t always agree with the outcome, but the basic rationale is easy to follow.

    Me: Thanks: I try to be precise.

    Scott: The literature is pretty clear. There are mean differences on those variables between age, sex, race (which is a real thing) and just about any other dimension if people care to tease apart the normative samples.

    Me: I don’t think anyone disputes that.

    Scott: It flies in the face of socilogical dogma though, so we just use the norms/tables when scoring and don’t talk about them much.

    Me: Ignoring inconvenient facts is stupid, but making bold statements about random individuals because of those different group tendencies is unjustified.

    Scott: And yes, there are a lot of jew-hating going on in the HBD community. That doesn’t make them wrong about everything else.

    Me: Agreed, but it makes them wrong about that.

  161. HawkandRock says:

    Lyn,

    Who is sprinkling racism? I’m frankly embarrassed for you (and yes, amused) that you can make no better account for yourself here than to hysterically stamp your wittle feet and shriek “Jew hater”. Nobody with a brain is buying that crap anymore.

    One either believes in the new covenant or one does not. If you purport to, your contention regarding Genesis is a lie.

  162. Scott says:

    Ignoring inconvenient facts is stupid, but making bold statements about random individuals because of those different group tendencies is unjustified.

    I know, but here is the thing. I am aware that you are more libertarian than me. I have a soft spot for it, because I was basically a right leaning liberatarian for about 25 years. I also have the perspective of being only one generation away from totalitarianism. My father escaped from communisom (jailed 3 times for dissent before he left). I have heard the stories of people disappearing for saying the wrong things in public. I was lucky enough to be born in California.

    My dad LOVED freedom. I don’t think I can use that word strongly enough here. I USED to believe, like Reagan did that every man on Earth loved it just as much. That all you need to do is drop a copy of the constitution in the middle of a place like Afghanistan and Jeffersoniam Republicanism will ensue.

    Simple observation tells me otherwise. My father had nothing in common with the typical, modal Afghan. He was, to be frank, European. He lost his first three jobs here because he could not speak English. His solution? Immerse himself in English. Not demand that all publications be printed in Serbian.

    The post WWII countries where liberty caught on via the Marshall plan, were either European, or in the case of Japan, similar enough culturally for it to work. There must be cultural homogeneity in order for freedom to work. I find most libertarians consider this position to be masked racism. And I am tired of making simple observations and being labelled racist.

    Do you support the active celebrating of the majority culture (which is Christian/European/English speaking) over all other sub-cultures in America? This is not a question about gas chambers, sending people “back where they came from” or any of that. I am not taking about taking any groups freedoms to celebrate their culture at home, in their communities away from them. It is simple question of encouraging assimilation.

    In other words, what obligations does the majority culture have to the minority cultures/races/ethnicities that reside within its boundaries? And conversely, whay obligations to those sub-groups have to the society at large?

  163. Lyn87 says:

    H&R, read what HR wrote, and go his website. Do you need me to explain how to do that? Just click on his name (it’s a hyperlink) from one of his posts. Everything I wrote about him is true. He does not even attempt to conceal his disdain for Jews. He flaunts it. He’s seems proud of it. He’s not ashamed of his racism, why are you denying it?

  164. Dave says:

    I don’t have anything to say that would not rehash an old thread. If you would rather believe David was an honorable man who made a couple mistakes instead of a man so drenched in bloodshed that God began to shun him, go ahead.

    Where your views are different than those of God regarding anything and anyone, we have to follow God’s, because, in the long run, your views are inconsequential. We must “let God be true, and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

    When God’s word states something, it does not ask for our opinions or what we feel about it. We only have two choices: we either believe it, or we reject it. There are no middle grounds. If you choose to call David a sociopath when God who knew far more than you called him His beloved son, we already know whose views are wrong.

    And no surprise. There are folks on this site who claim that both Jesus and God His father are both racists, though they personally throw a fit when they are accused of being racists themselves.

    God specifically singled out David as a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22). He was so impressed with David’s devotion and love for Him that He decided to establish David’s kingly throne forever.

    Here’s God in Psalm 89:
    20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
    21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
    22The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
    23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
    24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
    25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
    26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
    27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
    28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
    29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

    If David was a sociopath, what would you say about Moses? After all, Moses killed many, many Egyptian soldiers in the Red Sea when he prayed to get them drowned. He was also instrumental in the deaths of a lot of Jews as they migrated from Egypt to Canaan. All those who were 20 years and older perished in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses—and this was deliberate. The number was more than 600,000 (Numbers 1:45-46; 14:29).

    And how about Elijah? This “murderous” man literally slaughtered 850 prophets who did not physically harm anyone (1 Kings 18:19,40). All they did was exercise their rights to worship who they wanted. O yes, Elijah treated them exactly how ISIS treats the “infidels”.

    Even Elisha cannot escape your little characterization either. He was the bald prophet who cursed 42 little kids who were having fun (2 Kings 2:24). Those kids were instantly mauled to death by two growly bears as a direct result of his curses.

    And how about Apostle Peter who caused the public humiliation and death of Ananias and Sapphira–a Christian couple who gave a lot of their resources to others but had to die because they did not give everything (Acts 5:1-10)?

    Of course, even Jesus will not escape your criticism. He failed to respect his mother (John 2:4), refused to help a woman who needed his help, and subsequently called her a dog (Mark 7:25-30). He seemed to have a habit of calling people names too, because he referred to king Herod as a fox, a wild animal (Luke 13:31-33).

    And what of God the Father Himself? Didn’t he order that some people be totally wiped out, including women and children, “leaving no man that pisseth against the wall”? Could such a God be worthy of worship? Isn’t that God, in your opinion, “a sociopath”?

    And, seriously, how do you expect your conscience to justify and respect this God? When that God, to you, seems to cuddle with sociopaths and horrible people, and is himself a mass murderer? Can you honestly say that the “Creator of the earth shall do no wrong”? (Genesis 18:25) If God is guilty of some sin in your mind, how can you ever put your faith in him? How can you take him seriously when he tells you to live right? Aren’t you dangerously cheating yourself out of eternal life? Aren’t you arrogating more knowledge to yourself than you actually possess? Aren’t you claiming that you actually know more than God Himself, because He justified a crooked person?

    Look, the fact is, none of us knows it all (1 Corinthians 13:9). Some things are simply not clear, because God chose to hide certain things from us, for now (Deuteronomy 29:29). However, our duty is to have an implicit faith in Him, and not charge God with a crime simply because we have limited knowledge of his dealings with his own creation. Holding on to beliefs and views that are clearly contrary to Scripture is the fastest way to the abyss, and it is pretty arrogant on your part, or on the part of anyone to claim that they could make God’s own judgement on a person or on a situation to be inaccurate.

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

  165. Lyn87 says:

    Scott: Simple observation tells me otherwise.

    Me: I have made the same observation.

    Scott: …I find most libertarians consider this position to be masked racism…

    Me: I am not one of them. Never have been. I am a “cultural chauvinist” when it comes to Western Civ.

    Scott: Do you support the active celebrating of the majority culture (which is Christian/European/English speaking) over all other sub-cultures in America?

    Me: Yes, and I have said so in the past.

    Scott: In other words, what obligations does the majority culture have to the minority cultures/races/ethnicities that reside within its boundaries?

    Me: To make it possible for them to assimilate.

    Scott: And conversely, what obligations do those sub-groups have to the society at large?

    Me: To assimilate, as your and my ancestors did.

    See? We’re not far apart at all.

  166. Scott says:

    Excellent! This is the melting pot ideal, which we no longer have.

    Hey, by the way I enjoyed the Monty Python reference above. That movie was shunned by the Monty Python crew as they felt they had “sold out.” They all liked Holy Grail, Life of Brian, etc much better. For money, Meaning of Life is every bit as good.

    “You are such a very BIG GOD.”
    “GOSH were all REALLY IMPRESSED down here!”

    Classic.

  167. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    My view is that lesbianism (which seems to be on the increase and is thus not in my view anything other than a misandrist life-style choice) is merely the para-military arm (in both senses) of the radical feminist party.

    You’ve clearly never heard of this chick:

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/

    Camille Paglia (a lesbian) has been trolling the radfems since I was a little boy, and getting paid doing it. My hat’s off to her.

    Boxer

  168. what specific source would be most likely to have the historical information needed to explain the reasoning behind the provisions in ancient Jewish Temple ceremonial rites that pertain to men who have had injuries to their genitals?

    I am completely unclear why ‘Lyn87’ is saying this; as is obvious – I – completely obviously, explained to him/her that the authoritative answer to this question about the Bible would be best answered by a Christian Bible scholar.

    Instead, “Lyn87” suggested that Christians should instead go to non-Christian “orthodox Jewish rabbis” – as if these non-Christians are somehow “experts” on the Bible or the Christian religion generally.

    I am no expert on the subject, but I do know enough to know that if you are a Christian, you should go to Christians to understand the Bible – and NOT go to non-Christians, like Jews or Muslims.

    It’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it? My blog has nothing to do with it. Don’t take my word for it.

    You are either a Christian, or you aren’t. You either accept Christ, or you don’t. It’s that simple.

  169. @HawkandRock

    “Lyn87” is lying about me – there’s not a single Jewish person I “hate” – this poster is merely regurgitating the typical Zionist lie that I’m a “hater” because I don’t particularly believe that Palestinians Christians – or White Americans – should be genocided because of his/her “Xian-Zionist” false religion.

    Where is any “hate” on my blog? It’s a LIE – nothing more.

    Am I a “hater” because I’m not “politically correct?”

    He/She is perfectly aware that its lying.

  170. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    How, I wonder, does that work? – given there is a rather large pond between The Deep South and The British Isles

    I belong to a diocese that used to be part of The Episcopal Church in the United States, but which has never ordained a female priestess; nor homosexual perverters as priests. When TEC began to wander on these issues (back in the 80s) discussions started about how to separate. That was before my time, but I marvel that it took a generation for the separation to occur.

    There are Anglicans all over the world, but the growing branch is in Africa. It is dying in the US, with a few exceptional spots of resistance across (mostly) the South.

    By the by: The Deep South is lovely, but Texas is not part of it. Texas is Texas.

    and how does he feel (if I may ask) about women Bishops let alone female vicars?

    Repulsed.

    @Boxer

    I have liked some of her writing over the years, but whatever one thinks of Camille LaPaglia she is an outlier, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of any genre.

  171. Scott says:

    Cane-

    I met an Navy Anglican Chaplain who said he was a part of the same communion. No female or gay clergy. He said, “never had, never will.” Pretty strong words.

    We discussed apostolic succession quite a bit, because it is something of a mystery to me still. (The topic for me is the orders themselves–ie the mechanics of how one receives the title. It is the sticking point between the various apostolic churches and whether or not they accept the other).

    Anyway, he was a really good guy. Sat next to him on the staff of a joint mission for 6 months.

  172. Novaseeker says:

    On the orders issue, Orthodoxy used to have a modified rite of reception for Anglican priests similar to the one for Catholic priests who are received by the Orthodox Church. That was discontinued when the shenanigans began with female ordination several decades ago.

  173. Scott: In other words, what obligations does the majority culture have to the minority cultures/races/ethnicities that reside within its boundaries?

    Me: To make it possible for them to assimilate.

    Why? Assimilation means genetic and cultural destruction. A no go in my book. Immigration should be from other nations and groups that share a common heritage.

    By what right do immigrants demand that others make it possible for them to assimilate? Not much assimilation taking place anyway, it’s an obvious ploy to destroy the majority status of whites in their own countries.

  174. Just Saying says:

    Any man that is willing to get his nuts cut off, deserves the results as he doesn’t deserve to enjoy the fruits of being a man. Just that simple. I have to tip my hat to the guy that got them to do it. The only man in the bunch, ensuring that he’s siring the children – THAT is a man’s biological imperative – to spread his seed to as many fertile fields that he can.

    A de-balled man has been removed from the competition and is a drone… Plain and simple…

  175. Lyn87 says:

    I can’t believe that on a Christian-themed red pill blog that the position “Racism is Bad” is not a given… much less that I have defended that position against five assailants in this and other threads just in the last two days.

    It’s no wonder feminists and churchians have scored one victory after another. If this is what the best of us looks like, they deserve to.

  176. It’s no wonder feminists and churchians have scored one victory after another. If this is what the best of us looks like, they deserve to.

    Is this for real? “Lyn87” barely pretends to be “Christian” – remember, he’s all about the “orthodox Jew rabbis” – now he’s accusing everyone of being “racist” – my fault, because I dared to suggest that “orthodox Jew rabbis” were not the experts on the Christian religion – but were, instead, the experts on the Jew religion?

    Is this “guy” even a “Christian” – or a Jew?

    Hey – if he’s a Jew, fair enough.

    No “hate” folks – just saying he should be honest about his religion. He obviously doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ.

  177. Scott says:

    To make it possible for them to assimilate.

    FH- It is interesting that this is the one line you pulled out, because it is the one I probably don’t exactly resonate with. It sounds like some special accomodations are being made (hence “make it possible”) but I could be reading into it too much. Lyn87 can clarify.

    I would probably say the obligation the majority culture has to the minority guests/immigrants/etc is to allow them, without fear of deep persecution to practice minority traditions, etc (my own faith tradtion –Orthodoxy– for example is not mainstream). But in the public sphere the majority has the right to expect openly and plainly stated allegiance. They have the right to place, for example, nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. It is not oppresive to do so.

    So I would say they don’t to make it possible for them to assimilate, they should just expect it.

  178. Virtue says:

    Lyn,

    Get a hold of yourself, man. You sound hysterical.

    Christianity does not logically imply anti-racism or pro-Judaism. I have encountered Hipster Racist before. He has some interesting views, and he has provoked me to more sophisticated thought about many contemporary issues, especially about modern sexuality. I don’t think he’s right about everything (in particularly, I don’t think he knows as much as he thinks he knows about American Jews), but being anti-zionist, anti-semitic, or just suspicious of Jews doesn’t make you a bad person in need of banishing from polite society. That kind of attitude is called political correctness, and it’s the fundamental weapon that leftists are using to bludgeon conservatives to death.

    Signed, a pro-white, race-realist, conservative Jew

  179. Lyn87 says:

    Virtue,

    Hysterical? Aw… you’re trying to AMOG me. That’s really cute.

    I assume you’ve never seen his blog. You may think of yourself as one of “Good Jews” that won’t be lumped in with the others, but anti-semitism doesn’t work that way. It has never worked that way in the long run. You should watch the 1965 Stanley Kramer masterpiece “Ship of Fools.” Play close attention to the Jewish man’s rationalizations about how he was being treated and what it meant for his future in Germany. His kind were no-doubt surprised on Kristallnacht.

    World-wide hatred of Jews is on the rise in a way not seen since the 1940’s, and it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

  180. Dave says:

    Men and women are equal in every way……unless when they are to fight each other…physically:

    “”That’s a stupid idea,” De Mars said. “Seriously, that’s a stupid idea. I’m as much a feminist as anyone but the fact is that biologically, there’s a difference between men and women. Hello. Duh. A woman who is 135 pounds and a man who is 135 pounds are not physically equal.”

  181. Lyn87 says:

    Hipster Racist says:
    March 5, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    LOL. Dude, take your meds. For you to think any of what you wrote about me means that you must have never read anything I’ve ever written on this blog (and I’ve been a frequent commenter here for years). Since you haven’t read what I’ve been writing here for years, you have no basis to come to any generalized conclusions about me at all.

    I’ve looked at what you wrote, and I’ve looked at numerous posts on your own blog, and it is indistinguishable from what I’ve hear from White Power rednecks, Black Power hoodlums, La Raza agitators, Muslim Jihadists, and others of that ilk my entire life. The only thing that changes is which group is bad. You’re not a special snowflake with deep insight: you’re just a run-of-the-mill, garden-variety bigot.

    Grow up, get right with God, let go of your hatred, learn what the Bible says, and stop seeing “JOO-ish conspiracies” everywhere.

    Now, I have a plane to catch. Hopefully the JOO’s won’t blow it up and blame it on those peace-loving ISIS guys.

  182. Virtue says:

    Well, I’ve been reading this blog for years, actually – and commenting too, intermittently.

    I’m well aware that the Stormfront crew will happily soapify me if they ever take power, no matter what I’ve said or done in the meantime. But I also believe that there are possible shades of affiliation between “I love the Jews” and “I want to turn the Jews into soap as soon as possible”, and that it’s actually a diabolical machination of the Left to obliterate all the ground between those extremes.

    And yes, I agree with you that world-wide hatred of Jews is becoming more vocal, but that wasn’t the case in this thread. HR challenged you and you basically derailed into an “Oh my god you don’t like Jews! I think I feel a fainting spell coming on” side tangent. And ironically, it is that kind of thing that makes so many of the Stormfront crowd hate Jews in the first place. There has got to be some ground between “glowing approval” and Sauron’s baleful wrath. I think they used to call this “tolerance” before that word was changed to mean “glowing approval”.

  183. Dave says:

    Lyn87 says:
    March 5, 2015 at 11:39 am

    I can’t believe that on a Christian-themed red pill blog that the position “Racism is Bad” is not a given… much less that I have defended that position against five assailants in this and other threads just in the last two days.

    I gave up after some folks here said even God and Jesus Christ were racists. For some reason, they have become so deluded by their own sense of importance, dazzled by their own radiancy, that they think they are somewhat special in some way, and every other ethnicity is beneath them. To justify their unjustifiable ignorance, they recruited God and Jesus into their little racist club. It is both sad and disturbing, and shows a terrible lack of knowledge about spiritual things.

    Fact is, even the Jews, who used to have something to boast about, because of their so-called special relationship with God prior to the coming Christ, have no more reason to be proud as such, because Christ has abolished the “middle wall of partition” between them and the Gentiles. Now, there are no more Jews nor Gentiles in Christ. All those in Christ are washed by the same blood. All must believe the same Jesus. All must work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

    At a time when Christ wanted His followers to go out and win the lost, some people are obsessed with how superior they are to others. And, truth be told, those who are obsessed with race generally have little else to be proud of, in terms of personal accomplishments. Racism is nothing but a manifestation of ignorance, insecurity, and low self esteem.

    It’s the blood, people.
    The only thing that God respects and that gives us access into the Kingdom is not our education, our skin color, our ethnicity, our wealth or our power, both real or imagined. Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Let us glory in Christ, rather than in the flesh.

    Only those in Christ have a right to boast:
    Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD.
    Jeremiah 9:23, 24.

    Born again Christians belong to the true “Superior” race:
    For it is we who are the [true] circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh [or skin color]– Philippians 3:3

    A chosen race:
    But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY 1 Peter 2:9,10

    So, from the foregoing, your skin color or ethnicity don’t mean jack to God. If you are in Christ you belong to the chosen race; if you’re not, you’re lost. No two ways about it. It is Christ who makes the difference, not your chromosomes. Please let us stop being ignorant, and put racism where it belongs: in the dustbin of history.

  184. Scott says:

    every other ethnicity is beneath them.

    Who said this?

  185. SirHamster says:

    @ Lyn
    I can’t believe that on a Christian-themed red pill blog that the position “Racism is Bad” is not a given…

    How do you define Racism? As opposed to racism?

    @ Dave:
    I gave up after some folks here said even God and Jesus Christ were racists.

    You still haven’t apologized for twisting other people’s words. “Gave up” apparently means sticking around and passive-aggressively complaining about others with indirect references to “some folks”.

    As far as I remember, I’m the only one who said that. Don’t tar others with my words. And I’ll stand by my words, unlike you.

  186. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    We discussed apostolic succession quite a bit, because it is something of a mystery to me still. (The topic for me is the orders themselves–ie the mechanics of how one receives the title. It is the sticking point between the various apostolic churches and whether or not they accept the other).

    This is a key shame of Christianity.

    Paul instructed Titus (not sure of his ethnicity, but that’s a Roman name and surely a cultural Roman), a presbyter/priest/pastor in Crete:

    3 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

    Paul was an apostle (and not only an, but the apostle to the gentiles); yet he was not chosen by the 12 in Jerusalem. Jesus Himself chose Paul, and nurtured him through the laity. How can this be, if the administration and bureaucracy of apostolic succession is so vital? He did, however, submit himself to their investigation; which is important. They found him to be beyond reproach, and accepted his apostleship even to the extent that it will come to pass that Peter is rebuked by Paul.

    9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

    Could there be a more prescient, accurate, and concise warning against the coming centuries of arguments on apostolic succession?

    One of the things that attracted me to Roman Catholicism is their chauvinism, but each topic I investigated I found to be in deep controversy. NFP wasn’t developed to make families fruitful, but to keep the Irish Catholic poor from getting pregnant. Isn’t the church supposed to provide for its poor? Why was it better to them to say that there should be less of them? It goes on like this for each topic, but upon Apostolic Succession RC teaching just dies. Virtually all RCC bishops are apostolic descendants of Benedict XIII, and him of Scipione Ribiba, and him of…who knows. Even for Roman Catholics that fact must be a devastating argument against an apostolic succession of bureaucracy, and–if for any form of apostolic succession–then it must be one based upon faith and fruits. What seemed to me to be chauvinism, was mere boasting, and from whence, then, does their boasting arise? Do they boast in Christ, or in institutions? I leave it to them to answer.

    Anyway, the rest of the passage…

    10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

  187. SirHamster says:

    For those who missed that discussion, or wish for a refresher, you can read it here:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/cbmws-striking-ambivalence-for-complementarianism/#comment-165771

  188. Gunner Q says:

    Oscar @ March 4, 2015 at 10:40 pm:
    “David did not “make a couple mistakes”. He committed serious sins. He stands as an awesome (in the classic sense of the word) example of God’s love, mercy, grace and faithfulness towards his people, despite their sin and unfaithfulness.”

    That’s all I’m saying, too. God loved David despite him being a deeply flawed man just as our sins today don’t stop God from loving us. The only reason I even care to be dogmatic on this is because, in my observations, Churchians prefer to worship David in place of Christ. Pointing out how David’s Dark Triad-ness was a bad thing punctures that particular heresy.

    Just Saying @ 11:38 am:
    “The only man in the bunch, ensuring that he’s siring the children – THAT is a man’s biological imperative – to spread his seed to as many fertile fields that he can.”

    That’s evolution talking. Christ has different measures of a man’s worth.

  189. Oscar says:

    @Scott says:
    March 5, 2015 at 10:03 am

    “Excellent! This is the melting pot ideal, which we no longer have.”

    The ideal exists in my house. Central American father, American-born mother, five Ethiopian children and three mixed-“race” children. We blend traditions from each culture. For example, we have nacatamales for breakfast on Christmas morning because that’s what my family did. We have injera on the kids’ adoption day. All my kids are learning Spanish, because it’s my first language.

    In their home school civics classes they read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and as they get older they’ll read the Federalist Papers. And we assign them the great works of literature that helped build Western Civilization.

    It can, and should be done.

    Scott says:
    March 5, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    “It is interesting that this is the one line you pulled out, because it is the one I probably don’t exactly resonate with. It sounds like some special accomodations are being made (hence “make it possible”) but I could be reading into it too much.”

    You are. It’s really not that difficult, and the US does it better than any other country.

    For example, I have relatives that moved to France and Germany instead of the US. They complain that they’re not seen as – or treated as – REAL Frenchmen or Germans, even though they’ve been citizens for decades. Even their children – who were born there – aren’t.

    By contrast, I’ve never had anyone question my “American-ness”. If anything, I’ve had Leftists tell me I’m TOO patriotic and “jingoistic”.

    By the way, I resonate with your dad’s story. My family also fled Communism.

  190. Oscar says:

    @Gunner Q says:
    March 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    “in my observations, Churchians prefer to worship David in place of Christ. Pointing out how David’s Dark Triad-ness was a bad thing punctures that particular heresy.”

    I haven’t observed that heresy, but I obviously haven’t seen everything, so I’ll take your word for it. I do think David is a powerful Biblical example of manliness – both in his Godly virtues and his character flaws, so Christian men should definitely study his life and learn what to do AND what NOT to do.

    The same is true of many other Biblical characters, but David swings from one extreme to another so dramatically that it makes his story stand out more than the rest.

  191. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    “How do you define Racism? As opposed to racism?”

    rac·ism
    ˈrāˌsizəm
    noun
    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    “As far as I remember, I’m the only one who said that [God and Jesus Christ were racists]. Don’t tar others with my words. And I’ll stand by my words, unlike you.”

    And you’re wrong. God never stated – or implied – that the Jews were in any way superior to other people. In fact, He stated just the opposite.

    Deuteronomy 9:4 After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.

  192. SirHamster says:

    And you’re wrong. God never stated – or implied – that the Jews were in any way superior to other people. In fact, He stated just the opposite.

    Discrimination by race is racist. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If I walk around a plaza and choose to give white people $1000, $100 to black people, and nothing to anyone else, have I not discriminated by race and acted accordingly? Is that not racist? Does my opinion on racial superiority/inferiority matter to the description of those actions?

    So when God chooses a specific people, is that not properly described as discrimination by race?

    I think our difference here is generational. You grew up with the Civil Rights Era and the idea of color-blind brotherhood. I grew up with reverse discrimination and the bankruptcy of the race card. So “racist” bothers you – and is noise to me.

  193. Scott says:

    Sir Hamster-

    I think your generational read may actually account for some of this arguing that is going on. I am 43, and have lived through both of the eras you describe (with similar results).

    I too hear the words “racism” now and roll my eyes without rock solid proof that some deep racially motivated hatred or injustice is occuring (which is almost never). The burden of proof is on the user of the word now, and the bar is very, very high.

  194. Dave says:

    every other ethnicity is beneath them.
    Who said this?

    It is often implied; never openly stated.
    However the Bible made it clear that the only “superior” or “chosen” race consists of those who have come to Christ, irrespective of their natural ethnicities.

  195. Dave says:

    You still haven’t apologized for twisting other people’s words. “Gave up” apparently means sticking around and passive-aggressively complaining about others with indirect references to “some folks”.

    I didn’t twist anyone’s words; I commented on them. If you have proof to the contrary, kindly produce it.
    There is nothing in my responses that showed passive aggression. I think it is you who seem to be confused. You cannot reserve the right to call God and Jesus racist, and then take offense that I used the term to describe a mere human being.
    If the term is so offensive, why would you use it to describe God and Jesus Chist? If it is not, why ask me to apologize? Maybe you should first apologize to God and His Son Jesus Christ.

    Frankly, I am not here to respond to you about the merits and demerits of racism. It is utter waste of time. If at this age you still don’t see anything wrong with racism, nothing can convince you to change your mind. As a wise guy once said: “a man convinced against his own will is of the same opinion still”.

    Go ahead, go worship your racist god. He is not my God and will never be.

  196. Dave says:

    And you’re wrong. God never stated – or implied – that the Jews were in any way superior to other people. In fact, He stated just the opposite.

    Really?

    How about here:
    Deuteronomy 26:19
    “He has declared that he will set you in praise, fame and honor high above all the nations he has made and that you will be a people holy to the LORD your God, as he promised.”

    And here:
    Deuteronomy 14:2
    “for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.”

    And here:
    Leviticus 20:26
    “You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.”

    And here:
    Deuteronomy 14:21
    “Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. ”

    And here:
    Jeremiah 2:3
    “Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of his harvest; all who devoured her were held guilty, and disaster overtook them,'” declares the LORD.

    Meaning God meted out special punishments on those who mistreated Israel.

    Or here, where Israel is considered “a holy race”:
    Ezra 9:2
    “They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

    And here:
    Deuteronomy 7:6-8
    “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

    Note that irrespective the reason, the Jews were still chosen, at least in the OT.

  197. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    “If I walk around a plaza and choose to give white people $1000, $100 to black people, and nothing to anyone else, have I not discriminated by race and acted accordingly? Is that not racist? Does my opinion on racial superiority/inferiority matter to the description of those actions?”

    Your example is so bizarre that I’m not sure how it relates to anything God actually did. How about we stick to what God actually does?

    “So when God chooses a specific people, is that not properly described as discrimination by race?”

    It might, if He at any time stated that salvation belonged to the Jews alone. He never made any such statement. In fact, just the opposite. God chose Israel for a purpose. That purpose was to demonstrate God’s holiness, righteousness, judgement, mercy, grace, forgiveness and salvation to all the nations of the world.

    Isiah 49:5 And now the Lord says—
    he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
    to bring Jacob back to him
    and gather Israel to himself,
    for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the Lord
    and my God has been my strength—
    6 he says:
    “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
    to restore the tribes of Jacob
    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
    I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

    Though the Israelites failed in the mission God gave them, He fulfilled that mission through Christ.

    Isaiah 42:5 This is what God the Lord says—
    the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
    who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
    who gives breath to its people,
    and life to those who walk on it:
    6 “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
    I will take hold of your hand.
    I will keep you and will make you
    to be a covenant for the people
    and a light for the Gentiles,
    7 to open eyes that are blind,
    to free captives from prison
    and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

    Despite their sinful failure, God still used the Israelites to bring countless non-Israelites to salvation in Old Testament times.

    For example, many non-Israelites left with Israel during the Exodus.

    Exodus 12:37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38 Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.

    Those of the “mixed multitude” (as some translations put it) became Israelites as long as they accepted God’s commandments.

    Exodus 12:48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

    Furthermore, we have the examples of Rahab and her family, who were Canaanites…

    Joshua 2:17 Now the men had said to her, “This oath you made us swear will not be binding on us 18 unless, when we enter the land, you have tied this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and unless you have brought your father and mother, your brothers and all your family into your house. 19 If any of them go outside your house into the street, their blood will be on their own heads; we will not be responsible. As for those who are in the house with you, their blood will be on our head if a hand is laid on them. 20 But if you tell what we are doing, we will be released from the oath you made us swear.”

    …Ruth, who was a Moabite…

    Ruth 1:16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

    …both of whom appear in Christ’s genealogy.

    Matthew 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
    Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
    Obed the father of Jesse,

    Then there is Uriah, the Hittite, and many more of David’s “Mighty Men of Battle” found in 2nd Samuel 23:24-39.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+23&version=NIV

    I could go on, but time prevents.

    “I think our difference here is generational.”

    No, it’s scriptural. Note that I supported my beliefs with an abundance of scriptures. That is because my beliefs are based on scripture.

    You supported your beliefs with exactly zero scriptures. That is because your beliefs are not based on scripture.

    “You grew up with the Civil Rights Era and the idea of color-blind brotherhood. I grew up with reverse discrimination and the bankruptcy of the race card. So “racist” bothers you – and is noise to me.”

    No, I grew up believing the following.

    Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. 12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

  198. Oscar says:

    Dave says:
    March 5, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    “Note that irrespective the reason, the Jews were still chosen, at least in the OT.”

    Yes, they were chose, but “chosen” does not mean superior, as Moses very clearly explained to the Israelites. And the reason they were chosen matters. As I demonstrated above, God chose the Isralites to bring salvation to the world (see Isaiah 49 and 42).

  199. SirHamster says:

    I didn’t twist anyone’s words; I commented on them. If you have proof to the contrary, kindly produce it.

    I already have. It’s in that thread for anyone else to see. I merely note here that you still do not take responsibility for your words.

    “Wao. Just wao.” ring a bell? Your behavior screams “troll”.

    and then take offense that I used the term to describe a mere human being.

    I’m not taking offense that you called people racist. I’m taking offense that you are incapable of accurately re-stating other people’s words, and then use that wrong interpretation to uncharitably accuse them of not living up to “Christian” standards, where said “Christian” standards are not actually based upon Scripture.

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but your continued failure to act in good faith reflects a trollish nature.

  200. Gunner Q says:

    SirHamster @ 3:52 pm
    “You grew up with the Civil Rights Era and the idea of color-blind brotherhood. I grew up with reverse discrimination and the bankruptcy of the race card. So “racist” bothers you – and is noise to me.”

    Well said and +1 from a guy living through the Browning of California.

    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    The fact that men and women are still distinct and quite clearly unequal to each other, cross-referenced with Paul’s different commands to the sexes (Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husbands), is proof this statement is not meant to be taken literally.

    “Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

    And Titus 1:12-13 “One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith…”

  201. Scott says:

    As I ever continue to understand the differences between myself and others on these site, I have a question for Oscar. Not meant to be confrontational, because I THINK I know what you mean, but I am not sure.

    When you say “race, whatever that means” are you saying you do not acknowledge the existence of genotypes and their expressions in phenotypes? Or you being more hyperbolic/metaphoric?

    In the work that I do, genetic research (including genotype research around clusters of alleles contributing to marked behavioral/intelligence differences) is the current state of the art. It is only hindered by the “race is a social construct” crowd constantly shouting it down. But it is coming, and can’t be stopped.

    You recognize, I assume that I can trace my immediate families on both sides back through generations and find these markers are relatively consistently distributed throughout the geographic/historical record right?

    I can get on a plane and fly to China and SEE race. Or fly to Africa and SEE race.

    None of that means I hate anyone or anything. But there are mean differences between these groups on quite a few dimensions.

  202. SirHamster says:

    @ Oscar:

    Could you please answer this question:
    Is racial discrimination racist?

    Your example is so bizarre that I’m not sure how it relates to anything God actually did. How about we stick to what God actually does?

    Fine. I am a college. I have hundreds of applicants of various skin colors. I choose to accept ALL lesser quality students of one skin color, while rejecting ALL higher quality students of another skin color.

    Have I acted racistly in using that standard? How about if it is SOME instead of ALL? Still racist? This is an actual real world thing, not a “bizarre” situation. (aside from so-called anti-racists pushing racism)

    It might, if He at any time stated that salvation belonged to the Jews alone.

    So it’s only racism if it’s linked to salvation?

    Since none of the Jim Crow laws are linked to salvation, are they not racist? Having colored and non-colored fountains is not racist?

    No, I grew up believing the following.
    … There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    But I trust that you don’t use the woman’s restroom at your church. Sexist. 😛

  203. JDG says:

    rac·ism
    ˈrāˌsizəm
    noun
    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    Wait… I thought a racist was someone who doesn’t agree with the policies and beliefs of our current president. So am I a sexist for believing Hillary’s place is in the kitchen?

  204. JDG says:

    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    The fact that men and women are still distinct and quite clearly unequal to each other, cross-referenced with Paul’s different commands to the sexes (Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husbands), is proof this statement is not meant to be taken literally.

    The statement quoted from Galatians is to be taken literally, only it must be taken in context. The passage is talking about eternal salvation.

  205. Oscar says:

    @Scott says:
    March 5, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    “When you say ‘race, whatever that means’ are you saying you do not acknowledge the existence of genotypes and their expressions in phenotypes? Or you being more hyperbolic/metaphoric?”

    What I mean when I write “race, whatever that means” is that the term “race” varies so much over time and from one culture to the next that it’s hard to know what a person means when he/she uses the term “race”.

    For example, I recently read an article from the 1800s in which a Londoner referred to “the race of people” that lived in one particular London neighborhood. They were his fellow Caucasian, Anglo, British Londoners, and yet he referred to them as a separate “race”. Clearly, he meant something completely different by the word “race” than you or I would.

    Now an example from across cultures. Suppose you got a Turk, a Kurd, a Yazidi, a Suni Arab, a Shia Arab, an Assyrian Arab and a Jew together in the room and explained to them that – by one definition of “race” commonly used in the US – they all belong to the same race. You’d be lucky to escape the room alive.

    You could try the same with a group of Pashtuns, Hazaras, Daris and Uzbeks, Or a group of Indians of different casts. The list goes on and on.

    So, yes, there are different genotypes and phenotypes. The definitions of those words are pretty well set, but most people don’t even know what they are.

    On the other hand, there are so many different definitions of the word “race”, that the word is almost meaningless.

  206. Oscar says:

    @JDG says:
    March 5, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    “Wait… I thought a racist was someone who doesn’t agree with the policies and beliefs of our current president. So am I a sexist for believing Hillary’s place is in the kitchen?”

    I wouldn’t eat anything Lady Macbeth cooks. Would you?

  207. Oscar says:

    SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    “Fine. I am a college. I have hundreds of applicants of various skin colors. I choose to accept ALL lesser quality students of one skin color, while rejecting ALL higher quality students of another skin color.”

    There you go again with your weird hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to do with anything God did.

    If you’re going to accuse God of racism (and you did) then you need to prove your accusation true by focusing on what God actually did. To do that, you have to support your claims with scripture. You’ve done neither. You instead insist on inventing weird hypothetical scenarios.

    So, let’s see the scriptures that prove God is racist. Or, at the very least, address the scriptures I provided you above.

  208. Scott says:

    Oscar-

    Thank you. I understand your position, and I think I get where it comes from.

    I would just point out that none of those critiques make the construct invalid. They mean that science is becoming more refined and precise.

    With a vengeance, I might add. Did you know that if you tell me what SSRI a patient is responding to and what symptom cluster they have, I can get very close to guessing their race? That human genome project is really starting to bear fruit.

    We don’t use leeches to drain blood from patients, but even those physicians were on the right track–blood carries pathogens.

    I also know that there is a visceral reaction to scientists attempting to categorize humans on dimensions like behavior and intelligence because it conjures up mental images of nazi experiments.

    No serious scientist is suggesting things like that. But there are policy ramifications that are conceivable, and to run from them for fear of being called racist is foolish.

  209. SirHamster says:

    @Oscar:

    You are evading my Yes/No question. Is racial discrimination racist?

    There you go again with your weird hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to do with anything God did.

    It’s not a weird hypothetical. Human beings are doing it. I consider it racist. It seems you refuse to answer direct questions on the topic to avoid dealing with uncomfortable conclusions.

    If you’re going to accuse God of racism (and you did) then you need to prove your accusation true by focusing on what God actually did. To do that, you have to support your claims with scripture. You’ve done neither. You instead insist on inventing weird hypothetical scenarios.

    I am not accusing God of racism. I am describing the racial discrimination practiced by God as racism, since any human being who did that would also be called racist.

    You could use an argument along the lines of, “it’s not murder when God does it” (lawgiver does not perform unlawful killing), appealing to God having an authority that man does not have; such that God’s racial discrimination belong to a different category and deserve a different label than similar seeming actions from man.

    If that is the case, I would like to know what different label you would use for God’s racial discrimination.

  210. Isa says:

    @Scott
    Oddly, I have never had issues with understanding Catholic sexual ethics, but largely due to the vagaries of my personal biology not tolerating hormonal methods and ethical beliefs vis-a-vis IUDs. So for me, sex is always, always, always connected to potential childbearing, so I never engaged in the activity WITHOUT being willing to have a baby. However having a body that thinks it’s still 1600 is quite uncommon, so I’m not surprised at the increase in general confusion.

    Basically, I don’t trust parishioners at all as the catechisis is so poor, many do not even know that Catholics believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. So the NFP “education” is really more of marketing than anything else. We need to move beyond seeing it as “birth control” to understanding it as an education in female biochemistry and physiology. And like any other knowledge, it can be used for good or ill but G-d gave us reason for a reason, and choices without education can never be reasonable.

  211. Isa says:

    @Scott
    It has always seemed to me that racism is really about only seeing negative or positive in a “race” (group? culture? tribe?) without allowing for individual variation. So if the view is x group is on average more intellectual but physically weaker (provided you add the not-all-people-are-like-that distinction), it doesn’t strike me as racist. However the Herrenvolk view of themselves or KKK views of the K’s… out of bounds.

  212. SirHamster says:

    Heh. And rather germane to our topic of racism:

    “Mother Jones declares your mother’s advice that you eat three healthy meals a day to be totally racist”

    (h/t: Ace of Spades)

  213. Oscar says:

    @Scott says:
    March 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    “I would just point out that none of those critiques make the construct invalid. They mean that science is becoming more refined and precise.”

    I have no problem with the science. I just don’t know what any one individual means by the word “race” until they define it, because there are so many different definitions of the word “race”, and most of them are so vague.

    “I also know that there is a visceral reaction to scientists attempting to categorize humans on dimensions like behavior and intelligence because it conjures up mental images of nazi experiments.”

    Again, I have no problem with that. None of that is antithetical with the Biblical belief that each human being is created in God’s image and therefore endowed with equal moral worth and equal unalienable rights.

    “No serious scientist is suggesting things like that. But there are policy ramifications that are conceivable, and to run from them for fear of being called racist is foolish.”

    The policy ramifications are pretty simple. The law should apply to all impartially (as much as humanly possible), just as God stated in Exodus 12:49.

  214. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of the KKK, some progressive confused (?) Justice Clarence Thomas with the KKK (see tweet at the end of the article): http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/03/02/lets-destroy-liberal-academia/

  215. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    “You are evading my Yes/No question.”

    Your yes/no question has nothing to do with anything God did, unless you can prove it does with scripture.

    “It’s not a weird hypothetical. Human beings are doing it.”

    Exactly. Human beings are doing it. God isn’t. Unless you can prove He is with scripture.

    “I am not accusing God of racism.”

    Yes, you did.

    SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    “Discrimination by race is racist… So when God chooses a specific people, is that not properly described as discrimination by race?”

  216. SirHamster says:

    Your yes/no question has nothing to do with anything God did, unless you can prove it does with scripture.

    God chose the nation of Israel for His purposes. Arbitrarily. He could have chosen any nation on earth; and He chose one.

    Is that discrimination? Yes/No.
    Is the nation of Israel also a race? Yes/No.

    Exactly. Human beings are doing it. God isn’t. Unless you can prove He is with scripture.

    So you think the human activity I described is racist. But you will not answer my direct question with a simple “Yes”.

    “I am not accusing God of racism.”
    Yes, you did.

    When I say that God is good, I am not accusing God, because “good” is not an accusation.

    When I say that God is racist (more accurately, has acted racistly; racist is not core to God’s identity), I am using a definition of racist that is not an accusation, and you even quoted the definition I provided in context.

    You consider the word “racist” an accusation – but you also know we’re not using the word “racist” in the same sense. I am telling you that I do not call God’s actions racist as an accusation.

  217. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 5, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    “God chose the nation of Israel for His purposes. Arbitrarily.”

    What makes you think it was arbitrary? Give scripture references to support your answer.

  218. soapify

    This is truly hilarious. I write a comedy blog. I made some throw away comment that Lyn87 shouldn’t be sending Christians to Jewish rabbis about religious advice.

    Now, we’re discussing people turned into “soap” and “JOOOOISH” conspiracies and how healthy food is “racist?” Lyn87 is all but having a heart attack about Hitler coming back in a flying saucer?

    The real reason this is a topic of conversation is the knee jerk reaction to my offhand comment that “X-ian Zionists” are not actually Christian. That particular cult has been rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Church of Christ, the Anglican Church, and all other branches of actual, historical Christianity.

    It has meta-sized in the Southern Baptist Convention and a few Seventh Day Adventist-type cults, and among highly-paid TV preachers.

    Be honest, that is what this is about. Accusing me of “JOOO-hate” or having anything to do with “Stormfront” is a lie and nothing more.

    Turn on the light and the cockroaches sure do scurry.

  219. MarcusD says:

    Need help…dating a single mom.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949460

    Brother-in-Law Going to Lutheran Church to Save Marriage
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949502

    Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe
    https://chronicle.com/article/article-content/190351/

  220. Cane Caldo says:

    @Hipster Racist

    I made some throw away comment that Lyn87 shouldn’t be sending Christians to Jewish rabbis about religious advice.[…]

    The real reason this is a topic of conversation is the knee jerk reaction to my offhand comment that “X-ian Zionists” are not actually Christian.

    I don’t agree. Rather, it’s bigger than that. As the name you chose confesses: “Race” and attached sentiments are cultural markers because race is a central doctrine in our scientism society; like sin is for Christians. Lyn87 exploited that to distract from the fact that you (rightly) pants’ed him on the topic of Christian authority.

    To the rest: Those who believe they have gleaned some race realism from the Bible are guilty of lazy thought. God did not choose a race. He chose a man. His name was Abram, which God changed to Abraham. He told that man that from him would come a son, and from that son would come a family, and from that family would come a nation, and from the nation many nations. Race has nothing to do with it because race is an artificial method of categorization. God has never dealt in races, but in individuals, families, and peoples, from homes, cities, and nations.

    The truth that people can be categorized into various artificial groups, and that from those we can observe trends, is as unassailable as the truth that good diet and exercise will improve health. Good to know for personal edification and local decisions: where to live, who to marry, neighborhoods to avoid, etc. We should be wise about which families we interact with, and how, but in the greater scheme of things–like physical training–they only profiteth a little.

    @Isa

    We need to move beyond seeing it as “birth control” to understanding it as an education in female biochemistry and physiology.

    Roman Catholics–laity and leadership–embraced NFP specifically as birth control from the beginning. Then they set about issuing an as-yet-unending stream of words to deny that NFP is about birth control. “We need to move beyond” is political language meant to refuse responsibility.

  221. Cane Caldo says:

    Second try…

    @Hipster Racist

    I made some throw away comment that Lyn87 shouldn’t be sending Christians to Jewish rabbis about religious advice.[…]

    The real reason this is a topic of conversation is the knee jerk reaction to my offhand comment that “X-ian Zionists” are not actually Christian.

    I don’t agree. Rather, it’s bigger than that. As the name you chose confesses: “Race” and attached sentiments are cultural markers because race is a central doctrine in our scientism society; like sin is for Christians. Lyn87 exploited that to distract from the fact that you (rightly) pants’ed him on the topic of Christian authority.

    To the rest: Those who believe they have gleaned some race realism from the Bible are guilty of lazy thought. God did not choose a race. He chose a man. His name was Abram, which God changed to Abraham. He told that man that from him would come a son, and from that son would come a family, and from that family would come a nation, and from the nation many nations. Race has nothing to do with it because race is an artificial method of categorization. God has never dealt in races, but in individuals, families, and peoples, from homes, cities, and nations.

    The truth that people can be categorized into various artificial groups, and that from those we can observe trends, is as unassailable as the truth that good diet and exercise will improve health. Good to know for personal edification and local decisions: where to live, who to marry, neighborhoods to avoid, etc. We should be wise about which families we interact with, and how, but in the greater scheme of things–like physical training–they only profiteth a little.

    @Isa

    We need to move beyond seeing it as “birth control” to understanding it as an education in female biochemistry and physiology.

    Roman Catholics–laity and leadership–embraced NFP specifically as birth control from the beginning. Then they set about issuing an as-yet-unending stream of words to deny that NFP is about birth control. “We need to move beyond” is political language meant to refuse responsibility.

  222. Boxer says:

    Need help…dating a single mom.

    I’m really tempted to start a new account and ask “I wonder if God put single moms on earth so that young men could build their confidence and get their sexual needs met, while they’re waiting to snag a marriagable woman…

    As an aside, this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with “Blue Eyed Lady” on Catholic Answers.

    Being a parent is hard enough, but being a stepparent is the hardest job their is. Stepparents have to sacrifice their time, money, space, and vacation time for their stepkids. In addition to constantly dealing with their partner’s ex, they are expected to be authority figures, friends, and help raise the child. But they are often limited in what decisions they get a say in and discipline, and regardless of how good of a job they do, it is the “real” mom/dad that will get all of the credit and recognition for the rest of their lives. Even after the child leaves home, there is so much room for hardship and conflict over adult children and eventually, grandchildren.

    It’s not bad advice. I suppose the old adage about stopped clocks giving correct time applies here.

    Boxer

  223. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    I can post a comment for you, if you’d like.

    I mean, it’d probably get me banned, but the reaction would certainly be entertaining.

  224. Lyn87 writes: ‘You should watch the 1965 Stanley Kramer masterpiece “Ship of Fools.”’

    –Ascribing masterpiece status to any production by Stanley Kramer, the dullest middlebrow sentimental do-gooder Oscar-baiter in Hollywood history, is just weird. Even sentimental liberals found him dreary–in the ’60s.

    As a sometime-reader of Hipster Racist (noted manosphere contributor PA does a lot of plugging for him), I confess to a momentary surprise to see him dive into this discussion, but it’s not an unwelcome one.

    H-R cuts a rakish figure as a literary persona, so I can understand if his work unsettles tamer palates. But that is a distraction from the point he forcefully and persuasively makes. Christianity claims the Old Testament, its history, and the right of interpreting it in light of a consummate revelation which Judaism expressly rejects. Is every Christian Study Bible now a scandal, unless every OT footnote directs the reader to the nearest synagogue?

  225. Opus says:

    When I was younger, to discriminate, was regarded as not merely desirable but a sign of good judgement.

    There are so far as I can see, two people who comment here, who in every other respect I always want to read for their intelligence and perception but who are exceptionally sensitive to matters of race much in the way a hammer tends to get excited when it sees what it suspects is a nail. That this thread spills a certain amount of nonsense about The Germans is of course entirely uncontroversial.

  226. Dave says:

    When I was younger, to discriminate, was regarded as not merely desirable but a sign of good judgement.

    Actually, I think it still is. We all discriminate. Discrimination is good. As a matter if fact, when a man says he wants a good woman for a wife, he is indirectly saying that he wants a discriminating woman–a woman who won’t follow her blind emotions as they come. He is also discriminating against all other women who do not meet his criteria of “good”. When a woman says she wants a great guy for a husband, she is not only discriminating, but also looking for a discriminating guy, who wouldn’t sleep wih everything that walks in a skirt, and that is good. When we read reviews on Amazon.com before we make a purchase, we are discriminating. When we check the reputation of a doctor before we choose them as our primary caregiver, we are discriminating. Same goes for murder and self-defense resulting in the death of an attacker.
    Discrimination, bias, good judgement, prudence, etc are all the same acts, but under diferent circumstances and based on different values. Just as fornication, adultery, and marital love-making are all essentially the same acts, but under diferent circumstances and based on different values.

    When our discrimination is based on desirable qualities, then it is not considered discrimination, but good judgement. However, when we prejudge people, and take (usually) negative actions against them based entirely on our own preconceived ideas, that is not desirable—that is discrimination. It is the basis that counts, not the act itself.

  227. Scott says:

    The policy ramifications are pretty simple. The law should apply to all impartially (as much as humanly possible), just as God stated in Exodus 12:49

    I would agree, that on the grandest scale this is the ideal. However, by its nature it creates a situation where court judgments, careers, and resources will not be distributed evenly between groups (races and the sexes on average make very different choices leading to divergent outcomes in crime rates, poverty, financial stability.) I am prepared for those natural distributions to occur and not worry about them. Prison population 90% one color and sex? No problem. NASA scientist 90% one color and sex? OK.

    As you move down the macro/micro slide however, it becomes even less OK with some folks around here. As Novaseeker pointed out on a previous thread “race is a proxy for culture” which means when screening for a mate, neighborhood to live in, etc people may use this rough measure and inadvertently screen out an otherwise good candidate. I will never fault them for doing this, or call them racist. It’s their rubric and they have their reasons.

    Here is what I mean. I had a landlord once who was obviously ethnically and racially Japanese. When I met him the first time, my schematic approach failed because he spoke with a thick Oklahoma drawl. Turned out, his parents were Japanese immigrants, and his dad was actually at Pearl Harbor–on our side!

    This doesn’t change the fact that most (the vast majority) of the people I meet who look like him are wildly different culturally than me. This may be something to consider in certain choices I make. In the case of the landlord, it never occurred to me as it was just a business relationship. But combining two families in marriage? I can’t judge someone for using that marker, even risking that they might miss a good match–a racially different but perfectly assimilated racial minority.

    All of this I file under the heading “stuff upon which good people can differ” but as soon as it comes up it becomes a galvanizing litmus test of racism around here. I just don’t get it.

  228. Novaseeker says:

    All of this I file under the heading “stuff upon which good people can differ” but as soon as it comes up it becomes a galvanizing litmus test of racism around here. I just don’t get it.

    I think it’s because the general area of race (including anything touching the concept of race) is such a live wire issue in our society, still, that it’s something that most people just want to avoid, in terms of being associated with people who openly make judgments based on race. Everyone, of course, makes private judgments based on race all the time (whether using race as a proxy for culture, which is often the case, or not): where to live, whom to date or befriend, where to go to church, etc. This is standard practice in the society, but of course *no-one* likes to talk about it in terms of race — even though we all know it is happening. We all come up with other ways to describe what we are doing (preferences, commuting time, “having stuff in common”, etc.) to make sure that everyone very much understands, in a crystal clear way, that the fact that 98% of our chosen personal interactions tend to be with people of our same race (for most of us), THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.

    This afflicts people all over the political spectrum, and of all races. In the US, because of the history of slavery and Jim Crow and so on, everyone trips over each other to make sure everyone understands that they themselves are never ever ever making racial judgments ever at all, and that they see each and every person as a singular individual, full stop. People of all races and political creeds do this, because speaking about what is actually happening — again, among people of all races and political/religious affiliations — is too uncomfortable given our history, which makes race a very live wire issue.

  229. Scott says:

    Every time the crazy makIng proves to be almost too much for me, kindred spirit Novaseeker swoops in to remind me that there will be at least 2 of us to turn off the lights at the end of the world.

  230. Scott says:

    It occurs to me that although I keep pointing out what I do not consider racism (which admittedly is a large swath of behaviors) but I have not given an example of where my bright line of distinction is.

    So, using one of the above examples–NASA scientests, I will try to spell it out. Lets say a bunch of JPL guys are sitting around at work in their misogynist Hawaiian shirts. They are all white and asian. Then, Tanisha a brand new employee shows up. She grew up in the projects, but lifted herself out of it. She speaks like Condoleeza Rice. She has impeccable credentials. She is smart, funny, a little nerdy. She is culturally a NASA scientist. She is of course, black.

    The guys shun her. They do so willfully and with an obtuse and very real bias because she is black.

    That is racism, and they are jerks. How often does that happen in 2015 America? In the culture Novaseeker describes above, it is inconceivable. Al Sharpton would descend on the NASA JPL laboratory so fast it would make the collective worlds head spin. That level of “intolerance” has been all but beaten out of us. Most would say this is a good thing.

    But if any of those guys simply noticed (with no malice, no bitterness, no shunning) “wow, kind of rare for a black women to be in this profession” we would be right back down in the gray area in my opinion. Not racist.

  231. @Oscar “So, let’s see the scriptures that prove God is racist. Or, at the very least, address the scriptures I provided you above.”

    This whole conversation is so strange but interesting to follow… without sounding too preachy, let me just say, God has an amazing love for all people. I need to find it in the OT, but there are verses where He shows how much he cares about the people groups whom the Jews hated (the Jews were extremely racist by the way, I’m sure most of you know that… but it was something that came from the human minds – not God’s). God constantly used examples against their racism to (more than likely) show them how ridiculous it was. Hagar was an Egyptian (an arab) slave girl, but the Bible/Torah says God saw her, He had compassion on her and her son (the future of the arab nations). God loved them, despite what they did or what they would become, and that has always got to me. His love is just so encompassing, so powerful, so not racist that it is probably non-comprehensible for most of us in our human minds.

    The example of Rahab, the prostitute that was not Jewish but yet believed God and saved Joshua’s Remnant of Jews coming from Egyptian slavery. The mere fact that she is mentioned in the Bible (and in the line of Jesus) is just amazing. The Jews might’ve had misgivings about other races, but God didn’t. Rahab was then the mother of Boaz – that incredible man that was not only successful, but full of admirable integrity. He was a half Jew, but because of what his mother did, he still was respected (I would guess, since he was so successful). But don’t you wonder if some of the Jews didn’t completely accept his mother Rahab? After all, she was not only a former prostitute who settled down with one of their spies who found her after she saved them, but she was also a foreign woman. The Jews hated foreign women. After seeing what it did to King Solomon, they became almost OCD about letting any foreign women into their tribe – they could not set foot in their houses. So there is a good chance that Boaz grew up seeing his own mother Rahab be subject to racism within their community.

    Then enters Ruth. A beautiful, peaceful, insanely loyal and loving daughter-in-law to Naomi. But there’s one glaring problem… she a Moabitess. She’s a forbidden foreign woman – something the Jews disgusted with both racism and sexism balled up together. Their love story unfolds, he is kind to her (don’t you wonder if having a foreign mother had anything to do with his great kindness to Ruth)? He was older… Naomi knew him! Why didn’t he ever settle down and marry a good Jewish girl? He was certainly successful, doesn’t the Bible say he was the richest man in their community? He should’ve been able to find a wife before he became older (in my opinion), but maybe it was the fact that he was a half-Jew, maybe many of the people didn’t want their daughters marrying a man that was half-Jew. I could be entirely wrong, but they all knew their histories extremely well (a good part of Hebrew schooling since the beginning of time may I add, knowing geneaologies and reading in-between the lines).

    But I find it beautiful that he falls so in love with Ruth – and her with him, she is ecstatic to have a man of such good character, and gives him at least one child. They are all in the line of Jesus.

    Why would God have these people in the Bible, in the line of Jesus (His only Son) if He were racist? I think it’s a very ignorant presumption.

  232. Lyn87 says:

    Last comment from me:

    This is truly hilarious. I write a comedy blog. I made some throw away comment that Lyn87 shouldn’t be sending Christians to Jewish rabbis about religious advice.

    Now, we’re discussing people turned into “soap” and “JOOOOISH” conspiracies and how healthy food is “racist?” Lyn87 is all but having a heart attack about Hitler coming back in a flying saucer? – Hipster Racist

    It was not a “throw-away” comment. HR stated… and stated, and stated, and stated, and stated, that a person who studies OT temple procedures his entire life (they intend to rebuild the Temple, after all), would not know anything more about OT Temple procedures than a Muslim Imam, who would probably not know anything about them at all. When I asked him to recommend someone who could answer the question, all he could do was stamp his feet and scream “NOT JEWS! NOT JEWS! NOT JEWS! NOT JEWS! NOT JEWS!”

    I thought that was a little… odd, so I looked at his website (which he is now disingenuously backing away from by calling it a “comedy blog”), and it confirmed my suspicion that he does, in fact, have a beef with Jews. Whether he hates them individually, I have no idea, but he clearly has a real problem with “Jewishness” in general. That is his right, but in the realm of men, one has to deal with the consequences of one’s statements and actions, and his ex post facto “It was a throw-away comment” and “I was just joking on my blog!” does not match the vociferousness of his defense of those positions. (HR – at least be man enough to admit what you believe rather than backpedal when I point it out.) So… I pointed out that his irrational ideological stance on Jews possessing historical knowledge of their own culture matched his irrational non-answer to the simple question being asked.

    Not too complicated, really. Now he’s backing away from his comment by calling it a “throw-away” even though he defended it like the Japanese defended Gaudalcanal in 1942-3, and mischaracterizing the question as seeking “religious advice” when it was actually just looking for historical insight. This has nothing to do with “tamer palates” or political correctness: this has everything to do with HR and his tin-foil hat when it comes to something he calls “X-ian Zionism.”

    Not content to lie about that, he started talking about Hitler and flying saucers, and attributing such thoughts to me, when it was he who brought them up.

    Nobody here, least of all me, is being hypersensitive about race. I’m not even the one who brought it up in the first place (that was HR, in case anyone forgot). Furthermore, on this very website I have freely acknowledged that the I.Q. bell curves for different enthinicities are different, and that some demographic groups are disproportionately represented in the higher strata of intellectual achievement (notably Asian and White men). Nobody has said that the distribution of intelligence is equal across the races, so you can all stop arguing against that position, since nobody was ever trying to defend it.

    That’s it: you may now all go back to patting yourselves and each other on the back for successfully defeating an argument that nobody made.

  233. girlwithdragonflytatoo,

    Is that your own picture in your gravatar? If it is, you are very pretty.

  234. Boxer says:

    I can post a comment for you, if you’d like.

    Thanks bro, but you’d better save your logins for the worthwhile stuff.

    I’ve been banned twice over there. Any more effort on my part would smack of caring too much, if you know what I mean.🙂

  235. Dave says:

    …He should’ve been able to find a wife before he became older (in my opinion), but maybe it was the fact that he was a half-Jew, maybe many of the people didn’t want their daughters marrying a man that was half-Jew….

    Stands to reason. After all, some professed Christians still tell their daughters, today, to avoid men who do not look or talk like their daughters, no matter how godly, or how wealthy, or respected in society those men might be. They don’t belong, you see. After all, Jesus and His Father God are both brimming with racism.
    No wonder God bypassed all of them “special people”, and established the Messianic line through this apparently despised “half-Jew”. God has truly chosen the “…things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.”

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
    (1 Corinthians 1:29; Romans 11:33)

  236. Oscar says:

    @Scott says:
    March 6, 2015 at 5:29 am

    “… by its nature it creates a situation where court judgments, careers, and resources will not be distributed evenly between groups… ”

    And that means Jews and Asians will earn a disproportionate number of advanced degrees, especially in STEM, which means their income will be disproportionately higher. A a Hispanic immigrant with two engineering degrees, I don’t have a problem with that. Equality under the law does not mean equality of outcomes or achievement.

    Apply the law impartially – as God commanded – and let each individual face the consequences of his/her actions. To do otherwise is to condescend to an adult as if he/she was a child.

    @Scott says:
    March 6, 2015 at 7:55 am

    “The guys shun her. They do so willfully and with an obtuse and very real bias because she is black. That is racism, and they are jerks. How often does that happen in 2015 America?”

    Not very. As I’ve stated before, the US is by far the least racist country I’ve ever visited or lived in, and I’ve visited or lived in many countries on four continents. In fact, the hypersensitivity to racism in American culture is precisely due to the relative lack of racism in the US.

    Racism, xenophobia – whatever you want to call it – is the default position of humanity. It’s a result of the state of nature, where perpetual tribal warfare is the norm. The closer a culture exists to the state of nature, the more prevalent racism tends to be, and vice versa.

  237. SirHamster says:

    @Oscar:

    Why do you expect any more answers from me when you refuse to answer my questions? Even if the Yes/No questions are too hard for you to answer, you could simply explain why you are not providing an answer; I would be satisfied with that response as well. This is a conversation, not an interrogation.

    Answer these two questions, and I will answer your question on arbitrariness, with the Scripture support you request.

    Is that [choice of Israel] discrimination?
    Is the nation of Israel also a race?

    Yes/No questions, but you can answer however you want.

  238. Scott says:

    This:

    And that means Jews and Asians will earn a disproportionate number of advanced degrees, especially in STEM, which means their income will be disproportionately higher. A a Hispanic immigrant with two engineering degrees, I don’t have a problem with that. Equality under the law does not mean equality of outcomes or achievement.

    Apply the law impartially – as God commanded – and let each individual face the consequences of his/her actions. To do otherwise is to condescend to an adult as if he/she was a child.

    Is considered hersy in my profession. And I endorese it regulalry. And since I comment in blogs (and have two of my own) in the open, I have already been accused by my clinical and academic colleagues of “raising [my] kids to be bigots” and “engaging in hate speech.” I have lost connections, and probably some future opportunities (in and after the Army) because of it.

    Most people don’t have the stomach for this level of laissez faire economics/legal approach. It is a libertarian + race/gender realism approach. I hope I continue to, because it is getting scary.

  239. IBB yes, but I’ve gone through maybe 4 pics since having my newborn 10 weeks ago – pay no attention… its like an identity crisis of the gravatar or something. I’ll just change the subject with a Bill Murrary’s idea on finding out if a marriage will work (he’s awesome in my opinion):

  240. Thomas says:

    Not exactly relevant to the topic at hand, but relevant to the blog as a whole:

    “It’s OK to be a moody ‘b,’ ”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/living/feat-moods-antidepressants-new-book/index.html

    I’m not a fan of people doping away their emotions but there seems to be a theme in the undercurrent of the article that we should accept nastiness from women “because hormones”. Hopefully my formatting tags worked this time.

  241. gwdft

    IBB yes, but I’ve gone through maybe 4 pics since having my newborn 10 weeks ago – pay no attention… its like an identity crisis of the gravatar or something.

    Fair enough. Keep chaning pictures!

  242. Virtue says:

    @Hipster Racist

    I humbly request that you read my whole post. It wasn’t very long, and in it, I explicitly stated that you aren’t a Stormfronter & and that there needs to be room in the discussion for people who aren’t pro-Semitic.

  243. JDG says:

    I wouldn’t eat anything Lady Macbeth cooks. Would you?

    No sir, that is Mr. Clinton’s job.

  244. JDG says:

    “I am not accusing God of racism.”

    Yes, you did.

    It doesn’t matter if God is racist or not. He is God and cannot be judged by man. God does not say: “Thou shalt not be a racist”, but he does say we are to love our neighbor as our self (Mark 12:31). He does not say: “Thou shalt not be a bigot.”, but instead we are told to think of others as better than ourselves (Phil 2:3). My dad, whom many here might call a racist, does not believe in mixed marriages of any race. Is he a racist? I don’t know. I’ve never heard him speak as if he believes one race is better than another, yet he believes in racial purity.

    My question to someone like my dad would not be, “Are you a racist?”. My question would be: “Are you loving your neighbor?”. In his eyes he is showing love to his neighbor by advising him to marry within his own race.So what if he thinks that white people are smarter than black people, or black people are physically superior to white people. What matters is does he love them.

  245. sandals with socks says:

    Regarding NFP its interesting that the latest wave in natural health care is women transitioning off of birth control pills and IUDs and onto more natural forms of birth control. They are looking into using the same techniques as Catholics like taking temperature and tracking their cycles. There are even apps for this and Bloomberg TV calls it “the future of reproductive health”.

    http://appcrawlr.com/ios-apps/best-apps-natural-birth-control

  246. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 6, 2015 at 10:39 am

    “you could simply explain why you are not providing an answer; I would be satisfied with that response as well.”

    I already did. You apparently declined to read the explanation. Fear not. A more thorough explanation lies ahead.

    Since you can’t provide scriptures to support your position (because it’s unscriptural), I’ll go ahead and provide you with even more scripture explaining why your position is unscriptural.

    God did not choose a race. He chose a man, Abraham. God did not choose Abraham because of his race. God chose Abraham because of his faith.

    Romans 4:3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” … 18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”

    But that’s the New Testament, right? Yes, and Paul is quoting the Old.

    Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

    God promised to accomplish His will through Abraham’s children. But, who are Abraham’s children? Let’s ask Paul.

    Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

    Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

    See? NOT ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ISRAEL ARE ISRAEL. NOR BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS DESCENDANTS ARE THEY ALL ABRAHAM’S CHILDREN.

    Abraham’s children are those who, like their father, Abraham, demonstrate faith in God.

    But that’s the New Testament, right?

    Yes, it is. Let’s see what Jesus thinks.

    John 8:33 They [the Pharisees] answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”… 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”… 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    The Pharisees made the same mistake you’re making. They thought they were chosen because of their race. Christ explained to them that they weren’t chosen at all, because of their unbelief. He explained to them that they were not Abraham’s children, but children of their father, the devil.

    But that’s the New Testament, right?

    Yes, it is. But the New Covenant wasn’t in place yet. Christ lived under, and fulfilled, the Old Covenant. Yet, even under the Old Covenant, He explained that not all who were physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were truly Abraham’s children.

    Furthermore, there were many people in the Old Testament – as I’ve already demonstrated – that were Abraham’s children, though not of the same race.

    Thousands of Egyptians became Abraham’s children (Exodus 12:37-38).

    Moses’ first wife, Zaporah, a Midianite, was Abraham’s child (Exodus 2:21-23).

    Moses’ second wife, a Cushite, was Abraham’s child (Numbers 12:1).

    Rahab and her family, Canaanites, were Abraham’s children (Joshua 2:17-20).

    Ruth, a Moabite, was Abraham’s child (Ruth 1:16-17).

    Zelek, an Ammonite, was Abraham’s child (2 Samuel 23:37)

    Naharai, a Beerothite, was Abraham’s child (2 Samuel 23:37)

    Ira and Gareb, both Ithrites, were Abraham’s children (2 Samuel 23:38)

    Uriah, a Hittite, was Abraham’s child (2 Samuel 23:39).

    Basically, anyone, of any race, as long as they demonstrated faith in Abraham’s God become’s Abraham’s child. That was as true under the Old Covenant (Exodus 12:38-39), as it is under the New Covenant.

    Galatians 3:6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c] 7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

  247. Oscar says:

    @JDG says:
    March 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    “No sir, that is Mr. Clinton’s job.”

    Agreed. But he’s probably not dumb enough to do that.

  248. SirHamster says:

    I already did. You apparently declined to read the explanation. Fear not. A more thorough explanation lies ahead.

    Ignoring the question to respond to a different part of the post is not answering the question. I’m not a mind reader. If you think the question is already answered, tell me.

    So now you have told me that you consider yourself as having already answered the question, and have repeated them. Very well. So to distill your answers, your response is:

    “Is that [choice of Israel] discrimination?”
    Oscar: No comment. (Saying that Israel is not a race does not answer this question. Your reference to God’s choice points to “yes”, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth)

    “Is the nation of Israel also a race?”
    Oscar: No, Israel is the people of faith.

    Do you feel that is an accurate summary?

    SirHamster: “God chose the nation of Israel for His purposes. Arbitrarily.”

    Oscar: What makes you think it was arbitrary? Give scripture references to support your answer.

    First off, logic and word definitions.
    def: Arbitrary- “subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion”

    What would it mean that God’s choice of Israel is not arbitrary? That would mean that God had no discretion to choose anyone other than Abraham, and that he had to make Israel great. What on Earth can bind God to such a course of action? Human righteousness? Human faith?

    I hope you already see the problem of describing it any other way. It has to be arbitrary, because God is Sovereign.

    So what Scripture supports this concept of God’s arbitrary will to choose his own people?

    Roman 4:2
    “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
    Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.”

    That righteousness is a credit from God points to his sovereignty to choose, arbitrarily. Is God obligated to offer any of us salvation? No! But it is God’s grace to offer it, and to make righteous those who respond to his offer in faith.

    Exodus 33:19
    “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

    God’s words to Moses describing himself. God’s mercy and compassion are given out based on his will, not on any obligation from any outside source.

    Matthew 20:1-16
    The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Excerpt:
    “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’”

    Jesus’ parable is illustrating how the kingdom of Heaven will be – us men understand that the vineyard owner has the right to give out wages according to his desire – and likewise God with his heavenly rewards. So when the first is last, they cannot complain that they have been cheated – they have received their just reward from a just and sovereign God.

  249. sandals with socks says:

    Is God racist? The more interesting question is which race is God?

  250. JDG says:

    The more interesting question is which race is God?

    God became a man in a person born from a Jewish lineage. Of what race is a Jewish man? Yet God is a lot more than a mere man. My understanding is that all humans are descended from Adam, who was created by God, and all persons (and races) since the flood are descended from Noah, whose great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was Adam.

  251. @Virtue

    Fair enough. If “Zionism” means “Jewish people have the right to their own nation and the right to decide their own affairs” – than I am a Zionist.

    You will find nothing on my blog against that sort of “Zionism” – most of what I have written about “Zionism” is more about “Xian-Zionism” or ADL-style left-wing “globalism” – or “multi-culturalism” – which is certainly not limited to left-wing liberal type people who happen to be of the Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity.

    @Lucius Somesuch

    Christianity claims the Old Testament, its history, and the right of interpreting it in light of a consummate revelation which Judaism expressly rejects. Is every Christian Study Bible now a scandal, unless every OT footnote directs the reader to the nearest synagogue?

    That’s the point I was making. I notice that it is NOT Jews, but these “Xian-Zionists” that have a problem acknowledging that Christianity and Judaism are actually quite different religions.

    This is probably a cheap shot, but as someone who almost married a Jewish woman, and spent a decade around actual, real Jews in NYC, I will, in fact, claim to know more about actual Judaism than Texas “Xian-Zionists” who have likely never met an actual Jew or perhaps never even had a bagel from a midtown Deli.

    Oh yes – by the way – the “Jewish Conspiracy” is real – you should listen in on their conversations sometime!!1

  252. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 6, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    “So now you have told me that you consider yourself as having already answered the question, and have repeated them.“

    There you go again. I never claimed to have answered your “yes/no” questions. I did claim to have fulfilled the following request.

    @SirHamster says:
    March 6, 2015 at 10:39 am
    “you could simply explain why you are not providing an answer; I would be satisfied with that response as well.”

    I even quoted you so you’d know to which request responded. So, here I go again, explaining for the third time. Please try and pay attention this time.

    The correct response to a question that begins from a false premise is not to answer the question. The correct response to a question that begins from a false premise is to point out the false premise from which the question begins, and explain why the false premise is false.

    The false premise from which your “yes/no” questions begin is that God chose a race above all other races.

    If your false premise was true, then the Apostle Paul and Christ Himself would be wrong when they explained that God determines “true Israel” (Romans 9:6-7 and John 8:33-44) on the basis of faith, not race.

    If you think you can prove – through Scripture – that you are right, your false premise is true, and the Apostle Paul and Christ Himself are wrong, and God determines “true Israel” on the basis of race, not faith, then by all means, please do so.

    “First off, logic and word definitions.
    def: Arbitrary- ‘subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion’”

    You conveniently omitted a big chunk of the definition of the word arbitrary.

    ar·bi·trar·yˈärbəˌtrerē/adjective
    1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    “What would it mean that God’s choice of Israel is not arbitrary? That would mean that God had no discretion to choose anyone other than Abraham, and that he had to make Israel great. What on Earth can bind God to such a course of action? Human righteousness? Human faith?”

    No, it would mean that God’s “reason or system” (AKA, plan) for election is not known to you or me, either because we are incapable of completely understanding His plan (Isaiah 55:9), or because He has declined to explain His “reason or system” in full detail to us (Job 38-41). Apparently, neither of those blatantly obvious possibilities (among others) occurred to you. That’s some “logic”.

  253. SirHamster says:

    @Oscar:

    There you go again. I never claimed to have answered your “yes/no” questions. I did claim to have fulfilled the following request.

    There I go what? Your responses are unclear, and so I did not understand some of the points you tried to communicate. Thus, I asked you to clarify, because I am interested in communicating.

    I even quoted you so you’d know to which request responded

    I should have quoted your last reply. You responded to a post where I asked you questions, but you did not respond to the questions, nor did you explain why you ignored them. I cannot read your mind from your silence.

    If you explain your silence, as you just have, then I understand what you are getting at.

    The false premise from which your “yes/no” questions begin is that God chose a race above all other races.

    And here is your false premise – that I think God chose a race *above* other races.

    I merely think that God chose a race for a purpose, while not choosing those other races for that particular purpose.

    When one looks at Israel’s history, they were given specific duties to receive specific blessings. They were given custody of the words of Moses, where other races (more accurately, peoples/nations) did not. God sent them more prophets and more words than He did to other nations.

    To say that the nation of Israel is not chosen is to ignore the entire OT.

    They may not have been chosen for exclusive salvation, but they were chosen as messengers for God’s salvation. That too, qualifies as a type of choosing. I have made the point before that “chosen” encompasses more than salvation, and you have not provided any answer to that.

    You conveniently omitted a big chunk of the definition of the word arbitrary.

    When a word in the dictionary has more than one definition, the word does not mean every single one of those definitions simultaneously. Depending on speaker or context, it may mean one thing, or it may mean another.

    So when I use “arbitrary” using one specific meaning, and you thought I meant “arbitrary” in a different sense – you have made an error in understanding what I said. Your criticism of using the “random choice” meaning of “arbitrary” is correct, but it does not address what I am saying.

    If you insist it does, then you are merely burning down strawmen. A waste of effort when I have already explained what I meant.

  254. SirHamster says:

    I’m not sure the direction of this discussion is profitable, so let me start over on what I was getting at.

    “Racist” has become a meaningless “badword” accusation due to constant mis-use as a rhetorical attack by those with no love for truth. As far as it has any meaning left, it means merely “racial discrimination”, which is so broad that it can be applied to much benign or even good activities.

    I assume we are agreed that “sexist” and “misogynist” are mis-used to attack traditional/Christian positions. And the thing is, to try to defend God by saying “He’s not sexist to create men strong and women pretty” is to agree with the accuser that “sexism is bad” and that it is a meaningful standard one needs to live up to; and it’s so bad that God can’t be associated with it.

    I am of the opinion that “racist” has joined that category. I am not interested in defending myself or God from accusations of “racist”, because the word has been devalued. Perhaps it used to mean “unjust racial discrimination”. That hints at the real problem – not the discrimination, but the Injustice.

    I made a mistake to accept Dave’s paraphrase that the claim was “God is racist”. That has a different meaning than what I was aiming for, and I should have been more careful in how I responded to him.

    I will proclaim that God is Just, that He is Sovereign, and that He is Good. Judging with the regard you hold Scripture, we are agreed at least on that.

  255. sandals with socks says:

    “God became a man in a person born from a Jewish lineage.”

    Is God originally a person or an energy?

    “Of what race is a Jewish man?”

    Arab? Afro-asiatic?

    “My understanding is that all humans are descended from Adam”

    If he was the first human then he would have been African?

  256. sandals with socks says:

    “Equality under the law does not mean equality of outcomes or achievement.

    Apply the law impartially – as God commanded – and let each individual face the consequences of his/her actions. To do otherwise is to condescend to an adult as if he/she was a child.”

    The problem is that our laws do not apply equally to everyone. For example the buying and selling of crack cocaine carries far graver penalties than the buying of powder cocaine because the former is the drug of choice of low income blacks and the later the drug of choice of high income whites. The laws were made to be stacked against certain sections of society and some of those laws haven’t yet been changed.

    “Furthermore, on this very website I have freely acknowledged that the I.Q. bell curves for different enthinicities are different, and that some demographic groups are disproportionately represented in the higher strata of intellectual achievement (notably Asian and White men). ”

    Most notably Jews.

    ” I agree with you that world-wide hatred of Jews is becoming more vocal”

    Why do you think this is? Are Jews being jerks or are people just envious of their smarts?

  257. Oscar says:

    @SirHamster says:
    March 7, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    “nor did you explain why you ignored them.”

    I did, actually. First briefly, then more thoroughly, then more thoroughly still.

    “And here is your false premise – that I think God chose a race *above* other races. I merely think that God chose a race for a purpose, while not choosing those other races for that particular purpose.”

    Remove the word “above”, and we’re still left with your false premise. God did no choose a race. God chose a man – Abraham – and his children to accomplish His purpose.

    As both the Apostle Paul (Romans 9:6-7) and Christ Himself explained (John 8:33-34), Abraham’s children are not defined by race, but by faith.

    “To say that the nation of Israel is not chosen is to ignore the entire OT. They may not have been chosen for exclusive salvation, but they were chosen as messengers for God’s salvation.”

    How can one be a messenger for a faith one does not hold? The only Israelites who could have been “messengers for God’s salvation” are those who had faith in God and His salvation. In other words, Abraham’s children, as defined by Paul and Christ.

    “That too, qualifies as a type of choosing. I have made the point before that ‘chosen’ encompasses more than salvation, and you have not provided any answer to that.”

    I just did. Abraham’s children, True Israel, are not a race. They are a nation of many origins defined by faith in Abraham’s God.

    “So when I use ‘arbitrary’ using one specific meaning, and you thought I meant ‘arbitrary’ in a different sense – you have made an error in understanding what I said. Your criticism of using the ‘random choice’ meaning of ‘arbitrary’ is correct, but it does not address what I am saying.”

    Then perhaps you should have chosen a word not loaded with the definition “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” For example, you could have chosen the word “sovereign” and avoided the confusion entirely.

    @SirHamster says:
    March 7, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    “I will proclaim that God is Just, that He is Sovereign, and that He is Good. Judging with the regard you hold Scripture, we are agreed at least on that.”

    On that, we most definitely agree. I apologize for my excessive sarcasm. I’m working on it.

  258. sandals with socks says:

    “With a vengeance, I might add. Did you know that if you tell me what SSRI a patient is responding to and what symptom cluster they have, I can get very close to guessing their race? That human genome project is really starting to bear fruit.”

    This is very interesting. How can you tell? And what do you mean by race here? Genotype? Can you tell if the patient is a Polynesian or a Japanese? An Arab or a Hebrew? Masai or Eritrean? Celt or Franco? How does it work?

  259. SirHamster says:

    I did, actually. First briefly, then more thoroughly, then more thoroughly still.

    Your first brief response talked to “Salvation”, which is irrelevant to “Chosen” – and I responded to it. As I kept asking for clarification with respect to my questions, you only continued adding on points that did not address the questions; focusing on scriptural arguments which do not address questions that pertain to the English language.

    Communications is two-ways, so I’ll share the blame, but I won’t take all of it.

    Remove the word “above”, and we’re still left with your false premise. God did no choose a race. God chose a man – Abraham – and his children to accomplish His purpose.

    Do you want to argue that there is no such thing as “race”, or that the Jewish people do not qualify as a “race”? Because to argue that the physical descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people, are not chosen requires ignoring their unique and Scripturally documented history.

    I’d agree we Gentiles have been adopted into God’s family as a son and that we can claim to be spiritual (but not physical) descendants of Abraham; but that does not change that there was a “natural”, chosen son.

    How can one be a messenger for a faith one does not hold? The only Israelites who could have been “messengers for God’s salvation” are those who had faith in God and His salvation. In other words, Abraham’s children, as defined by Paul and Christ.

    A chosen messenger who refuses to deliver the message is still a chosen messenger. Being a bad messenger does not change that the sender chose that messenger.

    How do you reconcile your view with the Scripture that explains that Jesus “came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1)?

    Or that Jesus explicitly considers his ministry to be “to the lost sheep of Israel”? (Matt 15)

    Jesus was rejected during his ministry on Earth, 2000 years ago – who rejected him? All nations? Or a specific nation? When Jesus lamented people who killed prophets and messengers sent to them, which people was that? (Luke 13:34)

    When the Romans sacked Jerusalem several decades later and made the city overflow with Jewish blood – do you think that punishment was aimed at all nations – or the one nation that rejected its King?

    Do you think the Jewish people today are not Israel? Recall that Paul himself says things such as, “salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.” (Rom 11) This is the same author who describes Christians as the True Israel in Philippians. Do you think Paul changed his mind and changed whether or not Israel is “Israel”?

    Where the OT describes a multitude of rituals for the observant Jew – was that directed at the “all nations” True Israel? Despite it being written down for a specific group of ex-slaves wandering a desert? Despite us Gentile Christians not observing them as directed by the Apostles in Acts?

    We Gentile Christians are part of the True Israel; yet there is still an Israel, who played a certain role in history, and who benefit and suffer from God’s promises and curses even now. Do you think them capable of rejecting God’s promises so completely that their future has nothing further to do with God?

    Given the faithfulness and steadfastness of our God, I think not. If you disagree on this point, I can only ask that we watch and see if God is done with Israel.

    Then perhaps you should have chosen a word not loaded with the definition “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” For example, you could have chosen the word “sovereign” and avoided the confusion entirely.

    I am not a mind reader. I hardly have time to search the dictionaries for all definitions to clear all possible misunderstandings before I make a quick comment on the Internet.

    Serious question that I want an answer to: Do you think it is my fault that you took “arbitrary” in the wrong way, even after I clarified what I meant and pointed to a valid dictionary definition?

  260. Dave says:

    I made a mistake to accept Dave’s paraphrase that the claim was “God is racist”. That has a different meaning than what I was aiming for, and I should have been more careful in how I responded to him.

    Whenever a term is used without qualification, its meaning must be assumed to be the generallty accepted meaning. If I mentiioned the name “Jesus” for example, it is immediately assumed that I am referring to the second person of the Trinity. But the fact is, there are many Jesuses living in Mexico, and I could have been referring to any of them. If I had clarified further, my hearers wouldn’t have arrived at a wrong conclusion.

    When I used the world “racism” on this site to respond to Laura’s charge to her daughters as they look for husbands, no one here asked me to clarify what I meant. It was assumed that I meant “racial bias”, or racial injustice”, and the like. Folks pounced on me like I just cursed their mothers.
    So when someone here said God Himself was racist for choosing Israel as His special people, and that Jesus, for failing to help a non-Jewish woman in need, and subsequently calling her a dog, was also racist, the meaning of the term was clear. There is nothing to be careful about as per the interpretation. The meaning of the term, or whatever was meant by it, was unabiguous. It was unjust racial discrimination, and I don’t want anyone to try and get away from that.
    On a personal level I have hardly, if ever, experienced racism. It does not even show up on my radar screen. I have so far lived in 3 countries and have visited at least a total of 15, going as far as Australia and Austria. America is paradoxically one of the most open and accepting of those countries, and one of the most obsessed with race at the same time. I have dated women of all colors and ethnicites—from the blonde from Poland to the chocolate colored girl from Zimbabwe and the “yellow”-colored girl from Asia. Though each one has their patterns of behaviors, they are, in the end, all beautiful human beings.
    I wish those in the US who seem to be so preoccupied with racial issues spent more time on vacation outside North America. It will surely expand their appreciations for God’s beautiful world, and the beautiful people that live within it.

  261. SirHamster says:

    @Dave:
    So when someone here said God Himself was racist for choosing Israel

    Ah, so now you are willing to narrow the accusation. Instead of “some folks”, it’s “someone”. Better, but still off the mark. My words: “God acts objectively racist”. That is not “God Himself was racist”. Your penchant for word-twisting is noted yet again.

    The difference is one of nature – in some racial groups, there is a concept of “acting white”; which is a different sort of thing than “being white”. “Acting racist” is a different description than “is racist”.

    The meaning of the term, or whatever was meant by it, was unabiguous. It was unjust racial discrimination, and I don’t want anyone to try and get away from that.

    Does that mean you think there is such a thing as “just racial discrimination”? What word would we call that?

  262. Dave says:

    “Acting racist” is a different description than “is racist”.

    Really? So much for the popular saying, that “if it acts like a duck, and walks like a duck…”.
    I think whichever way you cut it, it is unwise to charge God with any act which hints at unrighteousness. God cannot ever be unrighteous, or He will cease from being God immediately. It is easier for hell to freeze than for God to be unrighteous. The very essence of God is righteousness personified. Even if some of his acts appear unrighteous to us, the fact is, our perception is what is faulty, not God’s sense of good and evil. Even if God were to allow our children to be killed in extraordinary circumstances, and our businesses were to go bankrupt overnight, and our health were to suddenly disappear, all while we were actively serving Him, God would still be right.
    Actually, that was exactly what happened to Job. At first, he charged God with unrighteousness, and effectively painted God with wickedness.
    But our God would have none of that. He took Job through memory lane, to help him remember what made God God, and what made Job man:

    Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Job 38:1-3

    So God grilled Job, and asked him questions he never would be able to answer–how He commanded the mornings, and numbered the clouds. God went on and on from chapter 38 to 41, asking question upon question that no living being could ever answer. In the end Job saw his folly and realized that if he could not answer qustions about the universe, how could he understand the mind of God in its entirety:

    Job answered….therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. Job 42:3-6

    What I am trying to say is this: it is completely wrong of you or of anyone else to charge God with acting racist. God never acted racist, and will never do. “Racist” is never a positive term to describe anyone’s acts, much less God’s. It is like saying that someone acted “evil” but they are not evil themselves. Didn’t Christ say out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45)? And the wise man said to guard your heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23)?

    No one can act racist repeatedly, and make racist statements over and over again, for thousands of years, without being a racist at heart. The difference between “acting racist” and “being racist” is all semantics. The easiest way to know someone who is racist is when they act racist, even if their words don’t sound racist. By your definition, God not only acted racist, He also spoke in a racist manner, favoring the Jews.
    However, I think it is absurd to say God acted racist but He was not racist. God never ever acted racist, and will never do. He is altogether righteous, and He made of ONE BLOOD all men (and women) on the earth (Acts 17:26).

    That said, I don’t want to flog this isue to death. You could have mistakenly expressed your thoughts using less than perfect terms. If you say that was the case, I would understand. In the meantime, let us all pray and ask God to shed His love into our hearts, and to give us an understanding, so that we may love who and what He loves and see what He wants us to see.

  263. Scott says:

    Sandals-

    I’m on my phone, so this may not be the details may not be what you are looking for.

    The technology wasnt designed to be used in the way I described, but in reverse. A simple blood test pulls out all the genetic information I need — genotype/phenotype and alleles. That combination has now yielded a very precise map to help the psychiatrist tailor his regimen and avoid the trial and error approach we used to use. (Try Zoloft for 4 weeks, side effects are unbearable, poor efficacy then try Paxil, then…until you get it right)

    In reverse, those alleles cluster together in genotypes. Therefore you could backwards engineer the process (there would be no reason to) down to as specific as the mapping gets. (The sub-racial categories you mentioned have some of those markers in common).

  264. sandals with socks says:

    Interesting info Scott. “In reverse, those alleles cluster together in genotypes.” What qualifies as genetype, is my question. Any examples?

  265. Scott says:

    It would take a lot of study, but this article for example isolates HTR2A C/C genotype, which is more likely to be found in “African Americans” which, of course means “black.”

    Again, it is backwards engineering, so it’s not particularly useful unless you are trying to figure out which races (again, as far down the sub-race rabbit hole the current research goes on a particular allele or genotye) might respond better to certain classifications of drugs.

    SO, if you can’t afford the blood test (about 600$ right now) but you have a very accurate genetic history (and self-report would be poor most of the time) you could theoretically skip a lot of trial and error (trying multiple meds until you find the right one).

    Like “oh, you are 97% Basque? And your symptoms are X, Y, and Z? You will likely do very well on medication A.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14514498

  266. Pingback: Feminist self loathing | Dalrock

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