How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ?

In the discussion of Effortless the conversation turned to how wives should expect to be lead, and how they would naturally react if their husband lead them as the Bible teaches.  There are two parts to this, which correspond to the separate instructions to husbands and wives:

  1. Wives are to submit to their husbands even if their husband doesn’t obey the word.  The idea that a wife should expect her husband to first lead (and lead correctly) before submitting is not only not supported by Scripture, but it is in direct contradiction to 1 Pet 3:1-6.
  2. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25-29).

The first point is generally ignored, although it is worth noting that modern Christians are quite enthusiastic about 1 Pet 3:1-6 with a twist.  The second point is much more popular, and this is what I want to touch on with this post.  While as fallen men and women none of us will achieve Christ’s perfection, it is still important to look at His example.

One of the problems with modern Christian culture is the misconception that loving is a synonym for nice.  Jesus is often considered to be a sort of passive non judgmental friend, instead of our Lord, our Master.  Husbands are then compared to this false standard.  For example, in How to Make Your Wife Submit to Your Authority -6 Tips Caleb Suko starts with:

As a husband your job is to love like Christ loves. One of the best ways you can do that is by simply being a friend to your wife.

The first sentence is straight out of Ephesians, but the second sentence has origins from the Book of Oprah.  A bit further down Suko claims that loving like Christ means never holding your wife accountable:

Here’s the real quality of a man, if you make a mistake you’d better admit it and fix it!

If she makes a mistake you need to fix that too but you don’t have to say anything!

You know what I’m talking about, that time when she made a poor judgement call about buying a new kitchen gadget which promptly broke the following week.

Even though it’s tempting, don’t say,

“I told you so!”

Instead suck it up and fix it for her without saying a word. She’ll love you for it and next time she’ll be a lot more likely to listen to your advice.

Wives read and hear this sort of message all the time and come away thinking “Why can’t my husband be more like Jesus?”  They become convinced that their own rebellion is purely a reflection of their husband’s imperfection.  The problem is the Jesus Christian leaders like Suko are describing doesn’t match the Gospels.  Nowhere in the Bible is there a rule that a leader can’t correct the one they are leading.  Moreover, Jesus very strongly rebuked the Apostle Peter after Peter failed exactly in the way that Jesus had predicted.  In John 21 we learn about the reunion of Jesus and Peter after the Resurrection.  Peter eagerly dives into the sea and swims to Jesus, but Jesus doesn’t address Peter until after everyone has eaten.  Jesus then repeatedly rebukes Peter, to the point where Peter is absolutely heartbroken:

15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah,[b] do you love Me more than these?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”

16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[c] do you love Me?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[d] do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”

And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”

According to Suko’s theory of Christian leadership, Jesus has failed to act as a Christian leader by not sucking it up and pretending that Peter hadn’t failed exactly as Jesus had foretold.  Implicit in Jesus’ rebuke is a very serious “I told you so”.  Moreover, Peter is right;  Jesus could see into Peter’s heart, and knew he loved Him.  The problem of course is not that Jesus was unloving, but that we have been sold a great deal of nonsense about what loving means.  Jesus loved Peter, and never stopped loving him even when Peter denied Him.  After Peter pleads with Jesus to look in his heart, Jesus then lets Peter know He indeed does know that Peter has repented.  Jesus responds to Peter’s plea by explaining that because Peter has repented and will faithfully follow Him in the future, Peter will suffer an excruciating and humiliating death:

Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

In foretelling Peter’s excruciating, humiliating death Jesus is paying Peter a great honor.  But this only makes sense if you remember that Peter (just like us) was called to obey Jesus.

I bring up this example not to offer it as the single template for Christian leadership*, but to explode the false idea that being a loving Christian leader always means being passive or nice.  At the same time, this should demolish the related assertion that if husbands were to lead like Christ wives would naturally want to submit:

I can’t speak for all women, in general, i think we are wired to respond well to Christ like love- “laying down of ones life (as Christ did)” …in fact- I can have nothing but total admiration and respect for that man (and -that’s- just a natural reaction🙂.

For those wives like soulthirstjc who believe they would naturally want to submit if their husband lead like Jesus, I suggest you place yourself in Peter’s shoes in John 21:15-19.  You have failed in a truly spectacular way, a way which will be remembered for all eternity.  You are deeply ashamed of your failure, and the moment you realized what you had done you wept bitterly.  You have also been physically separated from Christ and are reunited with Him for the first time.  You are so excited to see Him again that you dove into the sea to swim to Him.  But before Christ welcomes you back, He strongly rebukes you three times, reminding you of your failure and questioning if you love Him.  Only once you demonstrate that you are truly heartbroken does He acknowledge that He knows you are sorry, telling you that because of your repentance you will die a painful and humiliating death.

Do you still think your reaction to the leadership of Jesus in the flesh would always be to automatically want to submit?  Isn’t it much more likely you would sometimes at least initially** be hurt and angry, and accuse Him of being unloving and unworthy of your submission?

Isn’t this precisely how you feel at times about your own husband?

 

*This is one of many examples of Christ’s leadership in the Gospels, and it would be a mistake to either focus solely on it or pretend it didn’t exist when considering Christ’s leadership.  However, other examples demonstrate that Jesus wasn’t passive or “nice” in his always loving leadership;  He first called out the embarrassed woman with menstrual blood who touched His garment as well as the Gentile woman who asked Him to help her possessed daughter, before ultimately blessing both of them.  Husbands should also remember that we are called to dwell with our wives in understanding, giving honor to them as the weaker vessel.
**Until you repented.

This entry was posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Headship, Marriage, Rebellion, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ?

  1. If a wife says she doesn’t follow a husband’s leadership because ‘he is not doing it right,’ then she is saying it is his fault. Thus escaping the blame. By denying her own moral agency. In other words, admitting she can’t behave morally. Gosh, you’d insult yourself less by just admitting to being rebellious.

    Linda

  2. anonymous_ng says:

    Dalrock, I was thinking recently about how it would look if women loved their children the way they expect their husband to love them.

    Here is the KJV of Titus chapter 2
    1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
    2 that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
    3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
    4 that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
    5 to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

  3. Pingback: How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ? | Manosphere.com

  4. Pingback: How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ? | Neoreactive

  5. Scott says:

    I was just (in the last hour) in a FB discussion about this exact topic on the page “Ask an Orthodox Priest” and praise God, under pressure from serveral commenters, the priest Fr John Gleason stuck to his guns on the truth.

    He unreservedly condemned egalitarianism, and transactional qualifiers within the commandments to married couples.

    There is no place in scripture (or if you are Catholic/Orthodox–canons, tradition, holy fathers, church doctors) that reads: “Wives obey your husbands IF HIS LEADERSHIP IS TO YOUR LIKING.”

    Likewise, there is no teaching that reads: “Husbands love your wives IF THEY ARE BEHAVING IN A LOVABLE WAY.”

    He and I argued this for 2 hours to the same shrieking we get here. But at least he is an authority and was unapologetic.

  6. Urban II says:

    Linda, correct. To admit that is to admit that you are a child, and must be governed as one.

  7. Thank you for this important article, Dalrock. I recently argued that the duty of submission for women is not absolute and does not extend to the case of a Christian man ordering his wife to sin as several have argued on other threads. We want competent officers at our side who will listen to us and give us respect. We don’t want docile, submissive slave girls- not all the time anyway.

    I would argue similarly it is not the husbands absolute duty to show the sacrificial love of Christ. That is the goal but all of us know that is impossible. Neither absolute love nor absolute submission is desirable nor is it required by scripture. If we consider “the church” to include the children of Israel then we get a MUCH better idea how God treats His people- and how a husband should treat his wife (Hint: It is conditioned on her BEHAVIOR). When they are in rebellion He turns His face from them. When they are obedient He gives them His favor. See the Book of Esther for the wife’s right (and a darn good technique for the Red Pill Women out there) to oppose her husbands orders and convince her husband to her way of thinking.

    TLDR: Submission does not mean a complete loss of free will or agency for women and loving like Christ is not the unconditional sappy blue pill love some of us men believe.

  8. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Most of Christendom does not fear God and treats Him like some kind of cosmic ATM. They love that their relationship with Christ is about themselves – “Jesus loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life”. There is no fear in their heart for the offense of sin, the cost of their redemption and the power to repent and live a sanctified life.

    The problem is that wives do treat their husbands like they do Christ. He is a temporal ATM, not feared, and the relationship is about them. Eph 5:33 says that wives are to fear their husbands, in this way wives submit to their husbands as the Lord (Eph 5:22). The problem is that they submit to neither and fear neither, Apostasy is divorce – it is all about their feelings and happiness. God and husbands are just there to make their lives awesome and fabulous. Of course to tell them to repent is unloving, because it tells them they are not awesome and in need of a righteousness that they lack and that makes them feel not fabulous – how unloving!

  9. The Question says:

    “One of the problems with modern Christian culture is the misconception that loving is a synonym for nice.”

    There isn’t enough ink on the planet to explain how truth this observation is. The idea that being “nice” is a godly virtue needs to die. It needs to be smashed, blown up, eradicated, and burned. It is one of the most destructive heresies in the American Christian Church and has caused unbelievable amount of harm to both men and women.

    In Churchianity, being “nice” means:
    A. Not taking a moral stand on anything when it comes to anyone else
    B. Adhering to the highest moral standards at all times under all circumstances (standards decided by others, naturally)
    C. Submitting to any and all who claim authority over you (yet you still are responsible for the consequences)
    D. Never offending anyone else, no matter what it is you’re doing
    E. Never getting offended, no matter what anyone has done to you or others

    And I’m sure Satan was being “nice” to Eve as he told her to eat that fruit, just as I’m sure Adam was just being “nice” when he let her eat it without protest and then ate the fruit himself.

  10. desiderian says:

    Scott,

    “He and I argued this for 2 hours to the same shrieking we get here. But at least he is an authority and was unapologetic.”

    What is there to apologize for? He was doing his job. If it was easy, he wouldn’t have one.

  11. desiderian says:

    Dal,

    Where do you think the “nice” thing came from?

  12. Scott says:

    What is there to apologize for? He was doing his job. If it was easy, he wouldn’t have one.

    Correct. But usually in these kinds of threads, after a bit of hammering from the SJWs (yes, we have them in Orthodoxy) the priest answering the question starts to back track a bit.

    Low bar? Maybe. But I was amazed at his steel. (Which is why I named him. Clergy like that need support).

  13. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    The letters to the Churches in Revelation 2 and 3 may be worth examining on how Jesus deals with different individuals and groups of His followers. Some encouragement, some chastisement, etc.

  14. earl says:

    You got to hand it when it comes to God and the scripture…very few times when He makes a command is there an exception clause. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is men are not supposed to divorce their wives having the exception clause.

    Point being when it says husbands love your wives…there is no ‘except for’ and women submit to your husbands, there is no ‘except for’.

  15. If it were “natural” to follow a leader like Jesus, then why does the whole world not follow His perfect leadership? That wife is lying to herself if she thinks she would naturally follow her husband if he was perfect. The fact that I am submitting to my husband is evidence that we don’t necessarily agree. Otherwise, there would be no submission, just me doing what I want which happens to coincide with what he wants. God commands us to submit with full knowledge that our husbands are sinful and sometimes (maybe even often with some husbands) making bad choices. That is the proof that I am obeying God. I am doing what I don’t want to do out of my love, first for Christ and second for my husband. It is a glorious exercise in faith and grace. It is not optional and not dependent upon my husband’s Christ-like love and leadership of me.

  16. RichardP says:

    “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved those who are not part of the the church.”

    That’s the quote, right?? Not! I won’t take the time to list them here, but the New Testament does give the qualifications one must meet before God considers one to be a member of the (invisible) church.

    Consider the wife who is behaving as one who is not part of the church. Does she indeed have the right to expect her husband to love her as Christ loved the church? If she truely is not part of the (invisible) church, how can her husband loved her in the same manner as Christ loves the church?

    Conclusion: a wife must truely be part of the (invisible) church before her husband can love her as Christ loves the church. Here, then, comes the connundrum: the wife who is truely part of the (invisible) church will be making good-faith efforts to obey the commands of God – including the requirement to submit to her husband. Her name won’t be comming up in the complaints section of these blogs. Those whose names do come up are not obeying God, cannot legitimately be considered part of the (invisible) church, and therefore have no right to insist that their husband love them like Christ loves the church they are not part of; That’s a pretty simple distinction, but one that I don’t see made often, if at all.

    I know that only God knows the heart. But we are also commanded to try the spirits, to use the word that God has given us to make distinctions between believers and non-believers. The statement – “If you love me, keep my commandments” gives us a pretty good yardstick. Those who are not keeping his commandments can be placed into a category that is different from the category we have for those who are keeping his commandments. God’s promises are intended only for those who obey him. God does not bestow his (good) promises on those who do not obey him. Why, then, should a husband behave any differently?

  17. BradA,
    Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.” But what do I know, I’m just a dumb girl.😦

  18. earl says:

    ‘For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.’ Eph 5: 23-24

    Throws a wrench into the woman’s idea of back leading her husband.

  19. jeff says:

    BradA,

    I read a book called Complete Husband by Lou Priolo who state that we should love our wives like Christ loves the church, then he went on to explain the Revelations churches and how they have forgotten their first love… Christ. He then flipped the two and said, “husbands, you have forgotten you first love, being your wife. Learn how to love her again”.

    Now, I was given this book by a pastor who was counseling me. He couldn’t see how it was flipped. I said, “if the example is the church being the wife and Christ is the husband, than you need to keep that consistent. The author of that book has accused the husband of forgetting his first love, but isn’t it the church who forgot her first love?” Yes. “Weill I would say if the church is the example of the wife, than the wife is the one who has forgotten her first love.”

    He still didn’t get it. I then went on to point out Jesus’ rebuke of apostles, Paul rebuking the apostles AND the churches in his letters. His answer:
    So are you equating yourself with Jesus or one of the Apostles?
    WTF!!! Absolutely not I told him. I am simply stating that leadership calls for you to rebuke, correct and stand firm regardless of whether it looks unloving. I told him I love my wife through her sin, I point it out and try to correct it. If she rebels and stands opposed to accountability and correction I am allowing her to continue in her sin. What kind of leader allows that. And because of the refusal on her part to be accountable or correct her behavior we are in your office and continue to argue.

    BPP,
    You are absolutely WRONG!!!!! Ephesians says submit to your husbands in EVERYTHING, even if he is a non believer, that way she will sanctify him.

    Look at 1Pe3:1-6 again…. Like Sarah, calling her husband master. Sarah said this to herself in her mind, not out loud. Did not Abraham tell her to lie to the king?!!!!!! Yes, and Sarah did it. Did not Jacob tell Raechel to lie?!!!!

    The husband will sanctify his wife and he SHOULD show her honor of the Grace of Life. The husband WILL be accountable for how he caused his wife to sin. A believing husband SHOULD NOT cause his wife to sin. HOWEVER, he might without knowing and he will be accountable. The husband MIGHT cause her to sin PURPOSEFULLY and he will be accountable for that too. There are loving believers out there who allow their wives to read emo porn without realizing it. He will be accountable for her sin as her leader. If she is doing this even though the husband disapproves and he lets it slide SHE IS REBELLING!!! She will be accountable for her sin and for her lack of submission.

    One of the problems is that Rainey and FOTF and pastors is that although we are accountable (subject) to each other in the church, husbands seem to be accountable for the wife’s rebellion that leads to family strife, wive’s unhhhhhappiness, and frivorce.

  20. feeriker says:

    Dalrock, I was thinking recently about how it would look if women loved their children the way they expect their husband to love them.

    Oh, but many, many women DO “love” their children the way they expect their husbands to “love” them. This “love” has manifested itself in the following interrelated forms of behavior from women:

    1. Never disciplining their children.

    2. Never holding their children to any kind of standards.

    3. Never denying their children anything that they want.

    4. Pedestalizing their children (“My Jenny and Janie are SUCH little angels! If only the rest of the neighborhood’s children were anywhere near as perfect…”)

    5. Teaching their children that they can do no wrong whatsoever.

    6. Teaching their children that they are exempt from the rules of behavior and morality governing the rest of society.

    7. Teaching their children that they are ENTITLED, BY RIGHT to everything and anything they want, whenever they want it (unless it’s an inconvenience to Mommy).

    8. Teaching their children that oaths, promises, commitments, and covenants are only valid as long as they are convenient and cost-free.

    Indeed, something close to a MAJORITY of children today have been “loved” by their mothers as these mothers would have husbands “love” them in an FI-primary world. We see the fruits of this “love” in the schools, jails, hospitals, foster homes, and morgues every day. This is why our society is where it is today. God help us.

  21. Alan K says:

    Do you still think your reaction to the leadership of Jesus in the flesh would always be to automatically want to submit?

    Absolutely not. Believing otherwise is delusional–blinded by sin.

    …in the flesh… This is the key that gets ignored too often in the ‘sphere. Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, Dalrock. An unrepentant man or woman cannot act correctly. (Whether we can act correctly with faith is a much different conversation, of course. Our success rate is always lower than it should be.)

  22. feeriker says:

    He still didn’t get it.

    Of course he did. Like just about everyone else involved in “counseling,” he was so thoroughly owned by feminism that he couldn’t bring himself to admit the truth of your point. Why else would he have resorted to ad hominem by making the inane and juvenile crack about you comparing yourself to Jesus? (Honestly, that should’ve been sufficient to have him stripped of any ordination papers he possessed). This is of course wholly representative and typical of what passes for “leadership” in churches today.

    You referred to this guy as “a pastor who was counseling me.” Please, PLEASE tell me that you’re not a member of his congregation …

  23. earl says:

    Remember that Satan twists Scripture and takes them out of context. And he’s got plenty of pastors to be his megaphone when it comes to the husband-wife passages. It does seem a lot of them would rather defend feminism than the actual Biblical truths.

  24. Alan K says:

    feeriker says:
    April 17, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    many women DO “love” their children the way they expect their husbands to “love” them

    Cosigned. This is a serious, serious problem and needs to be front and center with every Husband and Father. Women default to their own self-directed values when left unchecked.

  25. Gunner Q says:

    Bluepillprofessor @ 1:29 pm:
    “I recently argued that the duty of submission for women is not absolute and does not extend to the case of a Christian man ordering his wife to sin as several have argued on other threads. We want competent officers at our side who will listen to us and give us respect.”

    Putting aside the Biblical doctrine aspect of the debate, consider your audience. Modern women swim in oceans of solipsism, hypergamy and bad role models. Do you trust them to understand “Biblical submission is limited” means “don’t let your husband drive while drunk” not “I have veto power”?

    Teaching limited marital submission to modern women is like teaching gymnastics to a 400lb fat man. He’s so incompetent at the basics of fitness that an advanced lesson could kill him.

    So many women are out of control today, and so few men are forcing their wives to worship Baal, that the standard we Christian men should teach is total obedience even if the Biblical standard is lower because that is the lesson modern women need. We must love women enough to break them to our service.

    Christ Himself does no less.

  26. jeff says:

    Freethinker,

    His teaching is very biblical and he has condemned emotional porn books, even so called christian ones. I very much respect him and has sound teaching. He has preached at length how feminism has entered the church unawares and what it does. If he understood FI and the minutia of how it is seen in his counseling and grasped what it has done on a socio-theological matters he would be close to the best expository preacher I’ve ever heard.

  27. RedPillPaul says:

    Has anyone read Revelations? Jesus talks about the 7 churches and he “threatens” all of them but one. If you want an insight to how Christ loves the church, read the beginig of Revelations for some insight on Jesus’s love.

  28. Malleus says:

    Unlurking to add that I think the priest mentioned upthread is Fr. Joseph Gleason of the Antiochian Archdiocese’s Western Rite Vicariate. The WRV under either the Antiochians or the Russian Church Abroad are awesome movements that people interested in traditional Western Christianity should get involved in. Prayers for Fr. Joseph, as he appears to have been standing firm, even in the face of some interlocutors with no little clout.

    Just a note to say to (Dr.?) Scott, as a young Orthodox Christian, you and your wife have been a source of inspiration for my wife and I. Thank you.

    Delurking now, y’all. Thanks again for hosting such an awesome blog, Dalrock, sir.

    [D: Welcome Malleus.]

  29. feeriker says:

    we Christian men should teach is total obedience even if the Biblical standard is lower because that is the lesson modern women need. We must love women enough to break them to our service.

    A worthy goal indeed, although training an alligator to do somersaults or a brick to tap dance comes to mind.

    Christ Himself does no less.

    Indeed, and we mere mortal men will need all the help He can extend to us in meeting the aforementioned goal. I would argue that never in all of history has it been as close to impossible as it is in today’s society.

  30. a girl says:

    Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.

  31. Emily says:

    “Jesus is often considered to be a sort of passive non judgmental friend, instead of our Lord, our Master.”
    Yes, this. We should adore and revere Him as our redeemer. Instead we view Him as a best friend who is there to validate us and make us feel good about ourselves. This plays into the idea of mutual submission. Women will submit to one another to avoid hurting feelings and to maintain the friendship. It takes a true friend to tell us the ugly truth, one who really does love us. This is what Christ does. Likewise, a truly loving husband will not lie to his wife and a truly loving wife will submit to her husband.

  32. RedPillPaul says:

    Below is what Jesus himself said talking to the church
    Revelations 3:19
    Those whom I love I REBUKE and DISCIPLINE

    Love like Christ loved the church. That does include “unpleasant” things such as rebuke and discipline.

    I guess it doesnt matter, the hamster will try to explain this away.

  33. RedPillPaul says:

    @ a girl

    Did you not see what Dalrock refers to (gentile woman) in his own article. He calls her a bitch (dog). He didnt acknowledge or speak to her until the other men ask him to deal with her

  34. DrTorch says:

    we have been sold a great deal of nonsense about what loving means.

    This. It took me several years to figure this out, but it changed things greatly for me.

    Now there may be more to this story of Peter and Jesus, it may not have played out quite the way you’re presenting it Dalrock (the verbs for “love” are different in the original text perhaps leading to a different understanding of the dialogue) but I think your point remains: Jesus’ love isn’t the “live and let live” that is what people take it for now.

    Where do you think the “nice” thing came from?

    I suspect from these passages, and using contemporary definitions for words

    1 Cor 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind
    Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
    Eph 4:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you

    Romans 2 1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

  35. a girl says:

    @redpillpaul

    Did you not see what Dalrock refers to (gentile woman) in his own article. He calls her a bitch (dog). He didnt acknowledge or speak to her until the other men ask him to deal with her

    I did see that. Using that analogy (throwing children’s bread to dogs) is not the same as using a vulgar word. Jesus did not use profanity.And he healed her daughter in spite of who she was. Jesus was consistently kind to women.

  36. earl says:

    Jesus was kind to everyone that got what he was about…male or female. And while he was harsh to Peter…the real fury he unleashed upon was the Pharisees who didn’t get it.

  37. @Dr. Torch — We must distinguish between kindness and niceness, even though I think you’re right that the apparent equivalence between the two words may be at fault. Kindness is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, but niceness — that nauseating insipidity — appears nowhere in scripture. Clearly if God’s kindness leads us to repentance, and we note that neither Jesus’ discourse nor actions were “nice” as we construe the term today, kindness cannot be the same as niceness.

  38. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ 4:26 pm:
    “A worthy goal indeed, although training an alligator to do somersaults or a brick to tap dance comes to mind.”

    There’s nothing on YouTube? j/k

    a girl @ 4:42 pm:
    “Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.”

    The women of the Bible didn’t talk much.

  39. earl says:

    The only women mentioned during Jesus’s time were the ones that had something to do with Him. I wouldn’t put it outside Jesus to rebuke women too…he did it with Martha.

  40. Fantastic post, Dalrock!

    As you say, none of us will achieve Christ’s perfection on earth, but when I look at the marriage passages in the Bible, I find it encouraging that both husbands AND wives get their example from Christ.
    Husbands follow Jesus in his example of love and leadership (Eph 5:25-33). Wives follow Jesus in his example of submission (1 Peter 2:13 – 3:7). We are BOTH meant to be Christlike in our marriages.

  41. RedPillPaul says:

    @ a girl

    Sure he didnt use vulgarity. Jesus was perfect and with out sin. Still called her a dog. that doesn’t sound kind. so he was always kind to women? Ignoring what the woman said to the point of not acknowledging her, was that kind?

    Remember, he was with out sin.

    You are in willful and active rebellion against God. Dalrock’s post adressess scripture that clearly states that a believing wife is to submit even to an unbelieving husband. Good luck getting around that (good luck overcoming God).

    Most likely you will just make a new definition for the word “submit” to ease your cognitive dissonance

  42. Jesus was consistently kind to women.

    Not a whole lot of feminism in 33AD. Probably wasn’t too much disobediance from women towards their husbands either. I don’t expect the Roman Legions had to many restraining orders to enforce from Judea women who were busy frivorcing their husbands because there was no more ‘gina tingle.

  43. a girl says:

    The women of the Bible didn’t talk much.

    LOL. I’m pretty sure that’s not true. But it is funny.

    I’m trying to think of a single verse in the Bible where Jesus had harsh words for the women of the church and can’t think of one. Rebuke, yes, but not harshness. Also the Bible says that men who mistreat their wives won’t have their prayers heard.

  44. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ TheRealGeoBooth “We must distinguish between kindness and niceness”

    What we must distinguish is between loving and accommodating. Jesus loved, but he did not accommodate sin. To leave a sinner in their sin and ignorant, is not loving but cruel. Sure the sinner feels bad when confronted, but that is what the gospel does, it demands a change in life even as Christ imputes sin to Himself and His righteousness to His elect.

    In like manner a husband does not focus on making his wife feel loved, but to love her, speaking the truth with concern for her sanctification. When she shows contempt, she is rejecting Christ by rejecting His authority for her and His representative.

    Once again, feminism is apostasy.

  45. earl says:

    Jesus certainly wasn’t nice with Martha in this exchange.

    ‘But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” Luke 10:40-42

  46. JDG says:

    JANEANE GARAGIOLA (@JANEANEGARGIOLA) says:
    April 17, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    But what do I know, I’m just a dumb girl.

    But can you make sammiches?

  47. earl says:

    ‘Also the Bible says that men who mistreat their wives won’t have their prayers heard.’

    You seem to know all the parts in the Bible about what the husbands should do pretty well. I have yet to hear from you about what wives should do. Might be a good lesson for you to look up what the first part of 1 Peter 3 has to say…since you are in fact a girl.

  48. JDG says:

    a girl says:
    April 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.

    Could you elaborate on this perspective using scripture? Then could you explain in reference to those scriptures how being nicer is significantly meaningful to the Christian faith (as described in the Bible)?

  49. a girl says:

    @ Redpillpaul
    Sure he didnt use vulgarity. Jesus was perfect and with out sin. Still called her a dog. that doesn’t sound kind. so he was always kind to women? Ignoring what the woman said to the point of not acknowledging her, was that kind?

    Remember, he was with out sin.

    It was kind in context. You are seeing his words through your modern day sensibilities and not as they would’ve been seen then.

    You are in willful and active rebellion against God. Dalrock’s post adressess scripture that clearly states that a believing wife is to submit even to an unbelieving husband. Good luck getting around that (good luck overcoming God).

    Most likely you will just make a new definition for the word “submit” to ease your cognitive dissonance

    I am not. I think that women should pick their husbands carefully and agree on important issues before they agree to marry. That’s quite different. We discussed my personal life enough in the other thread,so maybe this thread isn’t the best place to bring that up. It’s way off topic anyway.

  50. JDG says:

    I’ll translate for the hamster handicapped: Jesus rebuking Peter was a kindness, and may have been a “nicer” act than merely being kind to women.

    Na na na na na … my nicer is better than your nicer. (I kid)

    Now go make a sammich!

  51. @JtR – We are in agreement. I was elaborating on Dr. Torch’s point regarding how we’ve begun to equate Biblical kindness with unscriptural niceness.

    You are quite correct regarding the necessary distinction between loving and accommodating. In the realm of parenting, a child’s two principal questions are: “Do you love me?” and “Can I have my own way?” Of course, the answers are yes to love; no to accommodation, for that kind of indifference is actually cruel. I believe these same principles apply to headship in marriage and leadership in general.

  52. earl says:

    Women picking husbands has worked so well that the marriage rate is plummeting, the divorce rate is holding steady, and more women are opting to be single mothers.

  53. JDG says:

    I am not. I think that women should pick their husbands carefully and agree on important issues before they agree to marry.

    Hamsterlation: I am not. I think that I should pick my husband carefully so that he will agree with me on what I consider important issues before I agree to marry him. I don’t really care what the Bible says about how a husband and a wife should relate to each other, I’m not going to get stuck playing the little woman at home.

  54. pukeko60 says:

    Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.” But what do I know, I’m just a dumb girl.

    1. Stop Humblebragging.
    2. Do not be nice, for it is hidden hate.

  55. a girl,

    Serious question requiring a serious answer….

    I think that women should pick their husbands carefully

    Other than Trista….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trista_Rehn

    …can you name even one woman that “picked” her husband where the marriage succeeded? I’m being semi-serious here because you seem like a kind person (just terribly confused because of the influence of the feminist imperative) and this is an important point. Women don’t pick their spouses. Men pick. That is not going change no matter how much feminism wants it to be so. I have never in my life known a woman to ask a man to marry her. I have only known women who have tried to “trap” men in marriages that they might not want, but never an official proposal. Why do you think that is? And after you answer that, explain to me how that should affect the “care” you apply in “choosing” your husband?

  56. Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.

    That was a mistake. You just made it clear (it was questionable before) that you’re only here to snark and shift the goalposts endlessly, and have no interest in real discussion on the topics at hand. Your pose of struggling with submission and wanting to understand is just that, a pose. You have no respect for your man or for the concerns of men, no interest in learning anything, and the commenters here should treat you accordingly.

  57. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Earl
    1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

    The phrase “your prayers” is in the plural indicating that it is the husband and wife together (not as individual heirs of the grace of life, but heirs together) whose prayers are hindered if a husband does not dwell in understanding. In modern churchianity this means a husband is to know what his wife wants and give it to her. Up till this century it was known to mean a husband is to live in the knowledge of God, so that he can help his wife, a weaker vessel, live a sanctified life. Knowing the Word of God and weakness of women is the essence of that understanding, and if a husband fails in this, he will not know how to lead his wife in life or even in prayer.

  58. Paniym says:

    Don’t have a lot of time to comment but just to let you know……I’m in the middle of a separation from my wife and the main cause (according to her) is that I don’t love her as Christ loves the Church. No matter what the conversation it all comes back to the trump card. “You don’t love me like Christ loves the church”. To her that justifies any her bad behaviors, etc. So………….Don’t you think it would be wise to see how Christ loves and interacts with the Church???

    Since the Church didn’t officially start until the day of Pentecost all interactions that Christ had with people before then couldn’t be said to be interactions with the Church. (I know I’m splitting hairs here but you’ll soon see the point). So if you look in all of Scripture there are actually very few interactions with the Church….The main being in the book of revelations. If you carefully analyze Christ’s interactions (Post Pentecost) you will see that most of them are rebukes to the Church. For six of the seven Churches in Revelation Christ had stiff rebukes and who could forget Rev 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”

    This Christ doesn’t jive with the romantisized Christ that women tend to make him. It’s very interesting to see who Christ really is. He’s not your Husband yet. He is a king, judge, ruler…..God of Gods and Lord of Lords.

  59. earl says:

    Yes many men don’t know about the word of God…and it would behoove them to read it and understand it, not just for the sake of their marriage but to grow in their relationship with God (along with going directly to the source at church) . It is the most important relationship to have. Then they will know how to lead to the best of their abilities.

    Once they have a good understanding of Scripture they can use it to help their wives grow in that same relationship…or to rebuke them when they try to twist Scripture around or when they are being rebellious.

  60. Scott says:

    Just a note to say to (Dr.?) Scott, as a young Orthodox Christian, you and your wife have been a source of inspiration for my wife and I. Thank you.

    This is the most humbling and uplifting thing I have read all week. Mychael and I struggle and fail at our efforts to model headship/submission every day. I am glad you are inspired and I hope you will pray for us.

    By they way, I am only called doctor in professional and academic settings. Scott is just fine.

  61. earl says:

    “You don’t love me like Christ loves the church”

    Interesting that women only focus on what the man is supposed to do but seem to conveniently forget their part in the marriage.

  62. Renee Harris says:

    @ JDG on April 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm
    I’ll translate for the hamster handicapped: Jesus rebuking Peter was a kindness, and may have been a “nicer” act than merely being kind to women.

    Na na na na na … my nicer is better than your nicer. (I kid)

    Now go make a sammich!
    Jesus was rebuking peter ? He made state a true of service hold. Peter lies three times to save himself , but Jesus in love allow peter state the true tree time and en power him lives that true unto a earthly death .
    How is that a rebuke? Peter wanting to due for Christ .
    Woman don’t want submitted to because Christ it May coast their lives and if one does not belong to Him…. Woman don’t want to submit their husband be cost them earthly pleasuere. But woman don’t submit to Christ ( he die for her forgiveness ) most of is woman will mot be saved to due our believe we don’t need to be….

  63. Jesus was so kind to women that he couldn’t even ask for a drink of water from a woman without pointing out her sins.

  64. RobJ says:

    Peter denied Jesus three times during the Passion, and Jesus then made Peter accept him three times in front of the other disciples. I’ve wondered if this symmetry was deliberate.

  65. Renee Harris says:

    Subject By Design on April 17, 2015 at 7:03 pm
    Jesus was so kind to women that he couldn’t even ask for a drink of water from a woman without pointing out her sins.
    @ subject by degins: a sin is not bad thing you regret doing. It is a very nature that takes you out of the presence of God. As not to accuse you of anything, I ( bold italicized ) Used to and still due to a degree have a lackadaisical view of sin . One sin cause all deaths wars cruel pain and dishonor that will ever happen. Man was ever suppose to die…. I hate when people point my sin untill I kept back in line and repent. Migrated theater it’s a compelled will pumping of the Holy Spirit. But just a Girl dumb enough to believe god really will sent to hell. The Christian life a difficult it’s not hard.

    @RobJ on April 17, 2015 at 7:07 pm
    Peter denied Jesus three times during the Passion, and Jesus then made Peter accept him three times in front of the other disciples. I’ve wondered if this symmetry was deliberate.
    Yes for His loveing. ( Biblical) kindness

  66. Renee Harris says:

    Man were Never supposed to die

  67. BradA says:

    RIchardP,

    Does she indeed have the right to expect her husband to love her as Christ loved the church?

    Yes she does. It is up to him to obey or not obey that. He doesn’t have an option based on her behavior. That said, don’t confuse love with tolerance and acceptance of horrid behavior.

    jeff,

    So are you equating yourself with Jesus

    I would have said I was. I didn’t make the analogy, the Scriptures did. I will just follow it wherever it leads. Not doing so is

    [Mar 7:13 KJV] 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

    I would have said that is what he was doing.

    a girl,

    Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.

    Peter challenged him and served as a voice of the devil. Look at how he speaks of “Jezebel” in Rev 2:

    [Rev 2:20 KJV] 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

    Not too nice there.

    Earl made a good point about His response to Martha.

    Paniym,

    Keep in the front of your mind that you will never convince her out of her beliefs. It may be too late in your case, but be willing to nuke everything and she may be a little more open. At least stay strong in your convictions and let her go her rebellious way. Nothing you do can stop that (other than prayer, which is not a magic switch since her will is involved). Pulling back may be the only chance, even if it is too late.

  68. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    The only women mentioned during Jesus’s time were the ones that had something to do with Him. I wouldn’t put it outside Jesus to rebuke women too…he did it with Martha.

    Jesus lived (or was written) as the ultimate hard dick brother who always held frame. His treatment of women is sublime and classic, every single time.

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-4/

    (No offense or disrespect meant. I can’t put it any other way.)

  69. JDG says:

    Renee – How is that a rebuke? Peter wanting to due for Christ .

    But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” – Matt 16:23.

    For the “nicer” advocates:
    Do not let my heart incline to any evil,
    to busy myself with wicked deeds
    in company with men who work iniquity,
    and let me not eat of their delicacies!
    Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it. Yet my prayer is continually against their evil deeds. – Psalm 141:4-5.

  70. retrophoebia says:

    This is one of Dalrock’s more important posts. As a lapsed Catholic, I’m not much of one for modern churches of most colors and flavors, but if more of them confronted the modern culture in such a direct way – If they stood for something – I’d probably return.

  71. Boxer says:

    Richard P sez:

    Consider the wife who is behaving as one who is not part of the church. Does she indeed have the right to expect her husband to love her as Christ loved the church? If she truely is not part of the (invisible) church, how can her husband loved her in the same manner as Christ loves the church?

    Then Brad A sez:

    At least stay strong in your convictions and let her go her rebellious way. Nothing you do can stop that (other than prayer, which is not a magic switch since her will is involved). Pulling back may be the only chance, even if it is too late.

    Very true. God, in the text, loved his people enough to let them be largely destroyed. He promises as much several times.

    16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

    17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

    (Deuteronomy 31)

    Consider that you can’t make your wife do anything, and you shouldn’t. If you love her, you’ll allow her the agency to ruin her own life, and let her taste the consequences. Do what you can to save yourself in that case.

    Boxer

  72. Pingback: Niceness is not love. [Which even Tori Knows] | Dark Brightness

  73. greyghost says:

    This post is your best Dalrock. Churches are going to change for this one. I’m glad to see Christian men putting “nice” in it’s place.

  74. earl says:

    ‘Jesus lived (or was written) as the ultimate hard dick brother who always held frame.’

    The frame he held was submitting to the will of His father. The same thing Christian men should do (while others jest that it will ruin the important tingles in women) It wasn’t all about correcting women or rebuking people…it also was about teaching about what God the father is about, building His church, giving salvation to sinners, and going through His Passion and death.

  75. Spike says:

    A powerful piece of biblical exegesis, Dalrock. By your leave, I’m going to use exactly this example from Scripture the next time I hear the “Husbands should love like Christ” trope.

  76. anonymous_ng says:

    Brad’s comment raised a thought. Do any of y’all still pray for your ex? I do. Not sure why, but it seems like the right thing to do. Just curious. I’m not interested in a reconciliation and mostly I come away from any time spent around her glad I’m not married to her, but I figure it can’t be a bad thing.

  77. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Isn’t it much more likely you would sometimes at least initially** be hurt and angry, and accuse Him of being unloving and unworthy of your submission?

    Isn’t this precisely how you feel at times about your own husband?

    Initially hurt and angry. Initially searching my mind for a justification/rationalization for my behavior. Initially indignant. In fact, this will usually all go through my mind without a word from my husband. I’ll convict myself of what I’ve done/said before he even has the opportunity (and sadly still have to fight rebellion). In knowing he loves me as Christ loves, I know he won’t let something stay in the darkness that needs to be brought to the light.

  78. Scott says:

    I think the priest mentioned upthread is Fr. Joseph Gleason of the Antiochian Archdiocese’s Western Rite Vicariate. The WRV under either the Antiochians or the Russian Church Abroad are awesome movements that people interested in traditional Western Christianity should get involved in. Prayers for Fr. Joseph, as he appears to have been standing firm, even in the face of some interlocutors with no little clout.

    Wouldn’t you know, Fr. Gleason has come to my site to comment!

    http://courtshippledge.com/2015/02/365/

  79. feeriker says:

    You seem to know all the parts in the Bible about what the husbands should do pretty well. I have yet to hear from you about what wives should do. Might be a good lesson for you to look up what the first part of 1 Peter 3 has to say…since you are in fact a girl.

    Earl, Earl, Earl…. tsk tsk.

    She’s reading from the Feminist Translation (a.k.a. the Gregoire Translation), dontcha know? While there may be a few versus here and there about women being singled out for special hosannas, glory, and honor, verses that, mysteriously, aren’t found in any other version or translation of the Bible, there are no verses in that translation that say anything about women having to be responsible for anything, answer for anything, or repent of anything. I’m betting that the entire book of 1 Peter isn’t even part of the FT/GT Bible. A girl is probably sitting there scratching her head and with a confused look on her face right now, wondering where you came up with this “1 Peter” reference.

  80. mike says:

    I was at a mens marriage retreat for my church recently. While we were talking as a group the point of ” we are to love our wives as Christ loves the church” was brought up. As is so often today the conversation degenerated into essentially how as men we are to double down on niceness. I then brought up the point that when we are angry and disobedient to God he often will close His face away from us. In short the communion is lost. This doesn’t mean He has left us only that our actions are impacting our ability to connect intimately with Him. Well, I said,when my wife acts the same way, the same course of action needs to be taken. The intimate connection will be broken until apologies are forthcoming. Its one of the many biblical ways that I have shown love to her. I might also add its extremely effectual on eliminating perpetual bad behavior. It flies n the face of what we are taught but is in essence biblical.

  81. I’m betting that the entire book of 1 Peter isn’t even part of the FT/GT Bible.

    It’s like the scene in the movie Constantine:

    John: I need you to look up Corinthians 17:1.
    Angela: John, there is no seventeenth act in Corinthians.
    John: Corinthians goes to twenty one acts in the Bible in Hell.
    Angela: They have bibles in Hell?
    John: Paints a somewhat different view of Revelations.

  82. Josh says:

    I was thinking while studying Genesis 3. Everything comes full circle in time. Modern christian feminists are a lot like Eve when she ate of the apple. She let Satan’s lies and half-truths get into her mind. She let pride take over and wanted to be like God. She ignored Adam and listened to her Pride. It reminds me of the “equally pay and equal rights” fiasco now.

    So if they want to have equal pay and rights. Then men should be allowed to play in the WNBA. If woman want to be treated as “equals”. Then they need to learn how to use a urinal without sitting down.

  83. JDG says:

    Brad’s comment raised a thought. Do any of y’all still pray for your ex? I do. Not sure why, but it seems like the right thing to do.

    My initial instinct was to say: “Yes, absolutely you should pray for your ex.”, but then this passage came to mind: “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.” – 1 John 5:16. So now I guess I would say it being the right thing to do depends on whether or not the sin leads to death.

  84. @Boxer: That passage reminds me of the ultimate meta-Dread Game.

    Just today on /r/marriedredpill I advised a guy to withdraw attention when his wife is disobedient and provide attention and his positive affirming frame when she is obedient. Nice to know that dovetails with the Lord’s example.

  85. JDG says:

    Modern christian feminists are a lot like Eve when she ate of the apple.

    Please guys, there is no mention of an apple. The fruit was forbidden, apples aren’t forbidden.

  86. desiderian says:

    “As a lapsed Catholic, I’m not much of one for modern churches of most colors and flavors, but if more of them confronted the modern culture in such a direct way – If they stood for something – I’d probably return.”

    The sin of those churches is the same as Peter’s.

  87. earl says:

    ‘She let Satan’s lies and half-truths get into her mind. She let pride take over and wanted to be like God. She ignored Adam and listened to her Pride.’

    This is the main point Paul points out as to why women shouldn’t teach men because Eve was deceived first. Her deception is what led Adam to fall. You notice it when women or white knights are trying to teach Scripture…mostly half truths or twisted Scripture (men do this, women …..) (men do this, which means this) to what feminism tells them.

    Just seeing this be on display in the comment section and what I’ve seen on Twitter…it’s motivated me to dig into Scripture. It’s really easy for the devil to twist things around if you aren’t on the ball on what it really says.

  88. Unless I missed it, a girl managed to reframe her portion of the debate and no one caught it.

    Despite the excellent example and explanation Dalrock made having included the rebuke and harshness of foreshadowing to Peter, this post nor any of the comments have a wit to do with whether or not a husband be nice to his wife. When nice is used as substitute for loving it means ridiculous things like approving of her blatant sin. Never rebuking her (even with a kindness in inflection).

    Of course, a girl, it would be rare that a husbands rebuke crackle with bitter anger, rather there is a difference between being unequivocal and not being nice. The word nice gets messy.

    To hold a woman to account is considered not nice….no matter how many ribbons it is wrapped in. That’s why preachers do not do it.

    Look at this comment :

    https://empathological.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/it-doesnt-work-both-ways/#comment-9692

    This is the product of no accountability for women, its delusional. To this woman the real world is nefandous. She proceeded to drop increasingly hysterical comments into the wee morning hours. Im going to delete them but the first one is valuable as exhibit billion-something.

  89. earl says:

    @empath

    ‘You could look like Addonis but If you don’t treat your wife as your equal, if your ego is so fragile that you can acknowledge that I she is a valuable asset to your life, Forget sex! A man who must dominate is repulsive! What kind of idiot thinks it is in his best interest to treat his wife, this fellow child of God , with disdain and arrogance?’

    That’s the thing about delusional women…their view of leadership is insecurity, dominance, disdain, and arrogance. If they happen to think that is the case they are either attracted to men who display this or who lay down and let women be that way.

    God said the husband will rule her. It has nothing to do with ego. Most of her laments are from her ego.

  90. JDG says:

    Unless I missed it, a girl managed to reframe her portion of the debate and no one caught it.

    It was pointed out a couple of times.

  91. Well now its three times. These comments are sometimes a series of restatements of the same points hundreds of times….so three aint gonna hurt

  92. earl says:

    If you want good practice to beat out your inner white knight…when ‘a girl’ attempts a reframe, you don’t fall for it.

  93. Boxer says:

    empath:

    That’s bloody hilarious! I always suspect the moderator when such an obvious troll appears to make the points of his/her detractors. Whether it’s you or not, it’s perfect.

    Boxer

  94. I am serious when I say that I have not socked a site sin many years, since christianforums actually. Trolling of otherwise. If I tried to do that at my place it would be painfully obvious.
    If you read all three or four of her comments they get more hysterical, and the time stamps say they were made at 3 and 4 am. Out of the blue she claims something about her husband making more money than I do…..what the hell is that about? Whats next, a ruler?

  95. JDG says:

    so three aint gonna hurt

    I don’t mind the repetition. Some things can’t be repeated enough. I only mentioned it because:

    and no one caught it.

    I just wanted it on the record that someone caught it.

  96. I know, I didn’t take it otherwise. Just being pedantic

  97. earl says:

    ‘Whats next, a ruler?’

    Usually or the statement that you still live in your mother’s basement.

  98. Boxer says:

    If you read all three or four of her comments they get more hysterical, and the time stamps say they were made at 3 and 4 am.

    There is this strange terminus that separates “OK, this idiot is just trying to get a rise out of people” and “Jesus Christ! This is the kookiest looney ever!”. Good trolling straddles the two, leaving the peanut gallery wondering. Your fangrrrl is doing a pretty good job skirting (lol) the line.

    Out of the blue she claims something about her husband making more money than I do…..what the hell is that about? Whats next, a ruler?

    Well, that is the next axiom in the feminist theory manual.

    Best,

    Boxer

  99. feeriker says:

    God said the husband will rule her. It has nothing to do with ego. Most of her laments are from her ego.

    I’m generally tempted to tell women throwing tantrums over this issue to “take it up with God Himself, since that’s whom you actually have a beef with.”

    But I don’t bother, since it’s generally safe to assume that they don’t really believe there’s a God anyway. In fact, I’m waiting for the day one of them lets the mask fall off by saying something like “God never wrote any of that nonsense in the Bible – those are all MEN’S words!”

  100. Dalrock says:

    @Cail

    Jesus was much nicer to women than he was to Peter.

    That was a mistake. You just made it clear (it was questionable before) that you’re only here to snark and shift the goalposts endlessly, and have no interest in real discussion on the topics at hand. Your pose of struggling with submission and wanting to understand is just that, a pose. You have no respect for your man or for the concerns of men, no interest in learning anything, and the commenters here should treat you accordingly.

    Yes. I still don’t know if she is a compulsive reframer or a deliberate troll, but either way she is now on the blacklist.

    One other thing she gave away, and you touched on this, is she inadvertently outed her profound inability to feel empathy, especially for men. This post is a call to put yourselves in another human being’s shoes, a man who failed and wept bitterly, who was strongly rebuked when what he wanted most was to be embraced and forgiven, and who ultimately was crucified for his obedience. “a girl” read about this man’s painful ordeal and flippantly responded “Yeah, but I’m a girl, so I don’t have to worry about that.” It isn’t just that she lacks even the most basic ability to place herself in another’s shoes, but that she is entirely unaware of how abnormal she is in this regard. Her solipsism is so great that she doesn’t even know she should fake empathy.

  101. She knows to fake, er, some-other-similar-word…empathy for men

  102. Boxer

    My fangrl is from Abilene. There is something karmic about that.

  103. earl says:

    ‘In fact, I’m waiting for the day one of them lets the mask fall off by saying something like “God never wrote any of that nonsense in the Bible – those are all MEN’S words!”

    I’ve seen that accusation made before. Their man hatred transcribes to hating ‘the patriarchy’. Which when you boil it completely down is a hatred of God. He is referred to as ‘the Father’ by Jesus.

  104. Dale says:

    @IBB:
    >I have never in my life known a woman to ask a man to marry her. I have only known women who have tried to “trap” men in marriages that they might not want, but never an official proposal.

    One woman proposed to me. She needed to propose, because she was not (yet) choosing to be worthy of marriage, and thus I was not going to propose to her. And she did not adopt the attitudes required, so the relationship ended. To be fair, she partially adopted the actions for awhile, although her later words clearly indicated the change was only on the surface. She never accepted the need for self-control.

    A second woman also thought of proposing. She also was not choosing to fulfill a Biblical principle re discipline. That issue was significant enough, due to the consequences with her children, that I broke off the relationship.

    If a man is not eager to pursue marriage with the woman, then is likely a big reason for why. Either with his maturity or hers or with basic attraction.

  105. Renee Harris says:

    @ empathologism

    Fact is neither one , not servant leader not brutish oaf has a wit to do with what is stated in Ephesians 5. Both are feminine driven emotionally birthed concepts that have utility amongst evangelical feminists who “cannot rest in trust of the Lord.”
    And that it! That’s all ! That f@cking point. Some trust in feminism
    Such trust in the twister of the word but as me and My household…..
    Thanks for this one

  106. To be clear, my quote ends with “cannot rest in trust of the Lord”.

  107. BradA says:

    Anon_ng,

    I would probably pray for my wife should we ever divorce. I would not be likely to ever intend to remarry, whatever she did, but I would not pine for restoration. I would do it as I would see restoration to be God’s intent, whatever my feelings on the matter were.

  108. MarcusD says:

    I guess men can be relied on to fund the system:

  109. MarcusD says:

  110. MarcusD says:

  111. MarcusD says:

    It’s a perfect storm between bureaucracy, greed, feminism/Critical Theory, and the WAW Effect.

  112. Renee Harris says:

    @ empathologism
    To be clear: my point is if women would actively trust in God and his Word , feminist sin would not happen. You summed up that point nicely. :)!

  113. feeriker says:

    It isn’t just that she lacks even the most basic ability to place herself in another’s shoes, but that she is entirely unaware of how abnormal she is in this regard.

    Alas, she is entirely normal for today’s woman in this regard.

  114. earl says:

    Watching the first half of the divorce corp movie if that is true it is quite sickening…and all this because 75% of women aren’t happy and try to take the ‘easy’ way out.

  115. Scott H says:

    There is a bigger, and more profound objection to the notion that if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves, then wives would “naturally” submit.

    Christ loved perfectly, far beyond what sinful men can love. And yet, far from feeling “naturally submissive”, the Jews and Romans crucified him. If the perfect love of Christ cannot coerce perfect submission from the world, and millions of people die and go to Hell every day, then how is it possible to argue that the imperfect love of a husband will “naturally” cause a wife to submit.

    Furthermore, the Bible clearly says that spiritual things cannot be naturally discerned. ! Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    Submission of a Godly wife is a spiritual matter that manifests itself in a natural way. But make no mistake. It is a spiritual act that is understood spiritually. Women who try to perceive the wisdom of submitting to their husbands based on “natural” incentives are lost. The Bible clearly says that such ideas appear as “foolishness” to the natural mind.

    So even a husband who loves his wife perfectly from a spiritual standpoint stands completely at the mercy of whether his wife is “naturally” (i.e. carnally) minded, or whether she is spirtually minded.

    Romans 8:5-9 gets even more blunt. It says “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

    This whole idea that women will “naturally” submit to a loving husband is straight from the pit of Hell. It gives license to women to act on their “carnal” impulses, completely ignoring the very clear Word of God that say that those who think in such a way are at “enmity against God,” are “not subject to the law of God,” and couldn’t be even if they tried.

    The Biblical model is for the wife to become spiritually minded, where submission makes sense, and brings “life and peace.” It is no wonder that so many marriages die, for to be “carnally minded is death.” And death is exactly what we get from the philosophy that women will “naturally” submit to loving husbands.

    If the “Natural” world rejects the perfect love of the Father expressed through Jesus Christ, it is nothing but pure heresy to believe that a sinful woman will “naturally” submit to a sinful man if he just loves her a little better.

  116. greyghost says:

    It isn’t just that she lacks even the most basic ability to place herself in another’s shoes, but that she is entirely unaware of how abnormal she is in this regard.

    This is normal for women. Women have no natural empathy In fact I have stated and stand by that women have no capacity to love. In a proper civilized society a woman will behave so that others will think that of her. Regardless of her wicked selfish reasons good behavior is good behavior.
    Dalrock gets it too.

    Her solipsism is so great that she doesn’t even know she should fake empathy.

  117. earl says:

    ‘Women have no natural empathy In fact I have stated and stand by that women have no capacity to love.’

    It’s weaker than a man’s ability. Now we live in an age where love and empathy are thrown out and selfishness and degeneracy are the norm. Those are things women are certainly better at.

  118. PokeSalad says:

    “I think that women should pick their husbands carefully ”

    Tears in my eyes on this one…..*chuckles*….it just gets better and better.

  119. Beeker says:

    I just watched the DivorceCorp documentary.

    Note to self: Never get married.

    The divorce rate is 50%. Any man that gets married today is an ignoramus or fool if he does not understand what he is getting himself into.

  120. earl says:

    Odd part was they showed some women who got screwed over in the divorce. Usually all we hear about is how the man got screwed over. Makes me wonder if they thought that was going to happen when they decided they weren’t happy.

    Looks like nobody is valued in the divorce scenario…it’s just about how much money they can extract.

  121. greyghost says:

    Beeker
    At this time a man planning on marrying and building a solid family utilizing the women available today in this legal environment is just plain irresponsible. It is about to the point that when we read a story about a man getting his in a divorce it is like he had it coming to him for being so stupid. Especially a wealthy man that can afford a surrogate and a nanny. No reason for a professional athlete to get married other than to be ripped off by misandry.

  122. earl says:

    Yeah we got women here making the case they need to pick a husband carefully while on the other side men are getting more and more reasons from the state and man hating feminists why marriage is nothing but an unjust huge risk to them. It’ll get to the point a woman will either have to take any proposal she can get or become a cat lady.

  123. greyghost says:

    Earl
    They will settle for being booty calls, and members of harems. Know your women. To be a “cat lady” and accepting the best proposal she can get is not in keeping with the rebellion of the FI. Too much honor and responsibility involved with those choices. No western woman makes those choices. A woman may find herself there but she sure as hell didn’t make the decision.

  124. Beeker says:

    ‘Women have no natural empathy In fact I have stated and stand by that women have no capacity to love.’

    Agreed. Thinking from an evolutionary psychological perspective, for a woman to “love” a man as deeply and holistically as a man loves a woman is actually detrimental to her survival, and the survival of her children. Whereas a mans’ natural and instinctive deeper love and affection for his woman and children increased their likelihood for survival in life – this behavioral trait in men was positively selected for during the evolution of our species. Similarly, womens’ characteristic selfishness and ability to coldly use and exploit men as tools ensured her and her childrens’ survival, which was positively selected for during evolution. Most men do not understand just how mercenary women can be in their relationships with men. Men project qualities onto women that women just do not possess – having empathy, sympathy, justice, honor, mercy, compassion, understanding, morality (Read up on Arthur Schopenhauers’ work, this man was dead-on-balls accurate). Women are indeed frauds: Women feign the mythological and idealized notion of our civilized cultures’ representation of what is “woman” – how she should act, be perceived, which in reality she is anything but.

    Women need to be able to emotionally detach and find the best mate, provider and protector at all times, and not let something as trivial and quaint as “romantic love” get in the way of her ruthlessly ensuring her and her childrens’ survival. A woman could not be too attached and sentimental for a man that became to weak or sick, or was killed, and was unable to provide and protect her effectively, as his weakness would threaten her survival. This seems heartless, cold-blooded, and ruthless, but this is unfortunately the truth about women.

  125. BradA says:

    with no FI bias

    They can and probably will program that bias in for at least a while.

  126. Josh says:

    Well with people expressing that what I have said is wrong. They belittling me for those posts. I will no longer be posting in the comments. I also will never come to this blog again.

  127. feeriker says:

    Those millions of decisions will be made by AI, with no FI bias.

    I was about to say “then expect a ferocious feminist-led campaign to stamp.out AI,” (akin to trying to stop the seasons from changing) but caught myself. I was making the rash assumption that sufficient numbers of women would be farsighted enough to see the big picture or draw the connection between the ascendence of AI and the loss of their “jobs.”

  128. Pingback: THEOLOGICAL THOUGHTS, from Dalrock: “One of the problems with modern Christian culture is the misco… | CRAGIN MEDIA

  129. MarcusD says:

    @Earl

    “Odd part was they showed some women who got screwed over in the divorce. Usually all we hear about is how the man got screwed over.”

    I think that was intentional. The research done on things similar to the empathy gap would indicate that showing women as victims of something is more likely to spur change than showing a man as a victim.

    @TFH

    “Even the (male) judges admit that they cringe when they award a woman less than she wanted, but don’t feel that way about men.”

    Empathy gap, probably.

  130. empathologism says:

    The video is an epic fail because it leads with women as victims of the court. I know a woman who suffered this injustice and suffered it with grace. But only the committed will finish the video. It’s too much bait and not enough switch. I understand why the maker thought it was effective but they should know better. It’s “women suffer too”…..”1000 men killed….mom’s suffer most”divorce

  131. Beeker says:

    “… it is highly obsolete to place a woman’s well-being so much higher than a man’s.”

    Western culture has it ass-backwards with its pedestalization of and supplication to women. It is men that are the prize, not women.

    What is a woman and what does she offer a man? Youth, beauty, health and a pleasant, true feminine personality, and the ability to bear and raise healthy children. Women are vessels for making and raising babies, and for building families. Period. Now how many women can meet this role? Many, if they wanted to. It’s not that hard really. Women don’t even have to be a supermodel to be really appealing to men physically. Men also don’t care about a woman’ achievements, it’s just a nice plus after first meeting the aforementioned critical requirements. Her Harvard masters degree and her stint with Teach with America with disadvantaged inner city youth will not compensate for her increased age and/or lack of appearance in her appeal to men, at least normal, masculine men anyway. Normal men will not marry women they have no physical chemistry with (not that it takes much), unlike women. The reality is that the bar is low for women, and yet today, many women can’t even meet this it seems. (And to women reading this, being a “bitch”, aggressive and “like one of the boys” does not make you attractive to men, despite what you think and what feminism has taught you.) Furthermore, women have a window of maximum appeal to men (which is related to fertility, and physical attractiveness), say aged 18 – 26. After this window closes, her appeal goes down, rapidly. Whereas mens’ appeal and value can continue to rise with age, achievement and experience.

    Now what is a MAN and what does he offer a woman and society? Achievement, provider, protector. Men are born worthless, and must forge themselves into someone of worth and achievement to be appealing and of value to women, which is much, much harder (Women have value at birth, just for the sake of being female, and the potential to be mothers). Now how many men can meet this requirement? Fewer than the number of women meeting their own requirements for their appeal to men. Men built and created civilization and 99.99% of all of the culture and technology within it. Women cannot, and should not try to compete with men. Women should be supporters and nurturers of men, not their competitors like they seem to be doing now, which is leading to so many problems in society now. Where are the female Leonardo Davinci, Teslas, Rembrandts, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Shakespeare, Michealangelo, Copernicus, Platos, Aristotles, etc.? (And it’s not because women were held down or enslaved like the Feminists say – this has been debunked elsewhere.) There are some, very few, but women who are great achievers are anomalies. Men and womens’ brains are different, and they have different roles. Men are by far the doers, achievers, builders, creators, inventors, discoverers. Women just aren’t driven like men to achieve.

    Women should be chasing men, not the other way around. Women should be earning good men, not the other way around. Women should be appreciative of men, for it is men by far that have, and continue to create the civilization, culture and world that they live in.

  132. Pingback: The difference between ‘loving’ and ‘nice’ | A True Progressive

  133. greyghost says:

    Natural and normal wicked selfishness in women included the survival of her children. Children are not important to women past the value given from the title of motherhood. Abortion is legal and also a woman can unload a child at anytime from embryo to 18.when that no longer has benefit to her. This is legal and in the law that they made as part of a civilized society. Children are used as utilities the same as any man for her benefit. That is why the birth rate for educated women is so low. They don’t need children to survive.

  134. Spike says:

    BradA says:
    April 17, 2015 at 2:15 pm
    Dalrock,

    “The letters to the Churches in Revelation 2 and 3 may be worth examining on how Jesus deals with different individuals and groups of His followers. Some encouragement, some chastisement, etc”

    Tremendously important point. Like Dalrock’s study above, it is significant that this is the Resurrected Christ that addresses the churches – the same one that just gave Peter the harshest fitness test in history. This Christ – not the ephemeral Nice Guy, not the long-haired hippy with radical ideas about loving everyone and rejecting no one – This Biblical Christ does the following:

    -Threatens to take away the lampstands (spirit) of the church and put her into darkness
    -Exposes the Synagogue of Satan
    -Threatens to make war on them with the Sword of His mouth
    -Exposes the sexually immoral “Jezebel”
    -Threatens to spew the lukewarm out of His mouth
    -Informs a church that few will be saved – those “who have not soiled their clothes”
    -Finishes this with the stern warning: “Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline”.

    “…as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her” – Alright!

  135. Beeker says:

    “Natural and normal wicked selfishness in women included the survival of her children. Children are not important to women past the value given from the title of motherhood. …”

    In the past, there was no big daddy government, welfare, WIC, etc., and a myriad of other government programs to provide for women – her grown, adult children, and other related family kin and tribal members served this role. Both men and children served her use and survival.

  136. earl says:

    ‘ Women don’t even have to be a supermodel to be really appealing to men physically.’

    Yes the lament of women with an ugly heart (or obesity) is that men want supermodels or physically beautiful women.

    I won’t lie, physical beauty is part of the package…but if you watch the Britt McHenry video, a physically beautiful woman can quickly become ugly when she opens her mouth. Meanwhile a woman with a good heart (relative) is much more attractive in the long run.

  137. Novaseeker says:

    The video is an epic fail because it leads with women as victims of the court. I know a woman who suffered this injustice and suffered it with grace. But only the committed will finish the video. It’s too much bait and not enough switch. I understand why the maker thought it was effective but they should know better. It’s “women suffer too”…..”1000 men killed….mom’s suffer most”divorce

    Definitely did it for the obvious reason of making it not a “male complaint film”. The makers are not anti-feminist — I saw an interview with the producer on Molyneux. Basically this is more of an “MRA lite” type of activism which sees the family court and divorce law issues in isolation, more or less, from the feminist system that created and which supports them — so of course it’s going to be limited in its vision. Still, it’s good to have more material out there about those specific issues, even if the underlying problems are glossed over or denied.

    Impact is likely not great. The reason is that most people who aren’t divorced don’t worry about it, and people who are divorced are placed in the “you’re just bitter because you’re divorced” camp by the people who are not divorced. So it’s very hard to get traction, really.

  138. Jezebel in Revelation, like Queen Jezebel, is primarily guilty of idol worship and paganism, which the Bible consistently calls fornication and adultery with gods who aren’t “married” to Israel by the Covenant. (Jezebel set up tons of Baal temples.)

    Now, the reason this was good imagery was that many pagan Mideast religions included sex as part of worship, but going to the high places and keeping your clothes on was also cheating on the Lord. We don’t hear that Jezebel was cheating on Ahab; we hear that she worshipped Baal and taught Israel to do likewise. (She does try sex appeal later, but what she is offering in Mideast terms is legitimate kingship. Marrying the current or late king’s wife or concubine, or even having sex with her, was claiming kingly power. And now that I think about it, the same thing is true of Israel formulating with strange gods instead of her husband, the King of the Universe.)

    What we explicitly hear in Revelation is that Christians are eating sacrificed food, and presumably not in the way Paul initially said was okay. So presumably they were being taught that it was okay to do pagan worship and still consider themselves good Christians. Beyond that, it is likely that they may have fallen into Baalpeor types of pagan worship, which would be sexual misconduct; but it’s the pagan part that we are supposed to notice first.

  139. earl says:

    Even if the film was all men or all women I don’t think the point of it was to highlight which sex gets screwed over…it was to highlight the absolute corruption and collusion that is going on in family court. It’s basically a kangaroo court which doesn’t have to take into account the Constitution. I think they even made the statement that even if you win in family court, you lose.

  140. I realize the purpose of the film was to out the family court system. I think it failed in that regard as well. It had a few powerful stories and exposed some rogues, The tone was more like 60 minutes but the family court is not like ACME whatchmagadget where folks stop buying. Much of what was shown , filtered through female workarounds, will end up as an endorsement of the court, or advice for tricks one can pull.

  141. It’s ironic how women are instructed to demand that men essentially become nothing more than ‘doormats’ and ‘tools’, the very things that they (women) supposedly were treated as before ‘liberation’, and the ways which they demand to not be treated as now.

  142. This ‘good means nice’ heresy isn’t new. It’s at least two centuries ago. A number of years ago, I read a remark by John Wesley, founder of Methodism, that his two goals were evangelism and “the reformation of manners.”

    That’s crazy, I thought. Did he really equate evangelism with holding a teacup properly? Only over time did I realized that behind that “reformation of manners” lay a political agenda. People in positions of power feared a revolution in England like that in France.

    That reformation in manners meant that the country’s many poor and downtrodden masses weren’t to demand radical change for themselves. They were to bury their noses in their Bibles, go to church and keep quiet. They must wait for their betters to make those change for them.

    And it is true that some of those changes were made. But what if they weren’t? What if, as in contemporary American, the ‘better classes’—meaning those with the most power—are hostile to Evangelicals. What do Evangelicals do then?

    For that the pulpit champions ‘being like Jesus means being nice’ descendants of Wesley have no answer.

  143. Boxer says:

    Re: Divorce Corp… Better a flawed gemstone than a pebble, and all that. I thought it was interesting and informative, without being over the top.

    Remember that these things take a long time to seep into the collective consciousness. It’s also worth noting that the generations coming up are abandoning the idea of marriage much faster than this film’s target audience ever will. People who like traditional values and who want a return to social sanity are encouraged to be patient. The system is already collapsing, they’re just adept at hiding it.

    Boxer

  144. feeriker says:

    Men also don’t care about a woman’ achievements, it’s just a nice plus after first meeting the aforementioned critical requirements.

    Far from being a “nice plus,” a woman’s “achievements” are a major negative for a relationship. An “achieving” woman is generally a contentious, headstrong woman, one who sees herself as a man’s competitor, not his partner/helpmeet. A woman with “achievements” might as well have “Run, Forrest, run!” tattooed on her forehead for all the contention, strife, and aggravation that she is likely to bring to a relationship.

    As you yourself go on to say later in the same post, women are not made to do the same things as men, cannot compete with men, and shouldn’t even be trying. Yet that is exactly what a woman with “achievements” is attempting to do.

  145. earl says:

    ‘It’s ironic how women are instructed to demand that men essentially become nothing more than ‘doormats’ and ‘tools’, the very things that they (women) supposedly were treated as before ‘liberation’, and the ways which they demand to not be treated as now.’

    It’s not ironic…it’s projection.

  146. earl says:

    ‘Re: Divorce Corp… Better a flawed gemstone than a pebble, and all that. I thought it was interesting and informative, without being over the top. ‘

    Yeah I don’t agree with empath’s statement. If it really made the family court system look like a wonderful endorsement of law it would have never mentioned all the reasons why it is as bad as everyone says it is.

    If anything…it should be a big wake up call about what divorce is really all about. It isn’t about your happiness or getting even, but about how much money can be extracted from everyone at the expense of your family.

  147. earl says:

    In fact that PI said the divorce industry is a business. The idea that it has anything to do with law or justice is the first reason why it is a sham. It has everything to do with money.

  148. Punditius says:

    As a man in a marriage to a woman (sigh, that has to be said these days), both much better than I deserve, I have to say that I have trouble following this notion that a woman must be submissive to her husband. My own experience is that what is required of both husband and wife is good faith in each other’s intentions. The idea of “submissiveness” strikes me as an artifact of the society Christianity was rooted in, and I suspect that as with much of what Jesus and his disciples said, it contains a truth that is deeper than the superficial seeming. There is something else going on here, covered up by a veneer of ancient custom. I confess that I don’t know what it is. Still working on that.

  149. wp650385 says:

    My comment at InstaPundit: Love IS a synonym for nice. A loving person says and does what needs saying and doing. They say and do the truth. And whatever that is, it is nice. Some may not see it as nice, but that’s their business. The truth and love are always nice and needed. And they are synonyms for justice. Dalrock here is mucking about in the wasteland of scrupulosity. He is not doing theology.

  150. Eidolon says:

    I don’t understand the desire to take a straightforward statement — “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” — and complicate it into a “deeper spiritual truth.” You could perhaps try to “spiritualize” this direct command if it weren’t for the fact that it is directly connected to eternal matters. The relationship between Christ and the Church is eternal, as is the relationship between Christ and the individual. By using these eternal and unchanging relationships as examples of the relationship between husband and wife, God has clearly indicated that the nature of this relationship is similarly rooted in the nature of the world He has made.

    Do you try to see a “deeper spiritual significance” which replaces the literal command in the case of God’s command not to steal? How about the command to spread the Gospel, or “feed my sheep”? If not, why not? What is there about a command which is rooted in the nature of man and woman as made by God, analogized to other eternal relationships, which is more likely to be “an artifact of the society Christianity was rooted in” than anything else in the New Testament? Do you truly see more argument for this, or do you simply feel uncomfortable with the words of the BIble and would like to see them harmonized with what modern society tells you?

  151. earl says:

    A good refresher course as to why the majority of divorces are instigated by the wife.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/

  152. Dalrock says:

    Welcome Punditius. I started to reply here to your comment but decided it was worthy of a short post.

  153. Ras al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “Furthermore, Artificial Intelligence, as it starts to replace more jobs and make more decisions of economic impact, will be very bad news for women. Millions of decisions today are being made by humans, with FI bias. Those millions of decisions will be made by AI, with no FI bias.”

    Really? And on what “basis” or foundation or starting assumption about what is “good:” will these nonhuman decisions of economic impact be made and where will they get their underlying principles (or morals) to base their decisions on?

    Or will they be free of morals a la Stalin, Mao, Hitler…

    And these decisions will occur without any oversight by human beings?

  154. Earl, you misread my statement. Im glad to be able to clarify it because it is part of a major theme that doesn’t get directly succinctly tackled much. I didnt say the bold below without qualifier.

    “Yeah I don’t agree with empath’s statement. If it really made the family court system look like a wonderful endorsement of lawit would have never mentioned all the reasons why it is as bad as everyone says it is.

    I agree with you…it was NOT an endorsement of the system whatsoever. But when you add filtered through female workarounds what I meant was that women don’t hear things that are plainly stated, no matter how plainly, if those things do not align with their confirmation biases.

    Imagine lots of women taking the video’s point on board. They’d have to then be reluctant to employ the court and they’d also need to fear the court for their own sake. They wont do that. They will twist the meaning by attaching emotions to the facts and filing the facts under said emotions. Later those can be strung together into thoughts that bounce from feeling to feeling so that when they restate what they heard even if they scatter in the facts it will seem nothing like the plain take down that it was.

    There will be men who deserved what happened. A woman done wrong by the courts shenanigans would be filed under tramp or unfit mother, so that the injustice goes to the background while the thing she creates to make the female victim of the court into a morally inferior wench takes the forefront.

    I have discussed this with pastors, the idea that its not sufficient to say the right words in the right order on topics prone to evangelical feminist twisting because they will take the sweets off the buffet and leave the spinach behind.

  155. On AI….

    I was present at a Steve Wozniak speech in early April. Well, cant call it a speech nor could he give a speech in an orderly way. It was a Q and A format. He talked about AI. I’m not putting him forth as an authority on it, though far more so than I would be.

    He postulated its impossibility and he hypothesized exactly as Ras al Ghul does above about where “good” comes from, what moral underpinning exists…etc.

  156. Pundis is merely scared of leading his wife. He excuses it by blaming the ideal on ‘old customs’.

  157. Gunner Q says:

    Beeker @ April 18, 2015 at 9:32 pm:
    “Thinking from an evolutionary psychological perspective, for a woman to “love” a man as deeply and holistically as a man loves a woman is actually detrimental to her survival, and the survival of her children.”

    This doesn’t make sense. Surely evolution would have made women, being weaker and dependent, firmly loyal to her protector instead of naturally treacherous? Because in no human society have men ever been thrilled about raising another man’s child. Her sexual value drops quickly once she begins having a specific man’s children so loyalty should be (and observably is) a better life-strategy than her natural hypergamy.

    If evolution was true then following our natural instincts ought to bring the most beneficial results. We see today how women who follow those natural instincts become worthless except as brief entertainment.

  158. earl says:

    ‘But when you add filtered through female workarounds what I meant was that women don’t hear things that are plainly stated, no matter how plainly, if those things do not align with their confirmation biases.’

    So basically if a woman doesn’t believe in divorce this video would cement her bias…and if a woman does believe in divorce as an option even these type of horrific facts won’t sway her from still going through with it.

  159. Dale says:

    Boxer said:
    >People who like traditional values and who want a return to social sanity are encouraged to be patient. The system is already collapsing, they’re just adept at hiding it.

    I sure hope you are correct. But without a very hard crash I do not see our laws being restrained. I really want to marry, but that film just reaffirms how corrupt “marriage” has become. I do not see women or lawyers allowing just and Biblical marriage to be possible.
    Occasionally I think that I should ask my government representative to submit a law asked to allow people WHO CHOOSE to do so, to have a marriage where neither can sue for alimony or child support, at all. I’d prefer to say, “not beyond a reasonable amount, and a reasonable duration”, but if a judge gets ahold of that we are back where we started.
    But I do not see a point. It would never be permitted, even though feminist claims to be all about the freedom to choose.

  160. BradA says:

    I remain skeptical of AI largely because it has been “almost here” for far too long. I doubt computers will ever match the human brain, but likely due to factors beyond the mere mechanical.

  161. DrTorch says:

    Women are vessels for making and raising babies, and for building families. Period

    That’s not what Genesis says; they are helpers suitable for man. That goes far beyond the areas you mention. This is the “brutish oaf” sort of comment that adds just enough credibility to women’s lies to keep them going.

  162. Pingback: We do not have spirituality, but the Spirit. We do not have Oprah, but love. [I Jn 4] | Dark Brightness

  163. Norvis says:

    The idea that women are rebelling only because their man is unworthy, but if he stepped up and “loved like Christ” then she would willingly submit flies in the face of much of the NT teaching concerning our sinfulness. If man were willing to submit to God then there would have been no fall, but we are sinful creatures who seek out new ways of denying God. A wife denying God by refusing to submit to her husband is just another example. To say otherwise makes much of what is written in the NT a lie.

    1 John 1:8-10

  164. John Nesteutes says:

    @suburbanbanshee

    Refusal to accept what the Bible says that conflicts with the broader culture is a our modern idolatry. Same sex marriage has caught some evangelicals’ attention, but generally, they’re totally OK with setting up altars to Baal in their churches and homes.

    Sending your daughter off to college to end up fornicating (94% of unmarried Christians have had sex by age 27) is functionally equivalent to sending her to be a temple prostitite in service of Baal. And exposing your son to a blue-pill feminist worldview, teaching him to serve the FI, and dumping him in a worldly environment with ready access to terabytes of free streaming porn, movies/TV that teach fornication is man’s highest goal (but do marry that smart successful woman when she’s 29), and ensuring he won’t be around any godly, eligible women is pretty much turning him into a worshipper of Baal.

    At least Baal’s worshippers got sex out of the deal.

  165. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/04/22 | Free Northerner

  166. jbro1922 says:

    “It’s ironic how women are instructed to demand that men essentially become nothing more than ‘doormats’ and ‘tools’, the very things that they (women) supposedly were treated as before ‘liberation’, and the ways which they demand to not be treated as now.”

    When I hear women insinuate this, I think they do it for revenge. As in “now you will suffer like I have suffered! Now you’ll know what it feels like to be a woman!” Of course this is a counterproductive strategy among other things. As the saying goes, if you are gonna dig one grave, may as well dig two.

  167. Daniel Funk says:

    Hi Dalrock.

    I appreciate your article, but as a Bible student your use of the exchange between Peter and Jesus as an example/precedent for Christ to Church = Husband to Wife is a bit of an exegetical stretch for me. May I suggest the Risen Christ as He addresses the 7 Churches in Revelation. I am surprised and saddened that this remarkable and final address of Christ to His beloved Bride on Earth is not consulted in the whole “Men loves your wives as Christ loved the church” discussion. Maybe something to consider.

    Blessings.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s