On exceptions and rules.

Dr. Helen kindly linked to my previous post in: Is Imprisoning Men for Child Support a Way for the Government to Destroy Traditional Marriage?

In the discussion of her post I made a point I’m not sure I have made directly here, and either way I feel it is worth repeating.  Nearly everyone believes that we have merely modified our marriage based family structure to include an exception for the child support model.  The truth is the opposite.

We didn’t modify our marriage based family structure to allow an exception for the child support model, we replaced the marriage model with the child support model and created a very limited exception for marriage.

The child support model is now the rule of the land, our official family structure.  Parents are permitted to opt out of the child support structure only so long as both of them wish to continue opting out.

This entry was posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Denial, Fatherhood, Foolishness, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

329 Responses to On exceptions and rules.

  1. Pingback: On exceptions and rules. | Manosphere.com

  2. srsly says:

    I get that kind of “I wish you were wrong” reaction all the time. And that’s the scariest part for me.

  3. Pingback: On exceptions and rules. | Neoreactive

  4. As Dalrock so aptly points out: “The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women…” Women use the government as a way to control men, then they complain that men don’t want much to do with them. It’s a vicious cycle but one that most women are okay with.

    The last sentence quoted in the above is the exact reason why trying to find that one unicorn is the only way to even try and have a successful marriage. All else is entirely futile. And yes, I know it will never happen which is the reason why, for me at least, there is no such thing as marriage. It’s an illusion.

  5. I don’t see any way for a godly man to route around this problem, other than to limit his sexual contact to godly women (which would mean only within marriage), and he would need to narrowly define “godly women” as “women who would refuse under any circumstance to sue for child support, including to enroll on government welfare which will do so”.

    The laws aren’t going to change until after some kind of societal collapse.

    It would behoove us to find ways to live such that we are less affected by wicked man’s “law”.

  6. @feministhater

    Marraige does still exist&emdash;you just need to find women who are actually born again. (Note that they will limit their marriage choices to men who are born again)

  7. Don Quixote says:

    It seems that our governments are only interested in controlling everybody. The child support model ticks all their boxes for control.

  8. Drew says:

    Dalrock, I think this primary point needs further expansion. You’ve laid out bread crumbs (bread chunks?), from the threat point related topics, to the shadow of the law essay, to the statistical work (i.e. equal likely to end up with neither parent as father). But I urge you to build on that ground work and lay it all out forcefully explaining why this is really the default family structure. I think it would be useful to me to think on it and analyze.

  9. Ras Al Ghul says:

    John Nesteutes:

    “Marraige does still exist&emdash;you just need to find women who are actually born again.”

    Just as there are no atheists in a fox hole, and convicts find God in prison, only to leave Him behind most of the time once they are out, so to is the “Born Again” thing more often than not an attempt to press the do over button of sluthood.

    While faith can transform a person’s life, more often it is used to avoid consequences.

    I’ve pondered it for some time what advice I would give to a man in our corrosive society regarding marriage, other than to avoid it in its entirety.

  10. While faith can transform a person’s life, more often it is used to avoid consequences.

    I apologize for splitting hairs, but might it be more accurate to suggest that while real faith – the kind which engenders remorse of the past and repentance – can be life changing, often the “faith” of the reformed slut is of the health, wealth and prosperity gospel variety. Sort of like a Ponzi scheme – buying in for the promise of the results or the forgetting of the past, rather than out of real devotion.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Drew

    Dalrock, I think this primary point needs further expansion. You’ve laid out bread crumbs (bread chunks?), from the threat point related topics, to the shadow of the law essay, to the statistical work (i.e. equal likely to end up with neither parent as father). But I urge you to build on that ground work and lay it all out forcefully explaining why this is really the default family structure. I think it would be useful to me to think on it and analyze.

    I think the issue here is how difficult it is to imagine a system which isn’t organized around child support. However, the child support model is very new. In the very recent past, women who had children out of wedlock were not guaranteed support. What support was offered came with a good deal of stigma. Under a marriage based system, legitimacy matters. All of this is foreign to us, along with the attendant shotgun weddings, etc. I’ve done some posts looking at when and how this changed which might help.

    How we came to embrace illegitimacy.
    and
    How changes to welfare encouraged the illegitimacy explosion.

  12. Scott says:

    Dal-

    Simple and brilliant. And too abstract for the masses.

    Keep on it though. It needs to be said.

    [D: Thank you.]

  13. Alan K says:

    John Nesteutes says:

    It would behoove us to find ways to live such that we are less affected by wicked man’s “law”.

    and…

    narrowly define “godly women” as “women who would refuse under any circumstance to sue for child support

    Based on these comments, you must recognize that Christian men and women are instructed (per scripture) to avoid/eschew secular courts, instead placing themselves within the dominion of the Church and its faithful judgments as rendered by elders/bishops/etc. We are called to exist as a separate entity within the nation around us, policing and governing ourselves according to God’s Word, seeking to live peaceably–as much as possible.

    1 Corinthians 6:1 — Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
    or better still…
    1 Corinthians 6:7 — Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
    and falling back (under the worst circumstances) to…
    Matthew 18:15-17 — Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

    For some reason, this teaching is ignored within and without the Church. Of course, we all know the real reason for sidestepping this clear Truth and turning to the world: sin and faithlessness. The enemy tells us that we need to fight for our rights and have our day in court and secure a pound of flesh for our personal suffering. Very tempting, but futile–apart from the inequities found in secular law that currently favor women to a vast degree.

    This conversation always falls apart because nearly everyone expects Big Brother Government to step in at the proper time to uphold his/her rights.

  14. Opus says:

    I believe that it is mistaken to suggest that child support is some new-fangled invention. Before the Welfare State, in the days of the Poor Law, no Parish wished to be burdened with the responsibility for maintaining a woman who had given birth out of wedlock and so an order would be made against the putative father. That remains the case. What is new (and where I am this can be traced directly to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 – by-the-way, Tory, that is to say right-wing legislation at that) is the extent to which women are now reliant on Child Support and in the absence thereof State Support – and no politician seeking re-election dare appear to be attempting to cut back on their entitlement. As they used to jest: a free council-house with every baby, for with a child any woman would go straight to the front of the housing queue and secure at least an apartment if not a three-bedroom house. Some women were clearly milking the system, though most married the father but after a couple of years threw him out (with the full consent, connivance and co-operation of the judiciary) and moved in the new man. It is surely not unconnected that since that time we have heard little of incest but a lot about paedophilia.

    Further Tory legislation from that time gave the Council-House Tenant the right to buy the house at a knock-down price which after a few years could then be sold at market value thus further rewarding the profligate woman.

  15. Ras Al Ghul says:

    peoplegrowing says:

    “I apologize for splitting hairs, but might it be more accurate to suggest that while real faith – the kind which engenders remorse of the past and repentance – can be life changing, often the “faith” of the reformed slut is of the health, wealth and prosperity gospel variety. Sort of like a Ponzi scheme – buying in for the promise of the results or the forgetting of the past, rather than out of real devotion.”

    No, because you are missing the point.

    It doesn’t matter whether its “real” or not, the two look the same.

    You can’t really know if the repentance is genuine until you are long down stream,

    They will both say how remorseful they are. They will both say they have learned their lesson. They will both say they sought forgiveness, they will both say they have changed their lives, they will both claim it is due to the power of Christ, they will both say they are going to live a new life. They will both shed tears.

    It is only out of prison, or once married to someone (the felon and the slut respectively) that the truth will come out. The felon either flies straight or returns to deceiving and hurting people, the slut either flies straight of returns to deceiving and hurting people. (and yes yes, people stumble, the point is the same).

  16. Alan K says:

    I think the issue here is how difficult it is to imagine a system which isn’t organized around child support.

    Dalrock, you’re entirely correct; this *is* the key point.

    Why is it so difficult to imagine? We have clear guidance–even to the point of commandments to follow a *different* set of rules than what we see all around us. We’re granting frame to the enemy of our souls!

  17. greyghost says:

    I don’t see any way for a godly man to route around this problem, other than to limit his sexual contact to godly women (which would mean only within marriage), and he would need to narrowly define “godly women” as “women who would refuse under any circumstance to sue for child support, including to enroll on government welfare which will do so”.

    The laws aren’t going to change until after some kind of societal collapse.

    Don’t let the definition “Godly” be what is pleasing to man. Also I wouldn’t trust hoping for ruthless people to fix the laws. ISIS will fix it for you if you are ready to live by their rules Christian man. Societal collapse is off the charts horrifying.

    A good place to start to learn want collapse looks and lives like is here. This was a collapse in a modern European society.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I believe that it is mistaken to suggest that child support is some new-fangled invention. Before the Welfare State, in the days of the Poor Law, no Parish wished to be burdened with the responsibility for maintaining a woman who had given birth out of wedlock and so an order would be made against the putative father. That remains the case. What is new (and where I am this can be traced directly to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 – by-the-way, Tory, that is to say right-wing legislation at that) is the extent to which women are now reliant on Child Support and in the absence thereof State Support – and no politician seeking re-election dare appear to be attempting to cut back on their entitlement.

    In the US we used to call them Bastardy laws (see the posts I linked in a comment above), which I think shows how far we have come. It is true that there have been things which resembled what we now call child support prior to us overturning marriage in the 1960s and 70s. However, there were important differences both legally and socially. What we had in the past was a marriage based system which created an exception for the child support model. This flipped around 1970, and no one seems to have noticed. One could argue that the camel’s nose was already under the tent, and I wouldn’t disagree. But the tent wasn’t turned over until 1970, give or take 5-10 years.

  19. earl says:

    ‘We didn’t modify our marriage based family structure to allow an exception for the child support model, we replaced the marriage model with the child support model and created a very limited exception for marriage.’

    Yet another lovely effect of women voting and increasing the state. The state took over marriage.

  20. ianironwood says:

    Vaselel, Gentlemen. Only by taking control of their reproductive legacies can men regain control of their lives. Spreading the word about Consent to Sex Is Not Consent To Fatherhood isn’t enough. Vaselgel, when it is approved, will deny women the opportunity at quality DNA for free (because why would a man who values his future NOT protect himself that way? A quiet display of high value) and force an immediate drop in “Honey! Guess what?” phone calls. When women are denied the ability to engage in reproductive coercion in the first place, it removes their largest bargaining chip, besides a false rape accusation, from the table.

    Not for the Pius Christian crowd, of course, but my wicked Pagan boys will get the shot. And once only low-quality men are uncontrollably fertile, after a generation we’ll see a cultural shift akin to the Pill and divorce liberalization. THEN we’ll see a more reasonable approach to child support laws. When men are no longer at the mercy of their own robust fertility.

  21. earl says:

    ‘Yes. Given that you have come to this sad but accurate realization, I predict that in 3-6 months, you will mostly outgrow the remaining urge to enter a Marriage 2.0 contract, that you presently have….’

    Marriage is three parties…God, the husband, and wife. The state never had any rights to begin with…even in this matrix they created.

  22. paddy says:

    So, in what countries is there still real and true marriage?

  23. Escoffier says:

    D, I think there is a major essay in this. If you are interested in doing something like that, please email me at the address which I use to comment. I may be able to introduce you to one or two of the right people.

  24. greyghost says:

    I read this today in the local newspaper. This is the effect of what this policy has on the big picture. Not enough “redpill” MGTOW to do this but more scary is the “bluepill” MGTOW which is actually men that have quit out of hopelessness and unaware common sense.
    Overall this is what MGTOW looks like I the big picture.
    . http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/will-deener/20150426-will-deener-the-sad-truth-about-the-labor-force.ece

  25. Novaseeker says:

    Very insightful.

    I think the issue here is how difficult it is to imagine a system which isn’t organized around child support.

    Indeed, just as it is difficult for people to imagine a system of marriage itself which isn’t grounded in persistent romantic love. Everything flipped around new priorities, and so the new expectations are also flipped, and pretty much ubiquitous.

  26. Dave says:

    The last sentence quoted in the above is the exact reason why trying to find that one unicorn is the only way to even try and have a successful marriage. All else is entirely futile. And yes, I know it will never happen which is the reason why, for me at least, there is no such thing as marriage. It’s an illusion.

    According to your faith will it be unto you. Millions of Americans are married and happy in their marriages right here in the United States. I can name names even in this forum—Dalrock, Scott, ?IBB (not sure) and many more, are all married and happy. None of them married a unicorn. None of them had move abroad.
    Why not simply trust God to grant you favor in this area, and direct your path to meet a godly, chaste and beautiful woman you could grow old with, since it is obvious that you would prefer to be married and happy, rather than being single? Why rob yourself of a great, satisfying, and fulfilling marital life because of your stark unbelief? While I do understand that it will take a bit more work these days to find a good marriage material than it used to be, I guarantee you that there are literally millions of single Christian women in this very country who are praying everyday for a spouse like you! have some faith. Believe. Open your eyes. Seek for a wife; only those who seek find. Pray and believe that you will receive answers to your prayers and you will. Without faith you will only succeed in robbing yourself of God’s abundant provision.

    Good women are not unicorns in America. They are everywhere. Start somewhere, and don’t just give up.
    Here, start here: https://fastpray.wordpress.com/

    Write to the admin and tell her you are looking for a young, chaste and godly Christian woman to marry. Yes, go ahead, use an anonymous email address and let her know you are serious. Someone will likely write you back, and you can subsequently take it from there. These are godly women who pray every single week for God to send them godly husbands. Let us stop with the negativity, people. Be not faithless, brother, but believe.

  27. Dave says:

    Even some unbelievers are remaining chaste until marriage. None of them is a Unicorn.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/celebrity-sex_n_1525982.html

  28. earl says:

    ‘These are godly women who pray every single week for God to send them godly husbands. Let us stop with the negativity, people. Be not faithless, brother, but believe.’

    Trusting in God with this matter is as important as any other matter. Thing about it is the promiscuous women make the most noise so they tend to get a lot of attention (positive, negative, or otherwise)…but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good women out there.

  29. Dave says:

    You can’t know who is chaste and who is promiscuous until you get to know them. Lumping them all together is not very wise. However, if we continue to believe that they are all bad, they will all be bad to us. We will always see what we want to see. For some people, even if Jesus were to turn their water into wine, they would still complain that the wine is not aged enough.

  30. Dale says:

    @Dave

    >You can’t know who is chaste and who is promiscuous until you get to know them.

    That is what a hymen is for. As one of the commenters here likes to say, “Sealed by God for your protection.” A man or woman claiming to be Godly, but who is lacking self-control, is showing a paradox. To a certain extent this is unavoidable — Gal 5:16-18. Titus 2:1-5 re self control.

    >Why not simply trust God to grant you favor in this area, and direct your path to meet a godly, chaste and beautiful woman you could grow old with, since it is obvious that you would prefer to be married and happy, rather than being single?

    Perhaps you are forgetting Matt 21:28-32. Actions are important, their claims/words are not. If she is currently living in willful, repeated rebellion, then any claim to her being Godly is at best foolish, and more likely a result of willful ignorance; 2 Tim 2:22-26. Or being in league with Satan, desiring to destroy others I suppose; 1 Peter 5:8-9.
    How do you tell whether she is living in submission to God? Look at her actions.
    – does she choose to wear clothing like what men wear – Deut 22:5
    – does she cut her hair or let it grow? – 1 Cor 11:14-16
    – does she exercise self-control, or have obvious areas of repeated lack of self-control, such as over-indulging in alcohol (drunkenness), drugs (“recreational”) or food (obesity) – Titus 2:1-5
    – does she wear a sign of authority (submission for her) on her head – 1 Cor 11
    All the above can be observed without even having to talk to her, which allows a man to very quickly eliminate 99% of the most obvious rebellious females, regardless of their claims to be “religious”.
    Given that less than 1% of women make it past just the “open rebelliousness that is on open display, for all to see, without any shame” tests given above, yes, it is actually necessary to go abroad to have a reasonable chance for a decent wife. Or find a group here that is not North American. John Nesteutes has previously suggested the Mennonites.
    I once was in a “bretheren” church. Not sure if the name is correct. Only the men were allowed to speak/preach in church (1 Tim 2), and they also had no religious-for-full-time-pay professionals (John 10:11-13). The various men each took turns with speaking. These two points seem a promising divergence from our culture.

  31. Gunner Q says:

    Drew @ 4:14 pm:
    “But I urge you to build on that ground work and lay it all out forcefully explaining why this is really the default family structure.”

    The why is easy. Kids without fathers are easily indoctrinated and women without husbands are easily deceived. Child support redefines marriage as “gov’t-wife-kids”. Frivorce gives gov’t a pretext for separating fathers from their families. Once Daddy is gone, gov’t has uncontested power.

    As a nice bonus, marriage is twisted from a symbol of Christ & his Church to a symbol of treachery and misery.

  32. Bee says:

    Dave,

    “I can name names even in this forum—Dalrock, Scott, ?IBB (not sure) and many more, are all married and happy.”

    Add me to your list of happily married. I met my wife at church in North America. She served in different ministries at the church. She did not just show up on Sunday morning and to the ice cream socials. More importantly, she believed in submitting to her husband when she got married to me. She did not believe that she was “more spiritual” than me.

  33. ianironwood says:

    Add me, too. She wasn’t a unicorn when I met her – just a smart, dedicated 19 year old. Met drunk and on the rebound in a bar 24 years ago. Three kids and happily ever after.

    But that only happened after six years of hard vetting for both of us, then proactive focus on the marriage. We didn’t have the established patterns of biblical marriage to fall back on, so we did a lot of deconstructing and discussion that was only possible because both of us have an intellectual curiosity and intuitive understand about each other’s genders, and we were too terrified of the Combat Dating universe that had evolved to fuck things up. We were a fairly struggling Blue Pill couple for years, but about five years ago I started researching PUA techniques for a book at work, stumbled into the early Manosphere, and took a shot at Married Game.

    She might not be a unicorn – she can’t cook her way out of a refugee camp – and no, she is not the most physically attractive woman in the room most of the time. That being said, she embraces her femininity and her life as wife and mother far more comfortably than she does her career, and she’s happy that I am leading our family forcefully through the trials we’ve been through. She’s not a unicorn, but she’s a centaur, and I had to grow her from scratch, pretty much.

    Happy marriage = low female partner count/male leadership/2 point spread. Or at least that’s the place to start.

  34. Don Quixote says:

    Dale says:
    April 27, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    That is what a hymen is for. As one of the commenters here likes to say, “Sealed by God for your protection.”

    No cherry = no cigar.

  35. Timely post Dalrock. I am watching children raised by the child support system on my TV tear apart the city of Baltimore right now.

  36. Lets all pray for Baltimore. It appears to be channeling Ferguson at the moment. The devil is dancing in the streets and encouraging the b@stards to steal cars.

    Dave,

    According to your faith will it be unto you. Millions of Americans are married and happy in their marriages right here in the United States. I can name names even in this forum—Dalrock, Scott, ?IBB (not sure) and many more, are all married and happy. None of them married a unicorn. None of them had move abroad.

    We got lucky. Most men do not.

    Why not simply trust God to grant you favor in this area, and direct your path to meet a godly, chaste and beautiful woman you could grow old with, since it is obvious that you would prefer to be married and happy, rather than being single?

    I think the majority of the frivorced men on this forum DID trust God and believed firmly that it was God indeed who gave them their godly woman. And maybe He did. But that is beside the point.

    The point is God gave each of us free will. He does not mess with that. And if a woman chooses to rebel against her husband and rebel against God, then God doesn’t stop her. He never did. So sure, you can trust God. Just don’t trust God to take away her free will by forcing her to obey you. He will not do that.

  37. MarcusD says:

    http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2015/04/the-struggle-of-making-the-journey-alone-after-a-divorce/

    http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2015/04/what-married-couples-say-they-like-most-about-being-married/

    Amazingly, from a CEO:

    “Bluntly stated, a “woman’s view” on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO.”

    http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986

  38. greyghost says:

    For those of you happily married that isn’t the point. You pulled the trigger and the hammer came down on an empty chamber. That doesn’t mean that Russian roulette or marriage isn’t a dangerous game. And still by law , culture and church your loving wife can do what ever she wants up to and including kill you and get away with it . In most cases cheered on and praised.
    By law there is no wife. Your own well being is not dictated by your own conduct it is determined by your wife’s feelings towards you. When either one of you realizes that your marriage is over.

  39. vasalgelindeed says:

    Good to see you around Ian. I second your thoughts on Vasalgel and the shift in power it could catalyze. However, I hope that it does not get much publicity until after the approval process. Last thing we need is for the FDA to be politicized by the Eye of Sauron on this. Men, please help fund the vasalgel approval.

  40. hoellenhund2 says:

    While I do understand that it will take a bit more work these days to find a good marriage material than it used to be, I guarantee you that there are literally millions of single Christian women in this very country who are praying everyday for a spouse like you!

    I’m pretty sure what those women are actually praying for are male unicorns to knock on their doors.

  41. hoellenhund2 says:

    Overall this is what MGTOW looks like I the big picture.
    . http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/will-deener/20150426-will-deener-the-sad-truth-about-the-labor-force.ece

    Mediocre article from an author who clearly doesn’t think things through, and probably doesn’t want to either. Just an average journalist – closed-minded, prejudiced and ignorant.

    “A study conducted by The Wall Street Journal last year showed that 33 percent of 848 business owners surveyed had unfilled jobs, and 43 percent said “unfilled jobs were impeding their businesses from growth or expansion.”

    This is technically true. What he conveniently leaves out is that
    a) many of those businesses don’t want to grow in the first place (after all, demand isn’t growing, and investing in growth equals risk, which is mostly a bad idea in a stagnating economy)
    b) those “unfilled” jobs only exist in imagination i.e. those business owners don’t actually offer salaries that’d attract the kind of skilled, hard-working employees they say they need.

  42. hoellenhund2 says:

    Off-topic: some of you may find this interesting. Apparently there’s an ESPN reporter named Britt McHenry who was captured on tape acting like a nasty twat towards a towing lot employee.

    youtube.com/watch?v=Y5JesKdZJ2Y

    Her attitude shows the true extent of the arrogance, the sense of entitlement and supremacy that characterizes the average college-educated Western woman. She knew she was being captured on camera, and that the footage is very likely to become public. Yet she still decided to act like a complete bitch, because she knew there won’t be any consequences. Think about that for a minute.

    This provided an excuse for the SJW brigade to show the true extent of their hypocrisy. She was never in danger of being fired, yet SJWs are now complaining about people who called for her to be fired:

    xojane.com/issues/britt-mchenry-rant

    The comments are hilarious. SJWs are perfectly OK with organizing online lynch mobs and exploiting the omnipresence of surveillance, which gradually destroys all forms of privacy, for their own ends. But all this suddenly become an ominous, freaky social trend when it’s a college-educated woman that is the target of it.

  43. Scott says:

    Hollenhund–

    I have an econ question, since it seems you are much more versed.

    Mike Rowe (“Dirty Jobs”) regularly points out that there are many jobs in the trades (that actually pay pretty well) going unfilled. I have even told my son that if he decides to drop of out college and become an apprentice doing some crazy dangerous underwater welding trade or something I would not be disappointed at all.

    What is your take on this phantom of the supposed “unemployment” rate?

    (Or is it even real)

  44. earl says:

    ‘7. You don’t judge any woman for her choices. Live and let live. How another woman defines being a woman is not your business.’

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

  45. earl says:

    ’11. You know your life is yours to build or destroy. To play the victim is to be powerless and you reject the long-held belief that women are weak. You are a force to be reckoned with.’

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

  46. crowhill says:

    @Dalrock, I assume you mean that the new model is child support through the mother — paid for by the father (voluntarily or involuntarily) or by the state.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    @crowhill —

    That will be the way it works most of the time, but the idea is the same even when the sexes are reversed — i.e., the backbone principle for raising children is ensuring financial support, not ensuring intact family as the “proper” context. There is no “proper” context, only the assurance, by law, of financial support. That is now the backbone of the entire family system, from the legal/social perspective, and *not* intact bio families — the latter is optional, whereas the former is mandatory, again, regardless of which sex is in which role (although it almost always is male payor, female recipient).

  48. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    I have even told my son that if he decides to drop of out college and become an apprentice doing some crazy dangerous underwater welding trade or something I would not be disappointed at all.

    He doesn’t have to do something that dangerous. A journeyman carpenter makes more money than I do, gets more time off, and gets to work outside sometimes. Guys like that are always in demand.

    Encourage your son to do his first two years of uni at a community college. He can take his basic requirements there, and he’ll be around guys who are starting out in these technical programs. He may decide to get serious and get a BA in accounting, or he may decide to do the plumbing courses, saving himself a year of school and saving you a bunch of money that you can use to set him up once he’s done.

    Boxer

  49. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    April 27, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    “Marriage is three parties…God, the husband, and wife. The state never had any rights to begin with…even in this matrix they created.”

    You’re right, of course, but someone needs to hold the human parties accountable when things get tough. That used to be the community’s job. That’s why the traditional vows include the phrase “before God AND THESE WITNESSES”. The purpose of the witnesses (everyone who attended the wedding) is to remind the husband and wife of the vows they made and hold them accountable to those vows.

    The traditional vows say “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health”. It’s easy to remain faithful in the “better”, “richer” and “health”. It gets rough in the “worse”, “poorer” and “sickness”, which is why we need our fellow believers to keep us accountable.

    The problem began, I think, when people began to equate government with community, which is false. I doubt any society ever did marriage perfectly, but ours clearly did it better in the past that we’re doing it now, and in this world, good enough is usually the best we can hope for. So, how do we get back to good enough?

    I’m not sure, but I think it starts with the Church actually teaching what the Bible says about marriage.

  50. thedeti says:

    Whether we’re talking about persistence of romantic love as a basis for marriage, or sexual attractiveness as a basis for marriage, or financial support as a basis for child-rearing, note that all of these are feminine primary and feminine centric. All of these are premised on what women desire (or claim to desire) from their relationships — love from a man, sexual attraction to a man, and money to take care of her and her children.

    Women have three directives, in this order:

    1. Secure alpha seed for pregnancy and have strong, healthy children (Alpha Fux)

    2. Secure provisioning to support her and her children (Beta Bux)

    3. If she fails in directives 1. and 2., secure provisioning for her own support by any means necessary (Beta Bux or job/career)

  51. @Oscar

    The problem began because of the sin of greed. Decades of forced redistributed wealth from men to the welfare state, pro-feminist social policies to kick men out of homes, and “No Job Left Behind” trade agreements and outsourcing crafted by neo-liberals destroyed whole communities. The marriage rate and fertility rates are trending downwards towards decline.

    You asked “How do we get back to good enough? ” The answer is simply ‘we don’t.’

  52. thedeti says:

    Government started getting involved in marriage for two basic reasons. First, because the states were all over the place on what “marriage” is. This occurred because of the individualism in Western tradition. Some people were getting married in churches; some were marrying before judges or “justices of the peace”, some were married at sea by ship captains, some were married in foreign countries. And a large number just started living together as married couples without ever going through any kind of ceremony, which were called “common law” marriages.

    The common law, or “judge made law”, created all sorts of tests and thresholds and definitions to decide who was “married” and who wasn’t. In order to have a marriage or to end a marriage, the law first was tasked with determining what “marriage” is, from a legal standpoint This in turn was a response to enterprising lawyers creating arguments that a valid marriage was never contracted, thus avoiding certain marital obligations or benefits. It was inevitable that legislatures would step in to make it all uniform.

    This was important for the second point which was that courts were being increasingly asked to provide predictable and orderly ends to the marriages that do end and to ensure the money is there to care for children at the end of marriages.

    So, first, for “uniformity”, and second, “for the children”.

  53. @thedeti

    Good points. #1 is hard for most women to obtain, #2 is a decreasing pool in which many men are becoming ‘unmarriageable’, so that leaves #3 which mostly is being fulfilled by the state.

  54. Soon, government will be choosing who you marry.

  55. Not being married just saves a man so much sanity. It really does. Society and women make all these demands, married men have to deal with that, unmarried men can simply walk away.

  56. The common law, or “judge made law”, created all sorts of tests and thresholds and definitions to decide who was “married” and who wasn’t. In order to have a marriage or to end a marriage, the law first was tasked with determining what “marriage” is, from a legal standpoint This in turn was a response to enterprising lawyers creating arguments that a valid marriage was never contracted, thus avoiding certain marital obligations or benefits. It was inevitable that legislatures would step in to make it all uniform.

    Sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem now though, is that government is involved in every aspect of your life, whether it be before marriage, during marriage or after marriage. To the point that married life and relationships with women are toxic. By trying to legislating ‘uniformity’ and ‘for the chillens’ they’ve instead created damaged chillens and chaos in the relationship realm between the sexes.

    Go team!

  57. Fred Flange, B.S., Lysenko Institute says:

    Once vaselgel is approved and proven safe it will be another option, sure, but hardly a game changer. Guys will just “forget” to use it just like women skip their pill doses but blame their being preggers on “the pill not working right.” Or guys refusing to use the jimmy hat ‘cos going bareback “feels better.” It will only be as effective societally as the men who use it effecitvely for themselves.

    It won’t change AF/BB, “yes means yes” or the further disintegration of marriage and intact families everywhere outside of the UMC. Like Europe, there will be couples who hang together for a time to raise children, and vow to remain together “for as long as we both shall feel like it” (now frequently called “for as long as we both shall LOVE” in the rewritten wedding vows I’ve heard).

  58. @Alan K

    Correct. Whilst I don’t want to condemn most of Christendom as apostate, most of the church is not teaching anything close to the Bible – teaching people they can sue other Christians, that divorce/remarriage is OK, or that Christians can serve in the state. (How exactly is a Christian police officer going to uphold our unjust DV/child support laws?)

    @Dave / @Dale

    How on earth does the presence of absence of a hymen test anything? Virtuous women aren’t going to let you get to third base to test the goods before marriage.

    To say nothing of the scourge of technical virginity, the participants of such who are decidedly un-chaste.

    The obsession with virginity is kind of gross. The obsession should be with a chaste lifestyle. And the great thing about a chaste lifestyle is that it’s pretty easy to discern.

  59. @Fred Flange

    Vasalgel will simply acclerate us on the path towards turning all heterosexual sex into sodomy.

    Before I was born again and became a Christian, I pretty much figured out how to have as much sex as I wanted with as much variety of women as I wanted without having any unwanted pregnancies. Not particularly hard.

    But at the end of the day, I knew there was no future waiting for me: no family, no kids, no grandkids, nobody to care about me when I get old. In short, I was sowing seeds of destruction, not seeds of life.

    Ultimately if all a man wants is to maximise his pleasure, he’s best off buying a Fleshlight and occasionally buying an escort.

    The silver lining on all of thus is that the “meek shall inherit the earth” in the sense that the only people having large families will be actual Christians, or people who live by biblical principles.

  60. thedeti says:

    It’s important to amplify the point that “child support” is about MONEY, and that’s all that it is about.

    Marriage has always been primarily about being a safe place to raise children, and secondarily a safe and proper place for the expression of sexuality. Raising children has always been about more than just money, the food/shelter/clothing/health care bare necessities of life. It’s also about the interrelationships among father, mother and children. It’s also about socializing children, learning about how to get along and live with other human beings, learning about how to get what you want and need in healthy and productive ways. It’s a safe haven and respite from the harshness of the world, about belonging to something, and about contributing to and receiving from something greater than yourself.

    All that has been tossed out the window in favor of a simple requirement that a breadwinner(s) transfer to the government, or a woman he used to be married to, a fixed percentage of his money, ostensibly to pay for his child(ren)’s bare necessities. None of the other aspects of “support” have any meaning. He is reduced to a walking wallet, a source of money.

  61. Gunner Q says:

    Scott @ 5:34 am:
    “Mike Rowe (“Dirty Jobs”) regularly points out that there are many jobs in the trades (that actually pay pretty well) going unfilled. I have even told my son that if he decides to drop of out college and become an apprentice doing some crazy dangerous underwater welding trade or something I would not be disappointed at all.

    What is your take on this phantom of the supposed “unemployment” rate?

    (Or is it even real)”

    My take, being somewhat related to such jobs, is that the problem is most companies refuse to train new hires. It’s understandable given to fluidity of the modern workforce but there’s a big difference between “we need workers” and “we need fully certified underwater arc welders with current helicopter pilot licenses and five years’ experience on offshore oil derricks”. The old it-takes-money-to-make-money dilemma.

  62. John Nesteutes says:

    @thedeti

    This point needs repeated a thousand times over. If money were truly the only benefit marriage offered to women and children, then replacing it with a child-support based model of family would be fine.

    But since that’s not what marriage and parenting is about, this model works poorly.

  63. John Nesteutes says:

    @Ras Al Ghul: Just as there are no atheists in a fox hole, and convicts find God in prison, only to leave Him behind most of the time once they are out, so to is the “Born Again” thing more often than not an attempt to press the do over button of sluthood. While faith can transform a person’s life, more often it is used to avoid consequences.

    Perhaps I should clarify on what I mean by “born again”. First off, I’m not referring to those who grew up being taught biblical morality, had a conversion when they were 13 or 15 or whatever, and then ran off and lived a life of sin, and then attempt to return to the faith when they are 30. That’s an apostate believer seeking to be restored. I’ll write more on that farther below.

    When a person gets truly born again, they leave EVERYTHING about their old life behind them. They stop dressing and acting like the world. They quit indulging the world’s lusts—they don’t spend hours a day watching TV anymore. They stop sleeping around. They surround themselves with godly Christian fellowship. They seek out strong leaders in the church to follow. They set an example of their old friends and witness the gospel to them.

    They seek to join a church filled with other believers who also exhibit outward signs of being born again. They accept the church’s gentle reproof and counsel for areas of lifestyle of which they might not be aware. Part of being born again is experiencing an inward change which allows the new believer to adopt a submissive spirit to the church’s leadership and discipline.

    Much of the new believer’s formerly individualism falls by the wayside.

    Now… for the apostate Christian trying to return home? The signs of repentance will be the same—but their leaders in the church will look for signs they are in it for the “long haul” before restoring them to full fellowship. A year or two is a good threshold. They will need to submit to the idea they might never get married, never be eligible for a position of leadership, never get to have all the “fun” they had in the world before. But to the wayward child returning home, a clear conscience is worth all of those things.

    As far as men marrying women who return from that… I would counsel a man strongly to look for real signs of permanent repentance.

    I have seen both men and women experience a return from apostasy, and also become born again for the first time. It’s truly miraculous to see them delivered from drugs, smoking, and drinking (those things are hard to hide)—and it’s even more miraculous to see the submit their lives to Jesus and give up on the idea of finding happiness in earthly pleasures, even pleasures that are good (like marriage).

  64. earl says:

    ‘The problem began, I think, when people began to equate government with community, which is false.’

    Or when government took over being the community. Either way government has false power in marriage.

  65. feeriker says:

    Soon, government will be choosing who you marry

    Much more likely is that they’ll ban marriage altogether.

  66. earl says:

    Marriage is most certainly not about money. It’s about family, relationships, and community. A child support check can’t replace what a father or mother brings to a child.

    But channeling GBFM here…a lot of people have chose to become Bernakified and desouled, so it’s not surprising some people make it all about the money and could care less about the destruction of the family, community, and relationships.

  67. Bee says:

    @greyghost,

    “For those of you happily married that isn’t the point. You pulled the trigger and the hammer came down on an empty chamber. That doesn’t mean that Russian roulette or marriage isn’t a dangerous game. ”

    Men get killed driving to and from work. Men get killed at work. Does this mean that men should stop going to work?

    Marriage is now a dangerous game. Single christian men need to interview & vet. Single christian men need to know what to look for in a wife. Single christian men need to learn married game so they can create & keep attraction, and manage a woman’s emotions.

  68. Marriage is now a dangerous game. Single christian men need to interview & vet. Single christian men need to know what to look for in a wife. Single christian men need to learn married game so they can create & keep attraction, and manage a woman’s emotions.

    Sorry, but fuck that shit! Marriage is not a game, it’s deadly, fucking serious. You can play with that pistol, I hope it hits an empty chamber but we all know it won’t.

  69. Related this data from the WSJ – Millennials are just not marrying. I wonder why? The obvious continues to be ignored.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/04/27/how-single-millennials-will-change-the-workplace

  70. Men get killed driving to and from work. Men get killed at work. Does this mean that men should stop going to work?

    Comparing apples to pears. Won’t cut it. A man cannot be forced to continue driving to work and work for his boss once he has been fired. He has the freedom to go and pursue another job. Not so with marriage. Also, the danger of marriage has nothing to do with the randomness of life, it’s a top-down functioning of what society has turned marriage into. It’s a joke.

    Marriage is no longer a place of rest from the harshness of the world as some lamented above. It’s hell on earth for the majority of men and they can be turned into walking wallets as soon as their other half chooses. The man gets no choice. Please stop trying to get men into a marriage contract that is entirely stacked against them. It makes you a cruel and callous person.

  71. Welcome to John Nesteutes, our resident expect in repentant whores. Man up and marry those sluts! According to John, a prostitute or porn star is perfect wife material. As long as she has ‘repented’ of her sinful life. Never mind all that other shit. Man up and marry! The world is counting on you.

    So glad to have that blue pill fuckery removed from my system.

  72. …’expert’….

  73. TFH, he didn’t give any ‘criteria’… he just somme expects the man to read the woman’s mind because nothing will hold her to her vow, nothing. In fact, she will be encouraged to divorce him for any perceived error on his part. And she will be rewarded for it.

    It has come to a point now that those encouraging marriage are condoning the system.

  74. Femertilizer says:

    If 50% percent of men got killed going to work (divorce), you’d better believe the rest would consider staying home instead..

  75. craig says:

    What are the differences between the marriage model and the child support model? Let’s consider the following breakdown of each model into its constituent parts:

    Marriage model:
    1a. A man has the duty to support, protect, and care for his wife, and no-one else’s.
    1b. A woman has the duty to care for her husband.
    2a. A man has the duty to support, protect, and care for his natural children, and no-one else’s.
    2b. A woman has the duty to care for her natural children.
    3a. A man has the duty to support, protect, and care for his adopted children, if any.
    3b. A woman has the duty to care for her husband’s adopted children, if any.
    4a. A man has the duty to exercise due care for the well-being of all those he is charged to support.
    4b. A woman has the duty to care for the well-being for all those her husband is charged to support.
    5a. A man has the right to direct the living conditions, inculturation, education, and useful household work of all those he is charged to support.
    5b. A woman has the right to direct all of the above in her husband’s absence, or else subject to his authorization.
    6a. A child has the right to the support, protection, and care of his natural parents.
    6b. A child has the duty to obey his parents.

    (Note that the components of the marriage model are probably all found in Casti Connubii alone, to say nothing of the rest of Catholic magisterial writings. But apart from St. Paul’s additional Ephesians 5 injunction upon husbands to love their wives, these components are not uniquely Christian, and may be found in almost all patriarchal cultures.)

    Child support model:
    1a. A man has the duty to support his wife, if any.
    2a. A man has the duty to support his natural children.
    2b. A woman has the right to the support of any man by whom she has borne children.
    3a. A man has the duty to support his adopted children, if any.
    3b. A man has the duty to support any children his wife has borne by other men prior to marrying him.
    3c. A man has the duty to support any children his wife has borne by other men whilst married to him.
    4a. A man has the duty to exercise due care for the well-being of all those he is charged to support.
    5a. The State has the right to direct the living conditions, inculturation, education, and useful household work of all children.
    5b. A woman has the right to direct all of the above in the State’s absence, or else subject to the State’s authorization.
    6a. A child has the right to the support, protection, and care of the State or persons such as the State may direct.
    6b. A child has the duty to obey the State or other persons such as the State may direct.

    (Note that both feminists and wannabe-traditionalist Christians are all openly supportive of components 1a-4a of the child support model. They are also supportive of components 5a-6b, even though wannabe-traditionalists do so quietly and willfully do not acknowledge the outright Communism therein.)

  76. Anchorman says:

    If 50% percent of men got killed going to work (divorce), you’d better believe the rest would consider staying home instead..

    Boom.

  77. feeriker says:

    Don’t get swayed by the M-word. Marriage 2.0 differs from Marriage 1.0 by such a huge margin, that you should restate every sentence you say about it with the term ‘Misandric Relationship Contract’. Then see if you still think it is Biblical.

    Misandrically-
    Arranged
    Relationship
    Regimen
    Indemnified
    As
    Gynocrentric
    Enslavement

    Yeah, that sounds about right.

  78. feeriker says:

    “Gynocentric”

  79. feeriker says:

    If 50% percent of men got killed going to work (divorce), you’d better believe the rest would consider staying home instead..

    Yes, although no one is foolish enough to believe that anything that lethally affected only men would ever merit the attention of society at large as a concern.

    Now if 50 percent of women were killed going to work, a national crisis would be declared …

  80. anonymous_ng says:

    @feeriker – Now if 50 percent of women were killed going to work, a national crisis would be declared …

    Or, it would be a good start.

    IDK, ss that too harsh, or only applicable to bureacrats and politicians?

  81. @feministhater

    Let’s be clear on a few things, bud.

    I never told any man to marry a former adulteress. I don’t support divorce and remarriage, period.

    I never told any man to marry a former fornicator. I did state that it’s possible for former fornicators to repent.

    Jesus associated with tax-gatherers and harlots. If he came and visited the earth today, he would associate with feminists, too. He would also exhort them to turn away from their sins and live righteousness. For most of them, that would be a life of either celibacy or returning to live with their first husband.

    I do not hate any human being on planet earth, because Jesus taught that hatred in one’s heart is a sin. And Jesus also came to earth to save sinners.

    He never told any man they had to go and marry harlots, though. I’d appreciate if you’d retract that statement of yours.

    I will, however, combat the heresy I hear over and over about how formerly sinful women can’t repent or change. I’m around some of these women on a regular basis.

    One of the signs of their repentant life is that they are celibate – EVERY SINGLE ONE. It wouldn’t be a sin for them to marry, or for a man to marry them, but most of them aren’t looking for marriage to try to make them “happy”, so it simply rarely happens.

    But if you say that Christ cannot offer repentance to women with sexual sins in their past, you nullify the entire gospel.

    I’ll keep my gospel, my Christianity, and whilst I’m at it my 0.3% divorce rate.

  82. feeriker says:

    Or, it would be a good start.

    IDK, ss that too harsh, or only applicable to bureacrats and politicians?

    The real tragedy would lie in the fact that most would’ve been killed going to “work” in “jobs” (i.e., make-work sinecures) that produced absolutely nothing of any value to the overall economy.

  83. @craig

    Correct. The normal model of marriage/family is similar to observing that in most cultures, people grow food, cook it, and eat it.

    What we have today is something akin to a society of cannibals who eat their own children. It’s not just Christians who aren’t cannibals, but no Christian can be a cannibal, or participate in a society that is.

    The antidote to this poison is to “come out from among them and be ye separate”.

  84. feeriker says:

    If he came and visited the earth today, he would associate with feminists, too. He would also exhort them to turn away from their sins and live righteousness.

    Based on the content of the Four Gospels, yes, that’s obviously what we would expect Him to do. He would also no doubt go into it realizing in advance how futile it would probably be, but knowing that even feminists deserve a chance at eternal salvation.

    I’m only half joking with that last sentence …

    I will, however, combat the heresy I hear over and over about how formerly sinful women can’t repent or change. I’m around some of these women on a regular basis.

    But if you say that Christ cannot offer repentance to women with sexual sins in their past, you nullify the entire gospel.

    Straw man. NO ONE here has ever said, or even implied that Christ cannot offer repentance to fallen women, that they are incapable of repentance, or that they will not be forgiven for their sins.

    What HAS been said here –again and again and AGAIN– is that forgiveness of sins does NOT erase the temporal consequences of those sins – which is incontestably true. This appears to be what you (as well as most churchians) have a serious problem with: the fact that repentance of and forgiveness of sins does not equate to a “Get Out of Jail Free card” here in the temporal world.

    The fact is that no matter how thoroughly and sincerely repentant a fallen woman might be of her slutty past and no matter genuinely forgiven she is, the damage to her body and her soul her on earth has already been done. Odds are overwhelming that she will NEVER be able to bond with a man as a wife and that any man who attempts to wife her up is in for a lifetime of pain, heartache, contentiousness, and dysfunction. Far better that she remain celebate.

  85. JDG says:

    Don’t get swayed by the M-word. Marriage 2.0 differs from Marriage 1.0 by such a huge margin, that you should restate every sentence you say about it with the term ‘Misandric Relationship Contract’.

    Exactly! What is commonly practiced today in western countries today is nothing like marriage as described in the Bible. As Gunner pointed out on April 27 at 8:45 pm:

    … marriage is twisted from a symbol of Christ & his Church to a symbol of treachery and misery.

    Indeed, genuine marriage is a type (an example) of the relationship between Christ and His Church, but this arrangement is no longer what is presented as marriage. Instead we have an impostor, a twisted and distorted misrepresentation of marriage that more closely aligns with tyranny and its self centered perversions. Now we have an over reaching government that makes money off of the whole facade (“marriage” and divorce).

    feministhater mentioned that soon the government will be choosing who we marry. Wouldn’t that fit right in with an entity that is trying to supplant the father’s role in the family?

  86. thedeti says:

    I think a repentant slut can marry. But I think it is very, very difficult. Dalrock had a good exchange with me a few years ago. If I have time I’ll see if I can find it.

    The work a slut has to do in order to be any sort of marriage material is immense and time consuming. Most cannot do it, and even if they do complete it, many still won’t be suited to marriage. Most sluts should repent and then live in celibacy.

    Most repentant or reformed sluts who do marry will go through periods of time, perhaps months, perhaps decades, where they just won’t feel the kinds of feelings a wife should feel for a husband — feelings of attachment, sexual attraction and bonding. Or they will feel those feelings, but not with the intensity and affection she felt for the men she used to have sex with. Those women should be thankful a man was willing to overlook her past. Those women should also accept the fact that they will have those feelings, work to overcome them, and sleep with their husbands frequently and on demand even when they don’t feel those feelings. The fact that she goes through periods of not experiencing those feelings of attachment, attraction and bonding is her issue to overcome and deal with. It is not her husband’s issue to address and/or change himself. The fact that she goes through those times of lowered attraction and attachment has nothing to do with him and everything to do with her, her conduct and her choices. The man who marries the repentant slut deserves the benefits of marriage no less than the man who marries a woman who is really into him. And, she owes it to any children she has with that man to love their father, and to be a wife to their father.

    But frankly, a man seeking marriage should avoid such a woman, even a repentant slut, because the risks aren’t worth the benefits. A man owes it to his future children to select their mother with the utmost care. A repentant slut is too risky a venture on which to premise the lives of his children.

  87. thedeti says:

    And one of the problems a repentant/reformed slut has is that the kinds of men who will be willing to marry her will not be as sexually attractive as the men she used to have sex with. There is simply NO WAY a reformed slut will be able to extract a marriage commitment from one of those men. If she wants to marry, she will have to settle for a man who she is, at most, kind of sexually attracted to, and who is willing to father her children. That exacerbates the alpha widow problem I just described, i.e. her feelings of attraction waning over time and probably fading to nothing.

    Trust me — not worth it.

  88. @deti

    Wholeheartedly agreed.

    I just want to keep nipping this whole “former sinful women can’t repent” thing in the bud. Any Christian person is entirely capable of living righteously and living a life of repentance.

    I do think there is a reasonable distinction between women who have never been Christians before and come to salvation, and those who take a “vacation” from righteous living from age 18-30 or 18-50 and then waltz back on into the church.

    A man needs to be clinically insane to marry the latter variety. And I know a fair nmber of them. Most of them are content being celibate. In short, the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding them to marry.

    Given the oversupply of godly young Christian women I generally observe, there’s no sensible reason for a godly man to marry a woman with an overtly sinful past. Especially since Paul speaks of singleness as being a gift.

    But I also live in reality, and the simple reality is that I see Christian men, over and over, choosing to marry women with a past and passing up nice, godly women. It’s not sinful for these men to do so, but it sure isn’t wise.

  89. I never told any man to marry a former fornicator. I did state that it’s possible for former fornicators to repent.

    I would beg to differ.

    Perhaps I should clarify on what I mean by “born again”. First off, I’m not referring to those who grew up being taught biblical morality, had a conversion when they were 13 or 15 or whatever, and then ran off and lived a life of sin, and then attempt to return to the faith when they are 30. That’s an apostate believer seeking to be restored. I’ll write more on that farther below.

    When a person gets truly born again, they leave EVERYTHING about their old life behind them. They stop dressing and acting like the world. They quit indulging the world’s lusts—they don’t spend hours a day watching TV anymore. They stop sleeping around. They surround themselves with godly Christian fellowship. They seek out strong leaders in the church to follow. They set an example of their old friends and witness the gospel to them.

    They seek to join a church filled with other believers who also exhibit outward signs of being born again. They accept the church’s gentle reproof and counsel for areas of lifestyle of which they might not be aware. Part of being born again is experiencing an inward change which allows the new believer to adopt a submissive spirit to the church’s leadership and discipline.

    That is you ‘defining’ what is a born again Christian. And this is you advising a man to marry a ‘born again’. A person who was a former fornicator. I didn’t even bring up adulteresses so okay…

    Marraige does still exist&emdash;you just need to find women who are actually born again.

    He never told any man they had to go and marry harlots, though. I’d appreciate if you’d retract that statement of yours.I’d appreciate if you’d retract that statement of yours.

    What statement, I never said Jesus did? I know he doesn’t, he doesn’t advise men to marry any women, which you did though, you advised me to marry a born again…

  90. @feministhater

    My advice is to marry a born-again Christian woman (assuming you are a born-again Christian man yourself).

    I never said anything about her having a sexual past.

    I think we have some confusion here about the meaning of the term “born again”. Most women I know and am around regularly got born again in their early teens, and their life of sinfulness was limited to cheating in school a few times, being cross at their parents, or lying about doing their homework on time.

    All serious sins, but not sexual ones.

  91. OKRickety says:

    John Nesteutes said:
    I will, however, combat the heresy I hear over and over about how formerly sinful women can’t repent or change. I’m around some of these women on a regular basis.

    One of the signs of their repentant life is that they are celibate – EVERY SINGLE ONE.

    Yes, formerly sinful women can repent, but just how can you be so certain that the ones you know are celibate? Or that they won’t relapse and justify sinning again if they have the opportunity with a guy they find sexually attractive?

    John Nesteutes said:
    I’ll keep my gospel, my Christianity, and whilst I’m at it my 0.3% divorce rate.

    What do you mean by your “0.3% divorce rate”?

    feeriker said:
    The fact is that no matter how thoroughly and sincerely repentant a fallen woman might be of her slutty past and no matter genuinely forgiven she is, the damage to her body and her soul her on earth has already been done. Odds are overwhelming that she will NEVER be able to bond with a man as a wife and that any man who attempts to wife her up is in for a lifetime of pain, heartache, contentiousness, and dysfunction. Far better that she remain celebate.

    This may be a good description of my ex-wife. But her frivorce stopped it from being a lifetime.

  92. thedeti says:

    John N:

    A man really shouldn’t marry any woman with a history of promiscuity. Period, full stop. Even if she had come to salvation later in life. She won’t be able to marry the really attractive men and will have to settle, and she WILL settle. Whether she’s come to salvation late or returning to church, she will always remember her past sexual experiences and they will always color her present and future sexual experiences.

    Where are all these godly young Christian women people keep talking about? You are deceived, John. These are women who are putting on a good show, who carried their panties home in their purses a few hours before Sunday morning worship.

    These are women who are sleeping with their boyfriends, or sleeping with men outside the church, or have promiscuity in their pasts. They are all playing the role of “godly young Christian woman” on Sunday morning, putting on the façade of piety, demureness and deference at church. On Friday and Saturday nights, out of your sight and the disapproving looks of Church Ladies and Alan Assistant Pastor, they’re partying down, getting drunk, getting high and getting laid.

    Wake up.

  93. Dave says:

    So, the final conclusion is this: fear God, and keep His commandments, because those are the only duties of mankind.
    Those who engage in sexual sin are sinning against their own bodies, souls and spirits. They are tying bits and pieces of their souls with every lover they ever had. In the end, all they have left is a deformed, calloused, hollow shell of their souls, riddled with hypertrophied scars.
    And, no one can break the commandments of God; we can only break ourselves on those commandments. We can never break the eternal commandments of God.
    I do believe that God forgives, and the sinner does not have any question to answer for past, forgiven sins. But will the body an soul of the fornicator forgive? Can the soul be “restored”?

  94. Novaseeker says:

    And more on the separation of genes from support, which seemed perfectly logical to this married woman:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3435zt/woman_suggests_to_her_husband_that_they_get_a/

    Money quote:

    My wife and I have been together for 4 years, married for 8 months. Late last night we were lying in bed post-sex, her head on my shoulder. We were talking about kids. Names and such. A few minutes go by of no talking. Then she says, “with all of the problems, you’ve had with your height… Maybe we should think about getting a sperm donor.” I was completely shocked. …

  95. thedeti says:

    “Then she says, “with all of the problems, you’ve had with your height… Maybe we should think about getting a sperm donor.” I was completely shocked. …”

    His next reply should be, “Who will your lawyer be? The divorce papers will be on file shortly.”

  96. feeriker says:

    Then she says, “with all of the problems, you’ve had with your height… Maybe we should think about getting a sperm donor.” I was completely shocked. …

    Feeriker’s response, had he been “that man:”

    “And maybe it’s time I saw a lawyer about drawing up divorce papers.”

  97. feeriker says:

    Further to my last, a “mule kick” out of bed would also probably have followed.

  98. JDG says:

    hes-wrong-for-me-but-i-realize-i-still-love-him/

    That isn’t love she is feeling. It’s one of those other “L” words.

  99. earl says:

    ‘It has come to a point now that those encouraging marriage are condoning the system.’

    The part of marriage I think most people truly have the problem with is the state involvement. It’s easy to point the finger at women because they do play to our heartstrings…but women wouldn’t have the power if it wasn’t given to them through dishonest means.

    What I’m going to keeps saying (along with what GBFM keeps pointing out) it’s the state (serpent) that is the issue and must be taken to task.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 2:47 pm:
    “Where are all these godly young Christian women people keep talking about? You are deceived, John. These are women who are putting on a good show, who carried their panties home in their purses a few hours before Sunday morning worship. ”

    Listen to Deti, John. I was like you, seeing plenty of devout young women in conservative church circles and hoping to attract one of them. They shunned me without exception and I couldn’t figure out why, when they kept talking about “finding a good man”. Didn’t they know I was standing right there?

    Once I read about PUAs laughing at “Sunday Morning Nightclub”, however, dozens of little puzzle pieces came together like a zipper. All those girls rejected me because Sunday was when they tried to make up for Friday and Saturday, and letting a boring man touch her wouldn’t help either side of that Madonna/whore complex.

    One reason I keep up with the Manosphere despite going MGTOW is because of how well “devout” women are able to conceal their dirty deeds. It’s a world I’m not allowed to see for myself. I assure you, John, if you aren’t a barfly, player, thug, sports jock or ex-con then you’ll be the last to discover the Sexual Underworld of America… because you are innocent.

  101. @OkRickety: Yes, formerly sinful women can repent, but just how can you be so certain that the ones you know are celibate? Or that they won’t relapse and justify sinning again if they have the opportunity with a guy they find sexually attractive?

    They might be sinning secretly and I don’t know about it. That’s between them an
    d God. (Sometimes I have my doubts about one or two of them.) But the key thing
    here is they aren’t getting MARRIED, which is a very public act.

    What do you mean by your “0.3% divorce rate”?

    The divorce rate amongst plain Anabaptists. My experience shows me that other Ch
    ristian sects which take divorce/remarriage seriously have similarly low rates (e.g. most of the very conservative Reformed churches in America)

    @Novaseeker:

    At least she had the decency to use a sperm donor, as opposed to just sleeping with Mr Apex Alpha.

  102. earl says:

    ‘ll those girls rejected me because Sunday was when they tried to make up for Friday and Saturday, and letting a boring man touch her wouldn’t help either side of that Madonna/whore complex.’

    Is that such a bad thing that you were rejected? Would you rather have a truthful chaste woman…or one that puts on a show to try and convince a ‘boring’ man?

  103. pukeko60 says:

    Straogjt Churchian teaching here.

    According to your faith will it be unto you. Millions of Americans are married and happy in their marriages right here in the United States. I can name names even in this forum—Dalrock, Scott, ?IBB (not sure) and many more, are all married and happy. None of them married a unicorn. None of them had move abroad.
    Why not simply trust God to grant you favor in this area, and direct your path to meet a godly, chaste and beautiful woman you could grow old with, since it is obvious that you would prefer to be married and happy, rather than being single? Why rob yourself of a great, satisfying, and fulfilling marital life because of your stark unbelief? While I do understand that it will take a bit more work these days to find a good marriage material than it used to be, I guarantee you that there are literally millions of single Christian women in this very country who are praying everyday for a spouse like you! have some faith. Believe. Open your eyes. Seek for a wife; only those who seek find. Pray and believe that you will receive answers to your prayers and you will. Without faith you will only succeed in robbing yourself of God’s abundant provision.

    I used to be quite Churchian. I used to think that if I wsa more righteous that the wifey would change. I thought I had married a unicorn. However, my quite godly Mum was telling me to leave her for five years before I had to pull the trigger (the kids live with me for very good reasons). Why did I hang in there, although the marriage was dry and my health and the kids were suffering?

    Because I hate divorce. I hate it even more now that I have one.

    On relfection , I made mistakes: I did not lead enough (and I missed the fact that she was selecting a bete because she liked control), and I compromised too often, and fell into despair too often. For the rest of you, the marriage lasted 20 years: the boys now live with me, and I signed CS away. I’d rather have a tighter budget than have the hassles of fighting with her about dollars. For changed she has not.

    So do not say in this time that it is a matter of godliness and if you are righteous your wife will follow. She has to choose to follow you — and you are flawed — for Christ. At times you have to choose to love and cherish her, even though she is being a troll, because of Christ.

    But when the feminist exceptions take over and raising your voice or looking at a R13 movie is seen as sufficen tto trigger the violence/porn exception ( neitehr of which are scriptural) then you are on a knife edge.

    And no one can play alpha without burning out: Roosth stands here as a warning, not an example.

  104. pukeko60 says:

    Earl said

    ‘ll those girls rejected me because Sunday was when they tried to make up for Friday and Saturday, and letting a boring man touch her wouldn’t help either side of that Madonna/whore complex.’

    Is that such a bad thing that you were rejected? Would you rather have a truthful chaste woman…or one that puts on a show to try and convince a ‘boring’ man?

    Yes. Co sign. Have a good evening, it is work time in the Antipodes.

  105. thedeti says:

    “All those girls rejected me because Sunday was when they tried to make up for Friday and Saturday, and letting a boring man touch her wouldn’t help either side of that Madonna/whore complex.”

    And, well, we just weren’t attractive to those girls. We were…NICE. We wanted relationships with those girls. We wanted to treat them well. They didn’t want that. They wanted to have fun, and we weren’t fun. They wanted hawt guys, and we weren’t hawt.

    So it isn’t just that they were trying to live a double life, it was that we weren’t attractive, weren’t shown how to be attractive, and were told exactly the wrong things about how to be attractive. We were trained for a world that hasn’t existed since about 1955.

  106. @deti: A man really shouldn’t marry any woman with a history of promiscuity. Period, full stop. Even if she had come to salvation later in life. She won’t be able to marry the really attractive men and will have to settle, and she WILL settle. Whether she’s come to salvation late or returning to church, she will always remember her past sexual experiences and they will always color her present and future sexual experiences.

    I agree with you. I counsel young men likewise. All I said is that women with sexual history are capable of salvation, repentance, and more importantly they have agency and are responsible for their sin.

    Where are all these godly young Christian women people keep talking about? You are deceived, John. These are women who are putting on a good show, who carried their panties home in their purses a few hours before Sunday morning worship.

    These are women who are sleeping with their boyfriends, or sleeping with men outside the church, or have promiscuity in their pasts. They are all playing the role of “godly young Christian woman” on Sunday morning, putting on the façade of piety, demureness and deference at church. On Friday and Saturday nights, out of your sight and the disapproving looks of Church Ladies and Alan Assistant Pastor, they’re partying down, getting drunk, getting high and getting laid.

    In proper Christian life, church doesn’t stop and end on Sunday. Everyone knows where everyone is, all the time. The gossip mill is running 24/7. Parents don’t let their adult daughters out of their sight unless they know what they’re up to. I don’t live with family and everyone seems to figure out where I am and what I’m doing. How much more do you think everyone knows what girls who have grown up in the community are up to?

    Young women don’t hang out with someone of the opposite sex alone, EVER. If they do, there is a tacit assumption that something sinful happened. The burden of proof is on both parties to prove that they didn’t. Most young people who insist on doing this end up leaving the church after facing initial discipline for this. (Good riddance.) Young men who marry a girl with such a sullied past will have their parents begging him to reconsider because they are fearful of a future wh
    ere she cheats on him or leaves him.

    In one case, a couple left the church, got married in some normal churchian mess, and the distraught parents showed up at the wedding and announced their objection. The pastor of the churchian-church told them to get out of the church or he’d call the police, at their own child’s wedding. That’s how seriously these things are taken.

    Young women dress distinctively from the world. They wear a symbol of authority on their head 17/7, including at home or when out in town. Most women don’t even own any worldly clothes. How exactly are they going to go to/from da club and get drunk without getting caught?

    Wake up.

    I am. The somnolescence here is the idea that there are no godly Christian women left anywhere. It’s patently absurd.

  107. earl says:

    I’m not going to put anyone down about feeling bad because Christian women rejected them when they were trying to ‘do things right’…I’ve had that ‘why me’ feeling before. But honestly give all we know about the ticking time bomb promiscuous women are (even the Christian ones)…I have to give some credit to God for protecting me from myself on that one.

  108. thedeti says:

    “At least she had the decency to use a sperm donor, as opposed to just sleeping with Mr Apex Alpha.”

    John, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or snarky. If you’re serious, you’re missing the point. The point is that she didn’t want her husband’s genes for her children. She didn’t want her husband to sire her children. That’s an outright sexual rejection of her husband. It’s grounds for divorce.

    You have to understand the way women think about this. By the time it comes out of her mouth, it’s been in her mind and heart for YEARS. She’s probably already sleeping with another man. If she isn’t already sleeping with someone else, she likely wants to sleep with another man and has already selected him.

  109. thedeti says:

    John:

    I think our differences are a result of differing experiences and living in different communities. The “Christian” tradition in which I was raised is not Anabaptist or Apostolic Christian, but instead was a mainline evangelical churchian one. In such traditions, girls are CINOs — Christian in Name Only. They come to church and go through the motions, but let ‘er rip on Fridays and Saturdays. No one talks about it, but everyone knows it — everyone, that is, except the “nice” boys they attend church and school with.

    “The somnolescence here is the idea that there are no godly Christian women left anywhere. It’s patently absurd.”

    There are a few, but they are so incredibly rare as to be negligible. They are like unicorns. This is what happens when 90%+ of never-married Christian women are not virgins.

  110. @Gunner Q:

    “Where are all these godly young Christian women people keep talking about? You are deceived, John. These are women who are putting on a good show, who carried their panties home in their purses a few hours before Sunday morning worship.”

    These godly young Christian women are at home with their parents a few horus before Sunday morning worship. Why would their parents let them out unsupervised on a Saturday night?

    Listen to Deti, John. I was like you, seeing plenty of devout young women in conservative church circles and hoping to attract one of them. They shunned me without exception and I couldn’t figure out why, when they kept talking about “finding a good man”. Didn’t they know I was standing right there?

    Christian women don’t talk about “finding a good man” and that kind of talk isn’t tolerated. Marriage is sort of an occupational hazard that happens to you. If you aren’t married by your mid-20s, that’s the young lady’s fault.

    Look, I used to run Sunday Morning Nightclub game. One thing I quickly figured out was which kind of church is a happy hunting grounds, and which kind is completely useless. The more scriptural the theology and practice, the less luck I’d have finding loose and immoral women.

    One reason I keep up with the Manosphere despite going MGTOW is because of how well “devout” women are able to conceal their dirty deeds. It’s a world I’m not allowed to see for myself. I assure you, John, if you aren’t a barfly, player, thug, sports jock or ex-con then you’ll be the last to discover the Sexual Underworld of America… because you are innocent.

    I’ve seen plenty of that world, and one archetype I never ran into on my travels was a legitimately godly woman. They surround themselves with community, family, and accountability and simply will never let themselves be in the presence of a man, alone.

    I did run into plenty of formerly godly women who’d gone apostate… here’s a quick checklist for anyone worried about running into one of these:

    – Cut their formerly-long hair off. (If your hair was 4 feet long and you cut it off in an act of rebellion, it’s pretty hard to fake that you never cut it)

    – Doesn’t dress modestly. If she is skating right next door to her church’s standard, run, don’t walk!

    – Has EVER not attended church regularly. If she’s away from home, she should be going to church out there, and the only legitimate reasons to go away from home are mission field or Bible school where regular church services are available.

    – Ran off to college against the advice of her church/family. Godly women who go to school commute and live with family, go with a friend, and are extremely accountable for their whereabouts. (My advice is just don’t take the risk, period)

    – Work in workplaces that are not conducive to godly living (e.g. restaurants that serve alcohol or expect their waitresses to not dress modestly).

    – Play sports that involve compromising on dressing modestly, swim in mixed company, etc

    – Show any interest at all in hanging out with/talking to a man who does not exhibit a godly lifestyle. Exception: street witnessing with a group with proper leadership and accountability

    What I’m trying to communicate here is that there are MANY, MANY women who meet these criteria. You just don’t run into them because they aren’t working at Starbucks, and they aren’t receptive to you running game on them.

    I dated one for a year before I foolishly called things off because I wanted to be more worldly myself and pursue a worldly woman. I assure you all that unicorny-ness is true.

    Her parents’ biggest mistake was making an exception to letting their daughter date for more than six months without it leading to an engagement.

    My biggest mistake was seeking happiness and love and marriage in the world.

  111. earl says:

    ‘They come to church and go through the motions, but let ‘er rip on Fridays and Saturdays. No one talks about it, but everyone knows it — everyone, that is, except the “nice” boys they attend church and school with.’

    Are you sure about that? Granted I was mostly dense about women growing up…but I was always aware of what the Christian women actions were. You see a lot of them get drunk or some of them get pregnant in high school is enough to throw away some preconceived notions you have about them. Namely they have free will and can choose the sinful path. Is ‘nice’ the guy that rationalizes what he sees away?

  112. Everytime a feminist tells you there is a ‘war on women’ or ‘woman are oppressed’ or we live in a Patriarchy. Just show them this. Case closed, don’t even talk to them again, just keep shoving it in their faces, again and again and fucking again.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex/no-indictment-for-megan-hoelting-908723

  113. @thedeti,

    I think our differences are a result of differing experiences and living in
    different communities. The “Christian” tradition in which I was raised is
    not Anabaptist or Apostolic Christian, but instead was a mainline
    evangelical churchian one. In such traditions, girls are CINOs — Christian
    in Name Only. They come to church and go through the motions, but let ‘er
    rip on Fridays and Saturdays. No one talks about it, but everyone knows it
    — everyone, that is, except the “nice” boys they attend church and school
    with.

    I don’t want to do this because it reeks of arrogance, and I don’t believe that only people in my sect are saved and are Christians…

    … but when 90% of never-married “Christian” women are not virgins, I call into question whether they are followers of Christ. They certainly haven’t experienced the power of Christ’s death and resurrection to set them free from sin.

    And I call into question whether or not the people are saved who teach young men to basically be effeminate. They aren’t displaying godly masculine leadership at all.

    What word should I use instead? I have thrown around “plain Anabaptist”. I don’t like how “scriptural church” or “kingdom Christian” reeks of elitism.

    There are a few, but they are so incredibly rare as to be negligible. They
    are like unicorns. This is what happens when 90%+ of never-married
    Christian women are not virgins.

    I think part of the issue here is that women in these communities intentionally isolate themselves from men outside of it. Experience shows that those who don’t, end up acting just like the world, and that’s not something most women want.

    Everyone has a sister, cousin, whatever who leaves the church… then chops off her hair, gets a boyfriend she’s in “love” with who ends up dumping her, then getes married to some loser guy, ends up divorced, and is just a giant pain in the neck to everyone involved. And the path for her back to church is LIFE LONG CELIBACY unless her husband reconciles.

    That’s what everyone is afraid of. They’re afraid of apostacy and of the consequences of sin.

    Perhaps we can agree that a church that doesn’t produce women who are set free from the bondage of sin is no church at all, but has slid into complete apostasy. And a church that produces men exhibiting the sins of cowardice and effminacy is the synagogue of Satan.

    Harsh words. But I genuinely feel what has been directed at me here. I always had this safe, Christian world to return to once I got fed up with a life full of sin.

    It sounds like you guys have never been around Christianity at all, even though the sign on the church said “Christian”.

  114. JDG says:

    There are a few, but they are so incredibly rare as to be negligible. They are like unicorns.

    The girls like JN describes do exist, but they appear to be small in number. I have met a few. All were already married but one, and her father would only consent to her marrying a Christian man who was also a virgin. As Deti says, none of them went to a mainline evangelical church. All of them believed and accepted teachings in the Bible (even the unpopular ones).

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Some of you may want to consider expanding your search to include foreign markets. The influence of feminism is still minor in some countries.

  115. earl says:

    ‘I think part of the issue here is that women in these communities intentionally isolate themselves from men outside of it.’

    That is part of it. They are just as fed up with the guys who are looking for sex only as the guys are about women who are promiscuous. Given the fact that a lot of noisy men and women try to lead with sex leads to a skewed viewing about everyone being like that.

  116. @JDG / @thedeti

    The term “mainline evangelical” is interesting to me. I know you aren’t referring to “mainline Protestant”, probably because nobody still attends those places who are under 65.

    I really think we are seeing the evangelical, non-denominational movement slide into the same kind of apostasy that afflicted the mainline Protestants in the early 1900s.

    I’m not really sure what to tell you guys to do. You need to leave these corrupt institutions. You may very well end up tasked with building new ones in their wake.

    I have experienced mostly good things being around Reformed churches which have a high percentage of homeschoolers. These seem to be found in the PCA, the OPC, and the obscure smaller Reformed sects.

    Scott speaks highly of ethnic Orthodox churches as well.

    I have also heard good things about any kind of traditional Catholic (Latin masses).

  117. @feministhater

    When a feminist tries to talk to me about patriarchy, I share the gospel with them. Try it out.

  118. @earl

    There’s as acute of a crisis of a shortage of godly men as is there is godly women.

    A lot of young men want to watch TV, go to movies, skip attending church, dress like the world, go on casual dates and hang out with girls one-on-one alone, maybe make out with their girlfriend, date girls who don’t dress modestly/wear makeup/wear fancy hairstyles and cut their hair etc.

    Or they want to join the military, indulge fantasies about defending themselves with guns, hold all kinds of political opinions and think that voting for Republicans will actually change anything.

    Or they just have a giant chip on their shoulder and can’t submit to the idea of a heirarchy in church leadership. Nope, they’re 18 and have the entire world figured out.

    It’s downright depressing to watch it happen. And it’s even more depressing when they end up divorced 5 or 10 years later. It’s like clockwork.

    What they can’t see is how they’ve blue-pilled themselves. The TV all teaches blue pill dogma. The movies teach blue pill feminism. Dressing like the world means adopting clothing styles designed by a bunch of homosexuals in NYC. Hanging out with girls who will hang out one on one and make out means choosing to hang out with women who plan to become loose, immoral women.

    Joining the military means joining the biggest blue-pill organisation on earth. (Sorry to those of you in the armed forces. I value your service, but where the military presently is in America is no place for a man.) Voting for Republicans means voting for more trad-con garbage and stiffer penalties for unpaid child support.

    And rebelling against a proper masculine church heirarchy means rebelling against the only thing that’s ever worked for reign in female misbehaviour.

    And the end result is loneliness, sin, divorce, and kids who don’t get to see their dad.

  119. feeriker says:

    What I’m trying to communicate here is that there are MANY, MANY women who meet these criteria. You just don’t run into them because they aren’t working at Starbucks, and they aren’t receptive to you running game on them.

    Just like there are millions of pounds of gold trapped in asteroids out in space. Unfortunately, no one has yet invented the technology to mine it.

  120. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker

    That’s because you can’t “mine” godly women.

    Once you take a unicorn away from the unicorn ranch, its horn falls off, so to speak.

  121. JDG says:

    The term “mainline evangelical” is interesting to me. I know you aren’t referring to “mainline Protestant”, probably because nobody still attends those places who are under 65.

    I really think we are seeing the evangelical, non-denominational movement slide into the same kind of apostasy that afflicted the mainline Protestants in the early 1900s.

    JN I completely agree. The main line Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian ect.) have long since veered off the narrow path and suffered a massive exodus for their troubles. More recent trending appears to be in the non-denominational mega-churches (Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, Joel Olsteen’s Lakewood Church, Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek church, Vineyard churches, ect. ) and the thousands of “wanna be just like mega” churches that make up a huge portion of churches identifying as Christian in the West. Australia and the UK have their versions of the same thing (Hillsong and the like).

    Churches that remain true to the scriptures are more and more being accused of being fundamentalists (intended to mean works based) and are even relegated to cult status by some of the accusers.

  122. Pingback: Opt Out of Marriage? But Why? | Spawny's Space

  123. Why has feminism succeeded so well? Why is the Supreme Court about to make gay marriage legal? Why has the State been turned against men?

    One need look no further than the John Nesteutes’s.

    Rather than attempting to reform the churches and universities — to exalt the schools and culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Nesteutes joins the feminists in focusing all his hatred and rage on men, telling them that the reason they can’t find a godly woman is because they spend too much time in starbucks.

    The John Nesteutes’s show up here from time to time to pound their chests and state, “Look at Me! I am the Only Man in This Room!”

    But they are far, far too cowardly to ever attempt to change the corrupt system.

  124. John Nesteutes says: “There’s as acute of a crisis of a shortage of godly men as is there is godly women. A lot of young men want to watch TV, go to movies, skip attending church, dress like the world, go on casual dates and hang out with girls one-on-one alone, maybe make out with their girlfriend, date girls who don’t dress modestly/wear makeup/wear fancy hairstyles and cut their hair etc.”

    Dear John Nesteutes,

    So the 50,000,000 aborted since Roe Vs. Wade are is as much men’s fault as it is women’s?

    What about the fact that 75% divorces are initiated by women?

    I’ve always wondered about men like you — why do you hate other men so much?

    Jesus taught us to love one-another, not to Hate.

    Is it because your wife paid other men attention?

  125. To all those who show up here and say
    “Nyah nyah nyah nyahaha I am happily married!”
    Will you say the same thing
    To your brother, neighbor, friend,
    or son?

    When their wife blows up his family?

    Please share it here when you do! So we can join you in saying “Nyah nyah nyah nyahaha” to your son!

    Feminism works so well because so many men go “Nyah nyah nyah nyahaha” instead of seeking to oppose feminism.

    ‘Tis the magic of feminism–so long as one man in the room is getting laid by a pre-cocked bride, all the others are told to “shut the f up!”, man up, and marry the sluts.

  126. The One says:

    This was said by another a while back, I repeat it again. For those who want to get married, find a single mother. Have her transfer legal custody of the kids to you (if not next). Marry her in a church service (not legally). Now you are legally protected from any child support payments. This of course only works if you don’t want your “own” children

  127. earl says:

    Feminism works so well because it makes the two sexes point fingers at each other while the real problem goes by relatively unnoticed.

  128. greyghost says:

    da GBFM lzzzzzzzlzlz (TM)
    Plus one your last

  129. Thanks greyghost,

    While Jesus Christ teaches us to speak Truth to Power and help out sons and brothers out, the John Nesteutes’ teach that all that matters is getting oneself godly pussysysysysyssusysysyzozlzozozozoz, all others be damned.

    ‘Tis why feminism has succeed so well. So many men, as soon as they get some pususuyssoslsos, turn a blind eye to the corrupt culture and family courts.

  130. It is good to remember that while Jesus Christ never married himself, he did exalt marriage and the Law of Moses in the service of others.

    Contrast this to John Nesteutes who, instead of speaking Truth to Power and reforming the corrupt system like Jesus Christ did, tells men that all they must do is seek “godly” pusysysys beyond Starbucks, and all will be well.

    Yes, according to John Nesteutes, the West can be saved by all young men finding godly pususysysysuu beyond the ungodly coffee shop.

  131. Gunner Q says:

    John Nesteutes @ 4:38 pm:
    “Look, I used to run Sunday Morning Nightclub game. One thing I quickly figured out was which kind of church is a happy hunting grounds, and which kind is completely useless. The more scriptural the theology and practice, the less luck I’d have finding loose and immoral women.”

    What? WHAAT? YOU were one of the cads defiling our women as we young men were lied to? No wonder Mennonite women aren’t ruined. You’ve been ruining OUR women instead! Is this how you treat your Christian brothers? Have you no shame for what you’ve done? And you lecture us about Godly behavior!

    What do you have to say for yourself?

  132. I have experienced mostly good things being around Reformed churches which have a high percentage of homeschoolers.

    Whatever denomination you are, you have to find the most traditional branch, the ones all the “normals” think are kinda freaks. If there are any chaste, trainable girls, that’s where you have the best chance of finding them. And a high percentage of homeschoolers and large families is a good indicator.

    Even then, you have to be careful, because unless you completely cut yourself off in some sort of commune, everyone will still be breathing a certain amount of feminism. If your church doesn’t maintain constant vigilance, people will gradually start letting standards slide in the name of Being Kind To Women.

  133. Gunner Q,

    John Nesteutes is one of those Churchian frauds who destroyed the church by placing pusususususuyzzlzzolzozlzozo over the Word of Jesus Christ and the Law of Moses.

    He probably doesn’t realize that feminism used him as a “useful idiot” so as to defile women and teach men to “man up” and marry the slutslzlzolzo he defiled in starbucks/church.

  134. MarcusD says:

    Re: debtor prisons:

  135. JDG says:

    Why has feminism succeeded so well? Why is the Supreme Court about to make gay marriage legal? Why has the State been turned against men?

    One need look no further than the John Nesteutes’s.

    With all due respect da GBFM I must disagree. Guys like JN ARE doing their fair share by strengthening their churches and communities as they hold fast to the teachings in the Bible (which are opposed to feminism) and share the same with those around them.

    I believe that for the cause of gay “marriage” and feminism one must look to the problem’s origin and to those in power through out it’s existence. The blame for feminism can be shared by a multitude of people probably beginning in the 1800s when this nation began to question the authority and trustworthiness of God’s Word. But in the last few decades academia, mass media employees, state and federal government, and of course bernankified corporate power houses (and their owner/investors) are the main propagators of this immense evil as well as the whole PC/statist agenda.

    As Mr. Burke was quoted, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”, and many men did nothing. But some men did do something and lost their jobs and reputations for standing up to feminism and the PC agenda. No one seems to remember those stories, but I do. And some of us are doing something today, however small compared to the grand scale. We stand up to those we encounter, and council those in our authority. We post on the internet and protest when and where we can. We vote, or not, accordingly. IMO the men doing something (however small) should not be counted with those who did/do nothing, or worse, with those who actively support feminism and PC.

    I for one am not Optimistic on things turning around for the better. I think we are past that now. I think the wrath of the Almighty is upon us and all there is left to do is pray while holding fast to and sharing the truth.

    I agree that no one should cite their own good fortune as proof that others are doing it wrong, but I don’t think JN was doing that.

  136. JDG says:

    Studies confirm that greater male incarceration leads to more female education and employment.

    Well guys, for the good of the wymen folk I guess we need to get ourselves arrested more often.

  137. JDG says:

    A couple of more quotes from Mr. Burke:

    “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

    “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

    “But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.”

    We are so past this understanding now that few can even conceive a society with virtuous liberty, let alone want to.

  138. Dale says:

    @John Nesteutes
    >How on earth does the presence of absence of a hymen test anything? Virtuous women
    >aren’t going to let you get to third base to test the goods before marriage.
    >
    >The obsession with virginity is kind of gross.

    Read Deut 22:13-21. If your idea of “gross” includes my statement about a hymen being the way to tell who is chaste, then either your definition of what is “gross” is wrong, or God is gross. I pick the first option.
    I never said a man should expect to be asking any woman he sees to give him “third base” before marriage. In a culture ruled by God’s laws, where a woman would be stoned to death for being promiscuous before marriage, he could simply ask her beforehand. I suspect the knowledge of impending death would be sufficient in the vast majority of cases to ensure truthfulness. And if she was not a virgin, then at least the man would be able to know the risk he was taking. Which answers the question to which I was responding.
    And in any other culture, isn’t there more than one woman in the world? Why could you not ask an elder’s wife to check? No, that is not the only solution, and I am not demanding this be done, but assuming that a man who wants a virgin wife also expects to “play doctor” with a woman before marriage is foolish.
    Off topic, but: The only time the idea of “playing doctor” with a woman came up in my life, it was the 15-year Christian woman who suggested it. God prevented me from understanding what she meant until after the relationship ended, which was kinda neat. (I did do that once with another boy; also not my suggestion. Probably qualifies as child abuse or something, but it did not hurt me AFAIK.)

    Demanding a virgin is not gross. It is seeking to do marriage the way that God’s Word shows is best. I will not apologize for any man seeking to live in accordance with God’s Word. I do not claim to do so perfectly myself (1 John 1:8, 10), but I do strive and pray about it (Gal 5:16-18).

    @fiministhater
    >Welcome to John Nesteutes, our resident expect in repentant whores.

    Not quite. John does say to look for serious signs of repentance, and also that the repentant person may need to accept they will never marry. As in, “not to anyone”.

    thedeti said: A man owes it to his future children to select their mother with the utmost care. A repentant slut is too risky a venture on which to premise the lives of his children.

    This sounds harsh, but I think we invite big problems by ignoring likely consequences. The fact that facing the truth with wisdom may hurt somebody’s feelings should not stop us from doing so.
    Forgive, and refrain from hatred or bitterness? Yes.
    Pretend there should be no consequences? Not even God does that; why should I think God wants me to do this? 1 Cor 3:10-15 shows that we will gain or lose eternal rewards, based on the choices we made, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON IS SAVED/FORGIVEN BY GOD.

    The problem will be if I can say, “I will not subject myself, or my future children, to the pain of having a wife who is demonstrably far less likely to stay with the father” without any bitterness or malice in my spirit.
    See Dalrock’s prior articles about a woman having more than just her husband as a sexual partner. 0 others gave ~81% chance of still being together after 10 years, 1 other gave ~52%, and 2 others about 25%. Those numbers may be off a bit; from memory.

    @Dave
    >And, no one can break the commandments of God; we can only break ourselves on those commandments. We can never break the eternal commandments of God.

    I kinda like that.

  139. Boxer says:

    Gentlemen:

    Feminist Hater sez:

    Welcome to John Nesteutes, our resident expect in repentant whores. Man up and marry those sluts! According to John, a prostitute or porn star is perfect wife material.

    Hilarious if true, but, where did John say this, specifically? We can argue with people without the strawman building, you know.

    I read John’s position as logical, but only within his lifeworld. Near where my family lives (in the prairie provinces of central Canada) there is a big Hutterite commune/collective farm. Sinful people who take up the lifestyle and convert probably are able to regain their chastity — because they live in a supportive, closed community, where whoring around is absolutely not tolerated. I’m guessing Bro. John N. sees this happening and has a rosy view of the repentance process, which is not at all applicable in the real world.

    I am a good example of someone who would absolutely not make anyone a good spouse. Whoring around damages men in the same ways that it damages women. I could get married, and given a couple of years, some ho would drop her panties and I’d be fucking her. Whoever I married wouldn’t stand for that, and I’d be in divorce court. Best just to forget it.

    I live in the wider world, where there are no constraints of the type that there are where John lives.

    GBFM sez:

    Rather than attempting to reform the churches and universities — to exalt the schools and culture with…

    You need to read some of that Herbert Marcuse that you pretend to quote. The schools and churches are gone. They’re never coming back. The proper thing to do is to shun them (if you must attend, just do so temporarily, to get trained to start your own institutions). Build new schools and churches, to a high standard, and let the corrupt ones pass away.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  140. Boxer writes, “You need to read some of that Herbert Marcuse that you pretend to quote. The schools and churches are gone. They’re never coming back. ”

    Dalrock,

    Do you agree with Boxer the atheist?

    Or do you believe
    in the resurrection
    of Jesus?

  141. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dale: what’s gross is the tacit assumption that virginity equals character; it doesn’t. And what’s foolish about it is that virginity is basically not verifiable. Female sexuality is notorious for being covert.

    You need to look for outward signs of a chaste lifestyle, not the presence of a membrane. You can ask a girl straight up if she’s been in haste. But you also need to be able to discern if she’s a liar.

    @Cail Corishev

    Yes, the more conservative, the better. If everyone else accuses them of legalism, that’s usually a good sign. About all I’d say is to avoid sects that think nobody except them is saved. Anything else is fine.

    @JDG

    Thanks for your mind words.

    @Boxer

    Indeed, although I can’t imagine an outsider with a sexual history joining a Hutterite colony and getting a decent marriage. Maybe to some hideous older guy with character problems.

    @Gunner Q

    Yes, I was a good liberal. I also gamed and banged plenty of women. Mega churches were just another place to run game, like a Starbucks or Tinder.

    I repented of my sins and sought salvation. I’m not really proud of anything in my past. I hope God can use some of it for good some day.

    Nobody in a biblical church would have ever let me run my shenanigans with their women. And I wouldn’t have even bothered trying.

    @GBFM

    Try paying attention. I’m sitting here encouraging godly men to only marry godly women.

    Since I believe in Jesus, I will refute this “women can’t repent” and “women have no moral agency” garbage every time. Doesn’t mean they’d make good wives.

    How many women have you challenged to obey the Bible and dress modestly? I have. And some of them have actually listened to me.

  142. John Nesteutes says:

    @Boxer

    We still have some dear souls like GBFM or Gunner Q who think they can bring back theonomy. And I wish they were right. But I think we lost our grip on the culture. It’s not dominant Christian anymore. It’s anti-Christian.

    I have some hope the Mormons will continue to grow and have a sustainable corner of the world in Utah. Outside of my own little world (about 1,000,000 total), scattered homeschooled enclaves, and conservative Reformed churches, I don’t think there’s anything viable left.

    Homeschoolers are 3% of the US. Plain anabaptists are 0.3%.

    Mainline evangelicalism lost the numbers game.

    The only bright spot here is that the enemy keeps insisting on using birth control and on killing its children, despite our pleas for them to stop.

  143. John Nesteutes writes, “How many women have you challenged to obey the Bible and dress modestly? I have. And some of them have actually listened to me.”

    Was that before or after you banged them at the Sunday morning nightclub you spoke of?

  144. BradA says:

    I need to come here every time I think I am too cynical. Some of you make me look like a culture-hugger, and I am FAR from that.

    I do happen to believe in a powerful God though, so I know he can do what He pleases and no system of man (or woman) can stand against that.

    What cannot continue, will not.

    A big problem is that nothing will convince some of you that things can and do change. Yes, bad stuff can happen to even the best, but it is not guaranteed and going after your own pleasure is just as wicked as anything any feminist does. It all stinks before God.

    Puke,

    Learning how to walk as a true man can help a lot. It can seem like a game at times, and some even call it that, but it is really a shift in our frame of mind. I wish I had that teaching more when I was single. I have seen the positive impact it has had in my own marriage and nothing can remove that. I have come closer to failure than I would like, but I still keep plugging along and will do so.

  145. @BradA. I think you and I are probably not cynical enough: but then I live in the Antipodes, and not in the belly of the beast. I am coming the belief that the epicentre of all this stupidity is Toronto, and it radiates from there🙂.

    @Cail. The comment about finding the conservative church is spot on for younger men. And older ones: I know some very Godly spinsters. But that does not change the problem we have with society: women are encouraged to cut their hair and lose their inhibitions — and this is much worse in the USA, because in the commonwealth you don’t have to do a four year lobotomy (sorry, BA) before training in something else.

    @John. The problem here is that you need to (a) keep your own frame — which means you need to keep chaste and (b) need firm discernment about if it is correct to marry this woman. Yes, women can repent. So can us men. But… I know too many men who married chaste women and ten years later were frivorced. I think there is a country song about all this…
    … and please pray, fervently, for us who have been broken by the family courts. For it could be you, or your son, or your father. The enemy has taken over the judiciary, and he swings his sword of injustice randomly.

  146. >that doesn’t mean there aren’t good women out there.

    There is not one person who is good or righteous, no not one.

    A modest proposal for child custody. No child support. No cash. No prizes. Custody presumed to rest with the mother from 0-9 under the tender years doctrine and with the father from 9-18 under the BPP doctrine.

    >Too many Christians and others ignore the huge changes made to the law, just because the M-word is still used. Don’t be duped by that.

    Nails it. Biblical marriage does NOT EXIST in America. So long as we both shall LOVE? Is that really what they are pledging. We call that contract that is VOID for lack of consideration. There is NOTHING OF VALUE EXCHANGED so the marriage contract doesn’t exist as a matter of civil law. The marriage contract also doesn’t any more as a matter of Ecclesiastical law.

    If you plan a vacation to the Caribbean and when you get off the plane you are in Niger it is going to be tough to enjoy the beach. You can pretend to be in the Caribbean but it is just not the same. You can pretend to be married under God’s law, but you are not.

    The marriage “contract” requires men to continue fulfilling their obligations ever AFTER the divorce.

    The marriage “contract” doesn’t even require women to fulfill their obligations DURING the marriage.

    >Once you take a unicorn away from the unicorn ranch, its horn falls off, so to speak.

    Nope, the paper towel holder that you thought was a horn gets wet and nasty and falls off.

  147. Dave says:

    Listen to Deti, John. I was like you, seeing plenty of devout young women in conservative church circles and hoping to attract one of them. They shunned me without exception and I couldn’t figure out why…

    You were obviously in the wrong church. You were dealing with churchians rather than Christians. There is a huge difference.

  148. Remo says:

    It all comes down to evil – the is the purpose for child support. Marriage was made by GOD and instituted by GOD and by definition anything GOD makes the devil wants destroyed or corrupted. So you replace marriage with child support and you magically insert a vicious, rapacious, evil government right into the house of each and every family that is. You financially reward the woman for doing evil (breaking up the marriage) and you punish any man who works hard in the same instance. You also completely invert the authority set down in the bible so the woman is in charge, which she senses, and according to her own internal workings will quickly come to resent thus making divorce even more likely. And if the child support threat doesn’t make her resent her husband than the “domestic violence” police sure will – the chump has no power and everyone knows it.

    What would have been the biblical solution to the crisis in the garden of Eden? As soon as Adam saw Eve with the fruit he should have knocked it out of her hand and scolded her. Such would be considered a jailable offense under the domestic violence laws of today. Adam would be court ordered to apologize and likely forced to attend counseling sessions with the serpent. Exactly what part of marriage as it exists in the U.S. is still good and actually of GOD? Every piece of it has been perverted without exception.

    GOD hates divorce therefore the devil loves it and what better way to make it happen than to promise cash and prizes as payment for same? Its the 30 pieces of silver all over again, multiplied millions of times in millions of homes. There is nothing new under the sun.

  149. Opus says:

    I agree with Boxer. It is very hard in the atomised world that we in the west live in to remain free from temptation (why do women, married and single alike, keep throwing themselves at me? – perhaps I am a natural flirt – which is, I suppose, different form Game). I am not sure whether the more religious society which is America makes this process harder or less hard. I have never heard of any one seeking a virgin for marriage; most of the women I know who married my acquaintances had a track record of getting pumped and dumped (or doing the dumping) – musical chairs, really. Most married and have stayed married. There was however one girl who professed virginity and last thing I heard (last weekend in fact) has been throwing the crockery at her highly successful husband. Jealousy: men in their fifties are still on the up, whilst she must be praying for grandchildren.

  150. greyghost says:

    You were obviously in the wrong church. You were dealing with churchians rather than Christians. There is a huge difference.

    This is the comment of a man horrified of the truth. It is a problem men have. She is nasty, she is wicked and just aborted your child. She is in the process of passing herself of as pure to land “Mister Big”
    There is no Christian wife by Law that she voted for. No matter how much suffering of men women and children and the loss of western civilization she is not changing the law if it means the slightest hint of responsibility on her part , you all can go fuck yourselves in a concentration camp as you are being put to death. Dave that is what you are speaking so highly of for some reason. Ironically you used the term churchian. That was a little something she did to make Christianity and Jesus more respectable to the feminine Imperative so she could comfortably attend church. That Christian woman label has pull with some of you here. Doesn’t mean shit to me not like it did years ago.

  151. earl says:

    ‘That Christian woman label has pull with some of you here. Doesn’t mean shit to me not like it did years ago.’

    Then why do you care of it has pull with other guys?

  152. greyghost says:

    Earl
    I didn’t say I didn’t have empathy for my fellow man. Earl I would love to here that you went to a surrogate and had a couple of children. I think you are looking for something that does exist and never has. The men here that give advise on the vetting process do so because they want to believe what their red pill eyes are showing them isn’t really there. The women you see “have just got to be bad women” the good unicorn is there I just need to be good enough to find her. The women you see all around you are not bad women they are normal women as they are. They come in different variations on the theme but that is it.
    check out this movie out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176251/ It has you written all over it. Take action and the most wicked woman god can find for you will be well behaved for you.

  153. JDG says:

    The men here that give advise on the vetting process do so because they want to believe what their red pill eyes are showing them isn’t really there.

    This just isn’t true, if it where than the whole idea of red flags would have to be false. Choosing wisely has always been a part of life. That’s not to say that there are “good” women. No one is good, man or woman, but some women are less likely to nuke a marriage than others, that is just plain fact.

  154. earl says:

    Basically all the red flags come from their heart. There is no perfect woman, but there sure is enough women you need to avoid or be on the lookout for.

    And I can’t have a surrogate…how does that make me any different from a single mother who takes the father out of the picture? A child has the right to know their father and mother.

  155. earl says:

    *There is no perfect woman…*

    Well except one, but when you are talking about marrying somebody there is no perfect woman.

  156. greyghost says:

    JDG
    Women nuke the marriage by law. And it is getting worse as time passes. Too much headship is determined by the wife by law that is not a marriage. No one is secure in their well being in such an environment. It is a miserable and stressful way of life. Imagine life as a loving man trying to enjoy a family under the sword of Damocles. Any marriage requires a woman to not be herself. That is why Dalrock post up so many articles to how destructive to every one the law and culture is. The society today is entirely dependent on a woman’s foresight to bring her selfish nature into play to bring on good behavior to her benefit and those around her. That is something woman have no capacity to do. Personally I don’t think God ever intended that role for women.
    The points you are making only apply in a civilized society. My thinking is to create one with out relying on rifles and explosives.

  157. greyghost says:

    .And I can’t have a surrogate…how does that make me any different from a single mother who takes the father out of the picture? A child has the right to know their father and mother.

    You will be fine and the child will thrive. The fact that you can you are even concerned says you have the love and empathy needed to raise a healthy child. The woman you now seek in marriage on her terms will show up ready and polite.

  158. earl says:

    ‘Personally I don’t think God ever intended that role for women.’

    No God made it clear that the husband rules the marriage and that women were the helpmate in the hierarchy…but He also did state her desire for her husband as well. What we have playing out now is women getting what they want at the expense of what they need.

  159. Would Jesus
    spend his time boasting
    about how much pusysysysysysys he scored
    in “Sunday Morning” Nightclub and at starbuckssksksk?

    OR would Jesus
    strive to exalt the Law of God
    and the Law of Moses
    in his society
    in the service of his fellow men?

    Time and again we see that
    feminism
    succeeded
    because the churchian “John Nesteutes’s”
    spend their time
    hating on men
    banging and desouling and bernankfiying their future wives
    during sunday morning nightclubs
    and boasting about it.

    instead of exalting the
    tenets
    of the Great Books for Men
    and Bible
    in their falling
    culture.

    And then they call themselves “Christian.”
    Which their fellow feminists approve of.

  160. JDG says:

    Earl I am not Catholic, and out of respect for Dalrock I’ll leave it at that.

    greyghost I hear you and I agree with much of what you say only I think that girls, like boys, can be trained to behave appropriately. I believe properly trained children (even females) can become adults that are capable of exercising self discipline. It is especially scarce in western society, but not so rare in my wife’s native country where social and religious mores still work to restrain the base nature of women.

    Most of the women I know (and I know many) that have left that country to come here have maintained much of that self discipline from childhood and remain faithful to their husbands. They aren’t perfect and still have many of the usual female failings, but they think of divorce as something shameful to be avoided.

    IMO you are also correct in your assessment on western society being dependent on female self restraint. We see how well that is working for families and society in general. I also agree that much of the problem lies with our nations laws and it’s horrible perversion of marriage. Women do need an external pressure to help keep them in line, something that reassures their convictions, because being human they are inclined towards evil.

    The sad fact is that in a nation that hates God, men, and families such as this one, anyone with an ounce of decency will be living under the sword of Damocles as wicked people despise what is righteous.

  161. @greyghost

    Intentionally becoming a single parent is godless and immoral. As is surrogacy, egg harvesting, sperm donation, and so forth.

    Celibacy is a completely valid path for the Christian. In the first 3-4 centuries of Christianity, it was actually considered the best and highest path.

    If you don’t like women and don’t want the risks of marriage, consider trying it. There’s a lot more to life than sex.

    It is a problem men have. She is nasty, she is wicked and just aborted your child. She is in the process of passing herself of as pure to land “Mister Big” There is no Christian wife by Law that she voted for.

    Of course women are born wicked and sinful, just like men are. But your reasoning assumes the godless, immoral man’s laws matter.

    To find a godly, Christian wife, you need to find one who doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of immoral law. Godly Christian women don’t vote, period. Start with that.

    Some of you would do well to read some Calvinist writers on the innate wickedness of human man, and then to realise that applies to women as well. We are in need of a saviour.

  162. @JDG

    Thanks for pointing this out. We should expect persecution if we live out Christian faith.

    What I’m trying to point out here is that some women are Christians too, and they’re going to end up persecuted/martyred just like the rest of us.

    If men truly believe that all women are worthless scum with no moral agency (as apparently greyghost believes), their options are:

    (1) Voluntary celibacy

    (2) A lifestyle of fornication and adultery

    (3) A lifestyle of sodomy

    (4) Involuntary celibacy, if he can’t figure out how to do #2 or #3

    It should be obvious to everyone here that the anti-God, anti-Christian, and feminist agenda (what some of you call “Cultural Marxism”) has a goal to entrap every man alive in #2, #3, and #4.

    I am calling on men to reject that false choice. Choose celibacy, or choose godly Christian women to marry. But you have to start by believing that they exist.

    And you also have to believe there’s something better to do with your life than seek sexual satisfaction.

    And that’s the snow job the “Cultural Marxists” have successfully figured out how to pull on everyone, including virtually all Christian men.

  163. @earl

    Sometimes I feel like the real agenda here is to (a) talk us out of real Christianity, and (b) talk us out of anything resembling a natural Christian marriage that produces natural children.

    Nobody even realises they’re doing it, either.

  164. greyghost says:

    When a man needs a woman to be a mother to his child she is in headship. When a woman desires a man she provides a child as her gift to him. When a man is a father to his child with the approval of the mother she is in headship. (Frivorce is the way to relieve her of this unnatural situation) No father including myself is truly in headship of his family by law. To have a child under those conditions is irresponsible thing for a Christian man or any man. Ignorance is bliss.

  165. earl says:

    GBFM…

    Care to lay down some of the particular Laws of God and Laws of Moses Jesus exalted on society when He was on Earth.

  166. @greyghost

    Who cares about men’s laws that conflict with Jesus’ kingdom? I sure don’t.

    Find women raised who were also taught not to respect the immoral laws of society, and who respect the leadership in an actual Christian church instead.

    There are a lot more than you think.

    @JDG

    GBFM is operating under the delusion we’re going to fix this with changes to the laws and courts. As if theonomy has ever worked.

  167. earl says:

    ‘ No father including myself is truly in headship of his family by law.’

    It’s a law based off false power and sinister motives. You put too much stock in the matrix created by evil men rather than how God said it was supposed to be.

  168. PokeSalad says:

    “At least she had the decency to use a sperm donor, as opposed to just sleeping with Mr Apex Alpha”

    Ho,ho. Thanks for this revealing comment, as it indicates that I should not take anything you post on this topic seriously.

    You can read the sheet music, John, but you don’t know the rhythm or the tune.

  169. @greyghost: No father including myself is truly in headship of his family by law.

    So, when the law says two bros can get married… are you going to consider them husband and husband? Of course you wouldn’t.

    So why do you care so much that the law has given wives headship that they actually don’t have?

    Where I live, an angry spouse could easily poison her husband, or with a little effort get a shotgun and shoot him with it. She might even be able to get away with the crime.

    The doesn’t make her actions any less murder, nor would I lie awake at night, worried about my wife secretly plotting to poison me.

    That’s all frivorce/DV/et al are.

    Now, it might be a start to not marry women who are insane enough to want to murder their husbands… or divorce them.

  170. @PokeSalad

    You might want to work up on detecting sarcasm.

    I note that most of the ire thrown at me here seems to be for my assertion that godly, Christian women (the real kind) actually do exist.

    I’m not sure why that’s such a scary prospect for so many.

  171. John Nesteutes says: “GBFM is operating under the delusion we’re going to fix this with changes to the laws and courts.”

    John Nesteutes is a butthetxttting feminist, as he discourages Christians from exalting the schools, Laws, courts, and univeritsies with the Word of Jesus Christ.

    John Nesteutes wants all of you to live in a degraded world where men are denied their Natural Rights and due process in our Courts.

    This is because what gets John Nesteutes off is not the Word of Jesus Christ, but butthetxhing women in his “Sunday Morning Nightclub,” which he boasted about repeatedly.

    John Nesteutes hates men more than feminists, and too, he is far more dishonest about it.

  172. earl says:

    ‘John Nesteutes is a butthetxttting feminist, as he discourages Christians from exalting the schools, Laws, courts, and univeritsies with the Word of Jesus Christ.’

    Point out some of the words of Jesus Christ that feminists, schools, courts, and laws need to hear.

  173. Matthew 23 King James Version (KJV)

    23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

    2 Saying The John Nesteutes fornicators, scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

    3 All therefore whatsoever John Nesteutes bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

    4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. Instead they game and fornicate with your future wifes in Sunday Morning nightclubs.

    5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and boast about how many women they scored with.

    6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

    7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

    8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

    9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

    11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

    12 And whosoever shall exalt himself like John Nesteutes shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

    13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (John Nesteutes commands you not to bring the kingdom of heaven into your courts nor schools nor homes.)

    14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

    15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

    16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

    17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

    19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

    21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

    22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

    23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

    24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

    26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

    27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

    28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

    30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

    34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify (note how John Nesteutes seeks to killlzozo da GBFM ); and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

    35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

    36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

    38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

    39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

  174. GBFM’s attempt to label a Mennonite as Pharisee and hypocrite is a tired tactic that gets used over and over. I stand for righteousness, which includes the whole witness of scripture.

    For the record, I was a rather rank sinner before I got born again. Since then, I had to put my old ways of “Sunday morning nightclub” behind me, stop fornicating, and also accept that divorce/remarriage is wrong (I’m divorced).

    I would accept all of GBFM’s accusation about me for the life I used to live: I was destroying God’s plan for sex, marriage, and family; I fit well into the feminist agenda; and, yes, I was a churchian too. (Needless to say I quit going to that place. It was your run of the mill typical suburban Ontario megachurch. Some of you have probably been there.)

    I try to actually live out this stuff I preach.

  175. earl says:

    There was also this tale about Pharisees….I bet some even read GBFM.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18+%3A+9-14&version=NABRE

  176. John Nesteutes,

    I have no problem with your past butthetxing and fornicationzlzlzolzo and failure to marry a pre-buttcocked womenzlzlzolzo you met at starbuckz.

    I have huge a problem with you telling the young men here that they have no RIGHT nor DUTY to exalt the Law of Moses which Jesus Christ came to Fulfill in their churches, schools, homes, culture, and families.

  177. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

    Note how both Boxer the Atheist and John Nesteutes the fornicator and denier preach that MEN MUST NOT exalt the Law of Moses which Jesus Christ came to Fulfill in their courts, churches, schools, homes, culture, and families.

    Did Jesus Christ ever give up on exalting the culture?

    No.

    So why do Boxer the Atheist and John Nesteutes the fornicator want us to?

    Who are they serving?

  178. greyghost says:

    John Nesteutes
    You have associated raising and loving a child a mans progeny as seeking sexual satisfaction. We don’t need a Christian men’s blog to figure out that. Just go out and start fucking the world is full of proud sluts. This isn’t a PUA and how to get laid site.

    Laws do matter. I think God mentioned something about obeying the law. That is why there is so much fight in the un Christian laws being passed. As we all can see those laws of misandry also have destroyed the foundation of Christian marriage. You are talking righteous trash about something that doesn’t exist as if it does.
    Man’s sin especially yours is playing the moral equivalent game. We are here discussing how Christian faith as been neutered by law. And what we can do as men to change it. If that means my soul is going to hell for sake of all of our sons ,grandsons and women alike then so be it. You just remain righteous and save your soul a nice place in heaven. Pedestalizing females for the sake of your own ego is just as sinful as anything any woman can do. Being righteous about it doesn’t cleanse your soul.

    To find a godly, Christian wife, you need to find one who doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of immoral law. Godly Christian women don’t vote, period. Start with that.

    This is straight up bullshit right here. So what you are saying is a Christian family man needs to go out into the desert and start flipping rocks until he finds the bitch of his Christian dreams.

    She is a helpmeet she is not needed to live a fruitful Christian once she knows that she will freely submit. Do you think it was any coincidence that God has allowed science to discover men can produce a human egg from HIS cell tissue. It was always there God made everything.

    It was the sin of man that put women in a position of headship to please women. (how’s that working out) We know better. I see my role is to try and change that, other men maybe see it that way also.
    Last and not least I find Earl to be a loving and thoughtful man with a Christian foundation. I believe he desires a family (child) God has made it possible to do that with out being beholden to a feral woman other men’s sin has produced. A man in that position will be with out the sword of Damocles and will have the same appeal of the thugs and dark triads have today for the submission of women. The rest of it sex,, money status etc. is all bullshit. The only wazy such a woman could be in their lives is if she submitted to being a helpmeet. And she could be loved then in the feral world Just think a good wife and mother out of wicked sinful selfishness. When she abandons the wickedness God will reach in and take away her hypergamy and let her feel joy under male headship. That was my romantic gesture showing nice a guy I am.

  179. greyghost says:

    So, when the law says two bros can get married… are you going to consider them husband and husband? Of course you wouldn’t.

    So why do you care so much that the law has given wives headship that they actually don’t have?

    You still want to be guided by Christian faith big guy.
    You are right the law does give women headship that they don’t actually have . That is why we have so many problems and the reason for the manosphere.

  180. earl says:

    ‘I have huge a problem with you telling the young men here that they have no RIGHT nor DUTY to exalt the Law of Moses which Jesus Christ came to Fulfill in their churches, schools, homes, culture, and families.’

    He did?

  181. Yes Earl,

    He did.🙂

    That was actually the whole point.

    Earl–you ware one of the Pharisees here: ” The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

    19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

    2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

  182. The reason why
    Our family courts have been corrupted
    Is that so many fornictaing churchinas and marxist atheists here
    teach and preach
    that it is a sin
    to exalt our churches, schools, and cultures
    with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

    Earl, do you agree with the feminists, fornictaing churchians, and marxist atheists that we MUST NOT exalt our churches, schools, and cultures with the Spirit of Jesus Christ?

  183. earl says:

    ‘Yes Earl,

    He did.🙂’

    What statement did he say that pointed this out?

  184. earl says:

    ‘Earl, do you agree with the feminists, fornictaing churchians, and marxist atheists that we MUST NOT exalt our churches, schools, and cultures with the Spirit of Jesus Christ?’

    No. Why would I agree with those who don’t have the Spirit of Jesus Christ?

    Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 1 John 4: 1-3

  185. Earl,

    Do you disagree with Jesus Christ? Why are you telling men not to build their courts and schools upon the Word of Jesus Christ? Why, Earl, are you denying Christ?

    Matthew 7:
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

    26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

    27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

    29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

  186. John Nesteutes says:

    I think that a scriptural church will either run its own school, or its members will homeschool

    I think that a scriptural church ends up with a body of believers who have their own culture that is distinct from the surrounding world.

    GBFM needs to say what he actually wants. I suspect him of wanting some kind of Calvinist-style theonomy.

  187. The remarkable thing about Feminism
    is that it not only fooled so many women
    but that that it fooled so many seemingly good men
    like Earl
    into forsaking their higher manhood
    and teaching others
    that it is a sin
    to exalt our schools and courts
    with the Spirit
    of Jesus Christ.

  188. John Nesteutes is actually John Neuterer as he neuters the Words of Jesus and John.

    GBFM wants what Jesus wants.

    John Neuterer was taught to hate and oppose Jesus.

    and thus he Hates and Opposes da GBFM.

  189. John Nesteutes says:

    @TFH

    Francis has said he wants women to have a greater role in the Roman Catholic Church around the world and in the Vatican bureaucracy

    What’s next, women priests? My experience around an average RC parish (Vancouver diocese) was that almost every church office, other than the priests themselves, was filled with women.

  190. John Nesteutes says:

    @greyghost:

    You still want to be guided by Christian faith big guy.
    You are right the law does give women headship that they don’t actually have . That is why we have so many problems and the reason for the manosphere.

    No, the law can’t give someone headship they don’t have. It can, however, assert its own values by violence, which is what divorce courts, domestic violence laws, etc. all do. (Along with a whole host of other wickedness, like laws permitting abortion.)

    And of course I’ll be guided by Christian faith. I already tried out being a liberal-progressive and a godless heathen (IMO they are the exact same thing). After years of running pick-up, I realised I was a sinner and needed salvation.

    The purpose of life is not to have sex.

  191. feeriker says:

    Who cares about men’s laws that conflict with Jesus’ kingdom? I sure don’t.

    Not that this applies to you in particular, John, but a whole lot of people who like to wear the “Christian” label spout this attitude, yet when the Secular God (a.k.a. the State) starts flexing its muscles, your head will spin at how fast they drop to their knees and genuflect in abject allegiance to Caesar and his legions (the perversion of Romans 13 popular in so many “churches” today, with its heretical exhortation to obey Caesar at all costs, directly reflects this).

    In other words, talk is cheap, but I GUARANTEE you that the day in which the persecutorial hammer falls down upon American Christendom, like it has in so many other parts of the world, and when people start realizing that they’re being faced with the choice of either losing it all for their faith in Jesus or apostasizing their faith and surrendering to Satan and the temporal world, those megachurches whose parking lots overflow on Sunday mornings will be nearly vacant.

  192. Boxer says:

    Dear John:

    I have some hope the Mormons will continue to grow and have a sustainable corner of the world in Utah. Outside of my own little world (about 1,000,000 total), scattered homeschooled enclaves, and conservative Reformed churches, I don’t think there’s anything viable left.

    Mainstream Mormons are embracing the poz at a shocking rate. It’s true that we don’t (yet) ordain women as bishops, and we don’t let a threesome of genderqueer trannies marry in our temples, but these things are probably a matter of time.

    The best thing Mormons could do is return to our (communist) roots, and retreat into “the order” (hopefully without the polygamy this time). That’s not going to happen, barring a profound necessity. Even if it did, I’m not sure people my age would have the discipline not to sneak out and visit the strip clubs on Saturday night.

    Best,

    Boxer

  193. John the Neuterer writes, “Who cares about men’s laws that conflict with Jesus’ kingdom? I sure don’t.”

    And that is EXACTLY WHY Jesus will state that he never knew ye.

    For John is telling men not to build their courts and schools upon the Word of Jesus Christ. Is it any wonder Feminism triumphed with all of John’s prideful fornicating throughout Sunday School?

    Matthew 7:
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

    26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

    27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

    29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

  194. earl says:

    ‘Do you disagree with Jesus Christ? Why are you telling men not to build their courts and schools upon the Word of Jesus Christ? Why, Earl, are you denying Christ?’

    Do you even read posts…or is it just sweeping judgments with no basis? Why are you judging your brother’s speck without looking at the plank in your eye?

    No I don’t disagree with Jesus and I think it would be wise if men built their courts and schools upon the Word of Jesus. I went to a Catholic grade school and I learned more there than at the public university mill…comprende?

  195. earl writes,

    “No I don’t disagree with Jesus and I think it would be wise if men built their courts and schools upon the Word of Jesus. ”

    I wish that John agreed with you Earl!🙂

  196. earl says:

    Now GBFM do you wish that the schools and courts were built upon the Word of Jesus Christ? And if so where would you start? Which fundamental truth(s) did Jesus say that you would start with building a school or court system off of?

  197. John Nesteutes says:

    @Boxer

    I’m quite sorry to hear the infection has spread to mainstream Mormonism. Is there any kind of significant breakaway conservative movement?

    The fact plain Anabaptists don’t have tight authority structures or seminaries, and our penchant for having a church split every 50 years (splits are almost always over either an excessively authoritarian leader, or a conservative vs progressive issue), means the conservatives always survive, and since they have a higher birth rate, they eventually dominate an area. The progressives acculturate and blend in within a few generations.

    Mennonite Church Canada (which would be liberal-progressive, to speak politely) is experiencing significant numerical decline.

    Conservatives double about every 20 years.

    Anyone who doesn’t want to stay conservative usually leaves the church, so those who remain stay strong.

    What I’d like to know is if there are any other religious/church structures that work this way. Apparently, I have lived in a veil of ignorance to think that there are other functioning communities that work this way.

  198. feeriker says:

    Mainstream Mormons are embracing the poz at a shocking rate.

    Yeah, unfortunately that seems to be the case. Much as I disagree with the theology, certain aspects of Mormon social and familial culture represent very positive things. Something else that horrifies me about the LDS church is that they seem to be even more staunch Caesar-worshipers than are the hardline evangelical Christian churches. There’s a reason why Brigham Young University is one of the most popular recruiting spots for the FBI and U.S. military ROTC programs.

  199. Boxer says:

    GBFM wants what Jesus wants… John Neuterer was taught to hate and oppose Jesus…. and thus he Hates and Opposes da GBFM.

    While I have always admired GBFM’s ability to troll a forum, I think it’s a bit farfetched to compare him to Jesus — prophet and messiah in the text, who did all manner of miracles and magic, even up to defeating his own executioner.

    Reminds me of John Lennon’s hubris, right before he ate a bullet. Lennon didn’t manage to raise his ass up from the dead, to make more mediocre hippie music with whatshername, proving that he was not on par with Jesus, despite his claims.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  200. John Nesteutes says:

    @earl

    The 17th century Puritans pretty much established ideal theonomy, including Bible-based seminaries, schools, rigid church discipline, a state church all were compelled to obey.

    Eventually they were overcome with intellectual rot: the Unitarians took over Harvard; their churches evolved into the Unitarian-Universalist denomination today. I consider their ideological descendants to be the modern, progressive, New England liberal.

    They just changed which god they worship.

  201. GBFM wants what Jesus wants…Boxer the prideful, Jesus-denying Atheist was taught to hate and oppose Jesus…. and thus he Hates and Opposes da GBFM.

    da GBFM is not Jesus, but da GBFM wants what Jesus wanted in our schools and churches.

    Boxer the prideful, Jesus-denying Atheist wants what Marcuse wanted in our schools and universities.

    And Boxer the Christ-denying Atheist is winning because the Johns have been fooled into opposing the Word of Jesus in our schools and culture.

  202. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker

    Growing up the way I did, I had pounded into me over and over that the mark of a true Christian is being willing to die for one’s faith, and barring that, to be mocked mercilessly in the public square for being “different”.

    I grew up reading Martyr’s Mirror and Fox’s Book of Martyrs. Pretty much the highest ideal I felt I could live up to as a young boy was to one day boldly proclaim my faith under penalty of death.

    The outside world was portrayed to me as something I needed to understand and live in, but also as a place of complete spiritual darkness and wickedness. It was full of abortion, homosexuals, child abuse, incest, drug & alcohol addiction, guerilla warfare, gang violences, and full of Christians being persecuted for their faith. Newsletters from Voice of the Martyrs were a regular thing in our ho/a>me.

    Turns out that all that stuff I was taught is actually true, although the gravest evil out there was the intellectual spirit of our age, namely, feminism, churchianity, and liberal-progressivism.

    I hope that you are wrong, and that if or when persecution does come, most so-called Christians today discover a real and true faith.

    My personal opinion is that persecution won’t come, but we will just continue to die a slow death and our churchian institutions will continue a slow but inexorable turn into looking like Unitarian-Universalist assemblies.

    Eventually, the churchian institutions will go full blast against true-hearted Christians. If you don’t believe me, ask any typical churchgoer how they feel about conservative people like me. It won’t be positive. Most of them will express how we are caught in the most horrible of legalism, think our works are our salvation, and are caught up in a bunch of old fashioned traditions.

    For the closest thing we have to a modern day case of this please read the Ken Miller situation: http://millercase.org/

  203. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker

    What’s the deal with the Ceasar worship at mainstream evangelical churches (or even hardline ones)?

    Haven’t they noticed who’s in office and who’s running the show?

  204. greyghost says:

    feeriker
    ISIS had no problem rounding up those Christians and taking them out to be shot. I guess they thought being Christian meant being nice and violence free and unarmed. Always own a rifle and a handgun and never fear fighting evil. Shotguns are good too.

    John

    No, the law can’t give someone headship they don’t have. It can, however, assert its own values by violence, which is what divorce courts, domestic violence laws, etc. all do. (Along with a whole host of other wickedness, like laws permitting abortion.)

    This was based on a miscommunication. The law does give headship to women and what you have listed there is how it is done. Kinda goes with the conversation between GBFM and Earl about building courts and schools upon the word of Jesus. Getting us there won’t look righteous but hey somebody has to have faith.

  205. John writes, “I grew up reading Martyr’s Mirror and Fox’s Book of Martyrs. Pretty much the highest ideal I felt I could live up to as a young boy was to one day boldly proclaim my faith under penalty of death.”

    But instead you proudly chose to fornicate with other men’s future wives in Sunday School.

    What happened? Why all the forninainctzoznzozlzllzozolozzo? Why the divorces? Where did you go astray? Why the opposition to Jesus today?

  206. greyghost says:

    Now GBFM do you wish that the schools and courts were built upon the Word of Jesus Christ? And if so where would you start? Which fundamental truth(s) did Jesus say that you would start with building a school or court system off of?

    Good question Earl. Those are the questions we need to work on. Millions are watching

  207. Earl writes, “Now GBFM do you wish that the schools and courts were built upon the Word of Jesus Christ? And if so where would you start? Which fundamental truth(s) did Jesus say that you would start with building a school or court system off of?”

    Perhaps we could begin by discouraging Christ-denying Atheists like Boxer to pretend they are speaking for Men.

  208. greyghost says:

    GBFM
    Boxer is just one man speaking his oppinion.

  209. I repeat, the POPE is pushing the pay-gap myth :

    Well, naturally. He’s going to tell us how to care for the environment soon too. After that, maybe he can solve unemployment. After all, now that we’ve spread the gospel to all nations and baptized all people, he has to find something else to occupy his time.

    What, we haven’t completed the mission Jesus gave His Church at all? Hmm.

  210. John Nesteutes says:

    @greyghost

    I follow in the footsteps of Jesus and of centuries of Christians who chose to love their lives even not unto death.

    The Christians being rounded up by ISIS and being killed aren’t nonresistant like I am; they just aren’t in control of the government or military (mostly thanks to U.S. policy to remove pluralist governments like Assad, Hussein, or Muburak). They don’t HAVE enough guns to shoot back because they don’t have strong enough numbers of resources!

    Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, and the blood of martyrs is seed. Those people are my brothers and sisters who I will meet one day, where they will occupy a special place in heaven.

    @GBFM

    Because I walked away from the church and Christianity because being separate from the world was too hard, and I wanted to be worldly. Which led to fornication, feminism, being a liberal-progressive, and all other manner of wickedness. That’s called “sin”.

    The Sunday morning nightclub was a game played in apostate churches. If I tried it in the (actually genuinely Christian) church I go to now, I’d be laughed out of town. As I should be.

  211. John Nesteutes says:

    @Cail Corishev

    I worry that the Catholic church might just be gone and done for. They’re the last domino to fall after the mainline Protestants and the “mainline” evangelicals.

  212. OKRickety says:

    @John Nesteutes,

    I find it difficult to pin down your beliefs. I don’t think I’m alone in that regard.

    I think you define born again to mean someone who became a Christian and has been holy ever since. You contrast that to a formerly-apostate Christian who forsakes Christ for a time and then repents and returns to holiness. Additionally, you also refer to godly. I will suppose both “born again” and “apostate Christian” would also be “godly”.

    John Nesteutes said (in various comments):

    I do think there is a reasonable distinction between women who have never been Christians before and come to salvation, and those who take a “vacation” from righteous living from age 18-30 or 18-50 and then waltz back on into the church.
    A man needs to be clinically insane to marry the latter variety.

    My advice is to marry a born-again Christian woman (assuming you are a born-again Christian man yourself).

    I’m sitting here encouraging godly men to only marry godly women.

    I would counsel a man strongly to look for real signs of permanent repentance.

    You believe godliness is important, but you seem to consider the “born again” Christian to be more godly than the “apostate” Christian. I don’t understand that. I don’t believe that the timing of the non-Christian living is of importance, as long as it is followed by repentance.

    For example, what is the real difference, besides the timing, between a woman who lives a sexually promiscuous life until she is “born again” at 30, and one who is Christian until 20, lives the same sexually promiscuous life as the first woman, and then repents and returns to a life of holiness? The second does appear to renounce her faith, but don’t all Christians appear to do that when they sin?

    John Nesteutes said (in various comments):

    Given the oversupply of godly young Christian women I generally observe, there’s no sensible reason for a godly man to marry a woman with an overtly sinful past.

    I note that most of the ire thrown at me here seems to be for my assertion that godly, Christian women (the real kind) actually do exist.
    I’m not sure why that’s such a scary prospect for so many.

    I have no idea how you can claim there is an “oversupply of godly young Christian women”. I don’t think that’s a scary prospect, but is inconsistent with the experience of most readers. I think you have implied that most who claim to be “Christian” are not. How many of those who are truly Christian are “born again”, but have an “overtly sinful past” that likely includes sexual sin?

  213. feeriker says:

    What’s the deal with the Ceasar worship at mainstream evangelical churches (or even hardline ones)?

    Haven’t they noticed who’s in office and who’s running the show?

    I think that the root of the problem is as follows

    1. Here in the Lower 48 (and probably in Alaska, Hawaii, and the various territories too), the overwhelming majority (i won’t say ALL, but very near it) of “Christians” are American nationalists first and Christians a very distant second, if at all.

    Far from seeking to walk with Jesus and be true to His word, the majority merely seek a veneer of pseudo-Christianity to mask their own life philosophies and practices, most of which have nothing to do with what Scripture prescribes. The “leadership” of said “churches” (mostly 501C3 tax-exempt corporations that are for-profit “non-profit” organizations) is dedicated to tickling the ears and soothing the egos of the pew-warmers with whatever they want to hear. After all, collection plates don’t fill themselves up, especially if you offend the sensibilities of your “customers.” This is something that InnocentBystanderBoston brings up frequently that I am in full agreement with: a paid, professional clergy that depends for its daily bread on the mercy of its customers’ generosity (which in turn is dependence on its customers’ egos and wants being satisfied) is a compromised clergy that will NEVER impart truth if said truth threatens its livelihood.

    2. The blind faith in Caesar and militarism is a reflection of the fact that churchians place ZERO real trust in the Lord, His Power, or His Word. Just as you cannot serve God AND mammon, Jesus might also have said that you cannot serve God and Caesar. Caesar’s will and God’s will are NOT the same, and in fact more often then not are polar opposites. (It would be very revealing to ask your typical churchian who subscribes to the perversion of Romans 13 so popular in most “churches” today if they believe that blind obedience to Caesar also applied/applies to the governments of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, the Kim Family, and every other government that declared the Christian faith its enemy. Also, why were First Century Christians conspicuously unconcerned with ingratiating themselves to the reigning Roman Empire?).

    Ultimately, whether or not they choose to admit it, churchians, however unconsciously, view the power of Caesar, with its unadorned violence and brute force, as something admirable, much preferable to the lack thereof exhibited by the God and His Son they claim to revere above all else. To put it in cruder terms, “turning the other cheek” just ain’t that sexy…

  214. Dave says:

    feeriker,
    A very loud “A-men!” to all you wrote. You said it so well that I don’t really have much to add, other than this: a huge number of those who think they are Christians, probably in this forum (and I do not mean that to be disrespectful), are anything but. They are churchians themselves.

  215. John Nesteutes says:

    @OKRickety:

    Thank you for a reasonable post.

    My beliefs are:

    “Born again” just refers to the process of the new birth; becoming a Christian, both inwardly and outwardly. I’ve used it interchangeable with “godly”. Means the same thing to me. I’d like to just use the term “Christian”, but that term seems to have almost no meaning anymore.

    “Formerly-apostate Christian” is a rare breed that I don’t deal with very often, although I consider myself one of these (I grew up in with a proper Christian upbringing and was a dedicated believer at age 13, and walked away around age 15.) I consider us formerly-apostate Christians to be extremely poor candidates for marriage.

    The normal pattern in my community is for young people to get born again around age 14 – 16, before they can run out into the world and do lots of damage to themselves. It doesn’t really matter if they are willing to fornicate; short of running away from home, they aren’t able to (and the outside world/law doesn’t accomodate this misbehaviour).

    Young people leave the church in their late teens and never come back. I consider them lost to the world. They tend to end up in churchianity, with its attendant divorces, rampant fornication, short hair on women, and so forth.

    Choosing to stay in the church is a huge decision that every young person usually ends up making in their late teens. I consider those who make this decision to be excellent candidates for marriage, and the lack of really any divorce at all speaks for itself to support my opinion there.

    You believe godliness is important, but you seem to consider the “born again” Christian to be more godly than the “apostate” Christian. I don’t understand that. I don’t believe that the timing of the non-Christian living is of importance, as long as it is followed by repentance.

    I don’t consider them more godly than the formerly-apostate Christian, but I do think the formerly-apostate Christian is a huge risk for marriage. Why bother when there are plenty of young women who’ve never made the disastrous decision to walk away from God?

    For example, what is the real difference, besides the timing, between a woman who lives a sexually promiscuous life until she is “born again” at 30, and one who is Christian until 20, lives the same sexually promiscuous life as the first woman, and then repents and returns to a life of holiness? The second does appear to renounce her faith, but don’t all Christians appear to do that when they sin?

    None at all. Length of time away from God doesn’t matter, although your behaviour whilst rebellious does. If you go to some movies with your apostate friends, and get caught, and end up repenting and cutting off those friendships, that’s not a huge deal to me (although proper repentance is still important – signs would be cutting off those friendships). If you leave the church and join some megachurch, cut your hair, and then come back, that’s a fairly big deal. You can’t fake growing it back – everyone will know how long it’s been since you returned. If you leave the church, get a boyfriend, and then come back, everyone is going to assume that the two of you were immoral.

    I have no idea how you can claim there is an “oversupply of godly young Christian women”. I don’t think that’s a scary prospect, but is inconsistent with the experience of most readers. I think you have implied that most who claim to be “Christian” are not. How many of those who are truly Christian are “born again”, but have an “overtly sinful past” that likely includes sexual sin?

    Almost none of them have an overtly sinful past. I might just be biased because I am around many of these girls all the time. Not all of them are beauty queens, but it’s quite distressing to watch them hitting age 21, 22, 23 and still unmarried. (Though it does provide good incentives for the younger women to hurry up and get married to the first good match and not hold out for Mr Perfect).

    The women I know who have an overtly sinful past seem to be choosing celibacy. They’re either converts or people who left the church in their teens, and came back to it in their 30s/40s. Nobody really wants to marry them. Too risky, plus, they aren’t very attractive.

    We have trouble with young men entering apostasy too. Every time a young man does that, that’s a young women who has one less eligible husband. On the bright side, male converts from the outside tend to end up marrying girls who grew up in church. The reverse doesn’t happen very often. Girls from the outside just plain don’t make good wives, sadly.

    Right now I am dealing with two young men who decided to date girls outside the church, which means the young men will need to leave the church. Both of them are utter churchian messes, both from broken homes. They like girls with cut hair, makeup, immodest clothes, and who are willing to be immoral with them. I don’t have any other theory what the attraction is. When I talked to them they say “I’m not ready for marriage right now but I do want to date.” Both of the girls are going to college and plan to have “careers”.

    Sometimes I try to make myself feel better by saying “good riddance”. What breaks my heart is knowing they’ll be back after that woman marries them, divorces them, and then they come crawling back into church, trying to live a life of repentance, but the life they could have had is permanently gone and ruined.

  216. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker

    Everything you have said is true about the mainstream evangelical and Protestant churches in the Upper 51st state, too.

    If I’m not mistaken, do you have an anabaptist or non-resistant orientation towards government as well?

    One of the dilemmas for early Roman Christianity was when government officials ended up converting. My understanding was the norm was for them to finish out whatever their contracts or terms of service were, and then resign. Christians didn’t even serve on juries in Rome.

    The Christian influence was so overwhelming that eventually the emperor himself converted. And then Christianity died for the next millenium.

  217. greyghost says:

    Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, and the blood of martyrs is seed. Those people are my brothers and sisters who I will meet one day, where they will occupy a special place in heaven.

    That was not very faithful at all. That had the tone of “I’m Christian and don’t believe in violence” and then praying for God’s help. I guess the lesser men, savages will do Gods work and stop evil for you.
    You are of this world you know. .

  218. feeriker says:

    The Christian influence was so overwhelming that eventually the emperor himself converted. And then Christianity died for the next millenium.

    I could probably write a dissertation on the topic of Constantine’s “conversion” (those quotes of course serve to indicate just how genuine that conversion really was). That institutional Christianity began its long, slow, agonizing death over the course of the ensuing millennium, a death of which it appears to be entering its final throes, is the direct result of this emperor’s “conversion.” Also not coincidental to this is the fact that the church almost immediately and rapidly began losing its original character as prescribed in the New Testament, instead cloaking itself in the vestments of institutional Roman paganism.

    The “good” news, for lack of a better adjective, is that more and more people seeking the real article are waking up not only to what has happened to the church, but to an awareness of how it happened and how the problem will have to be fixed. Basically, a reversion to the truths and practices of the Gospels is the only antidote, which means the dismantling of the entire framework of institutional churchianity. This will at first be a tough sell for the masses, as this framework is the only thing most have ever known or can conceive of, largely due to being biblically illiterate. (biblical illiteracy of the masses being a goal of churchianity as much as functional illiteracy of the masses is a goal of government “schools”). Eventually, however, the true extent of the rot of the current system will be too obvious to ignore and the ship will right itself again.

  219. JDG says:

    You are of this world you know.

    If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. – John 15:19

  220. Scott says:

    This will at first be a tough sell for the masses, as this framework is the only thing most have ever known or can conceive of, largely due to being biblically illiterate.

    I’m not sure about this part. Most Christians I know, even the ones in the big box churches are in their heart of hearts very “institutional Christianity” averse. They regularly talk about individual spirituality being higher elevated principle than church.

    When push comes to shove they tend to think that truth (guarded by the church) is less important than what is in your heart.

  221. earl says:

    ‘Perhaps we could begin by discouraging Christ-denying Atheists like Boxer to pretend they are speaking for Men.’

    I’m ok with him speaking his mind. It’s not like he’s the first Christ denier to walk the earth.

  222. earl says:

    ‘Good question Earl. Those are the questions we need to work on. Millions are watching’

    Well if you know how the schools and courts work…I’d say look into this passage:

    “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Matt 6:24

  223. Not all of them are beauty queens, but it’s quite distressing to watch them hitting age 21, 22, 23 and still unmarried. (Though it does provide good incentives for the younger women to hurry up and get married to the first good match and not hold out for Mr Perfect).

    If I understand you then, you’re not saying that there are lots of good women and no good men for them to marry, which is how I think a lot of guys were reading you before. It sounds like even in that community, some girls are holding out longer than they would have to, despite there being available men.

  224. greyghost says:

    JDG
    To be hated

  225. Dave says:

    How on earth does the presence of absence of a hymen test anything? Virtuous women aren’t going to let you get to third base to test the goods before marriage.

    To say nothing of the scourge of technical virginity, the participants of such who are decidedly un-chaste.

    The obsession with virginity is kind of gross. The obsession should be with a chaste lifestyle. And the great thing about a chaste lifestyle is that it’s pretty easy to discern.

    A number of the guys here seem to have condemned themselves to a life of celibacy, and keep going in fruitless cycles:
    1. First, they must have a virgin woman before they can marry, and call her a wife, no matter the reason for the loss of her virginity.
    2. Secondly, they do not believe there are any virgins left among American women, and they are not interested in marrying outside the race/country.
    3. Thirdly, even if a woman tells them she was a virgin, they do not believe her, unless they see “proof”.
    4. Unfortunately, they cannot see proof until after they are married.
    5. Return to #1.

  226. earl says:

    ‘The obsession with virginity is kind of gross. The obsession should be with a chaste lifestyle. And the great thing about a chaste lifestyle is that it’s pretty easy to discern.’

    I agree…if you filter it down to if she has a hymen or not, you forget to look at the rest of the story.

  227. greyghost says:

    Leave the lights on, on the wedding night for the final just to be sure check of the goods.

  228. When push comes to shove they tend to think that truth (guarded by the church) is less important than what is in your heart.

    They think truth (or at least right and wrong) is defined by what is in their heart. “Listen to your heart.” “Go with your gut.” “When it’s right, you’ll just know it.” The New Age idea that emotion and impulse are a form of divine guidance has permeated the culture.

    Of course, “Do what thou wilt” has the same meaning, but it doesn’t sound so noble.

  229. Scott says:

    Cail-

    Which is maddening because the scripture (all over the OT and NT) tells us the heart is the author of so much evil.

    The heart informs our ability to experience emotions and detect others (so we can empathize). But you have to think your way to the truth, and to be able to discern right from wrong.

    Even though he is kind of “purple pill,” Dennis Prager talks about this problem of modernity and subjectivsm quite a bit.

    We are doomed.

  230. Escoffier says:

    “We are doomed.”

    NOW you get it!

  231. earl says:

    ‘The heart informs our ability to experience emotions and detect others (so we can empathize). But you have to think your way to the truth, and to be able to discern right from wrong.’

    Even your intellect is darkened and you can rationalize evil. The point is to realize both the heart and mind don’t have the answer…and that God does when it comes to everything, especially morality.

  232. John Nesteutes says:

    @Cail Corishev

    Dating and marriage happens essentially in an assortative fashion. Some girls and guys end up single because they aren’t willing to let their standards drop low enough.

    In my opinion, it’s harder to find men of good character who are reasonably attractive than is it to find women of good character who are attractive (basically, not fat, remember that nobody has short hair or tattoos around here).

    Young women unmarried in their mid-20s have a much higher risk of never getting married than young men in their mid-20s, which is why I think there’s an imbalance. There is exactly one adult male (over 21) in my church who is unmarried. There are a number of women. Short of widowers, I don’t know where they’ll find husbands.

    @greyghost/@JDG

    I’m in the world, but not of the world.

    @Dave

    No kidding. In lieu of some kind of mythical proof of virginity, a woman who never stopped dressing modestly and has never cut her hair should be good enough. Plus character references from gossipy old women, family members, and church leaders who can attest she hasn’t had a “vacation” from Christian living in her teens or 20s.

    @Scott

    Jesus’ church is not doomed and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

  233. John Nesteutes says:

    @greyghost: Leave the lights on, on the wedding night for the final just to be sure check of the goods.

    That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve heard of. Are you going to divorce your wife after the wedding night because you couldn’t convince yourself 100% she was a virgin?

    What kind of a community would tolerate that?

    Some of the arguments I hear around here seem like reverse psy-ops to make feminist positions look more reasonable.

  234. anonymous_ng says:

    @Cail “They think truth (or at least right and wrong) is defined by what is in their heart. “Listen to your heart.” “Go with your gut.” “When it’s right, you’ll just know it.” The New Age idea that emotion and impulse are a form of divine guidance has permeated the culture.”

    BINGO!!!

    This was the straw that finally broke this camel’s back and drove me from the evangelical world.

  235. JDG says:

    greyghost says:
    April 29, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    To be hated

    It’s okay if they hate us. Jesus told us they would.

  236. JDG says:

    Which is maddening because the scripture (all over the OT and NT) tells us the heart is the author of so much evil.

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? – Jer 17:9

    Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. – Prov 3:5

  237. John Nesteutes says:

    @anonymous_ng

    Welcome on your journey out of mainline evangelicalism. True-hearted Christianity does exist out there. Keep searching.

  238. JDG says:

    JN – I’m in the world, but not of the world.

    Exactly!

  239. A number of the guys here seem to have condemned themselves to a life of celibacy, and keep going in fruitless cycles:
    1. First, they must have a virgin woman before they can marry, and call her a wife, no matter the reason for the loss of her virginity.
    2. Secondly, they do not believe there are any virgins left among American women, and they are not interested in marrying outside the race/country.
    3. Thirdly, even if a woman tells them she was a virgin, they do not believe her, unless they see “proof”.
    4. Unfortunately, they cannot see proof until after they are married.
    5. Return to #1.

    Trust in women is very low, and since men get no protection from them, it’s better not to get married. You can marry a non-virgin if you want, I and other men do not want to. Just deal with it and move on.

    The shaming is pathetic.

  240. JDG says:

    Some of the arguments I hear around here seem like reverse psy-ops to make feminist positions look more reasonable.

    Can’t agree with this one. Even the most absurd psycho babble to cross my eyeballs on a manosphere site has NEVER looked less reasonable than feminism to my mind. Usually the most ludicrous things I’ve read on manosphere sites were written by feminists trying to refute logical arguments.

  241. earl says:

    ‘Young women unmarried in their mid-20s have a much higher risk of never getting married than young men in their mid-20s, which is why I think there’s an imbalance.’

    They can thank their feminist sisters for that plight.

  242. A man has to deal with a life of celibacy within marriage or outside of it. Lol, the choices make themselves these days. I don’t want the extra burden of dealing with a woman who lost her virginity to another man.

    Dave, you and John seem to miss the problem that men are slowly but surely deciding. That marriage is not worth it. Women cannot be trusted, they have lost that trust and cannot earn it back from me.

  243. Some of the arguments I hear around here seem like reverse psy-ops to make feminist positions look more reasonable.

    John, shut up, you had your fun in your youth, you fucked women without marrying them and now dare to speak to others about who they should get married to the very women that you or other men like you, fucked? Just stop!

  244. What kind of a community would tolerate that?

    Pretty much all traditional communities. A man didn’t have to go through with the marriage if the wife was found not to be a virgin. That was one of the first laws to go away when feminists started their war on tradition.

  245. John Nesteutes says:

    @feministhater

    A man didn’t have to go through with the marriage if the wife was found not to be a virgin. That was one of the first laws to go away when feminists started their war on tradition.

    How exactly does the man prove his new bride is not a virgin? I’m interesting in hearing the mechanics of just how you think this is supposed to work.

    And the problem we have today is not missing hymens, but the lack of chastity. I don’t think a wife who’s had frequent oral and anal sex with other men is going to be a good wife, and I don’t see how any man can reasonable verify that with physical means.

    The means of verifying virginity is by having a woman who lives under accountability from church, family, and community. If she’s not around untrustworthy men at all, and never is around a man alone, she can’t have sex.

    You can marry a non-virgin if you want, I and other men do not want to. Just deal with it and move on.

    The shaming is pathetic.

    I have said (repeatedly) that celibacy is an acceptable choice, and according to the Bible, it’s a better choice than marriage.

    John, shut up, you had your fun in your youth, you fucked women without marrying them and now dare to speak to others about who they should get married to the very women that you or other men like you, fucked? Just stop!

    I lived a life of sin (which is not nearly as fun as it seems; the burnout some pick-up artists report is real, and I hit it a much lower N count than 100) and have no rewards from that except the consequences.

    I live a life of celibacy now because I don’t believe in divorce and remarriage and I’m divorced because I elected to marry a blue-pill churchian woman.

    I would advise any man to stay FAR FAR AWAY from any of the women I have slept with.

    I have also said (repeatedly) that I think it’s unwise for men to marry non-virgins, for men to marry non-traditional women, for men to marry non-religious women.

    You stop.

    @Earl:

    They can thank their feminist sisters for that plight.

    Interestingly enough, most of the unmarried women I know in their mid-20s or older (who didn’t go apostate and then return to church) have a college degree under their belt and some of them even have a decent career.

    My feeling is that a man probably dodged a bullet with that one. Hey, I think celibacy is an acceptable life path, good for those women.

  246. feeriker says:

    Interestingly enough, most of the unmarried women I know in their mid-20s or older (who didn’t go apostate and then return to church) have a college degree under their belt and some of them even have a decent career.

    And therein lies their problem. I’m sure that in the community you’re part of, many young men look at this and say “no thanks. I already face enough competition and contention from the world at large on a daily basis. I’ll be damned if I’m going to marry more of it.”

    I’ve pretty much reached the conclusion that any woman in this day and age for whom college and a career is a priority is one for whom Godly marriage and family are NOT priorities (or even something they’re trying to avoid).

    My feeling is that a man probably dodged a bullet with that one.

    Absolutely beyond any doubt.

  247. JDG says:

    I’ve pretty much reached the conclusion that any woman in this day and age for whom college and a career is a priority is one for whom Godly marriage and family are NOT priorities (or even something they’re trying to avoid).

    Yep! Sadly I see this even in some of the most conservative Christian families where you would think they would know better.

  248. feeriker says:

    Yep! Sadly I see this even in some of the most conservative Christian families where you would think they would know better.

    Which just circles us back to the fact that churchianity has largely supplanted true Christianity today, and that the rot is much, MUCH deeper and wider than most people imagine or want to admit. Worse still is the fact that the vast majority of these churchians truly believe that their perversion of Scripture and Godly living is the real thing.

  249. greyghost says:

    John
    You take yourself way to serious. To answer the question. Hell yeah you divorce the lying slut. You turn to the community and say. “y’all get some rocks and stone this slut bitch”

    How are going to spread the word that stiff?

  250. Dave says:

    Trust in women is very low, and since men get no protection from them, it’s better not to get married. You can marry a non-virgin if you want, I and other men do not want to. Just deal with it and move on.

    The shaming is pathetic.

    Actually, not trying to shame you in the least, just pointing out the inconsistencies in your views, as well as in the views of others who hold similar views. I totally support the idea of marrying a virgin. It is far better than to marry a nonvirgin. However, you cannot say you want a virgin, but not only fail to go to where you might find one, but also refuse to believe those who claim to be virgins. Then, you turn around and claim that women are not trustworthy. How do you prove that the woman who told you categorically that she was a virgin, was lying? Must she remove her panties and show you her female parts?
    Marriage requires a measure of faith. You must learn to entrust the safekeeping of your life to your partner, as she does the same with you. Without this you cannot have a successful marriage, even if you were to meet a godly, chaste virgin today, and marry her. While it is true that the society has all the marital laws slanted against you, those laws don’t need to change before you have a great and fulfilling marriage. There are no guarantees in life, but only those who live by faith obtain the best experiences.
    The Law of faith says “according to your faith be it unto you”.

    If you believe that there are no faithful, loving, chaste and trustworthy women left in America—women who can rightfully become your wife, you are right; there are none.
    If you believe that no matter how bleak it looks in America today, you will find the suitable woman who will become your wife for the rest of your stay on earth, you are right as well.
    Your experiences in life will be determined by your faith.

    Dave, you and John seem to miss the problem that men are slowly but surely deciding. That marriage is not worth it. Women cannot be trusted, they have lost that trust and cannot earn it back from me.

    Did you realize that you’re on Dalrock’s blog site? And that the man, as well as countless guys here, actually believe that marriage is worth it, and that women can be trusted—that a person’s trustworthiness has little to do with their gender?

    I challenge you to CHOOSE to trust God. Without discounting the bleakness of the situation, pray—at least daily, to direct your path to a beautiful, chaste and loving woman who will become your wife. He is God; He knows where these women are.

  251. Dave says:

    I’ve pretty much reached the conclusion that any woman in this day and age for whom college and a career is a priority is one for whom Godly marriage and family are NOT priorities (or even something they’re trying to avoid).

    Don’t let these “career women” trick you when they tell you their “career” (HR and Social Work, anyone) is their “priority”. They burn out quite easily and quite early. Many of them are done by age 30, and are only passing through the motions, waiting for a man to marry them and “take them away from all these”.

  252. feeriker says:

    Don’t let these “career women” trick you when they tell you their “career” (HR and Social Work, anyone) is their “priority”. They burn out quite easily and quite early. Many of them are done by age 30, and are only passing through the motions, waiting for a man to marry them and “take them away from all these”.

    Yep. Except that by that point it’s too late.

    Sure, women “burn out” early (most, anyway, once they discover that the “wonderful world of work” that their feminist indoctrinators spun during all of those story hours in school doesn’t really exist). But hey, that’s a hard bed of their own making and they can lie in it – ALONE and without help, as do the men for whom the feel penis envy. Men “burn out” too, but have no choice but to continue with the grind in order to live. Let these “career woman” reap the full “rewards” of the lifestyle they chose. The “equality” they demanded also includes owning up to their choices and biting the bullet and living with the aftermath of them even if they turn out to be wrong and destructive.

    It is becoming more obvious with each passing month, to all but the thirstiest, densest, and most desperate of deltas and gammas that by the time a woman becomes “open” to the idea of marriage at this age, it’s a desperation move, a reach for a “do over,” a grab for a “Get Out of Jail Free card.” She’s “settling” at this point. It’s not that marriage and family are any more of a real priority to her than they were when she was younger; she’s just checking off feminist merit badge accomplishments on the life milestones checklist – a checklist which includes, further down the list “Divorce Beta Provider Husband” and “Eat, Pray, Love.”

    No, Christian men interested in Christian marriage and raising healthy Christian families want nothing to do with such “career women” and aren’t the least bit fooled by their pretense of playing the distressed Christ-following damsel wanting to be rescued by a Christ-following white knight from their own foolish and selfish choices.

  253. feeriker says:

    Should read “Divorce BORING Beta Provider Husband”

  254. JDG says:

    Ask any feminist, she/he will tell you that strong independent women have rights…

    … and should have careers.

    And I like to tell them…

    and

  255. feeriker says:

    Sammiches? From SIWs? Nahhh….

    By the time you train them to recognize bread, cheese, vegetables, meat, condiments, and all the other stuff that goes into a sammich, and then train them how to put these TOGETHER into something edible,* you could’ve made a week’s worth of them yourself – sammiches that taste better coming from your hands in any case. SandIWiches, IME, tend to have a very bitter, rancid aftertaste to them.

    (*DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, EVER allow them to cut the sammiches into manageable halves for you; far too many SIWs have been injured by bread knife cuts to their hands and fingers. The only knives that SIWs know how to handle with any degree of coordination and competence are sharp-pointed daggers.)

  256. JDG says:

    SIW:

    Sows In Wigs

    or

    Socially Ignorant Whiners?

  257. JDG says:

    May last comment may have been below the belt. I don’t see anything edifying in it. Apologies.

  258. feeriker says:

    @JDG

    Both of those are perfectly valid alternate definitions. 🙂

  259. Minesweeper says:

    @John Nesteutes says:
    “I would advise any man to stay FAR FAR AWAY from any of the women I have slept with.”

    In that case would you care to list them all, names, ages and current location?
    Just so we can avoid them.

    So I take it, your life consisted of, young christian, who went all prodigal son on his father.
    When back in the blue pill church, married blue pill, she frivorced your ass ?
    Sworn to being celibacy now because you don’t think there are any worthwhile women out there or because you don’t consider yourself worthwhile ?

    That about right ?

  260. thehaproject says:

    greyghost said
    When a man needs a woman to be a mother to his child she is in headship.

    So, when I hire a maid, she is in headship?

  261. embracing reality says:

    Dave said,

    “A number of the guys here seem to have condemned themselves to a life of celibacy, and keep going in fruitless cycles:”

    Some men condemned to celibacy ARE MARRIED. Then there are men, some whom I’ve met, that have obese wives who express openly a preference for celibacy as apposed to sex with a naked walrus.

    “I challenge you to CHOOSE to trust God.” To be a matchmaker? To take away a woman’s free will to choose to sin and rebel as wives (as is their overwhelming reputation).

    I challenge you to provide scripture in which God is providing wives for men through faith. The New Testament clearly makes the choice ours and specifically encourages singleness.

    Do you practice, in your own life as a single man, this doctrine you preach here? More importantly have you succeeded, or is this experimental doctrine our burden to test for you. Have you bought your own hype, dave? I have dated many Christian women, churches, internet etc. I can easily date any weekend I choose. The supply of Christian women of all ages ranges from poor to extremely poor quality. If you were dating these women YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT! Are you dating these women or are you one of them?

    Which is it ‘Dave’?

  262. John Nesteutes says:

    @Minesweeper

    My happy hunting grounds were Toronto and Vancouver. Avoiding girls there is already a good general principle.

    To answer your question, no, that’s not what happened.

    I abandoned conservative church at age 20 and walked away from a dating relationship headed towards marriage with a very godly girl, so I could go live out in the world and “have fun”. I still thought I was a Christian. I went to a mega church with a good worship team I could get on, but at a church where watching R rated movies, drinking beer, and dating girls who dress immodestly is OK.

    I ended up banging some girl I met randomly outside of church. I broke up with her and dated a megachurch girl (nobody at church, not my cell group pastor, nobody, had a problem with my little slip up of immorality). In my newly liberated faith, it didn’t matter she wasn’t a virgin. But hey, I got to mess around with her and still be a good Christian on the worship team! Score. We practiced “technical virginity”.

    I descended deeper and deeper into blue pill Christianity. I ended up becoming an advocate for same sex marriage in our pseudo-denomination (trust me, it’s one you’ve all heard of). Talked my now-wife into it (there’s leadership for ya). I had my tribe of fellow feminist friends. We all thought we were doing good. I prided myself on how egalitarian my marriage was.

    A decade later, a tragedy struck us I won’t get into and my wife never recovered. She chased emotional affairs on the Internet and I wished each day for a divorce from a sad, miserable woman. My pride prevented me from filing first. Eventually she wanted to. We worked out a nice settlement and filed at the courthouse together. One of the clerks told us we’re a cute couple. Hah. Post divorce, she moved in with some dude and probably sleeps with him now.

    Newly liberated six months later (divorce is easy if the two of you don’t argue), I became an even better churchian and put that whole “the Bible teaches no sex ethic” thing into practice. Banged literally anything that moved. In blue pill circles PUAs are mocked but I got curious, pickup made sense, so I started playing around and found it made hooking up even easier. That was my life for 2 years.

    Eventually I grew tired of my life. I knew I was a sinner despite my liberal theology. I wanted peace and salvation and I wanted to stop compulsively fornicating.

    I walked back into the closest conservative church I could find like I grew up in, women dressed modestly, covering there heads, men in leadership, no worship band, etc. I prayed and sought God.

    The people at church who met me explained to me divorce & remarriage is wrong and I’ll have to be celibate if I want to be in church.

    And the truth set me free. It’s been not quite a year without fornicating for me.

    I live this way because I believe it. My wife might never reconcile to me or God, but I’m building the church and society now, not tearing it down.

    I will never be a feminist or blue pill again… even if it means life long celibacy. I won’t marry outside the church or its rules nor will I remarry whilst my ex wife is living.

    Hope that clears things up.

  263. Dale says:

    @John Nesteutes

    >Right now I am dealing with two young men who decided to
    >date girls outside the church, which means the young men
    >will need to leave the church. Both of them are utter
    >churchian messes, both from broken homes.

    I am confused… or lacking information. I thought divorce was at 0.3%. How could you have two young men, both from broken homes?
    It is disappointing when young men will throw away the gifts of God for a cheap, pale imitation offered by Satan. We each do this every time we sin however.

    @John Nesteutes

    >That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve heard of. Are you
    >going to divorce your wife after the wedding night
    >because you couldn’t convince yourself 100% she was a
    >virgin?
    >
    >What kind of a community would tolerate that?

    “What kind of a community would tolerate that?” Did you bother to read the Deut passage? God’s community would. But the result would be execution, not divorce. Although the test may not have been run the way you are thinking. It apparently boiled down to whether she bled or not. None of the covenants come without blood, marriage included.
    Although from the few discussions I have had with women on this, and a couple pictures/diagrams I saw, it is damn obvious whether the hymen has been torn open enough to allow a penis to enter through it. Not sure why this is seen as so difficult to assess. But I am not a doctor, nor do I make a habit of examining women I pass on the street, so I’ll admit to some ignorance. Given God made lack of virginity sufficient grounds for execution, I think it would be pretty easy to assess correctly.

    feeriker gave an excellent suggestion for what the mid-20s women with college and careers fail to marriage. The women are pursuing the wrong role in life, and thus not really desirable for marriage.

  264. thehaproject says:

    I have been reading Dalrock for about 2 years now, and this has to be one of the stupidest comment threads I have ever seen here. It’s like most everybody hit their heads and turned into a bunch of retarded, illiterate liberals. I swear, it reads like a transcript of an MSNBC talk show. I’ve never seen so many straw men constructed and burned down. This is how feminists and liberals argue.

    Most if this vitriol has been directed at John Nesteutes, for things he never actually said. Now, we expect these things from GBFM, who spent all of his time pulling feces from his ass, writing JN’s or Earl’s names on it, then arguing with the straw/crap man that he constructed. Par for the course, but still an annoying waste of time.

    feministhater, in the same vein, decided to take John’s rather good comments on repentance and Christ’s redemptive power and somehow manage to turn that into “man up and marry these sluts,” something that JN never once said or even hinted at, but feministhater keeps insisting he said. I suppose feministhater also believes that when Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more, he then looked to Peter and said, “Go wife her up.” Even when JN clearly states that he is not suggesting that men marry these reformed sluts, feministhater insists that he is. feministhater actually quotes him, demonstrating that he is not saying that, then feministhater claims that up is down and cats are dogs. For a feminist hater, he sure acts like one.

    I see people arguing with themselves and putting someone else’s name on it. It is mind boggling. This is how liberals and idiot children argue, not how real men argue.

    Hopefully, you all get your collective heads on straight (at least learn to read) before Dalrock’s next post.

  265. Dale says:

    @thehaproject
    >So, when I hire a maid, she is in headship?

    You may have meant that as sarcasm, but it is actually a very important question. That line of questioning helps achieve a correct understanding of Eph 5:21 to 6:9. Just as it is ridiculous to think 5:21 means that a slave will have authority over the master, or children over the parents, so it is ridiculous to think 5:21 means a wife is to have authority over her husband.

    But yes, under current laws, a wife has power over the husband. We can argue whether she has genuine authority or not, but when policemen with guns start to back her up, the husband will have trouble, regardless of his beliefs. Which is the point Dalrock and others have made so well. very important.

  266. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dale

    The young men are dating girls from broken homes. Their own homes are fine.

    Regarding hymens, what do you propose to do about oral and anal sex? That’s the norm in the Islamic world. And look up “Provo virgin” on urbandictionary.

    You need more than physical assurance of chastity. You need consistent evidence of a chaste lifestyle spanning years.

    And I’d welcome you to enter a conservative community like mine (where women actually are chaste) and propose your prenuptial hymen examinations. It’ll go over real popular.

    As far as the idea that every virgin bleeds, that’s just not grounded in reality. Are you seriously proposing the death penalty for every girl who doesn’t bleed enough on her wedding night?

  267. greyghost says:

    So, when I hire a maid, she is in headship?

    No. she is an employee

  268. earl says:

    ‘When a man needs a woman to be a mother to his child she is in headship.’

    Well considering God gave her the responsibility of bearing children and man the responsibility of being in headship…I say your statement is false.

  269. greyghost says:

    Maybe I’m being too cute about it. But what needs to occur is the woman needs for the man to accept her to be the mother of his children. To be ugly about it the children are not really his biologically or not by law other than to charge him with financial burdens. So basically she is still in charge by law.
    BTW it is really hard and exhausting exchanging with the anal Christian types here. There seems to be a total disconnect from the mechanics of the real world.

  270. feministhater, in the same vein, decided to take John’s rather good comments on repentance and Christ’s redemptive power and somehow manage to turn that into “man up and marry these sluts,” something that JN never once said or even hinted at, but feministhater keeps insisting he said. I suppose feministhater also believes that when Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more, he then looked to Peter and said, “Go wife her up.” Even when JN clearly states that he is not suggesting that men marry these reformed sluts, feministhater insists that he is. feministhater actually quotes him, demonstrating that he is not saying that, then feministhater claims that up is down and cats are dogs. For a feminist hater, he sure acts like one.

    Hey, dipshit, I’ll requote John’s post advising men to marry a ‘born again’, then maybe you can shut the fuck up and stop being an idiot! Okay, go fuck yourself!

    @feministhater

    Marraige does still exist&emdash;you just need to find women who are actually born again. (Note that they will limit their marriage choices to men who are born again)

  271. When a person gets truly born again, they leave EVERYTHING about their old life behind them. They stop dressing and acting like the world. They quit indulging the world’s lusts—they don’t spend hours a day watching TV anymore. They stop sleeping around. They surround themselves with godly Christian fellowship. They seek out strong leaders in the church to follow. They set an example of their old friends and witness the gospel to them.

    And there is John’s quote defining what a ‘born again’ does, do you notice the part… ‘they stop sleeping around’… i.e. being a slut….

    Which is all fine and good until he mentioned that marriage isn’t dead because you can marry a born again Christian woman. I wouldn’t get so angry if you guys would read.

  272. John Nesteutes says:

    @feministhater

    You don’t believe in the gospel. I get that. You don’t believe sinners can be born again.

    I clarified I think marrying women with an immoral past is a bad idea.

    Somehow, when I say “born again”, all you hear is “born again virgin”. The two are not the same thing.

    If you don’t believe in true Christianity, fine, go ahead and say that. This is a blog focused on Christian marriage and the possibility of Christian women existing. Bleating over and over they don’t exist is unhelpful.

  273. Hey, dipshit, I’ll requote John’s post advising men to marry a ‘born again’

    I can see how you misunderstood him at the time, but you know by now that he meant “born again Christian” in the sense of someone who has had the “I accept Jesus as my Savior” experience that’s central to many Protestant creeds, not in the “born-again virgin” sense that we often talk about here, where a Wall-nearing woman hops off the carousel and decides she’s all clean now because she hasn’t had a dick in her in two months. He’s clarified repeatedly that he’s not talking about the latter, and that he doesn’t think those women are wife material.

    To continue misconstruing his original comment in that way is dishonest.

  274. John Nesteutes says:

    @greyghost, I’m pretty familiar with the mechanics of the “real world”.

    That’s why I think a sensible true-Christian man will end up finding true-church that is separate from that world. Likewise, the only woman who’s a remotely good idea to marry will be a true-Christian woman who keeps herself separate from this “real world” in thought, deed, attire, employment, education, friendship, and entertainment.

    Oh, and who recognise God’s creation order of headship.

  275. earl says:

    ‘BTW it is really hard and exhausting exchanging with the anal Christian types here. There seems to be a total disconnect from the mechanics of the real world.’

    Really…I’m the one saying men have the headship and women have the childbearing responsibilities. Where’s the disconnect from the real world mechanics coming from?

  276. greyghost says:

    Really…I’m the one saying men have the headship and women have the childbearing responsibilities. Where’s the disconnect from the real world mechanics coming from?

    Earl that is not how things are done and you know it. That is also why you are single.
    I can’t believe this shit, It’s like I’m in the twilight zone. John does the same shit. It is no wonder Christianity is dying. And it really shouldn’t in fact it should be thriving in the world we have today.
    Good luck man kisses and prayers and all that, I’m out.

  277. greyghost says:

    John
    That last was pure cowardice.

  278. All note that wasn’t actually to John, that was to thehaproject who wrote that John absolutely had not mentioned at all, anything that I had quoted him as saying. Now, there might have been a misunderstanding on what John’s intent was, but his words gave the meaning that I took from them.

  279. John, I believe people can be saved. That’s it, I don’t believe that women today would make could wives. Experience tells me otherwise. I would say that most men wouldn’t make good husbands either, myself included. I therefore have shifted focus from getting unfit people to marry, to stopping unfit people from getting married.

    There is no other way to put this. We have, here on Earth, almost two full generations of men and women, unfit to be each others partners for life. The best I can do with that situation is to strongly voice objection to them getting married to each other and bringing children into their lives, that they will not be able to raise.

  280. @greyghost

    In our community we generally have properly functioning headship and we don’t have an epidemic of divorce or women usurping headship or false domestic violence claims.

    Then you turn around and call me a coward.

    When I say “be separate from the world”, I mean don’t dress like the world, don’t watch the world’s TV shows, don’t think like the world, don’t adopt the world’s philosophies (like feminism), and keep your daughters safe from the world. Don’t send them to public schools.

    And our flavour of Christianity is not dying. Our numbers are higher than they’ve ever been.

    The fact blue pill churchian “Christianity” is dying is good riddance.

    @feministhater

    It’s nice that you interpeted when I said “born again” to mean churchian born-again virgin nonsense. I used “born again” to mean the standard term in Protestant orthodoxy.

    I don’t feel like I should have to adapt my speech to avoid making you upset, or surround what I say with trigger warnings for words like “born again” that cause you to fly off the handle.

  281. @feministhater

    I can understand your frustration. I think celibacy is an acceptable life path (the Bible exalts it as better than marriage, actually, and Paul advises marriage only if you are someone who finds themselves facing significant temptation to fornicate with another person).

    Most women and men in our culture today aren’t ready to be wives or husbands unless they become true-Christians first. And some of them will need either years of discipleship and repentance, or won’t ever be ready at all. Especially a lot of women out there who’ve lived lives of immorality and sin.

    I want to find solutions, not just celebrate the decline.

    Finally, if you are fornicating with loose women, you are part of the problem. This was the hardest thing for me to accept after swallowing the red pill. Instead of being an ultra-cool pick-up artists racking up notch counts, I was merely a foot soldier in Margaret Sanger’s army.

  282. Hank Flanders says:

    John Nesteutes

    I ended up becoming an advocate for same sex marriage…

    What you made you change your mind? I’m assuming you changed your mind, or else, you probably wouldn’t be writing the things you do now.

    I’m asking, because I’d be pretty quick to write-off any woman as wife-material (or even as close friend material) if she advocated same-sex marriage. However, there are some pretty and nice girls out there who simply have the wrong mindset about certain things, and I’m wondering if their minds could be changed and what it might take inasmuch as it’s possible to do so.

  283. I’m not fornicating with loose women, John, don’t worry about it. I waiting for marriage that was never going to happen. I am angry about that, hence angry about being told constantly to marry ‘born again virgins’ and having seen what happens to men who marry, very angry at a society that deems it appropriate to view men as entirely expendable and for no other use but death and taxes.

  284. I’m asking, because I’d be pretty quick to write-off any woman as wife-material (or even as close friend material) if she advocated same-sex marriage. However, there are some pretty and nice girls out there who simply have the wrong mindset about certain things, and I’m wondering if their minds could be changed and what it might take inasmuch as it’s possible to do so.

    No, there is nothing you can say or do to convince them otherwise. It purely comes from experience or the wall, perhaps even the realisation that their support of unconventional marriages has destroyed their chances of marriage. Continue to write them off.

  285. earl says:

    ‘Earl that is not how things are done and you know it. That is also why you are single. I can’t believe this shit, It’s like I’m in the twilight zone.’

    So you don’t think men have headship and women don’t bear children? That probably says more about you than me.

  286. Dave says:

    Which is all fine and good until he mentioned that marriage isn’t dead because you can marry a born again Christian woman. I wouldn’t get so angry if you guys would read.

    Some here don’t believe in the redemptive power of the Cross of Jesus—that when a person has an encounter with Christ, their lives are completely changed, that old things actually pass away. The only conclusion you could draw from that observation is, they have never experienced it. You cannot deny what you have personally experienced. In today’s America, it s extremely easy to remain a churchian, while all the while thinking you are a Christian. I once dated an attractive woman, a pastor’s daughter who has been in church all her life. It took quite a while before I discovered that she was nothing but a churchian; she had no personal experience of Christ. Her religion was little more than church attendance, singing, saying prayers, teaching Sunday school, and being present at Vacation Bible Schools and other religious programs. Of course she was a “nice” person, and acted decent. But she could not tell when she became a Christian. She claimed she had been a Christian “all her life”. It is impossible for anyone to be a Christian all their lives. You only become a Christian when you meet Christ and surrender your entire life to Him, to live for Him, obey Him and conform to His word. This I something you consciously do, and you could never “grow into it”.

  287. No Earl, what he is saying is that it doesn’t work that way anymore. Men don’t have headship, by law, and women bear very few children in healthy marriages. They are far more focused on riding and careering.

    What greyghost is saying is that the law has given women headship over any children she bears. Over and above any authority a man thought he had. And especially any authority given by God, that just makes him evil. Try that in court, try say that God gives you authority, watch them laugh as they drag you off to jail. If the woman talks, the man walks. Straight into jail. There is nothing you or John or Dalrock or anyone can do to change that. Only God can, and he doesn’t seem to be interested in changing womens’ collective minds into something more realistic. Therefore, this little play, this feminist play, must run its course before things start to get better.

  288. Gunner Q says:

    “That’s why I think a sensible true-Christian man will end up finding true-church that is separate from that world. Likewise, the only woman who’s a remotely good idea to marry will be a true-Christian woman who keeps herself separate from this “real world” in thought, deed, attire, employment, education, friendship, and entertainment.”

    “When I say “be separate from the world”, I mean don’t dress like the world, don’t watch the world’s TV shows, don’t think like the world, don’t adopt the world’s philosophies (like feminism), and keep your daughters safe from the world.”

    In other words, a true Christian is one who joins the Mennonites. Recruit much?

  289. JDG says:

    BTW it is really hard and exhausting exchanging with the anal Christian types here. There seems to be a total disconnect from the mechanics of the real world.\

    Sorry to give you such a hard time. My only excuse is that although Christians are commanded to submit to governing authorities, we are not to obey them to the point of disobeying God. So when the government makes laws that would force us to disobey God, those laws are not legitimate. Sure we may suffer retribution for not complying, nevertheless I believe we should not recognize the governments authority over that particular sphere of influence as they are in opposition to God.

  290. JDG says:

    “When I say “be separate from the world”, I mean don’t dress like the world, don’t watch the world’s TV shows, don’t think like the world, don’t adopt the world’s philosophies (like feminism), and keep your daughters safe from the world.”

    In other words, a true Christian is one who joins the Mennonites. Recruit much?

    ??? – I try to live like this and I haven’t joined the Mennonites. This kind of living sounds to me a lot like what the Bible is telling us to do. Maybe I should join the Mennonites.

  291. @feministhater:

    I am angry about that, hence angry about being told constantly to marry ‘born again virgins’

    Those people aren’t Christians. Avoid them.

    very angry at a society that deems it appropriate to view men as entirely expendable and for no other use but death and taxes.

    “Come out from amongst them, and be ye separate.” Find a society or subculture or group of people who view men as creatures made by God in his image, and who reject our society’s wickedness.

    @Dave: Sounds like you dated a legalist/Pharisee. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Fornicators aren’t getting in, period. If your church is full of unrepentant fornicators it is not Jesus’ church.

    @Gunner Q

    I never said “join the Mennonites”. Can you instead attack one of the specific things I listed, like not dressing like the world, not watching the world’s TV, or keeping daughters safe from the world?

    @JDG

    Be glad to have you. If you’re already living righteously, I exhort you to find fellow pilgrims doing the same. Some are Mennonites, some are not.

  292. I ended up becoming an advocate for same sex marriage…

    What you made you change your mind? I’m assuming you changed your mind, or else, you probably wouldn’t be writing the things you do now.

    I changed my mind because, frankly, Jesus changed my mind. I surrendered my whole life to him (including marriage) and submitted to a true church. Within a week, the scales were lifted from my eyes and it was plain as day that sodomy is a wicked abomination before God.

    I also had to submit to the idea of no divorce, remarriage, or fornication. Those were deeds in my life I had to give up. Same-sex marriage was simply a vain philosophy of this world I had to give up.

    Before I was born again, my philosophy was “libertarian” as in “blah blah the state shouldn’t regulate marriage, any two people can contract marriage any way they want to” and “blah blah the Bible teaches no sex ethic, as long as two people aren’t harming someone else.”

    I’m asking, because I’d be pretty quick to write-off any woman as wife-material (or even as close friend material) if she advocated same-sex marriage. However, there are some pretty and nice girls out there who simply have the wrong mindset about certain things, and I’m wondering if their minds could be changed and what it might take inasmuch as it’s possible to do so.

    In short, those girls need to get truly born again. They need to join a true church that follows Jesus, and submit to that church’s authority and discipline. No true church will advocate for same sex marriage. It will not tolerate its members advocating for it. If I held the position publicly that homosexuality is acceptable, I would be disciplined, silenced (not allowed to speak in church or at prayer meetings, etc.) and eventually excommunicated if I didn’t repent.

    My advice with those girls would be to run, don’t walk. If they believe in same-sex marriage, they believe divorce is OK, too, and (more importantly) they believe ungodly practices like remarriage after divorce, suing for child support, andsuing for alimony are acceptable too. None of these are proper behaviour for the Christian.

    Your best bet with these girls would be to share the gospel with them. Don’t bog down into specifics. Instead, preach that Christ died to set them free, and invite them to attend a true church with you. (You might have to find one yourself but every man should be doing that anyway.)

  293. hoellenhund2 says:

    I have even told my son that if he decides to drop of out college and become an apprentice doing some crazy dangerous underwater welding trade or something I would not be disappointed at all.

    If he already started college, he should finish it. That’s all I can say.

  294. greyghost says:

    JDG
    I have no issue with you.

  295. feeriker says:

    What greyghost is saying is that the law has given women headship over any children she bears. Over and above any authority a man thought he had. And especially any authority given by God, that just makes him evil. Try that in court, try say that God gives you authority, watch them laugh as they drag you off to jail. If the woman talks, the man walks. Straight into jail. There is nothing you or John or Dalrock or anyone can do to change that. Only God can, and he doesn’t seem to be interested in changing womens’ collective minds into something more realistic. Therefore, this little play, this feminist play, must run its course before things start to get better.

    Yes. I too get frustrated by those here who insist that it is possible to practice godly headship in a secular world hellbent on destroying it. The REALITY is that it is only possible to do this as long as a man’s wife allows it. The minute she decides that she’s going to go EPL, it’s all over.

    What Christian men in the western world need to start doing is being honest by stating the following:

    “Biblical headship as a husband and father is, in today’s misandric, corrupt western world, every bit as dangerous as proclaiming the faith in a country that actively oppresses and suppresses Christians. This means that if you practice biblical headship, be prepared to be martyred for it. That means, among other things, preparing to be:

    – arrested and jailed.

    – sentenced to a long term in maximum security prison on trumped-up charges of assualt and
    battery/domestic abuse/child molestation.

    – suffer all the horrible things as a prisoner that men suffer in prison.

    – have your children removed from your custody, perhaps with a restraining order slapped against
    you that prohibits any contact with them as long as they are legally of minority age.

    – having your wages confiscated, to the point where you are living in abject poverty, in order to
    provide chilamony for the wife who has frivorced you (and knowing that little, if any of the money
    that has been stolen from you is actually being spent on your children).

    – being shunned/disfellowshipped/excommunicated by what you thought were your “brothers in
    Christ,” but who reveal themselves to be, in reality, pussy-worshiping churchian white knights.

    – being killed for resisting attempts by the State’s enforcers to make you a compliant, apostate
    slave to said State and its female enablers.”

    THIS, gentlemen, is what biblical headship entails. How many of you are still brave enough to try it? Talk is dirt cheap…

  296. feeriker says:

    @JDG:

    Sorry to give you such a hard time. My only excuse is that although Christians are commanded to submit to governing authorities, we are not to obey them to the point of disobeying God. So when the government makes laws that would force us to disobey God, those laws are not legitimate. Sure we may suffer retribution for not complying, nevertheless I believe we should not recognize the governments authority over that particular sphere of influence as they are in opposition to God.

    Absolutely correct. Good luck in getting 99.9999 percent of churches today to wake up and realize this simple and OBVIOUS truth. Nearly all of them are bastions of Caesar worship.

  297. feeriker says:

    This kind of living sounds to me a lot like what the Bible is telling us to do.

    Yep. Not very popular among those who claim the Bible is the most important book in their lives, is it?

  298. BradA says:

    greyghost,

    BTW it is really hard and exhausting exchanging with the anal Christian types here. There seems to be a total disconnect from the mechanics of the real world.

    Attacking God’s ways when claiming to oppose the world’s ways is hard.

    You suffer from only seeing the physical, not the spiritual and the power of God that can and does override it. No magic bullet, but not the pessimistic despair either. Though bitterness will do that to you.

    Christianity is dying

    Hardly. It is doing what it is always done, carrying out God’s will. He has chosen to use imperfect vessels to do so. Too bad we don’t all live up to your views and let you be our pope, at least in your view.

    Many could vouch that I am extremely pessimistic, but I can’t hold a candle to your pessimism. Lacking the belief in a powerful God really hinders you.

    Cail,

    To continue misconstruing his original comment in that way is dishonest.

    Lots of that in these discussion threads. I wonder if that is why Lyn87 is not here. I know participating seems quite futile to me.

    John,

    The heat you have gotten has fallen on many others.

    Do note that your wife has committed adultery from your explanation and thus your church is wrong to make no allowance for divorce and remarriage.

    ========

    Dalrock,

    I don’t know that it will happen here, but it would be nice to have some solutions on this site. I don’t know that many exist, but I am more hesitant to point here since the discussions seem to have taken more of a downtrend.

    It may be cyclical though, I haven’t paid attention here long enough to know. It just seems to have a very negative focus here now and that does not help in building society and Christianity. It may be that it is really as bad as some say, but it is also possible that God will adjust things. I lean toward the former, but I would rather believe for the latter and be wrong than to just be ungodly because society is ungodly.

  299. OKRickety says:

    @John Nesteutes,

    Is your usage of “John Nesteutes” in reference to Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, also known as John the Faster, regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church?

  300. @OKRickety:

    Is your usage of “John Nesteutes” in reference to Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, also known as John the Faster, regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church?

    Yes. It was the best alias I could come up with. I’m not remotely EO nor have ever been. The most contact I have had is eating at restaurants owned by Greek Orthodox.

    @BradA:

    Do note that your wife has committed adultery from your explanation and thus your church is wrong to make no allowance for divorce and remarriage.

    BradA, I respect your position. A strict prohibition against divorce and remarriage has led to us having a 0.3% divorce rate. Consequently, nobody’s really interested in hearing theological arguments about why we should let a little bit of divorce in. I am more than willing to bear this burden if it means supporting biblical marriage and headship.

    @feeriker: A distinctive about us is that we expect to be jailed and martyred for our beliefs. We refuse to go to war, and were jailed for this in World War I. Some of the young men died. In the 1980s, we were jailed for home schooling or operating church schools. The children sat mute in classrooms and refused to speak during class for 8 hours a day. There is a photo of a sheriff chasing an Amish child through a field during an attempt to force them to attend public school.

    Nothing less than the kind of tenacity you described will work. Considering the horrific risks you described, just to become a father and husband, it behooves a man to find a truly excellent, God-and-church-fearing wife.

    Broker no compromise.

    (And that’s why I won’t budge an inch on divorce & remarriage, women wearing head coverings full time, men dressing distinctly from the world and more modestly, refusing to watch broadcast TV, and so on. Why on earth would we want to give any of this up when the price paid for it was blood?)

  301. pukeko60 says:

    @ John, Your testimony is powerful. Thank you. Where you have ended up is pretty much where many of us are.

  302. Cane Caldo says:

    @John N

    I live this way because I believe it. My wife might never reconcile to me or God, but I’m building the church and society now, not tearing it down.

    I will never be a feminist or blue pill again…

    Boom! Epic testimony.

    I had avoided this thread, but always read Pukeko’s comments.

    @greyghost

    BTW it is really hard and exhausting exchanging with the anal Christian types here. There seems to be a total disconnect from the mechanics of the real world.

    This is understandable. From one perspective Christianity is a disconnection from the “mechanics of the real world”. By “mechanics” I mean “schemes”, and by “real world” I mean “concerns of the flesh”. John N has been holding forth strongly on this theme. This is being “not of the world”.

    But from another perspective we are “in the world”. He and others are not ignorant of the schemes; they just refuse to play by them. John does not sin by rejecting the things of the world. Though I do not agree with him about what particular things are profitable for us (If I am reading him correctly. For example: What do I care what is Hollywood’s movie rating system?) he is definitely fighting for the prize. In the real real world, it’s guys like that upon whom one can rely when everyone else is against you.

  303. Scott says:

    I live this way because I believe it. My wife might never reconcile to me or God, but I’m building the church and society now, not tearing it down.

    There was a man at my church growing up whose wife left and divorced him. She worshipped in a church a few towns over for about 20 years. The man stayed the course, prayed for her return and lived as if she was simply in sinful rebellion.

    One day, she showed up and walked down the aisle at the end of the sermon, repented and eventually remarried the man. Most unbelievable thing I have ever seen.

  304. Scott says:

    Not sure if it matters, but they were the one and only black couple in our church of about 300.

  305. OKRickety says:

    @Scott,

    God was glorified by that restored marriage. I know there was divine intervention, but do you have any idea if humans were moved by the Holy Spirit to influence her action?

  306. Scott says:

    Yes, there were a few ladies who regularly reminded her that her husband was still waiting for her to come back.

  307. Dale says:

    Dave
    >Some here don’t believe in the redemptive power of the Cross of Jesus—that when a person has an encounter with Christ, their lives are completely changed, that old things actually pass away.

    If you mean that past actions will yield no further penalties or consequences in the future, then I am one of those who do not believe. As already mentioned above, read 1 Cor 3. Should not be difficult to understand if the person has an open mind and heart.
    Now I do believe and know that Christ can free us from additions, bad attitudes, etc. There may be continuing consequences however. John seems to recognize this, given his view on marrying a truly repentant, formerly promiscuous woman.

    @feministhater and Earl
    >Try that in court, try say that God gives you authority, watch them laugh as they drag you off to jail.

    May sound like nit-picking, but I think this will help you understand each other.
    Earl believes he has the *authority*, given by God, to head the marriage. (I would agree; Eph 5, Titus 2:3-5, Col 3:18-21, etc.)
    FeministHater is pointing out that the man has no *power*. The police, lawyers and judges will use guns and imprisonment to force their will onto others. (I would agree with FH too.)

    Try to understand the difference between rightful authority, and immoral use of force (power) to get what you want.

    JDG gives a great comment to demonstrate this: “My only excuse is that although Christians are commanded to submit to governing authorities, we are not to obey them to the point of disobeying God. So when the government makes laws that would force us to disobey God, those laws are not legitimate. Sure we may suffer retribution for not complying…”
    God has the authority, and governments have authority only where they do not counter the one from whom they got that authority (Romans 13:1-7). Beyond that, the government has no authority, only power.

    @feeriker @12:24
    >Yes. I too get frustrated by those here who insist that it is possible to practice godly headship in a secular world hellbent on destroying it.

    +1! That is a great list of the consequences we must be prepared to face. In a closed society, like Hutterites or whatever, these consequences may be much less likely, but the law still has the power to impose them.

    @John
    >Are you seriously proposing the death penalty for every girl who doesn’t bleed enough on her wedding night?

    For the third time: Read the Deut passage I listed above. You will be able to see:
    a) who is proposing a penalty
    b) what the penalty is
    c) under what circumstances.

    You seem very wiling to refuse to read, using your ability to find fault with how I might suggest being submissive to this passage as an excuse to not only ignore my thoughts (unimportant), but also the Scripture behind it (very important).
    Refusing to submit to God’s word, in any area, is not wise. I am sure, given your other statements, you understand. I see no benefit to further encouraging you to read on this question.

    Thanks for the clarification on the broken homes question.

  308. Gunner Q says:

    Scott @ 4:02 pm:
    “There was a man at my church growing up whose wife left and divorced him. She worshipped in a church a few towns over for about 20 years. The man stayed the course, prayed for her return and lived as if she was simply in sinful rebellion.

    One day, she showed up and walked down the aisle at the end of the sermon, repented and eventually remarried the man.”

    If she had any sex with other men during those 20 years then I think he did wrong to take her back. Jeremiah 3:1 is my reference for thinking so. Hopefully he ended up happy but even without that verse, my first thought about the story was “Heartiste’s Beta of the Decade”.

  309. BradA says:

    John,

    I wouldn’t command you to remarry by any means. I am fine if you want that choice. I just follow what is written more than any utilitarian doctrine, which is what that boils down to. Either we take all the Scriptures or we do not. I find that many do not, even those who claim to be firm on them. I find that very unfortunate.

    Though you need to find your path and it sounds like you are following it. We rightly denigrate a lot of the modern “follow your heart” teaching, but I believe it is correct when applied as you have. Not your heart absent Christ, but your heart under His Lordship.

    Would that more would do that.

  310. John Nesteutes says:

    @Gunner Q

    I could care less if Heartiste thinks I’m a “beta”. By his standards, I am, since my N count didn’t make it to 100 or 400 or whatever he requires.

    I am not concerned with my wife’s specific sins like adultery. What concerns me is her apostasy and separation from God. Adultery is a symptom of that.

    If she reconciles herself to God, it will be obvious. I do have the option according to my church’s belief not to take her back. I can’t predict what choice I would make, were she to desire to reconcile.

    @Dale

    I understand the text when it says “found her to not be a virgin”.

    I am asking you to explain the mechanics of that. I don’t think they had gynaecological charts back then.

    I am also asking you what exactly an aggrieved husband providing proof would look like. Advocating stoning is kind of a serious thing, so I want to hear about the due process of law.

  311. BradA says:

    Returning to the Law is not practical nor is it required. We are gentiles and are not under the law. Strong shunning that was widely enforced would be sufficient, though reaching there will be a challenge.

    I was just listening to someone work through Isaiah and he read the Scripture where 7 women will ask to be called by the name of 1 man. That day will come, perhaps before the time Isaiah was covering. That is a strong desire and can push back a lot of modern crud with the right circumstances.

    Note that these women wanted the man’s name, not his support. I believe this shows an inward desire that is currently being suppressed, but one that will not remain suppressed forever.

  312. Cane Caldo says:

    @John N

    I understand the text when it says “found her to not be a virgin”.

    I am asking you to explain the mechanics of that. I don’t think they had gynaecological charts back then.

    The mechanics of proof were this:

    13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

    I would not advocate the specific procedures here (shekels, stoning, etc.). That’s not “The Law”. The Law is instructing us that purity, honor, honesty, and repentance are serious matters; that they are not merely personal matters interior to a person, but matters of the family, the church, and even the whole community.

    I am also asking you what exactly an aggrieved husband providing proof would look like. Advocating stoning is kind of a serious thing, so I want to hear about the due process of law.

    Whatever the due process looks like is less important than that we defenestrate the idea that sexual purity (just like every sort of purity) is solely a private matter, and that we are prepared to prove these things and demonstrate how we love one another. But before we do that we have to crush the idea that a daughter’s sexual activity is not within her parents’ purview. And before we do that, we have to smash the idea of daughters roaming around the world alone until they marry.

  313. desiderian says:

    John,

    “By his standards, I am, since my N count didn’t make it to 100 or 400 or whatever he requires.”

    Do not bear false witness.

    “If she reconciles herself to God, it will be obvious.”

    So it is spoken in Acts of believers who have been anointed in the Holy Spirit. Such faith can move mountains; so one cannot say it cannot also mend your marriage.

  314. feeriker says:

    But before we do that we have to crush the idea that a daughter’s sexual activity is not within her parents’ purview. And before we do that, we have to smash the idea of daughters roaming around the world alone until they marry.

    Sadly, the contemporary feminized “church” in most of the western world not only has ZE-RO interest in doing this, but ridicules and excoriates the very idea. While I’m certainly happy that there are exceptions to that attitude in churches like the one John belongs to, these are, unfortunately, such a tiny minority that they cannot make a society-wide impact. While it would be comforting to think that all the destruction and suffering caused by allowing women to run feral would eventually make itself too obvious to ignore and would lead to some real reformation of attitude and practice, I see no evidence of this on the horizon.

  315. Bee says:

    @Cane, feeriker,

    “But before we do that we have to crush the idea that a daughter’s sexual activity is not within her parents’ purview. And before we do that, we have to smash the idea of daughters roaming around the world alone until they marry.”

    This is an important point. I believe a lot of “good girls” lose their virginity while on overnight trips; Senior Trip, Band Camp, Church Camp, University, etc.

    One example, Mark Driscoll’s wife was a preachers kid but gave away her virginity on a Senior Trip (not to Mark, some other guy).

  316. feeriker says:

    This is an important point. I believe a lot of “good girls” lose their virginity while on overnight trips; Senior Trip, Band Camp, Church Camp, University, etc.

    One example, Mark Driscoll’s wife was a preachers kid but gave away her virginity on a Senior Trip (not to Mark, some other guy).

    Yep. This happens with ridiculous frequency, and yet Christian parents keep their heads buried in the sand (probably because, for at least three generations, they’ve been losing their own virginity in the same way).

  317. Hank Flanders says:

    feministhater

    No, there is nothing you can say or do to convince them otherwise. It purely comes from experience or the wall, perhaps even the realisation that their support of unconventional marriages has destroyed their chances of marriage. Continue to write them off.

    Yeah, that’s what I figured, too, but I was just brainstorming other ideas.

    John Nesteutes

    My advice with those girls would be to run, don’t walk. If they believe in same-sex marriage, they believe divorce is OK, too, and (more importantly) they believe ungodly practices like remarriage after divorce, suing for child support, andsuing for alimony are acceptable too. None of these are proper behaviour for the Christian.

    Your best bet with these girls would be to share the gospel with them. Don’t bog down into specifics.

    You’re probably right, and ultimately, of course, it’s God who changes hearts, anyway.

  318. Minesweeper says:

    @John Nesteutes says: April 30, 2015 at 12:59 am
    “Hope this clears things up”

    It does thank you. You do seem to have swung from one extreme to another on your journey. Hope you are well.

  319. Minesweeper says:

    @embracing reality says: April 30, 2015 at 12:16 am
    “Dave said,

    “A number of the guys here seem to have condemned themselves to a life of celibacy, and keep going in fruitless cycles:”

    Some men condemned to celibacy ARE MARRIED. Then there are men, some whom I’ve met, that have obese wives who express openly a preference for celibacy as opposed to sex with a naked walrus.”

    Ain’t that the truth !

    I doubt its even a choice\preference more like an involuntary reaction. In fact enjoying\wanting to have sex with a women like that would probably count as a perversion.

  320. American says:

    I’m a single, never married, celibate, heterosexual male. There is no ex-wife that hates me, no state-raised children that do also, no alimony, no “family” court appearance in which I hire expensive lawyers to unsuccessfully stop myself from being legally robbed, no threat of imprisonment if I get sick and lose my career, etc… None of that whatsoever.

    I replaced all that with a cheap jar of petroleum jelly. I do what I want, when I want, and how I want. The stellar career is largely because I had no entanglements to siphon off my productivity. Because I kept my resources, graduate school was a cinch.

    Of course, this all bodes ill for Western Civilization but I’ll have died of old age by the time it finally teeters over and falls.

  321. PokeSalad says:

    One example, Mark Driscoll’s wife was a preachers kid but gave away her virginity on a Senior Trip (not to Mark, some other guy).

    I think a lot of Driscoll’s hysterics are a result of his shame and overcompensation for this incovenient fact.

  322. anon says:

    “Parents are permitted to opt out of the child support structure only so long as both of them wish to continue opting out.”

    Astute observation. Marriage is still possible, but only to a woman who has an explicit moral opposition to divorce. Much more useful would be marriage which can be confidently entered into by any two people who are willing – with the assurance that the marriage will be followed out as expected being secured by a contract which serves to punish either party in the event of that person breaking its terms or choosing to terminate it.

    I’m trying to imagine how, for example, car sales would work if the person buying the car were able to change their mind a year after the sale, get a refund, and also keep the car. In no other situation are contracts limited in the ways that marriage contracts are.

  323. Pingback: Men Are Officially Functionally Obsolete | Retrophoebia

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s