A bit of data on Black children living with their fathers.

As I explained in Black Fathers [Don’t] Matter, the official data on intact families is problematic because both HHS and the US Census are all too eager to count any man mom is shacking up with as the father.  Because of this, official data is overstating the percentage of children of all races who are growing up with both their mother and their father.  Even when fudging the numbers however, a disturbingly small percentage of Black children live with both parents.  I thought I would share what I was able to find with a bit of searching, with the caveat that not all “fathers” counted in the official data are fathers by any reasonable stretch of the term.

The US Census has time series data broken out by race, including this chart:

CH-2-3-4

I’ve also previously shared a snapshot of custody by race for 2012:

percbothbyrace

However, in addition to counting non existent fathers, the data above also averages children of all ages.  As a result it doesn’t tell us what percent of adolescents still have dad in the home.  With a bit more digging I found Census data from 2006 which breaks living arrangement data down by race and age.  Since this data also comes from the US Census, the problem of identifying random men passing through mom’s bedroom as “dad” likely impacts this data set as well.  

2006_adolescent_living_arrangements

This entry was posted in Child Custody, Data, Fatherhood, Illegitimacy. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to A bit of data on Black children living with their fathers.

  1. Ceer says:

    What struck me was that despite a system designed to give children to women, an average of 5% of adolescents live exclusively with their fathers.

  2. Pingback: A bit of data on Black children living with their fathers. | Neoreactive

  3. Dalrock writes, “Since this data also comes from the US Census, the problem of identifying random men passing through mom’s bedroom as “dad” likely impacts this data set as well.”

    DA united states CENSUS thusly DICTATES dat from now on
    da GBFM is to be addressed
    DADDY GBFM
    in all of da manopher zlzozoozozozoz

  4. cdw 100 says:

    In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.

  5. Don Quixote says:

    cdw 100 says:

    May 7, 2015 at 12:44 am
    In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.

    Is this for real?
    Do you have a reference for this?

  6. “In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.”

    WTF!?!

  7. Opus says:

    As with just about everything, I am with TFH (so i hope his predictions are correct) and I too would never date a single mother, indeed the last time I (inadvertently) took one out, a photo of her bastard-child being produced, I ensured that she never made it to a second date – much to her foot-stamping and wailing disappointment. She was a good looking bird, too, and could pronounce words like Lacan and Foucault (so just up Boxer’s street).

    That was not, however, always the case, and in my unpaid-gigolo days, I did date a number of single mothers, but I never dated one who had frivorced her husband – always and only those who had been disposed of for another woman: such women marry alpha-males and tend thus to be good-looking. This however is also a mistake for I do not want other men’s cast-offs and for all the reasons which one can read about in the ‘sphere (including of course Alpha-widowhood).

  8. earl says:

    ‘In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.’

    3 days??? Either that is bogus or single mothers have expressed their desperation to the court system and they’ve complied.

  9. Flip says:

    I think it would be interesting to examine Negroid people’s behavior in other countries where there is less welfare to influence their behavior. I’ve been told that in Jamaica, for example, a common pattern is for a daughter to have an illegitimate child and the grandmother raises it, with the father not involved. Rushton talks about varying pair bonding among the races.

  10. earl says:

    ‘I never date a single mother, even the pretty ones. It is too risky to have them even know you exist.’

    All it took was one for me in my naive days to never make that mistake again. The only chance I would give a single mother a shot is if her husband died and she’s a widow. Not if she made a poor choice and breeded.

  11. Nice post Dalrock. I noticed there was a large increase on Figure CH-2.3.4 (children under 18 living with their mother only) around 1984 (very Orwellian) which roughly are the same percentages today.

  12. doclove says:

    I remember saying these things to a friend over 20 years ago and I was born in 1968 and am 47 years old. It is amazing how many single never married men with no children date divorced mothers of children and mothers of bastard children. It is even more amazing how many of these single never married men with no children marry these divorced women with children and mothers of bastard children. No man who is single and never married should ever marry a divorced woman with or without children nor should he marry a woman with bastard children. Widowed women with or without children are fine to date marry in my opinion.

    When a man who has never been married and has no children meets a woman who is a divorcee with or without children or a woman with bastard children, there are 2 things he can do which make sense. 1. The best and most moral choice is to walk away and have nothing to do her. 2. The worst is to use her as a “friends with benefits” f***buddy, always use excellent condoms while using her for your own benefit as well as hope and pray that you the man never impregnate her and that she is never impregnated while you are using her. There are 3 things her can do which make no sense. 1. The Bad is to take her seriously as a romantic partner rather than a friends with benefits. 2. The worse is to not use an excellent condom while fracking her vagina. 3. The worst is to man up and marry her. These are your 5 options as a single never married man with no children. Remember that unlike spiritual health, mental health, physical health, power, fame, high status, financial and material wealth time is the one resource which is not renewable nor can you ever gain even some of it back. In fact after setbacks with the exception of time you can even have more of these things later in your life should you live long enough, be lucky enough or be wise or clever enough.

    TFH may be right in that it either is or soon enough will get to be too dangerous to even use single mothers as friends with benefits because women will start charging any man she wants for child support even though he is not the biological father nor is a he a voluntary adoptive father. He is right that usually if not always Social Conservatives are not true Conservatives or people interested in limited government, true traditional morality(usually true Christian morality in the USA) and lower taxes. Former Governor of Arkansas and now USA Presidential nominee of the allegedly “conservative” American party known as the Republicans, Michael Huckabee raised taxes and expanded government even though he is beloved by many in the cultural conservative wing of the American Republican political party

  13. Opus says:

    I think one of the reasons I (and others – even Earl) dated single mothers, was because men being thirsty and the women being available one must perforce cut ones coat according to the cloth available and with young marriage as there then was over half of all women were married by the time they were twenty-one, there was a dearth of available females to middle class chaps like myself who were locked into study (and thus lived on parental charity) until our mid-twenties. I received no advice from parents or teachers about avoiding single mothers and divorcees and I think the reason for that is that in my parents generation, when people married they stayed married, and therefore the risk of divorce was slight. It was therefore also the case that there were few single mothers so that for my parents generation there was little likelihood of even meeting single mothers or divorcees. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 (and the American equivalent) changed all that so that we young fellows were in uncharted waters as women began behaving in ways previously unknown – by indulging in hypergamy and serial monogamy – at least since time immemorial and probably ever.

    Times change quickly: my father told me of a girl he knew when he was young who no one would marry because she was illegitimate; one of my mother’s cousins was cited as co-respondent and subsequently married the lady – though he was forced to in consequence to resign his commission in the Army – thus ironically cutting short his first-class career as a Cricketer – Hitler must have been suitably grateful. How far we have sunk or how enlightened we have become depending on where you stand on enlightenment ideology.

    As no less than two of my close fiends are now being subjected to divorce terrorism by their (foreign) wives – of no more than ten years since their arrival from the third world, the idea that going abroad for women will solve your problems seems unlikely, and then there is always the problem of cultural misunderstanding. Marry an American!

  14. Dave says:

    I think it would be interesting to examine Negroid people’s behavior in other countries where there is less welfare to influence their behavior. I’ve been told that in Jamaica, for example, a common pattern is for a daughter to have an illegitimate child and the grandmother raises it, with the father not involved. Rushton talks about varying pair bonding among the races.

    Any Negroid settlement outside of Africa is not representative of true Negroes. Blacks in the Caribbean are little different from blacks in the US; they went through similar experiences, and have been cut off from their roots for Centuries.
    If you mean to learn about the family behaviors of blacks for real, study a country such as Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, or Kenya. None of those countries have significant government welfare, if at all, and their families are mostly intact. Black immigrants do not consider American blacks to be true blacks; they are considered BISO—Blacks in Skin Only.

  15. mad_kalak says:

    I’m surprise Dalrock doesn’t know this, as it’s a trend that he’s documented elsewhere. Once government provided welfare benefits provided an incentive for single mothers to not get married, the nuclear family with a father present declined, and single motherhood increased. It’s called Moynihan’s Scissors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

  16. Even in my most blue pill days as a young boy, I couldn’t imagine getting married to a single mom or a recycled virgin. I could never get over that part where the girls would say they take their religion seriously but then don’t and go out and have their fun instead. I suppose I suffered under the delusion that there might be a girl who actually took it seriously and therefore stuck to Christian beliefs.

    Joke was on me, haha!

  17. Regular Guy says:

    “In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.”

    This doesn’t sound right, but considering our society is hellbent on removing any stigma for reprehensible behavior (single motherhood, accepting welfare, rioting under 1st Amendment pretenses, litigiousness, large scale fraud by banks, etc) we shouldn’t be shocked the Taker Coalition (TM) is encouraging people to steal property.

    http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property

  18. earl says:

    I’m pretty sure it varies state to state…but I can’t remember any law stating that it takes 3 days for a woman who’s living with you to get living privileges. The lowest number I can remember seeing was a month and usually it was for a number of months before that happened.

  19. Kim says:

    I was divorced, no kids, when I started dating my husband. He was the practicing Evangelical Christian, I the non-practicing Catholic, yet he had many sexual partners, making me look downright virginal.

  20. greyghost says:

    Kim
    So what

  21. JDG says:

    Marry an American!

    Cause that’s working out so well for so many.

  22. Pingback: caption id= align= alignleft width= 551 @… | Honor Dads

  23. mad_kalak says:

    Kim’s is pointing out the central contradiction of the Red Pill when put into practice, where as single men should feel free to sleep with as many women as they are willing to put the effort into bedding. It’s a man’s natural sexuality to want to spread his seed, don’t judge it, right? By contrast single women should keep their number count low, as no man wants to marry a slut. The truth is women don’t want a man with a high partner count either. What it means, though I have data on this, is that men with a high count are all sleeping with the same slutty women, because women by nature don’t want as many partners.

  24. Phillyastro says:

    There are no bastards anymore. We are all their fathers. And, we are all national cuckolds.

  25. Kim says:

    Sorry. I was responding to another comment and my not quoting it made my comment confusing and feel out of place. Here it is:

    “I couldn’t imagine getting married to a single mom or a recycled virgin. I could never get over that part where the girls would say they take their religion seriously but then don’t and go out and have their fun instead. I suppose I suffered under the delusion that there might be a girl who actually took it seriously and therefore stuck to Christian beliefs.”

    I just find it kind of funny that even though I had been married before and my husband was the never-been-married, practicing Evangelical Christian and I the divorced, non-practicing Catholic that he was the one who was far more sexually experienced. We’ll be married for 17 years this July. It sounds like much as changed culturally in those 17 years.

  26. JDG says:

    There are no bastards anymore. We are all their fathers. And, we are all national cuckolds.

    Why? Because we pay taxes? Sorry that’s not on me. I pay Caesar what I must, that doesn’t make me responsible for his diabolical actions or the actions of those who follow Caesar. A bastard is a bastard and a whore is a whore. No amount of PC indoctrination and bad parenting can change reality, even if the whole nation where to believe it.

  27. Remo says:

    Well Kim according to the bible and word of GOD your husband is causing you to commit adultery, which is a sin, so he shouldn’t have married you. No you don’t want to hear that and of course it makes me a meany poo just like all the bad men who told you not to sleep around when you wanted too and the other bad meany poo men who said that your past actions along those lines had consequences that don’t go away (you are NOT virginal Mrs. Divorcee). Divorcees are bad marriage material and the man you are criticizing is correct in avoiding them. Yes I’m sure you’re “different” all woman are after all.

  28. Kim

    That’s a form of NAWALT, a passive aggressively stated veiled argument by anecdote

  29. earl says:

    A lot has changed legal wise. While it was a bad idea to marry a single mother or divorcee for many reasons…with the law the way it is, it is downright idiotic to do it now.

  30. greyghost says:

    mad_kalak
    That is where a woman’s only agency comes into play. She can choose not to marry such a man.
    The discussion here where men shun divorced women is based on more than just morality. The reality of family law has an input in that decision.

  31. “In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.”

    Not quite, but close enough. This is standard landlord/tenant law. You have to literally go to court and evict them from your home just as you would any other tenant. The judge will bend over backwards and give them plenty of time to move out and plenty of time to destroy your house before they move out.

    In my State it is 30 days but I don’t doubt that some States say 3 days.

  32. Kim says:

    “Kim’s is pointing out the central contradiction of the Red Pill when put into practice, where as single men should feel free to sleep with as many women as they are willing to put the effort into bedding. It’s a man’s natural sexuality to want to spread his seed, don’t judge it, right? By contrast single women should keep their number count low, as no man wants to marry a slut. The truth is women don’t want a man with a high partner count either.”

    That many if not most men sleep around prior to marriage is simply a fact of life. I steered clear of active players, so it’s a good thing my husband wasn’t still engaged in the lifestyle when we met. He stopped the random hookups about two years prior to meeting me because he was ready for a relationship that could lead to marriage. And here’s another contradiction that’s kind of funny: he didn’t want to have sex until we were engaged because he saw our relationship as being different from his other “relationships.” Good thing it only took him 2 months to propose.

    Yes, it’s a double standard, but it’s simply reality.

  33. Gunner Q says:

    “In some states or provinces, if you allow a single mother and her brood to stay at your house for 3 days, it is in law that they are now ordinary residents of that domicile, and you may never be able to evict them.”

    Renter’s laws usually kick in around the 30-day mark like BPP said. A 3-day limit doesn’t sound right; the inlaws visit for a holiday weekend and then refuse to leave? Hmm.

    What’s critically important is you never accept payment from temporary occupants, from the legal point of view.

  34. mad_kalak says:

    “Yes, it’s a double standard, but it’s simply reality.”
    I agree. It’s what “slutwalks” aim to undo, the stigma attached to females with a high partner count, but I am not sure that they will be particularly successful.

  35. greyghost says:

    Most men don’t sleep around. This is the apex fallacy at play here. The men out and available the women see and want maybe sleep around because they can, but most don’t (20/80% thing) The majority of men want to be in love to that special girl. You can’t have a divorce industry with out it

  36. Scott says:

    mad_kalak-

    I am not sure I am understanding your point RE: red-pill central contradiction.

    (I think I do, just wondering if you could elaborate)

    The red pill strikes me as an attempt at amoral observation about phenomena. I can be Christian, and observe those truths and simultaneoulsy believe that all fornication is sin, can’t I?

    (For example, the hormonal cocktail that causes humans to bond during is sex has a much more diminshing return for women per sex partner than it does for men. This does not make sex outside of marriage right for either one of them)

  37. feeriker says:

    I suppose I suffered under the delusion that there might be a girl who actually took it seriously and therefore stuck to Christian beliefs.

    Joke was on me, haha!

    Nah. By not marrying and putting a noose around your neck, you avoided being the punchline. The joke was on your friends/relatives/acquaintances who either took the assumption seriously and “put a ring on it,” or who knew better than to assume such a preposterous thing, but still “put a ring on it” anyway out of thirsty desperation.

  38. feeriker says:

    Most men don’t sleep around. This is the apex fallacy at play here.

    Exactly. While this should be too obvious to bear repeating, most men certainly would like to sleep around, but the vast majority simply cannot attract women for that purpose. As has been pointed out here in many different ways at many different times, eighty (80) percent of men are sexually invisible to the majority of women. Even with skilled practice of Game, the 80 percenters are lucky to get serious attention from and attraction of more than one or two women in their entire adult lifetimes. That hardly qualifies as “sleeping around.”

    To repeat another bit of the obvious: the reason that the apex fallacy is so prevalent is precisely because 80 percent (I actually think this figure is ridiculously low) of men are sexually invisible to women. Women can only ascribe characteristics to men based on men they actually see, and the ones the actually see are the top 20 percent (I would actually say more like the top 10, or even 5 percent).

  39. Kim says:

    “Most men don’t sleep around. This is the apex fallacy at play here.”

    Well, you’re the man so you’d know more than I would. If this is the case I stand corrected.

  40. Regular Guy says:

    @ TFH

    “The ominous portent of this is that it is a matter of time before the official CS law expands towards letting the mother unilaterally decide which man she gets payments from, even if not the biological father. Conservatives (i.e. economic leftists in all but name) will be super-enthusiastic about this too.

    I never date a single mother, even the pretty ones. It is too risky to have them even know you exist.”

    Given the misandric trajectory of the culture, I’m beginning to wonder whether men who are celibate will no longer be safe even from single mothers they have never met. This fact alone has me thinking about a vasectomy for legal purposes and I’m serving the Lord as celibate single man!

  41. earl says:

    ‘That many if not most men sleep around prior to marriage is simply a fact of life.’

    Women obviously have no clue what the average man’s sex life is like. A woman is immersed in the chance to have it while they are still young and attractive, a man has to have the right opportunity come along and seize it. If a woman can hold out for the man she marries, that has a lot more value than if a man does it.

    Although I will add there is some value for a man doing it too, but by the nature of sex it is slightly easier for a man to hold out because the opportunities can be few and far between.

  42. PokeSalad says:

    Women obviously have no clue what the average man’s sex life is like. A woman is immersed in the chance to have it while they are still young and attractive, a man has to have the right opportunity come along and seize it. If a woman can hold out for the man she marries, that has a lot more value than if a man does it.

    Even if what Kim said was true (its not), from where/whom does she think these “opportunities” come?

  43. Regular Guy says:

    The temporal consequences of women sleeping around is their inability to pair-bond with their husbands, thus making them treacherous wives.

    The temporal consequences of men sleeping around, which is a blindspot in the manosphere IMO, is the widespread tempting of women by men to engage the sexual marketplace by any means necessary, thus more desouled (lolozlzolzollzzz) women and less marriageable women. It’s just simple math in demographics; more women listening to tinglez = less women marriageable. The hypocrisy of these men can be observed when they, who had a part to play in this destruction, whine about the lack of marriageable women. I count myself among the hypocrites.

  44. feeriker says:

    Women obviously have no clue what the average man’s sex life is like.

    I think Kim knows perfectly well what the average man’s sex life is like (i.e., non-existent or close to it).

    My trolldar is giving off pings…

  45. Boxer says:

    My trolldar is giving off pings…

    I never bother arguing with women here, unless I know the individual to be a solid sister with a long history of honest behavior (Sarah’s Daughter, Elspeth, etc.).

    With few exceptions, most women show up on a blog like this merely for the emotional rush of telling men to go to hell. With this in mind, it makes sense to deny them the abuse their sick little minds seek, and encourage them through silence to try their hands elsewhere.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  46. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    There seems to be high correlation between success in STEM education and intact two parent families. As the family goes so goes the innovation and discipline that built civilization.

  47. Regular Guy says:

    Back on Topic:

    The immense energy and resources the USGov goes through to define a dysfunctional family as anything but that, I’m surprised live-in male cousins and uncles weren’t counted in the father pool. Better yet, an income stream can be daddy because liberals have told us so! How many ways can social scientists put candy sprinkles on a turd?

    Mom = Toughest, most righteous job on the planet
    Dad = Paycheck

  48. Phillyastro says:

    I remember once reading/hearing a stat that if you graduate high school, don’t have kids out of wedlock, and have kids only after 18, you’d have an over 90% of never being in poverty.

    We spend so much time understanding what causes marriage failure in our society, it would be great to find three or four conditions that would ensure an over 90% success in marriage – if possible.

    Some of you are married or know people in successful marriages. What are the things that keep the good marriages together in spite of the decadent society we live in?

  49. John Nesteutes says:

    Kim’s troll was fairly decent. She slandered two kinds of churches, used an apex fallacy, and got a half dozen responses.

    Troll-O-Meter:
    [….|../.] Could double the toll on the Rainbow Bridge.

    @feministhater
    Your assumption about Christian girls was correct; they don’t sleep around. The girls you encountered were heathens.

    Marrying a divorced woman is against scripture. “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭32b‬ KJV)

    It is also disgusting, immoral, and against nature. She belongs with her first husband. If she needs “support”, well, we have family courts for that, child support wage garnishments, and prison sentences for fathers who don’t pay. A divorced woman literally has no legitimate reason, ever, to remarry.

    Single motherhood is disgusting and immoral as well. When I spend time with godly, Christian couples who can’t have kids—tears streaming down their faces—and hear their stories about $100k adoptions, failed adoptions, the corrupt adoption industry…

    I can see a wilful single mother (and any single mother may immediately place her child up for adoption) as an unrepentant, unredeemed individual. She wears a public badge of her fornication; she displays publicly her hatred for her own children and her hatred for childless couples longing to adopt.

    Any man with honour will speak nothing to such women except an exhortation to repent, just like Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery or the woman at the well.

  50. John Nesteutes says:

    @Regular Guy

    The kind of women I associate with speak of motherhood as a privilege and one of the greatest joys in their life.

    If you ever decide not to be celibate, please get in touch.

  51. mad_kalak says:

    “The hypocrisy of these men can be observed when they, who had a part to play in this destruction, whine about the lack of marriageable women. I count myself among the hypocrites.”

    Exactly, but since most men don’t cultivate game and live a lifestyle that gives themselves the opportunity to find bangable women (going clubbing, etc.) then the actual pool of women thus made bad candidates for marriage due to a higher partner count alone is not as large as the posters here tend to think. Rather, PUA are all essentially sharing the few same women. Women being unmarriable do to a high partner count is reddit red meat. Dalrock’s longer running point about the a modern American woman being, on average, a bad candidate for marriage is because they go into marriage with Disney princess expectations of happiness, put the onus on the man to punch above his weight class in terms pay and effort in keeping the relationship intact, and that feminism has told them it’s okay to drop it all and start over and that the government will ensure that they are supported.

  52. earl says:

    ‘With few exceptions, most women show up on a blog like this merely for the emotional rush of telling men to go to hell.’

    Yes most women are antagonists…but you never know if what they are saying is what they think reality is or if they are just testing you to get a rise. Either way stating something as a ‘fact of life’…must be challenged especially if it isn’t.

  53. Gunner Q says:

    Regular Guy @ 11:17 am:
    “Given the misandric trajectory of the culture, I’m beginning to wonder whether men who are celibate will no longer be safe even from single mothers they have never met.”

    That actually happened in Los Angeles. Look up Gil Garcetti. He was so misandric, feminists like Gloria Allred were yelling at him to stop persecuting innocent men.

    His son is the current mayor of Los Angeles.

  54. greyghost says:

    mad_kalak
    Thank you There is no wife by law primarily. Even weeding out the sluts and party girls by law and culture all women have a sword of Damocles for any man they marry to ensure their happiness and hypergamy pursuit options

  55. mad_kalak says:

    “Either way stating something as a ‘fact of life’…must be challenged especially if it isn’t.”

    Either way, I agree, though I think it is commonly accepted that there is the double standard as mentioned up thread, even from a feminist perspective.

  56. Regular Guy says:

    @ Gunner Q

    From Gil Garcetti’s Wiki page:
    “He refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question, in the best interests of the child. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.”

    I’m speechless.

  57. Regular Guy says:

    @ John Nesteutes

    I am forbidden to remarry since I divorced my wife years ago. Thankfully, no children or property to take, but it’s still a sin and I hurt my wife terribly. However, your offer of help honors me and I appreciate it.

    Off topic: As a Reformed Baptist without a church, some of the Orthodox members piqued my interest because I knew little about the tradition until I did some research lately. What is your opinion of the Ecumenical movement within Orthodoxy and is it gaining momentum?

  58. Scott says:

    Regular Guy-

    Please forgive me if I am about to sound like a jerk with a bad memory-

    Did you already contact me offline about Orthodoxy?

    I think I can answer some of your questions.

  59. Regular Guy says:

    @ Scott

    No, I haven’t contacted anyone regarding Orthodoxy.

  60. Scott says:

    Phew. I thought I was being rude and forgot. Over the last 6 months I have received a lot of emails from people basically writing “I am about to go to an Orthodox church for the first time ever, partly because of some of the things you write. What should I expect?”

  61. srsly says:

    I think it’s interesting how similar the percentages of children living with their father only are from one race to another while the other living arrangements vary so much as a percentage of the totals. These are the cases where either the mother dies while the children are still under eighteen, or where a narrow set of conditions is met. Firstly, the woman has to make the tactical error of having children with the man she is married to or at least living with. Second, she must make a further tactical error in choosing a man whose character is beyond question or at least vastly better than her own. Next, she has to provide him evidence of her behavior which is, 1) incontrovertible 2) shocking to normal people, and 3) strongly indicative that she is morally unfit to walk around free, let alone parent children. Finally, either she has to divorce him for no reason (which she will only do if she is insane enough to believe that her custody of the children is not in jeopardy despite having fulfilled the previous conditions) or she has to make him so miserable that he divorces for cause despite the fact that his custody of his children (and his freedom) is in greater jeopardy than hers even with the previous conditions fulfilled. In the other 95% of cases, the mother has whatever living arrangement she chooses for her children, and it is immaterial what choices the father makes. This data only confirms what I’ve seen, as I’ve been one of those children.

  62. Scott says:

    Srsly-

    In my profession I meet, once in a blue moon a male soldier who has sole custody. The stories behind what has to happen in order for that to occur are otherworldly. (In terms of how bad the wife had to be).

  63. anonymous_ng says:

    @Regular Guy, can you post a link or something to the ecumenical movement you’re talking about in Orthodoxy?? There are barking crazies in any movment and there are those in Orthodoxy who want to throw everything out except the name and become a regular social justice liberal denomination, but given that any major doctrinal changes require unanimity amongst the patriarchs, I don’t see things changing.

    Of course, someone on Sunshine Mary’s blog a couple years ago told of how their priest was reassigned after telling the women to quit showing off their tits when taking communion, so I’m certainly not foolish enough to think there aren’t plenty of people who are only nominally Orthodox.

  64. Scott says:

    Anonymous_ng-

    I have been in a few knock-down, drag-out fights on the facebook page “Ask and Orthodox Priest” with some very loud SJWs. Have you heard of Presbytera Constantineau?

    She is a PhD from USD who has a radio program and everything. She gets really mad when Joseph Gleason and others talk about submission.

  65. Novaseeker says:

    What is your opinion of the Ecumenical movement within Orthodoxy and is it gaining momentum?

    There are two basic kinds of ecumenism Orthodoxy has engaged in: (1) ecumenical discussions with Rome and (2) ecumenical participation with “everyone else”.

    (1) is ongoing, although as is typical, sometimes speeds up and sometimes slows down depending on various things going on in each of the churches and between them (also as between the churches of the Orthodox Church).

    (2) is generally winding down, as organized Orthodox participation in things like the WCC declines and various Orthodox Churches have suspended their participation in this altogether.

    There are some very hawkish Orthodox who are upset that there is *any* ecumenical discussion with non-Orthodox, but they are a fringe of the Church — many of them (not all of them, but many of them) are not in communion with the Orthodox Church.

    My own sense is that in order for (1) to bear any real fruit, we Orthodox need to organize our own minds a bit better about how we approach some of the issues that (1) presents in the present tense — critical, given that different voices from different churches have spoken slightly differently about some similar issues that are pertinent. We will have to see, in particular, what comes out of the Orthodox Great Council that is to take place in 2016.

  66. anonymous_ng says:

    @Scott, I come back to FB in order to stay in touch with friends from all corners of the globe. The politics and religion and pop culture stuff makes me want to quit it again. The break I take during Lent really puts it back into perspective.

    No, I’ve not heard of this person, but I have run across some craziness out there. Usually, I just chalk it up to that crazy minority in every movement.

    @Novaseeker, (1) is the one most likely to bear any fruit, but at the same time when you look at the doctrinal differences, I’m not really sure how you reconcile those things. Sure, it might be like the fight over the icons which could have just as easily gone the other way, but I’m not hopeful.

  67. Regular Guy says:

    @ Scott, Anonymous_NG & Novaseeker

    My question was regarding Orthodoxy’s ecumenical movement reuniting with the Catholic Church. There seems to be alot of schmoozing going on between the Pope and the Eastern Patriarchs despite the schism along East and West seeming to be along strident theological lines. Although I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, I feel sympathy for Devout Catholics who are suffering under a Pope who routinely embarrasses their tradition with outlandish statements made in press conferences.

  68. MarcusD says:

    The Pope orders Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have had an abortion and the doctors who performed them
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070327/The-Pope-orders-Catholic-priests-bestow-pardon-women-abortion-doctors-performed-them.html

    Jezebel is rejoicing, for whatever reason…

  69. Regular Guy says:

    @ Scott

    I have been in a few knock-down, drag-out fights on the facebook page “Ask and Orthodox Priest” with some very loud SJWs. Have you heard of Presbytera Constantineau?

    She is a PhD from USD who has a radio program and everything. She gets really mad when Joseph Gleason and others talk about submission.

    Am I the only one who thinks this woman’s name somehow fits? She sounds delightful.

  70. feeriker says:

    She is a PhD from USD who has a radio program and everything. She gets really mad when Joseph Gleason and others talk about submission.

    I really, REALLY wish these women would quit misdirecting their anger over this at men and take it up with the one with whom they really have a beef: God Almighty Himself.

    I will admit that I relish the thought, with some perverse amusement, of watching a ball-busting, manhating SIW screaming her lungs out at God, clenched fists raised skyward, the “grownup” version of the screaming toddler in “time out” kicking the walls of his bedroom in mid-tantrum.

  71. Regular Guy says:

    @ Marcus D

    “The Pope orders Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have had an abortion and the doctors who performed them”

    Like I was saying…

  72. Alex says:

    @RegularGuy
    “Given the misandric trajectory of the culture, I’m beginning to wonder whether men who are celibate will no longer be safe even from single mothers they have never met. This fact alone has me thinking about a vasectomy for legal purposes and I’m serving the Lord as celibate single man!”

    In the USSR women used to be able to name the father of their child and legally extract support from him, and oddly enough, he was one of better off men(financially) of their locality. He said that wasn’t his kid? Tough shit. I know what you’re thinking, we have DNA tests now to prove out the facts, but some countries in Europe forbid DNA tests without the mother’s permission on grounds that it ruins family harmony, and deprives children of a father. How much do you want to bet that mindset will expand, and soon reach our shores if/when the economy implodes?

    You’re a man, your purpose is to be a donkey who will carry water for women, and that’s one thing the left and the right agree upon. The result of that kind of thinking will be a mass desire among men to under-produce. I mean, why bust your back, if the courts will strip you of your gains, to support someone elses kids on merely a say so by a single mother.

  73. Scott says:

    My question was regarding Orthodoxy’s ecumenical movement reuniting with the Catholic Church.

    Pretty complicated (about 1000 years worth) but I think Nova and _ng are right. They would do well to address the issues that affect actual Catholics/Orthodox Christians in the “pews” (we don’t sit down in the Orthodox Liturgy).

    But, from what I read I don’t hold out alot of hope. It seems the Pope would have to demote himself to just another patriarch, or the Orthodox would have accept his primacy/infallability for full communion to happen. Also, Orthodox do not have an equivalent of the Magesterium.

    I think maybe, just maybe a day is coming where a compropmise occurs that alows them to both receive sacraments from the others priests without all the hoops and dispensations that must occur now. Some kind of workable thing to overcome the obstacle of bi-ritual homes would be a tiny, but important step. When Mychael and I were married, she was Catholic and the marriage was not recognized by the Orthodox church. She has since converted, and we have to do the whole thing again.

    It seems to me that since both have recognized apostolic succession, they could start there.

  74. mikediver5 says:

    There will come a time, and not long off, where making a decent living as a man will accomplish little more than making you a bigger target for single mothers looking for “free” resources. BDG will be over joyed to help these poor single mothers strip men of every cent they can get their hands on. Of course BDG will charge a handling fee.

  75. The Pope orders Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have had an abortion and the doctors who performed them
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070327/The-Pope-orders-Catholic-priests-bestow-pardon-women-abortion-doctors-performed-them.html

    Jezebel is rejoicing, for whatever reason…

    Lol, Catholics are being turned inside out with this Pope. He will make them honour satan and there is nothing they can do about it.

  76. Laura says:

    @phillyastro

    Besides the obvious (practicing Christian, no tattoos, no prior marriages, no illegitimate children, etc.) I would advise you to look for a woman who can defer gratification (no credit card debt), who sees marriage as a dynastic and economic partnership that lasts a lifetime (she won’t express it in those words, of course) who makes realistic plans for the future ($30K debt for nursing school is reasonable, $150,000 for history degree shows an inability to do a basic cost/benefit analysis.)

    Consider her hobbies, habits and tastes: Is she a recreational shopper? How much does she spend per month on shoes, clothes, hair & nail appointments? Would she enjoy a cabin by the lake in a national park, or does she think that a vacation has to involve thousands of dollars worth of airline tickets? Is the type of house and neighborhood that she hopes to live in realistic on what you earn? (For lots of women, having a nice house means as much to them as having a good sex life means to men. If your girlfriend’s married sisters/cousins/friends are living in houses you could never hope to buy, she may find it difficult to accept living in a small house in a not-so-great neighborhood. I’m not saying this is good, I’m just being realistic. Most normal women are hard-wired to want a nice house.)

    Obviously, someone who enjoys reading, gardening, watching old movies, etc., is going to be more easily pleased in life than someone who is never happy staying home on a Friday or Saturday night. Also, birds of a feather flock together. If her inner circle of family and friends consists of people of low moral character, then she probably is as well, and when she pulls the plug on the marriage, all of the people who are important to her will back her up.

    If you expect that your wife will have to work full time outside the home even when the children are quite young, you need to find a wife with a high energy level, excellent organizational skills and a good income who WANTS to work full time. Two-career marriages with young children tend to be quite fragile, so if you can’t support a SAHM and children you need to discuss these issues very thoroughly before you get married.

  77. Regular Guy says:

    @ Laura

    “If you expect that your wife will have to work full time outside the home even when the children are quite young, you need to find a wife with a high energy level, excellent organizational skills and a good income who WANTS to work full time. Two-career marriages with young children tend to be quite fragile, so if you can’t support a SAHM and children you need to discuss these issues very thoroughly before you get married.”

    A pastor with 7 children told me, “I’ve had people see my paystub and say there’s no way your family could have made it on this. But we just leaned on the Lord and made it work.” I suspect we can all get by with less than we believe we need.

  78. Laura says:

    @TFH said, “The child of a single mother who grows up to earn $60K will be grouped in the ‘success’ column, when in reality, he could have been a $300K earner if he had two parents. That won’t show up in the data, but is a huge cost of human capital all the same.”

    This phenomenon is probably the biggest reason why the children of widows outperform the children of other types of single mothers by such a huge margin — the children of widows tend to have full access to the social networks of both their fathers and their mothers and their respective families. Also, the deceased father’s parents may be willing to help out with parochial school tuition, etc., or the deceased father may have had life insurance, and will almost certainly have had enough Social Security contributions to leave the widow and the children in far better circumstances than they would have been after a divorce. The children of widows tend to have much more stable childhoods, with fewer school changes, etc.

  79. Laura says:

    @Regular Guy

    I’m not recommending a two-career marriage — as I pointed out, those marriages seem to be very fragile. But if the man isn’t willing to live a frugal lifestyle based on his own income alone, and is going to insist that the wife work full time throughout the marriage, he needs to be very open about it prior to the marriage.

  80. Regular Guy says:

    @ Laura

    I agree!

  81. feeriker says:

    A pastor with 7 children told me, “I’ve had people see my paystub and say there’s no way your family could have made it on this. But we just leaned on the Lord and made it work.” I suspect we can all get by with less than we believe we need.

    “Oh, but he’s a PASTOR. He’s not SUPPOSED to make a lot of money. But since the rest of us aren’t pastors, there’s no reason for us to live like paupers. I have a RIGHT to a UMC lifestyle, even if it means spending most of it keeping up with the (non-Christian) Joneses.”

  82. PokeSalad says:

    Lol, Catholics are being turned inside out with this Pope. He will make them honour satan and there is nothing they can do about it.

    This Pontiff is a real piece of work, but considering his background, it should not be that surprising. John Paul II is probably spinning in his grave, so to speak…no offense intended.

  83. earl says:

    ‘The Pope orders Catholic priests to bestow a full pardon on women who have had an abortion and the doctors who performed them’

    If they seek out absolution. That’s what the church is meant for…to bestow God’s mercy and grace for repentant sinners.

  84. Regular Guy says:

    @ Earl

    “If they seek out absolution. That’s what the church is meant for…to bestow God’s mercy and grace for repentant sinners”

    I’m glad you added that qualifier to the word “sinner”. I suppose time will tell if the move manifests itself into local priests helping genuinely repentant sinners in their Church reconcile with Jesus Christ or if the Absolution is to be handed out like Altoids.

  85. Looking Glass says:

    @Laura:

    On the children of widows, it’s actually a lot more simple: your (deceased) Father’s Order still prevails. All of the rest are just some of the side benefits when it happens within a modern society. In a weird way, his Order is also held up more highly than it would have been in the current culture. (A little bit of hagiography always blends in) I know this from experience.

  86. anonymous_ng says:

    A reference to this event appeared in my FB feed when a friend commented on one of his friend’s blah blah etc etc, but I’m not going to link to the fem fisting website, so I found a little something from the Guardian instead from 2005.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/18/gender.uk

    OK, Icelandic society came to a standstill because the women did no work for a day. I seem to recall Sunshine Mary doing a piece and noting that the vast majority of the infrastructure work is done by men along with law and order type work.

  87. feeriker says:

    OK, Icelandic society came to a standstill because the women did no work for a day.

    Far from “no work” getting done, It was probably the most productive day in Iceland’s economic history. Hopefully they’ll tell the women to stay home where they belong more often …

  88. Boxer says:

    Lol, Catholics are being turned inside out with this Pope. He will make them honour satan and there is nothing they can do about it.

    Abortion, in this age of readily available birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, morning after pills, etc. is the hallmark of a totally irresponsible waste of space. The Catholic Church position is irrelevant to this immutable truth.

    Abortion on demand, in a sane society, would include a simultaneous hysterectomy.

    On a more general note, these New Testament memes of love and forgiveness were meant to propagate in a more-or-less homogenous society, full of people who generally followed them. Showing kindness to the sort of unfit dullard who uses the “vacuum-and-garbage-disposal” method of birth control is a waste of such compassion. Trash like this simply take the graciousness of the Christians as a sign of weakness, and are emboldened to ever more depraved sorts of misbehavior.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  89. MarcusD says:

    @anonymous_ng

    “OK, Icelandic society came to a standstill because the women did no work for a day.”

    Well, the Guardian would say that. Whether it’s true or not is a different story. How many of them are make-work jobs designed to increase female employment? Probably quite a few. The same is true in places like Canada and (the rest of) Scandinavia.

  90. MarcusD says:

    His Prayers as a Husband. A Family Man’s Personal Account
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959438

    Sister is planning on divorce
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959341

    Advice for staying Catholic in college?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959450

  91. John Nesteutes says:

    @Regular Guy

    Ouch. I stand by your decision not to remarry.

    Consider checking out Grace Brethren (FGBC), almost identical to Reformed Baptists. I also have had a lot of quite positive experiences in PCA churches (look for ones with lots of homeschooling families). OPC is good, if you can handle the shift in doctrine.

    Good luck on your quest to check out the Orthodox.

    @Scott

    I’m delighted to hear many folks here are picking up interest in attending a church that’s not a turned into a blue-pill churchian mess. Apparently, you are doing a much better job of marketing Orthodox than I am of marketing Mennonite/Brethren.

  92. Spike says:

    Seems that the stereotype of the ” Strong Independent Woman Who Don’t Need No Man” is alive and well, as well as a realistic depiction of black family life. This is sad and tragic for Black America, whose demise into poverty is in all probability, irreversible. While she is a caricature, she is by no means alone.
    Theodore Dalrymple observes that the Marxist view of decline – prevalent in white England as much as it is in black America is questionable. This view – that economic deprivation has put people in a poverty trap – is not true on the basis that poor immigrants can end up in the same neighbourhoods and work they way to better jobs and better neighbourhoods while the native population remains stagnant. Dalrymple argues that poverty stricken people suffer a ethical, moral and spiritual deprivation. I would concur.

  93. earl says:

    ‘Abortion, in this age of readily available birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, morning after pills, etc. is the hallmark of a totally irresponsible waste of space.’

    You’d think…but you are also taking into account that women think rationally and logically.

  94. earl says:

    What I’ve learned about the abortion industry along with the moral depravity is that seems more like a big business. Planned parenthood gives girls all sorts of birth control or how to practice safe sex…but we’ve seen in reality a lot of them aren’t responsible enough to use them correctly and even if they do birth control isn’t 100% effective. So the abortion industry preys on these naive females who have no clue what sex really is about to get more money out of them or their families.

  95. earl says:

    ‘I suppose time will tell if the move manifests itself into local priests helping genuinely repentant sinners in their Church reconcile with Jesus Christ or if the Absolution is to be handed out like Altoids.’

    It should be the first thing. Absolution is handed out like in the story of the prodigal son…when the son returned to the father repentant and the father received him back. The father didn’t go out looking for the son while he was in the middle of his depravity ready to give him an altoid.

  96. Isa says:

    @Earl
    The Guttenmacher institute has such… interesting stats as per the 60% of women who have an abortion due to birth control failure, while the free rubbers from Planned Parenthood have abysmally low ratings according to consumer reports. Coincidence?

    You are also correct about the failure of the girls, either through immaturity, carelessness, or plain inability to properly use contraceptives. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=0 The best methods are of course IUDs and sterilization, but both are quite frankly not very popular among the younger set. However there are some kind of incentive programs where I live for women on government assistance to either get free IUDs or tubal litigation after birth. I’ve known a couple of women who did one or the other, and there weren’t any “mistakes”

  97. Isa says:

    @John Nesteutes and @Earl There is quite a large number of plain people living in northern Mexico (specifically around Chuahtemoc). Mr. Isa was quite impressed by the women, quite modest and only ambitious to secure a nice husband that their families approved of. So Earl can go shopping there too!

    Also, are there any major differences culturally within the plain communities between different countries? As in, do they absorb different portions of the surrounding culture or remain quite separate? For example, baptist Mexican churches with Giant statues of The Virgin of Guadalupe.

  98. Opus says:

    Whatever Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels who as a medical doctor obviously spent far too long amongst the drop-outs that it has affected his judgement) said, I am not entirely convinced. Two hundred years ago all but about ten per cent of the then population worked on the land – and how insulted they were by the educated – I mean philosophers like Hume; now the natives are largely white-collar and University educated and almost exclusively so in the case of women (someone still has to dig the roads and that someone is men). The ability was always there; it took an industrial revolution to bring it out. Of course if you come to Britain as an immigrant (as did Dalrymple’s parents or grandparents) you may well bring money (and skills) with you, and you may also think the streets are paved with gold – for, to all but Americans, England looks like a land of milk and honey; a land where after all either by treason of politeness or law the natives doff their caps to the invaders and grant them privileged status. Immigrants have not had parents and grand-parents teachers and peers telling them that they should know your place and that aspiration is pointless.

    America being a land of immigrants, is, it seems, not so cursed.

  99. earl says:

    ‘while the free rubbers from Planned Parenthood have abysmally low ratings according to consumer reports. Coincidence?’

    No it’s all big business. They get money from the government and naive people who are only looking for thrills at the expense of others.

  100. StringsofCoins says:

    @TFH,

    Any plans to give a five year update to the misandry bubble?

  101. anonymous_ng says:

    The NYT with a shocker today:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/more-highly-educated-women-are-also-having-children-researchers-find.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=0

    But, I liked this little nugget near the bottom.

    “Hispanic and Asian women between 40 and 44 are more likely than white or black women to have had children. Just 10 percent of Hispanic women ages 40 to 44 have had no children, compared with 17 percent of white women in that age range.”

    Not that it’s a huge difference, but I would expect that the Asian and Hispanic women are also having more kids than their White or Black counterparts.

  102. Dave says:

    A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, except when…..

  103. Novaseeker says:

    My question was regarding Orthodoxy’s ecumenical movement reuniting with the Catholic Church. There seems to be alot of schmoozing going on between the Pope and the Eastern Patriarchs despite the schism along East and West seeming to be along strident theological lines.

    The relationships are good and, in the case of some of the Patriarchs, warm (although I do think they are a bit quizzical about Francis pretty much like everyone else is). But reunion is not close. There are many layers of it (theological, doctrinal, disciplinary, institutional, etc.) that would have to be worked out. Perhaps some of that could be worked out in the context of restored communion rather than as a pre-requisite for restored communion, but it’s also case that some of it would have to be worked out before full communion can be restored from the Orthodox perspective. There are “doves” and “hawks” on the issue in both churches. On the Orthodox side, greater consensus is needed as well in order to approach the process in anything but a piecemeal manner, and that consensus has yet to be formed — so a longish process I think, despite how impatient the most enthusiastic ecumenicists are on both sides. Still, the relationship is generally good, which creates the kind of atmosphere of good will that can over time move things along.

  104. Regular Guy says:

    There’s an Ecumenism movement in the Southern Baptist Convention as well being spearheaded by the Purpose-Driven-Lie pastor Rick Warren. It’s clear to me, those pushing Ecumenism from the protestant side do so for their own personal glory as opposed to genuine reconciliation among theological understanding. It turns my stomach.

  105. Isa says:

    @Novaseeker
    Perhaps the rub will more likely be… the leaders of the Eastern Rite merging with the patriarchs. Can’t see that happening anytime soon… The positive thing is that each side did un-excommunicate each other, and the Catholics do allow orthodox to receive communion in their church (providing that particular branch would allow them), and would allow an orthodox mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation providing there are no Catholic alternatives. So perhaps those sorts of compromises would work, but it’s hard to undo 1000 years of a family feud.

  106. Isa says:

    @earl Twas a joke my dear🙂

  107. BradA says:

    Interesting post Rollo. I am surprised Piper is as “conservative” in this area as the post notes. He seemed more on the liberal side of teaching to me when I knew of him many years back.

  108. BradA says:

    You don’t want God’s purpose for your life to drive how you live and what you do Regular Guy?

  109. Regular Guy says:

    2 roles that I can think of women teaching in the bible.

    Titus 2:3-5

    1.) Older women teaching younger women how to behave regarding how they treat their husbands.
    2.) Mothers teaching their children to be a God loving generation.

    Women lack the spiritual discernment to teach in any other role because, 1 Tim 2:14 ” 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

    RegularGuy Authorized Translation of 2015 1 Tim 2:14 “Adam wasn’t played, but Eve was taken for a fool because of the ability of chicks to lie to themselves about objective reality is without peer in the male sex, and thus the Lord was like, *smh” (RGAT)

    This is why we should laugh at women preaching and punch the effeminate cowards in their lying mouths who encourage it.

  110. Regular Guy says:

    @ BradA

    The Purpose Driven Life is awesome just like Servant Leadership, but you can recognize these loaded terms for what they are once you do some digging into what most people mean by it these days.

    Purpose Driven Life = Dominionism (A heresy)
    Servant Leadership = Undermining Headship (A heresy)

  111. Robin Munn says:

    @Regular Guy –

    Where are you getting the dominionism from in Warren’s stuff? I’ve only skimmed the book and that was years ago, so my memory is vague — but I don’t remember seeing dominionism in there. Or if it isn’t in Warren’s book but the term has since been co-opted, like you seem to be saying, can you point me to examples? Because your assertion is the first I’ve ever heard that the Purpose Driven Life movement was (or has become?) about dominionism.

  112. BradA says:

    Regular Guy,

    You need to read a bit more widely, not just the anti-Person of the Month writers.

    Dominion Theology comes from a far different camp. Having a purpose to your life can be used to putting your life above all else, but it can also help you realize you are not here to just serve yourself.

    I don’t like all the feel good stuff we have today, but a lot of it is ironically closer to the truth than the feel bad stuff many promulgate.

  113. BradA says:

    Robin,

    I have not heard any of those who teach Dominion Theology every promote Rick Warren or his books. They don’t speak about him at all as far as I have heard. I have been on the edges of many such groups throughout my life, so I would have expected to see it if it was related.

  114. JDG says:

    John MacArthur comments on “The Purpose Driven Life”.

  115. John Nesteutes says:

    @Brad A

    Piper feels conservative now since so many else have headed into straight apostasy. Piper just hasn’t changed.

  116. @ Dalrock (OP): I think you need to emphasize more that this data you present is useless given how they identify “fathers.” Not everybody will connect the dots. They used to break it down to “live in boyfriends” but they won’t do it these days. The rot is already too deep.

    Deti: could you contact me over at Married Red Pill (you can click on my name and then message the mods) if you would be willing to provide your input to my book on Dread.

  117. BradA says:

    MacArthur denies many Scriptural things, so I do not live my life following his guidance. I have listened to many hours of his preaching, I just disagree with many things at the core. I could also likely deconstruct his teachings taking the same points if I were disposed to do so.

    The message and the messenger are two different things. Truth is truth regardless of how well someone portrays it.

    That isn’t saying everything in PDL is perfect, but the principle is fine, just as the principle in servant leadership is fine. The applications is where we need to watch and I have not heard the PDL being driven as far off course as SL, so equating the two is not a valid connection.

    It also has nothing to do with Dominion Theology.

    Are you going to stop ever smiling because some errant individual says to smile? Though I do wonder how many here do smile….

  118. JDG says:

    Brad PDL is a watered down version of the Gospel designed to not offend it’s hearers at the expense of the whole truth. Mr. Warren has publicly stated that he does not like to talk about hell. His book and his messages are seriously lacking in any substance in regards to repentance or accountability.

    As for John MacArthur denying many scriptural things, please list them. The only scriptural things that he denies that I can think of are “tongues” and “faith healing” (ala Benny Hinn), which he believes passed when the Apostles did. Considering the terrible record that faith healers have I might be inclined to agree that most if not all of them are charlatans. However, John MacArthur does NOT deny that God can heal someone if he wants to. Here is an excerpt on his position:

    “Somebody asked me recently if we get a lot of people here coming out of healing churches? I say, “Yes, we get the people who go and don’t get healed, no question about it.” What a tragic thing; multitudes go away shattered, disconsolate, feeling either they have failed God or God has failed them.

    Now let me say this, people are going to say, “Well, are you saying God doesn’t heal?” No, I’m not saying that, if God wants to heal, He can heal. That’s completely, obviously within His power, and if it’s in his purpose He can heal. He may heal as a result of prayer.

    He may heal through simple processes, through medical assistance, or he may heal in a way that we can’t explain medically. God may speed up the recovery mechanism and restore a person to health in a way that medicine can’t even explain. Sometimes He may overrule a medical prognosis and allow someone to recover from a normally debilitating disease. Healings like that may come, He may do them; He may do them in response to prayer, He may do them just because He wants to do them.

    But the gift of healing, and the ability to heal, and special anointings for healing, and healings that can be claimed and therefore realized, and all the typical faith healing technique billed on the idea that God wants everybody well all the time, has no Biblical sanction whatsoever in the post-apostolic era.

    He does a fairly decent expose of some of the better known faith healers here:

    http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-60/does-god-still-heal

  119. Regular Guy says:

    @ BradA and Robin Munn

    Purpose Driven Life Heresy

  120. coolcono says:

    I wonder what the marriage rate in Africa looks like. That would interesting to look at kids born out of wedlock across the sea.

  121. Pingback: A bit of data on Black children living with the...

  122. Dave says:

    MacArthur denies many Scriptural things, so I do not live my life following his guidance. I have listened to many hours of his preaching, I just disagree with many things at the core. I could also likely deconstruct his teachings taking the same points if I were disposed to do so.

    When a person becomes a Christian, their views, inclinations, customs, racial makeup, etc, etc, become much less important and often irrelevant. The Word of God becomes Supreme in their lives. They do not entertain an opinion or embrace a belief system unless it conforms with Scripture, personal feelings be damned. They do not reject any teaching unless it goes contrary to Scripture. Otherwise, they are not a Christian.
    There is no such a thing as “a true Christian”, or “false Christian”. You are either a Christian, or you are not. A Christian has adopted the Scripture as their rule of life, and obey it as quickly as they understand what is required of them. Saying you “disagree” with sound biblical teaching only goes to show that you really do not believe the Scripture.
    In the above clip, MacArthur made a solid case against Warren’s book and defective theology. Disagreement with such is a rejection of the clear Gospel.

    Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit. 1 Thessalonians 4:8

    Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. James 1:21

  123. While it has been about 12 years since I read PDL, I do recall nothing in the book pushing Dominionism or Reconstructionism (a variation of Dominionism). I set it aside because there are problems with it, and Warren has shown some serious problems in discernment, but nothing on Dominionism.

    The issue on teaching by women is one of the things Piper is correct on. OTOH, Piper has bought into an aberrant theology that is internally inconsistent. There are far better people one can listen to and I ignore piper unless I’m forced to deal with anything he has said. Same with MacArthur who has the same theological problem Piper has.

  124. Dave says:

    On another note, feminists and feminism cannot be helped.
    Here is an experiment

  125. Jim says:

    “JDG says:
    May 7, 2015 at 10:03 am

    I pay Caesar what I must, that doesn’t make me responsible for his diabolical actions or the actions of those who follow Caesar.”

    Yup. That’s because we have a gun pointed at our heads. Just because a person is from the government doesn’t make them any less of a criminal for stealing (at gun point!) what isn’t theirs.

    “A bastard is a bastard and a whore is a whore. No amount of PC indoctrination and bad parenting can change reality, even if the whole nation where to believe it.”

    Damn straight. Period. Full stop.

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