Repenting of sexual morality.

A month ago Liška at XO Jane wrote Marriage Shouldn’t Be an Endurance Sport.  Liška repents of her sin of trying to tempt a friend into honoring her marriage vows (emphasis mine):

There was no abuse. No one had been caught in flagrante delicto. Their kids weren’t acting out. They didn’t even argue. Her marriage to Lee* had simply run its course…

While Ann was crunching numbers, figuring out how to make it as a single mom, I was like Mephistopheles tempting Faustus. She and the kids wouldn’t have to worry about the money if she and Lee stuck together, I reminded her. Was she really sure?

She tells us she was guilty of divorce shaming, something she did despite knowing better:

I’d divorced-shamed my best friend.

Funny, but Ann’s reasons were the same I used when people asked why me and my husband of eight years got divorced. This meant that not only was I a hypocrite, I was the one with issues.

This is the upside down world we live in, where encouraging people to remain married is tempting them to do evil, and Christians celebrate the awesome power of threats to destroy the family in their scheme to invert headship.

Most social commentators wonder why roughly half of first marriages end in divorce.  However, the more relevant question is how can marriage stripped of all legal force survive in a culture where it is more moral to encourage divorce, or at least threats of divorce, than to encourage honoring marriage vows.  How is it possible for so many marriages to survive when everyone agrees that divorce (and not marriage) is sacred, and the family courts back up this new morality with offers of cash and prizes to any woman who does the right thing and blows up her family?  What is the “evil” that threatens our sacred institution of divorce?

Liška understands, at least in her gut, what the most dangerous remaining threat to divorce is.  This threat is the status women gain from marriage (or something like marriage).  This is what her post is really about, decrying the one force which is standing in the way of moral progress.  Liška read the NYT article I referenced here, and was disturbed that women in the comments section were bragging that they had the status of remaining married, a status that Liška and her friend no longer have.  This must stop:

The comments section, however, was disturbingly duration focused: “I want to kill him a lot the time, but we’ve made it 20-35-50 years, ha-ha!”

Is quantity of time a measure of its quality? Exactly how many “and yets” does a person have to take?

If law offers an out to marriage, society continues to act as its enforcer. We continue to promote marriage longevity like it’s an endurance event. We reward and acknowledge it by milestone with anniversary parties and bragging rights…

Related:

This entry was posted in New Morality, Professional Divorcee, Status of marriage, XO Jane. Bookmark the permalink.

332 Responses to Repenting of sexual morality.

  1. theasdgamer says:

    Sometimes I wonder how it is I’m still married. Maybe it’s inertia. I hesitate to suggest that God is in any way involved. Why should He be blamed if we divorce in the future? (Not saying that we will.)

    Reminds me of a humorous quip from Reader’s Digest of old: “Divorce? Never! Murder? You bet!”

    Sat. night I was talking to a woman friend about her daughter-in-law who used to come out to the bar with her. DIL had shagged two men she was contacted by on FB and was banging a man she had met at a concert. First time since she’d been married, supposedly, but she’d done stuff like this before when in LTRs.

    DIL had tried to hit me up in the past for drinks and I never bought her any. She eventually gave up on asking me for drinks and simply hinted at a makeout. Lovely, HB8, with a lot of miles on her pussy. Her mileage put her way out of my league, even had I been inclined. The slut showed up at the bar very late and squealed “Hi!” at me when she saw me before I had seen her. She’s a trip.

    Oh, her husband? According to my woman friend, her son is a Good Man Who Wants To Take Her Back” ™. “Man up and take that slut back.” Mrs. Gamer calls the husband a loser for not ditching the slut.

    The slut is a maneater–will destroy her husband with her cheating. I wasn’t even slightly surprised by any of this.

  2. Pingback: Repenting of sexual morality. | Neoreactive

  3. Novaseeker says:

    She seems to be just a tad brought down by her obvious loss in social status among women of her social class, especially if she is not “well” remarried (i.e., to an acceptable man within the same social class, with roughy the same or better status as ex-h) within a reasonable period of time. She’s complaining that her social class exacts a social cost for people who divorce and don’t remarry under the criteria outlined above.

    I think this is one of the main reasons why women who are divorced often counsel their friends to divorce. Not the simple “misery loves company” (although that is a part of it), but also the idea that there is strength in numbers such that if a sufficient number of women in that social class frivorce, it will eventually become less socially penalized by that social class as a whole.

    And it is clearly frivorce we are speaking of, here. Leaving a marriage that “has run its course”, with no other reason, is the very definition of frivorce.

  4. Anchorman says:

    She disobeyed her goddess by encouraging her friend to stay married.

    Thankfully, she can atone by her work as The Writer.

  5. Pingback: Repenting of sexual morality. | Manosphere.com

  6. Stingray says:

    it will eventually become less socially penalized by that social class as a whole.

    Well, yes and no. That is the short term goal. But the long term goal is that divorce should reach the new ultimate status that marriage now holds for women. She wants the script to be flipped so she can hold that status once more.

  7. Bruce says:

    We live in bizarro world where everything is basically inverted.
    I don’t understand how anyone can read the Bible and come up with anything but two positions: the Catholic one (no divorce) or no divorce except for the husband where the wife is guilty of sexual immorality.

  8. I was getting into it with Larry at BGR about men embracing the use of dread in their Christian marriages. Needless to say the idea wasn’t well received, but it occurs to me now that Christian women and Christian filmmakers like the Kendricks are far more comfortable with using both overt and passive dread on Christian men than any would ever let on.

    Virtually every Christian Kosher® movie contains some plot element where the men fear a loss of a wife or how that man will risk loss of intimacy if he doesn’t shape up and follow along with the feminized Holy Spirit.

    Even the past few posts Dal’s done here about FotF also illustrate how Christian marriage counseling is primarily an exercise in using dread on Christian men.

    These men may not be interested in dread, but dread is very interested in them.

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    Bruce –
    Read and listen to the short little research vids by David Instone Brewer. It puts the divorce questions of the New Testament into the context of the debate at the time of Jesus. If this research was done earlier in the history of Christianity, I believe a lot of grief and suffering would be undone.

    http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/

  10. Anchorman says:

    DC,
    Instone-Brewer also has a book about divorce and remarriage. I think that’s what it’s called. I don’t have it handy, but read it a year or so ago. Seemed like solid research and thorough.

  11. The Question says:

    “If law offers an out to marriage, society continues to act as its enforcer.”

    This statement, taken literally, makes no sense. A translation seems to in order.

    “If the laws says we can destroy our marriages on a whim because we weren’t happpppy, talk half our hubbies things, isolate him from his children, and force him to pay life-time alimony, society shouldn’t shame for us taking advantage of it.”

  12. Joe says:

    One of the ancient conceptual names of Satan is “The Great Deceiver.” That proper morality has been turned on its head in the west is pretty clear, but the real sales job has been in convincing the rest of us that it’s immoral to urge somebody to be moral. Slut shaming = immoral. Condemning homosexual acts = immoral. Arguing with somebody to get them to honor their wedding vows = immoral.

    Everything bad is assigned the label “good” and everything good and godly is given the label “evil.” It’s gotten so that one can almost tell the morally correct thing to do just by looking at what elite opinion – including the opinions of elite Christians – and doing the opposite. It’s really the ultimate gaslighting job. That this aligns perfectly with Gramscian tactics of inverting how social institutions function in order to bring about a left wing revolution is, I’m sure, just a coincidence…

  13. Opus says:

    I was placed in a similar position to Liska: my friend ‘s marriage had simply runs its course; should I encourage him with sophistic argument to remain married to the woman he had promised to provide for until death do they part – the children are almost adults – or should I encourage him to follow his heart and marry the chick (a mere twenty-four years younger than he with the athletic body and Kama Sutra like sexual technique (so he said) and with whom he explained he had been having the best sex of his life, and what is more they get on so well together – fancy that! ‘I am fifty-five’ he said. ‘I will never get another chance like this’. ‘It is then obvious what you must do’ I said in that man-of-the-world voice I reserve for such occasions. ‘Ditch the Bitch and follow your heart. You only live once’.

    Marriage is not to be judged by endurance.

    ———————————————————

    UPDATE

    He now tells me that he is tiring of his mistress who is presently sulking; and he is beginning to appreciate home-life, his wife’s cheeriness and good cooking and the presence of his children. Now, however, he thinks a threesome with two Ethnic birds he met and who wanted his Linkedin details (I don’t cock-block, and he needed no wing-man for what was a dead-certainty, but made my excuses) is on the cards. When one is one winning streak one must ride ones luck.

    What would Liska say?

  14. WillBest says:

    Better not tell my wife’s social media account. Everybody that can announce an XX marriage anniversary does so every year whereas those that are still working their way to 10 are forced to suffer those announcements in silence.

    Surprised I haven’t seen it listed in one of those 10 things not to do/say articles that are so popular with passive aggressive non-judgmentally judgmental crowd

  15. J1J2 says:

    Enough with “society”: really the only people who give higher prestige to married women are women. In the immortal words of Pogo long ago, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Or in this case “she”.

  16. Bruce says:

    DC,

    The OT law was unclear as to what “some uncleanness” meant and the meaning was the subject to much debate among the Pharisees. There were two schools of thought – some uncleanness meant just about anything and something unclean meant sexual immorality. Jesus’ teaching (as usual) contrasted with both and called us to a higher teaching. This is why his disciples reacted the way they did.
    St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 tells married Christians they cannot remarry – separation is allowed for extreme cases but the two should be reconciled. Nothing in St Paul to support Brewer.
    The idea that man can put asunder what God joined together is not right. Whether or not marriage vows are “broken” is highly subjective in many cases, particularly when the “victim” (as Brewer phrases it) decides.
    As you can imagine, I am very skeptical of modern people that do “research” to correct Church teaching. Marriage is for life.

  17. Longinus says:

    More people need to read C.S. Lewis’ phenomenal novel “That Hideous Strength.” The first two books in the trilogy are also excellent, but you can’t beat the combination of fantastic marriage advice, social satire, science fiction and Arthurian legend. About as Christian-red pill as a book can get.

  18. Cane Caldo says:

    From Wkipedia: Liška or Liska is a Czech surname meaning “fox”.

    Her friend Ann had been married 25 years. That puts Ann at 45-60 yo. So, the authoress is most likely also a middle-aged woman.

    We’re not reading words from a sound mind.

  19. Jason says:

    The columnist charles krauthammer once described such behavior as defining deviancy up, the converse of pat Moynihan’s defining deviancy down.

  20. Don’t care, the feminists destroyed marriage, women went along with it and so did the church. It’s a sucker’s bet, not worth more than a fleeting ‘no thanks’ when women ask why you won’t marry.

    If it’s not for life then it’s for never. If there’s an out, then it’s a ‘no’. Marriage, in its current format, needs to die.

  21. Novaseeker says:

    Her friend Ann had been married 25 years. That puts Ann at 45-60 yo. So, the authoress is most likely also a middle-aged woman.

    We’re not reading words from a sound mind.

    That’s for certain.

    If you scroll around that article, you’ll find her bio with a picture and a Twitter link. Looks to me like someone in her mid, maybe late, 40s.

  22. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Rollo,

    Not only that, but if you read some of Larry’s remedies for wives who don’t do “this” or “that”, it’s not far from various forms of soft dread.

    Saying that if a wife is rebellious and refusing to have sex with you, then you should cut off some of her “wants”…is definitely soft dread.

  23. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Dalrock.

    There was actually a commenter there who said something that made some damn sense:

    Un-popular opinion: Marriage IS a endurance sport. It is a team sport where you need to fight it out, shake hands, and get back in the game. As a team sport, communication is everything. Signals, signs, motions, and words where the meaning is 100% the same to all players. This is a sport where small victories as well as large ones are celebrated with all members of the team every single time they are achieved from washing the dishes, to getting a raise, to actually getting your kid to eat a vegetable. Team sports are focused on the task at hand (that day’s “game”) but are also looking at their actions, the actions of the other players, and what plays they need to do in the next game to win. Then train together, plan together, celebrate together, fight together, win AND lose together. They realize while they might have lost today, there is always another game and another season.

    Is this RP thinking?  Dunno, but it’s good.

  24. MRichard says:

    “Most social commentators wonder why roughly half of first marriages end in divorce.”

    Check out “The Good News about Marriage” by Shaunti Feldhahn. According to the research, the actual divorce rate around the U.S. for the general population is more likely about 31 percent and the divorce rate among those who regularly attend church is much lower, around 15 to 20 percent.

    [D: Welcome. I have written several posts on Feldhahn, and have never been able to find corroborating data to back up her claims.]

  25. What would Liska say?

    Well duh, marriage isn’t for life, it’s until one party gets bored or wants to trade up. Therefore, divorce is the only answer. Not only should he bang the 24 year old, but he should also have that threesome with the exotic birds. His now ex-wife should also keep him well fed and nourished as he has become accustomed to and be forced by law, to give him bi-weekly BJs. It’s only fair.

  26. Pingback: Repenting of sexual morality. | Reaction Times

  27. Damn Crackers says:

    Bruce,

    I don’t know where you get your interpretation, but I know it is part of Catholic thought. Many other denominations, such as the Orthodox, don’t subscribe to your point of view.

    Jesus gave an exception, so I wouldn’t want to contradict his words. Plus, divorce without remarriage in every case would violate the greatest two commandments in my personal opinion. But, I don’t want a war here….everyone should follow what their faith tells them.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    I was getting into it with Larry at BGR about men embracing the use of dread in their Christian marriages. Needless to say the idea wasn’t well received, but it occurs to me now that Christian women and Christian filmmakers like the Kendricks are far more comfortable with using both overt and passive dread on Christian men than any would ever let on.

    Yes, they are enthusiastic in their support for dread, as well as headship and submission. They just disagree with the ordering of the roles in the Bible. It really is this simple.

    Most dread isn’t appropriate even if used to encourage traditional marriage. I have written about the exceptions (where it could be used) here, and how quickly that tends to lead to over reaching here.

  29. BradA says:

    Opus, your example shows that sin is pleasurable for a season, but it bites in the end. He has not tasted all the bite yet and things will bite to the extreme before he is done.

  30. BradA says:

    The comments are almost worse than the article. Celebrating divorce takes a warped mind.

    ====

    I did have an interesting experience this weekend that would likely challenge some here:

    We were at a neighbor’s across the street with a group of people from the neighborhood. A spectrum of people, but definitely tolerable. A car came down the street a bit too fast and hit a jeep in front of our driveway in a way that caused it to flip, something I have never seen, especially at that speed.

    A neighbor who faces PTSD and who also had a bit too much to drink wigged out and ended up having to go away for a few days. The wife there is quite spooked. She easily could divorce him for the assets at this point, but it goes against the grain of the meme of the wife going for cash and prizes as dealing with PTSD (my oldest son faces it) can really whack someone out and make for a very dangerous decision.

    Dealing with that situation is much more challenging than we would often like to admit. It is definitely not the norm in my view, but also needs to be considered.

  31. BradA says:

    ASD,

    You can credit God without blaming him if it ultimately fails. I credit him for keeping my wife and I together as all our children turned against us. Part of that was certainly her fault, but part was my going the withdraw and isolate myself route, getting very down for a while.

    I cannot guarantee we will be married next year, let alone in the future, but any divorce would be our fault, not His.

    I suppose this fits with my view that God doesn’t cause this crud, so others might disagree.

  32. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    I heard Michael Yusef (sp?) preaching today talking about how it was not loving to withdraw from a spouse who had done you wrong. He was holding that against both the wife and husband, in that order, so he was not just hitting men. But his message got me asking him for what to do, not just what not to do.

    I am finding that some separation is far more effective than many other approaches, including trying to talk it out, especially when one side fails to even see the problem.

  33. Opus says:

    @BradA

    I told him, of course, but a man in the grip of lust is like a Tiger who hasn’t snacked for a week. He is actually very attractive to women (though he has Zero Game – one of the reasons I am suspicious of the effectiveness of Game – can’t say Boo to the proverbial Goose if that Goose is a Goose rather than a Gander) and there are only two people in the world who don’t grasp that he is attractive to the opposite sex: Him and his Wife. He is slowly coming down to earth – oh, and he is a Protestant Christian – I mean a real Calvin-style Prod – not just CofE, and that is a little unusual around here.

    We need to keep him in our prayers and although I am the only person privy to all this, other than for my two comments I have not breathed a word to a soul, nor will I.

  34. BradA says:

    Only conviction could change him Opus, you are likely right about that. I pray he sees the end to his path while something is left to salvage.

  35. Bike Bubba says:

    Really if anyone divorces for reasons other than adultery or unbelieving spouse decides he’s (she’s) had enough, they’re simply saying that they don’t have a Christian worldview on marriage and just might not be a suitable spouse….really along the same lines that the writer quoted by Pedat notes that marriage is a lot like committing to a sport. You have to put in the time and have love for your teammates to do well. Period.

    So I’m not all worked up about this. It’s what we’d expect the world to do, and Lord willing, the cats will tell them where they messed up.

  36. Dragonfly says:

    @Dalrock & Rollo “Most dread isn’t appropriate even if used to encourage traditional marriage. I have written about the exceptions (where it could be used) here, and how quickly that tends to lead to over reaching here.”

    I think this was what Larry over at BGR was getting at. If I’m right, he seems to agree with soft dread… but I also think he’d agree with this statement above as well.

  37. JDG says:

    Celebrating divorce takes a warped mind.

    This about sums it up. It’s too bad that warped minds are so abundant these days. When I was young I new things would get worse. I just had no idea what “worse” would look like or how truly detestable things would become. The lunatics truly are running the asylum.

  38. greyghost says:

    I’m with Rollo. In this legal environment and the church full on preaching the sword of Damocles as proper and Godly. Dread is it good behavior and loyalty regardless of the motivation is good behavior. If you want to get rid of her be a nice and respectful candy ass to her.

  39. lurky.lou says:

    Um…just thought y’all might get a kick out of this. This board thinks that asking for a third baby is a form of rape.

    http://community.babycenter.com/post/a59823817/husband_doesnt_want_another_baby?cpg=1#c2513315887

  40. Miserman says:

    We continue to promote marriage longevity like it’s an endurance event.

    it appears bored housewives are driving a culture of thrill-seeking,an addiction to making new things old so that old things can be constantly replaced by new things.

  41. bkilbour says:

    Dread? more like Dalrock’s “you hold him down while I rob him.”

  42. benfromtexas says:

    This article is a great example of how women view men as a social tool. Good stuff. They gotta climb that social latter! Women will always plot and have a paranoid sense of their rank in our society.

  43. Keith Young says:

    This sounds very much like the quality of religion in post A.D. times in Rome – I specifically refer to the imported ‘mystery’ religions from Egypt and Greece.
    Doesn’t it seem like the time is right for MEN to abandon the entire new pseudo-Christian formula and re-invent itself as an entirely new religious-practice entity … to abandon wife & pseudo-Goddess worship– but also the current neo-masculinity–in favor of a new paradigm … placing their earned monetary resources in that new area, and no longer in the inverted scripttual areas that are commonly employed in the current mega churches?
    Comments?

  44. David Foster says:

    Longinus….agree with the recommendation of C S Lewis’s book “The Hideous Strength.” For anyone who’s interested, I reviewed it at some length here:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43802.html

  45. jack says:

    The women are slowly giving themselves over to an Orwellian Newspeak with regard to morality.

    This goes under the category of deliberately confusing one’s own moral compass to suit one’s own carnal desires. We are not far from a societal collapse if this keeps up. People cannot live in deliberate confusion for long without the cognitive dissonance tearing apart their sense of civility.

    I keep thinking I should move to another country. This gives me another kick in my butt to start looking into it.

  46. Is quantity of time a measure of its quality? Exactly how many “and yets” does a person have to take?

    If law offers an out to marriage, society continues to act as its enforcer. We continue to promote marriage longevity like it’s an endurance event.

    Perseverance is part of commitment hence the marriage vow’s “for better or worse until death do us part.” It is a perversion of covenant to celebrate unfaithfulness to the covenant. In a christian marriage both parties are to take up their cross daily, that takes endurance. James tells that this is a blessing in disguise. The book of Hebrews indicates that trait of endurance is an essential part of the christian life.

    James 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

    James 5:11 Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.

    Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

    It is odd that endurance and perseverance in covenant are looked upon as distasteful.

    Imagine if wives spent as much time, imagination and effort on being meek, personally content, subject to their own husbands in everything and making their home pleasant and holy as they do on self pleasure, discontent, trying to rule their home and hoping to trade up when the opportunity presents its self.

  47. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Hmmm, it looks like Stardusk is covering this somewhat as well..

    I got a kick out of one of Dals favorite Christian counselors, Dr Harley, and his take on Why Women Leave Men:

  48. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Ooops…Dal I put up the same link twice. Dr. Harley’s one is: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8111_leave.html

  49. Spike says:

    Many a commentator here has written the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who say good is evil and evil good…(Is 5:20) in describing the current moral climate of the “post-Christian Age”.
    Liska, then should not come as a surprise. Note too that “Lee” never did anything wrong. Neither did Leif Ericsson, nor the vast majority of husbands whose wives divorce them anyway.Marriage though is not the only place where moral inversion has occurred.
    Thus, going to church is either comedic or control factor evil. Christianity is respected only if a) it imposes nothing on believers or b) someone who doesn’t have a white skin believes in it. Halloween is cool, and opposing it because it’s satanic is evil. You wouldn’t want the kiddies not to have fun would you, you Bah Humbug / Party Pooper?
    Try telling young girls that promiscuity in all of it’s forms – from hook-up culture to serial “mono” polygamy – will make them lonely, unhappy and unfulfilled, and you will be labelled a pervert. Try telling them that a career is less important than children, who you have to have before age 30 as a biologically limiting factor, and you will be attacked by a plague of feminists accusing you of misogyny. tell your sons to study STEM and you’ll be told yuo aren’t developing his sensitive side.

    Welcome to the Age of Lucifer. Everythihg has the wrong price tag.

  50. >When all forms of spousal neglect are grouped together, we find that it is far ahead of all the other reasons combined that women leave men. Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.

    Ha Ha! Yes, yes you are ‘BEWILDERED’ by all of this. We are NOT.

    Marriagebuilders is quite a disappointment.

    >What frustrates wives most is that they are relegated to only one room in their husbands’ imaginary house instead of every room. In other words, they want to be integrated into a man’s entire life, not relegated to one corner. Without such integration, there can be no emotional bonding, no uniting of the spirit, no feeling of intimacy and, in many cases, no sex.

    Except this counselor is FULL…OF…CRAP. WOMEN DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR OTHER ROOMS. They don’t want to hear about your hobbies or the ball game or your job. What he means is this:

    >he begins to live his life in a way that is compatible to her needs and values.

    >He learns how to avoid habits that cause his wife to be unhappy, and he learns how to meet her most important emotional needs. He also learn how to give his undivided attention to her and schedule time to be alone with her.

    In other words, he learns to OBEY. He learns to bow down and worship her. As explained by this counselor:

    >The Policy of Joint Agreement…To help men integrate their wives into each room, I have encouraged husbands to follow the Policy of Joint Agreement: >ii<

    "Enthusiastic Agreement" by the Husband but NOT the wife? In other words:

    All hail the mighty vagina. Keeper of all that is right. Guide of the Holy Ghost. Maker of all pleasure and all things. Shower us in fluids oh mighty ones and we will bow down before your majesty and glory.

  51. desiderian says:

    “If you scroll around that article, you’ll find her bio with a picture and a Twitter link. Looks to me like someone in her mid, maybe late, 40s.”

    One begins to understand why witch-hunting was once orthodox Christian practice.

    Not one I’m anxious to re-instate, but another example of the damage done by knee-jerk disrespect of our elders and their practices. We’re blind to the dangers they were instituted to combat.

    The spread of divorce culture could make a career for an enterprising young epidemiologist.

  52. Bruce says:

    D.C.,
    The Orthodox recognize the indissolubility of marriage since it’s one of their seven sacraments. They make nonsensical exceptions and call it “pastoral” practice, in effect, doing what the progressive modernists in the Catholic Church are trying to do now. My understanding is they started doing this not long after they left the Catholic Church.

    All three synoptic gospels and the relevant passages from the epistles give a consistent message. Luke and Mark say divorce and remarriage is adultery. Matthew says so too but lists one exception. Either that “porneia” exception refers to prohibited marriages as described in 1 Cor. 5:1 & Acts 15:29 or it means some other type of sexual immorality/generalized sexual immorality. The former is the Catholic view, the latter the traditional Protestant view, specifically, where porneia = adultery. Luke and Matthew also tell us that the woman who is put away is unmarriageable.

    I do not understand how the indissolubility of marriage violates either commandment. The opposite is true. Love of God means obeying and honoring his word even when you personally suffer. Our suffering is part of our participation in the divinity of Christ. And how can divorcing your spouse and remarrying equate with love of neighbor? I also do not agree that everyone should follow what their faith tells them.

  53. nick012000 says:

    >My understanding is they started doing this not long after they left the Catholic Church.

    It’s the other way around: the Catholic Church left them, IIRC.

  54. Bruce says:

    Let’s just say after the Great Schism.

  55. Damn Crackers says:

    Bruce,

    What I find nonsensical is getting around made up prohibitions by calling a time-traveling divorce (the marriage never existed) an annulment. But once again I state that since there is an exception, divorce does exist. God may hate divorce, but he did divorce Israel for a time.

    Trust me, I know I’m not going to change the doxy of the entire Catholic Church. Like I said, I don’t see very good arguments against Instone-Brewer’s research.

  56. Damn Crackers says:

    “Our suffering is part of our participation in the divinity of Christ.”

    Great, don’t get married and become a flagellant.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I think this is one of the main reasons why women who are divorced often counsel their friends to divorce. Not the simple “misery loves company” (although that is a part of it), but also the idea that there is strength in numbers such that if a sufficient number of women in that social class frivorce, it will eventually become less socially penalized by that social class as a whole.

    IMO this is the same motivation that we see in 3rd stage, sex-pozzy “slutwalk” feminism: if the majority of young women have a high N count, then men will just have to learn to “deal with it”, i.e. change their preferences to accept high N count, low MMV women as somehow being of equal value to low(er) N count, higher MMV women.

    Gresham’s law states that bad money tends to drive out good money as a medium of exchange, details are left as an exercise for the student. What we see in the OP, and in the sex-pozzy 3rd stage slutwalkers, is women urging other women to deliberately lower their MMV, so that all lower MMV women will have a better chance at a longer term committment from a man. It’s like printing bales of fake $100’s in the hope that if enough money is fake, people will just shrug and accept it as real. History tells us how that works out.

    These women are counterfeiters. What’s more, they are urging other women to be counterfeiters as well.

  58. BradA says:

    IBB,

    My wife likes sports more than I do. She also enjoys playing the boardgames I play. She will almost certainly never play the video games I enjoy though. All women are not completely self centered. Yeah, NAWALT, but your statement was a bit too broad for general application.

    The claims that men don’t open up sufficiently is the root problem. We need to emphasize more that the world doesn’t revolve around anyone, including a wife.

  59. Opus says:

    Much as I like Anonymous Reader’s explanation of Slut-walks his comment rather assumes that those women who slut-walk are indeed sluts with a high N. I always got the impression however that they probably did not have high N indeed were the sort of women that most men would run a mile from (other than the Manginas who were not getting it from them anyway). No real slut would be seen within fifty yards of such a display as real sluts do their best to hide their promiscuity and seek to ally themselves with the more chaste of women. I therefore thought that the purpose of the walks was to enable these unattractive women to imply that they were sexually desirable and their adoption of an alleged high N was to be seen as proof of their desirability.

    Imagine: men marching in support of the notion that they were all secret Billionaires.

  60. DeNihilist says:

    As a man much wiser then I said – “Love is an act of will”.

  61. Miserman says:

    Dalrock, this is not quite the the right place, I wanted to send this little video your way. It was heralded by a Southern Baptist pastor and it is the perfect picture of modern church views on marriage.

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/biblical-submission-for-all

  62. Bruce says:

    D.C.,

    The “prohibitions” aren’t made up. They’re there in each of the synoptic gospels and confirmed by Paul.
    A declaration of nullity (commonly called an annulment) is an OPINION (emphasis) rendered by a competent ecclesial authority stating that a valid marriage never existed because an essential element wasn’t present. Catholicism aside, a bible-believer would agree that some elements are necessary for a marriage to exist – consent of the will of the parties, vows, etc. There are inevitably difficult cases – the alternative is to let secular society decide on them. Or you could let couples decide – and you will have 1000 different opinions and understandings – is marriage an objective, ontologically real bond or a social contract?
    “But once again I state that since there is an exception, divorce does exist.”
    Putting away your wife and husband exists. It’s a sin, particularly if you remarry.
    I can’t watch Brewer’s playmobile video from here – I just read his summary. I am skeptical of anyone who discovers a new argument through “research” as if Christians for the last 2000 years have gotten it all wrong.

  63. Bruce says:

    “Great, don’t get married and become a flagellant”

    Christ’s response to the disciples was:

    “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

  64. Damn Crackers says:

    Matt 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    BTW, I agree with Jesus that one shouldn’t be married if one can’t take no fault divorce.

    I don’t agree with any of your arguments. I guess that is why I’m not a believer in the Church.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus, while some of the slutwalkers clearly are slut-wannabes, and some genuine if confused cases of rape are also there, from the interviews I’ve seen there are some real deal sluts there as well. However your indirect reference to Anti Slut Defense in the average promiscuous slut is noted.

    In the larger sense, though, they are still trying to normalize high N count women. Gresham’s law.

  66. Damn Crackers says:

    Needless to say, I respect your beliefs and want you to keep following them if that is what you follow. Like I said earlier, I don’t want this thread to turn into some holy war over the nature of divorce. While Tertullian, Augustine and Thomas say one thing about it, Origen, Luther, Erasmus and Calvin say something else. I am but an amateur in these theological debates.

  67. Pingback: Belief is misbehavior [Mt 13] | Dark Brightness

  68. Opus says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I took Economics for one semester and could not get the hang of the subject – I got stuck on why inflation is not constantly accelerating – hence just one semester. What I now understand (I think) is that low N women are kept out of circulation (these are the ones one wants) and those in circulation are tarnished for ‘what goes around comes around’ and are regularly exchanged. The slut-walkers are thus saying that sluts are just as good as the more chaste female even though as a coin of commerce they are ‘clipped’, but they ask you not to notice. One then pretends that they are just as good but privately avoid them, passing them on to the next punter. The Slut-walkers then complain that men only want them for one thing – the thing they have just given away for free and protest that they are just as good-to-go as the more chaste woman.

    Men should thus stage a counter walk protesting that their poverty and unemployment (or low-paid work) and lack of good looks makes them just as desirable as Brad Pitt or George Clooney and ones impecuniosity should not prevent one from vacationing in The Bahamas, driving a Ferrari or staying at The Ritz..

  69. Urban II says:

    Opus, that is the correct read on it IMO.

  70. Bruce says:

    DC,
    That one can divorce for adultery (not sure what using “porneia” would add to this argument) is the basic Protestant belief – it is identified as such at the council of Trent. I think this position is wrong but not an unreasonable understanding of scripture. BTW, I am not Roman Catholic but believe the Church has this issue right.
    On the linked page, Brewer goes much further saying that one can divorce based on the “victim’s” belief that marriage vows have not been upheld. The nature of such claims is unavoidably subjective. Traditional vows included “obey” on the part of the wife which was certainly grounded in holy scripture. I doubt any wife from any time period perfectly obeyed her husband – in Brewer’s treatment, he, as the victim of her disobedience, can decide. I could put my wife away today if he’s right. Does any wife or husband love their spouse perfectly or without exception during the entire duration of the marriage? In Brewer’s treatment, either can judge if the vow has been broken, assuming that a given vow is a legitimately Christian one and is binding.

  71. Art Deco says:

    “What I find nonsensical is getting around made up prohibitions by calling a time-traveling divorce (the marriage never existed) an annulment.”

    The Church does not recognize marriages which are defective of form (for example, solemnized by a judge without witnesses) as having sacramental validity. It’s pretty cut and dried and not a function of the games which have been played with canon law the last 40-odd years.

  72. Art Deco says:

    “Don’t care, the feminists destroyed marriage, women went along with it and so did the church.”

    No, the legal profession destroyed marriage, first in their capacity as judges, then in their capacity as state legislators. One of the issues of Mars Hill Audio Journal has an interview with an academic who had world promoting covenant marriage. She said the resistance had come from the judiciary committee of her state legislator, because no fault divorce was so much simpler and less time consuming for legal counsel than divorce under the ancien regime had been (or would be under a covenant regime). Contemporaneous polling undertaken ca. 1971 showed there was no public dissatisfaction on balance – the number of people who thought divorce law needed to be liberalized about equaled those who wanted it to be more restrictive (with most favoring neither option).

    I might note also that the attrition rate of marriages fluctuated a great deal (with some upward trend) between 1919 and 1947, reaching a mad peak in 1946 as masses of war marriages were dissolved. After that, there was stasis for 20 years, with a mild decline between 1947 and 1958 balanced by a mild increase from 1958 to 1967. After that, there was a flip to a completely different social ecosystem and a trebling of the attrition rate in just 12 years.

    Again, the point of origin was 1967 and the 1940 cohort of women most likely the central tendency. Gloria Steinem was at that time a magazine journalist who was well-connected but with only a fraction of the public prominence she would later obtain (only one piece in her 1984 published collection had seen print prior to 1970 and only two had been composed before that date – they were the most engaging thing reprinted in that volume); Betty Friedan had given up journalism for trade books and was actually in charge of a fledgling advocacy group, but she had much the same status as Steinem but with more funds and fewer connections. In 1967, Helen Gurley Brown, who had a fairly orderly domestic life (though lacking in children), was far more prominent than either of these. She was much more a promoter of sexual license (attractive for young women right then because of demographic anomalies) than of female supremacy or contempt for men (something she never shared).

  73. The Question says:

    Possible idea for another post: http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/when-pregnancy-happens-and-the-choices-that-follow/

    The writer on her decision to have an abortion: “And though I will always remember, I do not regret my choice because it served as a catalyst for growth, from the person I was into the person I am now: self-aware, accountable, confident and proud.”

  74. Oscar says:

    ^^^ See? Pregnancy just “happens”.

  75. Opus says:

    @Urban II

    I don’t know. Slut-walks are such a strange cultural phenomenon. They seem to bear out Heartiste’s Maxim that the ultimate aim of Feminism is to free women from any form of sexual control and at the same time shift all responsibility for any sexual encounter onto men. To reiterate: a Toronto Policeman gave a pep-talk to some newly-minted female students wherein he advised them not to wear provocative clothing in certain parts of town for fear that men might take that as a sign to indulge sexually [was this I wonder projection on his part?]. The women threw a hissy-fit. How dare any man tell them what to wear. The policeman should be telling men not to engage with them sexually except of course when their services are required for which of course men are expected to thus be mind readers. One has to conclude that either: the women do not think that any sexual action taken by any man is unwanted or; if it is unwanted that such things only happen in other people’s lives (or in fiction). The Police cannot be everywhere all the time and if they were they would be merely Chaperones but these women do not want to be chaperoned. Prudence dictates not annoying a hungry Lion, unless you are indifferent to being his next lunch. Slutwalkers don’t seem to grasp that probability. If there is no probability (or if the women have no intention of acting on their protestations) then the purpose of the slut-walks can only be the deceit of implying desirability where there is none or at least a device to raise their SMV whilst deterring all but the most Alpha of men – certainly not the men who hang around with and support them.

  76. OKRickety says:

    David Instone-Brewer is not conservative in the divorce grounds he considers to be Biblical. In the article What God Has Joined (from Christianity Today), he states:

    Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:
    Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
    Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
    Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

    With today’s interpretations of neglect and abuse, how is this different from no-fault divorce?

    Bruce says on November 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    On the linked page, Brewer goes much further saying that one can divorce based on the “victim’s” belief that marriage vows have not been upheld. The nature of such claims is unavoidably subjective. … In Brewer’s treatment, either can judge if the vow has been broken, assuming that a given vow is a legitimately Christian one and is binding.

    Instone-Brewer effectively says that one spouse’s perception that the marriage vows were broken is valid grounds for divorce. Not much different from “I’m not haaaapy”, is it?

    I think it’s worth noting that Instone-Brewer came to this understanding early in his first church pastorate. In discussing the idea that only sexual immorality (Greek porneia) and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, he says:

    Yet some pastors have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems so impractical—even cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no divorce for physical or emotional abuse, and Paul even seems to forbid separation (1 Cor. 7:10).

    Perhaps Instone-Brewer found this teaching difficult to accept because it might be very unpopular with his congregation and the leaders (such as the deacons who “had been divorced and remarried.”)

    I am not a scholar, but I am not impressed by his work. He makes it look good, of course. After all, he is a scholar and his livelihood depends on this ability. In reading the article linked above, he shows a great deal of conceit.

    The texts hadn’t changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which they were written had. I was now reading them like a first-century Jew would have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press), is a summary of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new understanding of what Jesus taught.

    In effect, he says his studies enabled him to correctly understand what Jesus taught. Something apparently out of reach of all the scholars who have looked at the issue during the past two millennia. I expect this “achievement” has enabled him to sell more books, retain his ivory tower position, and be held in esteem by many of his academic equals.

    If you are interested in objections to his work, I suggest an internet search for “Instone-Brewer” will quickly provide you with material.

  77. retrophoebia says:

    In the spirit of “never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or stupidity”, are we sure she wasn’t just completely misunderstanding Faust?

  78. PuffyJacket says:

    @Opus

    There may be an element of falsely implied desirability here, but the very idea of the Slutwalk accepts the premise that men tend to find such women unattractive, and that they therefore must fight back against this bit of modern “injustice”. The Slutwalk is merely the psychosexual frustration of unattractive women projected outwards, as is true of most modern feminist pet causes. See #GiveYourMoneytoWomen for yet another example. Anything that contradicts the Feminine Imperative is also seen as “injustice” or “oppression”.

    Prudence dictates not annoying a hungry Lion, unless you are indifferent to being his next lunch.

    In fairness, it’s unlikely most feminists would understand “prudence” if they tripped and smacked their faces on it. For example, prudence might suggest that even if you are fully onboard with protecting the “rights” of sluts, that you still probably shouldn’t dress up like a skank and celebrate it with large signs while parading around on national television. Unfortunately, feminists that participate in Slutwalks tend to be a subset of women who are both a) unattractive and b) not very bright.

  79. Pingback: Status and Marriage | Spawny's Space

  80. Looking Glass says:

    @OKRickety:

    Instone-Brewer also can’t quite grasp that a Wife would never have grounds for divorce. Considering almost all of this issue (on the classic theological discussion) is around whether Jesus was addressing Deuteronomy 22 or 24 in Matthew 19, he somehow doesn’t understand that this isn’t a “gender-neutral” discussion. That’s *always* the first tip-off that they’re not paying attention to either the Text or God.

  81. They Call Me Tom says:

    Faust is an interesting choice for the hamster to summon… my memory is that the experience that Faust gains from Mephistopheles is what it is like to be responsible for corrupting a good woman, so much that she commits filicide and goes mad. So if anything the woman talking to her ‘friend’ is playing the part of Faust.

  82. Scott says:

    The Church does not recognize marriages which are defective of form (for example, solemnized by a judge without witnesses) as having sacramental validity. It’s pretty cut and dried and not a function of the games which have been played with canon law the last 40-odd years.

    This is an area where the Orthodox (to which I am a recent convert) have also gone off the rails, right along with the Catholics. We do not have annulments, but only because our canons were never developed past the 8th century. But the theology is exactly the same as that which the idea of annulments is based. Any marriage that lacks canonical form is not a marriage, and the Orthodox are supposed to believe this too. In practice that should mean “there is no such thing as a divorce.”

    But what we have now is this bizarre system of being allowed to remarried up to times (so far this looks like an arbitrary number) and so on.

  83. Scott says:

    Should read “being allowed to remarry up to two times”

  84. Bruce says:

    I don’t know what Brewer means by new research. It’s not new research that there were two widely held views among the Pharisees, one permissive (for the husband) and one that taught divorce for sexual immorality. Jesus rejected both. Do we think, based on the disciples reaction, that he was confirming that Pharisee group A was wrong and Pharisee group B was right?
    @ Looking glass. I’m sorry if I am misunderstanding you but Matt 19 is addressing Deut. 24 not 22. The Bible is not feminist in any way but the Lord’s view of divorce is “gender-neutral” (I probably hate that phrase as much as you do) in that it applies equally to husbands and wives. Again, I apologize if I have misunderstood you.
    Brewer seems completely confused over what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians. 7.

  85. Urban II says:

    @Bruce
    The text of Matthew 19 is quite gender specific. Is there something other reading to which you refer when you say it’s neutral?

  86. How is it possible for so many marriages to survive when everyone agrees that divorce (and not marriage) is sacred

    This is exceptionally well stated.

  87. Bruce says:

    @ Urban II,
    I should have been more specific. The Protestant understanding is (or can be) non-neutral. The Catholic & Orthodox understanding (which I subscribe to) is sex-neutral in that neither can divorce.
    I agree that the specific passage is not sex neutral language.

  88. theasdgamer says:

    I posted a set of links to some key posts for Christians and marital sex issues.

    https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/christian-marital-sex-issues/

  89. Bruce your full of crap. Jesus said “Wife” and “Husband” and gay marriage had not yet been normalized so those terms are NOT gender neutral. A literal reading of Scripture does not even give women the option to divorce.

    Jesus prohibited a man putting away his wife except for adultery. He never addressed the then unknown concept of a WOMAN putting away her husband. In fact he was not talking about marriage 2.0 at all in his brief discourse.

    How about a brief excerpt from my soon to be best selling book:

    Saving a Low Sex Marriage: A Man’s Guide To Dread, Seduction, and the Long Game.

    The Lord Jesus himself talked about Divorce in a way that is quite hard for the lay person to resist, but I am going to explain His words in a different way than the church would have you to believe:

    In Mathew Chapter 5 Jesus says in Verse 31: “It has been said, ‘anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    Modern day Christians have made a lot of hay about this short phrase (while conveniently ignoring the repeated and very specific admonitions from multiple authors for women to be submissive) and interpret this to mean that once you are married, unless your wife is sleeping around there is nothing you can do. You are trapped forever. I admit this always bothered me because it made no sense whatsoever. Does it make sense to you? How about if we look a bit closer at the context, shall we? In fact, let us look at the two Verses IMMEDIATELY before this one, along with the standard footnote.

    Verses 29 and 30 state: “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

    This is some pretty radical stuff if you interpret it literally. Gouge out your eye? Cut off your hand and throw it into the fire? That cannot be what He really meant, can it? Conveniently, the footnote comes to the rescue and explains:

    “Jesus is not really advocating self-mutilation. He is using hyperbole to illustrate the point of a sinful heart.”

    Do you have that? Jesus was talking “hyperbole” in one paragraph but in the very next paragraph he was suddenly talking straight to us. And we know this because there is no Footnote on the Divorce passage! I want to know where is the footnote that says:

    “Jesus is not really advocating that you cannot divorce a frigid, harpy, sex denying wife who is in breach of her marital obligations. He is using hyperbole to illustrate the point of a sinful heart.”

    Yes, for a strange reason, the modern day biblical interpreters left out that Footnote. Isn’t it funny how all the interpretations favor women and harm men? Although if you actually listened to the message on Sunday morning, chances are this would probably not come as much of a surprise.

    The fact is beyond dispute that wives did not deny sex to husbands in the 1st Century. Such a thing was incomprehensible. It was simply not a part of the world where Jesus lived and was probably not even contemplated by Jesus and certainly not by his 1st Century audience. What DID happen in the 1st Century was that some faithful and even noble women who were married at 10 and 11 years old and even younger were dumped onto the street to beg by heartless husbands…..You can’t abandon your wife, divorce her, and throw her onto the street to beg. You can’t force her to become a mistress of another man to support herself because that would be turning her into an adulteress. If you do a terrible thing like that you are no better than an adulterer.

    However, nowhere does He say that you cannot take a SECOND or THIRD or FOURTH wife. I am just betting they never told you THAT at Sunday school between exhortations to MAN UP and work harder for your wife.

    Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives. King David was a man, loved by God. He had many wives and his crime of adultery even included murder. Yet he was a man after God’s own heart indeed. David’s son King Solomon was blessed by God and was the wisest man who ever lived. He proved it by having more than 800 wives…

  90. BradA says:

    Scott,

    Wouldn’t your own situation push what is allowed at least a bit? I know I am firm on many things, but reality has a way of humbling us to show that some dogmatic things may not be worth being quite as dogmatic.

    Urban and Bruce,

    The idea is often that we need to pull the principle from what is written. That is clearly necessary in other areas where specific details change in a society (such as selling computers rather than grain, for example). The question is if women are truly banned from ever divorcing or if the principle of “only for marital infidelity” is operational. The overriding principle on that is clearly, per Jesus’ words, that one man and one woman for life is the overarching principle even if divorce is allowed in certain circumstances.

    Nothing tells us that the one who committed adultery due to divorce is in ongoing sin or just a one time sin. I do not see clear textual evidence that defines that. I have not seen any preacher even address that point. It would impact what should be done if someone is in that situation.

    I do note that some here completely ignore the fact a man can commit adultery by pushing the polygamy idea that he can just add another, but that clearly violates the principle pushed by the first marriage (Adam and Eve).

  91. BradA says:

    Seems I addressed BPP before I saw his post.

    Principles are more important in this case. I do not find a “men can do it but women have no option” principle to be found anywhere else in the Scriptures (NT especially) so I cannot be as dogmatic as he and others. It is more selfish than aiming at Biblical truth to claim an exclusive right for men.

  92. Bee says:

    @The Question,

    “The writer on her decision to have an abortion: “And though I will always remember, I do not regret my choice because it served as a catalyst for growth, ….”

    More evidence that Glenn Stanton, Joel Davisson, and others are wrong when they say that women are “more spiritual” than men.

  93. craig says:

    “[Wives denying sex to husbands] was simply not a part of the world where Jesus lived and was probably not even contemplated by Jesus and certainly not by his 1st Century audience.”

    It’s hard to come up with a better example of “if Jesus knew then what we know now” modernist reasoning.

  94. theasdgamer says:

    @ BradA

    It is more selfish than aiming at Biblical truth to claim an exclusive right for men.

    Sorry buddy, you are writing like a Blue Pill egalitarian. Women have an exclusive “right” to childbirth. Men have an exclusive “right” to superior strength, risk-taking, etc.

  95. theasdgamer says:

    @ craig

    [Wives denying sex to husbands] was simply not a part of the world where Jesus lived and was probably not even contemplated by Jesus and certainly not by his 1st Century audience.” It’s hard to come up with a better example of “if Jesus knew then what we know now” modernist reasoning.

    I assume that you agree with the quote written by BPP. Solid stuff.

  96. Looking Glass says:

    @Bruce:

    On Matthew 19, the Theological Argument is about which passage in Deuteronomy is being addressed. And it’s not something supremely easy that we can just address here in the comments section. It’s a discussion that runs over two ancient languages, 6+ books of the Bible and 1st Century AD Jewish & Greek marriage practices. (There’s a reason there’s a practice of “Annulment” and why it exists. God tends to hate Fraud above many other things.)

    But I do agree on the “no divorce” theology. 1 Corinthians 7 “frees” a spouse that is left behind from their marriage requirements to the spouse that left, but that’s not to open them for remarriage. And, as our Lord would go on to say, it’s a pretty brutal teaching.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @Bluepillprofessor

    The fact is beyond dispute that wives did not deny sex to husbands in the 1st Century. Such a thing was incomprehensible. It was simply not a part of the world where Jesus lived and was probably not even contemplated by Jesus and certainly not by his 1st Century audience.

    Nonsense. You may as well argue that it was inconceivable that a wife wouldn’t submit to her husband in the 1st Century. We are living in a world where rebellion has been repackaged as virtue, but this doesn’t mean rebellion is a new invention.

  98. OKRickety says:

    Is a woman allowed to initiate a divorce? This question/issue has arisen multiple times in this forum. I am going to posit that the Bible allows this, including Jesus Himself.

    Note: I fully realize that many will disagree with my conclusion. I am very familiar with the various interpretations on the entire subject of divorce, and, having seen the lengthy diatribes in this forum on the topic, am not interested in debate.

    Of course, a woman in most Western countries can initiate a civil divorce, and will get it because of no-fault divorce law. But does the Bible say a Christian woman is allowed to divorce her husband?

    I have repeatedly seen in this forum the belief that only a Christian man can initiate a divorce. The primary support seems to be Matthew 19:1-12. Indeed, this passage has no reference to a woman divorcing her husband.

    However, in the corresponding passage (Mark 10:1-12), Jesus refers to the wife divorcing her husband in verse 12.

    [Mar 10:11-12 NASB] 11 And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

    Jesus recognizes that a wife was allowed to divorce her husband and specifically addresses the possibility of either sex being the initiator.

    Paul also refers to the acceptability of a wife divorcing her husband (in the case of a non-believing spouse) here:

    [1Co 7:12-13 NKJV] 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

    In my exegesis, I believe a synthesis of these passages results in the conclusion that either husband or wife may (but is not required to do so) initiate a divorce for “sexual immorality” (Greek porneia) or because a non-believing spouse wants to leave the marriage. Returning to the original question, I believe a Christian wife is allowed to divorce her husband, but only in these two specific situations.

  99. jsr says:

    @BradA
    “Nothing tells us that the one who committed adultery due to divorce is in ongoing sin or just a one time sin. I do not see clear textual evidence that defines that.”

    See Romans 7:2-3

  100. Scott says:

    Wouldn’t your own situation push what is allowed at least a bit? I know I am firm on many things, but reality has a way of humbling us to show that some dogmatic things may not be worth being quite as dogmatic.

    I might, but I was married to a heterodox Christian, by a heterodox minister in a heterodox church. Since my father insisted that I be baptized and chrismated as an infant, this created a lack of form scenario. (No marriage).

    A technicality given to me by father from beyond the grave, I reckon.

  101. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dal

    BPP: The fact is beyond dispute that wives did not deny sex to husbands in the 1st Century. Such a thing was incomprehensible.

    Dal:
    Nonsense. You may as well argue that it was inconceivable that a wife wouldn’t submit to her husband in the 1st Century.

    Even in the 1st century a woman might claim egalitarianism based on misunderstanding certain of Paul’s teachings, including “…there is no male or female….” The default context of the 1st century is that women, in fact, tended to submit in the 1st century and men could beat their wives with impunity in the 1st century.

    Paul exhorted both men and women to not deny one another sex. It was a problem in some households and some Christian men likely wouldn’t beat/spank their wives back then.

  102. Bruce says:

    @ Bluepillprofessor
    Here’s what I wrote: “The Protestant understanding is (or can be) non-neutral. The Catholic & Orthodox understanding (which I subscribe to) is sex-neutral in that neither can divorce.”
    The comment I made before this one was describing the Catholic position (the one I believe) which is “gender neutral” in the sense that neither sex is allowed to divorce – both must be faithful to the marriage.
    As I say in the above quote the Protestant view is non-neutral, at least if taken from Matthew 19. When I say “Protestant view”, I mean the traditional Protestant view, the one described in the council of Trent. I do not know the detailed history of Protestant practice. The text, taken by itself (if interpreted the non-Protestant way) is non-neutral.
    As e.g. Brewer demonstrates, the modern Protestant view can be all over the place.

  103. Bruce says:

    @ BPP,
    “Jesus prohibited a man putting away his wife except for adultery.”
    Jesus said “porneia” not “moicheia.” “Moicheia” is used in the surrounding text but not for what Jesus is describing in the Matthean exception. This is part of the basic Catholic argument against divorce.

  104. OKRickety says:

    Scott said on November 4, 2015 at 12:22 pm
    I might, but I was married to a heterodox Christian, by a heterodox minister in a heterodox church. Since my father insisted that I be baptized and chrismated as an infant, this created a lack of form scenario. (No marriage).

    So, Scott, I take it your first marriage was annulled for “lack of form” and your current one is a valid Orthodox marriage?

    If I have my facts right, I’m curious if you were a member of (or just attended) a Church of Christ congregation, and, if so, were you baptized by immersion as an adult? Were you born into an orthodox church, became connected to CofC, and then went (returned?) via Roman Catholic to Orthodox? [I am curious as I have an “independent” Christian Church background (related to CofC) and currently attend a CofC.]

  105. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    You surprise me. Whereas it is difficult to know that much about how rebellious first century wives behaved – overall, even within my own lifetime wives did not see it as within their ambit to deny their husband sexual intercourse and thus did not attempt to do so – at least not to the extent that now seems all too common. I am not trying to suggest that no wife has ever been difficult; had that not been the case John Milton would not have penned his pamphlet in favour of Divorce.

  106. Cane Caldo says:

    @BPP

    Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives. King David was a man, loved by God. He had many wives and his crime of adultery even included murder. Yet he was a man after God’s own heart indeed. David’s son King Solomon was blessed by God and was the wisest man who ever lived. He proved it by having more than 800 wives…

    This isn’t even true. Job had one. Abraham had two, and God told him to send the second away. Isaac had one. Jacob had two, and caused him all kinds of problems until the pretty one died after committing idolatry. Moses had one at a time. David had several, but it didn’t end well for him or his family; one half-brother raped a half-sister, and more than one son from different mothers tried to steal his kingdom. One of his children died just after birth. Solomon is specifically chastised for having too many wives, and for being led into direct idolatry by them. Elijah has no recorded wife; nor Elisha.

    The idea that the prophets were Apex Alphas with MANY wives is completely unfounded.

  107. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    Job had one wife and look at all the misery she caused him. Laughed at him and told him to curse God and die. Abandoned him while he was weak. No Dread.

    Abraham had one wife and one fakkbuddy and he was even afraid to keep his one wife. Not very alpha compared to the kings of his time. Abraham, with his one wife, ended up being a nomad ne’er do well. Sarah was an exceptional wife and submitted to a weak man.

    Isaac had one wife and ended up being a plowhorse who didn’t accomplish much.

    Jacob had two wives and two fakkbuddies and founded a nation with his twelve sons.

    Saul had many wives and concubines and was a warrior king.

    David had many wives and concubines and was a warrior king and a man after God’s own heart.

    Solomon had many wives and concubines and was a philosopher king.

    Solomon is specifically chastised for having too many wives

    This is controversial.

    Overall, the patriarchs who had many wives accomplished more.

    It all depends on the lens through which history is viewed.

  108. Micha Elyi says:

    I have written several posts on (Shaunti) Feldhahn, and have never been able to find corroborating data to back up her claims.
    Dalrock

    Mrs. Feldhahn’s books typically include end notes with the sources of her claims. Here’s an example from The Good News About Marriage.

    The Good News about Marriage by Shaunti Feldhahn. End note 14: As with many of these surveys, getting the correct “ever divorced” number took a bit of calculating. On the Census Bureau’s “Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over by Age and Sex: 2009” (Kreider and Ellis, “Number, Timing and Duration: 2009,” 16, table 6), the percent of women “ever divorced” is just 22.4 percent. But that is of the total female population surveyed (123,272 women) and not of women ever married (which was 89,742). Calculating 22.4 percent of the total population delivers the number 27,613, which, when divided by women ever married, brings the real ratio of those ever divorced to 30.8 percent.

    P.S. I do not consider a 30% divorce rate to be “good news”.

  109. Damn Crackers says:

    Maybe the whole point is that it would take a fool to remarry after a divorce.

    Adultery is the primary type of fornication. Moicheia is included in porneia; ever hear the term “play the harlot?”

    I think divorce is sometimes necessary. God did it to Israel, and who am I to question him?

    I’m not strictly defending Brewer, but many hear dismiss him because he is a recent scholar. But, how many Greek Church fathers had access to 1st and 2nd BCE Jewish marriage and divorce records?

  110. Oscar says:

    @ Opus says:
    November 4, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    “I am not trying to suggest that no wife has ever been difficult; had that not been the case John Milton would not have penned his pamphlet in favour of Divorce.”

    Applying that same logic to Paul, it’s likely that Paul felt the need to (and the Holy Spirit inspired him to) instruct Christian spouses to not deny each other sex because Christian spouses in Paul’s day were denying each other sex. Likewise, Paul instructed 1st century wives to submit to their husbands, and 1st century husbands to love their wives, because those too were problems back then.

  111. BradA says:

    ASD,

    Sorry buddy, you are writing like a Blue Pill egalitarian. Women have an exclusive “right” to childbirth. Men have an exclusive “right” to superior strength, risk-taking, etc.

    Believe what you want. You are trying to apply biological differences to Biblical commands. Some may fit (I can’t think of any now, but wouldn’t rule it out), but the guiding principles are generally quite applicable.

    LG,

    But I do agree on the “no divorce” theology. 1 Corinthians 7 “frees” a spouse that is left behind from their marriage requirements to the spouse that left, but that’s not to open them for remarriage. And, as our Lord would go on to say, it’s a pretty brutal teaching.

    How are they free if they must wait for the other partner forever? Your explanation does not fit.

    The outcome is not good, but we deal with a boatload of “not good” in our lives.

    General note: A wife can “deny sex” by more than just refusing to allow it. Having a horrid attitude or only giving starfish sex can kill interest on the part of a male very quickly.

    jsr,

    Romans 7:2-3

    That is still not enough to clearly indicate direction. It does not specifically note the resolution and it is only a single witness.

    Scott,

    Are you saying you had an out because your marriage was not valid? That sounds more like the traditions of a specific church rather than a Biblical reason that would be acceptable. I cannot find anything that says a man is not really married if he was not baptized properly.

    In fact the writings from Paul noted above point to marriage with and between unbelievers as being true marriages.

    Cane,

    Well said. Polygamy is allowed for the same reason divorce was allowed, the hardness of men’s hearts.

  112. BradA says:

    ASD,

    The Kingdom of Israel split when Solomon died and the only reason it did not in his lifetime was because of his father, not him. He is not well viewed in Jesus’ words as Jesus put the flowers of the field ahead of him. Your evaluation is lacking.

  113. BradA says:

    Those in the past who think husbands always ruled as some kind of absolute dictator, always getting their own way, need to open their eyes to reality a bit more. That may have prevented some problems, but there is no way it completely eliminated sin from women.

  114. Opus says:

    My knowledge of Paul’s letters is not up to speed, but I do have at least three Bibles (one of which looks as if it has been nicked from a Cathedral, though that cannot be as it is a wedding present to my Great Grandparents – 1873) so can someone give a chapter and verse to make myself familiar with Paul’s advice and admonition to married couples. I am rather curious.

  115. JDG says:

    We are living in a world where rebellion has been repackaged as virtue

    Another sad but very accurate summary of our current predicament.

  116. theasdgamer says:

    The Kingdom of Israel split when Solomon died and the only reason it did not in his lifetime was because of his father, not him. He is not well viewed in Jesus’ words as Jesus put the flowers of the field ahead of him. Your evaluation is lacking.

    Solomon multiplied wives against the Deuteronomic commandment, yet Solomon was clothed with glory. Jesus said, “…Solomon in all his glory….” Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs are attributed to Solomon. Solomon was a success in many ways. In regard to wives, he was disobedient, having over 1000 wives and concubines. That is far different from Israel, who had four wives/concubines and nothing negative was said about his partner count.

    I think that you’re misreading the Matthew 6 passage about the lilies of the field. It would be incorrect to infer that Jesus didn’t view Solomon highly based on this passage. Rather, it shows God’s extravagant care for plants with a short lifespan and the implication that God would take care of His servants.

  117. Dalrock says:

    @Micha Elyi

    Mrs. Feldhahn’s books typically include end notes with the sources of her claims. Here’s an example from The Good News About Marriage.

    The Good News about Marriage by Shaunti Feldhahn. End note 14: As with many of these surveys, getting the correct “ever divorced” number took a bit of calculating. On the Census Bureau’s “Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over by Age and Sex: 2009” (Kreider and Ellis, “Number, Timing and Duration: 2009,” 16, table 6), the percent of women “ever divorced” is just 22.4 percent. But that is of the total female population surveyed (123,272 women) and not of women ever married (which was 89,742). Calculating 22.4 percent of the total population delivers the number 27,613, which, when divided by women ever married, brings the real ratio of those ever divorced to 30.8 percent.

    P.S. I do not consider a 30% divorce rate to be “good news”.

    Thanks. I tried to duplicate her calculation in this post, and had accurately guessed the table she is referencing. However, I guessed incorrectly as to the calculation she chose, so seeing her logic helps. There are still two problems with this number:

    1) She is averaging divorce rates for women who have been married for a year with women who have been married 40 or more years. This isn’t a meaningful number. Even worse, it doesn’t make her case that the divorce rate has never come close to 40-45%. If you average in the percent of marriages that ended in divorce after 40 years with those down to one year, you still end up with a 30% divorce rate. This doesn’t (as she claims) refute the 40-50% lifetime divorce estimates. It is a dumb stat that does more to harm her argument than to advance it.

    2) This still doesn’t match her claim that in 2009

    …according to 2009 Census Bureau numbers, 72% of people are still married to their first spouse – and the 28% who aren’t, includes people who were married for years until a spouse died!

    Even if you average in men and women from the same table, you still get less than 70%. It isn’t a huge difference, but as I said her stats don’t line up with her sources.

    Even worse is when she claims:

    Now, expert demographers continue to project that 40-50% of couples will get divorced – but it is important to remember that those are projections. And I’m skeptical because the actual numbers have never come close, and divorce rates continue to drop, not rise! Even among the highest-risk age group –baby boomers—seven in ten are still married to their first spouse. Most of them have had 30 years’ worth of chances to get divorced…and they are still together.

    How can this possibly be? She came up with the same divorce rate when averaging all generations together. Now she claims 7 in 10 boomers are still married to their first spouse? Not only does it not line up with her other data, it is trivially easy to disprove with this BLS data:

    Eighty-seven percent of baby boomers born in the years 1957–1964 had married at least once by the time they reached age 46. Of those who had married, 45 percent had experienced at least one divorce.

    This last data set blows away her claim that we have never come close to a 40-50% divorce rate, by showing a cohort with a 45% divorce rate, right in the middle of the range she claims is false.

  118. Scott says:

    So, Scott, I take it your first marriage was annulled for “lack of form” and your current one is a valid Orthodox marriage?

    If I have my facts right, I’m curious if you were a member of (or just attended) a Church of Christ congregation, and, if so, were you baptized by immersion as an adult? Were you born into an orthodox church, became connected to CofC, and then went (returned?) via Roman Catholic to Orthodox? [I am curious as I have an “independent” Christian Church background (related to CofC) and currently attend a CofC.]

    Correct, with just little clarification.

    I was never fully brought into the Catholic church. I was a catechumen in the process with the Ruthenian Catholic church. This process was interrupted when I just decided to “stay” Orthodox.

    Therefore, no annulment occurred because there is no such formal process in Orthodoxy. I was just considered “never married” which, as I pointed out is coming from the same theology as annulments, just less refined.

    I was immersion baptized when I was 12. And I am very familiar with the ins and outs of the Church of Christ. I grew up in it. My masters thesis has a heavy church history section. The ICOC came ultimately out of the Boston/Crossroads movement which actually descended on my childhood church and split it into.

  119. Scott says:

    Are you saying you had an out because your marriage was not valid? That sounds more like the traditions of a specific church rather than a Biblical reason that would be acceptable. I cannot find anything that says a man is not really married if he was not baptized properly.

    Meh, I guess.

    But however you meant this, it comes across as a snarky “gotcha” jab rather than an honest, intellectual attempt to understand the centuries old church traditional concept of canonical form. And since Dalrock is not fond of debating Catholic/Orthodox/Protestantism on his site, I will just disengage.

  120. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott and BradA

    I think BradA misunderstood Scott’s comment about baptism. Scott can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it goes like this:

    Scott’s father did have Scott properly and baptized in an Orthodox church with the proper form. Because of this, Scott is and was under the “jurisdiction” of the Orthodox church whether he liked it or not. Therefore, any marriage which happened outside of an Orthodox church (outside their jurisdiction) is ipso facto null. It didn’t really happen; like one slave marrying another slave marrying without the master’s approval; or a woman marrying without her father’s approval (Pretend it were a sane society).

    I take it that Scott’s current marriage was convalidated (or whatever the Orthodox call it) when he rejoined (and his family joined) communion with the Orthodox Church. So this marriage is therefore legitimate and real.

    @Opus

    Ephesians, chapter 5

    1 Corinthians chapter 7

    1 Peter 3 (Peter, not Paul)

    Colossians 3

    @asdg

    The fact of Solomon’s fall is not controversial. His many wives led him astray and he became an idolator, and bowed down to false idols.

    1 Kings 11

    11 King Solomon loved many foreign women in addition to Pharaoh’s daughter. He loved Hittite women and women from Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Sidon. 2 They came from the nations about which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “Never intermarry with them. They will surely tempt you to follow their gods.” But Solomon was obsessed with their love. 3 He had 700 wives who were princesses and 300 wives who were concubines. 4 In his old age, his wives tempted him to follow other gods. He was no longer committed to the Lord his God as his father David had been. 5 Solomon followed Astarte (the goddess of the Sidonians) and Milcom (the disgusting idol of the Ammonites). 6 So Solomon did what the Lord considered evil. He did not wholeheartedly follow the Lord as his father David had done. 7 Then Solomon built an illegal worship site on the hill east of Jerusalem for Chemosh (the disgusting idol of Moab) and for Molech (the disgusting idol of the Ammonites). 8 He did these things for each of his foreign wives who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.

    9 So the Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned from the Lord God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 God had given him commands about this. He told him not to follow other gods. But Solomon did not obey God’s command. 11 The Lord told Solomon, “Because this is your attitude and you have no respect for my promises or my laws that I commanded you to keep, I will certainly tear the kingdom away from you. I will give it to one of your servants. 12 But I will not do it in your lifetime because of your father David. I will tear it away from the hands of your son. 13 However, I will not tear the whole kingdom away from you. I will give your son one tribe for my servant David’s sake and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I chose.”

    Solomon was clothed in glory before his many wives. That’s how he got the wives. It was not the wives who clothed him in glory, and it was not the getting of them that clothed him in glory. God clothed him in glory because God loved David and David’s house.

    Overall, the patriarchs who had many wives accomplished more.

    Can you name one?

  121. BradA says:

    I did not mean to attack you Scott, just the claim that a marriage is not real if it wasn’t “proper”. I would disagree with you if that is what you truly believe.

    You are free to do whatever you want of course and it looks like you are making reasonable forward progress in the situation you are in so I would definitely support keeping that up whatever happened earlier.

    The church doctrine is still idiotic, but so is annulment.

  122. Scott says:

    (or whatever the Orthodox call it)

    All of the above is correct. It is called a crowning ceremony in the Orthodox church. It is the analog to convalidation, but is really just a wedding.

  123. BradA says:

    I had not caught that Cane. I still don’t buy it, but that is one reason I am no longer in the RCC and would never join the Orthodox Church. I value the Scriptures to highly, not the traditions of any church. Though I can see how they might argue that.

    I despise divorce, especially since it personally impacted me so significantly, but I do see how it happens.

  124. Scott says:

    Yes, Brad call things that I am deeply convicted of “idiotic” and wonder why I don’t usually get into it with you.

    I think sola scriptura is the equivalent of driving my truck in fog with no headlights on, but it takes someone with very little tact to bring that kind of obtuse talk out of me.

  125. BradA says:

    So a man can bail on a marriage that is not in the proper church? OK, go for it.

  126. theasdgamer says:

    His many wives led him astray and he became an idolator, and bowed down to false idols.

    Agreed, but the number of wives was irrelevant. Even one wife can lead a man to bow down to idols. Red Herring.

    Solomon was clothed in glory. Period. The number of wives had nothing to do with Solomon receiving the glory and the number of wives didn’t diminish Solomon’s glory. Red Herring.

    Can you name one?

    I provided a list already.

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    All of the above is correct. It is called a crowning ceremony in the Orthodox church. It is the analog to convalidation, but is really just a wedding.

    Crowning ceremony… That’s awesome.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdg

    The number of wives had nothing to do with Solomon receiving the glory

    Yeah, that’s what I said. You are aware that it has been you who has been saying that Solomon’s glory is tied to his wives, correct?

    I provided a list [of patriarchs and prophets] already.

    Yeah, and I smote it already.

  129. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    You misunderstood all my points. I didn’t say that Solomon’s glory was tied to his wives, but that he had glory independent of his wives. My position is that having a large number of wives didn’t prevent patriarchs from achieving great things. You were making the claim that having a large number of wives led to several patriarchs’ downfall, correct?

    You need to read the last line in my comment which included a list of patriarchs. I provided an alternative explanation which flipped the conclusion. It all depends on the goggles….

  130. Scott says:

    Brad-

    On the issue of “bailing” (which is what you are tacitly accusing me of) I do not discuss the exact details of my divorce because 1. I blog in the open with my real identity and 2. my ex is a semi-public figure who is easy to find. I chose to have class over all else in that matter.

    I would discuss it with you off line, but I don’t think I can trust you.

  131. BradA says:

    I have no desire to hold you to your previous marriage Scott. I just find it incredibly hypocritical to claim men and women have no rights if divorced, except if it was before a certain church blessed the ceremony. You are certainly free to take that line, but it seems more like a technicality than a legitimate Biblical reason. It is not surprising why you prefer Church rules to wrestling over what the Scriptures say in this case though.

    I recall you saying some details about it a while back and I would have no desire to get you to return to that marriage. I just oppose the idea that a Church can magically claim something Jesus would have called a marriage was not just because the official ceremony was not performed.

    As I noted however, you are free to believe as you wish and my views on it should not matter to you. I am in no way in authority over you.

  132. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdg

    Let’s review. What you said was:

    Overall, the patriarchs who had many wives accomplished more.

    And that’s not true, as I showed.

    My position is that having a large number of wives didn’t prevent patriarchs from achieving great things.

    Yes, it did. Preserving the kingdom and keeping the 12 tribes united would have been a great thing. Not leading the whole kingdom into idolatry and toleration of idolatry would have also been a great thing. So, in fact, a large number of wives did prevent that patriarch from achieving great things. The greatness that he accomplished previously was previous to the wives.

    You were making the claim that having a large number of wives led to several patriarchs’ downfall, correct?

    Correct. In fact, I cannot think of a patriarch or prophet who had multiple wives in which it is a situation we would desire. Maybe Joseph, but he had been through a lot already.

  133. gunnerq says:

    bluepillprofessor @ 10:45 am:
    “Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives.”

    Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Saul, Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Obadiah, Zechariah, Zephaniah, Malachi… Only Saul and maybe Amos were Alpha and only Saul is known to have had multiple wives. Moses, Jeremiah, Hosea and Jonah were certainly not Alpha.

    Point not made. By the way, David was not a prophet. The kings of Israel were all Alphas, pretty much by definition, but only David, Hezekiah and Josiah were tolerable to God. That would actually counter your point that being sexy and polygamous promotes good behavior.

  134. JDG says:

    Cane did you mean Jacob?

  135. @Dalrock: Nonsense! Are you seriously arguing that sexual denial as it is known today is no different than it was in the 1st Century? Lest I reframe the dispute without drawing the connection and making the correction, I said a 1st Century woman NEVER denied her husband (“sexual denial was unknown in the 1st century”) and this is obviously incorrect. Of course it was not “unknown” and I will change the text to “virtually unknown.” However it was certainly not a problem in the way that it is today. As a moderator of Married Red Pill we deal with guys trapped in a living Hell every day. Alphas like Dalrock, and Rollo have little conception of the despair caused by giving women the power to weaponize sex. THAT is a new concept that was not known in the 1st Century!

    So yes, obviously, denial did occur as evidenced by Paul later correcting the record and prohibiting denial. However I gathered that was a religious dispute where women with unbelieving husbands were bailing on them and the church was providing for the disobedient wives.

    To all, while I don’t think it is a humanistic or a postmodern argument I am making but rather a logical one, I appreciate all the feedback and discussion on the Marriage 1.0 vs. 2.0 argument I made above.

  136. Cane Caldo says:

    @JDG

    No, Joseph. I believe he had several wives from pharaoh.

    Jacob had two wives, and they were a handful; especially the second. Then she died.

  137. Scott says:

    Brad , its not so much that I am concerned about whether you have authority over me, its that I can’t figure out whose side you are on in what appears to be an ecumenical type of setting. Dalrock welcomes all comers, provided especially that are in agreement on the basics of how traditionalist behave within their marriages regardless of form.

    I was asked a specific question upthread about the mechanics of sacramental marriage that was clearly thoughtful and inquisitive.

    You, on the other hand have smarmily accused me of legalism, idiocy, and hypocrisy in a matter of 3 comments.

    I do not follow the hermeneutic principle of sola scriptura, so constant appeals to it are meaningless to me. Lets evaluate where that line of thinking has gotten you–

    What does this passage of scripture mean?

    Luke 12:27King James Version (KJV)

    27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

    A). Stop worrying so much, God knows what you need and will provide

    or

    B). There is a God-ordained hierarchy upon which lilies sit atop, and King Solomon below

    You chose B upthread. Really? That’s how you approach scripture?

    You rightly note that I don’t do a lot of exegesis on these pages–but do not ever confuse that for my lack of fluency. I used to come up with the same crazy shit from the text when I was in seminary. Pouring over Greek words all night long trying to come up with novel idea nobody every figured out before me. After two years of that, I almost lost of my faith because it just causes division. Remember, Protestantism has 30,000 plus denominations, not Orthodoxy. All of them claiming some direct line to the truth. The whole line of thinking encourages itchy ears.

    It’s not that I don’t understand how scripture works. Its that I place it within the context of all other church tradition (scripture is part of Church tradition–it is not the instruction manual for how the church is supposed to operate).

    And in the end, it’s no big deal when the entire society is collapsing around much bigger issues.

  138. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    Let’s review. What you said was:

    Overall, the patriarchs who had many wives accomplished more.

    And that’s not true, as I showed.

    As seen through your goggles. Not through mine.


    My position is that having a large number of wives didn’t prevent patriarchs from achieving great things.

    Yes, it did. Preserving the kingdom and keeping the 12 tribes united would have been a great thing. Not leading the whole kingdom into idolatry and toleration of idolatry would have also been a great thing.

    What you and I are looking at as great things are completely different. Solomon penned three books of the Bible, n’est-ce pas?

    In fact, I cannot think of a patriarch or prophet who had multiple wives in which it is a situation we would desire.

    Your original point was The idea that the prophets were Apex Alphas with MANY wives is completely unfounded.

    How are you not moving the goalposts? Achieving “a situation [ which ] we would desire” is very different from your original point. Your original point is clearly false. Some of the patriarchs were Apex Alphas with many wives. And some of those were prophets as well.

  139. BradA says:

    Scott,

    B). There is a God-ordained hierarchy upon which lilies sit atop, and King Solomon below

    I have no idea what these means. King Solomon was said to be less regal than the lillies of the field. Not sure what else you mean by that.

    It’s not that I don’t understand how scripture works. Its that I place it within the context of all other church tradition (scripture is part of Church tradition–it is not the instruction manual for how the church is supposed to operate).

    Your “tradition” focus could also be used to justify any divorce that the church involved decided was OK. It has also justified things like homosexual marriage, it just took longer to get to that tradition.

    Man’s tradition is very dangerous and can lead to a great many problems, as Jesus noted to the Pharisees and Sadducees who had a load of traditions of their own.

    Yes, I am Sola Scriptura, because that is the only direct Word from God. I definitely am “driving through a fog” (I see through a glass darkly as is written) but at least I know what path I am on. I am not sure if I am locked in the back of a cargo van. You are free to be happy with those doing the driving for you, but I would strongly argue that giving into authorities leading (whether RCC, Orthodox or Protestant) has gotten us into a great deal of the error we have today.

    Holding the Word of God as supreme will be self correcting as people continue to seek to apply their lives to It and It to their lives. They may do so imperfectly, but the Word of God is not a natural thing and has the power of God in it and will correct things.

    What you and I are looking at as great things are completely different. Solomon penned three books of the Bible, n’est-ce pas?

    It sure has a lot of instructions about how the Church is supposed to operate if that is not part of its application. Ignoring what it says and making technicalities that only some can take advantage of is not proper, though it does fit. I thought you had argued you thought the idea of annulment was not quite sound as well. I must have been mistaken. Or just saying the marriage never existed is fine, but not annulling it.

    Though arguing between the two approaches is definitely outside the scope of this blog, so I will seek to stop here unless you have a solid question to ask me. My positions are very consistent when viewed as someone seeking to apply the Scriptures to this life.

  140. Scott says:

    It has also justified things like homosexual marriage

    Which tradition has this problem?
    a) Orthodoxy
    b) RC
    c) A whole bunch of protestant churches

  141. Scott says:

    I thought you had argued you thought the idea of annulment was not quite sound as well. I must have been mistaken. Or just saying the marriage never existed is fine, but not annulling it.

    Nope. Never said that. Annulment is the RC way of canonizing (further) what the Orthodox already believe.

  142. JDG says:

    Cane

    Jacob had two wives, and they were a handful; especially the second. Then she died.

    He was duped by Laban into marrying the wrong woman the 1st time around. One wife is a handful. Having two wives is asking for a headache IMO. I think I would have checked the goods more closely or demanded a refund.

    For Joseph I recall the mentioning of one wife:

    Gen 41:45 And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

    Asenath bore to Joseph Manasseh and Ephraim.

    Sure there could have been others, but I think they probably would have been mentioned (maybe they were and I just don’t remember).

  143. They Call Me Tom says:

    FWIW Deuteronomy has plenty of ‘applies to women not to men’ and ‘applies to men not to women’ in the listing of laws for the Hebrews. So God does distinguish between the sexes.

  144. JDG says:

    it is not the instruction manual for how the church is supposed to operate

    I have to disagree here. Much of the NT was written specifically as instructions for how the Church should operate.

  145. “That would actually counter your point that being sexy and polygamous promotes good behavior.”

    I never made this claim, only that it helps prevent bad behavior from a wife but will gladly do so now. If one is not able to entertain the fact that most of the prophets and great men of the Bible were polygamous there is little foundation on which to hold a legitimate debate. While polygamy might (or might not) promote good behavior, the present threat of stepping out is the only thing left to men in the 21st Century and there is little doubt this threat helped keep the empowered women of the 1st century in line- after all what else was a 1st Century man to do with a frigid harpy who was denying him sex? Smack the shit out of her? Oh, well…that’s right! He could do that in the 1st Century! Or maybe he could threaten to send her back to her dad? Or cut off her food? Hmm, come to think of it a 1st Century dude actually DID have a lot of options dealing with a harpy/wife.

    So what exactly do you dogmatics suggest for men in low sex marriages of desperation in the 21st Century? Is the only answer “Man up, pray, and bear your cross”- and don’t even think about getting relief through masturbation? Great! Why not self flaggilate as well and pluck out your eye while your at it? Y’all can have that cross. I will wait for one I am able to bear.

  146. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdg

    What you and I are looking at as great things are completely different. Solomon penned three books of the Bible, n’est-ce pas?

    Those are some great things. You wrote that it didn’t prevent them from doing great things, but of course it did because there are some other great things that they did not do. The some great things they did do, they could have done with just one wife. There is no evidence that polygyny is a good idea, a preferred arrangement, or that it played out profitably in the lives of the patriarchs and prophets.

    The argument for allowing polygyny (if one wanted to make it) is that there is law for it in the Old Testament, and that it is good to provide your brother an heir if he does not have one. That’s a very narrow goodness…especially considering some sister-in-laws.

    How are you not moving the goalposts? Achieving “a situation [ which ] we would desire” is very different from your original point. Your original point is clearly false. Some of the patriarchs were Apex Alphas with many wives. And some of those were prophets as well.

    You moved the goalposts; not me. Here is what BPP originally said, and which I argued against:

    Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives.

    Notice that I have bolded the posts of the goal that you moved. Most of them didn’t even have multiple wives. Of those few who did have multiple wives, only two of them had MANY: David and Solomon. And, yes, it is relevant how their multiple marriages caused problems. The next closest is Jacob, who had two wives and their slave girls. The competition of his wives caused one of his sons to be sold into slavery, and for the other sons to become slavers of their brothers, liars, and every sort of criminal.

    BPP’s whole point was that polygyny would make society and marriage better through threats of polygyny. Well, polygyny has been tried, and society got decidedly worse.

    @JDG

    You may very well be right about Joseph. It’s been a few months since I last read his story.

  147. OKRickety says:

    @Scott,

    I am intrigued by your journey from Catholic to Church of Christ and then on to Orthodox. That could be described as the road less travelled.🙂 Just a brief explanation of how and why. If you would prefer, please email me (I think you have my email from your blog).

    I am a little puzzled by your reference to ICOC. I have no connection to it. To clarify, my beliefs are heavily influenced by my upbringing in the Christian Church (sometimes qualified by unaffiliated, undenominational, or independent), being one of the 3 branches of the Stone-Campbell movement (with the other 2 being the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). As I understand it, the ICOC is an offshoot of the Churches of Christ and, as you are aware, many congregations have been significantly impacted by it.

  148. Dale says:

    @Scott

    >It has also justified things like homosexual marriage

    Which tradition has this problem?
    a) Orthodoxy
    b) RC
    c) A whole bunch of protestant churches

    I will stick my nose into the argument long enough to say that most non-Eastern Orthodox and non-RCC religious groups are not, in my mind, protestant. I may have the definition wrong, but to me, “protestant” means the group insists on the supremecy of Scripture. The “protestant” group, initially, was formed “in protest” against the many practices of the then-current RCC that were either contrary to Scripture or had no basis therein.
    I’m not sure what an appropriate label would be for the non-O, non-RCC and non-Protestant (as defined above) groups. Maybe just “Apostates” would serve, although likely not a non-confrontational label. E.g. Episcopalian in the US and other “ecumenical” groups.
    If a person has only the three broad groups you listed above in mind however, I can see how the “protestant” group would look very wishy-washy, blown about like the waves.

    And I’ll throw in Col 2:8, with respect to the value of “church tradition” that is not found in Scripture🙂

    We definitely should seek to bear with the failings and flawed beliefs we perceive in one another. John 17:20-21, Rom 14:1-4, 14-18, 22, Eph 4:29-32 and Col 3:12-14.
    Assuming I can see that you are genuinely striving to submit to God’s Word, I should be able to tolerate your various incorrect interpretations, and hopefully you also mine🙂
    It’s when I can see no way that an honest, reasonably intelligent person could arrive at the interpretation they claim that I start to get irritable.

    >it is not the instruction manual for how the church is supposed
    >to operate
    >
    >I have to disagree here. Much of the NT was written specifically as
    >instructions for how the Church should operate.

    I’ll have to agree with JDG here. James, Colossians, Ephesians and Galatians are prime examples of NT books being instruction books for how the church, and the families within, are to operate. Also 1 Corinthians, 1&2 Thess…. How about we just say everything from Romans to Jude. And the gospels have Jesus’ teachings. And the first 3.5 chapters of Revelation have instructions to the churches also.

    Nose-unstuck… you may resume.

    @BPP
    >Or cut off her food?
    On this one you were incorrect. A man was to provide food, clothing and marital rights to the wife. (Ex 21:10-11 is the passage I found, but I know there is a similar one elsewhere, for captives taken as wives.)
    Another blogger (BiblicalGenderRoles?) gave the position that failing to give sex within marriage is sin. (agreed) And it is a sexual sin (also agreed). Therefore, it falls within the scope of sexual immorality, per Matt 5:31-32, and the deprived spouse could therefore pursue divorce. I have not studied this yet, but on the surface this seems a possibly reasonable interpretation. So that is a line of discussion for the men in low sex marriages that you mention.

  149. Scott says:

    OKRickety-

    I apologize, I somehow got the idea you wanted to discuss the ICOC. The crossroads folks (the predecessor to ICOC) came to my church when I was like 5, broke it into and I did not know much about them until later as an adult. I had a brief encounter with them when I was invited to a service by a friend at a “Los Angeles Church of Christ” which I thought was weird. (Because I had been in southern California my entire life and never heard of them). It was quite cult-like and I knew immediately what it was.

    For accuracy, my timeline was baptized/chrismated as an infant in Serbian Orthodox church at dads insistence –> immediately raised in the mainline COC (mom was COC from Arkansas and dad was not practicing Orthodox). –> divorced at 29 y/o –> met and married Mychael (raised Catholic) –> while looking into annulment at her request, discovered what chrismation meant (RC and Orthodox both considered my rite to be Byzantine/Orthodox which meant no matter what I did for the previous 40 years, I was Orthodox) –> considered converting to Eastern Catholic to maintain rite and have marriage convalidated –> That process led to Mychael converting to Orthodoxy (and me, by definition starting to actually practice Orthodoxy not “converting” because I couldn’t convert to something I already was by birth rite. ).

  150. Scott says:

    it is not the instruction manual for how the church is supposed
    >to operate
    >
    >I have to disagree here. Much of the NT was written specifically as
    >instructions for how the Church should operate.

    This was brought up twice, and I will rephrase for clarity. It was written when angry.

    Of course it contains instructions for the church. But the operative word should have been the in that sentence. It is one source (the primary one) for understanding the ins and outs of corporate church life and governance. Not the only.

    I think one of the big differences in conceptualizing this has to do with the who/what/when/why etc the NT was written.

    What is commonly known as the OT was already in existence when Christs church started meeting. These were the sacred texts for them. The church was born with a “Bible” already in hand.

    Looking back now with the benefit of 2000 years of history, we are at liberty to make a number of assumptions about the Gospels, the Acts and epistles and Apocrypha. Most commonly, those assumptions fit into 2 broad categories:

    1. The NT was written as part of church tradition. That is to say, it is the natural outcropping of the apostles trying to spread the good news and then steer the church in the right direction. There is whole bunch more that flows from this and an entire theology of apostolic succession, canonization, etc that then gets us to the place where we are today.

    2. The NT is a stand-alone collection of documents written by the “first” apostles that you could drop into a theoretical village of people that had never heard of Christ and they would have everything they need to be become Christians. Again, there are a multitude of presuppositions behind this view about inspiration and the intent of the writers that go with this.

    Both have huge implications about nosology, epistemology etc that cannot be explored in a blog hence the reason I almost never get into it here. (And against my better judgment did so this time).

    In my lifetime, I have moved from number 2 to number 1. A very long and I assume not very interesting journey to men who read here trying to figure what to do about western marriage.

    I think both are reasonable assertions, (meaning I think good people who love God can come to either) but ultimately I think number 2 is wrong.

  151. Anna says:

    It’s crazy that every time that I find an article about marriage, it’s either about the actual wedding or divorce. As a 26 year old woman that has been married for 6 years, I’m well aware of the pressure for divorcing. There’s always a “5 ways to know that your marriage is over”. This is how I found your website and it all makes so much sense, even though I’m not a christian. I have no idea why society is leaning towards destroying its foundations.

  152. Bruce says:

    @ Dale

    “The “protestant” group, initially, was formed “in protest” against the many practices of the then-current RCC that were either contrary to Scripture or had no basis therein.”

    “Protestant” meant those who protested the Imperial Diet of Speyer. So it essentially meant Lutheran. In practice, it has come to mean the churches that affirm the “sola’s” or “the part of the Western Church that isn’t Roman Catholic.” I think some groups like Episcopalians etc. are Protestants that play extremely “loosey-goosey” with scripture and some are Apostates.

    “I’ll have to agree with JDG here. James, Colossians, Ephesians and Galatians are prime examples of NT books being instruction books for how the church, and the families within, are to operate.”

    I think we should see the Epistles, first and foremost, for what they are. Specific letters to specific churches (the general Epistles excepted) where the author is encouraging, instructing, admonishing, etc. Of course there is much theological content and instruction in them.

  153. Bruce says:

    @ Brad A.
    “I cannot find anything that says a man is not really married if he was not baptized properly.
    In fact the writings from Paul noted above point to marriage with and between unbelievers as being true marriages.”

    The Church recognizes sacramental/Christian marriage and natural/pagan marriage. Sacramental marriage should be the goal for all but can only exist between two baptized believers. Natural marriages, however are something real and good. The first part of Paul’s instructions (received directly from the Lord) address two believers. The second part addresses mixed marriages. Verse 16, I believe, addresses what Catholics call the “Pauline privilege” – in essence, an unbelieving spouse who is not content cannot pull a committed Christian away from the Church/Christianity.

    “Those in the past who think husbands always ruled as some kind of absolute dictator, always getting their own way, need to open their eyes to reality a bit more. That may have prevented some problems, but there is no way it completely eliminated sin from women.”

    I think you are correct. Aristotle believed husbands were to rule slaves is despotically, children monarchically, and wives politically.

  154. theasdgamer says:

    There is no evidence that polygyny is a good idea, a preferred arrangement, or that it played out profitably in the lives of the patriarchs and prophets.

    Israel. Without his four women, there would have been fewer children. A nation was born. Profit from a prophet.

    Obviously, polygyny isn’t practical on a large scale.

    You wrote that it didn’t prevent them from doing great things, but of course it did because there are some other great things that they did not do.

    Logically, when one makes a general claim, the claim isn’t invalidated by exceptions. We don’t have to append NAWALT to all claims about women. When I made the claim that polygyny didn’t prevent Solomon from doing great things, that claim implied “any”.

    What great things did Solomon do? Solomon penned three books of the Bible–three great things. Solomon asked for wisdom and was approved in this request–another great thing. Solomon showed his wisdom when he judged between two women–another great thing. Solomon built the first Temple–a very big deal. Solomon explored wisdom and wrote about it in Ecclesiastes–a very big deal. Solomon gathered proverbs–a big deal.

    You moved the goalposts; not me. Here is what BPP originally said

    You’re wrong. I don’t care what BPP said. I was having a discussion with you. You moved the goalposts twice–once from what BPP said and once again from that first mobile position. You’re being careless.

    I’m not critiquing your position–we’re in agreement that polygyny isn’t practical on a large scale. You go too far to imply that it necessarily leads to bad results. And you are being sloppy.

    Of course, the church has had to deal with polygynous converts–Paul’s admonition that bishops should have no more than one wife is evidence of that and there’s no evidence of which I’m aware that polygynous converts had to divorce any wives.

    Even U.S. law has to deal with polygyny. Suppose that a polygynous family wants U.S. citizenship. They get it. Polygyny gets grandfathered in.

    BPP’s whole point was that polygyny would make society and marriage better through threats of polygyny. Well, polygyny has been tried, and society got decidedly worse.

    A better argument because it’s uncontroversial is that polygyny isn’t practical on a large scale.

  155. Bruce says:

    @Damn Crackers
    “Maybe the whole point is that it would take a fool to remarry after a divorce.”
    I believe the point is that Christ’s teaching on marriage like so many of his teaching is a hard saying and that following him inevitably involves sacrifice.
    “Adultery is the primary type of fornication. Moicheia is included in porneia; ever hear the term “play the harlot?”
    Porneia is used different ways in the NT. It sometimes describes specific things e.g. 1 Cor 5. At other times, it is used as a broader description of illicit sex acts. Adultery is not the primary type of porneia; there is no primary type. The Greek language had a common word for adultery. Matthew 19 either means something like “illicit sex acts” or it means something specific. We can’t know for sure, but Matthew (and by extension Jesus) in his Gospel to Jews may have been using the Hebrew custom of referring to specific immoral sex acts obliquely or indirectly. Also I do not agree with the blogger cited above who claims porneia can mean denying your spouse. It’s use is always tied to illicit sex acts.

    “I think divorce is sometimes necessary. God did it to Israel, and who am I to question him?”
    God’s symbolic divorce of Israel does not constitute our instructions for Christian marriage. Marriage was very important to Jesus.

  156. Pingback: Nowhere close to true. | Dalrock

  157. Bruce says:

    Anna, you’re correct, marriage is foundational. We can squabble amongst ourselves quite a bit but in all Christian traditions, God holds marriage in very high regard.
    You say you are not a Christian – have you considered Christian beliefs? Do you have particular stumbling blocks?

  158. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdg

    Logically, when one makes a general claim, the claim isn’t invalidated by exceptions.

    It is when those specific exceptions invalidate the claim, as in the case of Solomon.

    And let me say: LOL. You’re fixating on Solomon because he is the only one you can find who, maybe, if we close the blinds and turn out the lights, appears to have thrived in a polygamous marriage. The claim, from BPP, was

    “Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives.”

    which you backed up with the statement

    Overall, the patriarchs who had many wives accomplished more.

    It’s a ridiculous claim (that you cosigned after claiming BPP’s comment was “Solid stuff”). Jacob, David, and Solomon did not accomplish more than Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, Isaiah…on and on. They did not accomplish more individually, and they did not accomplish more as groups (polygamists vs. monogamists).

    You’re wrong. I don’t care what BPP said. I was having a discussion with you. You moved the goalposts twice–once from what BPP said and once again from that first mobile position. You’re being careless.

    I’m not critiquing your position–we’re in agreement that polygyny isn’t practical on a large scale. You go too far to imply that it necessarily leads to bad results. And you are being sloppy.

    I’m not wrong, and you’re not telling the truth. You do care and you did agree with what BPP said (see quotes about “accomplished more” and “solid stuff”). You took his position, and then–realizing it was a lost cause–you moved it from” “Consider all the Prophets of the Old Testament. Most of them were Apex Alphas with MANY wives.” to: Solomon did some great things.

  159. Damn Crackers says:

    Bruce – moicheia, porneia, and fornicatio were translations from the Hebrew zanah, if I’m correct. And zanah was translated as both adultery and sexual immorality. So, the translations all refer to the same thing.

    I believe both God and Jesus used symbolism. I think Jesus was reacting the virtual wife-swapping going on in Jesus’s time in matters of “any cause” divorce. It seems very similar to the times now.

    You stated earlier that “I don’t understand how anyone can read the Bible and come up with anything but two positions: the Catholic one (no divorce) or no divorce except for the husband where the wife is guilty of sexual immorality.” I basically agree with your second point. The question is, then, what is sexual immorality.

  160. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    I’m trying to be patient. You are young and being sloppy. Take correction from someone older and wiser. Work on your reading skills.

  161. Damn Crackers says:

    Serious thought experiment for our devout board folks here:
    An 19 year old man and 18 year old woman get married in the Catholic Church. One year later, no kids, the woman runs off with a Polish military officer and lives half way around the world to him, siring the officer many children and no contact with her original husband.

    What can the husband do? Must he wait for reconciliation until she dies? I really don’t know what churches who don’t believe in divorce for any reason do. Would this be a case for annulment?

  162. DrTorch says:

    A little off topic here, really more a response to separation or divorce threats, but I was reading Judges the other night and came across this, Judges 19:2 But his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there four whole months.

    I see no other way of reading this but if your wife separates from you, even just to go back to her own family, she’s “playing the harlot,” in Biblical terms.

    Not sure how all of the separation advocates would spin this.

  163. JDG says:

    Scott says:
    November 5, 2015 at 5:00 am

    Thank you for clarifying. I’ve been considering the Orthodox church, but like Brad I have concerns about the traditions of man being placed over the teachings in the scriptures. I do realize that this is already happening in non-Orthodox churches, but not to the same extent in every church. The church I attend strives to line up with the Bible. It does so more and more as the years go by, but we are far from where I think we should be.

  164. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers says:
    November 5, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Abandonment is a Biblicaly valid reason for divorce.

    1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances

  165. Bruce says:

    DC,

    The Israelites used various ways to express illicit sex, often obliquely. Lev 18 uses the euphemism of “nakedness” in referring to porneia of the type described in 1 Cornithians. Fornication is an English word with Latin roots first used in the KJV to translate porneia. Jesus does not use of porneia and moichea in Matthew 19 to refer to the same thing since he literally uses each noun independently in the same sentence. He either refers to generally illicit sex (with adultery as a subset) or something more specific – this is the heart of the traditional-Protestant/Catholic split on this issue.

    I do not agree about Jesus’ intention re: wife-swapping abuse. The teaching that a man could put away a woman for adultery and only adultery was widespread among the Pharisees – I do not believe Jesus was favoring Pharisee A interpretation over Pharisee B interpretation. He taught them the real meaning as distinct from the interpretation of the rabbis.

    “The question is, then, what is sexual immorality.”

    As used in the broad definition of porneia it means illicit sexual acts. This includes adultery, sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, bestiality, sex between close family members, etc.

    The most important question is “what is marriage? What is its nature? There are a number of possible answers:
    1. A legally binding relationship recognized by the state or sovereign.
    2. A social contract between two individuals, say, a man and a woman.
    3. A relationship between a man and a woman where they make each other feel loved.
    4. An objectively real bond/covenant between a man and a woman which God creates.

    Four is supported by St. Paul who refers to marriage using “mysterion/sacramentum” symbolized by the “one flesh” teaching. Jesus is calling us to a higher teaching than what the Pharisees were teaching – this is why it is one of his hard teachings – the discussion of eunuchs etc., not expedient to take a wife.

  166. SirHamster says:

    I see no other way of reading this but if your wife separates from you, even just to go back to her own family, she’s “playing the harlot,” in Biblical terms.

    I could read it as “But his concubine played the harlot against him, and THEN went away from him …”

    Slight ambiguity in the phrasing, and comparing translations, at least one takes that as the explicit interpretation. (http://biblehub.com/judges/19-2.htm) Most use the same ambiguous wording, which I guess reflects the Hebrew.

    There is a question of why he would go after an adulterous concubine, but then again we have modern men doing exactly that with women even less deserving of commitment. Browsing the commentaries, there are cultural factors that make this less likely – but not enough to completely rule it out, considering that Judges is about Israelites doing what was right in their own eyes.

  167. Bruce says:

    re: the thought experiment.

    I am not a competent ecclesial authority trained in canon law.

    The young man should try to determine if his marriage is valid by consulting the Church. If he is truly a believing Catholic, he will want to know the truth not what he wants to hear. If form was present, he has a sacramental marriage and should live celibate since he cannot assume the role of God and put asunder what God has joined. A common response to this is that it is unjust. Christians are not to expect justice in this world. Another response is that it is too hard to keep. Narrow is the gate.

  168. Bruce says:

    @ – Oscar, Paul is describing a mixed marriage where the non-Christian departs.

  169. DrTorch says:

    SirHamster- thanks for other thoughts

  170. Oscar says:

    Bruce says:
    November 5, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    “Paul is describing a mixed marriage where the non-Christian departs.”

    Yes, he is. And Christ instructs us in Matthew 18:15-17 to treat a professing Christian who refuses to repent of sin like a non-Christian.

  171. Damn Crackers says:

    @Bruce – “If form was present, he has a sacramental marriage and should live celibate since he cannot assume the role of God and put asunder what God has joined.”

    Thank you Bruce. You have validated to me why one should never marry today.

  172. Damn Crackers says:

    @Oscar – “Abandonment is a Biblicaly valid reason for divorce.”

    I would think so, but would abandonment be a justification for an annulment?

  173. Bee says:

    @DC, Oscar, Bruce,

    “One year later, no kids, the woman runs off with a Polish military officer and lives half way around the world to him, siring the officer many children and no contact with her original husband.”

    More than abandonment, she has comitted adultery. Therefore she can be divorced and the original husband can then remarry.

  174. Bee says:

    @JDG,

    Here is a guy who married an overseas woman, from Colombia. She claimed to be a Christian but has been a lousy wife. Going overseas is no guarantee of getting a good woman.

    http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/11/04/feminism-destroys-a-church-and-a-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-8509

    Whether overseas or North America; guys need to know what to look for (submission, respect) and vet for that and lead with a strong, masculine, confident, organized frame.

  175. BradA says:

    ASD calling Cane young? Yeah, right. Could be true, but I doubt that. I may be older than both of you, or not. We all have lifelong experiences. I think Cane values the Scriptures more than men’s ideas, and that is the route of BPP and ASDs contention.

    Polygamy is allowed but is never profitable. Anyone who would claim that Solomon was successful because of his wives needs to read the Scriptures more. He was blessed of God early in his reign, that caused his success. This was because of his father David, not the number of wives. He would have lost the kingdom if not for God’s promise to David. His son lost most of it almost immediately. Was that a success? He couldn’t even hand down a stable kingdom to his heir. He also had to tax them extremely to keep up his wealth. That is not a sign of wealth and good living.

    He started wealth, but strayed, and his foreign wives led that. Jesus only mention of him is that he was arrayed less than the lilies of the field. He is not mentioned with reverence anywhere.

  176. BradA says:

    Some general questions for Scott and Bruce:

    I was christened in the RCC as an infant. Does that mean I could dump my wife of 27 years and marry someone else in either the RCC or Orthodox Church? If so, how is that inherently different from others who do the same, especially women? Note that my wife and I did not give birth to any children, if that matters for the answers.

    – Would the answer change if it had been the Orthodox Church rather than the RCC? If so, why?

    – What Scriptural basis is given for whatever initial church doctrine supports the practice/allowance?

    I don’t know about many Orthodox members in the US, but I know many RCC ones believe far different than official RCC doctrine. Slamming all Protestants for being Sola Scriptura because some are not Sola Scriptura is disingenuous. Arguing that either the RCC or Orthodox Church is perfect (by comparison) is not accurate either. All have men involved and thus are subject to sin.

    My point is not to argue overall doctrine. It is to focus on the single divorce exception that seems to be wide enough to drive a truck through, if you happen to have had your parents get you sprinkled with some special water (I assume they don’t dunk infants). It seems more like rules lawyering than applying Biblical principles. That said, neither the RCC nor the Orthodox Church value Biblical principles as much as their traditions, so my complaint would not convince anyone there, even though it comes across as hypocritical. (I would say “is hypocritical” but my point is not to just rile up Scott, it is to note the unequal application aspect of it.)

    =====

    What does this have to do with this thread and Dalrock’s site?

    I would argue that it has everything to do with it. You cannot give an easy mulligan to some without undermining the meaning of marriage. I am not among the hardcore “you can never remarry” camp, but I do think we need to admit that divorce is divorce and take that into account in all situations, not just ones favorable to men or even certain men. That would be true no matter how true and noble those men are.

    Seeing the PTSD situation I did over the weekend shows that some men can be really dangerous to be married to as well. No easy answers.

    ====

    I did ask my mother just before she died (late last year) why she had never sought an annulment from my father (they married in the RCC even though she was more CoC IIRC). She said she didn’t want my sister and I to be considered “bastards”. I am not sure how the church could annul when children were involved, but apparently it was a possibility. That too seems whacked to me.

    ====

    Scott and Bruce are free to ignore/dislike/hate this. They can claim whatever they want about me. I am proudly focused on what the Scripture tells me to do in my life. I will either change my ways when I find I am not following it or admit I am in sin and seek to fix that. I can’t guarantee the future, but I expect that to continue to guide my future just as it has supported me through many troubles in the past.

  177. OKRickety says:

    Oscar said on November 5, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Bruce says: November 5, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    “Paul is describing a mixed marriage where the non-Christian departs.”

    Yes, he is. And Christ instructs us in Matthew 18:15-17 to treat a professing Christian who refuses to repent of sin like a non-Christian.

    Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, says that you are not to divorce the unbeliever if they consent to live with you. So, even when the spouse is “excommunicated” per Matthew 18:15-17, if they wish to stay in the marriage, there is no grounds for divorce. In other words, apostasy is not “abandonment by an unbelieving spouse”.

  178. Bruce says:

    “I would think so, but would abandonment be a justification for an annulment?”

    Abandonment, in an of itself, does not indicate a valid marriage is not present.

  179. Bruce says:

    Just to repeat. I am advocating the Catholic position because I believe it is true. I am acknowledging the traditional Protestant position can be arrived at by a good faith attempt at understanding the words in the gospel. And I do not find “gender symmetry” to be required in the protestant teaching.

  180. orthostrov says:

    BradA, the reason children of an annulled marriage aren’t bastards is because the marriage was a putative one. Otherwise, any children of marriage annulled due to consanguinity (which happens from time to time when people realize they’re more closely related than they thought) or once someone converts to Christianity (as explicitly allowed by Paul if the non-Christian party refuses to accept it) would be bastards, too.

    It involves the pastoral perspective you alluded to – people who enter marriages in good faith and have children do not result in having the same designation for those children as those who have rejected matrimony.

    As for your question towards Scott, the key you’re missing is in your wife’s reaction.

    If you were to convert to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) tomorrow, would your wife abandon the marriage?

    If so, Paul says to be at peace (1 Cor 7:15)and that you’re not bound to that marriage.

    If she is willing to live in peace, then you don’t have the option of leaving. Period. So it’s a lot more nuanced than just being able to chase skirt at some point in the future.

  181. Oscar says:

    @ OKRickety says:
    November 5, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    Oscar said on November 5, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    “In other words, apostasy is not ‘abandonment by an unbelieving spouse’.”

    I never stated that it was. Try and follow the thread.

  182. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers says:
    November 5, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    “I would think so, but would abandonment be a justification for an annulment?”

    Doesn’t seem like it. Does it really matter?

  183. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “– What Scriptural basis is given for whatever initial church doctrine supports the practice/allowance [i.e. declaration of nullity]?”

    Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:6

    would be my guess

  184. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Mark 10:9

    my mistake

  185. Bruce says:

    BradA, if she is your wife, then no you may not. The believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife. The Church recognizes and honors natural marriages and mixed marriages. The Pauline privelge (1 Cor 7:16) is applicable if an unbelieving wife is a malcontent.
    “neither the RCC nor the Orthodox Church value Biblical principles as much as their traditions”
    They do not place relative weight on each. Rather, they do not divide their Biblical principles from tradition.
    “but I know many RCC ones believe far different than official RCC doctrine.”
    You might be understating the situation. Most probably believe far different. This does not affect the claims of the Catholic Church.
    Regarding SS, I do not disagree with sola scriptura because some Protestants do not subscribe to it. I disagree with it because I do not beleive it is workable or true. Regarding Catholic perfection, Catholics differentiate between the indefectibility of the Church and the qualities of Catholic clergy and laity. The Church is not the sum or average of the qualities of it’s members.
    I apologize but I am confused about your discussion of baptism. The Matthean exception as I understand it is not a function of baptism.

  186. OKRickety says:

    Oscar said on November 5, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    Try and follow the thread.

    Here’s the thread as I see it:
    DC gives a “thought experiment” where the wife abandons the husband.
    You say “Abandonment is a Biblically valid reason for divorce. ”
    Bruce points out that “Paul is describing a mixed marriage where the non-Christian departs.”
    You respond with “Christ instructs us in Matthew 18:15-17 to treat a professing Christian who refuses to repent of sin like a non-Christian.”

    I commented that “apostasy is not ‘abandonment by an unbelieving spouse’.” I agree that you did not say that. I made the statement because there are Churchians who incorrectly believe that a spouse’s apostasy is “spiritual abandonment” (effectively equivalent to physical abandonment) and thus Biblical grounds for divorce based on 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. I addressed you in the comment because I thought you were advancing this view. If you were not, please forgive me. Regardless, I believe I followed the thread.

    Going to the thread (as far as I can tell), Matthew 18:15-17 directly involves the sinner in the first 2 steps of the 3-step process. The fact that the wife is obviously a sinner does not relieve the offended, or their church leaders, of their obligation to confront the sinner and work to lead them to repentance and, ideally, restoration. I do not see that Christian disciplinary action was taken, nor do you state it should. Do you think it should, or do you want to skip the first 2 steps and go straight to “treat her as an unbeliever”?

    I appreciate that Bee noted that “she has committed adultery”. This, at least in most Protestant views, overrides the sin of abandonment and makes the experiment rather pointless. So, if the obvious adultery was removed, the discussion might still be valuable.

  187. JDG says:

    Here is a guy who married an overseas woman, from Colombia. She claimed to be a Christian but has been a lousy wife. Going overseas is no guarantee of getting a good woman.

    Bee – No one made the claim you are using above.

    First, I’m not sure Columbia counts as over seas. My experience with a South American woman was such that I chose not to get further involved with her.

    Second, Going over seas gives you a much better market to shop in (for now). It does not guarantee the outcome. Prayer, proper vetting and what once was known as common sense are also needed.

    You have one example and I have one hundred examples (or more). In every case I have seen, the over seas brides treat their husbands better than the local women (with the exception of some local women that I attend church with). Even the foreign women that I know who aren’t Christian treat their men better. None these women are not perfect, but they are feminine and respect their men.

    I’m not saying this is an iron clad rule and it is very possible that my sample set is unique in that many of the couples are either Christian, Catholic, or nominal Catholic, but it is a trend that I personally witness EVERY DAY in my circles.

    Another thing that most of these women have in common is that they were raised with traditional values in Southeast Asia. My wife wouldn’t even think of raising her voice to her father when he was alive. If her father made a decision, that was it and her mother backed it 100%. These are things to look for when vetting for a wife (among others). You will find this type of behavior occurring much more often in my wife’s country then here.

  188. JDG says:

    None these women are not perfect,

    lol … Totally not what I meant to write.

    This should have read: None of these women are perfect …

  189. JDG says:

    You will find this type of behavior occurring much more often in my wife’s country then here.

    Then should probably be than.

  190. Micha Elyi says:

    …feminists destroyed marriage, women went along with it and so did the church.
    feministhater

    Your congregation “went along with it” maybe but the Church hasn’t changed. The Church is still preaching and teaching what was preached and taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

    One begins to understand why witch-hunting was once orthodox Christian practice.
    desiderian

    Witch-hunting was a Protestant practice. In contrast, when accusations of witchcraft were brought to the attention of the Church in Catholic Christian lands, the accusations were typically dismissed and the accused let go but the Inquisition got very interested in why the accuser was so fascinated with witchcraft.

    Pro tip: Monty Python skits are not history lessons. Neither are 19th century English Gothic novels.

    …opposing it (Halloween) because it’s satanic is evil.
    Spike

    Halloween, or the Hallowed Eve of the Feast of All Saints, is a Christian holiday, began as a Christian holiday, and has always been a Christian holiday. So yes, there’s something evil in opposing Halloween because of a false belief that the Christian holiday is satanic.

    You could argue that Halloween is abused, commercialized, and co-opted by a secular culture but that’s happened to other major Christian holidays too. By the way, Puritans were down on celebrating Christmas (Christ’s Mass). Perhaps the Great Deceiver had a hand in their rejection of Christian celebrations too.

  191. I figured Bruce would address this, but since he didn’t….

    @BradA:

    “Or just saying the marriage never existed is fine, but not annulling it.”

    A Roman Catholic would be confused by this statement and say, “But you repeat yourself. ”

    An annulment (or more properly a “declaration of nullity”) is exactly and precisely the same as saying the (sacramental) marriage never existed.

    I suspect non-Catholics are prone to making this (non-)distinction because they mistakenly believe that what *they* call the Catholic annulment is the religious version of the civil dissolution of a marriage. It is not.

  192. JDG says:

    Your congregation “went along with it” maybe but the Church hasn’t changed. The Church is still preaching and teaching what was preached and taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

    This is my belief as well. There is a big difference between churches and the Church.

  193. They Call Me Tom says:

    Scott, I would say number 2 of your possibilities comes with a few things…Christ’s parable, that the spirit would not be equally received by everyone. Mind you, if that’s why you say #2 is wrong as an absolute, fair enough. I’d rewrite for option #3, The NT is a stand-alone collection of documents written by the “first” apostles that you could drop into a theoretical village of people that had never heard of Christ and they would have everything they need to be become Christians… if they in the end chose to be Christians.

    The problem with #1, that the NT was written as part of church tradition, is that the NT seems to be lacking in advocacy of a church, it also lacks hierarchies, chains of command, and church traditions themselves that one would expect to see for writings born out of the early church’s traditions.

  194. @Tom:

    “The problem with #1, that the NT was written as part of church tradition, is that the NT seems to be lacking in advocacy of a church, it also lacks hierarchies, chains of command, and church traditions themselves that one would expect to see for writings born out of the early church’s traditions.”

    And yet, the Sola Scriptura crowd accepts the selection and ordering of the books included in that same NT, that arose from…Tradition.

    Does that nullify the problem with #1?

    I would vote Yes.

  195. Dale says:

    @unwobblingpivot
    Neat alias.
    >And yet, the Sola Scriptura crowd accepts the selection and ordering of the books included in that same NT, that arose from…Tradition.

    Order of the books is irrelevant, at least to me.
    As for the selection: God is quite capable of taking a direct hand when there is significant need. Some examples are the flood, the plagues leading to the exodus from Egypt, and the various prophets who gave commands, decisions and warnings from God.
    So I have no issue with thinking God could and would guide the selection of books to be chosen, just as he guided what words were in those various OT and NT books (2 Tim 3:16-17). And the NT shows Scripture comes from God, not humans or their tradition; in addition to 2 Tim 3:16-17 mentioned above, see 2 Pet 1:20-21.

    You may say, “Aha! And just as God chose many prophets in OT times, we now have thousands of priests, or always have our Synod members, throughout all generations”. And certainly, God is able to give the gift of prophecy (Rom 12:3-8). Who am I to say no? Problem here is that God gives those gifts, as he sees fit, not as I see fit (1 Pet 4:10-11). To think that a bunch of men must be given the gift of prophecy by God, just because we appoint / elect them to the Synod or any other position, seems presumptuous or arrogant to me. And while the Synod members may not claim to be all prophets, when the official doctrine for the Ukrainian Orthodox church* is that the Synod is the final authority for doctrines/beliefs, to my mind this is them very clearly claiming that they speak for God. So that is a prophet (possibly a false one). (Now if they only gave considered opinions, as they seek to guide their members to closer relationships with and obedience to God, this would be different than what I described.)

    *According to their website a few years ago when I researched it. I cannot speak for any other branches of Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Regardless, I do think it fair and wise to question our various assumptions (or traditions if you will). I’ll admit that I have been troubled by the same questions y’all are raising.

  196. Joe says:

    Did the woman who wrote the article claim to be Christian?

  197. Scott says:

    The problem with #1, that the NT was written as part of church tradition, is that the NT seems to be lacking in advocacy of a church, it also lacks hierarchies, chains of command, and church traditions themselves that one would expect to see for writings born out of the early church’s traditions.

    Coming from a COC background, my instinct tells me this is one of the main reasons people choose #1.–it is a slight take on a what is thought to be a logical conclusion of “necessary inference.” And is applied (I believe incorrectly) like this:

    If we do not see it happening in the NT, they did not do it/have it. It therefore forbidden.

    I respect it, I just don’t agree with it an approach. (I do agree with necessary inference as a logical concept, just not the application).

    They also didn’t appear to have little plastic communion cups. giant TV screens with lyrics on them, cry rooms, etc.

  198. Bruce says:

    unwobblingpivot is correct, and it is deceptive to use “annul” as a verb. A declaration of nullity only provides moral certitude not absolute certitude. The Church does not have the power to undo a sacrament and can be mistaken in its verdict.

    There were and always will be hard cases e.g. two twelve year olds in medieval Europe running off into the woods and exchanging vows or an impotent man deceiving a woman, etc.

  199. Scott says:

    And yet, the Sola Scriptura crowd accepts the selection and ordering of the books included in that same NT, that arose from…Tradition.

    I also think this is a tough one to get around as well. I would no have problem dispensing with all creeds, catechisms, and other extra-biblical sources if there was even one place in the NT–maybe a foot note at the end that read: “Once you round up the following 27 writings, (**see attached list) that is the end of it. These 27 books are to be the end all be all of what you need to live in the fullness of communion until Christs return.”

    But the problem is there is no evidence that the apostles intended for us to do that. It seems that cracking the special code where the scripture claims this for itself is a difficult sell.

    Most people will quote 2TIM3:16-17 and say that this is the place where that occurs–but it is far easier to make the case that it is referring to the already-in-existence scripture (the OT). How could the writer here be referring to what was at the time, fairly routine letters between the apostles and the churches as “scripture” here?

  200. Scott says:

    I wrote the previous two comments on my phone while still trying to pry my eyes open this morning. Please forgive that they appear to be written while drunk.

  201. Damn Crackers says:

    @OKRickty – “This, at least in most Protestant views, overrides the sin of abandonment and makes the experiment rather pointless.”

    According to the Catholic and Bruce views, it isn’t pointless. They would say the man is still married even though she left him and had an affair (family) with another.

    Let me state my question in another way. What does the Catholic Church recommend to a parishioner whose spouse has abandoned them with or without infidelity and no hope for reconciliation? Are they doomed to a celibate life without having a family of their own?

  202. OKRickety says:

    There is a big difference between churches and the Church. (JDG on November 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm)

    I think communication on this forum is sometimes (maybe often) hampered by the usage and interpretation of “church” and “Church”. (Note: Not everyone would perceive a difference between the lower-case and upper-case usage, and, even if they do, they may not use the Shift key when they type their comment.)

    For example, a given commenter may use “church” or “Church” to mean:
    – an individual congregation
    – one “denomination”
    – all “denominations” as a group
    – all Christians
    – the Roman Catholic church or other Orthodox churches (I do not know if these churches agree on the meaning of “Church”.)

    Most English translations of the New Testament use the word “church” for the Greek word ekklesia. It is used for individual congregations, and for all Christians.

    Because of the wide spectrum of doctrinal beliefs found in the commenters (and readers/lurkers), I recommend that commenters try to be clear in their usage of “church” and “Church”. I recognize that this may be inconvenient, but I hope that edification is desired, rather than bickering over which is the true Church, or wasting time and effort because of misunderstanding.

  203. Scott says:

    What does the Catholic Church recommend to a parishioner whose spouse has abandoned them with or without infidelity and no hope for reconciliation? Are they doomed to a celibate life without having a family of their own?

    This really is the situation that gets to the heart of the matter isn’t it? What a painful situation to find oneself in.

    I think (I am not sure) this is one of the situations that Orthodoxy in theory allows for remarriage in. They take the Pauline privilege to mean that, in practice, one person unilaterally dissolved the marriage. That person is in a real bind if the person they abandoned remarries. (Because there is literally no one on earth they can marry).

    For Catholics, If form was present for the marriage, it appears to be the case that, yes–you should live a celibate life and pray without ceasing for the return of your spouse. I mentioned upthread that I don’t really discuss much about my personal divorce situation, but I spent several years praying for this exact thing.

    I know one of two people in this situation, and as hard as it is, they appear to be staying to course. I knew a man once who held out hope for almost 20 years, and eventually, she came back. This was a glorious thing to be present for.

  204. Damn Crackers says:

    @OKRickety- Good point. I guess I am trying to understand the RCC position on annulment and divorce. I found this link and thought it might help:

    In 1990, the Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops published an agreed statement on Orthodox-Catholic marriages. They described the different practices of the two churches this way:

    “Our churches have expressed their conviction concerning the enduring nature of Christian marriage in diverse ways. In the canonical discipline of the Orthodox Church, for example, perpetual monogamy is upheld as the norm of marriage, so that those entering upon a second or subsequent marriage are subject to penance even in the case of widows and widowers. In the Roman Catholic Church the enduring nature of marriage has been emphasized especially in the absolute prohibition of divorce. Our churches have also responded in diverse ways to the tragedies which can beset marriage in our fallen world. The Orthodox Church, following Mt 19:9 (“whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”), permits divorce under certain circumstance, not only in the case of adultery but also of other serious assaults on the moral and spiritual foundation of marriage (secret abortion, endangering the life of the spouse, forcing the spouse to prostitution and similar abusive situations). Out of pastoral consideration and in order better to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful, the Orthodox Church tolerates remarriage of divorced persons under certain specific circumstances as it permits the remarriage of widows and widowers under certain specific circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church has responded in other ways to such difficult situations. In order to resolve the personal and pastoral issues of failed consummated marriages, it undertakes inquiries to establish whether there may have existed some initial defect in the marriage covenant which provides grounds for the Church to make a declaration of nullity, that is, a decision attesting that the marriage lacked validity. It also recognizes the possibility of dissolving sacramental non-consummated marriages through papal dispensation. While it true that the Roman Catholic Church does not grant dissolution of the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage, it remains a question among theologians whether this is founded on a prudential judgment or on the Church’s perception that it lacks the power to dissolve such a bond.”

    http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

  205. Scott says:

    but I spent several years praying for this exact thing.

    This, despite that fact that Brad is trying to get me to confess to “bailing” on my marriage using a technicality.

  206. Scott says:

    DC-

    That is a fantastic read. Pretty much how I understand the difference.

  207. Scott says:

    I was christened in the RCC as an infant. Does that mean I could dump my wife of 27 years and marry someone else in either the RCC or Orthodox Church

    No. You should go back to your nearest RC priest and enroll in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). There, you will be able to sort out the details of your marital status. Be prepared for the Priest to tell you to live with your wife “as brother and sister” until the process can be sorted out. Do you have the spiritual discipline to do that?

    You should also, during this time be hoping your wife converts to Catholicism, so you can be in full communion with your own her.

    I don’t know about many Orthodox members in the US, but I know many RCC ones believe far different than official RCC doctrine.

    This is a matter of poor catechesis, not a problem with the doctrine itself. As a convert, I am amazed at how little my Orthodox brothers and sisters know of their own traditions and theology.

    Slamming all Protestants for being Sola Scriptura because some are not Sola Scriptura is disingenuous.

    What a bizarre thing to contend, since I never said this. I don’t agree with it because in practice it never actually works out. It is untenable.

    some special water

    These are the kinds of comments you make that reveal who you are. There are doctrines in the Westminister Confession that I disagree with–“eternal security” for example. Many freewill theists pejoratively label it “once saved always saved.” They do so to minimize it and make fun of it. I don’t. Know why? Because it is a doctrinal position that deserves for me to take it seriously and call it by its proper name. In short, because I am not an A-hole.

    Scott and Bruce are free to ignore/dislike/hate this

    And this is, of course psychological projection. I do not hate anything. You remind me of the Kevin Nealon SNL character “Mr Subliminal Message” who would read a news story and then instead of letting the audience read between the lines, he would just blurt out the subtext.

    Your seething hatred for things you disagree with seeps through like poison.

  208. Art Deco says:

    – overall, even within my own lifetime wives did not see it as within their ambit to deny their husband sexual intercourse and thus did not attempt to do so –

    In my possession is an examination of conscience of a sort commonly used prior to the 2d Vatican Council. The form of it is a typescript prompting the penitent which is read prior to or in the confessional. Yes, one of the prompts concerns ‘denial of conjugal rights’. These examinations prompt the penitent to recall things that occur in everyday life, not anything exotic.

  209. Church with a capital C is the (Mystical) Body of Christ.

    Napoleon told the pope he would destroy the Church. The pope replied: “My dear little man, do not think that you can do what thousands of bishops and priests have failed to accomplish.”

    The pope “got it”. This is the Church independent even of its own hierarchy.

    Church with a small c is merely a church of a given locale, not the whole thing, but ideally a microcosm of the Church, in harmony with its operations and teachings. A church like this could conceivably be destroyed without destroying the Church (see the recent tragic happenings in the middle east).

    This distinction is guaranteed by the words of Christ himself, when he said the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church (not coincidentally, immediately after handing the keys of authority of his Church to Peter).

  210. To summarize my last comment more simply: churches can and do come and go, but Christ’s Church does not.

    I assert the the Church Christ established on earth is the Roman Catholic Church. Others might pick a different one, but if it has the feature of “coming and going”, I’d say that’s a red flag that maybe you don’t have the one Christ meant for us all.

  211. OKRickety says:
    I don’t know about many Orthodox members in the US, but I know many RCC ones believe far different than official RCC doctrine.

    This is a matter of poor catechesis, not a problem with the doctrine itself.

    The problem may be ignorance due to poor catechesis (religious instruction), but I would not be surprised to find that many individuals know the doctrine but disagree. For example, I believe there are high-ranking RCC clergy (priests, bishops, maybe even cardinals) in the USA who fully know the RCC doctrine but disagree, so they do not follow it completely (and, maybe, even teach their beliefs instead).

    Not surprisingly, this same scenario is also prevalent in the Protestant churches, especially in the Western world.

  212. Art Deco says:

    I was christened in the RCC as an infant. Does that mean I could dump my wife of 27 years and marry someone else in either the RCC or Orthodox Church? If so, how is that inherently different from others who do the same, especially women? Note that my wife and I did not give birth to any children, if that matters for the answers.

    When the tribunals are conscientious, canonical validity is assumed, and marriages which take place under various auspices are assumed valid. If you were an adherent of a protestant congregation and married in that congregation and your wife was as well, your vows are presumed valid. Your specific adherence to that other body is a renunciation of your Catholic affiliation, so your protestant marriage would not be considered defective of form as a matter of course. (That’s Canon Law for Dummies. There are 1,001 footnotes, I’m sure, but this is where you start).

    Where you get a sticky point is in a case like John Kerry’s. Catholic laymen in the Archdiocese of Boston have no idea whether or not his marriage to Julia Thorne was annulled, because the Archdiocese won’t say. It is known that he applied for one and she contested it, because she herself spoke publicly about it at a later date. His marriage to Julia Thorne was in an Episcopal church. Now, marriages annulled due to a defect of form are done so administratively; it does not require a ruling from an ecclesiastical tribunal. I’m certain that Julia Thorne would have had to have been notified had the matter reached a tribunal. I think she would have in any case, but I’m not altogether sure. Now, I’m not sure what her options would be in attempting to contest an application for an annullment to be issued administratively. I think the fact that she contested it suggests the matter was in front of a tribunal and any annullment granted was done so on shizzy and esoteric grounds, but I do not know. I do not think Kerry has ever been an Episcopal communicant, so perhaps he would not have been regarded as having renounced his Catholic affiliation (in which case his marriage vows were defective of form). I’ve been told off the record that civil marriages contracted by those with a Catholic baptism are facially invalid unless the party in question specifically renounced his baptism. Again, it’s the details that matter.

    – Would the answer change if it had been the Orthodox Church rather than the RCC? If so, why?

    Not sure. Not an Orthodox adherent. The Orthodox will solemnize up to three marriages in the course of a lifetime. Not sure which extra-ecclesiastical marriages are recognized.

    – What Scriptural basis is given for whatever initial church doctrine supports the practice/allowance?

    We do not quote Sacred Scripture or read it; protestants do that. Sacred Scripture is meant to be read in several different senses to ascertain it’s meaning, so it’s unwise to read it without the aid of a commentary. There are orthodox and heterodox readings of Scripture. The teaching of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage is straightforward, though, and not incongruent with a literal reading of New Testament passages.

    I don’t know about many Orthodox members in the US, but I know many RCC ones believe far different than official RCC doctrine. Slamming all Protestants for being Sola Scriptura because some are not Sola Scriptura is disingenuous. Arguing that either the RCC or Orthodox Church is perfect (by comparison) is not accurate either. All have men involved and thus are subject to sin.

    A great many people in the pews in a suburban Catholic parish are firm adherents to Whatever.

    My point is not to argue overall doctrine. It is to focus on the single divorce exception that seems to be wide enough to drive a truck through, if you happen to have had your parents get you sprinkled with some special water (I assume they don’t dunk infants). It seems more like rules lawyering than applying Biblical principles. That said, neither the RCC nor the Orthodox Church value Biblical principles as much as their traditions, so my complaint would not convince anyone there, even though it comes across as hypocritical. (I would say “is hypocritical” but my point is not to just rile up Scott, it is to note the unequal application aspect of it.)

    Again, I think you’ve misapprehended the teachings with regard to the sacrament. Where you have a mixed marriage or disparity of cult, you need to go through certain paces before you are married in a Catholic church (and, it the latter case, those paces include a written dispensation from the bishop).

  213. Bruce says:

    DC
    “Are they doomed to a celibate life without having a family of their own?”
    The celibate life is not a doomed life. Quite the opposite. Christianity is participation in the divinity of Jesus. We don’t just participate in the fun and easy stuff. We participate in his divinity when we suffer in obedience to him. This is a basic theme found throughout the new testatment. We don’t seek out suffering for it’s own sake but sometimes it finds us.
    It is clear that marriage is an very important part of Jesus’ ministry. He comes back to it again and again. The miracle at the wedding, the woman at the well. The symbolism of Christ and his bride, the church. Etc.
    And St. Paul gives us clear instructions on it.

  214. Scott says:

    I assert the the Church Christ established on earth is the Roman Catholic Church. Others might pick a different one, but if it has the feature of “coming and going”, I’d say that’s a red flag that maybe you don’t have the one Christ meant for us all.

    What do you make of the Orthodox/RC ecumenical dialogue these days? Most Orthodox clergy I know refer, for example to “the Romans” and when you ask about this, they do so deliberately. What they mean is that there is a church, with valid orders, valid apostles, valid sacraments already operating in the west. We are not in communion with them, but their sacraments are valid (for them).

    Likewise, most RC priests seem to offer the same deference to the Eastern/Oriental/Coptics, at least in spirit. I don’t have a lot of hope, but I wish some kind of “limited communion” could be reached.

  215. Art Deco says:

    Man’s tradition is very dangerous and can lead to a great many problems, as Jesus noted to the Pharisees and Sadducees who had a load of traditions of their own.

    Yes, I am Sola Scriptura, because that is the only direct Word from God.

    Again, the canon of Sacred Scripture was assembled by ecclesiastical councils during the first three centuries anno domini.

  216. Bruce says:

    I have also heard the argument that porneia in Matt. 19 may refer to illicit sex before the wedding which would indicate wifely vows made under false pretense. The sort of thing that people would try to accuse Mary of since the child was not Joseph’s. I do not know how far this line of reasoning has been taken.

  217. Art Deco says:

    I don’t have a lot of hope, but I wish some kind of “limited communion” could be reached.

    Adherents to the Orthodox Church and the non-Chacedonian Churches are regarded as schismatic, but possessed of valid Holy Orders and sacraments. They are welcome to take communion if they are in a state of grace.

    The sticky point concerns Sunday obligation. If only Orthodox services are feasible to attend, is one dispensed from one’s Sunday obligation or should one attend the Orthodox? I believe the former was recommended 80 years ago and the latter now. It’s a rare situation in this country, of course.

  218. Scott says:

    Art Deco-

    Brother–yours (and Bruces) mastery of Catholic canonical matters is pretty awesome by the way. I’ll just let you finish, since I have obviously allowed myself to become personally offended by Brad.

  219. Scott says:

    I wish Nova or Anonymous NG were here. I am doing a horrible job at Orthodox apologetics.

  220. OKRickety says:

    unwobblingpivot said on November 6, 2015 at 10:02 am

    I assert the the Church Christ established on earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

    One reason for my earlier post is that it is ridiculous to expect all readers to agree which Christian group, if any, is the real “Church”.

    Another reason is that the words “church” and “Church” are open to interpretation. So, it is unhelpful to expect that the reader will know or remember that, for example, unwobblingpivot means “Roman Catholic Church” or “RCC” when he writes “Church”.

    To be more specific in my recommendation, I think the following possibilities, used appropriately, may improve clarity:
    – “congregation” instead of “church”
    – “denomination”, “Baptist”, “Lutheran”, etc. instead of “church”
    – “Roman Catholic Church”, “Greek Orthodox”, etc. instead of “Church”
    – “body of Christ” or “all Christians” rather than “church” or “Church”

    Of course, you can do what you want. My recommendation is only intended to improve the discussion on this blog, not to disparage anyone’s religious beliefs.

  221. Bruce says:

    Scott, 2 Tim 3 appears to refer to the OT since Paul mentions that Timothy has known them since he was a child.

    I don’t want to start a 100 comment digression on Protestantism vs. Catholicism. So I am just going to defend the viability of the Catholic position not attack the Protestant one.

    I agree with someone above about Sola Scriptura and the canonization of scripture. If you trust the ancient church fathers in the canonization of the Bible (there were many books that Christians read that were not included) then it’s a least plausible that they should be trusted in other matters (I think this understates but don’t want to attack the Protestant position). There is abundant evidence of Catholic thought in the early Church fathers. It is plausible to trust them.

    Someone above said that there isn’t Biblical evidence for the detailed, ecclesial structure and details of the Church (Catholic, let’s say). Two responses come to mind. The Church developed. This is simply a fact of history. The unfolding understanding of Christ’s nature, the canonization of the Bible. Development is built into early Church history.
    The other is simply that the epistles were letters to specific Churches (with exceptions) addressing specific issues, admonishing, encouraging, etc. Ecumencial councils, for example, don’t express or define all Christian dogma, doctrine, structure, morals, etc. In both cases, they are glimpses. This does not mean they are not true.

  222. @OKR,

    Forget that I assert tha the RCC is THE Church, but rather focus on when I said this:

    ‘Napoleon told the pope he would destroy the Church. The pope replied: “My dear little man, do not think that you can do what thousands of bishops and priests have failed to accomplish.”

    The pope “got it”. This is the Church independent even of its own hierarchy.’

    That, to me, helps illustrate Church vs church better than anything else I can think of. I used that line of thought when a loved one wanted to leave the Church because of the very real failings of some of its official representatives (true story, not a hypothetical).

  223. Novaseeker says:

    Adherents to the Orthodox Church and the non-Chacedonian Churches are regarded as schismatic, but possessed of valid Holy Orders and sacraments. They are welcome to take communion if they are in a state of grace.

    I thought that when Pope Benedict was the head of CDF, CDF issued a document called “Domnus Iesus”, which used a somewhat different schema. IIRC, that document characterized the Orthodox as true particular churches, but ones which lacked the same degree of fullness (in Rome’s eyes) due to the remaining points of disagreement. I don’t think the word schismatics was used, although I don’t think it’s ever been officially abandoned. In effect, the churches are separated from each other in a temporal sense, and so either (1) someone is in schism from the other, (2) both are in schism from each other (i.e., it’s a tear in the church itself) or (3) as David Hart has suggested, somewhat provocatively, it’s more apparent than real, at least when one looks at the bigger, spiritual/ecclesial aspect and not simply the human one.

    The sticky point concerns Sunday obligation. If only Orthodox services are feasible to attend, is one dispensed from one’s Sunday obligation or should one attend the Orthodox? I believe the former was recommended 80 years ago and the latter now. It’s a rare situation in this country, of course.

    Interesting. it’s hard for Catholics to receive in the Orthodox Church (our parishes are small, and we don’t have an open chalice policy or honor system in place), but there is significant intercommunion in places where both churches exist and there is significant stress — such as the Middle East. For the most part, this has been between Melkite Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox (who are basically the mirror images of each other, given where the Melkite Church originates), and is relatively contained geographically, but it’s well known and tolerated by both sides.

  224. Scott says:

    or should one attend the Orthodox?

    My experience has been the same as Novas. There is no honor system anywhere I have gone. If I approach the Eucharist at an Orthodox church I do not normally attend, I will be asked my name and if I am Orthodox.

  225. OKRickety says:

    @unwobblingpivot

    Doing a little research, it appears that your explanation of “church” vs. “Church” is the official RCC usage, at least as exemplified in the New Jerusalem Bible. That’s your usage, but don’t expect that every reader will have the same understanding.

    I very strongly believe that it is the followers of Christ who are actually the church and not any earthly entity.

    unwobblingpivot said on November 6, 2015 at 11:11 am

    … a loved one wanted to leave the Church because of the very real failings of some of its official representatives

    This is a good example of how usage impacts clarity. Did the “loved one” want to leave the RCC, or did they want to leave the “body of Christ”? To you, that is one and the same, but it’s not to me. (By the way, I think you mean the former, partly because you refer to “its official representatives”.)

  226. BradA says:

    Practical question: How would you really vet a prospective foreign wive? Those seeking that have a strong motivation to lie and misrepresent themselves.

  227. BradA says:

    @Unwobblingpivot,

    An annulment (or more properly a “declaration of nullity”) is exactly and precisely the same as saying the (sacramental) marriage never existed.

    True. I disagree with denying what happened, however it is done, but you are right that it does wash it away as well. I would assume that an Orthodox approach would ignore multiple marriages outside the Orthodox Church as well. (Is OC a common abbreviation for that, like RCC?)

    Bruce,

    BradA, if she is your wife, then no you may not. The believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife.

    Why would she be my wife but not Scott’s first wife (or whatever she would be officially called)? What step did my wife become my wife? We have never had a formal RCC or OC ceremony and likely never will.

    I apologize but I am confused about your discussion of baptism. The Matthean exception as I understand it is not a function of baptism.

    I thought I read that Scott was saying his baptism (from his father) was what allowed him the ability to ignore his first marriage. I would be glad to be corrected here. I assume my experience in the RCC was comparable, but I do not know for certain how it is treated by the OC.

    @orthostrov,

    As for your question towards Scott, the key you’re missing is in your wife’s reaction.

    So Scott’s first marriage is not valid because his wife did not follow him? He noted it was ruled as never happening, not just voided because his first life left.

    BradA, the reason children of an annulled marriage aren’t bastards is because the marriage was a putative one.

    My mom said that was her concern. I grew up believing she was right in her actions, but have come to see she was quite misled in practice, especially as I have touched on similar issues. My father was far from perfect, but I am convinced no one would satisfy my mother because her father never accepted her. (She was the oldest and not a boy. Lots of other family dynamics.)

    Ironically, my father would have been about the best thing for her, in spite of some of his blue pill thinking, if they had stuck it out.

    ====

    Note that I may really be botching some things here. I am glad to here clarification of the logic/issues involved. I doubt I will agree with the application, but I am not trying to argue that. It is a bit backwards in order since I am catching up to replies now.

    Scott, I am not meaning to attack you in this and hope none of this reply (at least) comes off that way. This specific reply is seeking clarification on these points. (I haven’t meant to attack you either way, but we are all big boys here and things do seem and likely are attacks at points.)

  228. Guilty as charged, OKR.

    I would have taken the same approach with Luther and Calvin if given the chance. Not so sure about Henry VIII, though.

    Question: If Christ indeed said “He who hears you, hears me”, who was this “you”, and was it meant to be true for only the ones addressed at that moment, such that it was provisional and had a built-in expiration date or condition? Given that only two of the four Gospels were authored by the ones to whom this was presumably addressed, are we at liberty to disregard anything contained in Mark & Luke that is not also found in Matthew or John?

    You do see the trap you fall into if you say that Mark was a disciple of Peter (or possibly more so if you point out Luke was instructed in the faith by Paul)?

  229. @BradA:

    “but you are right that it does wash it away as well”

    I never intended for you to take that as my meaning.

    That’s equivalent to me saying, “Hey, Brad, I meant to write something on that paper with this mechanical pencil, but alas something required for that was missing at the time, namely the lead refill. Be a good man and erase what I meant to write.”

  230. BradA says:

    Scott,

    This, despite that fact that Brad is trying to get me to confess to “bailing” on my marriage using a technicality.

    You had an out others do not have. To claim you can freely have a new marriage but someone else could not is the issue I was addressing. My wording was likely not ideal, as it did not properly represent you specific instance, but you may want to look at the issue rather than taking offense over a word.

    Does everyone get the right for a new marriage in your belief system? How many years can they be married and what circumstances can surround that first marriage and still allow a second one as if no other existed?

    Would your current marriage have been just as valid if you had been the problem with the first marriage instead? I read that it would because your situation was governed by your father baptizing you (or whatever it is specifically called as a child) not due to how the first marriage ended. You also indicated you only have a single marriage in the OC’s eyes, not a second valid one.

    Does this make sense? Or are you still operating in offense? I will retract the “bailing” word as that was not appropriate, though the principles noted in this reply remain. Let me know if you believe any more are in error.

    NOTE: I wrote most of this before I read you launching your attack on me claiming I was projecting. I will repeat Bugs Bunny here: “He don’t know me very well, do he?”

  231. Scott says:

    Brad, again. I did not need an “out” because I did not leave.

    She left. I tried for years to convince her to come back.

    In both the Orthodox tradition and the protestant understanding of “abandonment” I was free to remarry. I was in a sense “lucky” to have been Christmated as an infant. It created a situation where a lack of form existed.

    I dodged a bullet.

  232. Scott says:

    And to make it as clear as possible. There was no infidelity, violence or even a raised voice on my part. I was a 100% blue pill husband who believed anything and everything that happened was my fault. The elders at my church told me so.

  233. BradA says:

    This is my belief as well. There is a big difference between churches and the Church.

    True. We also need to keep in mind that Paul had to rebuke Peter at one time as he fell into errant doctrine (separating himself from Gentile believers). No one is perfect on this earth, even the supposed founder of the RCC (and I assume the OC).

    Tom,

    it also lacks hierarchies, chains of command

    Which makes the argument that those structures are not proper. Centralized authority seems to have fallen fairly quickly, at least the one based in Jerusalem.

    Scott,

    But the problem is there is no evidence that the apostles intended for us to do that. It seems that cracking the special code where the scripture claims this for itself is a difficult sell.

    I suppose some may say that tradition has no place, but I have not seen that and would not assert it. I would just place tradition below the Scriptures and require and doctrine of tradition that is enforced by supported by 2 or more Scriptures. That is different than completely ignoring tradition.

    Though look at Jesus letters to the Churches in the Book of Revelation and we can see that valid churches strayed fairly quickly, so traditions after that, especially hundreds of years, may not be as accurate as many claim.

    Scott,

    Do you have the spiritual discipline to do that?

    I would if I felt it to be the proper approach, but I see enough error from the Biblical standard in the RCC that I could not return there.

    Though my question was more about what the situation would be, from an RCC or OC persepective, if I divorced and then got right with the RCC again, in their eyes. You did not really answer that. I could certainly argue that my wife did not give me children, even if nothing else, so that is another factor as well. (Our children were all adopted.)

    What a bizarre thing to contend, since I never said this. I don’t agree with it because in practice it never actually works out. It is untenable.

    How have you proven this? It has worked out quite well for me. Kept me focused through a horrid situation of having all my children return to their birth family, among other things. What exactly is “not working” and how would the OC or even RCC have worked better? You need to close that loop.

    I do not hate anything.

    I call BS on that claim. You would not have gotten so angry earlier if you did not have strong feelings. Though I suppose we can debate exactly what hate means just like we have pornia (sp?).

    You claim all kinds of things about me and then act in a very irrational manner yourself. I may be quite wrong, but I am fairly consistent as others have noted. You claim a lot of false charges against me because I don’t fit in a nice box, but I suppose that is OK in your view since you believe you are right.

    Your seething hatred for things you disagree with seeps through like poison.

    Nice that you can psychoanalyze me over the Internet. What other skills do you have.

    I had not thought I mastered or used much the rhetorical end of the discussion, but your reply makes me realize I have done so at least a bit as many of the things I said were more rhetorical than I realized. You do the same and don’t admit it.

    Though whatever. Hold a double standard if you wish. I will continue to seek truth.

    OKR,

    Not surprisingly, this same scenario is also prevalent in the Protestant churches, especially in the Western world.

    Yet they tell us Protestants are totally flawed because that happens, or at least that is the logical implication. Most RCC members know what the RCC position is on abortion, for example, yet many still disagree and act strongly on that disagreement, but those can be waved away.

    I hold instead that it is a human problem that should not be held against either group.

    Art Deco,

    The Orthodox will solemnize up to three marriages in the course of a lifetime.

    Is that after death of a spouse or does it allow for divorce? I do not believe that was noted earlier.

    We do not quote Sacred Scripture or read it

    I recall having specific Scripture readings for each service. Or are you saying that individual RCC members generally do not do that?

    Again, I think you’ve misapprehended the teachings with regard to the sacrament.

    Then please explain what the general or absolute limits are in this situation. The only condition Scott initially noted was that he had an out from his father because he had been baptized early. I did not see any other allowance mentioned there. Did I miss something?

    Again, the canon of Sacred Scripture was assembled by ecclesiastical councils during the first three centuries anno domini.

    Yes, and most who are Sola Scriptura believe that was guided by God. Perhaps we are wrong, but that is what it is.

  234. Scott says:

    What exactly is “not working”

    30,000 (and counting) denominations. A new church popping up on every city in America every week. That is my definition. It may not be important to you, and I respect that.

  235. BradA says:

    Scott,

    So the fact you were abandoned means that had a right to a new marriage as if it was your only one? That was not what you initially stated. You said they decreed it was not a valid marriage because it was not in the Church, not that it was dissolved because she abandoned it.

    Would my father have been allowed a new marriage since both his wives kicked him out, the latter merely because he was going into the ministry full time? Trying to figure out the limits of OC doctrine here. Though he was RCC and the first marriage was in the RCC because he was raised that way. I am not sure my mother ever converted. That will remain unknown since no one is alive now to confirm the details.

  236. BradA says:

    30,000 (and counting) denominations. A new church popping up on every city in America every week. That is my definition. It may not be important to you, and I respect that.

    I would say that is a feature, not a bug, to use a common engineering phrase.

  237. Scott says:

    Brad, please check your email. (The one that comes up on my blog).

  238. @OKR:

    “I very strongly believe that it is the followers of Christ who are actually the church and not any earthly entity.”

    Actual RCC doctrine lines up with this. It merely considers those other believers, churches, and church-like bodies to be separated from full (comm-)union with the RCC.

    Just like if your kid runs away from home. He’s still your kid (even if the kid does not consider himself to be your son — and even if the elder kid who didn’t run away strongly disagrees, and no longer considers him a brother, and so on).

    Also, the RCC sees itself as a divinely instituted entity with both earthly and heavenly dimensions. See the doctrine regarding the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant, collectively known as the Communion of Saints.

  239. Scott says:

    Actual RCC doctrine lines up with this. It merely considers those other believers, churches, and church-like bodies to be separated from full (comm-)union with the RCC.

    Just like if your kid runs away from home. He’s still your kid (even if the kid does not consider himself to be your son — and even if the elder kid who didn’t run away strongly disagrees, and no longer considers him a brother, and so on).

    Also, the RCC sees itself as a divinely instituted entity with both earthly and heavenly dimensions. See the doctrine regarding the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant, collectively known as the Communion of Saints.

    I have to admit, I find the RCC official position on this to be slightly more magnanimous than the Orthodox one. In the RCC there is a real “they are separated brothers and sisters” feel, but not so much with us. For them, it comes across as a genuine sadness that they are not in communion with all these other believers. I have actually tried to use that language sometimes and it often goes over like a lead balloon.

    This may because we are the smaller of the two (1 billion RCC to 300 million EO) and so there is a defensive posture. I am not sure.

    Combined, we would be a powerful force though, wouldn’t we? (1.3 billion).

  240. No doubt, Scott, my brother.

  241. Bee says:

    @JDG,

    “It does not guarantee the outcome. Prayer, proper vetting and what once was known as common sense are also needed.”

    I am glad you wrote that about Prayer, proper vetting and common sense. I agree with that.

    I addressed this to you because I have never seen you give these warnings before.* Your previous comments have conveyed the idea that going overseas is a magic bullet for finding a good wife. Overseas is not a magic bullet and I want young guys that read here to know that they need to be just as proactive, just as shrewd, and just as prayerful looking overseas as they do looking in North America.

    I believe you when you write that you found a good wife overseas. I believe Mikediver when he writes that he found a good wife overseas. I believe your 100 good examples; but I could also find 100 guys that ended up with gold diggers, green card Queens, and pipelines for their siblings and parents to come to America.

    I worked with a guy for years, and still have lunch with him from time to time. He married a girl from SE Asia. They have the same faith background. She is lazy; she won’t work, she won’t clean the house, she won’t cook – she insists on eating every meal out or getting takeout. She is addicted to shopping and spending. He is miserable.

    * I have read a lot of your comments but not all of them. I could have missed one where you gave some warnings or cautions.

  242. anonymous_ng says:

    Scott, I think you did an admirable job of presenting the Orthodox position. I could have maybe given the equivlant of “See Spot run.”

  243. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Whether they accept the distinction or not, everybody understands the difference between a natural marriage and a sacramental marriage,

    right?

  244. Dalrock’s hypothetical question, “However, the more relevant question is how can marriage stripped of all legal force survive in a culture where it is more moral to encourage divorce, or at least threats of divorce, than to encourage honoring marriage vows?”, then leads me to the question, what man in his right mind signs on for marriage in a societal system where he’s almost promised a divorce? Are we the only one that sees this?

    And no one, not his church, not the family structure, not the wife’s friends or relatives, certainly not a fully divorce-supportive society, seek to influence against a breakup and indeed, now encourage the divorce. I would venture a guess that the fifty percent of marriages that have stayed whole were couples with religious structure. Therefore, since the Christian faith insists on women leading-by-threat and finally, bringing no influence to bear on a divorcing wife, what chance does a man have but to eschew any notion of marriage in the United States? If this becomes truly mainstream in the Christian community, that women can enter into marriage, bear children, declare “Not haaaappy” and divorce-rape her husband with no repercussions from the church, we must surely be headed for divorce rates in the 60-85-90% range. This is surely the end of men in this country and perhaps that’s the goal.

    Dalrock or others, am I reading and interpreting the situation correctly? If so, men are finished in this country. They are mules to carry the load with no rights or power over their families, no influence in their children’s lives, they exist as drones. What man is to sign on for this? The only hope is not to commit and not to sign on. Men really need to sign on to a gender-wide marriage strike. They need to walk out on a pastor and religious order that supports women threatening their husbands with divorce. When enough women understand men will not marry until things change, believe me, things will change. If men demanded change and voted by keeping their engagement rings in the jeweler’s case, the women would demand a reversal of no-fault if that’s what it took. Time for men to unite. Men support everything in this country. Remove the men, the women are helpless. If that’s how they want it, fine. But men shouldn’t support their own demise.

  245. JDG says:

    Your previous comments have conveyed the idea that going overseas is a magic bullet for finding a good wife.

    Bee – I disagree with this statement. Can you show the time and date of one of my comments that conveys the magic bullet idea? I think the problem is that sometimes people think they are reading things that aren’t actually written.

  246. greyghost says:

    Jim Christian
    You are correct and you like many men have logically come to that conclusion. MGTOW/PUA is what I the path is now. Japan has its grass eating men. The only men that marry are men that are not in their right mind. It is the elephant in every room that speaks of marriage relationships and children. Gun sales are good though.

  247. Cane Caldo says:

    @OKRickety, et al

    I think communication on this forum is sometimes (maybe often) hampered by the usage and interpretation of “church” and “Church”.

    The same goes for the word tradition. It gets confusing (especially for Protestants) because very often what is really being appealed to under the general label tradition is one particular tradition; that of Apostolic Succession. It is in this which RCs have faith. Perhaps it would be better said that they have faith that God “keeps/shepherds/preserves the Apostolic Succession.

  248. Dale says:

    Brad:
    >Practical question: How would you really vet a prospective foreign wive? Those seeking that have a strong motivation to lie and misrepresent themselves.

    Your question is not based on knowledge. In my experience, the women had no problem taking themselves out of the running if they did not genuinely see a possibility for marriage. Yes, some were obviously interested in pursuing a relationship.
    But assuming that many or most foreign women who seek marriage are desperate to come to America, and thus will lie to do so, shows you have not interacted with many, or any, of them. They are not living in hovels, without enough food to eat, desperate for a sugar daddy. For women seeking a sugar daddy, you are better off looking at women here.
    The one woman I interacted with who apparently wanted just money, wanted the money there… she did not seek to marry me. (She tried to insist on eating at one particular restaurant, making me think she was getting a kick-back or something.)

  249. BradA says:

    Dale,

    See Bee’s comment just above. Are you saying the women he notes do not exist? Are the only ones in the pool those with honorable intentions with no alternative motives that are not shown ahead of time?

    You could be right, but I trust that human nature is corrupt globally enough that such is not true. That would not mean that the risk might not be lower for a foreign woman (though that issue has also been debated here before), but it would not be trivial either. They are under the curse on Eve as much as any US women and the US environment will still attempt to corrupt them even so.

  250. BradA says:

    I believe Scott and I have resolved things. I won’t speak for his motivation, but my intent was to stand for specific principles, not to attack him even though that seems to have appeared to be the case to at least some.

    My intent was not to cause strife and I do apologize to Dalrock if it seemed that way and I thank him for his patience. I think we need a place like this to hash things out and I appreciate that it is here.

  251. BradA says:

    Dale, also note that I was asking my question about women seeking marriage who had other intents, not those trying to force a marriage when the man was not willing. Women the world over can act one way when they are scheming inside. That is a human condition and applies to men as well, though men tend to leak out their intents a bit more in my experience.

    I am not sure the exact situation you were thinking of, but wouldn’t a man still want to vet a possible foreign wife? How would he do that?

  252. JDG says:

    but wouldn’t a man still want to vet a possible foreign wife? How would he do that?

    I vetted all women the same whether they were foreign or domestic. Why wouldn’t anyone do this?

    Was she a Christian?
    Did she take the Bible seriously?
    Did she have a good relationship with her father?
    Did she submit to her parents?
    Did her mother submit to her father?
    Did she believe a wife should submit to her husband?
    Was she able and willing to be a helpmate and NOT a career woman?
    Could and would she cook, clean, and do the housework (be a wife).
    Was capable of apologizing? (Few Western woman will do this.)
    Was she able to admit that she was wrong? (Few Western women can do this.)
    Was she a virgin, if not how many men had she been with? (N needed to be very low with 0 preferred.)
    If she was unwilling to talk about this there was no point in continuing.
    If she had been married before there was no point in continuing.
    If she had kids there was no point in continuing, they already had a father who should be in the picture.

    Finally, be sure to make her good in mad before committing to marriage. You really need to to see her angry before you tie the knot.

    HERE IS THE POINT: Every single American women I vetted (with one exception) FAILED to meet the standards listed above. Most of them didn’t meet any of the standards, nor did they want to. Even the Christian women didn’t want to abide by the scriptural teachings of how a wife should relate to her husband.

    There a many women in my wife’s country who can easily meet these standards. They are brought up to HATE divorce. It is a huge loss in status for them. They still understand shame over there. They know the difference between “good girls” and “bad girls”. Yes there are some bad girls over there, but (unlike here) there are a lot of good ones too.

    You’d probably have to see it to believe it.

  253. JDG says:

    Every single American women – should be – Every single American woman

  254. JDG says:

    I should clarify when i wrote that MOST of the US women didn’t meet ANY of the standards, I was referring to the “Was she a Christian” through “Was she a virgin” portion of the list.

  255. JDG says:

    Okay, I can’t say if they were really Christian or not. But they certainly didn’t take the Bible seriously. I should stop posting now. Lack of sleep again.

  256. Bee says:

    @JDG,

    Because until this post, you have never mentioned or warned about the necessity to vet overseas women.

    My comment yesterday forced you to begin writing and giving examples of vetting, being prayerful, etc. I want those warnings out there for both overseas women and North American women.

    It is not about you and me. We already have good wives. It is about the young, single guys reading here.

  257. Dragonfly says:

    @JDG & Bee, that is a great list! I think kindness and gentleness is important as well. Most western women are not kind imo, at least not to men who are hurting.

  258. Dale says:

    Brad,

    >You could be right, but I trust that human nature is corrupt globally enough that such is not true.

    You are amusing. You presented an assumption about foreign women; that they have a strong motivation to lie, and presumably are largely willing to do so. Hence the need for a special way to screen them.
    I point out you are speaking from a lack of knowledge, and give you my real-life experiences, so you can have something truthful upon which to base your assumptions and views, and thus something wise to say. Your reply, quoted above, appears to indicate you would prefer to dismiss my position, which is based on knowledge of direct experiences, and favour your mistrust which is based on ignorance.

    Okay. Don’t think I can help you.

    For anyone else who is reading: Vetting, in my experience, is easier where I went. The women there are very willing to have open conversations, and have blunt conversations about what kind of marriage I am offering. Just talk to them. Read the Bible and discuss it together. And if she is interested in money rather than you, that will be pretty obvious, as I indicated in a prior comment.
    Granted, I did not successfully go through to marriage. For successful experiences in that area, I suggest you ask JDG or others who have actually lived through it. Their real-world experiences will be more valuable than the assumptions or fear-mongering of myself or others.

    @JDG:
    That is a great list. Dragonfly also added kindness, similar to loving toward others, which is also important. Titus 2:3-5

    >Even the [Western] Christian women didn’t want to abide by the scriptural teachings of how a wife should relate to her husband.

    Sadly, I have to concur with your experience. I understand a man/woman not having the Scriptural response when they are first asked a question. But when a Scriptural passage is given, which directly contradicts their view, I would hope to see some movement in their view over the next couple days.
    A great example is suggesting a pre-nup that states that if divorce occurs after a spouse commits adultery, that the adulterous spouse gets nothing. Based on the Biblical command that a person who commits adultery is to be executed; so they obviously should not be trying to take/own anything.
    Watch how fast the “Christian” woman decides that she is not really in agreement that adultery is to be punished, and that she knows better than God whether she should ever have earthly punishment. If she can’t submit to God, what am I doing with her?

  259. JDG says:

    Bee:

    Because until this post, you have never mentioned or warned about the necessity to vet overseas women.

    You are incorrect for two reasons.

    1) Informing people (even young guys*) that there is a better market for quality wives over seas does not in any way imply there is not a need to vet when shopping in that market.

    2) I have mentioned the need for vetting in several posts and even included lists similar to the one I left above.

    My comment yesterday forced you to begin writing and giving examples of vetting, being prayerful, etc.

    Complete and utter hogwash!

    If this really isn’t about you and me, how about you quit accusing me of things I’m not doing, and quit giving yourself credit for what you haven’t done.

    * who by the way are generally more informed on female behavior then guys our age.

  260. JDG says:

    @JDG:
    That is a great list. Dragonfly also added kindness, similar to loving toward others, which is also important. Titus 2:3-5

    Agreed! The list isn’t comprehensive. I’ve posted other lists with more things to vet for, but those listed above are among the main things to watch for IMO.

  261. Oscar says:

    OKRickety says:
    November 5, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    “I addressed you in the comment because I thought you were advancing this view.”

    I wasn’t.

    “If you were not, please forgive me.”

    No sweat.

    “Do you think it should, or do you want to skip the first 2 steps and go straight to ‘treat her as an unbeliever’?”

    Under normal circumstances, no. But, in the thought exercise that started the thread, the wife ran off to Poland with her lover. The husband can’t take the entire congregation to Poland to confront her, can he? Nor can he fly to Poland, kidnap her and bring her back to the congregation, can he? Furthermore, the fact that she remained with her lover is proof enough that she is unrepentant. Then there’s the fact that she’s committing adultery. So, in this case, yes, I do think going through the entire process is unnecessary.

  262. Bruce says:

    BradA.

    “No one is perfect on this earth, even the supposed founder of the RCC”
    Peter was a very flawed man, a coward and a snob. Catholics would call this a feature not a bug – see Chesterton’s quote on Peter as the weakest link in the chain.

    Regarding God guiding the canonization of scripture, why would we assume that God just guided this decision and not all the decisions the ancient Church was making?

  263. Bruce says:

    BradA,

    Regarding scripture and tradition, Catholics don’t rank scripture and tradition, they don’t divide them in the first place. This is a general Catholic tendency, let man not put asunder. Faith and works done in Christ, scripture and tradition, believers and baptism. These thinks are not divided which is fitting for the Church of unity, “that they may be one.”

  264. Bruce says:

    As a follow on to the 20,000+ denominations argument against Sola Scriptura, I think there’s a built-in potential for division in doctrines of faith and morals. This is illustrated by the positions presented here (and in links) on marriage and divorce, a very basic teaching:

    1. No divorce.
    2. No divorce except on the part of the husband for porneia where porneia is used consistently with NT parallel verses to mean illicit sex acts e.g. adultery, homosexual acts, bestiality.
    3. Like 2 but the wife is allowed to divorce based on an argument for gender symmetry in the general teaching as presented in Mark.
    4. Like 2 and/or 3 but expanding porneia to include other sin involving sexual morality: husband or wife denying sex, husband or wife watching pornography, etc.
    5. Either spouse deciding that they are the victim of the breaking of one or more marriage vows.

    I’m sure other positions are possible.

  265. BradA says:

    Bruce,

    Regarding scripture and tradition, Catholics don’t rank scripture and tradition, they don’t divide them in the first place.

    That is not true. Which one comes first when they disagree? Tradition. That is their choice, but they must inherently be ranked because they do not always agree.

    Repeating the XXXXX denominations canard is not helping your case. I would bet you could find just as many in the RCC who practice that many different views. If Nancy Pelosi can remain an RC we can see that being in the RCC means very little in practice. That is just one example. JFK was a philanderer, yet remained an RC. You may want to stop throwing rocks when you live in a glass house, one with lots of smashed windows already.

  266. BradA says:

    JDG,

    How do you really know her answers are accurate? It takes time to dig many of those things out. Most people can put on a show in just about any area for a time. You made our well, but others have not. I guess they must not have checked well enough up front? No chance a woman could say she believed something different than she believed up front, right?

    Some of those things might be at least slightly confirmed by seeing her in other situations, but a few conversations do not prove the inner heart.

    Dale,

    You are amusing. You presented an assumption about foreign women; that they have a strong motivation to lie, and presumably are largely willing to do so. Hence the need for a special way to screen them.

    You made up the idea of a “special way” Dale. I just noted that all women are subject to the curse on Eve, not just US women. And moving back into the US culture, which most would do, subjects even the ideal foreign woman to feminist ideas in the US. Some will clearly not follow those, but you fail to note the failures of such situations that do occur. Yours is a “this is the way to do it and you are stupid if you do not” approach. How is that any different from someone looking down his nose on others who have failed marriages because his has survived?

    Believe what you want, but no source of perfect incorruptible women exists, no matter how much you assert it. Your arguments are also very week if you only have insults for me to rely on rather than viewing basic human nature.

  267. JDG says:

    Brad – To my knowledge no one has claimed that there is some secret stash of incorruptible women over seas. That would appear to be a straw man that some like here to beat up on.

    What is plain to all who have seen it is the fact that some people are better insulated against corruption than others. That’said what often what happens when children are brought up correctly.

    You ask how to tell if she is telling the truth. The answer is quite simple, by the testimony of two or more witnesses.

    Speak with her parents, her pastor, her mentors and observe the types of company she keeps. Then, as I already wrote above, make her angry. You’Lloyd find out a lot when she is angry.

  268. JDG says:

    I’mean using my phone hence the butchered comments.

  269. BradA says:

    JDG,

    It is not a straw man. That is the implication of saying “go overseas” with no other comment. It is presented by most here as the complete answer to US women. I am seeking to point out that women are still women. They may be more inclined to being better in some cultures, but men choosing that route face others drawbacks that are rarely mentioned in the same post.

    I have no problem with encouraging men to consider that. It is the absolutism it is presented as, saying it is basically the only choice, that I take issue with. I do not recall you pushing that aspect as much, but it has been presented that way.

    I am not sure your filtering is as simple as you think however, as it would be quite easy to get past those filters if someone is so inclined. The fact that the US has so much immigration means that many still find it valuable to get here. I hope that makes more sense to you.

  270. Bee says:

    @JDG,

    “2) I have mentioned the need for vetting in several posts and even included lists similar to the one I left above.”

    If you link to a comment, prior to November 6, 2015, where you discussed both vetting and going overseas for a wife then I will apologize to you.

    Asking a women to make you a sandwich does not count as vetting.

  271. feeriker says:

    Brad – To my knowledge no one has claimed that there is some secret stash of incorruptible women over seas. That would appear to be a straw man that some like here to beat up on.

    JDG, I’ve long since stopped trying to reason with people on this issue. Whenever you get responses like those from Brad, you can be pretty certain that one or more of the following is true:

    1. The respondant has never traveled outside of the United States (and no, for purposes of this topic a visit to Canada or a Mexican border town does NOT count).

    2. The respondant is a monoglot (speaks only English).

    3. The respondant has visited a foreign country, but for a only a very brief period of time under very structured conditions (e.g., a package tour) and never interacted with natives in their own culture at all.

    4. As a result of one or two of the above three, the person is utterly ignorant of any culture other than his own and cannot even fathom the concept of living with, to nothing of marrying, someone not of his own culture.

    Don’t lose sleep over the fact that they can’t/don’t/won’t grasp the message you’re trying to convey. I’ve come to realize that, given the conditions I’ve cited above, their attitude is the only one that they’re capable of holding. It’s like trying to convince a native of the Congolese jungles that whale or walrus meat is a delicacy. Not knowing what either thing is because they’re never been exposed to it, they can’t imagine why anyone would eat it.

  272. JDG says:

    Brad – It is not a straw man. That is the implication of saying “go overseas” with no other comment…

    Yes it is a straw man. No one has made the claims that you and Bee are saying were made. The implications are on you, not on those that inform you of a better place to look for wives.

    It is presented by most here as the complete answer to US women.

    Nope! No one said that either. You really shouldn’t attach meanings under the guise of “implications” when you really don’t have any experience in the matter or any stats that back up your claims.

    It is the absolutism it is presented as, saying it is basically the only choice…

    Show me where someone was “saying it is basically” the only choice. This one’s also on you. Let’s see something besides your accusations.

    The fact that the US has so much immigration means that many still find it valuable to get here.

    Of course many find value in getting here. What you can’t seem to get through your head is that some women are actually raised to value treating men right, even when coming to America is one of the reason’s she is attracted to him.

    What’s worse is that you say that like it’s a bad thing. It’s not. In many cases the man’s MMV is increased by virtue of being from America, and I’ve heard that American men have a good reputation in some parts of the world at this time. Women have their attraction triggers and men have theirs. How is it different or worse than my being attracted to my wife’s slim form over the obese local women? How many women anywhere are willing to marry the paper boy (or the equivalent to one)?

    I find it quite liberal of you and Bee to explain what Dale, Mike, and myself really mean when we say there are more marriage worthy women over seas then in this country. Do you also find it hard to believe that 100 years ago in this country there were comparatively (percentage of the compared populations) more marriage worthy women than there are now?

  273. JDG says:

    Bee – The onus should be on the accuser don’t you think? Nevertheless, see the link below.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/these-fathers-need-a-wake-up-call/#comment-123151

    Notice at the bottom of the comment where it says:

    If you are looking for a woman to marry I recommend two things.

    1) Shop in a culture that respects men. Even then choose prayerfully and carefully with the wisdom of many wise councilors.
    2) If at all possible keep the US government (at all levels) out of it.

  274. JDG says:

    Bee – Here is another one:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/child-support-and-the-threat-point/#comment-105610

    Notice in the 1st paragraph where it says:
    My wife knows that if she were to frivorce me she would get nothing. I would go to debtors prison before supporting that kind of thing. She isn’t from here though and her culture is very much against divorce. I know that’s not a guarantee, but I can see the difference in her attitude from the attitudes of women not from her culture.

  275. JDG says:

    This should be common sense to anyone who has been reading this site for more than a year, but since there are those who like to interpret what I write for me:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/getting-to-the-church-on-time-a-second-time/#comment-124399

    Men if you don’t want to become a cuckold, then consider very carefully the things you have read on this site and others like it. If you are a Christian, read carefully what the Bible says about loose and immoral women and the men who become their victims. Proverbs is a good place to start.

    Not marrying in 2.0 conditions is not only prudent, it is critical. If you must marry, proceed with extreme caution. Keep in mind that the US government is not your friend. Also, know that there are still sane women in other parts of the world, but remember feminism can be contagious. Do not marry a loose woman unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt God has called you to it (read Hosea for more on this).

    Just my $.02

  276. JDG says:

    There are more, but I only had time to search the 1st few months since I started commenting. Feel free to continue where I left off.

  277. JDG says:

    feeriker says:
    November 8, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    You have nailed it exactly, and you worded it much better than I was able. They just can’t see it. They won’t even take the stats into consideration. The thing is that both Bee and Brad see more than a few other things the way I do. They seem like entirely reasonable men to me, except when it comes to this particular subject.

  278. JDG says:

    Asking a women to make you a sandwich does not count as vetting.

    Maybe not over seas, but it blasted well should here in these Un-united States of feminazism!!!

  279. Bee says:

    @JDG,

    “Bee – The onus should be on the accuser don’t you think? Nevertheless, see the link below.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/these-fathers-need-a-wake-up-call/#comment-123151

    That is a great comment.

    I apologize to you for saying that you had never commented about vetting overseas women. I am sorry.

  280. Bee says:

    @feeriker,

    You are over analyzing and labeling. Stick to the facts we are discussing.

    “3. The respondant has visited a foreign country, but for a only a very brief period of time under very structured conditions (e.g., a package tour) and never interacted with natives in their own culture at all.”

    I have visited 4 foreign countries and none were under the limited conditions you are projecting.

  281. Isa says:

    @JDG
    Seems the key to many of the items on your list is teachability. Was her father able to teach her? Was her pastor able to teach her? Will she allow her husband to teach her? Does she want to be taught. If a woman has never had good teachers in her life, she obviously will be wrong on many points, but if she is willing to learn how to be a good partner I would say she is far more capable than one who checks the boxes but has a rebellious nature, even if she restrains it.

  282. BradA says:

    JDG,

    You would not be convinced by any quotes I found if you have not recognized them. Go ahead and believe your fantasy. Pity the fool who thinks he has found the only way.

    You will share responsibility for the ones who end up with gold diggers, those looking to bring in their relatives, etc. Though I suppose you will trot out the no true Scotsman argument then, since it worked for you.

    Hey, I could say to just get a woman who is committed to Jesus, since that worked for me. Never mind all those where it didn’t work. They are wrong. That is how the logic works.

    Believe it is a straw many all you want. I have read enough posts here saying to go for the foreign women because they are the only good choice enough times here to know that is the message some put forth. I don’t watch it closely enough to know who says it, but you Dale and feeriker are high on the likely list.

    Have fun with it.

  283. BradA says:

    Quite a while ago Eric said:

    The only way I see of saving the institution of marriage is to eliminate American women from any part of the solution. Men who want traditional marriage and family CANNOT find it within the confines of our culture.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/thoughts-on-the-future-of-marriage/#comment-12757

    Dale said fairly recently:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/repenting-of-sexual-morality/#comment-193413

    Your question is not based on knowledge. In my experience, the women had no problem taking themselves out of the running if they did not genuinely see a possibility for marriage. Yes, some were obviously interested in pursuing a relationship.
    But assuming that many or most foreign women who seek marriage are desperate to come to America, and thus will lie to do so, shows you have not interacted with many, or any, of them. They are not living in hovels, without enough food to eat, desperate for a sugar daddy. For women seeking a sugar daddy, you are better off looking at women here.
    The one woman I interacted with who apparently wanted just money, wanted the money there… she did not seek to marry me. (She tried to insist on eating at one particular restaurant, making me think she was getting a kick-back or something.)

    No gold diggers in the pool according to this post.

    My Google-foo is letting me down and Google itself keeps prompting me with lousy captchas, so I am not going to look for more now. Google has got to be missing some things as this topic has come up a number of times over the years and I still only find very limited matches for “overseas” among other words.

  284. JDG says:

    Does she want to be taught. If a woman has never had good teachers in her life, she obviously will be wrong on many points, but if she is willing to learn how to be a good partner I would say she is far more capable than one who checks the boxes but has a rebellious nature, even if she restrains it.

    Isa – But how does a woman learn to be teachable? Isn’t it easier to teach children than adults? Most Western girls don’t even want to “check the boxes” let alone are capable of it.

  285. feeriker says:

    @Bee

    You are over analyzing and labeling.

    You’re addressing two different things here.

    No, I am not “over analyzing.” What I described is exactly what motivates attitudes like yours and Brad’s. I could play psychologist and ascribe other factors as well, but that’s not a fruitful or productive exercise. Suffice it to say that no one of my acquaintance who is well-traveled, multilingual, and familiar with foreign cultures has any problem understanding the perspective JDG and I have put forth. And again, since it seems that this inconvenient little fact is having a hard time making itself heard: neither of us have EVER said that marriage to a foreign woman is a risk-free panacea..

    As far as “labeling” is concerned, sure, I’m labeling. So what? If the label fits the product…

    Stick to the facts we are discussing.

    What I’ve brought up is completely relevant to what we’re discussing. That it apparently makes you uncomfortable is unfortunate, but beside the point.

    I have visited 4 foreign countries and none were under the limited conditions you are projecting.

    Good for you. So tell us then: Why is what JDG and I are saying so difficult/unpalatable for you and Brad to grasp (not that I would presume that you would speak for Brad)?

  286. Isa says:

    @JDG I would say it is an innate characteristic. The degree of rebelliousness is present from infancy. Everyone is rebellious of course, but there are degrees. So you cannot learn to be teachable, but you can learn to restrain being rebellious. Better to find someone that is teachable.

  287. JDG says:

    Pity the fool who thinks he has found the only way.

    Quote please with time and date.

    You will share responsibility for the ones who end up with gold diggers, those looking to bring in their relatives, etc.

    If someone decides to marry a gold digger, I will not share in the responsibility since I have counselled no one to do so.

    What do you have against those who want to bring their relatives here as long as they do so legally? Many of my friends have done just that, and let me tell you it is very expensive. None of those men are complaining and new what they were getting into before they married.

    Their wives are some of the best I’ve seen, and they’re husbands want to help her/their relatives when and where they can. What’s wrong with that, and how is it related to gold digging? You really are out of your debt here. Please stop.

    Hey, I could say to just get a woman who is committed to Jesus, since that worked for me.

    Quote please with time and date.

    Never mind all those where it didn’t work. They are wrong.

    No one has stated success is guaranteed over seas. Another straw man you like to beat on I guess.

    That is how the logic works.

    Only in your mind Brad.

    More to come…

  288. feeriker says:

    Their wives are some of the best I’ve seen,

    This, I think, cuts to the root of much of the pushback from those hating on the idea of marrying a (not perfect, not risk-free) foreign woman: these guys see in other men’s wives what they could have had themselves if they had put forth a little extra effort.

    In other words, envy.

  289. JDG says:

    @JDG I would say it is an innate characteristic. The degree of rebelliousness is present from infancy. Everyone is rebellious of course, but there are degrees. So you cannot learn to be teachable, but you can learn to restrain being rebellious. Better to find someone that is teachable.

    You bring up an interesting point. I do not know if children can be taught to be teachable or not. Do you have any evidence to support your position?

    Aside from that, how do you account for the greater number of women who learn to remain chaste until marriage, respect their husbands and fathers, dress modestly, etc. in non Western countries vs what women learn in Western countries?

    I say better to find someone who has already been well taught.

  290. feeriker says:

    BradA says:
    November 8, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    I was about to say “Brad, you can’t possibly be that obtuse,” but I see that it would’ve been premature.

    You really need to just stop, Brad. You’re beginning to look ridiculous.

  291. Isa says:

    @JDG
    I would account the increase in chastity to societal pressure. If you know you will be thrown out and given no support for loose behavior, very little incentive to behave that way. The same with religiosity. There will always be the fervent and the atheists, but the rest are in the mushy the middle. That is probably the biggest danger in removing women from traditional societies to the west. Are they actually a mushy middle and will bow to the prevailing culture? Hard to tell.

    As for the teachability innateness, an outgrowth of mens rasura being completely illogical and false. We all of us are born with certain personalities and character struggles, so it stands to reason that certain virtues also come more easily or may be innate in certain people. For instance, no one can be taught to be intellectually curious or mechanically inclined etc. People can learn to ape them perhaps, but the interior is as it always was.

  292. Isa says:

    @JDG
    Also, I am not saying go for the reformed type, but merely that the easiest woman to live with is a highly moldable one. Someone constantly struggling within themselves to be an agreeable partner, even with the best intentions and results, is a more dangerous choice.

  293. JDG says:

    More on Brad’s “gold diggers”.

    Not all of the foreign wives I know want to bring there relatives over here. Some do want to, but know that they can not afford it. Others can afford it but their husbands don’t want to pay for it. Their husbands usually have no problem with them working part time to pay for it themselves. Other times the husband has no problem paying for it.

  294. JDG says:

    Also, I am not saying go for the reformed type, but merely that the easiest woman to live with is a highly moldable one. Someone constantly struggling within themselves to be an agreeable partner, even with the best intentions and results, is a more dangerous choice.

    Isa – Again an interesting perspective. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I am open to seeing evidence for or against. I think I would rather invest in someone who has already been molded correctly from childhood and stuck there rather than someone who can be easily convinced to change. I wouldn’t want her to change for the worse just because she ran into someone who convinced her that their idea was “the correct” one.

  295. JDG says:

    There will always be the fervent and the atheists, but the rest are in the mushy the middle. That is probably the biggest danger in removing women from traditional societies to the west.

    The biggest danger is that they might be influenced by the West. So far that seems to be more of an issue with the children than the women who come here. I’ve heard that some do go batty after a time, but so far I’ve yet to see it 1st hand.

    As I’ve said before, out of over 100 foreign women from SE Asia that I and / or my wife are in touch with only 2 have divorced. In one of those cases the man filed (and for no good reason – believe it or not he was the gold digger so to speak).

    I know of one other Filipina who divorced after she became a career woman and started making more money than her missionary husband. She Isn’t part of the group my wife and I are involved with, but her son is a friend of mine, so I include her with the sample set making the total divorce count 3 out of 100 or 3%. (the national divorce rate for foreign brides is around 20%, and this includes “for visa” business arrangements where the couple intended to divorce as soon as legally possible from the beginning.)

    Again for those who see the word ALL where it was not written, my sample set may be unique in that most or all of the women were raised in two parent homes with traditional / patriarchal values. They are mostly Christian, Catholic or nominal Catholic. Non of them to my knowledge where picked up in a bar, club, or anywhere else that “bad girls” frequent.

    I should also note that some of these couples have been married so long that their children are in high school and college, or old enough to be there but are working instead.

  296. JDG says:

    Isa – an outgrowth of mens rasura being completely illogical and false.

    what is “mens rasura?

  297. Dave says:

    This, I think, cuts to the root of much of the pushback from those hating on the idea of marrying a (not perfect, not risk-free) foreign woman: these guys see in other men’s wives what they could have had themselves if they had put forth a little extra effort.

    In other words, envy.

    ….and also laziness, as well as stark ignorance. Many of those who push back against the idea have never dated non-American women. The experience is literally like day and night.

  298. Isa says:

    @JDG
    Mens rasura, Tabula rasa. I.e the blank slate theory, whereby we are all born blank and are basically entirely influenced by our upbringing. Twin and studies of adoptive siblings have largely disproved the theory, as genetics or innate traits are quite strong.

    I do think you have a strong selection bias, as similar people tend to group together as witnessed by the exiling of divorced women from social circles. Western women with the same set of antecedents have a much lower divorce rate, although perhaps not as low as Philippinas. However I do agree that the pool for choosing is much deeper and easier to find abroad in certain countries, but there are the issues of distance, time, and language etc.

    Overall I am completely agnostic about marrying abroad, as I personally married an immigrant, but I don’t see it as a net positive or negative.

  299. JDG says:

    Isa – I don’t believe we are born blank slates either. I couldn’t believe such a thing after meeting my biological father as an adult after having grown up without him. One afternoon with him answered so many questions and explained a great deal.

    That being said, I still don’t see why we should conclude that being teachable must only come from inherent genetics. Again I don’t know one way or the other, but nothing I have seen so far has convinced me either way. Maybe I should ask my friends with lots of kids. What ever the case I have my marching orders:

    Proverbs 22:6:
    “Train up a child in the way he should go;
    even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

  300. JDG says:

    Bee says:
    November 8, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    I thought I answered this before, but now I can’t find it.

    Bee it’s all good. You are a man of your word, which I already suspected from having read your comments over the last year and a half.

  301. Isa says:

    @JDG
    Hm, among my family I can think of a sibling and a couple cousins who were impossible to teach. If you told them not to touch the stove, they had to do it themselves to see why. Even now they are the same, moving from crisis to crisis and ignoring the teaching of others. Granted, they were all quite intelligent so they have tended to come to proper opinions on their own eventually. It was just quite a challenge for my parents and uncles. Others would follow parental instruction no questions asked.

    You do correctly point out the problem of extreme teachability, i.e. following false prophets, gullibility. Then again, our weaknesses are also our greatest strengths. Interesting part of being human.

  302. Bruce says:

    BradA,
    You seem to take offense – I did not intend to throw rocks – I suggested some problems with the Protestant approach which I believe are innate. I could also list problems with the Catholic approach but the ones I have in mind are not relevant to the discussion here.
    FWIW, I think the 20000+ denominations argument is a bit exaggerated – there is more of an essential Protestantism than RC apologists sometimes recognize – as I suggested by stating there is a “traditional Protestant” teaching on divorce. Nevertheless, there remains a strong potential for wide variety in teaching when individuals form their own opinion about what scripture says.
    Where tradition and scripture were never separated, as in the Catholic approach, they didn’t come into conflict. The disagreement between traditional and scripture arose when the reformers decided they, as individuals or denominations, could interpret scripture authoritatively.
    Nancy Pelosi should probably be excommunicated – perhaps for the good of her own soul. The Church is a hospital for sinners and the doctors don’t always make the right decisions.

  303. Bee says:

    @feeriker, JDG,

    “JDG, I’ve long since stopped trying to reason with people on this issue. Whenever you get responses like those from Brad, you can be pretty certain that one or more of the following is true:

    1. The respondant has never traveled outside of the United States (and no, for purposes of this topic a visit to Canada or a Mexican border town does NOT count).”

    Your logic is flawed. Your argument is The Appeal to Cultural Sophistication Fallacy. This is a subset of The Appeal to Credentials Fallacy.

    You are saying that you are correct and we are wrong because we have not traveled as much as you.

    This is analogous to the guy that say I am right and you are wrong because I have a PhD and you don’t.

  304. BradA says:

    feeriker,

    What I described is exactly what motivates attitudes like yours and Brad’s.

    What attitude is that? What do you believe is my core issue here?

    Why is what JDG and I are saying so difficult/unpalatable for you and Brad to grasp

    I see you as claiming very few drawbacks and dangers to seeking a wife overseas. That is from this coming up many times over many post discussions, not just this one.

    JDG,

    If someone decides to marry a gold digger, I will not share in the responsibility since I have counselled no one to do so.

    Yet you did not note a way to find and avoid those, implying they don’t exist in the likely pool of overseas women. How does a man chosing that pull make sure the woman he is checking isn’t a gold digger? None of the questions you noted promise no lies there and one having different goals has a strong incentive to tell you what you want to hear, rather than reality. Especially easy if her family was in on the deception in most cases where the man cannot live there for an extended time and possible even in that case for any reasonable amount of time.

    What do you have against those who want to bring their relatives here as long as they do so legally?

    Immigration issues are independent of this discussion. My point here is that this cold be a strong reason for a woman to pretend to be whatever the man wants, at least until she gets the marriage. The incentive to lie is the issue, not the reason for the lie.

    Are you really arguing that a woman with that goal would not have a strong incentive to misrepresent herself? How would the approach you mentioned earlier filter out such a woman?

    I said

    Hey, I could say to just get a woman who is committed to Jesus, since that worked for me.

    and your replied

    Quote please with time and date.

    I was noting that I could say that my approach was fine since it worked for me and I could note several others it worked for. That is what you are saying with your posts about your experience with a foreign wife and even in this reply where you note the immigration link being fine. “It worked” can be used anyplace if it is valid anyplace. Why would it be different? What needs to be quoted?

    No one has stated success is guaranteed over seas. Another straw man you like to beat on I guess.

    Read my quote from Dale just above:

    Your question is not based on knowledge. In my experience, the women had no problem taking themselves out of the running if they did not genuinely see a possibility for marriage. Yes, some were obviously interested in pursuing a relationship.

    He claimed they would take themselves out of the running. Is he no one? Or am I not allowed to note what he said and continue to apply it? Note that this was in response to me asking

    >Practical question: How would you really vet a prospective foreign wive? Those seeking that have a strong motivation to lie and misrepresent themselves.

    so it is completely relevant. Claiming strawman doesn’t remove the issue. Claiming that women who have a strong reason to lie will do so is a strawman? Why do you insist upon that?

    feeriker,

    neither of us have EVER said that marriage to a foreign woman is a risk-free panacea..

    Dale has strongly implied that, as just noted here. Or can you wave his posts away? How about just saying, “you are right, men going the foreign wife route must also be dilligient. I believe it is better, but it still has its own dangers.” Is that such a hard thing to admit?

    Or is it better to pillory those who would challenge the “go for a foreign wife message” to note it still has dangers because someone who notes that might instead decide the risk/reward with a US wife was more worthwhile?

    I deal with weighing risk all the time in my work. Ignoring risks is not a smart thing to do and will lead to foolish decisions in many areas of business and life. That is the core of my position, though you are probably right that it is fruitless to try to convince you and JDG on this because you cannot even see that part of the argument and constantly move the goalposts around. Mine remain at the statement I noted.

    A foreign wife will bring her own dangers. A man seeking that may do really well or he may end up with the same or worse mess.

    JDG said

    feeriker then asserted that I am just driven by envy:

    In other words, envy.

    Yeah, right. Live with your head up your rear if you wish. You have not been reading me enough to know that my fault would be arguing for truth and accuracy too much (and sometimes a bit too extremely), I am not envious at all of some mythical perfection you have reached.

    You are just a different version of cuckservative who believes he is right because it worked for him.

    Amazing you can be so stupid.

    I am leaving what I have written, but I will not attempt to say more at this point. I can’t say I won’t stray, but I will seek to not waste my time to discuss or argue with people who refuse to see the main point.

    Live in your perfect fantasy land.

  305. BradA says:

    Bruce,

    That sounds fine. I just see the “so many denominations” thrown about in many contexts to claim the RCC (or OC here) are the proper way because they haven’t split up. My assertion would be that they still have similar problems because humans are involved. That is why I have the Scripture as the base. Only it can properly drive and conform our traditions and everything else in life.

    You have chosen a different route and I will leave that path to you. I will let God judge anyone’s salvation, as that is solely His province, not mine. I do use the guidance of Romans 10:9-10 – Confession of Jesus as Lord of the individual’s life and a core belief God raised Jesus from the dead – as the key, but that just allows me to guide myself.

    Hope that makes sense. Walk your life out as best you can, following the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and you should do better than you would otherwise.

    Let me know if I have not answered anything else important.

  306. Bee says:

    feeriker, Dave,

    “In other words, envy.

    ….and also laziness, as well as stark ignorance.”

    Hogwash!!!! These spurious accusations are wild and uncalled for.

    Some of you foreign wife guys are starting to grasp at straws and are becoming unhinged.

    I am very happy with my wife. I am not envious of anyone else’s wife.

  307. OKRickety says:

    Re: Number of Protestant “denominations”

    Are there 33,000 Protestant “denominations”? This seems to derive from the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett and others. It comes up with about 33,820 “Christian denominations” in 238 total countries.

    Most of this comment is based on BiblicalCatholic.com web pages How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? and The Facts and Stats on “33,000 Denominations”.

    Note: From the book: “A denomination is defined as existing within a specific country.”. I think this is very important in understanding this question.

    For example, the book states there are 242 Roman Catholic “denominations”. “But there’s only 1 Catholic Church!” Not according to this book. I hope this gives pause for thought.

    The book defines 781 Orthodox “denominations”. Examples are Coptic Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Moldavian Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox.

    Then the book defines 679 “Independent” “denominations” that appear to have Catholic or Orthodox roots. Examples are 435 Conservative Catholic (schism ex-Rome), 32 Independent Russian Orthodox, 30 Orthodox sect/sectarian, 27 Liberal Catholic (Theosophical, Masonic, Gnostic), and 26 Old Catholic (i.e. split with Rome after Vatican Council I).

    This is a total of 1,702 “denominations” that have a Roman Catholic/Orthodox origin.

    That leaves more than 30,000 Protestant “denominations”. This is an extremely large number, about 17X as many as the non-Protestant “denominations”, but nowhere near the 30,000:1 ratio that I think is being presumed by those referencing the 30,000 plus number.

    If nothing else, I hope that all Christians will be careful not to believe everything that they hear.

    [1Th 5:21 NASB] 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good

  308. Gunner Q says:

    OKRickety @ 10:31 am:
    “This is a total of 1,702 “denominations” that have a Roman Catholic/Orthodox origin.

    That leaves more than 30,000 Protestant “denominations”. This is an extremely large number, about 17X as many as the non-Protestant “denominations”, but nowhere near the 30,000:1 ratio that I think is being presumed by those referencing the 30,000 plus number.”

    Good catch! My response before now has been “we shouldn’t count Doctor Feelgood’s Chapels of Love as a denomination”.

    Protestantism being an intentionally decentralized branch of Christianity would naturally result in lots of denominations anyway.

  309. CharlemagneIsMyGrandDad says:

    My wife is a recovering Roman Catholic. I am a cradle Epsicopalian excommunicated for daring to maintain the old time religion. Married later in life, just before the wall. She was once an honest 7 but by then a bit of a scratch and dent special. So was I, just to be fair. Living long enough tends to do that to you, you know.

    A success story, perhaps better called a war story:

    Wifey tried this shit on me early one. Full Dread. That was almost nine years ago. It’s been one heluva nine years of constant fighting, arguing, threats, counter-threats, the Whole Nine Yards.

    But not once did I give the bitch the satisfaction of so much as acknowledging her complaints. More than doubledown, I went for the juglar each and every time. Promised — with 100% credibility — to take everything public. Documented every damned fight, assault and battery. Readied myself to do time if it came to it.

    Called out the MIL, caught red handed in subversion helped. Named, blamed and shamed whorish little sis’s cuckholdry.

    The coup de grace came when she slipped up and mentioned her old man cheated on mommy when the girls were teenagers.

    Pwn3d.

    If there were no kids I’d have thrown her out the fucking window for less than this. But I’d be damned if I’d let my kids grow up knowing their old man didn’t do everything in his power to right a grievous wrong.

    Now the wife had some residual decency despite several university degrees and many unmarried, catty gfs and her slut sister.

    Somewhere down in that empty place that should hold a brain, Truth finally dawned and very real introspection took place. You might say it was her “On the Road to Damascus Moment” although that is a long and winding road, as they say.

    Moral of the story: it is possible to prevail. I can’t really call it “win” but I am fighting for my sons and I will do whatever it takes to keep them from the living hell that is post-modern, Third Wave emasculation. Their old man did what it took and they have a chance at a real mother instead of Liska the Fox. Self-respect, dignity and manhood intact.

  310. JDG says:

    Brad –

    Good to hear you are going to stop commenting on this. You are obviously upset and it has affected you reading comprehension and judgement.

    You keep bringing up Dale’so comment yet seem to miss the part where he says “in my experience” before outlining and then recounting his experience.

    You keep trying to attach burden and blame where it does not belong. You repeatedly claim things are “implied” where they are not.

    In spite of links I have provided demonstrating the contrary, you’ve written that feericker and myself claim foreign women are risk free.

    You also claim we said they are the only way, yet you provide nothing to back up your accusations except a quote from Dale that you obviously misunderstood.

    You probably never should have started commenting on this from the beginning.

  311. BradA says:

    JDG,

    Good to hear you are going to stop commenting on this. You are obviously upset and it has affected you reading comprehension and judgement.

    You may want to stop projecting a bit JDG. I am only upset because it is stupid and can mislead men. You never responded to my points and only launched into personal attacks and lots of false arguments. Doesn’t prove your point.

    You never denied what Dale said, his opinion or not. His opinion was the basis of what I said.

  312. JDG says:

    Brad – Why should i deny what Dale experienced? I wasn’t there. I did respond to your false accusations (points?), you just didn’t like what I wrote. Your “points” are absurd.

  313. JDG says:

    Brad – I do apologize for any and all personal attacks though. I too get carried away sometimes.

  314. JDG says:

    Brad – It’s obvious you think my arguments are false, and I think yours are without merit and based on things you have implied in your own mind. Why not leave it at that?

  315. BradA says:

    JDG,

    I stated this was my core argument:

    A foreign wife will bring her own dangers. A man seeking that may do really well or he may end up with the same or worse mess.

    I cannot completely tell whether you believe that or not so I do not know if I agree with you or not. I do not agree with Dale as what he posts indicates he believes that my concerns are completely invalid. I suppose he may disagree now, but I have yet to see anyone directly state what I note, only imply foreign women are the only safe option. Everyone can believe what they will of course.

  316. BradA says:

    Note too that I am not saying my concern as an edge case. I believe the nature of core humanity until some are transformed to be like their Lord at a point in the future.

  317. JDG says:

    A foreign wife will bring her own dangers. A man seeking that may do really well or he may end up with the same or worse mess.

    1st) All Bible believing Christians know (or at least should know) that everyone is fallen and capable of evil. It should not have to be repeated every time someone has an idea they would like to share. It’s a given and should be assumed goes hand in hand with ALL suggestions regarding ALL human relationships.

    2nd) I’ve said this before and I will say it again for those who don’t already know this (but should): “Not marrying in 2.0 conditions is not only prudent, it is critical. If you must marry, proceed with extreme caution.”

    and

    “If you are looking for a woman to marry I recommend two things.
    1) Shop in a culture that respects men. Even then choose prayerfully and carefully with the wisdom of many wise councilors.
    2) If at all possible keep the US government (at all levels) out of it.”

    These caveats should not have to be repeated every time someone brings up the FACT that the market for quality wives overseas is BETTER than the market here.

    3rd) Aside from the traditional training most foreign children undergo, aside from the higher moral standards most are required to abide by, the divorce rate of foreign wives in the US is 30% less than the divorce rate of US born wives. This number includes foreign wives from all over the world (including countries where the women are more liberal minded than many of those in SE Asia) and also includes visa for money contracts where divorce is a part of the negotiation to begin with.

    To me this means fewer foreign women are likely to nuke their marriages and thus corporately LESS dangerous than their US competition. That little fact alone tells me that a man is MORE LIKELY to do well searching in a foreign market, but you can make of that what you will.

    4th) I doubt that a man could do any worse than what has already happened to men in the US at the hands of the local women.

    I doubt that we’ll ever agree on this, but my points have been made, repeated, and repeated again. If you don’t see it the way I do don’t sweat it. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me on everything, and I doubt that you have either.

  318. OKRickety says:

    JDG said on November 9, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    These caveats should not have to be repeated every time someone brings up the FACT that the market for quality wives overseas is BETTER than the market here.

    The very fact that it seems to be necessary to repeat a viewpoint “every time” the topic is discussed suggests that it really does need to be repeated, at least to some degree. For example, some may have “slept” since the last discussion🙂. but some readers may be ignorant of it as they are new to the forum.

    So, when the topic reappears, I suggest a brief summary of your views and, ideally, a link to a previous comment where you state your views in more detail. I do agree that repeated, lengthy debate on the topic is of little value.

  319. JDG says:

    The very fact that it seems to be necessary to repeat a viewpoint “every time” the topic is discussed suggests that it really does need to be repeated

    My point is that it DOES NOT seem like it needs repeating to anyone other than a couple of guys who for one reason or another think something is implied when it IS NOT. If we are going to start writing like that we are all going to have to start reminding everyone of the obvious every time we write something. I nominate you to go first.

  320. JDG says:

    OKRickety – I apologies for coming off like a jerk. I’m a bit crabby as of late for work related reasons. Your suggestion is not entirely unreasonable, but IMO involves unnecessary work where a simple question (rather than accusations) would clear things up much quicker and easier when needed.

  321. JDG says:

    apologies = apologize

  322. OKRickety says:

    @JDG

    I forgive you. This forum has a tendency to have lengthy discussions on various issues, often distantly related to the post itself. Unfortunately, comments do not allow “tags” (AFAIK) that could be indexed, and easily be searched. Also, I think it would be nice if there were some posts that were “sticky threads” for discussion of topics that regularly recur.

  323. Borninfeminism says:

    I am a single 29y male. Raised by a good single mother, who worked hard to remove the evil male intenstiontions that I was inherently born with. I hit rock bottom with women at 27. I consider myself quite handsome and successful… But yet, most girls would lose interest in me within a very short time. I had bp conditioning BAD, thanks to my mother and the garbage i’d watch on TV!
    One day my prayers were finally answered, when a friend of mine opened my eyes to the gross lies that I was blinded by. It really hurt to know the truth as it is… I thought to myself, what a waste it has been throughout my 20’s having very little success with the opposite sex because of my beliefs. I’ve always wanted a strong family, especially after watching our family fall apart as a child. It is incredibly depressing to think of the options I have to choose from in my lifetime. How will men like myself ever find a girl that is worthy to be the mother of our children? I’m far from perfect, but I work hard to be the man that I need to be, and always strive to improve myself. Most girls I meet expect everything to be handed to them. Their standards of morality and what is really important in life is mostly way off. To me, a woman’s most important and fulfilling duty in life is to raise a righteous posterity to God. Sometimes I utterly hate the world we live in.

  324. JDG says:

    Sometimes I utterly hate the world we live in.

    This isn’t a bad thing, especially if you are a Christian.

    1 John 2:15 – Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

    It really hurt to know the truth as it is…

    Many of us here can relate. It totally sucked to find out that so much I grew up believing (even many things I thought were good) weren’t true (let alone good).

    It is incredibly depressing to think of the options I have to choose from in my lifetime.

    Indeed, but take courage in Jesus. Every generation has their burdens to bear. I think this is one of yours.

    If you must marry, include a culture that still respects men in your search. Learn somethings about that culture as well. Always vet very carefully and prayerfully.

    It really is pretty basic. Many of the women that make poor wives are often known for (but not limited to) the same types of behavior. In many (most?) societies the symptoms tend to be the same:
    – rebellious / disrespectful to parents (especially fathers) and / or other social authorities,
    – rebellious / irreverent to traditional values,
    – outspoken, rude and crude when conversing
    – immodest attire,
    – frequent bars and clubs,
    – etc.
    In other words, they will behave much like the average girl in the US, UK, or Canada behaves.

    Earlier in this thread is a list of things to watch for when vetting. If you’ve read the thread you’ve probably seen it, if not here is a shortcut:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/repenting-of-sexual-morality/#comment-193420

    I am truly concerned for my own son who is a generation behind you. The Western world is lost and probably not going to recover. As you have noted there are comparatively fewer and fewer women that are wife material in the West anymore.

    I have to ask myself at the rate the Western world is exporting feminism, and even if we do move to SE Asia, will there be any marriage material women left by the time he is of age to marry.

  325. BradA says:

    JDG and OKC,

    I see the idea of a foreign wife being brought up as a panacea more than as an option the poster thinks is a better value. Though I guess I also do disagree with JDG on the core notion that foreign women are somehow better spiritually than US women. That seems as an inverse to the argument that women are more spiritual than men. Both ideas don’t take the whole situation into account.

    Looking at the wider picture is what I strive to do. That makes me bring up the risks when the idea is presented again.

    I would completely agree with JDG that a man should be very diligent going into marriage and realize that even his best plans and actions can be undermined by forces outside his control. (The latter is my addition, but hopefully consistent.)

    Always question assumptions, whether mine or someone else’s of course. We all have our own blinders.

  326. JDG says:

    Though I guess I also do disagree with JDG on the core notion that foreign women are somehow better spiritually than US women.

    Once again Brad. that IS NOT what I wrote. You seem to be equating better behavior towards men, traditions, and authority with the quality of a woman’s spiritual life. The two do not automatically go hand in hand. In fact, they often do not. The woman can be a very good wife as well as a low risk for divorce and not even be saved.

  327. JDG says:

    I don’t get why this is so difficult to accept. Girls who are brought up better are going to behave better. If they are raised to respect men, they will respect men. That doesn’t mean every individual will turn out that way, but it will happen a lot more than in a society where girls ARE NOT raised that way.

    I repeat: the marriage market over seas is A LOT BETTER than over here. Please quit attaching things I did not say to what I actually said.

  328. JDG says:

    The woman can be a very good wife as well as a low risk for divorce and not even be saved.

    She can also be saved and not be “better spiritually” than a saved woman in the US.

  329. JDG says:

    I’m thinking the only way one can be “better spiritually” than someone else is to be alive spiritually verses dead spiritually (in Christ vs not in Christ).

    I don’t know how many former sluts in the US are now repentant and saved. That’s not my call. I can say that I highly doubt that most would make good wives. Who am I to say that they are spiritually worse than the Christian women over seas who would make good wives?

  330. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/11/08) | The Reactivity Place

  331. Amy Wilson says:

    Of course she should divorce shame her friend.

    Bbbbbut that’s wrong think, so she is publicly confessing her misdeed and is now reeducating herself.

    Never mind that divorce hurts children. Adults should never be shamed for making hurtful choices! /s (if it wasn’t obvious)

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