She only acted crazy to get her own way.

Over the course of two comments on Unhinged, Brand complained that I failed to point out how calculating Kathy Keller was in her “godly tantrum”:

For what it’s worth, the pieces she broke were already damaged.

It’s in the book that contains that story. Don’t assume the paraphrased story is complete. I think it is inappropriate as well, but I think the detail is important. We also don’t know her usual day to day behavior, which may or may not be flattering, and this one instance could be overwhelmingly out of character for her.

This isn’t strictly speaking correct.  It is true that according to the book the emotional outburst is presented as contrived.  However, the explanation is not that the three pieces of their wedding china that she destroyed were already broken, but that they no longer had matching cups.  As Tim Keller explains in the book, once he had submitted to her will she was suddenly calm:

Finally I inquired, “When I first came out here I thought you were having an emotional meltdown. How did you get control of yourself so fast?”

With a grin she answered, “It was no meltdown. Do you see these three broken saucers I smashed?” I nodded. “I have no cups for them. The cups have broken over the years. I had three saucers to spare. I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”

But contrived as it was, Kathy was still very clearly out of control emotionally.  She was in the opposite of the state that the Apostle Peter urges wives to cultivate in 1 Pet 3.  She was the opposite of a gentle and quiet spirit.

It is also essential to remember that Tim and Kathy are using this episode of Kathy’s rebellion as an example for Christian wives to emulate.  They are teaching Kathy’s “godly” rebellion as submission, and the message is getting through as intended.  Their theology of the godly tantrum is a message modern Christians are thirsty for in this feminist age.

Rev. Sam Brown of Grace Presbyterian Church cites Tim and Kathy’s teaching in his sermon 1 Peter 3:1-7 – Wives, Husbands, and the Curse Undone (emphasis mine):

But for every marriage in which the man is a sinner, the hope here is that God may use His daughter to open the eyes of her husband. She may not even need to speak a word because the Spirit inside her will speak louder than she ever could.

Tim Keller, a pastor in New York, wrote a book with his wife, Kathy, which I’d commend to you. It’s called The Meaning of Marriage and in it Kathy tells a story from their early years of church planting in the city when he was working long hours and was neglecting his family. So, she says, she threw a “godly tantrum.”

“I took the china, and took them out to our balcony and when he came in I was smashing them with the hammer. I had to do some dramatic thing to get his attention to show he was breaking things.”

That image doesn’t exactly fit the stereotypical image of a “submissive” wife, does it? And yet it was a godly woman respectfully and violently showing her husband what she needed from him.

Similarly, Brittany Smith at the Christian Post cites Kathy’s rebellion as an example of submission in Kathy Keller: Submission Doesn’t Mean You Do Everything the Husband Says

The Kellers also made it clear that being submissive does not mean the wife can’t push back or confront her spouse.

Kathy Keller used an example from her own life when she went to extremes to get her husband’s attention. She said they moved to New York to start Redeemer, where Tim is lead pastor, and in the first four years he was working all the time.

Kathy Keller feared that he was neglecting his duties as a father and a husband, and was not freeing up any time for other pursuits. So she said she had a “godly tantrum.”

“I took the china, and took them out to our balcony and when he came in I was smashing them with the hammer. I had to do some dramatic thing to get his attention to show he was breaking things,” she said.

They said that this can work in marriages where spouses are having trouble communicating, or if they don’t have the same view of submission.

There is another point worth bringing up in this episode, and that is the meaning of the complementarian expression “listen to your wife”.  This is another case where the complementarian expression means something quite different than what the words would suggest on their face.  Just like “servant leader” doesn’t mean headship, and “submission” means rebellion, “listen to your wife” doesn’t mean simply listen to her.   When spoken by a complementarian, “listen to your wife” means do as she says (emphasis mine):

I sat down trembling. I thought she had snapped. “I’m listening. I’m listening,” I said. As we talked it became clear that she was intense and laser focused, but she was not in a rage or out of control emotionally.  She spoke calmly but forcefully.  Her arguments were the same as they had been for months, but I realized how deluded I had been.  There would never be a convenient time to cut back.  I was addicted to the level of productivity I had achieved.  I had to do something.  She saw me listening for the first time and we hugged.

Note that they had been discussing this for months.  He had heard her arguments but didn’t agree with her on the correct decision.  This is what complementarians call “not listening”.  “Listening” means agreeing with her.

See also:  The crazy dictator.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Christian Post, Complementarian, Headship, Not Listening, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Submission, Threatpoint, Tim and Kathy Keller, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

255 Responses to She only acted crazy to get her own way.

  1. Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Neoreactive

  3. theasdgamer says:

    When my women act crazy, I leave for a few hours. I did this twice yesterday. I wasn’t angry or butthurt, just uncomfortable being around them. When I returned, they were sweet again.

  4. okrahead says:

    Proof once more that the Duluth model only applies to heterosexual men.

  5. okrahead says:

    I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more, or See What You Made Me Do. Now the operative question is, had she used the hammer on Tim instead….

  6. Cindy says:

    I don’t see how the fact that she was being very calculating with her tantrum makes things any better in anybody’s mind. Definitely not the kind of person I’d want in my life, or the kind of person I’d want to emulate. I could understand if it was a temporary loss of control of which she’d repented and worked to eradicate from her behavior. I’ve been the throwing-things kind, in the past, but I’ve never attempted to justify my hot-headedness, and my husband certainly wouldn’t try to make it sound like a noble thing to do or give me my way afterwards. It’s not cute, or funny, or understandable. It’s just wrong. I’m sure he’d forgive me if I did what she did in a moment of irrational anger…after making me eat from toddler dishes for a few weeks, possibly. That would be fitting, don’t you think? It just looks worse and worse on them, the more I think about how upside down it all is. This was calculated and controlled? What a lucky, lucky guy he is!

    Also, when my husband works long hours, that is precisely the opposite of “neglecting his family” in my mind. I miss him sometimes, but if he came home earlier just because I said so, I would hate him for letting me override his judgment. It’s his career. He knows how to feed it, and I don’t. If it weren’t for his family, I’m pretty sure he’d work the bare minimum necessary to put hot pockets in the freezer and spend the rest of his time playing video games and watching Futurama reruns. News flash, ladies: he’s doing all that for you. This is how grown men behave. It’s called “providing”. I never understand women who get mad because their husbands are working a lot. They don’t really want to be married to low achievers, do they? That’s sure what it sounds like.

  7. jack says:

    Good God, I pity any man married to such a raging bitch.
    She should be careful, I question whether she is really saved. There is nothing of the spirit of the Lord in her. Child of satan.

  8. Hoyos says:

    Call me sheltered, but who acts like that? I mean, I understand being unhappy and distressed and acting out through yelling and breaking things, but smashing objects in a calm rage and then, once you’ve come to your senses deciding that this is exemplary behavior seems crazy on several different levels at once. That’s not a rhetorical device either. I can count three different ways that doesn’t seem like normal human bad behavior.

    “Evangelese” is such a strange language. Words don’t mean what they mean and nobody understood the real meaning until sometime, presumably, in the 70s.

  9. okrahead says:

    Try doing a search for “Look what you made me do domestic violence”…. Innumerable sites, plenty of discussion about abusive “partners” and destroying property. Endorsed wholeheartedly by churchians, so long as womynz are the perps.

  10. freebird says:

    “Yes dear”
    “Happy wife means happy life”
    “When mama’s not happy no one is happy”
    enter the cuck
    (Whom happens to have great taste in death metal)

  11. okrahead says:

    I suppose he’s lucky she didn’t go full Mary Winkler on him. She could even still get custody of the children. Now, just imagine if HE were to have the gall to tell her she was spending too much time on HER ministry…. Is there a churchian alive who would fail to condemn him?

  12. Seems like he got on his knees and asked.. “What is thy bidding, my Master?”

  13. What she did is pure emotional blackmail. She knew there was nothing he could do or say that wouldn’t make him the bad guy. If he react in any fashion resembling a normal man and called her out on her childish tantrum, she just calls the cops, calls the Church and he has a massive problem on his hands.

    It’s madness, she is mentally ill and quite blatantly abusing his kindness. I’m glad I’m not married to that. I’ll keep my standards high, for at least the chance of me finding such a unicorn is so low as to be non-existent. Need something to live for I guess..

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    With a grin she answered, “It was no meltdown. Do you see these three broken saucers I smashed?” I nodded. “I have no cups for them. The cups have broken over the years. I had three saucers to spare. I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”

    In this incident Tim Keller takes off his pants and belt, hands them to his wife Kathy, who apparently has been wearing them ever since. He’s not the driver of their marriage, he’s the chauffeur of their marriage, “leading” only in the direction she approves of. How many more of these big shot preachers are likewise total beta-boys? What does this imply about their ability to lead anyone else?

    Someone in another thread posted a Bible quote on the qualifications for a church leader. “In charge of his own family” is part of it. Is Tim Keller in charge of his family? Has he ever been?

    And again, how many other big time preachers are betaized just like him, obeying their wives on command? Does this blue-pill marriage not make obvious why their churches are likewise feminized?

  15. Looking Glass says:

    It’s a good reminder that rather than a “godly tantrum”, it was the tantrum of a sick child. That they tell this story without a follow up of a long repentance is a sign neither really should be in a place to teach others.

    Even in my purple-pill days, I would have found this story really, really wrong.

  16. Kathy showed submission to Tim by making sure her husband led her how she desired so that she could voluntarily and willingly submit to her own will as her husband led her according to her own wishes. Tim led Kathy her by “listening” to her until he had agreement with her desire and knew which way to lead!

    A wife will joyfully submit to her husband as long as he leads her in the right manner, according to her desires. It is only when abusive men won’t listen to their more spiritual wives that conflict and abuse can take root. When husbands stop trying to lead from a position of God-given authority and humble themselves to lead according the hyper-spiritual emotions of their wife, then and only then will their peace in the home.

  17. Original Laura says:

    Okay! She destroys three valuable saucers to teach her husband not to work overtime . (In the classified ads section of southern living magazine there are ads every month for several companies that resell lightly used ‘replacement
    pieces for people whose China sets are incomplete. If the China pattern is still in production she could have gone to almost any department store and ordered the three cups she needed and gotten brand new ones.). I can understand pilfering and stealing because nearly everybody has been tempted in that way. Vandalism of your own family heirlooms followed by boasting about it is very strange.

    Assuming her husband is a pastor she must have known prior to marriage that that position entails working on weekends and visiting the sick and elderly in the evenings .Any professional position that provides professional level remuneration is going to require some combination of long hours , travel, evening meetings, phone calls at home, etc. If the husband is gone an awful lot and spends lots of money on himself and little on the wife and kids then she has reason to complain . Otherwise, be thankful that he has steady work.

    If he worked out of their home she would be grousing about him being underfoot.

  18. Boxer says:

    Feminists are good tacticians, but terrible strategists. This story of the abusive kook Kathy Keller and her cucked-in husband is a perfect example.

    She was in the opposite of the state that the Apostle Peter urges wives to cultivate in 1 Pet 3. She was the opposite of a gentle and quiet spirit.

    These two will be a customer of the divorce courts eventually. I’m confident of it.

    Women used to be much more cunning. In the old days, a wife would meet her husband at the door partly dressed, give him a really good fucking, and then while basking in the afterglow, she’d bat her eyelashes and suggest he do what she wants. That’s really all it takes from a submissive wife to get any freakin’ thing on earth. The dude in that scenario would spend his last dime on his wife, and think it’s his idea, and be happy about it.

  19. mrteebs says:

    Here is my question for the Kathy Kellers, Barbara Raineys, and the chorus of others (including their husbands) who believe the wife’s appointed role is to grab the wheel when he dares contradict your explicit turn-by-turn directions in your self-perceived emergencies: What would have happened if you bit your tongue and used the 1 Peter 3 approach instead? Have you ever actually tried it with not just the inconsequentials like toothepaste and restaurant choices, but the biggies in life where – just maybe – God doesn’t need you as a go-between? Where are the anecdotes and chapters in modern marriage books where the wife followed the scriptures to a successful outcome? Where are the chapter’s in modern marriage books where the husband followed his wife with catostrophic results, such as Gen chapters 3 and 16? Or have we truly come to the place where the wife’s inner GPS is deemed infallible?

    As Cane Caldo points out, and as Dalrock reiterated in his initial post on Keller’s “godly tantrum”, most teaching on submission has become little more than a litany of caveats.

    I commented several months ago that the caveat (and there is really only one) is exceptionally simple: if your husband asks you to sin, you must obey God instead. That’s it. And it is possible to disobey a specific directive while remaining submitted in attitude through a willingness to stoically bear the consequences. Acts 5 shows us what this looks like.

  20. JDG says:

    I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”

    You see, HE made her break those dishes. If only he would have followed her lead in the first place she wouldn’t have had to break anything. It’s a good thing SHE knows whats up. What on earth would he do without her “godly tantrums”?

    It reminds of of the account where Dennis Rainey’s wife packed up the kids and was going to live with her mother because naughty Dennis dared to make a decision regarding HIS ministry without first consulting his wife (like a good little boy, er … I mean a proper servant leader).

  21. JDG says:

    The Kellers also made it clear that being submissive does not mean the wife can’t push back or confront her spouse.

    In other words, the Church can push back and confront Christ when when in disagreement with Him (according to this ludicrous teaching).

  22. JDG says:

    Call me sheltered, but who acts like that?

    Who acts like that? Seriously? Lots of women that I have met, worked with, and a couple that I am even related to. I’ve known women who busted car windows, thrown dishes and pans at their spouses, and worse. All of it was for the same reason. They wanted something to go their way.

  23. Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Reaction Times

  24. C H says:

    I simply do not understand the rationalization of the behavior in any capacity. Cindy, above, states it succinctly:

    “I don’t see how the fact that she was being very calculating with her tantrum makes things any better in anybody’s mind. Definitely not the kind of person I’d want in my life, or the kind of person I’d want to emulate. ”

    Exactly.

  25. Jim says:

    Unreal. Dear (to the rebellious child-wife in the OP) it’s not all about you. Got it? Sometimes what we want is not what we need. Stop being a bitch.

    Why does this eunuch of a husband tolerate this crap? Since it’s not legal to spank her ass hard (she’s acting like she’s 4 years old anyway) the very first time she did that to me I’d say two words: “Get out!” Period. That would be the end of it.

    “I’ve known women who busted car windows, thrown dishes and pans at their spouses, and worse. All of it was for the same reason. They wanted something to go their way.”

    Yup. And then people wonder why I hold the views I do? Yet it’s fine when they’re violent and destructive right? When we even raise our voices it’s “abuse”. This is what happens when you allow the insane Left to run a country.

  26. Tarl says:

    I wonder if the “threaten, scream, and have a tantrum until I get my way” model of submission would work in any other scenario.

    If you have a tantrum until your boss does what you want, are you submitting to your boss? Would your boss, who has authority over you, put up with that?

    If you were a private and had a tantrum until your drill sergeant did what you wanted, would you be submitting to your sergeant? Would any sergeant put up with that?

    You have only to imagine trying to use the “godly tantrum as a form of submission” in any other situation to understand how ridiculous it is. Anyone with a grain of sense instantly understands that she has the authority in the relationship, and she is not submitting to him in any way.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Why does this eunuch of a husband tolerate this crap?

    Tim Keller was born in 1950, he’s definitely a Boomer, his wife Kathy is probably 3 to 5 years younger and thus also a Boomer. Both were in their 20’s as 2nd stage feminism came along in the 1970’s. Totally immersed in it, up to their eyebrows. She’s a conservative feminist, sure, but still a feminist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Keller_%28pastor%29

    As I’ve written more than once: because we are all swimming in a stagnant pond of feminism, anyone who isn’t actively rejecting feminism is passively accepting it. Tim and Kathy Keller are obvious examples. And this “godly tantrum” garbage is taught in many churches.

  28. Don Quixote says:

    Check out this godly tantrum:

  29. Splashman says:

    @MrTeebs: “I commented several months ago that the caveat (and there is really only one) is exceptionally simple: if your husband asks you to sin, you must obey God instead. That’s it. And it is possible to disobey a specific directive while remaining submitted in attitude through a willingness to stoically bear the consequences. Acts 5 shows us what this looks like.”

    1) Acts 5 is about apostles obeying God rather than man, not about a marriage relationship in which wife is directed by God to obey husband, no caveats, just as the church (bride) is to obey Jesus (bridegroom), no caveats.

    2) In a marriage relationship, when the husband tells wife to do something, who decides whether it’s sin or not? Dalrock has posted dozens of examples of wives claiming that husband is making her sin because what he has told her to do “grieves her spirit” or some such touchy-feely nonsense. So who decides? Simply, the “head” decides. God had designed and declared husband to be head of the wife. If wife decides, she’s insubordinate in God’s eyes, just as I am insubordinate to decide which of God’s laws apply to me.

  30. reason says:

    I wonder if he had pulled the hammer from her hand, smashed a couple of china himself, the pointed said hammer in her direction and said “I am not going to stop working long hours!”
    how would that play out………….

  31. greyghost says:

    This busting up stuff by women is normal. The reason many men are arrested for DV is they try and stop that behavior. Ask Greg Hardy his 911 call has a woman in the audio busting up his place. The law doesn’t care and it looks like the church thinks it is cool also. Another one for MGTOW.

  32. I’ve been reflecting a little bit on this “godly tantrum” since Dalrock first posted about it the other day.
    I can remember times in our marriage, not long ago in fact, where I’ve had… not quite tantrums, but definitely sulking episodes. Having an argument with my husband, not getting my way and running off to hide somewhere and cry. Not at all contrived, as much as being swept away with my emotions. Upon “finding” me, my husband would ask “what’s wrong?” with a kind of bewildered, exasperated expression (as in, what could be so bad that it has caused you to act this way?). And I wonder if deep down, my motive was really to shock him into agreeing with my position, changing his mind.
    Contrast this with a recent experience, where the Lord helped me to remain submissive, even in a situation where I wasn’t getting my way.
    We were on a long drive, with the kids in the car, having a discussion about something related to Christmas. My husband started getting quite annoyed with what I was saying, and made a finalising comment, to end the conversation. I said, “I don’t think you’re really hearing what I’m saying.”
    He said, “I think I’ve heard you more than enough.”
    So I stopped talking. I still felt quite hurt inwardly, as I genuinely felt like he hadn’t heard me. But I prayed silently that God would help me not to be bitter about it, and then got on with the rest of our day joyfully.
    Later that night, after the kids were in bed, I said to my husband, “Honey, do you mind if I say one more thing to you about x? I’ll drop it if you want, but I just felt like you didn’t get what I was trying to say.”
    He said, “That’s fine. What did you want to say?”
    I said, “Well, what I was actually getting at was x y z….”
    He said, “Oh, right! Yes, I didn’t get that you were trying to say that at all! Thanks for explaining.”

    And as I reflected on these two approaches – one powered by raw emotion, one powered by the Holy Spirit – I can see how God’s way is so much better. Even if my husband had said “just drop it”, I would have felt peace at remaining submitted to him. We don’t need to make grand, dramatic gestures to “get our husbands attention”, we can trust God to work in them where needed, and stay in quiet submission to them.

    I hope this is helpful to any other wives who might be reading.🙂

  33. Neguy says:

    @Boxer, Tim and Kathy have been married for 40 years. I would be completely stunned if they got divorced.

  34. mrteebs says:

    Splashman,

    “My husband tild me to shoot him, officer…”

    “My husband told me to commit adultery…it turns him on…”

    “My husband told me to lie”

    “My husband told me to deny Christ to escape persecution…”

    Should I continue?

    Just because women sin in redefining sin to equate with their feelings doesn’t mean they are incapable of discernment. It simply means they are sinners.

  35. This isn’t Tim’s fault because he has his hands tied. This is just another good example of what happens when the tools the husband needs are removed from his toolbox. By making rules to enforce monogamy as the Only Real Marriage™ husbands were deprived of the power to say “Next!” within the bounds of marriage. The mere threat of legally, morally and culturally being able to do this is just as much an unspoken threat to the wife as no-fault divorce is a threat to husbands.

    The church invaded the family, usurped the headship and authority of the husband and even went so far as to regulate the marital bed. In doing so it planted the seeds for feminism. This was contrary to the woman’s curse in Genesis 3:16, which says “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” The husband is to rule over his wife, not the church, and within the parameters of God’s Law, how the husband rules over his wife is up to him. Unfortunately, the church was engaged in a struggle with the nobility and decided taking control of marriage was their best strategy. This was a violation of the church’s mission, which is to go forth and make disciples of all men, but it also ignored God’s instruction in the curse (the husband is to “rule over” his wife) and created conflict between husbands and wives in order to allow the church to stand in the middle and judge (exercise power).

    Then the church violated God’s Law by declaring polygyny to be wrong and a sin (Deut. 4:2). In all likelihood this was a direct response to Luther’s advice to Philip of Hesse to not divorce his barren wife but instead to take a second wife in order to get a heir. Luther was uncomfortable with that advice but judged that according to Scripture divorce was wrong but there was no prohibition or condemnation in all of Scripture on a man having more than one wife.

    The RCC continues to this day to claim the authority to police the moral and sexual behavior of husband and wife within marriage according to its own rules and definitions, rather than the regulations God gave, which are further violations of Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.

    Everything that happened in the 20th Century, such as women’s sufferage, no-fault divorce and laws empowering women against their husbands (such as the VAWA) worked toward the replacement of a marriage culture in favor of a child-support culture and all this can be traced back to the church’s invasion of the family and ban on polygyny.

    Because the civil laws reflected the teachings of the church, the sodomy laws struck down with the Anderson ruling included bans on marital conduct such as outlawing fellatio and cunnilingus between husband and wife as well as on homosexual behavior. Thus, by prohibiting that which God permitted, that which God forbid is now permitted.

    However, the pendulum is already swinging back the other way as more and more men reject the churchian “</b"Only Real Marriage™ in favor of serial monogamy and soft polygyny not sanctioned by the state under conditions that minimize their exposure to divorce-theft, child abduction and financial ruin. Others simply use the legions of sluts found everywhere to get sexual gratification, having given up hope in finding Godly women in order to start a family.

    Especially when the modern church holds up women like Kathy Keller as examples of Godly wives and praises their NPD/BPD behavior as appropriate and good.

    As women continue to display their true cursed nature more and more men are being shocked out of their blue-pill bondage to see women for the cursed creatures they truly are, in need of strong social and cultural boundaries enforced by men who hold them accountable for their bad behavior. I suspect that if it were possible to get representatives of men who have internalized red pill wisdom and understand women in order to compare them with blue-pilled white knights who support and defend feminism, we’d see a graphic difference in testosterone levels and r/K distribution.

    I find it hard to believe anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history has doubts that the US is headed for another civil war, and regardless of which side wins the huge loser will be feminism and its supporters.

  36. Splashman says:

    MrTeebs, semantic value of your comment = nil.

    Husband is head, or wife is head. Which is it?

  37. Boxer says:

    Dear NEGuy:

    @Boxer, Tim and Kathy have been married for 40 years. I would be completely stunned if they got divorced.

    No matter how much of a simp he seems, he’s gotta be boiling with rage after a lifetime of suffering these humiliating tantrums (Godly as they supposedly are, lol). Such people refine the art of acting, and can appear to be perfectly stable — especially when it means lucrative book deals; but, the instability often erupts out of nowhere once one or both parties have had enough.

    They will be in the divorce courts. Either one or both will be caught banging other people, or they will run out of money, or something will happen. I would wager a modest sum on the eventuality. This is a very dysfunctional couple if their stories are even partly true.

  38. bob k. mando says:

    Hoyos says:
    December 26, 2015 at 1:53 pm
    but smashing objects in a calm rage and then, once you’ve come to your senses deciding that this is exemplary behavior seems crazy on several different levels at once.

    it almost certainly *IS* diagnosable in the DSM.

    one thing you’ll notice with the Cluster B / Bi-Polar personalities is that their behavior has little to nothing to do with WHAT YOU DID, but rather, *with the result that they intend to produce*.

    most of the differentiations between the types breaks down into the specific type of lie or manipulative behavior they will engage in, in order to attempt to manipulate other people.

    here’s a list of common behaviors from narcissists, most of the other Cluster B neuro-deviants also use many of these
    http://www.daughtersofnarcissisticmothers.com/characteristics-of-narcissistic-mothers/

  39. mrteebs says:

    Splashman,

    This is a false conundrum, contending that headship is null and void unless the husband has absolute final say over matters of sin for her. Discernment to know whether you are breaking one of the 10 commandments does not end with marriage vows. Plenty of men have commanded their wives to remain silent while they sexually abuse their daughters. My wife was raised in such a family and I do not hold her mother guiltless.

    I have read the arguments in favor of absolute, unquestioning obedience by the wife, held by some here whom I respect. But I do not agree with them. The instances in which a wife says “I am not going to do that because it is sin” are vanishingly small compared to,the instances in which a wife elevates feelings and claims “you aren’t loving me properly.” In 26 years of marriage, I cannot think of one instance in which we disagreed on the former. It was always some variation of the latter.

    The burden of proof rests with you to show why obedience to the husband trumps the 10 commandments or the principles taught in Acts 5 do not extend to both sexes and across marriage vows. The answer I have heard most often is that it creates too much confusion if there isn’t this degree of absolute assurance as to who calls the shots and the wife will endlessly abuse it. That abuse may occur does not nullify the principle.

  40. feeriker says:

    If it weren’t for his family, I’m pretty sure he’d work the bare minimum necessary to put hot pockets in the freezer and spend the rest of his time playing video games and watching Futurama reruns. News flash, ladies: he’s doing all that for you. This is how grown men behave. It’s called “providing”.

    Thank you, Cindy. Yes, you’re absolutely correct. Most of us with families are certainly not working 12 to 16-hour days because we want to. If we are, the wives probably are playing a major role in the decision.

  41. ray says:

    “I sat down trembling. I thought she had snapped. “I’m listening. I’m listening,” I said. As we talked it became clear that she was intense and laser focused, but she was not in a rage or out of control emotionally. She spoke calmly but forcefully. Her arguments were the same as they had been for months, but I realized how deluded I had been. There would never be a convenient time to cut back. I was addicted to the level of productivity I had achieved. I had to do something.”

    So Tim turned from his ‘laser’ vanity building his ego I mean Church, and took a break, to join his clever wife in her ongoing psycho-drama for power? That was just after he had to sit down trembling? The poor dearie. As if he knows what trembling is.

    After that, Tim wrote a book to further capitalize on the couples’ rebellion against God. They are associated with a Council on Biblical Manhood who supports and publicizes the apostasy. Is this a fair sum? Run by a Barbara Rainey and her husband? Pls correct me if I’ve mixed these groups up. There’s so many it’s hard to keep current.

    Who asked anybody to form a Council on Biblical Manhood? Did Jesus ask for it? Did God mention these people in his book? Yet they wouldn’t thrive and prosper if so-called Christians, largely women, didn’t back them and extend their influences. Therefore the rot is deep and only the good detectives accomplish the works.

  42. Dale says:

    @Cindy:
    Well done.

    @Jack:
    >She should be careful, I question whether she is really saved. There is nothing of the spirit of the Lord in her. Child of satan.

    Romans 10:9-13 shows we need to confess Jesus as Lord to be saved. Consider how many “Christian women” show open disobedience to God, even while in “church” service on Sunday mornings.
    – deut 22:5 – wearing men’s clothes instead of women’s
    – 1 cor 11 – cutting their hair short
    – Titus 2:3-5 – refusing to be self-controlled, as made obvious by their obesity
    etc.

    And yet some people are foolish enough to claim there are not enough Christian MEN to go around for the Christian women. Ugh.

    >I pity any man married to such a raging [female child]
    Agreed. I thank God almost every day that I am not married to a selfish, lazy woman. And that I have not been abandoned by such a wife. Being single is not ideal (1 Cor 7:1-9), but it is also not the worst (1 Cor 7, plus Mat 19).

  43. Tom K. says:

    Dalrock, I hate to say this, but I usually cannot read these posts. They make me literally ill. They paint a picture of women that is so evil, evil in their manipulation and fanatic obsession to get their own way. And Christian husbands are being told this is HOLY behavior that he MUST submit to! Oh, my stomach! I want to vomit!

  44. ray says:

    Jonadab:

    That really clarified it.

    In case you skimmed this part of the OP, the Reverend Sam Brown of Grace Presbyterian Church says that the ‘teachings’ of Kathy and Tim are undoing the Edenic curse. Despite that God instituted the curse and only God can remove it. He didn’t increase the urge toward rebellion in woman until she demonstrated the inclination to rebel. But Kathy, Timmy, Sam, Barbie, Dennis, Britney, and supporters don’t need God. So we’ll see.

    Anyway just wanted to make sure you saw that part, as a kind of recompense for your lovely poetry.

  45. dragnet says:

    @ Boxer

    “Women used to be much more cunning. In the old days, a wife would meet her husband at the door partly dressed, give him a really good fucking, and then while basking in the afterglow, she’d bat her eyelashes and suggest he do what she wants. That’s really all it takes from a submissive wife to get any freakin’ thing on earth.”

    Women would only behave this way where men had higher status than women by virtue of being men. Fucking your husband to get your way is more agreeable to women when society has gone out of its way to ensure that their husbands tend to satisfy at least the minimum demands of hypergamy. But when husbands are of equal or even lower status than wives the pussy clamps shut and the china gets destroyed.

    We have exactly the society we have earned.

  46. feeriker says:

    In case you skimmed this part of the OP, the Reverend Sam Brown of Grace Presbyterian Church says that the ‘teachings’ of Kathy and Tim are undoing the Edenic curse. Despite that God instituted the curse and only God can remove it.

    You’re demonstrating biblical literacy (a.k.a. the vaccination against heretical churchian preaching by power-hungry charlatans with divinity degrees). Pointing out the truth to “Reverend” Brown and his deluded followers as you have done would surely get you de-fellowshipped, or even tarred and feathered.

  47. mike says:

    Once again, women love to complain about the hours required to be a success, but will leave you when you aren’t successful. You can’t win with these women.

  48. Gunner Q says:

    mrteebs @ 10:48 pm:
    “This is a false conundrum, contending that headship is null and void unless the husband has absolute final say over matters of sin for her.”

    That is what headship means. If he doesn’t have the final say then she does by process of elimination. You can’t have a democracy of two. Listen to Splashman.

    “The burden of proof rests with you to show why obedience to the husband trumps the 10 commandments or the principles taught in Acts 5 do not extend to both sexes and across marriage vows”

    The smoking gun is Ephesians 5:24. “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

    Meanwhile, Acts 5 is specific about God and men. Men are not required to obey other mens’ judgment on what is sin but wives are commanded to follow their husband’s judgment in 1 Cor. 14:35.

    “Plenty of men have commanded their wives to remain silent while they sexually abuse their daughters.”

    Plenty of men, yeah, right. In that RARE situation, a wife can divorce her husband for adultery. Things will get resolved quickly from there.

  49. Looking Glass says:

    @Gunner Q:

    There’s also the assumption that God isn’t all-powerful and capable of protecting a Woman who’s Husband is commanding her to Sin. Nor does it take into account that a Woman will have been well involved with the Sin by the time it gets there, meaning it’s not her Husband’s Command she’s submitting to but her own Sin by that point.

    @Mrteebs:

    This is one of those harder topics to deal with because, as a Christian, you do NOT know what the Lord will do in certain situations. When we claim static analysis of theoreticals, we assume that the theoretical can possibly happen. I honestly do not believe the “Husband Commands Wife to Sin” one actually can exist, as the theoretical is classically constructed. And, even if it does, it proscribes the power of the Living God to effect his Creation.

    Further, if a Wife has cultivated a quiet & submissive spirit, the Lord might just numb the tongue of her Husband if he attempts to command such. We cannot accept the commands of the Creator and then deny that He has no power over it. And, frankly, if the situation gets dire, the Lord might just strike the Man down dead. Ananias & Sapphira alone should be pretty instructive.

    Most of this discussion comes down to an issue I’m calling “Theologian’s Disease”: the assumption of All-Knowledge of potential situations, where one can discern what is Sinful and what is Not Sinful. It’s a brutal trap that intelligent Men fall into very easily, as it serves their Vanity quite well. That’s the major issue with this “question” and why it’s been presented so often in this form. If you think this is wrong, prayer about why Abraham was *commanded* to sacrifice Issac (Genesis 22). Abraham was there to sacrifice his only son. Reflect deeply on that and what the Lord did.

  50. nick012000 says:

    >Plenty of men, yeah, right. In that RARE situation, a wife can divorce her husband for adultery. Things will get resolved quickly from there.

    According to the Law, that’s not Adultery; Adultery is defined as a man having sex with a married woman, or a woman already engaged to be married. If a married man seduces or rapes a virgin girl, he is instead required to take her as a second wife (unless it’s also incest, in which case he’s to be executed or excommunicated, depending on the exact familial relationship involved).

  51. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  52. Original Laura says:

    Dalrock does not appear to have commented or blogged since the tornado .I drove out of Dallas at 830 am and the dalrock exit was blocked by police. The weather got worse and worse and I have just pulled off in Mount Pleasant because the weather warning alarm went off on my phone . It turns out the warning is for flooding this time not tornados . Parts of the drive have been white knuckle . Dalrock if you made it through the tornado okay please comment if you can

  53. mrteebs says:

    Gunner,

    By your reasonong, Titus 2:9 could likewise be a smoking gun used to defend masters for comannding their slaves to sin. It also says “…in everything.” Who were married slaves to give allegience to in the event of conflicting directives – God, husband, or master?

    I am curious to know which of those defending the absolute right of husbands to command their wives to sin are catholic. This is not a trick question. I am not catholic and am wondering if there is some catholic teaching that has informed your thoughts on this.

  54. Dragonfly says:

    Wow Original Laura, I hope he and his family are ok… Garland Teas had a tornado last night. Very crazy weather in Texas😦

    SS, so glad to hear you’re maturing in respecting and submitting to your husband, relinquishing control over situations in getting your way or being heard, and learning to gracefully accept his “no”!!! I know this is really big for you.

    God’s way IS best, and whenever we try to control the outcome or other people, it never ends well for relationships, especially our husbands and children who have to live with our disobedience/rebellion.

  55. Dalrock: I blogged this story at Married Red Pill (MRP) and reversed the genders with me as the out-of-control husband smashing fine china because my wife won’t have sex whenever I want. The Blue Pill Reddit is going to have a cow! Hopefully I will expose the hypocrisy- and I am counting on my MRP brothers to call me out on this abusive behavior.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/3yf17n/forcing_your_wife_to_provide_sex_on_demand_an/

    “One day last week my wife came home from work. It was a nice day outside and she immediately noticed that the door to our balcony was open. She was taking off her work clothes when I delivered a loud smashing noise from the balcony. In another couple of seconds I delivered another one. When my bride walked out on to the balcony she saw to her surprise I was sitting on the floor with a hammer. Next to me was a stack of our wedding china. On the ground were the shards of two smashed saucers.
    “What are you doing? She asked.”
    I looked up and said, “You aren’t listening to me. I have told you how important sex is to a man but you don’t realize that if you keep turning me down for sex that you are going to destroy this family. I don’t know how to get through to you. You aren’t seeing how serious this is. This is what you are doing.” And I brought the hammer down on the third saucer. It splintered into pieces.
    This was the wakeup call that she needed to decide to have sex with her husband. I wasn’t emotionally out of control but was delivering a solemn and important message in a way that brought home how important this was. There was no other way to get through to her. I tried talking and holding her. I tried doing housework. I tried reasoning with her and explaining how important this was to me. She would not listen so she forced me to destroy her important valuables just so I could get her attention.
    She sat down trembling, thinking I had finally snapped.
    “I’m listening. I’m listening,” she said. As we talked it became clear that I was intense and laser focused, but not in a rage or out of control emotionally.
    A few days later she asked how I was able to calm down so quickly after my apparent meltdown.
    I explained: “It was no meltdown. Do you see these three broken saucers I smashed?” She nodded. “There are no cups for them. The cups have broken over the years. I had three saucers to spare. I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”
    Since then she has submitted to me and has sex whenever I want.
    Please comment about my technique for gaining wifely submission.”

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    bluepillprof – well played, this is trolling for fun and instruction. Just be sure to let any fish that strike on that bait run for a while. The more they thrash around, the more interesting it will be when you reveal the actual source and story.

  57. Gunner Q says:

    mrteebs @ 11:45 am:
    “By your reasonong, Titus 2:9 could likewise be a smoking gun used to defend masters for comannding their slaves to sin.”

    You mean, defend slaves who obey their master’s sinful commands? Yes. It must be noted that it’s the master committing the sin not the slave, just as within marriage it’s the husband disobeying God if he orders his wife to do evil. These are the two faces of the submission coin: if you must obey then you aren’t responsible.

    “Who were married slaves to give allegience to in the event of conflicting directives – God, husband, or master?”

    Husband, according to God. Ephesians 5:24 again.

    Original Laura @ 10:52 am:
    “Dalrock does not appear to have commented or blogged since the tornado.”

    Cool. I need to be in one of those someday. So far I’ve collected earthquake, flood, drought, hail, plague of insects, wildfire, riot and volcano. Remaining are tornadoes, hurricanes, war zone, tidal wave and sulfurous fireballs from Heaven. At least the California Gay Area is a good try for the latter three.

    I’m sure Dalrock is fine. Texans are a hardy breed.

  58. Mrdweebs is using the exact same reasoning femicants and churchians use all the time – Wives can’t submit to their husbands because the husband might force them to do something evil. That kind of ill fated logic.

    Once again, who gets to decide if what the husband has commanded is sinful and thus the wife is not obligated to submit?

    It’s quite simple, the wife submits in ALL THINGS when she marries her husband. Therefore, it is paramount she only gets married to a man she can trust and submit to, if not, don’t get married. Once married, there is no room to adjust, she must submit and win him over by use of a gentle spirit. Or not get married.. seriously, if Mrdweebs and Co really believe there are so many married men that would have sex with their children, I would suggest women stay far away.

    Submission in absolutely ALL THINGS to her husband or no marriage.

  59. mrteebs says:

    I disagree emphatically. The story of Ananias and Sapphira should be sufficiently clear. The passage tells us this was the husband’s decision – not him following some conniving on her part. Sapphira was subsequently not spared for following her husband. Remember, she did not know he was dead so if she was merely submissively following his lead, she should not have been asked the catch 22 question.

    She was expected to follow God in that instance. This is a page straight from the 10 commandments about who you obey when a man vs. God conflict arises – and what the consequences of disobedience are regardless of who issues the orders.

    And lets refrain about bragging who is the least churchian by comparing merit badges. Its childish.

  60. Either the wife submits or there is no marriage. That is all there is to it. Your playbook is feminist.

  61. justdoit says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite, may I summarize in two sentences:

    WORDS SPOKEN: Wife: “You are not listening to me”
    ACTUAL MEANING: Wife: “You are not obeying me”

  62. stevesam221 says:

    “Either the wife submits or there is no marriage”

    Would it be true to say also that either a man leads or there is no marriage? I am thinking not because there is no command for a man to lead in all things but there is for woman to submit in all things. So, a marriage exists whether a man is leading or not.

  63. My only point is that a wife is to submit herself to her husband upon marriage. That if she cannot submit or has reservations about submitting, she isn’t to get married.

    The Bible says a woman is to win her husband over to God with a quiet and gentle spirit so that the man can view her Godliness in her actions and devotion. It does in no way state that she is to have ‘Godly tantrums’ if she thinks he is sinning or not listening to her. This includes when he actually sins, doesn’t lead or is an asshole.

    I’m not going to debate abuse, adultery or incest because I believe those are valid reasons for divorce within marriage. However, the Bible clearly states that a woman is to submit herself in everything to her husband, so barring a truly wicked man on an evil, sinful warpath, debasing himself and others, a woman is to submit herself wholly to her husband and he is to lead her and his family. It ain’t perfect but it’s what God intended. Either we do it or don’t get married.

    So yes, even if a husband isn’t leading properly or even at all, it’s still a marriage.

  64. @Dragonfly,
    Thank you for the encouragement.
    I’m so excited about the work God is doing here.🙂

  65. @seriouslyserving

    “I don’t think you’re really hearing what I’m saying.”
    He said, “I think I’ve heard you more than enough.”
    So I stopped talking. I still felt quite hurt inwardly, as I genuinely felt like he hadn’t heard me. But I prayed silently that God would help me not to be bitter about it, and then got on with the rest of our day joyfully.
    Later that night, after the kids were in bed, I said to my husband, “Honey, do you mind if I say one more thing to you about x? I’ll drop it if you want, but I just felt like you didn’t get what I was trying to say.”
    He said, “That’s fine. What did you want to say?”
    I said, “Well, what I was actually getting at was x y z….”
    He said, “Oh, right! Yes, I didn’t get that you were trying to say that at all! Thanks for explaining.”

    No, this is not helpful to other wives.

    This is the basis for rebellious women insisting on getting their way. I cannot speak specifically to your exact situation and the details, but it is the default setting on women to believe that if she can just phrase the thing correctly…..so that he will get it…..well then, he will see her point and agree with her position. This is the dynamic that forms the basis for the personal Jesus and for the Rollo’s correct assertion that the FI has replaced the Holy Spirit.

    This can use some unpacking.

    The wife is not at all thinking that she needs to add just one more fact, one more actual pro or con, one more feature or benefit, one more analogy to solidify the logic…..its none of that. She FEELS that her opinion about the decision in question is better because her nuanced changes make HER feel better. Just imagining the warm shimmering feelings flying off the actions she’d choose drive her her to persist and repeat. She, not consciously, sets out to present her case in such a way that will make her husband FEEL what she feels about her idea. She does this on instinct. If he FEELS that good feeling he will have seen her point. So, when he says he has heard enough, it means he has the facts …repeated at him in rearranged in sentences myriad ways, and the facts say his call is the right call.

    If a man gets irritated after 17 reworded arguments from her….the issue becomes his anger….not her badgering. She want arguing. She was trying to give him vicarious good feelings like she got when she had her idea.

    The personal Jesus is perfect for this. He does get her rationale. He sees her side of the story. She need only lay on him endless emotional arguments with some weeping and he will even endorse her divorce and ruination of a decent man, and the leaving of her children without father at home….so potent are these fantastic mental meanderings of hers.

    I have a hard time accepting the story as told. Unless your husband cuts you off and doesn’t listen, or unless he is a slow thinker, its herd to believe that all you have to do is offer one last “point of clarification”….and because it was done sweetly he suddenly saw your wisdom. If the discussion reaches the point where he says he has heard enough, for me that means he has the needed info and is not moved to changing his mind. I will allow it is possible because on occasion my wife will present something in such a way that I really have no idea whats being said. Finally though I get that cleared up by asking very specific questions. Its never happened, not even once that we have had that dialog where she rewords and repeats and badgers and prods and then suddenly she says one key thing Id been missing and Eureka I agree.

  66. enrique says:

    @Don Quixote: Reading the comments from that YT video should easily disabuse anyone who questions the depths of White Knightedtry within our culture. I swear if she had pulled out a revolver and blasted the guy between the eyes people would have been “pretty much ok with this, he mustsa done SOMETHING to deserve that”.

  67. @empathologism,

    Respectfully, you’re wrong.

    I can definitely see it happening the way you say – I’ve been there too (“If I can just phrase this the right way, he will see what I’m saying”). That’s not what happened.

    The problem was I… what’s the term?… buried the lead. So he never got a vital piece of information before he got sick of my waffling.

    Like I said above, I was more than happy to accept him saying, “just drop it”, but I knew he hadn’t heard that vital information, so I approached him calmly and respectfully to see if he would like to hear me out.

    I didn’t want to share the topic we were discussing, because I thought it would distract from my point, but perhaps that will be helpful?

    We were discussing how to do Christmas morning with the kids, now that they are getting old enough to remember what happened in previous years. I started by going into great detail about how we did it in my family (no church service – that was Christmas Eve, waking up as early as possible and then opening presents altogether before breakfast, then off to the beach, then to Nan and Pop’s house for lunch). I told him our cousins were only allowed to open 2-3 presents before going off to church first thing, and how hard it was for us to do that one year when we stayed with them.

    He got the impression that I was wanting us to do it the same way as when I was a kid (open all presents first thing in the morning). But my actual point (that I didn’t get to) was that I DIDN’T want to do it that way – that I thought that made Christmas all about the presents.

    This was simply what I said to him later that night, when he agreed to hear me. And he was thankful that I spoke to him, and said that he didn’t get that at all from our earlier conversation.
    I said I would make an effort to “get to the point” faster next time.🙂

  68. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:
  69. Jim says:

    ” enrique says:
    December 27, 2015 at 5:16 pm”

    I know, right? These little boys who do that crap are some of the most pathetic pussy fags you’ll ever see. Switch the genders though and the man would INSTANTLY be labeled an abuser. The insane blindness is laughable.

  70. mrteebs says:

    fh,

    If you want to thoughtfully debate, you might start by treating me respectfully. “Mrdweebs” is childish. Grow up and participate as an adult. I will not be so gracious next time.

    My understanding of the scriptural principles of authority and submission are simple:

    – God has a hierarchy in which He is at the top
    – This hierarchy extends to all spheres – both material and spirit. There is hierarchy in heaven, hell, and earth. There is likewise a hierarchy in marriage. If I did not believe that fully, I would not frequent this site and comment regularly.
    – God takes authority and submission very seriously. Jude 8-10 is just one glimpse into how serious these matters are. David and Saul are another example among dozens or perhaps hundreds of others in scripture.
    – There are times – rare and exceptional – in which we must follow the next higher authority in the hierarchy when their instructions conflict with our immediate authority’s.
    That the above can be (and is) abused does not nullify its truth.
    – A neat and tidy solution is to simply say “no exceptions”. It has the distinct advantage of being neat and tidy. It has the distinct disadvantage of requiring wives to be handled as a special case of a more general overarching principle in which we answer to a higher authority and must occasionally follow the highest in command. Men as well as women regularly abuse this. It is not this principle that is the churchian problem, but abuse of this principle.

    I have provided chapter and verse for my beliefs and have kept the discourse civil. You have used insults and mocking while simply restating your position as if it will somehow be more palatable at higher volume. You are free to disagree with me, and have done so, but have done nothing to sway my beliefs. The same arguments that have been used to prohibit any caveats at all for wifely obedience (which is not entirely synonymous with submission) can be easily used to show why men are never free to obey God rather than men, as obedience to one’s immediate authority would always be the prime directive, no exceptions. GunnerQ’s suggestion that slaves are exempt from moral discernment is ridiculous at its face. Do you not think that slave owners gave immoral commands to their slaves, be they male or female? And do you really think that “I was only following orders” will be an adequate defense on judgement day? The statement “no submission, no marriage” is likewise knee-jerk. It would be a supremely dysfunctional and miserable marriage, no doubt, but refusal submit does not nullify a marriage any more than refusal to lead. Think through your positions, state them clearly, and avoid the sound bites. Less is not more.

  71. mrteebs says:

    Correction to last sentence: “…state defend them clearly…”

  72. Art Deco says:

    I never understand women who get mad because their husbands are working a lot. They don’t really want to be married to low achievers, do they? That’s sure what it sounds like.

    People often want two things the pursuit of one of which sabotages the pursuit of the other. You can explain that to them; you cannot comprehend it for them. My wager would be that his absence per se is not what bothers her, but his failure to defer to her and make little gestures.

  73. Art Deco says:

    “Evangelese” is such a strange language. Words don’t mean what they mean and nobody understood the real meaning until sometime, presumably, in the 70s.

    The discourse and sensibility is quite unpalatable to anyone outside a certain circle, though selected figures like Charles Colson have been exceptions. What’s distressing is that its sort of a product which continually adapts to popular culture and mass entertainment, or garbled editions of popular culture and mass entertainment, so now your getting Vichy evangelicalism: people determined to be the gay lobby’s bitch with a strange glassine smile and Dixie bad taste. See Chambers, Alan.

  74. Art Deco says:

    Both were in their 20’s as 2nd stage feminism came along in the 1970’s. Totally immersed in it, up to their eyebrows. She’s a conservative feminist, sure, but still a feminist.

    “The second stage” was a bit of blatherskite coined by Betty Friedan ca. 1980. There is no such thing as ‘second stage feminism’ except to the extent that public policy is much less a matter of dispute than it was in 1970 and the discussion is in the realm of academic life and mass culture. And, no, a pastor’s wife ca. 1975 would not have been up to her eyebrows in anything like this. She’s just a difficult woman throwing a tantrum. The trouble with her husband is that he makes ramshackle compromises (which is unremarkable enough in a marriage) and then writes how-to literature commending himself for it.

  75. Ang Aamer says:

    Another thing to realize that if she can fake this emotion…

    She can fake love too! Good to know!

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    “The second stage” was a bit of blatherskite coined by Betty Friedan ca. 1980.

    You might want to check your date on Freidan. Try 1960.

    There is no such thing as ‘second stage feminism’ except to the extent that public policy is much less a matter of dispute than it was in 1970 and the discussion is in the realm of academic life and mass culture.

    Yeah, no. First stage feminism was the late 19th century to early 20th century; ban booze, give women the vote. Second stage feminism was the 1960’s through late 80’s to early 90’s. Push the ERA, AA for women, Title IX, etc. Third wave is where we are now, including the sex-pozzies.

    And, no, a pastor’s wife ca. 1975 would not have been up to her eyebrows in anything like this.

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s, preparing to become an ordained preacher in the Presbyterian Church. She’s obviously still a conservative reminist, with the equalitarian “mutual submission” mindset that goes along with that. That’s the key to the problem.

    She’s just a difficult woman throwing a tantrum.

    These two things are not mutually contradictory, you know.

    The trouble with her husband is that he makes ramshackle compromises (which is unremarkable enough in a marriage) and then writes how-to literature commending himself for it.

    True but not complete. He holds out his cave-in as the example of Christian marriage and claims he’s following the Bible even though he plainly is not. That’s the troubel with Tim Keller.

  77. I don’t respect you Mrdweebs, hence the name. You are following the same exact textbook example of churchian that got us into the mess we’re in. I’m not debating you, just telling you where to get off. Understand?

  78. Mrdweebs.

    God, Jesus, Man, Wife, Children, whatever.

    Are men free to disobey an order from Christ if they feel it’s sinful? Should they? Should there prime directive be to God or the Son?

  79. If you want to thoughtfully debate, you might start by treating me respectfully. “Mrdweebs” is childish. Grow up and participate as an adult. I will not be so gracious next time.

    Enough with the shaming, I don’t care. There are far bigger problems in this world than your ego.

  80. jonakc1 says:

    so did he make it through the Tornado?

  81. Robin Munn says:

    @feministhater –

    Since Christ wouldn’t give us an order to do anything sinful, that’s not a good question; debating an impossible hypothetical is a moot point. A better question is whether we should obey secular authorities when they tell us to do something clearly sinful. That question does have some Scripture we can look at. In 1 Peter 2:13-14, Peter commands us to submit ourselves to the secular authorities, and makes no exceptions to that command. Yet in Acts 4:19-20, when the Sanhedrin (the ruling authorities that he was subject to as a Jewish citizen) ordered him and John to stop preaching the Gospel, he told them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

    So in the matter of obedience to secular authorities (in which 1 Peter 2 makes no exceptions), there is the “except for clearly sinful matters” exception still there. Why should the obedience of a wife to her husband not have the same exception?

    As mrteebs said, the fact that this can (and WILL) be abused does not alter its truth. The doctrine that a wife should submit to her husband can also be abused; does that make IT false?

  82. Dragonfly says:

    11 people lost their lives from the Dallas tornadoes (there were several reported apparently)….

  83. Dragonfly says:

    Here is an excerpt from an article:

    “DALLAS, TX — Tornadoes that swept through the Dallas area caused substantial damage and at least 11 people died either from the storm or related traffic accidents. Dozens of people were injured in the storms as well.

    It’s the latest of a succession of freakish winter-weather events across the country that could include heavy snow and massive flooding Sunday from north Texas through eastern Oklahoma, eastern Kansas, western Arkansas and parts of Missouri. Days of tumultuous weather in the Southeast have led to 21 deaths overall.

    The full extent of damage in Texas isn’t yet known, though it stretched over about a 40-mile-long area from 20 miles south of Dallas to northeast of the city. The storm blew the roofs off homes, mangled vehicles, damaged churches, downed power lines, toppled trees and caused natural gas lines to burst.” http://abc13.com/news/at-least-11-dead-in-n-texas-storms-that-spawned-tornadoes/1136750/

  84. Since Christ wouldn’t give us an order to do anything sinful, that’s not a good question

    It’s a perfectly valid question. God himself has ordered humans to kill their children. That is murder, a sin. God gave us a hierarchy, a chain of command. Bypassing it destroys its reason for existing.

    If Jesus ordered you to murder, would you bypass him and try to have God absolve you of following Jesus?

  85. feeriker says:

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s, preparing to become an ordained preacher in the Presbyterian Church. She’s obviously still a conservative reminist

    Absolutely. Unless she has publicly repented of that old decision and admitted her sinfulness in attempting to usurp a role that God specifically gave to men, she is still very much a “christo-feminist” in spirit and in deed.

  86. Furthermore, I said that they ‘feel’ it is a sin not that it actually might be one.

    That’s what it all boils down to with you and Mrdweebs, if a wife’s feelings state her husband is sinning, she is to stop her submission to him.

    Welcome to the world of churchianity. You two would feel right at home.

  87. Zippy says:

    feministhater:
    “Whatever Allah wills” is theological voluntarism, which is primarily an Islamic doctrine. Just so you know what “side” you are taking in a millennia-old theological controversy.

    The Christian view is that, as perfectly benevolent Father, God does not command us to do evil. But that is because he is perfect. We are not perfect.

    And while it is true that liberals use the imperfection of human authorities to undermine human authority in general by reframing all authority as abuse, the basic point that human authority is imperfect is true.

    If otherwise legitimate human authority commands you to do evil, that command does not obligate. The very idea of a moral obligation to do evil is incoherent.

  88. Zippy, did God command Abraham to kill his son?

  89. Whatever God wills is also perfectly Christian, stop with the shaming.

  90. Shark says:

    Ah yes, when a women acts out violently, it’s okay, but for a man to do the same (destroying property) it’s considered threatening and abusive, so he gets arrested, removed from the home, a TRO may be issued, he can lose his 2nd Amendment right to own/possess firearms, etc. I so love equal rights…

  91. Actually, you know what, you guys are all right. Women cannot submit to their husbands, it’s a bad idea, in fact they are far better at determining sinful behaviour than men. Therefore, let a wife’s inner Godly knowledge overrule a husband at every turn. Let her rule the nest.

    Glad you could all be of service.

  92. AnonS says:

    Killing isn’t wrong. Killing without moral justification is wrong. God has moral perfection as an essential attribute. Humans do not.

  93. Zippy says:

    feministhater:
    God also commanded Abraham to not kill Isaac.

    But in any case, even if we set aside millennia of debate and tradition to stipulate the Islamic doctrine of voluntarism, it doesn’t follow that flawed human beings never issue objectively immoral commands. And again, the idea of a moral obligation (on the part of those subject to human authority, in this case) to do evil is incoherent.

  94. So… what was the moral justification for Abraham being commanded to kill his son? Is it moral to offer your son as a ritual sacrifice? Or is it more about Abraham’s willingness to do such a deed because his faith and love in God are greater?

  95. Zippy, of course we do, that’s why wives in the Bible are commanded to submit to their husbands, even when they’re non-believers.

    This is getting old guys, you’ve won, enjoy the victory, it’s a hollow one.

  96. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    strike

  97. God also commanded Abraham to not kill Isaac.

    Wasn’t even the point and you know it. Great way to side step the question. If God hadn’t stopped Abraham, he would have gone through with killing his son, a sin. You know it, I know it and God knew it, which was the whole reason for such a test. His willingness to do God’s will overcame his will not to kill his son.

  98. AnonS says:

    feministhater, are you confused on how God is not a man? Perfect knowledge of the future and all effects of every possible action, means strategic objectives we aren’t privy to. God has slain people for disrespect and lying.

  99. Look anon, whatever, that wasn’t even my point. Have fun with trying to convince women to submit but only when they feel their husband isn’t in sin, which will be always. Good luck with that.

  100. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    You know, if you re-read the material Dalrock cites in the OP, it just gets stranger and stranger (and stranger) with every re-reading.

    (I recommend you don’t do that repeated re-reading: you don’t want to fall too far down the rabbit hole hamster hole, now, do you?).

    Just as one example — yac-yac, here, quoting from the OP:

    Rev. Sam Brown of Grace Presbyterian Church cites Tim and Kathy’s teaching in his sermon 1 Peter 3:1-7 – Wives, Husbands, and the Curse Undone (emphasis [Dalrock’s]):

    That image doesn’t exactly fit the stereotypical image of a “submissive” wife, does it? And yet it was a godly woman respectfully and violently showing her husband what she needed from him.

    “Needed”?!? Try “wanted”, rather. Plainly.

    Or is his assumption here, that wives always and inarguably need whatever it is they (for the moment, think they) want, so there’s no difference, there?

    And, isn’t the rather more plainly obvious reason that this doesn’t “fit the stereotypical image of a ‘submissive’ wife”, that it isn’t submissive in any [emphatic expletive deleted] way at all?

    And, “[…] godly woman respectfully and violently […]”

    … — WTF?!? [yac-yac note: that’s French for “what’s this flatulence?!?”]

    Leaving aside the “violent respect” paradox, what evidence is there in any of this story, at any point whatsoever, including the parts Dalrock doesn’t repeat in the OP, that Kathy Keller is “godly”?

    Or am I failing to translate correctly from the Evangelese, and what Rev. Brown means is, Kathy Keller has Become A Goddess?

    But, mostly, mostly, mostly: where, Mr. Brown, is there anything in this sordid tale, anything whatsoever, that supports your glib contention that Kathy Keller is “respectful”?

    Vandalism, deceit (lying), manipulativeness, hyper-insistent egoism & self-centeredness, etc., — this is “respectful”?!?

    “Respectful”: a word made from word-building parts that literally mean, “full of the ability to truly, fully see things” (i.e., “for what they truly are”, with the implication of, “and then acting appropriately, according to this discernment”).

    Here, let me see something for what it truly, fully is, and make a recommendation accordingly:

    Rev. Brown, why don’t you just take down any the crosses in or on your church, and put up a bunch of upside-down pentacles in their places?

    Just sayin’

  101. To settle this matter once and for all, here’s a quick and dirty Apologetic I summarized for you, for those interested, to copy, paste and study later (Thanks to Dr. Voddie Baucham):

    Reasons why the Apostle Paul is not teaching “Mutual Submission” in Ephesians 5:21, Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. “.

    1.) The Greek word used for “Submitting” is “Huppotaso” which is a Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. The term simply doesn’t allow for a “Mutual Submission” interpretation.

    2.) The “Mutual Submission” interpretation is completely out of context with the whole of Ephesians 5:15 through Ephesians 6:9.
    2a.) Three Contrasts given in Eph 5:15-16, Eph 5:17 and Eph 5:18.
    2b.) Three Commands given in Eph 5:19, Eph 5:20, and Eph 5:21
    2c.) Three Contexts given in Eph 5:22-33 (Wives submit to husbands), Eph 6:1-4 (Children submit to parents), Eph 6:5-9 (Servants submit to Masters)
    2d.) Eph 5:21 is NOT applying a qualifier to Eph 5:22 like some would imply, instead Eph 5:22 through Eph 6:9 fleshes out what Eph 5:21 means.

    TL;DR: The Apostle Paul tells us to submit to one another in the fear of God. Paul gives us the examples of Wives submitting to Husbands, Children to their parents and Servants to their master is what that “Submit yourselves one to another” looks like. Reading Eph 5:21 in it’s context allows for no room for any other interpretation.

  102. feeriker says:

    TL;DR: The Apostle Paul tells us to submit to one another in the fear of God. Paul gives us the examples of Wives submitting to Husbands, Children to their parents and Servants to their master is what that “Submit yourselves one to another” looks like. Reading Eph 5:21 in it’s context allows for no room for any other interpretation.

    Absolutely correct, but of course the modernists will respond by resorting to some variation of “that was then, this is now.” In other words, nothing that applied to socioeconomically backward and primitive 1st Century Eurasia applies to the “modern, enlightened, sophisticated” 21st Century West.

  103. WG Dupree says:

    Mrs. Keller makes a category error, in my opinion, when she aligns her role and obligation to her husband in her marriage as the “Jesus role” in relation to God. A correct and Biblical comparison of the role of wife in regards to husband is the role that Church plays in regards to Christ. My assertion here would be supported by the 5th Chapter of Ephesians.

    Mrs. Keller should take her example from Ester, who did not demand that her husband King spare her people, but rather, at risk of death, she approached him, not knowing whether he would extend the golden scepter, or if he did, whether he would grant her request. Mrs. Keller instead decides to take her example from Vashti, who was put away due to disobedience.

    Likewise, the Church does not demand of Christ blessings, nor does the Church throw tantrums. Rather, the Church asks blessings and is submissive to the commands of Christ.

    I believe that this category error is the root of her erroneous rationalizations with regard to submission. However, if she continues to want to go down the road that “God is the husband, Jesus is the wife”, then she should take example of Christ in the garden before his arrest and crucifixion, at which time he prayed that the father would “Let this cup pass from me”, but then He said, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matthew 26:39).

  104. Gunner Q says:

    mrteebs @ December 27, 2015 at 2:17 pm:
    “I disagree emphatically. The story of Ananias and Sapphira should be sufficiently clear. The passage tells us this was the husband’s decision – not him following some conniving on her part. Sapphira was subsequently not spared for following her husband.”

    Had he ordered her to lie or if she’d just said “ask my husband, he handled the sale” then she would have been safe. Instead, she knew he was lying and made the freewill decision to back his lie. There was no Catch-22.

    Her example is one of “this is why you fear God”, not “this is why you shouldn’t obey God’s command to always obey your husband”. It’s God you’re disagreeing with here, mrteebs, not us. I don’t care who wears the pants in your marriage. God does.

    I bet Ananias was a sexy Dark Triad guy and Sapphira was eager to do anything to ride his drama train. There’s not enough evidence in the Bible to prove that but girls should take a moment and think about how likely they are to end up like the man they give their bodies and lives to. Bad boys don’t stop just because they get rewarded with sex & commitment and they’ll constantly tempt her to evil. Ananias & Sapphira, Bonnie & Clyde, every policeman knows this story and how it ends.

  105. Jim says:

    “Have fun with trying to convince women to submit but only when they feel their husband isn’t in sin, which will be always. Good luck with that.”

    Exactly.

    “Absolutely correct, but of course the modernists will respond by resorting to some variation of “that was then, this is now.”

    So IOW, “I won’t submit to any man no matter what God says!” This is why you don’t ask them, you make them. But that won’t happen until these insane and silly feminazi laws are destroyed.

  106. jeff says:

    Mrteebs,

    With your interpretation, someone from the opposite interpretation could easily say it was probably her idea to hold money back from the sale of the property. He died because he listened to her, just like Adam listened to Eve.

    Just saying.

    I bet you are a pastor who sticks to your guns with wife must submit unless husband is in sin. The problem is that women will manipulate saying it is the Holy Spirit which is blaspheme. Will men manipulate using the name of the Holy spirit? Yes, but unless you are a complete fool you know that women manipulate at the very least a weekly basis. They rationalize, the deceive and deny like teenagers rebelling against parents. My wife confessed she has forced her decisions claiming she thought is was the Holy Spirit leading her… however they were on things that if we did it my way there was no sin even remotely involved except her not submitting. The last laugh was that in every situation she confessed HS, it turned out badly for her and our family. You can bet she doesn’t use HS claim anymore. She just does what seriously serving does and tries to come at it from more angles thinking something will work. Is it still manipulation and not submitting? Yes.

    You are naïve, foolish, or you are a pastor… which makes you both of the former. I would bet you are 50ish, brought up by a pastor or in Christian home, blah blah blah.

  107. Robin Munn says:

    Just A Regular Guy – Absolutely right, and exactly what I’ve said in other contexts. Eph. 5:21 is the general principle — in your various relationships within the church, you will be the one submitting in some relationships, and in other relationships you’ll be the one in authority. (For example, wives will be submitting to their husbands, but in authority over their children.) Eph. 5:22-6:9 then give three examples of what those various submission/authority structures should look like. The one submitting should obey, and the one in authority should never abuse their authority for personal gain, but rather should exercise their authority for the good of those under them.

    As for the argument about whether a Christian should obey authority except for in sinful areas, and the “It can and will be abused by wives based on their feeeeeelings” argument… Of course it will be so abused! There are always people trying to twist the truth. The question is whether Peter’s behavior in front of the Sanhedrin was right, or not — and whether the same principle should be applied in the case of wives and husbands.

    Also, because the temptation to abuse the “sin loophole” will be so omnipresent, it’ll be important to emphasize when teaching about this that the wife will be tempted to abuse it. Tell any woman you’re teaching that if she can’t point to a specific Scripture passage that clearly forbids what he’s telling her, then it’s not her responsibility to decide whether her husband is sinning. If there’s any doubt, then that’s his responsibility before God, not hers.

    Just thought of one approach that could be taken. If you’re teaching someone about this and she starts asking “But what if he _____” questions, ask her “Do you think that’s likely to happen?” No, your husband isn’t likely to ask you to rob a bank, or commit murder or adultery, or even to watch porn with him. (If she does say “Yes, I think it’s likely”, then ask her whether it’s ever happened before, and pin her down to giving you a specific answer — until she finally admits that no, it didn’t actually happen, and it’s not actually likely either.) At which point you’ve already answered her “But what if he _____” questions. Then you can say, “Now, if he does tell you to commit murder, obviously you should respectfully refuse to obey him in that specific instance. But we’ve just established that that’s not going to happen, haven’t we?”

    And even that won’t be enough to make everyone do the right thing. The hamster is strong. But we’re not supposed to find ways to make everyone do the right thing, we’re supposed to preach the truth. Which means examining Scripture carefully to see what the truth is, balancing Scripture against Scripture, and then preaching the truth regardless of what other people do with it.

  108. Art Deco says:

    You might want to check your date on Freidan. Try 1960.

    Um, no. Betty Friedan’s book of that name was published in 1981. See here:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Stage-With-Introduction/dp/0674796551

    The term was not current before then. Betty Friedan’s book in 1963 was called The Feminine Mystique.

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s,

    The term is an utter anachronism.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If you fancy there were no domestic arguments before feminism came to town, you’re wrong.

  109. Art Deco says:

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s, preparing to become an ordained preacher in the Presbyterian Church.

    1. She is not ordained.

    2. She does not endorse ordaining women.

    3. PCA does not ordain women.

  110. jeff says:

    Seems as though we have some pastors and or some who are involved with the churchianity female imperative on here…

  111. Seems as though we have some pastors and or some who are involved with the churchianity female imperative on here…

    The need to provide cover for feminist rebellion is great wherever you go.

  112. “It was no meltdown. Do you see these three broken saucers I smashed?” I nodded. “I have no cups for them. The cups have broken over the years. I had three saucers to spare. I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”

    So a christian Kathy Bates then?

  113. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    @ Looking Glass, who there is replying [December 27, 2015 at 3:16 am] to mrteebs:

    Looking Glass, you write (towards the end of your comment),

    “[…] If you think this is wrong, [pray] about why Abraham was *commanded* to sacrifice [Isaac] (Genesis 22). Abraham was there to sacrifice his only son. Reflect deeply on that and what the Lord did.”

    Now, Looking Glass, I am not fully sure if what I am about to write is critically relevant to your argument with Mrteebs (I think it is relevant, but I could be wrong), but there’s a thing that I have had drawn to my attention about what happens when people discuss the matter of Abraham being “commanded” by the Almighty to sacrifice Isaac, and it’s that the people having that discussion usually forget the context — how that whole story began [my emphasis, here]:

    Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. [Genesis 22:1 (NIV)]

    So, this isn’t a story about God ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it’s a story about God testing Abraham, by ordering him to sacrifice Isaac. Not quite the same thing.

    Now, in support of your take on things, what God is testing, is Abraham’s obedience, and God doesn’t “relent” until it is fully clear that Abraham is being obedient.

    And on Mrteeb’s side of the ledger, there’s the fact that, in some sense, apparently anyway, “God didn’t mean it”: He is not “actually” ordering Abraham to murder his own son.

    Make of it what you will.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  114. @empathologism, a thought just occurred to me. One thing I’ve always had a problem with is the utility of the Christian concept of forgiveness. Not the principle itself which I believe is nobel, but how it’s employed by people to suit their convenience.

    The faithful can correct me if I’m wrong, but in a perfect sense the forgiveness we’re expected to extend to those who wrong us should reflect God’s forgiveness of our sins and his mercy for sparing us from what those sins really warrant us.

    That’s a pretty tall order for even the most pious of us imperfect creations, but the utility of adopting that forgiveness isn’t lost on us.

    Here’s what I mean; when we forgive someone for a wrong (perceived or actual) we are in fact confirming that they have wronged us. In essence confirming your forgiveness of someone is confirming that they wronged you to begin with. So if I say “He Empatho, I forgive you for what you did, it’s all cool, I worked it out with God and he said I should forgive you, so we’re good” what I’ve done is convicted you of a wrong (or a sin) you may not have ever perpetrated, much less acknowledged.

    But convict you I have, even if it’s just between myself and the Lord in prayer and I’ve arrived at forgiveness whether I make you aware of it or not.

    This is exactly what I see these churchy women doing in respect to what Dalrock has been bringing to light recently. They believe they’ve been sinned against because the Feminine Imperative defines what the will of the Holy Spirit ought to be for themselves and their husbands or menfolk. When they “forgive” these men of their transgressions against themselves and the Holy Spirit Feminine Imperative what they are doing is convicting them in their forgiveness.

    What they do is call men out for perceived sins and then run behind the apron strings of the almighty God with the prerequisite “forgiveness” so they feel that they’ve done due diligence according to scripture, but still get in their rebuking of men who don’t acknowledge the new and improved female Holy Spirit.

  115. JDG says:

    You are naïve, foolish, or you are a pastor… which makes you both of the former.

    Why would you say this? What evidence do you have to support your claim that being a Pastor makes a man naive and foolish?

  116. JDG says:

    I’ve known a great many pastors over the years, and IMO many where naive and foolish in regards to the nature of and biblical roles of women. That being said, I’ve also known (and still know) some who are not naive and foolish any more than the rest of us. They know what’s up AND they are pastors.

  117. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the concern on the tornado. Our family is unscathed, but the same storm knocked our power out for a while.

  118. Jim says:

    “The need to provide cover for feminist rebellion is great wherever you go.”

    Pussy boys are everywhere these days. Feminized law and culture = wimp males and rebellious “empowered” females. This mix = divorce and destitution for males and cash prizes for females plus broken homes and single mother households. And we know single mother households are far more prone to creating criminals. Trying to re-engineer men to be women and women to be men has been a disaster.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s,

    Art Deco
    The term is an utter anachronism.

    Nah. Just because you apparently can’t understand it doesn’t negate the accuracy of the term.
    A conservative feminist basically is one that pushes what was radical 20 years earlier, just as a “conservative” is all about “conserving” what was liberal 20 years earlier. There are variations. The whole “complementarian” cluster of groups appears to be infested with conservative feminists.

    Look, Kathy Keller was preparing to be ordained as a PC-USA pastor – that’s feminism, whether you like it or not. She is so far as I can tell opposed to abortion – that’s conservative.
    Conservative feminism is a reality, whether you can see it or not.

    If you fancy there were no domestic arguments before feminism came to town, you’re wrong

    I’m pretty sure that the strawman fallacy predates feminism as well…

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kathy Keller was a conservative feminist in the 1970’s, preparing to become an ordained preacher in the Presbyterian Church.

    Ard Deco
    1. She is not ordained.

    True. So?

    2. She does not endorse ordaining women.

    True now, so?

    3. PCA does not ordain women.

    True. So?

    Do you have a point to make, or is this just some little drama in your mind you have to play out?

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, thanks for the update, I’m sure you put some people’s minds at ease.

  122. Boxer says:

    Thanks for the concern on the tornado. Our family is unscathed, but the same storm knocked our power out for a while.

    Very glad to hear from you!

  123. OK, let me weigh in on Mr. Teebs and Annias and Saphia and all the rest with just a little legal lingo:

    I am convinced that women have this thing we call FREE WILL. They are responsible for obeying sin just as a man is responsible for obeying sin as we are both EQUAL heirs in the gift of life. I cannot believe that a man is exercising legitimate authority by commanding his wife to indulge in an obvious sin. Note the qualification- OBVIOUS sin means a reasonable jury, or person, would agree that it is an obvious sin. So a man commanding his wife to steal, cover up a murder, hide ongoing sexual abuse, or other examples like this are well outside Paul’s commandment to submit and well within Peter (and the Holy Spirit) example. Submission is a demeanor more than anything else. The demeanor of a quiet and submissive woman does not preclude a warrior queen and submission does not remove free will and judgment.

    Yes, brothers, I realize that it has and will be abused and that the exception has swallowed the rule, but the rule still exists. It must. Saying otherwise precludes accountability or free will for women. Sarah called her husband “Master” and she was submissive, but she also pulled a lot of s–t and stood up to her husband when he was wrong. I take judicial notice of the fact that Abraham took the kid up the mountain to cut him up- because I just bet Sarah would not have let him even consider doing it.

    Some of you are way to binary. Slaves are supposed to “obey” their masters but if he tells you to steal something and you get caught, you don’t get to say, oh, my master ordered me to do it. You are in BIG trouble and it is not going to go well for you. Even slaves have free will and the position of a submissive wife is far, far above that of a slave. We agree on that, right?

    Saphira paid for HER sin which was participating with her husband in a lie to the Holy Spirit. Even if her husband commanded her to lie to Peter she would still have been condemned and I think this is a clear warning to women everywhere.

  124. Yoda says:

    Odd thinkers these mentioned people are.
    Down means up, left is right.
    Even more odd that they can see this not

  125. Yoda says:

    Wonder if served sammiches in the China she did.
    “Probably not” the answer would be.

  126. JDG says:

    China needs sammiches too.

  127. Yoda says:

    Peter also suggested “gentle sammich making spirit” did he not?

  128. mrteebs says:

    Jeff,

    With your interpretation, someone from the opposite interpretation could easily say it was probably her idea to hold money back from the sale of the property. He died because he listened to her, just like Adam listened to Eve.

    Sure, they could easily say this. But it strongly suggests they have not bothered to actually read the passage in question. So here it is:

    5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled yourheart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that youhave conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

    Acts 5:1-11 NASB

    Peter did not say “you have listened to your wife and followed her folly” or words to that effect – as were spoken to Adam. Instead, Peter makes it very clear who instigated this when he says, “Why is it that you (Ananias) have conceived this deed in your heart?” Peter then clarifies that Sapphira had “…full knowledge” of the situation. She was an accessory, but not the brainchild / primary instigator. I don’t know how it could be any clearer about which party conceived of this, and which party decided to go along as a fully resposible adult with full moral agency.

    And no, I’m not a pastor.

  129. mrteebs says:

    The fundamental problem I have with submission to the point of sinning is simple: it is not supported in scripture. Those disagreeing with me here are instead relying primarily on the notion that it is problematic to referee by discerning when it is being used abusively and when it is not. However, this same objection is inherent in ALL relationships in which someone is submitted to an authority. How do we know when refusal to submit to a boss, commanding officer, pastor, church council, government entity, etc. is genuine “conscientious objection” versus Machiavellian rebellion?

    I have not created some special exception for wives. I have simply applied the same scriptural standard across all authority structures about when to obey and when not. It is entirely consistent. There is one – and only one – caveat. If an authority commands you to sin, you must disobey, be you man or woman. I have further said that husbands are always over wives in the authority / submission structure – never vice-versa.

    It is ridiculous to assert that one act of conscientious objection is equivalent to total rebellion, any more than the refusal of a physician to perform an abortion means that he is in rebellion to each and every aspect of applicable law and his employment agreement. He can be submissive in this refusal by his willingness to face the consequences of termination, lawsuits, public vilification, etc. It is equally ridiculous to assert that extending this caveat to the one under authority undermines the entire authority structure.

    Not a single one of you disagreeing with me has been able to provide scriptural demonstration to the contrary. The conscientious objection of Acts 5 is magically explained away as for men only, but why not just say it is for Apostles only? I see nothing in the text limiting its scope. Instead, the objections come down merely to implementation challenges: “if you give women an inch, they’ll take a mile.” And in this, you are not wrong. Women will generally test boundaries, as most everyone in submission will test the boundaries of their authorities. But this does nothing to refute the principle of “submission should never extend to knowledgeable sin.” It merely says it requires discernment and leadership to call bullshit when appropriate, and escalate to spiritual authorities if needed. And men, if you are allowing your wife to call the shots on where you attend church, this may not bode well for you. Submit yourself to leaders you trust to rightly divide the word of God and properly discern sin, not the nearest Oprah franchise.

    And please don’t go down this rathole of a woman redefining sin hourly/daily to suit her whim and blunt your headship. That is not what we are talking about here. Yes, it happens. No, it isn’t rocket science to discern and if your wife is doing this, she is in rebellion, not concientious objection. Your job is to call bullshit when this happens, not to freak out as though you have assigned yourself to an inescapable quagmire. It is really no different than assessing when you yourself are in rebellion to an authority versus when it is time to conscientiously object to follow a higher authority, all the while remaining submitted, not a free agent. As BPP said, we are talking about what a reasonable, biblically literate christian would discern as gross sin and corresponding conscientious objection.

  130. Tam the Bam says:

    Kellerwoman’s not insane. Just a common-or-garden terrorist/blackmailer.
    She shows the mark bits of symbolically-important crockery, the cartels would mail you a loved one’s ear or something.
    If your man had any sense of self-preservation higher than a lemming, while she was busy making archeology, he’d be putting all the other wedding gifts remaining on Gumtree. Then remortgage the house.
    Alternatively resign his job and take to the couch with a 40oz.-er. Deal’s off, honey.
    You never negotiate with terrorists.

    Sort of reminiscent of that old Harry Dean Stanton film “Paris, Texas”.

  131. Dave says:

    The fundamental problem I have with submission to the point of sinning is simple: it is not supported in scripture.

    Totally second this. We must always understand that, no earthly authority has a right to demand our obedience, unless they are acting as God’s agents in some way. To the extent that they violate our individual consciences, to that extent are we required to “obey God rather than men”.
    It is similar to the case of a police officer as an agent of the government. We are not obligated to obey a police officer who wants us to rob a bank, for instance. Unfortunately, human laws recognize duress; God does not, and would rather we died than violate our consciences. He wants us to always speak and act “as they that will be judged by the perfect law of liberty” (i.e. when God wants to judge our words and actions, He will always assume we spoke and acted freely and without duress).

  132. Looking Glass says:

    @Rollo:

    What you’re highlight is actually one of the deepest & common theological errors that crops up within the Church, but it is ages old. (I have examples of it cropping up since at least the 700 AD, and wouldn’t be surprised if it goes back to the First Century Church.)

    There is no Forgiveness without Repentance. Or, as we would more commonly view it, you cannot Forgive someone until they come to you and acknowledge the injury that they caused. (Writ large, if this isn’t true, Salvation is given to everyone and requires no Faith in the Resurrection, which most definitely is not a Christian position.) Repentance also assumes some recompense for the injury. (This is why Jesus had to die on the Cross, as the cost of Sin is beyond what any Human can possibly pay.) When this gets unmoored (which it is for nearly all Christians), you end up in an era of “Cheap Grace” and the Lord is just the guy you go to to clear your Wanted meter from Grand Theft Auto.

    (There is a much longer discussion about this, but it starts from skipping a few steps in the process, which means the person preemptively giving “Forgiveness” is putting themselves in the place of God. So it ends up either a display of Vanity or pure Weakness. Which I think you can understand why it’s such a common Christian error.)

  133. Caspar Reyes says:

    Whether a wife should obey to the point of sinning is a red herring and a strawman.

    – Most points of contention are matters of disagreement and not right vs. wrong. And even in matters of preference, a woman will stand remorselessly on her desires to the point of destroying the marriage, if she doesn’t want to obey a command that she finds inconvenient.

    – Most men are not going to knowingly command their wives to sin in any case.

    – Nothing appeals to the daughter of Eve more than knowing that there’s a line she doesn’t have to cross when it comes down to it, because that means that in the end she’s the final arbiter of whether she has to obey. She doesn’t have to ever be pushed to that line, but just knowing there is a line out there somewhere lets her reserve that spot in her heart against you. That’s why the first question in response to “be subject to your husbands in all things” is, “what if…”. It’s not that there’s any reality to the counterexample; it’s that they want to know they are in final control.

    – You can show a woman her behavior in contrast with direct Scriptural commands, and she will still be utterly convinced she is doing right. She will obey a pastor who tells her to rebel against you. She does not have the discernment to know right from wrong nor the wherewithal to go against her desires if she does know. The daughter of Eve is fundamentally deceived all the way to the core.

  134. Caspar Reyes says:

    I might add that the wife of today is not thought of as generally characterized by submission and obedience, nor having had the expectations set by training in little things before being expected to obey or submit on a major disagreement. That is the failing of husbands and fathers. I’m working on it with my daughters and playing catch-up on it with the missus.

  135. Zippy says:

    The idea that obedience of human authority should be mindless lets rebellious wives and other rebels off the hook. It makes it look like what they are doing is violating an arbitrary formal arrangement, on the order of a traffic infraction. What they are doing is far worse than violating some formal arrangement of some more or less arbitrary rules. What the rebellious (not just wives, but in all spheres of legitimate authority) do is attack both the legitimacy of authority and the common good itself. What they do is despicably evil, not a mere traffic offense. What they do is like going to war unjustly, not like rolling through a stop sign.

  136. m11nine says:

    I think we are beating around the bush, so to speak.. If, as it is said, everything is about sex, submission is too, so can we get more practical here?

    There are certain acts that have been considered sodomy (things not natural or non-procreative), even to the point where these things were seen as grave sin in many traditions and were illegal in certain US states until very recent years, such as butt-involvement and fellatio. Many men crave these things and want them from their wives.

    Can the husband demand non-vanilla sex acts she considers sin? If he demands them and she submits, does the responsibility shift to him if the acts are found to be sin at some ultimate judgement? But can the husband get what he wants in bed with his wife? I think the culpability, if any, is on him and her conscience would be clear.

    To me, sexuality is THE test for dominance/submission, and the wife’s body belongs to the husband, as it was written.

  137. Scott says:

    – Most men are not going to knowingly command their wives to sin in any case.

    This is exactly right. There is no epidemic of husbands ordering their wives to knock off liquor stores and banks.

  138. Damn Crackers says:

    Question: Do wedding vows still say to the bride “to honor and obey”?

  139. Pingback: Shades of rebellion | Christianity and the manosphere

  140. I was researching additional apologetics for correct interpretation of Ephesians 5:21 and I came across a free PDF published a free pdf titled “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” (FYI, the hardcopy is available @ WTSbooks.com here).

    The editor of the book, Wayne Grudem, also wrote the chapter on “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21”. I read it and it seems like pretty solid stuff. Here’s an except of Chapter 7 (Hardcopy pg 221, PDF pg 211):

    “BACKGROUND
    For nineteen centuries Christians understood without confusion the
    plain words of Ephesians 5:22-24:

    Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. . . . Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    They also understood, for nineteen centuries, Colossians 3:18:
    Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    And they had no problem understanding Titus 2:5, where Paul
    says that older women are to train young women to be “submissive to
    their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”

    Nor did they have trouble understanding 1 Peter 3:1:
    “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some
    do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct
    of their wives.”

    But these verses became an embarrassment to many Christians as
    feminism began to gain influence in the mid-twentieth century. How
    could Paul dare to tell women to be submissive to their husbands? If
    these submission verses were allowed to have their plain force today, it
    would be impossible to support the egalitarian agenda of abolishing any
    unique male leadership in marriage.”

    The rest of the chapter is very thorough and I intend to read the rest of the book, but check out this mind-bending dedication at the beginning the book:
    “To Dennis Rainey
    Stalwart defender of God’s plan for the family,
    and faithful friend”

    The book was published in 2002, so I don’t know how far back Dennis Rainey’s teaching go along the lines of the woman worshipping nonsense he pushes now, but it makes me wonder what Wayne Gruden thinks today of Dennis Rainey’s ministry. If he still feels the same about Dennis today, assuming Wayne wrote or was sympathetic the dedication in the book, how many other Christian Scholars who seem to have a grasp of sound doctrine are still deceived by Dennis Rainey’s false teaching, albeit with good intentions?

  141. Miserman says:

    The main problem I see in the complementarian / mutual submission thinking is that both assume an equality of the sexes. A hierarchical arrangement (husband / master / parent headship) automatically nullifies any arrangement of equality. How could it be otherwise?

  142. Zippy says:

    m11nine:
    There are plenty of gravely immoral sexual acts that a wife should not commit, no matter who is telling her to do it. Pick one that makes the point clear: a wife should not have sex with the family dog for the husband’s titillation, for example.

    Once we’ve conceded (or refused to concede) that there exist sexual or other acts which a wife ought not do even when her husband is telling her to do it, we have admitted what we are and are just haggling over the price.

    Modern people are always trying to avoid the question of what actions are substantively right and wrong. But human beings are by nature moral agents, so it can’t be avoided. All we can do – and modern people do this all the time – is pretend to avoid it, thereby driving it underground and making it sociopathic. The Nuremberg defense is no more valid for wives than it is for military officers.

  143. I forgot to note this, the free PDF of “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” can be downloaded here.

  144. DrTorch says:

    Just a Regular Guy- Rainey was pushing his nonsense well before 2000. His show was on radio during my normal commute time, and it was sure to get me incensed at how he and his co-host would twist things inside-out so that men should be serving women. A mentor of mine pointed out that they “know their audience” wh/ is primarily women.

  145. “Not a single one of you disagreeing with me has been able to provide scriptural demonstration to the contrary.”

    1 Peter 3 the example is Sarah is commended for her obedience to Abraham.

    Abraham gets Sarah in sticky situations with Pharaoh and Abimelech by telling the half truth that he is her sister. They both take her to potentially be their wife.

    As we can see from the stories, the Lord delivers Sarah from the sticky situations that Abraham creates through various dreams.

    It’s still a gray area.

    However, the issue is that if a wife plainly heaps judgment — whether right or wrong — on her own head. Whereas if the wife obeys in the potentially sinful situations then the judgment is not her own head but on the authority. Namely, in the case of Sarah and Abraham the fault was heaped onto Abraham and not Sarah.

    It’s clear the Lord works in both situations: submission in [sinful] situations and lack of submission to the [sinful] situation. This is why the Lord judges the heart and not the action.

  146. A Regular Guy says:

    @Yac-Yac

    From the bible.org article, “Several weeks ago Bill Gothard came to Dallas to speak to 2600 pastors. There he made a statement that was condemning to all of us. He said that, by far, the greatest complaint of pastors’ wives was that their husbands were failing to take the spiritual leadership in their homes.”

    Women are saying their pastor husbands don’t meet their expectations? You don’t say… Well that’s just too bad now isn’t it?

    There’s so much in that article, I won’t go into it just yet.

  147. Gunner Q says:

    @Rollo,
    Looking Glass got there first. When somebody forgives without first getting repentance, it means one of three things:

    1. He’s deciding to not hold a grudge. Well enough, but it’s sloppy language and the wrongdoer doesn’t need to hear it.

    2. As you propose, he’s simultaneously finding fault with the other guy and posturing himself as virtuous.

    3. He refuses to acknowlege or confront evil. Boyfriend Jesus, cuckservative, Unitarian, that sort of thing.

    With Churchian women, #2 and #3 both seem very likely.

    mrteebs @ 3:06 am :
    “The fundamental problem I have with submission to the point of sinning is simple: it is not supported in scripture. … Not a single one of you disagreeing with me has been able to provide scriptural demonstration to the contrary.”

    Genesis 20:1-13, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3. If you want a literal demonstration, note in the infamous 1 Corinthians 5 that Paul calls only for the man to be punished.

    m11nine @ 10:02 am:
    “Can the husband demand non-vanilla sex acts she considers sin? If he demands them and she submits, does the responsibility shift to him if the acts are found to be sin at some ultimate judgement? … I think the culpability, if any, is on him and her conscience would be clear.”

    Correct. Sin doesn’t go away, it is simply credited to the one responsible for its happening. Usually it’s the person who does it but not always. Wives are not permitted to disobey, therefore the husband holds the guilt.

  148. DrTorch says:

    GunnerQ and m11nine- “Can the husband demand non-vanilla sex acts she considers sin? If he demands them and she submits, does the responsibility shift to him if the acts are found to be sin at some ultimate judgement? … I think the culpability, if any, is on him and her conscience would be clear.”

    No, Romans 14:23 says that if you violate your conscience then it’s sin. The woman commits a sin b/c she took a wedding vow that ultimately requires her to violate her conscience. 1 Cor 8 talks about having a weak conscience stemming from weak faith or Tit 1, unbelief. That she will flip her weak faith to label it as holiness is simply another example of the FI replacing the Holy Spirit (yup Rollo’s observation is a sound one)

    The issue you bring up again shows that the enemy will attack believers at both extremes: hyper-prudes are afraid of all pleasure, including acts of intimacy, and don’t educate young adults re: the joys in marriage. But being “modern” and discussing it incessantly leads to struggles w/ purity before marriage.

  149. Re: The bible.org article posted by Yac-Yac @ Dec 27th 6:27pm

    The entire article stems from the presumption that the complaints of women can be taken on face value despite Prov 30:20 “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.”. The irony of this is seen when the author says to the reader, “Let us not come to this passage to prooftext our preconceived ideas and prejudices, but to enlighten our hearts and minds, and thus, to grow in faith.” when the entirety of the article is based on preconceived ideas and prejudices.

    Just look at this outrageous example of a Pastor’s wife usurping her husband’s authority and it’s justification (emphasis mine): “Not long ago, I read the account of how the pastor of one of the great churches in America was called. He had been asked to serve as a supply preacher by this large church. Fearing that accepting would indicate an intention to campaign for this coveted position, he declined. But his wife disagreed and accepted the invitation for him. Fulfilling this commitment, the man later accepted the call and became the pastor of this same church.

    Not all such situations work out so well</b, as our text in Genesis 16 teaches.

    Excuse me?! A Pastor’s wife undermining his authority and having the audacity to accept a job he denied worked out well?!?! Worked out well in the respect that he is emasculated clearly NOT leading because his wife is just another Evanjellyfish Deborah-wannabe?

    Maybe some of those complaints are legitimate and the body of text seems to be sound counsel on the surface, but when do women NOT complain about their expectations not being met in some way these days? How much cultural chaos in the Church must we endure before we shed this default assumption in all things?

    Rollo is right, the Modern Christian ChurchTM is inspired by the Holy Spirit Feminine Imperative to draw the Ecclesia closer to God the Jezebel Spirit. Why is this so easily seen by an sympathetic outsider looking into the faith, yet the majority of the most learned men in the Church are blinded by it?

  150. JDG says:

    A Regular Guy says:
    December 29, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    From the bible.org article, … There he made a statement that was condemning to all of us. He said that, by far, the greatest complaint of pastors’ wives was that their husbands were failing to take the spiritual leadership in their homes.”

    Women are saying their pastor husbands don’t meet their expectations? You don’t say… Well that’s just too bad now isn’t it?

    This is a common misconception I have seen foisted on listeners time and again. What is commonly missed is the fact that this frame makes the unsatisfied wife the judge and jury over the husbands responsibilities.

    Equally appalling is the fact that the term “spiritual leadership” is almost always used. Why is that? I find that it’s because for the last 30 years or so most church going folks don’t want to go against the feminist norm and acknowledge the biblical teaching that the husband is the leader in the home in ALL things, not just spiritual things.

  151. JDG,

    Equally appalling is the fact that the term “spiritual leadership” is almost always used. Why is that? I find that it’s because for the last 30 years or so most church going folks don’t want to go against the feminist norm and acknowledge the biblical teaching that the husband is the leader in the home in ALL things, not just spiritual things.

    Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

    Nowhere in the Scripture does it say “spiritual leadership” only “headship” — headship meaning in all facets.

  152. Schopenhauer says:

    Preachers who cater to women instead of directing respectful exhortations to men are just hucksters. They aren’t even men.

  153. Don Quixote says:

    Damn Crackers says:
    December 29, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Question: Do wedding vows still say to the bride “to honor and obey”?

    Good question.
    About 90 years ago many churches removed the word “obey” from the vow spoken by the wife. This trend continued throughout most of the western culture. Now we see how that works out. This was an example of the churches following the womans suffrage movement.

  154. Pingback: Just shut up and listen. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog

  155. feeriker says:

    Just look at this outrageous example of a Pastor’s wife usurping her husband’s authority

    Pastors range on the scale anywhere from UeberAlpha to double-dweeby delta. This guy must have been one of the latter for his wife to so blatantly tear his balls off like she did.

  156. Catechism 1601 [Marriage] is a partnership of the whole life, it by it nature ordered toward the good of the spouses . . . (also see CCC 2363) Look to footnotes for Bible passages Catechism are base upon.

    St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us.

    A Christ centered husband does not command his wife to sin. Passages must be read in the entirety not snippets to support a point. Eph. 5:22 – 24 “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord: because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.” The rest of what St. Paul says makes quite clear that this subjection is not a slavish subjection, but one which holds for both husband and wife an obligation to love each other.

    “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). In order to be truly head of his family, a husband must himself be subjugate himself to Jesus Christ. In Christian marriage, the wife’s role of subordination in no way detracts from her value and equality as compared to her husband in the life reserved for us. In other words she is of equal value in the eyes of God.

    Husbands and wives should “[b]e subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21) The wife “subjects” herself to her husband by accepting his role as head. That is, she cooperates with him in filling that role of service to him and the children. The husband, on the other hand, “subjects” himself to his wife by accepting — and doing his best to fulfill — her needs for love and care, provision and order. The mutual subjugation does not mean there is no head of the family. The subjugation is complementary with each fulfilling their distinct role.

  157. Art Deco says:

    Do you have a point to make, or is this just some little drama in your mind you have to play out?

    The little drama is that you made three false statements.

  158. Art Deco says:

    Just because you apparently can’t understand it doesn’t negate the accuracy of the term.

    I understand you don’t know manure from apple butter. So does anyone else who knows what he’s talking about on this subject.

  159. JDG says:

    In order to be truly head of his family, a husband must himself be subjugate himself to Jesus Christ.

    But who decides when a husband is subjugated to Jesus Christ?

  160. MarcusD says:

    The ‘I’m Not Ready to Get Married’ Trap (Where CAF members convince themselves that MGTOW barely qualifies as a movement, etc.)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=993286

  161. Mark Butterworth says:

    From my novel (at Amazon), River Park:

    And then the day came when Ephesians 5:21-33 was read, and the pastor decided to sermonize on it, a scarce thing in The Church these days, but St. Mary’s was the rare conservative parish in Sacramento.

    The infamously offensive passage begins: “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.”

    The pastor, a benign, graying, genial, mild mannered and closeted alcoholic, reviewed the reading. Someone with a sense of humor in compiling the Missal and yoking texts, had joined to it the following Gospel reading: Many of Jesus’ disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

    Indeed.

    “Oh boy, here it comes,” Peter thought, and then wondered if the priest had the nerve for it.

    “Every three years when this reading from St. Paul appears in the Calendar, I always hear from a few wives and other women after Mass. They invariably insist that there’s something wrong with St. Paul, him being a bachelor. No matter how much I point to the many further verses that instruct husbands to be diligent, dutiful, and observant in charity and consideration, some refuse to acknowledge that, and contend this passage has done more harm to their sex than any other in human history.”

    “What can I say? If we are to follow Christ, obligations are pressed upon us. Not to do us harm, but for our own good. Ladies, if you can’t bend your will to your husband’s, how will you bend it to that of Jesus? Men, if you can’t lead your families in the humble but determined spirit of God, how can you be led into becoming the kind of man God requires of you?”

    “Hmm,” Peter mused as Denise sat attentive and erect in the pew next to him while tiny Tom (he was four then) slouched against his mother, bored but silent. “What say we put this to the test?”

    After they’d returned home and little Tom was put to bed for his nap, Peter told his wife, “I’d like you to stay at home. Not go to work anymore.”

    Denise was sorting clothes from the dryer. “Why? I need to pay off the car.”

    “It is my will,” he said smiling.

    “What?”

    “You know. ‘Wives submit to thy husband.’ It is my will,” he continued with a smile.

    “You’re joking,” she said uncertain if he was, but smiling in return. After all, they hadn’t been married long enough to be entirely familiar with each other.

    “What if I weren’t? Don’t you take your religion seriously?” he said without a grin.

    She stopped folding a towel. “Ye . .es. Yes, I do, but I don’t see what you’re getting at,” she replied frowning. And worried.

    “I really would prefer it if you stayed home, looked after Tom, and managed the house,” he told her.

    “But I can’t right now . . .”

    “We can manage.”

    “Not really.”

    “No?”

    “No.”

    “You aren’t sounding very submissive to me. Didn’t you listen to the homily?”

    “Sure. Sort of.”

    “Well, what did you think about it? Did you agree that wives should bend their will to their husband’s?” he asked with a tilt of his head as he finished.

    “Depends what you mean by will and submission, I suppose.”

    He nodded, noticing the evasion. How far should he take his argument or make the case? At what point does it do more harm than good? Good? Christ, it’s already done no good! He’d wounded her. Look! There! She’s bleeding. She’s leaking emotional blood all over the room. It’s gushing out of her in a flood all because you want your woman to mind your vision and masculine desire. You pitiful and utter fool! She doesn’t need you. She doesn’t depend on you. She doesn’t have to do anything she doesn’t want to. If you didn’t get that before, get it now, you idiot. Dolt! Moron! This is your second marriage. What did you think would happen? Why did Anna leave you in the first place seven years ago? She wouldn’t do what you wanted, either.

    “Forget I mentioned it,” he said turning away.

  162. Lol, women can take care of themselves, let them.

  163. From Sunshine Thiry’s blog… once again, Insanity bytes sez:

    Here’s the deal, Sunshine. Sometimes men don’t understand the seriousness of the situation and women need a way to get their attention. Men like Dalrock have no idea WTH they are talking about and “never listen to your wife” is so anti biblical it makes my blood boil. Men are to love their wives like Christ loves the church. Does God not hear our prayers? Does God not listen to us? Does God not preserve our mental health?

    I’ve addressed this several times. Not listening to your wife is psychological abuse. Not being heard sent this woman into an emotional crisis, one in which she was destroying her wedding china. It is short hop and skip from there to completely losing your mind and becoming suicidal. Yes, you can break someone with psychological abuse, which is what many of those red pill churchians actually advocate.

    Headship as outlined in the bible was never intended to be abusive and that is exactly what Dalrock and some of the others advocate. Dominion as domination, masculinity as destruction. This garbage is so far from what the bible actually teaches it is a complete perversion.

    You’re dealing with an untenable situation, the ONLY course of action is to say no and be done with it. Marriage is now almost impossible for men to navigate, after all ‘not listening’ is psychological abuse and grounds for a wife to go batshit insane.

    I’m so done with that.

  164. Spike says:

    Tim and Kathy Keller might be married for 40 years, but bit doesn’t mean they are in a biblical marriage. It means that Kathy will be hovering over him with the nuclear strike option, and Tim will be patiently trying to keep his job and family together in spite if her not because of her.
    Anecdotally I’m on Boxers side: divorce is either an ever present threat or looming.
    I have a Pastor friend who has been married for about the same time. His wife filed despite his pleas for herbnot to. It seems he “works too much”, “brings his work home”, “is narcissistic”, and “never changes”. These innumerable faults justify her treating him disrespectfully in front of his four children, being unsupportive and her not giving him normal marital relations for twelve years (!).
    She is hell-bent on divorce, despite knowing it will ruin his ministry and livelihood. He has told her that.
    It seems that when women are hell bent on destroying a marriage, no power in Heaven or Earth will stop them.
    After I had heard this tragic story one that will cause grief to everyone except apparently her (the grown up kids are on Dads side), I told him to tell her that nobody will give a damn except a bunch of despicable lesbians, the odd geriatric Alpha opportunist and some cats. He seemed shocked by this: How unChristian of me! Yet this is what Christian men MUST start saying, or else the few threads of Christian culture that still hold Western society together will unravel. Simple as that. Our failure is that we have NOT spoken in this way and it shows.

  165. Dave says:

    Men are to love their wives like Christ loves the church. Does God not hear our prayers? Does God not listen to us? Does God not preserve our mental health?

    The relationship between Christ and the Church is not the same as the one existing between us and God the Father. The Church is the bride of Christ; we are not married to God the Father; we are his children.
    Also, God hears our prayers ONLY if we met certain conditions. He is not obligated to answer them if we pray selfishly, or not in accordance to His will.

    And what the heck is that rhetorical question about God preserving “our mental health”? Does it mean God “prevents” us from having a tantrum? If so, then, No, God does not preserve our mental health; we do.

    Not listening to your wife is psychological abuse……Headship as outlined in the bible was never intended to be abusive and that is exactly what Dalrock and some of the others advocate.

    Really? How would this woman define “not listening to your husband” then? Or is it a one-way, female-centric definition? And on what authority did she jump to her conclusion?
    If abuse is so loosely defined, no doubt God Himself is the Abuser-in-Chief! How else does one define “blasphemy”?

    I think a rule of thumb in dealing with anyone who advocates the feminist position, particularly under the cloak of Christianity, is to assume they are religious heathens.

    @Spike:

    Our failure is that we have NOT spoken in this way and it shows.

    Exactly right. The more men that confront the decay that exists in women’s behaviors, the faster change we will begin to see. For too long men have been silent, allowing the feminists to shape the conversation, and that cannot be allowed to be continued.

  166. Never Comments says:

    @Dave

    You should paste that nearly word-for-word over at sunshine’s blog as a reply to that harpy.

  167. DrTorch says:

    Here’s where it leads when the FI replaces the Holy Spirit

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/12/29/christian-abortion-doc-says-i-love-killing-babies-in-abortions-im-proud-to-do-so/#.VoPlClmEzxU.twitter

    my Midwest, Christian upbringing is largely responsible for my belief that providing abortion services is one of the most meaningful ways I feel I can contribute to making the world a more fair and equal place for women.

    The FI brings death. It comes from the enemy who is all about death.

  168. Nothing Christian about that woman. She’s a byproduct of a decadent age and foolish fantasies. Glad her pastor ex-boyfriend got out.

  169. So oppressed she became a doctor aborting male babies long before they can even voice their discontent. Lovely Patriarchy you got there miss, pity if something were to happen to it.

  170. You should paste that nearly word-for-word over at sunshine’s blog as a reply to that harpy.

    No, he shouldn’t. Don’t cast pearls before swines. Instanity bytes has done more to wake men up to the absurdity of the female mind than anything else. The more she sprouts, the more men pack up and leave.

    Feminists and woman like Insanity bytes show us the true nature of women. They do and say out in the open what women have done and kept quiet about for ages. I love it. I want and need more!

    Give us moar Insanitybytes!

  171. @Anotherlawyerwaistingtime

    “Husbands and wives should “[b]e subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21) The wife “subjects” herself to her husband by accepting his role as head. That is, she cooperates with him in filling that role of service to him and the children. The husband, on the other hand, “subjects” himself to his wife by accepting — and doing his best to fulfill — her needs for love and care, provision and order. The mutual subjugation does not mean there is no head of the family. The subjugation is complementary with each fulfilling their distinct role.”

    This is going to sound nitpicky, but please believe me when I say the distinction I’m going to make is important. While I agree with all of the general principles of what you are saying, that’s not the context or the terminology used in Eph 5:21. I covered that in my comment above @December 28, 2015 at 10:39 am in this thread. Part of the reason this can be confusing is because feminist pastors in our churches have been pounding this abuse of Eph 5:21 and “Mutual Submission/Authority Sharing” into our skulls that it becomes our default go to as well. When you refer to Eph 5:21, you’re using the language of Feminist Usurpers in the church.

  172. Boxer says:

    my Midwest, Christian upbringing is largely responsible for my belief that providing abortion services is one of the most meaningful ways I feel I can contribute to making the world a more fair and equal place for women.

    Disgusting.

  173. “In order to be truly head of his family, a husband must himself be subjugate himself to Jesus Christ”

    God established the husband as head of the wife in the same fashion that he established Christ as head of his Church. He places worldly authority in Governments, Elders, Husbands, Masters and Parents not because mankind is worthy but because God is a God of order and his ways are better than man’s. The fact that he chooses to do this in spite of man’s depravity brings him Righteous Glory. There are no temporal conditional qualifiers to God’s commands because his very nature is perfect, just, timeless and true and to imply otherwise by claiming what God ordained to be valid only when mortal expectations have been met is contrary to his nature and blasphemy.

  174. feeriker says:

    No, he shouldn’t. Don’t cast pearls before swines. Instanity bytes has done more to wake men up to the absurdity of the female mind than anything else. The more she sprouts, the more men pack up and leave.

    Exactly. She’s a deranged attention whore who thrives on the negativity she generates. It’s past time that everyone just ignored her (even the ever-patient and tolerant Donal Graeme finally got around to banning her from his blog).

  175. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    December 30, 2015 at 12:32 am, MarcusD shared this link:

    The ‘I’m Not Ready to Get Married’ Trap (Where CAF members convince themselves that MGTOW barely qualifies as a movement, etc.)

    Wow! MarcusD, thanks for the Lulz!🙂

    This part (from “BlueEyedLady“) was especially fun:

    Eh … I’m really unconvinced by this “movement” that pops up here on CAF every few months.

    A quick Google shows only 12K ‘likes’ on FB, it’s a small subreddit, and most of their discussions seem to revolve around women – mgtow is the last resort after a lifetime of rejection.

    They boast about not being successful professionally and complain that women have never given them the time of day.

    It’s basically an internet subculture devoted to whining.

    I really don’t believe this is or will impact mainstream society in any way.

    It seems to come up here disproportionately often given [its] lack of significance.

    Remember, boys and girls, if it doesn’t have a Facebook page or a Twitter account, it doesn’t exist; if it has a Facebook page or a Twitter account, but not a lot of social media followers, it has no significance in the “real world”, either.

    “[…] and most of their discussions seem to revolve around women […]”: because, you’re only MGTOW if you talk about it on-line.

    “[…] mgtow is the last resort after a lifetime of rejection”: because, only malodorous, impecunious Omega Dweebs have the perspicacity to discern the insanity of Cash-and-Prizes-for-Women “no fault” (i.e., man’s fault) divorce laws, of a pattern of Family Court custodial orders where Children are as likely to end up living with neither parent as they are with just their father, and of a culture which actively, almost aggressively, encourages young women to waste as little of their youth and fertility on their husbands as possible.*

    “They […] complain that women have never given them the time of day”: No, they take a long, hard look at what’s out there in the MMP & the SMP, and decide to never again give women the time of day.

    “It’s basically an internet subculture devoted to whining”: No, it isn’t an internet subculture at all, except for faint chemical traces; what it is, is thousands upon thousands of men deciding annually if not monthly, many of them never having heard of the acronym “MGTOW”, simply, To Hell With It.

    “I really don’t believe this is or will impact mainstream society in any way”: Good thing those marriage rates aren’t in decline, then. Just sayin’. Good thing there aren’t any clapped out 31-year-old Harridan Fish out there, demanding Their bicycles, dammit. Just sayin’. Good thing no one at all out there anywhere sees any need to shame heterosexual men who’ve basically told women to Go F*ck Off, by calling them “Peter Pan Boys” (or “Grass Eaters”, etc.), who had “Better Man Up”. No, no one out there feeling any need to shame anyone like that, at all. Just sayin’.

    “It seems to come up here disproportionately often given [its] lack of significance.” (Snicker.) Sure, BlueEyedLady, sure. Whatever you say. (Snicker.)

    I’m not even MGTOW, and I can see how out to lunch she is; actual MGTOW guys must have their blood boiling at this nonsense never heard of her, wouldn’t care if they had, and are probably changing the XBox from Halo over to Assassin’s Creed IV, even as I write this.

    This denial cr@p is so funny, it hurts.

    =====
    (*: I think that’s a Dalrock quip; not sure …)
    =====

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  176. Damn Crackers says:

    “In order to be truly head of his family, a husband must himself be subjugate himself to Jesus Christ.”

    What about St. Monica, who married a pagan? She still obeyed him.

  177. @ Boxer on December 30, 2015 at 9:32 am

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/12/29/christian-abortion-doc-says-i-love-killing-babies-in-abortions-im-proud-to-do-so/

    Your quote illustrates how far gone America is because this sweet-looking, psychopathic murderer is the product of a “Good, Modern American Christian” family.

    “19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

  178. Theft, injustice, murder, bigotry, lies, hatred, blasphemy, coldness & strife. These are the fruits of Feminism.

  179. jeff says:

    Wife comes in from errands….

    Husband: “Have you heard what is going on?”
    Wife: “No, what?”
    Husband: “They are going home to home searching for —– people. I have hidden some in the basement, I have enough food for all of us when and if it gets worse. Do not tell anyone. If someone comes to the door and asks if we are hiding anyone, tell them NO.”
    Wife: “That is a lie, which is sin and I will not sin.”

    You can do this with thousands of instances. Can you with the strawman of: If the husband wants his wife to do sexual things, commit murders etc all day. The point is that in a CHRISTIAN home, it is likely NOT to happen and for anyone to say they know of someone proves the exception.

    Many CHRISTIAN men just want to be respected and have normal sex with their wives. Do they sin? Yes and it gets pointed out and headship will be judged more than the submissives. Wives point out husbands annoying habits that turn them off and call those annoying habits sin… like watching something that flashes boobs for 3 seconds once! A husband points out she is denying him sex and the pastor will say it’s his fault, but she should be having sex with him any way, or she is justified.

    Mrteeds,

    This is not about the rare outlier that you know or have heard… That is ridiculous. We are talking about wives who are aggravated that the husband works 12 hours a day, but the wife wants him home more, but complains that she wants a vacation. Which do you hear more of? That’s what I thought….

    I use to be the nice guy only frustrated with lack of sex. I did 90% of the house work, looked after the kids the minute I got home and on and on. Most men on here have done the same with the wife not only NOT having sex, but disrespecting them continuously with micromanaging and calling the shots. And like many on here, I finally said enough. I am not interested in divorce, but by all means I am no longer fearful of my wife’s unhappiness and I am done being the helpmeet for her lack of efficiency in the home and being manipulated by sex. I guess you either get to the age where sex isn’t as important or you are so use to satisfying yourself that her manipulation doesn’t have any effect non you.

    What we do see is pastors like you who will tell us you agree it’s not mutual submission, but that a wife gets to decide if something is sinful based on HER conscience and not on reality. I do not think it is the husbands job to continue to convince her in the above scenario that it is not sin. It is her job to trust him and submit to his authority. In the above scenario it could be murderers or an innocent ethnic group…. it is his authority that he is hiding them for a reason. Another scenario is husband noticing someone having a heart attack at 20 yards. He tell his wife to call 911 right now. The FI tells her to ask why, and a bunch of other questions that are stupid and the modern pastor would say he should sit around and make her feel comfortable about his decision and to gently explain/talk to her in different ways until she sees that his is the best decision. Take out 1P 3:7 and point out some where in scripture that husband his to try leading in another way until she will follow, which of course is leading from behind.

  180. Gunner Q says:

    DrTorch @ December 29, 2015 at 2:20 pm:
    “No, Romans 14:23 says that if you violate your conscience then it’s sin. The woman commits a sin b/c she took a wedding vow that ultimately requires her to violate her conscience”

    Violate her conscience by forcing her to obey Eph. 5:24? We can’t use Romans 14:23 as a guide when the topic is whether the Bible should be obeyed as written.

    What you’re missing here is that women do not have a man’s ability to judge between good & evil. I am certain many wives have their consciences violated every time Beta hubby touches her.

    “mgtow is the last resort after a lifetime of rejection”

    Y’know, she actually got this one right. It takes a huuuuge amount of rejection before a man decides girls and sex aren’t the right choice for him.

  181. jeff says:

    Gunnerq,

    You are so right on. Last xmas I was going on and on about the FI to my dad and he said, “man she must have done something to make you start taking this route with the female gender.”

    Yes, yes she did. For 20+ years I was the one trying… now it’s her turn. If she doesn’t want to try, it is going to be her hell, not mine. My wife and women in general are not worth it.

  182. …MGTOW barely qualifies as a movement..

    Well, she’s right. It isn’t a ‘movement’, a movement means there is a plan to try and change thing socially or politically. MGTOW is completely different. No change is necessary, in fact moar feminism is welcomed as MGTOW belief is that women should be utterly responsible for themselves. MGTOW is men abandoning marriage and the taking care of women and society in general.

    It’s freedom, like men have never, ever known before. The only time in history where there is enough resources that for once men can let women live with the consequences of their actions. Take it now before it’s too late and women start trying to get you back on the plantation.

  183. Boxer says:

    Dear “Just A Regular Guy”:

    That would be our brother Dr. Torch who posted the original. Giving credit where due and all.

    Your quote illustrates how far gone America is because this sweet-looking, psychopathic murderer is the product of a “Good, Modern American Christian” family.

    Of course, we can look at it as a glass half full scenario. The only people who would patronize the services of this ho’, and pay her to slice, dice, and vacuum out their kids corpses into the garbage disposal are:

    1. Feminists
    2. Utterly Irresponsible idiots who are so lacking in foresight as to have unprotected sex, despite hundreds of free and low-cost birth control options.

    Whether collective and personal attitudes and behavior are a result of genes or the environment, nobody denies that such things are passed on generationally. Radical feminism is thus a self-limiting strategy, as the craziest feminists are inclined to kill off the next generation of idiots who are susceptible to this insanity.

    “19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

    Whether the bitch enters into the kingdom of heaven is you Christians’ business. All I know is that the bitch is on twitter. Join me for some new year’s fun!

    Boxer

  184. DrTorch says:

    Violate her conscience by forcing her to obey Eph. 5:24? We can’t use Romans 14:23 as a guide when the topic is whether the Bible should be obeyed as written.

    You can and must. RC Sproul had a sermon about this some years ago, w/ a warning that we must renew our minds so that our consciences are set in accord w/ God’s righteousness, or we put ourselves in a no-win situation.

    The obvious out for a woman whose conscience would bother her at times by obeying Eph 5:24 is DON’T GET MARRIED.

  185. Pingback: Safety requires hard words. | Dark Brightness

  186. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    feministhater says [December 30, 2015 at 1:54 pm]:

    […] MGTOW barely qualifies as a movement.

    Well, she’s right. It isn’t a ‘movement’, a movement means there is a plan to try and change thing socially or politically. MGTOW is completely different. […]”

    Yes. This is what Dalrock was getting at when he said this [my emphasis in the bolded part]:

    […] The part that should frighten policy makers is the very inertia that made it seem like we could gut marriage and still have it work is going to work against us on the other side. You won’t be negotiating with an individual man or even a band of men “on strike”, but with a culture. […]”.

    Your comment (above) seems not to address “the other side” that Dalrock is talking about, there.

    And in fairness to you, Dalrock himself, in that Blog Post, seems to be suggesting (or assuming) a sort of low-standard-of-living-for-everyone “soft landing”, or something.

    I don’t see it that way at all.

    I’m possibly mistaken, but I’ve made the inference from all that I’ve read over the last ~five years, that “the other side” is going to be a Wylie-Coyote-style Cliff-walk.

    As Dalrock* has pointed out repeatedly across Blog Posts too numerous to count, where Ideological Feminism, enacted as Law and Social Policy, has got us, is a Social Ordering in which all incentives to effectively** reproduce (i.e., “family formation”) and to produce are simply being destroyed [see also], and where we are literally murdering the next generation.

    This is Civilization-ending stuff.

    Is it really “[…] freedom, like men have never, ever known before. […]”, as you said here, if basically all civil order has disintegrated (and rather promptly, critical infrastructure with it, too)?

    Cities are gonna burn, man. There is only enough food in a typical North American city (in the citizen’s pantries & refrigerators; on the supermarket shelves; in the supermarket’s re-distributing warehouses) for about seven days. The Welfare State Is Dying, and as is the way with such things, it will do so at first “slowly” [you are here], and then, one day, “suddenly” [coming soon to a continent near you].

    And the incentives for men to prevent this, are what Ideological Feminism implemented By Law, has been destroying.

    As you yourself write, “[…] MGTOW is men abandoning marriage and the taking care of women and society in general. […]” [My emphasis there in the bolded part.]

    It’s all well and good for young strait men to tell women to go f*ck off, and get a job somewhere serving lattés for $15,000 a year, but unfortunately, eventually when the electrical grid goes down for good (along with other decayed aspects of “society in general”), the XBox isn’t quite as much fun anymore.

    At the end of the day, it may not quite be the “[…] freedom, like men have never, ever known before […]” that you apparently (if I am reading you right) seem to think it [is]/[will be].

    Just sayin’.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

    ======
    (*: As have many other blogs, but not with Dalrock’s hard numbers.)

    (**: Children are not born civilized, but must be properly socialized, or else they do not effectively grow up — i.e., into effective adults: the kind who keep civilizations actually running.)

  187. OKRickety says:

    Just A Regular Guy said on December 29, 2015 at 11:00 am
    I was researching additional apologetics for correct interpretation of Ephesians 5:21 and I came across a free PDF titled “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood”.

    The editor of the book, Wayne Grudem, also wrote the chapter on “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21”. I read it and it seems like pretty solid stuff.

    ….

    The rest of the chapter is very thorough and I intend to read the rest of the book, but check out this mind-bending dedication at the beginning the book:
    “To Dennis Rainey
    Stalwart defender of God’s plan for the family, and faithful friend”

    The book was published in 2002, so I don’t know how far back Dennis Rainey’s teaching go along the lines of the woman worshipping nonsense he pushes now, but it makes me wonder what Wayne Gruden thinks today of Dennis Rainey’s ministry. If he still feels the same about Dennis today, assuming Wayne wrote or was sympathetic the dedication in the book, how many other Christian Scholars who seem to have a grasp of sound doctrine are still deceived by Dennis Rainey’s false teaching, albeit with good intentions?

    Well, I found this comment very interesting, especially in light of the repeated negative statements on this blog about the CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) and Dennis Rainey (Family Life Today). You see, I did a quick search for Wayne Grudem and found that he is the one of the founders of CBMW. In fact, it seems he may even be the primary person responsible for its formation. In contrast, from what I can tell of the CBMW structure, Dennis Rainey is pretty low on the totem pole. Grudem is on the Board of Directors, and Executive Council, but Rainey is not a member of these leadership groups, but is on the Board of Reference.

    I have no certainty on who has influenced whom. I think it is possible that Grudem may have had a good Bible understanding, but perhaps he and others in CBMW have been influenced by churchians and have slipped, albeit inadvertently, from the truth. Or it may be that some of the current CBMW leaders may never have had a good understanding, and got there as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    Regardless, I see little reason to suppose that Dennis Rainey is responsible for the teaching of the CBMW. I think this is a misunderstanding that is being repeatedly stated in this blog and comments.

    Note: I did not say that Dennis Rainey or Family Life Today is teaching true doctrine on gender roles for Christians today. Nor have I said that any or all of the teaching of the CBMW is correct.

  188. feeriker says:

    Violate her conscience by forcing her to obey Eph. 5:24?

    If obeying what is clearly written in Scripture “violates her conscience,” then she is an unbeliever. Marrying her would constitute unequal yoking, so DON’T DO IT!

    It’s really that simple, guys.

  189. No One says:

    There is also the very real possibility that this event never happened. People who write books that are heavy with personal anecdotes, often have to resort to making shit up to illustrate the points they are trying to make in their books. There are a lot of times when our personal lives are just too boring to provide true anecdotes to use for every occasion.

  190. @ OKRickety

    Good find. It makes me wonder if this is a case of sound Orthodoxy when the subject matter discussed in the abstract, but an Orthopraxic deviation that is influenced by Modern Feminism when the matter is taught in practical terms. I’ve seen both errors in ministries, the Orthodoxic/Orthopraxic disjointing and the outright heretical redefinition of biblical texts. I believe the O/O disjointing can be more dangerous because it gives blasphemy the cover of assumed legitimacy when challenged because the usual defense is “See!? We’re teaching doctrine correctly!”.

  191. @serving

    Took me awhile to respond. I’m glad your scenario was not the one I described. i allowed that I could not know anything specific.

    The “get to the point” lesson is a good one. I usually say “when I have bought in, you can stop selling”….as my wife can even say the point early on then endlessly add more and more supporting info to the decision Ive made in agreement with her.

    Nevertheless, I am certain women reading your first post thought the same as I did, that it was about just wording it correctly, and they were celebrating that you seemed to have offered an example of that really working.

    @Rollo

    Id not considered the forgiveness thing as you described. Its a back handed condemnation. It requires very refined high level of passive aggressive cleverness for her to tell him what he is guilty of by saying to him that he has been forgiven for that thing. She gets a little bump of empathy while she grinds her heel into his scalp, two fantastic sensations rarely experienced simultaneously. .

  192. theasdgamer says:

    Kathy Keller feared that he was neglecting his duties as a father and a husband,

    Hamsterlation: She wasn’t getting good feelz. (I posted about this in my relationships section.)

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Asked Art Deco
    Do you have a point to make, or is this just some little drama in your mind you have to play out?

    Art Deco
    The little drama is that you made three false statements.

    Details?

    Also observed re: conservative feminism:
    Just because you apparently can’t understand it doesn’t negate the accuracy of the term.

    Art Deco:
    I understand you don’t know manure from apple butter. So does anyone else who knows what he’s talking about on this subject.

    Argumentum ad hominem, perhaps, and argumentum ad populum. Got anything more than fallacies?

    Have a happy new year, all of you.

  194. @empathologism

    “I usually say “when I have bought in, you can stop selling”….as my wife can even say the point early on then endlessly add more and more supporting info to the decision Ive made in agreement with her.”

    Yes, nothing more frustrating than having a carefully rehearsed sales pitch interrupted by an agreeable husband😉

    “Nevertheless, I am certain women reading your first post thought the same as I did, that it was about just wording it correctly, and they were celebrating that you seemed to have offered an example of that really working. ”

    Then I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I would hate for my words to provide a stumbling block to other wives.

  195. You cannot clarify because those readers do not seek clarity. They seek affirmation The take away is willful.

  196. All this crap about husbands commanding their wives to sin or violate her conscience is just that: a load of crap designed to avoid the real issue of submission. The vast, vast majority of this comes down to sex and the fact that wives in monogamous marriages use sex as a weapon (along with being bitchy, nagging, passive-aggressive behavior and all the other tricks they have). The other side of the equation is, as Rollo has repeatedly elucidated, genuine desire cannot be negotiated and hypergamy doesn’t care. Women who are married to men they are not attracted to (or no longer attracted to) don’t want to have sex with their husbands. Just as they don’t want to have sex with him, they also don’t want to submit to him because they do not see him as fit to rule over him.

    Yet, such women cannot bring themselves to accept any part of the blame for the situation, so they look for ways in which to lay the source of the problem at their husband’s feet. Thus, the popularity of the idea that women are not required to submit to their husband if he is in any way in sin (contrary to the command of 1st Peter 3:1 and completely contrary to the curse; Genesis 3:16).

    When wives are looking for something to accuse their husbands of, the only real and concrete thing most of them can latch onto is something sexual, which has the advantage that it’s private so there won’t be any witnesses and on top of that it’s titillating. While “abuse” is a popular accusation, it doesn’t carry nearly as much weight unless it’s physical. Anything sexual, OTOH, is like getting a DUI- everyone throws rocks at you. The first problem the accused men have is a set of incorrect definitions and there are numerous examples of that within this thread:

    mrteebs said
    “Plenty of men have commanded their wives to remain silent while they sexually abuse their daughters.” (Troll Alert!)

    GunnerQ responded and said:
    Plenty of men, yeah, right. In that RARE situation, a wife can divorce her husband for adultery. Things will get resolved quickly from there.

    nick012000 corrected GunnerQ saying:
    According to the Law, that’s not Adultery; Adultery is defined as a man having sex with a married woman, or a woman already engaged to be married. If a married man seduces or rapes a virgin girl, he is instead required to take her as a second wife (unless it’s also incest, in which case he’s to be executed or excommunicated, depending on the exact familial relationship involved).

    feministhater said
    I’m not going to debate abuse, adultery or incest because I believe those are valid reasons for divorce within marriage.

    According to the Bible, a man having sex with his daughter (whether consensual or not) is committing an abomination and is to be burned with fire, in that he is essentially marrying both mother (his wife) and her daughter. Whether she is a daughter or step-daughter is immaterial. This prohibition prevents abuse because as her father he could give his permission to marry to himself, make the agreement to marry on her behalf and is already living with her so the only thing left is to consummate the marriage. There are only two things for which being burned with fire is the prescribed penalty: marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter (Leviticus 20:14) and the daughter of a priest profaning herself by harlotry (Leviticus 21:9). Because the wife would also be burned with fire, this was a great motivation for her to prevent her husband from molesting her daughter (summoning help if necessary).

    The responses overlook the fact that a WIFE is not granted the authority to divorce her husband anywhere in Scripture except for one very narrow exception found in 1st Corinthians 7, the case of the believing wife married to an unbeliever who is not content to live with her and leaves. Please don’t think the command found at Exodus 21:7-11 gives wives the authority to divorce their husbands because that passage is specific to a slave girl (who, by law could never be freed, unlike men who were to go free after 7 years) in a polygynous marriage in which she would hold the position (at best) of being a concubine.

    The idea that abuse, adultery or incest are grounds for a wife to divorce her husband are completely extra-Biblical. Not only do wives have no authority to divorce their husbands but 1st Peter 3:1 starts with the phrase “In the same way” which is a reference to the Chapter 2 discussion of masters and servants, incorporating all of that into the instruction to the wives, who are to submit to their husbands “even if they are disobedient to the Word.” Given the instruction in 1st Cor. 7:10-11, perhaps there is a time for the wife to flee from her husband to protect her or her children, but just because she feels she has to violate her instruction and separate from her husband does not free her- she’s still married and forbidden to marry another or otherwise be unchaste. The judgment of a family court judge claiming to “divorce” a couple does not override God’s Word, so even if a believing wife divorces her believing husband she is still married and any “second marriage” is not a marriage, it’s just adultery.

    But, let’s get back to the incorrect definitions and the problems they cause. Take a look at the following list of terms:

    Adultery

    Lust

    Sexual immorality and/or Fornication (porneia)

    Sodomy

    I’m willing to bet that less than 10% of the men here could give a Biblically correct definition of these terms and cite the relevant passages of Scripture to back them up. This is a tremendous problem because all of these terms are now defined incorrectly as a result of decisions the church made in the period of 300 to 800 AD, decisions that were at odds with Scripture and specific violations of God’s Law.

    It started with the church’s invasion of the family (to the point of regulating the marital bed) and was cemented in place with the church claiming that polygyny was wrong and sinful. These two acts created feminism and in doing so they changed the context in which the above list of terms is viewed.

    Adultery. Because a man can have more than one wife, it is not adultery for a man to have sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed woman. The crime/sin of adultery requires the presence of a married/betrothed woman so the only way a married man can commit adultery is if he has sex with another man’s wife or fiance’. The word “adultery” is literally defined as “to mongrelized” which implies an act that can result in a child not sired by the husband of the wife. Yet, adultery also has a spiritual connotation in terms of idolatry. In other words, adultery is physical idolatry and idolatry is spiritual adultery.

    Lust is a desire, sexual in nature, that cannot be legitimately obtained (if it isn’t sexual it’s the sin of coveting). A man cannot lust after his wife because his desire is legitimate- she is his wife. A young man cannot lust after an unmarried/unbetrothed woman because his desire can be legitimately obtained by marrying her. A married man who looks on the unbetrothed virgin with desire does not lust- she can legitimately be married as an additional wife. If one examines Matthew 5, Jesus said that if a man lusts after a woman he has already committed adultery in his heart. The crime/sin of adultery requires a married woman, therefore the woman Jesus referred to must be married and therefore legitimately unobtainable. That is why the desire for her was lust, which is why Jesus said adultery was already committed in the heart.

    Sexual immorality and/or Fornication These two words are the most commonly used to translate the Greek word “Porneia.” We know “porneia” is a sin and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 (combined, and I’m paraphrasing) say where there is no Law there is no transgression and sin is not imputed. The clear meaning is those things prohibited/condemned in the Law are sin and if something isn’t prohibited/condemned in the Law it isn’t sin for everyone. Therefore, because “porneia” refers to sinful behavior it can only consist of those things prohibited in the Law.

    (This is somewhat different for Christians because of Romans 14:23 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (He who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, that is sin to him); but that is beside the point when trying to determine the definition of terms like “sexual immorality.”

    Sexual immorality and/or Fornication are defined in the law as sodomy, bestiality, adultery, incest, marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter combination, having intercourse with your wife while she’s on her period or having intercourse with your wife during the proscribed period after the birth of a child. Because adultery can be narrowly defined as a physical act of intercourse, there are other actions a wife might take that give to another man that which properly belongs only to her husband, thus the “emotional affair” or kissing/petting that does not go as far as intercourse cannot be classified as adultery but do fall within the bounds of sexual immorality.

    Premarital sex, according to the Law, is not a sin per se, because there is no specific prohibition or condemnation of such behavior. Likewise, there is no specific injunction or restriction on Christians with respect to premarital sex. The issue of sin with respect to premarital sex (for Christians) comes with Romans 14:23 and James 4:17. If a man or woman is having sex outside of marriage and it is not of faith (he/she believes it to be wrong and does it anyway) they are in sin. If the man or woman know the right thing to do is wait until they marry and they decide not to wait, that is sin to them as well. While some think that might be a de-facto prohibition on premarital sex, it begs the question of what Marriage is and that ties back to the specific references to premarital sex in the Law.

    In general marriage consists of 4 elements: the permission of the woman’s father, the agreement (commitment to marry) of the man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife; with the consummation being the sine qua non of the marriage. In Genesis 2:24 the authority to initiate marriage was given to the man. There is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority to do so rests solely with the man. With that in mind, look at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which are “The Law” concerning pre-marital sexual relations between a man and woman eligible to marry each other.

    In the Exodus passage we see no prohibition or condemnation on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, but there is a judgment: With the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay her father what he is owed (the bride price) and live with the woman as husband and wife unless the father absolutely refuses to allow the marriage, in which case the man still has to pay an amount equal to the bride price. I know this is going to make a number of you uncomfortable, but look carefully at Deuteronomy 22:28-29, because that passage is NOT describing the same circumstances as Exodus 22:16-17. In the Exodus passage the reference is to a man “seducing” a virgin but in the Deuteronomy passage we see what can only be a description of rape:

    “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girls father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

    Notice in the Exodus passage that if the man seduces the virgin her father has a choice in whether to allow them to marry, but in the Deuteronomy passage (which does not describe a seduction) the father has no choice. “she shall become his wife because he has violated her; and he cannot divorce her all his days.” I think it’s pretty amazing there is no prohibition or condemnation here and it makes me wonder as to the societal impact of the Law as such in view of today’s explosion of false-rape claims. Under the Law, she can claim she was seduced and her father had the option of refusing to allow the marriage or claim she was raped and the guy is now forced to marry her.

    If you think about it, that levels the playing field and provided a significant deterrent to men who might be tempted to seduce a virgin they had no intention of marrying. In fact, the idea of the “shotgun wedding” is completely in line with the instruction of Exodus 22. The woman who seduces the man and later claims rape gets an automatic marriage and the men had to recognize that as a threat, which should have caused them to think twice about banging her. But, let’s say a guy really wants to marry a certain eligible girl but she won’t give him the time of day. Can he arrange to get caught raping her and then get to marry her? Obviously she would NOT want to marry the guy and thus could claim seduction, in hopes she could tell her father the truth and he would forbid the marriage. In either case of seduction or rape the outcome would depend on the testimony of the woman and the man could be penalized either way. As strange as it seems, this was a deterrent to men and protection for women.

    It is also evidence of a double-standard for the married or betrothed as opposed to the virgin who was not betrothed. Deuteronomy 22:13-27 describes the situation of the woman who is not a virgin that fraudulently passes herself off as a virgin to get married. If it’s found that she was not a virgin she is to be taken to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death. obviously there was a difference between the woman who was not betrothed and the woman who was. The other situation was the rape of a married or betrothed woman. If it happened in the town both she and the man were to be stoned to death (it’s assumed her cries would have been heard if she’d made them so it was adultery instead of rape because she didn’t cry out), but if it happened in the country only the man was to be killed (it is assumed the woman cried out but no-one heard her.

    Sodomy. Interestingly, Leviticus 18 prohibits some very specific sexual perversions: Incest, marrying a mother-daughter combination, marrying your wife’s sister in order to vex her and then sex between men, sex between men and animals and sex between women and animals. It is the prohibition of women with animals that speaks with such a thundering silence to any sexual acts between women with women. But, naturally, the early church leaders decided they knew better than God and called it sin anyway. Then, for reasons I won’t get into, the church decided the only thing a man and his wife could do that men with men could not do was penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex. Therefore, said the church, anything other than PIV is some form of sodomy and they declared that any form of sex between husband and wife such as fellation or cunnilingus was oral sodomy and anal sex was just plain old sodomy and they declared all such acts between husband and wife to be sin. In fact, having PIV sex with one’s wife purely for pleasure was declared to be a sin as well.

    This, of course, was a blatant violation of the Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 prohibitions on adding to the Law or subtracting from the Law, which are reinforced by Romans 4:15 and 5:13. In defiance of that the church claims to be infallible when it comes to faith and morals, especially when it comes to celibate priests claiming the authority to tell a husband and wife what they are allowed and not allowed to do in their own bed… and where the hell are those choirboys hiding?

    There is an interesting quirk to this that the Church pounced upon to justify making their unbiblical claims. The first is found in 1st Corinthians 6. If any of you have studied the issue carefully you already know that the Law contains no prohibition on a woman prostituting herself. Likewise, there is no prohibition on a man (married or otherwise) using the services of an unmarried prostitute with the added benefit that he wouldn’t be required to marry her. Note- I do not refer to “temple prostitutes,” the use of which was part of committing idolatry; I’m referring to garden-variety prostitution that’s an exchange of sexual services for money or goods (for further enlightenment, read the requirements of the Nazerite and then reflect on the fact that Samson- who had the Spirit of the Lord with him -used the services of prostitutes but did not violate his Nazerite vows until his hair was cut).

    To get back to 1st Corinthians 6, notice Paul is placing a restriction on Christians only, that they are not to join the members of Christ to a whore. This is not a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 inasmuch as it is not adding to the Law, it is a specific restriction placed only on Christians only because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore. In fact, there is some debate about whether Paul is referring to heterosexual couplings, or only prohibiting the use of male prostitutes. I am of the opinion it’s the former because the latter was already forbidden.

    Likewise, there is another restriction that applies only to Christians, found at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, a prohibition on divorce between two confessed believers for any reason. The passage clearly starts out as instruction to believers, forbids the wife to separate from her husband but if she does she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband and the husband is forbidden to separate from his wife. The term separate encompasses any form of formal or informal divorce and can even include an emotional separation. The Law (which cannot be changed) gives a man the right to divorce his wife and Jesus clarified the grounds for divorce under the Law, saying that only for “porneia” was such a divorce legitimate. However, in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul makes the point the instruction is not just him speaking with Apostolic authority, but from the Lord, and in this instruction there is no exception for “porneia.”

    The church, in claiming the traditions and teachings of the church have equal authority with Scripture (claiming that they are equal to God), claim Apostolic authority to modify Scripture as they see fit and instruct the believers in all manner of divergences from Scripture. “We decided what Scripture is and we have the right to decide what it means.”

    I chose earlier to use the word “sodomy” instead of “homosexuality” because the word “homosexuality” has been co-opted and used to vilify both that which God prohibited (men with men) AND that which God chose not to prohibit or condemn (women with women). This is extremely uncomfortable for many today because it has a direct impact on something else the church unlawfully prohibited- polygyny. Churchians run to Romans 1:26 claiming it prohibits female-female sexual contact.

    There are multiple problems with that claim; First, if Paul did make a general prohibition of female-female sexual contact, he did so in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. He did not do so. What he described in Romans 1:26-27 with the word “likewise” was both men and women rejecting God’s authority and refusing to submit themselves to God’s ordained purpose for their lives to become wives, husbands and parents fulfilling God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (the “natural function of women”). The men, in addition to this, also engaged in forbidden and condemned sexual immorality but Paul carefully did not ascribe such behavior to the women. In addition, Romans 1:18-32 makes very clear that Paul is not speaking of Christians, so this cannot be an injunction that applies only to believers. If there is any condemnation at all, it is a condemnation of both men and women giving up the natural function of becoming husbands, wives, fathers and mothers within the God-ordained bounds of marriage.

    I would be remiss if I didn’t mention pornography at this point. The ridiculous assertion that looking at porn is adultery should be put to rest by asking whether the naked women in question are married. If they aren’t, looking at such porn can’t be lust because (at least in theory) the woman (or women) in question are legitimately obtainable. The truth is most men use porn in order to become aroused so they can masturbate. The wife in such a situation should, rather than make accusations of emotional infidelity/adultery, ask herself some hard questions about why her husband feels the need to masturbate when he has a wife that’s supposed to be providing him with sex. Is she refusing to give him the amount of sex he wants/needs? Or is her appearance so gross that she’s no longer attractive to him?

    She should ask such questions of herself while standing naked in front of a full-length mirror.

    Masturbation (per Romans 4:15 and 5:13) is not a sin unless the man or woman was masturbating to the mental image of having sex that would be adultery or some form of sexual immorality, in which case it’s lust. 1st Corinthians 7:4 is a command to both husband and wife not to deprive the other of sex and states that except for periods of time that are mutually agreed upon for fasting and prayer, the rule within marriage is sex on demand and neither party has the right to say no. But, we all know wives don’t care what God commands them to do.

    In cases where the wife is sinfully and rebelliously refusing to give her husband the sex he needs, masturbation is a form of self defense. Just look at the number of women who say they wish their husband would cheat. They don’t want their husband to cheat because he’d then be getting what she refuses to give him, no. They want him to cheat so they can divorce him for cause and not be the bad wife who divorced her husband who didn’t do anything wrong.

    Women are cursed, guys. Deal with it. Feminism and all the bat-shit crazy female antics we see today started with the church invading the family (usurping the husband’s authority) and it was firmly cemented in place when the church banned polygyny. It’s now reached the point that in this legal environment the only safe and Biblically sanctioned form of marriage is polygyny and in light of Romans 4:15 and 5:13 it cannot be argued that polygyny is wrong.

  197. Boxer says:

    Happy New Year brother Artisinal Toad:

    It’s now reached the point that in this legal environment the only safe and Biblically sanctioned form of marriage is polygyny and in light of Romans 4:15 and 5:13 it cannot be argued that polygyny is wrong.

    How many wives do you have, at this point? How much better is your life, now that you have not one woman to deal with, but a plurality, all scheming and gossipping and fighting?

    Wishing you and everyone else on this forum a pleasant, happy and prosperous 2016. May this be the year that we finally stamp out the pathetic and disgusting scourge that is feminism, which has caused so much damage to the most vulnerable members of our society, for the benefit of the few.

    Best,

    Boxer

  198. nick012000 says:

    Very well written, Artisanal Toad. I’ll just point out that Leviticus 18 also speaks on the subject on sexual crimes (primarily incest, but also mentioning bestiality) and the Law, and commands that those who commit them “must be cut off from their people”. So, like I said, incest is punished by either execution or excommunication, depending on the nature of the familial relationship involved.

    Forbidden relationships in that chapter include a man having his mother, a man having sex with one of his father’s other wives, a man having sex with his sister or half-sister, a man having sex with his grand-daughter, a man having sex with his aunt, a man having sex with his father’s brother’s wife, a man having sex with his brother’s wife or his son’s wife, a man having sex with both a woman and her daughter, and a man having sex with his wife’s sister while his wife is alive. It also bans adultery in general, bestiality, sacrificing infants to idols, and man-on-man homosexual sex.

    I’ll also note that having sex with your cousins is allowed, and that while aunt-nephew relationships are banned, uncle-niece relationships are not.

  199. Dragonfly says:

    AT, this portion you wrote I used to completely agree with,

    “The truth is most men use porn in order to become aroused so they can masturbate. The wife in such a situation should, rather than make accusations of emotional infidelity/adultery, ask herself some hard questions about why her husband feels the need to masturbate when he has a wife that’s supposed to be providing him with sex. Is she refusing to give him the amount of sex he wants/needs? Or is her appearance so gross that she’s no longer attractive to him?

    She should ask such questions of herself while standing naked in front of a full-length mirror.”

    ^^I’ve actually had a few women come to my site and email me about their husband’s porn addictions, but also say that their husbands don’t want them to wear anything like lingerie, lacy undergarments, or act seductively in bed because they don’t see her “that way.” These women also seem to be against those things.
    One wife said that her husband actually gets turned off by her acting or behaving that way because it’s “not her.” But then these women complain their men have porn addictions, even after years of marriage… Do you think these women are projecting their own thoughts onto their husbands?

    What is your take on that?

    In normal cases where a man doesn’t have this issue (and I seriously don’t think many men have this issue, just a small minority), I totally agree that the wife can almost obliterate his porn “addiction” by just sexually fulfilling him and being attractive enough. My husband used to be addicted when he was single, like most men are when single, but after we married, he wasn’t addicted anymore and hasn’t struggled with it for 8 1/2 years. But I make it an effort to stay attractive to him and sexually fulfill him.

    Why do some husbands still struggle with it, even though they seem to have a willing wife? What should I tell these women? They always say to me that they know “they aren’t responsible for his sin (porn addiction),” and seem to resign themselves to a life of a porn-addicted husband and sound like they’re above his struggles.

  200. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    There’s one problem with your argument that you haven’t addressed, which is that in the US (and most Western countries), polygyny is against the law. And we are to submit ourselves to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17) in everything that isn’t in direct contradiction to our obedience to God. That means that some things that aren’t inherently sinful (e.g., driving 75 MPH on the highway when it’s perfectly safe to do so) can be forbidden by the authorities (who might set the speed limit at 65 MPH), and we are required to obey them.

    So, even if polygyny were not sinful, it has been forbidden by the authorities that we are required to obey. (Assuming that you’re living in the US or another Western country.) So until/unless you manage to persuade enough voters to agree with you and elect politicians who will change that law, your argument is pretty much a moot point anyway.

  201. Better not to be married than married, whether with 7 wives or not. No wife is better.

    The end!

  202. Hank Flanders says:

    Robin Munn, I think polygamists typically only have one legal marriage license with the remaining “marriages” not being legally binding, so polygamists don’t actually run afoul of the law. As far as I know, there’s no law in the US against having multiple live-in lovers.

  203. Boxer says:

    One wife said that her husband actually gets turned off by her acting or behaving that way because it’s “not her.” But then these women complain their men have porn addictions, even after years of marriage… Do you think these women are projecting their own thoughts onto their husbands? […] What is your take on that?

    This book discusses the phenomenon you describe in detail.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Polygamous-Sex-Esther-Vilar/dp/0491017375

    Nevermind Amazon’s pricetag. It’s up on the interwebs in pdf, for free.

    Boxer

  204. Stevesam221 says:

    “Why do some husbands still struggle with it, even though they seem to have a willing wife?”

    Maybe some want the variety no matter how willing or hot the wife is.

  205. Robin Munn says:

    @Dragonfly –

    … their husbands don’t want them to wear anything like lingerie, lacy undergarments, or act seductively in bed because they don’t see her “that way.”

    Without knowing more details, I can only make an informed guess, but it sounds like these husbands have one of two problems.

    1) Their wives are unattractive and need to work on their fitness, clothing, or something. Or,

    2) They (the husbands) have an un-Biblical attitude towards sex: they have absorbed the idea that it’s “dirty” and it would be somehow “wrong” to think sexually about their wives. They are caught in the “madonna / whore” dichotomy, and feel guilty about the fact of having sexual desire — which then feeds the porn addiction, as the “forbidden fruit” aspect comes into play.

    From what you say about the women who email you, many of them are quite willing to work on what they can work on, so they’re probably not dealing with problem 1. They’re probably dealing with problem 2, which means it’s likely not a problem they can solve. But what needs to happen is for someone, perhaps a pastor or (male) mentor their husbands can trust, to tell them (the husbands) that it’s OK to feel sexual desire for their wives, and point them to the relevant Scripture passages.

  206. benfromtexas says:

    @dragonfly

    I think in that case the wives might have let themselves go, or the husbands are too stressed by the wife(who probably acts bitchy to him) and because of that, he is VERY turned off by the wife. Another reason is the dude is too beta and she is an Alpha widow, and she just won’t admit it.

  207. Dragonfly says:

    “Maybe some want the variety no matter how willing or hot the wife is.”

    ^That’s why I regularly suggest lingerie, acting playfully, teasing and flirtatious or seductively with their husbands, changing up hairstyles, wearing lacy undergarments etc. I’m sure you’ve heard these are the normal “variety” in a marriage – not a porn addiction where he’s masturbating to other women instead of his wife.

  208. Gunner Q says:

    Dragonfly @ 10:00 am:
    “Why do some husbands still struggle with it, even though they seem to have a willing wife?”

    The main reason is 24-7 Internet temptation. It’s hard to avoid in the modern world. I have to tell people I’m Amish just because I have neither home Internet nor a slutphone.

    Another reason, I’ll guess, would be this guy got married later in life. If a man is incel until he’s 30+ then it’s not too surprising if a porn habit became entrenched. Your friend could try taking pictures of herself, running them through Photoshop and e-mailing them to her husband.

    Assuming the problem is entirely on his end. I have my doubts. No man ever got married without looking forward to lots of romping with the bride.

    Hank Flanders @ 10:36 am:
    “As far as I know, there’s no law in the US against having multiple live-in lovers.”

    It’s punishable by chilamony, landlord/tenant regulations and common-law marriage. In California, also paparazzi. No joke.

  209. Dragonfly says:

    RobinMunn yes, sorry that was the exact issue I should have mentioned in my comment to AT to be more clear. But I wonder what men really think of it… my husband believes it exists, but he also thinks wives use it almost as an excuse to not want to be seductive, or wear lingerie… they’re convinced that he doesn’t like it, when really he actually may. I don’t know though.

  210. Dragonfly says:

    Thanks Robin! It’s good to hear affirmation that those are the only two things I can reasonably come up with as well.

  211. Stevesam221 says:

    Lingerie and Changing hairstyles are all variety with same woman. I’m talking about men wanting different faces and bodies alltogether.

  212. Jeff says:

    Dragonfly,
    My wife does none of those things, ie flirt. She is attractive, but does 0 initiation, does not reciprocate and takes too long to rev up. I think the ladies going to your sight are lying about their husbands. Just the other day she thought we’ve had sex 1-2 times per week in 2015. She got angry when i told her 34 times and 4 bj. I think the women going to your sight would say they have a lot of sex and fulfill their husbands needs. That is the kicker…. They think.

    I use porn to get arroused, not to compare or fantasize. Heck all the actresses and actors look similar to me. My wife lets me have sex with her any time i want, but if she isnt interested why bother. I would basicly using to get off. I can do that without her and not have to snuggle and the things we use to do when we were not married. I could ellaborate more but you get the gist.

  213. @Boxer
    Like many men on this site, I have more than one wife, more than that I cannot say.

    The problem most people have is they are informed by their experience and thus when confronted with situations/events/facts that fall outside their experience they have difficulty comprehending the real issues or the import of what they are observing.

    The comments and attitudes of many here demonstrate they have a completely different world-view than that of Jesus and the Apostles. What I wrote earlier was an attempt to point out that one cannot comprehend sexual morality from a Biblical perspective until one acknowledges that polygyny is a Lawful and Biblically sanctioned form of marriage, because it is not until then that the terms surrounding sexual morality such as sexual immorality, adultery, lust, fornication and others can be understood correctly as the authors used them.

    You have made it clear in the past that you (due to observations of your Mormon family) are opposed to polygyny. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but you should keep in mind that your experiences with what can only be called a cult that has been thoroughly exposed as a fraud does not translate to an appropriate frame with which to view the Bible. It is my personal belief that the FLDS belief that polygyny is the “ideal” is the root of the problems you’ve observed.

    Only a small percentage of men are alpha enough to garner and keep the attraction of multiple women who are willing to share him. To quote Rollo again, women would rather share a high-value man than have a monogamous relationship with a good and faithful man of low value. They certainly don’t want to share a low-value man. However, the point is polygyny (Biblically speaking) is NOT an ideal, it is merely a sanctioned form of marriage. Yet, as such it represents a threat to wives in the same way that no-fault divorce represents a threat to husbands. That is one reason for the popularity of re-defining terms related to sexual immorality in such a way as to empower women. Porn = Adultery is a case in point. Adultery requires a married woman, so claiming a man who has sex with a woman other than the one he is married to is adultery is another example of feminism redefining the terms to restrict the sexual options for men while maximizing women’s options.

    Polygyny is literally patriarchal marriage and by it’s structure and dynamics it is the counter-point to feminist monogamy because it disempowers wives, who are forced to compete with the other wives for their husband’s attention. They can only compete by giving him what he wants. That, of course, requires a husband capable of maintaining his frame and managing said wives. Your question about wives who are “scheming and gossipping and fighting” indicates that your observations are of polygynous marriages in which the man was not up to the task of cat-herding. In truth, most men aren’t, but that doesn’t mean those who can handle the job should be restricted from doing so and acceptance of polygyny creates a significant benefit for men in monogamous marriages.

    I’ll give you one last (very relevant) example of why this is important. Let us say we have a monogamous couple of a certain age, the wife has passed menopause and her libido is dead. She no longer has any desire for sex (she finds it painful and can no longer be aroused) and has reached the point her husband’s desire for sex is far more than a chore, it angers her. Biblically speaking she has two choices: She can buy industrial quantities of lube and take her 1st Corinthians 7:4 responsibilities seriously, giving her husband sex whenever he wants; or, she can have a serious conversation with her husband and tell him “Look, I’m not up for this any more. Let’s work together and find you a merry widow who can enjoy giving you the physical attention you need, because I can’t. In fact, your desire for sex just makes me angry at this point and it’s damaging our relationship, so let’s work together and find another wife for you and I promise that if I’m relieved of having to provide you with sex and you continue to honor me as your wife, I will do everything in my power to continue loving and honoring you and not fight with her.”

    Now, we all know that isn’t going to happen because what said wife is really going to do is file for divorce. Their sexual incompatibility will cause him to become unhappy and she will be advised to file first because (she will be told) sooner or later he will file, and whoever files first generally comes out on top. Rather than follow God’s plan, they follow the way of the world and destroy their family which has a significant impact on children, extended family, church and community.

    @Dragonfly
    their husbands don’t want them to wear anything like lingerie, lacy undergarments, or act seductively in bed because they don’t see her “that way.” These women also seem to be against those things.

    Do you think these women are projecting their own thoughts onto their husbands?

    I would guess these husbands love their wives and their wives (either consciously or subconsciously) communicate that they find their husband unattractive and they don’t enjoy having sex with him. Therefore, his use of porn is disgusting because it’s a rejection of her by someone who she isn’t attracted to. Thus, when she puts on an act to please him he *knows* it isn’t genuine desire and it’s something that she’s going to hold over his head sometime down the road when she plays the “more righteous than you” card.

    From some of the guys I know in that position, said wife would be far better off making a habit of going to bed naked. She should look her husband in the eye and say “I’m pretty simple, and the fact is I don’t enjoy sex that much, but I’m here for you if you want it.” That’s it. No fancy underwear (it’s just going to come off anyway), no strange techniques or acrobatics, just a loving embrace. That communicates acceptance, affirmation and love, which is what her husband really wants the sex to be packaged in.

    And you know why those women won’t do that? Because, as you said, the way they see it: “they aren’t responsible for his sin (porn addiction),” and seem to resign themselves to a life of a porn-addicted husband and sound like they’re above his struggles.” In other words, they refuse to acknowledge their role in creating the problem and are now playing the “holier-than-thou victim card.” If those women wrote to you about it I can guarantee you they talk to their friends about it, dishonoring their husband and cutting him off at the knees. Because they aren’t attracted to him and have no desire for him. They are using their husbands as providers and with respect to the porn, just gathering their evidence and laying the groundwork for the divorce-rape to come. In the end it’s all about power and control.

    Why do some husbands still struggle with it, even though they seem to have a willing wife?

    I’d guess because in most cases (not all) the contempt shines through. She can wrap it in Victoria’s Secret or Fredrick’s of Hollywood and act like she’s willing, but that just emphasizes the contempt she has for the husband she’s not attracted to. “Oh, you poor, sad, pathetic little boy. Let me dress up like those pornographic sluts and give you sex.” Do you honestly think her husband can’t see her contempt for him? Her husband doesn’t just want sex, he wants sexual intimacy with a woman that loves him, appreciates him, cares about him and desires to please him because she loves and cares about him and is *attracted* to him.

    @Robin Munn
    There’s one problem with your argument that you haven’t addressed, which is that in the US (and most Western countries), polygyny is against the law.

    Sir, you know not of what you speak. The crime of bigamy is quite literally the crime of having more than one licensed marriage at the same time. Yes, every state has a law requiring an individual to get a marriage license, but even that is deceiving. If you were to look up the definition of “marriage license” in a legal dictionary, you’d discover that it’s a license issued for the purpose of intermarriage. Looking up “intermarriage” in the same legal dictionary (I used Black’s 5th) one finds the entry “see: miscegenation” and looking up miscegenation we find that it means the mixing of the races, as between a white and a negro. Thus, a marriage license is literally a permission from the state to marry someone who is not of your race. If you intend to marry someone of your race then by definition, you don’t need a marriage license.

    But, the situation gets even more interesting because in 1878 the SCOTUS, in Meister v Moore (a case in which a white man married an indian woman), declared that marriage is a fundamental right and laws requiring marriage licenses are “merely directory.” Looking up “directory” in our legal dictionary we find it means a law or regulation that has no invalidating consequences for its disregard. In other words, such laws or regulations are nothing more than polite suggestions which the individuals are free to disregard if they choose without consequence. That ruling has never been overturned in the 137 years since it was handed down and is currently the law of the land.

    This was recently reinforced with the Brown decision, with the federal courts striking down a portion of Utah’s bigamy statute as being unconstitutional. This was the result of lawsuit by one Cody Brown who, with his polygynous family, had a reality TV show and came under fire from the authorities in Utah and thus had to flee to Arizona in order to avoid prosecution. So, I bring your attention back to the Biblical elements of marriage: The permission of the father, the agreement between man and woman to marry, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation openly and notoriously as husband and wife. (And, yep, that “openly and notoriously” is a legal term)

    @feministhater
    Better not to be married than married, whether with 7 wives or not. No wife is better.

    God’s very first command to mankind was “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and take dominion over it.” God created marriage and as with all things God created, it is good and for our benefit. Children are a blessing from the Lord but said children should be the result of a marital union because as God said, “no bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th generation.”

    In rejecting marriage you are taking a position in opposition to God’s ordained plan for mankind, the only exception being (as a Christian) if you choose not to get married in order to focus all your energy on spreading the Gospel. If you choose not to get married for any other reason, you are rejecting “the natural function of the woman” as described in Romans 1:26-27. Keep in mind that at least some of the men Paul described in verse 27 not only rejected the natural function of the woman (marrying a woman, husbanding her and becoming a father) but they also added to that rebellion the sin of sexual immorality.

    That is the problem I have with MGTOW: It is a rejection of God’s ordained plan for mankind.

  214. God’s very first command to mankind was “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and take dominion over it.” God created marriage and as with all things God created, it is good and for our benefit. Children are a blessing from the Lord but said children should be the result of a marital union because as God said, “no bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th generation.”

    In rejecting marriage you are taking a position in opposition to God’s ordained plan for mankind, the only exception being (as a Christian) if you choose not to get married in order to focus all your energy on spreading the Gospel. If you choose not to get married for any other reason, you are rejecting “the natural function of the woman” as described in Romans 1:26-27. Keep in mind that at least some of the men Paul described in verse 27 not only rejected the natural function of the woman (marrying a woman, husbanding her and becoming a father) but they also added to that rebellion the sin of sexual immorality.

    That is the problem I have with MGTOW: It is a rejection of God’s ordained plan for mankind.

    Listen, if God comes and tells me to marry, I will do so. Until then, it’s a really bad and stupid idea, no thanks. I don’t have to marry, it’s not a command. There is no ‘thou must marry’ in the Bible. We’ve already been fruitful and multiplied to cover almost every inch of this planet. If the human population goes down dramatically, things would be different.

    I will not deal with the crap that is women, please, take another wife for my sake..

  215. Hank Flanders says:

    Gunner Q

    It’s punishable by chilamony, landlord/tenant regulations and common-law marriage. In California, also paparazzi. No joke.

    I would laugh, but you said “no joke,” so I won’t (although I kind of did, anyway). To Robin’s point, though, societal consequences and actually breaking the law are two different things.

  216. Boxer says:

    Listen, if God comes and tells me to marry, I will do so. Until then, it’s a really bad and stupid idea, no thanks. I don’t have to marry, it’s not a command. There is no ‘thou must marry’ in the Bible.

    That’s correct.

    http://biblehub.com/kjvs/1_corinthians/7.htm

  217. DeNihilist says:

    And our good friend Laura Lifshitz is still milking the divorce porn!

    http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/relationships/10-things-i-wish-i-knew-before-getting-a-divorce/ar-BBo3Gpk?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout

    This may be just a Readers Digest style version reprint, but still, from Dec. 29th 2015, she is still bring in the filthy lucre by femsplaing her divorce.

  218. 7. Imputed Income

    I was aware of this upon consulting with a legal advisor, but before speaking to someone, I didn’t realize that, even though I was a very part-time working mother, the court would assume I could make a particular amount of money even if the job market stunk. Thankfully, I found full-time work and built my freelance practice, but had I not, the court would assume I could make more money than I was.

    Bitches be crazy! No thought to the men in jail for just such a crime as ‘not making enough money’. Oh shame hun, and you chose to divorce, think of the millions upon millions of men who have been crushed by a woman such as yourself and been forced to cough up money they don’t have or face going to jail where they will be forced to do hard labour for pennies on the dollar and still be made to pay the money even though going to jail as rendered them unemployable…

  219. My daughter was just turning 3 when her dad and I split, and no matter how often I googled toddlers and divorce, there wasn’t a ton of information on how she might be affected by the experience. I ended up pushing for her to try play therapy, and when my ex agreed, we had her attend for a while. It was the best choice to make, but it would have been great had I known of the potential issues she might have had and the ways to help our child through it ahead of time. The reality is no one can predict how a divorce will impact your kids.

    Any bets on the crazy life her daughter will be left to live. She has willingly destroyed her daughter’s chances at a well adjusted marriage to a faithful man and instead her daughter will probably become like the avalanche of modern, feminist women, non-marriageable, going from man to man to man until her looks fade and she complains about her lack of male attention, at which point, Lifeshitz will blame her ex-husband for not putting more effort into raising their daughter or providing her with a good male role model.

    Lifeshitz’s divorce is a parody of red pill awareness within the current marriage culture. Just don’t do it!

  220. @Boxer

    That’s correct.

    Just the first two verses from 1st Corinthians 7:

    “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

    The word translated as “fornication” is the Greek word “porneia” and as I tried to explain earlier, without understanding what that word means the passage is meaningless. Some try to use this passage as an indication that polygyny is wrong because of the reference to “wife” in the singular, but the import of the passage is that because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife (rather than another man’s wife) and each woman should have her own husband (rather than another woman’s husband).

    Paul made it clear that the reason he advocated celibacy in verses 32-34:

    “But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.”

    That was not a negation of the command to be fruitful and multiply, it was an exception to the rule for a greater good and Paul knew full-well that only a small percentage were able to do so, thus his advice about marrying to avoid the temptation to sexual immorality. Context is everything.

    So, let me ask you a question: When Paul said (following verse 7:4) that he said that as a permission, not as a command, what was he talking about? The part about sex on demand or the part about not having sex for those times set aside by mutual agreement for fasting and prayer?

  221. Dragonfly says:

    @Stevesam “Lingerie and Changing hairstyles are all variety with same woman. I’m talking about men wanting different faces and bodies alltogether.”

    Yea, that’d have to be polygamy… or adultery. I just came back from a long visit with my mom’s family… and a Great Uncle who was a frequent adulterer was there (he’s usually never there). He’s a classic bull-alpha, cheated on my Great Aunt many times in their marriage and was an asshole dad to his kids. So they all hate him, he hardly ever sees his grandchildren, and a couple of his children don’t talk to him anymore (they’re all 40’s… he’s 75). The only reason he came was because he invited himself over unannounced, my parents don’t invite him to their parties because they’re afraid of how he may act or what he may say to offend people.

    My dad actually likes him though and has a good friendship with him, and it was so amazing to see my mom be so hospitable to him and made him feel so welcome, I know he annoys the hell out of her, but it was wonderful to see how kind to him she was. So I followed her example and had a decent conversation with him. We ended up talking about his past and marriage and his women, and I came to find out his wife had had her OWN Madonna/whore complex issue during their marriage, and basically thought sex was dirty or wrong. He said that was just the way they were raised back then, and that she would hardly ever have sex with him at all.

    At least it makes me see his affairs in a slightly different light… still wrong, but at least a little more understandable in a small kind of way. It was good to talk about marriage, relationships, mistakes he’d made, and honesty about male and female nature with him and my dad.

  222. Boxer says:

    Dear Artisinal Toad:

    Some try to use this passage as an indication that polygyny is wrong because of the reference to “wife” in the singular, but the import of the passage is that because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife (rather than another man’s wife) and each woman should have her own husband (rather than another woman’s husband).

    My point is not that it’s “wrong” (I don’t pretend to be a Theologian, Natural Law Ethicist or Philosopher of Christianity) but that it polygamy doesn’t tend to produce the sorts of results that monogamy does, in building and maintaining complex civilization and a high-trust society. I have metrics for this as well as anecdotes, and I’ve posted them many, many, many times, here and elsewhere. I concede that you know more about the New Testament than I do (and, really, who doesn’t?)

    So, again, if you want to marry a bunch of different women, that’s great. I would like to hear how it works out for you. I do hope that trend doesn’t take off, though. We’ll all live in a world a little less free, wealthy, and patriarchal if it becomes the norm; but, in the end, if people want to do that, there’s nothing I can do to stop them.

    Best,

    Boxer

  223. Dragonfly says:

    @Jeff ” I think the ladies going to your sight are lying about their husbands. Just the other day she thought we’ve had sex 1-2 times per week in 2015. She got angry when i told her 34 times and 4 bj. I think the women going to your sight would say they have a lot of sex and fulfill their husbands needs. That is the kicker…. They think.”

    ^^I really hope they’re not lying, but I do wonder since it’s so rare, if they’re being honest with themselves.

    “I use porn to get arroused, not to compare or fantasize. Heck all the actresses and actors look similar to me. My wife lets me have sex with her any time i want, but if she isnt interested why bother. I would basicly using to get off. I can do that without her and not have to snuggle and the things we use to do when we were not married.”

    ^^I think this speaks to your good character, that you’d rather share that intimacy with her, than just use her body while she gives you starfish sex… I think most men feel like you, and would much rather have that connection, and the only reason they use porn is because their wife has made approaching her too frustrating or emotionally painful (the rejection of being desired with starfish sex).

  224. Gunner Q says:

    Artisanal Toad @ 5:19 pm:
    “Paul made it clear that the reason he advocated celibacy in verses 32-34:”

    And then you conflate pleasing the Lord with being ordained, professional clergy. As if the work of merchants and artisans is inherently worthless to God. As if the work of priests is automatically valuable.

    As if God cannot be pleased by simply enjoying his Creation.

  225. mrteebs says:

    AT,

    I am not a troll. 10 minutes searching for and reading the comments I have made on this site over the last 12-18 months would make that quite clear, but I’m sure you were much too busy with that 4000-word manifesto on 12/31 (actually, 3995 words, but who’s counting). Or with that overbooked sex life, what with multiple wives and all.

    I challenge you, FH, GunnerQ, Jeff, LookingGlass, and anyone else who has recently joined the dogpile to find one place where I have excused rebellion, pedastalized women, or any of the various and sundry crimes and misdemeanors of which I’ve recently been accused.

    I will say it again: My wife was raped by her father and her mother sat mutely by. I don’t give a flying f#*& whether you or anyone else here believes me. It happened and it serves as a real and useful example about whether a wife answers only to her husband or may have a higher authority to whom she must answer in rare and exceptional circumstances. While I hold the mother less responsible than the father, the mother was not guiltless in this matter and I believe a court of law would find likewise. Either you believe her mother demonstrated proper submission, or you believe she erred. I don’t need a bunch of chickenshit theological claptrap about this being a diversion from the real issue. It is a very real issue that every man here is going to have to answer for himself: do you believe that disobedience is permitted in the case of gross sin or not? If so, why is the husband/wife authority structure exempt?

    I related my wife’s story to underscore the fact that though exceptional and rare (read back through my comments from several days ago – I used those same words before) there are instances in which a wife becomes an accomplice if she does not submit to the clear word of God when a husband’s directive conflicts with a specific, particular demand made by her husband. In that – and only that – is she allowed to disobey the lower authority to obey the higher authority. See Ananias and Sapphira.

    Nowhere did I say that a woman could become disobedient in all matters to her own husband rather than simply to the specific matter at hand. I.e., it is not a blanket emancipation decree. Nowhere did I say or suggest that there was an epidemic of men commanding their wives to sin. Nowhere did I say that the wife was free to define sin as anything that made her unhappy or could not be corroborated by a plain reading of scripture by people of reasonable intelligence and christian theology. Nowhere did I say that if a man is sinning in one area, his wife has carte blanche to go off the ranch in all areas. I took great pains establish that this is an exceptional and rare occurence. And I took great pains to acknowledge that it is regularly ABUSED by women who are simply looking for an excuse to be pathologically rebellious. But several of you seem to be far more interested in erecting and burning strawmen than in considering what I actually wrote. Or in speculating about who I am and what I believe in all areas as opposed to this specific area.

    @Jeff,

    For the second time – I am not a pastor. Although I don’t consider it an insult to be called one, please demonstrate some basic reading comprehension and avoid speculation. You are messed up on multiple levels if you are justifying porn and masturbation, so your opinion of me is of little consequence.

  226. Exfernal says:

    @Artisanal Toad above
    Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. One could extend your line of thinking about polygyny to slavery as well. After all, it’s not forbidden in the Bible but regulated instead, as the passage beginning here (Exodus 20:21) clearly demonstrates.

  227. Exfernal says:

    * 21:20, pardon the confusion

  228. Duvall says:

    When I examine the scriptures, I come down with AT on the side of polygamy. It does seem to be permissible, although not the original plan by the creator and does exclude you from being in church leadership. There were too many OT laws to regulate it without condemning it and the words of God to David seal the deal in my book- not to mention every single patriarch was indeed a polygamist with only those whose hearts lead astray condemned. Way too much evidence on that side of the ledger.

    I think AT goes off the rails to put it mildly however in the porn & lust area. To the point he is leading others down a sinful road and he should repent.

    I am with Mr Teebs when it comes to wives not following a command that would break the Ten
    Commandments.

    And since the issue was raised, yes I do believe God permits slavery. It does not mean all slavery is permissible/good but that there were times that God obviously put people into slavery. God did it, therefore slavery in and of itself, when properly God ordained cannot be sin or evil.

    And yes, I am a recovering pastor. Forgive me. If I could I would go back and slap some sense into my younger churchian self.

  229. Dragonfly says:

    Mrteebs – “You are messed up on multiple levels if you are justifying porn and masturbation, so your opinion of me is of little consequence.”

    ^I think many men justify porn when their wives aren’t into pleasing them, and it’s a situation of where he’s reduced to just using her body or using porn. I wouldn’t shame the men here, it’s the women that created that problem of porn in their marriage. Porn feels better to these men because it’s not a rejection from their wife. You’re lucky that you don’t know how Jeff feels with experiencing his wife being available, but not mentally being into it and desiring him. Starfish sex is awful for men, because they want more than that and it’s a HUGE rejection to their ego, so porn is a less painful option. To me, it’s the wife’s fault there, she knows better, she probably even knows deep down that what she gives him isn’t working for him – the kicker is that she doesn’t care. That’s why he turns to porn.

    I really do think, in 98% of the cases, a wife can eliminate a husband’s porn use by just being more sexually available for him, but also desiring him and being attractive to him. And like BenfromTX said, not turning him off by her attitude.

  230. feeriker says:

    I really do think, in 98% of the cases, a wife can eliminate a husband’s porn use by just being more sexually available for him, but also desiring him and being attractive to him. And like BenfromTX said, not turning him off by her attitude.

    For a woman who no longer finds (or never did find) her husband sexually attractive, this is an order too tall to process. She would rather be consigned to a hell of eternal clothes ironing or scrubbing of filthy public toilets than to having to put enthusiasm and feeling into sexing up her husband.

    Paging deti … paging deti…

  231. Dragonfly says:

    Yes, feeriker… and I think that may be why they vehemently claim it’s “their husband’s sin” and that “they aren’t responsible for it” (when in reality, maybe 2% of women fall into that category, the rest are overweight, disrespectful – leading him to not desire her, or unattractive in some other way).

    It’s hard to know how to answer when they frame it as just being their husband’s sin, and when they say they know they aren’t responsible for it (or his lust issues). There is some truth to that, but it’s also false in a way. A wife most definitely does have a responsibility to meet her husbands need for attractiveness and sexual availability and even variety. It IS indicative that something is wrong in their marriage – in the sexual relationship – if he’s turning to porn. So part of his sin actually may be part of her doing as it’s highly unlikely that the wife isn’t doing something to cause it. If the wife has become outwardly unattractive, it’s also not likely that the husband will have the balls to tell her that she’s gained weight so he’s having a hard time being sexually attracted to her. Most men don’t want to hurt their wife’s feelings like that, so they just live with the issue, which is dangerous because then she’ll think it’s a non-issue and maybe even gain more weight – damaging their marriage even further.

    So it’s not good to completely forgo what they ARE responsible for, and ends up sounding more like a good excuse and putting the blame onto him.

  232. stevesam221 says:

    So, in only 2% of cases are men actually sinning on their own accord. The other 98% is because its the woman’s fault. I wonder if it works the other way with women. If women were to watch porn or get off on reading 50 shades, is that because 98% of men are not meeting their needs too?
    Sometimes men actually sin on their own no matter how great the wife. Likewise for women, sometimes women just sin on their own no matter how great the husband. I try to take a balanced approach.

    If a husband doesn’t have the balls to speak up to what he does and doesn’t like, that is half the problem. Strong men do not live in fear of woman’s feelings and they are just feeeeeelings right, so it especially shouldn’t matter.

  233. mrteebs says:

    But by Jeff’s own admission, his wife “lets him have sex with her anytime he wants.” It is apparently a quality problem, not a quatity problem.

    I lived through 18 years of marriage where I had sex maybe 1-2 times per month. That meager frequency would be difficult enough in your 50s – but it is excruciating in your 20s and 30s. I did not go looking for porn, but it found me with the rise of the internet. It was a needlessly huge struggle precisely because my wife doled out sex like concentration camp rations. And I know that this is very, very common with far too many wives contributing to the problem by explaining away 1 Cor 7:5 through various hamsterizations. Now that I am in a marriage where we essentially have sex whenever I want, the temptation for porn does not require herculean effort to resist, just like the temptation to junk food is greatly diminished when you are regularly satisfied with good food.

    My problem with Jeff is that he is justifying his use of porn and masturbation and you are commending his “good character” in this. You should instead be mournng. That his wife is exacerbating the problem is a given. That he is rationalizing away his own responsibility to be pure regardless of his external circumstances is the tragedy here. Hence, he is messed up.

    And for the rest reading this, before the dogpile begins, please take note of what I am not saying:

    That wives are blameless
    Porn is often a (sinful) reaction to a (sinful) root issue – lack of marital sex. Wives are by definition a part of a sexual frequency problem and are far too often given a pass where none should be given.

    That people who struggle with this are messed up
    People that justify their own sin based on someone else’s sin are messed up.

    I lived through 18 years of really, really bad marital sex. It is profoundly discouraging and a form of rejection that is – quite literally – unrivaled in its effect on a man’s self esteem. it was a major contributor to the dissolution of my first marriage, but I was not one that sought the divorce.

    However, bad as the sexual desert may be, it is not license to compensate by way of other sins.

  234. mrteebs says:

    Note: above post is directed to Dragonfly.

  235. Dragonfly says:

    @stevesam “I wonder if it works the other way with women. If women were to watch porn or get off on reading 50 shades, is that because 98% of men are not meeting their needs too?”

    ^This question sounds like you are a woman who doesn’t understand the male need for sex.

    Most healthy men, even older men (!!), have a fairly strong sex drive. The situation where a man is not meeting his wife’s need for sex is a very peculiar one that could include many reasons… I’ve heard cases like this where he’s not attracted to her anymore, or where she’s gained weight, or where she acts like a witch to him and therefore he’s not turned on by her anymore, one example like this in my own family arose because the wife had turned him down for years and years due to “birth control” reasons, then once she wanted him again after menopause, he didn’t want her anymore and was embittered against her. I’ve also heard cases like that where the wife turned him down all throughout pregnancy, and then afterward when her sex drive comes back, complains he doesn’t want her anymore and she’s going sexless. Of course it could just be the man’s low Testosterone or that he’s homosexual, I’ve also seen cases like this, and it’s very sad. Again, this is not the norm in most marriages.

    Either way, a man not meeting his wife’s sexual needs is not the norm, it’s usually the other way because of how strong the male sex drive is, and there are very strange reasons for it. It’s not the same at all and doesn’t apply to the male need for sexual fulfillment. I wonder “stevesam” are you a man or a woman behind your screen name?

  236. Dragonfly says:

    Mrteebs, I think you and Jeff have more in common than you think.

    He also lived through about that many years I think of a horrible sex life with his wife. She’s only RECENTLY decided to be sexually available, but even that is not usually enough for a man’s sexual fulfillment. He wants to feel desired, like she’s addicted to him, like she craves him… and he wants this reassurance frequently. It’s comparable to the way a woman wants to know deep down how much her husband loves her.

  237. Micha Elyi says:

    <

    …polygyny is a Lawful and Biblically sanctioned form of marriage…
    Artisanal Toad

    By appealing to “Lawful” you’re trying to lawyer your way into excusing unrighteousness. And we are not called to live “Biblically” but to live as Christians.

    Christ didn’t leave us a Bible, He left us a Church. The Bible you have–in whole or part–comes from the authority Christ gave to those He appointed to lead His Church and to their successors. If you want to know what’s truly “Biblical”, listen to His Church.

  238. Dragonfly says:

    @stevesam ” I try to take a balanced approach.”

    The problem with seeing it as some kind of balance of men and women sinning against each other the same, is that the world has become out of balance. Women sin against their husbands more in our current day society in my opinion, especially in not sexually fulfilling him. They also demand more than they used to as far as wanting their men to constantly make them happy, to constantly romance them and emote with them. It has become so out of balance that it is all about the wife’s happiness and being romanced by her husband, how many dates he takes her on, and if he gives her vacations every year. If he doesn’t do all these extra things for her, she doesn’t meet his sexual needs. I responded to a wife like this on my blog months ago here: http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/08/19/my-husband-isnt-being-romantic-enough/

    Here is another response to a wife that told me in email that her husband wasn’t worthy of her desire, respect, or even her KINDNESS:
    http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/04/18/my-husband-isnt-worthy-of-my-desire-respect-trust-or-kindness/

    These women are the first to tell me that I just got lucky and picked an amazing man that meets my needs, but they don’t want to take into consideration that one of the first steps to having a good marriage for us was me reading many books in our first year on how to be a good wife to my husband. Arrogant wives think they are perfect and that they just picked the wrong man, or they have no desire to learn and understand how to create a beautiful marriage with the man they picked. They aren’t humble enough to read marriage books, especially usually in their first year of marriage, and if they do pick up a marriage book, they usually read them so that they can learn how to change their husband’s behavior (again, not focusing on self-improvement, but making it a husband-improvement project). In their pride, they only look at how their husbands can be doing things better, instead of on what they can actually do for the marriage.

    And then they come to my blog & see our good marriage and immediately email me saying that I have a good marriage only because I have a great man, that our marriage is easy, or because we’ve “never been through any trials” (which is false), or say I “think I know everything,” and that they would never respect their husbands or be kind to him anyway. lol….

    Women are harder to please than men now, and they have far more control in the relationship and marriage (not just legally, but they use their emotions and righteous superiority over their husbands more now than they ever used to before feminism).

    So your statement: “I try to take a balanced approach” doesn’t make sense in an obviously unbalanced world we now live in, where the wife marries already expecting that the husband will do everything he can to make her happiness his focus, and with her not understanding or having te correct information on how simple it is to meet his own needs. And then the wife holds her happiness as the carrot to meeting his real needs over him – it’s just all out of balance, and not in men’s favor.

  239. Dragonfly says:

    Here is an excerpt of my response to the woman who didn’t think her husband was worthy of her desire, respect or kindness, it hits on how UNbalanced it is against men in marriage, and why it’s easier for WOMEN to sin against their husbands now:

    “Part of the feminist society that we find ourselves living in tells women that they don’t have to work to have a good marriage, that being a “good wife,” that freely gives her husband a fulfilling and passionate sex life – that wants to please her husband – is degrading or beneath her position as a strong woman. Cooking for her family is beneath her, instead women now take pride in never taking the time to learn to cook a simple meal. Keeping a clean house is oppressive… who has time for that drudgery? Nevermind that children need and crave a peaceful, stable, organized, reasonably clean place to come home to and be nourished in. Loving her children and serving her family in these ways are outdated, and were oppressive for the women in the 1950’s era. Women who still do them are backwards, old-fashioned, or at worst, doormats to be so submissive to their husbands. These are the real, feminist lies we live in, and they do not promote self-less care and love for others, but they do promote selfishness.

    So what we end up with is the ugly realities of a reoccurring feminist ideology that women should not have to do anything for men, except to show up, and then expect to be catered to for being female.

    Instead of feeling entitled to a dream romance or the perfect marriage, we as wives need to be ensuring that we live and create our dream romance, by making an effort to be romantic with our husbands. By romancing him first if need be. Not by complaining that he isn’t worth our efforts to begin with.
    If your husband is the typical, normal husband who works for his family, providing for them, being a dad to your kids, the men that I see all around me whenever I go out, believe me, he does deserve your respect, love, desire, compassion, kindness, faithfulness, and gentleness.

    I challenged this woman to try to emulate these beautiful characteristics into her character, and she turned it down, still adamantly assuring me that my husband must be perfect and hers just wasn’t, and although she felt sad about it, that he just wasn’t the man she wanted him to be, and should never have married him in the first place”

  240. mrteebs says:

    And which church would that be, Micha? And what happens when the Church and the Bible are misaligned?

  241. Dave says:

    Christ didn’t leave us a Bible, He left us a Church. The Bible you have–in whole or part–comes from the authority Christ gave to those He appointed to lead His Church and to their successors. If you want to know what’s truly “Biblical”, listen to His Church.

    This is confusing and untrue. Christ left us both the Church and the Bible. Where did you get this your fantastic assertion from, that Christ did not leave us a Bible, when He personally commanded Apostle John to write the vision He gave to him, and to preserve it for other Christians? Who do you think preserved the writings of Apostle Paul?

  242. @GunnerQ

    Reading comprehension. If you look carefully you’ll find that I did not mention ordained clergy and *certainly* did not mention priests. What I did was quote the Apostle Paul and his words speak for themselves.

    Your comment is symptomatic of the modern churchianity frame, in that churchians don’t want to do what they are instructed to do so they hire a professional Christian to preach, teach, visit the sick, make housecalls, go to the jail, be there at funerals and all the other things that ordinary folks should be doing but… like studying their Bibles, can’t be bothered to do.

    @Mrteebs

    We are all informed by our experiences. Regardless of the situation with your wife, such actions as parental rape are remarkably rare. Given the victim culture we live in now and the propensity of women to lie about such things, such accusations should be taken with a healthy level of skepticism barring contemporaneous official records of the event.

    You say you lived through 18 years of really bad marital sex and you were not the one who sought the divorce? That’s too bad, but despite your lack of study God has given you the opportunity to marry a woman who might give you good marital sex, but it probably won’t happen unless she’s actually *attracted* to you. That’s all on you and you have to be the man she’s attracted to, attract her into *your* frame and never allow her to draw you into her frame. If you don’t understand that, you need to study game. However, that isn’t the main problem.

    If you study Scripture carefully, you’ll note that if your 1st wife is a believer, regardless of what some family court judge says, you’re still married. 1st Cor. 7:10-11 is quite clear: she was forbidden to leave you, but now that she has she is required to remain unmarried (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (that would be you) because as far as Christ is concerned, the two of you are still married: for two confessed Christians there is no divorce. Under the Law a man had the right to divorce his wife and Jesus clarified that the only grounds for divorce was porneia (sexual immorality) but that does not apply to Christians.

    The New Testament contains several additional restrictions that apply only to Christians, one of which is that two confessed believers are not permitted to divorce, no exception for porneia (1st Cor 7:10-11). So, while she is commanded to remain single now that she left you, you have the right to take another wife. If you do you should bear in mind that if the wife of your youth ever pulls her head out of her ass and decides she wants to come home, you don’t have the right to say no (1st Peter 3:7). Your second wife should understand that or you will be defrauding her. You should also try to maintain amicable relations with your 1st wife, even after you’ve married the second, even if you can’t stand the sight of her and the sound of her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard to you. You might be surprised what dread game does for both wives when it comes to your sex life. And, yes, you’re still married to wife #1 so there is noting illicit about having sex with her. While she might feel it’s illicit and get a thrill from it, her feelings are irrelevant compared to God’s Word.

    You might think it’s impossible to marry a second wife under such circumstances, but my observation and experience is that isn’t true, although it’s difficult. The first problem a middle-aged man has in finding a Christian wife is the vast majority of middle-aged Christian single women are illegitimately divorced, still married to their first husband and ineligible to marry. Even if you purport to marry one of these you aren’t really married because a married woman cannot marry another husband while her first is still alive (c.f. Romans 7:2 and 1st Cor 7:39), so it isn’t a marriage and you’re just committing adultery with her (c.f. Matthew 5:31-32).

    Should you find any women both attractive enough and eligible to marry, I suggest you read Rollo Tomassi’s books “The Rational Male” and “Preventative Medicine”; Robert Greene’s “The Art Of Seduction” and “Anthol Kay’s “Married Man Sex Life” before attempting stage 2 of the marry-go-round.

    But, you might ask, “what if I’m *glad* wife #1 left and I don’t want her to come back? 18 years of whining, nagging, bitchiness, passive agressive behavior and sexual starvation only relieved by the occasional round of starfish sex… why would I want that back?” The simple answer is you made a vow (c.f. Numbers 30) and God requires that you keep your vows. Perhaps you don’t have the capacity to forgive wife #1 and restore her if she ever decides to repent of her evil (which means you aren’t capable of loving her as Christ loves the church) and truly don’t want her back, but there are several solutions to your dilemma.

    First, there is absolutely no reason not to put conditions on a reconciliation and if it applies the first would be that she lose weight at least to the point of being height-weight proportionate. That would be a very appropriate requirement if she’s transformed herself into a land-whale. Oh- and that loose and floppy vag that she’s got that gives all the stimulation of sticking it in a glass of water? Tell her to get a kegelmaster 2000, use it, and you won’t settle for anything less than your own personal chinese finger-trap. That would require regularly checking her progress though, so it might need to wait until after she’s lost the weight…

    Another condition should be that she stand up in front of her church, throw her pride on the altar and make public confession of her sin in violating God’s Word by not submitting to you as her husband, leaving you and using the court system to injure you. I can understand that even if wife #1 is capable of demonstrating her repentance by meeting your demands, an inability to demonstrate Christ’s love would mean your heart is still hard toward her and you still don’t want her back.

    If that’s the case you can always go nuclear.

    After you marry wife #2 (if you’re smart you’ll do it without a marriage license using a written contract of marriage), explain to wife #1 that the door is always open if she wants to come home… but things have changed. If she ever decides to come home, with two wives in the house you will require that she not only get along with wife #2 and not fight, but in addition you will require both to attend your bed at the same time, regularly. If she’s like most of the churchian women I know, that will ensure she never comes home to you; and, you’d only be exercising your rights as her husband in stating that is what you’d require of her.

    Her choice is to obey God and submit to her husband in all things or not, but it’s her choice.

    But… nuclear options are tricky and she might surprise you and decide that’s different enough from what you had previously that it sounds appealing… and with things that different neither of you would fall into old habits and re-ignite old conflicts. If there are children involved that would not be a bad thing and from experience I can tell you that a ménage à trois is delightful if it’s carefully managed. (the herding cats analogy is more appropriate than you can possibly imagine) If it happens and wife #2 gives you the full-frontal churchian and decides to bail out, that’s on her, not you. At that point she would be the one in sin. However, if it happens, that written contract of marriage should be amended to recognize both as your wives.

    But… in reality… you would probably have to change radically in order for wife #1 to be attracted to you again (appearance, game, frame, etc.) after she got so disgusted with you that she pulled the plug on the marriage. And that’s assuming she ever was attracted to you in the first place.

    What this all boils down to is marital policy implementation based on one fact: There is no divorce for two confessed believers, per 1st Cor 7:10-11. You first (Christian) wife divorced you and you married again? You have two wives. Deal with it. But, what if you married a divorcee? Well, are she and her first husband both Christians? If that’s the case you were never married, you were simply living in an adulterous relationship (c.f. Matthew 5:31-32) because God will not recognize an illegitimate divorce. Yep, that sticks the shiv in pretty deep for a lot of folks in the church, and plenty of people will deny it, but as the Bible says: Let God be true and every man a liar.

    I write this knowing that all the training and instruction of a lifetime in modern churchianity informs almost all who read this that what I just said is so wrong but that kind of response illustrates what Jesus said, quoting the Prophet Isaiah in Matthew 15:19: “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

    Oh… and teebs… while what I just wrote probably applies to you one way or another, I didn’t write that for you. The person I wrote it for knows exactly who he is and what he has to do, he just doesn’t want to do it.

    @Duval

    Whether you think I’ve “gone of the rails” is immaterial. If you don’t agree with the definition of the word “Lust” that I posted, feel free to give it a shot, but lets see your exegesis behind it that doesn’t contain anything related to the magisterium. You might also consider the fact that your reaction falls in line with the Romans 14 discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols and you might want to take a look at Romans 14:4 before judging that I’ve “gone off the rails.”

    @Exfernal

    You imply that slavery is immoral. From a Biblical standpoint, the answer is no, it is not immoral because God does not regulate sin. To attack slavery as sin is to attack Christianity itself, because one of the key precepts of Christianity is we were slaves to sin before Christ and having come to know Him who saved us, we become His bondservants in His service and He is our master. Thus, to say slavery is immoral is to say Christ is immoral for *purchasing* His bondservants, paying the price with His own blood in order that we might be free from our old master (sin) to serve Him (righteousness).

    In fact, the type of slavery instituted in the American South was completely within the bounds of the Scriptural guidelines for slavery. That statement might cause you or others some consternation, but it’s true. However, while the structure might have been legitimate, the treatment of the slaves in the American South within that system was NOT within the bounds of what Scripture commanded masters with respect to their treatment of slaves. If I were asked to assign any kind of spiritual significance to the American Civil War, it would be along the lines that God was punishing the South for the despicable treatment slave women and slave families received at the hands of their masters as a widespread practice.

    The Bible says that if one owns a slave, the slave must be treated in a certain way, especially the women. If one takes a wife, the wife must be treated in a certain way. The Bible also has instruction to slaves with respect to submission to masters, and instruction to wives with respect to their submission to their husband.

    Imagine the plantation owner who allows evangelists to preach to the slaves and evangelize them because Christians are more docile slaves. Imagine the women of the slave quarters, subject to rape at any given time by the whites of the plantation, praying to the Lord while trying to bear up well under their suffering. 1st Peter 2:19 says God held those women in high esteem. God is not mocked. One of the judgments God uses on His people who will not obey Him is to send in an invading army. The American South received just such an invading army.

    The Southern pastors preached in favor of slavery, carefully avoiding the treatment of slaves that contravened the clear instruction in the Bible. The Northern pastors preached against slavery using the unbiblical treatment of the slaves as a justification for condemning it as a practice. In both cases I believe they were wrong, albeit for different reasons. The issue wasn’t slavery; it was the violations of Scripture concerning the treatment of the slaves- especially the women. The issue of divorce within the church is similar to the issue of slavery. In this case, it is the ungodly practice of divorce that’s wrong but the church fights things out on the complementarianism vs egalitarianism front, choosing to ignore the issue of divorce by focusing on behavior within the marriage.

  243. @Micha Elyi

    By appealing to “Lawful” you’re trying to lawyer your way into excusing unrighteousness. And we are not called to live “Biblically” but to live as Christians.

    1. God does not regulate unrighteousness (sin). Observe that God regulated the practice of polygyny in His Law (Exodus 21:10-11; Leviticus 18:18; 20;14; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; etc.) and even commanded it in what is known as the levirate marriage: Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

    2. God does not condone unrighteousness (sin). Notice that in 1st Samuel 12:8 God took credit for giving David multiple wives and said if it hadn’t been enough He’d have given David more.

    3. God does not practice unrighteousness (sin). Yet, observe that in Jeremiah 31:31-32, God said He was the husband of two wives, Israel and Judah. For her many harlotries God gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away (Jeremiah 3:8). Judah did the same and eventually God sent her away without a certificate of divorce.

    By claiming polygyny to be unrighteous (sin), you claim that God regulates, condones and practices unrighteousness (sin). That is blasphemy and you need to repent of your sin.

    Christ didn’t leave us a Bible, He left us a Church. The Bible you have–in whole or part–comes from the authority Christ gave to those He appointed to lead His Church and to their successors. If you want to know what’s truly “Biblical”, listen to His Church.

    This is the business model of the RCC: “We decided what the Bible is and only we are able to interpret what it says.” As if God is incapable of using even arrogant, pretentious and fallible people to accomplish His Divine will. As if we are to disregard the instruction to “study to show yourself approved.”

    You need to read Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 and the last commandment of the Bible. You should also give thought to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 which teaches that “where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.” Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until all things were complete. If you read the book of Revelation you should comprehend that all things will not be complete until there is a new heaven and a new earth and the new city of Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth.

    The church you speak of so highly has prostituted itself in the interests of power and wealth, making a business of violating God’s command not to add or subtract from His Law. This church claims to be “infallible” with respect to doctrine and morals and claims Apostolic authority as part of their tradition. Yet, this supposed infallible Apostolic authority continues to make error after error, as I just demonstrated in refuting the RCC’s claim that polygyny is “unrighteousness” that you are parroting.

    Given the RCC’s unbiblical claims, false teachings, violations of God’s Law, idolatry (Mary worship comes immediately to mind) and many other problems, it will be a cold day in Hell before I’d listen to anything they have to say.

  244. JDG says:

    And yes, I am a recovering pastor. Forgive me. If I could I would go back and slap some sense into my younger churchian self.

    I know a couple of pastors and a few clear headed men who are no longer churchians. Would that we all could go back and knock some sense into our younger selves. How sad that so few are even able to look back and see that sense knocking was needed.

  245. MarcusD says:

    Life as a Catholic single. A rant. (PG-13)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=993764

    My husband is having an emotional affair and it’s killing me
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=993747

  246. tickletik says:

    Every time I look at this article I think to myself “that little brat needs nothing so much as to be put over his knee and spanked”

  247. Pingback: How do wives petition or win their husbands | Christianity and the manosphere

  248. Pingback: Is the problem a lack of listening or a lack of submitting? | The Sunshine Thiry Blog

  249. Pingback: Complementarian Threesome (meet the new man of the house) | Dalrock

  250. Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Dalrock

  251. Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock

  252. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock

  253. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1). | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s