Boundaries

Naghmeh used a modern Christian buzzword when explaining why she went to the family courts:

In very difficult situations sometimes you have to establish boundaries while you work toward healing. I have taken temporary legal action to make sure our children will stay in Idaho until this situation has been resolved. I love my husband, but as some might understand, there are times when love must stop enabling something that has become a growing cancer.

You may recall the CBMW’s Women’s Studies professor using the same term:

Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

Pastor Driscoll made a similar plea to the women in his congregation when preaching on the Book of Esther.  Pastor Driscoll explained that Christian wives need to emulate Vashti as a strong independent woman, not the doormat Esther:

And ladies, sometimes the godliest thing is to say no. I believe what Vashti did was noble, it was brave, it was good, it was right. And some of you ladies, you’ve mastered the art of saying no. Like, you’re—you could, like, teach a grad school class on how to jam up a man. Right? I mean, you landed the dismount. Boom, nailed it again. You’re really good at it. Okay?

Now, some of you ladies have never even tried. You’re always like, “Yes, okay. Whatever you say. Whatever you want.” No, pick your chin up. Look him in the eye. “No! No.” I’ve seen this repeatedly, where there’s a foolish man with a wise woman and her not speaking is not helping. Ladies, use a loving voice, use a respectful voice, use a godly voice, but don’t lose your voice. And sometimes, a woman has to prayerfully, carefully just say no. Vashti says what? No.

This also ties in with the godly tantrum wives are instructed to throw if their husband “isn’t listening to them” (doing as the wife instructs).

What you won’t see is husbands being exhorted to set boundaries for their wives, enact consequences for their wives, learn to say no to their wives, etc.  This is the inversion of the roles of headship and submission that nearly everyone hasn’t noticed, because cross-dressing theology is what our feminist culture is thirsty for.  Submission now means saying no, enacting consequences, and establishing boundaries.  Submission means washing your husband in the water of the word, just as headship now means winning your wife over without a word.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Headship, Mark Driscoll, Mary Kassian, New Morality, Not Listening, Pastor Abedini, Rebellion, Submission, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to Boundaries

  1. Sadly, for most so-called ‘Christians’: Feelings > Bible

    People are already going to do what they’re going to do. But preachers enable subversive behavior does not help.

  2. Pingback: Boundaries | Neoreactive

  3. rugby11 says:

    “This also ties in with the godly tantrum wives are instructed to throw if their husband “isn’t listening to them” (doing as the wife instructs).”

    Growing up seeming this is painful. Especially when you realized the danger it shows in the emotional maturity of both adults as parents.

  4. Pingback: Boundaries – Manosphere.com

  5. So, are you saying that what Driscoll is arguing against is the correct model? Women should just keep saying “yes, yes, yes,” and women who say “No!” are out of place?

  6. Matthew James Davis,

    So, are you saying that what Driscoll is arguing against is the correct model? Women should just keep saying “yes, yes, yes,” and women who say “No!” are out of place?

    1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right [b]without being frightened by any fear.

    He’s literally saying the opposite of what the Bible actually says.

  7. Come on Matthew James Davis..

    Sell us marriage, come on do it, sell marriage to men. We’ll be waiting.

  8. Wives have no problems telling their husbands ‘no’, I don’t know where he comes up with this half-baked dribble.

  9. LeeLee says:

    She only says just enough to let the imagination run wild, and then stops short of making any real accusation at all.

  10. I had a vigorous discussion on line with an extremely anti male, male pastor about this very case. While I am going to go back and see if he is wiling to admit to being wrong. Now that she has kicked him out of his home and is setting boundaries between him and his children for crimes he supposedly committed while in prison. I do not expect him to bend even a little bit. As he said almost all abuse is done by the man and the chruch tends to cover for the man. What world do this people live in? And what bible are they reading that gives cover for divorce under these conditions?

  11. Hayeksghost says:

    Why am I supposed to want one of these women in my life again?

  12. The Question says:

    “What you won’t see is husbands being exhorted to set boundaries for their wives, enact consequences for their wives, learn to say no to their wives, etc.”

    Let’s translate it, shall we?

    “Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a wife sins.”

    Just took one word.

    The difference in one’s reaction to those two statements just shows how flipped the roles are.

  13. It’s quite amazing to see this women go from saying that he was a loving father and husband to her current position of tarnishing him as a porn addicted bully that had a comfy time in an Iran prison where the guards allowed him to use phones, internet connections and many tissues for hours a day. I surprised he wanted to be released, you should have stayed Saeed!

    That takes some truly awesome skills in denial. She is a Master!

  14. Neguy says:

    The Naghmeh situation so far is too much for some to handle, apparently. Christianity Today still hasn’t written about it. I suspect some folks see this stuff for what it is, but they are just keeping silent instead of speaking up and defend Saeed.

    You can see it in everything prominent Christians are doing today: they are afraid. Afraid to cross the feminist party line is one aspect of it, but it’s much bigger than that.

  15. Boxer says:

    So, are you saying that what Driscoll is arguing against is the correct model? Women should just keep saying “yes, yes, yes,” and women who say “No!” are out of place?

    Have you never read the New Testament? Apparently not, since it’s very clear on the situations in which women are to tell their husbands “No!”, and it goes into detail as to how to say “No!” in a lawful manner.

    Jesus Christ. You feminists need me to teach you the bible. It’s pathetic.

  16. Why am I supposed to want one of these women in my life again?

    Beats me! However, Matthew James Davis will be around shortly to tell us why.

  17. Lushfun says:

    Everyone wants to win, nobody wants to compromise.
    Wanting to win at any price with any justification.
    Sad ramifications for the psychological outcomes of those kids.

  18. Boxer says:

    I surprised he wanted to be released, you should have stayed Saeed!

    Ironically, he’ll probably be treated worse in family court than he was by the sharia/religious police in the Islamic Republic.

    Has anyone reached out to Saeed? We should try and be supportive in his time of need. I think he could be a great asset to the androsphere in return.

  19. Looking Glass says:

    What’s our over/under that it’s the pastor that’s been “with” her through all of this that she’s either humping or looking to hump?

    @Boxer:

    It’s both sad & hilarious when you can explain basic biblical principles to the trolls.🙂

  20. “Submission now means saying no, enacting consequences, and establishing boundaries. Submission means washing your husband in the water of the word, just as headship now means winning your wife over without a word.”

    I believe this is what happens when submission is removed from the context of hoping in God (as per 1 Peter 3:5-6). Trust in God becomes fear of the consequences of submission, and fear leads to the need to draw boundaries, because who else will protect the wife if she won’t protect herself?

  21. Opus says:

    Would this be one of those cases where the best advice is to follow the money? – you know: the forthcoming book deal, Oprah, personal appearances. Going to law to ensure that ones children do not leave their home when their father has only just and mercifully managed to return to the United States and to have escaped from the only country in which he might otherwise wish to reside – he won’t be going back to Iran in a hurry – sounds to me like a smokescreen for her real purpose which is surely monetary. Other than with his parents (which is where I assume he now is) he would surely be homeless and is presently without gainful employment, and thus the idea that he – a public figure – might snatch the children (to be promptly returned by court order) is absurd, yet that is what I take Mrs Abedini to be implying.

    Boundaries create Spaces – safe spaces – and Safe Spaces (another buzz-word) is Femi-speak for thought-control and physical exclusion. It is not just Pastor Abedini who is being excluded from a Safe Space – in his case his home and the society and comfort of his wife and children – but none other than Richard Dawkins who has been no-platformed by an Atheist and Sceptics conference which he was due to address; his banishment and consequent loss of income being caused by a Tweet (he compared Feminists to Islamists). He has, of course, apologised, acknowledged that he is himself a Feminist and withdrawn the Tweet, That, of course, has only encouraged the vultures to gather and circle. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. LOL

  22. Anchorman says:

    insanity doubles down, huh?

    SJWs 1) always lie and 2) double down when caught.

    Boxer says: Has anyone reached out to Saeed? We should try and be supportive in his time of need. I think he could be a great asset to the androsphere in return.

    If he’s like the rest of us, he’ll flatly deny the reality in front of him.

    I fought it for a year before I finally accepted reality, saw through the deceptions, and really understood what God had been saying for years.

  23. SnapperTrx says:

    Was at weekly mens group the other night. We have one guy in particular, extremely quiet except when he reads aloud. As we read Genesis 12 I pointed out that when faced with the issue of the pharaoh thinking about taking Sarai as his wife the bible doesn’t indicate that she spoke up for herself or said anything to stop it, as Abram had given her instruction on what to say and do. She was obedient to the very end, even when things looked like they could go South. When I made the remark that “that is one obedient woman!” the quite guy spoke right up. “What? I don’t see that in here at all. There is no way.”. Yet there it is, in black and white. “being submissive unto their own husbands….without bring frightened by any fear.” He just couldn’t comprehend that a woman would keep her mouth shut in the face of danger just because her husband told her to. Does. Not. Compute.

  24. Anchorman says:

    Boxer, you raise a good point, though.

    I’m not on social media.

    I think the only way I can contribute is hitting the articles on this topic, calling out the evil, and offering support and linkage.

  25. thedeti says:

    I’d just gently remind InsanityBytes and other detractors that this isn’t about gloating over sin, or the potential end of Saeed and Naghmeh’s marriage. It isn’t even about the fact that Dalrock and other commenters appear to have been correct that Naghmeh was plotting treachery against her husband.

    This is about speaking the truth in love. This is about calling out fellow Christians who are in sin. And Naghmeh is sinning gravely against her husband. Even if it is true that Saeed sinned against her, she is in no way justified in responding to sin with her own sin. She is not justified in retaliating against Saeed’s alleged sin with her own sin.

    There is no evidence of Saeed’s sin. There is ample evidence of Naghmeh’s sin. The more she writes on her social media pages, the more evidence she herself provides of her sin, treachery and darkened heart.

    It would be extremely cruel not to call out Naghmeh for her sin. If we as Chrsitians do not call her out, do not attempt to correct her, she’ll continue down her path of sin, error and treachery. She’s in sin, and if she will not listen to her husband, then she should listen to her fellow Christians.

    I’m reminded of this post:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/cruelty-and-kindness/

  26. Bluntobj says:

    For the non-english footie fans, I assume that’s england moving the goalposts?

  27. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Boxer I reached out to Saeed yesterday and do not have a response. I also contacted Franklin Graham and no response and Jay Sekulow and no response. I have a fund me site ready to roll for his legal defense but I need some banking/routing information before it goes live.

  28. Robert says:

    I second that beyond our prayers we should reach out to our christian brother and offer any help & support that we can. I am not much on a computer like some of you. While I am glad to contact him, I am woefully short on skills in order to go about that task. Is there someone here who is up to the task of finding a contact for him?

    I for one would be glad to help with any legal fees & help getting back on his feet. I imagine at this point with him out of the country for years she has total control of any and all assets. Point me in the right direction please someone.

  29. enrique says:

    I hope and PRAY, that Saeed’s family (Parents and Sister and anyone else) go on a vigorous campaign to defend him. I would like to see a guy in the spotlight (e.g. crosshairs) like this, pull a Trump and go no-holds…meaning, none of that advice from handlers “don’t directly accuse her of lying…explain it’s been a difficult time”.

    he should go FULL ON DEFENSE, and if he is innocent, declare such, set up a fund and broadcast it across the Christian community and Manosphere. Instead of taking a position that “I don’t agree with those Christian (or secular) pro-guy/father types”, he should FULLY EMBRACE IT EVERY TIME HE IS AT THE MIC.

    There are strategic ways to do so, especially utilizing his sister and parents…including sobbing press conferences at how SHOCKED THEY WERE to learn their former sister/daughter-in law would make such outrageous, false and defamatory comments, and fully embrace how they “now understand” why so many men have left the church, and the lack of support from Franklin Graham or whatever.

    When he gets that obligatory “but don’t you feel like this is blaming the victim” stuff at any press conference, he should IMMEDIATELY, with FAMILY’s HANDS UPON HIS SHOULDERS give the incredulous, :”excuse me? excuse me…I am the victim, I was beaten and tortured for my faith, only to have my faith ROCKED, SHAKEN TO THE CORE by these outlandish, false and defamatory allegations…we (family) are working with our attorneys to secure custody and seek a boundaries to protect the children from this abuse.”

    MEN HAVE TO START FIGHTING BACK. And you must use EVERY SINGLE TOOL you have. As long as your are being honest, there is no such things as the Mitt Romney “Higher ground” way. HE.MUST.FIGHT.BACK.

  30. enrique says:

    Christian men might start here,and show support, and ask for his family’s contact info to start a FUND to defend him against these allegations:

    http://notesfromthecove.com/pastor-saeed-abedini-finds-rest-at-the-cove/#respond

  31. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Now, some of you ladies have never even tried. You’re always like, “Yes, okay. Whatever you say. Whatever you want.” No, pick your chin up. Look him in the eye. “No! No.” I’ve seen this repeatedly, where there’s a foolish man with a wise woman and her not speaking is not helping.

    Riddle me this: If she’s such a “wise woman,” then how did she manage to get herself hinged to such a foolish man? Because if this guy’s really that pathetic, I’ll guess that before she decided to join his team there were at least a few hints he gave her that he was going to be this way. Or maybe her wisdom just has a blind spot when it comes to sexy hooligans.

    Well then, if this is the case, I guess I’d have to say . . . . . that Driscoll is correct! She does say “Yes” too much.

    When she sees her beau ideal Harley McBadboy roll into town, she starts to feel the divine Tingles. And to them, she says “Yes!”

    When after a while she starts to get bored with her latest boy toy, she starts to hear whispers telling her she can do better, and that it’s time for a change. To them she also says, “Yes!” and makes a quick jump to her next ride on the carousel.

    When she finds herself with a few black eyes and broken bottles nearby, courtesy of her latest love, she starts to suspect that he may not be a great long-term prospect. But her heart tells her that she has the charm and the moxie to change him and make a good man of him. She must be true to herself! So to the promptings of her heart she says, “Yes!”

    . . . . . And that’s how this wise woman finds herself sharing a bed and having children with such an immensely foolish man.

    It would actually be a very good idea for her to learn to say the word “No.” The hard part is that she’s never even had the ability to say it to herself and her urges.

  32. Spike says:

    “Boundaries” in Naghmeh’s case function exactly like The State with all of its instruments does in a secular marriage.
    What ten is the point of marrying a Christian woman, when the State is still there? Do those boundaries include no fault divorce and abortion? Surely though, the Sisters Of The Faith would never do that, right?

  33. paddy says:

    Looking at this video, http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/video-freed-christian-pastor-abedini-opens-up-about-his-time-in-iranian-captivity/

    I see that an old blonde lady (I assume Saeed’s mother) runs up to hug him. The dark-haired woman (is it Naghmeh? I am not sure) does not hug him, but rubs his arm while otherwise keeping her distance.

  34. @Paddy,
    That’s his sister.

  35. feeriker says:

    What ten is the point of marrying a Christian woman, when the State is still there?

    Yep, and this is why a western woman’s (claim of) Christian faith is effectively worthless. When (not IF) she decides that she doesn’t like Jesus’s way, she’ll immediately accept the State as her lord and savior and become its full-time dedicated missionary with fifty times the zeal she ever showed for Jesus.

  36. @ deti

    I’d just gently remind InsanityBytes and other detractors that this isn’t about gloating over sin, or the potential end of Saeed and Naghmeh’s marriage. It isn’t even about the fact that Dalrock and other commenters appear to have been correct that Naghmeh was plotting treachery against her husband.

    […]

    It would be extremely cruel not to call out Naghmeh for her sin. If we as Chrsitians do not call her out, do not attempt to correct her, she’ll continue down her path of sin, error and treachery. She’s in sin, and if she will not listen to her husband, then she should listen to her fellow Christians.

    Yup.

    Christians are supposed to call each other if they’re in sin. Someone who is claiming to be ‘Christian’ should be willing to acknowledge where they have erred. For example, Matthew 18 and Paul’s comments about those who turned away from the faith like in 1 Timothy 1. This is summarized by Ephesians 5:

    Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light 9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 [f]trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even [g]expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are [h]exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.

    Christians SHOULD be calling out and condemning the sin of other Christians because they should know better. The reason for that is so their conscience can be made aware of their sin and they can repent of it.

  37. paddy says:

    @seriouslyserving thanks for the additional info. So where was the loyal Christian wife? Couldn’t make it to the airport to meet him?

  38. JDG says:

    Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

    This statement could only be true if the wife were the head, the one in authority in the marriage. The one in authority sets the boundaries and enacts consequences. She may as well have said that Christ must submit to His Church (His bride) in all things.

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @paddy:

    I think I remember it being mentioned he has a sister. That almost assuredly isn’t Naghmeh.

  40. JDG says:

    Christians SHOULD be calling out and condemning the sin of other Christians because they should know better. The reason for that is so their conscience can be made aware of their sin and they can repent of it.

    1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

  41. Solomon says:

    trust no preacher who wants your money

  42. Splashman says:

    I wonder what Driscoll’s take would be on Sarah’s obedience to her husband Abraham in Genesis 12 and in Genesis 20?

    For those who aren’t familiar with these stories, in Genesis 12 we learn that Abram (whom God later renamed Abraham) and his wife Sarai (later Sarah) journeyed to Egypt because of famine in Palestine. Sarai was so beautiful that Abram was afraid the Egyptians would kill him in order to get Sarai for themselves. So he told Sarai to tell everyone she was his sister. She did so. That lie resulted in Pharaoh (king of Egypt) taking Sarai to his palace as his wife — and presumably having sex with her.

    Because Pharaoh was so thrilled with Sarai, he lavished on Abram hugely expensive gifts of “sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels”, making Abram rich. But some time later God inflicted diseases on Pharaoh and his household, due to Pharaoh’s relationship with Sarai. Pharaoh somehow figured out that Sarai was in fact Abram’s wife, scolded Abram for not being honest, and told him to take Sarai and all his possessions and leave Egypt. They did so.

    A similar incident happened in Gen. 20, after their names were changed. Abraham told the same lie, for the same reason (he was scared). The local king (Abimelech) took Sarah as wife (though he didn’t have sex with her), later found out the truth from God himself, and returned her to Abraham. Abraham admits to the king that at the time he and Sarah left his homeland (many years earlier), he told her, “This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, ‘He is my brother’.” And she apparently had done so.

    ————-

    So what did God think of Sarai/Sarah? Did he point out how stupid and doormat-ish she was to obey her cowardly husband, lying and whoring and putting herself in danger just so he could save his own skin? Nope. In fact, God thought so well of Sarah that he designated her a textbook example of a submissive wife.

    1 Peter 3:5-6: For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

    Notes on the above scripture:
    1) In this context, “lord” means “master” or “ruler”.
    2) “Do what is right” is equated with “obedience to husband”.
    3) “Do what is right” is NOT equated with “figure out whether it would be right to submit or not in this particular case”.
    4) Because God presents Sarah as a good example of a submissive wife, it must be true that God did not consider it to be sin that she, in obedience to her husband, told lies and had sex with another man. On the contrary, God considered her behavior “right” and thus praiseworthy.

  43. Coloradomtnman says:

    It is Zeebandeh Abedini in the photograph at the airport in Boise. (His sister)

  44. Looking Glass says:

    What are the odds that the income for the last several years is actually in Naghmeh’s name and not Saeed’s? And how might that complicate the potential child support issues?

  45. Pingback: Boundaries | Reaction Times

  46. Minesweeper says:

    Look at this man, can’t you just feel abused over the internet ? /sarc

    and here is the lying wife, rejoicing on camera while planning his devistation :

  47. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Looking Glass Naghmeh also received at least $175,000 to buy a house from a group headed by Merrily Hagerman and funds from many small churches across the country.

  48. Neguy says:

    Dalrock, you say,

    Submission means washing your husband in the water of the word, just as headship now means winning your wife over without a word.

    This is actually literally the case in Tim Keller’s marriage book. Here’s the relevant quote:

    We should again observe that in Ephesians 5:22ff, Paul only tells husbands to sacrificially commit to the spiritual growth of their wives and see them through to her future glory-selves. He doesn’t give this duty to wives, and this has caused some readers to be confused. But as we have made clear, all Christians are to confess sins to each other, hold each other accountable for growth, serve and exhort each other. Ephesians 5 can’t mean wives can do this for every other Christian except their husbands. Though this is only speculation, I propose that Paul singles out husbands here a) because they were less likely to do this duty than their wives, and/or because b) Paul holds them more responsible if the marriage fails to enhance the spiritual growth of both partners.

  49. Splashman says:

    Neguy, BBcode doesn’t work on WordPress sites like this one; use HTML tags instead. For indenting quotes, use <blockquote> and </blockquote>

    [D: Fixed.]

  50. enrique says:

    I like how now, “Porn” has been elevated by idiot Christians to be on par with “sexual abuse”, to a degree now that someone has to (gasp) admit or deny to it’s consumption. I’m not saying it is part of a healthy life, but the fact that they put this on par with ACTUAL abuse…like this man went through.

    Did Neghmeh falsely allege “sexual abuse” to make herself into a ‘victim’ on par with husband and *actual* torture victim Saeed Abedini?

  51. enrique says:

    From his Wikipedia page (Talk section):

    Naghmeh Abedini[edit]
    I have deleted some personal information about Saedd Abedini’s wife. I don’t see it as relevant to the article, and she is not a public figure. I think WP:NPF advises against such content. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  52. pancakeloach says:

    +1 on Splashman’s Genesis application. The Biblical model of wifely submission is of a woman who submitted to being pimped out by her fearful husband, TWICE, and whose husband came thiiiiiiiiiiiiis close to killing her long-awaited miracle child in human sacrifice.

    Porn addiction? Verbal abuse? What do these women think they’re going to say to God, in front of Sarah, about how “justified” their sinful divorces were? And that’s only if they don’t get the door slammed in their faces a la Matthew 25.

  53. feeriker says:

    What do these women think they’re going to say to God, in front of Sarah, about how “justified” their sinful divorces were? And that’s only if they don’t get the door slammed in their faces a la Matthew 25.

    I really don’t think any of them have thought that far ahead. Or, they just don’t really believe in anything the Bible has to say on that subject.

  54. Eugene C. says:

    I like the way King Ahasuerus consulted his Lawyers before kicking Vashti to the curb. Maybe he wanted to make sure his prenup was rock solid before he sent her on her way.

  55. patchasaurus says:

    TWO buzzwords, actually; BOUNDARIES and the companion button of ENABLING. Trust me gents, if your wife is speaking this language, get ready for armageddon because there is little to nothing you have to combat this and you can only secure yourself and, with steadfast and unflinching combat, your children. She is armed with pop psych, twelve steps, public tide and the weight of your whole church against you.

  56. patchasaurus says:

    I do not disparage the Word of God here. Of course this is the only weapon at your side, but it has no impact against the foes I describe above, at least not in this life. save your children and yourself

  57. patchasaurus says:

    I PETER 3:13-17 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

  58. patchasaurus says:

    Just for fun, use a good concordance and reference the words “boundaries” and “enabling” for use in the Scriptures. You will find that boundaries, at least in regard to love, relationship and union among believers, is antichrist. A couple of psych churchians coined the term for a book about a decade ago and have been milking it for all it’s worth. Pure self-empowerment babble to justify defiance of Biblical mandates is all it is.

  59. Opus says:

    @enrique

    I am intrigued to learn that you are one of the Wiki editors. As such may I suggest the following amendment to Saeed Abedini’s page. Near the top right hand corner his nationality is said to be Iranian American. If he has dual nationality an ampersand needs to be inserted. If not he must be one or the other – either American or Iranian – for I know of no country named Iran America. Can you help?

    Although I could not see it on the said page, I would have been intrigued to learn whether Mrs Abedini is a native born American or – like her husband – Iranian born.

  60. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feeriker: “I really don’t think any of them have thought that far ahead. Or, they just don’t really believe in anything the Bible has to say on that subject.”

    I met a Christian (Protestant) woman who believed in a loving God. A non-judgmental God. A God of forgiveness and acceptance. Her idea of God resembled Mr. Rogers. God loved her just the way she is.

    Such women have misinterpreted the Bible so that they think that nothing is expected of them. Once they accept Jesus, they are forgiven anything they have done — or will do. No matter what, God loves and accepts them, and will welcome them into Heaven.

    This woman also complained to me about people “who have the word, but not the spirit.” Unlike her.

    So that’s how these women think. God loves and forgives them anything. But any man (or woman) who offends them, “they have the word, but not the spirit” (i.e., they’re not true Christians, so they will be punished).

  61. Jim says:

    “Such women have misinterpreted the Bible so that they think that nothing is expected of them.”

    Well of course. She’s a woman. The vast majority of these silly creatures are so arrogant they think even God Himself should have zero expectations of them. She’s NOT going to worship a God that requires any work, responsibility, obedience and the ability to look in the mirror. I’m betting that she wants God to be her bitch just like she does with the men in her lives. IOW, it’s just another example of a serious overall problem we have in so-called Christianity these days.

  62. David J. says:

    Here’s the latest. Still short on actual details:

    Domestic abuse, national spotlight: Pastor’s wife speaks further about problems http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article57202263.html

  63. Scott says:

    Good catch, Dalrock on the bizarre abuse of the word “boundaries.”

    When I read her post the other day, this was the first word I keyed on. It is one that arguably at one point had a meaningful use in relationships.

    Theoretically, everyone has the right to assert their boundaries, which are simply the line you draw to demarcate what you will not tolerate from another person.

    It is a trip wire, of sorts. Come this far but no further or there will be consequences.

    But if the triggering event is false, and “boundaries” are only allowed to be used by one sex, it is nothing more than a weapon to be used, cloaked in the language of a reasonable person.

  64. Tam the Bam says:

    “I love my husband
    If I’d have come out with a whopper like that when I was a kid, I’d have been told I was bound for the Big Bad Burny Fire when I died.

  65. Conflating not listening to a wife with not doing what she instructs is dishonest.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Speaking of God’s expectations of women — and of men — some Christians have this idea that one need only profess faith in Christ, and you’re Saved regardless of what you do from then on.

    I sometimes listen to The Jesus Christ Show here in Los Angeles: http://www.thejesuschristshow.com/

    The host is a self-professed “non-denominational Christian.” He says that once you profess Christ and are Saved, there is nothing that you can do to lose salvation. You’re Saved, period.

    I don’t know how representative he is of evangelical Christianity (which is what he sounds like), but his theology is in contrast to Catholicism, which emphasizes the need for persistence in keeping up with the Sacraments (mass and penance), prayer, good works, reading scripture, etc. Catholicism teaches that one can pass back and forth, from a state of grace to a state of sin (venal or mortal), and the state of one’s soul at the time of death is crucial in determining whether you are saved or not.

    If some Christians believe that you need only profess Christ, and you’re saved no matter what you do from then on, well, then I can see why some Christian women see no reason to change their behavior.

  67. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    I’m going to challenge you a bit here because I feel after several years I “know” you and have even influenced your own connecting policy.

    In light of where the “conflating” red herring connect is likely to take this thread. (It’s very predictable).

    Why did you let that one through?

  68. Scott says:

    “Connect” should of course be “comment.”

  69. Scott says:

    RPL-

    The doctrine is called “eternal security” (pejoratively “once saved, always saved.”)

    It is one of named doctrines in the Westminister Confession of Faith and logically sound (in the internal consistency sense).

    However, it is ultimately dismissed as heresy. And, as you pointed out, the second and third order effects are disastrous.

  70. FD says:

    You crushed it today. My wife filed for divorce a year ago and now her attorney is pursuing cash and prizes including lifetime alimony for a woman with two masters degrees who has only worked part time since establishing a second household a year and a half ago. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the word boundaries in the last few years.

    In the interest of full disclosure I did behave very badly. However I don’t think I did anything to break the marriage covenant.

  71. Scott says:

    It is common to all denominations that adhere to WCF, which is quite a large number.

    To the extent that it is preached systematically from the pulpit, I have no idea.

  72. JDG says:

    Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:
    January 29, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Conflating not listening to a wife with not doing what she instructs is dishonest.

    Insinuating that conflating has occurred when it has not is deceiving, manipulative, and misleading, all of which are dishonest.

  73. enrique says:

    Opus

    I am NOT a wikipedia editor, I was posting what I read in the TALK section of his wiki page, because I thought it was funny someone would “edit” her stuff a few days ago and say “she’s not a public figure”

    Not sure how how you got the impression I was the one when I was POSTING it as an FYI. Did the entire point of the post escape you bro?

    SHE’S NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE? After she has been posting all these things, accepting money, as I understand, from the public, and made herself VERY MUCH a public figure?

    So the next question, and I have no idea who or how to edit Wiki or how someone becomes one…the question is, WHO would edit out info about her?

    In other words, was/is this part of a rolling public relations effort. To say she is NOT a public figure?

  74. feeriker says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    January 29, 2016 at 3:32 am

    The “Personal Jesus” in action. Needless to say, he has pretty much completely replaced the Real Jesus.

  75. feeriker says:

    Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:
    January 29, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Guys, some trolls shouldn’t be fed. This is clearly one of them.

  76. feeriker says:

    SHE’S NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE? After she has been posting all these things, accepting money, as I understand, from the public, and made herself VERY MUCH a public figure?

    Hilarious. You have to love how attention whores delude themselves into thinking that “privacy” is something optional that they can turn on and off whenever it suits them, rather than something that they’ve given up completely and irreversibly once they’ve splattered themselves and every minute detail of their lives all over cyberspace.

    It’s especially hilarious –and tragic– how those who are most addicted to social media (read: women) have almost ZE-RO understanding of their full ramifications.

  77. enrique says:

    According to the Idaho Statesmen, he plead guilty to a 2007 DV charge. Now, it is true that a lot of them are crap charges and people plead all the time to avoid other things, but I think that does support her claim that he has done this in the past. The weight of her claim(s) however, should be measure against a fair reading of what the 2007 incident was. I’ve known of guys who got arrested because they and their wife got into a yelling spat, she calls the cops and they arrest him because he didn’t “calm down”.

    What I still don’t get is, if all that was true (almost ten year ago), why would she resurrect any of it a decade later while he is imprisoned, unless there was some OTHER reason. Like victimhood, money, public approval.

    Let’s see what he says, when he has the opportunity. Because if he did do such things, then he should admit to it, or otherwise if he didn’t (since 2007) he should absolutely defend himself.

  78. Looking Glass says:

    @RPL:

    It’s the flipside response to where a lot of Catholic doctrine had gotten around the era of the Reformation. Though it’s really just a more modern example of the Pharisee/Sadducee split. Same logical problems, when the theology is really, stupidly simple.

    Your Salvation cannot be taken from you. (Romans 8) But you can chose to throw it away. (Revelation 22:19) And the book of 1 John exists to help sort out the details.

    This was *never* hard. It’s human arrogance that makes it hard. It’s the human need to delineate God with guidelines that makes it hard. It is the basic human desire to put ourselves before God that makes it hard.

    And that’s why Christianity is hard: because we are not God and we will try to damn ourselves to be.

  79. FD says:

    According to http://www.religionnews.com/2015/11/20/imprisoned-pastors-wife-kept-marital-abuse-secret-now/

    The abuse began two years before they were married and grew worse while he was in prison. So why marry him if he abused her? How does abuse grow worse when he is in prison?

  80. Looking Glass says:

    @enrique:

    There was one finding with Saeed someone found, but it was sealed by court order. And that seems to have been very recent. Which could explain what is going on: she had the case sealed so she could lie about it.

    Does Idaho have the “if someone, even a neighbor calls the cops, someone has to be arrested” laws?

  81. enrique says:

    What was recent, a 2007 charge? That’s almost a decade ago.

    I don’t know what the details are, but they may very well have had problems, but it still does not explain why they have come up now…how did they not come up back when he was “pastoring” PRIOR to his going back to Iran and being arrested.

    Btw, I guess someone could claim, “look, the guy was arrested for attempting to overthrow the Iranian government..of COURSE he can’t be trusted” LOL.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Splashman

    I wonder what Driscoll’s take would be on Sarah’s obedience to her husband Abraham in Genesis 12 and in Genesis 20?

    When teaching 1 Pet 3:1-6 Driscoll explained that Peter referenced Sarah not as an example to follow, but as an example of how wives get it wrong. I covered that sermon here, but here is the relevant quote:

    Additionally, he [Abraham] is the one who said “Uh oh I’m going to get hurt, lets lie to this person and then you go with them and then pretend that we are sister and brother” and she went along with it twice.

    And its always bothered me, why would he say, “ladies look to Sarah”? Couldn’t we find someone better, ie Ruth? But see Sarah was the mother of the nation of Israel, and I think he in his wisdom, as I meditated on this, I realized, there is a good strategic reason that God put Sarah in the Bible, not because she is perfect, but because she is imperfect.

    What he [Peter] is saying is this: Ladies, you aren’t always going to be a perfect wife, Sarah wasn’t. You are not going to always give good counsel, Sarah didn’t. Sometimes you are going to follow your husband when you shouldn’t, because he is not following God. That is what Sarah did on more than one occasion. And sometimes you will not follow your husband when he is following God, and that is what Sarah did as well. That she was a godly woman but an imperfect woman, and if you look at the totality of her life you will see a godly woman but if you look at segments and occasions in her life, you will see a woman who made some tragic mistakes. And she committed some actual sins. And that’s hope for you women, you don’t expect to be perfect but you hope to make progress by the grace of God.

  83. Coloradomtnman says:

    @enrique says:
    January 29, 2016 at 8:05 am
    “According to the Idaho Statesmen, he plead guilty to a 2007 DV charge. Now, it is true that a lot of them are crap charges and people plead all the time to avoid other things, but I think that does support her claim that he has done this in the past. The weight of her claim(s) however, should be measure against a fair reading of what the 2007 incident was. I’ve known of guys who got arrested because they and their wife got into a yelling spat, she calls the cops and they arrest him because he didn’t “calm down”.”

    Idaho and Colorado are identical in that if someone calls 911 – someone is going to jail. In Colorado the numbers are 94% male going to jail over the past fifteen years. In my case I spent the night in jail, had a mandatory/automatic TRO and had to stay away from the kids and home for 72 hours. I hired an attorney and the charges were dropped by the assistant DA. In Colorado the most likely outcome for my scenario is the perp takes the plea bargain and receives a deferred sentence and probation. In Saeed’s case he was likely advised to take the plea and continue living with her to serve his penance by his fellow pastors, Board Members and ‘friends.’

    “What I still don’t get is, if all that was true (almost ten year ago), why would she resurrect any of it a decade later while he is imprisoned, unless there was some OTHER reason. Like victimhood, money, public approval.”

    Not to be in any way disrespectful but the answer to this is obvious in that her calling 911 and him being arrested and spending a night or couple nights in jail is the ‘shot across the bow.’ Him accepting the plea and now having a criminal record becomes the lifetime hammer that can be used at the whim of the spouse to enforce ‘Boundaries.’ Neghmeh is a manipulator and a fraud – ding ding ding!

    As to the sealed record, in Ada County he was able to go before a magistrate to request his record be sealed and as long as the accuser does not testify against you it is approved. He did this….

    He can beat the wrap on this whole shenanigan to maintain 50/50 custody of his kids but he IS getting a divorce and he IS going to have to fight in Court. I hope he also comes out publicly and shines the light of Christ back on the entire situation, that’s his best move.

    The motive behind this if you rise above it is evil. You have a pastor / Believer that spent 3 1/2 years in a foreign prison due to his Christian beliefs and upon his release the focus is not on Jesus but instead on a narcissistic imposter that has been posing as his Biblical wife.

    My prayer is that the Truth will prevail, the tricks and lies of the enemy be exposed and His perfect will be done.

  84. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Looking Glass

    “Which could explain what is going on: she had the case sealed so she could lie about it.”

    Nope, he had the case sealed. As the accused it can be shameful and it is intended to be. The simple fact that you were arrested and incarcerated is flagged on background checks which include coaching, employment and volunteering. Just last month I had to revisit the experience from ten years ago in an interview. It’s a heckuva hammer and again I was simply charged and not convicted.

    I prefer to stick to the facts but I’ll speculate for a moment that somewhere in their communications over the Summer/Fall of 2015 it became apparent that Nag-me wasn’t excited about him coming home and liked life the way it was. Finances to live, a public platform, thousands of women telling her every day how she is their ‘inspiration’ and ‘hero’ and that Saeed coming home was going to change all of that. Queue step one of the Script!

  85. enrique says:

    that makes sense. He definitely needs to defend himself, regardless of a charge nearly a decade ago, if all this new stuff is BS.

    The whole porn/sexual abuse thing, isn’t a civil law matter…maybe biblical, but even with our feminized judges/legislatures, I have not heard of that being the basis for a sexual abuse charge…yet.

  86. Out of Nod says:

    Ah the Esther series…that takes me back. If I remember the context, Mark prefaced it that Xerxes wanted to parade her around at a party rather inappropriately. I remember the men were laughing and the ladies were cheering after that quip.

  87. sonofdeathswriter says:

    Explains a bit about marriages these days.

  88. >What I still don’t get is, if all that was true (almost ten year ago), why would she resurrect any of it a decade later while he is imprisoned, unless there was some OTHER reason. Like victimhood, money, public approval.

    Let me be as crude as I feel- she is doing this for fresh dick. Full Stop. Women do NOT act like this unless they have their little monkey paw firmly on the next branch. Instead of a legal defense fund, we should have a legal investigator fund to track Nag-Me and her slutty ways. Hopefully her new pastor boyfriend will dump her shortly before the divorce is finalized.

  89. enrique says:

    Bluepillprof, if that were the case (and perhaps it is), you can bet all will be forgiven by “the Church”.

  90. Dalrock says:

    @enrique

    According to the Idaho Statesmen, he plead guilty to a 2007 DV charge. Now, it is true that a lot of them are crap charges and people plead all the time to avoid other things, but I think that does support her claim that he has done this in the past. The weight of her claim(s) however, should be measure against a fair reading of what the 2007 incident was. I’ve known of guys who got arrested because they and their wife got into a yelling spat, she calls the cops and they arrest him because he didn’t “calm down”.

    What I still don’t get is, if all that was true (almost ten year ago), why would she resurrect any of it a decade later while he is imprisoned, unless there was some OTHER reason. Like victimhood, money, public approval.

    She has made it clear that she was angry with Saeed and very emotional when she wrote the emails. Obviously she was lashing out. According to Naghmeh her intent was to tell a small number of confidants what a bad husband Saeed is, and then quietly stop advocating for his release. When someone leaked this to the press, she followed through on her plan to stop advocating and switched to preaching to her facebook followers. Even if the 2007 case turns out to be legit (and it could), the claim that he was sexually abusing her by viewing pornography, as well as the claim that he was abusing her from prison in Iran are still absurd. Had she only made the claim that he abused her before he went to prison, while he was still in prison (and she was responsible for the PR campaign to get him released) this would be despicable; there was no threat to her or the children, and she didn’t even claim this was why she was telling them about Saeed. She said she wanted them to know, because she felt like she was living a lie by not telling these things about Saeed. That she did this in addition to making the other two absurd accusations only makes it worse. Moreover, she says the abuse got worse after he was in prison, meaning that whatever he plead guilty to in 2007, it was less serious than an angry phone call from prison. This may also prove to be untrue, but for the time being this is what we have.

    Lastly, her strongest claim of abuse so far is that he threatened divorce and the attendant harm to the kids if she didn’t do as he said. This is her justification for hiring a divorce lawyer and filing against him in family court, in order to get him to do what she wants (go to counseling). Feminists have weaved a masterful web, because they want to make it all or nothing. Either you condone real abuse, or you invert the roles of headship and submission. If Saeed tells Naghmeh she needs to submit or he will divorce, that is abuse. If Naghmeh tells Saeed he needs to submit or she will divorce, she is in the right because he is an abuser (for doing the same thing to a lesser degree) and wives are supposed to set boundaries and enact consequences for their husbands. See the Idaho Statesman for this exact frame of mind. The whole thing is how women need to be empowered.

    Let’s see what he says, when he has the opportunity. Because if he did do such things, then he should admit to it, or otherwise if he didn’t (since 2007) he should absolutely defend himself.

    Agreed.

  91. Bdawg16 says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feeriker: “I really don’t think any of them have thought that far ahead. Or, they just don’t really believe in anything the Bible has to say on that subject.”

    “I met a Christian (Protestant) woman who believed in a loving God. A non-judgmental God. A God of forgiveness and acceptance. Her idea of God resembled Mr. Rogers. God loved her just the way she is.”
    “Such women have misinterpreted the Bible so that they think that nothing is expected of them. Once they accept Jesus, they are forgiven anything they have done — or will do. No matter what, God loves and accepts them, and will welcome them into Heaven.”

    That “gospel” comes straight out of the book of Oprah or perhaps, the “Queen of Heaven” translation that feminists and their blue pill mangina pastors preach from every week.

    Man did you nail that one. I couldn’t have possibly stated this heresy any clearer than you did. And the sad part of that mentality is the majority of professing evangelical pastors spew this filth out in the pulpits every week. I challenged a local pastor on this recently, in a non-confrontational way over a cup of coffee. He looked at me as if I was Satan himself.

    Thankfully, there are a few men of God who are fighting against this false doctrine, but they are outside of the “mainstream”. And that’s fine. God is sovereign and He can do mighty works through even one faithful servant if He so chooses to.

  92. Dalrock says:

    @Katharine_Di_Cerbo

    Conflating not listening to a wife with not doing what she instructs is dishonest.

    This is how complementarians use the term. Yes it is dishonest when they use it this way, but the fact remains that they do so. SunshineThiry originally objected to this assertion as well, but when she went looking to disprove it she ended up instead finding multiple examples proving my point.

  93. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Theoretically, everyone has the right to assert their boundaries, which are simply the line you draw to demarcate what you will not tolerate from another person.

    It is a trip wire, of sorts. Come this far but no further or there will be consequences.

    But if the triggering event is false, and “boundaries” are only allowed to be used by one sex, it is nothing more than a weapon to be used, cloaked in the language of a reasonable person.

    This is the egalitarian argument, and I’m surprised to see you making it. What you are saying is that husbands and wives both need to set boundaries and enact consequences on each other as part of Christian marriage. I assume you already know the Scripture which contradicts this, but if not I’ll be happy to point to it. Could you point me to the Scripture that supports this egalitarian position?

  94. Scott says:

    This is the egalitarian argument, and I’m surprised to see you making it. What you are saying is that husbands and wives both need to set boundaries and enact consequences on each other as part of Christian marriage. I assume you already know the Scripture which contradicts this, but if not I’ll be happy to point to it. Could you point me to the Scripture that supports this egalitarian position?

    Sorry, that wasn’t clear. I was not arguing in favor of it, just pointing out how the theoretical logic of it is supposed to work.

  95. Dalrock says:

    Got it. Thanks Scott.

  96. @Katharine Templateblog

    Conflating not listening to a wife with not doing what she instructs is dishonest.

    Conflating women’s imperatives with the will of the Holy Spirit is even more dishonest.

    In fact, it’s like creating a whole new religion.

  97. Caspar Reyes says:

    It’s like creating a whole new religion.

    There’s nothing new under the sun. You might argue that it’s the original false religion. There is not a daughter of Eve who ever lived that did not believe in her heart of hearts that her feelings were a better gauge of right and wrong than the Scriptures.

    Conflating not listening to a wife with not doing what she instructs is dishonest.

    It’s dishonest to ignore that a wife will rarely “instruct” directly, as a man might. She is more likely instead to use passive aggression, hints, tears, tantrums, threatpoints, and all the other tools she has in her toolbox to exercise influence while retaining plausible deniability (“I didn’t FORCE you to do it my way, O my husband. You, after all, are the decision maker in this house.”) She will cynically work the “happy wife = happy life” angle, leveraging a man’s natural inclination to please his wife, which he will follow to the point of self-destruction.

    All the egalitarian arguments on the planet come down to giving authority to the spouse who is a) the weaker vessel, and b) fundamentally deceived. There is a reason the Good Lord created the husband for headship.

  98. Scott says:

    Got it. Thanks Scott

    Nope– it’s a good thing you caught it. Reading back over it, it looks like I was making the egalitarian case. I probably should have put a few more lines there.

    I point of fact, I was trying to show that there is no such thing as egalitarianism in practice.

    I have noticed this since my earliest days as a therapist.

  99. Scott says:

    I probably should not be making blog comments at 0430 before I have had any coffee or PT.

  100. TomG says:

    When a wife files for divorce, she is no longer a wife and he is under no obligation to ever listen to her nags. The boundaries are lifted. Regardless of whether this is a Christian marriage (which it clearly is not), the establishment of boundaries in this context is fraudulent. She can have her divorce and her lies. Getting out of jail becomes a two for one deal.

  101. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock & Scott:

    While the “boundaries” bit did jump out at my in the originally quoted passages, it was only after patchasaurus mentioned it that I started thinking about what was going on. And how insanely perverse they’ve made the topic.

    The Churchians have corrupted a set of concepts that came from Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12-Step Program. “Boundaries”, in that context, is a way of helping someone establish both self-control and respect for others. It was wholly designed as a process to help people that really have broken themselves. Which would explain why the Churchians would infest it, “converge” it and otherwise make anything useful from it non-active.

    I wish I had caught that bit a while ago. That’s really sad.

  102. Looking Glass says:

    Also, the Churchians would have very little in the way of required mental gymnastics to insert a perverse “boundaries” definition in the Bible, seeing as the Apostle Paul directly deals with “in-Church” and pagan spheres. They would then apply this logic to the Roles & Responsibilities within Marriage and call those “boundaries”. In a general sense they wouldn’t be “wrong”, but the spirit of their actions has nothing to do with understanding what the Lord means. It’s the classic definition shift trick.

  103. Jim says:

    “Scott says:
    January 29, 2016 at 11:15 am
    I have noticed this since my earliest days as a therapist.”

    Could you elaborate on that?

  104. nick012000 says:

    @Dalrock: To be fair, the idea that people have boundaries not necessarily an egalitarian one. Everyone has things that they like and dislike; things that they’ll happily do, things that they don’t like but they’ll do because they need to, and things that they dislike but will do if they’re made to, and things that they’ll absolutely refuse to do. A part of being a leader is knowing where your subordinate draws those lines, and how much you’re able to push them before it starts to affect morale. As Douglas MacArthur told his officers, “Never give an order that can’t be obeyed.”

  105. Caspar Reyes says:

    Paraphrasing from another forum, a commenter writes:

    Saeed not staying for two-weeks of counseling with Franklin Graham tells me what’s really going on.

    What does anyone know about this counseling?

    Another commenter writes:

    I asked a friend in Iran, who said he had sexual misconduct in Iran but did not say why, but it was bad. Then they translated an article saying he was seducing women… He was never arrested for simply being Christian as a lot of people claimed… Iran had photos him with several women and many came foward accusing and admitting to sex behavior. You can find their stories on the Iranian websites…

    Aside from the third-hand hearsay from the Teheran Enquirer, to beg the question in the petitio principii sense, it seems to me that if the Iranians were clever enough they would accuse him of sexual misconduct instead of proselytizing, because that would damage his PR over here where he would surely otherwise get support. It’s no proof of anything, only a thought exercise.

  106. Dave says:

    feeriker: “I really don’t think any of them have thought that far ahead. Or, they just don’t really believe in anything the Bible has to say on that subject.”

    Many professed Christians are neither interested in knowing what the Bible says on most subjects, nor are they inclined to obey even when they know what is required of them.
    Artisanal Toad is a case in point. This man would almost twist the Scripture into a pretzel to make his point. The simple, pain bible is not good enough to be read, believed and believed.

  107. Scott says:

    Could you elaborate on that?

    I will. But I am in class today and using my phone for these comments.

    Let me consider writing a blog post at my site because I think is worthy, especially in light of sime other very thoughtful comments here today.

  108. Dave says:

    But even to the churchians, Nagmeh will have a hard time selling her abuse story once they begin to see and hear Saeed as he repeatedly narrates his ordeal in Iran.
    My prayer is that this woman gets her head right and reconciles to her husband. It won’t surprise me though if she has been seeing another man in her husband’s absence.

  109. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Any time I weaken a little, and ponder the possibility of marriage and begin to wonder if I’m missing out……..I come and read Dalrock. And instantly I’m woken from my daydream as though I were shooting multiple triple espressos. Thank you, Sir.

  110. How can you enforce boundaries when you cannot pluck the truth out because its a case of

    He Saeed, She Saeed

  111. Caspar Reyes says:

    More like Hear Saeed She Saeed

  112. Robert What? says:

    It sounds like modern Christianity in America is for empowering women to feel good about the things they wanted to do anyway, sinful or not. Amirite?

  113. Jim says:

    ” oldfashionedfellow says:
    January 29, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Any time I weaken a little, and ponder the possibility of marriage and begin to wonder if I’m missing out……..I come and read Dalrock.”

    Yup. No need to sell yourself into slavery. Stay unmarried and a free man. Much more dignified.

  114. enrique says:

    Good ones. “You Saeed you’d stand by my side until death”.

    FWIW, foreign intel ops usually include attempts to sexually compromise targeted individuals, so that would be nothing new, whether it succeeded or failed.

    As to reconciliation. There won’t be any, not long term at least.

    I don’t know about this “two week counseling” thing or whatever, but if he had an attorney (and I would assume his family has secured one for him now), unless it is something aligned with court requirements, any attorney would most likely advise against ex parte “counseling” as much as they would polygraphs. Too much can come out of it that you cannot control, and documentation may be made of any discussions that later will be subject to scrutiny, particularly if true client-patient or clergy exemptions do not apply or are challenged.

    Basically, you are never advised to start “talking” and laying down any type of narrative until further into the game.

  115. Robert What? says:

    @Oldfashionedfellow,

    You are benefitting from something (Dalrock and other RP bloggers) that we older guys wish was around back in the day.

  116. Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock

  117. feeriker says:

    “Conflating women’s imperatives with the will of the Holy Spirit is even more dishonest and blasphemous

    In fact, it’s like creating a whole new religion.”

    FIFY.

    But even to the churchians, Nagmeh will have a hard time selling her abuse story once they begin to see and hear Saeed as he repeatedly narrates his ordeal in Iran..

    You’re underestimating the power of the churchian hamster when it’s in full white knight mode. Saeed could not only be proved beyond any doubt absolutely innocent of all of Nagmeh’s accusations, but could also be armless and legless and would still be accused by the churchians doing everything Nagmeh claims. Because penis.

    Take a cursory read of anything ever written by Gary Smalley, Willard Harley, or any one of at least a dozen other “Christian marriage experts” of that ilk, runaway best-selling churchian authors all of them, and the theme is the same: husband=buffoonish abusive bastard who can do no right, wife=angel made in the purist image of God who can do no wrong and is a victim of her buffoonish abusive bastard husband.

  118. feeriker says:

    It sounds like modern Christianity in America is for empowering women to feel good about the things they wanted to do anyway, sinful or not. Amirite?

    Yessurite. That’s the only purpose any institution in America serves today. Why would the American church be any different?

  119. Dave says:

    Mark Driscoll’s stance praising Vashti over Esther is the clearest sign I’ve seen yet of which side he’s really on. He’ll be exemplifying Jezebel to christian women soon, if this keeps going the way it has. My word. And with no shame.

  120. Minesweeper says:

    @Dave, yeah, it really shows what a useless tool he is and understands NOTHING.

    I searched on Vashti, wikipedia came up, its full of a feminised article stating the King FORCED her to appear NAKED, which was why she rebelled. Yeah I called BS on that considering NOTHING in hebrew asserts to that fact.

    STRANGELY enough, my comments from wikipedia were “deleted”.

    So even referencing the original text in hebrew, is nothing compared to the all seeing and compassing FI. That which must always be obeyed.

  121. Minesweeper says:

    @Dave, Driscoll, is all about following Driscoll and paying him handsomely for the privilege.

    Thank God, he took him down and into pieces.

    The global body of Christ breathes a sigh of relief.

    Driscoll, if you are reading this, you are a tool beyond belief.

  122. Minesweeper says:

    @feeriker, she could turn up with multiple lovers in tow (who she had been with for years or more) , and he would still be the abuser.

    There is nothing, NOTHING, she could ever do in the eyes of the current church to be regarded as an abuser – ever.

  123. Jim says:

    “There is nothing, NOTHING, she could ever do in the eyes of the current church to be regarded as an abuser – ever.”

    It’s funny. I am actually seeing less gynocentrism in parts of the secular world than in the “Christian” realm. How pathetic is that? Christianity is largely gone. It’s really just nothing but feminism with a Christian stamp on it now.

  124. Scott says:

    I realize this thread has died down a bit, but I wanted to shed some light on the offender program as it is currently constituted in Idaho. It is important because this is the legal framework that our subject is working under.

    As most readers here know, the Duluth Model has been more or less codified into state law and Idaho is no exception. That particular state started its relationship with folks from that school of thought as early as 1982. And, like most states, an offender (who is effectively any man accused of Domestic Violence as most due process is dispensed with in the name of “victim safety.” It is in this murky water that men first begin to be dragged into the undertow of the Domestic Violence Batterers Intervention programs, which are administered by for-profit agencies and whose only clients are these men–ordered to be psychoeducational groups at their own expense (very convenient for the agencies that chose to go into partnership with the state).

    Here are the guidelines such agencies in Idaho MUST follow:

    http://icdv.idaho.gov/downloads/MinimumStandardsDVOffendeProgramsEd2011-1.pdf

    I am working on a post related to the issue of the use of the term “boundaries” as a therapeutic intervention over at my blog, but might be finished tonight. Just be on the look out for it in the next few days. It might be interesting to some.

  125. Pingback: Are “Boundaries” a way for BOTH husbands and wives to keep themselves from being abused? | Morally Contextualized Romance

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott, thanks for bringing the Duluth protocols in to this. Maybe I should start referring to that as the Protocols of the Elders of Duluth?

    Anyway, it’s always educational when you or others post on this. Because women who post in the androsphere typically just dont’t have a clue what a false accusation of DV really means to a man and to a family, and it’s important to rub some noses in reality from time to time.

    It really is amazing to me, even after years, to see how tiny a cabal it took to jam the Duluth protocol into the laws of state after state. Fewer than 1000 people, by my estimate. Maybe only 100, and every marriage in the US was changed by force.

  127. Pingback: Godly, crunchy marriage. | Dark Brightness

  128. Wayne Earl says:

    My Bible instructs that it is men’s responsibility to teach on spiritual matters, that women should not be teachers or in positions of authority. That it is the mans responsibility and duty to lead.

    If we men were doing what we have been commanded to do, would feminism even exist in the first place? Would marriage and divorce laws, domestic violence laws, et al exist as they do today?

    “Society” is nothing but a bunch of individual people. No feminist law can ever pass without male approval, even today, from a purely statistical vote counting standpoint.

    God’s expectations have not changed, and they are above and beyond the authority and reach of any family court law. Men are still completely and totally responsible for leadership and all that entails.

    Women today are only doing what confused children do when abandoned and left without protection, guidence, and discipline – they are doing the very best they can in a role they cannot ever fulfill. Every draconian law and sick and twisted feminist fantasy experiment comes directly from this fact.

    Men have failed. And our homes, lives, families, and communities will continue to fail until we restore ourselves to our rightful places. Men are completely, totally, and absolutely responsible for this failure, this evil refusal to act in a manner according to the beliefs we claim to have.

  129. Oh sure, men are to blame, always, yay! Women have no responsibility for anything. You first Wayne. Go and be a real man and tell the state that you want the authority in your house and community. We’ll be waiting, real man!

  130. God’s expectations have not changed, and they are above and beyond the authority and reach of any family court law. Men are still completely and totally responsible for leadership and all that entails.

    Oh, screw you, you pompous git. You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink. Same for women, she must first submit before any leadership can be given. Women decided to submit to the state, they wanted it and got it.

    You just list all the ways that men can act. Don’t be coy, make real suggestions or go away.

  131. If we men were doing what we have been commanded to do, would feminism even exist in the first place? Would marriage and divorce laws, domestic violence laws, et al exist as they do today?

    Yes, all these laws exist not because men didn’t do those things they were supposed to but because they were ultimately too successful in providing a stable environment where women had more free time and more energy to spend on being rebellious.

    Your fight is with the state, an entity that uses a woman’s rebellion towards her husband as a means to control him. Now, if you can provide men a means to fight against the state and its power over the family unit, be our guest, till then, the best move is not to play.

  132. Dave says:

    @Wayne Earl,

    “Men are completely, totally, and absolutely responsible for this failure…”

    Sounds like a noble sentiment you have going there… but noble in the way of white knights. The attitude of placing all blame on men for the mistakes of women is a very common reaction of feminists when they find themselves unable to disprove that their actions were erroneous (the same principle is at work when an adulteress claims her husband caused her to cheat by working too much/not making her feel loved/etc.).

    The truth is, yes, we men are responsible to lead. However the follower also has the right to choose not to follow. A child may choose to no longer obey their parents, to the extent that even ordinary forms of discipline fail to persuade him/her otherwise. In the Old Testament, such a child would be handed a death sentence (but thankfully we are past those days). The same went for adultery. While the adulterous man was in rebellion to God, the adulterous woman was in rebellion both to God and to her husband. Rebellion from authority beyond the point of correction tended to be addressed only by the death sentence. I emphasise this because I want to stress that it is possible for someone to choose to be rebellious to the point where even their leaders can do nothing about it, but must just let them go.

    In the case of feminism, I would blame neither men nor women. Instead the blame rests first on those spirits who manipulate human affairs, often making each party believe the other party is at fault (read Ephesians 6:12). It takes such an influence in government to enact laws that are contrary to God’s; it takes such an influence in a woman to seek out of the rulership of her husband; and such an influence in a man to supplicate to his wife’s leadership; and it takes such an influence in men and women to teach an entire generation that masculinity is evil and should be crushed, femininity is divine and should be obeyed, etc. etc. and thus bring about the mess that we have today. Yes, lots and lots of wrongly-influenced men and women. Granted, many of those were sincere and well-meaning, and were just duped into compromising just a little on God’s Word, (but then again so was Eve), so that is why I prefer to leave the blame in the spiritual realm and move forward in a manner that frees me up to love the sinner as myself, even if that sinner is my enemy. At the end of the day, if a family-destroying misandrist and his righteously-indignant opponent face the judgement, and hatred is found in the latter’s heart toward the sinner rather than the sin, both will end up sharing the same fate….

    If anyone was offended by anything I’ve said above, as your fellow sinner I sincerely apologise.

  133. Dave says:

    @Wayne Earl,

    “Men are completely, totally, and absolutely responsible for this failure…”

    Sounds like a noble sentiment you have going there… but noble in the way of white knights. The attitude of placing all blame on men for the mistakes of women is a very common reaction of feminists when they find themselves unable to disprove that their actions were erroneous (the same principle is at work when an adulteress claims her husband caused her to cheat by working too much/not making her feel loved/etc.).

    The truth is, yes, we men are responsible to lead. However the follower also has the right to choose not to follow. A child may choose to no longer obey their parents, to the extent that even ordinary forms of discipline fail to persuade him/her otherwise. In the Old Testament, such a child would be handed a death sentence (but thankfully we are past those days). The same went for adultery. While the adulterous man was in rebellion to God, the adulterous woman was in rebellion both to God and to her husband. Rebellion from authority beyond the point of correction tended to be addressed only by the death sentence. I emphasise this because I want to stress that it is possible for someone to choose to be rebellious to the point where even their leaders can do nothing about it, but must just let them go. Placing all blame on men seems to be just another ploy to absolve women of responsibility for their actions, an outcome that the FI is obsessed with attaining in our time.

  134. Dave says:

    Oops. I guess my previous edit also made it in.

  135. nick012000 says:

    >Now, if you can provide men a means to fight against the state and its power over the family unit, be our guest, till then, the best move is not to play.

    Okay. First, you mix together 19 parts fertilizer with 1 part diesel fuel…😉

  136. dasheththylittleonesagainstthestones says:

    Saeed pleaded guilty to domestic violence in 2007. Does crow taste like chicken? http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article57202263.html

  137. David J. says:

    @dash(etc.): You’re a couple days behind. Also, did you note that the plea was to a misdemeanor charge that resulted only in probation? And do you know the specifics of what happened? Under Idaho law (https://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH9SECT18-918.htm), misdemeanor “domestic violence” means there was no injury at all but only “assault,” which is defined to include merely a verbal threat. I’m certainly interested to know the details of what happened, but in the absence of those details, we know that she was not injured in any way and It’s entirely possible, if not likely, that she called the cops on him for little or nothing and he pled out to avoid a battle in a biased court or to avoid airing their dirty laundry (about which she has no compunction).

  138. Opus says:

    I, as some people know, used to spend too much of my life representing wives seeking protection from their violent husbands. Not that I ever saw a bruise never mind a cut or medical certificate in support thereof and was driven to the conclusion that the allegations were either non-existent or deliberately provoked for the purpose. Studies backed-up by personal questioning of acquaintances show that the majority of DV is in fact female on male but no man ever seeks legal redress. It may, of course, be different in the State of Idaho.

  139. greyghost says:

    but no man ever seeks legal redress.

    The reason being those DV laws are not enforced when the male is a victim and the fact that any attempt even locking oneself in a bathroom will mean the male will be charged and convicted. Ironically men that understand this and behave in a way to be “legal” are weak and unattractive to women. She loses respect for the man (gina tingle) and we have another divorce coming. Sooner or later the man will find himself labeled an abuser and the process of kicking him out and taking his children and money begins. All fully enforced by the gun of government. Being a committed family man is a criminal offence when she says it is, his conduct and behavior in a civilized society has no bearing. No man by law heads any household and everybody knows it. even the guys in good marriages know it.

  140. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever plead guilty to a crime. Never, make the state prove it. Rather remain silent. That is the one best piece of advice I could ever give an accused.

  141. Well, since abuse laws and what counts as abuse are so ridiculous these days, never mind the 14 years a man can get in Britain for the crime of disagreeing with a woman, I think Saeed probably had the exact same accusations leveled at him then as are being leveled at him now. The absurdity of it all just reaffirms my resolve to not marry.

  142. Minesweeper says:

    @feministhater says:
    “Well, since abuse laws and what counts as abuse are so ridiculous these days, never mind the 14 years a man can get in Britain for the crime of disagreeing with a woman,”

    Yup, thanks yanks for giving us your VAWA virus. I know the brits tend to bend over backwards when told to by the US (for invading innocent lands etc), but this is getting ridiculous.

  143. Minesweeper says:

    Opus. but its the emotional wounds that you never see, its still violence. /sarc….

    Ive yet to meet a husband who hasnt been on the receiving end of either wify assault, restrained her from assaulting or screaming levels of emotional abuse.

    Yet on the blogs and forums discussing Saeed there appears to be a never ending parade of abused women, not a single man saying the opposite.

    Now that we have the new abuse laws, and being a lawyer can you detail what are the ramifications ?

  144. Opus says:

    @minesweeper

    It is a long time since I practiced any Matrimonial Law (thank god) so I have no idea what is happening or might yet happen. All I can say is that D.V. and consequent marital breakdown was never the serious matter that I understand it to be in the United States nor are alimony and child support as pernicious and so I assume that that continues to be the case.

    Divorce Law is however a (woman) racket.

  145. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Scott,

    That Idaho DV document outlines a program that meets its own criteria for abusive relationships. The remorselessness and mercilessness of it are astonishing, especially when a poor victim only has to whisper the magic word and call the three magic numbers to gain every bit of available sympathy and run an “offender” through that machinery. The discussions are fraught with Newspeak and maudlin emotionalism, so that dissent or objective examination is impossible. You can’t fight it from without, and you can’t fight it from within, because to get in, you have to agree to it.

    The basis of Saeed’s negative public perception is that he has a DV record and pled guilty. An “offender” caught up in the program will toe the line and nod his head just so it will be over with, pleading guilty and submitting himself to the reeducation program to avoid jail time. I wonder if Nagmeh hit him with a frying pan. Maybe he had even preached from his own pulpit the idea that a wife would do that only because she did not feel validated by her husband. Maybe in the spirit of protectiveness and magnanimity he thought “if I take the fall on this one then it will win her heart.”

    Maybe he went to back Iran to escape an abusive relationship.

  146. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Opus The previous DV charge and his acceptance of a plea bargain are next to irrelevant as to what happens now – legally. It’s been nine years and he did not have a subsequent arrest or charge, only in Amerika would he be called a ‘convicted abuser.’ For the record to be sealed in Idaho he had to appear before an Ada County Magistrate to appeal for the record to be sealed. This likely took place ~2008. At that time the accuser (Nagmeh) or anyone else was presented the opportunity to contest or speak about their abuse and how it impacted them. (Think of a parole hearing) There’s no way an Ada County Magistrate sealed the record above objection; it didn’t happen.

    He still had to list the ‘arrest’ and ‘charge’ on any job applications or background check documents. The value of sealing the case is that the 9-1-1 transcript, the notes of the police officer and the other accusations are likely very embarassing for both parties. DV is rarely one dude beating on his wife as most people are fully aware and this is usually captured in police reports and pre-trial interview notes.

    What happens next is a hearing date is set for the TRO’s (likely already done) and a Magistrate – Judy Jurries rules. She will likely provide full custody of the children with supervised visitation to Nagmeh and he will be ordered out of the marital home unless she wants him there. Nagmeh didn’t wake up a week ago and come up with this plan so the marital home is already titled in her name – the one given to her via fundraiser – and the families funds are likely already in a sole account in her name. Money is fair game prior to the filing of the motion for Legal Separation so she was able to do whatever she wanted with any funds prior. Since he was in Iran, he was in no position to do otherwise.

    Saeed is likely going to be staying with his parents at a Residence Inn or friends at his church on their couch while the machine grinds him. Hopefully he has secured counsel.

  147. Scott says:

    Caspar-

    Yes, as you have noted– these are guidelines the state says the providers of this service must meet in order to comply and have a steady stream of men ordered into the program.

    I’m impressed that you had the stomach to read the whole thing.

    In the state I am most familiar with– California– the guidance is far more obtuse and is designed to make sure men receive the maximum amount of pain, while the tiny number of women they actually arrest are dealt with very soft-handedly.

    So, having pled guilty to DV under the current rubric is meaningless to us from this vantage point.

    It is very likely that he chose the lesser of two evils rather than be ground to dust by the DV machine.

  148. Caspar Reyes says:

    Scott,

    What I mean is, that the relationship between DV Program and “Offender” is an abusive one, meeting all its own definitions for abusive relationships.

  149. Scott says:

    What I mean is, that the relationship between DV Program and “Offender” is an abusive one, meeting all its own definitions for abusive relationships.

    It’s actually worse, because it is common for the accused to be encouraged the enroll in the courses before they ever get convicted, to show good faith.

    Translation — your conviction is a foregone conclusion.

  150. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Scott – Yes, actual ‘guilt’ is quite irrelevant. What’s classic about the case with Saeed is he just spent 3 1/2 years in an Iranian prison and the ruling dogma dictates that he still must pay some penance for a ‘crime’ that was already adjudicated nine years ago. What will be really interesting is to see if the State of Idaho awards her ‘spousal maintenance’ calculated to include the 3 1/2 years he spent in prison. In other words he must pay spousal maintenance for 1/3 then length of the marriage – 4 years – when he spent 3 1/2 of those 12 years in an Iranian prison.

  151. Tantumblogo says:

    I knew evangelicalism was penetrated by leftist secular paganism, but not that the rot was this deep. Wow. These types outlined above have become simply auxiliary agents of revolution. And more insidious as they wrap themselves in a cloak of badly twisted Scripture.

    As such, they are simply inevitable consequences of the root protestant mentality of private judgment/rebellion from Authority.

  152. Pingback: Where have all the good chimps gone? | Dalrock

  153. Pingback: She doesn’t need a man. | Dalrock

  154. BubbaCluck says:

    FWIW, Saeed Abedini is asking people to vote for Trump. He has revealed that Trump financially supported his family while in prison in Iran; I believe the amount was $10,000. I don’t have a link but he basically says that God uses flawed men to accomplish His purposes.

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