The Apostle Paul’s secret feminist message finally decoded.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

— 2 Tim 3:1-7 KJV

Christian feminists are shameless liars when it comes to Scripture.  They claim to have secret knowledge of the meaning of Scripture, meanings no one could discern for 2,000 years.  In the hands of a Christian feminist Paul is no longer warning that those who would corrupt the Church will take a page out of the Serpent’s playbook in Eden and focus on deceiving women as the entry point.  Instead, the passage above suddenly becomes a feminist message exhorting Christian women to be kickass tough girls.

The Christian feminist in the video below starts by bragging about the time she put up her dukes in defense of feminism.  Then she goes on to turn the Scripture above upside down, claiming Paul meant something no sane person would expect Timothy or the early congregations of the church to have interpreted from his words.  Moreover, Paul’s words in his previous letter to Timothy offer the same warning:

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Here is a woman teaching the meaning of Paul’s second letter to Timothy, contrary to Paul’s explanation in his first letter that women are not to teach.  In doing so, she provides a perfect example of why this is prohibited.

However, Christian feminists are a dime a dozen.  What makes this video noteworthy is that this particular Christian feminist is a Women’s Studies professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Also, she is not only a council member of the CBMW, she was involved with its founding.  In other words, this is Christian feminism with a CBMW and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary stamp of approval.

Update: bkilbour found the transcript of Kassian’s sermon.

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Feminists, Mary Kassian, Moxie, Rationalization Hamster, Rebellion, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

304 Responses to The Apostle Paul’s secret feminist message finally decoded.

  1. Pingback: The Apostle Paul’s secret feminist message finally decoded. – Manosphere.com

  2. eyesofsamson says:

    In what seminary is a studying Christian to find refuge? The one I attend now is infested with feminism and liberalism, but it seems that even the “conservative” institutions have been poisoned. It’s so discouraging to see this type of deception taking place at such a high level.

  3. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Good stuff D!

    I’m in the process of taking a stab at a piece about about Christian men and MGTOW. It’s a sad state of affairs.

    Please critique and follow my logic:

    1.Devout godly men obtain favor before the Lord.
    2.Devout godly men who yoke up with devout godly women have the potential to have a fruitful union in the sight of the Lord.
    3.Godly marriages make for godly fruitful families.
    4.Godly families promote faithful fellowships and churches.
    5.Godly families make for godly fruitful communities.
    6.From these communities spring forth cities, municipalities, and states, resulting in a nation that is faithful and honors and does His Will.

    But none of that is going to happen when a brother can’t find a virtuous wife from which to spring forth much of this.  Someone is going to point out some logical fallacies in this, I’m sure…which is why it needs critiquing.

    Christian men going MGTOW won’t stop His work from getting done, but it sure isn’t going to help either.  Yet what choice do we have when Christian women are spiritually and morally lackluster and bankrupt, and it seems they have no incentive to be otherwise.

    So we must Go Our Own Way, serving the Lord as singles because there is no way we’re going to find a help-meet (suitable woman) in this dispensation.   Not gonna happen.

    I’ve been admonished that I’m not likely to find a Christian woman on my level and to not focus sorely on that. Okay…fine..dammit!

    So how about one that loves the Lord enough to even want to follow me as I follow Him? Sheesh. I. Just. Can’t.

  4. I could not watch the video of this woman torturing everything in Scripture- not just the meaning but the very words. Truly this is the voice of the serpent.

  5. bkilbour says:

    “A weak woman is governed by her emotions. She puts her brain in park; puts her emotions in drive; rationalizes her behavior, excuses, and justifications-we’ve all done it. I’ve done it. It’s the ‘I know, but . . .’ syndrome.”
    She could have gotten on stage, read the passage, said this, prayed, and left. A perfect little sermonette about the Hamster’s role in how women are deceived, how Eve was deceived (rationalizing her disobedience).
    Instead, we get a pep talk that, despite what might be good intentions, is so laden with “grrrrrl power” rhetoric that the emotion will end up fomenting further rebellion among the women.
    The transcript, found here:

    https://www.reviveourhearts.com/events/true-woman-14/dont-be-wimp-kicking-habits-make-women-weak/transcript/

    [D: Thanks! Great find.]

    I have no problem teaching women to be on their guard against their own selfish natures; I have a problem when someone uses poor exegesis to get there, and a slovenly modern feminist homiletic.

  6. bkilbour says:

    On her part regarding “Creeps,” I could hear those hamster wheels spinning – if I’m not mistaken, “creep” is defined as “anyone a woman feels mildly uncomfortable with or is not attracted to.”

  7. Dave II says:

    @eyesofsamson, a seminary is as man-made an invention as feminism, and like feminism in the church it will teach you the twisted interpretation of scripture rather than the truth that is the original Word of God. Don’t expect to find God there. Stick to the Word, not the interpretations of men

  8. Dave II says:

    @Pedat Ebediyah, have faith in God. If He could preserve you from the emasculating influence of feminism, knowing you would later need a help meet for you, He likely has already preserved just the right woman from the corruption of feminism too. She may be rare, but God knows how to lead you two together. Now is not the time to abandon faith.

  9. Hank Flanders says:

    Too long; Didn’t watch. What part of the video should we pay attention to?

  10. Usagi says:

    Sadly, it is not the first time the scriptures have been twisted to suit mankind’s agenda… nor the last.

  11. Caspar Reyes says:

    I read the transcript and didn’t really see a problem. It was a rah-rah speech to a female audience at a women’s conference, pretty much standard fare for that kind of venue as far as I could tell. Mostly “be wary, both of creeps and of your own deceptions”.

  12. Dalrock says:

    @Caspar Reyes

    I read the transcript and didn’t really see a problem. It was a rah-rah speech to a female audience at a women’s conference, pretty much standard fare for that kind of venue as far as I could tell. Mostly “be wary, both of creeps and of your own deceptions”.

    She is teaching that the point of the passage in Paul’s letter to Timothy is that women need to be stronger:

    These women were childish and frivolous and silly and immature and wimpy. They deserved the triple W label: weak, wimpy woman. [laughter]

    The point is, they ought not to have been. They ought not to have been that.

    She makes this absurd claim as a springboard to her girlpower speech, claiming this is the real meaning of 2 Timothy 3:6-7. She starts the sermon by describing the time she got into a fistfight with her brother because he said she was just a weak girl:

    Good morning, ladies. I have a confession to make. I was once in a fight. It was an all-out, fist-swinging, face-punching, hair-pulling brawl. Woo…

    …And at one point he said, “What would you know? You’re just a weak girl.”

    Ooh. Them’s fighting words. [laughter]

    I was a tomboy. Five brothers, I could climb a tree, swing a hammer, do anything as good as they could do it. So down went the towel, up went the fists, and I challenged him to a duel. [laughter]

    We went into the living room and had it out. And I’ll tell you the rest of the story later. [laughter]

    This is her lead in to explaining how she was originally disturbed by the wording in 2 Timothy 3:6-7, but that now she knows the real meaning of the passage:

    Imagine my surprise when, as I grew older and I was reading Scripture, I came across a passage in 2 Timothy 3:6-7 that said this:

    For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

    There was the game. My brother had called me a weak girl. There is no way anyone was ever going to call me weak. And here was Scripture talking about weak women.

    You can turn there to 2 Timothy 3:6-7. That’s the passage we’re going to park on this morning, and I’m going to unpack it for you.

    Luckily it turns out Paul wasn’t warning that those who would corrupt the church would take a page out of the Serpent’s playbook, he was instead exhorting the women of the early church to not be wimps!

    I’ve entitled this message “Don’t Be a Wimp: Kicking the Habits that Make Women Weak.” Because if we break down this passage, 2 Timothy 3:6-7, into clauses, we can discover seven habits that characterize those wimpy women in Ephesus. “For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”

    So the seven clauses are: 1) Creep into households, 2) capture weak women, 3) burdened with sins, 4) led astray, 5) various passions, 6) always learning, 7) never able to arrive. And we’re going to take a look at each one of those.

    Seven clauses, seven characteristics of a wimpy, weak woman. Seven habits that you will want to kick if you don’t want to be one and if you want to become a woman of strength.

    And the first habit of a wimpy woman is that she tolerates creeps. [laughter]

  13. Bruce says:

    “They claim to have secret knowledge of the meaning of Scripture, meanings no one could discern for 2,000 years.”

    Does this make them (feminists and modernists) “neo-gnostics.”

  14. Unfortunately for her. Paul wasn’t talking about being weak physically but being weak both mentally and spiritually, by deceiving oneself into thinking they are strong. This is the exact deception this lady falls into, as Dalrock says, she is a walking example of what Paul meant and why women should keep silent in Church, lest they lead other women astray with their emotional rants.

  15. Let me guess, she beats her brother up and proves once and for all that women can do everything a man can do and are just as strong, although even better and more moral, and more spiritual and more ‘with it’ and more Godly and more…more, more…

    Screw them, right where it hurts! Had enough of their Go Girl trips.

  16. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    “creeps” is a verb for motion; a “Creep” is a Man that’s not sexually attractive.

    Even if an entire sermon by a Woman is perfectly fine, theologically, there is *ALWAYS* one statement along this line. No Woman is able to remove her own vanity from a presentation. There’s also at least one very overt statement of it in the sermon. It’s something I’ve been trying to note very careful. It’s a fascinating but subtle reminder of the Fall, right into your ears.

  17. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Are the “complementarians” still deluded enough to even believe that they’re following their Bibles and not their culture? Because a lot of evidence is starting to come in that the feminists and egalitarians they claim to oppose aren’t even convinced that they’re on different sides.

    I recently found an interview that Mary Kassian gave to the “Christian feminist” blogger Rachel Held Evans. Evans had recently written a book ridiculing the idea of “Biblical womanhood” in which she confessed that she takes a “pick-and-choose” approach to the parts of scripture she doesn’t like to follow. In one chapter, she even openly admitted that adopting this approach is useful in that it allows her to say “no” to sex with her husband whenever she happens to feel like it. Not a fan of the ideas of headship or patriarchy — as you could probably guess. And yet, when Kassian runs a familiar line past her in the interview, her take on it seems surprisingly similar to what Dalrock thought of it . . .

    “Another misconception about submission, she said, is that a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.

    ‘A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife,’ Mary said. ‘Submission is her choice, her responsibility. It is not his right. Not ever. The Bible says she is to ‘submit herself,’ so deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.’

    It occurred to me that, practically, Mary’s relationship with her husband didn’t function much differently than my relationship with [my husband] Dan . . . ”

    The CBMW crowd seems to take great pride in living out their marriages in a counter-cultural way that is informed by the Bible. So what does it mean when hard-core feminists can look at them and automatically yell, “ONE OF US!!”

  18. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Link for the Evans interview with Kassian is here: http://rachelheldevans.com/true-woman-conference

  19. @Pedat Ebediyah

    Unfortunately, feminism has caused the language within the church to be redefined and the redefinition of the language is so pervasive that the average reader of this blog would have a great deal of difficulty providing a biblical definition of words such as lust, fornication, sexual immorality, marriage and adultery.

    Tragically, it was the church that created the situation we see today, because quite literally the church created feminism, intentionally, for political reasons. The root of every problem we see in the church today can be traced back to Genesis 3:16 and the fact that God’s very clear instruction WRT women has been ignored. Everyone can look at Mary Kassian and shake their heads, but the fact is, nothing can be done without first applying God’s commands and instruction to the language and fighting it out over the language. It isn’t that we don’t have devout godly women, it’s that women don’t know what being devout and godly means.

    Your point #2 is the key:

    2.Devout godly men who yoke up with devout godly women have the potential to have a fruitful union in the sight of the Lord.

    All devout godly women have sinned. The hallmark of a devout, godly woman is that she was convicted of her sin, she confessed her sin and repented of her sin. Because of that, she was washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.

    A devout godly woman could be married or she could be unmarried, but the point is, YOU cannot marry a devout, godly woman unless she is ELIGIBLE to marry you. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Because if she’s already married, whether she knows it or not, if she joins herself to you then she’s an adulteress and you’ll be committing adultery.

    Your conclusion, however, is erroneous:

    So we must Go Our Own Way, serving the Lord as singles because there is no way we’re going to find a help-meet (suitable woman) in this dispensation. Not gonna happen.

    That’s about as wrong as wrong can be. There are plenty of women out there who *might* be suitable for marriage, but one has to recognize their limitations and the damage they’ve suffered and act accordingly. So, here’s the answer to the riddle:

    Genesis 2:24 describes the initiation of marriage, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29 provide further instruction on the initiation of marriage and the end result is clear: Taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her. How does a married woman become “unmarried” and thus eligible to marry another man? Either her father annuls the marriage because it took place without his knowledge or consent, or the unbelieving husband divorces his wife for her adulteries, or her unbelieving husband refuses to live with her. That’s it. The only way the “Christian” woman who gives her virginity to a Christian man can get out of that marriage (because according to 1st Cor. 7:10-15, a Christian man is forbidden to divorce his Christian wife for any reason) is if her father annuls the marriage.

    In general, if a woman is not a virgin, she’s married. What if she was raped? Read Deut. 22:28-29. She’s married. The only question is whether her father refuses to allow the marriage to stand, because under Numbers 30 he has the authority to annul her vows, agreements and the rash words from her lips that obligate her. Did he annul her marriage? That presumes that 1) he knew about it; and, 2) that he knew he had that authority. Thus, the answer is going to be “NO” in 99.9999% of all cases.

    That instruction is so clear it can’t be refuted except by re-interpreting Scripture, but even that doesn’t work. I know this because I’ve argued it out repeatedly. In fact, the situation is so bad that nobody wants to hear it. It’s like the time of King Josiah, when the books of the Law were found and read to the King, who upon hearing it realized that *in ignorance* the people had transgressed and violated the Law of God. His response was to tear his robes and weep. Then he assembled the people and saw to it that the Law of God was taught and he devoted the rest of his life to rooting out the idolatry and immorality in the kingdom. Ignorance of God’s commands is no excuse (Luke 12:47-48).

    What does 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 say?

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

    And what about Ephesians 5:5?

    “For this you know with certainty, that no sexually immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”

    What does 1st John 2:3-6 say?

    “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”

    But, nobody wants to touch this because it’s too much. According to all the data I’ve seen, over HALF the people who got married in the 1950’s were not virgins. Today, in the general population that figure is about 5% and among “highly religious” groups that figure is (at best) about 20%. What does that mean? Simple: look around at your congregation and just going by the numbers, somewhere between 80% and 95% of the couples you see who think they’re married are actually not married, they’re living in state and church sanctioned adultery.

    THIS is why nobody wants to touch it. The church has been teaching (in contradiction to Scripture) that “having sex doesn’t make you married” for a very long time and *everybody* wants “premarital sex” instead because “premarital sex” is something they can confess and walk away from. Thing is, you can’t just walk away from marriage and every married woman who has sex with any other man is committing adultery. Every man who joins himself to a woman married to another man is committing adultery (Romans 7:2-3).

    The ONLY saving grace is that the pervasive ignorance of the church is a blessing. There is no time limit in Numbers 30, so “in the day” that her father learns of the [vow, agreement, obligation] that his daughter, in her youth while living in his house, has bound herself by, he has the authority to annul it. Even if she did it way back when, he can still annul that marriage when he learns of it. So, the question is, how many daughters told their father that she’d given some guy her virginity and does her father know that according to God, she married that guy in the act of giving him her virginity?

    Understanding that point is the answer. I have yet to meet the woman who cannot remember the name of the man she gave her virginity to, along with when, where and under what conditions it happened. Current statistics show that half the girls lose their virginity prior to 17.1 years of age. By the time they’re 24, only about 12% are still virgins. That means her dad is probably still alive and I have yet to hear of the father who, when informed of the situation, is unwilling to annul his daughters’ unintentional marriage. So far, I’ve only had one experience with a woman who contacted the guy she’s married to and asked for a certificate of divorce. He thought it was strange and that she’d joined some kind of cult, but he did it.

    Know this- what I’m talking about is a litmus test. Any woman, who, after being led through the Scripture and having it explained to her still insists that she is NOT married, even though that’s exactly what Scripture says, is NOT a woman you’d want to be associated with. She is unrepentant and refuses to accept the fact that she is married. This is what Mary Kassian is illustrating, the “gurl power” idea of feminism that she, as a woman, and not God, has the authority to decide if and when she is married.

    You’re already familiar with my position vis-a-vis monogamy and polygyny, I won’t go into that, but suffice to say that actions speak louder than words. When you find a woman who is willing to look beyond the “boyfriend Jesus” and is willing to root the sin out of her life, you’ve got a woman with potential. They are out there and far more often than not, it’s the banged up sluts who are finally ready to “let go and let God.” I’m not saying they’re a good bet for monogamy, but simply that the devout and godly woman is characterized by the repentance of sin.

  20. theasdgamer says:

    From the end of the transcript:
    A weak woman tries to act strong, and culture tells us to act all strong and in control and in charge and bossy as women. But a woman of strength recognizes that she is weak, and that she needs a Savior-that she’s in a lifelong wrestling match with sin, and she’s not going to win unless that Savior comes in and takes care of it for her.

    This is an anti-feminist conclusion. Nothing to see here. Take your stones and go home.

  21. Opus says:

    This is clearly the Annie get your Gun version of Timothy: “Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you etc” and although I have yet to receive tenure at a Biblical College I have got to say she appears to have entirely misunderstood the passage. The chapter begins – I have a Knox in front of me – with Paul talking about the end times and in reference to Men the bad way they will behave and then singles out one particular type of man who he then says will go from house to house to captivate women (but not with The Truth) and is able to do so because the women’s consciences are burdened by sin and shifting passions, as he calls it. It has nothing to do with unattractive men i.e. creeps, indeed the men going from house to house would seem to be anything but and far closer to Biblical PUAs.

    I’d say Paul almost certainly had someone like Mary Kassian in mind. I wonder how she gets round 1st Timothy Ch 2 verses 11-13.

  22. theasdgamer says:

    Mary Kassian is using a brilliant argument against absurdity to destroy feminism.

  23. You can condense AT’s screed to ‘become captn save a hoe’.

    Don’t do it, you have been warned. Do not get married to these women, do not think you can save them, let AT marry them all.

  24. Andrew says:

    “Let me guess, she beats her brother up and proves once and for all that women can do everything a man can do …”

    No, she gets her brother mad and he starts beating the snot out of her until her bigger brother steps in. And his message is “you are a girl; if you need protection come to me for help”

    This is only a “girl power” talk if you think that women shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions and to resist temptation.

  25. @feministhater

    When you can define “marriage” in a way that agrees with Scripture, we can talk. However, and you should know better, I wasn’t advocating that anyone become “Captain save-a-ho”

    In fact, the erroneous idea that a guy can “save” a woman is tangentially what I was talking about. Only Christ can save women and then only if and when they are willing to repent of their sins and live in obedience to the Word. So, if you’re saying that Christ *doesn’t* have the power to save women who recognize, confess and *repent* of their sins, why don’t you just say so plainly?

    And if Christ *does* have the power to save such women, who are *you* to claim they are unfit and why? That takes us back to the definition of marriage and I don’t think you’re tall enough for that ride.

    Then too, there’s the point that when God said “Be fruitful and multiply” it was a command, not a polite suggestion. That command is to be exercised within the covenant relationship called “marriage” and as far as I can tell, the only allowed exception to that is for the man who *chooses* to become a “eunuch” for the sake of the kingdom. Otherwise, your mentally masturbatory MGTOW argument fits exactly within what the Apostle Paul was writing about in Romans 1:27, minus the sexual aspects, because the *entire* premise of MGTOW is giving up the “natural function” of women, which is for women to be wives and mothers.

  26. Pingback: The Apostle Paul’s secret feminist message finally decoded. | Reaction Times

  27. So husbands should not dwell with their strong wives in understanding as the weaker vessel as Peter commands in 1 Peter 3:7, because of girl power!

    Is this anything more than than the FI supplanting the HS and the Bible being read through the lens of the feminist presuppositions?

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Andrew

    “Let me guess, she beats her brother up and proves once and for all that women can do everything a man can do …”

    No, she gets her brother mad and he starts beating the snot out of her until her bigger brother steps in. And his message is “you are a girl; if you need protection come to me for help”

    This is only a “girl power” talk if you think that women shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions and to resist temptation.

    The eagerness of so many to become distracted is confounding. Yes, she does some window dressing at the end, explaining that strong women realize they need to rest on Jesus. But she never contradicts her claim that Paul’s message in the passage was women were weak when they should be strong. Paul was explaining the danger vector for the church, via women. This fits with Paul’s message in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. How could Kassian possibly teach the actual message? She can’t, because Paul’s message is that her teaching is a danger to the Church. At best, she can repent at the end of the sermon (for what else could this be), and explain that she has been in rebellion by preaching to them as she has spent the last hour doing. Feel free to check the transcripts/video for that, I’ll stand by.

    There is also the problem that the message the women are going to take away is how not to be a wimpy woman. This is after all the title: Don’t Be a Wimp: Kicking the Habits That Make Women Weak. She spent 45 minutes on girlpower, and then a few minutes in closing offering men like you the cover they are looking for to approve of not only what she is teaching, but her being the teacher. Meanwhile, the feminist women in the audience got 45 minutes of the girlpower they crave, topped off with a “lean on God” message to make it feel like they really just learned a biblical lesson.

  29. theasdgamer says:

    Well, I went looking again at Mary Kassian. She published “The Feminist Mistake” http://www.amazon.com/The-Feminist-Mistake-Radical-Feminism/dp/1581345704

    She gets flamed in the reviews by feminists. e.g., “I disagree with Kassian’s assertion that the end result of all feminism is idolatry and societal depravity.”

    Dal, it’s your blog, but you’re wrong.

  30. shammahworm says:

    It’s now time once again to warn the readers on here that Artisanal Toad is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher.

    AT’s whole shtick about the law of vows is false because a girl/woman has no authority to enter into to such a vow in the first place. A man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality(this includes adultery) per the direct words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 and 19.

    Sex with a virgin =/= marriage
    Rape of a virgin =/= marriage

    Deut. 22: 13 describes the woman as his wife BEFORE he consummates the marriage. Of course the marriage needs to be consummated, but a virgin having sex =/= marriage.

    In past threads, I’ve addressed AT’s false teachings in far greater detail. I won’t do so again.

    Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments. AT has far bigger problems with his theology than his lies about marriage and sex.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
    1) Claims the Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567

  31. @Bruce: Are feminazis Neo-gnostics?

    Pretty close. The gnostic heresy held that God and the Universe were one and we were one with it so the Lord’s claims to be the Son of God are shared by all of us. These girl power Gai worshipping heathens are guilty of heresy but I don’t think the Gnostic heresy is the worst of it. They go ALL the way back to the very beginning with the original and first Heresy. Then they “deconstruct” it to make it mean something else entirely.

  32. @Gamer: While a bit of yeast goes through the entire bread, I think you have it backwards. This woman’s foul teachings are not leavened by the yeast of her good words. Rather her Bread is tainted with the yeast of her sinful words.

    @Dalrock: Do you think her teachings violate Paul’s proscriptions if she is only teaching women?

    I am sure she was teaching the women to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands in the stuff you didn’t give u.

    Amiright Gamer?

  33. theasdgamer says:

    And, the lean on God message was the point of the talk, not merely a gloss.

  34. theasdgamer says:

    @ bpp

    she was teaching the women to be reverent in their behavior

    Indeed she was. He wants us to be soft, feminine women with fire in our bellies and courage in our hearts and backbones of steel so that we can say “yes” to truth and “no” to unrighteousness.

    Kassian: These women were childish and frivolous and silly and immature and wimpy.

    Like “Christian feminists” who try to be strong in their own power, which is Kassian’s point.

    bpp: that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands

    Kassian: Or the marital affection you shouldn’t be withholding

    bpp: Amiright Gamer?

    You are right.

    /sarcasm off

    lol

    Ok, I’m a fucking white knight here. This feelz so unnatcheralll!

  35. Spike says:

    A good find, Dalrock.
    I read the transcript of this woman’s sermon. After introduction, a reading of Scripture, and then one massive hamsterization of what the text actually meant. “Weak” actually means “little”! Her actual irreverence for Scripture goes back further, to when she learned “fancy Greek”. What is horrifying about this is that she overturns Scripture and disrespects scholarship without even thinking it is wrong. At least the enemies of the Gospel are open about disrepecting Scripture.

    Paul was right when he said that women should not speak in church.

  36. Dave II says:

    @ Spike,

    “At least the enemies of the Gospel are open about disrepecting Scripture.”

    When you said that it sudenly dawned on me. It would seem the true enemies of scripture, the very worst, are seldom open about disrespecting scripture. I mean, even the devil said to Jesus, “It is written….”

  37. theasdgamer says:

    I checked BAGD about the word in question. It literally means, “little women”. However, that meaning is figurative and is correctly translated “silly”, which, indeed, is how Kassian uses it in her talk.

    Kassian did not twist scripture. Plenty of men here are falsely accusing her of all kinds of things. Remember the Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”?

  38. Jim says:

    Christian feminists are shameless liars when it comes to Scripture.

    IOW, just feminist with a Christian label. These people are laughable.

  39. Novaseeker says:

    The key point of Dalrock’s critique, folks, is not that everything Kassian said was wrong or bad, but rather that the basis of her entire talk is based on a rather clear and obvious misreading of Paul. In fact, the misreading is so egregious, and requires essentially that the phrase be stripped entirely of its context (including the context of Paul’s other letters to Timothy), as to be quite fairly described as downright tendentious. And the whole talk is based on that misreading, meaning that the entire thing falls to pieces (even if it contains some otherwise good admonitions) because the foundation itself is easily collapsed. And, as Dalrock also points out, the misreading here is particularly egregious specifically because it directly contradicts what Paul says elsewhere to Timothy.

    Yes, Kassian criticizes “visible feminism”. So what? The CBMW does, too, as does FoF. What Dalrock has been exposing is that these self-styled “anti-feminists” in American Protestant Christianity are, upon closer examination with a more critical eye, anything but anti-feminist in content, but are peddling simply a different kind of feminism. A feminism that is more palatable to the conservative Christian mind which is living in this culture. Dalrock has written essay after essay after essay on this, and he’s quite right to point it out. Is Kassian the same as Amanda Marcotte? I don’t think anyone is saying she is. But she’s actually much more dangerous to the American church than Marcotte is, precisely because she identifies as anti-feminist, and peddles her ideas, which are actually quite feminist in content/context/feel often, in the garb of conservative/faithful/orthodox Christianity. It’s the way that the worm is turning inside the American church today, and Dalrock is just pointing it out.

    Finally, as pointed out by Darwinian Arminian in his comment above, the piece de resistance is Rachel Held Evans’s recognition that Kassian’s marriage is, de facto, the same as her own openly “Christian feminist” marriage — thereby basically reinforcing Dalrock’s point. In other words, there isn’t much of a difference between Kassian and Evans in practical terms. Sure they may disagree about approaches and on some theoretical levels, but the marriages work the same way — the feminist way — in each case, regardless of the label each chooses to wear. That’s exactly the entire point of Dalrock’s series of exposes on these people and similar ones.

  40. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Artisanal Toad..

    That was a lot, bruh.

    You want me to walk her through it like she’s applying for a car loan, it seems.

    It make me tired just thinking about it.

    I’m good.

  41. theasdgamer says:

    Nova, you are wrong, just as Dal is wrong. You all are misreading Kassian.

    Dal in OP: the passage above suddenly becomes a feminist message exhorting Christian women to be kickass tough girls.

    Totally wrong. “Strong in Christ” is a Christian message, not a feminist message.

    Kassian’s story about her fight is her self-deprecating example of how she thought she was big and tough and got her ass kicked by her brother. Then she learned that she needed to be protected by someone stronger. This led to her realization that she needs to depend on Christ’s strength. This is an anti-feminist message. It’s like Black Widow got her ass kicked. Real feminist, huh?

    Dal in OP: The Christian feminist in the video below starts by bragging about the time she put up her dukes in defense of feminism.

    Sure, which failed utterly. She wasn’t presenting her example as one that women should emulate.

    Dal in OP: Here is a woman teaching the meaning of Paul’s second letter to Timothy, contrary to Paul’s explanation in his first letter that women are not to teach.

    Paul only said that women aren’t to teach men. Women are allowed to teach women. Paul encouraged older women to teach younger women certain things. I think that I’ve made it perfectly clear in my reply to bpp that Kassian was aiming in the right direction.

  42. theasdgamer says:

    Nova, whatever Kassian said in her interview with Evans doesn’t bear on the charges leveled here.

  43. theasdgamer says:

    @ Darwinian

    I agree with Kassian that the husband cannot force the wife to submit for practical reasons. If she wants to leave, for example, how will he stop her? Otoh, I believe that the husband has a duty to confront the wife if she is rebellious. Kassian may even agree with that.

    I have no opinion about Evan’s opinion that her marriage sounds a lot like Kassian’s marriage. How would you judge such a thing? It seems silly. That bears on Evans, not Kassian.

  44. Swanny River says:

    Note to Dalrock: in case you aren’t aware or it, TGC posted a column today by Piper about submission and I Peter. Also in there is a column by a woman extolling her “counter-cultural” finding that she liked her career more than she expected and found herself surprised at the bible supporting her decision to go back to work after her baby was 12 weeks old.

  45. What Mary Kassian is doing is subtle and it’s the result of people not knowing their Bible well enough to understand the errors. It’s often hard to provide illustrations of this because there is a lot of social conditioning that affects Christians and it can be very difficult to call out a woman on this kind of thing because it just doesn’t seem right. Her message is one that the women of the church are *comfortable* with and accept. It sounds correct. Fortunately, I have the benefit of a circus freak who follows me around to provide examples of how to subtly twist Scripture. To get an idea of what Mary Kassian is doing, look at what wormtongue is doing.

    Point number 3 in his little list above is a really good example of why we as Christians are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. Keep in mind that I believe wormtongue is a sincere Christian, albeit clueless and rather ignorant of what Scripture actually says. In other words, he believes what he’s saying, just like I’m sure that Mary Kassian believes what she’s saying.

    Wormtongue is claiming that “lesbianism” is forbidden by Matthew 19:4-5. If you’re the average pew-sitter, what he’s saying might make sense when you read the text because you’re convinced that “lesbianism” really is prohibited by Scripture. Yep, just like the women believe that what Mary is saying is true. In the same way that Mary Kassian is subtly denying the headship of husbands, what wormtongue is actually doing is making the subtle claim that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah. So, let’s look at what Matthew 19:4-5 says (all Scripture quotes are NASB):

    “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

    Wormtongue is claiming what Jesus *meant* was “one man with one woman is the only sex that’s allowed” and implied in that argument is that if one has sufficient spiritual discernment they’d understand. That’s what most folks in the church believe, so it seems reasonable, right? The question is whether Jesus was actually saying what wormtongue claims He was saying. In order to understand how this is being twisted, we don’t need to look at the context, we only need to look at one of the specific commands concerning the Law which is found in Deuteronomy 4:2, repeated at Deut. 12:32, and then we know that Jesus could not possibly have been teaching what wormtongue claims He was.

    “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” 4:2

    “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” 12:32

    The word “lesbian” isn’t in the Bible. There is no mention, anywhere in the Bible, of any form of sexual contact between women. There is a place where it “should” have been if God had decided to prohibit it, which is Leviticus 18:22-23

    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.”

    Notice there’s a prohibition on [men with men], [men with animals] and [women with animals] but not one peep about women with women. Did God forget? Did God get it wrong? What about the rest of Scripture? There is literally no place in Scripture that says *anything* about sex between women. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 explain how the Law relates to sin:

    “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.” 4:15

    “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” 5:13

    In other words, you can’t violate a law that doesn’t exist and without that violation there isn’t any sin imputed. Not only that, but the Law cannot be added to or subtracted from, it’s permanent.

    To put it all together, there is *nothing* in the Law that prohibits female-female sexual activity in any form. Because of that, any such sexual activity *cannot* be described as sin (prohibited) without “adding to the law” which is a violation of the law. Therefore, if Jesus actually *meant* to say “lesbianism” is prohibited, then Jesus added to the Law. If wormtongue is correct, Jesus sinned and that means Jesus could not have been the Messiah and thus all of Christianity is a lie. So, was Jesus a sinner, or is wormtongue a liar?

    This is the same reason why Romans 1:26 does not prohibit or condemn “lesbianism” or whatever one wants to call it. Paul could *not* have been condemning or prohibiting female-female sexual contact in any way (perhaps that’s why he didn’t mention it) because if the Apostle Paul had done so he’d have been in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. Paul, who was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” knew the Law and he didn’t do that, which is why you only see the description of the men’s violation of Leviticus 18:22 in verse 27 and nothing about the women’s activities in verse 26. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul was describing both men and women who rejected the natural function of women.

    The point is if someone didn’t study and know this stuff, then because of the cultural conditioning within the church they’d believe wormtongue and think that Jesus really did mean what wormtongue is claiming He meant. It’s this kind of Scriptural ignorance that allows Christian leaders like Mary Kassian to get away with what she’s doing. That problem is compounded by the fact that most Christians have a Twitter-length attention span.

    Nova nailed it when he said
    Is Kassian the same as Amanda Marcotte? I don’t think anyone is saying she is. But she’s actually much more dangerous to the American church than Marcotte is, precisely because she identifies as anti-feminist, and peddles her ideas, which are actually quite feminist in content/context/feel often, in the garb of conservative/faithful/orthodox Christianity.

    Dalrock could be likened to the guy that’s passing the ammunition up to the front lines and he’s knocking himself out shoving it forward by the truckload. So, here we are on the front lines and we’re receiving lots of incoming fire and taking casualties and the ammunition is piling up, but nobody is shooting. Why not? Maybe it’s because nobody agrees on what the target is. To start, let’s try defining feminism from a Biblical perspective. Nobody can really oppose feminism until it can be defined, so, what is the Biblical definition of feminism?

  46. theasdgamer says:

    Nova, if you want to throw stones at Kassian, you can use another text she wrote, cookie-cutter housewife paradigm, where she essentially disses housewives.

    https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/review-of-a-year-of-biblical-womanhood/

    Saying that women ought to focus their energies on their husbands and kids at home is going to be unpopular with CBMW. Also saying that women ought to submit to their husbands will similarly be unpopular there.

    None of that bears on the OP.

  47. @theasdgamer

    Think about how women communicate and how important the “subtext” of any communication is to women. Men tend to have difficulty with it and aspy guys literally can’t see the subtext message that all the women are receiving loud and clear. Ask yourself what the subtext of Kassian’s remarks was and then ask yourself if anyone else here is looking just at the words or maybe focusing on the message behind the words that the women were receiving loud and clear.

  48. Swanny River says:

    My post was not clear, the TGC writer said she planned on staying home to raise her kids but found herself surprised how much work was important to her and then she used the remainder of her column explaining why she thinks the bible is supportive of her decision. Other than Dalrock and some posters here, I feel like no one is willing to fight for women staying home to raise their children. My conservative church won’t fight for it, nor will TGC. Couldn’t my church at least back me as the head wanting that, even if they are honestly ambivalent about women raising their own children?

  49. kronbergweb says:

    @Dave II says:
    February 29, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    “@Pedat Ebediyah, have faith in God. If He could preserve you from the emasculating influence of feminism, knowing you would later need a help meet for you, He likely has already preserved just the right woman from the corruption of feminism too. She may be rare, but God knows how to lead you two together. Now is not the time to abandon faith.”

    No, he doesn’t. The so-called godly woman/professional virgin will still choose according to her vaginal tingle either the bad boy or the thick wallet. I am living proof of this: I am sixty-six years old and have been doing the work God gave me to do since I was a young man; I even prayed for over a year in the late nineties for a suitable helpmate: nothing, nada, zero, zip; so stop giving false hope. God cannot change the nature of woman to desire what she does not desire.

  50. theasdgamer says:

    @ AT

    Think about how women communicate and how important the “subtext” of any communication is to women.

    Of course. I always do this around women. I’ve also been learning to do this around men. It turns out that we also have our nonverbal communication going.

    Men tend to have difficulty with it and aspy guys literally can’t see the subtext message that all the women are receiving loud and clear.

    Yeah, well, I haven’t had a problem with reading women–especially when I am focusing on their nonverbals. Apparently some on the autism spectrum don’t have a problem with subtexts. In fact, if we focus on learning those messages, we can become extremely competent in reading nonverbals. See my post about Involuntary Indicators of Interest.

    Ask yourself what the subtext of Kassian’s remarks was and then ask yourself if anyone else here is looking just at the words or maybe focusing on the message behind the words that the women were receiving loud and clear.

    Yeah, I was watching for those things when reading the text. I even watched about 20 min of the vid to see if anything popped up. Nope. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised that Kassian was calling women out about cheating. I have never heard that from anyone else.

    I saw something about “controlling” that initially concerned me until I realized that she really meant “insecure”.

    Consider that the manosphere, especially those on Dalrock’s blog, are likely to read messages into women’s texts that aren’t actually there because we expect them to be there.

    Note that I have been sensitive to Kassian’s ploy to disrespect homemakers. I read the nonverbals (implied messages) there quite accurately. “We are perfessionals, not uneddycated hicks lakh dose udder fringe types.”

  51. shammahworm says:

    “This is the same reason why Romans 1:26 does not prohibit or condemn “lesbianism” or whatever one wants to call it. Paul could *not* have been condemning or prohibiting female-female sexual contact in any way (perhaps that’s why he didn’t mention it) because if the Apostle Paul had done so he’d have been in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.”

    And so AT adds more lies to his false teaching. Romans 1: 26-27,
    “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

    This isn’t the apostle Paul adding to God’s word. This is the apostle Paul telling believers what Jesus Christ revealed to him. Lesbianism goes against God’s design for marriage as Jesus Christ described by the Lord Himself in Matthew 19: 4-5. In no way does saying this violate the OT.

    AT’s whole bit about Romans 4:15 and 5:13 is false for a variety of reasons which I’ve already discussed at length in other threads and will not do so again.

    Once again, AT is a liar, a heretic and demonic false teacher. Pay special attention to number 1 on the following list.

    Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
    1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567

  52. Carlotta says:

    Love the witchcraft symbol in the logo. They just don’t even try to hide the fangs anymore. See the O.

  53. Dave II says:

    @kronbergweb,

    “God cannot change the nature of woman to desire what she does not desire.”

    You misunderstood my point. I never said God would change her nature. Why would He? He made her that way! What I said is He can give a man the kind of woman who is preserved from feminism’s corrupting teachings, which essentially cause a woman to misunderstand or deny her nature (and man’s) and thus follows feminism’s “advice” into a lifestyle that makes her a terrible marriage risk.

    The Bible teaches that men should privide for their own (e.g 1 Tim 5:8 – “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”) and that women should be keepers at home (Titus 2:4-5 – “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”). However, feminism teaches that a woman should go to work building a career, and men should share the load in the housework. Since God made women, is it any wonder they desire a fat wallet? Should they not? I don’t think so. As a man, it is your job to provide this fat wallet. Obvously I don’t mean you must be filthy rich, but you should be able to provide enough to take care of her. Failing that, probably even God looks at you funny.

    The Bible also teaches that the effeminate won’t even inherit the Kingdom of God (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9 – “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”). Yet feminism teaches that men should be the soft, gentle, flower-giving, permission-asking, docile puppies they are today, and if as early as boyhood they are found otherwise, they are labelled “violent” or as having ADHD, etc. The Bible says the husband is the head of the wife (do I really need to quote the scripture on this one?), while feminism says marriage is an equal partnership. Since God, not feminists, made women, I ask again: is it any wonder that they desire bad boys? (Women, by the way, don’t desire bad boys because of their evilness, but because they are STRONG and they LEAD. They go after what they want, which is a very MASCULINE thing to do. In other words, they are not effeminate.) If you fail to have these manly qualities, being a man, again, I’d say God is probably looking at you funny. It is essentially a sin for a man not to be manly.

    So, kronbergweb, perhaps I was unclear in my earlier post. I am definitely not saying that the men here should ask God for some miracle woman who is attracted to Betas and is immune to hypergamy. I am saying He can provide one who, despite those needs, is able to manage them in a way that they do not make her bad marriage material. Women need manly men who are good providers.

    Along that line, you raise a very important point: it is not enouh to just ask God for, and get, a good woman for a wife. As men we also bear the responsibiliy to be good providers AND leaders to our wives and children. Failing that, we should not blame God that things fell apart. Every single time a relationship falls apart, at least one person in that relationship ignored God’s commandments for relationships. Every. Single. Time.

  54. @kronbergweb
    The so-called godly woman/professional virgin will still choose according to her vaginal tingle either the bad boy or the thick wallet.

    Wrong. Because women are cursed with hypergamy, they desire and are attracted to a man who is fit to “rule over” them. Another way of saying that is women are attracted to masculine dominance. They are programmed to go after the most masculine and dominant man they can find and your situation is merely proof that women did not find you attractive enough to marry.

    What did God mean when He said in Genesis 3:16 “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

    The church is so feminized that it doesn’t want to look at Genesis 3:16 and see the curse for what it is: hypergamy. The word “desire” is used in two other places, one is Genesis 4:7 (the desire to conquer, to overcome) and again in Song of Songs 7:10 (sexual desire). The context of the other two uses is obvious, so which one is being used in Genesis 3:16? The answer is it isn’t one or the other, it’s both. Which is what we see in women’s behavior. Women want a man who is fit to rule over them and they are attracted to masculine dominant men (you call them the “bad boys” and in part that’s true- the church drives masculine dominant men away or it breaks them and turns them into betas). Women are hard-wired to test men to determine their fitness and the men who pass their tests are rewarded with sexual desire. You don’t like it? Too bad. Get over it, because *God did that* when He cursed women.

    It is pure fantasy for any Christian man to believe that just because he’s a devout, godly man that devout, godly women *should* be attracted to him. In fact, part of the reason it’s pure fantasy is because the church does it’s best to stomp all the masculinity out of men starting when they’re boys. They’re taught “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” and other toxic, cringe-worthy supplicating behavior that causes them to be repulsive to women.

    1st Peter 3:7 tells men to live with their wives in an *understanding way* as with a *weaker vessel.* Hypergamy is a weakness because it’s part of the curse. Just as a man should understand this aspect of women, it is the man’s responsibility to act in such a way as to effectively deal with women’s hypergamy. That requires taking women off their pedestal and understanding what they are really like, which isn’t easy to do because virtually everything the church teaches about women, sex and marriage is wrong.

    If you or any other Christian man wants women to be attracted to you, be that very rare Christian man who is masculine and dominant in a devout and godly way. That will work at any age and it doesn’t take most men very long to hit the gym, lose the fat, grow some muscle and learn game (learned charisma). If you wanted to be an effective preacher don’t you think it would be good advice to learn how to be an effective public speaker? Women can’t help being the way they are and until men realize that, at least some of them will wind up in your position.

    If you want to accept your position and be bitter with women, go for it, but don’t tell other men how hopeless it is because it isn’t. And maybe, just maybe, God’s plan for you was that you not have a wife. In all likelihood you’ve probably got another 20 years left. If you decided to learn how to be attractive to women and actually did it you’d find that you suddenly have a lot of interest from women who previously didn’t notice you.

  55. Dave says:

    Artisanal Toad never tires of peddling his false and damnable theology.
    Based on his foolish logic that whatever is not expressly forbidden in Scripture is acceptable for the Christian to do, we can then claim that it is OK for a Christian to snort cocaine, or shoot heroine. After all, it is not expressly forbidden in Scripture. And how about them porn sites? Why, the church could organize a session for the guys just before Sunday morning service or after, because “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable”.

    This false and deluded man does not realize that we are not robots. That we can and are expected to judge between what is right and what is wrong, since “he that is spiritual judges all things”; that God does not need to spell everything out on paper for His children, since He promised to put His laws inside our hearts.

    Artisanal Toad is neck deep in error; only the mercy of God can save him–that is if he is still open to being saved.

  56. Spike says:

    Dave II says:
    February 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm
    @ Spike,

    “At least the enemies of the Gospel are open about disrepecting Scripture.”

    When you said that it sudenly dawned on me. It would seem the true enemies of scripture, the very worst, are seldom open about disrespecting scripture. I mean, even the devil said to Jesus, “It is written….”

    Thanks Dave II. Recently I’ve been looking over a lot of debates between John Lennox, William Lane Craig and selected atheists, so I’ve had that in my mind.
    What you’ve said of course is Biblical. Thanks for the reminder (Prov 27:17).

  57. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    I watched the entire video, and I have to agree with adsgamer. I even took notes because I was incredulous of what I was hearing. Here’s what I got.

    Biblically accurate points:

    1. The “creeps” she’s talking about aren’t men. She’s talking about how sin “creeps” (insinuates itself slowly into) a woman’s life.
    1a. Example: Her friend (a woman) started out playing innocent card games, but ended up betting sexual favors and “addicted to pornography”.

    2. She makes a point very similar to that which Dalrock makes. The Serpent deceived Eve and women have been prone to deception ever since.

    3. Unconfessed sin leads to more sin. It “piles up”. This is a variation of point 1.

    4. She calls out women’s sexual sin. When was the last time you heard that from the pulpit?

    5. She calls on women to confess and repent from their sin, and she’s not talking about “lack of self esteem”.

    6. Women don’t think. They feel and rationalize their feelings.
    6a. Fantasize about men other than their husbands.
    6b. Watching chick flicks.
    6c. Porn (again).
    6d. Flirting with the boss.
    6e. Gossiping.
    6f. Racking up debt.
    6g. Drinking too much.
    6h. Blaming their husbands for their bad behavior.

    Seriously; from what pulpit have you ever heard all of that?

    7. Women can CHOOSE joy and peace. They should lead their emotions with their minds, not the other way around.

    8. Women are prone to constantly chasing after the latest teaching. I believe Cane has some good posts on this subject. Hell, she even used the word “Gnostics” to describe them!
    8a. Women are prone to “spinning their tires”. Can’t acknowledge the truth. Sound familiar?

    9. She lost the fight with her older bother and their older brother had to rescue her. When she whined to him, he told it to her straight. “You are a girl and if you get in fights with him you’re going to get beat up.”

    At the end she prays that…

    10. They will NOT be “strong willed women”.

    11. They will NOT have “a critical spirit”.

    12. They will “be nice to their husbands”.

    13. For the third time she condemns women watching porn.

    14. They’ll abandon affairs that are just getting started.

    15. In Christ’s strength, not in their own.

    Put that all together and I think we have a lot more than just “window dressing” here. Is it perfect? Of course not. She’s human.

    She claims that the “silly women” are “victims”. That’s false, and dangerous.

    She also mentions “emotional abuse”, which we all know is a purposely indefinable slippery slope.

    We’re called to “examine all things; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thes. 5:21). I can’t judge anything else the lady has written or spoken because I haven’t read it or heard it, but this sermon has a lot of good in it. I’ve never – not once – heard women’s sin called out so bluntly from the pulpit.

    Yes, she’s still wrong on some points. We all have blind spots. We need others to point them out to us, because, by definition, one cannot see ones own blind spot. But we should do so without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  58. KP says:

    I’m with Caspar and gamer here: I don’t see the problem. Granted, I speed-read the transcript, but nothing at all stood out there. The ‘creeps’ she’s talking about are NOT guys, they are little lies ‘creeping’ into a woman’s heart and mind.

  59. infowarrior1 says:

    The fact that a woman is preaching entirely disqualifies the teaching. No questions asked. The very act of usurping Authority over a man or men is rebellion.

  60. infowarrior1 says:

    @Oscar

    Ok I see. But she by action is in rebellion. By preaching in defiance of the very word of God she is preaching about.

  61. Oscar says:

    @ infowarrior1 says:
    February 29, 2016 at 11:54 pm

    Maybe. As far as I can tell, she’s preaching to women, which would fulfill the commandment in Titus 2:3-5 that older women should disciple younger women. If, on the other hand, she’s teaching men, then yes, you’re right.

  62. @Dave

    Dave! This is quite the twofer- first wormtongue, then you. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what will happen if you point out the dichotomy between what the church teaches and what the Bible actually says. Wormtongue got spanked, so now Dave dropped by for the ad hominem attack. And just to be clear, I do believe Dave is (just like wormtongue) a sincere Christian. Confused and woefully ignorant of Scripture, but sincere.

    Based on his foolish logic that whatever is not expressly forbidden in Scripture is acceptable for the Christian to do, we can then claim that it is OK for a Christian to snort cocaine, or shoot heroine. After all, it is not expressly forbidden in Scripture.

    Dave, you are a liar. I have never claimed that just because something is not forbidden in Scripture that it’s acceptable for Christians to do. However, just to be sure that you understand, let’s see if you can find a prohibition on cannibalism, or suicide anywhere in Scripture. You can’t because they aren’t there, but those are two activities I certainly don’t think are acceptable for Christians (or anybody else for that matter). Not only have I never said it’s OK for Christians to do something just because “it is not expressly forbidden in Scripture” but in our previous discussions I pointed out repeatedly that Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 are both instruction that require more from Christians than the Law might demand.

    Dave, I’m so disappointed in you, you even put it in quotes as if I actually said it: “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable”. C’mon, Dave, let’s see the link. Own it Dave- link it or it’s a lie.

    While it’s true there isn’t anything in the Bible about snorting cocaine or shooting heroin, there *is* that little passage in Romans 13 about obeying the government. Really, Dave, if you’re going to lie about me and talk about my “foolish logic” you could at least pick something that’s actually logical to use for an example.

    Dave, isn’t there something in that old-fashioned list way back in dusty old Exodus 20 about bearing false witness? Dave? Oh! I forgot! There must not be anything in the *New Testament* about bearing false witness (I don’t know, I never checked). Dave! There’s nothing in the New Testament about bestiality either, so if you can bear false witness against me because the New Testament doesn’t forbid it, you can shag your neighbors sheep or goats whenever your wife turns you down for sex! Dave! That means you can finally get sex when you want it!

  63. Splashman says:

    Artisanal Toad is neck deep in error; only the mercy of God can save him–that is if he is still open to being saved.

    Yup.

    God designed the marriage relationship as a scale model of the Christian’s relationship with Christ. Each person who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior becomes “the bride of Christ” — his suitable helper. When AT defends and promotes any sort of sexual relationship outside of one-man-married-to-one-woman, he is scorning God’s design and thus setting himself up as above God.

    In the same vein, anyone who believes divorce is acceptable — in any case — shouldn’t be too surprised when he shows up at the Pearly Gates, only to be informed that God divorced him. And there ain’t no cash & prizes in Hell.

  64. Bill Smith says:

    I listened to the whole thing waiting for the part where she said the heresy the OP put forth. It took me until the end that it was much more subtle. I do think it is very much a Girl Power! talk and errant because of that, but she had many quite valid points that made it so much harder to see the wrong focus.

    Note that her older brother told her he would “fix errors in the future” as if what her other brother said was a horrid error her older brother needed to fix. Nothing is mentioned about seeking help from your husband or father in the goal to not fall prey to things, it is about making yourself a strong women, which would (indirectly implied) not make you subject to the other charges noted in the Scriptures.

    She failed to note the core principles and took something different than what was written. Many of the things she said her audience should avoid were completely valid, but the women were just challenged to be strong “in the Lord” not with any human male help, which is not a great idea.

    She did have some good points about not withholding sex or being a bitchy woman, as theasdgamer notes, but those were so quick a listener could easily miss them.

    I find the error was not so much what was said, but what wasn’t said.

    Probably not your best post though Dalrock, since it is so challenging to weave out in this case.

  65. @Splashman

    When AT defends and promotes any sort of sexual relationship outside of one-man-married-to-one-woman, he is scorning God’s design and thus setting himself up as above God.

    Let’s take a look at God’s testimony in Jeremiah 31:31-32, shall we?

    “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.”

    God regulated polygyny in the Law (God does not regulate sin), He condoned polygyny when He claimed credit for giving King David multiple wives (2nd Samuel 12:8), God commanded polygyny with the law of the Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) and of course, as seen above, God participated in polygyny.

    So, please explain how I am scorning God’s design and setting myself up as above God when I defend and promote polygyny, which God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in.

  66. Splashman says:

    AT, you’re either spectacularly clueless or deliberately obtuse.

    God allowed Israel to appoint a king, though that was not his design for the relationship — he intended to keep ruling Israel directly, through judges and prophets such as Samuel. But the people of Israel insisted that Samuel appoint a king. Samuel spoke to God about this, and God told him what it meant: “They have rejected me as King.”

    Samuel tried to talk them out of it — warned them of all the disadvantages, and told them that sooner or later

    “. . . you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

    According to you, AT, God was condoning sin — condoning the rejection of himself. And he commanded the people to sin, by personally appointing a king and requiring the people obey that king. And he regulated sin, by overseeing the writing of laws by which Israelite kings ruled. And worst of all, God participated in sin, because his own son was born in the ancestral line of an Israelite king. Holy crap — is God just messing with us???

    Sooner or later, AT, you’re going to cry out for relief.

  67. Yeah, AT’s screed really puts the breaks on desire female companionship. Thanks bruh but no thanks. Bitches be crazy and they’re not loyal nor fit to be a helper, that is the cold and hard truth.

    Keep at it AT, at this rate, you will have all the hoes you could ask for!

  68. Dale says:

    @Pedat Ebediyah
    Christian men going MGTOW won’t stop His work from getting done, but it sure isn’t going to help either.

    Actually, a man can better serve God WITHOUT a wife, so it will help. Fat chance hearing that message in “church”. 1 Cor 7 says:
    32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

    And later in the same chapter, it says:
    36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

    So, I can better please God if I have no wife, and while the man who marries a virgin (see AT’s comments above) does no wrong, the man who does not marry the virgin does better. So, who wants to preach on this topic next Sunday?

    Pedat, you are able to serve God regardless of your spiritual gifts (Rom 12:3-8), married on not (1 Cor 7; although you can serve better if unmarried). You are a valuable bondservant; don’t accept the Satanic/feminist message that you are worth less (or worthless) if you can’t find a worthy wife. May God bless you brother!

    @AT
    >And if Christ *does* have the power to save such women, who are *you* to claim they are unfit and why?

    Great challenge to have a Biblical view of marriage. This comment however has a common error. God can save all from eternal death. (Yes, except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and worshiping and taking the mark of the beast.)
    This freedom from spiritual death does not translate into a complete freedom from consequences of sin. Not even freedom from consequences in the next life; see 1 Cor 3:10-15 — those who work poorly in this life will forever forfeit the eternal rewards they would otherwise have received. Sobering thought for me…

    >when God said “Be fruitful and multiply” it was a command, not a polite suggestion.

    That command was only given twice. And both times, there were 8 or fewer people on the earth. You may wish to consider the context.
    Hmmm… okay, also in Jeremiah 29; but there also, the command was for a limited time (70 years) and limited people (the ones in Babylon). And it seems to be to prevent them from dying out.

    And I do not see how you could possibly reasonably compare a man who refuses to debase himself by taking an unworthy woman to the men in Romans 1 who forsook heterosexual relations FOR homosexual relations. The Romans 1 men were going toward perversion. The man who refuses a woman unfit for a Joshua 24:14-15 household is holding to purity and right devotion to God. Hardly the same.

    @shammahworm
    >Deut. 22: 13 describes the woman as his wife BEFORE he consummates the marriage.

    You might want to try to open your mind to allow different possible interpretations. If you grab the first possibility and do not consider other possible, you may have the wrong one.
    In this case, why is it not possible that “take a wife” just means he agrees to take her in that role. If I say that I have “taken a new job”, I am not a liar even though I have never “consumated” the job by working even one day yet. That should be an obvious idea. Commitment toward a future fulfillment.
    A better challenge is the jewish view of betrothal. A virgin pledged to be married can commit adultery in the act of giving her virginity to a different man. So claiming sex = marriage, without considering commitments to a future fulfillment via sex, would be incomplete.

    @Swanny Riven
    >[she] found herself surprised at the bible supporting her decision to go back to work after her baby was 12 weeks old.

    The “holy hamster” strikes again. Whoa be to us, and our deficient obedience to God.
    Am I the first to coin “holy hamster”? If so, TM. 🙂

    >I feel like no one is willing to fight for women staying home to raise their children

    Make any prospective wife memorize Titus 2:3-5🙂 “be busy at home”. Family should be more important than career or money or social status.

    @kronbergweb
    >God cannot change the nature of woman to desire what she does not desire.

    Better to say that God chooses to respect our free will to choose to sin or be foolish. I would love to give a pointed reference for this, but all I can give are repeated examples throughout Scripture. Anyone else?
    And since she can choose, and sin, she may never choose you. Or me for that matter.
    Otherwise, great comment kronbergweb. Absolutely agree we should not give false hope. But I also cannot discount God’s ability to guide us; he does love us, and wants to give us good gifts – Matt 7:7-12.

    @Dave II
    at February 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm: Great comment on the need to be masculine. I should not be surprised when obeying God’s commands leads to better results, or that God desired others to respond to the results of my obedient actions.

  69. Dale says:

    @Splashman
    >When AT defends and promotes any sort of sexual relationship outside of one-man-married-to-one-woman, he is scorning God’s design and thus setting himself up as above God.

    And where is this “one-man-married-to-one-woman” found in Scripture? You might be surprised that God said he would have offered David wives (plural). Or the levirate law, that at least could have required polygamy. You are reading your views into the Bible. (I see AT beat me to it, with the exact same examples.)

  70. ray says:

    “God commanded polygyny with the law of the Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) and of course, as seen above, God participated in polygyny.”

    God did not ‘participate in polygyny’. Let’s watch it when we associate holy God with base sexual practices. That’s not what the passage concerning a ‘new covenant with Israel and Judah’ means.

    Ironically, the passage is very relevant to our place, and certainly is directed principally at current times.

  71. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Here’s a rule I wish all women took to heart: Men deserve to be judged by what they say or do, and not by how they “make” a woman feel.

    We men can only control our actions. We are limited in our ability to “make” a woman feel one way or another.

    Let’s reverse the roles. A man might see a woman who resembles an obese, smelly, disgusting pig, and he might “feel” revulsion at the sight — and odor — of her. But it wouldn’t be fair to condemn her, any more than it’s fair to condemn a man, if neither actually said or did anything unChristian.

    Some people, we just don’t like the way they look. Bad vibes. That goes for both men and women. So if women expect men to be considerate of creepish women, then women must be considerate to creepish men.

  72. infowarrior1 says:

    @Oscar

    I understood that passage as older women mentoring younger women in how to love their husbands and children and so and and so forth which requires more intense one on one interaction which group setting cannot accomplish rather than standing up and preaching as a man would at the pulpit.

    After all didnt Paul say:” I do not permit a woman to teach or to have Authority over a man” which implies also preaching at the pulpit even exclusively to women is against God’s word?

  73. Looking Glass says:

    Before we get too lost in 3,000 word diatribes, taking it back to the start of the thread.

    Mrs. Kassian starts with a pretty classic way of approaching the Bible: Over read the passage, under read the context and miss the passages around it. This is the major problem we tend to have with modern translations. Whatever equivalence they produce comes with the problem of removing the context and implications. (See the creation of the Authorized Version in the 1880s.)

    Mrs. Kassian would never describe herself as a Feminist. And she doesn’t think she acts like one. That one is pretty clear throughout the sermon. But her theology (and points) are so mixed with the World that she can claim no demarcation between them.

    Her entire first point dies (taking the point of the sermon with it) if she reads the next two passages: “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.” 2 Timothy 3:8-9 (ESV) .

    Jannes & Jambres are the traditional names given to the Magicians of Pharaoh. (See Exodus 7) Men of power and ability that could perform miracles. These guys weren’t jokes and were obviously capable of performing what they did. (Aaron’s staff eats theirs, after all.) But the point the Apostle Paul is fairly clearly making is to the nature of their opposition. They are corrupted and “disqualified regarding the faith”, yet they have an audience. Almost like the person giving the sermon.

    Reading further, I’m really surprised people are defending this. Sure, there’s some specific, solid points that aren’t pushed as dog-whistles. But the entire sermon is askew to the Lord and a solid understanding of Life in the Lord. It intersects at enough parts that it “sounds fine”, but it really isn’t. She even quotes a few passages from Proverbs about “wise women”, yet spends no time on that topic in general.

    This really is a “You Go Grrl!” sermon, just in the corrupted, Churchian way. And a complete lack of humility, as well. She spends an entire part name-dropping everyone “big” she gets to work with. And herself.

  74. kronbergweb says:

    Dave & Toad
    Stand up on your hind legs you damned goats and answer me. Answer a Christian who has been one since childhood. You are telling me that God only answers prayers for a suitable help meet if the man gives off that certain alpha tingle; it he has enough jingle in his pocket. Adam was given a job to do before Eve was created; it is his responsibility to do that job; that is where God deals with him; the help-meet is there to help him do that job; that is how it works, not tingle or jingle.

    Your Alpha Beta sh*t is for fornicators and adulterers. It is God who made man and in Him is found one’s masculinity, not tingle or jingle: I was taught that while laying on a hospital bed wrapped in a towel diaper, seventy pounds underweight, and shitting out my side when my abdomen burst open as a result of a failed by-pass months earlier.

    So answer me. were the words of my prayers syntactically incorrect; did I mispronounce key words or leave out some as I prayed over the years. Did I neglect to face the right direction when I prayed. Did I neglect to hop on one foot? If there a special, masonic hand shake and dance with God that has to be done as I pray: does one do a palm slap, thumb and pinkie hook, bump fists and elbows and hips to get a prayer for a help-meet? If so, this is considerably unlike any other prayer, including the ones which were answered as I lay on a hospital bed: is there a secret meeting of men in churches who pass on the secret to only a select few alpha brothers in Christ?
    No, the reality is this: women despise the character of men formed in them by God as they grow up in Christ; there is no alpha beta sh*t in Christ. I have been in campus churches, conservative churches, liberal churches, fundamentalist churches, and non-denominational churches; the only difference among them is the proportion of women between those who go for the tingle and those who go for the tingle; and such are unfit for men in Christ.

  75. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    You wrote:

    Dave, you are a liar. I have never claimed that just because something is not forbidden in Scripture that it’s acceptable for Christians to do.

    But you have claimed exactly that, in the following paragraphs that you wrote on January 31st, 2016 (near the bottom of the comment):

    And that bag of bull the church was selling about premarital sex to support the idea *they* were in charge of marriage? It doesn’t exist. Nail the virgin and you marry her. On the subject of extra-marital sex with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman? *Crickets* (and that includes the New Testament too). The big change between the Law and the NT was that under the Law, there was no prohibition on using prostitutes (OT dread game?) but with the NT we got a prohibition at 1st Cor. 6:15-16. Funny thing is, why did Paul limit that to only prostitutes? God didn’t prohibit extra-marital sex (except for adultery) in the Law and Paul only changed that to prohibit the use of prostitutes.

    It’s stuff like this that truly reveals the power of tradition. Search the Scripture and you’ll see that the prohibitions are not there. So, did God forget? Did He get it wrong? Something must have happened that made the church jump in and fix things, right? And isn’t it interesting that the 7 churches that Christ commanded John to write to didn’t include the church at Rome. Maybe He’d already removed His lampstand from Rome. That would sure explain their behavior down through the ages.

    Adultery requires a married woman. No married woman, no adultery. So, if a married man has sex with the widow down the street, it isn’t adultery. If he gets in bed with the virginal babysitter, guess what? He has another wife! According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 neither is a sin. According to Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 it might be a sin for some people, but that’s an individual issue of conscience and we are commanded not to judge.

    Here you argue that extra-marital sex with a non-virgin, which almost everyone but you believes to be a sun forbidden by Scripture (adultery if you’re married to someone else, fornication if you aren’t), is not a sin, specifically because Scripture doesn’t forbid it.

    So Dave is not a liar. Rather, he remembers what you wrote a month ago — and so do I. If you want to argue that Dave and I misunderstood what you wrote, go ahead. But the face value of your words above is that you have clearly claimed that something not forbidden in Scripture is acceptable for Christians to do. The best you can say is “Okay, I didn’t mean it that way, but I can see how you could misunderstand me.”

    But you should not call Dave a liar because he took your words to mean what they say. Please retract your false accusation.

  76. Robin Munn says:

    Oops. “a sin forbidden by Scripture”, not “a sun forbidden by Scripture”. Typo slipped through my proofreading.

  77. theasdgamer says:

    @ Looking Glass

    Kassian’s talk wasn’t expositional; it was exhortational. She can be forgiven for ignoring most of the Timothy context. She was heads and tails above most of what I have heard in her word study. I have heard a lot more error from Southern Baptist preachers in their sermons.

    In an exhortational talk, it’s fine to use scripture as merely a jumping-off point, which is what Kassian did. Did she make errors in the talk? Doubtlessly, as Oscar wrote. However, she didn’t make the errors of which she is being accused in the OP. It was a fine talk for which she is to be commended. And her talk was in a conference aimed exclusively at women. I have no problem with the context for her talk. I even mentioned her talk to Mrs. Gamer.

    I think that some people have a problem with Kassian wanting to make women strong; somehow, they think that doing so feeds the Strong Independent Woman ™ femininist meme. However, Kassian uses that meme as a feminist foil which she defeats and substitutes with strength which relies on God and is totally in line with scripture.

  78. Looking Glass says:

    @theasdgamer:

    I’m one generally wiling to take certain “bad” with the “good”, simply as we are human. And I don’t have a problem with using Scripture as a jumping-off point to explain something that needs to be explained. (Not every sermon needs to be deep Theology, as there’s the entire realm of practically implementation that’s far too often skipped.) But if we’re going to judge it as a “live better” speech, then she’s not very good at giving them, the writing isn’t that great and the practical teaching was minimal, at best.

    Good rhetoric is good rhetoric. But a Christian should expect that the good rhetoric is founded on God’s Wisdom. And there are some howlers in that speech.

    So I don’t see Dalrock as being wrong in that she turned the passage on its head. Mrs. Kassian wholly ignores the aspects of how to accomplish what she wants to dissect from the 1 Timothy passage that Dalrock quoted. Though I can see how Dalrock could have been clearer in his point.

  79. ace says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    February 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    “But, nobody wants to touch this because it’s too much. According to all the data I’ve seen, over HALF the people who got married in the 1950’s were not virgins. Today, in the general population that figure is about 5% and among “highly religious” groups that figure is (at best) about 20%. “

    Not trying to nit-pick but it’s closer to 3% that observe abstinence in the US i.e. pretty much no one is a virgin at the altar.

    http://waitingtillmarriage.org/4-cool-statistics-about-abstinence-in-the-usa/

    “Muslims are least likely to have sex outside of marriage, according to a new study that compared the sexual behaviors of all the major religious groups in the world.

    The study also found an inverse relationship between the number of Muslims in a country to the rate of premarital sex in the general population. They found that not only do fewer Muslims have sex outside of the marriage, as a country’s Muslim population grows, the rate of premarital sex declines among all residents, even non-Muslims.

    Researchers Amy Adamczyk, Associate Professor of Sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Brittany Hayes, a Ph.D. student in John Jay’s Criminal Justice program, analyzed responses from over 620,000 people between the ages of 15 and 59, who were part of the Demographic and Health Surveys in 31 mostly developing nations from 2000 to 2008.
    Most countries were either predominately Muslim or Christian, except India and Nepal, which is predominately Hindu, and Cambodia, which is predominately Buddhist.

    Results from the study showed that, on average, Muslims who were married were 53 percent and Hindus 40 percent less likely than Christians to report premarital sex. However, Jews and Buddhists are more likely than Christians to have sex before getting married, according to the study.”

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/muslims-least-likely-engage-premarital-and-extramarital-sex-study-suggests-243190

    Maybe importing those Syrian refugees isn’t a bad idea.

  80. theasdgamer says:

    I have been very clear, I think, in pointing out Dal’s reading error. No one has rebutted my points, but they continue to insist that Dal’s only problem is clarity. That is bad form.

    One of Kassian’s objectives in her talk was to hit hard against feminism in ways that would appeal to women–particularly the “strong” part of Strong Independent Woman ™. She also needs to hit hard against the “independent” part of that meme, which would require discussing wives being submissive to and dependent on their husbands. Hitting the “independent” part of that meme will be a lot more difficult and controversial, I think. Stay tuned for Kassian’s next round against Feminism.

  81. theasdgamer says:

    Let’s talk about nonverbals in Kassian’s talk. She has an issue with Christian feminists. A big issue. Kassian, in her talk, is implicitly calling Christian feminists “weak” and “silly” and pointing out the biblical way for women to be strong. Christian feminists are following Kassian. Without naming those feminists, Kassian is belittling them. This is my nonverbal read of Kassian’s talk.

    Christian trad-con women who hear this talk will hear the anti-feminism part of the talk and that will be uncontroversial to them. Christian feminists (if there is such a thing), will hear the put down in Kassian’s talk.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Maybe. As far as I can tell, she’s preaching to women, which would fulfill the commandment in Titus 2:3-5 that older women should disciple younger women. If, on the other hand, she’s teaching men, then yes, you’re right.

    Titus 2 isn’t permission for women to preach. She isn’t taking a young woman or a few young women aside and instructing them to love their husbands, be discrete chaste homemakers, and to be obedient to their husbands. She is giving an hour long sermon on the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:6-7:

    You can turn there to 2 Timothy 3:6-7. That’s the passage we’re going to park on this morning, and I’m going to unpack it for you.

    Even if she includes some of the instruction referenced in Titus 2, this is something very different. This is her taking on the role of preacher.

    The other common argument is that it is ok to have women as preachers so long as they are only women’s preachers. I’m not sure from your statement above if this is your assertion or not, but if so I would be interested in your basis in Scripture for this. I don’t see one, and what we have done is created separate teaching tracks for men and women. Men and the congregation as a whole are taught during the official sermon, and then women go off on their own to find women to preach, write books, blogs, etc to understand what Scripture means if you are a woman. Paul said women should ask their husbands at home if they have questions, but the new doctrine is for them to find another woman and ask her. I will write a post on this when I have more time, but it is a disaster.

    As for the content of her sermon, she did include some good things. But the fundamental point of the sermon, her “unpacking” the verses in Timothy are wrong. The most charitable reading is she says Paul was telling Timothy that the church was at risk because women weren’t praying enough and reading their Bible enough. But the point of Paul’s words in that passage wasn’t for Timothy to go strengthen the women, it was to reiterate that women can be more easily deceived, and this is an ancient vector for deception.

    I’ll put it another way. Is this correct (edited for brevity but see the transcripts for full):

    And one of the problems that was facing the church there was that false teachers were impacting the church, influencing the church from the inside. And they were finding a disproportionate amount of success amongst the women, because the women were weak….

    These women were childish and frivolous and silly and immature and wimpy. They deserved the triple W label: weak, wimpy woman. [laughter]

    The point is, they ought not to have been. They ought not to have been that.

    Is this really what is happening in the verses in question? Because this is what the women in the audience are being taught.

  83. The LSD Gamer, you totally missed the point completely. She isn’t even meant to be preaching, not to anyone. She will lead women and now you, astray. Paul’s words were directly linked to women thinking they are capable of preaching the Gospel. They are not.

  84. theasdgamer says:

    Dal wrote: Is this really what is happening in the verses in question?

    Yours is an expository question. I have already explained that Kassian wasn’t doing exposition. Your question is irrelevant to anything. Kassian’s definition of “weak” in the context of her talk is “not relying on Christ’s strength, but trying to substitute your own strength as a woman”. And Paul certainly wasn’t telling Timothy that Timothy needed to make the women strong, but that is an expository question, isn’t it? Nevertheless, if the women who were being influenced by false teachers had been strong in Christ, they wouldn’t likely have been influenced very much, would they? So, while Kassian’s message doesn’t flow out of the passage (again, it’s not expository, so her message isn’t required to flow out of the text), it is consonant with the passage.

    Kassian wrote that the false teachers were “influencing the church from the inside. And they were finding a disproportionate amount of success amongst the women….” It sounds a whole lot like what you wrote, “it [the passage] was to reiterate that women can be more easily deceived, and this is an ancient vector for deception.”

    Kassian has a Ph.D. in systematic theology, but she wasn’t teaching theology to women.

    You still aren’t reading Kassian very well at all.

    You have an issue with Kassian teaching women at a conference. Ok. I have an issue with it, too, but in a different way. Where is the accountability? To which authority does she account? And I could go on about the whole church building thing, which isn’t found in the NT. Christians didn’t build buildings to worship in until the fourth century. No lecterns or pulpits until then. No choirs. All those things came from pagan temples.

    There were many thousands of Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem in the days after Pentecost. They worshipped at the Temple and met house to house, as we find in Acts. No Christian church buildings. Why is that?

    So, if you’re going to beat up Kassian for teaching women, you have a lot more serious targets to go after. Christians emulating ancient pagans. Century after century. And deserting the ancient tradition from Christ and the apostles which tradition involved Christians meeting in homes as opposed to church buildings.

    You’re trying to avoid engaging me. Why?

  85. Dalrock says:

    @theasdgamer

    Yours is an expository question. I have already explained that Kassian wasn’t doing exposition. Your question is irrelevant to anything. Kassian’s definition of “weak” in the context of her talk is “not relying on Christ’s strength, but trying to substitute your own strength as a woman”. And Paul certainly wasn’t telling Timothy that Timothy needed to make the women strong, but that is an expository question, isn’t it? Nevertheless, if the women who were being influenced by false teachers had been strong in Christ, they wouldn’t likely have been influenced very much, would they?

    They will always be more at risk of being deceived. Paul is talking about something fundamental to women, something that he explicitly states in another verse goes back to the fall. Teaching women they can overcome this by simply having stronger faith is exactly the wrong message. Paul explained repeatedly that the solution is for women not to speak in church, and to ask their husbands if they had questions. Kassian is teaching the women they can overcome what Paul is talking about so they will be strong like the men. She is giving them the exact error they are tempted to jump on, in a way that doesn’t sound like an error at all.

    If you can’t see the error, how do you expect her audience to?

  86. Andrew says:

    In the quoted passage, Paul warns Timothy that false teachers will sneakily exploit foolish women. Can you believe the brazen arrogance it takes for a woman to think “Us girls might consider whether there’s a warning for us in there too”?

    Next thing you know, people will be claiming that passages about feeding animals can teach us about supporting human workers, or something equally ridiculous.

  87. theasdgamer says:

    Kassian erred in one thing she wrote, “I’m going to unpack it for you.” She didn’t do exposition. Silly men believed that a woman was going to do what she said, lol. What do we hear? Believe what a woman does, not what she says.

  88. thedeti says:

    The objections to Dalrock’s post are because feminism is so entrenched, it so saturates everything, it is present to such an extent, that everyone is really uncomfortable with St. Paul’s statement. He is saying women aren’t to teach or preach, they’re not to speak in church, and they’re to ask their husbands at home if they have questions (i.e. questions about something they saw or heard at a public mass or service).

    The bottom line here, folks, is that some of you are very uncomfortable with this statement. I admit – I’m not completely comfortable with it. I wouldn’t be completely comfortable with saying this at a church service or telling a woman not my wife something like this: “Don’t talk in church. You’re not to teach. If you have questions, go home and ask your husband.”

    If you asked Kassian or Rachel Held Evans if that was the meaning of Paul’s statement, she’d probably say something like ‘ well, the text says what it says, but that was for a different time and place’ or ‘the text says that, but it’s a different translation and here’s what it means NOW for today’ or something similar.

    We have to get past our discomfort and squeamishness with the text.

  89. Let’s talk about nonverbals in Kassian’s talk. She has an issue with Christian feminists. A big issue. Kassian, in her talk, is implicitly calling Christian feminists “weak” and “silly” and pointing out the biblical way for women to be strong. Christian feminists are following Kassian. Without naming those feminists, Kassian is belittling them. This is my nonverbal read of Kassian’s talk.

    Let’s not because that it the most pathetic attempt at weaseling something good out a women teaching what the Bible says. She’s not to do it, okay, not at all. Done.

    You seem to want to say that it should be done because you have a hard on for Ms Kassian. Well, best you sort that out first and get back to us.

  90. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dalrock

    Paul explained repeatedly that the solution is for women not to speak in church

    We find in Acts 21:8b-9, Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses

    Where did Philip’s daughters prophesy, if not in church? And if the church met in houses, the prophesying was done in houses while Christian meetings were going on. Prophesying certainly involves speaking. So, maybe your reading of Paul is in error.

    I think that Paul was getting after the Corinthians for a couple of things:

    1) the women were being disruptive and

    2) women were being pedestalized by the men because the women in church didn’t cover their heads and hide their glory, which is their hair.

    Clearly, women at Corinth had a problem with submission to men, attention-seeking, entitlement, running their mouths, etc.

  91. thedeti says:

    And a lot of us are uncomfortable with what Paul says in 2 Tim. 3:6-7, which is essentially that women can be more easily led astray from necessities and from truth. There are many things that lead women astray: emotions, distractions, a multitude of tasks, concerns of family and children, etc. He’s not saying women are stupid or worthless. He’s not even saying women are weak where they should be strong.

    Paul is simply saying women are more easily carried away by so many other things. Women are more easily unmoored from First Things than men are; that men see “the big picture” more easily than women do. He’s saying that, at least in this context where we’re talking about faithful teaching and preaching and avoiding error, men are better able to prioritize, see the important things, separate the wheat from the chaff. Men are less likely than women to let feelings and emotions lead them away from what the facts clearly tell them.

    Or at least they should be.

  92. Dave says:

    @Robin Munn,

    Artisanal Toad is delusional. You can argue all you want with him, and show him the appropriate scriptures, yet he won’t admit his errors. I hope he is not beyond help at this stage.

    de·lu·sion
    /dəˈlo͞oZHən/
    noun
    noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions
    an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

    A man who implicitly claims that he knows more about the mind of God than all of the Apostles combined, and that he has more revelation of the truth than ALL Christians throughout history. That is Artisanal Toad. He has been taken over by seducing spirits and that is why he continues to spew his doctrines of demons all over the place.

    May God have mercy on you, Artisanal Toad, so that you can come to your senses and escape from the snare of the devil (2 Timothy 2:26).

  93. Kassian seems to think that if only women were more strong they wouldn’t be deceived, if only they can overcome Eve’s weakness, the serpent can’t get at them. They will not and cannot hear that by their very nature, not their strength or lack thereof, they will be deceived, whether they like it or not.

    And because they will be deceived, you do not allow them to teach their deception to others because it will spread; and soon you will have entirely new meanings to simple words so as not to offend the sensibilities of these new, strong women. Of course, their very offense speaks to their being deceived. The truth hurts.

  94. Dave says:

    @Robin Munn,

    Here you argue that extra-marital sex with a non-virgin, which almost everyone but you believes to be a sun forbidden by Scripture (adultery if you’re married to someone else, fornication if you aren’t), is not a sin, specifically because Scripture doesn’t forbid it.

    O yes he did, and thank you for fishing out his original post.
    Artisanal Toad has very limited understanding of spiritual things. He seems to lack a basic understanding of the principles of biblical doctrines. Of course he is well learned in the secular aspects of religion, being able to read the writings of religious writers, and their godless theologies.

    But you don’t need any learned person to explain Scripture to you. Anyone who could read a newspaper, or listen to the news on the radio, can read the Bible, or listen to it being read, and understand it perfectly well. After all, those who wrote the Bible under God’s inspiration were often stark illiterates. Shepherds, fishermen, data entry clerks, etc. With very few exceptions, those who wrote the Bible were not highly educated folks. Even after divine inspiration, chances are they could only still write for readers at their intellectual levels.
    The Bible itself says we don’t need anyone to teach us: as long as we are taught by the same anointing which wrote it.

    As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 John 2:27

    Artisanal Toad would rather torture and twist the Scripture to fit his damnable heresies, to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16 ).

    Again, may God have mercy on you, Artisanal Toad.

  95. Robin Munn says:

    Ace wrote:

    The study also found an inverse relationship between the number of Muslims in a country to the rate of premarital sex in the general population. They found that not only do fewer Muslims have sex outside of the marriage, as a country’s Muslim population grows, the rate of premarital sex declines among all residents, even non-Muslims.

    Have you ever talked to US soldiers returning from Afghanistan or Iraq about what is considered sexually permissible in those countries? I looked through that study’s full text to see whether they ever addressed the “what actually counts as extramarital sex?” problem (a.k.a., the “goats and boys don’t count” problem*), and I find nowhere where they addressed it.

    So I’m not too sanguine about those results; they may only be reflecting a culture’s different definitions of what is acceptable, rather than actual better behavior.

    BTW, the other place where I find the study totally inadequate is how they tried to control for the “people will lie about unacceptable behavior” problem. This is the paragraph where they tried to address it:

    For reporting extramarital sex, we were especially concerned that Muslim women would respond in socially desirable ways. In a separate multivariate analysis, we found that regardless of how many people were present or who they were (e.g., husband), the direction and significance of the religious affiliation variables were the same. These findings suggest that when under pressure to respond in socially desirable ways, Muslim women do not appear to change their responses in such a way that would alter findings regarding sexual behaviors.

    They conclude from this that the Muslim women were telling them the truth in private, as well as when their husbands were present. But there’s an alternative hypothesis: that the women were unwilling to admit bad behavior to anyone, even a researcher who swears that they’ll keep the responses a secret. In a society where you just DON’T trust strangers, I believe that most women thought, “Yeah, right. SURE you won’t tell my husband what I said. As if.” And then went ahead and gave the socially-acceptable responses when they were in private just as much as when their husbands were present.

    So I don’t trust the results from this study, because I believe it is suffering from GIGO — garbage in, garbage out. If the study respondents lied to them on a large scale, and consistently whether or not they were in private, you’d see the same outcomes that they obtained. The study authors’ unexamined faith in the veracity of their responses is touchingly naïve.

    * I wish I was making that up, but FAR too many milblogs have talked about that attitude.

  96. thedeti says:

    Look at some of the other translations of 2 Tim. 3:6-7.

    NIV: They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

    NKJV: For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    TLB: They are the kind who craftily sneak into other people’s homes and make friendships with silly, sin-burdened women and teach them their new doctrines. 7 Women of that kind are forever following new teachers, but they never understand the truth.

    Amplified Bible (a favorite among women and female Bible teachers): For among them are those who worm their way into homes and captivate morally weak and spiritually-dwarfed women weighed down by [the burden of their] sins, easily swayed by various impulses, 7 always learning and listening to anybody who will teach them, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    ESV: For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

    It’s pretty clear that Paul is talking here about the fact that women are more easily led astray and deceived. The texts describe women as gullible women led astray, silly women being taught new doctrines, morally weak women easily swayed by their impulses, weak women led astray. You’d expect the AMP Bible to do a better job of explaining it so that you could extract the meaning more easily, but that’s a difficult task the wordier the text gets. It seems no accident that the KJV, the first English translation, was used in Dalrock’s OP, because the text in the KJV captures Paul’s meaning more faithfully.

  97. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    I just re-read your 12:31 AM post, and it’s worse than I thought. Earlier, I stopped reading at the sentences I quoted, and went back to look through Dalrock’s archives for the comment I thought I remembered you making. So I didn’t see where you went and now just called Dave a liar, but threw in an entire final paragraph full of insults that were completely unnecessary. And, as has now been proven, also entirely false.

    So in addition to asking you to retract your false accusation of lying, I am now telling you that you also owe Dave an apology for that utterly insulting final paragraph, which (as has now been proven) he did not deserve in the least. Even if he had deserved it, that would have been complete ad hominem, the very thing you were complaining that he was doing to you. Now that we’ve quoted your own words back to you to prove that Dave was not lying about what you said, you owe him both a retraction AND an apology. If you have any integrity, they will be forthcoming within a day.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Feminist Hater

    Kassian seems to think that if only women were more strong they wouldn’t be deceived, if only they can overcome Eve’s weakness, the serpent can’t get at them.

    Yes. This is what she is teaching. She is saying Paul is saying “I noticed that women in your church are disproportionately likely to fall for bad teaching.” Expanding the quote I provided for Oscar above (edited for brevity where you see “…” but see the transcripts for full):

    You can turn there to 2 Timothy 3:6-7. That’s the passage we’re going to park on this morning, and I’m going to unpack it for you.

    Now, the background to 2 Timothy is that it was written by Paul, and it was written near the end of his life. He was in prison, and he was writing it to one of his protégés in Ephesus, to Timothy in Ephesus who was working with the church there.

    And in the letter, the letter is a bold and a clear call for perseverance in times of difficulty, in times of hardship. It was encouraging the church, but he was also correcting some problems that were in the church in Ephesus.

    And one of the problems that was facing the church there was that false teachers were impacting the church, influencing the church from the inside. And they were finding a disproportionate amount of success amongst the women, because the women were weak….

    These women were childish and frivolous and silly and immature and wimpy. They deserved the triple W label: weak, wimpy woman. [laughter]

    The point is, they ought not to have been. They ought not to have been that.

    This is by the way pure feminist thinking, starting from the assumption that the results should be the same and then assuming any difference means more teaching/helping of women is needed. Leaving aside the fact that she should not be giving a sermon (and that is directly related to Paul’s message), she is teaching women they can overcome what Paul is talking about. Paul makes this clear that this is not the case.

    Also, what we have here is a common sleight of hand. In Fireproof at the very end of the movie they announce the twist that the Love Dare originally was for women. See, this isn’t really aimed at husbands! Wink, wink, this is a gender neutral message. Likewise, Kassian spends 45 minutes on girlpower and then tacks on the twist at the very end that women aren’t strong, they need to lean on Jesus. In both cases the sex specific message is clear, with an obligitory tack on at the end to make it seem gender neutral (as men have to lean on Jesus too…)

    I get why ASDGamer can’t understand the subtext of this, as subtext is a known blind spot. But not everyone has this excuse.

  99. Chris says:

    This is the same denomination that brought us Al Mohler, and I probably don’t need to quote him to any of the gentlemen here. Along with its recent history of anti-Semitism, it’s safe to say the SBC has lost its way.

  100. Robin Munn says:

    @Dave –

    Larry Correia (an author who sometimes blogs about politics, and is especially knowledgeable about guns) has occasionally said on his blog that he argues with people even though he knows they won’t be convinced, because it’s not them that he’s trying to convince; it’s all the other people reading the argument. As he says, “Internet arguing is a spectator sport.” If someone is repeatedly making false claims (which often happens through ignorance) and nobody corrects them, then the spectators may start to think the claims are correct. Refute them, however, and maybe the person you’re arguing with won’t be convinced, but the dozen people who read the argument and never speak up may be convinced of the truth, if you’ve presented your side of the argument well.

    So even if you’re never going to convince AT that he’s reading the Scriptures wrong, it’s worth replying to him, so that others who read his comments will be able to see both his reading and the correct reading, side by side to be compared.

  101. The main idea of marriage is that you need two witnesses in order to be married.
    That means two males above the age of 13 to witness it. And you need the man and woman to intend to be married. A woman can be acquired as a wife in one of three ways: sex, money, or a document in front of 2 witnesses. Plus you need some kind of words along the lines of “You are married to me by this ring” or “You are acquired to me by this ring (or document)”

    The verses from where these are learned from are brought down in Kidushin on the very first Mishna. plus they use the idea of a גזירה שווה. That is: when one word is used in two different places, you apply the laws of one place to the other.
    That is דבר ערווה and יקום דבר have the same word so we say to marry requires two witnesses.

    על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, על כל דבר ערווה, אין דבר שבערווה פחות משניים That is one verse says “No thing shall stand except by the word of two witnesses” and the other verse says “on everything that relates to עריות.” From this they learn that all things related to marriage and divorce need two witnesses.

    Adultery is sex with a married woman. That is not symmetric. A man can be married to two wives. But a woman can be married only to one man. But if a woman married to a man has sex with another man both the man and woman get the death penalty. The reason for the death penalty is because it come under the category of עריות forbidden sexual relations mentioned twice in Leviticus

    Girl friends are not wives. But there is an argument if a girl friend is permitted.

    What is going on in the NT is not the issue here. Rather I am just trying to clarify what the law of marriage is according to the Old Testament.

    Paul clearly has other ideas. One idea of Paul is that marriage is not a sin. So the church said that celibacy is best. But if not celibacy then marriage is OK. The there is the Acts of Paul and Thecla in which marriage is considered a sin. In any, case in the Old Testament things are different.

  102. Bill Smith says:

    theasdgamer, Phillips daughters prophesied, they were not prophetesses. Your point still remains however.

    The Scriptural admonition to keep silent in church has to mean something more than just “don’t talk in church at all” since everyone, including men and women, is told elsewhere to share with one another “psalms and hymns and spirituals songs.” This was not sex constrained that I recall. Glad to be clarified by the Scripture, but we do need to take the entire picture in our review, not just a couple of Scriptures.

    I wish things were clearer, but too little detail is given in far too many areas. Blanket statements are more likely to suffocate us if used improperly.

  103. Jim says:

    All this comes down to one thing. People are a product of their time. And that’s why the Bible is being interpreted with this idiotic equality BS (which really becomes female superiority over time). And having women become preachers is just another symptom of this. This idiotic egalitarian mindset has been a damned poison to Christianity and the west period.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    theasdgamer
    Clearly, women at Corinth had have a problem with submission to men, attention-seeking, entitlement, running their mouths, etc.

    FIFY.

  105. shammahworm says:

    @Dale
    “You might want to try to open your mind to allow different possible interpretations. If you grab the first possibility and do not consider other possible, you may have the wrong one.
    In this case, why is it not possible that “take a wife” just means he agrees to take her in that role. If I say that I have “taken a new job”, I am not a liar even though I have never “consumated” the job by working even one day yet. That should be an obvious idea. Commitment toward a future fulfillment.”

    I agree there’s more compelling pieces of scripture like the one you mentioned. I’d already typed walls of text regarding this topic in another thread and I didn’t have the time or energy to do it again, especially given AT’s history on here. The main point of the post was to point out AT’s heresies. That was just a quick example of something I knew from other parts of the Bible as well. We could also use the example of Solomon’s wives and concubines to show this as another example of how sex =/= marriage.

    I don’t think getting a job is equivalent to marriage like the example you cited. But I also think it doesn’t matter because of the example you provided.

  106. thedeti says:

    A bit of criticism of this post from Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2016/03/mary-kassian-on-weak-women-strong-women.html

  107. Dalrock says:

    @ASDGamer

    Clearly, women at Corinth had a problem with submission to men, attention-seeking, entitlement, running their mouths, etc.

    Paul is writing to Corinth, but he is describing what is universal in the Church. He declares that it is shameful for women to speak in church. Note also that he immediately follows up with a reminder that they aren’t special in Corinth, and they can’t make up their own rules. He is telling them to conform:

    34 Let your[d] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

    36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?

    Additionally, this fits with Paul’s message in Ephesians 5 (husbands washing their wives in the water of the word), and in 1 and 2 Timothy.

  108. Damn Crackers says:

    How many of Paul’s words are seriously accepted by Christians anymore? Christians sue Christians all the time. I’ve seen a lot of uncovered heads in church last time I was there. I see a lot of women with braided hair, a big no-no for Paul. How many Christians drink to excess or are overweight?

    Instead of arguing scholastically how many angels are on the head of a pin, we should heed the words of Peter on Paul – “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Weren’t many of Paul’s letters and words specific to the Churches he wrote to?

    Nevertheless, I agree with Dalrock’s points on feminism corrupting the church and going against the teachings of the Apostles.

  109. Oaths and vows are not the same thing as getting married. Vows are נדרים. Oaths are שבועות. The laws in which a father or husband can annul the vow of a נערה [girl from 12 to 12.5 years old] refers to things people take vows for. For example “This loaf of bread is like a sacrifice to me.” Thus since no one is allowed to eat a sacrifice from the time it is sanctified until it is offered in teh Temple so she can not eat the loaf of bread. But if her father or if she gets married then her husband hears the vow then he can nullify it if is still daylight. [up until 72 minutes after sunset.] Marriage is not like that. Marriage is a state. It can only be taken off by a divorce document given in front of two witnesses.

  110. Damn Crackers says:

    @Avraham rosenblum

    It is interesting you brought up the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. It seems Tertullian disputed the text over having a woman preach and baptize.

  111. Damn Crackers says:

    Also, I enjoyed Kassian’s take on Satan as some supernatural Aqualung…a diabolical creepy perv.

  112. @Splashman

    That was a beautiful deflection. Absolutely beautiful. In Matthew 19, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in verses 4-5. His comment that “from the beginning it has not been this way” with respect to divorce points to the fact that Genesis 2:24, which was the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage, did not contain the authority to terminate marriage.

    By the same token, Genesis 2:24 did not contain a limitation on the authority of the man to initiate more than one marriage.

    You ignored the passage I quoted from Jeremiah 31. You ignored my citation of Deuteronomy 25:5-10. In other words, you’re ignoring the issue and as I said, that was a beautiful deflection.

    @Robin Munn

    No, I stand by what I said: Dave lied. I think it’s incumbent upon Dave to explain why he put that statement in quotes, which leads one to believe I actually said that. I didn’t, but there’s far more to this in terms of nuance because the accusation you and Dave are making against me is just as applicable to the Apostle Paul. You said:

    Here you argue that extra-marital sex with [an unmarried] non-virgin, which almost everyone but you believes to be a sin forbidden by Scripture (adultery if you’re married to someone else, fornication if you aren’t), is not a sin, specifically because Scripture doesn’t forbid it. [Emphasis and corrections Added]

    That, sir, is EXACTLY what Romans 4:15 and 5:13 says, which can be condensed as: Where there is no law there is no violation and no sin is imputed. The Apostle Paul wrote that, and I argue he knew full well there is *nothing* in the Law that says extra-marital sex with a non-virgin is prohibited. Did he get it wrong, or are you claiming that I got it wrong because I don’t understand what he wrote? If that’s your claim, feel free to make your argument and explain why Romans 4:15 and 5:13 *don’t* mean exactly what the text says. You might be surprised if you actually study that and drill down to the Greek.

    Your comment implies you are one of those I mentioned in a previous comment, incapable of giving a Biblical definition of the words fornication and adultery. Why don’t you do a study of the Greek word “porneia” and see where that takes you? What follows is the train of logic that I’ve used in my comments:

    =Adultery is a violation of the Law. Any violation of God’s Law is a sin.
    =Sexual immorality and fornication refer (by definition) to violations of God’s Law.
    =Sex outside marriage with an unmarried woman is not a violation of the Law.
    =According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, such extra-marital sex is not a sin.
    =Therefore, sex with an unmarried woman cannot be adultery, sexual immorality or fornication.

    *******UNLESS, AND THIS CAVEAT ONLY APPLIES TO CHRISTIANS*******

    =Sex with the unmarried woman is not of faith, or if the individual knows the right thing for them to do is wait for marriage until having sex, in which case sex outside marriage *IS SIN FOR THAT MAN OR WOMAN*
    =In this situation the decision is an individual matter and we (you’re included in that, Robin) are *commanded* not to judge (Romans 14:4)

    @Dale

    You misunderstood what I was saying, and you are making the common error in assuming you know *why* God said be fruitful and multiply. Rather than argue that, I’ll just point out that Western (Christian) civilization is dying out because the people are *not* being fruitful and multiplying. To assume that God put a limitation on the command or that it was only for a limited period of time is to read into the text something that isn’t there.

    You said: This freedom from spiritual death does not translate into a complete freedom from consequences of sin.

    I never claimed that. What I have said in the past is that some women have, by their own actions so defiled and polluted themselves that they (regardless of their salvation and forgiveness from sin) are wholly unfit for monogamous marriage. I have written repeatedly why polygyny is a suitable and Biblically sanctioned form of marriage for such women (carousel riders have already preselected themselves for sharing a husband). I’ve also written repeatedly that the arguments of the MGOW brigade (Hi Feministhater!) can be correct, but ONLY if one assumes that monogamy is the only legitimate form of marriage, which it is most definitely not.

    As to your comment about Romans 1:26-27

    And I do not see how you could possibly reasonably compare a man who refuses to debase himself by taking an unworthy woman to the men in Romans 1 who forsook heterosexual relations FOR homosexual relations.

    You are disregarding the commonality between the men and women that Paul referred to when he said “likewise.” That commonality was giving up the natural function of women, which takes us straight back to the Creation story and raises the question of what Eve was created for. IF you take the fundamental purpose of Eve as being Adam’s sex toy, then your reading makes sense. However, IF Eve was created to be Adams’s wife, helpmeet and mother to his children, then Romans 1:26-27 carries a whole different meaning and that leads us to the question of what the “degrading passion” that Paul describes actually was. I submit to you and anyone else that the “degrading passion” referenced by Paul was feminism, which causes women to reject men, marriage and motherhood; as well as for men to reject marriage and fatherhood (MGTOW). The men, *in addition* to their sin of disregarding God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, added to their sins by violating Leviticus 18:22, which is described.

    The men and women in Romans 1:26-27 are unbelievers who are in rebellion against God and as a consequence God is pouring out His wrath on them. One consequence is they are suffering from a degrading passion (I claim it’s feminism) that causes them to reject marriage, family and the bearing and raising of children. I reject the idea that the men in Romans 1:27 “forsook heterosexual relations FOR homosexual relations” for the reasons I’ve already stated. The sexual immorality of the men (contra Leviticus 18:22) was in *addition* to their sin of rejecting the natural function of women.

    @ray

    The text says what it says. God is speaking and He said “I was a husband to them.” I didn’t cite it, but in Jeremiah 3 God describes giving Israel a certificate of divorce and sending her away. Perhaps there’s more to marriage, from God’s perspective, that any of us comprehend. And, maybe that’s just one reason why God said “My ways are not your ways, O man.”

    @kronbergweb

    I’ll address your demand in a separate comment.

  113. Dave says:

    Sex outside marriage with an unmarried woman is not a violation of the Law.
    According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, such extra-marital sex is not a sin.
    Therefore, sex with an unmarried woman cannot be adultery, sexual immorality or fornication.

    Can anyone with a modicum of spiritual sense write this type of garbage? Even a poor benighted heathen knows that Artisanal Toad is talking rubbish here.
    How in the world could a man who professes to be a Christian hold such beliefs that no one of repute in the whole of Christendom ever held? Why should anyone waste his or her time to argue with someone this spiritually dumb?

  114. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    In the hands of a Christian feminist Paul is no longer warning that those who would corrupt the Church will take a page out of the Serpent’s playbook in Eden and focus on deceiving women as the entry point. Instead, the passage above suddenly becomes a feminist message exhorting Christian women to be kickass tough girls.

    The commenters arguing that you have misinterpreted Kassian do not seem to get the fundamental truth that women were, are, and will be weak in comparison to men; physically, morally, emotionally, and in every way. That’s it. There’s no getting strong for them. They may get stronger, but they will never be strong like men are strong. So Kassian’s call for women to cease being weak by their own choices is ultimately a subversion of Paul’s teaching; both because it cannot be done, and because she has to break the rules to even attempt it.

    Compare: Two sisters argue bitterly and their father walks in. “SILENCE!” he roars at them. One sister says to the other, “Yeah, shut up!” If you can figure out what she did wrong, then you can figure out what is wrong with Kassian’s sermon.

    Keeping that in mind: Several posts back I lumped in several pastors as being part of the Emergent Church movement. Some commenters stridently defended John Piper, Tim Keller, and others as decidedly not part of the EC, but don’t take their words for it. Search the Web for your favorite pastor and “brokenness” and read what you find.

    Under the deluded cacophony of strong women is the constant rhythm of the weakness of men; often referred to as “brokenness”. This is the central score of modern Christianity and it has taken the place of the ancient and quaint idea that we are supposed to be singing (continuing to my analogy) about Christ. Don’t take my word for it, either. Listen to Christian radio, watch Christian movies, and read Christian media. What is front and center is not how great is our Lord, but about how much the writer, singer, protagonist needs help. If it is a man, it is a need for help in his weakness. If it is a woman it is need for help in her quest for power; which is a subtle but profoundly different desire. It is the replacement of the truth of the objective spiritual world with the subjective world of the psychological and the pathological.

    Just as we know that there are de facto feminists who refuse the title, so there are de facto EC’ers who claim to be orthodox or fundamental. The fruits of the EC movement are:

    – Brokenness (weak men)
    – Empowerment (strong women)
    – Diversity (repression of European influence)
    – Relevance (cultural cooption and suspicion of objectivity)

    The last in the list is the most important and its true name is Subversion. That word, more than any other I can think of, raises my hackles. It is Satan’s watchword.

  115. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    You guys are on fire. I love you bros. If it weren’t for you, I’d be sitting there looking frustrated (as usual) with the brothers in my circle me who can’t get through a men’s fellowship without constantly checking their phones to see if the wife needs anything.

    I watched the Kassian video twice, and I’m not going to hate on her. I’m not going to be too dogmatic about the fact that she was teaching – to women no less. I don’t care if it was expository or exhortational or if she was evangelizing, as long as she’s not trying to the brothers what to do or think – I’m cool with it; and I’m one who typically turns the channel when I see women teaching on TV. (On Blogs, that’s another matter. Some of the sisters spit good spiritual game online).

    But Gamer is right on many fronts. I also went out to Amazon and checked out some of the books that Kassian has written, and read the reviews from some of these “liberated” women. They hate on her big time. Even some of the complementarian women go hard at her. They accuse Kassian of being unfair to feminists (especially Christian feminists) while yet acknowledging that she does seem to have a good grasp of what feminism about.

    This contrast between her understanding the backdrop of feminism, while being a critic of it, is what makes her unique, but also can make her vexing, which is what I think BPP meant about “leaven”. She will always, to us, appear to have a little of that in the lump.

    But Kassian isn’t going to come out and say, “you feminists are unholy and unclean bitches”, so she’s saying that they’re silly. She is indeed belittling them.

    I sense that many of the brothers won’t be be satisfied until this woman goes the total fuck off on feminists. Not sure it will ever happen, but it sure would be fun to watch.

  116. PokeSalad says:

    The commenters arguing that you have misinterpreted Kassian do not seem to get the fundamental truth that women were, are, and will be weak in comparison to men; physically, morally, emotionally, and in every way. That’s it. There’s no getting strong for them. They may get stronger, but they will never be strong like men are strong. So Kassian’s call for women to cease being weak by their own choices is ultimately a subversion of Paul’s teaching; both because it cannot be done, and because she has to break the rules to even attempt it.

    Agreed. The subtlety isn’t that Kassian is incorrectly listing women’s faults…she does that very well. The error is that she seeks correction in women becoming more like men, rather than seek counsel/guidance/direction from their husbands and fathers. Of course, to do so would run counter to the Narrative.

  117. PokeSalad says:

    If it is a man, it is a need for help in his weakness. If it is a woman it is need for help in her quest for power; which is a subtle but profoundly different desire.

    Christian films come in two flavors: a) a broken, backsliding Christian man confesses and finds redemption; and b) a long-suffering, faithful, saintly Christian woman shames a broken, backsliding Christian man into confession and redemption.

  118. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    feministhater wrote:

    “Kassian seems to think that if only women were more strong they wouldn’t be deceived, if only they can overcome Eve’s weakness, the serpent can’t get at them.”

    Okay, I bristled at this notion too. Which is why it makes sense what Dal is saying about some of the contextual missteps she made.

    Telling women to “not be weak” without telling them how not do do so, or why they are is fruitless, as we are commanded, as Christ’s example showed us, to NOT have confidence in the flesh. Even in our own confidence to not be weak, unless we are fully surrendered, allowing Him to be strong in our weakness, which is the gist of the whole damn issue with women anyhow, right? Surrender. If they were truly surrendered, then all of this conversation would be strictly academic, no?

  119. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    As when I say “surrendered”, I mean that also as in “submitted” to male authority.

    Hence, my concerns as a single male. A woman isn’t suitable if she isn’t first surrendered (submitted).

  120. Dalrock says:

    @Pedat Ebediyah

    I’m not going to be too dogmatic about the fact that she was teaching – to women no less. I don’t care if it was expository or exhortational or if she was evangelizing, as long as she’s not trying to the brothers what to do or think – I’m cool with it; and I’m one who typically turns the channel when I see women teaching on TV. (On Blogs, that’s another matter. Some of the sisters spit good spiritual game online).

    This is not a secondary issue, and it is especially relevant to the passage she is teaching. See Cane Caldo’s excellent explanation above.

    As I mentioned in another comment, having separate ministries for women and by women is a disaster. We have gone from pretending that women are teaching other women “under the cover” of a man to aid the men, to universal acceptance of the idea that women have more authority to teach women than men do. As I noted in a comment above I’ll do a post on that when I have time.

    But Gamer is right on many fronts. I also went out to Amazon and checked out some of the books that Kassian has written, and read the reviews from some of these “liberated” women. They hate on her big time. Even some of the complementarian women go hard at her. They accuse Kassian of being unfair to feminists (especially Christian feminists) while yet acknowledging that she does seem to have a good grasp of what feminism about.

    Show me a feminist that other feminists don’t hate. They don’t exist. Even with Team Women, women are catty to one another. Don’t listen to those other bitches, listen to me!

    As I pointed out here, Kassian teaches women their husbands can’t tell them to submit, and then teaches wives to set boundaries for their husbands and enact consequences. Don’t listen to what she says about being a feminist, watch what she does. This is true in the sermon itself. It isn’t just her wanting to play pastor (envy for the role of men), look at the first 45 minutes of the sermon. She was a tomboy as good as the boys. She could fight, climb a tree, and swing a hammer just as good as the boys. No one better call her a weak girl! Then she found that dreaded phrase in Scripture, but don’t worry, what Paul is saying is the women of the ancient world were weak, and needed empowering (to say no to creeps, etc).

    But wait, there is a twist! (just like fireproof). To be strong as a Christian, women need to admit they need Jesus! See how anti-feminist this is! 45 minutes of feminism, followed by a non threatening declaration that women need Jesus. And it works, not just on you, but for several others. What you didn’t notice is she never repents of her rebellion, including her desire to take on the role of preacher. She can’t repent of that, because it goes against everything she is doing.

  121. Damn Crackers says:

    @AT “In Matthew 19, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in verses 4-5. His comment that “from the beginning it has not been this way” with respect to divorce points to the fact that Genesis 2:24, which was the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage, did not contain the authority to terminate marriage.”

    Matthew 19:9 “…except for sexual immorality…” Fornication was the breaking of God’s marriage contract as described in Jewish Law. Jesus recognized it. So yes, God can grant the divorce with a member of the marriage breaking the contract.

  122. Mad Kalak says:

    @Dave and others

    I appreciate the replies to A. Toad and someone who is largely ignorant of these matters. His posts remind me of my own justifications for entering into sin. They do lead me to question why, though, did Christianity go from “polygamy is okay” in the Old Testament to “not okay” in the New Testament. It would be terrible for society if we did allow it, (google “The Male Warrior Hypothesis”).

    Also, and this is at A. Toad, why the picking and choosing from the Old Testament for rules for behavior. My understanding is that after the controversy in the early days of Christianity about whether you have to follow Jewish rules found in the Old Testament, Christians decidedly said that you can be a follower of Jesus and not follow the Jewish rules about food, etc.

    Lastly, I wanted to drop this link in her that I saw from the Hoover Institution. All the anecdotal evidence that Christianity has gone feminist collected here on this blog is backed up by some social science data: http://www.hoover.org/research/how-culture-beat-religion

    From the article:
    “Mark A. Smith is a professor of political science at the University of Washington, where he also teaches comparative religion. His “Secular Faith” is a spirited and contrarian entry in the debate over what to make of the religious element of the “culture wars.” Against the view that religion is a major influence on our politics, Mr. Smith sets out to argue, as his subtitle puts it, “how culture has trumped religion.” On women’s rights, evangelicals “resist the feminist label even as they embrace many feminist principles,” Mr. Smith writes. He notes the extensive scholarship showing that evangelicals, like other Americans, now “support equal pay for equal work, oppose discrimination in hiring and promotion, endorse the political equality of men and women, and demand that violence against women be taken seriously.”

  123. Telling women to “not be weak” without telling them how not do do so, or why they are is fruitless, as we are commanded, as Christ’s example showed us, to NOT have confidence in the flesh. Even in our own confidence to not be weak, unless we are fully surrendered, allowing Him to be strong in our weakness, which is the gist of the whole damn issue with women anyhow, right? Surrender. If they were truly surrendered, then all of this conversation would be strictly academic, no?

    And this is exactly why Christianity has a hierarchy. We submit ourselves to Christ as our Saviour. A woman, however, submits herself to her husband. That is the person who should be teaching her how to conduct herself. It’s not that she isn’t to ask questions but that she is meant to ask them of the one she submitted to, her husband. By going outside that, she is in rebellion and thus in sin. By doing so, by speaking out in Church and preaching, she is being deceived, for she is in rebellion by her actions.

  124. theasdgamer says:


    I get why ASDGamer can’t understand the subtext of this, as subtext is a known blind spot. But not everyone has this excuse.

    So, respectfully, and a little humorously, Dalrock, are you autistic or just stiffnecked? (I’m trying to avoid nonverbal blindspots for you by making my nonverbals explicitly textual.)

    And why do you cherry-pick my arguments to answer? You have yet to respond about Philip’s four daughters who were prophetesses. (I understand that the prophetess argument is difficult for you to answer.)

    I Corinthians contains a lot of rules of order for the church. It was likely the second book of the NT that was penned. Everyone was expected to contribute during meetings:

    What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

    Imagine the typical Corinthian setting: A private home with maybe twenty-forty Christians meeting.

    Some were women. A very Pentecostal atmosphere–tongues were their big hoo-rah. Women like to make a big to-do in Pentecostal situations. Feelz. Not all churches were like Corinth, though the rules applied to all churches, as you say.

    If it is shameful for women to speak in church in all circumstances, then it would be shameful for Philip’s daughters to prophesy in church. “Sorry, God, you have to shut up because Dalrock says your female vessel isn’t allowed to speak.” That is the absurd conclusion of your position.

    Otoh, if we take a more contextual view of the situation, we see that women at Corinth were abusing their privilege and being disruptive. Those women weren’t being submissive to authority. Rules of order.

    Speaking at a conference isn’t speaking in church. Period.

  125. Which is exactly why attacking the authority of the husband is such an excellent plan. By destroying the respect a wife would have for her husband, you have destroyed the very submission needed for a wife to learn from her husband and therefore not be deceived.

    Which shows you just how easily women, any women, can be deceived. You just have to praise them at the expense of their husband, and poof, they are like clay in your hand. The same trick the serpent used to deceive Eve, is exactly the same trick these hucksters use to deceive womankind now. And boy does it work well!

  126. Bill Smith says:

    Dalrock,

    [Act 21:8-9 KJV] 8 And the next [day] we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was [one] of the seven; and abode with him. 9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

    Where did these daughter’s prophesy? Why would that be allowed per your stance?

    As I mentioned in another comment, having separate ministries for women and by women is a disaster. We have gone from pretending that women are teaching other women “under the cover” of a man to aid the men, to universal acceptance of the idea that women have more authority to teach women than men do. As I noted in a comment above I’ll do a post on that when I have time.

    Can you reconcile that with

    [Tit 2:3-5 KJV] 3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    Must this only be done in one-on-one situations? I see no allowance for a male role in that.

    The focus on the video is not that however, so this is a bit tangential.

  127. Are you saying Kassian is a prophet?

  128. Older women teach women how to be loving wives. That’s it, it does not allow them to teach women the Gospel.

    A prophet is the word of the Lord spoken through a person, a false prophet is condemned heavily. So either these girls were simply God’s word and thus not teaching the Gospel or they were false prophets and had been deceived. This is not the same as an ordinary women teaching the Gospel.

  129. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Fair enough Dalrock…perhaps I’m compartmentalizing a bit much:

    “But wait, there is a twist! (just like fireproof). To be strong as a Christian, women need to admit they need Jesus! See how anti-feminist this is! 45 minutes of feminism, followed by a non threatening declaration that women need Jesus. And it works, not just on you, but for several others. What you didn’t notice is she never repents of her rebellion, including her desire to take on the role of preacher. She can’t repent of that, because it goes against everything she is doing.”

    As I wrote in my last post, I believe women need to surrender to male authority on all fronts. I doubt I’ll ever get married or trust a woman who can’t or won’t.

    I’m going to give some more thought to this, brother. I’m not one who likes to get caught in the trick bag.

    If the opportunity afforded to her, even with the leaven therein, for Kassian to exhort women to good works, came at the expense of her usurping authority (if we conclude that this is what has actually occurred), then well this is a problem.

  130. That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    That makes perfect sense if it means they are not to teach the Gospel. By being obedient wives themselves, they would not dare teach these women the Gospel and would send each one of them home to ask and be taught by their husbands.

  131. theasdgamer says:

    Dal, women at Corinth were creating a commotion by asking their husbands questions. There is no blanket command for women to be quiet at all times in church.

    What of widows and divorcees and single women? They have no husbands to answer their questions. No, the Corinthian women who are being pointed out were asking questions of their husbands in the church meeting while someone else was talking and the women were being disruptive. Paul wanted the disruptions to stop. Women without husbands aren’t asking their husbands questions in church and being disruptive. (Yes, I am inferring some nonverbals here.)

    Paul’s message to women is to not be disruptive in church and his message to church authorities is to not let women be disruptive in church.

  132. @Kronberg: “You are telling me that God only answers prayers for a suitable help meet if the man gives off that certain alpha tingle; it he has enough jingle in his pocket.”

    No, we are telling you that the Lord helps those who help themselves. If you are praying for a girl, how about you spend some time at the gym instead? How about you lose that gut, learn some game, and start acting like a calm, confident, MASCULINE man instead of bothering the Lord with frivolities.

    You are enamored with the idea that women are attracted to the Godly tingles by Godly men. They are not. They want a man to take charge, take control of them, and lead them to a better place. If you can do that God will answer your prayer. If you can’t, God will not even hear your prayer.

  133. theasdgamer says:

    Dalrock, if Kassian is a feminist in practice–and I think that she likely is to some degree (big surprise)–then how will her attacks on other feminists hurt men?

    We all have some errors. I’m not throwing stones at Kassian for having some feminist errors in her thinking from all the feminist cultural brainwashing to which we have been subjected.

  134. theasdgamer says:

    @ Kronberg, bpp

    Song of Solomon warning, heh

    The Song of Solomon teaches us that women like men who are lovers like the man in the Song of Solomon. Such men make women tingle. So, men making women tingle is scriptural. Oh noes! Game is scriptural! The sky is falling!

  135. Marie says:

    Interesting. I’ve always read 2 Timothy 3:6 “weak women” as women who were spiritually weaker than other women, not that all women are weak ( which compared to men yes). The bible has several examples of spiritually strong women (Sarah, Esther etc) and specifically speaks of wise women (so women can posses wisdom). Also, if a woman is a Christian she receives the Holy Spirit yes? So I always assumed that though yes, I am more easily deceived I have the Holy Spirit who is not. I also read comments up thread ( hard to navigate on my phone to address specifically) that men submit themselves to Christ, women to men, but women are to submit themselves to Christ also, correct? I’m not asking as a backhanded “ha! I don’t have to submit to my husband!” I’m just confused how if I have the Holy Spirit and am continually reading my bible and in prayer how I am still so weak that only a man can teach me, not Christ. I could be reading into the comments too much.

    My church has always had the male only deacons and elders approve the women ministry books and materials. I know men appreciate “make only spaces” women appreciate the same. It’s easier to be taught by a woman (typically pastors wife) about female related things with an all female audience.

    Is her speaking in front of a group of only women any different than her writing a book or blog? (Seriously question not sarcasm).

  136. The word of the day:

    “Which shows you just how easily women, any women, can be deceived. You just have to praise them at the expense of their husband, and poof, they are like clay in your hand.”

    All of popular culture has assumed aspects of the serpent it would seem. Is there ANY movie that does not praise women at the expense of the husband and men in general? Is there ANY example of this where the women are NOT clay to be molded- aka “led astray…”

  137. A private obeys his superior and his superior obeys his superior and on and on, if they didn’t, a hierarchy wouldn’t work. Though, indirectly, yes, by submitting to your husband, you are in fact submitting to Christ and thus also God.

  138. PM says:

    That makes perfect sense if it means they are not to teach the Gospel. By being obedient wives themselves, they would not dare teach these women the Gospel and would send each one of them home to ask and be taught by their husbands.

    How can they teach women about being submissive and loving to their husbands without referring to the Bible? How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that Jesus first revealed himself to be Christ to a woman and it was women who first told everyone that he is risen.

    Dalrock – I agree with the opinion that women shouldn’t usurp male roles. I don’t believe that this qualifies.

  139. @Marie: “I’m just confused how if I have the Holy Spirit and am continually reading my bible and in prayer how I am still so weak that only a man can teach me, not Christ.”

    Nobody is saying that you cannot have your own relationship to the Lord or that you cannot or should not study Scripture. What PAUL said, and what (some of us) are trying to say is that women can be wise, they can be smart, they can even teach other women. What they cannot do is teach sermons in church because women are MORE EASILY LED ASTRAY.

    Do you have any doubt on that last clause? Even today strong-independent Mary Sues easily follow the herd and take their cues from the immediate social environment. Do you think homosexuality could have been accepted so quickly if Godly MEN were in charge instead of (mostly) unGodly and ever changing, morally relative WOMEN?

    So you are free to learn and pray. You are free to develop your individual relationship with God. You are NOT free to run off your mouth and teach changes to longstanding doctrine. While you may be free to be deceived (or enlightened) you are NOT free to follow the Holy Hamster and encourage other women to follow the feeeeelz assuming you want to remain Scriptural.

    I certainly think women are also free to write books and speak before small groups of women but not to the extent they are doing in modern churches. The loudmouth women at Corinth would be a welcome change compared to most women in modern churches.

  140. No, we are telling you that the Lord helps those who help themselves. If you are praying for a girl, how about you spend some time at the gym instead? How about you lose that gut, learn some game, and start acting like a calm, confident, MASCULINE man instead of bothering the Lord with frivolities.

    This is actually great advice. Perhaps not in the tone it is delivered in, haha. However, by becoming physically fit, you do become more confident, a rather natural occurrence. By becoming more confident, you start to like yourself better and this feeds your confidence a bit more. At the end of the day, become a strong man and be righteous in your convictions. By becoming a strong man, you no longer fear being around women. In a way, their frivolous conversations are to be enjoyed, don’t take them seriously.

    If a woman wants to follow you and be your wife, she must submit and be obedient. That is her command to follow. If women don’t want this, the Bible says it is better to be alone. Trust in that.

    Be the best man you can be, and strive to better yourself to honour God and Jesus, don’t do it for women.

  141. @Dave
    Can anyone with a modicum of spiritual sense write this type of garbage? Even a poor benighted heathen knows that Artisanal Toad is talking rubbish here.

    Dave! You’ve discovered the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy!

    Look over what I said… if you work hard, you can go for “False Dichotomy” for the daily-double in logical fallacies! Dave, I have faith in you. I know you can do it. In fact, you might even surprise me with something original! Go Dave!

  142. Lol AT, I can’t get over your Avatar. I watched the movie and that stupid camera man really ruined it!

  143. marie says:

    Bpp

    Thank you for the clarification. I will admit I may have bucked at the thought of women being more easily led astray before. Then I joined a Christian moms group on Facebook. Let me tell ya, I completely understood. There was an argument about whether or not animals go to heaven. Most women said they would and used Isaiah 11:6 as justification. No joke, there 400 members and only a handful of women posses logic and any spiritual grounding. It’s ridiculous.

    I forgot to ask (and maybe bpp clarified this) is there a difference between preaching and evangelizing? Can I share the gospel with unsaved women and men? That is essentially teaching and preaching

  144. GK Chesterton says:

    @Darlock,

    “Luckily it turns out Paul wasn’t warning that those who would corrupt the church would take a page out of the Serpent’s playbook, he was instead exhorting the women of the early church to not be wimps!”

    Exactly. It is a warning for _men_ to do something in their leadership role. It also completely misses what “weak women” means in this scripture. They are weak because of their lusts. Consumed by sex Paul recommends having children with more stable men. If they had pursued normal domestic duties no problem.

    No girrrrrl power needed. Just some satisfying man attention.

  145. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bill Smith

    Where did these daughter’s prophesy? Why would that be allowed per your stance?

    Presumably in Philip’s home. We know that those who were of Paul would have had his instruction, and that instruction is laid out in 1 Corinthians in great detail. As virgin daughters they would have lived with and obeyed their father. In this way they were covered spiritually; as Paul says female prophets should be. They would have had long hair, and they probably would have had coverings of cloth on their heads as well when actually prophesying.

    This is what will not be addressed by pastors and priests. There is NO Biblical reason to declare it is acceptable for a woman to live on her own. There is precious little reason for men, either. What of divorcees? They should be reconciled to their husbands. What of widows? Paul says if they are young they should remarry and if they are old the deacons will care for them.

    Paul writes of forbidding women speaking “in the churches” and we wonder what he meant by “in the churches”. I think it clear that it is whenever the principle for the meeting is Christ or His business. So, for example, church business meetings and Bible studies would be “in the churches”, but having the preacher over for dinner or a church quilting circle is probably not. However–and this is hard for women and men to accept–the guiding light for women on whether they ought to speak or not in any gathering is meekness and quiet. We see this in Mary when it is said (repeatedly) that she treasured up events in her life and pondered them in her heart.

    Mary not only didn’t Facebook and Tweet and Pinterest and text her dearest thoughts and worries; she wouldn’t have.

  146. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    A bit of criticism of this post from Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2016/03/mary-kassian-on-weak-women-strong-women.html

    Thanks Deti. I left a comment there making my case, but it may be a while before he is in to see it in pending status. Either way, it is good to see it being discussed and he was of course respectful in his disagreement.

  147. @feministhater

    Occasionally a movie has a good line or two. Braveheart was one such movie, it had two gems:

    *”Remember lad, that history was writ by them what hanged the heroes.”
    *”Every man dies, not every man really lives.”

    Ironclad had one good line like that, the context of which was early in the movie Marshall told Guy, the squire, that there was no nobility in killing people. At the end, after the final battle, he said:

    “Is killing a noble thing? Well, a life fought for others is a life worth living. That is a noble thing.”

  148. GK Chesterton says:

    I see Cane commented. I join with him. However a little quibble here with both he and Darlock using Darlock’s words:

    “Titus 2 isn’t permission for women to preach. She isn’t taking a young woman or a few young women aside and instructing them to love their husbands, be discrete chaste homemakers, and to be obedient to their husbands. She is giving an hour long sermon on the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:6-7:”

    There _does_ appear to be some general allowance for women to teach semi-publicly when:
    1.) The audience is exclusively women
    2.) Some special divine sanction occurs
    3.) When they have some sort of general civic authority and are otherwise good Christians

    (1) Is very rare these days because of the grasping to teach men. (2) would limit itself to arguable prophetic encounters (Joan of Arc for our Catholic brethren) and I think everyone agrees is very rare. (3) was more of a medieval circumstance where a Queen or some female sovereign would act in her civic role (with due deference to male church authorities) of law giver as a Christian ruler and is not likely to occur in our locale.

  149. kronbergweb says:

    bluepillprofessor says:
    “No, we are telling you that the Lord helps those who help themselves. If you are praying for a girl, how about you spend some time at the gym instead? How about you lose that gut, learn some game, and start acting like a calm, confident, MASCULINE man instead of bothering the Lord with frivolities.”
    Another goat.
    !. You are telling a Christian that the character and personality God created in me as I followed Him since my childhood is insufficient. It is not.
    2. You have no idea what I look like. I am probably better educated than you, more intelligent than you, fitter than you, work harder than you, and more capable of leadership than you. And unlike you, I wouldn’t be caught dead playing patty-cake with students who don’t want want to learn: I am way too tough a teacher. And, unlike you, I am one of those who can do and won’t teach.
    See? It is so easy to make presumptuous claims without even knowing you; but, I suspect I am correct.
    3. ” the Lord helps those who help themselves” is not biblical.

  150. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    In this way they were covered spiritually

    Well, this idea of spiritual covering is controversial as far as I am concerned. Where is it taught?

  151. Cane Caldo says:

    @PokeSalad

    Nailed it.

  152. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    Do you believe that church meetings occurred primarily in Christian homes for the first three centuries? So, if Philip’s daughters prophesied in Philip’s home, was it during church meetings? And what of the requirement in the Law that events like prophesying be witnessed by two or three men?

    I think that you all are adding a whooole lotta stuff to the Bible that isn’t there.

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdgamer

    Experience has taught me that you don’t learn from my arguments.

  154. theasdgamer says:

    Cane, the scripture says that women are to ask their husbands at home, not their fathers or the deacons. Let’s stick to the actual text. You’re shoehorning a container-load of your own stuff in here.

  155. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    Experience has shown that you are block-headed and illogical.

  156. theasdgamer says:

    My point, in case you aren’t following, is that they only women to whom the scripture applies is wives. And why only to wives? Because they were chattering with their husbands during church and being disruptive.

  157. theasdgamer says:

    @ Kronberg, bpp

    ” the Lord helps those who help themselves” is not biblical.

    The Bible doesn’t say to wait for the Lord to bring you a mate, either. That is presumptuous.

  158. Cane Caldo says:

    @asdgamer

    Your disability seems to have blinded you to the fact that unmarried daughters are still under their fathers; like children. Children are to be instructed by their fathers. This was understood and accepted throughout the whole world’s history until about five minutes ago when we decided to commit suicide-by-women’s-suffrage.

  159. theasdgamer says:

    @ Cane

    Ok, I’m so blind that I can only see “husbands” in the text. Show me where it says “fathers”.

    And thanks for giving me more ammo over on your blog, haha.

  160. @Cane

    Minor quibble here, but Numbers 30:16 specifically says

    “These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and as between a father and his daughter, while she is in her youth and in her father’s house.”

    Note that I make no argument that the young woman should be apart from her father’s house before she is married, inasmuch I believe a woman is to stay in her father’s house under his authority until she is married. However, the obvious implication of that passage is such that the father loses some of his authority over his daughter when she leaves his house. You can judge the wisdom of keeping a daughter in her father’s house based on that.

  161. theasdgamer says:

    If women aren’t supposed to speak in church, then they shouldn’t be praying or prophesying in church either. Why then does Paul discuss women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered?

  162. @theasdgamer

    The authority of the father over his daughter is the same as that of a husband over his wife, see Exodus 20:12 and Numbers 30. If a wife is to be taught at home by her husband, so to is the daughter to be taught at home by her father.

  163. theasdgamer says:

    I know, I’m putting a lot of you into an epistemic crisis. It can be very unpleasant.

  164. theasdgamer says:

    @ AT

    But there’s nothing in the text about fathers–only husbands–as far as I can see. Nothing about who female slaves, widows, divorcees, unmarried virgins, women whose unbelieving husbands left them, etc. would ask questions.

  165. GK Chesterton says:

    @TheASDGamer,

    Because he isn’t saying what you insist that he is saying.

    Why are you presuming that I Corinthians 11:2-16 applies to women in the physical Church? Why does prayer have to be vocal? Why can’t it be corporate?

  166. Anon says:

    Your disability seems to have blinded you to the fact that unmarried daughters are still under their fathers; like children.

    Funny, since adsgamer has two daughters over 30 who are still single. He was trying to find a man for them before, but has now apparently given up, while reading a lot about not just red pill, but Game.

    They were both doctors, and adsgamer assumed that made their SMV high. It did not. Women over 30, of average looks, can’t vault to the top on account of being doctors (especially since all female degrees are heavily assisted by affirmative action).

  167. Cane Caldo says:

    @AT

    Yes. I wrote what wrote in light of Numbers 30. I blogged about that chapter and the implications for fathers and daughters/husbands and wives a couple years ago; if anyone is interested.

    However, the obvious implication of that passage is such that the father loses some of his authority over his daughter when she leaves his house.

    His authority over her isn’t lost any more than Jesus’ authority is lost over an apostate. She can remove herself from his presence but not his authority itself, and he can let her have her way–at her own peril. In (what I have called) quaint and ancient days, civil authorities recognized this. The Lord still does and vengeance is His.

  168. theasdgamer says:

    @ GKC

    Prophets must be judged by other prophets. Prophesying alone is uncountenanced. Prophecy is for church edification at a church meeting–a group of Christians meeting in the name of the Lord.

    Praying and prophesying are linked in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. The assumption is that the context is a church meeting. Just as prophesying is verbal, so praying is verbal, in context.

    1 Corinthians was written to address issues that the Corinthians raised. Much of it is about church traditions/rules of order in their meetings.

    Avoid the Alexandrian exegetical method of spiritualizing everything.

  169. Looking Glass says:

    @kronbergweb:

    BPP can let his Biblical knowledge get ahead of his rhetoric, but you really don’t have a theology problem you’re dealing with. BPP has you read pretty well, and defaulting to literally the “I’m smarter than you” defense seals it.

    Realize, a lot here have gone through this stage, so we’ve seen this before. Normally the anger is directed at the lies you’ve been sold your entire life, but I believe your query about prayer is maybe best answered this way: we are we using English to communicate here? (I’m not being obtuse about this.)

    Since I assume it’ll be a while before you’re able to respond, I’ll answer the question as well. We’re using English because we’re English-speakers that are mostly Americans by Culture. That means we have a shared understanding via both Language and a rough supra-culture that goes along with it. Thus, certain applications of the Scripture are dependent on certain aspects of the culture one finds themself within. (Swearing is going to depend on the language, though the interaction matrix goes a lot deeper than that.)

    Abraham had to send servants to find a bride for his son. Joseph had to pay the bride-price for Mary. So, what’s the methods we use to find brides in our culture? And why do you presume that the Lord was going to bless you with an exception to the “work” (whatever it is) involved?

    You have my sympathy, as you’re part of a generation of Men that have been badly injured by your own Church & Denomination, but the main problem with modern Christians is a complete lack of Wisdom. Pray about that, if you want to know more.

  170. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 2:39 pm:
    “Do you believe that church meetings occurred primarily in Christian homes for the first three centuries?”

    Yes, because the Roman Empire persecuted Christians until Constantine and the Jews didn’t let them use their synagogues.

    “So, if Philip’s daughters prophesied in Philip’s home, was it during church meetings?”

    Most likely not. Prophecy is delivering mail, not teaching. The most common uses of a real prophetic gift are encouraging other believers or situation-specific knowledge. It would be frequently pointless or counterproductive for such prophecies to be publicized.

    Post-Apostle prophecy never involves new teachings and almost never involves dramatic gestures like predicting the future, calling fire from heaven or public criticism.

    “And what of the requirement in the Law that events like prophesying be witnessed by two or three men?”

    Citation for this requirement?

  171. kronbergweb says:

    @theasdgamer says:

    “The Bible doesn’t say to wait for the Lord to bring you a mate, either. That is presumptuous.”

    You’re correct. I’ll send my servant Eleazar with ten loaded camels out to my relatives, select the first woman who is gracious to my camels, load her with jewelry, go to her brother’s house, ply him with jewelry and gold, then bring her home to my tent.

    Or, I could marry my father’s daughter by another wife. How’s that.

    Or, perhaps I will go down to the city gates and ask any of my relatives there if any of them want my kinsman’s widow, and then throw my sandal in the ring to take her for my wife.

    Or I could screw like a rabbit to get the sexual experience and the bad boy rep and look in my face the modern woman wets herself over. Yep, assgamer, that is being a good, up to date, with it Christian pleasing to God. And that is the point if you were wise enough to comprehend it: there is no way in this culture to satisfy God’s demand that one walk in the light on the one hand and, in the other, give the woman that vaginal tingle along with the jingle.

  172. GK Chesterton says:

    @TheASDGamer,

    I’m not trying to go Alexandrian (though I do enjoy being accused of it!).

    Prayer need not be verbal and often in my experience isn’t. It also need not be in Church, and in the VAST majority of cases isn’t. I’m Orthodox, I think you are Catholic (I can’t remember its been a few months since we interacted), and most praying tends to happen in cells in monasteries even (if not especially) for nuns.

    And as LookingGlass points out prophecy is pretty much delivered mail. Though I disagree with his assumption that modern prophecy doesn’t include spectacular effects.

  173. Gunner Q says:

    Looking Glass @ 3:48 pm:
    “So, what’s the methods we use to find brides in our culture?”

    Celebrity status, tattoos and drug deals gone bad. I’m not joking.

    “And why do you presume that the Lord was going to bless you with an exception to the “work” (whatever it is) involved?”

    You miss the point. It isn’t that kronbergweb is lazy; it’s that he’s honest, stable, clear-headed, fiscally responsible and understandably reluctant to view such characteristics as BAD. You don’t want to convince guys like this that he doesn’t deserve a wife unless he learns to be emotionally manipulative. You might succeed.

    The current difficulty of being attractive to women is womens’ fault for lusting after bad boys, not mens’ fault for balking at a lifetime of ego games and hostage negotiation. Kronbergweb already deserves a loyal wife because he is a cooperative member of society with legitimate physical and emotional needs. We have no right to make further demands of him.

  174. KP says:

    Robin Munn,

    I appreciate your point about someone speaking against the preposterous trolls (AT here), but: there needs to be an agreement, tacit or explicit, among the bulk of the regulars to Not Feed The Trolls. In practice, this means that we all agree if a sufficient response has already been posted, then it’s time to ignore the troll. Taking it a bit further, it’s strongly advised to compose your answer offline, and then refresh the page before you post it, so you don’t do so redundantly.

  175. Feather Blade says:

    @feministhater

    Older women teach women how to be loving wives. That’s it, it does not allow them to teach women the Gospel.

    How does one go about accomplishing the former with no reference to the latter? Isn’t the Gospel the whole reason for being a loving wife?

  176. Wives should learn the Gospel from their husbands. Older women need to reinforce their obligations to their husbands and teach them to love their husbands and respect them. Women still go to Church so it isn’t as if they have not heard the Gospel being taught.

    It’s just that when these same women think they should teach it, suddenly those words they heard being uttered in Church now have an entirely different meaning than they did before.

    It really isn’t that hard to get. If a woman has a problem understanding scripture, she goes to her husband. If her husband doesn’t know, he goes and finds out and then comes back and teaches her what he learned.

    Nowhere is the wife to learn it from others. No, older women do not need to reference the latter because it should be common sense to a woman who has heard the Gospel being preached in Church, although, the Gospel being preached in Church as changed so perhaps women should actually stick to asking their husbands rather than looking elsewhere..

    However, you can try your way and get back to me on how it works.

  177. Dalrock says:

    ASDGamer,

    The questions you raise aren’t new, but it is only very recently that Christians started believing that women could preach. As Deti explained above, this feels wrong to us because we are immersed in feminism. But it is very modern. Here is one article which walks through it in detail: http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html

    I used to have some others which came to the same basic conclusion, but for some reason can’t find them. Perhaps GKC or someone else can offer other links.

  178. Bill Smith says:

    The Gospel encompasses the entire NT message, so separating out parts doesn’t make sense, as was noted above.

    Prophecy is a fairly public thing in many cases. Though I would guess many posting here are part of a cessational practice (in doctrine or practice) rather than believing the Gifts of the Spirit are active today.

    Prophecy would be for “edification, exhortation or comfort” per the instructions we are given. An individual does not need to be operating as a prophet to prophecy.

    Cane,

    Presumably in Philip’s home.

    Why? What evidence supports that? Perhaps if that was part of the fellowship meeting as noted above, but that would go against any general command for woman to always be silent in every church at all times. This is a reason I am not completely convinced that this is truly a Biblical mandate for all times, rather than part of an overall principle that many Christians have long since abandoned. Misuse one way doesn’t mean we need to go beyond what is written the other way either.

  179. @Splashman
    @Robin Munn
    @Wormtongue
    @kp
    And any others who feel inclined…

    The *subject* is feminism, which is demonstrated and argued out on a wide variety of issues. So, here’s my challenge to those of you who are in disagreement with me and feel capable of defending your position.

    Obviously many disagree with me on a number of points, so why don’t you guys choose from the following below and let’s hammer it out in an orderly fashion. Rules are simple: Sola Scriptura and anything extra-Biblical is taken with a huge grain of salt. As our Lord said: “In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men.” If you guys are right and I’m wrong (an “atrocious troll”), then it shouldn’t be very difficult, should it?

    Many of the following issues are intertwined with others, but each of them stands or falls on its own according to the Word of God. The only problem I can foresee is eisegesis. I provided an example of this earlier in this thread, vis-a-vis wormtongue. Dave also does this (although he’s recently stepped up into false logic) and it’s a problem that’s pervasive in the Church.

    So, if any of you want to argue in favor of your doctrine on any of the following points, step up and *make an argument in favor of your doctrine* instead of claiming that I’m wrong and it’s been made in the past or screeching that I’m a heretic (Yes! By definition, I AM a heretic because I DO NOT agree with or support the teachings and tradition of the RCC, so don’t think you insult me with that). Every one of the issues I cite below is directly and *foundationally* related to feminism and unless and until Christians can come to grips with what the Bible actually says, feminism is here to stay.

    You guys claim to have the truth and are thus required by Scripture to give an answer for these doctrines that you claim as Biblical truth. At least, that’s how I read 2nd Timothy 2:15-17 and 1st Peter 3:15

    Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (2nd Timothy 2:15)

    but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1st Peter 3:15)

    One at a time, guys, let’s keep it orderly. All I’ve done is give a thumbnail sketch of each, but I can easily give a detailed defense and explain why the church has it wrong on each of these points.
    _______________

    *Polygyny is a Biblically sanctioned form of marriage for any Christian man or woman. I make the claim based on the fact that God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny and nowhere is it forbidden or condemned. This point is absolutely key in dealing with feminism, because it deals with three things: 1st, the authority of the man to initiate marriage, which is not limited to a single marriage (monogamy). 2nd, the curse of Genesis 3:16, in which the woman is cursed with hypergamy. 3rd, the natural tendency of women to rebel against the command to submit to her husband, which polygyny is uniquely able to deal with. Polygyny is quite literally patriarchal marriage that is capable of dealing with the banged up sluts who are no longer fit for monogamy.

    *A man who has sex with a virgin he is eligible to marry, has, with the act of becoming one flesh with her, consummated his marriage to her. This is exactly what Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 all say. The only question after that is whether the father could or did exercise his authority under Numbers 30 to annul the marriage after the fact. The key point on this issue is who has the authority to initiate marriage. Genesis 2:24 gives that authority to the man but the ancient church usurped that authority and claimed it as its own. This is a critical point because *by definition* a woman who is not a virgin is married to the guy who got her virginity. That means somewhere between 80% and 95% of the “married” couples in the church are not actually married to each other, they’re living in adultery. This is the single greatest problem the church faces today.

    *Adultery is a violation of God’s Law that requires a married woman. By definition, without a married woman there can be no adultery. This point has a huge impact on the definition of other words, such as lust, and a failure to understand this point causes the Christian to misinterpret what Scripture is saying. An example would be in Matthew 19. Did Jesus really mean that marrying (any) divorced woman was to commit adultery? (No, because if she’s *legitimately* divorced under the Law for her sexual immorality, she is no longer married- see Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

    *Sex outside the bounds of marriage with an unmarried woman who is not a prostitute is not generally a sin for Christians. The Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 7 said that if the virgin or the widow burns, they should marry. If the guy has sex with the virgin, he’s married to her. For widows and legitimately divorced women (meaning they are actually divorced and no longer married), Paul says that if they want to have sex they should get married. Paul did *not* say that having sex with such a woman prior to marriage was a sin and God chose not to prohibit such activity in the Law. Paul did not make any specific prohibition for Christians in this area, such as he did in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, prohibiting the use of prostitutes (which was not prohibited in the Law). The fact that Paul specifically prohibited joining the members of Christ to a whore means he had the authority to mandate a similar prohibition on extra-marital sex for Christians, but he did not. We must assume that was because God did not desire that he do so. I have also repeatedly cited Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 as caveats to this point for Christians, but the general statement stands as true.

    *Sexual acts between women are the same as masturbation: completely unmentioned in the Bible, not prohibited and therefore not sinful acts. I made the argument on this point in this thread and cited my authorities. The same argument applies to masturbation as well. This is another area in which one *might* think that Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 would apply, but in the case of a plural marriage, issues of conscience would only apply to the husband, not the wives. Yes, I know that’s rather incendiary for the feminized church, but that’s what Scripture says.

    *Lust is a sexual desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled. In Matthew 5 the Lord said a man who lusts for a woman has already committed adultery in his heart. Since adultery requires a married woman, it follows that a man can only lust after a woman who is married to someone else. Looking on a woman who is eligible to marry with sexual desire cannot be lust because that desire can legitimately fulfilled. The idea a man can “lust” after his wife is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. This point is important because the “lust thing” is used in the church to hammer boys and young men until all traces of masculinity are stamped out. It’s a false teaching from the Catholic church that’s used to destroy men.

    *For a Christian man married to a Christian woman, divorce is forbidden and there are no exceptions. That is a specific prohibition that applies only to the church, given by the Lord Jesus Christ at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. The Law allowed a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality (the Greek word “porneia”) and the Law cannot be changed, but I refer to a specific prohibition that applies only to Christians that removes this authority. The only specific exception to the rule of “no divorce” for Christians is in those cases in which the Christian is married to an unbeliever who leaves them and will not consent to live with them (also known as the “Pauline Privilege” to the RCC folks). In that case, they are free (1st Cor. 7:15).
    ______________

    Every one of the assertions I just listed are completely supported by the totality of Scripture, but each of them is completely at odds with the established doctrines of the church (although on the issue of divorce, the “approved” doctrines are literally all over the map). The question is why, and when I bring this stuff up, the attitude I encounter is “who are you to tell us that all of Christendom is in error for all these centuries?” Well, it took a long time, but I finally found the historical references that explained why this situation exists. For those interested in why the church has doctrine opposed to the points above, the best single resource is “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James A Brundage. That book is his Magnum Opus, almost 700 pages of densely packed scholarship that details *why* we have all these doctrines today that don’t agree with what Scripture actually says. From the description:

    Focusing on the Church’s own legal system of canon law, James A. Brundage offers a comprehensive history of legal doctrines–covering the millennium from A.D. 500 to 1500–concerning a wide variety of sexual behavior, including marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, concubinage, prostitution, masturbation, and incest. His survey makes strikingly clear how the system of sexual control in a world we have half-forgotten has shaped the world in which we live today. The regulation of marriage and divorce as we know it today, together with the outlawing of bigamy and polygamy and the imposition of criminal sanctions on such activities as sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, and bestiality, are all based in large measure upon ideas and beliefs about sexual morality that became law in Christian Europe in the Middle Ages.

    Note that I didn’t base my historical research in this area just on Brundage’s work, I also took into account other scholars as well. Most helpful among the other sources were David DeAvray (“Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society”), Georges Duby (“Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France” and “Love and Marriage in the Middle Ages”), and Kevin MacDonald (various monographs, particularly Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe). In fact, Dr. MacDonald’s list of references in the linked monograph was an incredible resource in researching the history of this subject.

    Essentially, for the past several years I’ve been looking at the *what* which is the church doctrines and what the Bible actually says about these doctrines, which led to the *why* of how such doctrines that are so at odds with Scripture came into being in the first place. Obviously the “what” is a study of Scripture whereas the “why” is a study of church history. I can handle arguing both, but it needs to be Scripture first and then the history of how things got so screwed up.

    If you guys can’t handle what I’m saying, forget about dealing with feminism.

  180. theasdgamer says:

    @ Gunner

    Yes, because the Roman Empire persecuted Christians until Constantine and the Jews didn’t let them use their synagogues.

    I don’t think that your becauses are the real causes. The apostles generally had no trouble going into the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Why would the apostles be prevented from entering synagogues? Paul was prevented, but that was only because he was preaching to the Gentiles. The rest went only to the Jews, so synagogue leaders would have had no reason to exclude them.

    Also, with so many thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem from 33 AD until 70 AD, the Jewish Christians still didn’t build church buildings. Also, Roman persecution wasn’t very widespread. More of a local thing, generally. Plenty of opportunity for Christians to build church buildings.

    me: “So, if Philip’s daughters prophesied in Philip’s home, was it during church meetings?”

    Gunner: Most likely not. Prophecy is delivering mail, not teaching. The most common uses of a real prophetic gift are encouraging other believers or situation-specific knowledge. It would be frequently pointless or counterproductive for such prophecies to be publicized.

    1 Cor. 14: 1-4
    Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

    It seems that you and the apostle Paul have a slight divergence of opinion about the purpose of prophecy. 😉 Edification of the church.

    me: “And what of the requirement in the Law that events like prophesying be witnessed by two or three men?”

    gunner: Citation for this requirement?

    It’s not a citation per se, but more of a policy.

    Let’s start with I Cor. 14:29-32
    29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets

    See above for the NT cite where prophets are to be tested. (Of course, there’s the general command to test all things, which would certainly include prophecy.) Prophets pass judgment on other prophets. Plural. There are three cites in the Law for every word being established out of the mouth of two or three witnesses (one in Num and two in Deut) Here’s one from the NT. “This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES” 2 Cor. 13:1. This shows the importance of witness testimony for testing. There are four other cites in the NT. I’ll leave it to you to search. The two or three witnesses meme was an important concept in both Old and New Testament times as indicated by repetition in both OT and NT. One of those things that ought not to have been forgotten.

  181. theasdgamer says:

    At those dogging AT: Do your homework, then get back to us.

  182. theasdgamer says:

    Dal, from the link:

    Is there any way to escape the relentless logic of the rule of silence? Yes, says James B. Hurley, in Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Zondervan, 1981, pp. 185-94): the speaking prohibited to women in verses 34-35 is the judging of prophets mentioned briefly in passing way back in verse 29. And since prophecy has ceased, so has the judging of prophets, and thus this passage can now be ignored (pp. 185-94)!”

    The problem with this logic is that it glosses over the fact that the judging of prophets must have occurred when Paul wrote this letter. Dispensationalism, of course, is controversial. I think that Scott (the author of the linked post) may safely be ignored. His writing is unpersuasive, not to mention uncompelling. Scott says to ignore scripture. Creepy, like cockroaches.

    I don’t see where he has dealt adequately with any of my questions. You are relying on a weak reed.

  183. theasdgamer says:

    I went back and re-read Scott. I disagreed with Hurley, not Scott. I mostly agree with Scott and he with me. Inspired utterance is not forbidden women, per Scott, which is also my position. I’m not persuaded by his views about prayer in the 1 Cor. 11 passage necessarily being inspired utterance. How can one know the diff between inspired and ordinary prayer? It’s a practical problem.

    I think that Scott might also not regard a Christian women’s conference as a venue where women are forbidden to speak. Kind of absurd, really. But this raises the question, “Should Christian women be having their own conferences?” Which further suggests, “Should Christian men be having conferences on women’s issues?”

  184. Dalrock says:

    @Theasdgamer

    The problem with this logic is that it glosses over the fact that the judging of prophets must have occurred when Paul wrote this letter. Dispensationalism, of course, is controversial. I think that Scott (the author of the linked post) may safely be ignored. His writing is unpersuasive, not to mention uncompelling. Scott says to ignore scripture. Creepy, like cockroaches.

    I don’t see where he has dealt adequately with any of my questions. You are relying on a weak reed.

    You misread that. In the part you quote, Scott is referencing Hurley’s argument. You cut the quote off too soon, as he then goes on to explain why Hurley is wrong. You are using his quote of Hurley to discredit Scott, when Scott is offering Hurley’s example as incorrect.

    However, verses 33b-36 form a distinct unit, not a continuation of the previous discussion of spiritual gifts. Thus, the previous discussion cannot be imposed on the passage to provide a limitation on its language.

    Second, there is not the slightest hint in verses 33b-36 that the judging of prophets is in view. If Paul merely didn’t want women to judge prophets, why didn’t he simply say so?

    Third, verses 34-35 are much too far from verse 29 to suppose that a reference there to evaluating prophets would control the subject matter of verses 34-35. Various kinds of speech are mentioned in verses 26-32; why should anyone think that verse 34 harks back to verse 29?

    For these reasons, Hurley’s view must be rejected.

    Then if you read down a bit further, Scott gets around to what you are asking about:

    Women Praying and Prophesying

    But wait! When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that a woman should keep her head covered “while praying or prophesying,” isn’t he presupposing that women will be speaking in church?

    Not really. In 11:5 Paul is referring to the situation where women are exercising the special spiritual gifts that chapters 11-14 focus on. Thus, the praying and prophesying in view in chapter 11 is inspired utterance, in which God is speaking through his chosen human instrument (2 Peter 1:21).

    On the other hand, the speech in view in 14:33b-36 is ordinary, uninspired utterance. Clearly, rules governing ordinary speech would not necessarily apply to inspired speech. And yet, as a reminder to all that she remains in subjection as a woman, the inspired woman is to give utterance to God’s word with her head veiled (11:10). It is this situation, not that in 14:33b-36, that is no longer with us.

    Prophesying is always inspired speaking in the Bible, as it is in chapters 12-14. The word “praying,” by itself, could refer to inspired or uninspired speech, but, when coupled with inspired “prophesying,” it should be understood as inspired as well.

    This is borne out in chapters 12-14, where the only praying that is mentioned, alongside prophesying, is praying “in a tongue” (14:14) and “with the Spirit” (14:15). Here the praying is equivalent to speaking in a tongue. The point of linking prayer and prophecy may be that some inspired utterance is directed toward God (prayer) and some is directed toward man (prophecy).

    Since 14:33b-36 is a separate section, not a continuation of the discussion of spiritual gifts, there is no reason to think that the speaking in view in it is anything other than ordinary speech. The appeal to the Law in verse 35 also indicates that ordinary speaking is in view.

    Therefore, chapter 11 is best understood as regulating the circumstances for delivering inspired speech in church, while 14:33b-36 forbids ordinary speech by women in church.

  185. Dalrock says:

    @ASDGamer

    I went back and re-read Scott. I disagreed with Hurley, not Scott. I mostly agree with Scott and he with me. Inspired utterance is not forbidden women, per Scott, which is also my position.

    Yes. I see we cross-posted on that.

    I’m not persuaded by his views about prayer in the 1 Cor. 11 passage necessarily being inspired utterance. How can one know the diff between inspired and ordinary prayer? It’s a practical problem.

    Are you saying a woman won’t know if the words coming out of her mouth are her own or from God? This is the distinction, and it seems quite straightforward.

    I think that Scott might also not regard a Christian women’s conference as a venue where women are forbidden to speak. Kind of absurd, really. But this raises the question, “Should Christian women be having their own conferences?” Which further suggests, “Should Christian men be having conferences on women’s issues?”

    Scott makes this pretty clear. Is it public or at home?

    When Does the Rule Apply?

    The apostolic rule is that women must remain silent “in the churches” (verse 34). In verse 35 Paul explains that he is referring to what takes place “in church” as distinct from “at home.” This can only be a reference to the public assemblies of God’s people (verses 23, 26), which at a bare minimum would mean what we today call worship services.

    The crucial distinction is between “in church” and “at home.” The point would seem to be that Christians gather publicly (as called together by the minister and elders) and privately (chiefly as families and their guests). In the public assembly, Paul says, it is shameful and out of character (that is, not being “in subjection”) for a woman to speak. But at home (and, by extension, in other private settings) women may speak (in the “gentle and quiet” manner that adorns a woman and is precious to God, 1 Peter 3:4-5—that is, in a gracious, feminine manner).

    This is clearly a public gathering, where a sermon is being preached.

    But setting aside Scott’s view, do you really not recognize what she is doing as giving a sermon? She uses all of the lingo, and goes on for just under an hour. If you weren’t trying to say it is permitted, it would be a sermon, it would be preaching, right?

  186. Boxer says:

    Dear Brothers:

    Obviously many disagree with me on a number of points, so why don’t you guys choose from the following below and let’s hammer it out in an orderly fashion. Rules are simple: Sola Scriptura and anything extra-Biblical is taken with a huge grain of salt. As our Lord said: “In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men.” If you guys are right and I’m wrong (an “atrocious troll”), then it shouldn’t be very difficult, should it?

    I don’t think Artisinal Toad is an Atrocious Troll ™. He’s actually a pretty skillful one: e.g. he has a good sense of humor, writes convincing sophistry, and keeps me interested in his novel positions on New Testament exegesis to see me through to the end of his (pages and pages) long replies here.

    Putting aside the Freudian/Jungian stuff, his position’s major problem is twofold.

    In the first place, AT conflates interpretive readings of the text with suggestions or commands. Having argued with him before (many, many, many times) I’ll concede that the New Testament doesn’t explicitly condemn men with more than one wife to hell, or order them thrown out of their Christian communities. At the same time, St. Paul and the other authors can nowhere be found advising men to do this, or remarking that it is a good idea. This is what I mean by an interpretive point. The authors left it up to their readers to make their own minds up on things.

    In the second place, his theory about polygamy as a way to combat feminist ideology is at best untested, and more realistically unfounded. It’s true that when North Americans have ventured into setting up polygamist microstates, that feminism has not historically taken hold. This does not mean that a healthy patriarchy is the rule here. In fact, all you have to do is to visit a modern Mormon collective farm to see that isn’t the case. Polyg women aren’t feminists because they don’t need feminism to get a leg up on their men. They are already way past feminists in the matriarchal camp, with their men and boys working like slaves, and with women enjoying the fruits of all the male labor. These places put the welfare states of modern capitalism to shame with their gynocentrism.

    I have nothing against AT or his family. I’m guessing he is probably wealthy and can afford to outsource most of the traditional duties of fatherhood to others (he’d have to, if he has a dozen or more kids, which I assume must be the case.)

    Obviously people should live as they want to, and if he is happy being the slave of multiple women, then I have no problem with it; but you guys shouldn’t kid yourselves that this is some sort of nirvana for men. It isn’t. Unless you have a lot of money, you’ll be living a very squalid, third-world lifestyle, doing chores around multiple houses when you aren’t working three jobs (and scamming the food bank on the side) to keep all your kids fed.

    Polygamy is not necessary to combat feminism. We already have a working model of a healthy social order. We just need to deconstruct a lot of weird ideas (child-support, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, playa/slut lifestyle, etc.) and get back to it. The 1950s weren’t perfect in the USA, but they were better than any of the alternatives, whether they come from feminists or polygamists.

    Boxer

  187. Dave II says:

    @kronbergweb,

    Firstly I speak for myself. Let each commenter speak for him/herself.

    “You are telling me that God only answers prayers for a suitable help meet if the man gives off that certain alpha tingle; it he has enough jingle in his pocket.” – Nope, I never said or even implied that. You are putting words in my mouth again. I said that God can still give you a woman but as a man you should strive to maintain the “tingle” and “jingle” (to use your own words), or else don’t be surprised if she wants out.

    “Your Alpha Beta sh*t is for fornicators and adulterers.”  – Not in the way I use it here. I am not a PUA. When I say Alpha I mean the strong leader in the relationship. Beta is the one who is not. Remember, this strength and leadership is what women pursue in bad boys, not their badness. If a good man has these traits she will be attracted to him. In fact this is the ideal. Even PUAs have recognised this (I remember reading this in The Game, of all places).

    “It is God who made man and in Him is found one’s masculinity, not tingle or jingle” – Says who? Your masculinity is found in God? Do you have scripture for this? If that was the case, how could idol worshippers and dark triad individuals be so masculine as to draw so many women away from “good, godly” men? Are they more godly? Isn’t this the very misinformation promoted by movies such as Fireproof? Dalrock has more than enough posts addressing this one. I tend to see that masculinity exists in every man in potential form, and through life it must be developed and guided into its full expression, in a manner that is mature, rather than destructive. This is what feminist teaching has suppressed in “nice guys”, leaving the women only lusting for the “bad boys” who didn’t care about the feminist message and did their own thing. “Bad boy” and “tingle” are related by correlation, not causation. “Alpha” (as I defined it) and “tingle” are related by causation. Be alpha. God commands this of men, when He says he is the head of the wife.

    “Did I neglect to hop on one foot? If there a special, masonic hand shake and dance with God that has to be done as I pray: does one do a palm slap, thumb and pinkie hook, bump fists and elbows and hips to get a prayer for a help-meet?” – Here you seem to mock the concept that mere prayer alone is insufficient to get what you asked for from God. This is sad, because it’s actually true. There are conditions that, if unmet, God will not hear your prayer. The most commonly known is faith. Others include obedience, being within His will, etc. Obviously I cannot know your situation well enough to determine whether you met all conditions and of course you will say you did and I have no way to assess the honesty of that claim. You’ll forgive me if I choose to take God’s word over yours.

    “No, the reality is this: women despise the character of men formed in them by God as they grow up in Christ” – you are expecting me to take it on faith that you were indeed doing what God ordered you to do and/or truly growing in Christ. I have no evidence for this, especially since you seem to have less faith now than in the late nineties. Much that calls itself “Christianity” is actually not. This can be a harsh truth, but it is as it is. I am too far experienced to believe everyone who calls themself a Christian is actually walking with Christ, in His will, and growing in Him. No matter how sincerely they believe they are.

    “… the only difference among them is the proportion of women between those who go for the tingle and those who go for the tingle” – as should be expected – “and such are unfit for men in Christ.” – The mistake here is that you assume it is a woman’s hypergamy that makes her unfit. If that is the case, no woman is fit for any man in Christ. So fundamentally God made women unfit for His sons? No. Feminism makes women unfit, not hypergamy.

    So in summary:
    1. I cannot know your specific situation enough to know what went wrong, so I cannot tell you what went wrong.
    2. You expect me to have faith in you that you did everything correctly in searching for a wife, and God is the one who failed, by not giving you a good one. Faith in you vs. faith in God? You know who I’ll side with, surely.

    I want to finish with 2 questions:

    1. Have you considered that your unfaithful wife left in order to make room for the answer to your prayer, which you are blocking now due to your unbelief?
    2. Has God actually shown you who His intended wife for you is, by a sign which you specified to Him beforehand, like Abraham’s servant did (which you mock in another comment)? Not you asking God to make the woman you choose into a good woman, but letting Him show you who the good woman is?

  188. Gunner Q says:

    Mad Kalak @ March 1, 2016 at 12:33 pm:
    “They do lead me to question why, though, did Christianity go from “polygamy is okay” in the Old Testament to “not okay” in the New Testament.”

    The OT’s purpose was creating a specific nation with a very specific shape to serve as an object lesson for humanity. Along with polygamy were practices like taking your brother’s wife and having a son with her should your brother die without an heir and returning all property to the original owners’ heirs in the Year of Jubilee. The NT’s purpose was bringing Christ to the entire world. As part of that, it replaced genealogy and generational stasis with marriage as an image of the relationship between Christ and His Church… something more useful to Gentiles because we come from many nations with many different practices and don’t have a God-blessed bloodline to protect.

    Note that polygamy did not prevent sexual misconduct in ancient Israel. We today aren’t being denied a solution to our troubles.

    @ASD,
    You do realize that the Church is not real estate? “Prophesy edifies the Church” means it edifies people other than the prophet, not the local architecture. Even OT prophets didn’t effect everybody with their every act.

    You are also being too literal about the “two or three witnesses” requirement. It’s a standard of proof, not surveillance.

  189. kronbergweb says:

    “1. Have you considered that your unfaithful wife left in order to make room for the answer to your prayer, which you are blocking now due to your unbelief?
    2. Has God actually shown you who His intended wife for you is, by a sign which you specified to Him beforehand, like Abraham’s servant did (which you mock in another comment)? Not you asking God to make the woman you choose into a good woman, but letting Him show you who the good woman is?”

    Where in Hell are you getting these assumptions?

  190. kronbergweb says:

    Dave, you have a reading comprehension problem.

  191. @Boxer

    Coming from a guy who admittedly isn’t a Christian and who admittedly has a major problem with Mormon-style polygyny (20-30 wives?!!), your comments come with a block of salt.

    Your supposition about me is completely wrong. Rather than choosing to outsource child-rearing, I took the hit on income and worked from home in order that I be more a part of my children’s lives. I don’t have 10 kids, but I’m close.

    Your comments vis-a-vis polygyny are admittedly biased from your experiences with the Mormons in your own family (whose families you have described in terms of “disaster” and “disfunctional”) while mine are based on my own relationships in the past (prior to doing the monogamy thing) and my relationships with Christians who have more than one wife. There are more out there than you’d think and they keep a -low- profile.

    What I was asking for was a theological debate on the issues I’ve laid out, and while you’re an entertaining commenter here and other places, I don’t think you’re prepared for that discussion. But, I may be wrong, because even as a non-christian your willingness to actually *read the text* is more of an effort than a lot of Christians are willing to suffer. They have their “fire insurance” and they’ve got a professional Christian to explain things, so why bother? Who needs to read the Bible when there’s this highly trained guy who stands there on Sunday morning and reads if for them?

    I suspect that if you read the text I cite and consider it for what it says, you’d have a hard time disagreeing with me, not having a dog in the fight, so to speak. You actually have the advantage of being more intelligent than some here and not being inculcated with the social conditioning of church which frowns heavily on any form of disagreement no matter *what* the text says.

    Right now I’m being amused by the primaries. Trump is in the lead everywhere except Texas, and Decision Desk is already calling Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Virginia for the Trump. Tonight the mil-right will bathe in the tears of SJW’s.

  192. Dave II says:

    @kronbergweb,

    “Where in Hell are you getting these assumptions?”

    I assumed you had a wife who left. Upon a re-read, I see there really isn’t much indication that you had any wife at all. My bad.

    My question #2 still stands, though. That is a Biblical example, and the Old Testament was, after all, left to us as examples. I have seen a preacher of the gospel get married in his 70s. God provides, but not to those who do not believe.

  193. Boxer says:

    Dear AT:

    Your supposition about me is completely wrong. Rather than choosing to outsource child-rearing, I took the hit on income and worked from home in order that I be more a part of my children’s lives. I don’t have 10 kids, but I’m close.

    You get a huge amount of credit for this, from me. One of my first observations about polygamists is that their children are feral. A father’s love and influence goes a long way.

    What I was asking for was a theological debate on the issues I’ve laid out, and while you’re an entertaining commenter here and other places, I don’t think you’re prepared for that discussion.

    Again, you’re conflating two different positions you’ve taken, which is the norm when I talk to you. They’re related and both perfectly relevant to this community, but they’re not precisely similar. I addressed both above.

    I suspect that if you read the text I cite and consider it for what it says, you’d have a hard time disagreeing with me, not having a dog in the fight, so to speak.

    I conceded, many moons ago, that you were (mostly) correct in that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn polygamists, outside of a very limited prohibition in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:3.

    I note that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn the playing of russian roulette, or the taking of methamphetamine for recreational purposes, or wearing a chicken bone in one’s nose. There are lots of things that are dangerous and/or time-wasting that we’re trusted to use our own best judgment about.

    Re: your related but not identical claim about polygamy as a tactic against feminist ideology. There are lots of other ways people could fight feminism. Embracing Islamic dress codes for women… Mandating child marriages Asian style… Maybe all these things would be effective, but we already have a true and time-tested way to escape feminism which isn’t so foreign to our North American sensibilities, and which would cost less in time and effort to implement. All we have to do is disabuse ourselves of the last half century’s indulgent nuttiness, and get back to sanity.

    Right now I’m being amused by the primaries. Trump is in the lead everywhere except Texas, and Decision Desk is already calling Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Virginia for the Trump. Tonight the mil-right will bathe in the tears of SJW’s.

    Do you find it amusing, as I do, how the MSM and big capital are pushing Rubio on the American people? A man who hasn’t won a single election is the “only electable candidate”. Hopefully, he’ll be sunsetted tomorrow. I’m sick of seeing his greasy face.

    Boxer

  194. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dalrock

    Are you saying a woman won’t know if the words coming out of her mouth are her own or from God? This is the distinction, and it seems quite straightforward.

    She may or may not know. I suspect that Paul didn’t know that his first epistle to the Corinthians would be considered scripture when he wrote it. I can recall saying when I was ten years old that I would marry someone who looked like someone I saw on TV. I did so and didn’t even remember what I had said until last year. Likely it was from God and I had no idea at the time.

    In any case, I see no practical way to enforce prohibiting ordinary prayer in church. Hence, the only practical approach is to consider all prayer inspired unless it’s patently obvious that it’s not.

    Scott makes this pretty clear. Is it public or at home?

    So, if anything is public where Christians gather, it’s church? An ice cream social? A singles group dating meetup? A church picnic? A Sunday School class? A Wednesday Bible class?

    I prefer to use Scott’s definition including his modifier–publicly (as called together by the minister and elders).

    The women’s conference was likely a private event in the sense that women had to pay for it and register.

    Scott’s views aren’t scripture, but we should consider them.

  195. theasdgamer says:

    @ Gunner

    You are also being too literal about the “two or three witnesses” requirement. It’s a standard of proof, not surveillance.

    I think that you are greatly underestimating how important the Law was to the early Church and to the Jews. Jews relied on two witnesses having seen a New Moon in order to do their New Moon festivals as required by the Law. The Law specified how prophets were to be recognized. Witnesses were used for proof for any religious event and to establish a prophet’s credentials.

  196. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dalrock

    But setting aside Scott’s view, do you really not recognize what she is doing as giving a sermon? She uses all of the lingo, and goes on for just under an hour.

    “Sin and corruption!” Your descriptiion sounds like my Biblical Ethics professor from college. lol

    Kassian was teaching women who paid to listen to her. She wasn’t teaching men. Kassian was speaking out against feminism and exhorting against sin. It wasn’t a local church. Nothing to see here, from my perspective, except lots of good stuff that I haven’t heard anywhere else in my many years as a Christian. I hope she has a man to whom she gives account for her teaching.

    Her teaching makes me think that maybe she lurks on your site, lol.

  197. GK Chesterton says:

    @Boxer,

    Having done the same I agree with you. He is _very_ intelligent. But its his way or the highway and no in-between…so

    I did laugh at:
    “I note that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn the playing of russian roulette, or the taking of methamphetamine for recreational purposes, or wearing a chicken bone in one’s nose. There are lots of things that are dangerous and/or time-wasting that we’re trusted to use our own best judgment about.”

  198. @Boxer
    I’m sick of seeing his greasy face.

    That, sir, was a slur aimed at his hispanic heritage. You know as well as I do that all the foam parties with those *hot* men keep his face nicely grease-free.

  199. Dale says:

    @Dave
    >Can anyone with a modicum of spiritual sense write this type of garbage?

    Actually, I think AT’s challenge to you was for you to find Scripture that contradicts his statement. And you failed.

    For myself, I think it is severely unwise to add new rules to Scripture. I will try to interpolate for myself however, as I seek to live in a manner pleasing to God.
    For the question of sex with a non-virgin woman who is not married, I suspect (note that key word) this is wrong, because:
    – a woman was supposed to remain a virgin until marriage, or be killed (Deut 22)
    – if all the women remain virgins until marriage, as they should, then where are the non-virgin, non-married women, with whom a man could have sex? Obviously there are none, hence it is foolish to claim I can sleep around with these non-existent women.
    Now the above logic, unfortunately, has a few obvious holes in it. First, there are widows around. The numbers of these are small enough that, even if half of them were very promiscuous, I think they would not be enough to “go around”.
    The more important exception is that women do not remain virgins, as they should, but instead choose to be promiscuous. This is where our problem is located.

    So I would personally agree, for myself, that I should not be sleeping around, nor giving approval to such behaviour in others (Rom 14:22-23). I also think it is disrespectful to a man for him to be expected to give his strength to various women who have no right to this, since they will not marry him. Whether money or sexuality. Prov 5 seems to apply here.
    But I am not about to act as if sex with a non-virgin, non-married woman is explicitly forbidden in Scripture, and therefore is obvious sin, and therefore is fair game for my preaching to others BECAUSE I have no passage for that. James 3:1-2 applies.
    There is a difference between my opinion and what I can prove.
    Although, if you have a passage for this question, please share. Consider 1 Cor 6:15… although that speaks specifically about prostitutes, not promiscuous women in general.

    @AT
    Thanks for the response. I re-read the Roman 1 passage, but it seems very clear the perversion being considered is sexual. This is not a passage on forbidding women their God-given roles or functions.
    From verse 24 to 27, it mentions sexuality twice, and shameful/lustful acts three times. The thought is sexuality, not feminism.
    I won’t argue that Eve should be seen only as Adam’s sex toy. As you wrote, God made her as “a helper suitable for him”. Claiming that we should not deny women their God-given role is fine; the Romans 1 passage does not seem appropriate to that point, although others are; perhaps Rom 12:3-8.
    One argument I will give is that, if a man, or woman, deliberately makes themself unsuitable for a particular service to God, it is no sin or act of cruelty to voice this truth. Some sins can be forgiven; even Peter’s denial of Christ was not a permanent barrier to service to God. Other acts have permanent consequences, such as Deut 22 re non-virgin getting married. And as you pointed out, some women are not suitable for monogamous marriage. (I still think a guy who wants more than one wife is inviting trouble (1 Cor 7), but to each his own.)

    @Mad Kalak
    > My understanding is that after the controversy in the early days of Christianity about whether you have to follow Jewish rules found in the Old Testament, Christians decidedly said that you can be a follower of Jesus and not follow the Jewish rules about food, etc.

    Unfortunately, many Christians think they can ignore what God said, if it was said before the NT. One guy I know goes further and thinks he can choose to dismiss the teachings of Christ also, as most of the Gospel accounts are for the time before the crucifixion.
    I think we can only consider prior commands to be void if later Scriptures say this. So:
    – Rom 14 for food
    – Rom 14:5-6 for special / holy days (or festivals)
    – Heb chapters 4 to chapter 8 for abolishing the sacrificial system
    – etc.
    So I still think that we should not be going around committing adultery, coveting, or anything else in the OT that is not specifically revoked later. But it seems most Christians would disagree with me.

    Re: Gunner Q at 4:39 pm
    +1. Women sure seem to have strange desires. It is interesting that, in God’s economy, the men are supposed to own the family farm/home. And the inheritance of such is given to the sons, not the daughters. Thus, from the perspective of the 99% of women who have no home in her own ownership, every land-owning man would be alpha. Hmmm… who can spot the difference from God’s ways to our ways?

    The problem is not kronbergweb’s responsible, hard-working nature. The problem is we tell women that:
    a) his tedious responsibility is boring, rather than crucial to her ability to eat tomorrow
    b) she has no need of his provisioning; she can get welfare / alimony / government jobs

  200. shammahworm says:

    AT has been repeatedly shown what the Bible actually says and ignores it in order to continue in his lies. See item number 1 on the list below for his most pervasive “teaching.” Anyone who claims the Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus doesn’t understand who Jesus Christ is and has no business “teaching” anyone anything.

    For years, AT has lied and said there is no divorce for a Christian man. Here are the DIRECT words of Jesus Christ from His sermon on the mount. It’s NT teaching.

    Matthew 5: 31-32,
    “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    The word porneia is used in this passage which refers to all manner of sexual sin(including adultery). The same word is actually used to describe adultery in 1 Cor 5: 1. In no way does the writing in 1 Cor 7: 10-11 change or nullify this.

    Once again, AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher. Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments. Pay special attention to item number 1.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
    1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567

  201. Anon says:

    Oh, this is too good :

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388433/feminists-slow-motion-sexist-katherine-timpf

    ‘Feminists’ say that a video that had a slow-motion segment of women jumping in a sports stand was ‘misogynistic’ for objectifying women. Yet, the prettiest of the three with the tightest top fought back, saying it was wrong for the video to be taken down.

    This is pretty much why only ugly women whine about some fictitious ‘rape culture’, while the prettier women (who presumably would be more at risk) don’t seem worried about such a ‘culture’.

    Femtrolls are beyond self-parody.

  202. goodkid43 says:

    Dalrock,
    I first want to say that I have visited your blog on a weekly basis for over two years and it has enhanced my relationship with my fiancee of 30 months and I am eternally grateful for all you have done. I tell others about your site because I KNOW personally of many Christian marriages that are dominated by the woman and they are both miserable.
    However, I watched the whole video of Mary Kassian and she addresses in great detail many of the problems of woman that has been addressed on your site i.e. focusing on the weaknesses of the self, living with unfilled longings and many more. I was greatly moved by the presentation and see it consistent with scripture and will watch it with my fiancee tomorrow. The ONLY problem I had was that she admonished woman to confess their sins to other women but not her husband. To be fair, she could have been thinking of single woman. I agree with Theasdgamer, you are wrong about this presentation. This is rare for you. God bless your ministry.

  203. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock & Cane

    Look at me, late to the party as usual. I frequent your blogs because I want to learn from brothers I respect. Debate is part of that learning (sparring with the Sword of the Spirit), and I’d like to respond to your replies above, but at this point, there have been so many replies that I think I’m way too far behind to catch up, so I’ll offer a partial response for now.

    It was never my argument that women can be as strong as men can be (physically or spiritually), nor do I think that was anyone else’s argument here, nor do I think it was Mrs. Kassian’s point. In fact, her “put up your dukes” story had the exact opposite point. She – a foolish girl – challenged her brother to a fight, got beat up and had to be rescued by a young man (her eldest brother), who exercised authority over both younger siblings and chewed her out for stupidly challenging someone who is clearly too strong for her. She THOUGHT she was strong and was proven dead wrong. She’s not the hero in her story. Her eldest brother is.

    As for Cane’s question about the two sisters, the one that said “yeah, shut up” is wrong because she has no authority over her sister and because she undermined her fathers authority. And yes, I’ve lived that scenario.

    At this point, I’m unconvinced that 1 Cor 14 forbids women from teaching other women in a group setting, but I’m willing to be convinced.

    No disrespect, gents, but that’s all I have time for right now. I’ll wait for Dalrock’s post on women teaching women, and hopefully I’ll be able to write a more complete response then.

    In the meantime, here’s a post by a pastor that I think Dalrock and I both respect. Perhaps it’ll add fuel to the next post.

    https://dougwils.com/books/wrestling-with-ghosts.html

    @ infowarrior1

    Same goes for you, bro. I’m not ignoring your questions.

    @ asdgamer

    Feels weird being on the same side of an argument for a change, don’t it?

  204. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Look at me, late to the party as usual. I frequent your blogs because I want to learn from brothers I respect. Debate is part of that learning (sparring with the Sword of the Spirit), and I’d like to respond to your replies above, but at this point, there have been so many replies that I think I’m way too far behind to catch up, so I’ll offer a partial response for now.

    No worries. I think I will do a follow up post so you should get a second bite at the apple.

    It was never my argument that women can be as strong as men can be (physically or spiritually), nor do I think that was anyone else’s argument here, nor do I think it was Mrs. Kassian’s point. In fact, her “put up your dukes” story had the exact opposite point. She – a foolish girl – challenged her brother to a fight, got beat up and had to be rescued by a young man (her eldest brother), who exercised authority over both younger siblings and chewed her out for stupidly challenging someone who is clearly too strong for her. She THOUGHT she was strong and was proven dead wrong. She’s not the hero in her story. Her eldest brother is.

    I disagree. Kassian never repents of her feminist spirit in the beginning of the sermon. She says she thought she was stronger than she was, just like the women in the audience. But note that the reason the women are not strong is they aren’t strong in Christ. Go back and read the “twist” part of the sermon, and note how closely it mirrors what you and I would get at a men’s retreat. The moral of the sermon is women can be strong if they are strong in Christ. She isn’t telling them what Paul wrote, that they should submit to their husband. She is telling them to study the Bible, get good Christian girlfriends to hold them accountable, play “momma bear” to her children and husband, etc. If they do these things, they won’t be the weak women Paul warns are vulnerable to deception. This is the whole point of the sermon. Read closely and I think you will see this. If not, I’ll spell this out in the (likely) upcoming post. Alternately, show me where she repents of her feminist resentment that she opens with. Likewise, show me where she says women need to seek spiritual guidance from men.

    On the twist of the fight, she went from feminist indignation to “don’t hit me I’m a girl”, and I’m sure her audience was right there with her and saw no incongruence. In the beginning of the sermon she is bragging about challenging her brother to a fight when he called her a weak girl. In the end of the sermon she talks about how her brother hit her and knocked her down. This isn’t a reversal, it is two of a kind. The emotional response to both is exactly the same: “How dare he!”

  205. @ “Can I share the gospel with unsaved women and men? That is essentially teaching and preaching”

    Great question but Dalrock answered this: Outside the church there are no restrictions. Share the Gospel and the Good News with everyone that you can! A sweet, kind, happy woman filled with the joy of Christ can draw many to the faith. Why is ‘this little light of mine’ going through my head? Anyway, I personally, would have fewer restrictions than Dalrock even in Churches because I think women’s groups are fine. Look at me White Knight.

    @Kronbergweb: LOL easy on the ad hominems. I am not the one praying to God to show me how to attract a girl. Roosh and Ya’Really and Rollo already did that for me. You can learn and I know that because you are smarter, better educated, better looking, and obviously have a bigger dick than me. Plus you have more confidence and secondary proof of value! Except if any of that were true then you would be beating them off with a stick instead of beating your dick with your fist. The problem is that your ego is too big right now to accept that old definition of insanity (when you keep doing the same thing over and over again). You will get there. Keep reading, you are in (one of) the right places. Check out The Rational Male. Take the Red Pill.

    And…Welcome to the real world.

    @ASDGamer: Are you sick or something? Everybody, even Dalrock, keeps mentioning your condition. Is ASD a medical diagnosis? You are definitely spergy but I didn’t think it was full blown ass-burgers.

  206. Dave says:

    @shammahworm

    Artisanal Toad has been repeatedly shown what the Bible actually says and ignores it in order to continue in his lies. [He] doesn’t understand who Jesus Christ is and has no business “teaching” anyone anything.

    The only major reasons I respond to this deluded man who lives after the flesh is to put a dissenting voice on record, in case a new visitor to the blog reads his erroneous nonsense in the archives.
    If you evaluate the core of Artisanal Toad’s arguments, they all revolve around how a professed Christian man can get to have sex with more women than the Scriptures clearly allowed.

    His arguments about polygyny being OK for the Christian, that a married man having extra-marital sexual relations with an unmarried virgin is not sinful, that divorce is forbidden for the Christian under any circumstances, etc, bear this out.

    Artisanal Toad is not satisfied with the provisions of God’s government. He must create an acceptable god all to himself–a god who will allow him to do whatever it is he really wants to do, while putting on the veneer of spirituality. He is an unregenerated or a backslidden man who has forgotten how to live in obedience to God’s unambiguous commands. He claims to have more revelations than the Apostles who wrote the Bible and led the early churches.

    This is a man sold to the sins of the flesh, and he is bent on twisting and torturing the word of God to permit him to do so. What this deluded fool does not realize is that, like the Children of Israel, he is free to go stuff his parched soul with the forbidden flesh, without the need to drag the Bible with him into that mud. But like a typical deceived soul, he must quiet what ever remains of his conscience with the belief that God sanctions his selfish pursuits.

    We may not want to keep feeding this undead and undying troll, but we cannot afford to let him have the last say. As long as Dalrock decides to keep him around, the good people of God must persistently show him his errors, and help others to see through his deceptions.

  207. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar

    At this point, I’m unconvinced that 1 Cor 14 forbids women from teaching other women in a group setting, but I’m willing to be convinced.

    The focus should be, as St. Paul wrote, on order. Who sets and mediates the rules in your house and church? Is Mary Kassian going to follow-up with these women and coach them on when they should speak and when they should be silent? Are these female teachers subject to you, and therefore through them your wife is subject to you, or is this a situation of having two masters? Is it your experience that those who are tempted by rebellion aren’t prone to playing one leader against another? Who is head of the household? Who speaks to the household?

    Frankly, I’m suspicious of para-church conventions for the laity whether they are for women or men or both. Where is the order in a weekend of listening to people with whom you will never live or love or share a meal? Nevertheless, it is simply assumed that these temporary herdings are beneficial because they give people an opportunity for goosebumps. They strike me as entertainment masquerading as sacrament.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating: For centuries these “vocations” for women’s ministry didn’t exist in Christendom. Now they do and and now we have unparalleled rebellion, divorce, and strife.

  208. God is Laughing says:

    To Cane’s point, I have seen the authority Mary Kassian weilds over women and I have observed the “well Mary says” argument being posed to husbands. Using female teachers to refute a husbands authority is a bad sign.

  209. theasdgamer says:

    @ Oscar

    Feels weird being on the same side of an argument for a change, don’t it?

    I broke out in hives. Hope you’re not drinking coffee when you read this.

    @ Boxer

    Not only is AT brilliant, he works hard as well.

    The church necessarily has had to accept polygamists into its ranks over the centuries. If a polygamist converted from another religion to Christianity, what was the alternative? Divorce the excess wives? Throw them out on the street to become whores? And if it’s Ok to accept polygamy wrt converts, who’s to prevent it for those who are already believers? Clearly, there’s no legal basis for it in the mosaic law. My argument is simple and, I think, compelling.

    @ bpp

    I’ve been diagnosed as on the autism spectrum. Very mild, but it’s there. The shrink said that my high intelligence is more likely to cause me social problems than my autism. I work hard on compensating for my social obstacles. Like being fun and keeping a positive attitude. I had a light bulb go off last night and I posted about it. A pick-me-up based on remembering times when you had a lot of fun and were really bad. For me, it was a bottle rocket war that ended with my house’s roof catching on fire. Nobody was hurt, but it was like Corey Worthington’s house party. Thousands of dollars in damages. I was bad. Reliving it was fun.

    Dalrock et. al. are using my autism as a kind of ad hominem. Their argument is that since I have autism and lots of autists have problems reading nonverbals, therefore I have a problem reading Kassian’s nonverbals. My rebuttal is that I was a PUA when I was 15-24 and PUAs don’t have trouble reading nonverbals. I also posted on my blog about reading women’s involuntary IOI’s (indicators of interest). Involuntary is important because they aren’t generally faked. Someone who is blind to nonverbals doesn’t understand stuff like that. Even most non-autists don’t get stuff like that. It’s advanced understanding. I have not seen any PUAs post about this stuff that I found. The only conclusion is that I am very perceptive about nonverbals.

  210. Novaseeker says:

    To Cane’s point, I have seen the authority Mary Kassian weilds over women and I have observed the “well Mary says” argument being posed to husbands. Using female teachers to refute a husbands authority is a bad sign.

    Of course this will happen. The reason is as Cane says — it sets up a dual hierarchy/teaching order, such that the Kassians of the world are the “teachers for women”, and therefore authoritative. This is very different from older women advising younger women on how to be women. It’s preaching/teaching to women in an authoritative way about the broad spectrum of their Christian walk. Undoubtedly this will be taken as authoritative by the women who are listening, and it will be used by at least some of them, perhaps many of them, to confront or simply defy their husbands. The whole thing is rotten from the top to the bottom, really.

  211. theasdgamer says:

    Dal and Cane are pushing their false dilemma: home or church. There are more options. Even in Acts, Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus for a long time. There’s at least one third scriptural option. Then, the Jerusalem Council had a hearing about how to handle the Gentiles. A fourth scriptural option.

    Their logical position is that whatever isn’t allowed scripturally is forbidden. This goes against the spirit of Christ, which is freedom.

  212. feeriker says:

    and I have observed the “well Mary says” argument being posed to husbands

    To which any husband worthy of the title replies “unfortunately for you and your furry, treadmill-plodding pet rodent, what God says trumps what ‘Mary’ says – every time. Are you now telling me that the word of this ‘Mary’ supersedes the word of God as written in Scripture? Think very carefully before you answer.”

  213. Dalrock et. al. are using my autism as a kind of ad hominem.

    Well, that’s a bald faced lie. No one even knew about your autism until now, BPP merely guessed at it… LSD gamer comes from your own made-up name and my using a known drug that screws with the mind, in no way a dig at your autism.

    Get the heck out with your teachings, you come here to cause dissent and attrition.

  214. he works hard as well.

    No, he uses the same inane arguments again and again and again and bombards people with lines of his own thoughts as if they came from God. He fits the school of thought that if you can’t beat them facts, baffle them with bullshit.

  215. I should issue an apology.

    I should say, I didn’t know about your autism condition. Didn’t know that ASDGamer was in relation to autism. Don’t deal in all the acronyms relating to whatever mental condition a person is suffering from.

  216. theasdgamer says:

    I have observed the “well Mary says” argument being posed to husbands

    The correct reply is “lol”.

  217. That reply would get most men sent to the Pastor with a whole bunch of ‘abuse’ or ‘he isn’t listening to me’ charges thrown at him.

    Women do rebellion so easily and other men will play along with it, especially because it gives them power over you and a feeling of ‘being better’.

    I’ve seen it many times, men will use the failings of other men to lift themselves up, to bolster themselves at the expense of fellow Christians. The playing their own horn so to speak. The constantly saying of their superior skills in discerning the reality around them. Full of their own selves, they revel in the destruction of others.

  218. theasdgamer says:

    Autism is a developmental disorder, not a “mental condition”. Autists develop, just more slowly than non-autists. We tend to focus better than non-autists to the point of obsession. We rarely cheat on our wives. Some people with severe autism never mature.

    If you want to read more on autism, check out http://autismsciencefoundation.org/what-is-autism/

    Lots of autists have problems with the “Autism Speaks” organization.

  219. theasdgamer says:

    That reply would get most men sent to the Pastor

    me: The pastor wants to see me?

    she: Yes, about your abusive behavior.

    me: lol

  220. That’s splitting hairs. What part of the body does the disorder affect, body or mind?

  221. You -> kicked out of Church

  222. theasdgamer says:

    Kicked out of church? Ain’t gonna happen. Churches don’t do that kicking-out thing much any more.

  223. theasdgamer says:

    What part of the body does the disorder affect, body or mind?

    Yes. The “disorder” gets less pronounced as we mature for those of us with a mild form. Unnoticeable, really, except by trained psychiatrists.

  224. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ 4:00 am:
    “Frankly, I’m suspicious of para-church conventions for the laity whether they are for women or men or both. Where is the order in a weekend of listening to people with whom you will never live or love or share a meal?”

    It makes sense for Protestants as a seminar kind of thing. Although I admit, those weekends tend to have too many distractions for serious study.

    Artisanal Toad @ March 1, 2016 at 8:05 pm:
    “What I was asking for was a theological debate on the issues I’ve laid out…”

    What you were asking for is our approval of your loophole-sanctioned lesbian porn habit. Approval is denied. Biblical sexual morality is debatable to you only because you want it to be.

    I’ll be amused on Judgment Day to watch you order God to not find fault with your perversions because your personal interpretation of the obsolete Mosaic Law is binding upon the Almighty. The wiser among us will beg God to not find fault with our perversions because Christ paid the penalty.

  225. Boxer says:

    Dear AT:

    That, sir, was a slur aimed at his hispanic heritage. You know as well as I do that all the foam parties with those *hot* men keep his face nicely grease-free.

    I always wonder what “hispanic heritage” means when people use it. My cousins (a bunch of blond Nordic looking Mormons, who live a lifestyle similar to your own) have lived in Mexico for generations. A few towns over, there’s a village packed with blue-black Afro-Mexicans. In between there are people of various hues.

    In any event, Rubio’s as white as I am (looks like the type of white dude you’d find in France or Spain), and just as much a Mormon

    http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54325018-78/rubio-church-family-faith.html.csp

    so I feel comfortable calling him a greaseball… which he is. Whether or not he’s a homo is something that amuses me also. Apparently he has an arrest record for “cruising” (i.e. looking for anonymous gay sex in public parks) in Miami, during his college days.

    Boxer

  226. Paul Bryant 1 says:

    Quick question, since this was brought up in one or two of the comments above (way, way above): Do your wives cover their heads in church? If not, why not?

    My wife does not… but, the more I study scripture and do additional reading (including this blog), I am wondering whether or not she and my daughters should be? There’s a very traditional RC church near us, and I’ve noticed that of the women going in, maybe 10% cover their heads. I’ve never seen any woman at our (evangelical-inclined Anglican) church covering their heads, except for hats on Easter Sunday.

    Would love any thoughts you have on this, as it is something I have started to really struggle with.

  227. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    Apparently he has an arrest record for “cruising” (i.e. looking for anonymous gay sex in public parks) in Miami, during his college days.

    Link?

  228. Novaseeker says:

    Whether or not he’s a homo is something that amuses me also.

    I thought it was fairly obvious that he is, and I’ve thought that since he first arrived in national politics, really.

  229. @theasdgamer
    Dalrock et. al. are using my autism as a kind of ad hominem.

    I wasn’t when I brought it up and the issue of aspy guys not reading the subtext is real. Obviously, YMMV.

    Churches don’t do that kicking-out thing much any more.

    Want to put some money on that? I have experience that says churches are willing to “accept” same-sex couples in their congregation, but if a family shows up with multiple wives (especially happy, cheerful and submissive wives) that family is quickly asked to find some other place to worship. I’ve had friends testify to that effect and I’ve had it happen to me (they weren’t my wives, they were women from a theater group). The interesting point it demonstrates is the fact that nobody in the church wants teh ghey’s to hate on them, but the pew-sitters feel comfortable hating on a successful, conservative Christian family that has more than one wife. Why? Because they don’t see the same-sex couple as a threat, but the polygynous family is a HUGE threat to *feminism* in the church. It literally drives both men and women nuts.

    @Dave
    @wormtongue
    @Gunner Q

    You guys aren’t tall enough for this ride.

    @GK Chesterton

    Long time no see. It isn’t a “my way or the highway and no in-between” as you put it, so much as it is a rejection of political and aesthetic decisions that were made by the church between 500AD and 1000AD following the flood of people into the church due to the “persecution” they faced, starting about the time of the emperor Gratian (pagan temples, their assets and their income were all forfeited to the imperial treasury) and the *actual* persecution that started later under the emperors Theodosius I and his son Honorius. It was that period in which the church truly became “romanized” and the roman and stoic philosophies took root. The “best and brightest” of that lot either became influential early “church fathers” or strongly influenced said “fathers” and this is evident in Augustine of Hippo’s position that it was sinful for a man to have sex with his wife for *any* reason other than procreation.

    Since our last kerfuffle a few years ago (I don’t remember whether it was Cane’s blog or SSM’s), I have continued to study and believe it or not, I have revised my opinion on a couple of issues as a result. You would probably view that as a rather unfortunate turn of events because what I’ve referred to as the “final piece of the puzzle” was the result of an intense Scriptural study of the initiation of marriage along with a concurrent study of the history of the church and the development of cannon law concerning marriage. My conclusion is the major issue facing the church today (all of it, including the RCC and Orthodox flavors) is adultery; and the biggest problem in the church today is the inability/refusal of the leadership to recognize, acknowledge and deal with the problem of adultery.

    I’ll do my part but I believe that given Romans 1:18-32, at best all I can do will be to help a few.

    @Boxer

    I conceded, many moons ago, that you were (mostly) correct in that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn polygamists, outside of a very limited prohibition in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:3.

    I’ve already touched on this issue with Robin Munn, and in general those passages don’t mean what you think they mean. They can’t. Shall I elucidate? And… it isn’t so much that the Bible doesn’t “explicitly condemn” polygynists (which implies there is an implicit condemnation even though there isn’t), it’s that the Bible doesn’t “explicitly condemn” farmers either. God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny, just as He regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in farming. We can both identify polygynous unions that were problematic (Solomon’s 1000 wives), just as we can identify problems with farmers (Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk, Caanan gets cursed. Lot plants a vineyard, gets drunk and fathered children with his daughters). Neither farming or polygyny is mentioned in the New Testament in any significant way (don’t go there, it isn’t worth it), but the point is NOBODY in their right mind would say “The Bible does not explicitly condemn farming.”

    Thus, your “doesn’t explicitly condemn” comment can at best be seen as damning with faint praise and generally as a subtle poisoning of the well. But, as usual, it was well done.

    “I note that the bible doesn’t explicitly condemn the playing of russian roulette, or the taking of methamphetamine for recreational purposes, or wearing a chicken bone in one’s nose. There are lots of things that are dangerous and/or time-wasting that we’re trusted to use our own best judgment about.”

    And here you deliberately mischaracterize my argument. I actually agree with what you said, but this is similar to Mary Kassians comments. You are subtly shifting the argument away from my point that “accepted doctrine” does not comport with what Scripture says by attempting to ridicule the major point by way of analogy. I never said we shouldn’t use wisdom and I agree whole-heartedly that as Christians we should, but the problem is modern church doctrine defines what is “acceptable” in terms of wise choices in ways that does not comport with Scripture.

    Again, your personal experience with flds polygyny has produced certain biases in the way you view polygyny, just as my personal experience with Christian polygyny has produced certain biases in how I view it. We have discussed this before, and (correct me if I’m wrong) but I thought we’d agreed that the essential difference is that the flds view of polygyny was that it’s something *every* man should do whether he’s capable or not; while the Christian view is it’s just a choice that is available to men and because it’s so far outside the mainstream, only very dominant men wind up in such a relationship. The result is that every Christian polygynous family I know is headed by a guy who is easily described as “alpha” and they have no problem ruling their households. Your description of the men in your family leads me to believe they are anything *but* alpha and are incapable of ruling their households. Your characterization of their problems reinforces that view.

    I have repeatedly stated that observationally, only a certain percentage of men, certainly no more than 20%, possess the necessary traits to successfully manage such a household.

  230. Jim says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    March 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    It’s hilarious that the church’s you mentioned would have no problem with homosexuality but refuse a man with more than one woman. Like I always say, people are a product of their time Christian or not. They’ll put what’s popular over the truth any day.

  231. ” But a woman of strength recognizes that she is weak, and that she needs a Savior-that she’s in a lifelong wrestling match with sin, and she’s not going to win unless that Savior comes in and takes care of it for her.

    This is an anti-feminist conclusion. Nothing to see here. Take your stones and go home.”

    No it is not. Feminist Christian women do not have a problem claiming submission to Jesus without actually doing what he says like following scripture. It is their Fathers and husbands that they have problems with because that would require actual submission.

  232. Cane Caldo says:

    @Paul Bryant

    I discussed head coverings a bit yesterday.

  233. “It’s hilarious that the church’s you mentioned would have no problem with homosexuality but refuse a man with more than one woman. Like I always say, people are a product of their time Christian or not. They’ll put what’s popular over the truth any day.” – Exactly 100% correct. That is why the support “traditional” marriage and not “Christian” marriage.

  234. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    I saw that Miami gossip rag. Six degrees of freedom. If Rubio were gay, it couldn’t be hidden. He looks dorky, for certain. I haven’t seen many gays who look dorky.

  235. theasdgamer says:

    @ AT

    Lol at families being asked to leave. A&A that nonsense.

    Churchian homophobic hypocrite: You know, it might be more appropriate for you all to find another place to worship.

    Me: Can you suggest a place? Please write it down so I can remember it.

    [CHH writes some competitor’s place he wants to bomb. You sign and date it, and note who wrote down the other church.]

    Me: Great. Meanwhile, I know a few gay couples who would love to find an accepting place to worship and are looking to move. I’ll suggest your church. They are very active in the Men’s Ministry at their current church. I’m sure your ministry would benefit greatly from active men like them.

    Isn’t Game wonderful?

    Lol

  236. theasdgamer says:

    @ AT, Boxer, GKC

    AT: Thus, your “doesn’t explicitly condemn” comment can at best be seen as damning with faint praise and generally as a subtle poisoning of the well. But, as usual, it was well done.

    Tanks for puttin’ da cookies on da lower shelf for us kids. Nice reading of the subcomms.

    I have repeatedly stated that observationally, only a certain percentage of men, certainly no more than 20%, possess the necessary traits to successfully manage such a household.

    If each of the 20% of men has 4 wives, that leaves 20% of the women for 80% of the men. AT: “You losers can all go fight over Andrea Dworkin and Big Red.” lol

    You guys aren’t tall enough for this ride.

    I lol’d at this even though it’s mean. Remember lessons from dog training.

    the biggest problem in the church today is the inability/refusal of the leadership to recognize, acknowledge and deal with the problem of adultery.

    I’m sure you mean cuckolding. (And likely the issue of the wife withholding sex is strongly linked to “cheating” by the husband.) If this is the case, then you sure as hell ought to be pumping Kassian’s stock–at least her talk linked by the OP.

  237. “adultery if you’re married to someone else, fornication if you aren’t” – One small correction. It is adultery if the woman is married to someone else, not the man. That is why Bathsheba was adultery but Abigail was not even though both had a relationship with the already married David.

  238. REF: Jeremaih 31:32

    “God did not ‘participate in polygyny’. Let’s watch it when we associate holy God with base sexual practices. That’s not what the passage concerning a ‘new covenant with Israel and Judah’ means.”

    Polygamy is not the primary message of the passage, but God did refer to himself has having multiple spouses which is strong evidence that he does not think of it as a “base sexual practice”.

  239. Bill Smith says:

    AT and possibly Chris are just seeking to justify their own choices.

    Your math was correct ASD, that is a big elephant they miss. What should most of the men do while they all have their multiple wives?

    I think someone posted a video here recently pointing out that modern civilization realized that most men needed a motivation to build civilization, so one man – one woman marriage was made the full standard. That is how it was in the beginning. I have yet to see a compelling reason why an alternative is better. Some things that are legal are not profitable.

    No idea where the claimed passage that God said he had multiple wives is. Seems like something is being taken way out of context there, or maybe just made up out of whole cloth.

  240. @Dale
    For the question of sex with a non-virgin woman who is not married, I suspect (note that key word) this is wrong, because:
    – a woman was supposed to remain a virgin until marriage, or be killed (Deut 22)
    – if all the women remain virgins until marriage, as they should, then where are the non-virgin, non-married women, with whom a man could have sex? Obviously there are none, hence it is foolish to claim I can sleep around with these non-existent women.

    The woman killed in Deuteronomy 22 is an interesting case, to be sure. The reason she was to be killed was because she committed adultery, the only question is *how* she committed adultery. Essentials are that a woman went through the process of betrothal and marriage, after which her husband was upset that she wasn’t a virgin. Obviously, the only way she wasn”t a virgin was SODDIT (some other dude did it). So, the question is whether the other dude got their first *before* she got betrothed (meaning she was *married* to the other guy) or whether he got their after she was betrothed (*after* she was legally married). Either way, she committed adultery and the penalty for adultery was death.

    The point of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was that Genesis 2:24 is a grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage and is also descriptive of the initiation of marriage: have sex with a virgin and you’re married to her, having established the marital covenant with the shedding of blood in the act of becoming one flesh. So, once married, how does the marriage end? One way is if her father annulled the marriage. Another is if her husband dies, the last one is if her un-believing husband divorced her for adultery or refuses to live with her.

    I started off looking at divorce in the church, and the problem that since divorce between two confessed believers is forbidden, all these women out there claiming to be “single” but who are divorced are actually still married. It wasn’t until I finally got around to studying the initiation of marriage that I realized that I was completely wrong about what I was seeing. It wasn’t that these women were illegitimately divorced, it’s that they were never actually married to the guy they got divorced from in he first place…

    In today’s economy, within the church, we have the following situation:

    A. N=0 (Virgin, eligible to marry)

    Ba. N=1 (Married, not eligible to marry, whether she knows it or not)
    OR
    Bb. N=1 (Not Married because husband died, divorced her or her father annulled the marriage)

    Ca. N=2 (Was Bb and is now legitimately married again)
    Cb. N=2 (Was Bb, and now sexually active but not married)
    Cc. N=2 (Is Ba and now is an adulteress)

    Da. N>2 (Was Ca, is now on nth marriage)
    Db. N>2 (Was Bb, is sexually active but not married)
    Dc. N>2 (Is Ba or Ca, still married, now an adulteress)

    Ea. N≥10 (Is Ba, married, and a rather experienced adulteress)
    Eb. N≥10 (Is not married, is possibly a former adulteress, but otherwise is rather sexually experienced)

    The vast majority of the adult women anyone will meet in the church fall into the Cc, Dc and (usually) Ea category because the guy that got their virginity is their (real) husband and they are *still* married to him. The reason this is so devastating is simple: any guy who didn’t marry a virgin is not, in all likelihood, “married” to the woman he thinks he married and all those so-called “divorced” women are still married. The reaction of most Christians is to reject this.

    I speak from experience when I say that it was very difficult to stand up in front of friends and say, “I’m an adulterer. I only thought I was married to [she who must not be named], but in reality I “married” another man’s wife and my children are all the product of adultery.”

    [Don’t pity me, pity the poor, gentle souls I dropped that bomb on; because when they tried to convince me I was wrong I showed them what Scripture actually says and every single one of them realized they were living in adultery too. Fortunately, that problem is now cleared up for all of them.]

    As to where the “non-existent” women come from, see category Cb, Db and Eb, and expect to find that the vast majority of them will be category Eb. Right now there are very, very few women who are legitimately in those categories, but the only thing that keeps the majority of women from shifting from categories Ba, Ca, Da, or Ea to the status of unmarried and eligible to marry is a bit of knowledge. A Christian woman can do one of the following:

    1. Confess what they’ve done to their father and ask him to annul their marriage.
    2. Ask their unbelieving husband to give them a certificate of divorce for adultery.
    3. Demand to be reconciled to their unbelieving husband in hopes he refuses to live with them.
    4. Have their husband killed (and I’m only being slightly sarcastic when I say that- after all, murder only happens once and God forgives, but adultery is the gift that keeps on giving).

    If the Christian woman gave her virginity to a Christian man, given that 1st Cor. 7:11 forbids a Christian husband to divorce his Christian wife, the only way out of that marriage is either her father annuls it or her husband dies. Otherwise, given that she’s separated from him, she can live a chaste and single life apart from him or be reconciled to him.

    Right now I haven”t done a lot of field-work on this, but from what I’ve done so far you would probably be surprised at the number of women, both those who do and do not profess to be Christians, who are *very* seriously interested in this topic. I’m just as sure that some people reading this, rather than be surprised would be appalled at the idea I’m helping women stop committing adultery.

    Why? Because IF one can accept what Scripture says about the initiation of marriage and adultery, the study of that very quickly reveals the fact that extra-marital sex with a woman who is eligible to marry is not a sin unless she’s a prostitute. Again, for you nit-pickers, such extra-marital sex *could be* a sin if it is not of faith (Romans 14:23) or if you know the “right thing to do” for you is to wait until marriage.

    In reality, there aren’t a lot of virgins available for marriage because over half the women lose their virginity before 17.1 years of age and by age 24 only about 12% are still virgins. So, regardless of how wonderful she is, this is one of those talks a guy *must have* with the woman just to be able to determine whether she’s even eligible to be married. All she has to admit to is an N=2 and it’s established that she’s a married adulteress. At that point the guy should do the right thing (which requires a thorough understanding this issue) and help her either get Daddy to annul her marriage or get her husband to give her a certificate of divorce.

    If a guy does that, *presto-chango* she’s no longer married, but she isn’t a virgin either. That means she’s eligible to marry and in my opinion, any woman who was willing to examine Scripture and admit that she was an adulteress to the point of doing something about it is a woman worth consideration for marriage if she then lives her life in a chaste manner.

    However, I must admit that basic female impulses of hypergamy and solipsism will be unleashed by this.

    “Wow! If I’m not married any more I can have sex with anybody I want and it isn’t a sin?”

    Eyes got glassy and breathing shallow as furious hamsterbation ensued.

    Sometimes I feel like Alfred Nobel

  241. A Christian man gets married to a Christian woman, woman cheats daily, has children by other men and continues to cheat and betray her husband. Her husband asks his Church Elders to intervene, they tell the women to stop, she doesn’t but instead divorces her husband, but of course, she’s still married to him and continues to cheat. Husband is stuck being a cuck, yay!

    No thanks. AT, you’re wrong. Divorce is allowed by adultery because it breaks the contract of marriage between the spouses. Jesus said so himself. The man can choose to either be divorced or renew the marriage. This is common sense, the immense crap that any normal human being would have to go through under your ‘marriage’ construction is ludicrous.

    Your marriage construct is not feasible, not today, not during Jesus’ time, not Paul’s, nobody’s time period, it is illogical and harmful. You base it all on a thread of dispute as to if Paul meant to include or exclude divorce on the grounds of adultery. Madness.

    There really is only one solution to this problem for men. Don’t get married.

  242. @Bill Smith
    @theasdgamer

    This is a common argument from ignorance. Observationally (and this is backed up by all the historical data I can find) the vast majority of polygynous marriages are with 2 wives. Some have three and it’s only rarely that one sees 4 or more.

    This is probably as good a place to point out that I have only advocated polygyny as a solution for the church, not for the general population. However, the general point is you guys are wrong. The *threat* of polygyny does more for monogamy than you can imagine because it gives the husband his “Next!” back. Women will always be hypergamous and there will always be women who are willing to share a man who is high enough in value. The argument that other men won’t have wives is right up there with using Ricardo’s theory to justify free trade. It sounds good on paper but reality says it’s wrong.

    Consider that right now, about a quarter of the population of men are gamma, omega and lambda. Sometimes a lambda like foam-boy will take a woman off the market, but in reality there is probably 25% of the male population who won’t get a wife (can’t get a wife) in our current environment. I mentioned a figure of 20% as the *max* percentage of men who could manage a polygynous household, but in terms of *initiating* a polygynous household, that figure is probably down around 3% to 5% and maybe less than that.

    In reality what we have is an excess of women who need (but don’t necessarily want) to be married and if possible kept barefoot and pregnant.

    We are also currently entering into a societal phase in which there are very large numbers of women who are not “with someone” (meaning I’m not going to go into their real marital status) and those women are getting older. Social security and other schemes are all doomed to failure and what happens to these women then? Ask yourself- how is that supposed to work in God’s economy? I can think of several older women (50’s-60’s) that I don’t think of as desirable sexual partners, but who would probably be a good addition to the household because they bring with them other qualities (cats get left behind, of course). If they want it once in a blue moon, who’s to complain?

    If one does a serious study of Deuteronomy 22, the question comes up as to whether the crime of rape even exists, or whether what we are seeing is the crime of forced adultery. If rape is truly a crime, why is it that the text (which clearly differentiates between the married and the virgin) does not mention widows or divorced women? Does God love these women so little that He did not see fit to give them the protection of making sexual assault against them a crime?

    Or, (the feminists worst nightmare) is it that in God’s plan, women are to be under the authority of a man, be it her father or her husband; and the text is a reflection of that? Modern society wants to make *everything* about sex, but it isn’t. Perhaps the context of Deuteronomy 22 reflects that, and the idea is that widows and divorced women are expected to get married again if they can. That adult women *should* be married. Perhaps that’s why Isaiah 4:1-2 says:

    “For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!” In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel.”

    What reproach could the women possibly have, other than not being married? And notice the reference to the “Branch of the Lord” and “the survivors of Israel” which indicates this is an end-times prophesy (the Branch of the Lord is the church).

  243. @feministhater
    Divorce is allowed by adultery because it breaks the contract of marriage between the spouses. Jesus said so himself.

    Actually, you are wrong because you don’t understand what you’re reading. The confusion is caused by the difference between Matthew 19 and 1st Corinthians 7 and the fact that some things that were permitted for a man under the Law are forbidden to him as a Christian.

    In Matthew 19, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked about the grounds for divorce (“can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?”). Jesus responded by quoting Genesis 2:24, which was the grant of authority to the man to *initiate* marriage and then said “What God has therefore joined together, let no man separate.” So, what happened there is the Pharisees asked what the grounds for divorce were and Jesus said there weren’t any because there was no divorce. That blew the Pharisees minds, so they came back at Him and demanded to know why, if there was no divorce, did Moses “command” it?

    Jesus corrected them and said “For the hardness of your hearts Moses *permitted* you… but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Look very carefully at that, because Jesus referenced the authority to initiate marriage and in that last answer He was pointing to the fact that the authority to initiate marriage (which initiated a covenant which God is part of) does not contain the authority to terminate the marriage.

    However, in acknowledging the fact that Moses *did* permit the men to divorce their wives, Jesus clarified what Moses said. In Deuteronomy 24:1, Moses said:

    “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house”

    The question the Pharisees thought they were asking was about that “finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her” phrase. There were two schools of thought at the time, one of which was the rabbi Hillel and the other was the rabbi Shammai. Rabbi Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but rabbi Hillel said divorce was allowed for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.

    Jesus responded to the Pharisees and took it way further than even Shammai, saying in verse 9:

    “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    So, with that, Christians everywhere (such as wormtongue) convince themselves that “by the very words of Jesus” divorce is allowed for adultery. There are a number of misconceptions about that verse that people have a problem with, but I’m only dealing with divorce at the moment. The major take-away point here is Jesus clarified what Moses said in Deut. 24:1 to mean that a man can *only* divorce his wife (UNDER THE LAW) for “porneia” which is the Greek word commonly translated as “sexual immorality” “immorality” and “fornication.” These words all refer to violations of the Law of Moses.

    Following that, the Disciples said to Jesus “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” which pretty much sums up your position. The problem is, Jesus was speaking to those under the Law, clarifying the justification for exercising a “right” under the Law.

    Fast forward to 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 and we have two authorities speaking to two groups. First, Jesus, again, speaking on the subject of divorce. This time, instead of addressing the Pharisees, Jesus was addressing HIS SERVANTS who are married to each other.

    “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”

    That, feministhater, is a specific prohibition given by the Lord to His bondservants who are married to each other. No divorce. It does not change the Law, and an unbelieving husband still has the right to divorce his wife for her sexual immorality, but for a Christian man married to a Christian woman, that man (per verse 11) does not have the authority to divorce his wife. If she violates the command of verse 10 and leaves him, he is still free to take another wife, but he’s still married to the first one. After that, we have the second authority (Paul) speaking to the second group, the Christians who are married to an unbeliever.

    “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”

    Thus, we see that for a Christian man married to a Christian woman, there is no divorce, but if a Christian man or woman is married to an unbeliever who leaves them (will not consent to live with them) then they are free.

    Under the Law, as an unbeliever, you have the “right” to bang all the whores you want and you can keep your willie wet that way until it falls off. It isn’t prohibited so the Law permits it. However, 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is a *specific* prohibition on Christians forbidding them from joining the members of Christ to a whore. Regardless of the fact that the Law permits it, as a Christian such activity is forbidden. In the same way, while the Law permits a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality, as a Christian man you, sir, are forbidden to divorce your Christian wife for any reason, no matter what kind of a raging whore she is, because “Jesus said so Himself” at 1st Corinthians 7:11.

    I could reference the further teaching of Jesus found at Revelation 3:19 and elaborate on possible ways to deal with being married to a rebelliously unrepentant and adulterous slut, but our blog-host has forbidden such discussions.

  244. ray says:

    “The other common argument is that it is ok to have women as preachers so long as they are only women’s preachers. I’m not sure from your statement above if this is your assertion or not, but if so I would be interested in your basis in Scripture for this. I don’t see one”

    Because there isn’t one. God is not such a fool as to allow women to ‘unpack’ his Holy Word.

    Females are NOT to preach, ever, including preaching to females. The NT instructs the elder females who cherish Scripture to guide the younger ones — but informally, in their own kitchens or at any of the blazillion times each day that women gather to yap. Not to stand up in front of crowds in fancy expensive buildings and declaim. Paul, Peter and at least a few others would have known not to encourage women to preach, nor to run ‘ministries’, much less for money and/or celebrity. Their Retreats. Their Workshops and Cruises and Conferences. Their Relationship Experts. Toss some “let’s follow Jesus as master” in so the appearance of obedience is kept.

    Only a fully cucked church/nation would permit women to usurp the roles given by God to selected males. ‘Women’s Ministry’ is just another scam for overthrowing the covering and supervising role of the male, and for ditching God the Father.

  245. ray says:

    “How can they teach women about being submissive and loving to their husbands without referring to the Bible? How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that Jesus first revealed himself to be Christ to a woman and it was women who first told everyone that he is risen.”

    God knows which sex maintains the most thorough gossip networks.

  246. Pingback: Mary Kassian’s Talk: Don’t Be a Wimp: Kicking the Habits That Make Women Weak | The Autistic Gamer

  247. theasdgamer says:

    @ AT

    Polygamy only exists as anything other than an anomaly when slavery also exists. Most slaves were male and slaves can’t marry. Most slaves were used for agriculture and mining, where strength and endurance were required. Slaves could generally be used for sex at the master’s whim, in Rome. No need to marry a female slave. The children of slaves couldn’t inherit the master’s stuff. They were just more slaves.

    I am not opposed to polygamy in theory. I just see practical problems if it is anything other than an anomaly.

  248. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    “She isn’t telling them what Paul wrote, that they should submit to their husband.”

    I can see that, and you’re right, it’s a problem.

    “On the twist of the fight, she went from feminist indignation to ‘don’t hit me I’m a girl’, and I’m sure her audience was right there with her and saw no incongruence.”

    Yes, typical.

    @ Cane

    “Frankly, I’m suspicious of para-church conventions for the laity whether they are for women or men or both. Where is the order in a weekend of listening to people with whom you will never live or love or share a meal?”

    Good point. The Apostles didn’t hold conventions, they planted churches.

  249. ray says:

    ASDGamer — Stop slurring autistics by association. You neither speak for them nor represent them. Stop using autism as a shield against your false witnessing.

    If you are autistic at all, you sound like a self-obsessed adolescent aspie. That’s your problem and nobody else’s.

  250. shammahworm says:

    AT is a liar who acts as though retyping the same walls of text after having been repeatedly discredited will change his false teaching. For years, he’s been peddling his nonsense on here. Check the links below to see his lies.

    I’ll state this very quick fact just in case anyone new is reading this. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus Christ makes it clear a man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality(both for adultery and for falsely representing one’s sexual history). It’s both an affirmation of the divorce law from the OT(when execution wasn’t possible under the law) and also a NT teaching. Use the search feature to find what I’ve written in other threads where I go into much greater detail. I won’t go line-by-line after having repeatedly done so in other threads.

    Matthew 5: 31-32,
    “’It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.'”

    Jesus makes it clear a man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality(both for adultery and for falsely representing one’s sexual history). 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 in no way alters or abolishes this. AT has been shown this many times and continues to try to lay up false burdens on those who read his lies.

    So now it’s time to again remind everyone on here that AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher. Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
    1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567

  251. Bill Smith says:

    Oscar,

    Have you ever gone to a professional conference? What would be the difference in effect of having a conference on Biblical things? Some might claim a secular/sacred divide, but I don’t believe that. It is all sacred, in one way or another.

    I have listened to many hours of teaching by a wide range of teachers. I see no reason that must be inherently limited to just those I am in close contact with. Any Scriptural support for that claim?

    Ray, aspies can be quite operational in the world. It is a much more subtle form of autism. It is quite likely Bill Gates is an aspie. Many technical people are.

    I disagree with a lot of what ASDGamer writes, but I am in much more agreement with him here because he is more consistent with both the overall Scriptural principle (one man and one woman was God’s plan from the beginning) and the practical aspects back that up.

    AT,

    You just want to be the special anointed one. The unwashed masses don’t get polygamy. You err in not realizing that it would not be just Christians who pursued that if it was the norm. Soft harems today are already a part of it and are actively creating a very explosive underclass. Most men are not truly cut out for the MGTOW lifestyle without some form of sexual release that is definitely not Biblically proper and productive.

    Societies went strongly away from it for a reason. And no example in the Scriptures puts it in a completely good light. It is allowed, but it is definitely not an ideal way and will not solve the problems you claim it will resolve.

    You need to get off your high horse, but I doubt you will. You are convinced you are holier than everyone else and have the right way. Your day of enlightenment will come as a mighty shock.

  252. Dale says:

    @Paul Bryant 1
    >traditional RC church near us, and I’ve noticed that of the women going in, maybe 10% cover their heads. I’ve never seen any woman at our (evangelical-inclined Anglican) church covering their heads

    As discussed at Cane’s (https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/sidestep-and-snatch-them-baldheaded/), most women are rebellious.

    Similarly, how many men and women are up on stage while obese? Anyone heard of self-control (Titus 2:1-6). And for spiritual leaders, self-control is a requirement (Titus 1:5-9), hence a significantly over-weight pastor is an oxymoron.

    In Ukraine, in the orthodox church I visited, over half of the women had ALL of the following:
    1) healthy weight, and no other obvious sign of lack of self-control
    2) unquestionably feminine clothing such as skirt or dress (Deut 22:5) Note that some think this refers to masculine work attire / tools only; see Dalrock’s article on this from about a week ago.
    3) hair at least long enough to partially cover her breasts (but many had hair to their elbows)
    4) head covering (1 Cor 11)

    The massive disobedience we see is not universal.

    To what extent should I accept that a woman may be trying to be obedient, but has read the Bible very little and therefore is acting disobedient out of ignorance rather than rebellion?
    And to what extent should I say, “you have a copy of the Bible, read it and obey it!” (James 1:22-25 re obeying and not merely reading the Word)
    I think it is more reasonable to give benefit of the doubt to the unchristian women who act in a feminist instead of Biblical way. They at least have an excuse for not knowing how to behave.

    @AT and Jim and Chris
    > I have experience that says churches are willing to “accept” same-sex couples in their congregation, but if a family shows up with multiple wives

    Or the “churches” where even the pastor’s wife demonstrates open rebellion within the church service. (See list of 4 items above.)
    Can’t have the women being told, “no”.

  253. Micha Elyi says:

    It’s all a matter of authority. If anyone can interpret Scripture correctly, then who can gainsay Artisanal Toad or a rebellious wife?

  254. infowarrior1 says:

    @GK Chesterson

    In regards to female heads of state John Knox begs to differ:
    http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

  255. infowarrior1 says:

    Polygamy has demonstrated again and again its tendencies towards creating chaos via excess numbers of men competing for a diminishing pool of women. Higher rates of crime ,violence, rape and murder are the result as well as constant fodder for criminal gangs and terrorist groups.

  256. infowarrior1 says:

    Oh and since the sex ratio is naturally 105 males born for every 100 females. And given 1st world living conditions. Imagine if AT prediction of 2 wives each came to pass. And given the lack of regulation that I know so far that AT has proposed to regulate this practice. Imagine the amount of men with no prospects of a wife.

  257. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    I have two things to say to you, the first about your actual arguments, and the second about your debating style. I’ll address your arguments first, and your debating style later.

    You guys claim to have the truth and are thus required by Scripture to give an answer for these doctrines that you claim as Biblical truth.

    I’ll address the arguments you made, one at a time. I’ll try to keep it short, as you did, and for the same reasons — this comment would get RIDICULOUSLY long if I did. Don’t know if I’ll manage to keep it truly short, though.

    *Polygyny is a Biblically sanctioned form of marriage for any Christian man or woman. I make the claim based on the fact that God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny and nowhere is it forbidden or condemned. This point is absolutely key in dealing with feminism, because it deals with three things: 1st, the authority of the man to initiate marriage, which is not limited to a single marriage (monogamy). 2nd, the curse of Genesis 3:16, in which the woman is cursed with hypergamy. 3rd, the natural tendency of women to rebel against the command to submit to her husband, which polygyny is uniquely able to deal with. Polygyny is quite literally patriarchal marriage that is capable of dealing with the banged up sluts who are no longer fit for monogamy.

    You are correct that polygyny is never declared a sin in the Bible. It was, however, restricted or forbidden to two groups of people:

    1) The kings of Israel were forbidden to “multiply” wives to themselves. (Deuteronomy 17:17) Some people have read this as forbidding them from marrying more than one wife, which would indeed be the natural reading of the passage. That interpretation does make 2 Samuel 12:8 difficult — if God forbade polygyny to the kings of Israel, why would He tell David that He “gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms”? Therefore, I think the right reading of Deuteronomy 17:17 is that the kings of Israel were supposed to be restrained in how many wives they married: a few, yes, but not hundreds. In that reading, David was not sinning when he married three or four wives (it’s not clear when each of them died, so I don’t know how many women he was married to at any given time), but Solomon was sinning when he married three hundred wives.

    2) Polygyny was also forbidden to church elders in the New Testament — or rather, those Christians who joined the church who already had multiple wives were barred from eldership (Titus 1:6). This passage is quite clear, and has no interpretation difficulties. There was clearly polygamy being practiced in the early Church (as in the surrounding culture), and the Holy Spirit didn’t lead the apostles to forbid it to Christians in general. But it was clearly not the ideal, so the leaders of the church were to be monogamous.

    *A man who has sex with a virgin he is eligible to marry, has, with the act of becoming one flesh with her, consummated his marriage to her. This is exactly what Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 all say. The only question after that is whether the father could or did exercise his authority under Numbers 30 to annul the marriage after the fact. The key point on this issue is who has the authority to initiate marriage. Genesis 2:24 gives that authority to the man but the ancient church usurped that authority and claimed it as its own. This is a critical point because *by definition* a woman who is not a virgin is married to the guy who got her virginity. That means somewhere between 80% and 95% of the “married” couples in the church are not actually married to each other, they’re living in adultery. This is the single greatest problem the church faces today.

    This is the point where I disagree with you most strongly. The disagreement is subtle, but quite easy to explain. My reading of Genesis 2:24 is that it specifies three steps:

    1) Leaving mother and father
    2) Joining (this would be where the couple becomes married)
    3) Becoming one flesh (having sex)

    Your reading of Genesis 2:24 is that it specifies two steps:

    1) Leaving mother and father
    2) Joining, and becoming one flesh, which are the same thing: becoming one flesh (having sex) makes you joined (married).

    Almost the entire Christian world reads Genesis 2:24 the same way that I do: the “be joined to his wife” part refers to a marriage ceremony. What form that ceremony should take is entirely up to culture: the Bible never specifies a particular form for the ceremony. But in just about every culture, there is some ceremony or procedure that a couple will go through to say “We are now a couple.” And in Genesis 2:24, the sex follows after the joining — and that’s how you know that the sex is legitimate. There’s never any question of whether you are married or not; it’s impossible to be married and not know it. Whereas the natural consequence of your reading is that 90% or more of the “unmarried” young adults in America today are really married but don’t know it. This is a truly bizarre conclusion, and a good general rule is that when you reach a truly bizarre conclusion, you should probably go back and re-examine your premises to see if one of them is false.

    Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are two laws dealing with pretty much the same situation, with the only difference being whether the woman consented to the sexual act. In Exodus 22 she did, in Deuteronomy 22 she didn’t. Here too, my reading is the same as the entire Christian world: the sexual act does not, in itself, make a woman married. Marriage is a separate step, and the sexual act is supposed to follow. In both of these passages, the sexual act happened when there had been no marriage yet, and the restitution that the man owed the woman was that since she was no longer a virgin and other men wouldn’t want to marry her, he would have to marry her. You, on the other hand, claim that it is the sexual act itself that causes the marriage to happen, and that the passages aren’t saying “Now you have to get married”, but “Now that you got married improperly, you have to do the right thing and pay the appropriate bride-price as per custom.”

    There’s one problem with your reading, though, that nobody’s addressed yet, and that’s Deuteronomy 22:23-24. Here, the woman in question is a betrothed virgin — meaning that she has been publicly promised to a man, but they have not yet consummated their marriage. But she goes and willingly sleeps with another man who is not her promised husband. But notice how in verse 24, it says that the man she slept with “violated his neighbor’s wife” (ESV, emphasis mine). I checked the Hebrew word, and it is definitely “wife”, with no other possible reading. So this woman was engaged to man #1. She slept with man #2, and now #2 is condemned to death for violating man #1’s wife… even though she was a virgin before he slept with her. By your reading (where the sexual act itself is what creates the marriage), this is completely illogical. By the common reading where the couple are joined first, and then the sexual act happens later, this passage makes complete sense. In Hebrew culture, betrothal was considered a pledge just as strong as marriage, and to break a betrothal would be the equivalent of a divorce. And that makes perfect sense of this passage — the woman was not free to marry anyone but her betrothed, and the fact that she slept with someone else was just as much adultery as if she were not a virgin because she and her husband had completed their marriage.

    So by my reading, all these passages make perfect sense. Your reading also manages to make sense of the three passages you quote, but Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is seriously problematic for your reading, because it mentions a woman who is both: 1) a virgin, and 2) a wife.

    *Adultery is a violation of God’s Law that requires a married woman. By definition, without a married woman there can be no adultery. This point has a huge impact on the definition of other words, such as lust, and a failure to understand this point causes the Christian to misinterpret what Scripture is saying. An example would be in Matthew 19. Did Jesus really mean that marrying (any) divorced woman was to commit adultery? (No, because if she’s *legitimately* divorced under the Law for her sexual immorality, she is no longer married- see Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

    Not quite; adultery, in God’s Law, requires either a married woman or a married man. If either one of them sleeps with someone they’re not married to, it’s adultery. The proof can be found in Mark 10:11-12, where both the husband and the wife commit adultery if they divorce their spouse and marry another. If adultery required only a married woman but a married man sleeping with another woman was not adultery, then Mark 10:11 (“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her”) would make no sense. But in the common reading, it does make sense: the husband cannot legitimately divorce his wife, which means that to marry another woman while his wife still lives is to commit adultery against her — because in God’s eyes, the divorce was not legitimate and he is still married to her.

    … Actually, now that I look at it, the natural implication of that passage is to prohibit polygamy for Christians! If to divorce one’s wife and marry another woman is adultery, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it’s because one married another woman while one’s first wife is still living. And therefore, if you’re still married to her and didn’t divorce her, it would also be adultery to marry a second woman.

    After all, just a few verses prior, Jesus had said “What God has joined together, let now man separate.” So God doesn’t consider divorce legitimate. (The parallel passage in Matthew 19 does allow for an exception for sexual immorality, which would legitimize divorce in a few cases, but this passage doesn’t mention that exception.) And anyway, we’re not arguing over whether divorce and remarriage is legitimate, we’re arguing about is whether a man who is still married to his first wife can legitimately marry a second wife without sinning. And it turns out that Mark 10:11 clearly implies that no, he can’t — because if it’s illegitimate to do so after divorce, the only reason can be that it’s because God considers you still married to your first wife, hence why marrying a second wife is adultery. (If you weren’t considered still married, it would be some other sin than adultery). And if that’s the case, then getting married to a second wife without going through the pretense of a divorce would also be adultery.

    I don’t know if you’ve examined Mark 10:11-12 before, but it destroys your case for polygamy being legitimate for Christians — and I only just realized that now, hence why I never brought it up before.

    I also hereby retract my earlier statement that the Bible never calls polygamy a sin; here’s the passage where it does.

    *Sex outside the bounds of marriage with an unmarried woman who is not a prostitute is not generally a sin for Christians. The Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 7 said that if the virgin or the widow burns, they should marry. If the guy has sex with the virgin, he’s married to her. For widows and legitimately divorced women (meaning they are actually divorced and no longer married), Paul says that if they want to have sex they should get married. Paul did *not* say that having sex with such a woman prior to marriage was a sin and God chose not to prohibit such activity in the Law. Paul did not make any specific prohibition for Christians in this area, such as he did in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, prohibiting the use of prostitutes (which was not prohibited in the Law). The fact that Paul specifically prohibited joining the members of Christ to a whore means he had the authority to mandate a similar prohibition on extra-marital sex for Christians, but he did not. We must assume that was because God did not desire that he do so. I have also repeatedly cited Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 as caveats to this point for Christians, but the general statement stands as true.

    First, before going into the refutation, I want to point out that your bolded statement is a seriously absurd conclusion. And as I said before, when you reach absurd conclusions, it’s wise to go back and re-examine your premises.

    Now. Since we’ve just seen that both a man and a woman can commit adultery by getting married to someone else (which naturally implies sex with that person) while their first spouse still lives, that destroys this point as well. If a married man is having sex outside of his marriage, that’s adultery. If a married woman is having sex outside of her marriage, that’s adultery.

    You are right about some of your points here, like “Paul says that if they want to have sex they should get married.” (1 Corinthians 7:9) But if the widow must get married if she wants to have sex, then she’s disobeying God’s law if she has sex without getting married first. If, as you would have it, a man would not be sinning by having sex with a widow… would she be sinning by having sex with him? You specifically distinguish widows from virgins, due to your position (stated in another thread which I don’t have open right now to quote from) that it’s the blood of the hymen-breaking sexual experience that seals the covenant of marriage. So by your reading, a virgin who has sex with a man is automatically married to him, but a widow who has sex with a man is not automatically married to him. But that leads to another absurd conclusion. Paul has commanded that a widow who wants to have sex (“burns with passion”) should get married first; well and good. But then, if she has sex without being married, she’s sinning — but you would claim that the man who has sex with her is not sinning. This is another absurd conclusion that should make you re-examine your premises.

    *Sexual acts between women are the same as masturbation: completely unmentioned in the Bible, not prohibited and therefore not sinful acts. I made the argument on this point in this thread and cited my authorities. The same argument applies to masturbation as well. This is another area in which one *might* think that Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 would apply, but in the case of a plural marriage, issues of conscience would only apply to the husband, not the wives. Yes, I know that’s rather incendiary for the feminized church, but that’s what Scripture says.

    Your reading of Romans 1:26-27 is completely wrong-headed. Sexual acts between women certainly are mentioned in Romans 1:26; that’s what it means by “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.” You can tell that that’s what it means because verse 27, says that the men “likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men …”

    This passage clearly condemns both men committing sexual acts with men, and women committing sexual acts with women. Verses 26 and 27 both refer to the same thing, hence Paul’s use of “likewise”. It is mentioned in the Bible, and is clearly wrong.

    *Lust is a sexual desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled. In Matthew 5 the Lord said a man who lusts for a woman has already committed adultery in his heart. Since adultery requires a married woman, it follows that a man can only lust after a woman who is married to someone else. Looking on a woman who is eligible to marry with sexual desire cannot be lust because that desire can legitimately fulfilled. The idea a man can “lust” after his wife is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. This point is important because the “lust thing” is used in the church to hammer boys and young men until all traces of masculinity are stamped out. It’s a false teaching from the Catholic church that’s used to destroy men.

    As we’ve already seen, adultery requires either a married woman or a married man, so married men have no business going after women who are not their wives, whether or not that woman is married. Apart from that, you’re mostly correct here, and the only place where you’re incorrect doesn’t have any effect on your point. (The actual Greek word in this passage means “to covet”, implying a desire for something one doesn’t have. Translating it as “lust” made sense a few hundred years ago, but the word “lust” has had a subtle shift in meaning recently, and the translation really should be “covet” now to convey the full original meaning.)

    However, I would add the caveat that even atheists are starting to realize that porn is addictive and dangerous (see the “your brain on porn” site for an atheist’s argument against it), so even if we don’t pull a Matt Walsh on this passage, we need to caution young men against porn. Not because it’s a sin, but because it will make their future sexual relationship with their wives difficult: they’ll have to unlearn habits that porn trained them in, which is usually painful.

    *For a Christian man married to a Christian woman, divorce is forbidden and there are no exceptions. That is a specific prohibition that applies only to the church, given by the Lord Jesus Christ at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. The Law allowed a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality (the Greek word “porneia”) and the Law cannot be changed, but I refer to a specific prohibition that applies only to Christians that removes this authority. The only specific exception to the rule of “no divorce” for Christians is in those cases in which the Christian is married to an unbeliever who leaves them and will not consent to live with them (also known as the “Pauline Privilege” to the RCC folks). In that case, they are free (1st Cor. 7:15).

    Here you are completely correct.

  258. If a Christian women can cheat and the husband must stay with her, why on earth would Jesus say that divorce is not allowed but for sexual immorality. You guys are completely absurd. You’re ready absolutely insane beliefs into marriage. It is a contract that can only be broken by the sexual immortality of the spouses.

    Your insane reading of that passage allows a wife to completely debase her husband, make him raise bastard children and cause him untold misery. No person would agree to that. Unless they were insane.

  259. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    Now I’m going to say something about your debating style.

    Earlier, you claimed that Dave was lying about your words, and challenged him to quote you. I proved him correct, and you wrong, by quoting you, and told you that you owed him a retraction and an apology. You refused to issue a retraction, and instead doubled down on your claim that he was lying, because the second time he used the phrase “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable”, he put it in quotes, thereby (you said) implying that you wrote that phrase. But it is obvious to anyone who read’s Dave’s words that … well, let’s look at Dave’s words that you claim were a lie, then I’ll talk about them.

    Dave wrote:

    Artisanal Toad never tires of peddling his false and damnable theology. Based on his foolish logic that whatever is not expressly forbidden in Scripture is acceptable for the Christian to do, we can then claim that it is OK for a Christian to snort cocaine, or shoot heroine. After all, it is not expressly forbidden in Scripture. And how about them porn sites? Why, the church could organize a session for the guys just before Sunday morning service or after, because “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable”.

    First use of “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable” is not in quotes: he is paraphrasing your logic. I quoted you verbatim to prove that you have, indeed, argued that logic in the past (and then you argued that logic again in this thread). So Dave is entirely truthful in summarizing your logic.

    Now, second use of “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable” is in quotes. But given that he first made it clear that this is a paraphrase of your argument, any reasonable reader can clearly see that these are “sneer quotes”, used to emphasize his disagreement with your position.

    But you refused to read his statement that way, instead doubling down on your asserton that he was lying:

    No, I stand by what I said: Dave lied. I think it’s incumbent upon Dave to explain why he put that statement in quotes, which leads one to believe I actually said that.

    As I’ve just explained, no reasonable reader would read Dave’s comment to mean that you said those words verbatim; they would read it to say that you expressed that meaning. Which you specifically have.

    Further, after Dave wrote the following:

    Can anyone with a modicum of spiritual sense write this type of garbage? Even a poor benighted heathen knows that Artisanal Toad is talking rubbish here.

    You responded with:

    Dave! You’ve discovered the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy!

    Look over what I said… if you work hard, you can go for “False Dichotomy” for the daily-double in logical fallacies! Dave, I have faith in you. I know you can do it. In fact, you might even surprise me with something original! Go Dave!

    That is not the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. As pretty much everyone knows, the “No true Scotsman” fallacy goes as follows:

    Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
    Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
    Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

    (Source: the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”, not linked here so that this comment will contain only one link and thus not be auto-moderated.)

    The fallacy lies in person A’s redefinition of the term. If person A had said, “See? Your uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman, but the fact that he puts sugar on his porridge means that he isn’t one at all!”, then it would not be a fallacy. (Person A’s initial premise would actually be incorrect, but he would still be arguing logically from that premise and not committing a fallacy).

    Now, Dave’s argument would go as follows if stated in formal logical terms:

    A) Nobody with a modicum of spiritual sense would write this type of garbage.
    B) Artisanal Toad wrote this type of garbage.
    C) Therefore, Artisanal Toad does not have a modicum of spiritual sense.

    You obviously will disagree with premise B — that your interpretation of Scripture is “garbage”, and therefore you will also disagree with conclusion C. But you cannot call it a fallacy; Dave has not attempted to redefine the group “people with a modicum of spiritual sense”. He has specifically claimed that you are not part of that group. This is not the “No true Scotsman” fallacy — and further, if you are thinking logically, you should know that.

    In my previous interactions with you, I was starting to believe that you were truly interested in searching the Scripture and finding out the truth, and that you were capable of having an honest intellectual debate. However, I no longer believe that you are interested in intellectual integrity. Your interactions with Dave have been full of falsehoods: claiming that he lied when he did no such thing, claiming that he committed fallacies when he did not, and bringing in unjustified ad hominem attacks by the bucketload. These are not the actions of a man who is truly interested in an honest debate.

    You have lost my respect.

  260. Robin Munn says:

    @feministhater –

    Human nature, male and female both, hasn’t changed since creation. Jesus’ disciples had the same reaction as you: “If that’s how it is, it’s better not to get married at all!” And He agreed: not everyone should get married. Some are, by nature, people who won’t be able to get married; some would have been able to be married, but can’t because of the actions of men (this is happening a lot today, where lots of women are removing themselves from the pool of quality marriage candidates, leaving lots of good men unable to find a wife); and some are choosing not to get married so that they can better focus on the Kingdom of God. (Paul expanded on that in 1 Corinthians 7).

    Now, there are three passages that address the divorce question. One in Matthew 19, one in Mark 11, and one in 1 Corinthians 7. Only Matthew 19 gives the “except for sexual immorality” exception; Mark 11 gives no exception, and 1 Corinthians 7 gives the “if your unbelieving spouse divorces you, let them go” exception. So for each of these two exceptions, do they apply only to the Mosaic Law? Are they a command for Christians who are no longer under the Mosaic Law? Or do they apply to both situations?

    Well, Mark 11 is pretty easy: I’m pretty sure that Mark didn’t quote the exception because he was summarizing. (As he does pretty often, which is why his is the shortest gospel; that’s not the only time when Mark gives a short version of an incident while Matthew or Luke record a longer version.)

    Now, 1 Corinthians 7 is clearly a command for Christians, and the exception listed there also clearly applies to Christians. No problems so far. But Paul doesn’t repeat the “except for sexual immorality” exception here, which is where a question arises. Is it because he felt it was unnecessary to repeat? Or because it doesn’t apply to Christians, whereas the other exception does? I used to feel as you did, that the “except for sexual immorality” exception from Matthew 19 applies to Christians, but that requires reading things into 1 Corinthians 7 that aren’t in the text — always a dangerous business, reading things into the text that aren’t specifically there.

    I’d rather take Scripture at its face value, and say that 1 Corinthians 7 commands Christians not to get divorced, period. The only exception given there is that if an unbelieving spouse divorces you, you are not bound by the marriage that you couldn’t save. If that’s the case, then the way to read Matthew 19 becomes clear: Jesus was talking about the requirements of the Mosaic Law. And yes, a wife who wants to screw over her husband can easily do so, just as a husband who wants to screw over his wife could easily do so too. That’s why not everyone should be married, and why the book of Proverbs spends so much time telling young men “pay attention to a woman’s character”. In the verses in Proverbs that talk about wives, a dozen talk about her character in either positive or negative ways (“better to live on the corner of a roof than with a quarrelsome wife” and so on), and only one talks about her beauty (the “may her breasts captivate you always” verse).

    Marriage is dangerous; approach with caution. If good, it is very, very good. If bad, it is horrid.

  261. If the marriage contract allows one or either party to cheat and not void the contract at the will of the other, the marriage contract is pointless. Just have sex outside of it then, you are no more or less sinful. What you guys are describing is simply insane. That is all.

    A man cannot be expected to remain married to a women who cucked him. Unless I’m to believe that Christianity is a religion of cucks.

  262. You guys are immensely stupid. Of course the exception applies to Christians.. who else? Pagans?

  263. Why they heck would they care what Jesus said? Only Christians do and are required to follow those commands, no one else.

  264. Robin Munn says:

    @feministhater –

    Just have sex outside of [marriage] then, you are no more or less sinful.

    You may be writing in haste or in anger, but you’re still advocating sin with that un-Biblical statement. Nothing justifies that. No matter how you read Jesus’ words on divorce, it doesn’t change the fact that sex is supposed to be within the bounds of marriage. Don’t let anger cloud your judgment to the point you just did — step back and take a breather.

  265. Why would Jesus care about teaching Mosaic Law unless he was to uphold it? There was no change in the allowances for divorce. Only for sexual immorality. Why do you guys see a need to overrule Christ and create an untenable situation for 90% of the population? It’s stupidity beyond belief.

  266. No, I’m not advocating it at all, stop with the attempts to side track. I was creating a comparison.

  267. If you want to maintain sex within marriage then there better damn well be divorce for those spouses who get cheated on. Otherwise you are creating an untenable situation that will eventually destroy any and all marriages. Thus defeating the purpose of marriage to begin with.

  268. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    What you guys are describing is simply insane. That is all.

    Sadly, they’re perfectly sane and very human. It’s human nature to project your own drives and desires onto things you see, and this happens when we read texts all the time. AT, Robin Munn and many others have read their own whims into the text, probably subconsciously.

    Whenever we read (the bible or anything else) we should get feedback from others who have also read, so that we aren’t led astray by our own biases. In the case of the New Testament, we have the benefit of centuries of experts, and thousands of sources, who have read and commented. It’s the best sort of peer review. What we see when we start looking at these sources, both ancient and contemporary, are some sensible interpretations which include:

    1. Polygamy forbidden to Christians
    2. Divorce allowed if (and only if) either party starts banging a third party
    3. Lesbian and Gay sex forbidden as time-wasting and immoral
    4. Marriage as ceremony, not merely result of fornicating

    There are many sites to back this up, but the most conclusive (imo) is the Catholic Encyclopedia.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  269. Robin Munn says:

    Boxer –

    I read your link. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s position on divorce is as follows:

    All the objections just noted are valid against frequent divorce, against the abuse of divorce, but not against divorce so far as it implies separation from bed and board without the right to contract another marriage. The Church permits limited separation in certain cases, chiefly, when one of the parties has been guilty of adultery, and when further cohabitation would cause grave injury to soul or body. If divorce were restricted to these two cases some pretend that it would be socially preferable to mere separation without the right to remarry, at least for the innocent spouse. But it would surely be less advantageous to society than a regime of no divorce. Where mere separation is permitted, it will in a considerable proportion of instances need to be only temporary, and the welfare of parents and children will be better promoted by reconciliation than if one of the parties formed another matrimonial union. When there is no hope of another marriage, the offenses than justify separation are less likely to be provoked or committed by either party, and separation is less likely to be sought on insufficient grounds or obtained through fraudulent methods. Moreover, experience shows that when divorce is permitted for a few causes, there is an almost irresistible tendency to increase the number of legal grounds, and to make the administration of the law less strict. Finally, the absolute prohibition of divorce has certain moral effects which contribute in a fundamental and far-reaching way to the social welfare. The popular mind is impress with the thought that marriage is an exclusive relation between two persons, and the sexual intercourse of itself and normally calls for a lifelong union of the persons entering upon such intercourse.

    Notice that when separation is allowed, it is “without any right to remarry”, i.e. the couple are still considered married even though they may not live together. Which for all practical purposes means that divorce is not a viable threat to hold over a cheating spouse, which is feministhater’s main objection. I agree that this makes marriage a dangerous endeavor, as a matter of fact. And my sinful inclinations would actually rather say “Yes, divorce would be allowable in cases of adultery, precisely because of that.” (You’re incorrect about which way my inclinations would run in this case.) But my desires aren’t what’s important; it’s God’s Word that’s important, and I don’t see any way to read 1 Corinthians 7 faithfully except to take it exactly as it says. A Christian must not divorce their spouse.

  270. Damn Crackers says:

    Here is my problem with this divorce discussion. The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 indicates the word of Paul supersedes the words of Christ in Matthew 5:32. Christ seems to be the realist here; St. Paul takes it to an extreme where only the unbeliever can “leave” (many scholars consider the term “leave” to be divorce in the Roman world).

    BTW, I believe this is the case of the Petrine privilege, not the Pauline privilege.

  271. Your interpretation is not God’s word. Jesus is the closest we have and he said….. divorce is allowed for sexual immorality. Beating a dead horse as it were.

    Take you nonsense and shove it.

  272. Robin Munn and AT need to learn the difference between creating a scenario where only the insane would enter vs creating one where only the serious would enter.

    Entering into a contract where one party gets to completely obliterate the other is insane, there is no way around this, you cannot reason your way out of this. God is not insane, nor is Jesus. Do you get that?

    Obviously not.

  273. @Robin Munn

    Re: your argument about my “style”

    You have now done exactly what Dave did, but you really don’t have an excuse. In fact, what you are doing is a common play, which I’ll explain.

    1st. For quite some time, Dave and wormtongue have worked in tandem and I have been called a liar, a heretic, a twister of Scripture, a false teacher (do I need to link to what Dave has called me?) and other assaults on my person. Yet, when I call Dave a liar, you jump in and tell me that *I* am wrong (I’m not and you’ll see why) and tell me that I should apologize. This is actually a normal tactic used to stifle debate in the church, so don’t think I’ve got any butthurt over it.

    2nd. What I actually said had two prongs, both of which I have pointed to, in that (prong 1) for Christians sin is any violation of the Law (per Romans 4:15 and 5:13) and (prong 2) sin *can be* any violation of the conscience per Romans 14:23 and James 4:17. Upthread, when you quoted me, you included that second prong. Yet, now you completely ignore that and claim Dave is making a reasonable interpretation of what I said in focusing *solely* on prong 1. Either you’re being disingenuous or you really do have a rather low opinion of others.

    In the past, I have had Christians tell me the issues of conscience (prong 2) are far harder to overcome than the letter of the Law, and go a long way to make the point about extra-marital sex a non-issue. You may find it difficult to believe, but I tend to agree with them.

    3rd. Dave accuses me of “false and damnable theology” but that too is a lie, because at no point have I discussed salvation in Christ. I am speaking, after all, to Christians. The only “damnable theology” is that which would claim the insufficiency of Christ or otherwise cloud the issue of salvation in Christ. What I have been discussing, in case you missed it (it’s over Dave’s head), is something called “doctrine” and I have been arguing that the “accepted” doctrine of the church does not comport with what Scripture actually says. But, in the interests of fairness to *you* let’s go back and look at what Dave said, and the key is in the second sentence:

    Artisanal Toad never tires of peddling his false and damnable theology. Based on his foolish logic that whatever is not expressly forbidden in Scripture is acceptable for the Christian to do

    We can diagram what Dave said as thus;

    [Based on his foolish logic] (that) [whatever is not expressly forbidden in Scripture is acceptable) ] [Dave gives examples of things that would be permitted under such a condition] [because] [“whatever is not forbidden is acceptable”]

    You claim the quotes should be interpreted as a “sneer quote” because Dave made it clear he was paraphrasing my argument. I submit to you that not only did Dave not make it clear, he strongly implied that he was *stating* my argument when he said ( [his logic] [that] [whatever] ) and in quoting the last part he strongly implies that is what I actually said.

    That, sir, is *his* interpretation of my assertions. He lies in claiming that it’s “damnable theology” and in addition to that, he conveniently leaves out prong 2 of my argument, which is a *lie* of omission. The lie of commission was in making his argument in such a way as to cause the reader to think I said something I didn’t. You then defended him and said:

    But given that he first made it clear that this is a paraphrase of your argument, any reasonable reader can clearly see that these are “sneer quotes”, used to emphasize his disagreement with your position.

    Actually, Dave DID NOT make it clear in any way that he was paraphrasing my position and I’ve already pointed out that he most definitely was not. Then you tell me that “any reasonable reader” would understand that when he used quotes he was emphasizing his disagreement with me rather than reinforcing what he said with a direct quote… which is why people get quoted in the first place. Then, making an argument about what “reasonable readers” understand, you lecture me about the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. I think the word to describe that is “irony.”

    Dave put “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable” in quotes as if Toad actually said that.
    Toad objected, saying… But putting “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable” in quotes causes readers to believe I actually said that.
    Robin Munn responds saying… Ah yes, but “any reasonable reader can clearly see…”

    Robin Munn then lectures Toad on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy and says:

    As pretty much everyone knows, the “No true Scotsman” fallacy goes as follows:

    Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
    Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
    Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

    Ironic, is it not? But, maybe my problem is that I’ve been through this so many times I can see it coming, every single time. Still, I’ll leave you with one question on this subject.

    If I *had* said (and I didn’t) “whatever is not forbidden is acceptable” then how would that compare with the Apostle Paul, who said “All things are lawful to me, but not all things are beneficial”?

    You summarized your position as:

    Your interactions with Dave have been full of falsehoods: claiming that he lied when he did no such thing, claiming that he committed fallacies when he did not, and bringing in unjustified ad hominem attacks by the bucketload.

    1. Dave did lie by omitting the second prong of my argument, which negates everything he said.
    2. The logical fallacy is there and you didn’t even realize it when you provided the proof.
    3. In saying I’m using “ad hominem attacks by the bucketload” you completely ignore all the things Dave has been saying about me over the course of our communication for months.

    I’m reminded of the time the woman caught ‘in the act’ of adultery was brought to Jesus. The Pharisees were hypocrites, because if she was ‘caught in the act’ of adultery, why didn’t they bring the man, who was just as much under the death penalty for that act as she was?

    I will respond to your objections to my arguments in further posts, but I wanted to clear this up first. If you examine your position carefully I think you’ll discover you have no reason to be butthurt about what I said to Dave. I think I can safely say you are not aware of what has been said in the back and forth between Dave and me for months and you are stepping into something not knowing the history. You are attempting to pick up an offense that doesn’t exist, but even if it did it wouldn’t be yours to deal with. Dave did lie, you proved the logical fallacy and as far as the ad hominem it’s simply a case of back and forth. Given Dave’s style of “argument” I don’t think he understands anything else (and truth be told, I think he enjoys it). It may be difficult for gentlemen like you to grasp, but for some, the only kind of fight they can respect is “rough and tumble, no holds barred.”

  274. Bill Smith says:

    Micha,

    It’s all a matter of authority. If anyone can interpret Scripture correctly, then who can gainsay Artisanal Toad or a rebellious wife?

    I can. He is free to disagree, but he is a bit of a foolish man already with his direction. Only my wife is responsible for following what I say directly though. Everyone else just has an obligation to evaluate if it is consistent with the Scriptures. Relying on an outside source to do that determination opens the door to many troubles as well. Any system involving men will have troubles, something we often forget when focusing on specific flaws that bother us. (Or that support doctrine we agree with.)

    I would also ask how AT has the time to post long replies if he has so many children to be involved with?

    Robin,

    SJWs always lie, the title of a recent book. That is AT.

  275. Bill Smith says:

    AT, you claim not to have said something. It is quoted. You still stand by your claim even if it has been disproven.

    Truth can be a hard standard when you want to justify your own foolishness. You were wrong and refuse to admit it, going on the attack.

    SJWs always double-down.

  276. @feministhater
    @Damn Crackers
    Here is my problem with this divorce discussion. The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 indicates the word of Paul supersedes the words of Christ in Matthew 5:32. Christ seems to be the realist here; St. Paul takes it to an extreme where only the unbeliever can “leave” (many scholars consider the term “leave” to be divorce in the Roman world).

    1st Corinthians 7;10-15 is two different authorities speaking to two different groups of people. In verses 10-11, Christ is speaking to His servants who are married to one another. In verses 12-15, the Apostle Paul is speaking to “the rest” which consists of those servants of Christ who are married to someone who is not a servant of Christ.

    Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:2-9 are both passages in which Jesus gave His clarification of what Moses said in Deuteronomy 24:1, in which Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife because she “finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her.” Keep in mind that at that time, there were two “interpretations” of what Moses said on divorce, as laid out by the rabbi Hillel and the rabbi Shammai. Hillel said a man could divorce his wife if she burned his meals, Shammai said divorce was only for serious offenses. Jesus took it way beyond that and said that only in cases of “porneia could a man *legitimately* divorce his wife.

    In Matthew 19 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, which is the authority given to the man to initiate marriage, and pointed to the fact that Genesis 2:24 did not contain the authority for a man to later terminate the marriage (“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” and “but from the beginning, it has not been this way.”).

    In 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Christ is instructing His believers. His instruction is a private ruling for His house, and (in keeping with what He said in Matthew 19) it forbids a man to exercise his “right” under the Law to divorce his wife for sexual immorality. The wife is forbidden to leave her husband, but if she does she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband. Not her ex-husband. In verse 11 the husband is forbidden to divorce his wife, no exceptions.

    Following that, in keeping with what Christ just said, Paul allows the servant of Christ who is unequally yoked to be free if the unbeliever departs. Christ was speaking to believers who were married to each other, Paul was speaking to “the rest” within the church who were unequally yoked. There is no contradiction here. There is no contradiction with Matthew 19 or Matthew 5 because in Matthew Jesus was not giving instruction to His servants in His church, He was explaining what the Law of Moses was really saying about divorce.

    Another point of confusion in all this is in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 Jesus was *not* saying marriage to a legitimately divorced woman was to commit adultery. Jesus was saying that marrying an illegitimately divorced woman (who was still married to her husband who illegitimately divorced her) was to commit adultery.

    In trying to frame this as “The word of Paul” vs “The word of Christ” you are creating a false dichotomy. Rather, it’s a case of “The instruction of Jesus on the Law of Moses in Matthew 5 and 19 concerning divorce” AND “The instruction of Christ and Paul to the church, the servants of Christ, concerning divorce.” There is no contradiction.

  277. Dave says:

    Artisanal Toad,
    You may go ahead and wax eloquent at the sight of your own meandering, hair-splitting, torturous, nonsensical verbiage; no one here is impressed. Everyone who has read your writings knows that you are a charlatan. A fraud and an arrogant fool who claims to know more than all of the Apostles of the Lord combined.
    You do not have the Spirit of God in you and you are a stranger to the Covenant of Promise. You never knew the Lord on a personal basis. If you ever did, then it is clear that, like a pig, you have evidently returned to your own vomit, wallowing in your own fleshy mire.

    But, I can guarantee you this: If you peddle your nonsense a million times, as long as I am here in this forum, I will respond to you a million and one times.

  278. Damn Crackers says:

    AT said, “Jesus took it way beyond that and said that only in cases of “porneia could a man *legitimately* divorce his wife.”

    That’s all I wanted you to admit. Thank you.

  279. @Bill Smith
    AT, you claim not to have said something. It is quoted. You still stand by your claim even if it has been disproven.

    You have a problem with reading comprehension. Try reading my response to Robin Munn again.

    I would also ask how AT has the time to post long replies if he has so many children to be involved with?

    It’s no secret. The woman I thought I was married to (I actually wasn’t, we were living together in adultery) filed a petition for divorce and was given complete custody of the children. Once she had that, she did and continues to do everything humanly possible to excise me from their lives. I’m actually a rare case because there were multiple courts in multiple countries involved, but suffice to say that the only way I am allowed to see my children is to *first* go to court and present the evidence of the most recent attempts to see them, which are always refused, and then demand the court enforce my right to spend time with my kids. Which they do, reluctantly.

    As I have said on more than one occasion, I’ll put my story up against anyone’s and (I’m talking to YOU, feministhater) if *anyone* has a so-called “right” to be bitter and angry with women, it’s me. However, I’m not bitter and I’m not angry. Yes, I did go through that phase, but I finally got past that and I recognize the truth of what women says about women. They are the way they are (hypergamous) because God cursed them. They act the way they do because all the social structures that once restrained them (for their own protection) have been torn down.

  280. Boxer says:

    They are the way they are (hypergamous) because God cursed them. They act the way they do because all the social structures that once restrained them (for their own protection) have been torn down.

    Are men polygamous because God cursed them too?

    If you sit in on engineering courses and start wondering as to the philosophy behind tolerances and limits, you realize that all the coolest and best inventions are created out of parts that are in conflict.

    The monogamous couple who pairs for life is like a MiG-29 in flight. When it’s at its best, it’s because it is at the threshold of violently tearing itself to pieces. I believe this is why we were created this way. In a state of nature, the pair-bonded couple has the best chance of surviving a hostile environment, with quick reaction times to various threats and naturally providing a stable space for infants and young children — all with minimal overhead and maximum performance.

    Of course, that’s only a theory.

    Boxer

  281. Anonymous Reader says:

    A Toad
    The woman I thought I was married to (I actually wasn’t, we were living together in adultery) filed a petition for divorce and was given complete custody of the children.

    Not that many years ago you used to give advice to other men on how to manage their wives and families, in a somewhat arrogant manner. Now that’s all done? Nowhere have I seen you ‘fess up that, well, something about your marriage got blown up, nowhere have I seen you admit to error or fault. There’s no failure analysis. It’s like you built a house and it fell down, but you don’t seem interested in how or why that happened. But you’re all about advising other men on housebuilding…

    Plus now you post walls of text, all about the your New Penthouse Forum Translation (NPFT) of the Bible. Kinda looks like compensatory behavior, or displacement activity, although it does give you an “out” to remarry should you wish to. Given your new position on the definition of “marriage”, that clearly is important to you.

    Probably I’ve missed something, or I’m missing something, so feel free to point me to where you’ve done these things. Because frankly, it looks like you’re keeping very busy in rationalization, not so much in rational thinking.

  282. AR
    Nowhere have I seen you ‘fess up that, well, something about your marriage got blown up, nowhere have I seen you admit to error or fault.

    Obviously, you don’t read my blog. The reality is there is no such thing as a perfect husband or a perfect wife. What we have is marriages in which all make mistakes, BUT, the structure of monogamy is such that in our legal system, the husband is POWERLESS to do almost anything to “fix” the problems that are happening in the marriage.

    That is why there is all the advice (not saying it isn’t good advice or that I haven’t given it) that husbands need to learn game. Looking back, there are things that I could have done differently that might have changed things somewhat, but the beginning of the end was when I submitted myself (on the advice of my church) to marital counseling and actually *did* what the counselor told me to do. Yes, I certainly made my share of mistakes over the years, but there is a difference between making mistakes and deliberately choosing to do something God very clearly says not to do. In the end, if it hadn’t been for that experience I never would have dug down really deep and discovered what Scripture actually says about marriage.

    What I learned is that I was never married because the woman I *thought* I married was already another man’s wife. That’s called adultery and if you give some thought to God’s comment in Malachi 2:14 about the man who desires “godly seed” you’ll catch the import of that and the effect of that mistake.

    As to my “New Penthouse Forum Translation (NPFT) of the Bible” LOL, you’re free to refute me on anything I say. Cite it, chapter and verse. WRT to the “wall of text” charge, I’ll plead guilty because it isn’t possible to make a complete argument in Twitter-style comments.

  283. PokeSalad says:

    ‘Feminists’ say that a video that had a slow-motion segment of women jumping in a sports stand was ‘misogynistic’ for objectifying women. Yet, the prettiest of the three with the tightest top fought back, saying it was wrong for the video to be taken down.

    Feminism is a cultural-welfare program for ugly chicks.

  284. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    New Penthouse Forum Translation (NPFT) of the Bible

    Hilarious.

  285. @Dave

    I wasn’t going to respond to you, but it really looks like you’re off the rails, Dave, and maybe you need an intervention. Is there somebody we could call?

    Everyone who has read your writings knows that you are a charlatan.

    Ignaz Semmelweis was told he was a charlatan too; and he made his colleagues so uncomfortable that they got him committed as mentally ill. He died in an insane asylum 14 days after being confined there from infections that resulted from the beating he received by the guards. What did he do? He had this radical idea that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies. No matter how much evidence he produced, they ignored it because to accept what he proposed was to acknowledge their *guilt* in the death of lots of children.

    How we doing, Dave?

    You do not have the Spirit of God in you

    Now, Dave, didn’t we just have this talk about not bearing false witness against your neighbor? You are now making a claim that can only be made with assurance by God, who sees the hearts of men. Maybe you might consider re-phrasing that…

    you are a stranger to the Covenant of Promise.

    It sounds like you’re getting kind of worked up here, Dave. Is this really just because I’m not in agreement with the church of Dave, or is it something else?

    You never knew the Lord on a personal basis.

    Okay, is this about the adultery thing? Is that what this is really about? Dave, you’ve implied you are a “bishop” in your church in the past and leaders in the church are to be of good character, so I’m asking:

    Dave, did you marry a virgin? If you didn’t, did her father annul her marriage to the guy she gave her virginity to, did her real husband die or did he give her a certificate of divorce for her adulteries? Or, did the unbelieving husband of the woman you married leave her and set her free? Because IF you married a woman who wasn’t a virgin and one of those four things didn’t happen, Dave, you are an adulterer and you’re living in an adulterous union. If that’s the case I can understand completely why you’re reacting this way because I’ve gone through that mess of emotions and it isn’t easy.

    In a previous thread I asked Robin Munn for his testimony on that issue and recognizing the importance of that, he answered publicly. How about you, Dave? Is this what’s really eating you?

    But, to continue, let’s look at what Jesus said in Matthew 5:21-22

    “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ‘ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

    That doesn’t sound good, Dave. In your previous comment you said I am:

    A fraud and an arrogant fool who claims to know more than all of the Apostles of the Lord combined.

    Dave! Jesus said you are in danger of going into fiery hell for calling me a fool! Don’t you think that even if you don’t care about going to hell, that maybe you should think about your witness and how others would react to your behavior? Because that’s a pretty strong charge, saying that I’m an “arrogant fool” and that I “claim to know more than all of the Apostles of the Lord combined.”

    And, Dave, while we’re on the subject… I don’t claim to know more than the Apostles do, but I do have access to what they wrote in the Bible. In fact, the Apostle Paul said

    “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”

    Now, Dave, you might think that IF you were telling the truth about me being a charlatan, a fool, a fraud and an unbeliever claiming to know more than all the Apostles of the Lord combined, that you’d be telling the wholesome truth and it would be good for the edification of everyone here. And Dave, I certainly would be a fool if that was true, but to the best of my knowledge I never have, so let’s settle this. Link to the comment in which I claimed to know more than all the Apostles of the Lord combined. I’ll even make it easier: Link to any comment in which I claim to know more than *any* Apostle of the Lord.

    I’m actually concerned about you Dave, because Jesus said in Matthew 12:36-37

    “I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    Dave, this is not looking good. I tried to tell you that you weren’t tall enough for this ride but you wouldn’t listen. Maybe Robin Munn can give you some good advice, because you obviously don’t listen to me.

  286. @Robin Munn

    Robin, with respect to polygyny, you said that polygyny was forbidden to two groups of people.

    First, to the kings of Israel (Deut. 17:17) which forbids the king to multiply wives lest they turn his heart away from the Lord. You then admitted there was a problem there in that we don’t know what the word “multiply” means, because God took credit for giving David multiple wives and said He would have given him even more if it hadn’t been enough. Given that the context of that was God’s judgment on David for what he did with Bathsheba, I don’t think you’d argue that the “giving even more” didn’t apply to wives. David had 8 wives that we know by name and they did not turn his heart away from the Lord. You made a small error in describing Solomon, however, in that Solomon didn’t have 300 wives, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines for a total of 1000 wives and yes, they did turn his heart away from the Lord.

    So, from that we can deduce that 8 wives wasn’t multiplying wives and maybe a few more wouldn’t have been multiplying either (God said He’d have given David even more) but obviously Solomon violated the command with his 700 wives and 300 concubines (the mind boggles). Thus, the point of “multiplying” wives is somewhere between 8 and 1000 so I don’t think there is any reason to even bring it up because first, none of is a King and the odds that any of us would ever become a King is vanishingly small. Second, being realistic, the operative part of the prohibition was that the number of wives that triggered the prohibition was the number that caused the King to turn his heart away from God.

    Your second group is one we have discussed before, which is the elders of the church. I quoted from a distinguished Bible translator to point out that the passages in question don’t mean what you think they mean. I will now reproduce his comments in toto.

    “The husband of one wife” does not mean that he, the bishop or the deacon (see v. 12) was never married before. Nor does it mean that in order to be a bishop or a deacon, one must be married. Paul was certainly considered both a bishop and a deacon, and he was never married. If this meant that a bishop or a deacon was never to have been married before, then it would exclude a remarried widower. But the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:1-3 places no restriction on a widower to remarry. In the case of divorce, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostle Paul places such a restriction on a divorced person who was the innocent party in the unfortunate and God-hated divorce process which is the result of man’s sinfulness.”

    One of the meanings of this expression, but not the principle one, is that the bishop or deacon should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously. The expression mias gunaikos is known in Greek grammar as an attributive genitive, which is equivalent to an adjective, and would have been better translated as “a one-woman’s husband.” Not a ladies’ man, in other words. The total context speaks of the moral conduct of the bishop and the deacon. He should be one totally dedicated to his wife and not be flirtatious. Paul brings out the same thought in the similar passage in 1 Timothy 5:9 where the expression is exactly the same, except as pertaining to a woman that she should be one man’s woman, not flirting with other men.”

    What Spiros is bringing out in that discussion is that if one is to take “husband of one wife” as the correct translation to exclude those with more than one wife simultaneously, then one has to also exclude the unmarried and those who have had more than one wife due to death or divorce. In other words, the Apostle Paul, according to your take on this, was not qualified to be an elder or a deacon of the church.

    Why? Because not having a wife is just as much of a disqualification as having more than one wife if your take on this is correct.

    To make matters worse, it very much appears you are using this particular meaning, which, as Spiros Zodhiates points out, is not the principal one, as a proof-text to say that polygyny is, at best, a substandard form of marriage. You said:

    There was clearly polygamy being practiced in the early Church (as in the surrounding culture), and the Holy Spirit didn’t lead the apostles to forbid it to Christians in general. But it was clearly not the ideal, so the leaders of the church were to be monogamous.

    Robin, where did you get the idea that polygyny is “clearly not the ideal” from? In other words, when did God do something that was not ideal?

    My other argument about polygyny and your assertion that 1st Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are “prohibitions” on elders and deacons having more than one wife simultaneously is that logically it doesn’t make sense unless you have some Biblical proof that polygyny truly is a substandard or “less than ideal” form of marriage.

    As I have mentioned before, one can compare polygyny to farming. God regulated both, God participated in both and God condoned both. Nowhere is either forbidden and we can see examples of good farmers and bad farmers as well as farming leading to good things and farming leading to bad things. In both cases there are no substantive mentions of either in the New Testament (again, assuming you’ll concede on the previously mentioned translation issue). The only difference between farming and polygyny is that the ancient church was at war with the nobility and usurping authority over marriage, the church claimed that polygyny was no longer a valid form of marriage and in fact, a sin.

    It very much appears to me that in this issue you are heavily influenced by accumulated church doctrine that does not agree with Scripture and are having a great deal of difficulty accepting what Scripture (in this case) does NOT say. How can anyone in the church claim any specific number of wives is the “ideal” any more than they can claim that a specific number of children is the “ideal” number of children? Perhaps this is another of those areas in which we, as Christians, have a choice and what might be wise for one person is not wise for another. What might be wise under certain conditions might not be wise under other conditions.

    Finally, one last point. There being nothing in Scripture to the contrary (and I say that assuming I’ve dealt with your issue concerning a “prohibition” on elders and deacons having more than one wife) it would seem to me that the issue of polygyny falls into the category of matters of conscience in which we are not to judge (Romans 14:4) Care to comment on that?

  287. Anonymous Reader says:

    AR
    Nowhere have I seen you ‘fess up that, well, something about your marriage got blown up, nowhere have I seen you admit to error or fault.

    A Toad
    Obviously, you don’t read my blog

    True. I was not aware you had one. I’m sure you’ve mentioned it, but I guess I just didn’t pay attention.

    That is why there is all the advice (not saying it isn’t good advice or that I haven’t given it) that husbands need to learn game.

    All men need to learn game, not just husbands. But for sure all men in LTR’s or especially marriages need to learn Game. It’s ok if they dress it up in words like “Leadership” or “Headship”, etc. they just need to learn the true nature of the woman they are involved with.
    No argument from me.

    Looking back, there are things that I could have done differently that might have changed things somewhat, but the beginning of the end was when I submitted myself (on the advice of my church) to marital counseling and actually *did* what the counselor told me to do.

    Other men have told similar stories. “Counselling” appears to be a purely parasitic, destructive business not unlike dealing in chemical drugs, at this point. Yeah, I’m sure Not All Counsellors Are LIke That, but so what?

    As to my “New Penthouse Forum Translation (NPFT) of the Bible” LOL, you’re free to refute me on anything I say. Cite it, chapter and verse.

    How much will you pay me? There are things I do with my computers that make money directly and indirectly, and my time is not unlimited; arguing with you is extremely low on my priority ladder.

    WRT to the “wall of text” charge, I’ll plead guilty because it isn’t possible to make a complete argument in Twitter-style comments.

    You’re not convincing anyone so far, you’re taking up a whole lot of space with tl;dr comments…what’s the point of your exercise? It looks a whole lot like rationalization, as if some feminist were to pop up arguing for polyandry and more than a little bit of attention grabbing.

  288. Dave says:

    @Artisanal Toad:

    Dave! Jesus said you are in danger of going into fiery hell for calling me a fool!

    Really? I thought you could read? Try and read what Jesus clearly said. Here, let me help out:

    and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

    Do you think I consider you, a false teacher and incorrigible man, to be my brother? A man who shamelessly and arrogantly twists the Scriptures to justify his deplorable and disgusting lifestyle? In your wildest dreams.

    O yes, you are a fool. Anyone who thinks he knows more than the Apostles, and has more revelation than all the Christians throughout history, and has seen some hidden truth that no one else has ever seen, and stubbornly holds a position that is so out there, it is revolting to reason, to conscience, and to common sense—such a person is a raging, idiotic fool.

  289. ray says:

    “Ray, aspies can be quite operational in the world.”

    Do tell! lol

    Wait until you experts find out how ‘operational’ the nonverbals are in the world. That’ll be worth the price of admission to this meat factory.

    “It is a much more subtle form of autism. It is quite likely Bill Gates is an aspie. Many technical people are.”

    Bill Gates is the American CuckMaster. Any self-respecting ottie would have nothing to do with him, except perhaps to attack him with a nearby implement. Tho generally they’re pretty easygoing. With decent folk.

  290. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    I don’t currently have time to respond to everything you wrote. I’ll just address one paragraph:

    What Spiros is bringing out in that discussion is that if one is to take “husband of one wife” as the correct translation to exclude those with more than one wife simultaneously, then one has to also exclude the unmarried and those who have had more than one wife due to death or divorce. In other words, the Apostle Paul, according to your take on this, was not qualified to be an elder or a deacon of the church.

    You just got through quoting two paragraphs of Spiros in which he did not say what you claim he said. Here’s what he said:

    “The husband of one wife” does not mean that he, the bishop or the deacon (see v. 12) was never married before. Nor does it mean that in order to be a bishop or a deacon, one must be married. […] One of the meanings of this expression, but not the principle one, is that the bishop or deacon should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously.

    He then goes on to explain that the principle meaning is that the bishop or deacon should be of high moral character, devoting himself to only one woman. I.e., a man who was married to just one wife but who had a “roving eye” and would shamelessly flirt with young women in the church would be disqualified because he does not fit the requirements. Or, to put it in formal logic terms, being married to just one woman is necessary but not sufficient to be a mias gunaikos. The meaning of mias gunaikos includes monogamy, but goes above and beyond — hence why it’s not the principle meaning. But in no circumstances can a polygamist qualify as a mias gunaikos; he is ruled out right from the start.

    Note that my position (polygamous men are barred from eldership) is completely consistent with what Spiros says. There are plenty of monogamous men who are also barred from eldership too, which is why Spiros rightly goes into more depth about the meaning of mias gunaikos. (And I agree with him on all of it.) But your position seems to be that polygamists are not barred from eldershp, right? (Correct me if I’m wrong). If so, that’s entirely in conflict with Spiros, which makes it puzzling why you think quoting him will help your case.

  291. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    BTW, I haven’t seen you address the Mark 10 passage that I quoted to refute your definition of adultery (as applying to married women but not married men). If you’ve addressed this elsewhere, feel free to link to it so you don’t have to repeat yourself. But I would like to hear you address this passage, because it seems to me that it’s fatal to several of your conclusions.

  292. Dale says:

    @feministhater

    >If a Christian women can cheat and the husband must stay with her, why on earth would Jesus say that divorce is not allowed but for sexual immorality.
    >Your insane reading of that passage allows a wife to completely debase her husband, make him raise bastard children and cause him untold misery. No person would agree to that. Unless they were insane.

    I’m sorry, have you not seen what passes for a “Christian” wife in the “churches”? This is exactly what they believe. A majority of the wives are fat. Which is repulsive to many/most men.
    Most have a boy’s hair length within 5 to 7 years of the wedding, thus deliberately depriving her husband of the opportunity to enjoy her glory (1 Cor 11:14-16).
    Most wear men’s clothing, making themselves detestable (Deut 22:5).
    They really believe their behaviour should not matter.

    I dated one overweight woman. Yes, stupid… anyway. She wanted to move toward marriage; I refused unless she lost the excess weight and worked on one other issue. She did lose a bunch of weight, but ignored the second issue. I broke it off. When I saw her many months later, she not only had regained the weight, but informed me that I should desire her the way she was. Her actions, in her mind, should have absolutely no consequences for how I see her, think of her maturity, or desire her. Basically, a standard feminist.
    I was surprised anyone could so blatantly say and think that their actions should have no consequences.

    “Christian” wives can leave their husbands, or drive him to leave her, and, in my experience, mixed groups/couples will always blame the man. How could anything possibly be HER fault? That contradicts the woman=God theology.

    @Robin Munn, March 3, 2016 at 6:23 am
    Great, well articulated comment. Thank you.

    Two disagreements.

    First is your agreement that Christians cannot divorce. Feministhater already pointed out the bizzare conclusions that would result.
    Your response was reasonable / logically consistent, although I disagree. I am not sure that a Christian man can divorce and then also remarry, even in cases where his wife committed adultery… which means the differences in interpretation may be small. 1 cor 7 seems to say, do not divorce, but if you do, then stay celibate.

    This still allows for divorce however. If the few religious men who want to play around know he might lose his wife, it may restrain his behaviour. In particular if he knows that no church will ever “marry” him again, while his first wife still lives. I am quite impressed with the Catholic potion on divorce that you quoted.
    Same for restraining the behaviours of the women who desire serial monogamy.

    One major wrinkle for the “no remarriage, even in cases where his wife committed adultery” position is that it demand we completely ignore one part of the law, but vigourously apply another. I should not pick and choose. Be obedient to both.
    And the adulterous wife, and the man who commited adultery with her, are supposed to be killed, according to God’s law. If we did so, the adulteress’s prior husband is obviously now free to remarry, no matter what your interpretation is regarding remarriage.
    So if we actually lived out the law, yes, no matter what, he CAN remarry.
    We have a problem because we refuse to live 100% for God. Gee, I wonder why I/we have problems in my life, church, and nation……. ?

    Second:
    >If adultery required only a married woman but a married man sleeping with another woman was not adultery, then Mark 10:11 (“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her”) would make no sense. But in the common reading, it does make sense: the husband cannot legitimately divorce his wife, which means that to marry another woman while his wife still lives is to commit adultery against her — because in God’s eyes, the divorce was not legitimate and he is still married to her.

    You seem to assume the following is being addressed:
    a) man divorces his wife, for any reason, including her having broken the marriage through adultery
    b) man marries another woman, and thus is committing adultery himself.

    Two problems:
    Previously, adultery clearly involves sex with another man’s wife. This passage in Mark 10 seems the only one (of which I am aware) that might say otherwise. Maybe this inconsistency is an addition. Or maybe it only seems inconsistant because another meaning or implication is to be found. The inconsistency in important.
    Secondly, there is a second possible meaning. The sequence I suggest this passage may be addressing is:
    a) the man has no legitimate gounds to divorce his wife
    b) The man wants another woman, so he “divorces” his wife, not due to his wife’s betrayal, but because he wants to “trade up”.
    c) The man then does trade up to the new woman, which was his intention all along. Even if someone disagrees on whether this second marriage is sinful, we must at least admit this man is covetous, and is not content with what he has (Heb 13:4-6).

    Consider this passage from Malachi 2. God condemns marriages where men marry women who worship foreign gods. Then God goes on to say:
    13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

    15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

    16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[e] says the Lord Almighty.

    So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

    So the problem in Malachi is that some men were not faithful. Verse 16 specifically says he hates his wife. This is not close to a situation where a man who seeks to be a Godly, loving husband discovers, to his grief, that his wife has betrayed him through adultery. So the Malachi issue seems to be to be like the sequence I suggested above.
    If the problem Jesus was addressing was the man who divorces just so he can be “free” to marry someone else, then the meaning is very different than the one you found. And if my suggestion is correct, I should not try to find any other restrictions in this. Such as forbidding a man whose wife committed adultery, or whose unbelieving wife left him.

    This interpretation is hinted at by the context; in verse 4, the Pharisees said: “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” There is no restriction here to him actually having Biblical cause to send her away. Just “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce”. Rather a broad “rule”.
    Those are the words after which Jesus gave his statements.

    BTW, I also thought it strange that AT would quote Spiros, and then misrepresent or misinterpret what Spiros wrote.

  293. OKRickety says:

    @Ray,

    It seems you have an issue with autism. Are you aware of the breadth of the spectrum contained in ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)?

    Or is your issue just with asdgamer? You may disagree, but most of his comments on this post have been both correct and quite good.

    Lastly, I suggest you use “autie” instead of “ottie” in the future.

  294. Bill Smith says:

    I have no idea what your sad divorce situation has to do with your pounding the sand for polygamy. Or calling other people liars for stating what is shown to be the truth. Please try not moving the goal posts.

    And the idea that polygamy is just as good a goal as washing your hands before surgery…. Yeah right….

    ray,

    Bill Gates is the American CuckMaster. Any self-respecting ottie would have nothing to do with him, except perhaps to attack him with a nearby implement. Tho generally they’re pretty easygoing. With decent folk.

    I am not sure if you are saying this to mean he is not an aspie, but you have no understanding of this issue if you believe most aspies are easy going. I raised 2 (one male and one the rare female) and they were only easy going when things went their own way. Both had smarts and one was almost brilliant at times, but stupid at others.

    Though you seem to be saying the opposite now that I read your first comments more closely. Aspies can be quite successful, whatever your claim otherwise. My son has don’t reasonably well for himself, in spite of lots of idiocy. I may or may not be an aspie, but I share those traits. I am doing quite well as well. Reading the less obvious can be done, but can also be helped with a mindset shift.

    Boxer,

    That is also the way God created it from the beginning and should therefore be our aim point!

    AR,

    You’re not convincing anyone so far, you’re taking up a whole lot of space with tl;dr comments…

    I would agree. I rarely read his entire posts. Reminds me of the guy who talked about the Ten Commandments all the time now that I think about it with lots of lolz thrown in.

    OKRickey,

    I have always heard “aspie” used for those with Asperger’s Syndrome inside the group trying to figure out how to deal with it. May or may not be a great term, but it is used in many places in that context.

  295. Snowy says:

    That woman in the video looks, expresses, and talks like a woman trying to be a man trying to be a woman, like Mad Dog Chandler. Uncanny.

  296. Snowy says:

    The bottom line is that it is simply not a woman’s place to be doing what Kassian is doing in the video, and that’s that, and that’s Scriptural. There’s no need to read any further into it. Case closed.

  297. shammahworm says:

    @Robin Munn

    “But my desires aren’t what’s important; it’s God’s Word that’s important, and I don’t see any way to read 1 Corinthians 7 faithfully except to take it exactly as it says. A Christian must not divorce their spouse.”

    False. Matthew 5: 31-32 is clear,
    “’It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.'”

    Jesus Christ both affirms Deut. 24 and reminds us that divorce and remarriage are allowed in cases of sexual immorality(adultery and deception about one’s sexual history). God does separate a man from his wife in divorces for sexual immorality. They’re no longer considered husband and wife. This is why Christ makes it clear that a man who divorces for sexual immorality doesn’t make his former wife commit adultery or commit adultery himself.

    1 Cor. 7 in no way nullifies this. AT is lying regarding what he says about Jesus’ teachings in Matthew and the law of Moses. It’s plain per the words of Christ that what Paul says isn’t referring to cases of divorce for sexual immorality.

    AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher. Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
    1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567

  298. ray says:

    Bill Smith and Rickety — You both make lots of assumptions about my background (or lack of same) with otties. I won’t derail this thread further, but instead allow the future to answer your charges.

  299. feeriker says:

    The bottom line is that it is simply not a woman’s place to be doing what Kassian is doing in the video, and that’s that, and that’s Scriptural. There’s no need to read any further into it. Case closed.

    Absolutely correct. The problem is that feminists like Kassian don’t believe in God or the divine authenticity of Scripture. They realize that sufficient numbers of women still do believe in this, however, so they can’t just come right out and mockingly proclaim the Christian faith to be a fairy tale written by ancient patriarchs (even though that’s what Kassian and her ilk obviously believe), an opiate for the oppressed female masses (to mangle a paraphrase of Marx).

    No, Kassian at this time has to take a somewhat more subtle approach that involves fertilizing seeds of doubt and falsehood in easily manipulated female minds, minds already full of confusion, rebellion, and discontent, minds that are free of husbands’ influence and nurturing. No one –or more accurately, no men— in any position of authority within the church will stop her in this endeavor. Not only are they captured by PC-based fear of criticizing or disciplining anything female, but more importantly, they don’t really believe in what Scripture says either, especially when it conflicts with mldern sensibilities.

    TL;DR version: Mary Kassian gets away with her satanic feminist heresy because male church “leadership” no more believes in or agrees with the Scriptural prohibitions she’s violating than she does. It’s just too profitable to be honest about it.

  300. OKRickety says:

    @Bill Smith,

    I have a son with Aspergers, so I am quite familiar with the use of aspie (which I did not use). My point was that the correct abbreviation for autistic would be “autie”, not “ottie”. I was not familiar with “ottie” as a term for those with autism. It apparently is used, but an internet search suggests that “autie” is much more common than “ottie”.

    @Ray,

    “You both make lots of assumptions about my background (or lack of same) with otties.”

    I made some assumptions based on your statements. You tell ASDgamer to “stop slurring autistics by association” which suggests that you wish auties well, but then you equate aspies with “nonverbals” which suggests you don’t understand aspies very well. My son has Aspergers but is not nonverbal (although it seems that way until you ask the right questions, at which point he is quite verbal). Since the ASD diagnosis contains such a ridiculously broad range of behaviors, it is entirely possible that one group could never be “operational” in the real world, while another group could be quite “operational” once they understand the realities of their thinking and behavior as compared to the expectations of the real world, and adjust accordingly.

    My supposition is that you have extensive experience with someone close to you who is autistic. Dealing with it has been difficult, with many negative consequences. You have had little significant support, and family and friends don’t understand the situation. Consequently and understandably, you are sensitive to all things related to autism.

    If I’m right, I am sorry that you have this experience. I wish you well, and I’d like to help, but I don’t know where to find the resources. I know I’d like to have them for myself and my son.

    I gave you the opportunity to explain your comments related to autism. You haven’t, so I will keep my suppositions until you do.

  301. Pingback: “Brokenness” | chokingonredpills

  302. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  303. Lynn says:

    How my spirit continues to be grieved by the ignorance of Paul’s Scriptures concerning women. To study the Bible one must study the whole chapter, compare to other Scripture on the subject, understand what the culture was, and if a particular Scripture only pertains to a certain time or if it to be applied for all times. Hence the discussion on Paul and his view on women. First of all, I must ask, if we are to take EVERYTHING that Paul said and follow it completely, why is it that the end of this portion of Scripture is never discussed, you know the part that women would be saved through child birth? I would suppose it is because there is uncertainty. about what that is really discussing. However, many refuse to question what they think is correct or what they have been taught could ever be incorrect. Do you not realize that at this time women were not allowed to study the Holy Books. In fact some Jewish prayers included how vile it would be if women were to study the Holy Word. With that being said, yes some women were not educated in the Word and were presently false doctrines. One such doctrine was that Eve was to be praised because she sinned. Paul had to bring clarity and explain that what Eve did was not good. Interestingly though the fall is called the sin of Adam. And to imply that women are more susceptible to being deceived, then please explain why most cults are started by men. Paul had to rebuke male false teachers as well. You have no idea to have the Lord place a message in your heart as a woman only to have traditions of men slam the door in your face. And I would add that those who are against women teaching have been the most mean spirited and condescending group of men. So I scratch my head and try to understand why some will go against many Scriptures that talk about treating others how you would want to be treated. I suppose only women have to obey those Scriptures? The Bible days that God will pour out in Spirit on both men and women. I’m sure this outpouring wasn’t so we women can do nursery, or only teach women, etc(BY the way for those of you who abide by the women have to keep silent, you are then wrong for letting them teach women and children as Scripture does not make that distinction. I think it not a coincidence that when Jesus arose he first appeared to a woman. A woman’s testimony in that day was useless. I also find it interesting that when the angel Gabriel appeared it was first to Mary and THEN to Joseph. Paul said that in Christ there is no social class system. And I also wonder why no one ever quotes Ephesian 5:21. Perhaps it is not familiar. It states that we should submit ONE TO ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ. Then Paul discusses how that submission looks for that wife toward her husband and how that submission looks for that husband toward his wife. I am quite sure I will be sandblasted because I am a woman and I have studied this issue for many, many years. No, I am not looking to twist anything. I real woman devoted to Christ, which I am, desires to know the truth and how to live by it. You who are so unkind towards women should think twice before claiming to be God. What I mean is, you assume you know the motives of our hearts without even asking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s