Androcentric chimps chimping

Lore Ferguson Wilbert explains The Problem With Our Complementarianism

Bit by the bug of second wave feminism in the 1960s and ‘70s, the term “complementarianism” seemed to offer conservative churches an answer. Here was a word that described how men and women were equal and distinct. Same value, different roles. Same intrinsic worth, different intrinsic expressions. It came across a simple answer to a complex equation—as almost all issues concerning the human heart are.

In the 35 years or so since then, liberal churches grew more liberal and the conservative—heaven help us. McQuinn uses the term androcentrism to describe the shift in neo-reformed environments in particular. It means being dominated by or emphasizing masculine interests or a masculine point of view. It wasn’t that the theology was all wrong, it was that the voices of church leaders were maddeningly male, through the male perspective, with male interests paramount, and evaluated by males.

Imagine with me for a moment a room of chimps all chimping about how to be a better room of chimps and pandas.

McQuinn is Wilbert’s pastor, and a fellow complementarian:

Gary McQuinn, named so many of the issues friends like Jen Wilkin, Wendy Alsup, Hannah Anderson, and others—all complementarians paying particular attention to women’s involvement and leadership—had been talking about for years.

These aren’t SJW outsiders wishing they could gain entry into complementarianism;  they have already gained entry.  The article is published by the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary*.  McQuinn is the head pastor of an Acts 29 church.  Jen Wilkin is a minister for Acts 29 president Matt Chandler.  She is also on staff at The Gospel Coalition (TGC).  Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson also contribute to TGC, (but are not on staff).

Wilbert closes with:

A crowd of chimping chimps sounds ugly and a stampeding herd of mustangs is destructive. If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole. Christ did a good thing when he called us all his bride, making plaid wearing, pipe smoking men squirm everywhere.

Squirm on, friends. It’s the squirm that leads to growth.

*H/T Anonymous Reader

This entry was posted in Acts 29, Complementarian, Envy, Feminists, Jen Wilkin, Midwestern Seminary, Pastor Matt Chandler, Social Justice Warriors, The Gospel Coalition, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Androcentric chimps chimping

  1. Lol, now they are calling men in the Church chimps, that is sure going to work out well.

    Church when led by men grew, grew and grew. Now….. not so much, screw ’em!

  2. Pingback: Androcentric chimps chimping – Manosphere.com

  3. Carlotta says:

    “A crowd of chimping chimps sounds ugly and a stampeding herd of mustangs is destructive. If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole. Christ did a good thing when he called us all his bride, making plaid wearing, pipe smoking men squirm everywhere.

    Squirm on, friends. It’s the squirm that leads to growth”

    So Jesus Transgendered us? He turned “destructive” males into his bride?

    HOLY CANOLI! Straight from the pit of hell!

  4. Carlotta says:

    Hannah Anderson is constantly pushing that women are the image bearer of God in her writing. She asks a women how it is to work as a paralegal as an image bearer of God. Women are not the image of God. Man is.

    Same lie, different day.

  5. Joe says:

    I’ve squirmed right on out. Our diocese recently took over our parish because the padre wasn’t running things the right way, apparently. We now have chicks in the Holy Name Society (a men’s fraternal religious organization) and all the parish committees are led by busybody women, most of whom aren’t very competent – but boy, they sure are bossy. Everything from the altar server and musical accompaniment scheduling, to the charity drive organization is screwed up. They’ve even dropped some traditional donation campaigns we do each year. Not sure how we’re supporting the homeless and battered women’s shelters we’ve underwritten for decades. Church attendance is down over 50%. You could get a seat at Christmas mass – there were many empties, in fact. Men aren’t the only people ghosting out of there. Whole families are walking out. This is in less than one year.

    We’re looking for a new parish. The Catholic church – at least the wannabe secular liberal American wing of it – may have lost us. Not sure what we’re going to do… we are looking for a local parish that isn’t infected with this insanity but may be looking for a traditionalist catholic church pretty soon.

  6. ladonai says:

    The intensity of her “disguised” hatred for the masculine is striking. May God have mercy upon us–

  7. bpechek says:

    “Same value, different roles. Same intrinsic worth, different intrinsic expressions.”

    It took me a while to learn that this view is wrong. Striving towards this type of equality just puts blinders on. You’re forced into a framework were you can’t observe anything without also observing a complimentary fact. Which just means you have to pretend to see things that aren’t there, or pretend to not see things you see.

  8. Dalrock says:

    I see that Wilbert also has ties to Matt Chandler and Village Church. From her blog’s about page:

    In 2010, I sold everything, quit my job, and moved 1200 miles away from my beloved northeast to the Dallas/Fort Worth area. While there I worked as a full-time writer, graphic designer, and speaker, and was a covenant member of The Village Church.

    This was her stepping stone to go work for McQuinn, another Acts 29 pastor.

  9. rugby11 says:

    Sapiens…

  10. Grime Knight says:

    I hate this stupid misconception that the individual is the Bride of Christ. That is the Church…collectively (and Peter even refers to her as the Brotherhood at one point). If anything, we’re individually called sons.

    Or does this chick think that Jesus is bisexual?

    Squirm on Hamster.

  11. I clicked over to another post on that blog. I found this:

    The pastor’s wife at a women’s event says she doesn’t always like women’s events. Because I get nervous, I say. Because there is this pull to compare and a fear of revealing ourselves and I have all these insecurities. The room gets still. Raise your hand if you’re nervous too. Raise your hand if it was hard to come this morning. Hands slowly go up all around. So let’s just drop all that and let’s get down to it. Let’s give and receive. Let’s share and learn. Let’s love each other well today. The room releases an audible sigh and we get to work studying and discussing Scripture together.

    Later, I have a moment to think and I immediately berate myself for saying such a vulnerable and stupid thing. But then one-by-one women that I know and love approach me and tell me of their own insecurities about relating to other women, insecurities about their appearance, about not knowing the answers, about sharing their struggles and doubts, about not having it all together.

    Is it just me? Is every single thing in a woman’s world about self esteem and insecurity? To that end it dominates the very marrow of seemingly the majority of Christian women’s faith. This is clearly why they do what they do, and why God’s prescribed order is what it is. Talk therapy was once alleged to be therapeutic. Like narcotic pain medicine, it is now a rampant addiction in the church woman’s circle. This is why i utterly refuse to be part of a “small group”, which by the emphasis churches put on them you’d think there is a special hell for those not affiliated. Women dominate small group, men strain to get a word of reason in, like driving a shim into a tight spot.

    All to whine about the fact that they feel like they don’t measure up.

  12. Joe says:

    Join either the Maronites, Melkites, Byzantine Catholics. They’re so focused that they push away and ignore the social manipulation trying to nip around the edges of their faith.

  13. Stingray says:

    but may be looking for a traditionalist catholic church pretty soon.

    We belong to a Tridentine Church. Men and women’s roles are not shied away from. Alter boys and lots of them. Veiled women with large families. Men dressed in suits and ties and no flip flops. Most of the women are dressed modestly.

    It’s almost surreal.

  14. Looking Glass says:

    Before we get too far into the slaughter, a point:

    There are churches comprised of Blacks in the USA. Those churches are run by Black Men. This writer just called all of them “chimps”. This writer is obviously unreconstructedly racist.

    That’s how we do things these days, right? She should be ashamed for being so racist.

  15. Stingray says:

    A crowd of chimping chimps sounds ugly and a stampeding herd of mustangs is destructive. If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole.

    I feel nothing but contempt and disgust at reading this.

  16. dee nile says:

    All these years I’ve been under the impression chimps came in 2 sexes.

    Silly me.

  17. DrTorch says:

    Is every single thing in a woman’s world about self esteem and insecurity?

    Close, every single thing in a woman’s world is about herself.

    If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole.

    Not even a good liar.

  18. Looking Glass says:

    @Grime Knight:

    Galatians 4:1-7 ESV:

    I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,a though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

    Paul isn’t playing with the nouns here. All Christians would be “if a son, then an heir through God”. So all Christians are “sons” and we’re members of the Church, which is a brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17). Which is why the NIV editing board are really evil.

  19. Elspeth says:

    There are churches comprised of Blacks in the USA. Those churches are run by Black Men.

    They are learning not to be so apish:

    http://www.paperbackswap.com/When-Women-Talk-Kervin-J-Smith/book/1932458646/

  20. Darwinian Arminian says:

    A crowd of chimping chimps sounds ugly and a stampeding herd of mustangs is destructive. If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole.

    By this logic, all believers should view the practice of the Lord’s Supper as a stain on true and proper Christianity. It looks back to an occasion where a lone man in leadership gave theological instruction to a meeting room full of nothing but male followers — and the Church has the gall to celebrate such an offense every Sunday morning, and even commemorate it in paintings to boot!

  21. RedPillPaul says:

    “androcentrism” is bait and switch. It means what it says but that is not what is happening in the church, the church is becoming more “masculine” .

    It is a buffer to hide the source, root, cause of this “masculinization” : women discounting the feminine, and envying the masculine.

    Woman “leader” thought process “What the church needs is a balance. We see that things are wrong. What is wrong is that the church is too masculine. We need to fix this and bring it to balance. Men, MAN UP and bring this balance back to our churches. You need to MAN UP and embrace the feminine. Wear that apron, mascara, tuck your junk and be the woman.”

    The female “churchians” are full of envy. They desire power and usurp male authority. Their god is baphomet and turning the church into katlyn kardashian

  22. The Question says:

    “If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole.”

    Nothing terrifies modern churchies than the thought that somewhere, someplace, there is a group of good men who, if left undisturbed by the feminine imperative, will also become good at being men.

    As Churchhill said of Bolshevism, they believe such lofty aspirations must be killed in the cradle.

  23. Opus says:

    There are two types of Pandas – unrelated; the Red Pandas and The Giant Pandas but whichever type L.F.Wilbert has in mind I think I can safely say that no Panda has ever hung-out with a Chimpanzie, I don’t get the connection.

    Congress may make no law for the Institution of Religion but I think that in some ways this is actually a disadvantage for your nation. No less than two British Newspapers led today with a headline to the effect that The Archbishop of Canterbury has decreed that it is possible to be concerned about Immigration without being Racist. Whether he is right and whether Racism (a Marxist term I prefer otherwise not to use) is such a bad thing is not to the point. His words carry tremendous authority in a way that I suspect similar words would not from even the most esteemed of American preachers.

  24. Concerned Citizen says:

    Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

    They are mocking their Lord and Creator and His ordained plan for HIS creation.

  25. Bdawg16 says:

    empathologism says:
    “This is why I utterly refuse to be part of a “small group”, which by the emphasis churches put on them you’d think there is a special hell for those not affiliated. Women dominate small group, men strain to get a word of reason in, like driving a shim into a tight spot.”

    Not trying to be disrespectful to any small groups in the church that are of value, but I’m convinced that the idea is pushed because of the utter laziness of pastors and leaders who would rather socialize and create cliques in the church, as opposed to preaching the whole counsel of God. God forbid pastors get to know their flock and shepherd them.

    And yes, most of the small groups I’ve been part of over the years were emotions and feelings based, sprinkled with a dash of “man guilt” and “manning up” so that our “Princess” wives can be worshipped adequately. Sorry, I opted out a long time ago. Not interested.

  26. Heidi says:

    Catholic Answers’ Ask an Apologist feature has a beautiful post up. For some reason, I cannot copy the link, but in response to the question “Are husband and wife equals” the apologist states “I think your larger problem here is the abusive behavior you’ve reported that your husband engages in when the two of you argue. Telling you that he is “head of the house” and to go “check the Bible” to see how right he is constitutes verbal abuse.”

  27. Looking Glass says:

    @Bdawg16:

    Small groups “exist” because of the entire structure of modern Churches doesn’t work. “Life In Christ” is practiced and learned through personal interaction with other Christians. It can’t be commoditized, which is how we assume things are supposed to work. That we treat it much in the same way that we treat Western Education should tell you a lot about the problem.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Heidi quotes:
    “Telling you that he is “head of the house” and to go “check the Bible” to see how right he is constitutes verbal abuse.”

    How long before the Bible is deemed to be an androcentric social construct, I wonder?
    Done up by a chimping chimp, no doubt.

  29. LeeLee says:

    This is genuinely horrifying on multiple levels because it’s not subtle rebellion, it’s full, open rebellion to God’s created order. God is the one who established a pattern of male leadership — to say that men leading is “not good” and “leads nowhere” is basically a full repudiation of the creation order that God did call good.

    If you take the full council of Scripture instead of proof-texting and twisting verses, the fact that Jesus called the Church his bride should make men MORE masculine and women more feminine. Because Ephesians 5 says that husbands stand to metaphorically represent Jesus as he relates to *his bride* the church, any move towards effeminacy is a loss of created purpose and calling for men.

  30. theasdgamer says:

    Lol @ silly Wilbert. “Chimps chimping” indeed. Silly boy, you need to grow some balls. Let your testicles descend. Quit wearing high-heeled shoes and your mother’s lingerie.

  31. theasdgamer says:

    I think that Wilbert just hit me with some of his feces, lol.

  32. Hank Flanders says:

    Anonymous Reader

    How long before the Bible is deemed to be an androcentric social construct, I wonder?
    Done up by a chimping chimp, no doubt.

    That’d be too honest on their part, Anonymous Reader. Christian feminists can’t very well come out and say that the writers of the Bible are misogynist relics in their view, because if they did, then those feminists would lose their influence in the church and wouldn’t be able to pretend that the scriptures were written to mean something other than what they do.

    From time to time, I used to read the blog of a lady who was a leftist feminist who frequently accused the brethren over social issues such as Christians’ hatred of the gay political movement (of course, presented as hatred of gay individuals themselves) who finally eventually admitted she was an atheist. While I certainly pity her, I actually gained a modicum of respect for her when she stopped pretending she believed scripture. At least as a self-proclaimed atheist, she could no longer pretend she was a good Christian who was “unlike all those other Christians who hate gays, Muslims, and immigrants.”

  33. RICanuck says:

    I am glad I am not in one of those ‘complementarian’ churches.

    If I heard that crap, I am sure my inner white boy from the ghetto would just chimp the hell out. I have already been kicked out of two Catholic prayer groups. One men’s and one mixed.

  34. theasdgamer says:

    My posts are even funnier now that I know that Wilbert is a woman.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    The original posting by Wilbert is at a site called “For The Church” which appears to be associated with the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I wonder if there are any Baptist seminaries that haven’t been infiltrated by feminists?

  36. Heidi says:

    @Hank Flanders: This “Catholic apologist” comes awfully close to calling the Bible misogynistic; in her reply, she is not even criticizing a particular interpretation of a Scripture passage. She is criticizing a man for telling his wife to go look for herself to see what the Bible says.

  37. Looking Glass says:

    @AR:

    Given how the movement came about, in the first place, I would go with “no”. They’ve always been of the surrounding cultural.

  38. Bdawg16 says:

    theasdgamer says:
    “My posts are even funnier now that I know that Wilbert is a woman.”

    You are not joking. You were on a serious roll and it was great comedy. And at the same time, you hit the “nail on the head”…You got me to thinking, we are at a point in religious circles, sorry, I cannot call today’s cross dressing theology Christian, where we can’t tell men and women apart solely based on reading their useless drivel. Now for sure, it can be obvious from a first name that someone is male or female, but I’m specifically referring to what they say. That made your comments even more hilarious and laughter is good for the soul. You made my day.

    So many of these male leaders act like women, and the women want to act like men. So it’s easy to confuse the two when you’re reading their statements.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    She is criticizing a man for telling his wife to go look for herself to see what the Bible says.

    That, and “head of the house” of course. Bonus: If he got the Bible out and read it to her, the Catholic Apologist wouldn’t like that, either. Because the wife still wouldn’t be getting her way.

    One order of fried ice, right now!

  40. Gene Riley says:

    @Joe

    The answer is not to leave the RCC, if you believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” The answer is to work for change in your local parish or diocese. Often, the problem is rooted in the diocese, not the parish. Many diocesan offices are now run by people who started in church work in the 70’s and who thought Vatican II was a blessing of the 60’s and 70’s cultural revolution, which it was NOT.

    Consider looking for another parish in your area — one with a STRONG pastor. I would argue that, just as the average Protestant church has a weak churchian pastor, so too for the average Catholic church, the only difference is that as a Catholic, I believe that the RCC is correct on theology. That being said, we have been able to find several parishes in our area with strong pastors and happily raise our children at one such parish.

    I have also found that the bishop of your diocese can make a huge difference. Here in Philadelphia, when Charles Chaput was named Archbishop, things changed markedly for the better, because he is unapologetic about preaching the Gospel, including less popular preaching topics such as abortion, divorce, the gay agenda, etc.

    All in all, my suggestion to you brother is not to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but to set your heart and your mind to finding a parish in your area that has a strong yet orthodox pastor.

    Gene

  41. theasdgamer says:

    One order of fried ice, right now!

    Rare, medium, or well done?

  42. theasdgamer says:

    Robin Williams: “Divorce is a word derived from the latin for “rip your wallet up through your testicles.”

  43. Fifty Seven says:

    “Christ did a good thing when he called us all his bride, making plaid wearing, pipe smoking men squirm everywhere.”

    Where do they get these images? These cartoonish representations? Who’s in your church, Yosemite Sam? She lives in DFW. Who the hell wears plaid there, it’s 100 degrees half the year.

    It’s like the fedora wearing creep that the Internet keeps telling me exists, but I have yet to actually see any of, anywhere.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rare, medium, or well done?

    Tcah! You should just know! Can’t you get it right the first time? Men!

  45. Looking Glass says:

    @AR:

    Haha.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    The original posting by Wilbert is at a site called “For The Church” which appears to be associated with the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I wonder if there are any Baptist seminaries that haven’t been infiltrated by feminists?

    Great catch. I had missed that. I was thinking this was on her personal blog (perhaps the version I first came across was there?).

    To answer your question, the Baptist seminaries are deeply intertwined with both the CBMW and TGC. Kassian (CBMW council member) is a women’s studies professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. CBMW founders Paige and Dorothy Paterson drove the creation of women’s studies programs at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here Wilbert is writing a naked feminist piece at the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary official blog. If you look at the TGC and CBMW leadership, the crossover with current and past Baptist Theological Seminary leadership is striking. And of course, The Village (Pastor Chandler) is a Baptist church.

    I believe the modern term is pozzed.

  47. Joe says:

    Joe 12:23 and Gene – thanks for the advice.

    It’s frustrating but not surprising that the Churchianity would be hitting us right now; no Christian faith is exempt from the attacks. We are following your tactic Gene and looking for a strong parish, takes some work to find one that is close enough to work. The nearest latin rite is an hour’s drive, assuming zero traffic, and that’s a possibility. “In your area” is one of the keys to making it workable, right after “faithful to Christ’s teachings.” I happen to think we have it “right-est” of all the Christian faiths but think also at this point that an actual Christian of any one of our sects is going to be more on track with God’s will than, say, an ecumenist cardinal who thinks Islam is just as good as prosperity gospel garbage is just as good as the Teaching Magisterium. That our leadership is forcing us to make these choices and driving us away with bad and potentially heretical – not small h doesn’t-follow-all-the-rules but big H denies Christ heretical teachings is incomprehensibly foul.

  48. greyghost says:

    Looks like the “Christian ” men aren’t so manly worshipping that vagina like that. So Dalrock you are a chimp and these guys commenting here are part of your troop. (looks like you also have a nice harem to increase the troops numbers too) If Jane Goodall is still alive she may have to do a story about your blog.

  49. Looking Glass says:

    @greyghost:

    If we’re all animals, should we be planning hostile takeovers of the fruit trees of others? 🙂

  50. Pingback: Androcentric chimps chimping | Reaction Times

  51. Opus says:

    I get it now (Chimps and Pandas) but this Dilbert woman is surely the Anita Sarkeesian of Christianity. Sarkeesian is on record (as she attempts to destroy Gaming) as asserting that everything is Sexist and Problematic, and Wilbert appears to be making the same allegation. When you are a Hammer everything looks like a Nail and with her Hammer she seems to want to erase those born with testicles: it really amazes me that Christianity ever launched and remained in orbit given that it was men alone who have held it together for the better part pf two millennia. Her argument seems to be identical to that (which I was mentioning a day or two back) of those women alleging that somehow choral conducting has for too long missed out on that indefinable ingredient only achievable for those born without testicles.

    The men in her organisation also seem to need a prescription for a pair.

  52. Why any adult man with the capacity for critical thought would ever convert to contemporary Christianity at this point is just beyond belief.

    It’s amazing that these Beta male pastors believe that their pandering to the feminine and denigrating the masculine is an incentive for men to come to Christ. What man would join a philosophy that expressly denigrates him? They are literally driving men out of, and away from the church.

  53. greyghost says:

    Rollo
    You have displayed what delusion of the blue pill is.

  54. Bill Smith says:

    Stingray,

    Why would anyone want to wear a suit if they didn’t have to do so? The text doesn’t indicate the early church had modern “Sunday go to meeting clothes.” Suits are a relatively modern social construct, not holy attire.

    You can look nice without dressing up in that manner.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    Let me try this again, consolidate two previous postings:

    Ok, a little physical work out, some water, some caffeine, my brain is back in the groove. Maybe I’m edging a cold, the correct response is obvious.

    Yeah, Dalrock, the original was posted on her blog. I’ll go look for it, see if it’s WordPress or some other fomrat that alows for comments. Hope so, because see below. What am I thinking, using logic? Duh.

    Agree & Amplify, that’s the ticket:

    “Yes, dearie, you are soooo right. Us menz, we are totally a pack of chimps. Androcentric chimps, yeah, that’s right. But, dearie we know what is good for you, what you need. You know it too, darlin’. You need some….”

    All these women are engaged in a massive fitness test. All these church leaders are clueless betas who have rejected their clear leadership role. They are killing their churches, just as Rollo articulated above, because they can’t say “NO” to a woman and as a result the feminization is driving out men.

  56. Stingray says:

    Bill Smith,

    Sunday best is respectful for the Sacrifice of the Mass. If a man doesn’t have a suit, fine. But I believe in Sunday best and it is very nice to see men take that seriously at my church.

  57. Dave says:

    But then one-by-one women that I know and love approach me and tell me of their own insecurities about relating to other women, insecurities about their appearance, about not knowing the answers, about sharing their struggles and doubts, about not having it all together.

    Precisely why [humanly speaking] every woman needs the love of a man. Her security and confidence is not expected to be in herself, but in the love of her husband who loves her and could literally give his life for her. And in her children and grandchildren, who adore her and “call her blessed”.
    These days however, most feminism-infested women have robbed themselves of the very sources of their happiness. No wonder they gop through life tormented by insecurities and self-doubts.

  58. mrteebs says:

    That Wilbert needs to pretentiously carry two last names around should have been your first clue. The hyphenated ones are even worse, insofar as that is possible.

    Two last names is a litmus test of sorts. Kind of like the average person behind the wheel of a Mercedes station wagon. I have only ever met one that didn’t fit the stereotype of pampered and clueless.

    Egalitarian: “We’re equal; therefore, I can do everything you can do.”

    Complementarian: “We’re different, but equal; therefore, I can do everything you can do.”

  59. stickdude90 says:

    If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole.

    Will her head explode when you point out that all of Jesus’ disciples were male?

  60. Boxer says:

    Why any adult man with the capacity for critical thought would ever convert to contemporary Christianity at this point is just beyond belief.

    People convert for many reasons, bro. Not just to score dates or wives. I find Christianity (also Islam and Judaism) to be masculine movements at the core. If they weren’t, the feminists wouldn’t be so laughably hard-pressed to sell their complimentarian schtick.

    The radfems (and similar looneys) are of no consequence to any hard brother who takes these disciplines seriously. He should be studying the text and learning from men who have proven themselves, rather than from whoever the women like. In that regard, religion is no different than any other social group.

    Hats off to Dr. D., for these funny, critical articles exposing the moral bankruptcy of the radfems. I’d think this nonsense was fabricated or exaggerated if there weren’t so many backlinks to these nuts and their weird speeches and articles.

    Boxer

  61. Spike says:

    Chimps? She called men chimps? Those “chimps” she talks about have built everything she takes for granted. Brick upon brick, nail on nail, screw on screw, pipe by pipe, circuit by circuit. Built by men. All of it.
    If she were to rely on women to build civilization, the human race would still be preoccupied with wading through the mud of the forest barefoot, foraging for the eggs of the Yellow-Throated Warbler, the only protein available for dinner.
    She also calls Christian men – the best and most civilised men history has produced – a bunch of barbaric animals.
    Repent, woman, and show some respect.

  62. infowarrior1 says:

    Better a strong aggressive patriarchal chimpanzee than a sexually liberated matriarchal weakling bonobo male who looks as if he has drastically degenerated from his proud chimpanzee heritage.

    Not only do chimps occupy greater territory and survive in a greater range of environments. They will easily roll over the bonobos who only survive in paradisical niches.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    mrteebs
    That Wilbert needs to pretentiously carry two last names around should have been your first clue. The hyphenated ones are even worse, insofar as that is possible.

    Agree with you on the indicator, but it’s a lagging one.

    Because hyphenated names are so 20th century. I’m seeing some millennials marry where she doesn’t bother to change her name. Upper 20’s, approaching the big 3-0. So far the excuse has been “professional”, i.e. she has some sort of career under her own name and it would be too, ctoo confusing to change it at such a late date. Yeah. Career. Like, er, high school teacher…

  64. infowarrior1 says:

    All the apostles of Jesus were male. A mannerbund, a band of brothers like many in history.

  65. infowarrior1 says:

    @Looking Glass

    They be bonobos we be chimps. They be afraid.🙂

  66. Looking Glass says:

    @infowarrior1:

    I’m reminded of Proverbs 1:7 (ESV), “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
    fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Fools like the writer of the linked piece really don’t Fear the Lord, so they actually understand nothing.

    We know this because if a large collection of Christian Men actually set themselves to being “chimps”, we’d have new governments in all of the Western Powers in a few months. Competent Men of the West with conquest on the mind are a truly frightening thought, as anyone outside of the West will actually attest to.

  67. Adam says:

    “What man would join a philosophy that expressly denigrates him? They are literally driving men out of, and away from the church.”

    Not just any man. It’s the virile men that have a wife and children, providing the very free labor ( ministry) the church survives on. These are the stable men with steady decent paying jobs that pay enough for these men to donate (tithe) to the church. These are the courageous men that defend and forward the church’s honor and it’s mission.

    The irony is that all of the denigration of these men has not led to adequate replacements in any of these areas when they leave and take their family with them.

    There is no surprise then when people publicly dishonor the church, when the church runs out of money and when it has to lay off staff because it can’t meet its costs. Those that ensured that didn’t happen are shrinking.

  68. mrteebs says:

    @AR

    I just so happen to have such a story. Worked for a big Fortune 50 company for about a decade. Corporate sent us one of those typical ladder climbers who knew nothing, but was a solid 9+ (former cheerleader at FSU) and very suave in front of a crowd. She was the “top talent” and her husband moved around in various jobs to follow in her shadow. I witnessed this twice with females that were being groomed for the C-suite. Wherever she went, the business was obligated to find two vacancies – one for her and one for her husband. She was given the real job while hubby was placed in some kind of made-up role, like Director of Customer Experience Satisfaction. Nobody ever knew what it meant. Anyway, both of the C-suite women kept their maiden names. The excuse one gave me was “too much work to change her email address”.

    I wonder sometimes what their marriages are like. This was in my pre-RP days and I didn’t recognize it at the time, but looking back I can see that both husbands were extremely blue pill. Amazing how differently you view things outside the Matrix.

  69. feeriker says:

    Will her head explode when you point out that all of Jesus’ disciples were male?

    Give her time. She’s probably already working up a full-fledged rant on that subject, probably with an obsessive focus on how Mary Magdalene should’ve been Jesus’s right hand instead of Peter.

  70. mrteebs says:

    Interestingly, our business leader in both instances saw through the ineptness of these two women, but politics meant that if you wanted to jettison them, you had to promote them. When Corporate sent you their babies, you could never say they were ugly.

    Regarding one of the women, the business leader told me privately once that he had to recommend her for a bigger role in a sibling business because she was destroying our own business.

    Ponder that for a good long while.

  71. Looking Glass says:

    @mrteebs:

    What’s worse is that those two Women have no concept that they’re incompetent. Why would they? No one has told them “no” since they were probably 14. “Hot Women” are always a commodity, the problem is that “having them around” used to be the eye candy at dinner. Now they’re actually in the meetings, which is normally the problem.

    @adam:

    Of course they hate that which does even a little bit of good. The Progressives have finally started to admit that they very specifically want to destroy White Men because they “get in the way”. (Black Men being already thoroughly destroyed by The State and Asian Men being so far down the SMV that they don’t notice they’re there, being the unstated assumptions.) So, obviously, churches that reflect the culture will simply reflect the exact same thinking.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock. Got it right this time.

    Ok, a little physical work out, some water, some caffeine, my brain is back in the groove. Maybe I’m edging a cold, the correct response is obvious.

    Yeah, Dalrock, the original was posted on her blog. I’ll go look for it, see if it’s WordPress or some other fomrat that alows for comments. Hope so, because see below. What am I thinking, using logic? Duh.

    Agree & Amplify, that’s the ticket:

    “Yes, dearie, you are soooo right up there on that pedestal. Us menz, we are totally a pack of chimps. Androcentric chimps, yeah, that’s right. Chimps? In the jungle? We know what you are, too, and you need….?”

    Yes, dearie, that’s right, and you’re dismissed.

    Now, back to the larger issue.

    All these women are engaged in a massive fitness test. All these church leaders are clueless betas who have rejected their clear leadership role. They are killing their churches, just as Rollo articulated above, because they can’t say “NO” to a woman and as a result the feminization is driving out men.

  73. Pingback: Notes on a Saturday night. | Dark Brightness

  74. pukeko60 says:

    Partially reblogged.
    The question is: are we going to take the Bible seriously and follow the teaching therein? Or are we going to be part of the spirit of this age, but with nice proof texts?

    Dunno about others, but my house chooses to serve the LORD. Including subverting and reforming the local churches.

  75. God is Laughing says:

    The Jonathan McCintosh of the “church”.

  76. Hank Flanders says:

    Heidi

    @Hank Flanders: This “Catholic apologist” comes awfully close to calling the Bible misogynistic; in her reply, she is not even criticizing a particular interpretation of a Scripture passage. She is criticizing a man for telling his wife to go look for herself to see what the Bible says.

    Well, even there, the emphasis is on the husband’s behavior, as if he’s the one in error for even suggesting his wife isn’t following scripture to begin with. That apologist could simply be suggesting that the husband is misapplying scripture, and the apologist need not offer an explicit interpretation of scripture with which she’s disagreeing, as the emphasis is on the husband, anyway.

    What’s I’m saying, though, is I’d like to see feminists actually be forthcoming and express that the biblical writers themselves were misogynists, but instead of doing that, they’ll basically say that the Bible was simply written in a culture that was oppressive to women and that the biblical writers, particularly Peter and Paul, were just responding to the culture and not actually endorsing that aspect of it. I find it a rather disingenuous argument and more damaging to the church body than the words of someone who says they simply don’t believe or respect scripture at all. I don’t know anything about that Catholic apologist, but if she’s an apologist for the Bible, she would likely neither imply nor state such a thing.

  77. theasdgamer says:

    @ Rollo

    It’s amazing that these Beta male pastors believe that their pandering to the feminine and denigrating the masculine is an incentive for men to come to Christ. What man would join a philosophy that expressly denigrates him? They are literally driving men out of, and away from the church.

    With women controlling 70% of U.S. wealth, this is just good marketing. Women like it when the church denigrates their beta husbands. It gives women more control in the marriage. Women feel justified in giving sex less frequently and being bitchier.

  78. feeriker says:

    With women controlling 70% of U.S. wealth, this is just good marketing.

    And the fact that churches are focused on budgets and demographics shows just how deep-seated the rot is.

  79. theasdgamer says:

    Men will be attracted to churches that have low overhead. They will meet in members’ homes and have volunteer or low-pay staff. These churches will probably operate on a cash basis and be underground. They will probably address men’s issues like frivorce, wives withholding sex, etc.

  80. American says:

    “A crowd of chimping chimps sounds ugly and a stampeding herd of mustangs is destructive. If your meeting rooms and lead teams are full of male voices, tread softly with that power. It leads nowhere good and nowhere healthy for the local church or the Church as a whole. Christ did a good thing when he called us all his bride, making plaid wearing, pipe smoking men squirm everywhere. Squirm on, friends. It’s the squirm that leads to growth.”

    ^ The demonic deception here is palatable. And, why churches are increasingly feminist-cuck run. Although non-beta males have not completely abandoned the church, in many of them, they have all but disappeared. Tough, down to earth, hard working guys along with high achievers, alpha males, entrepreneurial risk takers, and men with visions are increasingly in short supply. So are the outdoor adventure lovers. For they’ve been purged by the feminists and beta cucks as “bad” men when the opposite is, in fact, true. They are the good men and the feminists and beta cucks are BAD.

  81. holyhellfire says:

    Hey Dalrock! I just want to say thank you. I’ve been lurking here and never commented for over 2.5 years, but I love the way you teach on proper Biblical gender roles in your posts. Now I blog too! Check it out sometime…it’s not much yet, but it will be. But thank you. I owe some of my style to you. I guess I’ll start actually commenting now lol.

    -Holyhellfire

  82. Pingback: | Dark Brightness

  83. Boxer says:

    Yo:

    Give her time. She’s probably already working up a full-fledged rant on that subject, probably with an obsessive focus on how Mary Magdalene should’ve been Jesus’s right hand instead of Peter.

    I really like the story of Mary Magdalene, and she’s a much more powerful character when she’s envisioned unvarnished by the mythology of radfems.

    In the text, it says Jesus healed her from demon possession. I take that as a metaphor for perhaps convincing her to go straight after a wild childhood. Maybe she was a ho’, or some sort of petty criminal. The Jungian shadow of Mary, the mother of Jesus, she gives hope to all us imperfect people that we can clean ourselves up and live a better life.

    Note that in the text she is nowhere depicted as strong or sassy or anything else that is supposedly valued by radfems today. She is a nice lady who follows Jesus around (and calling her one of his disciples is not inaccurate) and stays out of the way of the men, as they do their work. She is described as supporting the band financially (Luke 8:3). She’s famous for washing the feet of Jesus in Luke 7. She’s always described as humble, sweet and nurturing, the way a good woman should be. For her noble work she is among the first people that the hero comes to visit after he wakes himself from the dead.

    Next time the kooky radfems start talking shit in your churches about how women should be more like Mary Magdalene, vocally agree with them, and start listing her real virtues as they appear in the text. Her story gives lots of good advice for women who want to live a more virtuous life.

    Boxer

  84. Gunner Q says:

    “In the text, it says Jesus healed her from demon possession. I take that as a metaphor for perhaps convincing her to go straight after a wild childhood.”

    Not a metaphor. You know Christianity is real, right? It isn’t just a useful philosophy.

  85. Dal, whenever you’re ready to co-author a Red Pill book aimed at Christian culture you have my email address.

  86. Anon says:

    With women controlling 70% of U.S. wealth, this is just good marketing.

    This is why democracy fails over time. Women see the role of government very differently than men see it, and will vote all resources and benefits to themselves, and all costs onto men.

    Hence, even institutions that never wanted to become female-centric, and are unaware that they have become so, cannot avoid this fate.

  87. infowarrior1 says:

    @mrteebs

    Those women should be wives and mothers. Instead of wasting their youth in the corporate world.

  88. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anon

    The greeks had democracy yet they never got female suffrage. Do you know why?

  89. Dave says:

    In the text, it says Jesus healed her from demon possession. I take that as a metaphor for perhaps convincing her to go straight after a wild childhood. Maybe she was a ho’, or some sort of petty criminal.

    Nope. The Bible never leaves its readers guessing what it meant to say. In fact, the Bible could be so explicit you would have to ask yourself again if this is safe for work, or for children. But it is.
    A few examples follow.

    He spilled it on the ground
    Bible version:
    And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
    Genesis 38:9

    A more politically correct version:
    “Onan did not allow his dead brother’s wife to have children for him because he knew the children would not be his”

    Have public sex with your father’s mistresses
    Bible version:
    Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father. The hands of all who are with you will also be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 2 Samuel 16:21, 22

    A more politically correct version:
    “Ahithophel advised Absalom to make his father mad, thereby strengthening the hands of those who were supporting him”

    She drove a nail into his temples
    Then Jael Heber’s wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. Judges 4:21

    A more politically correct version:
    “Jael killed the man while he was asleep”.

    The biggest problem in understanding Scripture is thinkling that what is clearly written does not mean what it says, or that we could add anything to the plain word of God. That is why theologians and so-called bible scholars are almost always wrong, because they inject into Scripture, something that God never intended to put there.

  90. Pingback: Mutterings | Dark Brightness

  91. stickdude90 says:

    Dal, whenever you’re ready to co-author a Red Pill book aimed at Christian culture you have my email address.

    *throws money at screen*

  92. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anon

    To clarify the Ancient Greeks never got female suffrage. Yet America and the modern world managed to progress to that once they transitioned to a Republic.

  93. nick012000 says:

    @GunnerQ: Well, as I understand it, the way that demonic possession tends to work, either one can cause the other, so it could both be a metaphor and literal at the same time.

  94. Boxer says:

    To clarify the Ancient Greeks never got female suffrage. Yet America and the modern world managed to progress to that once they transitioned to a Republic.

    Intelligence should be accepted as a historical stumbling block and will likely be the downfall of humanity. It inevitably leads to solipsism and universalism.

  95. seventiesjason says:

    was once at a “prayer workshop” at a large “conservative, bold, non-denominational church” that would have made Mr. David Murrow (church for men guy) very happy. Overpriced coffee-latte cart in the lobby. Guy-centric design, rock music, smoke machines……….a fair-share of men there….but all seemed to “duck speak” verses in the Bible. None of their adult children were in the church. Tons of women here at this prayer workshop…..despite this being a “guy’s” church,

    Anyway……the workshop itself was good enough. Got some good pointers out of it. Fair enough.

    As the workshop is ending, the pastor of this church comes on the stage….thanks the speaker, and then says “We men……..we have to be prayer warriors! For too long our wives, daughters, nieces, and female cousins have been filling the gap because we didn’t want to. It’s time for us men to go home, sit down, listen to what our wives and what they have to say, and let them say it! We have a lot to learn from them!”

    Thunderous applause and screams / cheers from the women.

    So much for “bold” churches today.

  96. God is Laughing says:

    There is a tell, “In the 35 years since then the liberal churches have grown more liberal and the conservative-heaven help us”.

    Liberalization of the Church is the goal. Her beef isn’t with the liberal churches it is clearly with the ones that she thinks need her reformation. Dethroning ALL male headship is the goal. This won’t stop within HUMAN male headship, the rebellion hoes all the way to God’s throne.

  97. Swanny River says:

    SeventiesJason, that conference response is a great example of what it’s like in the conservative American Protestant culture and of cartoonish chivalry. It’s why Dalrock, the commenters, and the Deep Strength blog are like life preservers for me.
    I like the idea of a Rollo/D book but know that book writing seems to be the TGC focus and that is a weak tea. I get the sense from TGC that getting a PhD and blogging is an act of Godliness to be much esteemed, but all that seems to lead to is more isolation, more superficiality, more celebrity worship, and more women who write/teach. The FI has even defeated the military, so it seems like it would be a real battle to lessen the cultural incentives for debasing biblical teaching about headsip.
    How long before we hear about a church member being disciplined for going to this site? My fear of that is why I try to keep my church and pastor anonymous. I don’t want to be “talked to” because they figure I’m posting here, at least not yet. The more time here, and in prayer, the less I see a reason to shut up.

  98. M & M says:

    Hey! I’m a female who comes out of an Evangelical/ Baptist background and am looking for something sort of similar doctrinally, but with traditional gender roles. The key is, I don’t want the church to cross over the other way and become too legalistic. I’m willing to dress very modestly, but in return, I don’t want to be in a toxic environment or have the church fall apart because people are sleeping with each other. That can happen in legalistic environments.

    If anyone has some ideas, I’d be game to hear! I’m sick of complementarian theology. It’s probably not a big deal for women to have administrative jobs in the church, but I really don’t think women should be leading anything, even if it’s just a ministry. It seems like you see a lot of women, young and old, on a stage with this halo effect and “women can” attitude, and they kind of weasel their way into unofficial authority that way. Am I just being too picky?

  99. Mr Masculine says:

    What does it mean when my pastor call his wife “the boss?”
    I hope he is married to Bruce Springsteen.

  100. Swanny River says:

    Mr. Masculine, it means you go to a conservative church in America? Do I win something if I get the answer right?

  101. Looking Glass says:

    Mr. Masculine: Pull him aside and point out that, regardless of the common expression, that’s pure heresy and you’re here to correct him or push for his removal from his position. Then say you’d be doing the exact same thing if he said “yeah, I found some pretty good pussy this weekend at the bar”. What he said with “the boss” is worse.

  102. infowarrior1 says:

    @seventiesjason

    Clearly conservative in terms of being conservative of more old-fashioned feminism.

    Here is why conservatives always cave in and why the only thing they do is conserve the gains of leftists:
    http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/03/07/the-pathology-of-the-conservative-mind/

  103. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”Intelligence should be accepted as a historical stumbling block and will likely be the downfall of humanity.”

    What are you talking about?

  104. Boxer says:

    What are you talking about?

    Well, you wrote:

    To clarify the Ancient Greeks never got female suffrage. Yet America and the modern world managed to progress to that once they transitioned to a Republic.

    Then I pointed out that as people were trained to think abstractly, they tended to think abstractly in unexpected ways — such as imagining that women would accept responsibility if it were offered to them, and imagining that society would continue on an upward trajectory despite changing the social contract.

    Boxer

  105. feeriker says:

    What does it mean when my pastor call his wife “the boss?”

    Not knowing anything else about your pastor and based solely on your statement, it means that he’s a gutless, spineless, henpecked, miserable, hopelessly blue pill churchian mangina who gets grudging “duty sex” once per calendar quarter, if he’s lucky, and probably would have already thrown himself in front of a speeding freight train if it didn’t mean a one-way ticket to hell.

  106. feeriker says:

    @ Mr. Masculine

    Further to your rhetorical question, it also means that he’s advertising the following message loudly and clearly, even if only subconsciously: Guys, don’t EVER get married!

  107. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    Thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.

  108. theasdgamer says:

    It’s probably not a big deal for women to have administrative jobs in the church

    The Bible discusses female church employees (deaconesses).

  109. Miserman says:

    Here was a word that described how men and women were equal and distinct. Same value, different roles. Same intrinsic worth, different intrinsic expressions.

    The only real difference between complimentarian and egalitarian equality is the language. While the complimentarian talks about distinctions and roles, he / she still accepts the egalitarian position that those roles are interchangeable. In a family, sometimes the husband is the head and other times the wife is the head. The roles are organic and flexible and shift according to the convenience and comfort of the wife. The thing that makes is bearable is her spending.

  110. Miserman says:

    For the complimentarian, every man is a neaderthal ape and every woman a princess in Jesus’ kingdom. When the princess condescends and grants the ape her bestowed gift of marriage, in the name of Jesus, he magically becomes a Christian Gentleman (TM).

  111. Paul says:

    @mrteebs

    “Regarding one of the women, the business leader told me privately once that he had to recommend her for a bigger role in a sibling business because she was destroying our own business.

    Ponder that for a good long while.”

    The next step apparently is recommending her for a bigger role, like say presidential nominee, where she can destroy the whole country. Presumably the business planned to relocate oversees.

  112. Looking Glass says:

    @Paul:

    A few South American businesses pretty much have done that in the recent history. Assuming they weren’t completely tied down by cronyism.

  113. Hank Flanders says:

    PokeSalad

    On my earlier tangent, I did find a megachurch pastor who hates small churches….wonder why?

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/march/dear-andy-stanley-please-be-small-churchs-ally-not-our-enem.html

    To be fair, you’ll find another article from that same publication in which he clarified/apologized for his remarks:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/march-web-only/megachurch-pastor-andy-stanley-explains-controversial-remar.html?start=1

    However, I dislike Stanley for other things he’s said (and not said when given the chance).

  114. DrTorch says:

    @Poke

    Never a fan of the Stanleys. But I find it quite telling when compared to a RC Sproul sermon series entitled “The Family in Covenant” where Sproul Jr points out that modern churches go out of their way to separate families (all for better teaching of course), instead of keeping them together during times of worship.

    Also interesting how Stanley elevates his importance by insisting that you need large MS and HS groups…aka cliques and hierarchies. So we now have a pastor who not only sees his church replicating the social structure of the world…but he criticizes churches that don’t follow suit!

    I understand this is all about “winning souls,” instead of obeying God, because this bride of Christ is the feminist version.

  115. Mr Masculine says:

    Dalrock

    Thanks for your informative articles. I have learned a lot from you and some of your astute commenters. These subjects you cover are quite taboo in the church I attend. We even have women speakers at our men’s group. I suggest we have men only at men’s group and I get shamed for suggesting such sexist things. I watched Brad Stine’s “Manly Man” conference on YouTube and even Brad had male hecklers and one female in the audience.

  116. Swanny River says:

    Miserman, great comparison between the two groups. It’s interesting that you mention the role differences a an example. Me telling other believers that I not only want my wife to want to raise our child, but that I think that is both a solid biblical and natural law position most usually stirs up a counterargument from conservative believers. The basis of the argument I mostly based on it depends on what the woman wants and who makes the most money.
    In one way, I can understand the frustration with me, it just seems so logical and probably biblical to them, to be a peacemaker and to make more money at the same time. And to boot, Christians from my church run a daycare. They must really think I’m cracked. But I think I can understand their bewilderment better by adopting your assertion that complementarians are kust a superficially different group frim the egalitarians.

  117. enrique says:

    Driving in today, to work and I tuned in briefly, during a commercial on my favorite talk radio (WMAL!) to 105.1/WAVA, and it had Dennis Rainey I believe, not sure if that is FOTF or FLT, but he had what sounds like the same chick I hear on there every time he has some gal talking.
    I just googled and it was Meg Meeker. I also pulled the transcript.

    http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/familylife-today/listen/strengthening-the-father-bond-520490.html

    This is what caught my ear, because it is a beautiful magicians’ trick that liberals, progressives and cucks pull all the time, here is what she said in speaking of fathers as a topic, and men in general…what feminists have supposedly “told” us:
    ______________
    Meg: Yes, absolutely! Women are leading the way in doing that because we have said
    to men: “We don’t need you to do that. We don’t need you to earn any money. We don’t
    even need you to have babies.”

    Bob: You’re saying women are saying, “We don’t need you for anything—
    _______________

    Notice the slight of hand, happens all the time. THERE IS NOT A FEMINIST OR WOMAN ALIVE IN THE US WHO HAS EVER SAID THEY DON’T WANT MEN TO EARN MONEY. Spend a day in family court–you can watch plenty of “Strong and independent INSERT ETHNIC GROUP” march in and talk ALL DAY LONG about how great they are, how independent, how the kids need them the most, and how they can do it ALL–but you mess with a PENNY of what they feel men should be “muling” for them, and you will see what women REALLY think about what men are for.

    How hilarious that this woman sneaks this into the conversation, without challenge, knowing that 90 percent of the men nodding their heads in agreement (with wives and g/fs cautiously nodding yet side glancing) as if this were some how true, but mere adoption of her assertion.

    FEMINISTS HAVE NEVER been against men “earning money” (to serve women). Does this woman think for a minute that any man over about, 30, who’s lived ANY kind of life, involving women, ever pictures in his mind this TV caricature of a woman, stomping around the house after telling ‘Bob’ she wants a divorce…”and dammit Bob…I don’t want or need your money! don’t even earn any…I just want the kids” Or some “I don’t-need-a-man” chick on a date, grabbin’ that check, “I GOT THIS! I don’t need you to earn money Mike! sheesh (rolling eyes)”

    Fucking spare me.

  118. Swanny River says:

    I’m sorry for the typos in my previous post.
    Here’s something I wanted to here more from my fellow chimps about- in a link to Chp 2 of the CBMW book, Piper asks and shoots down, whether servant leadship makes authority headship meaningless. Kudos to him for asking a tough question, but I think he undercuts his good start by saying he’s only had to assert authority two times in forty years of marriage.
    Yikes! If that’s typical for good christian marriages then I think I’m beyond hope.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kudos to him for asking a tough question, but I think he undercuts his good start by saying he’s only had to assert authority two times in forty years of marriage.

    It could be true. He could have married a properly submissive woman, he might be a man with very good subcommunications such that he hasn’t had to resort to overt communications much.

    It also could be that Piper has only been able to assert authority two times in 40 years.

    Watch vids of him speaking. Which of the two above seems more likely?


    Yikes! If that’s typical for good christian marriages then I think I’m beyond hope.

    It’s not 1970 anymore (except maybe inside Piper’s head), you deal with different stuff. Don’t hold yourself to whatever he remembers, deal with what’s in front of you. Leadership requires daily action…

  120. feeriker says:

    enrique says:
    March 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    That such audio shite has a regular audience that gobbles it up like mother’s milk tells you how far gone we are. It’s to the point now that I don’t even turn on the car radio anymore. Between corporatized FM Top Forty stations that play the same three dozen unlistenable songs on loop, AM talk radio spewing nonsense of both the reich-wing fascist and Marxist libtard flavor, and “Contemporary Christian” music stations whose output makes non-believers’ cases for them, the airwaves are a desert to be avoided if you value your sanity.

  121. Looking Glass says:

    @AR:

    Door number #2 seems mostly likely.

    Though it’s come up before that while all Women seek their own Vanity, not all of them go to the same extremes and there are some who really are just “nice” as a general, natural temperament. Not a lot mind you, and you’re likely to find them wherever you find “stable, long-term” marriages because their own dark soul is still smart enough not to blow up their marriage.

  122. DrTorch says:

    Enrique- I used to listen to WAVA, wanting to worship God more, but even then, Dennis Rainey’s FLT sent me into fits b/c of its deceit and hypocrisy. Still, the only show that was of real value was Renewing Your Mind.

    Now I recognize how much feminism Salem Communications has been putting out for over 2 decades. Lots of other strife and discontent too. That’s a dangerous station to listen to if you’re a young Christian.

  123. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Out of respect for our host, I always wait to answer flamebait like yours until the thread is spent. Apologies for the delay, but I’m sure you understand.

    Gunner Q sez:

    Not a metaphor. You know Christianity is real, right? It isn’t just a useful philosophy.

    Define ‘real’. Christianity is real to me because it is a useful philosophy, and for no other reason.

    then Dave sez:

    Nope. The Bible never leaves its readers guessing what it meant to say. In fact, the Bible could be so explicit you would have to ask yourself again if this is safe for work, or for children. But it is.

    Not only are you wrong, but the opposite is true. The New Testament has always been open to interpretation, and many of the stories it tells are symbolic (we know this because the author, Saul of Tarsus, says as much).

    Fortunately, both church fathers and secular philosophers have been writing commentary on the text for the past thousand years, so we have lots of smart peeps to piggy-back off, when we have a question about interpretation or translation.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

    Boxer

  124. OKRickety says:

    Boxer said on March 15, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Dave said:
    <The Bible never leaves its readers guessing what it meant to say.

    Not only are you wrong, but the opposite is true. The New Testament has always been open to interpretation, and many of the stories it tells are symbolic (we know this because the author, Saul of Tarsus, says as much).

    Fortunately, both church fathers and secular philosophers have been writing commentary on the text for the past thousand years, so we have lots of smart peeps to piggy-back off, when we have a question about interpretation or translation.

    Where does Paul say many of the stories in the NT are symbolic? I can’t place it.

    I wish the Bible was always clear about what is meant. It is not. This is partly because we are reading translations of the original text. One translation may clearly state a verse, but another translation may give it another slant. If you believe a particular translation is always correct, then the Bible may be quite clear. Unfortunately, the translators are not divinely inspired, at least in the sense that God will supernaturally provide them with an understanding of what the text means.

    As to commentaries, I think they have value, but should be treated as an aid, not as absolute truth. I do not believe they are divinely inspired, either. There is always the possibility that a commentator has a vested interest so he is predisposed to interpret scripture incorrectly. I know I would be disinclined to believe a commentary by a secular philosopher.

    That said, much of the Bible is quite clear. The problem for most Christians is actually following God’s teaching, not understanding it.

  125. Boxer says:

    Dear OK Rickety:

    Where does Paul say many of the stories in the NT are symbolic? I can’t place it.

    It amazes me that you guys need a total unbeliever and neophyte to point you to scripture…

    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm

    You can make your case quite easily, by pointing me to the verses where St. Paul describes knowing Jesus personally or even references his historical being-as-such. He doesn’t do this because the literal and historic Jesus doesn’t make any difference to St. Paul nor to the church. It’s irrelevant. Jesus-as-symbol is what is important. This is the case in all his writings, and I don’t take that lightly, because I seek to understand the text, rather than seeking status as a member in some religious organization.

    Boxer

  126. AnonS says:

    “Define ‘real’. Christianity is real to me because it is a useful philosophy, and for no other reason.”

    Agrees with objective reality. Are you a theist (‘it is more reasonable to believe that God exists’) that thinks God hasn’t reveal special knowledge to humanity at all or an atheist (‘it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exists’)?

    https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=2836

    “Is it true that Paul only mentioned Jesus “occasionally” and never referred to Him as a flesh and blood human being? Certainly not.

    The fact of the matter is Paul often spoke of Jesus in terms that cannot be understood correctly in any way other than as a historical, flesh-and-blood human being. Paul used the name “Jesus” 218 times in his writings (Strong, 2001, p. 453), not counting other names for Jesus like Christ or Lord. Paul used the name Jesus five times in the first eight verses of Romans, seven times in the single-chapter book of Philemon, and 22 times in the brief, four-chapter book of Philippians. An honest account of Paul’s writings shows that they are replete with Jesus’ name, containing it an average of two and a half times per chapter.

    Not only did Paul repeatedly mention Jesus, but he specifically stressed that Jesus had come in the flesh as a real human being. For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul wrote: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” To elucidate what he meant by the word “man,” Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5:

    Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

    Any attempt to turn Paul’s phrase “in the likeness of men” into some sort of spiritual, mystical appearance is doomed to failure. Furthermore, Paul more specifically mentioned that “the likeness of men” that he discussed in Philippians meant human flesh. Paul wrote to the Romans about “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). The apostle further mentioned in 1 Timothy 6:13 that Jesus “witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate (a historical person)”

    Paul was writing letters dealing with current events at the time not recounting Jesus’ life, the gospels do that.

  127. PokeSalad says:

    I could be incorrect, but I recall that Paul was the only apostle who did not know Jesus before His crucifixion.

  128. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 10:00 am:
    “Define ‘real’.”

    Are you truly unable to understand the difference between right and wrong?

    @ 11:25 am:
    “You can make your case quite easily, by pointing me to the verses where St. Paul describes knowing Jesus personally or even references his historical being-as-such.”

    Road to Damascus. Look it up. Also, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul not only describes meeting Jesus personally but calls out more than 500 witnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection, “most of whom are still living”.

    OKRickety @ 11:04 am:
    “Where does Paul say many of the stories in the NT are symbolic?”

    It was Christ who said that in reference to His usage of parables.

  129. enrique says:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/want-guys-know-non-monogamy-183000758.html

    “I will never ghost on you. I’ll never let insecurities or jealousy affect the way I treat you. I’ll never tell you what to do or how to live your life, and I don’t expect you to make me a factor in all of your decisions.”

    It’s almost like every sentence in this article could be a stand-alone quote, it’s that delish!

    Basically, you keep your carousel, and I’ll keep mine…but I suspect she means (if we catch up in 10-15 years), “until I’m done…then I want a Beta who is “really into monogamy” during that back half of my life”.

    She will be posting “I’m not into games” once she runs out of cumrags in a decade.

  130. Boxer says:

    Anon S. writes:

    Agrees with objective reality. Are you a theist (‘it is more reasonable to believe that God exists’) that thinks God hasn’t reveal special knowledge to humanity at all or an atheist (‘it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exists’)?

    Agrees with objective reality? Are you talking about the correspondence theory? No text has words that can directly attach to physical objects (read Kripke for more on this — it’s interesting and you’d probably like the debates about this stuff).

    FTR I’m a student of Christianity, not a theist per se.

    Paul was writing letters dealing with current events at the time not recounting Jesus’ life, the gospels do that.

    Yup, and current events at the time included huge numbers of Christians who took the story as metaphor, rather than as history. St. Paul told all the arguing parties (in the verse I cited) not to worry about history. His Christ derives power from symbol, not from history, and whether he actually existed doesn’t make any difference.

    Gunner Q adds:

    Road to Damascus. Look it up.

    Are you trying to make my point for me? Because you’re succeeding, wildly. Thanks!

    Boxer

  131. Boxer says:

    enrique:

    Basically, you keep your carousel, and I’ll keep mine…but I suspect she means (if we catch up in 10-15 years), “until I’m done…then I want a Beta who is “really into monogamy” during that back half of my life”.

    LOL! She’s shocked, just shocked, that dudes don’t “make an effort” (i.e. pay for her meals, drinks and entertainment) once they realize she’s a feral skank.

    Thanks for posting this. Aside from the comedic value, it’s a great illustration of the fact that men, not women, tend to be wired for commitment. We’re the romantics. Women are simply out to ride the d and get some attention, every hour of every day.

    Boxer

  132. enrique says:

    Yes, it also confirms (or will, if tracked) the well-grounded that belief that women “hide” their sexual past for the obvious–no guy wants a gal that has had 10, 20, 30, 40 or whatever dicks in her. So women like this, pop back up years later, depending on the height x width of her Wall, wipe their lifestyle and history clean and demand monogamy, or use the old “that was the old me” line if past lovers’ notes make an appearance on a 1st or 2nd date with a BetaChump.

    “I’m not into games” translation: I used to be VERY MUCH INTO games, but I hit the wall, and one of my two kids hits college next year….looking for a strong, financially set man who knows what he wants…”

  133. theasdgamer says:

    “read Kripke for more on this”

    I’d wather not. Bawwy Kwipke is hawd to listen to.

  134. Gunner Q says:

    And the eyewitnesses Paul referred to, Boxer? Are they only symbols, too?

  135. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    And the eyewitnesses Paul referred to, Boxer? Are they only symbols, too?

    At this point, I’m pretty sure that you don’t understand my argument, and we’d just end up talking past each other. I appreciate your input, all the same.

    Best,

    Boxer

  136. Boxer says:

    “I’m not into games” translation: I used to be VERY MUCH INTO games, but I hit the wall, and one of my two kids hits college next year….looking for a strong, financially set man who knows what he wants…”

    A couple of years ago I had a bizarre and memorable interaction. Fat older woman with two kids (I still know her) was complaining about the lack of “good men”. This was back in my hardcore playa days, when I used to enjoy messing with these old snappers. I told her that the good men were all around her, but that they were committing to hot twenty-three year olds. She gave me this panicked, wild-eyed look and asked:

    “but what about women like me? what are we supposed to do?”

    It was a rare honest interaction, to which I had no response but a shrug.

    Boxer

  137. AnonS says:

    Agrees with objective reality? Are you talking about the correspondence theory? No text has words that can directly attach to physical objects (read Kripke for more on this — it’s interesting and you’d probably like the debates about this stuff).

    FTR I’m a student of Christianity, not a theist per se.

    Do you think objective reality exists? A minority position on the quirks of language isn’t enough for me to throw out correspondence theory.

    So you just believe in a reading of Paul (disagreeing with most scholars) about Jesus as metaphor? And ignore the Gospels and the early Church fathers? While also not believing in God?

    Yup, and current events at the time included huge numbers of Christians who took the story as metaphor, rather than as history. St. Paul told all the arguing parties (in the verse I cited) not to worry about history. His Christ derives power from symbol, not from history, and whether he actually existed doesn’t make any difference.

    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm

    “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

    Most read this as the opposite, that it is critical that Christ was physically raised from the dead or it is all make believe.

    You skipped my cited verses:

    Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5:

    Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

    Paul more specifically mentioned that “the likeness of men” that he discussed in Philippians meant human flesh. Paul wrote to the Romans about “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). The apostle further mentioned in 1 Timothy 6:13 that Jesus “witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate (a historical person)”

  138. Boxer says:

    Hey AnonS:

    Do you think objective reality exists? A minority position on the quirks of language isn’t enough for me to throw out correspondence theory.

    Well, the “quirks of language” is what you’re arguing about here, and you don’t know what we’re talking about if you describe Kripke’s position as a minority opinion.

    Most read this as the opposite, that it is critical that Christ was physically raised from the dead or it is all make believe.

    I don’t think so. Read the previous verses in context. You’ll see early Christians who were bickering about whether they should take these stories literally or not. St. Paul tells all sides to just cool it and accept them for what they are — having faith in the resurrection is hardly the same as bearing witness to it as a historical event. As the author tells us, it doesn’t matter. Faith is what matters.

    So you just believe in a reading of Paul (disagreeing with most scholars) about Jesus as metaphor? And ignore the Gospels and the early Church fathers? While also not believing in God?

    I’m on the side of St. Paul, in holding to the position that it really doesn’t matter if Christ was a historical figure or not. What he represents is what is important.

    Incidentally, all the stuff you’re posting backs up this position. You realize this, yes? Your verses describe the author as envisioning a symbolic Jesus, not in walking around or sharing beers with a character in real time. This is why the author (in all the pages and pages of text of the NT) never seems quote the historical Jesus directly. When St. Paul wants to describe Jesus, he doesn’t cite the gospels, but pre-Christian/Jewish scripture.

    Best,

    Boxer

  139. Miserman says:

    Boxer wrote:

    I’m on the side of St. Paul, in holding to the position that it really doesn’t matter if Christ was a historical figure or not. What he represents is what is important.

    Without picking a fight, to what does a Christian ground his symbolism and faith on if Christ’s historicity is in question? It seems to me that such things become nothing more than intellectual and emotional exercises, a matter of nothing more than human experience, if there is no historical reality on which to base the symbolism and faith.

  140. Boxer says:

    Dear Miserman:

    I’m not fighting. I love these conversations.

    Without picking a fight, to what does a Christian ground his symbolism and faith on if Christ’s historicity is in question? It seems to me that such things become nothing more than intellectual and emotional exercises, a matter of nothing more than human experience, if there is no historical reality on which to base the symbolism and faith.

    To me, that is the real genius of St. Paul. All the historical evidence and the naysayers and the militant atheists have no way to attack it.

    Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

    Christianity is a big sign, pointing to a fulfilling life and a healthy society. So what if you’re skeptical: come on in anyway, open up to the possibility of it, and see things improve as we’re all inspired to work together. When we transcend all the usual nitpicking, we see things as they really are, and we all get something out of it, whether or not we agree on the details.

    Boxer

  141. AnonS says:

    I don’t think so. Read the previous verses in context. You’ll see early Christians who were bickering about whether they should take these stories literally or not. St. Paul tells all sides to just cool it and accept them for what they are — having faith in the resurrection is hardly the same as bearing witness to it as a historical event. As the author tells us, it doesn’t matter. Faith is what matters.

    Actually, “resurrection of the dead” is referring to the Jewish debates about end times resurrection of the dead not about what people thought about Jesus.

    “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

    Incidentally, all the stuff you’re posting backs up this position. You realize this, yes? Your verses describe the author as envisioning a symbolic Jesus, not in walking around or sharing beers with a character in real time. This is why the author (in all the pages and pages of text of the NT) never seems quote the historical Jesus directly. When St. Paul wants to describe Jesus, he doesn’t cite the gospels, but pre-Christian/Jewish scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:13 “In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you”

    Is Pontius Pilate symbolic?

  142. Boxer says:

    AnonS:

    At this point we’re talking past one another. You do ask an illuminating question, though.

    Is Pontius Pilate symbolic?

    Of course! (I know Tacitus writes about him, so this isn’t the answer you’re wanting, but it’s an authentic one).

    When I read the NT, Pilate symbolizes that drive to abandon one’s principles and go along with the herd mentality. He clearly announces that Jesus hasn’t done anything to warrant execution, but then the mob starts getting worked up, and he bows to the will of the collective id.

    The text paints him as a semi-sympathetic character, and I believe the author wants us to learn from Pilate’s mistake. Hold on to what you know to be right, and don’t be afraid of the crowd! They’re a bunch of idiots anyway.

    Boxer

  143. feeriker says:

    “but what about women like me? what are we supposed to do?”

    “Wear a sandwich sign that reads ‘old, washed up, well-ridden, cock-hopping skank desperate for a desperate man. Must be financially stable, accept leeching adult kids, irregular sex, risk of STDs, and 300 pounds of bitchy attitude. Apply here.'”

  144. enrique says:

    Feeriker, Tommy Sotomayor did a whole show on one of those.

  145. Boxer says:

    “Wear a sandwich sign that reads ‘old, washed up, well-ridden, cock-hopping skank desperate for a desperate man. Must be financially stable, accept leeching adult kids, irregular sex, risk of STDs, and 300 pounds of bitchy attitude. Apply here.’”

    Her husband, who she divorced after 10+ years of marriage, was dating an early 20s hottie (he was 40something) so I’m sure my response hit close to home. I feel sorry for her all the same, though. She has had one date, in all the time I have known her. It’s a dude who she went out with once, and he texted her afterward to tell her that he wasn’t “ready for a relationship”. Ouch!

  146. theasdgamer says:

    Boxer wrote:

    When St. Paul wants to describe Jesus, he doesn’t cite the gospels, but pre-Christian/Jewish scripture.

    Lol, maybe it’s because Paul’s writings preceded the gospels? Paul really should have quoted Acts, too, in order to authenticate Acts.

    /sarcasm off

  147. Anon says:

    enrique,

    Yikes! I am sooooooo glad that I never was so needy as to get involved in such a tangle..

  148. Boxer says:

    lolling hard at the last tommy video: “go fund me and help my bastard kids.” Priceless!

  149. theasdgamer says:

    I know Tacitus writes about him

    Tacitus is symbolic for the overseeing pagan who authenticates faith.

  150. feeriker says:

    Feeriker, Tommy Sotomayor did a whole show on one of those.

    Oh yes, I’m a big Tommy fan. If ever the institution of secular sainthood were established, he would be at or near the top of the canonization candidate list.

  151. Boxer says:

    Dear Feeriker & Anon:

    Much truth in the old Thugtician videos too. I wish that I could force young guys to listen to this man.

  152. theasdgamer says:

    Boxer can ignore me, but he bleeds like a girl on Bible matters. His value is dropping fast.

  153. Boxer says:

    Kooky asdgamer whines:

    Boxer can ignore me, but he bleeds like a girl on Bible matters. His value is dropping fast.

    I only argue with people who are worthy of my time, dullard. When you have something to teach me, I’ll pay attention. I’d even occasionally indulge you if you made fun of me in a skillful or funny fashion. You’re a failure in all regards, of course; so, I’ll continue to snigger as you dance for my attention, without wasting any of this blog’s resources.

    I trust we understand one another, now.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  154. theasdgamer says:

    You call names like a girl. Try again. You’re still bleeding.

  155. Gunner Q says:

    You should change your name, Boxer. There’s already a regular poster here named Boxer. He hasn’t been by lately but confusion will happen when he does.

    Boxer @ 3:35 pm:
    “Christianity is a big sign, pointing to a fulfilling life and a healthy society. So what if you’re skeptical: come on in anyway, open up to the possibility of it, and see things improve as we’re all inspired to work together.”

    If Christ is not alive and well today then Christianity promises neither reward for doing good nor punishment for doing evil. If Aesop’s Fables and Brothers Grimm couldn’t make men moral then Fairy Tale Jesus can’t, either.

    It’s insulting to imply that we shouldn’t care whether Christianity is true or not so long as it’s useful for the moment.

  156. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    You should change your name, Boxer. There’s already a regular poster here named Boxer. He hasn’t been by lately but confusion will happen when he does.

    This doesn’t make any sense.

    If Christ is not alive and well today then Christianity promises neither reward for doing good nor punishment for doing evil. If Aesop’s Fables and Brothers Grimm couldn’t make men moral then Fairy Tale Jesus can’t, either.

    No offense, but that’s a very immature paradigm to operate from. It’s also totally inconsistent with the message of the Jesus character.

    Good people don’t do good things for some cookie they get afterward. The reward for doing good is inherent in the doing of the good. That’s the message of Luke 6:27.

    It’s insulting to imply that we shouldn’t care whether Christianity is true or not so long as it’s useful for the moment.

    Again, what do you mean by “true”? Disambiguate.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  157. mrteebs says:

    So now, even telling a woman to smile is condescending and sexist.

    It’s hard to enjoy the decline.

  158. enrique says:

    Whatever happened to Thugtician?

    He was right though, it’s like, there’s still this MYTH that Pre-nups mean jack for men. I think if anything, they are probably ONLY enforced when it primarily has clauses to benefit the woman (like a female CEO). Manginas still buy into the idea, kinda like the poor saps (can’t blame them), newbies to the Industrial Divorce/Family Law complex that think if they work more hours and make good money a judge will “probably give me 50/50 right, because I provide better” (unaware that THE VERY WORK they DO, the hours, the $$ they make, will in fact be USED AGAINST THEM in family court).

    Every time I hear a guy repeat some pie-in-the-sky wishful BS about his probable divorce, I feel like I’m hearing one of those “Buy a STAR for the person you love” commercials. They are that gullible to believe Family Law is fair and equitable.

  159. OKRickety says:

    AnonS, I appreciate your comments regarding this topic. Perhaps you’ll appreciate my efforts here.

    Boxer said on March 15, 2016 at 11:25 am

    OKRickety said:
    Where does Paul say many of the stories in the NT are symbolic? I can’t place it.

    It amazes me that you guys need a total unbeliever and neophyte to point you to scripture…

    1 Cor. 15:14

    You can make your case quite easily, by pointing me to the verses where St. Paul describes knowing Jesus personally or even references his historical being-as-such. He doesn’t do this because the literal and historic Jesus doesn’t make any difference to St. Paul nor to the church. It’s irrelevant. Jesus-as-symbol is what is important. This is the case in all his writings, and I don’t take that lightly, because I seek to understand the text, rather than seeking status as a member in some religious organization.

    I looked at the verse ([1 Cor. 15:14 NASB] 14 “and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”) and was flabbergasted. Only a “total unbeliever” or “neophyte” would possibly believe that this means the resurrection of Jesus or even the existence of Jesus was only symbolic. And it would be difficult to logically infer that Paul is saying that many of the stories in the NT are symbolic. That readily explains why I was unable to think of any scripture to support your statement.

    Although I didn’t make any case (I simply asked for the source of your statement), I will respond to the argument you supposed I was making. In 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Paul references the historical being of Jesus – that He lived, died, was resurrected, and appeared to more than 500 people after that. Paul does say Jesus appeared to him (presumably on the road to Damascus), but Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.

    Boxer said on March 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm
    Yup, and current events at the time included huge numbers of Christians who took the story as metaphor, rather than as history. St. Paul told all the arguing parties (in the verse I cited) not to worry about history. His Christ derives power from symbol, not from history, and whether he actually existed doesn’t make any difference.

    Paul’s writing is to correct those mistaken Christians, teaching that Jesus’ resurrection was actual, not metaphorical, and that this historical fact is essential to Christianity. He did not tell them not to worry about history, he emphasized it.

    Boxer said on March 15, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    AnonS said:
    So you just believe in a reading of Paul (disagreeing with most scholars) about Jesus as metaphor? And ignore the Gospels and the early Church fathers? While also not believing in God?

    I’m on the side of St. Paul, in holding to the position that it really doesn’t matter if Christ was a historical figure or not. What he represents is what is important.

    Incidentally, all the stuff you’re posting backs up this position. You realize this, yes? Your verses describe the author as envisioning a symbolic Jesus, not in walking around or sharing beers with a character in real time. This is why the author (in all the pages and pages of text of the NT) never seems quote the historical Jesus directly. When St. Paul wants to describe Jesus, he doesn’t cite the gospels, but pre-Christian/Jewish scripture.

    As ASDgamer pointed out, this letter was written prior to the writing of the gospels, so, logically, Paul could not have quoted Jesus from them.

    The majority of your comments on this topic hinge on symbolism. I think literature is important to you, and I will presume that the symbolism you are referring to is symbolism as found in literary study. Yourdictionary.com says: “In literature, symbolism can take many forms including: A figure of speech where an object, person, or situation has another meaning other than its literal meaning. The actions of a character, word, action, or event that have a deeper meaning in the context of the whole story.”

    The first form supposes there is both a literal meaning and another meaning. The second suggests there is a deeper (more significant?) meaning.

    Now, I would have supposed that literary analysis would consider the literal meaning of the words as of first importance. However, the first two descriptions of literary analysis I found do not seem to give any consideration to understanding the literal meanings in doing the analysis. I am amazed at this! (However, it might help explain why I [a left-brained male] had difficulties with English in school.)

    The Bible is literature. Bible books like Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are poetry. The books of prophecy have elements of poetry and drama in them. I agree that symbolism exists in the Bible. For example, baptism symbolizes both death and resurrection.

    However, I think that the epistles in the New Testament are non-fiction prose, and, specifically, they are educational media to help the readers understand how to live a Christian life. Literary analysis, especially if it ignores literal meanings, is not going to be very useful in understanding the epistles.

    Instead, to understand the epistles, critical thinking is needed. This is defined as “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence”. An integral requirement is the use of logic.

    For example, 1 Cor. 15:14 has specific literal meaning. I have my doubts that there is any symbolic meaning present in the verse. Read it literally and it makes sense.

    Where did you get the notion that Paul is only concerned with symbolism? Was it your own concept, or did you get it from another source?

    If you really want to understand the text, read 1 Corinthians 15 with critical thinking only, ignoring any desire to do literary analysis. I believe this will enable you to know the meaning that Paul intended.

  160. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    You quote 1 Corinthians 15:14 as proving your point about Paul taking the story of Christ symbolically, but it says the opposite of that:

    “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

    Paul is saying that if Christianity is just symbolic, if there wasn’t a REAL, historical resurrection, then all his teaching is useless, and so is believing in it. Later he says, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead”, in verse 20. And just prior, in verses 5-9, he gives a list of all the people who personally saw Christ after His resurrection.

    How you get from that to “Paul is saying these stories are symbolic” is just beyond me. You’re normally pretty intelligent, but you’re not just wrong here, you’re so COMPLETELY wrong that you’re 180 degrees away from the truth. Paul is specifically claiming the Resurrection as historical fact, and saying that if it’s just symbolic and not real, Christianity is useless.

  161. theasdgamer says:

    Paul’s 1st Epistle to Timothy may contain a quote from Luke.

    For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:18)

    “…the laborer is worthy of his wages.” (Luke 10:7)

    If Paul is quoting Luke (who is quoting Jesus), then Luke must have been written before 1 Tim.

    I found this in Everett F. Harrison’s essay, “The Canon of the New Testament”. (Young’s Analytical Concordance)

  162. Boxer says:

    Robin Munn:

    How you get from that to “Paul is saying these stories are symbolic” is just beyond me. You’re normally pretty intelligent, but you’re not just wrong here, you’re so COMPLETELY wrong that you’re 180 degrees away from the truth. Paul is specifically claiming the Resurrection as historical fact, and saying that if it’s just symbolic and not real, Christianity is useless.

    You’re not reading my argument correctly. In Gunner’s case, I think it’s either deliberate. In yours, I suspect you haven’t had time to really get what I’m saying (though you might just be wanting to pile on, I haven’t seen you do as much before).

    At no point did I make the assertion that you claim I made, and you can’t link to it. What I was asserting was that there was apparently a huge number of people who took the Christ figure as ahistorical. To start, this causes problems with a literalist reading of the text. If it was common knowledge that Christ actually existed, then St. Paul wouldn’t have had to address the bickering over it. to wit:

    Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?1Cor 15:12

    Not only that, but St. Paul does not claim the physical resurrection was historical fact. Here’s what he says:

    Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

    I don’t know anyone who has been resurrected, do you? This is a very ambiguous verse that doesn’t seem to be asserting what you claim it asserts. Later on in this same letter, the author talks about baptisms for the dead. What are those?

    The reality is that nobody knows what went on. The only certainty I have is that people should have faith (which is quite different from historical testimony) in a world to come. That, in my reading, is the point of this letter: to quit fighting with your friends, have faith and work together despite different opinions on historical stuff (which seems of very little importance to the author anyway).

    Best,

    Boxer

  163. Boxer says:

    enrique:

    Whatever happened to Thugtician?

    I found the ‘sphere a long, long time ago, and Thugtician had already disappeared by the time I arrived.

    I have to believe he’s being held as a sex-slave by a large gang of physically hot but angry feminists. He means to break out of the dungeon, but something always comes up.

    Boxer

  164. theasdgamer says:

    Of utmost importance when reading 1 Cor. is to recognize its Jewish flavor. This is to be expected, for Paul called himself “a Hebrew of Hebrews”. Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:6-8, uses the word “ophthay” several times. Think of “Ophthalmology”. The root is “ophthay”. To see. Paul uses the passive voice, which often is translated “appeared”, but “was seen by” is a perfectly acceptable translation and conveys a more Jewish understanding of what happened. Jews placed a big store in eyewitness testimony. After all, the Law relied on eyewitness testimony, so it would be quite natural for Paul and the rest of the apostles to rely on eyewitness testimony. It’s the religious thing to do for an observant Jew. When Peter, James, and John were hauled before the Council because they had been preaching Jesus and Peter had healed the lame man, Peter’s defense was, “We cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard.” Peter gave a religious defense based on the Law. Peter was saying that they were doing their religious duty by bearing witness as commanded by the Law. Hence, the Council couldn’t punish them beyond a flogging.

    We see Paul’s use of the word “witness” several times in 1 Cor. 15. Paul is tapping into the shared Jewish understanding of “witness” and its significance in the Law. Paul isn’t using “witness” in the sense of 20th or 21st century evangelicals who use it meaning “telling People about Jesus”. Rather, Paul uses it in the sense of “Jews speaking about what they have seen and heard”. Especially about the Resurrection of Christ.

  165. Boxer says:

    Dear OK Rickety:

    As ASDgamer pointed out, this letter was written prior to the writing of the gospels, so, logically, Paul could not have quoted Jesus from them.

    I laughed extra hard at this attempt by kookboi to date the gospels — given that no one is quite sure when they were written. What neither you nor he are able to dispute is my point, that St. Paul never recites the stories as they appear in the gospels. Why do you suppose this is?

    On that note, why do you suppose so many contemporaries of St. Paul had no historical evidence for the historical Jesus? You claim there is evidence for his life, 2000 years in the future, and on the other side of planet earth, yet people in his hometown seem not to have heard about him, right after his death and resurrection. I look forward to your explanation of this curious phenomenon.

    Best,

    Boxer

  166. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    I’m in eastern Asia, so given my time zone and sleep (and work) schedule, I’ll usually see things about half a day after they’ve been posted. I intended to address your misreading of 1 Corinthians 15:14 last night (in my time zone), about twelve hours ago, but had a very busy evening, so I’m only getting to it now. Hence why you might perceive me as piling on; I’m still catching up on the thread. I see that OKRickety posted just half an hour before me, with a much more in-depth version of my argument; oh well.

    But… “At no point did I make the assertion that you claim I made, and you can’t link to it.” Um, yes I can. Here it is:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/androcentric-chimps-chimping/#comment-204868

    You wrote: “The New Testament has always been open to interpretation, and many of the stories it tells are symbolic (we know this because the author, Saul of Tarsus, says as much).” Then fifteen minutes later, you responded to OKRickety’s challenge “Where does Paul say many of the stories in the NT are symbolic? I can’t place it.” by pointing to 1 Corinthians 15:14, which actually says the opposite of how you’re reading it.

    Here’s Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20:

    “As you know, we (I and the other apostles) are preaching that Christ has been raised from the dead. Now, some of you are saying that there is no resurrection. Don’t you see that that contradicts the teaching about Christ’s resurrection? If there is no resurrection, then Christ can’t have been raised from the dead… because there is no resurrection. And if Christ hasn’t been raised from the dead, then this whole Christianity thing is useless and we’re all wasting our time with it. BUT, in fact, Christ WAS actually raised from the dead.”

    That thing about baptisms for the dead later on is something that I have never found out the details about. The only thing I know about it is that Paul cites it in his argument as if it’s something that was relatively common practice at the time, and says, “Look. If there’s no resurrection as some of you are saying, then it makes no sense for people to get baptized on behalf of the dead, because the dead are dead and it can’t do them any good.”

    You assert that Paul does not claim the physical resurrection was historical fact. But he does do so, both in verse 4 and in verse 20. In verse 14, he’s making a counterfactual argument as part of a reductio ad absurdum. Verse 14 is saying “If all these stories are merely symbolic, and Christ wasn’t really raised from the dead, then all of Christianity is utter rubbish.”

    So in one sense, you’re right that verse 14 doesn’t itself proclaim that the resurrection is historical fact. That’s verses 4 and 20. But when you read verse 14 as saying “These stories are just symbolic”, you’re getting it completely wrong: Paul is saying “IF these stories are just symbolic, then this whole Christianity thing is useless and we’re all fools.”

  167. theasdgamer says:

    @ Robin Munn

    You assert that Paul does not claim the physical resurrection was historical fact. But he does do so, both in verse 4 and in verse 20.

    Actually, Paul presents religious evidence (claims that eyewitnesses saw the Risen Christ) according to the Law of Moses and doesn’t make any historical claim. It’s hard to understand the difference from our perspective. Requiring claims of historical fact is illogical; Boxer is imposing his 21st century perspective on Paul, who lived in the 1st century. This is why Boxer misreads the text.

  168. Boxer says:

    Dear Robin:

    Thanks for an interesting reply. Please see inside text…

    I’m in eastern Asia, so given my time zone and sleep (and work) schedule, I’ll usually see things about half a day after they’ve been posted. I intended to address your misreading of 1 Corinthians 15:14 last night (in my time zone), about twelve hours ago, but had a very busy evening, so I’m only getting to it now. Hence why you might perceive me as piling on; I’m still catching up on the thread. I see that OKRickety posted just half an hour before me, with a much more in-depth version of my argument; oh well.

    OKRickety posted a jumbled wordsalad that I couldn’t make heads nor tails of, except for his closing remarks, all bolded out, that told me to read without thinking.

    I’ve never been a Christian, but I was nonetheless educated by the Jesuits, who taught me that it was OK to think about what I read — commendable even. Naturally, I’ll forego his questionable advice.

    “As you know, we (I and the other apostles) are preaching that Christ has been raised from the dead. Now, some of you are saying that there is no resurrection. Don’t you see that that contradicts the teaching about Christ’s resurrection? If there is no resurrection, then Christ can’t have been raised from the dead… because there is no resurrection. And if Christ hasn’t been raised from the dead, then this whole Christianity thing is useless and we’re all wasting our time with it. BUT, in fact, Christ WAS actually raised from the dead.”

    I might agree with you, if not for the eighth verse:

    And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

    St. Paul was pretty specific about the details of his own vision, which was not a physical meeting between two historical bodies, but an internal, psychological process that changed his mind on the road to Damascus. If we’re to take everything as historical, then why would he put his mythic meeting with Christ in here to be accepted on par with the resurrection?

    So in one sense, you’re right that verse 14 doesn’t itself proclaim that the resurrection is historical fact. That’s verses 4 and 20. But when you read verse 14 as saying “These stories are just symbolic”, you’re getting it completely wrong: Paul is saying “IF these stories are just symbolic, then this whole Christianity thing is useless and we’re all fools.”

    In context, he’s not saying that. Furthermore, when you deprecate symbolism as “just symbolic” you’re talking about the Rabbi’s own vision of Christ, which appears in v 8, which is clearly not in line with the spirit of the text, as it’s included. Symbolism is real and important, and for the author, it’s just as important as a physical meeting, since he partakes in a spiritual/psychic communion with Christ, rather than a historical one.

    Hopefully you see my point now. If you don’t, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate your comments here, all the same.

    Best,

    Boxer

  169. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    OKRickety said: “read 1 Corinthians 15 with critical thinking only, ignoring any desire to do literary analysis.” You claim that he meant, “read without thinking.” You are misreading his words just as badly as you are misreading Paul’s.

    Finally, Paul’s claim to have seen Christ on the road to Damascus is a claim to have seen Him. He is not saying this was a symbolic meeting, but a real meeting: that the actual, risen Jesus Christ spoke to him from heaven — he heard His voice and saw Him. THAT is why he lists himself alongside the other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, using the same Greek verb.

    Out of time for now; have to go.

  170. theasdgamer says:

    @ Robin Munn

    The text from Acts 10:

    Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

    Boxer wrote:

    but an internal, psychological process that changed his mind on the road to Damascus

    The text states that the men with Paul heard the voice even though they didn’t see Christ. If Paul was having an “internal psychological process”, then those men must have been mind-readers. I’m trying to not make fun of Boxer’s reading skills.

    Of course, the Acts text states that Paul’s blindness was cured several days later when scales fell from Paul’s eyes. Purely internal? Why does Boxer insist that Paul’s experience was purely internal?

    Clearly, Paul’s experience wasn’t purely internal. Of course, Acts records that Paul saw Jesus at other times (23:11, 26:16), so Paul’s experience with Christ weren’t limited to the Damascus road.

  171. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    ASDGamer is correct. Luke, the author of the book of Acts, accompanied Paul on part of his journeys (see the pronoun change between Acts 16:8 and 16:10 – Luke joins Paul in Troas, and starts using the pronoun “we”). As far as I know, there’s little dispute among Bible scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, that Luke’s source for what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus was Paul telling him what happened. So you can take the description in Acts 10 as coming from Paul, because that’s the only person who could have told Luke what happened.

    … Okay, one minor mistake ASDGamer made. Acts 23:11 records another time when Paul saw Jesus, but Acts 26:16 does not. 26:16 is Paul testifying in front of King Agrippa, retelling the events of Acts 10 (seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus).

    Also, let me answer this that you wrote:

    I laughed extra hard at this attempt by [ASDGamer] to date the gospels — given that no one is quite sure when they were written. What neither you nor he are able to dispute is my point, that St. Paul never recites the stories as they appear in the gospels. Why do you suppose this is?

    Yes, there is dispute among scholars about when the Gospels were written, but there is NO dispute that they were written after Paul’s letters. The earliest dates anyone proposes for the Gospels put the earliest of them (Mark) around 70 AD. There is apparently wide consensus among scholars on when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians: around 53-54 AD. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles for bibliographies to follow up on that claim if you doubt it.) So the disagreement over when the Gospels were written in no way nullifies what ASDGamer pointed out: that they were written after 1 Corinthians. Indeed, no Bible scholar, Christian or non-Christian, argues otherwise.

    Therefore, the reason why Paul never quotes books that had not yet been written is completely obvious, and there’s no need for elaborate theories.

  172. Boxer says:

    Dear Robin:

    Thanks for some interesting responses.

    Yes, there is dispute among scholars about when the Gospels were written, but there is NO dispute that they were written after Paul’s letters. The earliest dates anyone proposes for the Gospels put the earliest of them (Mark) around 70 AD. There is apparently wide consensus among scholars on when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians: around 53-54 AD. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles for bibliographies to follow up on that claim if you doubt it.) So the disagreement over when the Gospels were written in no way nullifies what ASDGamer pointed out: that they were written after 1 Corinthians. Indeed, no Bible scholar, Christian or non-Christian, argues otherwise.

    I’m confused. If you are relying on dates of publication, you’re basically asserting that Christ didn’t ever exist in the flesh. He only existed in the texts of the gospel, and sprang to life after his stories were written down. If this is your position, then it’s a much stronger one than I have, which I’ve explained many times (i.e. the historical Christ isn’t particularly relevant).

    If you’re claiming that the stories in the gospels don’t appear in the works of Rabbi Saul because they weren’t written down yet, then you’re claiming that the stories in the gospel didn’t exist before they were written down.

    When I read history, I read narrative — stories of people — but I expect to find those stories corroborated in eyewitness accounts. When I read mythology, I read about concepts embodied in characters which may or may not have existed. The characters are less important than the concepts. Paul talking about Christ is mythic, largely because his version of Christ is conceptually rich but uncorroborated. To be clear, my own position isn’t as strong as yours. I think Jesus may have existed, but his historical existence isn’t particularly relevant.

    That was my point. When I noted that Paul didn’t tell any of the same stories that existed in the gospels, it was to illustrate the fact that the historical Jesus didn’t figure into the text. The fact that spankboi didn’t understand this isn’t surprising (he’s proven incapable of understanding anything more than kooky flamewars here), but I would be interested in a clarification from you, if you could give me one.

    Best,

    Boxer

  173. Boxer says:

    Dear Robin:

    OKRickety said: “read 1 Corinthians 15 with critical thinking only, ignoring any desire to do literary analysis.” You claim that he meant, “read without thinking.” You are misreading his words just as badly as you are misreading Paul’s.

    Which, in context, means “read the text in the thoughtless way I read it, so that you agree with me — for if you don’t agree with me and kookboi ASDgamer, you’re wrong.”

    I’m less interested in the usual whiny pissing matches that erupt here than I am in learning more about the New Testament, so you’ll forgive me if I ignore this dishonest gossip garbage and skip straight to the relevant parts of your responses in the future.

    Finally, Paul’s claim to have seen Christ on the road to Damascus is a claim to have seen Him. He is not saying this was a symbolic meeting, but a real meeting: that the actual, risen Jesus Christ spoke to him from heaven — he heard His voice and saw Him. THAT is why he lists himself alongside the other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, using the same Greek verb.

    Here’s what the rav actually says in Galatians 1:

    11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    Respectfully, If you’re equating this with a historical observation, you’re missing out on a lot of context, and the author is trying to emphasize the symbolic importance of his meeting (he could have simply fabricated a historical narrative, if he wanted to deemphasize the symbolic nature of his conversion).

    As for using the same Greek verb, it would be more helpful if I understood Greek well. We should note the general happening that most words in natural languages are ambiguous. (A bank is something that can be robbed, and something that can be eroded by a river, etc.) Context is everything.

    Best,

    Boxer

  174. theasdgamer says:

    @ Robin Munn

    Therefore, the reason why Paul never quotes books that had not yet been written is completely obvious, and there’s no need for elaborate theories.

    Don’t expect Boxer to respond to this. He cherry picks his facts so that his fantasy isn’t affected by reality.

  175. theasdgamer says:

    Oh, I should say that the stories about Christ would have occurred prior to the publication of the various gospels, for obvious reasons. Luke gives us a hint about why official gospels were published–there was some controversy about the facts and the official line needed to be codified. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning [b]were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word (Luke 1:1)

    Likely there was some collection of documents we call “Q”. Q was likely a hodge podge of stories from people who knew Jesus. Some people remembered things one way and some another. These memories had to be processed and tested. We get a hint of that in Acts 4:33…And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus

    If miracles were accompanying the apostles, there would have been less need to test things. As the apostles died off, then there would have been a need to codify the events of Jesus’ ministry and to get the story straight. Obviously, there are still difficulties in reconciling the gospel accounts. The fact that there are difficulties in reconciling gospel accounts is strong evidence in favor of their link to reality. That’s simply how eyewitnesses work. We have difficulties reconciling their accounts.

  176. theasdgamer says:

    Boxer fantasized:

    Robin Munn: Finally, Paul’s claim to have seen Christ on the road to Damascus is a claim to have seen Him. He is not saying this was a symbolic meeting, but a real meeting: that the actual, risen Jesus Christ spoke to him from heaven — he heard His voice and saw Him. THAT is why he lists himself alongside the other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, using the same Greek verb.

    Boxer: Here’s what the rav actually says in Galatians 1:

    11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    Oy, vey! Boxer is right! Paul in Galatians must be speaking about his Damascus Road experience! Boxer is being sent to summer school to work on his reading comprehension.

  177. Linx says:

    @ Boxer

    “3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

    Paul clearly state here that the appearance of Jesus to him was no different than the others. Why are you using deconstructionism of Paul’s words?

  178. Boxer says:

    Dear Linx:

    Paul clearly state here that the appearance of Jesus to him was no different than the others.

    He said the opposite of what you purport him to say. Here he is, saying it again:

    11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    If Rav Saul wanted to say what you think he said, he’d have written himself in as a historical witness. He didn’t. This is significant, wouldn’t you say? It suggests that Christ worked in a mythic and symbolic way to convert him, in the same way that Christ has worked to convert so many others, even up to the present day.

    Why are you using deconstructionism of Paul’s words?

    I don’t understand what you mean by “using deconstructionism of”. If you are asking why I’m trying to deduce the meaning of the text, it’s because I went to a Jesuit university for undergrad, and I was trained to do this there (whether one reads St. Paul or Leibniz or Jack London, at base he ought to try to understand the intentions and meanings behind the words).

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  179. Gunner Q says:

    “Good people don’t do good things for some cookie they get afterward. The reward for doing good is inherent in the doing of the good. ”

    The reason we need a Savior is not because we’re good people. I don’t deny myself sex for the reward of not having sex.

  180. OKRickety says:

    @Boxer,

    Knowing that you consider my previous effort a “jumbled wordsalad “, I will keep my responses short, and, hopefully, clear.

    Boxer said:
    “On that note, why do you suppose so many contemporaries of St. Paul had no historical evidence for the historical Jesus?”

    If you’re really interested in the evidence for Jesus, I suggest you look at Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and various works by Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and Ravi Zacharias, among other Christian apologetics.

    You laughed at the “attempt … to date the gospels — given that no one is quite sure when they were written”. To be consistent, you should accept the general consensus among the scholars on the dates. After all, there are “lots of smart peeps to piggy-back off”.

    Boxer said:
    Which, in context, means “read the text in the thoughtless way I read it, so that you agree with me — for if you don’t agree with me and kookboi ASDgamer, you’re wrong.”

    You stated earlier that “both church fathers and secular philosophers have been writing commentary on the text for the past thousand years”. What do they say about this text? I have looked at a few and found that the commentators believe Paul considered the physical reality of Jesus’ resurrection to be of utmost importance to the Christian faith.

    I am still interested in the answers to the following questions. Where did you get the notion that Paul is only concerned with symbolism? Was it your own concept, or did you get it from another source?

    Boxer, I am disappointed at your comments on this post. I believe you are much more capable than you are demonstrating here.

    It’s my opinion that you have already made up your mind on your understanding of this text, and you are unwillling to consider that it might be wrong. You claim you “want to understand the text’, but, in reality, you show no interest in learning, but only in disputing what others say.

  181. @ASDGamer: “The Bible discusses female church employees (deaconesses).”

    No, this is not in the Bible. A 1st Century Roman Historian recorded the crucifixion of 2 women who were “Deacons” of the “Christian Sect.” I think it was Pleny the Elder.

    @Boxer: “St. Paul never recites the stories as they appear in the gospels. Why do you suppose this is?”

    Because he wasn’t there and he was writing theology not a historical Gospel. Your arguments are often insightful but your arguments on this point fail;

    -Paul met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. Jesus actually spoke to him, identified Himself, and gave Paul specific instructions.

    -The Book of Luke, like the other Synoptic Gospels are widely believed to be partially copied from an extant early Gospel with Mathew written (or at least assembled and approved) in the 1st Century by the Apostle himself. Luke, the doctor then used Mathew as a source and interviewed several actual witnesses to the events. The Synoptic Gospels were written in the 1st Century during the life of witnesses to the events. John was probably written in the late 1st or early 2nd Century in response to the Gnostic heresy. I speculate it was the later date and the actual writer was actually a disciple of the Apostle. This was a common literary device in Ancient times.

    -The Corinthians verse you quote is clearly Paul saying “If Jesus is not risen, our faith is in vain.” In fact, that is what it says. Jesus could not be “risen” unless he first lived as a historical reality.

  182. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “He said the opposite of what you purport him to say. Here he is, saying it again:

    11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

    You just proved the point of your deconstructionism. He is talking about the gospel not his Damascus experience. It can’t come from anywhere else but from the risen Christ which Paul says appeared to him as He did to the others. So in order for you to claim other wise you need to prove that the experiences of every single one of the others were symbolic as well.

    “If Rav Saul wanted to say what you think he said, he’d have written himself in as a historical witness.”

    “If”. You are inferring what he should or shouldn’t have done to suit your requirements for historical accuracy. He claimed “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” and his experience as an historical event as it was in similar historical context to the others.

    I agree that understanding the meaning of words is very important that is why I asked you about your use of deconstructionism.
    Are you saying that you were trained to use deconstructionism by the Jesuits?

  183. theasdgamer says:

    @ bpp

    @ASDGamer: “The Bible discusses female church employees (deaconesses).”

    No, this is not in the Bible. A 1st Century Roman Historian recorded the crucifixion of 2 women who were “Deacons” of the “Christian Sect.” I think it was Pleny the Elder.

    Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. The allusion is evidently not to the wives of deacons, but to deaconesses

    A deaconess was merely a female church employee.

    http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/croskery/the_qualifications_of_deaconesses.htm

  184. theasdgamer says:

    You all are giving Boxer waaay too much credibility and attention. The blood has gone and the corpse of his symbolic deconstructionism is beginning to rot.

  185. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    If you are relying on dates of publication, you’re basically asserting that Christ didn’t ever exist in the flesh. He only existed in the texts of the gospel, and sprang to life after his stories were written down.

    What? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Of course I’m not asserting that Christ didn’t exist in the flesh. I’m quite simply explaining why Paul couldn’t quote from books that hadn’t been written yet.

    However, I think I’m starting to understand what you’re saying. You threw me off with your “the historical Christ isn’t particularly relevant,” because He is completely relevant to Paul. Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 15 that the Resurrection truly happened, and makes that a cornerstone of why the Christian faith is true. HOWEVER, it would be correct to say that Paul doesn’t concern himself with most of the historical facts about Jesus — His healings, His parables, and so on. Paul is far more interested in fleshing out the theology about Jesus (e.g., Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, pretty much the entire book of Romans, etc.) than he is in quoting things Jesus did in His time in Galilee.

    If that’s what you mean with your talk about Paul seeing Christ as symbolic, I can sort of agree with you. I still have to repeat that you completely misunderstand 1 Corinthians 15 when you say “St. Paul told all the arguing parties (in the verse I cited) not to worry about history.” That’s the specific chapter where he does cite the evidence that Christ was really, historically, raised from the dead, and it still puzzles me why you misunderstand that chapter so much. It’s utterly clear.

    But for the rest of Paul’s writings, he’s explaining theology, not citing Jesus’ words.

    (BTW, another thing that puzzles me: you said a few days ago that “people in [Jesus’] hometown seem not to have heard about him, right after his death and resurrection.” It looks, from the context of your statement, like you said that in reference to Paul’s writings. But Paul was writing to people scattered around the Greco-Roman world, not people in Jerusalem. When you talk about people in Jesus’ hometown who hadn’t heard about Jesus, whom are you referring to? It can’t be the people Paul’s writing to, that wouldn’t make sense.)

  186. theasdgamer says:

    In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul begins with a foundation of the gospel that Jesus is the Christ, based on references to messianic prophecies from the OT about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection which were yet future when those prophecies were first penned. Paul uses the eyewitness testimony as evidence that Jesus in fact fulfilled those prophecies and that Jesus in fact is the Christ who was to come. We see emphatic references to those OT prophecies by way of repetition and we emphasis put on Jesus’ resurrection by way of Paul’s repetitive use of eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Hence, Paul’s statement of the gospel here forces us to conclude that Jesus in fact did rise from the dead and that Jesus in fact is the Christ. Paul isn’t attempting to persuade the Corinthians of any of this. Paul is stating the gospel again for purpose of clarity to launch into dealing with the topic at hand–that some Corinthians were saying that people can’t rise from the dead. Paul argues that if people can’t rise from the dead, then Jesus can’t rise from the dead. If Jesus can’t rise from the dead, then the Corinthians were still in their sins and their faith was vain.

  187. theasdgamer says:

    Correction:

    “We see emphatic references to those OT prophecies by way of repetition and we see emphasis put on Jesus’ resurrection…”

  188. Fried Chicken says:

    I know that this is unrelated, but is there anything to make of this?:

  189. Cane Caldo says:

    Two points about Boxer’s comments on Jesus and His resurrection as symbols.

    1) They are as old as Christianity. Jewish leaders, Romans, and later Muslims have all tried these same tactics of diverting the Gospel from history into mere philosophy. I expect, given Boxer’s breadth of reading, it is from these sources which he regurgitates.

    2) The text is easy to understand as history. One has to work hard, as a sophist, to twist it into mere symbolism. In fact one can’t get the symbolism (which is indeed there) unless one first accepts the history as literal. A prime example of this is Boxer’s claim that no good will come from acts that aren’t 100% motivated by some abstract idea of good. Small problem: No one knows that good unless they have first had its benefit. That is: You don’t really know how good healing is until you’ve been healed. A doctor who sets bones for a fee heals bones can do so as well as one who does it for it moral superiority. The idea of an abstract altruism is wholly bankrupt. It’s like praising a fruit plant that bears no fruit that is good to eat because it looks like a fruit plant which would have edible fruit.

  190. Boxer says:

    Dear Fried Chicken:

    I know that this is unrelated, but is there anything to make of this?

    Those of us in the ‘sphere will find it easy to decipher, as it’s yet another attempt by a faithless* woman to blame her husband for her own shortcomings. By all accounts, the “abuse” the poor damsel keeps whining about is limited to minor shouting matches, conducted over the phone, while her husband was imprisoned on the other side of the world — making all her other claims suspect.

    The idea that Saeed needs counseling is not a bad one; but I doubt he needs marriage counseling. He just got back to the USA after a very stressful situation lasting years, to find his wife holding their kids hostage and threatening divorce. I’d probably suggest he gets someone to talk to.

    While I think divorce is almost always abhorrent, his wife is behaving so abominably that I wouldn’t fault him if he filed himself, at this point. She really needs to quit being such a solipsist, and that might slap some reality into her. Naturally, he won’t do this, as he’s a much better man than I am and follows the Bible which precludes him from doing so.

    Regards,

    Boxer

    *note that by “faithless” I don’t mean that she had physical sex with some third party. I have no evidence she ever did. Her betrayal of her husband is less carnal than personal. It’s still betrayal and I think she should be ashamed of herself.

  191. Dalrock says:

    @Fried Chicken

    I know that this is unrelated, but is there anything to make of this?:

    Her problem is that she laid down an ultimatum and he didn’t flinch. Now she has to either continue dishing dirty laundry in public, or suffer the fate of lack of attention. Saeed can call for revival, etc, and the media will pick it up. With Saeed back in the country, Naghmeh has to focus on Saeed if she wants a hit from the attention crackpipe.

    What makes this look especially bad is she has yet to hug him and welcome him home. All of her claims to love him are belied by this obvious omission. So now she is stuck trying to make the claim that very few will believe, while trotting out their children as hostages. It is ugly business, and the comments over at Charisma news prove that she isn’t able to sell it as anything but ugly.

  192. Fried Chicken says:

    I’m worried about the example of marriage this behavior will set for young/weak/immature believers.

  193. theasdgamer says:

    The text is easy to understand as history. One has to work hard, as a sophist, to twist it into mere symbolism. In fact one can’t get the symbolism (which is indeed there) unless one first accepts the history as literal. A prime example of this is Boxer’s claim that no good will come from acts that aren’t 100% motivated by some abstract idea of good. Small problem: No one knows that good unless they have first had its benefit. That is: You don’t really know how good healing is until you’ve been healed. A doctor who sets bones for a fee heals bones can do so as well as one who does it for it moral superiority. The idea of an abstract altruism is wholly bankrupt. It’s like praising a fruit plant that bears no fruit that is good to eat because it looks like a fruit plant which would have edible fruit.

    Welcome to Team Dullards.

    The Alexandrians spiritualized scripture, but they never denied its fundamental meaning. Boxer says that the fundamental meaning is irrelevant. Yeah, like resurrection from the dead and a pardon from everlasting torment are irrelevant. But, you know, Boxer is a Bright and friendly to Christians. Big of him.

    I scored this last round for Team Dullards.

  194. Boxer says:

    Dear spankboi:

    Welcome to Team Dullards. The Alexandrians spiritualized scripture, but they never denied its fundamental meaning. Boxer says that the fundamental meaning is irrelevant. Yeah, like resurrection from the dead and a pardon from everlasting torment are irrelevant. But, you know, Boxer is a Bright and friendly to Christians. Big of him. I scored this last round for Team Dullards.

    I write articles that pass peer review and get published in journals. You play the fool on the internet at all hours of the day and night.

    If that’s what you call victory, you are welcome to it.

    Until next time,

    Boxer

  195. Linx says:

    @ Boxer

    “I write articles that pass peer review and get published in journals.”

    You do realise that an Appeal to Accomplishment is a logical fallacy right?

  196. Boxer says:

    Dear Linx:

    You do realise that an Appeal to Accomplishment is a logical fallacy right?

    It would be, if it were used to bolster some sort of proposition. In this case, it’s a casual observation and an accurate reflection of the character of the parties above.

    You’re clearly in correct company here, and am pleased that you’ve found your proper place. Kindly remain there. lol

    Regards,

    Boxer

  197. Linx says:

    @ Boxer

    Appeal to Accomplishments
    “Example #2:
    I hold a doctorate in theology, have written 12 books, and personally met the Pope. Therefore, when I say that Jesus’ favorite snack was raisins dipped in wine, you should believe me.”

    So are you saying that your position on the symbolism by Paul was incorrect?

  198. Boxer says:

    Linx:

    You and spankboi are simply here to derail serious discussions. Cane Caldo does this also (he was called out by Lyn87 a while back) but at least he does it at a somewhat higher level (I actually learn new things when he does it, in other words).

    The difference between you guys and me is quite simple. I come here to argue ideas, and you guys come here to make yourselves feel better about having no real-world accomplishments. I can hack being wrong, but my time is valuable. You see me ignoring you as some sort of sign of weakness because this is your paradigm. It’s laughable, and pathetic, but ultimately no one really cares except guys like you.

    Meaningless online conflict clearly satisfies some weird psychological need for you guys, so I don’t care if you do it (I probably would if this were my own blog, but it’s not). At the same time, I don’t get anything out of feeding into your bizarre behavior and don’t really care what you guys think (really, if anyone did, you wouldn’t go online and act this way).

    With this in mind, please keep going. Occasionally I’ll find you guys funny, but you should really know your place. What you imagine as some sort of competition is actually an attempt by your elders and betters to come closer to a truth you are incapable of approaching.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  199. Linx says:

    @ Boxer

    “You see me ignoring you as some sort of sign of weakness because this is your paradigm.”

    A lion doesn’t loose sleep over the opinions of sheep. So why does the fact that you are ignoring me bother you?

    “It’s laughable, and pathetic, but ultimately no one really cares except guys like you.”

    This is you showing weakness because you contradicted yourself by caring enough to reply to a post but yet claim that no one cares. So how many people does it take for someone to care?

    “Occasionally I’ll find you guys funny, but you should really know your place.

    And what place would that be?

    “What you imagine as some sort of competition is actually an attempt by your elders and betters to come closer to a truth you are incapable of approaching.”

    What elders and betters? You are the one who claimed to be taught by Jesuits…. not me.

    And as for your claims of the truth “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6.
    I am interested to know as to what your authority for truth is. Would you mind telling me?

  200. theasdgamer says:

    @ Linx

    Boxer is one of the Brights, donchaknow. lol

    @ Bright Boy

    I write articles that pass peer review and get published in journals.

    Good for you. You get a cookie. [ht to Don Rickles]

    You play the fool on the internet at all hours of the day and night.

    Obviously, I have a long way to go to achieve your expertise at playing the fool. But i’ll keep trying to improve!

  201. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    I take your comment as praise, generally. Thanks! Nor do I have a bone to pick with you; though I did with Lyn87; who was a prig. I usually enjoy your comments; including those in this thread.

    I come here to argue ideas, and you guys come here to make yourselves feel better about having no real-world accomplishments.

    Im not sure whether you include me in that group, but either way–and aside from the irrelevance of awards granted by dubious groups–it is a curious line to take for one who argues for the supremacy of symbolism.

  202. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    Im not sure whether you include me in that group

    I’m mainly sore that you didn’t jump in before the argument burned out. I like Lyn87 for the same reasons I like you, and I’m sure he got personal also.

    it is a curious line to take for one who argues for the supremacy of symbolism.

    A few days ago I argued for its relevance in the life and work of St. Paul, but not really for the supremacy of it. That was yesterday’s catfight, though. Hope to catch you at the next one.

    Best,

    Boxer

  203. theasdgamer says:

    @ Linx

    Anyone who has to brag about their accomplishments in order to show social value is a boor. That was what my retort was supposed to show.

    I take on a lower class charade in order to poke fun at UMC pricks.

  204. theasdgamer says:

    @ Linx

    “What you imagine as some sort of competition is actually an attempt by your elders and betters to come closer to a truth you are incapable of approaching.”

    What elders and betters? You are the one who claimed to be taught by Jesuits…. not me.

    And as for your claims of the truth “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6.
    I am interested to know as to what your authority for truth is. Would you mind telling me?

    A better question is what he means by “truth”.

  205. Linx says:

    @ theasdgamer.
    “A better question is what he means by “truth”.”

    On several occasions he makes it clear that he is here to argue points, not learn the truth. [His ad hominem towards me for asking nothing more than a question, and ignoring it, showed that.] So that is why I asked his standard to understand what exactly I am ,according to him, “incapable of approaching”.

    Because all truth comes from God and Him alone. Boxer claims otherwise but does not give any authority for said claim of this self proclaimed nebulous “truth”.

  206. OKRickety says:

    Boxer,

    You said “I write articles that pass peer review and get published in journals.”

    Perhaps you have said in the past, but as I do not know, what is your field of study?

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

  208. Pingback: Who is she teaching? | Dalrock

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