Maybe in a thousand years.

As promised, Pastor Doug Wilson revisits the question of whether women should ever be punished for having an abortion:

So the question is this. Should women who procure abortions be charged with anything? Should there be any penalty? Ever?

Wilson breaks this into two parts.  The first part involves the foreseeable future, and for this Wilson maintains his previous answer;   no, since even after a law has been passed making abortion illegal we can’t expect women to know better.

But he does allow for the possibility of holding women accountable a thousand years from now, assuming everything lines up just right:

But the second question concerns an ideal biblical republic, and involves the logic of the thing. If abortion is murder, then who is the murderer? And even if the murderer is the abortionist, on what grounds could we possibly say that the mother can never be complicit?

So say that all this postmillennialism stuff is true, and a thousand years from now we have believing magistrates, a faithful people in the main, biblical laws, and all those unfortunate people who were born with a critical spirit have no scope for their blogging talents. Everything in the civil realm is exactly as it ought to be. What would the case be then? Could there be any penalty then? The answer here is of course, but it is an of course that requires very careful exposition.

This entry was posted in Abortion, Pastor Doug Wilson, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to Maybe in a thousand years.

  1. Pingback: Maybe in a thousand years. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Maybe in a thousand years. – Manosphere.com

  3. bkilbour says:

    If women are “ignorant” to the point of waiting until Jesus clarifies things in the Millenium, then we ought to punish them the same way we punish those who commit negligent manslaughter. Done. Case Closed.
    I also recommend punishment of negligent manslaughter be public beating, being tarred and feathered, then a minimum of three years in low security prison.

  4. Looking Glass says:

    I reiterate my point about Pastor Wilson being ashamed of the Gospel.

  5. Carlotta says:

    There is this constant bleeting by the sheep that people like this man are just misguided sheep. I have seen this with MacArthur, Osteen, etc. They are wolves. They are ravaging wolves. They are here to attack from within. They aren’t misguided. They aren’t scared. They are eating us alive but we keep saying it isn’t possible, because sheep skin.

    By their fruits.

  6. anonymous_ng says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/05/the-darker-link-between-ancient-human-sacrifice-and-our-modern-world/

    With eyes, but they can’t see the human sacrifice happening every day around them on the alter of female convenience.

  7. Doug Wilson is a smart guy. He be better if he were Catholic.

  8. It’s not going to take a thousand years for our Lord to take corrective action. He is a merciful God and He is not going to let these abominations go on in perpetuity. Anyone that has bothered picking up the Bible can see what He thinks about the shedding of innocent blood. Spot the nuance:

    Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood. (Ezekiel 16:20-22).

    And God’s carefully “exposited” judgement:

    Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them; Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness. And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare. They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords. And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more. So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry. Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith the Lord GOD: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations. (Ezekiel 16:35-43)

    And of course we know that “Pastor” Wilson is sitting a “queen” who sinneth not.

    Judgement is coming swiftly, the Lord is merciful.

  9. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Much like unilateral no-fault-divorce, legalized abortion is PURELY the result of feminism. Feminist empowerment (via government authority) is PURELY the result of giving women the right to vote. The root of the problem is women having voice in government, I truly believe that. Were it not for women having the right to vote, instead of having almost 55,000,000 murdered unborn since 1973, we’d be down to a couple million performed unlawfully over that period of time. This is a no brainer. Women have no business voting.

  10. God is Laughing says:

    Also, my Bible reads of an Iron Rod rule. I don’t see a Democracy in God’s kingdom. It’s telling that Wilson thinks that his vote is going to count.

    Republics have long been viewed the enemies of monarchies.

  11. Joe says:

    The punishment is already upon us. I’m not sure it requires God to be here personally to administer it – the function of natural law is such that violations often lead to punishments without external application of force to change the course of events. Populations of the native born are cratering in Europe, leading to an influx of hostile immigrants. So too here in the US. We see a callousness toward human life and a movement for assisted suicide that will intersect pretty soon with the federal movement to cut health care costs. Society as a whole is much ruder, cruder and more debased than it has ever been. Partly this is due to feminism, and largely it is due to the secular left wing neo Marxist tool that has wielded feminism as one of its tools to destroy conventional morality, belief in god, and silly outmoded traditions like not killing and exploiting the young, and respecting our elders.

    All this starts with the legal and social devaluing of the human life of the weakest among us. The punishment has started; and in all likelihood it has only just begin.

  12. Fifty Seven says:

    “If abortion is murder, then who is the murderer?”

    If you hire a hitman to kill someone, and he does, and gets caught, he goes to jail… But guess what, so do you. Talking about who, exactly, meets the definition of murder is splitting hairs. Paying someone to break the law (be it secular or moral) is an offence in and of itself.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Fifty Seven

    If you hire a hitman to kill someone, and he does, and gets caught, he goes to jail… But guess what, so do you. Talking about who, exactly, meets the definition of murder is splitting hairs. Paying someone to break the law (be it secular or moral) is an offence in and of itself.

    If you read both of his articles on the topic, it is clear that Wilson sees abortion as a unique category of crime. I can’t imagine he objects to fines for parking violations, or any of a the multitude of laws which require penalties without proving that the violator had a perfect understanding of why such an action is morally wrong. For everything else, whether the action is morally wrong or not, if you break the law there is expected to be some form of punishment. Abortion is by Wilson’s argument unique; somehow because it is highly immoral there can be no punishment for it unless the perpetrator fully understands why the law was passed in the first place.

    But even this claim falls flat, because Wilson claims abortion doctors understand the moral problem with what they are doing. Yet morality isn’t a medical question, and I think it is safe to assume that abortion doctors as a class believe that what they are doing is moral.

  14. God is Laughing says:

    And the fetus will lie down with his killer mother…..

  15. Dalrock says:

    Commenter Barnabas on Wilson’s post nails it:

    You know how a woman might come to understand abortion as murder? If the law called it murder. Another way would be Christian pastors calling it murder instead of squirting a big cloud of squid ink.

  16. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Dalrock, sidebar….

    But even this claim falls flat, because Wilson claims abortion doctors understand the moral problem with what they are doing. Yet morality isn’t a medical question, and I think it is safe to assume that abortion doctors as a class believe that what they are doing is moral.

    My brother-in-law is a medical doctor. I’ve talked to him about this. He said it is getting increasingly difficult to get a legalized abortion (anywhere) not because the law is making it difficult. Instead because more and more, medical doctors are realizing what they are doing when they perform an abortion, how immoral it is! And more and more (particularly the younger ones) are choosing NEVER to be an architect to the construction of this horror.

    The AMA knows that it can not FORCE any medical doctor to perform a surgery against their will. And the first thing a medical doctor does before he begins his career is utter the Hippocratic Oath, I shall harm no one. A medical doctor KNOWS that he or she is murdering an unborn child when they perform an abortion. Stands to reason why it is getting increasingly more difficult finding one willing to do that. And no, my brother-in-law would never perform that surgery.

  17. feeriker says:

    Once again, the fact that 1) Wilson can write this nonsense without feeling terminal embarrassment, and 2) that enough people still follow him that he remains widely published speaks volumes about the degenerate state of modern American Christianity.

    Truly sickening.

  18. God is Laughing says:

    @Fiftyseven, if by “hiring a murderer” you mean paying someone to eviscerate a close family member while you hold them in your arms while trying to ignore their thrashing and screams I think you might be onto something.

    It’s not like we’re picking up the phone and issuing a fatwah on Salman Rushdie here.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Freeriker

    Once again, the fact that 1) Wilson can write this nonsense without feeling terminal embarrassment, and 2) that enough people still follow him that he remains widely published speaks volumes about the degenerate state of modern American Christianity.

    Truly sickening.

    Wilson is by far in the majority here, and he is on the bleeding edge of the amount of culpability mainstream Christian culture will accept being assigned to women. To the extent that he has a following despite his views, the despite part is due to his willingness to in theory in extreme corner cases hold a hypothetical woman accountable. After all, he would not violently object to theoretically holding a woman accountable for having an abortion if she herself was an abortion doctor. He also allows for the possibility of holding at least some other theoretical women accountable a thousand years from now assuming a perfect social structure was in place. This puts him on the bleeding edge of complementarians, and if we are honest outside of what most complementarians consider polite company.

  20. anonymous_ng says:

    The Hippocratic Oath is perhaps more myth than reality.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-myth-of-the-hippocratic-oath-201511258447

  21. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    But even this claim falls flat, because Wilson claims abortion doctors understand the moral problem with what they are doing. Yet morality isn’t a medical question, and I think it is safe to assume that abortion doctors as a class believe that what they are doing is moral.

    My brother-in-law is a medical doctor. I’ve talked to him about this. He said it is getting increasingly difficult to get a legalized abortion (anywhere) not because the law is making it difficult. Instead because more and more, medical doctors are realizing what they are doing when they perform an abortion, how immoral it is! And more and more (particularly the younger ones) are choosing NEVER to be an architect to the construction of this horror.

    Yet this tends to corroborate my suspicion that the ones who do abortions don’t see it as wrong. The ones who see it as wrong are avoiding the practice. My point was that Wilson (and the rest of the movement) has set a uniquely high bar with regard to criminalizing abortion. For abortion, and I assume only for abortion, he argues that only if the person breaking the law understands why what they are doing is an abomination to God should any form of penalty apply. Thus if the abortion doctor is a feminist true believer, I don’t see how we could pass a law which even required him to pay a $30 fine.

  22. @Dalrock: “Thus if the abortion doctor is a feminist true believer, I don’t see how we could pass a law which even required him to pay a $30 fine.”

    I’m sure we’ll eventually be able to work all of that out in God’s Republic…..

  23. Gunnar von Cowtown says:

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around this.

    It’s one thing when Churchian pastors run cover for carousel riders and “”heroic”” single mothers, but Trump has exposed something far more sinister here. The reality that leaders of the pro-life movement think women who have abortions don’t understand what they’re doing is wrong is absolutely stupefying. There is no other logical conclusion one can draw other than they sincerely believe women have no agency, moral or otherwise.

    Even the alleged “patriarchy” was never this patronizing.

  24. So if a woman wants to abort a man’s child against his desire for her to have it, and that man has no legal or social recourse to compel that woman to carry that child to term for him, and a doctor performs the abortion, and male pastors insist that it’s evil men who are to be held accountable for women’s decisions to abort a child – who is the murderer in this scenario?

  25. Usagi says:

    It seems Wilson does not think women are capable of understanding right from wrong. Perhaps he missed the accounts of Eve, Priscilla, etc. Seeking an abortion is wrong and women who do so should be punished.

  26. It is an indictment of how deeply insaturated the Feminine Imperative has sunk into modern Christianity that adherents and leaders alike will fundamentally alter core doctrines to accommodate women’s roles and responsibility in abortion.

  27. Wood Chipper says:

    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/rise-evangelical-feminism

    Have you guys heard? Apparently the church is starting to become feminist friendly, lol.

  28. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Yet this tends to corroborate my suspicion that the ones who do abortions don’t see it as wrong. The ones who see it as wrong are avoiding the practice.

    That is correct. The ones who DO perform the abortions see it as nothing, see what they are doing as just a minor operation to fix a major problem. And the medical doctors who dignify the abortionists as the murderers that they are, of course they would never take part in this enterprise.

  29. Damn Crackers says:

    This opinion is being held in Western countries like Sweden and soon to be Canada where we see no punishment for the prostitute but only for the John.

  30. Damn Crackers says:

    BTW, are we still ok with abortion prior to the Quickening?

  31. feeriker says:

    I’m sure we’ll eventually be able to work all of that out in God’s Republic…..

    “God’s Republic:” isn’t that what huge numbers of American evangelicals already believe the USA to be?

  32. Pingback: Maybe in a thousand years. | Reaction Times

  33. feeriker says:

    “It is an indictment of how deeply insaturated the Feminine Imperative has sunk into modern Christianity that adherents and leaders alike will fundamentally alter core doctrines to accommodate women’s roles and responsibility in everything that their feral hypergamous impulses demand, especially abortion.”

    Fixed, for comprehensiveness and additional clarity.

  34. @feeriker, So long as our military (and politicians) never forgets their primary mission as defenders of the “Holy Land”.

  35. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Crackers

    This opinion is being held in Western countries like Sweden and soon to be Canada where we see no punishment for the prostitute but only for the John.

    In the victimless crime sense, this is the exact opposite of saying there should be no punishment for the illegal drug user. Only the drug dealer should be punished. Which is basically where our current political narrative is. But this narrative (for both the whore and the drug user) makes perfect sense if you dignify the feminist imperative as the ultimate arbiter of who is to be punished, and who is not.

  36. Barnabas says:

    Rollo or others. I’d like to introduce other Christians to the concept of feminine imperative but I can’t seem to find a good summation. One post at The Rational Male goes into female social interactions at time of estrus and frankly these people are too squeamish to jump right into that type of biology. Could you point me towards some good material.

  37. Looking Glass says:

    @Damn Crackers:

    /asks forgiveness for this joke:

    What’s Highlander have to do with this?
    🙂

  38. Looking Glass says:

    @Barnabas:

    You could poke through Deep Strength’s or Donal’s work. They might have it summed up in a more acceptable manner for your social circle.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    If you read both of his articles on the topic, it is clear that Wilson sees abortion as a unique category of crime. I can’t imagine he objects to fines for parking violations, or any of a the multitude of laws which require penalties without proving that the violator had a perfect understanding of why such an action is morally wrong. For everything else, whether the action is morally wrong or not, if you break the law there is expected to be some form of punishment.

    Abortion is by Wilson’s argument unique; somehow because it is highly immoral there can be no punishment for it unless the perpetrator fully understands why the law was passed in the first place.

    I am not a lawyer but there is such a thing as “Mens Rea”, the state of mind involved. It’s the difference between manslaughter and murder in the first degree – driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian you didn’t see vs. driving down the sidewalk aiming at people.

    In the US and probably most other places, ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse, either. So what Wilson is doing is overturning all of US law, the inherited English common law, and pretty much the entire Judeo-Christian law code all the way back in time, in order to extend a pass to women. He’d rather destroy the legal system than declare a woman guilty of a crime.

    But even this claim falls flat, because Wilson claims abortion doctors understand the moral problem with what they are doing. Yet morality isn’t a medical question, and I think it is safe to assume that abortion doctors as a class believe that what they are doing is moral.

    Good point, Wilson’s premise is wrong, therefore everything he builds on top of it is without meaning. And yes, those doctors who do abortions tend to believe what they are doing is moral, just, and right. How much of that is rationalization, or groupthink, I can’t say. It doesn’t really matter.

    Bottom line:
    Wilson is willing to toss out the 10 Commandments in order to spare women’s precious feewings.
    In fact, that would be one challenge to put to him.

  40. Damn Crackers says:

    @Looking Glass

    “There can be only one!”

  41. There is no legal justification for criminalizing the actions of abortion doctors but not abortion recipients. Level of ignorance is more of a mitigating factor than a defense. Yet when it comes to Christian pro lifers, I humbly suggest that pragmatism is more at work than feminism/fear of disapproval. Pragmatically, criminally pursuing women who abort is a losing position.

    Imagine the blow back if major pro-life groups and Christian figures promoted the idea of criminal penalty. Rather than saving unborn babies who are at risk today, they would be putting those very lives in more danger. B/c it just more evidence that pro-lifers are “crazy radicals” to be ignored.

    The pro life movement folks on the front lines of the abortion battle understand this:

    “the pro-life movement is led by millions of women who had abortions and now deeply regret their decisions, thanks to a change of heart, or a religious conversion or a simply understanding that they took the life of their own child.” http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/05/donald-trump-flip-flops-saying-its-ok-to-punish-women-who-have-abortions-not-a-wrong-answer/

    Given that many pro-life activists had abortions without criminal consequences, and given the fact that they personally know how difficult it was to come to the horrible truth about what they did, how are they expected to hop on board with criminally punishing all those that come after them?

    I know this is a male space so thanks for letting me throw this into the mix. You guys can tell me how wrongheaded I am now.

    Linda

  42. Looking Glass says:

    @Wood Chipper:

    Clicked over to the writer of that article’s personal website. Scroll down to the last picture at the bottom.

    http://www.jorymicah.com/about/my-interests/

    A picture can be worth a lot of words, but that really does tell you most of what you need to know about both of them.

  43. Looking Glass says:

    Oh, my friends, have fun. This is just beyond more than shooting fish in a barrel.

    https://twitter.com/jorymicah

  44. @Linda. Politics are for politicians. This nation needs a revival and that means Godly men and prophets, not lickspittle pantwaists with wetted fingers on the wind. Short of that this country is toast. It’s not going to repent by inches, it’s going to repent in sackcloth and ashes or it’s going to burn. Poll that.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Linda

    There is no legal justification for criminalizing the actions of abortion doctors but not abortion recipients. Level of ignorance is more of a mitigating factor than a defense. Yet when it comes to Christian pro lifers, I humbly suggest that pragmatism is more at work than feminism/fear of disapproval. Pragmatically, criminally pursuing women who abort is a losing position.

    Taking this as a defense of Wilson, it is a claim that he is lying when he says it would be unjust to punish a woman (in any way) for obtaining an illegal abortion. It is a claim that he and the rest of the movement are using guile when they accuse Trump of not having thought the issue through. It is I would say a very odd defense, but it shows how untenable his position is that one would be inclined to offer it as a defense at all.

  46. embracingreality says:

    Considering a statistical 85 percent of those seeking abortion aren’t married does the evangelical movement in this country believe these women should even be considered guilty of what their bible defines as fornication? Biblically fornication was punishable in the same manner as murder by God’s law. If they’re not guilty of murder as the result of abortion 85% of them are, in God’s eyes, already guilty of an equal sin anyway. The “church” needs to keep its nose out of the business of sinners.

    The US as a collective is an immoral nation of immoral people. Women, most of whom are immoral enough to vote supporting abortion rights, have the right to vote, are the largest voting demographic. The abortion question in the US is a dead issue for this reason. The church needs to judge itself and vote for the lesser evil, thats all.

  47. Dalrock,

    Thanks for your response! To clarify, I wasn’t defending Wilson’s position. I was arguing against his attempt to find legal justification, but also against the idea of criminal penalties. Pragmatism may be my moral failing, but to me if it won’t help, don’t go there.

  48. The Question says:

    To put it bluntly, one has to wonder if their trepidation in calling out women who have abortions is that they are afraid of finding out just how many “Christian” women have had abortions themselves. Or the least how many are sympathetic toward those who do. If he called it murder, he would certainly find out by the amount of outrage. As Whittaker Chambers noted, innocence rarely shrieks. Guilt does.

    One has to wonder how many “church” women have had one night stands and hookups in their past that involved at least “pregnancy scare.” If the results turned out negative, before finding out how many of them contemplated an abortion?

    So we’re not really just talking about women who had an abortion. It’s also an indictment against those who have just thought of having one.

    Maybe men like Wilson are afraid of pulling up the carpet because they don’t want to know how bad the rot is underneath the floor.

  49. PokeSalad says:

    There is no other logical conclusion one can draw other than they sincerely believe women have no agency, moral or otherwise.

    But they have no issue with woman pastors “unpacking” Scripture for other women and men (Beth Moore, et al)…..because that is a benefit and empowering. Being held accountable for abortion is a punishment and disempowering.

    Christian women are free to move from empowerment to agency to helplessness to sinlessness and back as the emotions and circumstances indicate, without contradiction. What was that pop song a few years ago….”I’m a bitch, Im a mother, Im a sinner, Im a saint, Im not ashamed……” blah blah blah.

  50. Mike T says:

    I wonder if my comment will even stay up…

    As far as natural degree of culpability, the problem with that argument is that the law does not recognize selective false beliefs as a problem of knowledge except where the defendant is criminally insane. When a woman says that a child is just a clump of cells, that is a false belief, not a lack of knowledge. She is almost certainly aware of the arguments against that belief, but chooses to not believe them. That is different from someone is criminally insane, ie actually so off their rocker that their false beliefs can be legitimately accused of deranged knowledge for the purpose of culpability. A total whacko is not even mentally in a position to challenge their own beliefs and arrive at true beliefs.

    Realistically, a woman who murders an unborn child because of her false beliefs about its humanity is roughly on par with a white racist who declares blacks a species of monkey and says he was just putting down an animal when murdering a black person. That’s about how little culpability coverage the false belief naturally provides since it is something that a reasonable person should know is false and only holds to be true as a matter of convenience to sustain a preferred worldview.

  51. technovelist says:

    OT but this is an interesting and somewhat atypical story of a woman with an N of 1 who is having trouble finding someone to marry her. Do you have advice for her? http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/326801-can-anybody-find-me-somebody-love.html

  52. AnonS says:

    What happens when better abortion pills are developed? Do you only punish the doctor prescribing them? What happens when they are over the counter, do you have to punish only the store?

  53. bkilbour says:

    How about… taking away the right to vote of any woman who gets an abortion? Let’s make them choose between sacrificing their children to Moloch or continuing to worship “empowerment” (ie., worship of self).
    Then let the beatings and tarring begin. It’s simple, really. We need to send a message, and it;s not being sent loud enough.

  54. The argument from pragmatism isn’t actually true. There are men and women who go to the mills and plead with women not to murder their babies. And sometimes the women repent and the baby is saved.

  55. thedeti says:

    perhaps someone else has mentioned this before.

    Before 1973 when many states had laws on their books outlawing abortion, many of those “abortion is illegal” states imposed criminal penalties on women who procured abortions for themselves. Both the physician who performed the abortion AND the pregnant woman who procured it were criminally liable. So was anyone else who was involved. If you paid the physician’s fee, you were liable. If you arranged for the physician to perform the procedure, you were liable. Anyone who “procured” or “caused” an abortion was liable.

    That sure has changed now.

  56. This reminds me a bit of the cannibals from “Lucifer’s Hammer”. Once you had eaten human flesh you were part of the ravening mob, participation in the abomination was a one way ticket to “Reaver” class. So it seems with abortion. How much has the “Church” already compromised? And how willing are we to be seen as social pariahs for recognizing (let alone cutting away) the gangrene?

  57. Boxer says:

    Jeremy:

    Great video! I wish there was a pro-life atheist/agnostic video, even if it was just on youtube, for me to share with my friends.

    Secular types tend to pride themselves on facts and evidence. I think if a narrator worked at dropping the realtalk like “the baby’s organs are all fully differentiated at 8 weeks” and perhaps put up stats on people who procure abortions (I imagine they tend to be much less intelligent and less successful than the mean) for an hour, it’d be a worthy project.

    Atheists seem to have endless amounts of money to donate to films like “The God Who Wasn’t There” (a film documenting the historical notion that Jesus never existed – big fucking deal and of no practical import to anyone but them) but they seem too cowardly to talk about something with real-world implications.

    Boxer

  58. Splash man says:

    Here’s a female writing for The Federalist (conservative blog):

    Why Pro-Lifers Don’t Support Punishing Women For Abortion

    Fair warning: the mental contortions necessary for navigating her explanation will likely give you a headache.

  59. Okay I’m gonna compulsively clarify my clarification. I agree with the ultimate conclusion: “criminal penalty for the woman is a bad idea.” It’s Wilson’s reasoning process (basically legal pretzels) that I don’t agree with. I’d rather admit that legal logic is not on my side, and admit to being pragmatic about it.

    The article Neguy shared above puts it better than I did. Almost convinces me that pragmatism is the moral choice: “An unborn child is precious, and the decision to have it killed is terrible indeed. . . . As champions of life, we know that mothers and babies are intimately connected. It’s generally quite difficult to help the latter by threatening the former. Progressive liberals frequently speak as though mothers and children are natural enemies. We try to avoid making that same mistake.”

  60. embracingreality says:

    Excellent comment above by “The Question”.

    I’ve seen very little research on the sexual behaviors of Christian (read churchian) people in their youth and there is considerable motivation for Christian organizations Not to conduct them. As “The question” pointed out it’s avoidance of “pulling up the carpet because they don’t want to know how bad the rot is underneath the floor”. The sexual revolution is 50 years old now, started by feminism, and the church has had minimal effectiveness in persuading even it’s own women from riding the carousel. What ground or authority do they have to influence non-believers regarding abortion when the women in their own house are nearly as bad?

    Churchian harlots are better than worldly harlots because they don’t abort the fruit of their fornications?

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Linda

    The article Neguy shared above puts it better than I did. Almost convinces me that pragmatism is the moral choice:

    I have sympathy for the pragmatic argument that we can’t hope to pass a law which imposed penalties on the mother, so we should focus on a law we can pass. This however is very different than what we have seen, which is a claim that if Trump had thought things through he would have of course realized that the mother seeking the abortion is a victim and it would be unjust to have any punishment for her doing so (at least for the next one thousand years, unless she is an abortionist herself).

    “An unborn child is precious, and the decision to have it killed is terrible indeed. . . . As champions of life, we know that mothers and babies are intimately connected. It’s generally quite difficult to help the latter by threatening the former. Progressive liberals frequently speak as though mothers and children are natural enemies. We try to avoid making that same mistake.”

    This particular argument reminds me of the joke about the Menendez brothers pleading for leniency on account of the fact they were orphans. Here a mother who killed her child is said to deserve leniency because she is the mother of a murdered child.

  62. Gunner Q says:

    I think the key phrase in Wilson’s ideal world is “believing magistrates”. That would mean someone else is punishing women so he doesn’t have to, right? This world is also a republic so he’d have wiggle room to vote for women while acknowledging Jesus won the election. And of course, there only *could* be a penalty, if things are done very carefully, because it cannot be a utopia if feelgood doesn’t excuse everything.

    feeriker @ 12:35 pm:
    “I’m sure we’ll eventually be able to work all of that out in God’s Republic….. “God’s Republic:” isn’t that what huge numbers of American evangelicals already believe the USA to be?

    It used to be a popular belief of Americans that the USA was the “Israel” referred to in Revelation. We were, after all, the greatest and most devout Christian nation on the planet, founded from nothing by devout men following the “Exodus” to the New World. The re-emergence of literal Israel in the 1940’s was a fatal blow. I sometimes wonder if the Baby Boomer enthusiasm for Israel came from transferring their love of America, and if a newfound feeling of religious inadequacy led them to embrace the mostly Jewish first-wave feminists. Feminism would have happened anyway but maybe not as fast or completely.

    At the same time, some Christians reacted to Israel’s return by accusing Israel of being an evil copycat of the ‘real’ Israel, the USA. The reasoning got absurd and collapsed into the Christian Identity movement, Protestant extremists allied with white supremacists. But they were never violent enough to be noticed by general society.

  63. I don’t know Gunnar. A thorough reading of the conditions of the covenant given in Deuteronomy (for one) should lead believers to the conclusion that Israel is less than as advertised. If you want to call that secular/Talmudic state committed to holding their end of the covenant up, possessing the land in righteousness, be my guest.

    As for me I guess I’m extreme enough to take the Lord at His word: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

    And the Balfour Declaration didn’t change that.

  64. Thanks for your response Dalrock. Really really. The article’s quote is also a pragmatic argument. Thanks for having sympathy for the pragmatic. Your reference to the Menendez joke is an appeal to law and logic. I fully concede the legal and logical point. I “has no logic.” My only upside is admitting “I has no logic.”

    My best,
    Linda

  65. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Linda No need to state that you ‘has no logic’ – it was a given. We’re all swimming in an ocean of blood crimes now and you desire sympathy for pragmatism. His judgement cometh soon!

  66. Dalrock says:

    @Linda

    Thanks for your response Dalrock. Really really. The article’s quote is also a pragmatic argument. Thanks for having sympathy for the pragmatic. Your reference to the Menendez joke is an appeal to law and logic. I fully concede the legal and logical point. I “has no logic.” My only upside is admitting “I has no logic.”

    I can find no fault with an emotional argument freely acknowledged as such. In fact, to your credit you recognize it as such even though the original author lacks this understanding.

    On the Menendez joke, it is a joke about an emotional argument that flies in the face of reason; the joke recognizes that the emotional power of an argument is independent of reason. Either way, I should have pointed out that their crime was the murder of their parents. I’m not sure how widely that case was covered, and either way it probably won’t be known by people below a certain age.

  67. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/rise-evangelical-feminism

    Have you guys heard? Apparently the church is starting to become feminist friendly, lol.

    Oh look, the feminism in the Evangelical church that InsanityBytes claims doesn’t exist.

  68. mntngt says:

    Biblically speaking, abortion cannot be criminalized, in God’s kingdom jurisdiction trumps all, ” Do not move the boundary stones “. A nation criminalizing abortion will be judged as much as one legalizing it.

    Abortion, as terrible,wrong, and immoral as it is, is strictly a family issue and does not involve the state. The precedence that parents have the say over the life or death of their children is established in Deuteronomy …. Parents of delinquent children are Obligated to bring them before the authorities ( elders ) for disposal ( stoning )…in other words parents have jurisdiction over the lives of their children that’s above a state level.

    One way to test this premise is to take it to the extreme, let say we actually had capital punishment IN THE PRESCRIBED BIBLICAL WAY, involving the role of the blood avenger, other words where as the state after a just and proper trial, WHERE it has jurisdiction to do so, can and must in certain circumstances hand down the sentence of death, However it can not itself carry out the execution, the only one who can carry out the execution is the ‘blood avenger’ who is the closest blood relative to the murdered victim. You can see where I’m going with this, If you go all out and say a woman having an abortion ( and person performing it)are guilty of murder and punishable with death then the blood avenger becomes none other than the woman herself. So one can see that having a law on the books making it illegal just doesn’t work, as wrong as as abortion is.

    WE are moving into the Kingdom age and understanding jurisdiction ( family,church, state ) and where our authority lays within those is of vital importance

  69. And as far as OT, the reason we are in this cesspool is largely in part because their has been a war against the Church and the culture and families that are associated with it. This war was represented in the Gospels and was documented in Acts. The tactics and players have not changed. The head of the Body of Christ threw down His gauntlet and the war has been on ever since. Paul knew of what he spoke being their persecutor of our Lord himself.

    “Beware the consicion”.

    And be labeled a Conspiracy Theory, anti-Semite for some unknown, unmotivated lack of a reason….

  70. PuffyJacket says:

    We give Cuckservatives way, way too much credit when we take them at their word that they will “punish the abortionist”.

    They have folded on nearly every other issue where a woman must be told no, so there is ZERO reason to believe they won’t do the same on this one.

    The pattern is just way too established and obvious.

  71. BubbaCluck says:

    I tried reading that Relevant article and the “jorymicah” piece and it caused me great distress. I kept hearing that feminism update theme on Limbaugh’s show spinning around in my head. “We’re fierce, we’re feminist, and we’re in your face!”

    I’m sure she means well and is passionate about what she believes….but it IS beginning to feel like biblical end times.

  72. greyghost says:

    I’m late to the discussion. That Wilson guy is a shameful fairy. That guy has turned his back on the truth in his hands for approval of feral women. Not only that he is contributing to their feral nature. The stepped off a solid foundation of stone and stepped on a foundation of lies in the name of the feminine imperative. He has proudly destroyed his church and fed lies to his followers.
    Dalrock I wonder how much of your blog is getting out to these preachers falling for this feminist “pragmatism’ instead of standing proud and tall with scripture. All men are fallen but these guys are just pure cowards with no faith at all.

  73. mike says:

    It’s incredible that a man could marry a Christian woman and she, all by herself, could decide to abort all of their children against the man’s will, and their pastor would still have some excuse on behalf of the woman.

  74. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Gunner,

    It used to be a popular belief of Americans that the USA was the “Israel” referred to in Revelation. We were, after all, the greatest and most devout Christian nation on the planet, founded from nothing by devout men following the “Exodus” to the New World. The re-emergence of literal Israel in the 1940’s was a fatal blow. I sometimes wonder if the Baby Boomer enthusiasm for Israel came from transferring their love of America, and if a new found feeling of religious inadequacy led them to embrace the mostly Jewish first-wave feminists.

    No, I don’t think so. I think it is more just….. guilt.

    I think the children of those who fought World War II (our Boomers) respect Israel mostly out of World War II guilt. Remember, we (the United States) sat out the first 28 months of the war, leaving France and England basically alone against the Nazis and Italy. FDR and congress gave our blood in England Lend-Lease, but BFD. They needed pilots, sailors, and marines, not just old WWI destroyers and borrowing some old planes. By December of 1941, after a full year of round-the-clock bombing of London and sinking of British convoys, the Empire was vanishing fast, broke. Anzac was scrambling after Darwin, The Japanese were advancing towards India via the Burma Road. And the day after Pearl Harbor, the HMS Prince of Wales was sunk and Singapore was conquered almost immediately…..

    ….oh, and Hitler started to massacre the European Jewry. 6,000,000 in all (mostly from Poland and Russia.) And we sat out the first 28 months. We left the British and the Communists to do it all, and we were sipping our Coke and dancing to swing music until Japan came over and kicked us right in the nuts.

    Obviously, the USA did not gas and burn the Polish Jews. The Nazis and SS did that. But if Congress had declared war on Germany on September 1st, 1939, then maybe only 5,000,000 or 4,000,000 or 3,000,000 Jews would have perished? How many could have been saved? OSS (our pre-CIA) and British MI6 didn’t know what was happening at the camps. How could we have known? But if the USA had acted immediately, who knows how many millions of Jews (and their descendants) would be alive today? We’ll never know. God almighty only knows. And He granted us “free will” to murder His people, “free will” for the USA to stay out of the war. So…. I think the love of Israel from the Boomer standpoint, is one of inherited guilt.

    For Gen-X liberals? WWII is a completely foreign concept to them. I think their love of Israel is more predicated on supporting Israel for two reasons: #1) as Israel is the only “secular” democracy in the Middle East, (ironic given it is the home for Judaism) and #2) because supporting is what the DNC wants them to do (so many of our Jewish Congressmen are democrat, maybe ALL OF THEM now that Eric Cantor lost to Brat.)

  75. IBB, wasn’t the Treaty of Versailles a bitch? I think it’s called reaping what you sow. Their “guilt” was ill placed and a the product of much selectively targeted propaganda. (The same propaganda that ironically led to our involvement in WW1 and corresponding culpability in the debacle at Versailles.)

    We are paying for being the Zionist preferred kicker of hornets nests.

  76. Dave says:

    American Christianity is an oxymoron. You might as well speak of a frozen hell or a hellish heaven.

  77. Boxer says:

    University students demand abortion clinic on campus, claim it will improve their academic performance
    Really wish I was making this nonsense up. Much more at…
    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/04/college-students-demand-abortion-clinic-on-campus-its-important-to-do-well-academically/

  78. Dave says:

    Personally, I think feminism has peaked. Men have been awoken and the gist is up.
    When you carefully observe the march of feminism throughout the decades, you would realize that it has never fought and overcome any significant opposition. For the most part, most of those who were opposed to it had been relatively few, and their oppositions had been restrained.
    These days that is no longer the case.
    Men, who happen to be the primary target of feminism, are waking up everywhere, and teaching each other how to address this evil movement.

  79. Dave says:

    ….oh, and Hitler started to massacre the European Jewry. 6,000,000…

    Really? I don’t buy the hoax, sorry. Hitler was a bad guy. A really bad guy. But he did not masacre 6m Jews. That is a Jewish propaganda that has no credible evidence.

  80. PuffyJacket says:

    We cut the pragmatists too much slack with their “punishing the woman creates more abortions” meme (which is of course absurd).

    Here we see yet another example of the collective amnesia cuckservatives experience about how incentives actually work whenever a woman is brought into the picture.

    All cuckservatives know that penalizing a behavior results in less of it… until the subject of abortion comes up, and a woman must not be shamed.

    All cuckservatives know that subsidizing a behavior results in more of it… until the subject of single motherhood comes up, and a man must be punished.

    All cuckservatives know that taxing a behavior results in less of it… until the subject of alimony and child support comes up, and a man must “man up and marry those sluts”.

    Of course “amnesia” isn’t really the right word. That would suggest lack of intent.

  81. Carlotta says:

    @Technovelist

    Did you read her entire post?
    She does not have an N1. She simply says she doesn’t do casual sex. She has a crew cut (that is what a pixie cut is), has spent nearly 10 years pursuing a career and has steadily been rejected by high quality guys (her claim) all the way down to a man dating single mom’s for fun. Sounds like she threw sex at the first two and that did not work so it was all downhill from there. The only guy who was interested had 3 kids by 3 different women. I also wouldn’t take her word for the rejections. She states that she is steadily dating, has been called too independent and all the guys she wanted to marry dumped her and quickly married someone else. I hear carousel music…..

    You want to help her?Send her a Bible and link her here and alphagame.

  82. Carlotta says:

    @Linda
    “As champions of life, we know that mothers and babies are intimately connected. It’s generally quite difficult to help the latter by threatening the former. Progressive liberals frequently speak as though mothers and children are natural enemies. We try to avoid making that same mistake.”

    So dear, you don’t mind if we play a little game called word substitute? Instead of mother/baby we write husband/wife? Or rapist/victim, terrorist/innocent by stander or hey business/women making less then her male counterparts?

    You see we can’t protect the victim from the potential rapist by having laws against it and enforcing them. No, no. We certainly cannot have a war on terror to protect those simply trying go about their day peacefully. We better not threaten husbands with domestic violence and child support laws. No, the wife should have no protection…..just like the baby, right? And hey, we certainly can’t possibly hold business to equal opportunity laws because that might just make them not hire women and then, whoops, sugar the ladies are out of luck.

    Pick. Everybody gets held to standards or no one. Women don’t get a get away with murder free card.

    Pragmatic my foot.

  83. Really? I don’t buy the hoax, sorry. Hitler was a bad guy. A really bad guy. But he did not massacre 6m Jews.

    Yes he did. They found many of the corpses Dave.

  84. Carlotta says:

    @innocentbystanderboston
    “That is correct. The ones who DO perform the abortions see it as nothing, see what they are doing as just a minor operation to fix a major problem. And the medical doctors who dignify the abortionists as the murderers that they are, of course they would never take part in this enterprise.”

    Actually, in the videos I saw, they see it as an excuse to celebrate with wine and by fancy cars.

  85. The Question says:

    @ greyghost

    “Dalrock I wonder how much of your blog is getting out to these preachers falling for this feminist “pragmatism’ instead of standing proud and tall with scripture. All men are fallen but these guys are just pure cowards with no faith at all.”

    He who pays the piper calls the tune. I don’t take the word of a man who is paid to tell the truth because it inevitably degrades into saying the truth as people who pay them want it to be.

  86. Purple Tortoise says:

    Dalrock,

    My wife’s hypothesis is that it is emotionally difficult for men like Doug Wilson to believe that women, in general, are capable of evil. They’ve probably had good relationships with their mothers and their wives, and it is emotionally threatening to imagine that these women so close to them might find it convenient to kill their own children. If there are lots of women out there who would knowingly procure an abortion to avoid the inconvenience of a child, why, their own mother might also have considered that — perish the thought! That men can be evil, sure, they can believe that since they know their own hearts. But considering emotional vulnerability to mother and wife, it’s scary to think that women might be evil and not merely deluded.

    My guess is that many manosphere men have been egregiously done wrong by a woman, especially mother or wife, so the goggles have been torn off.

  87. Purple Tortoise says:

    Reading through comments on other websites, it seems that many people don’t want to punish women for the pragmatic reason that abortions might increase if women are shamed or punished. That strategy has been pursued by pro-life people and organizations for decades, but from an empirical standpoint, it isn’t at all clear to me that it is working.

  88. Spike says:

    Wow, Pastor Wilson. Your admonitions against the FI are as strong as getting flogged by a wilted lettuce.

    The mathematics alone demands a response: It is 43 years since Roe vs Wade. In that time, 1.72 billion abortions have been performed. That’s 1 720 000 000 / 43 = 4,000,000 abortions annually. If you now multiply that by the number described from Pastor Wilson before the Millennium can stop it……that would mean a Holocaust magnitude crime every year for a thousand years!
    A thousand years? This is secretly a recipe to wring hands but do nothing, which is exactly what they want.

  89. Tom K. says:

    Women are the greatest mass murderers of children in the history of the world. 50,000,000+ babies in America alone in the last 40 years.

    And the only thing that might has stopped them?

    Shame.

    But the Church was too cowardly to call murderers, murderers.

  90. mrteebs says:

    Trump, whether intentional or not, has been the prism that refracts into crystal clarity the issues everyone else is frantically trying to obfuscate. He can backpedal on who to punish now, but the 24 hours or so during which his initial gut reaction hung in the air has done its needful work: it showed how feminized the supposedly staunch opponents of feminism really are.

    Without Trump, I doubt there would have been that question in the New Hampshire GOP debate on women in the military and the subsequent oneupsmanship by every candidate that opened their mouth to show that THEIR egalitarian commitment made the others’ pale by comparison. It was simultaneously sickening, revealing, and farcical.

    I did a little reading on how the Bible treats miscarriages and came to find that what is often translated “miscarries” is actually just the opposite: premature live birth.

    If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Exodus 21:22-25 NASB

    Exodus 21:22 is correctly translated in the NASB as “gives birth prematurely” – not “miscarries”. The implications of this are clear. If the woman gives birth prematurely, the perpetrator is fined by the husband. If any further injury occurs to the baby it is eye for eye, foot for foot, life for life, etc. This is why the Bible does not explicitly say “to the baby”. It is not necessary because the punishment for injury to persons outside the womb is established elsewhere in the law:

    If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.

    Leviticus 24:19-22 NASB

    Translating Ex 21:22 as “miscarries” actually leads to the devaluing of life and lends credence to the abortion narrative that abortion is not murder. In contrast, translating as “gives birth prematurely” fits contextually much better with the immediately adjacent verbiage as well as harmonizing with non-adjacent places that “like for like” punishment is codified. The Bible is clarifying how injury to a fetus is to be handled – not injury to a mother.

    P.S. Yes, infants have teeth in utero. Usually they are pre-emergent tooth buds but occasionally actual emerged natal teeth.

  91. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock & Linda:

    I remember some discussions from the late 90s, and I think it’s relevant to this. The point of the “don’t punish the mother” was always supposed to be rhetorical/positional setup given the state of the Law. For the exact same reason that anti-Abortion support as the “exceptions”. The other side being purely evil will change the discussion from “not killing children” to “why do you want to punish a 14-year old rape victim?”. Not fighting battles when you have all of the disadvantages is a wise choice.

    But, in the 20 years since I became deeply politically aware, it appears there’s been a solid post hoc rationalization of their positions. The “new” people to the movements have taken the Rhetorical positions and turned them into Moral positions. This is pretty much pure Rollo from there going forward. You can also argue that this is the shift from “Political Positions” to the “Personal is Political”. You have to “believe in your heart” the political position you’re taking.

    What small-minded people we have become, devoid of honor.

  92. MtnMan says:

    There is something important which people are missing here. Of course Doug Wilson is saying silly and stupid things. And it’s totally fine to ridicule him for those silly, stupid ideas. But if you spend too much time focusing on the silly, stupid shit, you miss the more important point that Pastor Doug Wilson is a dangerous, dangerous man who is a Reconstructionist and preaches Dominion theology. For those who are unaware, this is basically the “Taliban” of American Protestant Christianity. It springs from “Reformed” and “Orthodox” theology (both are Christian code words meaning Calvinist), and seeks to have Christians take control of all of society and enforce “Godliness” at the point of a sword or gun. In their warped theology, this will then bring about the Millennium, and after a thousand years of “christian” reign, Jesus will return.

    Now I’m a pretty conservative follower of Jesus Christ, but these people scare the shit out of me. Let’s all be careful we don’t get distracted by the silly, stupid stuff, and lose sight of the more dangerously effed up crap he is preaching.

  93. mntngt says:

    testing..an earlier reply hasn’t shown up ???

  94. feeriker says:

    She has a crew cut (that is what a pixie cut is) … and has steadily been rejected by high quality guys (her claim)

    Gosh, I wonder if the little darling has ever stopped to think that maybe, just maaaaayyybe, those two things are, like, related.

    Naaaah, couldn’t be. What man worthy of the title wouldn’t find a butch haircut on a woman erotically irresistible? Obviously it’s been her bad luck to meet nothing but gay men so far. Right? … Right?

  95. mntngt says:

    So what I tried to say earlier ….

    Biblically speaking, abortion cannot be criminalized, in God’s kingdom jurisdiction trumps all, ” Do not move the boundary stones “. A nation criminalizing abortion will be judged as much as one legalizing it.

    Abortion, as terrible,wrong, and immoral as it is, is strictly a family issue and does not involve the state. The precedence that parents have the say over the life or death of their children is established in Deuteronomy …. Parents of delinquent children are Obligated to bring them before the authorities ( elders ) for disposal ( stoning )…in other words parents have jurisdiction over the lives of their children that’s above a state level.

    One way to test this premise is to take it to the extreme, let say we actually had capital punishment IN THE PRESCRIBED BIBLICAL WAY, involving the role of the blood avenger, other words where as the state after a just and proper trial, WHERE it has jurisdiction to do so, can and must in certain circumstances hand down the sentence of death, However it can not itself carry out the execution, the only one who can carry out the execution is the ‘blood avenger’ who is the closest blood relative to the murdered victim. You can see where I’m going with this, If you go all out and say a woman having an abortion ( and person performing it)are guilty of murder and punishable with death then the blood avenger becomes none other than the woman herself. So one can see that having a law on the books making it illegal just doesn’t work, as wrong as as abortion is.

    WE are moving into the Kingdom age and understanding jurisdiction ( family,church, state ) and where our authority lays within those is of vital importance

  96. infowarrior1 says:

    @MtnMan
    ”It springs from “Reformed” and “Orthodox” theology (both are Christian code words meaning Calvinist), and seeks to have Christians take control of all of society and enforce “Godliness” at the point of a sword or gun. In their warped theology, this will then bring about the Millennium, and after a thousand years of “christian” reign, Jesus will return.”

    Immatezing the eschaton. Oh dear. Completely out of line with Scripture. And the same mistakes the utopian ideologies of communism and national socialism made.

    Godliness arise from salvation and not from outside pressure. Degeneracy will only be pushed underground and made even worse behind closed doors.

  97. Linx says:

    @ MtnManPretty?
    “Now I’m a pretty conservative follower of Jesus Christ, but these people scare the shit out of me.”

    Pretty?
    Revelation 3:15-16
    “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

  98. Hmm says:

    @infowarrior1 & MtnMan,

    A lot of so-called reconstructionism (theonomy is the other word for it) starts from asking the twin questions, “What would a just earthly society under Christ look like?” and “Does the Bible ever give an answer to that question?” Certainly, if the nation of Israel had in fact obeyed the laws God gave to Moses, it would have been such a society.

    Now ask the questions, “What if God’s plan is not that the church be gradually crushed by the world to be rescued by Christ at the end? What if it is God’ plan that the Church triumph in history (postmillenialism)? What should society with a Christian majority look like?” It answers those questions by asserting that living under some form of the Old Testament law, adjusted thoroughly for the fulfillment of certain elements of it by Christ, would be the answer.

    I read heavily in theonomy in my younger days, and the one thing that was always clear in their writings was patience. Doug Wilson’s “a thousand years” reflects that attitude – the idea that we are not at the end of time, but only a little bit in. This comes from the tail end of the second commandment, “I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Thousands of generations is a very long time. Theonomy is not a revolutionary movement.

    BTW, I am not currently a theonomist, but I do lean heavily toward postmillennialism.

  99. Hank Flanders says:

    MtnMan

    For those who are unaware, this is basically the “Taliban” of American Protestant Christianity. It springs from “Reformed” and “Orthodox” theology (both are Christian code words meaning Calvinist), and seeks to have Christians take control of all of society and enforce “Godliness” at the point of a sword or gun.

    The word they use to describe their position is “theonomy.” From my understanding, theonomists believe that the only truly just law is what they consider “God’s law,” meaning the law God laid down in the Old Testament and gave to the Israelites. However, I haven’t really probed the theonomists I know concerning the extent to which they take this set of beliefs.

    After all, I’m pretty sure they believe adultery should be punishable by death, but do they also believe other sexual sins such as premarital sex and homosexual behavior should be? I guess they’d pretty much have to believe that to be consistent, but if you execute all sexual sinners, where is the chance for Christ to work in their lives and change them later on?

    Also, wasn’t idolatry typically a capital offense in the Old Testament? If so, wouldn’t theonomists also have to believe that idolatry or simply being a non-Christian should be punishable by death? The problem with that view would be that none of us is born a Christian. We may have a Christian family, but we also know that being a cultural Christian and having a Christian heritage mean absolutely nothing for us as individuals in terms of redemption through Christ leading to eternal life.

    Finally, the entire community stoned sinners to death. They didn’t have lethal injection back then, and the stones were cast by everyone. Should the entire community, then, be involved in executing sinners? Would any of the really sweet, caring, loving people I know who are theonomists really be able to encircle a sinner and stone him or her? I have my doubts.

    I’m a Ted Cruz supporter, not that I think he’s perfect, but nevertheless, I think he cares the most about the Constitution of the candidates we have running. I’ve heard some people make the argument that Cruz wants to make this country into a theocracy, but I have yet to see anyone provide proof for those accusations. I might change my mind about him if it were true, though.

  100. Novaseeker says:

    OT but this is an interesting and somewhat atypical story of a woman with an N of 1 who is having trouble finding someone to marry her. Do you have advice for her?

    If you read down the thread, past her initial post, you can kind of see what her problem is — she isn’t very feminine. Pixie cut is one thing (it can work in an otherwise feminine package), but this woman likes to wear army-issue combat boots and so on, never wears dresses, doesn’t have many female friends because can’t relate and so on. She’s a tomboy, which is a niche interest and often not compatible with a lot of guys when it comes to what they want in a wife. If she wants to stay that tomboyish, she’s going to have a harder time because she’s really looking for a guy who wants to marry a fairly unfeminine tomboy — I’m sure that these guys exist, but they aren’t that common.

    This is the equivalent of guys who are kind of feminine pussy-boys and then wonder why girls aren’t into them. The difference is that a tomboy can attract guys for fun “adventures” and even sex, but most guys will opt for a more feminine woman when it comes to marriage, especially if the tomboy-ism is so overt, as it is in this one — as opposed to more covert tomboy types who present and act feminine more or less but have male-ish interests and abilities — this one doesn’t seem to present as feminine at all, really, but more as a lesbian — she even says she gets read as lesbian frequently. If that’s what you have going on, then you either need to change that, or accept that you’ve made yourself and therefore will have a harder time.

  101. Dave says:

    Finally, at the age of 49, Janet Jackson realized she needed to make some time to have a baby. You go girrrrl!

  102. Snowy says:

    How can abortion not be considered a crime? It’s amazing when you really think about it. How could abortion ever have become acceptable? The mind boggles.

  103. PokeSalad says:

    Sometimes I do wonder if over the long term my lack of femininity is a turn off.

    She knows what the problem is, but she isn’t ready to admit to herself yet or do something about it. Maybe by the time she’s 35.

  104. PokeSalad says:

    My suggestion. Don’t change a darn thing about yourself and wait until a man comes along that loves you as much as you deserve. He will.

    …buuuuttttt…then we KNEW she was going to get this sort of advice….. *chuckle*

  105. Wood Chipper says:

    @looking glass @bubbacluck The rise of radfemgelicalism seems like the next step from women that the church is afraid to directly criticize. Most churches would call her extreme rather than flat out wrong.

    Similarly, Jory Micah’s husband looks like he would much rather nod his head as she blathers on about her day fighting the patriarchy than ever even considering correcting her rebellion.

  106. Feminist Hater says:

    I’m a Ted Cruz supporter

    Kinda goes with the cuck territory, doesn’t it? Open borders, free trade, placation, same old, repug shit.

  107. Coastal says:

    @Wood Chipper


    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/rise-evangelical-feminism

    Have you guys heard? Apparently the church is starting to become feminist friendly, lol.

    Someone made the perfect comment over on that Relevant article:

    The church is ran by women for the most part. The worship service appeals to women and is designed for women. The decor of most churches is feminine. It is hard to get men to come to church and yet you say women don’t have enough of a voice.

    Of course it got downvoted, but I’m not at all surprised at this point.

  108. SonOfAdam says:

    Sorry for not taking an outright legal position on this, first post on this site and all. Do we not all know how corrupt our legal systems are? That justice has fled from our nations? So much so that I see these systems as being beyond fixing any longer that they simply must fall so as to be properly restored from their original foundations. How are we as Christians to ever expect correct laws under God on this earth when we know who the god of this world is?

    When Christianity began, crucifixion was legal punishment for all sorts of reasons. Invading a country and slaughtering its entire population was legal in the Roman empire. Idol worship, legal. Murdering your own soldiers if they lost a battle (decimation), legal. Instant death for not hailing Caesar as god. The most horrific forms of killing and torture for irrelevant crimes, all legal. Killing slaves, wives and children at a whim, legal. The ‘Christian’ nations to follow were little better with their capital crimes and punishments, which included flaying, hang draw and quartering, mass hangings for petty crimes, death by fire. If you’ve read your history, you get the gist that this is just the tip of the iceberg. And Christians had to live through all of it as their State laws ever since the crucifixion of Christ. Nothing is different today.

    Unlike Biblical Israel, with its statutes, ordinances and judgements for being a nation, Christians living in the Kingdom have no nation that the eye can perceive. We live amongst those who do not believe and are not in the Kingdom. We have never had Biblical laws for any Christian nation and never will. We are those who are chosen, who heed the call, and enter the Kingdom.

    Make no mistake, I despise with a fervent and righteous indignation what happens to these children. My heart weeps for them at every thought of it. The Israelites did much the same in their burnings and other killings of children to place into the cornerstones of their houses for luck.

    The State legalizes it without punishment, while holding festivals for it. Only God punishes it. It has never been any different. Just as we must always speak our piece for God and His Laws, and expect to be jailed, whipped, stoned, crucified, ridiculed for it.

    That Jory Micah thing. Amusing, funny, yet full rebellion against God, corrupting the church.

    That other woman without no man. How many men has she been with? A lot by the sounds of it. Crewcut, mens clothing, career gal, likely feminist, yeah I wonder why she’s still single, and likely always will be? Men are waking up. Of course they choose a feminine submissive woman for their wife and mother of their children, and who won’t put their children’s lives in danger in the womb for a career promotion.

  109. Hank Flanders says:

    Feminist Hater, like I said, I don’t think Cruz is perfect, but of the choices we have, he’s my pick. I can look at least look at his voting record and behavior in Congress to see whether or not he’s the person I want in office out of the choices we have. Like him or not, Cruz has consistently stood up to the establishment in Congress based on just reasons, which is why he’s not well-liked in Congress.

    However, some people, particularly Trump people, are now trying to paint Cruz as an establishment candidate, simply because he’s not Donald Trump, but like all criticism I’ve seen lobbed at Cruz, his detractors don’t provide proof. Instead, they provide more proof by assertion. Cruz may be establishment or a sell-out, etc, and therefore, since he could be, he must be.

    It’s really ironic that they could say this about Cruz and not Trump, considering the history of both men. Cruz is the one who has fought for conservative principles often when it’s cost him friends and allies in Congress. In contrast, Trump’s the one who has verbally and financially supported the Clintons and leftist policies. Behaviorally, Trump’s a 70-year-old man-child, and politically, he hasn’t given anyone any reason to trust him, but he demagogues effectively enough that some do. Sure, either man could change, but I usually require someone to prove a change in behavior before I change my opinion of him.

  110. God is Laughing says:

    6 million IBB? Two questions that a serious scholar will ask (IMO): why and so?

    What narrative is being driven by this? Where is the independent Tutsi homeland??

  111. Boxer says:

    Feminist Hater, like I said, I don’t think Cruz is perfect, but of the choices we have, he’s my pick.

    While I think Cruz is probably a nice guy (as is pretty much everyone, on both sides, with the exception of the Clinton hag and the dolt Jeb Bush), I think that Donald Trump deserves credit for talking about things like immigration and refugees. Even Cruz fans will admit that Ted isn’t talking about these things.

    There is also the question of qualification. Ted Cruz is from my own home province (Alberta). When I read the U.S. Constitution, I am convinced that I’m not qualified to be a candidate for presidency of the USA. Neither is Uncle Ted. I believe that if he is the eventual nominee, this will be used to deprive him of the presidency anyway — probably giving the office to the Clinton hag.

    All that aside, I think political discussion is often counterproductive here (lots of brothers fight about it to no real end) and don’t intend to continue beyond this comment. Over on one of the other sites I hang at, there are hardcore Nazis, a couple of socialist/communist types, and many others. Men who are concerned about patriarchy should generally work together despite these other differences.

    Boxer

  112. Bee says:

    @Looking Glass, Wood Chipper,

    “Oh, my friends, have fun. This is just beyond more than shooting fish in a barrel.

    https://twitter.com/jorymicah

    Has not taken her husbands last name.

    Proudly shows a small dog but no mention of a baby human.

    Close minded even with moderates, says “Complementarianism is sexism”

    Advocates for women to be head pastors and head teachers.

    Openly calls for destruction of the patriarchy.

  113. Boxer says:

    Dear Bee:

    Doing my part…

    Boxer

  114. Hank Flanders says:

    Boxer
    Donald Trump deserves credit for talking about things like immigration and refugees. Even Cruz fans will admit that Ted isn’t talking about these things.

    Trump may have talked about immigration during this election season, but Cruz actually already did something about immigration three years ago by using an amendment to expose and stop Rubio and The Gang Eight’s amnesty bill. This is another situation that again shows how Trump gets props for doing nothing but talking, whereas Cruz’s actual actions get overlooked or downplayed.

    There is also the question of qualification. Ted Cruz is from my own home province (Alberta). When I read the U.S. Constitution, I am convinced that I’m not qualified to be a candidate for presidency of the USA. Neither is Uncle Ted. I believe that if he is the eventual nominee, this will be used to deprive him of the presidency anyway — probably giving the office to the Clinton hag.

    This again just more heresay with no precedent to back it up. Have there ever been any indications from the legal community that that would be likely to happen? Legal scholars largely agree that Cruz is eligible to be president, and some judges have already started ruling that way. There’s a much greater risk of letting someone untested like Donald Trump become president than there is that the Supreme Court is going to say that a sitting US President can’t be president based on where he was born. Likewise, if Cruz is ruled ineligible to be president before he actually becomes president, another Republican could simply take his place. Finally, Clinton is under investigation by the FBI, a worse charge than having been born in another country (but still obviously being a US citizen).

    All that aside, I think political discussion is often counterproductive here (lots of brothers fight about it to no real end) and don’t intend to continue beyond this comment.

    I don’t fight on the Internet. I’ll state what I consider true, but I’m not going to insult someone else for his views.

  115. innocentbystanderboston says:

    This again just more heresay with no precedent to back it up. Have there ever been any indications from the legal community that that would be likely to happen? Legal scholars largely agree that Cruz is eligible to be president, and some judges have already started ruling that way.

    Hank, I’m going to echo Boxer here. I don’t think there has been ANY ruling as to whether or not Cruz is natural born US citizen. As far as I’m concerned, Ted Cruz is not Constitutionally allowed to be POTUS. He is not natural born. And I guarantee you that HRC’s campaign is hoping against all hope that he is the nominee to (thus) instantly disqualify him. They WILL challenge his candidacy in court if it comes to that. And in court, Ted Cruz loses.

    But of course, they are going to “wait” until the very last moment when we are sure Cruz wins. Then and only then, do they spring it on him.

    If all you had to be, to be natural born, is have one parent that is a US citizen then Obama would have been natural born if he had truly been born in Kenya and not Hawaii. No one ever disputed that the boy (born illegitimately I might add) has a mother who was a US citizen. The dispute was the location of his birth. We don’t have that dispute with Cruz. We KNOW that he was born a “natural born” Canadian.

    I think to be natural born, you need to be born in the United States (or born in a US territory or on a US warship) OR be born of US ambassadors abroad. Ann Coulter has a good synopsis on the concept of being “natural born.”

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

    The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects. The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman. It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.

    Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.

    Relying on English common law for the meaning of “natural born,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents” was left to Congress “in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.) A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,” i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.” Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship.

    HRC’s people already know all of this. They are waiting until he wins to spring it on him and (thus) instantly disqualify him. Cruz can’t be our guy.

  116. Bee says:

    @Boxer,

    “Doing my part…”

    Good tweet, good job. Thank you.

    You also had some great tweets on the “No Hymen, No Diamond” feed. Good job.

  117. Hank Flanders says:

    innocentBostonBystander,

    Other scholars and sources have stated the opposite of what Coulter, who is a Trump supporter, said there.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/cruz/canada.asp

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/15/more-scholars-weigh-in-on-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

    I don’t think there has been ANY ruling as to whether or not Cruz is natural born US citizen.

    It’s a recent development, so I can understand why you may not have heard about it yet: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/cruz-wins-citizenship-case-pennsylvania-supreme-court-38059265.

    Notice that the higher court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, meaning it was considered to have no merit. No, it’s the end-all, be-all, and I believe there are lawsuits in other states as well, but what I said is true, which is that some judges have already started ruling in favor of Cruz.

  118. Hank Flanders says:

    *No, it’s not the end-all, be-all

  119. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Okay well I hope you are right Hank. I don’t think it matters anyway. After Trump clobbers Cruz in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and CT, its all over.

  120. Gunner Q says:

    mntngt @ 1:27 am:
    “Abortion, as terrible,wrong, and immoral as it is, is strictly a family issue and does not involve the state.”

    The unborn are not able to defend their right to live. It is most definitely the State’s duty to defend that right on behalf of those who cannot. Also, most women who get abortions do not have any family to speak of.

    “One way to test this premise is to take it to the extreme, let say we actually had capital punishment IN THE PRESCRIBED BIBLICAL WAY”

    …of the obsolete Mosaic Law given only to Jews, who were unable to keep it, which Christ declared was flawed, that Paul told us Christians to NOT follow? Your own argument that Mosaic Law would make infanticide unpunishable is an argument for it not being humanity’s ideal government.

    If you think God is more concerned about jurisdiction than protecting the innocent then you’ve parted ways with Him.

  121. Vote for Cruz or Trump……cuz surely they won’t nominate another Rehnquist, Kennedy, or Souter.

    LOL.

    The fact that some here think that voting and politics is in any way a course to a pragmatic solution to ending abortion (or maintaining the Republic) at this point is pretty revealing.

  122. Wood Chipper says:

    LOL is right. It’s funny that there’s still a few guys here who have completely shed their romanticized view of women, but not politics. If we vote hard enough and get the right people into office, it will all turn around, ha!

  123. Novaseeker says:

    After Trump clobbers Cruz in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and CT, its all over.

    Don’t really think so.

    The GOP leadership has made it clear as day to anyone who is listening that if Trump doesn’t get 1237+, he will not get the nomination no matter what. They know it will cost them the election because many of Trump’s supporters would not vote at all in November, or would vote against the GOP out of spite, if, say, Trump gets 1000-1100 delegates and gets passed over at the convention. But they don’t care. The mindset is this: it’s better to lose for certain in 2016 and keep control of our brand than it is to possibly win with Trump (although many don’t think he will win either in the general) and lose control of the brand at the top and have Trump as a de facto party leader. It’s pretty clear to me that they’re very willing to run this risk, and that they prefer it to the risk of losing control of the brand with Trump as the nominee.

    I don’t think Trump will get 1237+. I think he will get 1000+ and have more delegates than anyone else, but I don’t think he will get to 1237+, so I am pretty sure he won’t be the next nominee. Heck, I think that if he does manage to get to 1237, the leadership will try to change the convention rules so that the first ballot is also a free vote, meaning that delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are allotted to on the first ballot. If they do that, given the way the Cruz campaign has been rather shrewdly stacking the state delegate ranks with people who are sympathetic to him and not to Trump, Cruz could win on the first ballot.

    One way or another they’re going to make sure Trump isn’t the nominee. Watch.

  124. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Sidebar with Nova,

    The mindset is this: it’s better to lose for certain in 2016 and keep control of our brand than it is to possibly win with Trump (although many don’t think he will win either in the general) and lose control of the brand at the top and have Trump as a de facto party leader. It’s pretty clear to me that they’re very willing to run this risk, and that they prefer it to the risk of losing control of the brand with Trump as the nominee.

    That is a different conversation Nova. This fear of “losing the brand”, that is more akin to K-Street lobbyists being out of a job in Washington DC because the GOP platform has changed soooo much, that they aren’t able to buy off politicians anymore. Think about it, if you are a lobbyist representing the Chamber of Commerce and your prime directive is to make sure the GOP gets behind comprehensive immigration reform (and Rubio crafted a bill to accomplish this very thing because the Chamber paid him to do it with re-election dollars) a Trump Presidency means… no more job for you. Trump is not going to sign anything like that into law. He’s a David Bratt Republican, not an Eric Cantor.

    More to the point, Trump is changing the entire GOP platform. This hasn’t happened in 36 years. Yes its been that long. Remember, in 1979, the GOP was kinda-sorta pro-choice, very pro-ERA, and anti gun. Reagan came in and ended all of that, switched the entire platform over to what the GOP voters believed, (No abortion, No Equal Rights Amendment, and don’t take my gun away from me) not what K-Street believed for the GOP and lobbied them to think in ’79. That is where we are today with what Trump is doing to the GOP.

    Change is hard. For some people, change is virtually impossible, (its only going to happen if they are FORCED to change.) And no, the Republican party is terrified with the entire concept of their platform being ripped to pieces and rebuilt along the lines of tariffs, religious discrimination (lets have a temporary ban in Islamic immigrants?), and a f-cking WALL on the border with Mexico to stop the anchor babies, stop importing cheap unlawful migrant labor, stop importing 3rd world peasant rapists, and stop the heroin trafficking. That book (on what the GOP must do) to operate within these political boundaries hasn’t been written yet because Trump didn’t write it yet. So they are… scared. And confused.

    I don’t think Trump will get 1237+. I think he will get 1000+ and have more delegates than anyone else, but I don’t think he will get to 1237+, so I am pretty sure he won’t be the next nominee.

    Welp, looking at the remaining states and their 837 collective delegates, I think it is very easy for Trump to go from 750 to 1237. And why? Because these are Trump’s states. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, CT, RI, California, and New York, these are ALL going to swing with “majorities” (not just pluralities, majorities) to Trump. Now, he might only get 52% or whatever (a tiny majority) but snagging 500 of those 837 delegates with these remaining states, that should be a relatively easy task for Trump.

  125. Andrew says:

    Breaking our society’s love-affair with abortion will take four things:

    – criminalizing the provision of abortion. I agree that the parents have moral culpability also, but in this case the place to start is by attacking supply

    – rediscover shame. Shame in society (and individuals) has the same function as pain in the body – it’s a powerful, visceral and tangible pushback against unhealthy behaviour

    – rediscover restoration. The concern of people being trapped in shame is legitimate, and a result of our sinful desire to avoid our sin by turning the focus on others. But the solution is not to suppress shame, but to offer a pathway whereby those who have owned their shame can be restored

    – rediscover a culture of family and chastity. Parents do not naturally desire to kill their own children. But children are a threat to our culture of promiscuity, and this is why they are killed. Shaming abortion without also shaming fornication and honoring chastity is trying to stop a bucket from spilling without turning off the tap

    (Also notice that almost no-one brings up fathers? They may be instigator, complicit, or victim, but the child that is killed belongs to two people, not just one)

  126. mntngt says:

    @ Gunner

    Sorry you are wrong, State AND CHURCH intrusion into the family realm is why our society is in the sorry state that it is, and Mosaic law is not obsolete and the old testament is basically just how the world works…too bad so few christians figure that out. The church will be held accountable for teaching dispensational nonsense

  127. ray says:

    Good job Carlotta. Not zoomed! lol I don’t buy the Pro-Life Industry’s ‘pragmatic’ tactics either. They’ve FAILED at protecting American children from the Pro-Choicers . . . also an Industry. We would have done better setting the Mob on the abortionistas. Hmm…

    Twenty years ago I’d gotten so much propaganda in America from prior decades that I wasn’t sure about abortion. After all, being against it meant clothes hangar abortions, hating women, etc. But the P.P. tapes shove our faces full in it, and force choice. The P.P. tapes also revealed that, beyond collusion with the abortive act, P.P. employees reflect a great spiritual sickness and extreme rebellion in the American female.

    The recent series details how and why many in the ‘church’ co-function with the Abortion Industries — principally by failing to hold females to any responsibility, much less punish them for wicked behavior. Women must be told ‘no’ and these guys instead make their females Empowered Princesses. That is NOT proper material and spiritual protection, as they are required. But then, dad is preparing them for college and career, not for marriage and children.

    As many articles herein explicate, this failure-of-masculinity in Christian popular leadership reflects the basic Adamic fault. Like their heathen brethren, modern Christian men cannot overcome feminine influence on their own, thus the value of this page and its many commenters. I hear blabbering all the time about ‘filling the gap’. Here is someone being unpopular and actually doing it.

  128. ray says:

    “If we vote hard enough and get the right people into office, it will all turn around, ha!”

    That’s what they sold my generation, the Boomers. The Political Solution to everything.

    But I’ve come to believe it will turn around when we get the right people into the Wood Chipper. A good Woodchipper is a good friend.

  129. Linx says:

    @ mntngt
    “Parents of delinquent children are Obligated to bring them before the authorities ( elders ) for disposal ( stoning )…in other words parents have jurisdiction over the lives of their children that’s above a state level.”
    “Sorry you are wrong, State AND CHURCH intrusion into the family realm is why our society is in the sorry state that it is, and Mosaic law is not obsolete and the old testament is basically just how the world works…too bad so few christians figure that out. The church will be held accountable for teaching dispensational nonsense”

    So who are these “authorities ( elders )” that will do the “disposal”?
    Where do they get their jurisdiction to do so?

  130. Boxer says:

    “Doing my part…”

    Good tweet, good job. Thank you.

    You also had some great tweets on the “No Hymen, No Diamond” feed. Good job.

    She just never shut up. What to do? Let Tyreese take a crack at that ass…

    Feel free to join in whenever you want.

    Boxer

  131. Novaseeker says:

    Boxer —

    Potential fun to be had, but she strikes me as being unworthy of much time. She’s a feminist lightweight. I think in the church we make more hay here by changing men — if we can manage that, we will be more than halfway there. Of course this is very hard to do, but it’s worth it because of the potential impact. Women like Jory Micah are a lost cause — she will always be feminist, and misguided, and she will be able to rally the entire world around her if she is attacked. Better to work on the guys, and then if we make progress there, the women can be worked on indirectly — they will tend to follow the guys eventually, if enough of the guys actually change.

  132. desiderian says:

    “Women like Jory Micah are a lost cause — she will always be feminist”

    Always is a long time. Agreed that focusing on the men will be more fruitful, but she’ll turn the day after they do. She’s longing for strong male leadership.

  133. Novaseeker says:

    Always is a long time. Agreed that focusing on the men will be more fruitful, but she’ll turn the day after they do. She’s longing for strong male leadership.

    Okay, hyperbole. I agree that women are more easy to deal with if we can switch the men. It makes little sense to me to try to change women directly because unless there is greater unity among men here, we will just undermine each other in that effort, and therefore it will not bear fruit. Men are the key battlefield — women will be easier to deal with if we can switch the general tenor of men around, which will be very hard as it is, but more fruitful than trying to engage women directly at this stage.

  134. hoellenhund2 says:

    The chances of changing women directly have nothing to do with unity among men, they have a lot more to do with unity among women. And, as you have reiterated lots of times, women have much higher in-group preference and are much more likely to band together to address their common interests.

    It’s not men you could try to switch, it’s the alphas. If you engage them successfully and they choose a new direction, the women will follow them, and the rest of men will fall in line and follow the women without asking a question.

  135. Dave says:

    Folks, please let’s support Trump. Let’s do our parts to get him into office.
    Yes, he has his faults, but he is the best of the lot, and hold the best promise for this country at this time. The man needs our prayers and impromptu campaigns.

    I posted an entry on my Facebook page the other day in support of Trump. My son came almost immediately after me, asking why I should support “a racist”, “hateful”, “boastful” man, who “hates Mexicans” and practically “everybody” who is not like him.
    So, I asked him if he had ever visited Trump’s website to read what the man really believes and stands for, without the media interpretation? He said he hadn’t. Then I told him he had no reason to oppose a man whose stand he did not even know. He should go read the man’s directly.

    A few days ago, we had a conversation on the same topic. Although he still hadn’t visited Trump’s website, he said he had been asking all his friends who opposed Trump the same question, and so far, none had visited his website yet; they only came to their conclusions about Trump through MSM’s misinformation. He has now began to see to what extent his and his friends’ views are being shaped by MSM.

  136. Looking Glass says:

    @Boxer:

    I lol’d. Some mockery of fools always feels good for the soul.

    Also, I meant to bring up a point about Jory’s twitter feed. The header picture has a crotch shot. She’s wearing a short-ish dress, but that’s clearly a shot of her crotch on the left. If that doesn’t tell you pretty much everything you need to know about that Woman, I’m not sure what else will.

  137. mntngt says:

    The point is that the authority lies totally with the parents when it come to internal family matters, and the community is there to assist, not dictate or decide whats best

    ” I will punish those that hate me down to the third and fourth generation ”
    Look around you, much of the evil going on in society is a result policy and laws put into effect that many generations ago by agencies operating outside their biblical mandate…… Its sad that so many Christians believe that if only we could put ” Christians ” in charge of these ‘unlawful’ agencies its going to solve all the problems

    It always come back to the tree of Knowledge…..don’t we know a better way….

  138. feeriker says:

    Its sad that so many Christians believe that if only we could put ” Christians ” in charge of these ‘unlawful’ agencies its going to solve all the problems

    Churchians, especially those of the evangelical strain, absolutely idolize Caesar, particularly his legions and the wars they fight, their hollow whining to the contrary notwithstanding. Quite a marked departure from the attitude of the original New Testament church.

    Apparently the “church” of today is unfamiliar with that little “suggestion” in tbe book of Exodus that goes something like “you shall have no other gods before me.”

  139. Linx says:

    @mntngt
    “The point is that the authority lies totally with the parents when it come to internal family matters, and the community is there to assist, not dictate or decide whats best”

    The point is that what you are saying is that if the mother murders her 2 year old child then the total authority only lies with the parents all because it is an “internal family” matter.

    Romans 13: “1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

    And you still haven’t said who the “authorities ( elders )”are that will do the “disposal”.

  140. mntngt says:

    “The point is that what you are saying is that if the mother murders her 2 year old child then the total authority only lies with the parents all because it is an “internal family” matter ”

    The point I am trying to get across is that God created three distinct spheres of governance in which the dominion mandate was to be exercised with clear boundaries and roles for each

    ” Romans 13: ”

    Yeah Yeah Yeah…read the whole Bible OK, yes the Old Testament too………Romans 13 does apply when the governing authorities are governing WITHIN their Biblical defined mandate….and its the Christian’s duty to educate himself as to when that is the case and when it isn’t because if you are being obedient for the sake of being obedient when they are outside their mandate, you are bowing to a false god ie idol and only fit to be the slave you are

    ” And you still haven’t said who the “authorities ( elders )”are that will do the “disposal”.”

    Again read the Bible for yourself and try to understand what Biblical governance would actually look like, its nothing at all like we see around us. Understand that the second level or sphere is actually the church,civil, municipal government rolled into one, and limited by the tithe which although mandated by God , could not be taken by force. Ponder that a bit and your question will answer itself once the paradigm shift needed takes place

    It always amazes how exited Christian are over the coming Kingdom, yet fight tooth and nail it’s very construct and principles

  141. mntngt says:

    It always amazes how exited Christian are over the ” coming Kingdom,” yet fight tooth and nail it’s very construct and principles

  142. After Colorado Cruz and Trump are both toast. You guys might as well start getting greased up for Romney 2.0 in the form of Paul Ryan.

  143. Gunner Q says:

    mntngt @ 2:59 pm:
    “Yeah Yeah Yeah…read the whole Bible OK, yes the Old Testament too………Romans 13 does apply when the governing authorities are governing WITHIN their Biblical defined mandate…”

    …of punishing evil, per Romans 13. Abortion is evil. There you go.

    “It always amazes how excited Christians are over the ”coming Kingdom,” yet fight tooth and nail it’s very construct and principles”

    That’s because we’ve repeatedly tried the “All-Powerful Tyrant with Unlimited Divine Right to Rule” government and it doesn’t work when humans do it. The Mosaic Law didn’t result in morality and stability, either. If God cannot make a successful human government then neither can you.

  144. Looking Glass says:

    @Gunner Q:

    It should be noted the Mosaic Law was pretty much never actually attempted. It’s one of those sort of hilarious points when you’re discussing the Old Testament with people. The Pharisees were the result of the rebuilding of the Temple and the first honest attempt to actually hold to the Law. We know how badly that went. They killed their own Messiah.

  145. Hank Flanders says:

    God is Laughing

    After Colorado Cruz and Trump are both toast.

    If Cruz was toast, then he was toast before Colorado, wasn’t he? If not, then how did Colorado change anything for him?

  146. Hank, in case you didn’t notice, the GOP has let the cat out of the bag. The GOP is toast and Trump and Cruz are by default. Cruz is now completely unelectable. What next Ryan? Romney 2.0? Bush 3.0?

    I’m never voting for another R/D party candidate again after Colorado. Pretty much settled it for me, and I know I’m not nearly alone. As it stands voting is for Baghdad Bob’s, I thought the Red Pill was an antidote against this level of delusion.

    “Today we are driving back the vile legions of Cultural Marxists of the 0bama hordes. Today is a great day for the Republic. We have secured the borders and the deportations are under way. Abortion is soon to be outlawed and the budget is soon to be balanced…..”

    Bwhahaha!

  147. Hank Flanders says:

    God is Laughing

    Hank, in case you didn’t notice, the GOP has let the cat out of the bag. The GOP is toast and Trump and Cruz are by default.

    Yeah, but how did Colorado in particular change anything for the worse for Cruz?

  148. Linx says:

    @ mntngt
    “The point I am trying to get across is that God created three distinct spheres of governance in which the dominion mandate was to be exercised with clear boundaries and roles for each”

    The point is you think murdering a child is an “internal family” matter.

    “Yeah Yeah Yeah…read the whole Bible OK,” yes the Old Testament too………So you say the authorities have no business because it is an “internal family” matter. ….and its the Christian’s duty to educate himself as to when that is the case and when it isn’t because if you are being obedient for the sake of being obedient when they are outside their mandate, you are bowing to a false god ie idol and only fit to be the slave you are.

    For Old Testament obedience to God you should go educate yourself and read Daniel to know the difference between doing as God has decreed and bowing to false gods.
    You are deconstructing the Bible to have it say what you want it to say. Not what God is instructing you to do.

    “Again read the Bible for yourself and try to understand what Biblical governance would actually look like, its nothing at all like we see around us. Understand that the second level or sphere is actually the church,civil, municipal government rolled into one, and limited by the tithe which although mandated by God , could not be taken by force. Ponder that a bit and your question will answer itself once the paradigm shift needed takes place.”

    Are you on an opiate? Since when is the punishment for a murder not part of Biblical governance?

    “It always amazes how exited Christian are over the coming Kingdom, yet fight tooth and nail it’s very construct and principles.”

    You say the authorities have no business in child murder because it is an “internal family” matter. God placed all authority… not you. God says that you shall not murder. The authorities placed by God say you shall not murder. How is the law of the authority in contradiction with that given by God?

  149. Feminist Hater says:

    Might as well get ready for Hillary! Can’t wait! She is going to turn the world upside down. If you weren’t scared of marriage or women now, you are going to be in the next few years! Shit gets better and better!

  150. God is Laughing says:

    @Hank. Cruz is a tool. They are using him to job Trump and then they will job him. That is what Colorado seems to have revealed to me. Then he and his supporters are stupid enough to gloat about the whole thing. Kind of confirms in my mind the suspicions I had developed about his campaign after Iowa, and Carson. He’s never going to scrape the creep off. His tea-party cred is tarnished and now that he has no shot at the White House in the future he might as we Flake out.

    Senate primary fight for Cruz is in his future. (Like I care).

  151. mntngt says:

    ” …of punishing evil, per Romans 13. Abortion is evil. There you go. ”

    So in other words you are advocating fighting or repaying evil with evil …..I seem to recall our Lord somewhere saying clearly NOT to do that

  152. Hank Flanders says:

    God is Laughing

    Cruz is a tool. They are using him to job Trump and then they will job him. That is what Colorado seems to have revealed to me. Then he and his supporters are stupid enough to gloat about the whole thing.

    OK, but if the establishment had it out for him, then they had it out for him before Colorado. I think what you’re saying is that Colorado is just when you realized they had it out for him.

  153. No Hank, I knew they had it out for him. Remember, I’m the cynical one? Now he’s being obviously used as a tool to do what the establishment wants and that isn’t going to wash off. They aren’t going to accept him and the tea-party isn’t going to great him with the warm welcome he had before. Remember Chris Christie after Sandy? He’s tarnished. I don’t see many people weeping big tears or having a fit because the establishment jobs him in Cleveland. A creep gets a creep’s reward.

    There will be no great groundswell of support for Cruz in Cleveland after Colorado. Nobody is going to ride in and save him.

  154. innocentbystanderboston says:

    There will be no great groundswell of support for Cruz in Cleveland after Colorado. Nobody is going to ride in and save him.

    It doesn’t matter G-I-L. The only thing that matters (at this point) is if Trump gets more than 55% of the GOP primary in NY. If he does, then Cleveland is a forgone conclusion because this primary is over.

  155. mntngt says:

    ” The point is you think murdering a child is an “internal family” matter. ”
    What I ‘ think ‘ is irrelevant, its what scripture calls for that matters, and its been my heartfelt desire , expressed through prayer ever since I met my Lord and savior Jesus Christ in a profound way 19 years ago for my mind to be conformed through HIS Spirit To HIS Word…..so I’m not going to argue about where my devotions are taking me.
    Rather than reasoning a biblical principle through you are emotionalizing an extreme case

    ” For Old Testament obedience to God you should go educate yourself and read Daniel to know the difference between doing as God has decreed and bowing to false gods.
    You are deconstructing the Bible to have it say what you want it to say. Not what God is instructing you to do. ”
    For what its worth its always been my practice to not deconstruct but read and apply the Bible with a wholistic approach…one needs to read more than just Daniel to fully understand idolatry

    ” Are you on an opiate? ”
    Now I will take a page out of Daniel and let “May the Lord rebuke you ” suffice

    ” You say the authorities have no business in child murder because it is an “internal family” matter. God placed all authority… not you. God says that you shall not murder. The authorities placed by God say you shall not murder. How is the law of the authority in contradiction with that given by God? ”
    I am not claiming any authority nor do I condone murder. The issue here is boundaries, where do the boundary stones lies….” Do not move the boundary stones “………” Render unto Caesar what belongs Caesar , unto God what belongs to God ” . HIS righteousness requires us to understand which is which, or who is who

    Just saying….

  156. Linx says:

    @ mntngt
    “What I ‘ think ‘ is irrelevant, its what scripture calls for that matters, and its been my heartfelt desire , expressed through prayer ever since I met my Lord and savior Jesus Christ in a profound way 19 years ago for my mind to be conformed through HIS Spirit To HIS Word…..so I’m not going to argue about where my devotions are taking me.Rather than reasoning a biblical principle through you are emotionalizing an extreme case”

    Your “heartfelt desires” are your feelings… not Scripture. And murder is murder so the Biblical principle does not change just because you think you can classify what is and what is not extreme cases of child murder. All you are doing is appealing to emotions. Just saying….

    “For what its worth its always been my practice to not deconstruct but read and apply the Bible with a wholistic approach…one needs to read more than just Daniel to fully understand idolatry”

    Again you are deconstructing. Read more than just the book Daniel is saying that the book is irrelevant because it is counter to your “heartfelt desires”. You are rebelling against the Word of God. And did you not say “Yeah Yeah Yeah…read the whole Bible OK,” yes the Old Testament too” that is now 2 books of the Bible I referred to you have argued against. Old and new Testament. Just saying…..

    “Now I will take a page out of Daniel and let “May the Lord rebuke you ” suffice”

    For what? Asking you a question? Then again if it is your “heartfelt desire” then it must be righteous right. Just saying….

    “I am not claiming any authority nor do I condone murder. The issue here is boundaries, where do the boundary stones lies….” Do not move the boundary stones “………” Render unto Caesar what belongs Caesar , unto God what belongs to God ” . HIS righteousness requires us to understand which is which, or who is who”

    Boundary stones? I gave you scripture saying what God says where those “stones” are. You are the one moving the goal posts for murder in the family. Just saying…

  157. @IBB. I’ll believe it when I see it. The RNC isn’t going to nominate Trump. Noway, nohow.

  158. GK Chesterton says:

    He is a smart guy. We should all do well to remember that. He is also drowning in the air of this world like the rest of us. Drop him a line, politely, to point out the problems with his position. Let him be free to refuse the correction. If he does, that’s on him. If he doesn’t and it starts him thinking about moral agency, then the Devil loses the fight.

  159. innocentbystanderboston says:

    The RNC isn’t going to nominate Trump. Noway, nohow.

    Its not up to the RNC. Its up to the GOP primary voters in New York, CT, Rhode Island, Maryland, New Jersey, and California and the rules by which the state GOP set up for awarding delegates long before Trump arrived.

  160. @IBB, wow. Didn’t you hear? This is not a democracy. That message didn’t get through yet?

  161. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Of course its not a democracy. We live in a republic, not a democracy. And those states within this republic didn’t get the message that they must alter their nomination process to reflect the sensitivities of two or three hundred elites in the RNC. New York just might award all 95 delegates to Trump. Ooops. The RNC would hate that but… well…. too bad for them.

  162. Sarjeet Kaur says:

    ”So say that all this postmillennialism stuff is true”

    What postmillennialism stuff?

  163. feeriker says:

    Its not up to the RNC. Its up to the GOP primary voters in New York, CT, Rhode Island, Maryland, New Jersey, and California and the rules by which the state GOP set up for awarding delegates long before Trump arrived.

    Rules that the GOP can –and will– change at the drop of a hat whenever it suits them. Refer to one Ron Paul and the debacle of the 2012 Republican convention. You can safely bet a year’s salary that the GOP Establishment is going to “Paul” Trump at 100 times the speed and force that they used four years ago. Trump represents a FAR greater threat to the Establishment than Ron Paul ever did. In fact, expect the presence at the convention as “security” of some very unsavory characters employed by shadowy companies who have made fortunes out of the chaos of Iraqghanistan and elsewhere in the war-torn world. The intimidation factor for the Trump delegates is going to be intense, in a Banana Republic sort of way. Expect violence as well (though it won’t be initiated by the Trump faction).

    The Establishment has its back against the wall. Expect the mask and gloves to come off any day now.

  164. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Refer to one Ron Paul and the debacle of the 2012 Republican convention.

    What debacle was that? He never won a state, not a caucus, not a primary, nothing. And he never had the amount of voter support that Trump has, night and day difference. His support was very small, narrow, focused, kind of like believing in unicorns (much like his son Rand.) And I like Ron and Rand Paul. But neither of them are Presidential.

    You can safely bet a year’s salary that the GOP Establishment is going to “Paul” Trump at 100 times the speed and force that they used four years ago.

    The establishment is doing everything and anything they possible can to stop Trump. They’ve been doing that since October of last year when it was apparent that Trump was serious and polling so well. Problem is (the problem the RNC never had with either Rand or Ron Paul) is that the plurality, now majority of GOP voters like Trump. The only people in the GOP that seem to like Trump are the voters. And by following the rules (as Trump has) he is going to win the nomination.

    Trump represents a FAR greater threat to the Establishment than Ron Paul ever did.

    Of course. That is because Ron Paul was never going to actually win anything and Donald Trump is shifting the GOP narrative, altering its existing platform (a platform that hasn’t budged since Reagan ripped it apart and rebuilt it according to what the voters wanted in 1980.) You think some of these old GOP f-rts are able to change and adapt? You are dreaming.

    Change is hard feeriker. And for the RNC, it particularly hard to the point of it being almost impossible. What Trump is doing is really… threatening their jobs. He is threatening how lobbyists on K-street do things for the RNC. And by winning, he driving them crazy, So they are lashing out because they know that if he wins, then the RNC will become something so very different than what they are familiar with. Its kind of like Billy Bean trying to win the World Series with the Oakland As and their $46 million dollar payroll. If they succeed in 2002 (they didn’t, but if they did) they change the game. Trump is changing the game, something both Ron and Rand failed to do. And I like them both.

  165. “We live in a Republic” LOL

    We live in an oligarchy posing as a democracy.

    Tell me oh Citizen Bee champ, how is my representation supposed to be determined under this supposed Republic? Roulette? Lottery? Ummim and Thummim?

    If it’s true that the RNC and DNC are in fact operating outside of any type of governmental oversight concerning their selection process why are billions of dollars wasted by our State governments to open polling stations to promote the image that this debacle is somehow valid? It’s all about keeping up the appearance of legitimacy to dupes…

  166. BubbaCluck says:

    What was it Mark Twain said so many years ago…….“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”

  167. @BubbaCluck, Urim and Thummim are cheaper and would provide more satisfactory results.

  168. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Tell me oh Citizen Bee champ, how is my representation supposed to be determined under this supposed Republic? Roulette? Lottery? Ummim and Thummim?

    By one house representative and two senators. Vote them out if you don’t like them. I love my Rep. He actually listens to me.

  169. innocentbystanderboston says:

    G-I-L

    If it’s true that the RNC and DNC are in fact operating outside of any type of governmental oversight concerning their selection process why are billions of dollars wasted by our State governments to open polling stations to promote the image that this debacle is somehow valid? It’s all about keeping up the appearance of legitimacy to dupes…

    What “government oversight” do you expect the RNC and the DNC to operate within? The RNC allows the states to cast delegates to pick their next nominee for POTUS. That costs billions of dollars. They trust the will of the voters (even if the State of Colorado doesn’t.) The DNC does NOT trust the will of its voters. That is why they have those darn “super-delegates” who get to nominate whoever they want. The supers were created to specifically prevent what rogue politicians (like Bernie Sanders) from doing what Bernie is doing NOW to their anointed candidate HRC. There are no such parameters for the RNC to stop Trump.

    Because these parameters do not exist for the GOP presidential primary (or even congressional primaries) we can get a situation like Donald Trump. And he is not the first to capitalize on this anti-immigration position. David Brat used that EXCLUSIVELY as his entire platform in his primary challenge of then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Immigration was the ONLY reason why Eric Cantor lost his right to even run for his seat in congress. Yes that is how strongly the voters of this country care about immigration.

    Both the RNC and the DNC are paid off by K-street lobbyists representing the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce LOVES immigration (legal and illegal.) It makes well formed labor so much cheaper and that means agriculture is dirt cheap in our country. Food is basically… free. At least in this country it is. That is why our homeless are largely morbidly obese. No one starves in the United States, no one. Thank the Chamber of Commerce and their willingness to import slave labor from the 3rd world to make sure that happens. But because the Chamber of Commerce pays off our politicians, they can’t say that they are against immigration. They are paid (in campaign dollars) not to say that. Along comes a self-financed billionaire Donald Trump who gives his middle finger to the Chamber of Commerce and well… you know what is happening (what WILL be happening in New York in 6 days.)

    Wisconsin for Ted Cruz was an anomaly. That is because there are virtually no immigrants in Wisconsin, as in none. So of course, Donald Trump’s campaign against immigration is going to fall on deaf ears there, (the way if falls on deaf ears in pretty much all the states Cruz has won.) They don’t have an immigration problem.

    Your Ron Paul screed? Ron Paul and Rand Paul lost because neither Ron Paul nor Rand Paul dignify the danger that exists in the religion of “Islam.” That’s it. That is the only reason. Ron Paul out and out refused to even understand what the motives were for 9-11. That alone immediately disqualifies him (in the eyes of almost all Americans) from being POTUS, certainly disqualifies him from winning the GOP nomination. I am so sorry if you can’t get that, but it is what it is.

    Trump thinks its a good idea to stop ALL immigrants who are believers of Islam. Of course, the GOP is in a panic about this. But the people of this country, and even many liberals, like this idea. It makes sense to them even if paints them in the light of religious bigotry. TOO BAD. We have lives to live and at the moment, Islam threatens too many lives. So someone has to do something.

    The RNC is in a panic because a Trump candidacy means a whole lot of people whose job it is to influence and buy-off GOP candidates are going to be out of a job. The Chamber of Commerce sees this as an epic nightmare for their desire for importing a slave-class of illegal peasants from the 3rd world to harvest our lettuce. Not to mention the increase in cost for other consumer goods that we once bought in China that are now with a tariff. I’m sure the Chamber of Commerce just LOVES Trump on free trade (not.) Yup, with a POTUS Trump and his wall on the Rio Grande, tomatoes are going to be a bit pricier, but you might not have to worry about your daughter being violated by a 3rd world illegal immigrant anymore and maybe the young men who aren’t smart enough to be computer scientists will be able to get a job in manufacturing again….

  170. IBB, vote them out if you don’t like them? That is highly suggestive of a democracy.

    As far as taxpayer funding for party primaries after this election cycle and Colorado you are seriously arguing that this is legitimate? Yeah, okay.

  171. Tomasz says:

    Unfortunatelly, it’s not much better in our little Polish shithole.

    I just got a spam e-mail from “Polish Federation of Pro-Life Movements” et consortes, that they oppose the proposal to sentence women who had had illegal abortion with up to 5 years in prison. “The woman is another victim of abortion” blah blah blah. They have the support of late pope John Paul II’s “girlfriend” Wanda Półtawska (old hag, man-basher).

    Besides, the male/female suicide ratio is 5:1, compared to the standard 4:1 (about 80% – USA). Of course because men are weak and lack emotional intelligence.

    As men we’re called to cartoonish chivalry – but what about the women, whose task is to protect their offspring? The child lies dead in the garbage bin (or is on its way to wrinkle cream factory), and the woman walks away – unscathed. Like a soldier who defected. Really, cuckservatives? Didn’t you say that the women are more brave and “manly” than men?

    This is close to another great Dalrockian topic of female draft. “Of course”, they say, “women can be just as good, or in fact – much better soldiers than man” (oh, just read the bible – Judith, blah blah blah – well, assassin is not a soldier; he’s a cowardly murderer – but in the Old Testament they could resort to all means “for the greater good”). “… but they shouldn’t have to! It’s your job, and they only do it because you fail.” Wait, wait, wait… If they’re better, then why shouldn’t they have to?Imagine a country, which would exempt hunky alphas from their military, and only accept scrawny nerds and the disabled.

    Of course, females in military are bad, for other reasons:
    1. waste of military equipment, which can be easily obtained by the enemy, and could be put to better use (well, there are 193 countries in this World who can’t just print money out of thin air, mind you)
    2. danger to fellow male soldiers (white knighting, side effects of incompetence) – mentioned here
    3. waste of female lives – last but not least – which would bring the fight for pussy to a whole new level. – maybe less discussed here (Dalrock, Rollo, US Army commenters), but more so elswhere in the manosphere (MGTOW like TFM etc.)

  172. Pingback: The Sin of Pedestalizing Women | Mormon Red Pill

  173. Pingback: It is far worse than he suspects. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s