Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1).

I’ve written previously about the modern Christian cross-dressing view of marriage, where wives are in absolute headship and regularly need to give their husbands wakeup calls to establish their authority.  While wives punishing disobedient husbands is a universal modern Christian fetish, there is a divergence of opinion on which method wives should use to make their husbands submit.  Some favor smashing household items in an insane rage.  Others favor denial of sex to control husbands, and some even go so far as to teach that God speaks to husbands through their wives vaginas.

While the above methods are (modern) Christian favorites, secular culture tends to instead prefer threats of divorce, or actual divorce, so that the family courts become the method of punishment.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers explain how the new marriage model facilitates the feminist agenda in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine):

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

Modern Christians of course love this method as well;  if you’ve seen the cherished movie Fireproof, you will recall that the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.  But there is a problem, and that problem is that the Bible tells us in Malachi 2:16 that God hates divorce*.  Realistically, most get around this by pretending to detest divorce themselves;  all modern Christians really need to do to facilitate the threatpoint is to remain silent on the issue, to wash their hands of it.  But for some modern Christians, this isn’t enough.  So long as Christian leaders aren’t actively encouraging wives to divorce or threaten to divorce, some wives will be unwilling to use this tool to bring their husbands to submission.

Fully embracing the modern view of marriage, as a semi-permanent pairing where the wife retains the option to nuke the family should she become displeased, requires reworking Malachi 2:16 to a meaning that provides God’s blessing, if not his outright encouragement, for unhappy wives to divorce their husbands.

Joel and Kathy Davisson explain to their readers that Malachi 2:16 has been twisted by evil men who would deprive wives of the power of the threatpoint:

Yes, God hates divorce. That is obvious. God hates anything that destroys. BUT, this is NOT the central message of Malachi 2.

Years ago, Kathy experienced a rage. It lasted one day. She was totally confused as to where this rage came from and what it was all about. That evening, while we were ministering, (this was in our early years, when the marriage was rough) God spoke to Kathy and said, “The anger that you feel is what I feel about divorce. I hate divorce.” The word-picture was perfect for the message that we were sharing that night (even though our marriage was having severe troubles!) Instantly, the anger lifted and Kathy shared the experience with those in attendance.

Yes, God hates divorce. But that is NOT the central message of Malachi 2.

The REAL message of Malachi 2 has been totally ignored.

A bit further down they reveal what that real meaning is:

The real message is this:

“Men, quit all of your praying, crying and giving offerings. I am not receiving them from you. Why? Because you have dealt treacherously with your wife. You deal treacherously with your wife and then you end up divorced. This is bad. Why? Because I, God hate divorce. So, quit dealing treacherously with your wives.”

As Joel and Kathy explain, everything a husband does that displeases his Christian wife is treacherous and abusive.  This is by definition, because wives are according to Joel and Kathy, responders.  If a wife is treating her husband badly, or is even just unhappy, this is a sign from God that the man needs to change.

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.

What is so diabolically brilliant about this new feminist meaning of Malachi 2:16 is they** have twisted the passage from a condemnation of (male) divorce theft to a blessing of (female) divorce theft.  At the time Malachi was written, the more common problem of divorce was men pretending to commit to their wives for life, but once the beauty and fertility of her youth was gone they would cast the wife out.  The wife was duped into thinking her marriage was for life, but once it was to her husband’s advantage, she was cast out (put away), ending up destitute and separated from her children. This is the treachery the passage refers to men committing against the wives of their youth (emphasis mine):

14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

In our modern era we are still very aware of just how treacherous this (male) form of divorce theft is.  We call it “trading her in for a younger model”, and it is widely (and rightly) condemned.  However, the male form of divorce theft is no longer what is driving the vast majority of divorces.  In fact, divorce rates are highest when women are young, beautiful, and fertile:

us_divorce_by_age2009

The reason divorce rates drop to next to nothing when we would expect a surge of “trading her in for a younger model” divorce is that men aren’t the ones driving the modern divorce racket.  A woman’s strategy for divorce treachery requires that she divorce her husband while she still has her beauty and fertility, so that she can still hope to attract another man.  This is no less treacherous than the male form of divorce theft, as it also involves conning a spouse into an ostensible lifelong marriage, only to cast them out and rob them of their wealth and children.

It is this new form of divorce theft/treachery that modern Christians want to condone, and this is why Malachi 2:16 must be twisted to condone divorce theft so long as the wife is the one committing it.  Joel and Kathy explain that the point of Malachi 2:16 is misapplied when it is used to tell unhappy wives they should honor their marriage vows, because the real message of the passage is that men need to keep their wives happy or the wife will be justified in casting the husband out (emphasis mine):

We have wrongly lifted three words out of context and as a result, the entire EMPHASIS of the passage has changed. As we have already pointed out, the pressure often goes on suffering women to “buck up” instead of being placed upon men to treat their wives right the way that God intended.

The message of Malachi 2 is this:

“Men, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your wives. Why? Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.

*This is of course not the only place in Scripture where Christians are told that marriage is for life, but the twisting of this specific Scripture is the topic of this post.

** I’ll provide another example in part two.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Church Apathy About Divorce, Crossdressing Theology, Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Fireproof, Grey Divorce, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Lowering The Boom, Marriage, New Morality, Rebellion, selling divorce, Threatpoint, Turning a blind eye, War Room. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1).

  1. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1). | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Malachi 2 does not say God hates “divorce.” Malachi 2 says God hates “putting away.”

    Divorce in Deut 24 is “putting away” + “certificate of divorce.” Look up the Hebrew words.

    This is corroborated by Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 50. God “divorces” (puts away + certificate of divorce) wayward Israel in Jeremiah 3 and never brings them out of Assyrian captivity. God only “puts away” Judah in Isaiah 50, and He brings them back out of captivity in Babylon as we know from Ezra and Nehemiah.

    In Malachi 2 what Israelite husbands were doing is sending the wife out of the house, which means they got to keep the dowry from the bride’s family and the bride could not remarry according to the law because she would still be married to her husbands (without a certificate of divorce). This is what was treacherous.

    If Malachi 2 was about divorce, it would go against Deut 24 and there would be a contradiction of the Law. God’s Word does not contradict itself. Therefore, Malachi 2 does not talk about legal divorce at all.

    The fact that people believe that Malachi 2 discusses divorce is already a perversion of the Scriptures, and it’s no surprise that there are going to be perversions on top of perversions (or lies on top of lies).

  3. Cane Caldo says:

    “Responders”…

    Another term is “more spiritually sensitive”. This encompasses both the notions of the inerrancy of female emotions and their secret antennae to receive private broadcasts from God.

  4. Cindy says:

    I spent a whole day in a rage one time. Turned out I had forgotten to take my thyroid medicine for a couple of days in a row. Maybe she could get that checked out.

  5. squid_hunt says:

    Dalrock,

    I just wanted to thank you for this blog. I’ve been fighting frustration in my marriage for years as several pastors have repeatedly scuttled my marriage by helping my wife make me the bad guy in every disagreement.
    You’ve put words to my frustration and clarified the conclusions I was very slow in coming to. And you did it using the Bible. When I began reading, it made me angry to see how blatant the manipulation is and how thorough the indoctrination.
    It’s not an instant fix, but it’s definitely helping. In an argument just a couple weeks ago, my wife was complaining that I’ve changed. I’ve been a lot more cut and dried in my reactions to problems. I tend to see things as they are a lot more. I don’t let the arguments devolve into petty squabbling over nonsense anymore and I don’t let her provoke me into losing my cool.
    I am very sincerely thankful. Your writing has lifted a lot of weight off of my life.

    Sincerely,

    squid_hunt

    [D: Thank you for the kind words. Welcome.]

  6. OKRickety says:

    The chart of women’s divorce rate by age cohort certainly belies the common, long-claimed idea that men are “trading her in for a younger model”. I wonder if there is data to show who initiates the divorce by age cohort. That would show if women initiate at the same rate regardless of their age.

  7. Feminist Hater says:

    Sheesh! Thank God I’m not married, that is hell! No thanks, keeping one woman happy is a task God could not accomplish himself. No thank you!

  8. Feminist Hater says:

    This is just another continuation of the old trope that “God hates you because you don’t do what we tell you to!”. Whoop-de-do, thanks Kathy and cuck but I won’t be heading that advise, fuck you very much!

  9. Feminist Hater says:

    Is there just one time when a woman can actually just be wrong? Is it just me, or should women really just stay away from marriage. I’m being serious, if men were so bad, women should just stay away. That would be logical.

    The amount of anguish that article caused me just reading their verbiage, just to tell men that they are evil all the time, that everything is their fault, their problem. Men are the problem, that is all I hear when I read Kathy and Joel, it’s diabolical thought processes used to convince women to leave men and for those men to be punished, emasculated and turned to suicide, not redemption. The man is to blame always, never the women, no matter if she cheats, causes immeasurable financial crippling or even kills her children, it is always his fault because he doesn’t love enough. How much can they really expect one simple man to carry? It’s no wonder no man can, they’re all evil anyway. Unless they are cucks and do everything they are told and never speak up or back or tell a woman she is wrong.

    The amount of dicking around that has to be done to turn every single piece of Scripture on its head to establish that God is always talking down to men and that men are always to change and that men are always mean, cruel and wrong and must always be attacked. Women are innocent snowflakes who can do no wrong unless some man makes them.

    Marriage is insanity at its core. I can’t love anymore after all the crap being spewed about men so I will gleefully tell Kathy and Joel that I will not be hurting or being treacherous to their little snowflakes. I will not be trying to earn the privilege of being a sucker that will marry and keep them. I do not want them. They are not helpers but leaches. I will not be laying my life down or taking a bullet for them. I will not help them or pick up the slack. I am not their slave or servant. Christian women are not God. They are weak, sick, demented and crippled with entitlement. I will not shed a tear for them, they deserve every thing they are going to get, in spades.

  10. Major Styles says:

    I went to a black church a few years ago and it was 80-90 percent women, with the men sheepishly following along with their pastors. With that structure, any sort of downward spiral is possible.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Deep Strength

    In Malachi 2 what Israelite husbands were doing is sending the wife out of the house, which means they got to keep the dowry from the bride’s family and the bride could not remarry according to the law because she would still be married to her husbands (without a certificate of divorce). This is what was treacherous.

    This is only part of the treachery. Using her youth and then breaking up the marriage is treacherous as well. Giving the certificate of divorce lessens the treachery some, but does not remove it. The right answer is to rejoice in the wife of your youth, as Proverbs 5 instructs:

    8 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

    19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

    20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

    21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings.

    22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.

    23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.

  12. feeriker says:

    Is there just one time when a woman can actually just be wrong?

    Tbey ARE wrong, 95-plus percent of the time. Getting them to admit that they’re wrong? That’s another matter altogether. You might as well go down to the beach and scream at the ocean, demanding that it turn itself into wine. You stand better odds of success at that than of getting a woman to admit the error of her ways.

    Is it just me, or should women really just stay away from marriage. I’m being serious, if men were so bad, women should just stay away. That would be logical.

    I KNOW that you know better than to put “logical” and “women” together in the same sentence except to demonstrate an antonym, but I suppose we all slip up every now and then. Anyway, the ONLY reason most women today still marry, whether they are consciously aware of it or not, is because that’s still the easiest way for them to get ahold of a man’s resources. Give it a few years, though, and the law will just start enslaving random men at gunpoint to support random women (now done indirectly and by proxy through taxation). Then women can dispense altogether with that patriarchal, exploitative barbarism called “marriage.”

  13. feeriker says:

    I went to a black church a few years ago and it was 80-90 percent women, with the men sheepishly following along with their pastors. With that structure, any sort of downward spiral is possible.

    I currently attend (for the moment) a Hispanic (Mexican) evangelical church and it’s pretty much the same story. About 70 percent women in the congregation, with the pastor’s wife more and more making it evident that she is the real power behind the pulpit and that he’s a compliant puppet. It’s looking uglier and uglier each Sunday.

    Silver lining to a dark cloud: the knowledge that the whole “machismo” thing is pure nonsense, at least among Hispanic churchian men. These guys at my church are some of the most pussy-whipped I’ve ever seen, in any church of any racial or ethnic background. It’s just cringe-worthy. The pastor’s gringo son-in-law is arguably the most pussy-whipped of them all.

  14. Snowy says:

    They say, “the pressure often goes on suffering women to ‘buck up’ instead of being placed upon men” etc. I’ve never seen it myself. I’ve honestly never seen a woman suffering at the hand of a man. It’s always the other way around. The man suffers, often quietly, at the hand of the woman. A complete reversal. Satanically diabolical indeed. And notice how they choose their words so carefully: “often”. Often indeed; indeed not.

  15. Lyn87 says:

    In Genesis Chapter 3… before the Fall… before Eve even had a sin-nature and Adam was literally perfect… she rebelled.

    Eve didn’t even have to do anything – and all she had to do was to refrain from doing one thing… not eat the fruit of one tree while she was living in a veritable forest of fruit trees… yet she rebelled.

    A women who was created without a sin nature, in daily personal communion with God Almighty, with no responsibilities, no children, no other women to compete against, and a sinless husband… yet she still rebelled.

    A woman who had an entire pristine world at her fingertips… and a personal, dire warning from God to not eat of that one tree… yet she still rebelled.
    ____________

    It’s such a trivial-sounding thing to say, “All a husband has to do is keep one woman happy.”

    Really? Is that all?

    If the daily, in-person presence of God Himself was not sufficient to keep a sinless women from rebelling against Him in paradise, what chance does any mortal husband have now, if his worthiness to lead is measured by his wife’s level of emotional satisfaction at any given moment?

    That’s what the Davissons and the Powells of the world don’t get: women are fallen creatures just like men are… their emotions are not infallible indications of God’s will or their husband’s authority – and there’s a reason why God tells them to submit to their husbands.

  16. SnapperTrx says:

    So let me get this straight:

    The “treachery” in Malachi 2 isn’t that these men were putting their wives away/divorcing them without just cause, but that these men were causing their wives to divorce them because they didn’t “treat them right”. Or, rather, is that how the modern spin is being put on it? Is that what I’m hearing?

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kathy&Joel
    We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.”

    Huh. Huh?
    So the depth of a man’s faith in God, or the quality of his belief in God, or the significance of his work for God is now to be determined by how haaaaapy his li’l wife is? Really?

    Did I read that correclty, or am I confused? Because it seems to elevate the li’l wife way up higher than God, isn’t there some passage or two in the Bible about that? Seems like somewhere or other there’s a few words about “what a man of God does / looks like”, is “keeps wife haaaapy” anywhere in those passages?

    Probably just not reading accurately due to “testosterone poisoning”, if someone could help me out that would be just dandy.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    How to cause a riot in most any church: preach “She had ONE JOB, and what happened?” some Sunday expanding on your comment.

  19. sipcode says:

    There are two groups that the Lord is especially addressing: Shepherds and women. One is dying off as we have known them; the other with a special punishment greater than Sodom.
    Selected phrasing in scripture KJV:

    Ezekiel 34
    Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

    Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I AM AGAINST THE SHEPHERDS; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves anymore; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

    Lamentations 4:3-6
    “The daughter of my people is become cruel …. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom.”

  20. Lyn87 says:

    We all know that women get their lifetime SMV in a lump sum when they’re young and then it decreases, while for men it’s more like an annuity that starts small and builds over time. As Rollo has famously noted, the lines cross somewhere around the age of 27 nowadays. Marriage is about a woman giving her best years to a man when she’s young in exchange for his best years when she’s old.

    Malachi 2 takes men to task for the then-common practice of husbands taking young wives, then kicking them to the curb when they got older. That’s fair: to do that IS fraudulent, and men are every bit as fallen as women are.

    Of course, since all we ever hear about is the fallen nature of men, we can move on without further elaboration. Any time a man forgets that men sin, there is a chorus of voices to remind him. With women… not so much.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot, with women being in the power position because of our laws. With the church’s tacit – and sometimes overt – blessing, women may give their best years to whomever they like (AF), then marry once the bloom is off the rose (BB)… but the men are still expected to give their best years to those same women. And even if the wife leaves she still feels entitled to the fruits of his labor during his best years… and the force of law will be applied to ensure that the theft goes off with as little fuss as possible.

    Now who’s being defrauded?

    Surprise, surprise: sinful people with the ability to take advantage of others will often do so. In Malachi’s day it was men who had that ability, and God )through His prophet Malachi) took them to task for it. In our day it is women who have that ability… and the Davissons and Powells of the world are still taking men to task for it.

    Malachi 2 says what it says. It could be directed toward men in the text because men were the ones abusing their power in order to take their wives best years without giving theirs in return. But men no longer have that power – women do. The Davissons seem to be okay with that arrangement as long as it is wives who get to carry out the fraud against their husbands, and they go even further by requiring husbands to not only support their wives, but to keep them constantly happy, and to measure their own worth by the yardstick of their wives’ emotions.

  21. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1). | Reaction Times

  22. Dave says:

    @Deep Strength:

    The fact that people believe that Malachi 2 discusses divorce is already a perversion of the Scriptures, and it’s no surprise that there are going to be perversions on top of perversions (or lies on top of lies).

    Not meaning to derail this thread (I hope not to write a follow up response)
    But I think you’re wrong. Sorry.
    The passage clearly discussed divorce. Just because the term “divorce” was not used does not mean the subject was not being discussed. Strong’s Concordance gave the meaning of “put away” as meaning “to set free”;

    Jesus even used the term “put away” to mean “divorce”, in the NT:

    “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mat. 19:8).

    Jesus was of course referring to Deuteronomy 24, which you alluded to, as well as Malachi 2, because his response may be paraphrased as “God hates divorce, but because of the hardness of your hearts, he permitted it”.
    He never mentioned the issuance of a certificate of divorce, though it’s implied.
    So, when God said “put away” in Malachi 2, He clearly meant “divorce”.
    ————————————-
    “Putting away”
    Pronounce: shaw-lakh’

    Strong: H7971

    Orig: a primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications):–X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).

    Use: TWOT-2394 Verb

    1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
    1a) (Qal)
    1a1) to send
    1a2) to stretch out, extend, direct
    1a3) to send away
    1a4) to let loose
    1b) (Niphal) to be sent
    1c) (Piel)
    1c1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
    1c2) to let go, set free
    1c3) to shoot forth (of branches)
    1c4) to let down
    1c5) to shoot
    1d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
    1e) (Hiphil) to send

    —————————————————–
    Please let us not torture the Scriptures so that it may tell us what we want to hear or see.

  23. So, wives and their anatomy are supposed to serve as radio receivers and transmitters of God’s message to husbands?
    Yeah, that makes total sense.

    You know, I’m probably alone in this, but it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the notion that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent life force or God would intentionally choose the most emotional, least reasonable, least rational, most erratic, least dependable and least consistent conduit to transmit such important messaging to human males.

    Such claims are nothing but prolific ass-kissing and excessive aggrandizement of female parishoners.

    Such a God would either be utterly incompetent, powerless, indifferent or cruel and capricious. Maybe all of those in one. Now its difficult to discern whether Christians are worshiping women or God/Jesus? Regardless, the readiness with which modern Christians would bestow wisdom and value to women yet colossal stupidity to God cannot go unnoticed.

  24. RPchristian says:

    First of all, Dalrock’s post is a wealth of insight, and the conversations that follow only amplify the insight and provide me with enormous encouragement. Thank you all. I have learned more and been more encouraged by this blog than I have in my 15 years of being a church-going believer.

    Second, I don’t know who Sipcode is, but your responses are brilliant, succinct, and biblical. Where can I find a man like you for a mentor?

    Third, regarding this passage:

    “We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy”

    I see three-pronged destruction via feminism.

    First, men are stripped of their privileges, maintain responsibility, and this regime is maintained via constant shaming from the pulpit.

    Second, children are damaged through frivolous divorce and family turmoil caused by rebellious wives.

    THIRD, and I think this is where Dalrock has WAY MORE insight than most, is that WOMEN are hurt by this soft bigotry of low expectations. Female happiness is dependent on far more than their relationship with their husband: chiefly, their relationships with the Lord. When we tell women their happiness IS dependent on their husbands, we undercut the importance of their obedience to God and His Word. True submission is difficult, but the rewards are rich for all parties involved. To say their happiness is easily achieved via their husbands is to minimize the importance of the task women have before them in God’s ordained order, and the potential reward they face if obedient. This is HATEFUL toward women.

  25. The Question says:

    Where in the Bible are wives ever given the authority or permission to divorce their husbands?

    The question is rhetorical.

    All the protestation about a husband’s behavior and their “treachery” in how they divorced 2,500 years ago is a smokescreen to cover up what modern Christian wives are doing.

  26. The Question says:

    @ constrainedlocus

    “So, wives and their anatomy are supposed to serve as radio receivers and transmitters of God’s message to husbands? Yeah, that makes total sense.”

    Reminds me of what René Belloq said about the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark. 🙂

  27. Lyn87 says:

    A thought just occurred to me:

    In Malachi’s day, men had the power to divorce their wives and – in essence – defraud them of their youth and fertility by reneging on their part of the deal: she gives you her youth and fetiliity and in return you take care of her when she’s old. But if the “point” of Malachi 2 is that:

    “Men, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your wives. Why? Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.”

    then it’s all lop-sided. Since it is now women who have the power to take a man’s best years (the fruits of his labor during his highest-earning years) – a power wives did not have in Malachi’s day – then why did Malachi take husbands to task rather than wives (like the Davissons do even after the law has reversed the power balance)? Let’s find out what it would look like if Malachi had said what the Davisson’s claim he meant (tell the person under the power imbalance to cater to the person who has the power):

    “Women, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your husbands. Why? Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great woman of God anymore if you cannot keep one little husband happy.”

    Obviously they would NEVER say such a thing.

    Surely if a man is at fault if his wife divorces him today (when wives have the legal power to defraud their husbands), then it would have been the woman’s failure to keep her husband happy that resulted in her being divorced in Malachi’s day (when husbands had the legal power to defraud their wives). Right?

    What these clowns are saying is that when men had the power to defraud their wives, it was incumbent upon them to refrain from doing so, but now that women have that power it is not incumbent upon women to refrain from abusing it, but rather the duty of men to cater to their wives so that they don’t.

  28. Lost Patrol says:

    @Lyn87:
    “In Genesis Chapter 3…”

    In the spirit of Dalrock’s post, where we learn yet again that in the modern church it is basically all the man’s responsibility and fault, I heard a pastor do some verbal jiu jitsu with this passage the other day. I forget the main point because I got distracted with the subplot, but he was relating the Genesis 3 story (I might say I appreciated your version immensely, better than his); and made a point of indicating that Adam was right there too. I thought at the time, nah, why would he just stand there (sit?) and watch all this unfold? But I checked later and it says “she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate”, in multiple versions.

    Now we are not treated to a timeline of events per se, but the inference could be made in the context either that he came along shortly after the fact, or that he was in fact witnessing this from close proximity throughout; and thus garnering some culpability.

    In any event, Adam does not come off well, pointing right away to the woman when confronted, who immediately points to the serpent (we expect this of her due to our own life experiences).

    I’m not putting this out there in the spirit of the white knight making a case for Eve, but interested in your point of view, and any others, from a theological perspective. What if he was just eyeballing this whole interaction from a few feet away?

  29. Lost Patrol says:

    @RPchristian: “THIRD, and I think this is where Dalrock has WAY MORE insight than most, is that WOMEN are hurt by this soft bigotry of low expectations.”

    Dalrock often brings this idea forward as a more effective way of making the feminists and their enablers think. I am trying to approach the issues this way now. Women are in the long run being hurt, not helped, by this encouragement to rebel. “Soft bigotry of low expectations” is an excellent encapsulation of one aspect of it. There is another angle wherein they are being led to deny their true natures, in order to become more like men – another evil perpetrated against women by those claiming to “empower” them.

  30. SnapperTrx says:

    I just had this discussion with my pastor and, I kid you not, he said that “for all we know Adam encouraged Eve to eat from the tree so he couldn’t be blamed”. He was dead set on translating it as “Adam was standing right there next to Eve like an idiot and allowed her to do what was wrong instead of stopping her”. I always thought it translated to mean “she gave also to her husband AS WELL, and he ate”.

    Lately I have been wondering…given a womans nature to deceive, I wonder if Adam even knew what he was eating. I mean, Eve had already eaten and her eyes were opened. Maybe she decided she didn’t want to bear the blame herself so, hey, Ill just go find my man and tell him to eat it. I can see the conversation now:

    E: Hey, babe, you should try this its really good.
    A: What is it?
    E: What? Don’t you trust me? It’s just some fruit.
    A: Fruit from where?
    E: OMG, seriously! All I wanted to do was share this with you, I don’t know why your giving me the third degree. You know what, just forget it!
    A: (sigh) Fine, hand it over.

    BAM! Roped in.

    Does that sound ridiculous? It sounds as ridiculous as “Adam just stood there”. The bible doesn’t say specifically where Adam was or wasn’t, but pastors like to put him right there, then say that he shifted blame for his mess onto Eve, then blame all men for Adams failure. The fact of the matter is, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”, is a factual statement, but don’t tell pastors that.

  31. Lyn87 says:

    Another thought:

    As I mentioned earlier about Rollo’s famous chart, women hold all the cards when they’re young, and that shifts towards men holding more of them as they get older. There are a lot of ramifications to that:

    Most of us are familiar with Briffault’s Law:

    BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

    The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

    There are a few corollaries:

    1) Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

    2) Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

    3) A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

    By giving women their lifetime SMV up-front, they are required to render value or the man may simply walk away. Any man contemplating marriage knows that “she’s as good as she’s ever going to be.” He may not know how fast the process will go, or exactly where it might lead, but he knows which direction the arrow points. She cannot really defraud him in that sense, since if she’s already over-the-hill in his eyes, nothing in the future will ever allow that to change – she will never be younger than she is right now. But while a woman’s best years are quickly behind her, a man’s best years are in front of him for a lot longer.

    What that means is that a man could take a young wife (he gets her best years), then kick her to the curb when they are older and he can replace her with a younger woman.

    But Briffault’s Law generally doesn’t apply to men…

    Husbands tend to get “wife goggles,” and men generally honor their commitments anyway, so while “Corollary 2” permits women to dump good husbands just because they lost their jobs, men are not allowed to “trade her for a newer model” when she loses her looks without being 1) turned into social outcasts, and 2) taken to the cleaners in Divorce Court.

    What’s that have to do with Malachi? Simple, some men were “trading her in for a newer model” and were being told it was wrong. Today, about 1/3 of wives initiate divorce (often after years of riding the carousel before becoming “born-again virgins” and getting married), which allows them to perpetuate the obverse fraud. Who’s telling women that THAT is wrong? Certainly not the Davissons. Their solution is the exact inverse of the one found in Malachi: rather than telling the perpetrator to not commit fraud like Malachi did, the Davissons tell the victims that being taken advantage of is ipso facto proof that they deserved it.

  32. GW says:

    The passage really begins in verse 10, and is summed up thusly:

    “Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?”

    In this passage God (through the prophet) condemns Judah for both intermarriage and divorce–two acts of unfaithfulness which exemplify their faithlessness toward Yahweh. They cannot keep sacred promises to each other (the marriage covenant), therefore they can’t be faithful to God.

    It takes a special kind of perverse feminist bent to turn this into a specific anti-male passage–as if the central problem God had with Judah was male caddishness and not willful disobedience and unfaithfulness.

  33. feeriker says:

    Such claims are nothing but prolific ass-kissing and excessive aggrandizement of female parishoners.

    When keeping a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and your dinner pail full depends on keeping your primary customer base happy by tickling their ears, this is the inevitable result.

  34. Jim says:

    I tell you one thing. These shit wipe pretend cuck-Christians will NEVER, EVER get one penny from me nor will I ever attend one of their woman-worshiping sessions at their pagan churches. These people are the lowest form of human scum, pretending to be Christian when they really worship Gaia. To me that’s a million times worse than a pagan or atheist. At least they they don’t pretend to be Christian.

  35. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Anonymous

    Probably just not reading accurately due to “testosterone poisoning”, if someone could help me out that would be just dandy.

    If women divorce because their husbands are not up to snuff, not loving enough and not worthy, then it follows the reason that the church apostatizes is that Christ is not up to snuff, not loving enough and not worthy. That is of course blasphemy, but then that is precisely what Titus 2:5 warns against.

  36. @ Dalrock, Dave

    I covered that here.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/on-divorce-part-4/

    In particular, the Pharisees were asking a trick question — putting away = divorce under Roman law, but not under Jewish law — which is why Jesus responds the way He does in the Gospels. This is why there are different responses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in regard to the ‘exception’ clause because of the audience. Matthew’s Jewish audience would know that “fornication” refers to Deut 22 defrauding.

    Overall,

    1. I agree that God hates divorce (e.g. to paraphrase Jesus — “divorce was ‘allowed’ in Mosaic law because of hard heartedness” and “what God has put together let man not separate”).
    2. I agree that divorce is treacherous when legal too (given the whole context of the Scripture).
    3. I do not agree that Malachi 2 speaks of divorce as the wording of the passage is simply about putting away (and no writ of divorcement referred to). Deut 24, Jeremiah 3, and Isaiah 50 corroborate that the Scripture distinguishes “divorce” from “putting away.”

  37. Spike says:

    “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so”
    -Matt. 18:9 King James Bible
    I understand from this scripture – the words of Jesus – that in Moses’day, men were hard of heart and divorced their wives. So too were they in Malachi’s day, where the “trade-in” model was being used. Jesus rightly condemned them as hard of heart.

    What hasn’t changed is hardness of heart. This is the common factor linking past and present.

    It’s just these days that it’s women, responding to the State’s cues of cash and prizes, who are hard of heart. So hard, that they defraud their husbands before marriage (fornication), defraud their husbands after marriage (divorce) and defraud them during marriage (witholding sex). On top of that they can abort children without the husband’s consent – more defrauding still, and can escape all consequences of adultery if they cuckold their husbands, since the State will force the husband to pay for the bastard’s upkeep because it is “in the best interests of the child”.

    I think it’s fair to say that it is women who are hard of heart today. Indeed, if you desire divorce you are hard of heart. I don’t believe any violence at all is done to Scripture if the behavior of women in the current context is applied.

  38. Spike says:

    Apologies – Matthew 19: 8

  39. Dave II says:

    With regards to churchian women being a lost cause, I have an idea I’d appreciate some critique of.

    When it comes to women, it is obvious they are easily deceived individuals (starting with the Serpent in the garden of Eden) who generally follow and trust their feelings at any given moment above all else. So my question is, since game is a tool specifically for influencing the feelings of women, shouldn’t a man well versed in game be able to reverse this churchian doctrinal poisoning in his would-be sweetheart?

    It seems so to me. In fact the great failure of men in this age of the takeover of the FI seems to be that they have absconded this ability, with the most whipped not even believing this skill exists. This has essentially left what one could call a leadership vacuum in women’s lives, one which the FI and big government have promptly filled. Now, instead of “he shall rule over you” as stated by God in Genesis, it is the FI/government combination that she takes her instructions from, and the resulting delusions and devastations are evident.

    This was inspired by Feminist hater’s above post which has a very mgtow-ish bend to it. Not to say do not go your own way, but I do wonder whether we as men are not giving up, in too great droves, on a problem that is solvable. Look at how women lap up whatever the men of their desires tell them. So we use game to get them to desire us, and use that influence to override their brainwashing over time. Problem solved. Now you know how to keep your woman happy AND you have less of a gun to your head as you do so Plus you can do this before you marry them, which eliminates the threatpoint almost entirely – it becomes your game to screw up. If she for whatever reason stubbornly retains her churchian dogmas you have the ability to move on and replace her with a more suitable non-sociopathic woman.

    So it would seem these women are only a lost cause insofar that:
    a) We men refuse to get game but insist on forming romantic relations with women, or
    b) We men get game but refuse to use it to reverse the churchian psychological damage (often inadvertently occurs when gamed-up men “regress to AFC” in a long-term relationship), or
    c) The woman has a history of CC-riding and / or infidelity (these are not entirely a lost cause – it just takes Jesus to rescue them).

    Also I really hate the attitude of helplessness. Your thoughts are welcome.

  40. feeriker says:

    If women divorce because their husbands are not up to snuff, not loving enough and not worthy, then it follows the reason that the church apostatizes is that Christ is not up to snuff, not loving enough and not worthy. That is of course blasphemy, but then that is precisely what Titus 2:5 warns against.

    Time was just a few decades ago when a sufficient number of Christians studied their Bible that the contents of of the book of Titus were well known and absorbed. Today, unless Titus 2 is contained in watered down form in some churchian best-selling self-help /New Age philosophy book disguised as a “Bible Study” aid, no one will know what you’re talking about when you mention it. In fact, 99 “Christians” out of 100 won’t even know where in the Bible to find it.

  41. Do Joel and Kathy have a church building… somewhere? If so, I would very much like to picket it. I feel sorry for the two of them. They are NOT acting in a Christlike manner. They are sinning. And theirs is a great sin.

  42. greyghost says:

    Dave II
    Civilized society was “game” and reality was the foundation. Some civilizations are very good at it and with out vigilance people will lose sight of reality and become as we say in the manosphere “blue pill” I think this is why we have the traditional types (cuckservatives,churchians) speaking of things a civil society needs for individual success but have no idea of the reason for the “traditions they speak of.
    Civilized society has to be founded on solid truth. Nothing man does will “work” without it including the church as Dalrock regularly shows. Lyn87 nailed it with this from Genesis .

    In Genesis Chapter 3… before the Fall… before Eve even had a sin-nature and Adam was literally perfect… she rebelled.

    Eve didn’t even have to do anything – and all she had to do was to refrain from doing one thing… not eat the fruit of one tree while she was living in a veritable forest of fruit trees… yet she rebelled.

    A women who was created without a sin nature, in daily personal communion with God Almighty, with no responsibilities, no children, no other women to compete against, and a sinless husband… yet she still rebelled.

    A woman who had an entire pristine world at her fingertips… and a personal, dire warning from God to not eat of that one tree… yet she still rebelled.
    ____________

    It’s such a trivial-sounding thing to say, “All a husband has to do is keep one woman happy.”

    Really? Is that all?

    If the daily, in-person presence of God Himself was not sufficient to keep a sinless women from rebelling against Him in paradise, what chance does any mortal husband have now, if his worthiness to lead is measured by his wife’s level of emotional satisfaction at any given moment?

    That’s what the Davissons and the Powells of the world don’t get: women are fallen creatures just like men are… their emotions are not infallible indications of God’s will or their husband’s authority – and there’s a reason why God tells them to submit to their husbands.

    No blue pill man or cuckservative or churchian today understands this. It doesn’t matter if Adam was standing right there with her or not his sin was not for failing to keep his wife from sin or even eating the fruit his sin was listening to his wife over listening to what God told him. That kills the Adam allowed Eve to sin shit right there for those in worship of women.
    When men are fully masculine and red pill they live by reality and the wisdom of maturity allows them to no matter how far removed from reality they are in man’s world they always have a foot on the foundation of reality ( very hard to do) the bible and a civilized society that is founded on the bible (as best as man can) makes it easier. These conversations we have here .are good for men today to help find that foundation. Check out the comment from squid_hunt.

  43. Boxer says:

    Do Joel and Kathy have a church building… somewhere? If so, I would very much like to picket it.

    They run their scam out of the old Summit (where the Rockets used to play) near Richmond and Edloe, in Houston TX.

    I feel sorry for the two of them. They are NOT acting in a Christlike manner. They are sinning. And theirs is a great sin.

    Yeah. Their entire schtick is based around money. You are supposed to give them your money, and then their god will bless you with the balance plus interest. That’s in the Book of Commerce, right after the Book of Feminism, you know that part of the New Testament, right?

    Really, I don’t think those two hucksters even pretend that their shit is backed up in the text. They have found some sheep, and they’re busy shearing them. The sheep, as Nietzsche would say, exist to be sheared, so it’s hard to even feel sorry for them. The scam is pretty transparent.

    Boxer

  44. Pingback: Lyn87 nails it… | chokingonredpills

  45. Since rebellion is an outward expression or action of sin nature, when was Eve infected?

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.”

    Does this include single men? If a man never marries one of them single mom/sluts, does this mean he will go to Hell, no matter how else he lives his life?

  47. infowarrior1 says:

    All those problems with modern Christianity indicates a need for a modern inquisition:
    http://thefutureprimaeval.net/why-methodists-dont-go-to-heaven/

  48. Avraham rosenblum says:

    “That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.” Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]

  49. Hmm says:

    Dal,

    Perhaps a topic for a later post:
    http://ftc.co/resource-library/1/2390

  50. Linx says:

    @mrteebs

    No confusion on my part. It just happened that the video I used Joel Osteen was used as an example for how people twist Scripture for selfish reasons to suit their own agendas as seen in the post by Dalrock. Having a mantra of how they want scripture to be read and understood to pander to feelings and not the understanding the truth.

    Thank you for highlighting it. I will aim to clarify better in the future.

  51. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    October 6, 2016 at 12:30 am

    “That’s in the Book of Commerce, right after the Book of Feminism, you know that part of the New Testament, right?”

    Actually, those books are in the Relevant Testament.

  52. Lyn87 says:

    Avraham rosenblum asks the question:

    “That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.” Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband? [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]
    ____________________

    The words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are as follows: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    I think it does make her forbidden to her “husband” – because he is not her husband. If we really believe what Jesus said, a woman divorced for anything other than fornication (a general term for illicit sex) is guilty of adultery (a specific term for having sex with another man’s wife), if she remarries. It makes no sense to say that a woman is committing adultery with her own husband since that defies the very definition of the word – you can no more commit “adultery” with your own wife than you can steal your own wallet – yet Jesus classifies the sex within those “marriages” as “adultery” (again, a very specific term that means “sex with another man’s wife”). The ONLY possible explanation is that not only is the man she is acting as a wife toward not her husband… but another man is.

    Other than the exceptions provided for in Matthew 19, any “marriage” subsequent to the first one is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but is simply an adulterous union given sanction by the state and, now, the church. There is really no other way to ready Matthew 19 – most of the “couples” in churches today that are the second marriages of the wives are actually just two people shacking-up with a piece of paper that falsely claims otherwise. The county clerk that issues the license doesn’t care, and Kim Davis doesn’t care, and most pew-sitters and pastors don’t care, but God certainly seems to care. There are exceptions: when my dad was a pastor he flatly refused to perform several wedding ceremonies, including ones that would result in an adulterous union as defined by Matthew 19. He would tell them, “I can’t marry you – you’re already married to someone else.”

    My current pastor is a generally very straight guy, but he has a few blind spots and this is one of them. I told him that he’s allowing open adultery to exist in the pews and even in the leadership by considering adulterous unions to be valid marriages. I see no way to read the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 without concluding that those women are married to other men in the eyes of God.

    I asked him a rhetorical question: “What if the former husband of one of the divorced-and-remarried women in the congregation came to you, pointed out the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and demanded that you take action to have his wife return to him (like Hosea did with Gomer). His response was that the church’s stance was to “help the marriage that (currently) exists.” My response, of course, is that Jesus was very clear that the “current marriage” is not a marriage at all, or else Jesus would not have called it “adultery” – again, a very specific term for when a married woman has sex with someone who is not her husband.

    He wouldn’t agree to it – like I said, he’s a pretty straight guy with a blind spot. It’s a dangerous trend to tell people that they are legitimately married when God has unambiguously defined such relationships as being adulterous. It’s dangerous for the church leaders who accept “the current marriage” and will answer to God for calling adultery “marriage,” and for the couples themselves, who are committing adultery and being told they are not.

  53. Scott says:

    D

    The presupppsitions and subsequent narrative of Duluth are deeply entrenched in “conservative” Christian theology and pastoral counseling.

    Behind every white picket fence is a dysfunctional, abusive relationship with nightly wife beatings.

  54. Fiddlesticks says:

    Wait, to be consistent, shouldn’t they tell the wife: “You love your husband. The baby is a part of your husband.” (2nd letter, written by SAHM)

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2016/10/dear_prudence_my_parents_give_all_their_money_to_charities_i_loathe.html

  55. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.

  56. Avraham rosenblum says:

    To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus–but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]

  57. Linx says:

    Prov 31:10-31 — “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it [in order to plant and grow food for her family]: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. [providing wine part of the provisions of the home, just as is providing of the food; i.e., she was not a “real estate lady” as the so-called Biblical feminists teach today—she barters food, wine, garments, and sashes (vs. 24)] She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good [bartering food and drink, not real estate speculation]: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple [a wealthy household, yet she works hard—no idleness]. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. [Her faithfulness in the home and with the home is very significant in her husband’s success.] She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. [The issue of working women is not income; the focus must be the home, and income generated through the home, not outside of it.] Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. [She has made provision for the future.] She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. [The real credit comes to a woman from her children and from her husband.] Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.”

    She should stop dictating to men what God wants from them and pay more attention to what God expects from her as a woman.

  58. I thought this was a weird passage for them to attack, but it clicked after I thought about it for a bit. Deep Strength’s point about “putting away” vs “certificate of divorce” is the key to why this passage has to be attacked by those that serve the Devil.

    Understanding that the concepts are different. “Putting away” without writing a “certificate of divorce” is to defraud the ancient Wife, but it was “technically” allowable. It was splitting legal hairs to rob both a Wife and her Family. (Jews splitting legal hairs to get around straight forward expectations? This stuff is a couple of thousands of years old now. Nothing new under the Sun, eh?) It is offensive to the Lord to abuse the legal system to rob a spouse of their property when you claim to be “free” of them.

    Hey, there’s the issue. Cover a clear warning with as much confusion as possible so the Women in the audience won’t feel a tinge of guilt for the horror that they want to unleash.

  59. Boxer says:

    Dear Mr. Teebs:

    You are confusing Joel and Victoria Osteen with
    Joel and Kathy Davisson.

    Thanks! You’re right! There’s too many of these shysters to keep track of.

    Best,

    Boxer

  60. feeriker says:

    It’s dangerous for the church leaders who accept “the current marriage” and will answer to God for calling adultery “marriage,” and for the couples themselves, who are committing adultery and being told they are not.

    This, to me, serves to illustrate why there are so few sermons on sin delivered in today’s churches. Pastors know full we that they are perverting Scripture, but, between having to tickle ears in order to pay the bills and not feeling any immediate negative sanction for having committed acts of blasphemy and heresy by perverting the Word, they don’t care.

  61. Dave says:

    BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

    The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

    Is this really a law? If at all it is, it must be a law for beta men. Redpill men don’t allow women to determine all the conditions of the family. That is dereliction of duty.
    And, as is clearly done through MGTOW, “where the man can derive no benefit from association with the female, no such association takes place”. As a matter of fact, no relationships with anyone takes place unless both, rightly or wrongly, expect some benefits from the relationship.

  62. Lyn87 says:

    Scott,

    I knew for sure the video was crap when the narrator said that there was domestic violence in 28% of homes, and that is probably a fraction of the “real” total, then stopped watching entirely the moment he said that 95% of domestic violence was committed by men against women. Both of those “facts” are nonsense… it would have been more believable if he had said that 95% of domestic violence was committed by Yetis against Chupacrabras.

    Here are the real numbers from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The takeaway? Even if we use the absurdly-broad definition of domestic violence that categorizes a happy 50-year marriage as a “violent relationship” if some nosy neighbor called the cops when they argued once in 1968 or the woman made a false accusation to get leverage in a custody hearing, the total is 24% – which means the real total is probably far lower once we toss out the false positives. Plus, half of all “violent relationships” are reciprocal, while in the other half – where there is a primary aggressor – women are more likely to initiate violence against men than the other way around by a factor of greater than 2-to-1.

    [Given those facts, the HIGH estimate of male domestic batterers is about one man in 21, while the LOW estimate for female batterers is about one woman in 12, and that doesn’t even include women committing violence-by-proxy by getting other men – including the police – to commit violence against their husbands and boyfriends on their behalf. The bottom line is that women are FAR more likely to be violent than men are within intimate relationships.]

    Any realistic effort to tackle domestic violence MUST do away with the idea that it is something that men do to women and face the facts that it’s something that the vast majority of people never commit or have committed upon them, and that most of the problem would go away if women did not enjoy the privilege of initiating violence against men and children with virtual social and legal impunity – and often enthusiastic approval.

    Another take-away from the study [emphasis mine]: “A recent meta-analysis found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence.” ( Ref: Stith SM, Smith DB, Penn CE, Ward DB, Tritt D. Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;10:65–98.) In other words, where the woman is the primary aggressor, all or nearly all of those cases would disappear if the women wasn’t violent, and in many of the reciprocally-violent relationships, the man would not be violent if the woman wasn’t violent. Want to cut DV by 80-90% overnight? Too easy – get women to stop doing it.

  63. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    Briffault was studying animals, and then people realized that what he observed also generally applied to human relationships under modern Western jurisprudence. Also, if you think your red-pill awareness will allow you to determine anything once a woman dials 9-1-1, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

  64. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    When I was DV counselor undergoing my indoctrination, it would have been helpful to have your mastery of the data available for retort.

    Good work, brother.

  65. Lyn87 says:

    Correction to my post at
    October 6, 2016 at 10:05 am:

    The sentence that reads, “… women are more likely to initiate violence against men than the other way around by a factor of greater than 2-to-1.”

    Should read as follows, “… women are more likely to initiate violence against men than the other way around by a factor of nearly 2-to-1.”

  66. Gunner Q says:

    Dave II says:
    October 5, 2016 at 10:01 pm
    “So my question is, since game is a tool specifically for influencing the feelings of women, shouldn’t a man well versed in game be able to reverse this churchian doctrinal poisoning in his would-be sweetheart?”

    No. Tempting women into virtue will always fail because women are sinful. It’s like bribing a child to do his chores… correct behavior but unacceptable motive. The rebellious core is still unchecked.

    If she won’t suffer for doing good then she is not Christian.

    “In fact the great failure of men in this age of the takeover of the FI seems to be that they have absconded this ability, with the most whipped not even believing this skill exists. This has essentially left what one could call a leadership vacuum in women’s lives, one which the FI and big government have promptly filled.”

    Many of the men reading this thread have been sold into economic and political slavery before we were even born. Do you really think there’s any chance at all that the current situation is our fault? But if you’re “game” enough to turn it all around then go ahead. We’ll watch, make a hero of you if you succeed and make room at the bar if you fail.

    Very few men go MGTOW in happy expectation of a minimalist, often sexless existence.

  67. Oscar says:

    Lyn,

    It’s worse than you’ve stated, because the study you cited counts all “violence between intimate partners”. That includes marriages, shack-ups, dating couples, lesbians, gays, and every possible permutation I can’t even think of.

    We know that domestic violence is far more common among shack-ups, dating couples and lesbians than among married men and women. Furthermore, violence is habitual. A person who is violent in one relationship is likely to be violent in the next. Shack-ups, dating couples and lesbian couples break up and reform with a new partner far more often than married men and women do.

    It’s therefore reasonable to expect that few of the 24% of “intimate partner” relationships that experience domestic violence are marriages, or even individuals. They’re mostly women and men who shacked up or dated a partner, beat them up, broke up, shacked up or dated someone else, broke up, shacked up or dated someone else, beat them up, broke up…

    In other words, they’re counting the same violent people multiple times.

  68. RPchristian says:

    @Scott

    That video constructs such a massive straw man. It’s propaganda, pure and simple. The sad part is they appear to be well-meaning, but obviously unwitting tools of the devil’s lies.

    You and I are in the same profession. I am a forensic psychologist, and part of my practice is conducting CPS parent competency evaluations. I’m sure you’re just as aware as I am that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men who are not married to the mother and have no biological relationship to the children. Sexual abuse against children is also far more likely to be perpetrated by boyfriends and stepfathers. I know there are statistics to back this up. I don’t have them at my fingertips. Maybe Lynn does 🙂

    Therefore, if people really care about cutting down domestic violence and abuse, they should be focusing their efforts on making women MORE dependent on their husbands. We also need to give biological fathers more power and control over their children, and reduce the power and control of mothers. This would disincentivize out-of-wedlock birth and divorce, which is what creates these high-risk scenarios.

    Instead, we get deceptive videos like this that cut husbands off at the knees, and create a false perception that husbands and fathers are the real danger. It makes women adopt a defensive and suspicious attitude toward their husbands and soothes their guilty consciences about frivolous divorce. It encourages rebellion. This is demonic. Videos like this actually contribute to a cultural atmosphere that causes violence and abuse.

    Spousal abuse is a relative non-issue in our day and age. Abuse perpetrated by non-biologically related men, and women AGAINST men, are far bigger problems.

    I actually had a buddy once tell me that I was encouraging violence by saying that women need to be more dependent on their husbands instead of less. He obviously had no idea under what circumstances most domestic violence and abuse occur. He is a devout Christian. It just goes to show how much the propaganda has saturated the church culture.

    By the way, if you’re ever in the Pacific NW, send me an email. I would still love to meet up.

  69. Oscar says:

    I screwed something up.

    “We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.”

    So it’s only heterosexual relationships, but as far as I can tell, the study still makes no distinction between marriages, shack-ups and dating relationships.

  70. patriarchal landmine says:

    my mom had 6 kids by 4 different men. she never married any of them. she’s in her 60s now.

    she goes to church every sunday.

  71. Anon says:

    Is this really a law? If at all it is, it must be a law for beta men.

    Of course. That is why it is called ‘Bro-fault’s Law’. The man is always at fault, under such law.

  72. When there was a push by outside forces for pastors to talk about DV a couple of years ago, I remember someone linked a Feminist’s PhD thesis on studying “DV” among couples. Even with that massive skew, Lesbians were sitting at 25% (about 3x higher, with expanded definitions, than Church-going couples). The Male:Female DV ratio, by the study, also sat at 2:3 in most situations. And this was from a study that was clearly badly biased with study runners with massive subconscious bias running one direction. They couldn’t even torture the numbers enough to hide that part. (Which is why that stuff will never come up.)

    Women are simply massively more violent than Men. But that makes sense, when you think about it. A Man with as limited of self-control has most Women have won’t make it beyond age 12 without getting himself killed. Certain levels of self-control are utterly necessary to survive as a Man. Women don’t have that same requirement, as they have value to Men simply by existing. Plus, without a weapon of some form, a Woman just isn’t much of a threat to a Man, so Men simply don’t retaliate until pushed.

  73. Anon says:

    and some even go so far as to teach that God speaks to husbands through their wives vaginas.

    This is beyond pathetic. So there really are literal vagina-worshippers out there..

    They are worshipping (and paid full price for) what was given away to 30 guys for free back when she was younger, tighter, and a thousand pounds lighter.

  74. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    You and RPChirstian are clearly correct… there’s just too much there to unpack in anything short of a 25,000-word essay – which would have taken me a couple of days to write (at least). It’s one thing to look at the data from the “push” angle and infer (or in their case: guess) forward from there (“Who do we think is committing violence?”) and another to start from the “pull” angle and deduce back from there (“Who has had violence committed against them?”). The former approach is more subject to “creative interpretation” than the latter, and is thus (unsurprisingly) the one feminists and/or DV alarmists almost always use.

    I suspect that the real numbers for unreciprocated male-on-female DV within LTRs in general and marriages in particular are minuscule. The risk of a faithful, non-violent married woman being subjected to actual non-trivial abuse by her husband is almost certainly negligible. As you noted, once we tease out the STRs women have with the same small group of “bad-boys” before they get their Beta-Bucks husbands, I’d guess that such a woman has a far better chance of getting a black eye from a falling vase rather than her husband’s fist, while her “history of victimhood” dates to her days riding the carousel. (Then she shows up in surveys as a “married woman who has experienced physical violence from an intimate partner.”)

    Same with their children: the safest arrangement for children is to be in the custody of their biological father (ideally as part of a married, theologically-conservative, two-parent household). It’s easy to look at the “push” numbers (“Who harms kids? We think it’s men”), and it pushes the desired narrative that men are the problem. But the real question ought to be asked from the “pull” side (“Which kids get abused? The kids of slutty single mothers”), but that undermines the narrative that women shall never be held responsible for the bad outcomes their decisions lead to – no matter how predictable those outcomes are.

    Scrubbing the data for the violence found in short-term relationships would do a lot all by itself to push the conclusions in the right direction. Women go for bad-boys (in fact, women share bad boys either at the same time or in quick sequence), and bad-boys treat women like crap – because it is the very act of treating them like crap that makes them feel like they’ve found a guy who’s aloof and, ironically, possesses good genes (the first half of the AF/BB life-script that most “battered women” follow). So a woman may get with three or four guys who aren’t shy about “putting her in her place” before she hits the Wall, grows up a little, and settles for the boring dude in the Accounting Department who would never raise a hand to her even if she had a knife to his throat… or got a Divorce Court judge to give her his kids, his house, and half his future income.

  75. Anon says:

    Lyn87,

    In Malachi’s day, men had the power to divorce their wives and – in essence – defraud them of their youth and fertility by reneging on their part of the deal: she gives you her youth and fetiliity and in return you take care of her when she’s old. But if the “point” of Malachi 2 is that:

    In most Muslim countries, men STILL have this right, yet they DON’T do this. There are very few children in those countries who don’t grow up with both biological parents.

    Men are simply more likely to put the children’s interest first. Women have no such restraints.

    Hence, marriage only works when men hold well over 50% of the rights. 90% is perhaps the appropriate balance that serves the best interests of children and society.

  76. Scott says:

    RPC-

    I haven’t stayed on top of the DV literature as much as I should have since graduate school. But back then, I was a facilitator in a California mandated group setting. I had about 3-5000 clinical contact hours with the convicted DV population by the time I left.

    I do know that the gay/lesbian DV literature bears out exactly what LG is saying above.

    But, during my 3 years of doing it, 2-3 nights a week, (about 6 hours a week, 3 groups of 8-12 men) I would have concluded the following are the “typical” features in one of these relationships:

    Both people in the relationship use extremely inappropriate methods of communication, including violence and manipulation. The police being at their house for these kinds of confrontations is actually a regular, almost normal thing. Both people are drug/alcohol users/abusers, and there was a substance onboard (usually both of them) during the incident. There is a ton of personality psychopathology with both parties. And you are correct–almost none of them are in stable, nuclear families with biological parents married to each other and only their kids in the home.

  77. Scott says:

    Lyn87- We cross-posted. Some similar material in both posts.

  78. Lyn87 says:

    Scott,

    Yep: and I have created a Grand Unifying Theory for consideration:

    Dysfunctional people gravitate toward dysfunctional situations with other dysfunctional people.

  79. Scott says:

    Lyn87, that is a pretty easy theory to prove. And it is consistent with everything I have seen in practice.

    I used to say this to many of my clients: “If you walked into a room with 500 women, and 499 of them were sweet, nice, easy to get along with girls with good, modest values and 1 of them was a crazy borderline with poor boundaries, you and that 1 girl would be attracted to each others like on flies on $&@!.

    Now, the much bigger conundrum is a chicken and egg one. That is, have we driven this kind of pathology into a larger and larger segment of the population, on a grand social scale over the last 50 years?

  80. Oscar says:

    @ Scott says:
    October 6, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    “… have we driven this kind of pathology into a larger and larger segment of the population, on a grand social scale over the last 50 years?”

    Yes. Definitely.

  81. “Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.”

    Satanic.

  82. RPchristian says:

    I’m becoming more and more convinced that if husband/fathers had LEGAL OWNERSHIP of their wives and children, we would see the rates of domestic violence and abuse of all kinds go way down. Divorce would also obviously go way down.

    I think this is the biblical model. Hence Numbers 30 and the 10th commandment which lists “wife” as one of my neighbor’s possessions.

    Also, pastors actually enforcing Matthew 19 would help a lot, as Lynn mentioned above.

  83. Anon says:

    I’m becoming more and more convinced that if husband/fathers had LEGAL OWNERSHIP of their wives and children, we would see the rates of domestic violence and abuse of all kinds go way down.

    BECOMING convinced?

    This is the most fundamental truth of the ‘sphere. No society has ever had a significant divorce rate EXCEPT when women can financially profit from divorce. Outside of that artificial incentive, there would be very low divorce rates.

    Divorce has a 100% correlation to the extent that women can get short-term profits from divorce. They lose over the long term, but they can’t think that far.

    This is another way of saying that the institution of marriage simply cannot coexist with a full democracy (i.e. female suffrage), as women will tireless vote to destroy the institution of marriage.

  84. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Scott
    That video almost ruined my afternoon it was such egregious misandry. Duluth is everywhere, maybe DTS could actually be the Duluth theological seminary.

    The propaganda campaign for the FI is in full swing at DTS. What is most distressing is that this non-biblical bias is the indoctrination for the next generation of pastors. They assume man-bad and woman-good because that is what they were taught by the ivory tower dwellers.

    You know it is bad when they say “abuse is about keeping one subject..”

    Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

    God is such an abuser!

  85. 95% of domestic violence was committed by Yetis against Chupacabras.

    That analogy brought me to wakefulness. Thanks for that.

  86. RPchristian says:

    @ Anon

    I agree that the financial incentives for women need to be stripped. I also agree that female suffrage was a mistake. I’m saying that we also need to maximize the incentives for men. The maximal way men will take pleasure and satisfaction from their families, and work tirelessly for them and for society, is if they have legal ownership over their wives and children. Pride of ownership, ACTUAL ownership. I haven’t heard this much in the manosphere but I’m new to it so maybe it’s out there and I missed. However, it’s been right there in my bible all along.

  87. feeriker says:

    The propaganda campaign for the FI is in full swing at DTS. What is most distressing is that this non-biblical bias is the indoctrination for the next generation of pastors.

    Does there HAVE to be a next generation of pastors who graduate from those heresy factories known as seminaries or Bible colleges?

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    Dysfunctional people gravitate toward dysfunctional situations with other dysfunctional people.

    This reminds me of some advice I was given by a man of wisdom and experience on the topic of personal safety:

    Don’t hang out with stupid people, don’t go to stupid places, don’t do stupid things

    Mirror image sorta.

  89. Anon says:

    I’m saying that we also need to maximize the incentives for men. The maximal way men will take pleasure and satisfaction from their families, and work tirelessly for them and for society, is if they have legal ownership over their wives and children.

    That is why some have often said that the primary mistake that Islam is making is random, brutish terrorist violence. Instead, if they did a sophisticated marketing campaign about gender realism, while keeping violence to a minimum (say, the occasional high-profile assassination of only the most degenerate SJW-fem types to make examples), they would get a lot of traction in the West, including among women.

    in the manosphere but I’m new to it

    Over here, you will see a ‘Start Here’ link with some reading material.

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    That is, have we driven this kind of pathology into a larger and larger segment of the population, on a grand social scale over the last 50 years?

    Yes.

    There is a slow motion debate in parts of the androsphere regarding BPD’s who are almost always female. BPD is pretty well studied. There seem to be a whole lot more of them now. Is that because of increasing population with a more or less fixed percentage of women BPD?

    Or is it that demolition of the family via frivorce, via babymomma, etc. is creating more BPD’s?

    I’m of the second opinion. One man observed that BPD’s act a lot like 5-year olds, and opined that their “Daddy issues” stem from loss of father at that age – they get frozen in their development in the 5-year-old stage. What’s the leading cause even now of “loss of Daddy” to a 5-year old girl?

    Duh. Frivorce. Hands down.

    No idea what the actual literature / DSM / etc. says about possible causes of BPD, but most definately “daddy issues” are a key part. Be interested in your opinion.

    Again I answer your question: yes. Although I wonder who “we” is…

  91. Married Celibate says:

    In a few weeks I will have been married 20 years. That same day will also mark one entire year without sex. The year before’s count would not need my thumbs when counting, maybe not even a pinky or two. I am a very good provider, educated, respected and successful in my field. In very good shape and have a number of friends. Very active in our children’s life’s. Don’t drink, gamble, nor a sports fanatic. This past year I’ve spent 5 figures bailing my wife out of a disastrous “business” deal of hers (on top of the tens of thousands already wasted) and had her confess to hiding a credit card for over two years in this deal in excess of 10 grand.

    The above are just some highlights.

    She goes to church every Sunday

  92. sipcode says:

    Not directly related but fallout from the poison of women; George Will today on “America’s ‘quiet catastrophe’: Millions of idle men:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-quiet-catastrophe-millions-of-idle-men/2016/10/05/cd01b750-8a57-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?utm_term=.d1a2021f34c5

    I’m one of them that would like to be working in my old industry – commercial banking — but fortunately I’m old enough and was frugal enough that I opted not to chase it again after massive layoffs, only to have the positions replaced with materially all women [and a smidgen of underperforming males, for effect].

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    George Will. Snort. He’s a little bit late to the party. Maybe he could co-write something for Atlantic with Hannah Rosen…

  94. RPchristian says:

    I posted a link to the George Will article a little earlier. It’s amazing such a bright guy could have such a blindspot. He laments at length about the “infantile” men who are choosing not to work as if they are acting against their own self interest in a vacuum. No mention of the feminization of the workplace and misandry of the current marriage laws as factors. He mistakes the symptom for the core problem.

  95. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 2). | Dalrock

  96. Anon says:

    He laments at length about the “infantile” men who are choosing not to work as if they are acting against their own self interest in a vacuum. No mention of the feminization of the workplace and misandry of the current marriage laws as factors. He mistakes the symptom for the core problem.

    aka cuckservatives are economic leftists.

    The cuckservative attitude towards men is precisely the same as the leftist’s desire for an 80% tax rate. Furthermore, they are both targeting the same individual, whether due to his gender or his income, they both think men owe them something and should get nothing in return.

  97. feeriker says:

    I posted a link to the George Will article a little earlier. It’s amazing such a bright guy could have such a blindspot. He laments at length about the “infantile” men who are choosing not to work as if they are acting against their own self interest in a vacuum. No mention of the feminization of the workplace and misandry of the current marriage laws as factors. He mistakes the symptom for the core problem.

    Anon stole my thunder, but yes. Will is a poster boy for cuckservatism.

  98. shammahworm says:

    “Deep Strength” is lying regarding divorce. He’s spreading false teachings he received correction for months ago. So it’s time once again to refute the latest garbage carried over from another blog.

    “In particular, the Pharisees were asking a trick question — putting away = divorce under Roman law, but not under Jewish law — which is why Jesus responds the way He does in the Gospels. This is why there are different responses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in regard to the ‘exception’ clause because of the audience. Matthew’s Jewish audience would know that “fornication” refers to Deut 22 defrauding.”

    This is an outright lie as has been pointed out to DS over many months.

    1) The Pharisees weren’t trying to trick Jesus into contradicting Roman law because Jews weren’t considered Roman and were allowed to set their own laws regarding divorce. They weren’t subject to Roman laws on divorce and as such Jesus couldn’t be condemned for contradicting them.
    2) Jesus uses the word porneia in Matt. 5 and Matt. 19 which includes adultery(note 1 Cor 5:1) as you all know. The usage of this word means yes, He is without a doubt including adultery as grounds for “putting away” and remarrying.
    3) Deut. 22 required the death of the girl who falsely represented her virginity. Divorce wasn’t an option. If two people had sex, they were joined as one body. Only death or a lawful divorce could separate them. This is how we know Jesus isn’t referring to this in Matt. 5 and 19. Doubly so if we use DS contention that “putting away” is different from divorce.
    4) The fable DS spreads of two separate meanings of the same words in the gospels for two separate audiences is false because he assumes the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews were ignorant of the teachings of the Torah when those teachings were already widely known in the synagogues throughout Greece and Asia Minor. When hearing Mark and Luke, they’d know that the Torah still commanded death for adulteresses and girls who falsely represented their virginity when Jesus gave His sermon on the mount. They’d also know all about Deut. 24 and the grounds for divorcing/putting away in the foreign cultures in which they lived.

    Acts 13:26, “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.” Notice how gentiles were already worshiping the Lord before Paul ever showed up.

    God hates divorce but He sanctions it in instances of sexual immorality the same way He hates all forms of consequences for sin. Hence, He Himself separates in cases of divorce/putting away for sexual immorality(Deut. 24).

  99. Wanderer in the wilderness says:

    Hi all, this is my first ever post on the manosphere; I’ve been lurking for about two months now… And I want to say a big thank you for all involved in writing these blogs and discussions. They are incredibly helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of truth vs error.
    @ Feeriker
    “Does there HAVE to be a next generation of pastors who graduate from those heresy factories known as seminaries or Bible colleges?”

    The way I have come to view reality is, if a man is truly called by God to a position in ministry, then God will teach that man the truth. Jesus said that “when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will lead you into all truth.” And the Apostle John wrote that we have no need for anyone to teach us, for the anointing [referring to the Holy Spirit] teaches us all truth (1 John 2:27). Any so-called pastor who is teaching blatantly false doctrine might not be a legitimate pastor in the eyes of God.
    The next generation of genuine pastors are being raised up by God Himself, and not by any heretic farm.

    The church as a whole is in such dismay, and I believe it’s because most who profess to be Christian are not even born again, and they do not have the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth. The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth; people who are Christian in name only do not have the Spirit of Truth. That is why they are so enraptured by the zeitgeist.
    If this interests you [you might already be well verses in this topic – I don’t know – but to anyone else who is reading this], research the method of salvation used by the church. The watered down “sinners prayer” has replaced a genuine conversion experience; taking something completely in the power of God and trying to place it into the hands of men. Unregenerate sinners cannot regenerate their dead spirit through some latent power within themselves. (John 1:12-13) Salvation (being born again) is an act of God. This has nothing to do with Calvinism vs Arminianism. TV “evangelists” are the worst purveyors of this error.

  100. Opus says:

    I did not think I had previously heard of Malachi so I grabbed the nearest Bible – my brother’s Knox – and located 2:16. The edition has a footnote which after attempting to clarify by rewriting the passage says: “The Hebrew text is even more obscure throughout and numerous explanations have been made without throwing much light on the passage”:

    Am I alone in seeing a similarity between Powell and your average Game-guru both of whom explain that your failure with the female sex is cause by lack of proper technique.

    Malarkey (Malachi) is defined as meaningless talk.

  101. Gunner Q says:

    Welcome, Wanderer!
    “Any so-called pastor who is teaching blatantly false doctrine might not be a legitimate pastor in the eyes of God.”

    There’s no need for a supernatural calling to become a Christian leader. We do have the warning, however, that those who hold such positions will be examined more thoroughly on Judgment Day. Any cuck-pastor who holds the position is a legitimate pastor in the eyes of God but that little fact won’t do him any good. Just ask King Saul.

    It isn’t a Manosphere talking point but I would even do away with the practice of ordination. It is obviously useless as a check against stupidity, deception and treachery. Maybe if laying on hands caused spontaneous combustion in quisling liars… but alas.

  102. Boxer says:

    Dear Wanderer:

    I’m glad to see so many new people posting here. Hope you get as much out of this blog and the commentary as I have.

    The church as a whole is in such dismay, and I believe it’s because most who profess to be Christian are not even born again, and they do not have the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth. The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth; people who are Christian in name only do not have the Spirit of Truth. That is why they are so enraptured by the zeitgeist.

    Right. As anon would tell us, it betrays a complete lack of genuine faith.

    From the perspective of an unbeliever, Christians-in-name-only are way more annoying than real Christians. When I disagree with Lyn87, he never fails to break out the text and make a sound argument based upon content. That is almost never the case with the people you describe, who delete my questions in print, before calling me a hateful bigot and misogynist.

    There’s never any real rebuttal from these phonies. They don’t even pretend to have a different interpretation of the bible. They just reduce themselves to namecalling before scuttling away. It’s both funny and pathetic.

    Boxer

  103. Original Laura says:

    @RPchristian Thanks for posting the link to the Washington Post article.

    Interesting that the article said that even high school dropouts in the olden days were more likely to be in the workforce than are the 25-to-54 males today. Back in the olden days, people often left school because they had found a job that they wanted or because they needed money or because their parents needed their income. The high school dropouts of the olden days aren’t really comparable to the high school dropouts of today.

    The article also stated that the jobs of today are less stressful and less dangerous than the jobs of yesteryear. It’s pretty clear that today’s jobs are less dangerous overall, but IMO the average job is probably a lot more stressful these days than it was forty or fifty years ago. In the 1940s & 1950s, it was relatively easy to find a decent-paying factory or warehouse or construction job that didn’t require much in the way of social skills, etc. You showed up at work, did what you were told, and got paid every Friday, and the job that you took at age 20 often lasted long enough for you to retire from it at age 65. If you were a union member, nobody could fire you for having the wrong opinions about political or social issues.

    Lots of people have mild to severe psychological/psychiatric issues, and do NOT have the ability to function in today’s “gig economy” where they always need to be hustling for their next short-term money-making opportunity, and are continually forced to meet and interact with a whole new group of people as they move from one short-term position to the next. Many of the unemployed men that the author considers to be “infantilized” would be eager to take a permanent full-time job if they could find one that would pay a living wage.

    The author does not even address the high divorce rate or the fact that people on social welfare programs can end up with a higher standard of living than those who work full time.

  104. dragnet says:

    @ Major Styles

    “I went to a black church a few years ago and it was 80-90 percent women, with the men sheepishly following along with their pastors. With that structure, any sort of downward spiral is possible.”

    Quite right. Most black Protestant churches are 80 percent female, with maybe two or three alphas (aside from the preacher) who make an appearance from time to time. The remaining men are usually either (closeted) homosexuals or hopelessly blue pill betas.

    Most black guys learned to vote with their feet a long time ago—for too often it’s been the only viable est solution in our community.

  105. Anon says:

    Most black Protestant churches are 80 percent female, with maybe two or three alphas (aside from the preacher) who make an appearance from time to time.

    Sunday Morning Nightclub, baby!

  106. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Right. As anon would tell us, it betrays a complete lack of genuine faith.

    It is feeriker who pointed this out originally. I find it humorous and effective, so I promote the meme.

    Non-religious people like us find this funny as a devastating blow of pwnage against a pastorbator, as it destroys the very foundation of his existence.

    To me. it is much like we would point out that Manboobz is the ‘least interesting man in the world’, or how some blue-haired ‘feminist’ shoggoth is ugly in non-compliance with natural law, or how white nationalists manage to attract almost zero attractive white women to their cause, despite it being wholly dependent on their participation.

    Surgically precise pwnage is always the most effective, and the funniest.

  107. Jim says:

    squid_hunt says:
    October 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Dalrock,

    I just wanted to thank you for this blog. I’ve been fighting frustration in my marriage for years as several pastors have repeatedly scuttled my marriage by helping my wife make me the bad guy in every disagreement.

    Hope you flipped those fuckheads the finger and said “bye”. Stay away from these uber-cucked “pastors”. They’re weak pussies who just virtue signalling for bitches and deserve only your contempt.

  108. Anon says:

    Stay away from these uber-cucked “pastors”. They’re weak pussies who just virtue signalling for bitches and deserve only your contempt.

    They are …….pastorbators

    Use that word in order to see them more accurately for what they really are.

  109. OneEyeToday says:

    Dalrock, do you think you can win?
    Isn’t it almost like providing a detailed, close-up description of the rubble after the capital has been nuked.
    Shouldn’t we be having a conversation about moving on?

  110. @OneEyeToday:

    On the assumption you’re not trolling: we don’t give into despair. Christians have had to completely rebuild before and we’ll do it again. Ain’t nothing new under the sun. And don’t forget that.

  111. OneEyeToday says:

    Looking Glass, that was a bit thin on the way to “trolling”. I usually tease a bit and see what comes out before letting loose on the guests.
    Seems the question about moving on is legit and deserves a hearing. Your own pastors describe counseling in favor of marriage, as sin, this is “not” like the enormity of a firebombed capital?
    The Puritans left for the New World. The Byzantines fled for Greece and Italy. The Hebrews fled for the Promised Land. Picking up to leave when it’s time, is just that, precisely.

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