Now get out there and reject passivity!

Complementarians have the problem of wanting to seem biblically traditional, while avoiding actually being so.  The goal is to create something separate from formal feminism/egalitarianism, while avoiding offending feminist sensibilities.  This has led complementarians to invent a host of weasel words that sound like something traditional but mean something else.  This starts with the very term complementarian, a term meant to seem traditional while rejecting tradition.  This allows complementarian women to seem traditional while they discuss Women in ministry kissing traditionalism good-bye.

Other complementarian weasel terms are servant leader, a term that means not headship, and step up, a word that means whatever you want it to mean so long as it doesn’t mean take charge.

But today’s complementarian weasel word is reject passivity.  This is the other term you say to men when you want to seem like you are telling them to take charge, but are terrified of the idea of them actually taking charge.  For this reason reject passivity is often used in conjunction with the weasel term step up.  Note that reject passivity is an oddly passive term that criticizes passivity.  It has no real meaning, aside from seeming to say something it is very careful to avoid saying.  You can do your own search for the term and find complementarians using the expression all over, but here are two examples:

From 4 Characteristics Of Authentic Manhood:

Men I am not suggesting that you run out and get crucified, but move away from the Adam model and step up to the Jesus model of manhood. Do you need to get it right all the time? No. Is God expecting perfection? No. What we need to do is step up and become men, because the world is craving for real authentic men and our our families desperately need leadership in the home. Men they are they are looking for you to step up and man up!

Are you ready to step up and reject passivity?

From:  What is Authentic Manhood?  A Biblical Definition

REJECTS Passivity

He’s not apathetic or indifferent about life or God and the things of God. Like Jesus, a real man is always the initiator. He’s constantly vigilant, fully engaged in life and has both his head and heart in the game. He’s not a spectator but a player in the role assigned him by God

Related:  Hair shirts and chest thumping.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Servant Leader, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Now get out there and reject passivity!

  1. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.

    C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

    Feel free to replace the word “chests” for “balls”.

  2. PokeSalad says:

    This has lead complementarians to invent

    lead = led

    [D: Thank you! Fixed.]

  3. PokeSalad says:

    Are you ready to step up and reject passivity?

    IOW, “Are you ready to get going on that honey-do list?”

  4. The slogan I’ve been hearing lately is “Reject Passivity”. I said to myself, dang it, I’d have to get up off the couch to do that.

  5. feministhater says:

    Ah yes, the enigmatic shout of “Do something!” whilst being told that anything you do is bad.

  6. Sheesh, I read the title here and then listed reject passivity as it it had not appeared in this title..

  7. Pingback: Now get out there and reject passivity! | @the_arv

  8. Major Styles says:

    Good points, Dalrok. The first defeat in any culture is evident in its use/misuse of language.

  9. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    heartstonejourney.com states, “Men I am not suggesting that you run out and get crucified, but move away from the Adam model and step up to the Jesus model of manhood.”

    Jesus: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. ”

    heartstonejourney.com means, “Men I am suggesting that you run out and get crucified, while moving away from both the Adam model and the Jesus model of manhood.”

  10. Hmm says:

    @GBFM:

    But the Jesus model of manhood was to get crucified.

  11. Reject passivity? Can that be scheduled for far distant unspecified date with thoughts of tabling it for an even more distant unspecified date?

    “Yeeeaaah” *said in a nassally Bill Lumbergh voice.

  12. You can tell what people value most when they’re required to choose.

    I’ve been thinking, in any culture, there’s a general consensus about what’s right and wrong, good and bad. It’s rarely simple, because life isn’t: The Church has always told us to turn the other cheek, but honor formerly demanded otherwise. But, say a century ago in the USA, everybody knew what his religion demanded and what honor demanded, and what the socially approved consensus was about your options when it was difficult or impossible to reconcile the two.

    You hear the silly idea that “people just instinctively know what’s right”, but that’s a cheap dodge to avoid admitting that people learn “right” and “wrong” from their environment. You say that when you want to pretend that current fashions are permanent, non-negotiable features of the human soul.

    Now, in the US, it’s relatively simple: Morality is defined by the media, which is a jealous god a d brooks no compromise. The NYT editorial board, the TV, the local facility lounge — pick your church, but they’re all pretty ecumenical, at least regarding each other.

    Our complementarian friends here have to reconcile the words that somehow found their way into the Bible with the true, eternal, definitive commandments issued by the New York Times, the Oscars, and The View.

    As Christians, it’s important for them to treasure the words on the pages in the Bible, but at the same time, as Christians, Christ calls them to be moral men, and they just instinctively “know” that feminism is eternal, bedrock morality. So they need to help out the Creator of the universe by explaining how He didn’t really *mean* to contradict Maureen Dowd. He… misspoke. Taken out of context.

  13. earl says:

    ‘ step up to the Jesus model of manhood.”

    Ok churchians…then quit beating around this bush and trying to undermine the husband’s authority.

    For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. Eph 5: 22-27

    Christ is the head of the church, the husband is the head of the wife.

  14. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Hmm says:
    March 20, 2018 at 11:40 am
    @GBFM:
    But the Jesus model of manhood was to get crucified.

    Yes Hmm!! The Jesus model of manhood was to get crucified, if need be, while standing for the principles of the Prophets and Adam!

    heartstonejourney.com wants men to get crucified in divorce court, while standing for neither Adam nor Jesus.

  15. The first way I’m going to step up to the Cross and be like Jesus is I’m going to reject passivity by telling anyone who speaks this phrase in a sentence to demonstrate leadership by not being a passive weasel. How’s that for “rejecting passivity”?

  16. earl says:

    The heart of the matter and why it is an empty statement…’reject passivity’…is that they hardly ever explain the alternative ‘accept (blank)’.

    Ok you reject something…what do you replace it with? ‘Man up’…ok what does it mean to ‘man up’. You can’t have a vacuum here.

    If they start going down the road of the man has to take the authority position as the replacement….there goes their egalitarian model.

  17. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Husbands stop being so passive in your servant-leadership. Be active in your submission to your wife, initiate more chore play, wash her feet more often, allow her to be all she can be, even your spiritual compass and be a man and take the love dare.

  18. coloradomtnman says:

    Tim Young, the author at ‘Heartstone’ states that “Adam, the first real man — did absolutely nothing.” (linked article)

    “We repeat the sin of Adam, every day. We won’t take risk, we won’t stand up and fight, and guys we won’t even rescue Eve. ”

    The Churchian west is so full of these heretics that Dalrock is never going to run out of content. Now the Fall of Man makes sense to me, if Adam was only a white-knight and ‘rescued’ Eve we wouldn’t be in this situation.

  19. Joe says:

    The rejection of Ephesians 5: 22-27 by Churches makes me sad.

  20. coloradomtnman says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    The ‘love-dare’ – wow, that brings back some really nasty pre-frivorce memories.

  21. earl says:

    “We repeat the sin of Adam, every day. We won’t take risk, we won’t stand up and fight, and guys we won’t even rescue Eve. ”

    Ok…if fighting to rescue Eve is to teach/stop her from committing sin (which I think it is but they’ll never say it)…things like her being rebellious to her husband, refusing the marital act to her husband because of feelings or wanting control, finding ‘herself’ through sin/rebellion, neglecting her responsibilities as a wife/mother to do what she wants…can’t fly.

  22. The Question says:

    The “Columbo” tactic never fails: https://www.str.org/articles/the-columbo-tactic

    “What do you mean by that?”

    Force them to define “stepping up” and “rejecting passivity.”

    Complementarians operate in ambiguity and confusion as to what they say and what they mean.

    More importantly, ask them “Am I in charge?”

    Whatever answer they give, answers another question: “Am I responsible?”

  23. Joe says:

    “Tim Young, the author at ‘Heartstone’ states that “Adam, the first real man — did absolutely nothing.” (linked article)
    “We repeat the sin of Adam, every day. We won’t take risk, we won’t stand up and fight, and guys we won’t even rescue Eve. ”
    The Churchian west is so full of these heretics that Dalrock is never going to run out of content. Now the Fall of Man makes sense to me, if Adam was only a white-knight and ‘rescued’ Eve we wouldn’t be in this situation.”

    So then… do we do nothing if our wives are tempted by satan with false teaching?

  24. Damn Crackers says:

    To boldly go forward and wife up those sluts…

  25. Dalrock says:

    @coloradomntnman

    Now the Fall of Man makes sense to me, if Adam was only a white-knight and ‘rescued’ Eve we wouldn’t be in this situation.

    Ha. I’m working my way there. I have two upcoming posts on the topic.

    The ‘love-dare’ – wow, that brings back some really nasty pre-frivorce memories.

    All of this stuff is tangled together. From the second link in the OP:

    (excerpt taken from Fireproof Your Marriage, Family and Life: A Seminar for Men Only by Dave Brown)

    And from the page describing the seminar:

    WACMM has developed and is presenting a special new seminar using clips from Fireproof and other movies to help men address what it means to be a godly husband, loving father and faithful friend.

  26. Scott says:

    The more direct to say “reject passivity” is “embrace assertiveness”

    Just saying.

  27. casparreyes says:

    Joe,

    Rescuing Eve usually involves keeping her from something she wants. That’s where the preachers choke.

  28. “and guys we won’t even rescue Eve” What if Adam had just said NO and let God straighten out Eve because Eve was rebellious to both Adam and God?

  29. earl says:

    Adam standing pat and submitting to Eve’s rebellion was the reason why he didn’t ‘rescue’ her.

    So what do most churchian pastors preach when it comes to husband-wife relations?

  30. m11nine says:

    The latest redemption for horrible fathers in Christian cinema is upon us (& inevitable Bible Study book series?):

    “It’s a competent retelling of the story of songwriter Bart Millard (played by newcomer J. Michael Finley) and his journey to forgive his abusive, alcoholic father (Dennis Quaid), as well as his father’s movement toward faith before his death.”

    https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/3/19/17136066/i-can-only-imagine-mercyme-movie-box-office-faith-based-gods-not-dead-paul-apostle

  31. AnonS says:

    Wives need to reject passivity and be assertive, husbands just need to reject passivity. And when in conflict, remember that the woman’s rejection trumps yours.

  32. Joe says:

    “Scott says:
    March 20, 2018 at 12:49 pm
    The more direct to say “reject passivity” is “embrace assertiveness”
    Just saying”.

    I want to hear “Embrace submissiveness” or “embrace your husbands headship” from a church or “women’s Bible study” somewhere.

  33. Gunner Q says:

    Replacing “rejects passivity” with “takes the blame” works disturbingly well.

    heartstonejourney: “Men I am not suggesting that you run out and get crucified, but move away from the Adam model and step up to the Jesus model of manhood.”

    You mean don’t marry, don’t have kids, just like Jesus recommended? Because the other model Jesus provided is getting crucified because He stepped up.

  34. jvangeld says:

    The quote from “What is Authentic Manhood” contains another common weaselword. “He is a player in the role assigned him by God.” Masculinity is not a role that we play on a stage, only to wipe the makeup off afterwards before we go home. Masculinity is both our nature and our calling. When we fail to act in a masculine way, we don’t fail at an arbitrary role, we fail at being what we are. The Baylys pointed this weasel word out.

    Though they’ll argue for the man being head of his home and only men serving as senior pastors and elders, they’ll speak of these male responsibilities as mere “roles” God has assigned to men, rather than women. Such thin complementarians do not believe “roles” flow out of the fundamental nature of man and woman as created by God. Thus when pressed to explain why women shouldn’t be pastors, the complementarian doesn’t speak of Adam being created first, then Eve; nor does he explain the fundamental distinction God has made between man and woman in the capacities and gifts He’s placed in each sex which are integral to that sex. Instead, he’ll say something like, “I don’t know why God has chosen men to be elders. I think women would make great elders. Lots of women I know would make much better elders than men. Nevertheless, God has said that only men are to be allowed to be elders, so we have to obey Him.”

    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/07/seduction-big-tent-compromises

  35. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    In recent threads here and over at Fabius Maximus you’ve discussed harbingers of the counter revolution: evidence that the fashionable “all masculinity is toxic” meta-meme is having its effect. Here’s one I previously dropped over at TRM. If you like, you can see this as one of the sequelae to the Sexual Revolution. Here goes:

    Toys R Us is making excuses for why they failed (too over-leveraged, more long term debt than short term income can cover, like most big box retail chains). But the reason they assert, if true, sure is interesting – too few parents having too few kids to buy the stinkin’ toys.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/watch/toys-r-us-blames-bankruptcy-on-millennials-not-having-kids/vi-BBKqTA9

    (No secret that my ever-changing moniker is a nod to the original GBFM. I see he has returned from the portal of Yog Sothoth in R’lyeh, next to the Denny’s. Did you get to bring back a coffee mug from the gift shop there?. If my jokey handle bugs you, let me know, out of respect to the author of What Is The Dark Triad, I’ll forswear).

  36. Pingback: Now get out there and reject passivity! | Reaction Times

  37. DougK says:

    REAL womanhood:
    Respects unconditionally
    Embraces sex enthusiastically
    Accepts submission humbly
    Lovingly and unselfishly serves

  38. DougK says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite
    Feel free to replace the word “chests” for “balls”.

    In a sense, Lewis meant the same thing. He describes the balance between passion and intellect by locating it between the head and the heart, i.e. the chest. Courage (or “balls”) is really the same kind of thing which is the passion to act decisively and the wisdom to do the right thing.

  39. BillyS says:

    Hmm,

    But the Jesus model of manhood was to get crucified.

    Not at all. He did not call for any of us (specifically) to physically be crucified. We are to crucify our own desires, but that is a far different thing. Only One paid that penalty. We cannot add to it, no matter how many preachers claim we can.

    Earl,

    Christ is the head of the church, the husband is the head of the wife.

    But they are mutually submitted! It says so in the verse before. Except that doesn’t apply to Jesus of course, just husbands…. Stopping taking the analogy so literal. Everyone knows the woman is head of the man after all, whatever verses you claim to quote. You just aren’t looking at enough things! /sarc

  40. BillyS says:

    Joe,

    The rejection of Ephesians 5: 22-27 by Churches makes me sad.

    Most don’t admit that. They merely reinterpret it with a false reading of the verse just prior, one meant for relationships in the church.

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    “Take charge”

    Yes, this is it.

  42. BillyS says:

    Adam was clearly not present directly with Eve in the temptation. Adam was held accountable for listening to the voice of his wife, something he could not have done if he was standing their silently and was merely handed the fruit. Clearly he was in the Garden with her and she went to him to persuade him (with verbal words) to follow her sin.

    People really need to think this through better, though that ruins the narrative and the ability to completely blame the man for all the trouble. Even God did not do that, but many modern church leaders think doing so is great and part of them being radically committed to the Word!

  43. Joe says:

    BillyS, he was standing right there:

    “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

    “Her husband WITH her”.

    Other translations state “and her husband who was with her”.

    It’s pretty clear to me that he was there.

  44. Dalrock says:

    I have a post in the works on the question of where Adam was. I should have it up tomorrow or the next day.

  45. BillyS says:

    Joe,

    When did he “listen to the voice of his wife” in your case?

    Also consider what “with” means. Does “with” require “standing right by”? I could be in my house with someone, but I could be upstairs in my office while they are in the kitchen making a meal. We would still be “with” each other, even though we are not in physical contact range.

    Note what Adam was held accountable for: “Listening to the voice of his wife.” The brief overview in the first story clearly does not have all the details because no discussion is mentioned. Thus it is a summary, not a guide to blame men for being passive.

    I just realized this fairly recently, so it may take some thinking through the issues.

  46. BillyS says:

    Take the with concept further: You could be with someone in a large box store, but still be in completely different areas, requiring some movement and possible discussion, to talk to them about buying a specific item.

  47. freebird says:

    A poster on the last thread implied the New Testament voided the Levitical food laws.
    It does not.
    Pigs have not a cloven hoof nor sweat glands,toxins build in the flesh thereof.
    Catfish have not scales and are bottom feeders,toxins build in the flesh thereof.
    So on and so forth.It you choose to believe Personal Jesus excuses you from doing due diligence in The Word and respecting his temple do not be surprised if he doesn’t grant your prayers fro a miracle from heart disease and cancer.
    Not on jot nor title did Christ change.
    Rip that bible in half and leave the part you don’t like at home.Explain that at the churchian festival of Sundaze feels goodz celebration.

  48. TMAC says:

    I often tell the story of a conversation I had with a one-star general while I was at Ft. Hunter-Liggett in CA one summer. We were walking to the DFAC (dining facility) one evening and he asked where I was from? I told him and he laughed and said that back when he was an O6 (“Full Bird”) Colonel, he was the installation commander for that exact facility.

    He told me that shortly after taking command, he asked his higher how much authority he had to make any major changes on-post that would be based on his guidance as the commander. He smiled, looked at me and asked, “You know what their answer was?” “No sir,” I replied.

    “None,” he said. Full responsibility and basically zero authority.

    His next question to me: “Guess how quickly I got out of that assignment?”

    It was the perfect picture of modern marriage. Men get all the blame and none of the authority to implement any action based on their sole position as leader. In the famous words of General Akbar….. “It’s a TRAP!!!”

  49. BillyS says:

    Freebird,

    You should read Acts closer. The Church in Jerusalem did not hold Gentile believers to all those laws, contrary to your claims.

    Avoiding them may have merit, but I will still take a good pork BBQ most any day.

  50. earl says:

    Really Adam was taken into account because of an action…not being passive.

  51. earl says:

    *he was not being passive

  52. mega says:

    Dal, sorry to thread jack. Been commenting over at the other site (fabiusmaximus.com) where your ideas and concepts have been discussed. And guess I got banned. Never been banned before. Guess if I did something to deserve it, I could see it. But dang … dude doesn’t like what I have to say so he cuts me off at the knees, fine … wanna discuss shit, that’s what this is all about. So, I beef up my position and supply some evidence and rationale and justification. A nice counter argument. You know, as in how arguments go. So I try to post a follow up with that … AND I’M NOW BANNED !!! NO FOLLOW UP FOR YOU !!!

    Guess Larry didn’t take kindly to having his arguments rebutted. So he cuts off anyone who disagrees with him and bans them. And, actually, my “would be” post was pretty damn awesome and showed what he was advocating wouldn’t have worked. Would never work. So maybe he saw where I was going and rather than admit he was wrong … he’d rather just ban people.

    Guess I’m just venting a little. Never been banned before, lol. Seems kinda weird. Guess I’d recommend taking anything from FB with a grain of salt. And, Dal, if you think Larry is an ally of yours … he’s obviously not.

    Mega

  53. TMAC says:

    BillyS is correct. Paul makes clear in the NT that Eve was deceived NOT Adam. Had Adam been standing there, then that distinction couldn’t have been made, as Adam would have been guilty of the same thing. (I Timothy 2:14)

    I can be at home with my wife (even in our first tiny 1500 sq ft. home) and still have no clue about a conversation she is having with one of our kids in the kitchen (if I am in the bedroom). No one would argue whether on not I was at home WITH my wife (and the garden was MUCH bigger than my first house).

    Another thing – people often accuse Adam of not “protecting Eve.” Protecting her from what? What did she need protection from? Snakes were as harmless a kittens at that point in history. Even if he saw her petting or holding a snake, it would have been no cause for alarm. The idea of “danger” was a non-issue as they were in “perfection” in the garden and not in danger of anything (except their own bad decisions – which hadn’t even happened before up to that point).

    Adam was guilty of sin – no question, but he was NOT deceived (according to Scripture) in the way Eve was – and that precludes his standing right there (within earshot) listening to the serpent trick her into taking the fruit.

  54. earl says:

    Protecting her from what? What did she need protection from?

    Especially considering she already knew she wasn’t supposed to eat from that tree. She already had the ‘protection’ orders so to speak.

  55. OKRickety says:

    As BillyS said, “The Church in Jerusalem did not hold Gentile believers to all those laws, contrary to your claims.“.

    If freebird  insists on following the Mosaic Law completely, and he is not circumcised, it’s time to walk the walk. More realistically, freebird, how do you offer sacrifices today, and do you have priests in the fleshly line of Aaron?

  56. Boxer says:

    Dear Mega:

    Dal, sorry to thread jack. Been commenting over at the other site (fabiusmaximus.com) where your ideas and concepts have been discussed. And guess I got banned. Never been banned before. Guess if I did something to deserve it, I could see it. But dang … dude doesn’t like what I have to say so he cuts me off at the knees, fine … wanna discuss shit, that’s what this is all about. So, I beef up my position and supply some evidence and rationale and justification. A nice counter argument. You know, as in how arguments go. So I try to post a follow up with that … AND I’M NOW BANNED !!! NO FOLLOW UP FOR YOU !!!

    Rather than bee-yatching here, why not post your response to your own blog?

    You probably don’t have one, huh? Why not?

    Every one of you mofos should have a blog, if only because every new blog makes a male feminist pajama boy cry. Start a free one at wordpress or blogspot, and get writing. If you put good stuff on there, I’ll promote it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  57. Joe says:

    The Bible says what it says.
    “and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (KJV)

    So if he were off somewhere else, she would have to have not only eaten of the fruit, but also taken some with her to give to him.
    The context is clear that she was there. If he wasn’t, then why does it say “with her” instead of “then she gave to her husband” (at some pointin time after she went to him) and leave the “with her” off?
    With means with. Not somewhere else.
    I think also since she was given to him as his helper, she would have been with him all the time. Why would they not be together? What would she be doing alone anyhow?
    At any rate… with means together. If my wife is “with” my daughter, I’m assuming that means that they are together. Not in diffrent places.

    with (wĭþ, wĭth)
    prep. In the company of; accompanying: Did you go with her?
    prep. Next to; alongside of: stood with the rabbi; sat with the family.

    Besides that, she was perfect and naked. I’d sure have her with me!

  58. Joe says:

    15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    Adam already got the directive before Eve was even created.

    She knew that she should not eat from the tree though since it’s obvious that Adam told her. How do we know this? Because of the heirarchy described ion Ephesians: God>Man>Women. Adam surely was the one who told her.

    And she did it anyway.

    Such a reflection of our world, where our wives often don’t listen to us. And do not want to be submissive. And for the same reason too! The serpent said basically “God didn’t really mean that”. Just like in Ephesians with the whole submission thing. Many pastors and women will tell you “it doens’t really mean that. At least not all the time”… And the same excuse “hey husband, I’m going to do (whatever). See, it’s good, and it will benefit me/us”.

  59. SnapperTrx says:

    I’ve said myself that the bible doesn’t place Adam standing right there by Eve’s side, mouth agape, while she had a conversation with the serpent, though a lot of pastors (particularly of the female persuasion) like to place him right there looking like an inept idiot during the entire event. For all we know, since her eyes had been opened and she had the knowledge of good and evil AND knowing what we know about women, Eve could have totally lied about the whole incident and Adam, knowing full well what God said about the fruit, went along with the whole thing. The bible isn’t specific about how Adam failed other than that he listened to his wife.

    The text “….and gave also unto her husband with her” sounds to me like she and he partook of it together, but it doesn’t seem to indicate “who was standing with her” or “was right there with her” during the conversation with the serpent. Is worded more like she believed the serpent, took the fruit, ATE IT FIRST, then also gave some to Adam.

    “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

  60. Gunner Q says:

    mega @ 4:22 pm
    “Guess I’m just venting a little. Never been banned before, lol. Seems kinda weird. ”

    First time’s the hardest. You eventually get used to the idea that not everybody is going to like what you have to say… and you’ll be a better man for the ability to take the rejections in stride. Safe spaces are for damaged women.

    Boxer’s idea of having your own blog is a good one. It’s one thing to offer a criticism, another to expect the criticized guy to host his own detractors. That’s not always a reasonable or courteous expectation. If all you use it for is reacting to other blogs, that’s fine. It’s like free blogging material.

  61. TMAC says:

    Paul is clear. Adam was NOT deceived. Yes, he was there, but as several have pointed out, that doesn’t mean he had to be standing right there listening to Eve’s conversation with the serpent.

    Why in the world would anyone demand that they always be side by side in the garden? They could have been within eyesight and still Adam not have been aware of Eve’s interaction with the serpent.

    The first 6 verses of chpt 3 are a conversation between Eve and satan (serpent). So we are to conclude Adam is just standing there listening and nodding his head? Again – were that the case there is no way Paul could claim he was NOT DECEIVED. Eve was deceived and then she (not trying to be deceptive, but “helpful”) gave the fruit to Adam and he (ignorantly) listened to her and ate.

    The point is that Adam had NO mandate to “protect” Eve in the garden. Protection would indicate that there was danger, and since the Garden was perfect, what (other than their own stupidity) would there have been to protect her from? Nothing.

    Also, many commentators say Adam was “copping out” when he said, “The woman You (God) gave me…” Not so fast fella’ – Adam was exactly right. God HAD given Adam a stunningly beautiful “helpmeet” and yet she had been the very one who tempted Adam to forfeit it all. Adam could easily have been in earnest when he told God, “But this was the person you gave to help me and she said this would make things even better – how was I going to reject THAT?” That’s a fair question and I think the reason God immediately turns to Eve when Adam asks it. Eve then blames the serpent and technically, the serpent may have been right, after all, weren’t all the creatures in the garden perfect – how was she to know better? This isn’t an excuse for Adam or Eve, but it dismantles the argument that Adam was basically the primary culprit and that he was a stupid, excuse-maker trying to shirk his “manly” duty to “protect” poor little helpless Eve.

    Adam should have known to reject his wife’s offer and obey God. Eve should have know to obey Adam (who was hopefully obeying God) and reject the serpent’s offer. Eve didn’t obey Adam, Adam didn’t obey God… and here we are.

  62. earl says:

    Besides…what if Adam had been standing there, ripped the apple out of her hand and smushed it. In today’s modern clueless times instead of saying he was protecting her they’d say he was oppressing her by not allowing her to be ‘like God’ and exerting his ‘male privilege’

  63. 7817 says:

    Dalrock, I noticed on Cane’s site that you were looking for a copy of Wilson’s Reforming Marriage. I have a copy which I was given years ago; and would email you pictures of any sections you wish to read.

  64. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @feministhater
    Ah yes, the enigmatic shout of “Do something!” whilst being told that anything you do is bad.

    Nailed it. This simple principle that the church adheres to is probably the key reason why they don’t have in their ranks the “real men” that they claim to want so badly. They want to demand strong male leadership while also being free to point and laugh at it with a surrounding culture that regards such a thing as an unnecessary relic. The writer even provides a great demonstration of this in the article that Dalrock linked when he tries to define the responsibility that a “real man” shows:

    Let’s break man’s responsibility into three pieces: the will to obey, a woman to love (kids might come with that) a work to do.

    “Will to Obey.” What a ridiculous contradiction of terms. A man who possesses will is a man who asserts himself on the world around him and shapes it according to his vision. To obey, a man does not require will. He only needs to duck his head and do as he’s told. You don’t need a man to accomplish a job you can simply hand off to a sycophant, and that’s why the modern church’s search for “real men” is destined to end in frustration. They want good little boys who will be compliant and follow orders right up until a true crisis occurs, at which point they can then call upon him to summon up a conquering spirit of righteous indignation, only to dutifully put it back into a box for safekeeping and go back to his “bow and scrape” routine once he has finished fixing their problems for them.

  65. RedPillPaul says:

    Adam was right there when the serpent tempted eve. I believe he actively told her not to eat the fruit while the serpent was laying his game on her. As mentioned, Adam was not deceived, he just loved woman more than God. He would rather die with woman than live with God.

    Both had free will. Consider this, eve punishment God specifically tells her the man will rule…as in over rule her free will. Adam had no authority to over rule her until God specifically gave him that power after the fall.

  66. mega says:

    Gunner Q,
    “It’s one thing to offer a criticism, another to expect the criticized guy to host his own detractors. That’s not always a reasonable or courteous expectation.”

    That’s some good advice there and well said. Thanks for the advice.

    Not sure about hosting my blog like Boxer suggested … I might be just a touch too paranoid for that, lol. I’m pretty sure that I’d piss someone off by forcing them to look in the mirror and see the evil looking back and the next morning my door would be kicked and I’d be hauled off to jail or something. Cause the person I pissed off was a politician or judge or cop or something. Given the level of spying on citizens these days … I’m probably already taking my chances. So … probably best to keep quiet. So no blog for me … unless someone can show me how to voice an opinion and stay anonymous … REALLY anonymous. Yeah, didn’t think so.

    Mega

  67. R.O.B. says:

    What were the psychological mechanics at play behind the eunuchs’ decision to throw Jezebel off of a balcony?

    Did they do it begrudgingly, out of fear of what Jehu might do to them if they didn’t comply with his wishes?

    Or did Jehu simply dare them to do what they had always wanted to do anyway, with a promise of impunity?

  68. Any time someone tells you “A real man is,…” know that they are selling you something.

  69. Luke says:

    The Question says:
    March 20, 2018 at 12:21 pm
    The “Columbo” tactic never fails: https://www.str.org/articles/the-columbo-tactic

    “What do you mean by that?”

    Force them to define “stepping up” and “rejecting passivity.”

    Complementarians operate in ambiguity and confusion as to what they say and what they mean.

    More importantly, ask them “Am I in charge?”

    Whatever answer they give, answers another question: “Am I responsible?”

    ===========================================================

    This is gold. For any society that sadly does not, in the case of children whose parents do not share a roof, either (if married) properly give them over to the father, or if not, exile the slut (either with her bastard infant, better forcibly made to be given up for adoption), that is IMO an appropriate answer. As in, tell me what AUTHORITY a man has over a pregnancy occurring in a woman to which he is not married to compel or prevent abortion, adoption, etc., and you will have told me how much RESPONSIBILITY he rightly should carry for that pregnancy.

  70. Lost Patrol says:

    The more direct to say “reject passivity” is “embrace assertiveness”

    I like it. I haven’t heard this one yet but it’s bound to happen, so I’m all set. “You mean embrace assertiveness?”

    This will be fun because any man that can keep a straight face while telling you to reject passivity is likely the same man that equates assertiveness with abuse.

  71. BillyS says:

    Joe,

    When did Adam “listen to the voice of his wife” in your view. Would you consider your wife to be “with your daughter” if they are both shopping at Walmart? Must she be in arms length for that to be true?

    Boxer,

    Something along “everytime a red piller starts a blog a pajama boy can’t find his pajamas, or something like that? (Think Jimmy Stewart….)

    ====

    We do not know exactly why Adam ate, we just know that he did after hearing his wife’s voice. Given that Jesus was the last Adam, I am open to the argument that it was his attempt to stay with his wife, but sin quickly killed his motivation when he blamed her when confronted with his clear sin.

    We also don’t know that Adam incorrectly told Eve about the tree. I have heard many sermons that took Adam to task for messing up telling Eve what God’s commands were. (She wasn’t there at first, so the idea is that Adam had to tell her what God said.) That may be true, but it is not necessarily required since God walked with them in the cool of the day regularly. I would assume some conversations directly with God at that time. Being silent would seem odd.

    Eve sinned when she touched the fruit, since that was her indicator of sin. How she got to that indication is not made clear. She might have been taught it or she could have botched the view up all on her own. I lean toward the latter idea based on my own experience with many “godly” women.

    RPL,

    Adam was right there when the serpent tempted eve.

    How do you know that?

    I believe he actively told her not to eat the fruit while the serpent was laying his game on her.

    How do you know that? It is not in the text, just as being “right next to” is not in the text.

    As mentioned, Adam was not deceived, he just loved woman more than God. He would rather die with woman than live with God.

    How do you know that? I tend to agree with it, but how do you know it? We are not told directly of Adam’s motivation, just that it was intentional sin/rebellion.

  72. Boxer says:

    Not sure about hosting my blog like Boxer suggested … I might be just a touch too paranoid for that, lol. I’m pretty sure that I’d piss someone off by forcing them to look in the mirror and see the evil looking back and the next morning my door would be kicked and I’d be hauled off to jail or something. Cause the person I pissed off was a politician or judge or cop or something. Given the level of spying on citizens these days … I’m probably already taking my chances. So … probably best to keep quiet. So no blog for me … unless someone can show me how to voice an opinion and stay anonymous … REALLY anonymous. Yeah, didn’t think so.

    If you’re in the UK that’s a serious concern, and you’d have to self-censor somewhat.

    Protip: If I were in the UK, I’d probably run black propaganda, with a blog pretending to be promoting feminism, linking back to all the “evil men” blogs like Dalrock. I’d hopefully boost traffic to places like this, while pretending to denounce them — all while making feminists look as dopey and whiny as possible (as if it were possible to make them look worse).

    Incidentally, a long time ago I told someone that I thought Manboobz/Mammoth Hunter was doing this. That is still my suspicion. Whether he means to or not, he’s doing a great job, and I hope he keeps it up.

    In North America, no one really cares what you say. I started my blog in British Columbia, and I’m now in the U.S.. WordPress has my name, work and home addresses, and credit card numbers. If I were outed, I think I’d have more hassles from local kooky radfems than the cops. They simply have bigger fish to fry than some dude who laughs at the pudgy bluehairs.

    If you have a wife and kids, you probably ought to stay anonymous, only because there’s no depth that a feminist won’t stoop to, and that includes hassling members of your family when they’re out in public. I don’t have anyone to worry about, so I’m in the clear. I don’t know what your situation is, so do what you think is best.

    Best,

    Boxer

  73. JohnMcG says:

    The giveaway that this is is a weasel term is that it’s a double negative — “Reject passivity.” Reject the absence of action. As noted, it would be much clearer to say something like, “Embrace activity” or “embrace assertiveness” as noted above, but that isn’t what they want.

    No, what they want is cover their ass so that when men give feminists what they want and it doesn’t make women happy, they can still make it men’s fault. “We told you to reject passivity. You didn’t do it right. It’s your fault I’m unhappy.”

  74. Luke says:

    That sounds plausible, JohnMcG. Certainly, the more moderate ones on the other side (not the diversities and gender feminists who really do want all white males dead, the sooner the better) have a narrow path to tread. They certainly do want most white males to be powerless slaves who forever give up hope of reclaiming familial or political authority, yet don’t want those beta to gamma males to totally just give up, going permanent MGTOW from an early age. I am put in mind of France’s longtime top foreign policy goal: “They want a Germany strong enough to hold back Russia, but weak enough to be held in check by Luxembourg”. Seeking fried ice, once again.

  75. Anon says:

    Rollo :

    Any time someone tells you “A real man is,…” know that they are selling you something.

    See this comment from a couple of days ago.

    The poor fellow later backed down and requested advice, but still – that comment was something just too cliche.

  76. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott & Lost Patrol

    The more direct to say “reject passivity” is “embrace assertiveness”

    I like it.

    You are are two of my favorite people in the Men’s Sphere, but I hate “embrace assertiveness” just as much. What does “assertiveness” mean? It could mean anything. “Be assertive with the dishes, men! And why am I to embrace it? That is literally what a vagina does.

    In the post, Dalrock said, “Take charge” is what complementarians mean to avoid with “reject passivity”. “Take charge” gives it to them right in the nose because an eight year-old knows what that means; even pastors and churched women know it!

  77. Lost Patrol says:

    @Cane

    “Take charge” is of course the correct answer, but I really did like the comedic value of laying “embrace assertiveness” on somebody that just said to me “reject passivity”. I may be wrong but I thought Scott was playing that angle as well.

    I expect the reaction to be just what you’ve predicted. He’s either immediately thinking or saying “What does that mean?” “It could mean anything!” If he’s a good complementarian he’s probably worried about some abuse in there.

    Either way I’ll take that as my opening for “it means take charge”. “You believe men should take charge, right?”

    It’s a long war. We have to entertain ourselves a bit to keep up morale.

  78. Robert What? says:

    Man up, step up, constantly vigilant, lean in. Oh wait, only women can lean in, whatever the hell that is. Is “lean in” a weasel phrase too?

    But I was thinking how tiring all that sounds for a man when (a) you have no clue what it all means and the meanings are shapeshifting like sand all the time, and (b) there are no rewards on the horizon for all that wheel spinning except more beratement. How exhausting and unfulfilling.

  79. Scott says:

    I think LP got it. Mostly I was trying to demonstrate the futility of employing euphemisms where simple direct verbiage will do.

    “Entreat boldness!”
    “Terminate apathy!”
    and
    “Emphasize vitality!”

    are all examples they have not thought of yet. Injecting (hopefully subconsciously) the thought that we no longer are interested in figuring out what the sophistry of phrases like this means is just more fun.

    “I reject your rejection of passivity and implore you to resolutely and unequivocally steel your sinew!”

  80. Paul says:

    There’s often a lot more to a bible text than meets the eye. The same holds true for the seduction of Adam and Eve.

    Why does the NT mention that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, although it was Eve who was deceived and first ate from the fruit? What would have happened if Adam had said ‘No!’ to his wife? Why did God first address Adam? Why did God NOT address the sin of the woman? Why DID God address the sin of Adam? Why was it a sin for Adam to listen to his wife?

    Think about it. Although the role of the woman was more directly involved in the sin, somehow Adam is seen as (more) responsible. This is prototypical headship. Notice that what Eve said to Adam is never mentioned, but Adam sinned by ‘listening’ to his wife. The Hebrew has

    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..” Voice can also mean “advice” or “command”, and listen can also mean “give heed” or “obey”. Was it that Adam was so bedazzled by attractiveness of his wife, that he rather obeyed her command to eat from the fruit, than to obey God to not eat it? Notice that Eve falls for the promise “when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. She “saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom”. So although presumably Adam had told Eve about God’s command not to eat from the fruit, she chose to disobey Adam and God, and listen to the evil one, and even seducing Adam to follow her in sin. Adam should not have obeyed her command.

    I think it is more than a coincidence that we see a very similar pattern arise under influence of feminism. Men are struggling to uphold their headship, and are constantly manipulated (often by the promise of sex!) to subdue to their wives. It is rebellion on a massive scale.

  81. Thudkaster76 says:

    I usually like these guys. But they go off the reservation on this one:

    http://www.doctrineanddevotion.com/video/problem2

  82. Thudkaster76 says:

    Thanks Dalrock for the post. So do you reject the term complimentarianism altogether or just the way in which our culture has redefined it? In a world where the choices are complimentarianism and egalitarianism I’ve always considered complimentarianism the more biblical term, but maybe that’s too blue pill of me…

  83. One thing I see is that while all the calls to “step up” or “reject passivity” or even (on occasion) to “take charge” are technically and biblically right, almost nobody ever mentions HOW to do it.

  84. PokeSalad says:

    “Entreat boldness!”

    “FIGHT APATHY! Or don’t……”

  85. earl says:

    God’s role for the sexes was that they complement each other. However I think in the ‘egalitarian’ sense…the man takes on the feminine role more and the woman takes on the masculine role more. Which is not it works.

  86. earl says:

    Why not dive into Christ’s word….take up your cross and follow Him.

  87. freebird says:

    Why are you guys quoting Genesis when Christ did away with the entire Old Testament?
    Of course the Jews didn’t hold gou to Leviticus,it wasn’t their religion,just as there is no
    “Judeo-Christianity”
    If and when you adopt The Book of The Jews,and accept the King of The Jews are your
    personal savior, then you adopt their food laws and *family structure* such as wifely submission.
    Still far easier to have Personal Jesus who accepts my merits and ignores my faults,Buffet style.
    Because I enjoy sinning without repentance too.
    (just like you)
    He spits them out,being not hot nor cold

  88. Paul says:

    @freebird: “Why are you guys quoting Genesis when Christ did away with the entire Old Testament?”

    Because Genesis does not belong to the Old Covenant.

  89. Scanman says:

    Men do.
    Women help men do.
    Neither will reach their God given potential without the other. Ever.

    We only complicate this simple formula so that people without useful skills can still pretend to earn a living.

    This is a graceless, stump dumb, mindlessly selfish and wasteful age and God has abandoned us to be ruled by women, children, fools and knaves.

  90. BillyS says:

    Christ did away with the entire Old Testament

    Who said that?

    I regularly cover all parts of the OT. I am just no obligated to abide all its laws. Jesus fulfilled those already. I could never do it even if I tried.

  91. RedPillPaul says:

    How do i know? I can’t prove it but “know” through the spirit of truth through faith.

    Through this same faith, if God made mankind in his own image, and he was good enough to cloth them with physical clothes after the fall, and we know that nakedness is shameful, does it make sense that God would create man with out some covering?
    Isaiah 61:10 “he clothed me in garments of salvation, he has coved me eith a robe of righteousness”

    Again, Adam was not deceived. He made a very well informed decision to disobey God. Have you considered that when he saw Eve eat the fruit, it was the first time he saw her physically naked? As in her robe of righteousness was gone the moment she ate it? Just like Moses was clothed in light when he saw Gods back, you dont think walking side by side with God doesnt give you this covering as well?

  92. earl says:

    then you adopt their….*family structure* such as wifely submission.

    That’s in the NT too…the model for marriage is Christ and the church.

  93. earl says:

    In the OT it was God and Israel…in the NT it is Christ and the church. Christ fulfilled the law.

  94. BillyS says:

    RPP,

    I have heard the argument that Eve was clothed in glory prior to The Fall, but I no longer buy that. She was naked the whole time. They just saw it as a problem after sin came.

    My questions “how do you know” were aimed at noting that you interject a lot of your own thoughts into what happened because what is covered was not all of what happened. The key point for that is that “with” didn’t necessarily mean “right next to” and just being in the same Garden makes far more sense given what God held Adam accountable for.

    I also don’t buy that “listening to the voice of your wife” meant “taking and eating the fruit she handed to you when you were right next to her the whole time.” That is especially true because that involves no persuasion on Eve’s part.

    Adam clearly saw Eve naked after she was made too. She wouldn’t have been “flesh of my flesh” if he couldn’t see her flesh. It sounds good when the effort is to hold Adam with all the fault and responsibility, but it is an unnecessary twisting of what is written. Adam is held accountable, but Eve also has her own consequences, including not being allowed to teach/lead in the Church.

    Moses could not be viewed because the Israeli’s were fallen. Adam and Eve were walking with God prior to that and no, I don’t add some unmentioned outer coating since it is completely unnecessary and clouds the issue.

    I also can’t see that this was the first time Adam saw Eve’s entire body. The book about Kissing Dating Goodbye hadn’t been written yet after all. They were also “married”, with all the implication that brings with it. No celibacy was necessary.

  95. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott & LP

    Whoops! My bad, I missed the joke. Recalibrating in…3…2…1…

  96. earl says:

    Men do.
    Women help men do.

    Yup or put another way….

    Men act.
    Women help influence men’s actions.

    And God holds us to account with this.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @Thudkaster76

    Thanks Dalrock for the post. So do you reject the term complimentarianism altogether or just the way in which our culture has redefined it? In a world where the choices are complimentarianism and egalitarianism I’ve always considered complimentarianism the more biblical term, but maybe that’s too blue pill of me…

    This is the nature of the deception in the terms. Complementarianism is designed to feel biblical, but is a new term a small group of Christian leaders created to reject traditional teaching (siding in part with feminists) while seeming traditional and opposing other aspects of feminism. John Piper and Wayne Grudem wrote in the book that founded the movement:

    Traditional positions have not been totally satisfactory, because they have not fully answered the recent evangelical feminist arguments. Moreover, most Christians will admit that selfishness, irresponsibility, passivity, and abuse have often contaminated “traditional” patterns of how men and women relate to each other.

    …Our vision is not entirely the same as “a traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions.

    A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

    Mary Kassian was part of the group that Piper and Grudem lead, and describes how they came to invent the term complementarian:

    Though the concept of male-female complementarity can be seen from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years. It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—-a concept first forwarded and popularized in evangelical circles in the 1970s and 1980s by “Biblical Feminists.” I’ve read several articles lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting 25 years ago where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the word’s definition.

    See here for the links and expanded quotes: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/supplicating-to-rebellion/

  98. RedPillPaul says:

    BillyS

    Call it intuition. Sure i get your point in things not being written so its speculation. Paul even warns of jewish legends and old wives tale, which causes division and that we should focus on the cross.

    That being said, we do our best lead in the spirit of truth to fill in the blanks. There is a spirit that pushes evolution and dismissing the super natural and a spirit that people today are smarter and the only generation that has rational thought. We are subconsciously influenced by these things that attribute to our own blindness.

    For example, the showdown with Elijah and the prophets of baal. We discount the prophets of baal as being irrational superstitious people but why would they accept the challenge unless they were confident in the power of evil?

    So we fill in the blank that there is power in evil and if God didnt hold the power of evil back, they would have had their sacrifice answered by fire. That is not written in yhe Bible but with some critical thought and searching in truth, we can come to that conclusion confidently without it specifically being stated in the Bible.

    I take my position to be more accurate about how things went down in the garden of Eden then a lot of other positions out there as it makes thr most sense.

    You (plural and not specifically you) cant move the goal post around with the specifics I propose, just cast doubt that it happened that way. When you stick to my proposition, there is no way you can argue that Adam didnt do his part, or he should have kept her from doing something. Jesus could have very well gone against the father will and saved himself with a legion of angels. It was his free will to do so if he chose and if he did, God wouldn’t have stopped him, because free will…it just means that if Jesus did do that, he really wasnt tje son of God.
    With my position, there is a clear reason and it makes sense that the man would rule over woman because if he was telling her not to eat, which i still hold to, he didnt have the authority to overrule it. Now hr does.

    The bible states that the moment Adam ate, THEN both eyes were open and they realized they were naked. You can not definitively say that they were naked before with that statement.

    i would like to hear your version of how things went down in the garden that still alines with what is actually stated in Genesis. I believe my version is in line with what is written in the Bible.

  99. Dalrock says:

    @7817

    Dalrock, I noticed on Cane’s site that you were looking for a copy of Wilson’s Reforming Marriage. I have a copy which I was given years ago; and would email you pictures of any sections you wish to read.

    Thank you for your very kind offer. I’m going to get a used copy, and if that doesn’t work out will buy it on Kindle. I might end up doing both so I have a hard copy I can make notes in and a kindle copy I can easily do word searches in.

    My real reluctance was getting sucked into analyzing another book. It is a significant time sink, and takes much more time and focus away than I usually allot to blogging. However, on the flip side it looks like a short book (144 pages), and being in book form it gives me something whole to weigh. You can’t do that with Wilson’s blog posts because he always claims he will get to the point in some future post.

  100. Luke says:

    BillyS says:
    March 21, 2018 at 9:09 am
    “Christ did away with the entire Old Testament”

    “Who said that?

    I regularly cover all parts of the OT. I am just no obligated to abide all its laws. Jesus fulfilled those already. I could never do it even if I tried.”

    What parts of the OT’s commandments do you find objectionable? The requirement to refrain from being tattooed or getting cosmetic skin piercings, engaging in bestiality or homosex, interracial marrying, animal cruelty, paying your employees on time, returning misplaced property to its rightful owner, women marrying before having sex, not marrying nonChristians, not wearing a dress if a man/pants if a woman, practicing witchcraft, avoiding vegetarianism, refraining from eating most insects or snakes, avoiding alchoholism and idleness, or worshipping idols, coveting another man’s wife, not paying your debts if able, cheating in business with weights and measures, perjury, engaging in incest or murder, or what?

  101. RedPillPaul says:

    @Luke

    We Gentile Christians only have 4 rules, stay way from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immortality, food from strangled animals and consumption of blood. If we love God/Jesus, we will follow his commands. What command? The first two that the law is based on. Love God with everything(heart soul mind strength) and love each other as yourself.

    Those are the only commands we must follow to prove we love God. The law is a curse because it is extremely hard to attain righteousness by following the law, because the moment you break one, your righteousness is gone. 7th day Adventist come to mind here, trying to obtain righteousness outside of faith and grace.

    The command we should follow is to love God and each other. Just like the fruits of the spirit, against such things there is no law (as in there is not right or wrong way in manifesting/being love joy peace patience gentleness goodness faithfulness selfcontrol) there is no longer a specific way, such as tassles on clothes, or wearing clothes that is made of one material, ect…just to love God above all and love one another.

  102. Swanny River says:

    Dalrock, thank you for your reply to Thudkaster. Even though I read your thoughts about the phrase when you posted it before, it is good to be reminded. In fact, their reasoning seems more clearly wrong to me than it was in 2016. I don’t think I noticed in 2016 how thoroughly and decisively they made a break with traditional and hierarchical conventions, but if I did, it’s still renewing to be reminded of it. It makes the beatdowns from church less confusing when I am reminded of how purposefully entrenched complementarians are(and superficial too).

  103. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    My real reluctance was getting sucked into analyzing another book. It is a significant time sink, and takes much more time and focus away than I usually allot to blogging.

    I’m assuming you’ve seen this detailed (20pp) exegesis:
    http://www.luke-15.org/Reforming_Marriage.pdf

    The author is unknown to me, and he seems too enthusiastic about the original to be a reliable critic, but it contains plenty of source material.

    Best,

    Boxer

  104. Dalrock says:

    I’ve seen that Boxer. He is a fan of Wilson, but even his (intended) positive review is pretty bad. Wilson is a special case though, because a vocal minority of readers feel that I haven’t been fair to him, that Wilson doesn’t mean what he writes, and either way will get around to making his real point in some future blog post/sermon, etc. I can’t help them with their assertion that Wilson is a failure as a writer, but by going through the whole book I can address the second concern.

  105. Dalrock says:

    I should add that instead of saving my thoughts up for one long blog post, I’ll comment on bits as I see them and then follow up at the end tying it together. This way it isn’t tedious, but I still can do a post on the book as a whole.

  106. Boxer says:

    Dear Brother Dalrock:

    I’ve seen that Boxer. He is a fan of Wilson, but even his (intended) positive review is pretty bad. Wilson is a special case though, because a vocal minority of readers feel that I haven’t been fair to him, that Wilson doesn’t mean what he writes, and either way will get around to making his point in some future blog post/sermon, etc. I can’t help them with their assertion that Wilson is a failure as a writer, but by going through the whole book I can address the second concern.

    I haven’t commented here because it’s a quarrel that doesn’t concern me or my people (our own folk religion has plenty of charlatans, but Wilson isn’t one of them). I have enjoyed your comments on Wilson, because they serve to illuminate a general tactic of the conservative male feminist, who misleads through selective emphasis, rather than outright lying. You’ve managed to uncover Wilson pretty effectively, if I’m following the conversation. His method of deception is really quite sophisticated.

    Best,

    Boxer

  107. Caspar Reyes says:

    The Sinai covenant of marriage between God and Israel (as two sisters Israel and Judah) ended at the death of the husband, i.e., Christ, when the Temple veil was rent (Rom 7:2). The destruction of the veil is also the end of the holy places of the Temple and thus of the sacrifice, which was the core of the OT religion (not Judaism, but pre-Christ Christianity). Nonetheless, the scriptures of the old covenant stand, even if the handwriting of sacrificial ordinances was canceled. You can see Galatians and Hebrews for considerable depth on the superiority of the new covenant. If you feel like following the OT laws, that is up to you*, but God’s principles never change; see, for example, that Abraham obeyed God’s statutes and laws before there were any specific dictates (Genesis 12).

    * We all do to some degree anyway. The health laws from the Sinai covenant are retained by western civilizations in all kinds of similar regulations for food, sanitation, etc. The laws of contracts, covenants, justice, witnesses, marriage, etc., etc., all based ultimately on God’s laws for the administration of his theocracy Israel. All the laws of sacrifice were done away.

  108. Dalrock says:

    @Swanny River

    Dalrock, thank you for your reply to Thudkaster. Even though I read your thoughts about the phrase when you posted it before, it is good to be reminded. In fact, their reasoning seems more clearly wrong to me than it was in 2016. I don’t think I noticed in 2016 how thoroughly and decisively they made a break with traditional and hierarchical conventions, but if I did, it’s still renewing to be reminded of it. It makes the beatdowns from church less confusing when I am reminded of how purposefully entrenched complementarians are(and superficial too).

    You are welcome. It strikes me after responding to Thudkaster and reading your comment that there is another aim that I hadn’t noted. Complementarians set out to create a set of terms to sow confusion (including the very name they chose for themselves). They also set out to freeze out the traditional view, to take away the voice of anyone who interpreted the Bible without adapting it to fit feminist progress. They succeeded in both regards beyond their wildest dreams. They cucked Christianity and no one noticed.

  109. jvangeld says:

    “and either way will get around to making his point in some future blog post/sermon, etc. I can’t help them with their assertion that Wilson is a failure as a writer, but by going through the whole book I can address the second concern.”

    I haven’t read all of “Reforming Marriage”. But what I have read of Wilson’s other books suggests that you might be disappointed on this point as well. Many of his books also suffer from “Not addressed here” syndrome.

  110. Caspar Reyes says:

    Sorry about widening the rabbit trail up there; it’s a subject close to my heart.

    More OT, Andy Stanley of Northpoint Church in Atlanta is another one. I attend a satellite church that often uses video feeds of his messages. The latest series: What Happy Couples Know. And the most recent installment? It’s Mutual. Predictability ensues!

    I told my family after the first installment that we were going to sit the rest of them out. I’m writing an analysis of the series as my own message to the family, because it doesn’t do any good to protect them from the stuff without preparing them to answer it.

  111. Caspar Reyes says:

    *More ON-topic

  112. Pingback: What was Adam’s sin? | Dalrock

  113. BillyS says:

    RPP,

    You incorrectly add to the Scriptures (Adam didn’t protect Eve when he should have) with your interpretation. That is why it is not fine. Though read Dalrock’s post on the topic for an aspect I had not considered yet as well.

    It also does not say they became naked when they ate. It says they knew that, though “knew” seems to have been added by the translators. Being naked was only an issue if you were worried about good and evil, so it was irrelevant before. I still can’t see Adam never seeing Eve naked prior, especially when she was first presented, given his response and the fact they were “married” at the time.

    You use a fallen world to assume that nakedness in that context was bad. Where is the Scriptural support for that? (Though consider moving the conversation to the thread on this topic as replies here may get lost.)

    i would like to hear your version of how things went down in the garden that still alines with what is actually stated in Genesis. I believe my version is in line with what is written in the Bible.

    I have already done so, though Dalrock added an additional item I had not considered (that Eve and the serpent were not at the Tree in question during the temptation. Our tradition can determine many things in our minds and we need to constantly watch for that.

    Luke,

    What parts of the OT’s commandments do you find objectionable?

    That is not relevant. I am not a Jew and thus I am not under any obligation to follow The Law. Even Jew’s aren’t required to follow all things now per Paul challenging Peter for stopping his practice of eating with Gentiles.

    Jesus fulfilled every command. I am now responsible for being conformed into His image and only that, as illuminated in the NT. I can learn a great many things from the OT since the NT flows out of it, but I do not have to follow The Law.

    RPP had a good reply on this.

    Caspar Reyes,

    You have to ignore too many unfulfilled prophecies, including ones noted in the NT, that indicate God is not done with the Jews as a people. He also told Mary many things, including that Jesus would sit on the Throne of David. He already knew Jesus would die, so He was either lying or He isn’t done with the Jewish people.

  114. 7817 says:

    @Dalrock

    “My real reluctance was getting sucked into analyzing another book. It is a significant time sink, and takes much more time and focus away than I usually allot to blogging. However, on the flip side it looks like a short book (144 pages), and being in book form it gives me something whole to weigh. You can’t do that with Wilson’s blog posts because he always claims he will get to the point in some future post.”

    I appreciate you taking this book on. It was given to me after I was married, and I read it once and didnt give it much thought, except that it was different than most marriage books.
    However, after beginning to have trouble in the marriage and finding my way here, I re-read the book. Parts of the book are decent, especially compared to the vapidity of most Christian marriage books, but there were parts that seemed off to me, though I am not the best one to articulate the errors.

    I look forward to your perspective.

  115. RedPillPaul says:

    Is righteousness and salvation material? They were physically naked but clothed in something. Even when God tells how to make the priestly garments it so that they dont come before God naked(exodus 28)

    There is no shame of nakedness between husband and wife but is with everyone else. Many time it nakedness and shame are together in the Bible.

    I didnt say that Adam should have protected her, i state that he was telling her not to do it. He had no authority to override her choice until it was specifically given to him as a consequence to eve’s sin.

    This ties with the subect of this post. He was rejecting passivity (although its out of context in how complementairians would use it) by telling her not to eat it but didnt have the authority to override her free will.

    How can the Bible state that he wasnt deceived but the woman was? Wouldn’t the woman say the same to him as the serpent said to her like a game of telephone? So the lie working on woman is deception but the same lie working on Adam isnt?

  116. Paul says:

    @RRP: We Gentile Christians only have 4 rules, stay way from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immortality, food from strangled animals and consumption of blood.

    Why should we stay away from sexual immortality? /humor

  117. Pingback: Weasel virtues will not save you. | Dark Brightness

  118. sipcode says:

    Complementarians: they are all just “Shitfaced priests”; read it in Malachi 2:3

  119. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Amusingly, one also finds that neo-cons accuse Trump of a different kind of ‘passivity’ and encourage him to reject it; see here

  120. Spike says:

    Paul says:
    March 22, 2018 at 7:14 am
    @RRP: We Gentile Christians only have 4 rules, stay way from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immortality, food from strangled animals and consumption of blood.

    Why should we stay away from sexual immortality? /humor

    Paul: When I hear the panic-like warnings attached to verses such as 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 5 about women’s submission, something I have heard EVERY TIME it has been preached on, I ask whether Acts 15 can be rationalized away with the same panic-like warnings, for us men. I think it would be funny,
    ”But we don’t need to refrain from fornication… after all, no one eats the blood of strangled animals these days, so the context has changed….” (panicky voice).

  121. A says:

    Servant leader -> Headship
    Reject passivity -> Take charge

    What would be the “real” term for Complementarianism? Could it be… *gasp*… Patriarchy?

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    A
    What would be the “real” term for Complementarianism?

    Equalist egalitarianism, aka “conservative feminism”. It is easy to see this by watching what Complimentarians do while discounting what they say. It’s all about appeasing the Female Imperative from the start.

    Could it be… *gasp*… Patriarchy?

    No.

  123. PokeSalad says:

    They also set out to freeze out the traditional view, to take away the voice of anyone who interpreted the Bible without adapting it to fit feminist progress. They succeeded in both regards beyond their wildest dreams. They cucked Christianity and no one noticed.

    Classic goalpost-moving….now the ‘Neanderthal position’ is THEIR position, not that of the Bible. Shift the playing field, win the war.

  124. Pingback: Essential advice from a feminist conservative pastor! - Fabius Maximus website

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.