Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters.

It is disturbing to watch the cowardly response of Dr. Paige Patterson’s colleagues as the SJW mob went after him.  Patterson was a lion in Southern Baptist and complementarian circles.  He was the president of two different Southern Baptist seminaries, a founding member of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), and a coauthor of the CBMW’s founding book.  As Thabiti Anyabwile wrote back in 2006, Patterson led “the grassroots resurgence that moved the Southern Baptist Convention to conservative theological grounding over two decades ago”.

More important than the man, however, is the theology that was on trial.  Patterson was attacked primarily because he:

  • Counseled separation and not divorce in cases of serious abuse.
  • Acknowledged that “abuse” is an extremely broad term and argued that a pastoral response should vary depending on the risk of serious harm.

The goal of feminists wasn’t just to destroy the man, but to get complementarians to agree that all Christians should:

  • Never counsel anything short of divorce if a husband is accused of abuse.
  • Accept the full breadth of the Christian feminist definition of abuse, which is anything that a husband does or doesn’t do that upsets his wife.

I won’t say there aren’t any major figures in the complementarian movement who have pushed back against these two feminist demands as the SJW mob went after Patterson, but if they exist I have yet to locate them.

The first example I’ll offer is the absolutely hysterical response from Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Mohler described the SJW lynch mob attacking Patterson as representing the wrath of God*

America’s largest evangelical denomination has been in the headlines day after day. The SBC is in the midst of its own horrifying #MeToo moment.

…The judgment of God has come.

Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention. The terrible swift sword of public humiliation has come with a vengeance. There can be no doubt that this story is not over.

Mohler argued that the only possible response to SJW slander is to act as if the slander is legitimate.  Any and every SJW accusation should hereafter result in a private third party investigation (emphasis mine):

A church, denomination, or Christian ministry must look outside of itself when confronted with a pattern of mishandling such responsibilities, or merely of being charged with such a pattern. We cannot vindicate ourselves. That is the advice I have given consistently for many years. I now must make this judgment a matter of public commitment. I believe that any public accusation concerning such a pattern requires an independent, third-party investigation. In making this judgment, I make public what I want to be held to do should, God forbid, such a responsibility arise.

Mohler closed with:

This is just a foretaste of the wrath of God poured out. This moment requires the very best of us. The Southern Baptist Convention is on trial and our public credibility is at stake. May God have mercy on us all.

But Mohler wasn’t alone in throwing Patterson under the bus for holding to a plain reading of Scripture.  Three days after Beth Moore demanded that complementarians stop discouraging divorce if the wife claims abuse, CBMW President Denny Burke published an article titled What about divorce and abuse?  While Burke didn’t mention Patterson by name in the article, at the time he maintained that this was a topic Evangelicals could disagree on in good faith:

Evangelicals have never been monolithic in their views about divorce. Some believe that the Bible disallows divorce altogether. Others believe that the Bible allows for divorce in certain situations (see Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7). There is no one view on divorce that has commanded the consensus of evangelicals. My view is the latter, and I suspect that it is the view held by the majority of evangelicals (though certainly not all).

Nevertheless, Burke explained that in his own view wives who accuse husbands of abuse should be counseled to first separate from their husband and then divorce him. This is in Burke’s words, a necessity:

In my 2013 book on sexual ethics, I argue that “abused spouses should separate from abusive situations in order to protect themselves and their children” (What Is the Meaning of Sex, p. 135). That separation is a necessity for the safety and welfare of the family. An abusive spouse has made choices that force a separation, and the abuse therefore can become tantamount to desertion. That is why I conclude that when the abuser “leaves” the marriage in this way, the “exception for desertion comes into play (1 Cor. 7:15).

This brings us to the other half of the SJW charge against Patterson; the question of the definition of abuse.  Burke answers the question with a link to the CBMW’s recently revised statement on abuse:

*For more on the subject of abuse, see CBMW’s “Statement on Abuse.” 

If you follow the link, you will find that practically speaking the CBMW statement defines abuse as anything a husband does or doesn’t do that upsets his wife:

  • We believe abuse can be defined as any act or failure to act resulting in imminent risk, serious injury, death, physical or emotional or sexual harm, or exploitation of another person.
  • We condemn all forms of physical, sexual and/or verbal abuse.

This was a near perfect victory for Beth Moore and the SJWs, but they still hadn’t managed to get Burke and the CBMW to agree that Patterson’s views were unacceptable.  For that they would have to wait until Southwestern Seminary forced Patterson out.  On that same day (May 23rd), Burke responded to Patterson’s dismissal with an article on the CBMW website titled  A Time for Moral Clarity.  In this article Burke repeatedly stated his agreement with Albert Mohler, implying that the SJW lynch mob against Patterson was sent from God:

Evangelicals have been facing a moment of truth concerning abuse and misconduct in our own ranks. Recently, attention has been focused on Southwestern Seminary and its president. The controversy centers on past remarks about pastoral counsel to an abuse victim and about the objectification of a teenage girl.

As Albert Mohler declared earlier today, it really does seem to be a time of reckoning. But it is not only that. It is also a time for moral clarity from all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially as we consider the sobering words of 1 Peter 4:17: “It is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”

Burke closed the article with:

If you still haven’t read the essay Mohler wrote, you need to. I resonate with it deeply and believe it to be a tremendous display of denominational statesmanship.

Note that while Burke doesn’t have the courage to say it outright, by agreeing with Mohler he left no room for good Christians to hold that separation and not divorce should be counseled in the case of abuse.  Nor did he leave room for good Christians to disagree with the feminist definition of abuse, which is anything and everything that upsets a wife.

Along with the CBMW, the other big complementarian organization is The Gospel Coalition (TGC).  TGC Council member Thabiti Anyabwile responded to the SJW mob’s ousting of Patterson with an article titled Sin on CP Time.  Like Mohler and Burke, Anyabwile declared that the SJW mob victory was good and Patterson’s deviance from feminism was theologically unacceptable (emphasis mine):

…Consider the pastors whose sins have crawled out of dark secrecy recently to speak against them on spotlit stages. Praise God most of these pastors have not been as heinous as Cosby or Nasser, but that doesn’t mean their failings aren’t serious.

This morning the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary issued a statement announcing that Paige Patterson will no longer be president of that institution. Though the statement doesn’t mention the swirling controversy over Patterson’s comments about a young girl’s body or unbiblical counsel to women in abusive situations, the decision is at least linked by timing. Patterson’s comments were flat-out wrong and a pretty serious misrepresentation of the Bible he defended. This marks the sad end to a long and at times valiant career in service to the church and the gospel.

Anyabwile says it would have been better for Patterson if his sins against feminism had been exposed at a young age.  As it stands, Patterson’s long career has now ended in total disgrace:

It’s also better to deal with these things while we are young. Older people fall harder and get up slower. We can spend our youth attempting to avoid these things, hoping they won’t shipwreck a ministry or a career. We can then spend our ministry ignoring these things, justifying them by pointing to our apparent “success.” Then when we’ve passed through middle age into retirement, we can justify continuing silence by saying, “Why ruin a good reputation?” Consequently, the weight of long life, perhaps the added weight of some success, gain crushing force when our sins come to light later and our good reputations are harmed.

As SJW’s like to say, there is no room in the world of complementarians for men or women who believe that separation, not divorce, is the biblical solution to serious abuse.  Nor is there room for men or women who don’t wholly accept the feminist definition of abuse.  Paige Patterson’s beliefs were thought crimes against feminism, and the leadership of the complementarian movement is proud to have made an example of him

*H/T Hmm

Related:  Step up, so they don’t have to.

Updates: 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in #MeToo, Albert Mohler, Beth Moore, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Domestic Violence, Dr. Denny Burk, Dr. Paige Patterson, Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, Social Justice Warriors, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Thabiti Anyabwile, The Gospel Coalition, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

235 Responses to Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters.

  1. Pingback: Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters. | @the_arv

  2. bdash 77 says:

    Without this Blog I would not have learn’t to solely rely on God and the bible and not listen or rely on these evangelical superstars….

  3. bdash 77 says:

    it is more masculine to be attracted to men

  4. Gunner Q says:

    Time yet to extend an olive branch to Patterson? He’s on the road to Red Pill-ville.

    Mohler: “The Southern Baptist Convention is on trial and our public credibility is at stake.”

    …He says to an empty auditorium.

    Burke: “That separation is a necessity for the safety and welfare of the family.”

    Family? No, the separation is from his wife, not his children. There’s no Biblical case to separate a man from his children even when he’s separated from his wife, and no moral case even when the man truly is violent. There’s no separation in that situation because he goes to jail, not the family courts.

    What the heck? Thabiti took a swipe at Bill Cosby in the linked “Sin on CP Time”. Low blow, punk.

  5. And they wonder why young men aren’t going to Church.
    It’s about to get even worse as the SBC starts cucking harder.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mohler calls the feminist / SJW lynch mob the “wrath of God”?

    Open, not rhetorical, question: was Jezebel also that there “wrath”? Delilah?

  7. bdash 77 says:

    Dalrock is of course absolutely right
    abuse is just an excuse to eliminate authority

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/hidden-epidemic-god-hates/

    now telling your wife to not work but care for the home, or telling her to diet is “abuse”

    basically a man asking anything of his wife, his wife disagrees with is abuse…

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Southern Baptists and the CBMW engage in negotiations with feminists and SJW’s over the issue of Patterson.

  9. illuvitus says:

    Your blog is like a monastery in the midst of a dying civilization.

    “Abuse is any act or failure to act that results in … emotional harm…”

    They can’t make it any clearer. Anything a wife doesn’t like is abuse. The mere failure to do what a wife wants is abuse.

    Try and raise this point, and you’ll be presented with wives who were caged up and beaten daily. I’m not exaggerating.

    I saw a woman called out for blaming abortion solely on abusive men and she said abuse is so common that virtually every woman in the church has been abused. She claimed that women in multiple churches she’d attended were locked in cages by their husbands. It was evident that to avoid talking about her ridiculous universal condemnations of Christian men, she had to invent even more ridiculous cases of abuse.

    I respected Mohler a few years ago. Not so much these days. Maybe I’d be as cowardly as he is if I were in his position, but I wouldn’t deserve respect either if I were.

  10. earl says:

    This is what you get with Evangelical Feminism.

    You can say goodbye to qn

  11. earl says:

    You can say goodbye to anything represnting Christ and the Gospel.

  12. Heidi says:

    @bdash 77: I like Number 15 on the list: “Punishing you for your sins.” Since he prefaces this list by saying “You may be experiencing spiritual abuse by a spouse or parent if he or she is doing any of the following in the name of Christianity,” I guess every time I discipline my kids I’m committing abuse. Contradicts Proverbs 13:24 and a bunch of other verses, of course, but I see from this very same page that quoting Scripture to one’s family is itself abusive.

  13. Dan Horton says:

    You left out the universal sjw-evangelical exception clause:

    *This in no way detracts from the command that the husband is to always suffer for his family, even to the point of laying down his life–even for a wife that is free to walk away at the slightest disagreement.

    If I thought they were rational, I would say it’s crazy how often I have heard husband-sacrificing-his-life-for-his-family stressed in these same churches that can’t handle even saying the word “submit” and are always pushing the get-out-of-marraige-free card at the slightest opportunity.

    They are playing for keeps. It’s time we start.

  14. Joe Ego says:

    “Emotional harm” and “verbal abuse”.

    Between two people who live with each other for years, sharing just about everything? Nope, there’s nothing scary about the potential for losing your family, social circle, and/or livelihood over such things. Not when one of the sexes is more likely to be believed by default when making accusations and more prone to wide variations in emotional reaction. What could go wrong?

  15. illuvitus says:

    @Heidi: Mohler claims these SJW’s like Beth Moore are punishing Paige Patterson (and Southern Baptists in general) for their sins. Apparently it’s only abuse when husbands, who are commanded to “wash their wives with the word” follow that command. When feminist rebels do it, the are God’s instrument.

  16. JRob says:

    “God wants my kids to have a haaaaapppy Mommy.”
    Personal story, hot off the presses (a year ago, so warm).
    Couple met in SBC church 19 years ago. Fifteen years of marriage and five children later, she pushes the detonator. SAHM, he worked and saved and had a nice retirement nest egg built for THE FAMILY.

    During “counseling” with a SBC pastor, their SBC pastor of many years, he sat there stunned. She said the above as well as all the other usual crap they glean from FB and feminist “Christians.” Her final reason? “He’s not a spiritual leader!”

    The pastor looked at him with contempt, leaned over to her and said, “God understands if you NEED to divorce.”

    I’ve been through this, most of my male family/friends have too; he’s with it enough to get it when I predict what’s going to happen next. The first prediction was the new man/carouseling. First thing she did when he moved out. This was after she threatened to call the cops, which I also predicted from experience.

    He lives on $400 bucks a month after paying the state/her. She burned through “her half” on vacations already.

    I understand I’m commenting to the choir. My point is if the SBC produces this type of trash to lead then let it fail.

  17. Comeonreally says:

    Holy crap, if you’re relying on someone like Thabiti, er, Ron Burns for your theological hammer, you’re on thin ice yourself.

  18. mgtowhorseman says:

    The church and society has no targets left but to double down on their own.
    And men double down on pence rule and mgtow. Natural.

    Feminism freed the yoiung men under 30 of today from the burden of performance.

    Knowing he will never get married or have to support a family frees the young man of today to do whatever the hell he wants. It is the ultimate libertarianism.

    The fruits of my labours, all of it, are mine and no one elses.
    Vice versa I have little wants so I have little need to labour.
    No one trusts me being a male so I don’t have to put my faith in anyone or institution but me.

    Provide for the labour the economy needs, taxes the government needs?. Um no. Society will never respect me so shame doesn’t work. Shake the booty or bat the eyes for favours, um you already said no, never, nyet. Do it for the children? The ones who will never be my children.

    Nope. I heard you loud and clear growing up. I saw what you did to dad and uncles. I have never personally known a successful, respected man. I saw the slut marches and the gurl power and how girls dressed and behaved in school.

    For the first time ever it is totally logical to be a selfish prick. In fact it is now the safest route.

    Go ahead…double down, triple. Or reverse course and say saaaawry. Revert to the 50s, or victorianism. Start preaching the true bible again.
    It Don’t Matter!
    25 formative years shaped me and its intractible.

    No longer “By the people, for the people’.
    Its ” For Me, By Myself.”

    (It is only us old farts, whose formative years predated the third wave and are already trapped by our thinking if not our marriages that feminism really affects. Young men just ignore it all.)

  19. Gunner Q says:

    Thabiti: “It’s also better to deal with these things while we are young. Older people fall harder and get up slower. We can spend our youth attempting to avoid these things, hoping they won’t shipwreck a ministry or a career. We can then spend our ministry ignoring these things, justifying them by pointing to our apparent “success.””

    This is a subtle but exceptionally toxic comment. He’s calling for increased scrutiny of younger clergy. SJWs are forever paranoid of being betrayed by somebody they trust because they themselves love treachery above all other tactics.

    Consequently, they test the loyalty of subordinates with a ruthlessness that only great writers like Solzhenitsyn have been able to properly document. Thabiti had no complaint against Patterson until this scandal and now he wonders how long Patterson was hiding “these things”? He’s a thief worrying about burglars. A normal man would simply assume that Patterson changed his mind about things at some point–people do change over time–or, possibly, that this was a simple lapse on Patterson’s part that he would have been quietly embarrassed about had his peers not pointed and shrieked.

    Normal people don’t leap to the conclusion that a one-incident change in somebody’s behavior is evidence of a decades-long sinister plot.

  20. Rum says:

    Mohler seems to assert that all accusations against clergy should be treated as factual.
    Well… I heard a rumor that many traumatized women have claimed Albert Mohler …

  21. Swanny River says:

    Second the thought this blog is a red-pill monastery in a sea of Christian feminism. The TGC and CBMW play the primary roles in my churches view of marriages and relationships, so I can’t say strongly enough how important posts like this are.
    I am tempted to visit TGC to see how my former pastor, Kevin Deyoung, is doing, because I have high hopes that he would break the trend and support Patterson’s thoughts about divorce,abuse, and the normalness of finding attractive women attractive.

  22. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Mohler’s response was drama queen-esque. SMH and rolling my eyes while reading that pussified stuff he wrote:

    “They claimed that the effort to recover the denomination theologically was just a disguised move to capture the denomination for a new set of power-hungry leaders.”

    Shut up, sissy with your “they” shit.

  23. Chris says:

    As a newish reader here I just wanted to say:

    a) Kudos to this blog and

    b) To other newish readers: you don’t have to agree with every single point in Dalrock’s posts to see that he is doing important work exploring, documenting and analyzing some of the most significant cultural and spiritual issues of our time – and at a time when voices such as his are sparse and desperately needed.

  24. Swanny River says:

    I’m glad they are making their position clear, that is an improvement, despite the fact they are moving towards error. To correct the error, they needed to come clean, now an honest battle can take place. I hope they make it plain that sinners are still welcome in their churches but not unrepentant believers of “incorrect” thinking about abuse and divorce. They need to develop speech codes and declare churches female-safe zones.

  25. Swanny River says:

    Actually, what probably comes next is some cartoonish over reaction of saying or demonstrating that they still believe in headship.

  26. Hmm says:

    Ah, Swanny, so you were at URC?

  27. Swanny River says:

    Kevin was a pastor elsewhere also. I hope you don’t mind, but I don’t want to leave an easy trail to me. I am concerned about lawyers finding this one day and using it as evidence that I am abusive, per Duluth, and AlMohler, Burke guidelines. And then that impacting a custody battle.

  28. Dave says:

    I have always believed that it is impossible to be a Christian and a feminist at the same time. It is like claiming to be a holy devil, or a saintly murderer, or a chaste fornicator.
    Christian feminism is an oxymoron.

    And I am glad that the modern church and its accompanying support system (e.g. seminaries, heretical bible translations, books, etc) are being exposed for a fraud that they all are. Once the shame of this abomination has become universally evident, it will become much easier to differentiate between those who serve the Lord, and those who only serve themselves.

    Malachi 3:18

    Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

  29. dpmonahan says:

    Mohler is looking at the meltdown of the Catholic Church after our sex scandals and trying to get ahead of it by being repentant and transparent. He is afraid of a total collapse of moral authority but it will likely happen one way or another: surrender authority now or later. I suspect the SBC is screwed no matter what they do.

  30. The “Wrath of God”?

    Of course it is, Mr. Mohler.

    At least until they come with accusations against you too.

  31. @SuperLutheran “And they wonder why young men aren’t going to Church.”

    Agreed.

    A really interesting article here from Biola University authorette Holly Pivec describing back in 2012 what was already pushing men out of the church vestibule and back into their cars to drive off and do something else.

    BTW Biola comes from “Bible Institute of Los Angeles”

    http://magazine.biola.edu/article/06-spring/the-feminization-of-the-church/

    Overall, I think Ms. Pivec nailed it.

    Reasons:
    1. Feminization of the church

    2. Attendance Gap – more women now go to church, fewer men

    3. Ladies Clubs

    4. Love songs and feminine spirituality
    “The classic example is the worship pose of the eyes shut and the arms raised in this tender embrace, singing a song that says, ‘I’m desperate for you. You’re the air I breathe.’ Guys don’t talk to guys like that,” Erre said.

    5. Men’s ministry – the church’s lowest priority

    6. Touchy-Feely Sermons

    7.Girly-Men Pastors

  32. Pingback: Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters. | Reaction Times

  33. JRob says:

    I’ve read that article before, copied/pasted and e-mailed to me. Never looked for the original. Thank you for the link.
    Be sure to read the comments.

  34. Joe Ego says:

    “Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention. The terrible swift sword of public humiliation has come with a vengeance.”

    I think I find this the most disgusting part of the quoted statements. How does anyone with any knowledge of scripture, let alone a man in a leadership position, equate public humiliation with God’s judgement?

  35. Sharkly says:

    While the 7 reasons given may create a lower level of attraction to the church for men, I am not going right now because they are evil, great vagina worshiping whores, they are Satanic. They are at this moment participating in the destruction of my marriage and my boy’s home. Not by accident, but as their fruit made manifest. They teach the opposite of what the Bible clearly says.
    I am not going for religious reasons, not because they are so effeminate that they disgust me. I am a true Christ follower. Their god has a vagina.
    Strauss said. “To me, from the hyperfeminine woman, on the one end of the human spectrum, to the hymermasculine man, on the other, and every person in between (assuming psychological health), reflects the breadth and image of God,” he said.
    LOL, So except for some nuts who disagree, whom I get to select and label as Psychologically Unhealthy, the rest of us all are in the image of God. Apparently their Jesus had both male and female parts.

    My Jesus came and lived among us as a man with a circumcised penis, and He came from the Father, And my Holy Spirit does not have a vagina or moody periods either.
    So as far as I’m concerned the Woman was “taken out of man” and the man was created out of dust in the image of God. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that teaches me their vagina worshiping ways.

  36. ray says:

    Gunner — “Time yet to extend an olive branch to Patterson?”

    Yes. There is much in his pastoring that is good and authentic. He is rather (typically) soft but not in rebellion. He should be grateful for such a careful and expert analysis of his ‘trial’ as this page uniquely provides, by a few persons remaining who are actual Christians.

    I watched the clip where he offends WomanChurch by telling a story containing an attractive sixteen year old. Acting even vaguely like a man in New Amerika is what got him dumped.

    I will have more to say in this man’s defense, and in rebuke of his accusers. Who seem rather to be making a habit of “accusing the brethren” in America, hm?

  37. Spike says:

    “Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention. The terrible swift sword of public humiliation has come with a vengeance.”

    He does realize he is canonizing a social media movement, owned by the Enemies of Christ, and started by a bunch of treacherous satanic whores?

  38. ray says:

    Swanny River — “Second the thought this blog is a red-pill monastery in a sea of Christian feminism.”

    I’ve mentioned this a number of times over the years, folks struggle with it: the Church isn’t out there somewhere in a building, and you gotta sort through for years until you make some grand discovery.

    The Church is here. Not only here. But here.

  39. @Swanny

    I hope you don’t mind, but I don’t want to leave an easy trail to me.

    Very smart. Can’t stress this enough. Men, always protect yourself. I’ve learned this the hard way, because I was naive and stupid, and I suffered greatly for it. I thought these things always happened to the other guy. We live in Orwellian times, and you can never protect yourself too much. Patterson is only the latest in a long line of men to fall, and it only takes a single phone call/e-mail/message (either from you or from a third party regarding you to an authority) to ruin your life. It’s likely that not one person will publicly stand up for you during your fall. Who is publicly (without anonymity) standing up for Patterson right now?

    The only reason I can comment on the cowardice of other men is because I acknowledge my own. I didn’t stand up for other men before they came for me. I just watched, mocked the orange jumpsuit and the public scorn, and moved on. I see now that I reaped the indifference that I sowed.

    It’s interesting to me, and seemingly new, that mere indifference to the public defenestration of the Not Feminist Enough is no longer sufficient, now one must cast the first stone, the biggest stone, the last stone, mutilate the corpse, then engage in a regular Two Minute Hate session thereafter in an attempt to shield oneself from the mob turning on you.

  40. CSI says:

    Reading through that long twitter thread from Beth Moore, surely we need to get rid of the institution of marriage, since it seems to turn decent young men into vile beasts? That’s the impression it gives on how universal abusive husbands are.

  41. earl says:

    I have always believed that it is impossible to be a Christian and a feminist at the same time. It is like claiming to be a holy devil, or a saintly murderer, or a chaste fornicator.

    You can’t have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

  42. earl says:

    Besides I’ve talked with Catholic feminists before…they sound exactly like secular feminists and don’t take into account things like what Scripture says. Eventually the whole ‘take down the Patriarchy’ thing includes God the Father and the Son. You can’t be a Christian and a feminist.

  43. Sharkly says:

    Joe Ego says: “Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention. The terrible swift sword of public humiliation has come with a vengeance.”

    I think I find this the most disgusting part of the quoted statements. How does anyone with any knowledge of scripture, let alone a man in a leadership position, equate public humiliation with God’s judgement?

    Sirach 2:5 For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

    Our savior was publicly despised also:

    Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
    4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    I agree with you.

    “Wherever you see persecution, there is more than a probability that truth lies on the persecuted side.” ~Latimer

  44. earl says:

    My Jesus came and lived among us as a man with a circumcised penis, and He came from the Father, And my Holy Spirit does not have a vagina or moody periods either.

    The Holy Spirit is the relationship that comes from the Father and the Son. In order to thwart the rationalizations of the vagina worshipers…it’s best to point out what the Holy Spirit is. I’ve seen some refer to the Holy Spirit as a ‘she’.

    So as far as I’m concerned the Woman was “taken out of man” and the man was created out of dust in the image of God. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that teaches me their vagina worshiping ways.

    The vagina worshiping ways are completely backwards to what Scripture teaches. That’s why it doesn’t work.

  45. Mike says:

    Once again, women, or the collective “women lynch mob” represent the voice of God to these pathetic men.
    When your wife “rewards” you with sex, that means the holy spirit is speaking to you. When a women disagrees with your sermon, you must listen at once to her wisdom.

    Bow down all Christian men, to your Mother Goddess, and embrace what is so obviously your true religion.

  46. earl says:

    Funny how pagan goddesses seem to be holding serpents. It’s like they are telling us something.

  47. Hmm says:

    Swanny, sorry – didn’t mean to cause any trouble.

  48. Oscar says:

    1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

    Got that? Don’t even ENTERTAIN (much less BELIEVE) an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Mohler, Burke, and Anyabwile might want to remember that verse.

    Place your bets, gents: which of these will the wolf-bitches disembowel next?
    1. Mohler
    2. Burke, or
    3. Anyabwile?

    How long will it take?

  49. thedeti says:

    Man Up HQ is trying to show the appropriate level of contrition.

    Isn’t it funny to see evangelical titans like Al Mohler so terrified of women? This is significant. Mohler is highly respected in evangelical prot circles. He has been president of the SB theological seminary. Has (or at least had) a widely heard show on Christian talk radio. And here he is falling all over himself to be the first to use female Christianese to proclaim judgment, fire and brimstone on men for suggesting separation and not divorce, and for suggesting that “abuse” doesn’t mean what SJWs think it means.

  50. Damn Crackers says:

    I’m no pagan, but nice t*ts on that goddess.

  51. Gunner Q says:

    Joe Ego @ May 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm:
    “Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention. The terrible swift sword of public humiliation has come with a vengeance.”

    “I think I find this the most disgusting part of the quoted statements.”

    Yes, it sounds like something a skinsuit would say to keep up appearances. But “most disgusting” is a crowded field when dealing with SJWs.

  52. Joe says:

    “The Gospel Coalition

    @TGC
    It’s more masculine to be attracted to men yet obedient to God than attracted to women and disobedient to God.”

    Oh. My. God.

    I cannot believe how far we’ve fallen in such a short time. How utterly disgusting.

    I’m getting sick of it. I just want to find some like minded people, men and women, who get whats going on and meet in my home, study what the Bible actually says about stuff, then go out and live it.

    But guys, this is not unexpected.

    Matt 24:24
    For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

    1 TImothy 3-4
    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

  53. The anger directed at Patterson is, in part, because he chastised a mother for chastising her son for recognizing a girl’s beauty, calling her “built.” I’m alarmed that this is being called “objectifying” her. If young men aren’t physically attracted to young women, including their particular body parts, there’s something seriously wrong. We’re in trouble if young men don’t feel like marrying young women and having children with them. Do feminists think that men are attracted only to a woman’s mind? That’s the first part of this controversy that I don’t understand.

    Secondly, while I understand that Patterson hopes for a cooling-off period in advising separation instead of divorce for anything that might be called abuse, what should be done in the case of a woman who claims “emotional abuse,” who leaves her husband when the husband forbids it? What’s called “separation” in this case is in fact sexual immorality, betrayal, desertion, and effectively divorce. A wife doesn’t have the right to take the children and leave her husband, move to a different state, take a job, set up a separate residence, etc. What recourse does a man in this situation have? What if he takes her back, but she keeps leaving? He doesn’t want his wife to leave him, and he doesn’t want to be divorced, but at the same time he can’t repair the damaged trust. He can’t return to the security of knowing that he has an obedient wife.

    The Westminster Confession views the Bible as allowing for divorce in the case of irreparable desertion of this kind. But where is the pastor who will defend the betrayed man in this case for terminating an abandoned marriage? It seems to me that claims of “abuse” by the wife, real or imagined, are always used to justify whatever the wife does next, including leaving her husband, and the husband is accused of being the first to actually “leave” because he did something his wife didn’t like. See Denny Burke’s comment:

    “That separation is a necessity for the safety and welfare of the family. An abusive spouse has made choices that force a separation, and the abuse therefore can become tantamount to desertion. That is why I conclude that when the abuser ‘leaves’ the marriage in this way, the ‘exception for desertion comes into play’ (1 Cor. 7:15).”

  54. Mr. Generic says:

    So they want to talk about “emotional abuse”, do they?

    It was emotional abuse every time my mom demanded affection but never gave it.
    It was emotional abuse every time nothing I ever did was good enough, and no childhood accomplishment of mine was recognized without, “Well, if only your other sibling had gotten the same advantages you had, blah blah blah…”
    It was emotional abuse to be constantly accused of being your father’s favorite when it wasn’t true.
    It was emotional abuse when my mother constantly lied to me and tried to poison my mind against my own father.
    It was emotional abuse when my mother unilaterally filed for divorce for no damn reason, leading us all to lives of solitude and poverty.

    Look, my mom is mentally ill. I love her and have forgiven her completely.

    But what I don’t like are these so-called “Christian leaders” who willfully enable the destruction of families and the inevitable emotional abuse THE CHILDREN have no choice but to endure.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    Isn’t it funny to see evangelical titans like Al Mohler so terrified of women? This is significant.

    It’s just the logical extension of previous positions Mohler’s taken. A pedestalizing traditional conservative like Mohler or other celebrity pastors has no defense against this kind of attack, so he’s going to surrender. It’s just a question of when. What’s Mohler going to do at this point, quote the Bible? Har-har-har!

    Once a man buys into equalist equalism / the blank slate fallacy, or the lie of women as “more moral” – or both, for extra bonus points – he’s defenseless against feminism.

    @Damn Crackers

    Eh…they’re fake…

  56. What if judgement is coming to the SBC for its failure to teach the scriptures regarding sex, gender roles, female submission, support of male headship, marriage and divorce and the female depravity that needs repentance. What if the wrath of God is being revealed against that unrighteousness? What if Al Mohler is man that in the eyes of God, is arrogant and holds to a synthesis of worldly wisdom and Christianity? What if God cares more about a woman’s sanctification than her state of happiness? Perhaps friendship with the world of feminism is indeed enmity with God.

  57. RedPillNoob says:

    Well, it’s only a matter of time before people like Dalrock, BiblicalGenderRoles and Rollo get “found out” and strung up along with biblical masculinity and truth.

  58. Oscar says:

    @ Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    May 31, 2018 at 10:30 am

    “What if God cares more about a woman’s sanctification than her state of happiness?”

    Burn the heretic!

  59. feeriker says:

    Mike says:
    May 31, 2018 at 5:03 am

    Those pix you added prompt an idea: some brave manospherians need to start planting Diana statues in front of vagina-worshiping churches. That means hundreds of thousands of such statues.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Rightly Divided (@folkandfaith)

    All of your points are rational. None of them matter. Rational argumentation using documents such as Confessions, the Bible, scholarly writings only work with people who are debating in good faith. Feminists don’t do that. They mouth words but will mouth different words when needed.

    This result was baked in the cake at the very founding of the CBMW, because they allowed conservative feminists of the “I’m opposed to abortion and lesbian weddings! I’m not a feminist!” sort into the org in positions of authority. The SBC has been caving in to 2nd stage feminism for years. It is only a matter of time before women are preaching in their churches.

    For a denomination or some other organization, the only way to avoid losing the game to Feminism, inc. is not to play. Unfortunately, most men find it very difficult to say “no” to a woman and make it stick. So we can expect further pressure on the remaining denominations.

    IMO churchgoing men should inspect books in church libraries or for sale on church premises, as well as making a point to know what books are used in women’s groups. It should be obvious that anything by Beth Moore is an attempt at subversion.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Addendum: notice that “abuse” has become the root password to just about every organizational system. Tactics and strategy to counter this is sorely needed. We should be thinking about that.

  62. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock, for what it’s worth: “Patterson lead” should be “Patterson led”.

    [D: Thanks! Fixed.]

  63. Scott says:

    I have been on the mission field for the last 8 years. I foresee heading back to the States for family reasons within the next year. During the last several years as I have attempted to exert Biblical headship over my wife she has begun to express more feminist ideas (“If that’s what God thinks I don’t know that I believe in Him”). The Baptist Church has obviously left me while I was gone. What sort of church should I look for when I go back? I fully expect that if I find a good church my wife won’t follow me but I’m not going to let that stop me.

  64. bruce says:

    RE: Burke’s “exception” for desertion referenced in a comment above.
    Paul gives no allowance for remarriage in 1 Cor 7:15. He is explicit (in the same letter/chapter) when addressing Christian widows that they may remarry in the Lord – why would he not be explicit to those who have pagan spouses). He states those who have discontent pagan spouses who leave are not bound to the duties/obligations of the marriage (that a Christian normally would be bound to).

  65. bruce says:

    “What sort of church should I look for when I go back?”

    One where the women cover their heads like God tells them to. Good luck with that.

  66. seventiesjason says:

    Where are the David Platts? Mark Driscolls? Matty Chandlers? Kyle Idlemans?????

    These youger pastors who “know” scripture, know how to speak, have big churches, who could say “look…..let’s check context. what does God’s Word say?” Where are the pastors who will defend him and tell Beth Moore and others to “keep quiet” and let me give my take on this?

    Crickets.

    This stance by these pastors should finally show and prove to men in their respected congregations and their “bold n’ biblical” churches that they mena nothing.

    I always hear about “real talk” from these above pastors I mentioned. How about a meeting to discuss this frankly, and openly WHY this happened and what God expects from the flock and the PULPIT

    Wishful thinking. Protestantism in the USA is dead. I can look with hope to India, China, and Africa. Parts of Latin / South America too.

    Yes, a few here in the West….but these folks are praying, are meeting in a home and don’t need childrens church, youth programs, summer camps, retreats, overseas ministry, a new (another) church building, paid staff. The ones in the USA doing this are undergraound or going that way quickly………like the early church had to do in Rome, Greece, Asia-Mnior, Egypt, Syria, et all….

  67. Dalrock says:

    @seventiesjason

    Where are the David Platts? Mark Driscolls? Matty Chandlers? Kyle Idlemans?????

    These youger pastors who “know” scripture, know how to speak, have big churches, who could say “look…..let’s check context. what does God’s Word say?” Where are the pastors who will defend him and tell Beth Moore and others to “keep quiet” and let me give my take on this?

    According to the Washington Post, Chandler’s wife signed the letter demanding Patterson be fired.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/07/we-are-shocked-hundreds-of-southern-baptist-women-denounce-leaders-objectifying-comments-advice-to-abused-women/

  68. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @deti
    Isn’t it funny to see evangelical titans like Al Mohler so terrified of women? This is significant.

    For Mohler, that’s just par for the course. It’s downright laughable to hear people refer to him as if he’s some kind of a “conservative” because throughout the years he has consistently shown that he will only be as good as his times or his culture will allow him to be, and no more. That’s why a moment like this was always inevitable, and also why he will probably capitulate even further a few years down the road. Standing up to the “besetting sins of men” was something that the crowd liked, and so he did. Rebuking feminism and rebellion amongst wives, by contrast, would have gotten him a lot of scorn and thus there was never any danger that he would have done so.

    No one should be surprised by what he’s doing here, and no one should think that if only he had a better awareness of what’s going on he would have behaved differently. Al Mohler simply does not have it in him to address sin when it’s committed by women, and he never has. If you want to see him admit as much himself, look no further than an interview he conducted with Helen Smith after her “Men on Strike” book first came out. During the interview, she brings up many of the feminist doctrines that now govern society and penalize men in both marriage and business. Mohler has no refutation for any of her evidence, and in one surprising moment he even admits to witnessing one that the general public was largely unaware of at the time when he recalls that as a seminary president he personally received one of Obama’s infamous “Dear Colleague” letters urging colleges to lower the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict against male students accused of sexual assault. But when the interview is over, is he shocked by the sins he’s just heard of, and does he make a bold call to both society and the church to treat its men fairly and honestly?

    Not quite:

    “She writes with enormous sympathy in terms of the patterns and the pathologies she observes. But I think she lets men off way too easy in many of her chapters where she suggests that men are just following rational choice, they are just doing what is reasonable to them. ‘Rational Choice’ theory is a type of moral argument that suggests that human beings, and this is a secular theory by and large, that human beings make moral decisions in probably what is best described as a cost/benefit analysis. In other words: ‘What will I get out of this?’ . . . There are severe limitations from a Christian worldview to ‘Rational Choice’ theory, and one of the clearest of those limitations is that we are not, according to scripture, merely rational creatures. There is more to us than that. There is a moral capacity that is built into us by our creator, a conscience indeed, as Paul makes clear in Romans chapter 2, that goes far beyond the calculus of what ‘Rational Choice’ theorists could understand.”

    So in other words, when men find themselves treated badly they need to realize that they’re not behaving well for a reward, they’re need to be righteous because God commands it — so STEP UP, MEN!! But when a wife accuses her husband of ill treatment, that’s all the incentive that Al Mohler needs to trash the rules of his own religion and proclaim that a man’s poor behavior towards his woman frees her from any marital vows that she once gave as a promise binding her to him.

    I can have more respect for hardcore atheists than I ever will for Al Mohler. He will end his ministry in the same way that he always carried it out — as a coward.

    Link for Mohler’s interview with Helen Smith can be found here:
    https://albertmohler.com/2013/09/16/a-culture-increasingly-hostile-to-men-a-conversation-with-psychologist-helen-smith/

  69. ray says:

    earl —

    The holy spirit is not a relationship. He is a person and he is a he.

    Father is beyond dualities such as gender, of a separate physics so to speak, but Father is still very much masculine, to the rage of vast legions of His enemies. Our masculinity, and Christ’s masculinity, comes from Father, as part of His pneuma.

    How is Father simultaneously outside of duality, and yet masculine? I’m sure I dunno, why don’t you ask Him.

  70. ray says:

    Mike at 5:07 a.m. —

    (singing) there She is . . . Miss Amerika! :O)

    This demonette is quite real, and present. The best modern depiction of her (and of her ways) is contained in the film ‘Hateful 8’. If you watch the final scene closely, when the woman is hung and the snowshoes are arrayed behind her as wings, you will see.

  71. squid_hunt says:

    What is wrong with these numbnuts? Grow a freakin’ backbone.

    Never, ever, EVER concede to SJWs. Not one inch. If you haven’t seen what the SJWs do when they take over, you’re not paying attention.

    This just blows my mind. How do you get here? What’s the payoff? I mean the literal payoff. Gifts are changing hands somewhere. I guarentee it.

  72. ray says:

    RPN — “Well, it’s only a matter of time before people like Dalrock, BiblicalGenderRoles and Rollo get “found out” and strung up along with biblical masculinity and truth.”

    I dunno who BGR and Rollo are, but anybody wants to come for Dalrock, that’d be great. Light a fire in heaven.

  73. Lost Patrol says:

    Man Up HQ is trying to show the appropriate level of contrition.

    When will they grasp that no such level exists? Appeasing feminism is a bottomless pit.

  74. “Hysteria” is precisely correct LoL one wonders how many of these “men” are ready to transition

  75. earl says:

    The holy spirit is not a relationship. He is a person and he is a he.

    I said the relationship between the Father and the Son. Are you disputing this?

  76. feeriker says:

    I’m getting sick of it. I just want to find some like minded people, men and women, who get whats going on and meet in my home, study what the Bible actually says about stuff, then go out and live it.

    A reversion to the original New Testament form of worship. Such church bodies will soon be the only true churches uncompromised by the World. Oh, and they’ll be viciously persecuted, too – by both the unbelieving World AND churchian fraud-whores.

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    May 31, 2018 at 10:30 am

    Churchians can no longer try to walk a middle ground or be lukewarm. The World has finished its co-opting and skinsuiting of what was once the church and now DEMANDS full-scale renunciation of the triune God and His Word. The alternative is persecution of a First Century nature.

    Churchians are panicking because, being churchians, they know that they stand to lose the love of the World that they value far more than the love of a God that most of them don’t even really believe in (they most certainly don’t trust Him, or fear Him like they fear the World; otherwise they would be behaving very differently). Their goal has ALWAYS been to play Christian, never to actually be Christian, which would put them completely at odds with the World, even in a religiously tolerant Western Society llike that of the USA, and would lead to merciless persecution and suffering that they are not about to abide, especially for a Savior they neither really trust nor believe in. Mohler, et al, have ZE-RO faith in God to “have their backs” as they proclaim the truth of Scripture. In large part this is because they realize that martyrdom might be their fate on Earth, the idea of which paralyzes their unsaved souls with terror.

    Time was these people could “play Christian” and get away with it. No more. Now the mask either has to come off completely, or they repent and become the real thing, despite the cost. Obviously they’re not ready for either alternative. Their hands will soon be forced to choose. The posturing is over.

  77. Oscar says:

    @ Lost Patrol says:
    May 31, 2018 at 1:25 pm

    “When will they grasp that no such level exists? Appeasing feminism is a bottomless pit.”

    Prov 30:15 The leech has two daughters,
    “Give,” “Give.”
    There are three things that will not be satisfied,
    Four that will not say, “Enough”:
    16 [h]Sheol, and the barren womb,
    Earth that is never satisfied with water,
    And fire that never says, “Enough.”

  78. squid_hunt says:

    @feeriker

    A reversion to the original New Testament form of worship. Such church bodies will soon be the only true churches uncompromised by the World. Oh, and they’ll be viciously persecuted, too – by both the unbelieving World AND churchian fraud-whores.

    Agree. I tend to stick to Independent Baptist and even that takes serious research as well as trial and error. I would also be open to Open Bible or nondemoninational if the Bible and doctrine were right. Anything with even a whiff of ecumenical I steer totally clear of.

  79. Boxer says:

    Dear Ray:

    The holy spirit is not a relationship. He is a person and he is a he.

    In what part of the New Testament do you find this declaration?

    Father is beyond dualities such as gender, of a separate physics so to speak, but Father is still very much masculine, to the rage of vast legions of His enemies. Our masculinity, and Christ’s masculinity, comes from Father, as part of His pneuma.

    In the first place, you just contradicted yourself. In the second, you need to cite from the text if you want to make specific pronouncements.

    How is Father simultaneously outside of duality, and yet masculine? I’m sure I dunno, why don’t you ask Him.

    argvmentvm ad ignorantiam

    It’s not for Earl to disprove your points. It’s for you to found them in the content that exists in the New Testament. You guys both claim to be Christians, so you ought to agree that the propositions in the text are both true and meaningful.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  80. SirHamster says:

    > He does realize he is canonizing a social media movement, owned by the Enemies of Christ, and started by a bunch of treacherous satanic whores?

    God used the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans to punish Israel.

    The main problem is that they’re surrendering to the feminists rather than taking a stand. Their work will not survive the test.

    By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved–even though only as one escaping through the flames.

    The foundation of Christ is good. The feminism-adulterated Gospel, not so much.

  81. Caspar Reyes says:

    How about this gagworthy bit of swamp bilge that showed up on my facebook feed:

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/05/paige-patterson-and-rape-victim-he.html

    The obsequiousness is embarrassing.

  82. Karli May says:

    In looking at the comments here and following the various sundry and related threads, I have several questions:
    1. Has anyone ever produced a feminist abuse chart? What would it look like?
    Like this?
    Non- abuse — Yes dear Abuse — Anything with which the woman disagrees

    2. Why the presupposition that a woman’s claim of abuse is always true?
    Do all “Christian” women always tell the truth? Not in my experience.

    3. Are all “Christian Feminists” Social Justice Warriors”?
    if so, it may be time for discerning Christians to read Vox Day’s (self-proclaimed Christian brother) 2 prescient books
    A. SJW’s Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1)
    Available here from Amazon https://amzn.to/2JlfzRz
    B. SJW’s Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 2) Available here from Amazon https://amzn.to/2JnIhBy

    4. In reading the attacks by the “Christian SJW’s,” I am left wondering – aren’t they following the tactics outlined by Vox Day?

    5. Is the “Christian Feminist” approach just a spiritualized variation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals?
    Just wondering.

  83. ys says:

    Swanny-
    You made a comment a while back that made me think you were at URC/under DeYoung. Don’t want to out you, or myself. I probably live within 2 hours of you.
    I too, had hopes like you. That DeYoung would say something. Maybe he will. He knows. I have read a couple of his books and a few blog posts. He knows. He absolutely knows, and may yet say something. I hope.

    *I say he knows to say, he knows that social gospel/convergence/denying the real gospel is happening now. We’ll see.

  84. thedeti says:

    The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity. God eternally present, eternally existing in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Three in One. Each fully God, each serving different functions within Time and creation. And how God has chosen to reveal Himself to creation.

    This isn’t controversial.

  85. Nathan Bruno says:

    @Boxer

    In what part of the New Testament do you find this declaration?

    Only to answer this specific part of it:

    The canonical text is Jesus from the Upper Room Discourse, Gospel of John, chapter 14.

  86. Boxer says:

    Dear Nathan:

    Only to answer this specific part of it:

    The canonical text is Jesus from the Upper Room Discourse, Gospel of John, chapter 14.

    I just searched for “The Holy Spirit is a person, and he is a he” … and couldn’t find it in John 14. Maybe you could look at it too, and tell me where it is.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=KJV

    Best,

    Boxer

  87. vfm7916 says:

    Well, it’s starting to feel like the French Revolution, j’accuse and all. This applies to what happened to Roseanne as a symptom of a larger movement.

    I would not be surprised to see the return of an analog of the modern guillotine once the SJW’s become unsatisfied with character assassination.

  88. Nathan Bruno says:

    @Boxer

    I think you see what I see in there:

    To describe him as a person, and mean by that he is a human, is false. The only part of the Trinity that is a person is Jesus Christ who came as a man. The Holy Spirit is, as his name suggest, a spirit:

    “16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
    “26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

    The Holy Spirit is usually incorporeal. He indwells in believers since Pentecost in Acts 2. When he has been seen in a physical form, he has looked like a dove (John 1:32).

    The Holy Spirit can be distinctly identified and sent by the Son and the Father, but he is not a person in the sense of being a man.

    The “he is a he” part is easier to demonstrate; the Holy Spirit is always addressed in the masculine in the text.

    I appreciate the point you are making; if we’re going to be precise, we need to be precise from the text. The Holy Spirit is not a man, and the Holy Spirit is not a human or in the physical form of a man, but the Holy Spirit is always addressed in the masculine.

    The Scriptures do not fully-orb a theology of the Holy Spirit as much as everyone might want; however, I found this to be a good summary (I am not a Roman Catholic): http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01061998_p-08_en.html

  89. SirHamster says:

    @Boxer

    I just searched for “The Holy Spirit is a person, and he is a he” … and couldn’t find it in John 14. Maybe you could look at it too, and tell me where it is.

    No one said that was a verbatim quote.

    But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

  90. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky SirHamster:

    No one said that was a verbatim quote.

    In other words, you’re a postmodernist, who doesn’t care about the text… but only about your interpretation and feelings. That’s fine; but, I won’t join you.

    “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.“

    Yeah, that doesn’t say anything about parthood or sexuality – except in your own dim mind. Better to leave the thinking to the thinkers, and go back to writing the gay erotica that you’ve become famous for…

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    Regards,

    Boxer

  91. Boxer says:

    Dear Nathan:

    Thanks for a more thoughtful exegesis. Please see inside text…

    To describe him as a person, and mean by that he is a human, is false. The only part of the Trinity that is a person is Jesus Christ who came as a man. The Holy Spirit is, as his name suggest, a spirit:

    I guess my problem with this read is that personhood has some metaphysical baggage. A person is something that is, by definition, distinct from his surroundings. In calling God a person, you’re necessarily (albeit subtextually) saying that God is finite and limited. I don’t really think that the text supports that.

    Bear in mind that Earl’s claim that this finite aspect of God described in this way, maps on to a sort of relation between Father and Son… that isn’t really well-defined in the text either. I’d love it if both of you guys would clarify or expound, with proper citations, because I learn a lot in these discussions.

    The “he is a he” part is easier to demonstrate; the Holy Spirit is always addressed in the masculine in the text.

    That’s absolutely unsupported in the New Testament; and, in fact, I could probably put together a pretty good argument in short order that God is beyond these limited human concepts like sexuality. It’s much easier to believe that the grammatical “He” is not masculine, but epicene.

    If you’ve got evidence that god is god, rather than God, then you’ve got to tell me where goddess is, from which to differentiate god. Having a masculine deity implies non-masculine deities from which to compare. I don’t see any evidence that there are such things in the New Testament.

    Best,

    Boxer

  92. DrTorch says:

    Well, it’s starting to feel like the French Revolution

    I’ve said many times, it always does.

    Because that’s what leftism is built on: envy, strife, outrage, violence.

    And if anyone has leads on true Bible-teaching house churches, please share.

  93. Doc H. says:

    @Casper Reyes
    I can’t believe I used to go to that church.

  94. Gunner Q says:

    ray @ 12:44 pm:
    “Father is beyond dualities such as gender, of a separate physics so to speak, but Father is still very much masculine, to the rage of vast legions of His enemies. Our masculinity, and Christ’s masculinity, comes from Father, as part of His pneuma.

    How is Father simultaneously outside of duality, and yet masculine? I’m sure I dunno, why don’t you ask Him.”

    Spiritually, God is the masculine and humanity is the feminine. God designed the human sexes to symbolize this, with the sacrament of marriage representing the ideal union.

    This is why rebellion against God usually involves sexual perversion, specifically female headship as a metaphor for humans overruling God. Also, why Mohler & cuck-buddies are so eagerly groveling. If Goddess ain’t happy then nobody’s happy! (The moods of Father God are considerably more stable.)

  95. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    Thanks for this reply. Please see inside text…

    Spiritually, God is the masculine and humanity is the feminine. God designed the human sexes to symbolize this, with the sacrament of marriage representing the ideal union.

    This is an early Mormon idea, and it’s probably a useful heuristic, if it’s given to a total unbeliever who came out of a high-trust, non-feminist society. The Mormons used it because it went along well with the idea that God couldn’t create humans without the help of a stable of polygamous deity-wives.

    I love my people, and I respect their earnest attempts to solve crippling metaphysical problems, but I think if you rely on their theology, you’ve got to give up the New Testament (as Mormons have done), because these notions don’t have any support in the text.

    Note that if you take your analogy at face value, you’ve got all sorts of weird entailments, like God not being able to function optimally without human help (humans being the wife/helpmeet, in your scenario). You’ve also got the notion that God is driven by sexual urges, like a husband. I think these run contrary to the descriptions of God in the text.

    When I read the New Testament, I get the picture of an absolute mystery, who I can’t comprehend, any more than a dog can comprehend the notion of the planet Venus, as he sits on a hill, and looks at it. If God exists, and if the New Testament is true (even allegorically), then I’m convinced none of us can really define Him. We simply aren’t capable of it.

    This is why rebellion against God usually involves sexual perversion, specifically female headship as a metaphor for humans overruling God. Also, why Mohler & cuck-buddies are so eagerly groveling. If Goddess ain’t happy then nobody’s happy! (The moods of Father God are considerably more stable.)

    I have to assume that the Christian priests, who are so often mocked on this blog for their feminism, don’t believe in God. They are at best agnostics. If they had any faith at all, they’d be full of fear at the prospect of getting some comeuppance when they finally meet Him.

    Best,

    Boxer

  96. SirHamster says:

    Dear Kooky SirHamster:

    I see you still get triggered on sight. Noted.

    Yeah, that doesn’t say anything about parthood or sexuality – except in your own dim mind.

    I answered the point raised, you’re moving the goalposts as usual. You couldn’t find, “The Holy Spirit is a person, and he is a he” using a text search of the passage. You can’t because it is not a quote of the Bible, but a summary of what the Bible tells us about the person of the Holy Spirit.

    Jesus refers to the “Holy Ghost” (NIV uses “Holy Spirit”) as a “whom” and “he” that the Father sends to Jesus’s disciples, who acts as a Counselor and Comforter. Objection answered.

  97. SirHamster says:

    Spiritually, God is the masculine and humanity is the feminine. God designed the human sexes to symbolize this, with the sacrament of marriage representing the ideal union.

    Man is created from God, so there is an aspect of our feminine characteristics being from God.

    Understanding how God is beyond masculine yet is masculine to us can be analogized to 3D on 2D projections. The sphere is not a circle, but its projection on a 2D plane can be a circle. God is not a Man, but he is manly to us, and models to men how to be father and husband. (Heavenly Father; Groom to the Church, Bride of Christ)

    Projections are not the thing itself, but can help us understand the thing indirectly.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    GunnerQ
    If Goddess ain’t happy then nobody’s happy!
    (The moods of Father God are considerably more stable.)

    Thread winner.

  99. Caspar Reyes says:

    A person is a derivative, artificial entity, a persona, with a separate existence from the flesh and blood that gives it movement, a corporation.

  100. Sharkly says:

    Sir Hampster says: Man is created from God, so there is an aspect of our feminine characteristics being from God.

    I completely disagree with your attempt to effeminize God. Even some here plunge right back into this Feminist heresy.

    I didn’t realize I’d be starting an argument here, by declaring the absence of scripturally declared femininity in all three parts of the triune God.

    Apparently my assessment above also applies to some here.
    Sharkly says:
    May 30, 2018 at 11:46 pm
    “Their god has a vagina.”

    Of course they would say, that it is not a literal vagina, she is just the feminine sided goddess of warm and fuzzy feelings that is part of their pansexual trinity.

    Not for me! My God ain’t effeminate.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    I don’t see how God could rightly ban the effeminate from His holy heaven, if God Himself was also effeminate.
    Maybe some of y’all have a hypocrite for a God, but not I. My God is morally straight.(piss on the new “Scouts”)

  101. Sharkly says:

    Since I apparently derailed this thread once already;
    I have a question for the sages here.

    If I were to be asked if a 16 year old girl could be sexually attractive; considering we are at war, and the enemy is out to destroy us by any means possible, what is the best answer?

    I understand the biology and reality, I’m asking what answer both is truthful, and serves our cause the best? How best to respond?

    BTW I am not 16, I’m decades older, so I won’t be given a pass for not seeing the emperor’s new clothes, like a child would be excused from accusations of being an old lecher.

    I’d like a ready answer, and a good one, for the next time this comes up again. Undoubtedly it will.

  102. SirHamster says:

    I completely disagree with your attempt to effeminize God. Even some here plunge right back into this Feminist heresy.

    “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

    Mother hen is a feminine quality.

    Not for me! My God ain’t effeminate.

    Didn’t say effiminate.

    Miriam Webster:
    Feminine: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women
    Effiminate : having feminine qualities untypical of a man

    Effeminate is men acting like women. But that is not the same thing as women having feminine qualities, nor is that the same thing as God giving women qualities that He possesses.

    I don’t see how God could rightly ban the effeminate from His holy heaven, if God Himself was also effeminate.

    Are there women in heaven?

  103. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Sharkly,

    “By what authority do you ask these things?”

  104. earl says:

    Of note…I don’t disagree with Ray that the Holy Spirit is a person and agree with deti the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. The essence of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. I was wondering if he disagrees with this.

    The similiar analogy would be the relationship of a husband and wife in marriage…the fruit of that relationship is a child, a third person.

  105. earl says:

    If I were to be asked if a 16 year old girl could be sexually attractive; considering we are at war, and the enemy is out to destroy us by any means possible, what is the best answer?

    You’ll find the people most offended by the answer to this statement are often women who aren’t 16 anymore. They know when their peak fertile years are.

  106. earl says:

    Effeminate is men acting like women. But that is not the same thing as women having feminine qualities, nor is that the same thing as God giving women qualities that He possesses.

    God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them…male and female he created them. Gen 1:27

  107. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 4:14 pm:
    “I guess my problem with this read is that personhood has some metaphysical baggage… I’d love it if both of you guys would clarify or expound, with proper citations, because I learn a lot in these discussions.”

    The Holy Spirit is a very poorly defined entity. It exists and acts but never physically manifests and is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ, suggesting it lacks the independence of Father & Son. One can believe almost anything from it being a third discrete individual all the way to being an incidental consequence of God observing reality. I lean towards the latter but there’s nothing doctrinal beyond its existence and involvement.

    FWIW, the HS commonly appears female (and faceless) in dreams and visions.

    “Note that if you take your analogy at face value, you’ve got all sorts of weird entailments, like God not being able to function optimally without human help (humans being the wife/helpmeet, in your scenario)”

    God can function just fine without humanity in the same way men function just fine without a wife. We can cook & clean for ourselves but being waited on by a pretty girl is very rewarding. Similarly, God doesn’t need human help for anything but derives great satisfaction from our validation of Him. Don’t get hung up on reproduction; that’s not a spiritually important part of marriage. God can manufacture as many humans as He wants, having already made the first two; our assistance there is used but not needed.

    “You’ve also got the notion that God is driven by sexual urges, like a husband. I think these run contrary to the descriptions of God in the text.”

    On the contrary, it’s the only way Scripture makes sense. Look at all the times God got played for a chump by His own followers, from the 40 years in the wilderness to modern Cuck-priests. The entire Book of Judges: the people suffer, God cares to rescue them, the people spurn God again as soon as the immediate threat is gone and God keeps falling for that scam like He doesn’t know any better.

    Just like men will totally self-destruct for a single good fucking.

    God has a liking for humanity that is every bit as strong & unreasonable as the male sex drive. Why else would God keep putting Himself out for generally ungrateful humanity? Yes, God wanting spiritual “sex” with us is rather disgusting and beneath His dignity. But that’s what I keep saying here: God is a person. He wants what He wants, and Scripture says He wants useless human followers badly enough to get bent on a cross. He didn’t need to die like that. He got nothing for the effort except us damaged weirdos. We’re worth dying for even though we’re useless, like a hot chick.

    This is one of the points that makes Christianity different from all others. God wants us badly but doesn’t need us. That’s huge. Usually, a religion teaches that God wants to deal with us as equals: we do this for Him and He does that for us. The idea that we’re bankrupt and have nothing to offer except gratitude is massively offensive to non-Christians, enough so that I believe it’s the #1 reason people don’t accept Christ. Like a ditsy blonde in the workplace, humans want to earn their way through (spiritual) life without being able to actually do so… we want to be equals to the Almighty even though such efforts are doomed… we’ll do anything except be thankful to God for the free ride.

    I know the Mormons twist marriage as a symbol of God into marriage making new gods or some such blarney. But they didn’t originate this and Scripture is explicit that there will be no postmortem marriage (Matthew 22:20, Mark 12:25). Instead, the future ‘marriage’ will be “I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Genesis 17:8, Exodus 29:45, Jeremiah 24;7 & 32:38, Ezekiel 11:20 & 14:11 & 32:24 & 32:23-27, Amos 9:15, Zechariah 8:8, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Hebrews 8:10, Revelation 21:3 & 21:7)

  108. Disillusioned says:

    I attended a very large Baptist church here in the Dallas area. Just a few weeks ago the pastor gave a sermon and his conclusions were that a man does not rule his wife and in the case of abuse she needs to leave and call the police and have him arrested. This bothered me tremendously and I even mentioned it in a previous blog.

    Now I understand that this had a lot to do with what was happening to Patterson. This pastor in effect abandoned him and threw him under the bus. I was no longer going to go back to that church but after seeing what happened to Patterson I am not even going to be attending any Southern Baptist church anymore.

  109. earl says:

    @Disillusioned…

    Makes you wonder what is the endgame of the Southern Baptists cuck pastors. Is doing and saying things that are driving men out of their church going to have a good long term future for it?

  110. Sharkly says:

    Sir Hampster,

    I had a feeling that all you’d have was the mother hen analogy. Jesus never said he was the mother hen, like he said he was the good shepherd, not the good shepherdess. I could claim I’m going to come after you like a pitbull, but that is not the same as claiming I’m a pitbull, or part pitbull.
    You’ll have to have more than that analogy to change my mind, considering I was already thinking of that when I wrote my previous comments.

    Women are not effeminate, they are feminine. They are naturally feminine not unnaturally and rebelliously effeminate. Women in heaven does not prove that God is effeminate or feminine. There are former sinners in heaven also. Is God a sinner? There are horses mentioned in heaven. Is your god part horse?

    What solely feminine qualities that men don’t have, are shown in God? Perhaps I need to be enlightened so that I can worship mother god also. LOL

  111. Oscar says:

    Dudes,

    We’re not going to figure out the Trinity, and neither is anyone else, until the resurrection. We know that God is 3 in 1…

    God the Father
    God the Son
    God the Holy Spirit

    … but we have no way of knowing how that works. The closest analogy I can think of is that each human is a spirit, a mind and a body, but that analogy falls short.

    We have to accept that God is infinite, and we are finite, and therefore our primate brains will fall short of comprehending Him. Fortunately, we don’t have to comprehend. We can apprehend, and that’s close enough.

    1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

  112. sipcode says:

    God is abusive by definition of the church.

    The healing of the church will practically start when women that truly will be holy will shut the fuck up.

  113. Caspar Reyes says:

    Right, sorry. Thought it would be an image. Dalrock, if you would be pleased to whack that.

    meme

  114. seventiesjason says:

    Thanks Dalrock. I am sure Matt Chandler “stands behind his wife 100%”

    Lol, then again Chandler mentioned in one of his sermons that a man after moving sixteen tons all day should be coming home with a proverbial “serving towel” over his arm to “serve” his wife and home.

    Again then at the same time talking about “manhood”

    These pastors would survive two minutes in my world, and the world of most men that work for a living.

  115. SirHamster says:

    > You’ll have to have more than that analogy to change my mind, considering I was already thinking of that when I wrote my previous comments.

    Don’t care if you change your mind.

    > Women in heaven does not prove that God is effeminate or feminine.

    Proves that women are not effeminate. That feminine qualities are not evil nor ungodly. (or women would be absent from heaven) You argued against a position and use of words I did not use.

    > Is God a sinner? There are horses mentioned in heaven. Is your god part horse?

    God is not a sinner. God is not a horse, though I’d say that horse’s good and admirable qualities are derived from God’s goodness.

    > What solely feminine qualities that men don’t have, are shown in God?

    Are feminine qualities good? Ex: Motherly love. Do men show motherly love, or fatherly love?

    Are good qualities in human beings a reflection and derivation from God? If God can feel about man like a mother hen feels about her chicks, does that not imply that God’s perfect love for man is reflected in a woman’s love for her children?

    Again, I don’t care if you agree. I only care if you have a better set of labels or a better model for understanding these aspects of God and Mankind’s relation to Him.

  116. CSI says:

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/05/paige-patterson-and-rape-victim-he.html

    This shows that in claims of sexual assault, a school, church or any other institution should just wash their hands of the whole thing and call the police.

  117. SirHamster says:

    This shows that in claims of sexual assault, a school, church or any other institution should just wash their hands of the whole thing and call the police.

    Which can still be a problem, because police can be a source of corruption.

    See Duluth model, UK police turning blind eye to Paki girl rape, widespread pedophilia covered up.

    There is no safe option except that the Church cleanse herself and turn back to Christ.

  118. Bee says:

    Bottom Line: these changes will result in a large increase in divorces among SBC attending families. Divorce damages children. Divorce greatly increases the percentage of children that will not remain in church when they become adults. Divorce hinders church growth now, and generations into the future.

    I think Al Mohler was not able to discern the difference between a Feminist/Satanic attack on the SBC and God’s judgement on the SBC.

  119. Boxer says:

    Dear Sharkly:

    Sir Hampster,

    SirHamster can’t answer your questions because he doesn’t understand them. I don’t mean that he doesn’t understand the nature of God (that’s by design, and none of us do). I mean that he can’t derive plausible conclusions from well defined premises. He’s never really been able to. He’s historically come here merely to waste time and play the fool. For example…

    Understanding how God is beyond masculine yet is masculine to us can be analogized to 3D on 2D projections. The sphere is not a circle, but its projection on a 2D plane can be a circle. God is not a Man, but he is manly to us, and models to men how to be father and husband. (Heavenly Father; Groom to the Church, Bride of Christ) Projections are not the thing itself, but can help us understand the thing indirectly.

    If you were to ask him where this nonsensical babble appears in the New Testament, then he’d post about four thousand words of other nonsense, without ever realizing the import of your question.

    SirHamster views God through a twisted sexual lens. This is likely rooted in his own sexual dysfunction. We can hope he gets help for whatever drives this tourettish lunacy, but it won’t add anything to our understanding of the text of the New Testament. Argue with him for amusement sake, but don’t think you’ll learn anything from him.

    Best,

    Boxer

  120. SirHamster says:

    @ Broken Boxer:

    SirHamster views God through a twisted sexual lens. This is likely rooted in his own sexual dysfunction.

    I see your plea for attention. Jesus forgives your sins. Go, follow Him, and be healed of your broken mind and false lips.

  121. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    The Holy Spirit is a very poorly defined entity. It exists and acts but never physically manifests and is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ, suggesting it lacks the independence of Father & Son. One can believe almost anything from it being a third discrete individual all the way to being an incidental consequence of God observing reality. I lean towards the latter but there’s nothing doctrinal beyond its existence and involvement. FWIW, the HS commonly appears female (and faceless) in dreams and visions.

    Calling it “poorly defined” suggests God has some positive duty to give us the answers to all the great questions.

    God can function just fine without humanity in the same way men function just fine without a wife. We can cook & clean for ourselves but being waited on by a pretty girl is very rewarding. Similarly, God doesn’t need human help for anything but derives great satisfaction from our validation of Him. Don’t get hung up on reproduction; that’s not a spiritually important part of marriage. God can manufacture as many humans as He wants, having already made the first two; our assistance there is used but not needed.

    You’re missing the point entirely. The text (which you have yet to cite) suggests that men can’t function without a helpmeet in creating and raising up children. See 1 Corinthians 7:14, Mark 10:6-9.

    Where does it say that God needs help in creating — from the things that he created in the first place? Please list chapter and verse.

    On the contrary, it’s the only way Scripture makes sense. Look at all the times God got played for a chump by His own followers, from the 40 years in the wilderness to modern Cuck-priests. The entire Book of Judges: the people suffer, God cares to rescue them, the people spurn God again as soon as the immediate threat is gone and God keeps falling for that scam like He doesn’t know any better.

    Just like men will totally self-destruct for a single good fucking.

    So if these analogies are to be taken at face value, then God has some sort of carnal, sexual desire for human beings? I don’t think that’s a charitable reading of the text, and I’m surprised to hear it from anyone more credible than P.Z. Myers. Even so, if you have a citation, I’d be interested in discussing it further.

    Best,

    Boxer

  122. earl says:

    ‘The Holy Spirit is a very poorly defined entity. It exists and acts but never physically manifests and is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ, suggesting it lacks the independence of Father & Son.’

    Never physically manifests?

    Suddenly a sound like a mighty rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of a fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2:2-4

    I could even argue that when the Spirit works through persons…that’s a physical manifestion.

    Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of [b]healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 1 Cor 12: 4-11

  123. RichardP says:

    Slightly OT, but related – I’ve made a brief response to Nathan and Swanny here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/he-had-to-know-that-they-would-one-day-come-for-him/#comment-274065

  124. feeriker says:

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/05/paige-patterson-and-rape-victim-he.html

    The obsequiousness is embarrassing.

    and

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/05/paige-patterson-and-rape-victim-he.html

    This shows that in claims of sexual assault, a school, church or any other institution should just wash their hands of the whole thing and call the police.

    Complimentarian feminist pastor Wade Burleson came under the spotlight here almost exactly two years ago:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/she-doesnt-need-a-man-2/

    … and then made the fatal error of coming here to “defend” his Christofeminist twaddle with the usual nonsequitors, condescension, and churchian arogance before finding, like others of his ilk, that this kitchen’s heat level is unbearable and fleeing for his intellectual life.

    Based on Burleson’s past output, I didn’t bother to waste precious life minutes reading his take on “rape.”

  125. Sharkly says:

    earl,
    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

    Your version neutered Adam.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

    Nobody has yet shown me from the Bible, that women are in the image of God. I see that “the Man”(the same word translated elsewhere as “Adam”) was created in the image of God. Again Genesis 1:27 uses a male pronoun describing who was created in God’s image. However, both were created by God. But the way I read it, Just the Man was created in God’s image. Thus also Satan’s temptation to Eve was; you can become like God.

    Mark 12:16 So they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” And they said to him, “Caesar’s.”
    Luke 20:25 He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

    Speaking to male Pharisees and Herodians, Jesus pointed out that they were created in God’s image and they were circumcised unto God, just as the coin was bearing Cesar’s image and circumscribed (“Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”)

    Caesar Augustus was believed to be divine, so Tiberius was claiming to be the son of god on the coin. They were told to give to each ‘son of god’ what he had minted in his own image and circumscribed to himself. We are to give our tax to the authorities, but our lives and bodies are the temple of the Holy spirit and are to be given to God. Hirelings often try to teach that this passage is telling you to give your money into their collection plate. But it really teaches you to give money to the tax man to whom it is due, and give your life to God whom you owe your existence and they were in fact circumcised unto God as a sign of his possession.
    Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
    11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

    So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

    As men we are known to bear God’s image and as such all men deserve some respect or dignity for that alone.
    We respect our spouses as joint heirs of God’s grace, not as being His image. I believe it may be insulting and idolatrous to God to say women are in His image, when He never said that.
    That’s my opinion.

  126. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 8:12 pm:
    “Where does it say that God needs help in creating — from the things that he created in the first place? Please list chapter and verse.”

    I already said God didn’t need help. Acts 17:25 “And He is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.”

    “Even so, if you have a citation, I’d be interested in discussing it further.”

    The Crucifixion. Why did God die for us? We did nothing to deserve it; quite the opposite. Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still criminals, Christ died for us.” That is not the act of an impartial systems administrator debugging the code. I’m tempted to say it wasn’t even a sane decision.

    Throughout the Bible, God cares about humans. He was friends with Adam & Moses. He went Elliot Rodger with the Flood. He led His people personally in Exodus. When Israel demanded human leadership, He actually granted that wish–which was not His plan for them, 1 Samuel 8–and then sent the prophets to speak in His place. God got personal with Job & Jonah.

    Then God chose to live as a human–not a superpowered king but a nameless tradesman in Podunk–for all but the last couple years of His mortal life. During those last couple years, He got personal with His enemies with insults that still get reused 2,000 years later. Then He allowed them to get personal with Him and an immortal God was murdered.

    And to put the cherry on top, God made salvation cheap. No fee, no accomplishments, just acknowledge & respect (Romans 10:9-10). That’s exactly what the average husband wants from his wife. Respect him, please him, admire him. A competitor trying to be his equal, no, that is not what the average husband wants. And that’s exactly what Original Sin was about.

    Why does God care so much about us? Rationally, He shouldn’t. We’re useless, ill-tempered & weak. But He killed His own Son to secure our admiration.

    We don’t need women. The best of them are frequently unpleasant. But we can’t get over them. Men are frequently irrational because we want female affection so much. God cannot put humanity out of His mind, either. He keeps coming back for more.

    Not sure what else to say. There’s no dick-in-chick in Heaven but God unquestionably has a very strong, obsessive desire for our gratitude and devotion. It’s comparable to how men lose their minds over T&A.

    “Never physically manifests?”

    Tongues of fire and burning bushes, yes, but HS never took bodily form and had a conversation with anybody. Unlike John 12:28: “[Jesus said] Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” That’s clearly two distinct people talking.

  127. earl says:

    ‘Your version neutered Adam.’

    My version? That is straight from Genesis.

  128. earl says:

    I believe it may be insulting and idolatrous to God to say women are in His image, when He never said that.

    That was pointed out in 1 Cor 11:7

  129. Moses says:

    Cucks gonna cuck.

  130. ray says:

    Sir Hamster — “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.“

    Wins the big stuffed bear.

    All praise to Father and His Chosen Son, without whom none of us is anything.

  131. ray says:

    I’ve read a few more comments and will say I regret having brought up the subject of the spirit of truth. It did remind me, however, that whenever I post here, Boxer (the non-Christian) inevitably finds cause to accuse and/or correct me, despite his lack of reliance upon either God or Scripture.

    Once a serpent, always a serpent.

    The OP, particularly in alliance with some of the comments, is the best and most important sum and analysis of modern, fallen Protestantism that I’ve ever seen. It deserves due attention.

    My apologies to the host for distraction from the present, extremely important topic. Perhaps the distraction will reveal some sufficient cause in future.

  132. Sharkly says:

    earl,
    Perhaps I misunderstood your May 31, 2018 at 6:55 pm comment.
    I assumed since you replied to Sir Hampster’s pansexual god comments by quoting from the gender neutered New American Bible that seemed to support his point, that you were also thinking that God put His womanly attributes into the woman also. And maybe even that God put His horse like attributes into the horse and His pig like attributes into the pig Etc.

    Here is what the internet said about the NAB:
    The New American Bible was initially controversial and ultimately rejected by the Vatican because this translation replaced male-gendered human language with “gender-neutral” terms. This translation was subsequently revised as the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) in part to restore fidelity to the original ancient texts. The 1991 changes, in particular, are controversial because they replaced male-gendered human language with “gender-neutral” terms. Some traditional Catholics reject the New American Bible as a liberal translation and favor the use of the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity Bibles. The NAB inconsistently translates the Holy Spirit as the gender-neutral “it” in one place (see Acts 8:16), and “he” in another.

    I typically use the KJV, NASB, or ESV, and they all have “him” created in the image of God, not “Them”.

  133. ray says:

    earl — “Of note…I don’t disagree with Ray that the Holy Spirit is a person and agree with deti the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. The essence of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. I was wondering if he disagrees with this.”

    I’m sure I don’t know. However my feeling from Scriptural study and other data is something much like that, yes.

    I guess it’s something the King can (and will) answer, at proper time. I would not presume some grand pronouncement, especially in this Vale of Accusation called a planet. This is not to call you wrong.

    This is the last thing I will have to say about this subject at this time. I hope the focus can return to the OP and its directly related comments.

  134. Sharkly says:

    Gunner Q says:
    God has a liking for humanity that is every bit as strong & unreasonable as the male sex drive. Why else would God keep putting Himself out for generally ungrateful humanity? Yes, God wanting spiritual “sex” with us is rather disgusting and beneath His dignity. But that’s what I keep saying here: God is a person. He wants what He wants, … God made salvation cheap. No fee, no accomplishments, just acknowledge & respect (Romans 10:9-10). That’s exactly what the average husband wants from his wife. Respect him, please him, admire him. … I’m tempted to say it wasn’t even a sane decision. … But He killed His own Son to secure our admiration. … God unquestionably has a very strong, obsessive desire for our gratitude and devotion. It’s comparable to how men lose their minds over T&A. … Men are frequently irrational because we want female affection so much. God cannot put humanity out of His mind, either. He keeps coming back for more.

    I like that you’re thinking outside the box, and your theory that God is horny for us is quite unique outside of the “free love” cults, it seems to have a few functional parts, but I just have to say both the apostles Peter and Paul tell us that Christ died for our sins. I’m sure that an Omnipotent God does not need to kill His Son just to secure our admiration. Although God says He is Jealous, (Exodus 34:14) I think you’ve pushed the limit of this new ‘God is fapping over us doctrine’.

    1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

    1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

    The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Better not go too far, thinking You have God wrapped around your little finger, because he wants you like a man loses his mind over Tits & Ass. You might find, on judgement day, you’re not as Hawt and Sexy to God as you thought.

    Sometimes I don’t know whether to try to give a serious rebuttal to this sort of thing, or just to laugh about what was said. You were right, what you have said is “disgusting and beneath His dignity”. IMHO

  135. info says:

    On Paige Patterson and Rape:

    Adam
    May 31, 2018 at 01:37

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/paige-patterson-scandal-female-alumni-recount-toxic-environment-2003-rape-victim-speaks-224468/

    In the first place, you have a man engaging in egregious behavior. You can read the actual first hand account of the story here:

    https://sbctoo.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/why-the-removal-of-paige-patterson-isnt-enough/

    Notice how even the chief of security guards believed the women, and the boy was going to be punished…until Patterson got involved. Read this other firsthand account, and you will see the same thing:

    https://speakingthetruthofherheart.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/the-journey-begins/

    Notice the Pattersons had the attitude of you either being all in with them or they labeled you as the enemy. That is typical of intellectuals, and when they don’t know what they are talking about or their own sin causes damage (or, in this case, a combination of the two), they have knack for blaming someone other than themselves. Often, it is the women who are blamed for things like “immodesty,” even though it sounds like their standards of modesty were absurd. The result is the intellectuals can say, “See, we were right all along!”

    I am not someone to just believe women, especially after the Duke LaCrosse case. However, these stories are remarkably consistent, and point to serious deficiencies in the knowledge and character of Paige Patterson. The idea that people should be given power simply due to their knowledge and charisma is dangerous. It has happened in politics with all these scandals, and it looks like it has happened in the church too. If we don’t start seeing the danger of giving power simply due to intelligence and charisma, this kind of thing will keep on happening. Man is corrupt…even intelligent men are corrupt. They are also limited and finite, and, although they may be brilliant in one area of theology, they are absolutely handicapped when you get them out of their specialty. Yet, I cannot help but see just such a person in Paige Patterson at the center of power in all these stories. That is quite dangerous.”

    http://www.singlemind.net/?p=9786#comment-947767

  136. Sharkly says:

    So Paige Patterson told an anecdote with a “well built” 16 year old girl in it. They say he was “objectifying” her.

    I have a question for the sages here:
    If I were to be asked if a 16 year old girl could be sexually attractive; considering we are at war, and the enemy is out to destroy us by any means possible, what is the best answer?

    I understand the biology and reality, I’m asking what answer both is truthful, and serves our cause the best? Or how best to respond?

    Paige Patterson got worked over by the SJWs and their churchian Political Correctness Police.
    So do we just cede all forthright talk about the subject? If a young tramp tries to dress as slutty as possible in hopes of being viewed by men as a possible sex object, do we have to always pretend she is an innocent child, because saying anything to the contrary would now be us objectifying or sexualizing an innocent child? Do some girls magically become sexy women on their 18th birthday and not a moment before? Or is it their 21st Birthday in some states? I understand it is an uncomfortable subject and full of landmines, but I think it would not be good to just cede every future discussion out of fear of the SJWs. Once we can no longer talk about young women’s sexuality, next they’ll tell us, as male elders, it is none of our business either. And then consequently I foresee most all the good possible wives for my sons will be soiled before they’re ever even adults, because ‘slut shaming’ is off the table for “children”.

  137. earl says:

    It’s simple.

    If a man views a 16 year old as well built it’s objectifying her.

    If the girl willingly presents herself as a sex object…it’s empowering.

    This concludes the morally relative, confusing, double standard, looking to find any way to get offended society we live in.

  138. earl says:

    that you were also thinking that God put His womanly attributes into the woman also.

    I think the point brought up before is that God put all His good attributes in all of creation. That doesn’t make God womanly or a horse or a tree…that makes Him good.

  139. ys says:

    For consideration and for the record:

    http://www.sbcissues.com/

  140. Bee says:

    Sharkly,

    Patterson was trying to use that situation as a way to illustrate an important point, he saw it as a “teachable moment”. The church feminists saw it as a weak point to attack.

    I think Patterson was trying to make the point that we should not be pretending that boys and girls, men and women do not “feel” or “biologically notice” the beauty of the opposite sex. Christians need to discuss these things.

    The Social Pathologist discusses in this post that we do Christian boys and girls great harm when we refuse to discuss biological attractions to the beauty and desirability of the opposite sex:

    https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/anaemia.html

    Biblical Gender Roles has also done a good job discussing this topic on his blog.

  141. Oscar says:

    @ Bee

    I think Patterson was trying to make the point that we should not be pretending that boys and girls, men and women do not “feel” or “biologically notice” the beauty of the opposite sex. Christians need to discuss these things.

    Pastor Doug Wilson does, and somehow gets away with it.

    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/nubile-young-women-la-times.html

    And this is where you see the difference between biblical prudence and feminist resentments. Feminists hate the fact that there even are hot bodies. They want socialism applied to sex, surgically-imposed on the one percent if necessary. Wise Christians know to look past the look, but they don’t resent the existence of it at all. They know its place. Sexual attractiveness is a factor, but by no means the most important one.

  142. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Don’t get hung up on reproduction; that’s not a spiritually important part of marriage…

    You’re kidding, right? Have you missed the first chapter of Genesis, where God gives the first married couple their marching orders?

    I’ve read a few more comments and will say I regret having brought up the subject of the spirit of truth. It did remind me, however, that whenever I post here, Boxer (the non-Christian) inevitably finds cause to accuse and/or correct me, despite his lack of reliance upon either God or Scripture. Once a serpent, always a serpent.

    In other words, you’d rather personally attack me than debate the issue that you, yourself, brought up. Unfortunately, your personal attacks share all the same problems that your bible interpretations do, namely that they have no foundation in anything other than your feelings.

    Your feelings don’t matter to me. I’m here to learn about the New Testament. If you want to teach me something about it, cite it properly and make your argument. Otherwise, enjoy your time in the shame cube, with the other fake Christians…

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/04/10/an-open-letter-to-lyn87/

    Regards,

    Boxer

  143. Boxer says:

    If a man views a 16 year old as well built it’s objectifying her.

    If the girl willingly presents herself as a sex object…it’s empowering.

    Many years ago, someone made a YouTube video of Gloria Steinem reversing herself on this issue, in the span of a minute. It might have originated in a 60 Minutes interview.

  144. seventiesjason says:

    Well you know….if she’s a sixteen year old girl who is giving her eightteen year old a BJ…..she has “low self esteem” and he obviously is a “rapist” and deserves to be on a “sex offender” registry for the rest of his life. He must have *made* her do it. She had zero input on the decision.

    If he’s in his twenties, and she’s sixteen or whatever……..he will be given a pass if he is a praise leader in the church, or a lifeguard at a Christian church camp.

    If he’s an average looking dude who is sixteen, eighteen, twenty-five or forty and he just finds her attractive………..he will be considered a pervert on all levels and will have to be stripped of his job, kicked out of college, court marshalled in the military………whatever.

    Since she cannot make any decisions for herself but at the same time is “empowered” because she can do anyhting….including being a flirt, using her youthful looks to get hormonal younger men to do anything for her………

    It all depends on HER mood. What she thinks…..and we all know sixteen year old girls have the rationale, logic, sound judgment and should be running the country. It’s up to HER if she FEELS if she is being objectified.

    Usually if its a “Chad” type, no problem with being objectified. Anyone else……watch out! 🙂

  145. Bee says:

    Oscar,

    Thanks for the link.

    Occasionally Wilson writes a good essay.

  146. MKT says:

    It’s more masculine to be attracted to men yet obedient to God than attracted to women and disobedient to God. https://t.co/gCEBdTcaru

    — The Gospel Coalition (@TGC) April 27, 2016

    It’s gotten worse since 2016. A PCA church is about to host a “Revoice” conferences with the tagline: “Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can experience the life-giving character of the historic Christian tradition.” The PCA is a conservative Presbyterian denomination that broke away from more liberal mainline Presbies back in the 1970s.

    The basic idea is that the church should accept celibate homosexual couples. As one conference speaker has written, these couples “should be understood along the lines of a vowed or committed relationship, much like a marriage or a kinship bond.” Two homosexual men with normal sex drives in “committed,” marriage-like relationships but trying to stay celibate. What could go wrong?

    The Warhorn site has done some good work on the problems with this, as has (ducking for cover) Doug Wilson:
    https://warhornmedia.com/2018/05/28/itching-ears-greg-johnsons-explanation-of-revoice-part-1/
    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/up-near-the-spigot.html

    As for Thabiti, as someone else pointed out, his actual baptismal/Christian name is Ron Burns. He changed his name during a Muslim stint and hasn’t bothered to change it back. He actually started out pretty sound, but is now going full SJW re: race hustling, identity politics, feminism, etc.

  147. MKT says:

    Also, while I don’t agree with everything on the site (and they’re quite the conspiracy theorists), Pulpit and Pen is a good place to read alternative views on the goings-on at the SBC and other parts of the Evangelical world.
    http://pulpitandpen.org/

  148. Dalrock says:

    Thank you YS. I’ve added a link to the defense of Patterson as an update to the post.

  149. Dalrock says:

    I’ve added two more links to the update. Thanks to Deep Strength and TMAC as well.

  150. freebird says:

    Let’s talk about the morality of today’s church.
    They have sanctified homosexual marriage,that sewage fest that belongs in a TOILET is now on YOUR altar.
    They have as much concern for abortion (your future children) as to not say anything about the abattoirs knife.
    Children-death
    Sewage-death
    church-death
    and there ain’t no comin back.

  151. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 8:31 am:
    “Don’t get hung up on reproduction; that’s not a spiritually important part of marriage…

    You’re kidding, right? Have you missed the first chapter of Genesis, where God gives the first married couple their marching orders?”

    Childless marriages are legitimate marriages. Having kids isn’t needed for the symbolism of marriage to work properly.

    Adam & Noah are exceptions, not universal examples. I like to think that without the command, Adam would have intentionally died childless rather than breed a humanity damned by his actions… an honorable decision. Noah surviving humanity’s well-deserved extinction was a similar situation. Notice the first thing he did after leaving the Ark was to plant a vineyard in order to get wasted drunk.

    There’s a difference between “everybody must breed” and “God doesn’t want the species to die out”.

  152. Opus says:

    America seems very keen on sacking people for saying the wrong thing. I saw the clip of Patterson talking about the sixteen year old (not that I followed his train of thought) and I was shocked, truly shocked. You cannot have men who look every day of their seventy five years outing themselves as capable of seeing female teenage sexual attractiveness.

  153. ray says:

    OP — quoting TGC Council member Thabiti Anyabwile, writing on Patterson’s ousting:

    “… Consider the pastors whose sins have crawled out of dark secrecy recently to speak against them on spotlit stages. Praise God most of these pastors have not been as heinous as Cosby or Nasser, but that doesn’t mean their failings aren’t serious.
    “This morning the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary issued a statement announcing that Paige Patterson will no longer be president of that institution. Though the statement doesn’t mention the swirling controversy over Patterson’s comments about a young girl’s body or unbiblical counsel to women in abusive situations, the decision is at least linked by timing. Patterson’s comments were flat-out wrong and a pretty serious misrepresentation of the Bible he defended.”

    If you listen to the tape, when Patterson makes his ‘sexist and predatory’ comments concerning the sexual attraction of the 16-year-old wom . . . I mean girl, there is audible chuckling in the audience. Why? Because they’re nervous? Nah. It’s because they are adults, well-aware of the reality of the sexual power of such a female. The Gospel Coalition, feminist America, etc. must deny this to maintain the (very profitable) mass-delusion that such females are utterly innocent princesses, snared in the clutches of a Predatory Patriarchy, and requiring MUCH more empowerment and liberation until the world can be made A Perfect Bubble for them.

    The set-up by Anyabwile is dropping the name-bombs of Nasser and Cosby (subconsciously AMERICA’S DAD, do not forget) so that the minds of his listeners are prepped with salacious images and assumptions before the hammer is dropped on the brethren (here, Patterson, but anyone not embracing Total Feminism in reality is a target).

    Typically for both secular and ‘religious’ culture in the United Sisterhood, the core of Anyabwile’s thrust (oops) is the pristineness of human females when under the age of codified consent. This is the feminist A-bomb, and it silences EVERYBODY and damn quick too, most especially figures in secular or religious authority, as any attempt to argue or instruct otherwise equates such a male with Nasser, Cosby, etc.

    Very tidy. Appeal to emotionalism, especially the rage of women towards the attractiveness of younger females, and the sexual allure of those females. It’s stealing rice out of Big Mamma’s bowl! lol

    Half-a-BILLION dollars was awarded to the ‘victims’ of this Nassar guy. I didn’t follow the case closely, but recall reading that many of his ‘victims’ returned to him scores of times, to be molested and raped, over and over again. Obviously, all of them were powerless to refuse to see him (after the first molestation) or to find any alternate avenue to end their repeated rapes. Apparently Mr. Nasser was so dominating, so terrifying, that these females couldn’t help but return to him, again and again. Hm.

    Sorry, I’ve seen how fifteen or sixteen y.o. females behave in the U.S. I do not doubt that Nasser did what he was accused of. What I doubt is the expressed helplessness of these many ‘victims’, particularly when followed-up by 500 million dollars in payment for their ‘completely ruined lives’. Sounds more like whore-payoffs to me. Smells like Sisterhood.

    The trap set by Anabwile, the Gospel Coalition, and U.S. Protestantism in general, is that Christians thus have a choice: they can join The Gang in denouncing and excising Patterson (and any other uppity male), or they can join in assumed alignment with Larry Nasser, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and so on.

    Very tidy indeed. Every American male has a choice of joining #MeToo, or of becoming #YoureNext. Oh and btw, Thabiti is really a GREAT Christian name! It’s provenance is East African, meaning ‘a true man’. Thabiti is the only True Man in the room. :O)

  154. Oscar says:

    @ Ray

    “Every American male has a choice of joining #MeToo, or of becoming #YoureNext.”

    #YoureNext whether you joined #MeToo, or not. Joining #MeToo might buy a man some time (maybe), but it won’t save him from the feminist mob.

  155. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The New York Times investigates “tradwives” and discovers “white supremecy”: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/opinion/sunday/tradwives-women-alt-right.html

    Nicole Jorgenson, a singer and former schoolteacher in North Dakota, explains to her host that she has never been happier since getting married and having children. And yet between cute pastoral anecdotes of growing her own vegetables and making banana bread, it soon becomes clear that Ms. Jorgenson is advocating something sinister — not just a return to agrarian motherhood.

    She lived in Germany temporarily, she says, but left just before “an influx of refugees took over the country.” She just had a child and thinks the new baby is beautiful — but maybe not quite in the same way all mothers do: “I always wanted children that looked like me,” she says, “blond-haired, blue-eyed babies, but I kind of had to say it under my breath.”

    Wow, how evil, for a mother to want babies who look like her. Or is it only evil when white Christians feel that way?

    We shouldn’t underestimate how some young white women, when faced with this bleak economic landscape and then presented with a rosy image of 1950s domestic bliss, may look back to 1960s Freidan-era feminism as having cheated them out of a family and a luxurious lifestyle, all supported by a single income. The men on the alt-right might point to diversity initiatives and mass immigration as having dismantled their career prospects; the women are furious that they have to consider career prospects at all.

    Tradwives also point to the ways that the half-finished work of the sexual revolution has brought about not just male but also female discontents. … pickup artists and incels claim that the sexual revolution has brought about a consequence-free life of pleasure for young women, while socially awkward or unattractive men are left behind. But the existence of tradwives points to a more nuanced reality.

    Female fears of objectification and sexual violence remain as potent as they ever were; the tradwife subculture exploits them by blaming modernity for such phenomena, and then offers chastity, marriage and motherhood as an escape.

    As one such YouTube commentator, a teenager, told her audience, traditionalism does “what feminism is supposed to do” in preventing women from being made into “sexual objects” and treated “like a whore.”

    It’s a lie, of course. Modesty has never been a safeguard against degradation or rape, and we know that a rapist is no less likely to hurt a woman simply because he’s married to her.

    Another NYT “news report” that is really just editorializing.

  156. feeriker says:

    Another NYT “news report” that is really just editorializing.

    Does anybody even read that rag anymore?

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    The article by Geisler that Deep Strength pointed to is another example of completely misunderstanding what happened.

    First of all, it was done at the wrong time. Dr. Patterson was close to retirement age. They should have waited and allowed him to retire honorably and properly.

    Geisler assumes good intentions where none exist. Firing Patterson close to retirement and stripping him of assets is a deliberate act clearly intended to induce fear in other men in similar positions.

    Second, it was done to the wrong person. He did nothing worthy of being fired. No biblical grounds were given, let alone seriously considered.

    There are quotes from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that apply, however.

    Third, it was done the wrong way. It was done too quickly—within hours. This did not give proper time for reflection, interaction, and thoughtful action.

    There’s supposed to be a difference between a jury and a lynch mob. Geisler is still thinking in terms of a jury and due process, getting Patterson was another #MeeToo lynch mob.

    Geisler is attempting to reason with a pack of mean girls and their Blue Pill, TradCon accomplices. That never works.

    In the abstract sense, Patterson’s defenestration is very much like a frivorce; the unhaaaaapy woman (women in this case), the piling on of charges that don’t have much or any factual basis, the misuse of the term “abuse”, the lynch-mob mentality, the men who are very willing to do whatever women demand when it comes to punishing another man…both Patterson and Geisler’s reaction is a classic example of “TradCon blindsided by women’s mean streak”, too.

    Caving in to women’s whims isn’t working out the way it was supposed to. It’s almost like that’s a bad idea or something. Now, I wonder who the next target of the Beth Moore Brigade will be?

  158. RichardP says:

    26 And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness: and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created MAN in his own image … (kjv)

    In the above writing, the word “them” refers back to the word “man”, which makes the word “man” plural. So we know that the King’s English is being used in this instance – man = mankind = humankind. Up until recently, “man” and “him” have been used in the universal sense to refer to both sexes. That is how it is being used here. So if we take literally only those words above, both sexes were made in the image of God.

    However, the second part of Verse 27 confounds things: … in the image of God created he him; male and female created he THEM. This phrase implies two attributes to the act of creation: 1.) God created them, both male and female, and; 2.) God created “him” not “them” in the image of God. However, this second part of Verse 27 is at odds with Verse 26 and the first part of Verse 27. (and I am ignoring the discrepancy between Verses 26 and 27 in the definition of “God”, where one is referred to as “us” and the other is referred to as “he/him”. But if we accept that “he/him” is being used in the universal sense of the King’s English, we know that those words are referring to plural, not singular – so the sense of God = “us” is maintained.

    So, why do you pick one interpretation over the other? On what basis do you decide which is correct?

    Consider also Genesis 5:2 – … Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name ADAM, in the day when they were created.

    When you refer to Paul contrasting the first Adam with the second Adam, do you know without any doubt which “Adam” he is referring to (the first man, or the first couple that God called Adam)? Given that Paul says that sin came into the world by the first Adam, we could assume that Paul is using God’s definition of “Adam” – which would include Eve, who is the person that actually was first to bring sin into the world.

    My point: an honest examination of what the words actually say (both in English but also in the original language) show that there is room for honest debate about what the words actually mean. That truth tends to make me thoughtfully humble rather than cocksureadly arrogant when explaining what the words of the Bible “mean”.

  159. Anonymous Reader says:

    Read Saul Alinksy. See how many of his Rules for Radicals are conspicuous in just this one case.
    Men need to stop assuming that women argue in good faith.

  160. Swanny River says:

    From the SBC link of YS, Patterson doesn’t condone threatening language or forced sex.And he apologized for saying a girl is built. It appears we are a Victorian church. We prefer swearing Hillary to Trump because of the word Pussy and get hysterical.

  161. Boxer says:

    Dear MKT:

    As for Thabiti, as someone else pointed out, his actual baptismal/Christian name is Ron Burns.

    Oh LOLOLOL! That’s truly hilarious.

    He changed his name during a Muslim stint and hasn’t bothered to change it back. He actually started out pretty sound, but is now going full SJW re: race hustling, identity politics, feminism, etc.

    I’ve been aware of him for at least a year, and he’s always struck me, in that time, as a complete faggot.

    Best,

    Boxer

  162. SirHamster says:

    > I assumed since you replied to Sir Hampster’s pansexual god comments by quoting from the gender neutered New American Bible that seemed to support his point, that you were also thinking that God put His womanly attributes into the woman also.

    How you managed to get from “Man is created from God, so there is an aspect of our feminine characteristics being from God.” to “pansexual god”, is beyond me.

    You can completely fit, “God is purely masculine, feminine is subset of diluted masculine characteristics” into that statement, if that’s your concept of masculinity, femininity, and divinity.

  163. Oscar says:

    @ RPL

    We shouldn’t underestimate how some young white women, when faced with this bleak economic landscape…

    “Bleak economic landscape”? Last I checked, things have been looking up since the dude raised by Marxists left the White House.

    Tradwives also point to the ways that the half-finished work of the sexual revolution has brought about not just male but also female discontents. … pickup artists and incels claim that the sexual revolution has brought about a consequence-free life of pleasure for young women, while socially awkward or unattractive men are left behind.

    Funny how the author never mentions the facts that…
    1. Women have self-reported increasing levels of misery since the glorious feminist revolution, and…
    2. Women consume more anti-depressants than ever, and that consumption is increasing.

    Furthermore, there’s no attempt to refute the claim that “the sexual revolution has brought about a consequence-free life of pleasure for young women, while socially awkward or unattractive men are left behind.”

    Snark and mockery are entertaining, but they’re not an argument.

  164. RichardP says:

    @Upthread, Oscar provides a link to a 6-1-18 blurb written by Pastor Doug Wilson. In that article, Wilson says he is not familiar with the backstory of what is going on. I am, having stumbled onto blog posts by Wade Burleson in the mid-1990s. I got very familiar with what he had to say then, and then only sporadically checked back over the ensuing years.

    The young lady who was raped (the fellow admitted it) recently decided to tell her story to Wade. Wade put the young lady in touch with the Washington Post reporter – who then wrote and published the story that touched off the current situation. If you get really familiar with Wade’s story going back to 1994, you can discern that this has been a power struggle / leadership coup that does not have a concern for the plight of Seminary students, male or female, at heart. They are only pawns being used to topple one regime in favor of another.

    Here is a quote from a recent post of Burlesons. It gives a nice overview of what is really going on:
    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/05/patterson-greear-hemphill-spiritual.html

    For nearly twenty-five years I have opposed the authoritarian tactics of Dr. Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler. That was not always the case. From 1979 to 1993 I was an active supporter of the Conservative Resurgence. I believed we Southern Baptists were in a “Battle for the Bible.” I served as a driver for Judge Pressler as he toured Oklahoma to “get out the vote” for the SBC in the late 1980’s. I was part of the platform security team for Paige Patterson and his crew in the early 1990’s.

    It was at the 1994 Southern Baptist Convention that I began to see the strong-armed tactics of Dr. Paige Patterson. Some believe that the 1994 Convention was also the beginning of Paige Patterson and his loyalists targeting me.

    I began to see that the “Battle for the Bible” was actually about power and control in the SBC. And sadly, it began to dawn on me that a particular harmful and false doctrine which harmed women was taking center stage in the SBC. Southern Baptist leaders (all male) began espousing the unbiblical teaching that males have an inherent “spiritual authority” over women, and that pastors (e.g. “the holiest of all males”) have the greatest spiritual authority of all. This doctrine became the driving force behind the male dominated leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    In 2006, Paige Patterson’s disciples who served with me as trustees of the SBC International Mission Board sought to ruin my reputation, end my pastoral career, and threaten my family and church because I stopped those same IMB trustees from doing Paige Patterson’s bidding in firing IMB President Jerry Rankin and a female Vice-President named Wendy Norvelle (you can read about those days in the book Hardball Religion). My fellow trustees went after Wendy because “no women should be in a position of authority over a man.”

    Those IMB trustees failed in their mission to humiliate and silence me, and I thank them for making me the person I am today.

    Now their leader, Dr. Paige Patterson, is gone. The only question left is what to do with the stained glass windows at SWBTS. I predict they will be removed by the end of an ominous court trial set to take place in Houston, Texas. I have no joy in my heart over Paige Patterson’s termination. Only a sense of justice.

  165. Lost Patrol says:

    re: the new link provided by ys.

    If Sharayah Colter has accurately reported the actions of the board of trustees in the Patterson case, then the people associated with that seminary have a lot more to worry about than the old man’s ramblings. Their board of trustees moved from hysterical reactions to a decisive coup de main in what must be record time. Her description of the final take-down is worthy of an action by the SAS.

    So if you are associated with SWBTS in any capacity, you now know that if you step out of line, or are perceived to have stepped out of line; judgment may be swift and retribution final. If we can zero out the mighty Dr. P like that, imagine what we can do to you lesser lights for any thought crimes against the academy. Message sent.

    The lesson should be plain going forward. Easy prediction – more feminism.

  166. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    That opinion piece from Carlos Slim’s weblog is just one long “point-and-shriek” exercise, but it does contain the useful word “tradwife”. Although it’s clearly intended to arouse Margaret Atwater levels of fear from coast to coast to coat in all potential Handmaids, I bet we’ll see it used across the web in an approving way. It’s a real word because “appeal to authority” is not a fallacy when the Carlos Slim blog is cited.

  167. MKT says:

    “Southern Baptist leaders (all male) began espousing the unbiblical teaching that males have an inherent ‘spiritual authority’ over women”

    Oh my. Imagine this tender-hearted guy’s reaction to Paul and his “women keeping silent” stuff in the 1st Century.

  168. Nick Mgtow says:

    Dear Dalrock!

    I remember that you shared once an article called “The case for pick up artists”. I know that in the manosphere, you’re the only one neither judging PUAs, like Paul Elam does, or Mgtows, like Peterson does.

    Not only that overestimed guy has attacked Mgtows in the past, then retracted a bit for it, he has attacked PUAs too.

    As usual, I submit, you’re free to see if you want to write or react about it. Best regards. From Europe

  169. Oscar says:

    Speaking of “this bleak economic landscape”…

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/morning-in-america-more-say-theyre-better-off-under-trump-blacks-hispanics

    “More than two in three (68 percent) tell the pollsters that the economy is strong, while 32 percent say it is weak – and this includes 76 percent of men, 61 percent of women, 64 percent or more of all age groups, 57 percent and 58 percent of Hispanics and African Americans respectively, and 63 percent of political moderates,” blogged Zogby citing a new Harvard University-Harris poll.

    I guess “liberals” just hate blacks and Hispanics.

  170. Dalrock says:

    @Nick Mgtow

    Dear Dalrock!

    I remember that you shared once an article called “The case for pick up artists”. I know that in the manosphere, you’re the only one neither judging PUAs, like Paul Elam does, or Mgtows, like Peterson does.

    Not only that overestimed guy has attacked Mgtows in the past, then retracted a bit for it, he has attacked PUAs too.

    As usual, I submit, you’re free to see if you want to write or react about it. Best regards. From Europe

    Thanks Nick.

    I don’t recall the post you are describing. My observation on PUAs isn’t that what they are doing (fornication) is moral, because it isn’t. My observation is that nearly everyone who wants to call them immoral is just fine with fornication. The objection to PUAs is almost always that they aren’t fornicating in the right way. Usually this comes down to not purifying fornication with romantic love. The other undercurrent is the sense that it must be the woman who pumps and dumps, not the man.

    From watching just a bit of the video you shared, Peterson seems to really struggle to explain what he finds immoral about PUAs. He doesn’t seem to believe that fornication in itself is a sin. I’m guessing he also wouldn’t object to the wisdom of our age, that “consent” is the key to sexual morality. Consent typically really translates into desire on the part of the woman. From this perspective, PUAs are merely following the moral law of the land. Good men generate tingles, bad men don’t. PUAs took this moral law at face value, and set about learning the mechanics of generating tingles. Peterson is horrified at this, but ties himself up in knots trying to explain why it is wrong.

  171. Karli May says:

    Dalrock
    Your comment “Good men generate tingles, bad men don’t,” may need to be reversed.
    Don’t the “bad boys” generate tingles while the “good boys” generate ennui?
    PUA’s try hard to project a jerkboy image, ’cause they have learned that soyboys go home alone.

  172. Dalrock says:

    Karli May

    Dalrock
    Your comment “Good men generate tingles, bad men don’t,” may need to be reversed.
    Don’t the “bad boys” generate tingles while the “good boys” generate ennui?
    PUA’s try hard to project a jerkboy image, ’cause they have learned that soyboys go home alone.

    Right. Bad boys generate tingles, so PUAs follow suit. But our society believes that the ability to generate tingles is the test of virtue in a man. This is true both for the secular world as well as modern Christians. As I’ve shared before, Dr. Mohler (referenced in the OP) explains that wives will only desire their husbands if the husband is virtuous:

    Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

    Likewise, in the Christian video series The Art of Marriage, one of the pastors explains that God spoke to him through his wife’s frigid vagina. She wasn’t attracted to him because God was displeased with him. He teaches husbands that the path to creating sexual desire from their wives is to get right with God. For quotes, see this post: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-to-tell-if-you-are-a-godly-man/

  173. seventiesjason says:

    Eh…….from this whole situation, the church squarely gets what it deserves. Soon, all churches in the USA are gonna match overall what is in California for the most part: Affirming. Nice. No talk of hell. Focus on the music programs (singing, playing an instrument). The pot luck after a weak Mr. Coffee sermon. Culturally christian. Jesus is love. Jesus was the first socialist. Jesus could never send anyone to hell. No judging allowed, ever….EVER!!!!!!! Usiung the the “new-living-recovery-gender neautral-plainspeak-everyday-english-revised-bible”

    This is in the “bold” churches too for the most part right now I might add……

  174. MKT says:

    “No judging allowed, ever….EVER!!!!!!”

    Actually you can judge “privileged” white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual, Southern males (or any combination of those categories) until the cows come home. They just don’t call it judging. They call it “social justice” or “getting woke” or some other buzzword. Look at the way the MSM judges the entire Trump family on a second-by-second basis.

  175. tbayly says:

    For four years (1997-2001) I served as Executive Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, during which I was privileged to work with Paige and Dorothy Patterson. Paige had faith and boldness I found nowhere else among my fellow council members, and therefore I resigned both as Executive Director and as a council member.

    Recently, I have spoken up in defense of Paige and I sorely regret the humiliation he has experienced this week. That dudes like Russ Moore and Al Mohler have dissed him surprises me not one single bit. These men have betrayed the doctrine of Biblical sexuality concerning sodomy and effeminacy the past few years and it seems apparent they did so in order to continue to maintain their voice nationally as part of the media’s execrable “conversation.”

    We’ve published a book on the equivocations and compromises of these men piling on Paige and it’s titled The Grace of Shame: 7 Ways the Church Has Failed To Love Homosexuals . Get a copy. It’s eye-opening concerning Gospel Coalition’s naked compromises.

  176. loriannealexander says:

    I am not sure you have seen this well-written article (in my opinion) on this topic:
    https://sbcissues.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/the-untold-truth-facts-surrounding-paige-patterson-and-his-removal-from-swbts-by-sharayah-colter/

    [D: Thanks!]

  177. Sharkly says:

    RichardP says: That truth tends to make me thoughtfully humble rather than cocksureadly arrogant when explaining what the words of the Bible “mean”.
    The way I see it, you dismissively try to ram your Feminist bent into God’s word. And you try to argue to make God in the image of woman also, which He clearly never claimed.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, … 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

    If you think God is incapable of writing what he means clearly, then you have bigger issues. If you read His word plainly it appears that the woman is not created in the image of God. Otherwise it would appear God is being deceptive in trying to obfuscate her bearing His image.
    The man shouldn’t cover his head when he prays because he is the image of God. Women on the other hand should cover their heads when they pray. Why? Because, they are also in the image of God and should go ahead and dishonor their head? No! Because they are different from the man who is the image and glory of God, so they do it differently. And in case you didn’t get that the woman does not reflect the glory of God, He tells you that instead she reflects the glory of man. Any other interpretation than this obvious reading makes God out to be a poor author, who is incapable of writing plainly and without trickery, who is and isn’t in His image.

    I will grant that women might in some fashion bear some part of God’s image, because they were taken out of the man, and in some respects resemble the man. They then being a distortion of the original copy of the master. But nowhere are we told that the woman bears the image of God to any degree at all, or even what part of the man exactly the image is consisted of, since all men look, act, and think differently.

    The head of every man is Christ. The head of the wife is not Christ, but her husband. Christ delegates His headship over wives to their husbands, and they are their wives earthly lords. I didn’t make those rules. Sorry if it offends your Feminism. Dump the Feminism and go with God.

    The wife is told to be subject to her husband in everything as unto the Lord. And the husband is in fact not just in the image and glory of the Lord, but has been given the position of lord over his wife. Sarah was commended for acknowledging Abraham as her lord, not condemned for the sin of flattery, because the husband is both the imperfect earthly representation of God and imperfect delegate of God’s authority in the wife’s life. We as a society sin when we try to make the wife equal to the husband in rank and function. Through grace she is an equal heir of God’s grace. But she was clearly created last, and created to assist her head, the man, and indeed, being the weaker vessel, she failed first.

    If every woman looked up to her husband as the manifestation of lordship in her life, and believed him to be superior to a degree that she should never attempt to usurp him, because she was in fact created inferior and to be always subject to her husband, then hypergamy would cause those women to passionately desire their husbands to the same degree they reverenced them, and we would not have “the problem that has no name”.
    That’s my opinion.

  178. Pingback: He Should Have Fought Back! – v5k2c2.com

  179. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Drunk 20-year-old thinks she’s Black Widow. Male officer shows her otherwise.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/31320/heres-bodycam-footage-what-led-viral-video-cop-james-barrett

    I go to stop her for … underage drinking. She says she’s 20. She had Twisted Teas. She wouldn’t give me her last name, so I said, “Hey, if you’re not going to give me your information, you’re going to be locked up.” She tried walking away from me. Once she tried walking away from me, I tried grabbing her. She tried kicking at us so I slammed her on the ground. She kicked him and then I hit her a couple times. And then I put her in cuffs and locked her up. ~ Arresting Officer

  180. Swanny River says:

    Tbayly,
    I’m afraid to ask, but how has Moore and Mohler gone soft on sodomy?

  181. earl says:

    @Oscar

    The beauty of the body cam and also proves Bill Burr’s point…’not every ass kicking a woman gets just falls out of the sky’.

    Until proven otherwise…I’m assuming the egotistical princess went egotistical princess on a guy and that’s what led to punches.

  182. Gary Eden says:

    That JP video is silly. More of the usual PUA shaming for ‘tricking’ women.Complete women worshipping bullshit.

  183. RichardP says:

    Good grief Sharkly … re-read what I wrote.

    And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness: and let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created MAN in his own image … Genesis 26 & 27 (kjv)

    Do not go to what the New Testament says. Stay here and first deal with what God actually said. Deal with it in light of what the King’s English construction means (as I discussed in my post above on this issue.) Only when you are certain that you have the meaning of what God actually said figured out can you begin to incorporate what the New Testament says into this issue. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Folks are not to change what God says. So whatever interpretation you give to what the New Testament says must be consistant with what God actually says here (plus the second half of Verse 27 that I discussed in my post above on this issue).

    I have no idea whether God created women in the image of God or not. All any of us have to go on are 1) what Genesis 26 and 27 says that God actually said, and then 2) what the New Testament says – taking care to make sure we interpret the New Testament in a way that is consistent with what God actually said.

    I’m not pushing the idea that God created women in his image (I don’t have a dog in that fight). I’m pushing the idea that we get off into the deep weeds when we ignore what God actually says in favor of what some New Testament writer says (I do have a dog in that fight). If we see an apparent contradiction between what God says in the Old Testament and what a New Testament writer says, know that we are supposed to assume that the New Testament writer was holding fast to the original meaning of what God said in the Old Testament, even when it appears to us that he is saying something different than what God said in the Old Testament. (I have applied this logic elsewhere to the “God said rule over, not submit … Paul said submit, not rule over” discussion. Again, we cannot assume that Paul was imposing a requirement on the redeemed that God himself did not impose.

    Words matter. Language construction matters. Answer the question “what did God actually say?” matters. And if the New Testament seems to contradict what God said in the Old Testament, we are deep in the weeds if we think it is OK to our understanding of what the New Testament says over what God actually says in the Old Testament.

    You can think this is an argument for feminism if you wish. It actually is an argument for getting serious about paying attention to what God actually said – and accepting that the New Testament writers were not contradicting what God actually said.

  184. “An abusive spouse has made choices that force a separation, and the abuse therefore can become tantamount to desertion.”

    Ahh, the classic “You made me cheat! This is your fault!” The “abuse” was probably trying to get her to exercise or keep her hair long.

    Are these people sincerely worshiping women, or are they just pandering to their crowd? Do they not realize men can still think things through and realize the game they are playing?

  185. RichardP says:

    s/b … if we think it is OK to prefer our understanding of what the New Testament says …

  186. “Off Topic: Drunk 20-year-old thinks she’s Black Widow. Male officer shows her otherwise.”

    The cop might have been doing his job, but does anyone really care anymore about things as petty as a girl drinking on the beach or cursing at cops? Seriously? The law is just spiderwebs–only strong enough to catch the very weak. We have federal judges ordering that Trump doesn’t have the power to undo an Obama executive order, and we can’t even stop accepting applicants for more invaders. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/politics/daca-ruling-new-applications/index.html

  187. bdash 77 says:

    its time Moore, Chandler Mohler etc were called for what they are
    AGENTS of the DEVIL

    they are more concerned with the opinions of WHORES ( ME TOO)
    Than the bible. ( THE WORD OF GOD)

  188. JRob says:

    If real leadership isn’t exercised at their annual meeting and sanity restored, the SBC will soon resemble the smoking ruin which was the University of Missouri at Columbia.

  189. Karl says:

    Mohler:

    “…The judgment of God has come.

    Judgment has now come to the house of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

    He gives the impression of never even having read the Book of Job.

  190. info says:

    @RichardP

    Both the writings of Paul inspired by the holy spirit and Genesis is the very words of God unless he specifically states otherwise.

    Therefore what Sharkly quoted is correct as well as the words of Genesis is correct at the same time.

  191. freebird says:

    Sharkly

    “If every woman looked up to her husband as the manifestation of lordship in her life, and believed him to be superior to a degree that she should never attempt to usurp him, because she was in fact created inferior and to be always subject to her husband, then hypergamy would cause those women to passionately desire their husbands to the same degree they reverenced them, and we would not have “the problem that has no name”.

    Standing Ovation sir!
    Also explains the reason the churches must be corrupted to break the family unit.
    Break the atomic bond as it were.

    Richard P
    “Given that Paul says that sin came into the world by the first Adam, we could assume that Paul is using God’s definition of “Adam” – which would include Eve, who is the person that actually was first to bring sin into the world.”

    Well then she would have been called adam instead of eve which clearly delineates the difference, aye?

    More importantly,perhaps examine why it is you are trying to hard to bend the scriptures to say what is is you want?
    Why is is SO important that woman come from God and not man’s rib?

    The second adam was God’s farmer,because that is the polishing touches on what a man should be,nurturing his environment,not waging a constant war against his “helper.”
    Today’s “helpers” want to be masters and yet they lack the equipment to do the job,which is why God goes to such great lengths to explain the roles of the sexes for their Good.
    It was written for nomadic illiterate tribesmen,and yet the modern “man” appears to lack the
    fortitude and will to take instruction half as well as those from 2000 years ago.

    Well God,seeing and knowing all things called thing one too,saying:”They are a stiff necked generation, double minded reprobates-seeking and doing Evil continually.”
    (often in robes before an audience)

  192. Dalrock says:

    Thank you tbayly. I’ll check it out.

  193. feeriker says:

    bdash 77 says:
    June 1, 2018 at 10:51 pm

    That description really applies to every self-described “Christian” in a leadership role who isn’t actively battling the feminist rebellion within the church and calling upon women and their castrated male enablers to repent.

  194. ys says:

    swanny-
    I know that Mohler, for one, came to believe in homosexuality as an orientation. If I remember right (too lazy to google) he came to believe reparation therapy was wrong too. Sad.
    Moore has offered half-hearted condemnations of things like the Supreme Court decisions…but a check of his other writings shows what he really thinks. He brutally condemns something if he thinks it’s wrong (like white supremacy or Christians voting for Trump, which to Russ….are the same).

  195. feeriker says:

    He gives the impression of never even having read the Book of Job.

    I don’t doubt that he’s read the entire Bible at least once. As with all churchians, however, there are huge portions of it that he loathes because they conflict with the worldly values that he holds sacred above all else. Thus he goes to extreme lengths at mental and philosophical gymnastics to marginalize, ignore, or pervert the meaning of these passages. It’s his way of telling God that He’s “full of it” without having to be overtly blasphemous about it, thus letting him maintain the facade.

  196. ys says:

    The SBC convention is less than two weeks away. It will be fascinating. Hopefully everyone here who is so inclined will be praying.
    Dalrock, this post is already an important part of the record, thank you.

  197. MKT says:

    “I am tempted to visit TGC to see how my former pastor, Kevin Deyoung, is doing, because I have high hopes that he would break the trend and support Patterson’s thoughts about divorce,abuse, and the normalness of finding attractive women attractive.”

    I’m not sure if he’s commented on Patterson, but Deyoung isn’t giving in to the “let’s celebrate and recognize LGBTQ…as long as they stay celibate (yeah, right)” stuff.
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/words-labels-sexual-minorities/

  198. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Indiana GOP makes its platform more LGBTQ friendly: http://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/lgbtq-community-calls-gop-platform-proposal-more-inclusive/1213919497

    A proposed change in the Republican Party platform in Indiana would alter the GOP stance on families and marriage.

    The LGBTQ community said the change is more inclusive.

    The change will be voted on next week at the party’s annual convention. Republicans would remove the phrase “based on marriage between a man and a woman” when talking about strong families in the 2018 platform.

    “The prior sentence that said that was the only way to have a strong family; people felt excluded by that,” said Kyle Hupfer, the Indiana GOP Party chairman. …

  199. @ Sharkly

    If every woman looked up to her husband as the manifestation of lordship in her life, and believed him to be superior to a degree that she should never attempt to usurp him, because she was in fact created inferior and to be always subject to her husband, then hypergamy would cause those women to passionately desire their husbands to the same degree they reverenced them, and we would not have “the problem that has no name”.

    That’s my opinion.

    Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

    Adam and Eve were created into the garden without sin, and Eve was still tempted to be like God prior to sin entering the world. Women, like Eve, have the temptation to be like God regardless of their circumstances.

    There are always going to be women/wives who give into being contentious and rebellious and try to set themselves up as the god of their own relationships, despite creating the best possible conditions for them.

  200. Pingback: The Historical Implications of Witchcraft – v5k2c2.com

  201. feeriker says:

    Indiana GOP makes its platform more LGBTQ friendly

    And in other earth-shattering news, the sun rose in the east this morning.

    I now treat as an imbecile deserving of bemused contempt anyone who still thinks that the Republican Party stands for traditionally Christian morality and values.

  202. Phil says:

    Interesting tidbit from the “sbcissues” worpress blog by Sharayah Colter:

    Patterson immediately called police in response to a female student claiming she had been raped. The accused man admitted to having sexual relations with the woman, but said it was consensual. The man also produced evidence to the police to that effect. Southwestern’s chief of police can confirm that the Fort Worth Police Department was called and responded. Patterson expelled the male student accused of rape. However, because the female student refused to press charges, Patterson had done all he could by calling the police, expelling the student and encouraging the woman multiple times to press charges.

    So there you have it. Two student have sex. The man say it was consensual and provides evidence to the police. (Rest assure that without that evidence he would have been arrested on the spot without need for her to press charges!) So what does Patterson do? Expel the falsely accused man, but let the false accuser stay enrolled and simply encourage her to keep telling her fabrication to the police! WTF? It should have been the opposite. But even the injustice of Patterson’s Always-Believe-the-Accuser™ SJW-friendly mishandling of this case wasn’t enough to keep his job. Holy crap this thing is a mess.

  203. ray says:

    Sharkly at 6:30 —

    Your commentary is at the heart of the (current and ongoing) rebellion against God. The enemy uses the resentment of many females — and the abetting of that resentment by many men, especially ‘Christian’ men — to fan the flames of rebellion by insisting that the woman and man are equal, and anything less is unjust, oppressive, criminal etc. Thus the placement of Equality at the very core of American/Western moral and ethical values. Once Equality becomes a nation’s guiding light, it’s a guaranteed slide to the bottom. Satan knows this well and so do his servants and human dupes.

    God created the man and infused him with His ‘breath’. He did NOT infuse the woman with His pneuma; she was created secondarily from the man, for the man. Your description of succeeding hierarchical mandates is accurate.

    To make the female and male the same — Equality, Empowerment, etc. — destroys the foundational relationship between the two established by God, and eventually ruins the nation, and planet. Christians arguing for equality, or acceding to its endless worldly demands, are thus also in rebellion.

  204. ray says:

    Oscar — “Off Topic: Drunk 20-year-old thinks she’s Black Widow. Male officer shows her otherwise.”

    I watched the vid. Another Empowered Princess who abuses any male not caving to her Almighty Will.

    She’s so Bubbleized that she figgered she could scream-down (and assault) a cop, because, pussy pass. I think you can extrapolate what she (and millions like her) have done to males who lack police authority. I.e., whatever she wants.

    And the CNN skank is horrified, HORRIFIED I tell you, that an Almighty American Female should have to obey the law like those lower-class citizens of a lesser god, males.

    She got off easy. Some dood tries that nonsense, he gets stomped or tased. Mebbe both.

    The privileged assumptions of this vile example of modern American femininity — not to mention the Medea that abets her — illustrate the true state of ‘justice’ in the current United Sisterhood.

  205. ray says:

    archerwfisher — “The cop might have been doing his job, but does anyone really care anymore about things as petty as a girl drinking on the beach or cursing at cops? Seriously? ”

    I care. Real seriously.

    Because an empowered, screeching princess like that is apt to cause problems on a PUBLIC beach for other folks. I also care that she cussed out the cops, then proceeded to assault one. If it’s now OK for American grrls to put their hands in violence on a cop — while others watch and learn — then the next time ANY male tries to restrict her in ANY way, what do you imagine he will get? I can answer that question, having been on the receiving end of a number of physical attacks by females, for my sin of not obeying some woman I’ve never even seen before. Smart-assed little thugs.

    If she mouths-down and shoves the MALE cop, and walks away smirking (as they do when it’s not a male with arrest powers) then the people watching will figure that’s the standard to be followed. And that’s something I don’t want them thinking, any more than they already do.

    Of course now this skank is a hero to the Left. Who could predict? lol

  206. Oscar says:

    Ray,

    Exactly. The only positive I can glean from that story is that as princess becomes more famous, young men will know to avoid her like herpes.

  207. Boxer says:

    Dear Phil:

    So what does Patterson do? Expel the falsely accused man, but let the false accuser stay enrolled and simply encourage her to keep telling her fabrication to the police!

    Are you certain she was allowed to stay enrolled without consequences?

    I don’t have a source, but as I was reading different accounts of this, I got the impression that they were both expelled (really, that’s as it should be, as sexual intercourse is against the honor code and what not…). Even so, it’s interesting how slippery the language is. I’m not entirely sure the girl was expelled, now.

    Thanks,

    Boxer

  208. Sharkly says:

    Deep Strength said: Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. …
    There are always going to be women/wives who give into being contentious and rebellious and try to set themselves up as the god of their own relationships, despite creating the best possible conditions for them.

    That is why I ruled that out by starting off saying; “If every woman looked up to her husband as the manifestation of lordship in her life, and believed him to be superior to a degree that she should never attempt to usurp him,”

    The rebellion and contention are usurpations of the husband’s headship role. They most likely begin with the wife thinking she can be just as good or better at choosing their course than her husband. The prideful and wrong thinking leads to the contentious and rebellious words and actions. She can never choose better than to choose to submit to God, and through His command her husband. Even if it hurts, or costs, obeying God at all cost, even unto death, is our calling. You can’t outsmart God. Either you obey or you rebel, there is no room to second guess God and think; He’d really want me to ignore His commands in this situation and do my own thing.

  209. info says:

    Here is one of the insiders view on this:

    http://www.singlemind.net/?p=9791

  210. @Ray

    Clearly you’ve never been on the wrong end of the law before. I hope that one day, every single cop-worshipping American who enjoys watching videos of citizens being assaulted and murdered by our precious Boys in Blue are themselves subject to false allegations of domestic violence, surprised, mocked and scorned by police officers in your own home, paraded from that home in front of your neighbors in handcuffs, booked, and left to rot in jail for several days as I was. The experience will leave you with a changed opinion from the standard tradcon #BlueLivesMatter nonsense you espouse.

    There is no such thing as due process. There is no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty.” There is no such thing as “equal justice before the law.” Men such as you have never had to face the receiving end of the criminal justice system and think it’s because there’s something special about your character or behavior. In fact it is only the good fortune that any female associate of yours has not decided to pick up the phone and make an allegation to police. Every man is just one phone call away from a living nightmare at the hands of our overly revered and corrupt police, prosecutors, and judges.

  211. ys says:

    To Boxer and others-
    I got the impression that the male student was expelled and the female would have been, but she was repentant…I assume the male she slept with wasn’t? That could be wrong, and some administrative white-knighting could have taken place, no doubt. But that was how I looked at it.
    Either way, sounds like Patterson is a victim of rape being declared retroactively. The monster! He should have known she would call it rape 15 years later and acted accordingly.

  212. @ Sharkly

    Obedience in one area of life (marriage) does not mean that women (or men for that matter) are not rebellious in other facets. Even Peter got hung up over circumcision until Paul rebuked him in Galatians 2.

    The “problem that has no name” via Betty Friedan is not simply about obedience in marriage. The women/wives lusted after higher education, high status jobs, and things like that. Discontent is not simply about headship and submission.

  213. Hmm says:

    @Phil:

    Looking at what happened through my Evangelical lens, here’s what I see:

    – Two Christian college students have sex. She says it’s rape. Police are called. College does the right thing.

    – He comes with evidence that it was consensual. He had sex with a college girl in violation of the college’s moral code and admitted it. He’s not arrested, but he is expelled. No problem. College does the right thing.

    Also, if the guy has done this once, he has probably done this multiple times. Christian college girls are easy alpha prey.

    – She continues to claim that she was raped but refuses to press charges despite the fact she was encouraged several times to do so. His evidence of consent must not be compelling enough. to determine whether she had sex willingly or not without a trial (which she has prevented by not pressing charges), so she is warned and allowed to stay. Moderately problematic, but it comes down to he said – she said, and Biblical due process doesn’t allow you to proceed with a determination of guilt or innocence with only one witness on each side. College does the right thing.

    Alternatively, she repents and admits that it was consensual, but says she wants to change her life and is both thankful to the college for helping her, and indicates that she thinks continuing at the college will help her keep going the straight way. College has mercy. College does the right thing.
    _____

    Where does it go wrong now? Girl was shamed by not being believed unconditionally. They listened to HIM! College (and Paige Patterson) was wrong, wrong, wrong! Press smite key!

  214. Hmm says:

    Hadn’t seen ys when I wrote. Looks like we were on the same page.

  215. MKT says:

    Here’s a recent Facebook post by Robert Gagnon (one of the few non-SJW “good guys” remaining in the Evangelical world):

    “I have been notified by several sources that another major attack piece or ‘bombshell’ (depending on how you want to look at it) concerning Paige Patterson is about to appear in (you guessed it) the Washington Post. It will be about his alleged involvement with hiding Paul Pressler’s alleged sex with boys.”

    Maybe one of the new, Gender-Inclusive, LGBQT/Feminist-friendly, Hipster Bible “translations” should substitute “Washington Post” with “elder” in Matthew 18. It could read something like this:

    “15 “If your brother, sister or anyone of the other 62 gender categories sins, go and point out their fault just between the two of you…nah, just go online with. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, bring it to the attention of the Gospel Coalition or other SJW-lite group. 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the Washington Post; and if they refuse to listen even to them; treat them as you would any other patriarchal, toxic male heretic.”

  216. Kevin says:

    I watched the video with the objectification comments.

    Everywhere in the US girls from the ages of 12-30 dress like prostitutes but the rather timid comments from Petersen constitute a crisis of faith?!? What false and silly piousness. Do these people even know where babies come from? What a joke.

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    Looking at what happened through my Evangelical lens, here’s what I see:

    Using logic is not needed. The incident was unclear, therefore it can be used as a club to bludgeon Patterson. What matters is levering him out of his position without any pension in order to attack his theology. It’s a longer term game being played.

    Remember, Patterson helped to set up these women’s studies degrees in seminary in the first place. He planted the weed and now it’s poisoned him. He buried the landmines and now they have blown him up. He helped to create the monster that has now thrown him out the window. He did all this why? Probably to keep his wife haaaapy…

    You are responding to an Alinsky-style emotional attack with reason. This is why tradcons lose to feminists over and over again, because women are not men who can have babies.

  218. Robert What? says:

    Remind me: why do men still go to mainstream churches at all anymore?

  219. Sharkly says:

    Why do men still go to mainstream churches?

    Because their pulpiteers tell them they are commanded to:

    Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

    Once men figure out that they can do that here, on Dalrock’s site, without having their marriage adversely meddled with and getting cucked further by the Feminist, vagina worshipping “churches”, they will have even less congregants.

    If a daily post here can often get 500 comments, for a total of around 2,000 comments per week. That is a lot of fellowship going on. Last time I was in a church, nobody would have spoken to me, except superficial greetings, if I hadn’t cornered the pastor to have a word with him. Now I’ve got Christian fellowship all week long, and some other fellows too. And some do encourage me, and some do stimulate me, and some even stimulate me to love and good deeds. So I think this qualifies as assembling together, even though I can’t punch anybody or ogle their scantily dressed wives and all the other stuff I might do in an old ‘bricks and mortar’ church.

  220. American says:

    I’m going to have to object to Mohler’s ‘persecution of the godly is from God’ theology as it’s patently false.

  221. bdash 77 says:

    @robert

    men are leading the feminist charge….

    they want their wives to use their leadership skills to run the churches….
    they want to submit to their wives…

  222. info says:

    @Kevin
    The USA have this strand of “Puritanism” With either rampant promiscuity or absolute frigidity.

    Its irresponsible sex or anti-sex but not sanity on sex within wedlock. All promiscuity belongs in the wedding bed and frigidity outside of it.

  223. Hmm says:

    @AR:

    I know that reason doesn’t work with SJW’s. That’s no cause for rejecting it among ourselves.

  224. feeriker says:

    Remember, Patterson helped to set up these women’s studies degrees in seminary in the first place. He planted the weed and now it’s poisoned him. He buried the landmines and now they have blown him up. He helped to create the monster that has now thrown him out the window. He did all this why? Probably to keep his wife haaaapy…

    Yup. This is why I’m not shedding any tears for Patterson, even though I’m angered and appalled (though absolutely NOT shocked) by what his attackers are doing

  225. Pingback: Fathers are jokes. | Dalrock

  226. Pingback: Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate | Σ Frame

  227. Pingback: Fifth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy! | Secular Patriarchy

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.