Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7.

Earlier this week Pastor Doug Wilson published a post titled:  On a Wife Deciding to Leave Her Husband.  What most readers likely won’t notice is that Wilson has created a truly novel reading of 1 Cor 7.  Wilson explains that when the Apostle Paul commands wives not to leave their husbands, he was really telling wives they were free to leave their husbands if they felt justified in doing so (all emphasis mine):

It is interesting here that Paul advises a woman not to leave if she can help it—“the wife should not separate from her husband.” That is his apostolic counsel, but it is clear from the context that it is merely advice. If she sees that his generally good advice is not pertinent to her situation, she is left free to leave without being hassled about it by the apostle. So if he would leave you alone in this decision, then so should the elders of your church.

It is also interesting that Paul does not here get into the grounds for the separation. If there are not grounds for a divorce that allows for a subsequent remarriage, the church doesn’t adjudicate it. If the parties are willing, the church must provide pastoral counsel, but if there is simply a separation over intractable differences, Paul just allows for the separation, even though it may be one that has gone against his counsel—he did in fact urge the wife not to separate from her husband. Note also that it is the wife he is exhorting in this passage, meaning that in the larger scheme of things, he is assuming that wives could have plausible reasons for thinking they had to go. Husbands can be brutal, as the apostle knew.

For reference, here is the Scripture where Wilson says the Apostle Paul tells wives they are free to separate from their husbands if they see fit (NIV):

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

It gets worse.  Not only does Wilson claim that when Scripture says “Don’t do this” it really means “you are free to do this”, he then takes it a step further and claims that Scripture (and God) is urging wives to separate from their husbands if they feel their husband is sinning.  Don’t do this becomes you are commanded to do this!

And so, given what you have described, my counsel would be for you to go. If you are concerned for your husband’s salvation—as you should be—you are far more likely to be used as an instrument to bring him to repentance as you pursue obedience to God this way. For the rest, leave the consequences to God. “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband” (1 Cor. 7:16).

Here is the relevant Scripture, in context (NIV):

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Wilson has taken an exhortation to remain together and twisted it to an exhortation to separate!  As I wrote in the opening, very few of his readers are likely to notice this.  A plain reading of Scripture is a dangerous thing for complementarians, so Wilson reversing the meaning of Scripture will be a welcome relief for many*.  Holding to a plain reading of 1 Pet 3 (among other charges) recently caused Dr. Paige Patterson to be hounded from his position as president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Thankfully Pastor Wilson ignores 1 Pet 3 entirely in his analysis of a wife’s proper response to a sinning husband, and thereby limits his violence to 1 Cor 7 and a creative interpretation of Deut. 23:15.

*For those who weren’t already hungering for an interpretation that reversed the plain instructions of Scripture, Wilson is forced to rely on sheer volume of pretzel logic.

H/T JF & 7817

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. Paige Patterson, Pastor Doug Wilson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

202 Responses to Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7.

  1. earl says:

    ‘To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.’

    Highlighted to point out who Pastor Wilson is NOT following.

  2. The whole fictional letter is a masterpiece of prooftexting; Wilson brings in laws about escaped slaves and argues that these laws justify women leaving their husbands even when they cannot prove abuse. And what if some wives leave innocent husbands? Ah, well, shrugs Wilson; better that than the other way around!

  3. Pingback: Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7. | @the_arv

  4. Paul says:

    Awful, but nothing new really. David Instone-Brewer followed the same course in his well-acclaimed “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context”. In it he argues a.o. that the hardness of hearth in Mat 19 refers to the UNWILLINGNESS of the Pharisees to GIVE their wives a certificate of divorce. Yes, really. Throughout the years I’ve found that many so-called pastors and theologians somehow seem to arrive at the direct opposite conclusion from what a plain reading of scripture reveals.

  5. Paul says:

    That’s “hardness of heart” actually…

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Heidi storage

    And what if some wives leave innocent husbands? Ah, well, shrugs Wilson; better that than the other way around!

    He also claims the men will be better off if the rebellious wife leaves the husband, since she must be a liar. But at the same time, he argues that wives should leave guilty husbands since it is how they can stress their husband into changing. He wants to have it both ways. He argues that God demands wives use the holy threatpoint, the wakeup call, in order to make the husband do what they would otherwise not be willing to do. But if the husband is innocent, this same act of coercion is claimed to be no big deal. He got off lucky, since he doesn’t have to deal with a lying wife anymore.

  7. Caspar Reyes says:

    Wilson goes all Fireproof ‘n’ sheeit

  8. Mocheirge says:

    ‘To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.’

    Highlighted to point out who Pastor Wilson is NOT following.

    Paul was mistaken about the origin of that command because, as Wilson has explained previously, actual commands from God arrive through tingles, resulting in a noticeable aroma. Therefore, it really is just advice from Paul. And since Paul falsely attributed it to God, it must mean that it is contra the truth. Ergo, the Lord ackshually expects wives to separate from their husbands to collect cash and valuable prizes.

  9. Jonathan Castle says:

    You are doing good and needful work, Dalrock. Thank you.

    When a ‘pastor’ goes from just ignoring a difficult and convicting passage to retelling it in reverse, they have crossed into false prophet territory.

  10. @Dalrock: Well, there you go, then: Leaving one’s husband is a good thing, whether he’s innocent or guilty. I guess you gentlemen should stop worrying about the risk of divorce, then, since it benefits you either way! I am sure that all of the commenters on here who have been divorced and soaked for alimony or child support will agree….

  11. Gunner Q says:

    “That is his apostolic counsel, but it is clear from the context that it is merely advice.”

    https://i0.wp.com/gunnerqcom.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/mereguidelines.jpg?ssl=1&w=450

  12. Gunner Q says:

    I can’t embed a meme to save my life. Try again:

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    General Relativity of Christian Separation: When it appears on an inertial reference frame that a Christian woman leaves her Christian husband, it actually is seen from the woman’s POV that it is the man who leaves the Christian woman and also loses his Christianity by separation dilation. Thus, he is now the unbeliever who leaves the Christian wife.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    One good thing that David Instone-Brewer found from his research was the whole divorce debate at the time of Jesus. Clearly, many Pharisees used Moses’s words to claim that divorce could be had “at any cause”, including not cleaning the dishes, etc. A Biblical “no-fault” divorce developed at the time.

    I’m not saying David Instone-Brewer’s conclusions are necessarily right, however.

  15. ray says:

    ‘Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ (1 Cor. 7:1)

    There’s the starting point. That’s the baseline. Don’t touch ANY female with a sexual or sensual intent. Zee-row. This is GOOD. You won’t go into with-drawl or psychosis if you abstain from touching females. You won’t lose your man-status, as the Gamers insist. Instead, you will be BETTER for it.

    Put another way, the sexualized society is the feminist society, because ‘touching a woman’ translates into raw political and legal power, which assuredly will be used against you, individually and collectively. The Sisterhood WANTS your addiction to sex and female approval, and so does the Feminist State. #MeToo has nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with subjugating men.

    Now, if you’re overwhelmed by libido — and many boys and men are — then, all the other stuff about marrying etc. follows Scripturally. But note, anything other than NO sexual touching of females places you under the power of others. You have ALREADY wandered out onto the thin end of the plank.

    Then, in verse 7, Paul re-emphasizes verse 1, saying in effect that’s it is BETTER for males to remain celibate than to marry. However, etc.

    Every Christian pastor — especially in the feminist West — is responsible for issuing this warning to congregations. To do less is to lead men into slavery, and society into certain destruction. How many issue such warnings? Indeed, as this site documents exhaustively, they do the exact opposite.

    Like I said, American Christianity is d-e-d. Zombie Land.

  16. theShield220 says:

    Paul must be a “wordsmith” like Mr. Wilson.
    You know those old video games where, if you got a high enough score, the limited number of digits available forced the counter to roll back around to zero? I think that’s what happened: Douglas Wilson is such a deep thinker, he plowed right through to the other side of the logical universe!

  17. earl says:

    Gunner Q mentioned something like this before…but perhaps it could be summarized as this.

    The churchian message for women is to not get or stay married.

  18. ray says:

    Wilson is a liar and a coward. Paul SPECIFICALLY prefaces verse 10 by interjecting that HE, Paul, is not communicating the directive for the wife not to leave the husband, but that it is the COMMAND OF THE LORD. (‘. . . unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord’). Meaning, the directive isn’t something Paul speculates about, but is a direct transmission from King Jeshua. That means what follows is the LAW. Period.

    In verse 12, Paul then makes certain to distinguish his own directives from those specifically required, and commanded, by the Lord (‘But to the rest speak I, not the Lord’). What follows then is not a direct commandment from God, but Paul’s surmise, based on teachings received from Jeshua. However, unless your authority from heaven exceeds that of apostle Paul, let me suggest you damn well better do what he, uh, suggests.

    Catch you later, Duggie.

  19. Nick Mgtow says:

    “Did God really say that wives shouldn’t leave their husbands?” See what I did here?

  20. ray says:

    Related:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/exclusive-kimberly-guilfoyle-left-fox-news-after-investigation-into-misconduct-allegations-sources-say/ar-BBL8scr?ocid=spartanntp

    Gee, wasn’t long ago that I was monitoring FOX News (you know, the ‘alternative’ network) concerning the #MeToo pogrom against boys and men, and ALL the GRRLLS of ‘alternative’ FOX News were DOWN, baby, DOWN with the #MeToo Campaign. Tight-skirted Kimmy, too!

    Went round ‘n round with the Cuckservatives at Breitbart and American Thinker about their proud solidarity with the latest beatdown from the United Sisterhood. How DARE I stand up for rapists, abusers, perpetrators, and etc? Yawn, the usual.

    Turns out that Kommandante Kimmy had her hand further in the cookie-jar than many of those Evil Rapey Males! Who could EVER have predicted such hypocrisy and treachery?

    Equality for thee, no Equality for me. Justice for thee, and Just-Sis for me. Very tidy indeed.

    Oh! Look! Snug-skirt Kimmy is a former PROSECUTOR from San Francisco County. If fills me with such confidence that Kimmy, the Grrls, and the Prison Guards’ Union are firmly on the side of zero tolerance for sexual harassers, rapists, perpetrators, abusers, mansplainers, and all the rest. I’m pretty sure that God is well-pleased with it, too. Make that #MeToo.

  21. Jed Mask says:

    Yo elder Bro. Dalrock…

    Please do us all a favor and quote Scripture only from GOD’S WORD in the KING JAMES VERSION HOLY BIBLE. Thank you!: https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/worship.htm
    ________________

    If you REALLY CARE about GOD you’ll get this right elder brother.

    Otherwise, that’s a “knock” on the content you produce when you use “corrupt” counterfeit copies of the Holy Scriptures. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  22. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nick Mtgow

    “Did God really say that wives shouldn’t leave their husbands?” See what I did here?

    Exactly right.

    Before I believed Wilson to be deeply confused, arrogant, and weirdly prejudiced. That post revealed him as a fraud who does service for the Deceiver.

  23. Damn Crackers says:

    @Bro. Jed

    How good is your Greek and Hebrew?

  24. Boxer says:

    Wilson is a liar and a coward. Paul SPECIFICALLY prefaces verse 10 by interjecting that HE, Paul, is not communicating the directive for the wife not to leave the husband, but that it is the COMMAND OF THE LORD. (‘. . . unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord’). Meaning, the directive isn’t something Paul speculates about, but is a direct transmission from King Jeshua. That means what follows is the LAW. Period.

    The bottom line is that all of these lying Christian priests only get away with this nonsense thanks to the men in their congregations.

    The day the men quit sending these lying Christian perverts their money, is the day the bottom falls out of this racket.

  25. earl says:

    Guilfoyle said that, as a single mother, she had to think of her son’s financial future and couldn’t afford to leave the high-paying gig, multiple sources told HuffPost.

    Want to know how she became a ‘single mother’…I’ll give you a hint, it starts with a d and ends with an e.

    It wouldn’t shock me she was trying to latch onto some other sugar daddy through her ‘tingles’ to pay for her unrepentant mistakes.

  26. BillyS says:

    It is very possible people like this fall under Proverbs proclamation that God hates those who sow discord under brethren.

  27. earl says:

    I’ve looked at some of the bios of the FemFox network….those cuckservative gals just as good at being ball busting feminists as their liberal sisters. Tomi Lahren isn’t an anomaly…she’s the norm.

  28. Cindy Dyer says:

    I sure hope Wilson is getting wind of your rebukes. He is in sore need of some rebukin’.

  29. Jed Mask says:

    Yo, also, everyone check this out from Bro. Wintery Knight: https://winteryknight.com/2016/03/16/if-youre-thinking-of-marrying-have-enough-money-saved-to-keep-your-kids-out-of-public-schools/
    _____________

    Good stuff. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  30. Gunner Q says:

    “Gunner Q mentioned something like this before…but perhaps it could be summarized as this.”

    ‘The Churchian message for sexuality is “wait for marriage” to guys and “don’t get married” to girls.’ is what you’re probably thinking about. But Wilson here is in total cognitive dissonance with quotes like “Paul just allows for the separation, even though it may be one that has gone against his counsel”.

  31. Rpro says:

    I had deep thoughts about marriage. If i got married, I’d be consecrated to her. Where she becomes my responsibility for life. One way or another. In marriage i have to give her sound advice, back up the checks that she writes as just a few examples. After divorce, she’s still the mother of my kids. When she runs out of lovers to help her, she’ll call me. For life. But if i became divorced i can’t marry another because i had already chosen a wife, and she abandoned her role. Sure i can have a concubine like Abraham but i already chose my wife. Thot life has guaranteed enough already used up concubines to last me well into old age so wives truly need to step it up or give up hope of the princess wedding.

  32. BillyS says:

    RPro,

    Believe what you want, but I find no Scriptural command to stay loyal to a wife that divorces you. Even Hosea’s wife was just unfaithful.

    I am sure some here will argue, but she is acting like an unbeliever (and may be one) so you are under no obligation to her per the Scriptures. She left you, you didn’t leave her.

    You still may be better off being alone, but you have no obligation to be her financial or any other backstop at this point.

  33. feeriker says:

    The bottom line is that all of these lying Christian priests only get away with this nonsense thanks to the men in their congregations.

    The day the men quit sending these lying Christian perverts their money, is the day the bottom falls out of this racket.

    I’ve been screaming this for years and have the hoarse voice to prove it. Unfortunately, too many men –including many hereabouts– are hopelessly mired in the quicksand of denial. They’ve convinced themselves that it’s just unimaginable that multitudes of talentless frauds incapable of either making a remunerative honest living on the strengths of their own abilities or who utterly lack a genuine, committed relationship with Jesus whom they should be entrusting with every aspect of their lives would abuse their positions of trust and leadership over others for personal gain or spreading Satan’s seed.

    Even though omnipresent evidence shows that the modern “church” they insist on attending is firmly in the grip of such grifters and that their fellow congregants are almost all self-deluded, itchy-eared poseurs who merely seek a veneer of pseudo-christian approval for their worldly conduct, they STILL insist on playing along with the charade, even when it’s obviously to their own detriment (spiritually, financially, and maritally).

    Some guys can’t learn except by getting bloodied by a graduate degree from the University of Hard Knocks.

  34. White guy says:

    Wilson is a “James 1” man:
    he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
    James 1:8 ESV

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wilson and other preachers give special privileges to women, then complain that men are not being masculine enough to fulfill their roles according to the Bible. They also wonder why men under 30 are less willing to marry, but cannot see why that is.

    Western society has given so many special privileges to women, they are becoming a kind of nobility. Little wonder that some men are deciding “if you can’t beat them, join them” and putting on a dress.

    https://debatereport.com/canada/alberta-man-identifies-as-woman-and-saves-1094-on-car-insurance/6564

    I’m sure Wilson would splutter at the very idea that he is in any way encouraging transvestism, yet he is. Conservative feminists are always ready to enable women to become “one of the guys” by bending rules, lowering standards, etc. That’s F -> M transvestism. The same preachers are giving so much covert and overt authority to women that men are increasingly trapped between two jaws of the same pincer; one way out is to stop being a “man” who has to play by “man rules” and become a “woman”, in order to get to play by the much different set of “woman rules”.

    Wilson has contributed to the further feminization of his church with this latest effort.

  36. OKRickety says:

    Bro. Jed: ‘Please do us all a favor and quote Scripture only from GOD’S WORD in the KING JAMES VERSION HOLY BIBLE. Thank you!

    Otherwise, that’s a “knock” on the content you produce when you use “corrupt” counterfeit copies of the Holy Scriptures.’

    So far, I have not found the Scripture stating that the King James Version is the only genuine copy of the Holy Scriptures. If you would be so kind, please provide the Biblical reference. Note: I won’t be holding my breath until then.

    If you can’t, and accuracy is that important to you, then I second Damn Crackers: “@Bro. Jed, How good is your Greek and Hebrew?”

  37. Pingback: Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7. | Reaction Times

  38. HOW TO LEAVE YOUR HUSBAND
    On one side of a 4″ X 6″ card I could write a surefire MANUAL that would teach an unhappy “Christian” wife how to leave her “good-for-nothing” husband and never ever be accused of breaking her wedding vows and breaking God’s marriage covenant!

    It is so easy today for a sobbing, unhappy “Christian” wife with a well rehearsed STORY to gain the sympathy of her pastor and then watch her church roll out the red carpet for her departure from her abusive husband!

    This is a breeze because everyone in western culture is already conditioned to believe wives are wonderful and husbands are scum. Therefore she enjoys “Wife Privilege!” Whatever she claims about her husband is going to be believed!

    You need to understand that any unhappy “Christian” wife without a legitimate reason for leaving her husband is already demonstrating little or no fear of God. Therefore, LYING will come very easy to her due to her perceived lack of accountability with the Lord.

    My 4 X 6 CARD would instruct the wife when she’s in the pastor’s office and about to finish her story, she begins crying uncontrollably and says “HE…HE…HE RA…RAPED ME WITH A BR..BR…BROOM HAN…HANDEL!”…and say not another word.

    And its GAME OVER! The unhappy crying wife wins the pastor’s full support, and the pastor quietly informs a few others in his church she is being horribly abused. And the wife’s story of abuse spreads to others. The pastor will be so disgusted with her horrid husband that he won’t ever confront him. The broom handle event must be true! No wife would ever “make that up.”

    Pastor Wilson’s closing statement after his lengthy letter says it all:
    “And so __________, given what you have described, my counsel would be for you to go.”

    Did Pastor Wilson call the husband (the head)? Nope!

    See, the pastor fell for her story, and she didn’t even use my 4 X 6 MANUAL! This is what today’s pastors do! And today’s husbands never learn what their wives said about them to get out of their marriages.

    And once the pastor agrees to help an unhappy wife leave her husband, she then tells her family, friends and neighbors and even her in-laws, “The pastor supports my leaving him and he’s even helping me!” And now this jilted husband is toast! Even his friends shun him.

  39. All the weddings I went to between 1997-2003 (college and grad school friends) and it was about twelve……three in the summer of 1998….it was funny, all the same people were at each one…would make for a funny movie or TV sitcom…..Chicago, New Haven, and Boston.

    Of the twelve couples…..two are still together. The rest divorced / separated……all were initiated by the wife.

    What I found psychotic by the men who were anally raped by these divorces, lined up immediately to date, hook-up and remarry rather quickly…or have an “ooops” baby with with said hook-up..and many got divorced a second time.

  40. earl says:

    You need to understand that any unhappy “Christian” wife without a legitimate reason for leaving her husband is already demonstrating little or no fear of God.

    The way a lot of them live their lives before marriage demonstrates how little they fear God.

  41. earl says:

    Of course it’s hard to fear God when you delude yourself into thinking that boyfriend Jesus agrees with everything you do and that because He loves you…you can justify doing whatever you want.

  42. feeriker says:

    Wilson and other preachers give special privileges to women, then complain that men are not being masculine enough to fulfill their roles according to the Bible.

    If these Satan-serving pastorbator frauds (and that certainly includes Dougie Wilson) were honest, they would admit that they DO NOT WANT men in their congregations at all.

    In addition to the irresistible pull of the “soft harem” that results from an all-female following, these frauds are well aware of how true is the biblical maxim that women are the weaker sex, very easily deceived and manipulated. Strong Christian men, OTOH, are a most definite threat to their positions of power and influence, as they are biblically literate, brook no heresy, and are very quick to “raise the BS flag” on false teaching and pastoral misconduct. The LAST thing these churchian pastorbator frauds want is a congregation full of strong Christian men eager to teach and lead! That will send their empire crashing down in flames before it ever arises. This is why these pastorbator frauds create atmospheres in their churches that are tolerable only to the most cucked of pussy-whipped, ignorant, weak-willed beta simps who pose no threat to them.

  43. Boxer says:

    What I found psychotic by the men who were anally raped by these divorces, lined up immediately to date, hook-up and remarry rather quickly…or have an “ooops” baby with with said hook-up..and many got divorced a second time.

    Slavery is the natural state of most men. We are anomalous.

  44. tbayly says:

    Men, please check out the postscript Doug just added to this post. It ameliorates my concerns, and I hope it does yours, also.

  45. Luke says:

    seventiesjason says:
    July 27, 2018 at 5:01 pm
    “All the weddings I went to between 1997-2003 (college and grad school friends) and it was about twelve……three in the summer of 1998….it was funny, all the same people were at each one…would make for a funny movie or TV sitcom…..Chicago, New Haven, and Boston.

    Of the twelve couples…..two are still together. The rest divorced / separated……all were initiated by the wife.

    What I found psychotic by the men who were anally raped by these divorces, lined up immediately to date, hook-up and remarry rather quickly…or have an “ooops” baby with with said hook-up..and many got divorced a second time.”

    I am on my second marriage, but it is definitely my last one, even if my wife keeled over tomorrow.
    My first marriage was to a kind, but weak (WRT telling her F’ed up adolescent then adult children NO) woman. I came to want children, and knew (aside from her age) I could never have them in that marriage. She, to her credit, did not try to take me to the cleaners when I bailed. (This was two years before I became Christian.)
    My second marriage, is to a woman that revealed herself as Churchian and more than a little feminist. (Titus, Timothy, and Proverbs are not in her Bible, to say nothing of Corinthians and Ephesians.) But, we have children together, and she graciously allows me to stay in the house I pay for.
    Were I to one day date again, I like to think I’d tell a prospective LTR early on that marriage is off the table, not just because of likely financial ruin in the event of frivorce, but because I don’t want to stop having sex. Oh, and I hope I’d tell her that the second time she so much as hints toward marriage or cohabitation, that’d I’d walk without a look back — and then do it, if she tries it.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Men, please check out the postscript Doug just added to this post. It ameliorates my concerns, and I hope it does yours, also.

    No idea what your concerns are, but one pedestalizing TradCon bringing other pedestalizing TradCons in doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. Everything I wrote above in my previous comment stands.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Someone let me know when Doug Wilson or any other celebrity pastor writes a letter to an imaginary wife who has been defrauding her imaginary husband in the sense of the “marriage debt”. I’ll really want to read that. In the mean time, there’s better advice from the late Robert Heinlein who was not even close to a Christian…

    “Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

  48. Dalrock says:

    @tbayly

    Men, please check out the postscript Doug just added to this post. It ameliorates my concerns, and I hope it does yours, also.

    Thanks for the heads up. However, I don’t see how it helps. Pastor Wilson’s absurd interpretation of 1 Cor 7 is the problem. Him changing the hypothetical doesn’t change that. Are you in agreement with what he is teaching is Paul’s message in 1 Cor 7?

  49. Cane Caldo says:

    @tbayly

    Glad to see you read Dalrock!

    That being said: Wilson’s just wrong; and not just wrong but lied about what God instructed through St. Paul. I see no cause for you to be ameliorated.

    In the future I should refer to him as Duluth Wilson.

  50. JRob says:

    @feeriker
    Some guys can’t learn except by getting bloodied by a graduate degree from the University of Hard Knocks.

    @seventiesjason
    What I found psychotic by the men who were anally raped by these divorces, lined up immediately to date, hook-up and remarry rather quickly…or have an “ooops” baby with with said hook-up..and many got divorced a second time.

    Man up, marry those sluts!
    I learned the hard way, most in my circle of influence do not. They will not listen, and are angered by truth.
    One fellow I know married three good Baptiskanks over a twenty-five year period, each one cleaned him out. He’s drawing maybe a third of his retirement. Dude was Rocky, ‘cept every time he got up off the mat he bled houses and 401k money. This stuff is for keeps, kids.
    Vox clamantis en deserto

  51. dvdivx says:

    Dalrock-
    I don’t get the focus on Wilson. The man is a wolf in sheep’s cloths. Plenty or other wolfs out there. Joel Osteen or any other prosperity preacher, https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/the-gayest-church-in-the-world/
    Any church that mentions goddess anywhere. After exposing a snake you don’t have to expose them weekly. .You had great luck with looking for fathers day sermons.

  52. feeriker says:

    Someone let me know when Doug Wilson or any other celebrity pastor writes a letter to an imaginary wife who has been defrauding her imaginary husband in the sense of the “marriage debt”. I’ll really want to read that.

    I think FotF publishes one on the 41st of each month.

  53. Splashman says:

    The KJV-only folks amaze me. And not in a good way.

    Anybody who’s interested, Google something like “errors in KJV” and do some reading.

  54. Minesweeper says:

    @ray says:‘Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ (1 Cor. 7:1)

    ha ! i brought this up a while back, didn’t go down too well, but it seems in the era of #metoo maybe Paul was onto something indeed. I personally think its a great piece of advice. Its not talking about feeling a woman up or f***ing her, its talking about exactly what it says, no hand shakes\hugs\touching etc.

    Maybe even talking in the workplace is going that way. It seems women are unfortunately (unless your married to a decent one) completely ruinous to have contact with. Which for them is very unfortunate as they seem to fall to pieces without male guidance on their lives.

    I friend told me a familiar tale tonight, his bride to be went on a fully paid up holiday (on him) with friends and could do nothing but complain the entire time(to him), he on the other hand was delighted to have a week away from her. (I tried to warn him about marriage in today’s world – maybe some of it went in)

    I’ve been there and it really,really is a thing, You really have to wonder why men on average delight in getting a break from their females but the females experience exactly the opposite.

    If you think not shaking a woman’s hand is outrageous give them twenty years.

    also that idiot doug wilson (cant use the word pastor its an insult to the word) its like the gospel according to bart simpson, its too stupid to even engage with.

  55. Boxer says:

    The KJV-only folks amaze me. And not in a good way.

    It’s hard not to appreciate the King James Version. It is arguably the most important text in the English language. (Evangelical atheists will argue that Shakespeare is more important – OK, it’s the second most important, it’s still impossible not to appreciate it.)

    Anybody who’s interested, Google something like “errors in KJV” and do some reading.

    What sort of errors would we be looking for, exactly? Bear in mind that the KJV is the blueprint for our civilization. If you mean translation errors, well, that’s great. I’m sure the people who want to recreate 4th century Greece someplace can sweat that stuff. Our civilization was set up with the help of the KJV, because we speak English, and the KJV strikes me as pretty much perfect as is.

  56. Minesweeper says:

    @Splashman says:” The KJV-only folks amaze me. And not in a good way.
    Anybody who’s interested, Google something like “errors in KJV” and do some reading.”

    I hear you, the KJV for all its plusses, has introduced some error into all our english translations as they are all based from it. Nowadays with the original language (greek\hebrew) words into english easily available, there really isn’t much excuse to stick your line in the sand on a originally culturally co-opted translation which has been badly misunderstood and altered again.

    I’m amazed at the stuff that is so significantly different from the original text. The translations won’t go against what the church culturally thinks, even if its wrong. A classic is when Jesus talked about communion, the greek says “do this so I remember you” – its translated into all as “do this so you remember me” – but I guess the notion of us reminding God that we are here was just too much for the church to take in.

  57. Sharkly says:

    Cane Caldo says: Before I believed Wilson to be deeply confused, arrogant, and weirdly prejudiced. That post revealed him as a fraud who does service for the Deceiver.

    I’m way ahead of ya there. I discovered Wilson, before I found Dalrock’s site. After reading 3 or 4 of his articles I decided, that even though he pretended to support Biblical Patriarchy, there were enough critical unforced errors in his play, that he was throwing the game for the other team. Whether he realizes it or not. He was like the old illustration about a large bucket of pure water with a cup of sewage in it. He is offering a cup of cold water(with sewage) in the name of Christ, but don’t drink it, it will make you sick, and might even kill you.
    This is my church at the moment. It never hurts to keep pointing out the falseness of false teachers, especially because of how people find stuff on the internet.

  58. g says:

    Time for a new, feminist bible.

  59. illuvitus says:

    “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?”

    Paul tells believers they are not obligated to their unbelieving spouses if those spouses abandon them. Wilson somehow takes this to mean that believers should abandon their spouses. In a passage where Paul presumes that abandonment is bad, but can’t always be avoided with an unbeliever, Wilson somehow concludes that abandonment is a sort of salvific tool for believers to use.

    It’s not even eisegesis, because at least eisegesis tries to force things into the words of a text instead of into the inverse of those words.

  60. truth_teller says:

    “Pastor” Wilson is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, full stop

  61. truth_teller says:

    “I don’t get the focus on Wilson. The man is a wolf in sheep’s cloths. Plenty or other wolfs out there. Joel Osteen or any other prosperity preacher,..”

    No, its good that Dalrock covers him from time to time, people have to be reminded of the danger. Especially those that haven’t been exposed to Wilson’s heresy.

  62. Paul says:

    @DC: “One good thing that David Instone-Brewer found from his research was the whole divorce debate at the time of Jesus.”

    Hi did dig up a lot of Jewish resources (although I’m not sure he was the one exposing the Hillel/Shammai debate/interpretation), but goes on to claim that the early Church as early as the 2nd century “forgot” the Jewish context in its interpretation of the marriage/divorce/remarriage texts, whereas DIB himself (only) was able to faithfully restore the correct interpretation. That’s ALWAYS a red flag.

  63. Paul says:

    @ray,Minesweeper: “‘Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ (1 Cor. 7:1) There’s the starting point. That’s the baseline. Don’t touch ANY female with a sexual or sensual intent. ”

    You are aware that most interpreters see 1 Cor 7:1 as referring to the question of the Corinthians to Paul? And that the translations of “touch” are different? And that Paul recommends it is better to marry and have sex-on-demand than to burn with sexual desire? And that that involves touching a woman?

  64. Mike says:

    It’s a shame, it seems Doug Wilson’s wife Nancy actually has better advice for women than Doug.

  65. rhodigian says:

    Why many pastors fear women’s rebellion to the point of shaping their preaching on such fear?

    This is the replay of what describes in Genesis 3,17 (Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’…..)

    So… the man is fallen because he listened to the advice of a woman (and by extension… of other people) more than the command of God. If such man is a pastor… he falls from a higher position. Unfortunately this is happening in some measure even in my beloved Holy Catholic Church.

  66. Scott says:

    Been there, got the t-shirt.

    When I pointed to 1COR7 as being relevant in my frivorce, I was told that I was using the scripture the “trap” her into a life prison sentence (being married to me) with a “technicality.”

    It was the “if you love someone, set them free” argument legitimized by having the elders stamp of approval on it.

    There was no abuse. No yelling. No drinking. No adultery.

  67. Minesweeper says:

    @mike, yes she is clearly more understanding of the situation than the hubby who just wants to blame men and give women a free pass to commit any sin she likes.

    @Paul says: “You are aware that most interpreters see 1 Cor 7:1 as referring to the question of the Corinthians to Paul?” – what does this mean ?

    “And that the translations of “touch” are different? ” – not in the greek they aint, have you found some other language the NT was mostly written in ?

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g680
    “Mat 9:21 – For she said within herself, If I may G680 ➔ but touch G680 his garment, I shall be whole.”

  68. Swanny River says:

    Scott brings up an interesting twist, and the believers I know hold much to the leaders he was abused by. They say openly, we believe in happiness, happiness is biblical because God is loving, and can therefore dismiss I Cor 7 if it blocks happiness because they believe they look at the bible maturely, not verse by verse.
    Where as DW looks at it verse by verse, but twists the plain meaning.
    I am glad God is carrying the fight, because thinking about it clearly knocks me to the ground.

  69. earl says:

    I was told that I was using the scripture the “trap” her into a life prison sentence (being married to me) with a “technicality.”

    Excellent reveal about how most Churchian leaders prefer the woman’s emotions over the word of God. There’s reason #1 (or 1a if you include homopredator clergy) as to why churches are failing.

  70. Dan Horton says:

    OT, but I know you’re always interested in research on the origins of romantic love. This is a link to a study saying it’s a literary universal

    Direct link to study: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.5984&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  71. Trust says:

    @: Pastor Wilson paraphrased: “He got off lucky, since he doesn’t have to deal with a lying wife anymore.”
    __________

    Yeah, one of my best friends got off “lucky” too. He doesn’t have to “deal” with his lying slutty ex wife anymore, aside from the fact that 1) he’s taken on a second job to send money to his ex wife, 2) she moved her boyfriend into the house with his four kids, 3) between two full time incomes and 25% of my friends incomes her and her boyfriend have been to Paris Hawaii and Italy in the past year.

    Yes, frivorced men “never” have to deal with their lying wives, they lying wives use the force of government as a mediator.

  72. PokeSalad says:

    RE: KJV

    “Stay on target, Luke.” Don’t let the 1 Cor 7 discussion be derailed by distractions (and distractors). If Dal wants to discuss (for the umpteenth time around here) the accuracy of various translations, he’ll start a post on it.

  73. earl says:

    “if you love someone, set them free”

    But they’ll still be more than happy to take your money and possessions…so how free from you are they really?

  74. Boxer says:

    If Dal wants to discuss (for the umpteenth time around here) the accuracy of various translations, he’ll start a post on it.

    Every time Dalrock cites the text, he posts chapter and verse. KJV purists (like me) can take one second and compare the texts. It’s not a big deal.

  75. ray says:

    [duke of] earl — “I’ve looked at some of the bios of the FemFox network….those cuckservative gals just as good at being ball busting feminists as their liberal sisters. Tomi Lahren isn’t an anomaly…she’s the norm.”

    It’s cunningly done. As befits a FOX and its Master. Rupert Murderdoc and his pansy sons are not on your side. They know they can maintain the Feminist State if sufficient numbers of ‘conservative’ males are swayed, and kept in check. So they offer up short-skirted, thirty-something women to the righty cucks, and baby do the cucks gobble-up the pap they are fed! Like supporting #MeToo. It’s as if the Warsaw Jews ran interference for Goebbels.

    I like the Gutfeld show on FOX, only thing I watch there consistently, it’s funny. And some of the guys do good investigative work, e.g., Hannity’s efforts to unravel the Deep State fake-rusky narrative is excellent work. But as long as they all toe the line on feminism, little substantive in the United Sisterhood can really change. Because that’s the foot-on-the-neck, and no politically connected ‘conservative’ is gonna rock that boat. He’d be #Next.

    Cheers.

  76. ray says:

    Minesweeper —

    I don’t reject your interp, and if you wish to carry it to the extremity of not touching females at all, I think that’s Scripturally supported by Paul, and your personal option. (What an amazing man that dood is. The kind you want in the FOXhole with you.)

    However, 1 Cor. 7:1 begins with “[C]oncerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,” so when Paul talks about the touching thing, he is referring to, I think, both a physical letter received, and the general context of his discussion in the chapter immediately prior, where he’s teaching about sex and intimacy, e.g., ‘flee fornication’ at 1 Cor. 6:18. (Hmm that’d be 6, number of man, plus 666 (18), the ‘number of a man’.) Probly jussa coincidence. :O)

    Anyway, I don’t carry 1 Cor. 7:1 to your extremity. Occasionally I touch, and am touched by, females, almost always female friends with whom a loving and casual relationship already is established. I never do it in a sexual way, however, nor give off those signals. It’s mostly to reassure them. Where I live now, such things are possible, and even common, dependent upon local standards, but in the U.S. I follow your practice, zero touch tolerance policy. Partly as spiritual protection, partly as civil-legal protection, and partly because in the United Sisterhood I don’t feel like comforting females with my physical presence, or put alternately, just buzz off o empowered ones.

    Cheers.

  77. ray says:

    Paul — “You are aware that most interpreters see 1 Cor 7:1 as referring to the question of the Corinthians to Paul? And that the translations of “touch” are different? And that Paul recommends it is better to marry and have sex-on-demand than to burn with sexual desire? And that that involves touching a woman??

    Yes. I tried to address some of this in a separate comment herein.

  78. earl says:

    So they offer up short-skirted, thirty-something women to the righty cucks, and baby do the cucks gobble-up the pap they are fed!

    I think the main reason they go to FemFox news is access to powerful men and the gobs of attention they get for showing off their legs and spouting off talking points somebody came up for them. It’s the female imperative…and that’s cuckservatism 101. To think that it’s only O’Reilly and Allies that did the sexual harassing and none of those broads are is laughable.

  79. Minesweeper says:

    @ray, yeah the letter 1 Cor was a response, the Corinthian society was very like the Armenians used to be before turkey massacred those that didnt leave. The churches would have been split down the middle, males on one side females on another, men wouldn’t even have spoken to their wives until they had been married 😀

    your position on touching females is a wise move. I just find most female behaviour to be despicable now really, even an innocent chat at work or trying to help a female somehow can now get you hauled over the coals, they have been empowered to be allegation happy at the moment and boy they dont hold back, ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot. I used to really enjoy helping out female co-workers (as lets be honest – they don’t have the same technical problem solving abilities men do – in fact no where near) but I won’t be doing that again.

    even in marriage, turns out in divorce every damm good thing you did will turn on a dime and bite you on the ass. I know quite a few men as well after divorce have had enough of their behaviour. we live in a society that not only sanctions mothers to kill their unborn but we all subsidise that via our taxes as well. lets be honest any society that allows women to kill their kids without limit will not produce women who have any respect for men either.

    hopefully things will return to a more even footing in the future maybe not in our lifetime but who knows. things cant go on as they are that is for sure, but Im also not seeing much effort to change things either, but the guys younger than me are having a very different view of women than we had, they take the current position as fact, for my gen <50's we are still saying WTF has happened ? when we were kids women seemed reasonable, marriages worked, divorce was both rare and hidden. also whats weird is that ive never had so many attractive women in their 20's trying to have a relationship with me. again not what you would expect, even attractive women are finding that men of their age group just arn't going anywhere near them or they just want them as f**k buddies. so maybe they have shot themselves in the foot in relation to everything after all.

  80. Minesweeper says:

    @earl says: “if you love someone, set them free. But they’ll still be more than happy to take your money and possessions…so how free from you are they really?”

    haha – yeah – if you love someone set them free with 50% of your salary for life and a distinct lack of freedom if you don’t pay up for you. freedom for them, slavery for you, feminist utopia.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Minesweeper
    when we were kids women seemed reasonable, marriages worked, divorce was both rare and hidden.

    It’s not 1950-something anymore. Coming to terms with reality is difficult, I really understand, but those who go through it are better off than bubble-boys like Doug Wilson. However getting through the anger phase can be difficult.

    Don’t get stuck in the anger phase. It isn’t good for you and for the people around you.

  82. Minesweeper says:

    @AR, yes it can, I do foolishly let them try and redeem themselves every now and then but of course it never works out, its alot easier to deal with if you knew things could go so horribly wrong from the get go rather than being mislead. yeah no doubt as I become more unenchanted with females and less able to let what they do slide, I will eventually have as little as possible to do with them. which is something I would never have wanted.

    i do feel sorry for women too, I know lots of women at every age who are single and not enjoying it at all, they just cant form relationships any more. Im not talking 70’s im talking 20’s-40’s. Women have been taught to drop the whole feminine comforting action, become like men but unfortunately turn into unreasonable demanding nutcases mostly.

  83. Minesweeper says:

    @AR, I mean yes you are right. I am pissed with it all.

  84. feeriker says:

    I am pissed with it all.

    I think that goes for all of us, brother. As for me, I’m actually less pissed off at women than I am at the societal institutions that have destroyed them by encouraging their feral behavior (and those “institutions” absolutely include the “church”).

  85. casparreyes says:

    OT:

    I was in a meeting at work that as it happened was all men, and we got talking about how you can’t refer to your female colleagues as “girls” ‘n’ shit along with similar topics. The boss said “the training is coming”. My point is I took the opportunity to look up that Saturday Night Live skit with Tom Brady on youtube, and it looks as though youtube has scrubbed it. All the youtube hits on that search are playing it straight.

    Have any bros here trolled their secsual harrisment indoctrination? I’d love to read anecdotes.

  86. feeriker says:

    I know lots of women at every age who are single and not enjoying it at all, they just cant form relationships any more. Im not talking 70’s im talking 20’s-40’s. Women have been taught to drop the whole feminine comforting action, become like men but unfortunately turn into unreasonable demanding nutcases mostly.

    This is why it’s such a tragedy that women are incapable of connecting cause and effect. Were they so gifted, most of them would eventually realize what their destructive behavior was doing to harm them and would reverse course.

  87. earl says:

    I know lots of women at every age who are single and not enjoying it at all, they just cant form relationships any more.

    They may not enjoy it but like feeriker said they can’t connect cause and effect.

    The reason why they are single and can’t form relationships is mainly because of them. If they really wanted to…they could easily get into a relationship because God gave them all the tools to do so, but instead they want to do their own thing and be the strong independant type. I’m tired of fighting and trying to convince women…so if their heart doesn’t desire marriage I let them go.

  88. Sharkly says:

    @casparreyes
    I didn’t troll my training, But the old guy teaching it sure did.
    About 1994, or so, I was working doing some experimental avionics prototyping/certification work on second shift for a large company. The first shift manager for the experimental avionics/instrumentation lab stayed over to teach us about Sexual Harassment. He was an old whitehaired gentleman with salty language, and long overdue to retire. I believe he had learned avionics while dodging bullets in WWII. He started out by wondering aloud; “I’m not sure why they even have me teaching you men this crap, since you don’t have any bitches on your shift.” Initially I thought that might be a joke, or an example for training purposes, but he was serious, and continued to poke fun at the ridiculousness of the Sexual Harassment training he was forced to give us throughout the entirety of it. He claimed the Sexual Harassment training to be “corporate overreach” and stupidity, just as he viewed the inclusion of women in the workforce to be the same, and let us all know it. “We shouldn’t have to put up with these dumb broads in the Avionics department!”, was typical of his own comments he interspersed throughout the training.

  89. seventiesjason says:

    You Orthodox men in here……today your tradition got a point! The Catholics and Protestants got a zero!

    On my list of “to do’s” today was to purchase a new, larger print King James Holy Bible. The one I have is my mothers from the UK, and it’s fine but I need larger print one….not gigantic print, but just larger. Also, with my mothers Bible the binding is wearing thin, pages are starting to get loose, and I read it..but its also very sentimental to me……I love the NIV for general work, reading, study…..but I wanted a new KJV Bible. I have a KJV in Welsh, and I can read that……but its not my native language, and the print is WAY too small……

    So, shirt and skinny tie donned, summer parka, docs laced up, helmet and on the scooter I went. Grabbed a haircut, freshly barbered….grabbed a coffee…..and then off to buy a bible. Something I thought would take five minutes. Santa Rosa has three Christian stores…..being a protestant….went to “Lifeway” first.

    Lifeway: A billion ‘christian romance novels’ lots of self-help christian books, ah….bibles….way in the back…….the NIV, the “life recovery bible” the “women’s bible” the “god’s girl bible” the “hip-hop bible” the “renegade translation” the “harley davidson bkers bible” the “new life translation” the “teen translation” all in different syles, covers, sizes…….

    I asked a friendly worker there for a KJV Bible…..”Ummm, well……we don’t carry that version, I know, bothers me too……..we used to…….it didn’t sell, people don’t want it anymore…..I can find you a good NIV to your liking.”

    I politely declined……..walking back out of the store……..I suddenly realized that “Lifeway” is a Hallmark / Schatz type of store for christian women and girls…knicjk-knacks, cards, pillows, even the childrens stuff was “girl geared”…..I stopped by the men’s section…..only books about “recovering from porn” and “being a father”

    So……well, no problem……..off I go to the local RC Church store right downtown………they will have a KJV Holy Bible. You would think so right?

    Nope. A billion rosaries. A billion statues of The Virgin Mary. A few of Jesus. A billion more books on Liturgy, prayer, and other holy books I do not understand the purpose of. A ton of “first Communion stuff” for kids. Lots of other candles, laminated pictures, posters and cards…….I thought at one point that the store was a “Virgin Mary” or “St. Guadalupe” store…..I asked the friendly worker for a KJV Bible…..where I could purchase one here.

    “Hmmmm, oh, yes….well, we could give you one…..hmmmm, I would have to call the one priest….look, give me your name and phone number and I can get one for you in a few days…it would be free.”

    Very nice gesture, But no.

    So…..lastly, I said to myself…well there is a “catacomb book store and coffee shop” on Mendicino…..heck, if they don;t have one….I’ll just “go online and order one”

    Walked into the shop. A very pretty mid-twenties woman with gorgeous blue eyes and a very taseful but stylish ‘babushka’ head covering welcomed me. I asked her if they sold a KJV Holy Bible….

    She laughed and said in a slavic accent “Yes, you mean the Holy Bible? Here in this store, that is the ONLY Bible we sell. It’s the only fitting translation into english of the Holy Bible.”

    I asked if they had a larger print one, and she gave me a choice of three, all just plain black leather bound with the words Holy Bible on it.

    I bought it, and chatted with her for a few minutes…she is from Slovenia. Her husband is American, and they met while he was on a vacation there. She invited me to her church service, gave me the address of the church “Eastern Orthodox”

    I told her that this week was out, but the following week I could make it. I left pleased, and the Bible is just perfect.

    So you Orthodox get a point today. Swish. No net! 99 yard pass! Grand Slame….welll, that would be four runs…..anyway! Good show!

  90. earl says:

    We’re dissecting which Bible translation is the bestest…when it’s really supposed to be about the Word of God has to say.

    It’s like Boxer said…we’ll give you the verse we are citing with whatever Scriptural translation we choose…look it up in whatever version you prefer.

    So……well, no problem……..off I go to the local RC Church store right downtown………they will have a KJV Holy Bible. You would think so right?

    No…the Catholic church in this country usually uses the NABRE edition.

  91. Luke says:

    Classic Dilbert comic on the sexual harassment fiction:

  92. seventiesjason says:

    speaking of women being everywhere and they have to have a place on everything….

    Watching baseball. My game. My sport.

    I have the MLB network on my cable package….and its the only channel I really watch

    Commentary. Two guys and ALWAYS now……a sexy woman dressed in heat, always with ho-heels on and you can tell she’s reading off a cue-card or prompter. She has zero idea or meaning what she is reading. The men softer color ties, the set is metrosexual looking….the men are ALWAYS asking her opinion and she gives very generic answers……and they nod and take her opinions very seriously………at one point, they were talking about a play in the 3rd inning, and she gives answer that could work in football / hockey / basketball “Well, they need to put the pressure on” and shes hailed as giving a “great observation” WTF????

    Well, okay back to the game…

    The on field reporter is a woman. the locker room reporter is a woman. the dugout reporter is a women. Where the freak are the guys who know baseball?

    Come one, after a game back in the 1970’s / 1980’s / 1990’s you would some commentators go right up to the pitcher after being buried and losing “Hey, you guys looked bad out here today. How do you expect to win with pitching like that and a team bozos who cat catch fat ones down the middle?”

    Not today.

    Ughh the commercials……sexy women selling me viagra, beer, high end sports cars, and the only masculine commercials are for investing, or “ford / dodge / chevy” trucks.

  93. Frank K says:

    The KJV is Protestant translation. I wouldn’t expect to find one in a Catholic bookstore.

    As for finding it in the Orthodox bookstore, my understanding is that the Orthodox Church does not have any official English translation, unlike the Catholics who have several: Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, NAB, Douay, etc., so perhaps that is why they had one in the store. I seriously doubt that any Orthodox Church uses the KJV in the Divine Liturgy (Scott and Orthodox bros, correct me if I’m wrong).

  94. Frank K says:

    Ughh the commercials……sexy women selling me viagra, beer, high end sports cars, and the only masculine commercials are for investing, or “ford / dodge / chevy” trucks.

    Every time I tun on the TV (I have an indoor HD antenna, how quaint, right?) I am reminded of why I cut the cable years ago. And as Jason points out, even sportsball is becoming next to impossible to watch now.

  95. seventiesjason says:

    Hey….I was pleased. I still don’t understand why even Lifeway would not have this translation……my dad remembers when the Catholic Church read Scripture ONLY in Latin back in Poland in the 1940’s.

    The KJV when read aloud…….well, it’s beautiful. It’s evocative and richly written. When studying the Bible IN the KJV……..it makes you…..slow……down……and really ponder, think, and soak in because that is what I am striving for in my walk. DO I fail? Miserable most of the time. Thank God for grace….anyway……I was very pleased today at this find, and it was brand new!

  96. Bee says:

    Sharkly,

    Did you meet your wife in the Mennonite church? Was she a Mennonite?

    Are any Mennonite churches ordaining women as Pastors now?

  97. anonymous_ng says:

    I always thought that the Roman Catholics where using the Douay-Rheims.

    As for the Orthodox, I have no idea what version is used in the liturgy. It’s not the KJV as it’s missing the thees, and thous. It might be the NKJV.

    According to my sponsor, the Slovenian shopkeeper’s comments best reflect the Orthodox position, namely that the KJV is the best English language version of the scriptures.

  98. anonymous_ng says:

    I hate not being able to edit posts when I find that I’ve made a spelling error.

    – were using, not where using

  99. seventiesjason says:

    This is what should be on for commercials when watching baseball….wishful thinking I know…….

  100. Jack Russell says:

    I remember reading about the Geneva Bible from 1599. I may pick up a copy out of curiosity.

    https://reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=https://reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html

  101. RichardP says:

    Let us pay attention to the whole counsel of God. What did God actually say?

    Well – he said more than anyone here is admitting to (unless I missed it).

    We have a couple of bumpers here, with words in between:

    And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord … 1 Cor 7:10

    But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

    The words between those two bumpers is a command from God. Everything up to But to the rest speak I … is a command from God, according to Paul. What words spoken by Paul exist between those two statements? More than what has been presented so far in this thread (again, unless I missed it).

    Here is everything that is commanded by the Lord, according to Paul: Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

    I would guess that the most painful part of a woman blowing up her marriage and destroying the family is the part where she blows up the marriage and destroys her family. Her getting remarried probably causes far less damage than the damage she did by blowing up the marriage and destroying her family.

    Yet – the command of God, as stated by Paul, allows her to do just that.
    Read what it says. All of it.

    Out of Pauls mouth, the command from the Lord: But and if she depart … If you are going to accept that Paul is speaking truthfully when he says the command is from the Lord, not from him Paul, then you must accept that all of it is from the Lord. The But and if she depart … is part of what God’s command is. That makes it something God allows … so long as their is no remarriage. By Paul’s own words, claiming to be speaking on behalf of God, God allows probably the most painful part of the whole process – the blowing up the marriage and the destruction of the family – so long as no remarriage occurs.

    Plus that other little rock in the shoe forever that you can’t get rid of: after she has killed everything that he worked so hard to build – God says, through Paul, she must … remain unmarried, OR BE RECONCILED TO HER HUSBAND. So – for all the guys vowing to have nothing more to do with she who killed everything – if you claim to be following God, then you must abide by his entire counsel – not just the part you like. God’s command that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband is a requirement that you must take her back if she asks you to. No matter that she killed you the first time, and may well do it a second or third time – with God’s apparent blessing. Paul says that God says you must take her back.

    You cannot accept the first part of that word from God, and reject the second part. Everything between the bumpers I quoted above is a word from God. You must accept the whole counsel of God, not just the parts you like. And if you feel justified in rejecting the second part of that command from God that Paul spoke – well, others feel justified in rejecting the first part. You cannot legitimately criticize those who reject the first part of that command from God if you reject the second part of that command.

    You criticize Wilson – and fail to quote the entirety of what God actually commanded in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

    Something about credibility.

    The eyes of the world are watching you. Do you preach the whole counsel of God or not?

  102. Luke says:

    Re the idea that we’re commanded never to remarry once married, as long as our ex-spouse is alive: what about when you have no idea if they are alive or dead? The traditional rule was if someone disappeared, after no more than 7 years, they could be declared dead. I haven’t had a communication with my first wife in three years. Her health was marginal and failing. So, in four more years, my current marriage (wedding was 9 years ago) will arguably become legitimate, by that reasoning. I’m not telling my current wife either of those rules.

  103. Sharkly says:

    @Bee,
    No, I did not marry a Mennonite girl. I was related to all the girls in my father’s Mennonite church. I focused on my career and founded a business, when it was going well, then I finally decided I should get married. I debated that quite a bit. I then hopped online, sorted through 80,000 available “Christian” women, and sent off a few messages.(few knew the dangers of online dating back then) Basically the first one I contacted was interested, and so I started flying out to Pennsylvania to see her, every couple of weeks, eventually marrying her after a couple years of long distance relationship, while busy with business.(she was even cuter than her online photo) Since University, I’ve never had trouble talking to women, and they often quickly seduce themselves with notions of being mine. I can’t give too much advice, about “game”, because I just be who I am,(mostly Alpha) and I see if they can deal with that.

    As far as the Mennonite Churches go, there were liberal groups split off even before I was born, and there are many different flavors that call themselves Mennonite still. I wouldn’t doubt that somewhere liberals are wearing the “Mennonite” church like a skinsuit and are ordaining women and marrying fags, and condoning every other evil. My father’s Mennonite church eventually left the denomination because it was too liberal, but then has itself become fully interdenominational churchian and may not even have Mennonite in their name still. I’m not sure at this point. Most Mennonites don’t shun technology like the Amish do, but some “Old Order” Mennonites do to some degree. Like with the Amish, it is always funny to see where they draw the imaginary line as to what technology they can and cannot use. Yacking on their smartphone to somebody about how God still wants them to hand churn their butter, & Etc. My wife grew up in a United Methodless church, and when I attended, it seemed to be a social gathering with a message about being good ol’ boy Americans, “Mom & Apple Pie”. A completely worldly bunch who congregate every week to tell themselves that, somewhere out there is a person who is still more worldly than they.
    Sorry if that isn’t a very good answer to your questions.

  104. feeriker says:

    I still don’t understand why even Lifeway would not have this translation……my dad remembers when the Catholic Church read Scripture ONLY in Latin back in Poland in the 1940’s.

    Lifeway is obviously marketing to churchians, especially churchian women, apparenly those between the ages of 18 and 40, to judge from the merchandise. Not a demographic that makes Bible reading a priority and not a demographic that generally tolerates having to read anything containing words of more than two syllables. Hence the trashlations they have in stock.

    Look on the bright side: you discovered another business that men should avoid like the plague and you warned your fellow Christian manospherians about it. Points scored by you too, brother!

  105. Matt says:

    @RichardP, I wouldn’t be quite so dramatic about it. Taken at face value, the text is talking about separation rather than divorce, and that only insofar as she’s not committing adultery.

    Typically when we talk about wives blowing up families, we’re talking about a woman filing for divorce and acting out eat-pray-cats in someone else’s bed. And Paul is very clear about the unacceptability of that.

    Yes, if a wife leaves, stays chaste, repents, and returns, her husband should take her back. But regrettably, chastity/repentance/return is not common.

  106. Scott says:

    Our gospel reading is in Serbian and/or Church Slavonic.

    The epistle reading is basically NKJV

    The Orthodox Study Bible which is the most widely used Bible in American Orthodoxy is a combination of an English translation of the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint (OT) and the NKJV (NT)

    The parts where the NT quotes the OT it Is from the Septuagint and matches word for word.

    But there is no official American translation of the Bible for Orthodox Christians.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    RichardP
    I would guess that the most painful part of a woman blowing up her marriage and destroying the family is the part where she blows up the marriage and destroys her family. Her getting remarried probably causes far less damage than the damage she did by blowing up the marriage and destroying her family.

    You guess wrong. There are men I have known who could correct you, if you asked them.

  108. ray says:

    Sharkly — “I didn’t troll my training, But the old guy teaching it sure did.”

    I’ll take that one on my side thanks Boss.

  109. ray says:

    seventiesjason — Re your anecdotes: the horror, the horror.

  110. ray says:

    Jack Russell — “I remember reading about the Geneva Bible from 1599. I may pick up a copy out of curiosity.”

    Online, Bible Gateway includes that translation, as well as other versions helpful in grasping the fuller scope of a passage. The 1599 version is heavily annotated.

  111. Joshua says:

    Richard,
    You’ve butchered the passage, just as Wilson did.
    The second line doesn’t negate the first.
    The second line is commands for those who sinned against the first command.
    Command 1: “Don’t leave. Full stop. Don’t go.”
    Wife: “But Lord, I sinned and broke your command and separated from my husband, what should I do now?”
    Command 2: “You have sinned and broken my commandments – now my commandment is for you to reconcile with your husband, or remain unmarried.”

    That’s plain and easy to understand, and is the natural flow of the passage and aligns perfectly with a God who hates divorce. But for the hardness of your heart both yourself and Pastor Wilson would be in full agreement with it.

  112. ingracious says:

    @Ray (July 27, 2018 at 1:59 pm)

    “Now, if you’re overwhelmed by libido — and many boys and men are — then, all the other stuff about marrying etc. follows Scripturally.”

    This is all well-and-good: If you’re overwhelmed by your libido, then you should get married.

    However, what if one is overwhelmed by libido but marriage is not actually an option? What then?

    I’ll use myself as an example:

    I’ve recently started being an accompanying musician for a mixed choir, and y’know what? There are some quite pretty young girls there, and some of the girls I find very attractive. However, I try not to allow myself to look upon them or to interact with them in spite of that attraction.

    Is it because I’m self-loathing and don’t consider myself worthy – as a man – of doing so? No. Is it because I’ve bought into the concept of “the male gaze” and don’t want to oppress them or some such rubbish? No.

    It’s because to indulge my attraction to them is akin to a street urchin pressing his face up against a shopfront window: He is gazing upon things he cannot possess given where he stands, and thus he is only serving to torture himself by stopping to look at them.

    What I’d personally like to do is to work to find a nice girl, marry her for life, and then cease any and all worrying about sexual conduct – exactly like is suggested. But that isn’t actually an option. I do not have that freedom today, because any marriage I’d attempt to create would just be a futile fucking waste of time under the modern “Feminist State” as you call it, Ray.

    I could expect little more than a female-headed farce of a homelife, a pointless, interminable milieu of sexless misery, which would then be quickly followed up with divorce, theft of my wealth and property, imputed-income de facto enslavement and me hanging myself with my shoelaces inside of the cheap motel room I’d have ended up living in – it’s not like there aren’t numerous real-life examples of all of this occuring every day.

    So, in light of that, when I think about talking to a pretty girl with the potential of it leading to a relationship I just think to myself: “What’s the point?”

    I’d like to do so, and my libido says I should, but there’s no actual reason to bother.

    Thus, I’d say I’m voluntarily celibate/abstinent, but only because I’m involuntarily MGTOW – this is what follows logically given the way things are arranged at present time. The question is, how does that fit with the idea that men who can’t handle their libido should simply marry?

    A man being MGTOW to protect himself from the risks of marriage cannot be coexistent with a man being married to protect himself from libido-induced sexual immorality. It’s Scylla and Charybdis.

    I think you’re pretty spot-on with your views on this, Ray, but I’d pose a general question for anyone to choose to answer: How can anyone seriously quote something like 1 Cor 7:1-5 to a young man while still keeping a straight face given the actual state of “marriage” and the laws (e.g. marital rape, hello) that surround it today? In fact, how can anyone recommend with a straight face that young men get married at all? If you do, how do you justify it?

  113. pariah says:

    I am Winston Smith.

  114. Dave says:

    @RichardP:

    God’s command that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband is a requirement that you must take her back if she asks you to….

    I believe you are emphasizing the wrong part of the passage.
    Although you are right that we cannot treat the Scripture like a buffet, picking what we like and rejecting what we find less appealing; we must embrace it all.
    I believe that the passage was a soft warning to Christian women who would even contemplate leaving their husbands, especially for frivolous reasons. It’s as if God was telling them through Paul:

    “Don’t even think of leaving your husband. Whatever issues you have with him, I am here to help you solve them. But stay with your husband regardless.
    “However, if you must divorce him, understand that I won’t permit you to have another husband, as long as your current husband is alive. You must remain unmarried for the rest of your days.
    “Your only other choice after divorce is to return to your former husband. He won’t necessarily come after you to get you reconciled to him; you will have to do all the reconciling. You will need to convince him that he could take you back.
    “And (this is the kicker): your former husband is not obligated to take you back. He can exercise his rights to remain unmarried as well, even if you desire reconciliation. So, I’d really like you to think things through before you blow up your marriage, and cause your family and children untold pains”.

    Contrary to your argument, the man is not obligated to take her back. The passage clearly does not mandate him to do so, unless I missed something. The man has the right to remain unmarried as well.
    You can forgive someone while having nothing more to do with them. There is no command in the entire bible mandating a believer to associate with a specific person. We are to live in peace with “all men”, not force an association with them.

    Note: since marital unfaithfulness is grounds for divorce in the NT, as soon as either the woman or the man engages in sexual activity with anyone other than their spouse, their previous marriage is over, unless they wish to keep it alive. In other words, it may be argued that remarriage by either party, even after a faulty, baseless and unjustified divorce, will nullify the previous marriage, and set both parties free to remarry.

  115. Spike says:

    Wilson goes even further:
    “The apostle knew men could be brutal”
    That slipped in there as well. I have a question for Pastor Wilson AND all other Pastors who slip in the story of “abusive” men in the church:
    Statistics, please.Studies please. if not, be consistent and apply the same rule of “what it really means is….” to Acts 15:29, “…that you abstain from food sacrificed to idols…strangled beasts… blood and fornication…”
    -In that way, us men can be free of shame for our sex drives.
    If not, shut up and find a different tune.

  116. Dave says:

    The KJV-only folks amaze me. And not in a good way.
    Anybody who’s interested, Google something like “errors in KJV” and do some reading.

    Is that all you’ve got to prove your “amazement”?
    Maybe you should Google “Why God does not exist”; or “Why Jesus is not the Son of God”. I bet Google will make you even more “amazed”.

    Fact is, the KJV is the most meticulously translated version of the English Bible. Probably the most meticulously translated book in the entire English language today. The translators had no financial or doctrinal motive, but strove to be accurate and true to the original text.

    This was how we got our KJV Bible:

    “…So James ordered a new translation. It was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed fifty of the nation’s finest language scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results.
    James also wanted a popular translation. He insisted that the translation use old familiar terms and names and be readable in the idiom of the day.
    It was made clear that James wanted no biased notes affixed to the translation, as in the Geneva Bible. Rule #6 stated: “No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words.” Also, James was looking for a single translation that the whole nation could rely on “To be read in the whole Church,” as he phrased it.
    He decreed that special pains be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority….”

    source

  117. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious, I don’t have much time, but here is a quick reply:
    If you think you’ll “burn with lust”, you probably will. Find the absolute best Christian virgin you can and get married. The sooner the better, and try to get one under 25 years old. You may have to go to some other country even to find the best, but you are talented and you are capable of doing whatever you set your mind to do. If you think you’ll ever get married, do it while you’re young. Although I got gypped, I also could have chosen more wisely. Yes you could get a horrible deal, but you also could get an excellent or decent wife. Pray about it, and use your brain. They can take half your stuff, they can steal your kids, they can falsely accuse you, but in the end, they can’t do anything to your soul. They take your stuff, kids, reputation, future earnings, & some of your freedom, but they can’t defile your soul. However the Apostle Paul warns that you might defile yourself if you don’t get married. So think it over, and make a lifetime decision, and go “all in” one way or the other. Don’t live in fear of getting defrauded. Shit Happens! You’ll end up dead either way. I think it is quite hard to find a good wife, but I know some, and they really are helpers to their husbands. Don’t give in to self defeating talk. If you do get defrauded, You’ll have me and plenty of other guys to commiserate with. Even though my marriage was a horrible trap and a betrayal, and is an ongoing nightmare, God is with me, and I am full of peace. I think if I hadn’t married I’d be even more bitter. With God all things are possible, even a decent marriage. Don’t live plagued with regret and uncertainty. Pray, think, make a decisive decision, and then go forward never looking back and torturing yourself with regret and what could have been.
    Ecclesiastes 9:7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. 8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. 9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. 10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

  118. Bee says:

    ingracious,

    “What I’d personally like to do is to work to find a nice girl, marry her for life, and then cease any and all worrying about sexual conduct – exactly like is suggested. But that isn’t actually an option. I do not have that freedom today, because any marriage I’d attempt to create would just be a futile fucking waste of time under the modern “Feminist State” as you call it, Ray.”

    You have knowledge and techniques available to you that older men like myself, Sharkly, and many others did not have when we got married. I did not know how to vet, what questions to ask, what qualities to emphasize. I did not know about the Teachman study (divorce increases with the number of previous sexual partners a girl has). I did not know about applying Game principals to marriage. I was incorrectly taught to not lead strongly. Game helped me to start leading and acting confident.

    You have this knowledge available to you. If you use this wisdom it will greatly reduce the risk of divorce rape.

    Dalrock and DeepStrength have had some good posts on vetting.

    Put your cards on the table before you get engaged; tell a woman what you expect in a marriage, back it up with some short Bible readings and gauge her reaction.

    I found a good woman in North America, it can be done. If you try for awhile and can not find a good woman in North America , then look overseas. Any overseas woman also need vetting, going overseas is not a magic solution.

  119. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, a private marriage ? I would argue a goverment marriage is almost completely unbiblical unless you can find verses that praise sinning against your spouse and getting rewarded (into your wildest dreams) for it and having them punished into their wildest nightmares.

    last thing you want is to sign an agreement where the exit terms are constantly changing and you have no visibility nor agreement to them, and plus since the marriage doc is ratified almost globally she can go “divorce shopping” and bump country\state etc to get her best deal after living there 6 months. in short a marriage doc allows her to choose from 100+ version, each of which will change ever 5 years or so, so in the next 50 years a 1000 will be available. In short this is insane, if you sign an agreement, you should at least know the terms and the terms will last throughout the agreement. Also with a gov marriage, a judge at any time can with a stroke of a pen remove any advantage you might have. So variations are 1000+add any number of judges to the mix. It really is a recipe for insanity.

    jewish engagements lasted up to a year and they lived together the whole time (shocker!) but not consummating the marriage but sure as heck doing everything else to move to that point. living with someone for a year will weed out a good portion of the crazies as they cant keep the act up that long. if she wont live together then you do prob have a crazy on your hands.

    also, read up on personality disorders, they prob hit about 20% of females, once you can filter them out you will stand a very good chance of having something decent.

  120. Hose_B says:

    @Dave
    Note: since marital unfaithfulness is grounds for divorce in the NT, as soon as either the woman or the man engages in sexual activity with anyone other than their spouse, their previous marriage is over, unless they wish to keep it alive. In other words, it may be argued that remarriage by either party, even after a faulty, baseless and unjustified divorce, will nullify the previous marriage, and set both parties free to remarry.

    So if a couple divorces for baseless reasons, the Bible says they cannot get remarried…..unless one of them gets remarries, then it’s ok for both to get remarried????? I’m confused.

  121. Andrew Duggan says:

    As a previous commenter (RP) tried to force the text into meaning what it doesn’t say, just like DougWils, “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband:” is a warning not to add adultery to the sin she has already committed in breaking the command not to depart. The level of sophistry to justify hypergamy and whiteknighting is sickening. That’s serpentine subtlety at its finest.

  122. Minesweeper says:

    @Hose_B, “So if a couple divorces for baseless reasons, the Bible says they cannot get remarried…..unless one of them gets remarries, then it’s ok for both to get remarried?????”

    no, it means you cannot frivolously divorce and remarry without someone sinning, someone has to commit adultery to break the covenant between the 2 and God will punish their sin. Not that it seems to have much effect on women, but men really do get punished by God (in my own experience). God really does seem to discipline men and women differently – and waaayyy differently in my experience. He really does treat them like the children he made them to be.

  123. earl says:

    Note: since marital unfaithfulness is grounds for divorce in the NT, as soon as either the woman or the man engages in sexual activity with anyone other than their spouse, their previous marriage is over, unless they wish to keep it alive. In other words, it may be argued that remarriage by either party, even after a faulty, baseless and unjustified divorce, will nullify the previous marriage, and set both parties free to remarry.

    Are you saying whichever party commits adultery first by remarriage somehow gives the other partner the right to remarry someone else? I don’t think that’s right.

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s records regarding divorce all mention the possibility of adultery occurring after the divorce, but notice what is not mentioned: There is no mention of the adultery freeing up the ex-spouse to be able to remarry. The only time remarriage is allowed is when the cause of the divorce was fornication on the other spouse’s part. ( my note…remarriage is adultery, not fornication) To claim there are additional reasons for remarriage is to add to what was revealed, something we cannot do. “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). There is no indication in God’s words that later sins changes the terms.

    http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2008/11-17.html

  124. earl says:

    Not that it seems to have much effect on women, but men really do get punished by God (in my own experience). God really does seem to discipline men and women differently – and waaayyy differently in my experience.

    I do think God disciplines the sexes differently…however unlike the state…God deals a much more just punishment to women who instigate divorce. The biggest one I see is how often her children grow to hate her, as well as decent God fearing men knowing better than to get committed with an experienced man eater. It’s one thing if you marry a girl who hasn’t shown any hint of that in her past…it’s another if you clearly know she has.

  125. Jake says:

    Speaking only for myself there is nothing at a modern church for a man. One visit is all that is needed to see that church is for the benefit of women, their poor fatherless children and the “preachers”. A man is viewed as a donkey whose only use is to pull the cart and he is to be whipped mercilessly if he fails to do so. No thank you.

    The bible contains the word, spiritual sustenance and wisdom a man needs.

  126. Minesweeper says:

    earl says:” I do think God disciplines the sexes differently…however unlike the state…God deals a much more just punishment to women who instigate divorce. The biggest one I see is how often her children grow to hate her, as well as decent God fearing men knowing better than to get committed with an experienced man eater.”

    you know I think you are onto something here, the impact on the kids is of course huge, its only right it comes back onto the instigating party – almost 100% female in the church these days.

  127. Dave says:

    Are you saying whichever party commits adultery first by remarriage somehow gives the other partner the right to remarry someone else?

    Absolutely. Marital unfaithfulness (fornication/adultery/bestiality/homosexuality) nullifies a marriage, unless the aggrieved party agrees to continue, and the offending party repents.
    We must remember that as Christians, we are obligated to respect our bodies, because they belong ultimately to God. So we cannot simply ignore sexual immorality in our spouses when they do not repent. If we join sexually to a prostitute, we become one with them. The Apostle said:

    1 Corinthians 6:15-17

    Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

    Also, desertion nullifies a marriage, even if a remarriage or unfaithfulness does not occur through the deserting spouse (see 1 Cor 7:15). One of the three purposes of marriage is companionship. When a party decides to withhold that part of the covenant for no good reason, Scripture says the other party is not to be held to ransom.

    There is no law in the entire Bible where our freedom is held to ransom by the actions of another. If a spouse becomes unfaithful, Scripture gives the right to the offended spouse to dissolve such a union, and remarry, because, before God, his previous marriage no longer exists.

    In the OT, divorce was not even pursued when a spouse became unfaithful; the offending spouse was stoned to death, which freed the offended spouse to remarry anyhow.

    And, as per desertion, the Apostle clearly said a brother or a sister is not under bondage when their spouse deserts them for their faith. I would imagine the deserted party would have made reasonable efforts to seek reconciliation though.

  128. seventiesjason says:

    Thanks for your your take on it, and Orthodoxy’s stance on this translation. I was so very pleased to get a new KJV Bible in nice larger text, and leather-bound with no frills. ALso pleased to see a pretty gal sell it to me!

    In the Salvation Army the NIV is pretty much the standard one…..but I have been seeing more and more the “life recovery translation” being used in our ARC’s (Adult Rehabilitation Centers). Salvationists in the UK, and India use the KJV from what I have been told.

    I don’t like the “life recovery translation” for the fact it makes Christianity into a twelve step program and everything is refernced to a “step” a la AA / NA programs. Not that I am against these programs. NA was a huge help to me when I first got clean…..and the language is not convicting or offensive…….the Word of God is not pretty. It’s dangerous, as the KJV plainly makes notions of judgment, eternity and punishment for the wicked.

  129. seventiesjason says:

    whoops…..the above comment…….that is for you Scott 😉

  130. Dave says:

    So if a couple divorces for baseless reasons, the Bible says they cannot get remarried…..unless one of them gets remarries, then it’s ok for both to get remarried????? I’m confused.

    My understanding of the passages are as these:
    1. Remarriage, if done after a baseless divorce, will result in marital unfaithfulness, because the remarrying party will in all likelihood engage in sexual activities with someone other than their spouse, once they remarry. That act dissolves the original marriage.
    2. Divorce against the wish of the party who wants to keep the marriage is, at least, equivalent to desertion by the divorcing spouse, even if the divorcing party does not remarry. Again, the party willing to stay married is not under bondage to keep honoring a vow that’s already been broken by the other side. Thus, he can remarry.
    3. If divorce occurs based on a biblical reason (e.g. clear-cut marital unfaithfulness while still married, particularly when repeatedly done; or outright desertion by a spouse, despite attempts at reconciliation), the abandoned spouse is not under bondage to the broken down marriage. He/she can remarry.

    All said, we must understand that marriage is only for this side of heaven, meant to make our sojourn on earth to become more bearable. We shouldn’t lose sight of the larger picture.
    Even for those who have had a messy and sometimes repulsive marital history, genuine repentance will secure God’s forgiveness for them, and, in the grand scheme of things, erase their misdeeds as if they never happened. Such is the beauty of God’s grace to us.

    But note: this does not mean we don’t somehow pay for our sins and mistakes. Just because the finger we mistakenly crushed with a hammer will heal does not mean it will look and function like a normal finger. The scar and crookedness might be permanent, and may prevent us from playing the piano well. But at least we’ll still have all our fingers!

  131. seventiesjason says:

    My cousin’s husband is a lapsed Greek Orthodox……born and raised in that tradition….I asked him about the KJV of the Bible…….he replied a few minutes ago “Ummmm, there is no standard translation approved for Orthodoxy of the Bible for home use, bible study……but yeah, the KJV is the one we used at home and I would suppose the standard used by American Orthodoxy…..in high church and Liturgy there are other prayer books we used…but at home and the like the KJV was the version we used….and my parents were hard core Greek Orthodox”

  132. earl says:

    Marital unfaithfulness (fornication/adultery/bestiality/homosexuality) nullifies a marriage

    I agree that fornication signifies she’s terminating the marriage through her actions…however if we are talking about general frivorce because she’s unhappy and then she marries another guy first, by which she commits adultery, I don’t see where in Scriptural text that gives the other party the justification to marry someone else. Fornication was the Scriptural term of sexual immorality for divorce.

  133. Dave says:

    @earl,

    A marriage can be dissolved on biblical grounds even without sexual immorality. Desertion is enough, as I understood it. Please see point #2 in my last response above.

    If “a brother or a sister is not under bondage” when their spouse leaves them, what does that mean other than that they could remarry?

  134. Dave says:

    And if you really want to be sticklish about it, a biblical marriage should take place with a virgin bride, unless there are acceptable reasons why she is not a virgin.
    How many of our modern day brides are virgins on their wedding nights?

  135. earl says:

    Desertion is enough, as I understood it.

    The desertion factor was if the spouse deserting was an unbeliever.

    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-15.htm

  136. earl says:

    How many of our modern day brides are virgins on their wedding nights?

    Given the backlash Lori Alexander received from a lot of so called ‘Christian’ women, I’d say not a lot.

  137. seventiesjason says:

    Jake…..I feel you. I stepped out of Solidership in The Salvation Army after ten years for some of those reasons……the charge of the Army, raised by God in the streets of Victorian London was a clairion call to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, reclaim the drunkard and…..and to convict the heart, to wait upon the Holy Ghost and repent! Repent of the past! Repent and come to the Savior of us all. Taste and see! March on shores to reclaim the world of the devils abode!

    Do we do this today? Well…….no. The Army for all the “good” work it does do, and it is still a respected organization with monies that are donated. They do what they say here. They are “good” stewards here. As for marching for His kingdom? I see a top heavy church / corps side of administration, paperwork, femimism lite, and very little conviction to save the world. I see a profession, not a passion. It’s also a place where bad behavior is rewarded “oh there there….you had babies out of wedlock? We can’t judge you.” “You robbed a store, went to jail, came out all for Jesus but you still actively sin…..we can’t judge you, only God can”
    “You divorced your husband? He must have been abusive. Men need to step up today”

    and what really got me was this, my new Officer in my Fresno Corps told me one day over a heated discussion about my future role in the Corps (we dropped the BSA….as we should have) and he mentioned “We have paid people to handle our family services, drug recovery programs, our clinics, our low income housing and shelters. You see, I am a CEO and I have a budget……and I don’t want you doing street ministry or first aid, or feeding, or preaching….you are not an Officer, and don’t have the proper training to preachg the Word like I do…..and we can get sued….”

    No. Major. You are an Officer in The Salvation Army called to the streets. That is where the Gospel of Christ is needed most. You are not Jack Welch.

    I still consider it my “home church” but I am looking for a new one. My recent move back to the Bay Area…….checking webpages…..all the churches have statements on their main page of “God loves all, LBGTQ welcome” and “We are an affirming church” or “Jesus would have been dancing in the streets as we were when same sex marriage was approved”

    These are Methodist, Episcopol, and even one renegade Catholic church…….the Salvation Army, brave as they are….ALWAYS remeoves their “statement of marriage” from their webpages during “kettle season” during the Christmas season.

    The local AG church I went to last week (and am going this week as well) is just an atypical ‘christian church’ with the contemporary praise of a light show / performance and the sermons are full of “we can’t ever, ever, ever, ever judge” and have announcers with tattoos, jeans on the podium……little respect for God’s House in these matters…….which makes me a “hard core legalist” now.

    We’ll see what the Orthodox church offers next week. How would I love to return to the cultural church of my youth (COE / Episcopal) but rainbow flags hanging in the chapel and rainbow vestments worn by the Vicor make me want to puke and are revolting to me……it was not the church of my mother

  138. Pitchforks and torches are on the way. At some point the adulterator falls along their path.

  139. Boxer says:

    Pitchforks and torches are on the way. At some point the adulterator falls along their path.

    Your fathers made similar blustery pronouncements, and those faggots didn’t do shit. It’s over. We lost.

    The present system will collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. You don’t have time to resort to violence. You have to start working to build the structures that will replace the ones that are now collapsing.

  140. Boxer says:

    and what really got me was this, my new Officer in my Fresno Corps told me one day over a heated discussion about my future role in the Corps (we dropped the BSA….as we should have) and he mentioned “We have paid people to handle our family services, drug recovery programs, our clinics, our low income housing and shelters. You see, I am a CEO and I have a budget……and I don’t want you doing street ministry or first aid, or feeding, or preaching….you are not an Officer, and don’t have the proper training to preachg the Word like I do…..and we can get sued….”

    (emphasis mine)

    You had to know that your work was an illustration of just how little these parasites actually do. Aside from gaming the wives and daughters in their congregations, and living large on quasi-embezzled donations, the Christian priest seems to have no real function. He’s an utterly useless cancer on the ass of society.

  141. Trust says:

    @anonymous_ng says: I hate not being able to edit posts when I find that I’ve made a spelling error.
    __________

    I’ve found that only people with weak arguments pay attention to another person’s typos. If they cannot refute your point, they’ll discredit intelligence by exaggerating a typo (much like playing the racism, sexism, etc. card when they are losing).

  142. seventiesjason says:

    Look, I have met Officers who indeed have “heeded the call” the one that brought me into the fold of the Army was an example of this. Father Garcia at St. John’s in Fresno has a deep heart for doctrine, scripture and admonishing his flock. These men are few and far between in the pulpit today

  143. Dale says:

    @seventiesjason
    We’ll see what the Orthodox church offers next week. How would I love to return to the cultural church of my youth

    +1. I grew up in only half-way disobedient protestant churches. Men and most women wore sex-appropriate clothing, at least during church service while they were pretending(?) to worship God (Deut 22:5). Elders were expected to live up to the requirements in Titus 2 and 1 Tim 2/3.
    But women cut their hair and refused to cover their heads (1 Cor 11).
    This is where I was “raised” however, so I would prefer to remain there. But it is getting embarrassing to be there. I walked out of one “protestant church” with my wife; I was embarrassed for my mistake of having taken her to a Satanic group. (I did not know what the group was like beforehand, but still, it had been my decision to try it out.)

    I am reluctant to “endorse” the Orthodox church due to significant theological errors I have encountered. When they add something to the Biblical grounds for salvation (e.g. Jesus + “__our extra requirements__”), this is a big deal and looks like a false religion to me. For example, they say it is not possible to have salvation unless you have baptism from their particular religious group; this makes clear whom they are serving. (To be fair, the claim that you need baptism from their religious group to be permitted salvation may not be official doctrine. But it was a priest who said this; I asked him a second time, to give him a chance to correct himself or clarify, but he persisted in that Satanic claim. Other Orthodox believers do not agree with that claim however, so I cannot say that all Orthodox believe this claim.)
    ** BUT **, even with the above, I actually feel more comfortable remaining in an Orthodox service than remaining in a typical protestant service. If I ignore a few theological errors that are unfortunately standard practice, the overall impression I have is one of a group of people that genuinely wish to be obedient to God, and show respect for God. As with any group of sinful humans, you of course will sometimes have well-meaning people who misunderstand a passage of Scripture. And people who misunderstand on purpose due to an agenda.
    And if you have religious professionals, such as in both Orthodox and a typical Protestant group, who depend on the continuing size of the group and contributions therefrom for the entirely of their daily bread, you will of course have leaders who act as if you NEED that leader or his group. “Can’t have people deciding they do not need me; they might stop giving me money.”
    Similarly, there will be leaders who compromise the Bible to maintain their position, either by agreeing with official doctrine that contradicts Scripture so that his boss in the group does not fire him, or by ignoring the parts of the Bible that would offend his customers in the congregation.

    Good luck in your search. You may wish to check if there are any “old tradition” churches in your area; maybe Anabaptist. My very limited experience with such a group was good.

    @ingracious
    I suggest going to a new area. If 99% of women in your city are unacceptable, then try another region, or even overseas. I recently married a woman from eastern Europe. I do not remember ever seeing a woman demonstrate her level of obedience in a protestant group during service.
    I thank God daily for her good character. I also thank God that he gave me his word, so that I could know what is acceptable behaviour in a potential wife, regardless of what the religious professional at the front said; God’s word is why I was able to resist Satan’s message (1 Peter 5:8-9) from our culture and church about the standards I should have for a potential wife.
    Personal advice: Go overseas to look for a wife sooner, rather than later. And do not take on debt for a house before you marry; that debt will interfere with your freedom to take time off to go pursue a wife.

  144. Dave says:

    The desertion factor was if the spouse deserting was an unbeliever.

    You’re right. The woman who called her family and friends together, and made a vow before them, and before God, only to break that vow for no just cause, a few years later, should qualify as an unbeliever, don’t you think?
    By its very definition, an unbeliever is one who does not believe. In this case, she does not believe that marriage is once in a lifetime.

    If 99% of women in your city are unacceptable, then try another region, or even overseas. I recently married a woman from eastern Europe. I do not remember ever seeing a woman demonstrate her level of obedience in a protestant group during service.

    Amen to this. There are many beautiful and feminine women all over the world, and they’ll be grateful to find a godly man to marry. American men are valued by women in virtually all countries of the world, except you know where.

    Congratulations.

  145. earl says:

    The woman who called her family and friends together, and made a vow before them, and before God, only to break that vow for no just cause, a few years later, should qualify as an unbeliever, don’t you think?

    If I remember correctly during the time Paul was preaching this there was some husbands or wives who were once unbelievers who were converting to the faith while their spouse stayed an unbeliever (since this area was originally pagan territory). It wasn’t two believers getting married and then one becoming an unbeliever.

  146. @seventiesjason: Good luck with your church hunting. Would you consider the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? They are NOT LGBT-affirming.

    http://www.sfopc.org

  147. Dale says:

    @Dave

    Thank you! 🙂

    @Earl
    It wasn’t two believers getting married and then one becoming an unbeliever.
    You are correct. However, Scripture also discusses the idea that someone may claim to be a believer, but then is shown to not be by their actions — and the conclusion I see in Scripture is they were not truly ever a part of God’s family; see the wording for 1 John 2 below:

    18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

    As you of course know, not every Catholic girl you see in mass is actually a servant of Christ.

  148. MKT says:

    “Would you consider the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? They are NOT LGBT-affirming.”

    For the record, the OPC and the (Eastern/Greek/Russian) Orthodox churches are VERY different. I will say the OPC is more conservative than the PCA which is moving in the LGBTQ direction by allowing the recent Revoice conference to be held at a PCA church:

    http://bluecollarsaints.org/2018/07/23/revoice-recap/
    http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/07/28/revoice-a-story-in-pictures/

    While this isn’t typical of PCA churches (I grew up in them), the fact is they allowed it to happen and the big-name leaders are silent. They could’ve denounced it at their recent General Assembly but didn’t. If they don’t do something soon, they’ll go the way of the PCUSA, UMC, Episcopal Church USA and other mainline SJW Indoctrination denominations.

  149. The present system will collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. You don’t have time to resort to violence.

    The present systems collapse won’t be accompanied by a resort to violence? Genius.

  150. Kevin says:

    @ingracious
    I can respect your decision but keep in mind that much of the manosphere operates with some wrong information regarding the probability of divorce (the other stuff may all be true and I never want to minimize the crazy state of marriage in modern countries and the reality the state will destroy you).

    If you have any education, if you work a full time job, if you are greater than 18, if you don’t live together before marriage, your probability of divorce in your first marriage is probably max 25% (and depending on other factors it can be as low as 10%).

    There are some online calculators where you can run the numbers. There is no insurance and life is random but the probability of divorce is not as high as some make it out to be. It depends on your risk aversion but marriage and children is the highest happiness (and the potiential most sorrow) we can have in this life. Might be worth trying – again not wanting to discount many of the other factors.

  151. Luke says:

    Kevin, your optimism is put the lie to by 1) all the educated men posters here know who got frivorced, and 2) the classic Teachman study on this, showing that nonvirgin* brides were as or more (mostly considerably more) likely than even to frivorce. Were you not familiar with the latter?
    * The CDC in 2014 estimated that only 12.3% of U.S. women aged 20-24 were still virgins, and that includes “technical” virgins as I understand it.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/on-late-in-life-virginity-loss/284412/

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s400/teachman

  152. Minesweeper says:

    @Kevin says:”If you have any education, if you work a full time job, if you are greater than 18, if you don’t live together before marriage, your probability of divorce in your first marriage is probably max 25% (and depending on other factors it can be as low as 10%).”

    this is complete bull, for the 1st marriage its about 40%+, for 2nd and 3rd is about 70%. if you want a laugh, hit your church up and ask how many women are still in their 1st marriage, still living with their husband (not separated) and over age of 40. the results will shock you.

    no point asking the men, as a large red neon sign is installed in churches now saying “divorced men exit here, never return”

    for women nowadays – divorce\separation\ostracization to be applied when desired to the man is just part of the standard package she signed up to, not that he would have had the slightest clue she would be operating under this mindset.

    it isn’t an anomaly, its just “standard operating procedures”. its just the guys who didn’t get the memo. but we do now 😀 and now it seems the women are sh8t out-of luck.

  153. ray says:

    ingracious — “However, what if one is overwhelmed by libido but marriage is not actually an option? What then?”

    Right. I read your whole response, I get it. It’s good you seek after the careful truth of this, so as not to offend God, and also it’s a good question, because the dilemma you express is the motivator behind the disaffection of many men with American society and culture. Scripture attests that sexual behavior and activity is v important, and often dangerous, with both temporal and spiritual consequences.

    I certainly place myself in the group your sentence describes, although my unavailability for marriage is for different reasons. But I’m in no way exempt from libido, nor from these issues.

    As I’ve written herein previously, I counsel against civil marriage, and civil entanglements of most kinds in general. The less you are under the power of the State, the less leverage satan has against you. Much of the State — and many of the ‘churches’ — have a predatory relationship with American men. I have worked for some of these instruments, long ago, and they range from ignorantly bad to overtly wicked.

    If you marry, marry before God, meaning the ‘wedding’ and subsequent marriage are focused on God — NOT on the bride, NOT on the ceremony or ptooey reception — and it’s preferable if two adult witnesses attend. Not required but Scripturally respectful and kosher. Vows are brief, sincere, sober, and directed towards GOD as a PERMANENT PACT amongst the three of you. I loathe modern weddings and I loathe the wedding industry, because they sully and profit-from something intended as sacred, or as a modeling of what is sacred –Christ’s husbanding relationship with us.

    This is satan’s world, the systems of this world are (broadly) under his power, and his chief weapons against males are pride and libido, so it is unreasonable to expect anything like a ‘perfect solution’ or even a good one to the practical dilemma you describe. Christian men have been struggling with similar issues for millennia; anyone ever hear of monks, hermits, etc.? Every single male coming under these atmospheres engages this battle, simultaneously sexual and spiritual.

    If for lack of virgin/obedient brides, or for justified fear of a vampiric culture, you choose not to marry, then you must be celibate. It isn’t easy, and paradoxically, once committed to it, females only become more attracted to you. :O)

    Celibacy has its own dangers, guess what, it’s a (real) dangerous world. All males on this planet, were/are under the heavy yoke and influence of the planetary prince, even to Christ, and going celibate just makes satan try harder. Because, you know, you just MIGHT escape him.

    Expect to be over-powered on occasion if you choose celibacy, and when that occurs, you get up and you try again. You curtail what you can curtail and minimize the damage. Just like the rest of us. Focus on being about Father’s business, in whatever way He gifted you; the more His works overwhelm and obsess you, the less target the enemy has.

    There are no easy answers because this isn’t heaven. God values purity in men, women, and angels. Nothing’s changed. So strive for it, despite raging libido. Just remember where you (temporarily) are, and don’t give up when you fail.

    There are many areas of the world — although they are shrinking — where female behavior and surrounding culture are v different from the U.S., which is a soft-gynarchy under the spirit that animated Jezebel, Athaliah, probly a few others. If you’d like more info on such places, and how to locate the right kind of women there, I’d be glad to address it separately.

  154. ray says:

    earl — “Given the backlash Lori Alexander received from a lot of so called ‘Christian’ women, I’d say not a lot.”

    That girl Alexander did a good job of it. Excellent response also with reprints of this page’s commentary. Laid down a nice healthy field of fire.

    I’m glad that Alexander received commendation and back-up here. It’s important to point out and praise women when they strive to obedience and the comfort of men. Remember how much disobedient females detest beautiful obedience in superior women; trigs them supernova! Father really likes obedience and humility in females. He knows that hill is steep for them, so possibly He delights in it the more.

  155. Paniym says:

    You know funny thing is that at the start of my divorce anybody in ministry who would have talked to my wife would have sided with her. She was great a crafting other’s perception of her. For everyone outside of my kids I was a low life.

    Being a complete Beta Schlub for my 35 year marriage I was always pretty much a straight shooter. I treated my wife the same in public as in private. She on the other hand treated me like sh$# but in public was an angel. Maintaining this illusion (in the minds of others) was of utmost importance to her. Post divorce I’ve noticed that most women are masters of crafting others perceptions as well.

    So how can anyone in ministry judge what is true. I’m convinced that 95% of verbal or physical allegations by woman are complete bullshit. All women have to do is spin a great story, throw in a few tears and look pitiful and any male pastor/counselor are putty in their hands

    The pastors/counselors of today have been completely corrupted by Christian Feminism. They (as a whole) are absolutely blind. It’s a deplorable corruption of the church. Women get a complete pass. God is so disgusted he has withdrawn himself from the Church……So….. I’m out……..

  156. ingracious says:

    @Sharkly, @Bee, @Dale, @Kevin:

    Thank you all for your responses!

    I note that the arguments made revolve around things that are not at all central to my stance. For instance:

    Many of the women around me are not shining examples of feminine beauty and behaviour, no. However, that is not why I’m not interested in seeking a wife; there are women I see who are young, feminine and attractive, but I have no more interest in pursuing them than I would for less desirable women. The quality of women available is a problem, but not THE problem – therefore, changing my locale would not change my stance.

    In response to Bee: There are definitely game principles and more masculine behaviours that it would be beneficial for me in general to work on having/embodying, and I’m definitely capable of learning better vetting tactics, but even if tomorrow I woke up to discover I was now Channing Tatum and that my brain had been uploaded with all of the vetting knowledge one could ever need I still wouldn’t change my stance. Again, the quality of women available is a problem (which better vetting skills helps with), but it is not THE problem.

    And in response to Kevin: A fear of statistical probability is not what I base my stance on; the actual regularity with which divorce occurs isn’t of importance to me. It doesn’t matter to me what the likelihood is that any given woman WOULD divorce me (and take my kids, and my property, and force me into wage slavery, and so on), it only matters to me that a woman COULD do so.

    That’s a binary yes-or-no matter. If I were to marry a woman, COULD she divorce me at any time for any reason? COULD she use the courts to take my kids? COULD she use the courts to extort me for child support and alimony perhaps for the rest of my life?

    What would be the honest answers to those questions? Please tick the boxes: [Y]/[N]

    For all of you, I’d put it into the analogy of Russian roulette:

    Sharkly says: So what if you play and end up with a bullet in your skull? We all have to die some day anyway.

    Bee and Dale say: Focus on the positives. It’s possible for you to land on an empty chamber, and if you do then things’ll be great!

    Kevin says: Focus on the odds. You’ve got one loaded chamber, and five empty ones. That’s a 5-in-6 chance that nothing bad will happen!

    I’d say: Why are we playing Russian roulette to decide this in the first place? Could we not just put the gun down and play some Trivial Pursuit or something instead? You know, a game where there’s a chance that you’ll lose, but even if you do you’re still able to dust yourself off and go about your life afterwards?

    In my eyes, a man who willingly puts the gun up to his temple – and suggests other men do the same – is a man who accepts that this is the way life ought to be. That we as men can expect no better for ourselves.

    The fact that modern marriage is a life-ending/life-ruining risk on the level of Russian roulette is an artificial reality. Such risks are not at all inherent to marriage, but rather they only exist because of the modern laws and courts that now forcefully define all marriages to be in women’s favour, always.

    Of course life is risky, but the risks a man takes onboard when he gets married today are nowhere close to the normal level of risk that marriage OUGHT to entail – in fact, they aren’t even comparable anymore.

    I am actually leaning towards getting married in the future rather than not, but if I did so it would necessarily have to be off-the-grid/only in God’s eyes because it is only under such circumstances that a marriage could ever actually be what I consider fair and just.

    —–

    @Minesweeper (July 29, 2018 at 7:42 am)

    “@ingracious, a private marriage ? I would argue a goverment marriage is almost completely unbiblical unless you can find verses that praise sinning against your spouse and getting rewarded (into your wildest dreams) for it and having them punished into their wildest nightmares.

    last thing you want is to sign an agreement where the exit terms are constantly changing and you have no visibility nor agreement to them, … In short this is insane, if you sign an agreement, you should at least know the terms and the terms will last throughout the agreement.”

    See, a man after my own heart! “Government marriage” is a great term for what’s on offer.

    I indeed think a private marriage is the only way forward for me if I decide to get married, but then it’s just the practical matter of how do you actually keep a marriage private today when the government is breathing down your neck every step of the way?

    For instance, here in Australia we have laws surrounding “de facto couples”.

    From the FAQ (https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/Pages/DeFactoPropertyRegime.aspx):

    “What do the laws do?”

    “The laws provide for de facto couples, when they separate, to obtain property settlements on the principles that apply under the Family Law Act 1975 to married couples.”

    (i.e. Even if you aren’t married, marriage laws still apply to you)

    “The laws enable the Family Law Courts to order a division of any property that the couple own, either separately or together with each other.”

    (i.e. Even if you aren’t married, the woman still gets cash and prizes)

    “Superannuation that each partner has can also be split.”

    (Superannuation is a person’s retirement fund here. Even if you aren’t married, the woman gets some of that also, obviously)

    “Spouse maintenance can also be ordered.”

    (Spousal maintenance being alimony. Even if you arent– bah, you get the point.)

    And what is it that puts you on the government radar for all this extortion?

    “A de facto relationship is a relationship that two people who are not married or related by family have as a couple living together on a ‘genuine domestic basis’.”

    You can then guess how loose and surprisingly easy it is to fall under the Australian government’s definition of such a thing.

    I will certainly not find freedom from government here.

    —–

    @Ray

    I am glad to see that we indeed are so similar in our views on this matter. To be clear, I was not writing to critique you at all, but only to open up discussion (and perhaps vent a little); I respect what you have to say.

    I do not feel there is much I can say in response to your post – and as well, you can likely assess for yourself where my views sit in relation to yours based on the rest of what I’ve already written above – however, I will say that you have presented me with a lot of helpful wisdom here and I greatly appreciate that you took the time to write it.

    I will abstain from inquiring about where these wonderful places in the world you speak of lie, though. I feel that until I come to reside in a land in which I can be free from tyranny in marriage, no quality of woman would be sufficient for me.

  157. Bee says:

    ingracious,

    1. Are you a Christian?

    2. Do you have the gift of celibacy?

    If “Yes” to 1. and “No” to 2.; then you should hunt for a good wife. You may never find a good one, so you may never marry. But you should make a serious effort to hunt for one.

  158. Sharkly says:

    Paniym says: She on the other hand treated me like sh$# but in public was an angel. … All women have to do is spin a great story, throw in a few tears and look pitiful …

    It sounds like we were married to women who did some similar things. I eventually found out my wife had Intimacy Anorexia. However she is in denial and is refusing to work on it. I don’t know much about your situation, besides what you wrote, but you might check the characteristics out and see if there is a fit.
    https://www.drdougweiss.com/what-is-intimacy-anorexia/

  159. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,
    Thanks for explaining further. I also liked that you got and were able to accurately summarize my advice. I thought your synopsis of my advice was accurate and humorous. Don’t play Russian roulette if you’re not ready to die. Just be ready to completely die to self. I think most of the advice you were given by all sounded solid to me.

    Apparently you want to change the rules of the government marriage game, or find a place with better rules, or opt out and use an alternate set of rules. It sounds like mostly the latter. You’d like to draw up your own “fair” nuptial agreement, and avoid the government’s overreaching by imposing their own rules. Am I close? How can you ever guarantee that your momentary utopia will not suddenly get changed again. You fix all the laws, get married, and then some idiots change the laws to even worse than they were before. You get your bulletproof nuptial agreement put together and signed, but a week later you’re in prison due to a false charge of “domestic abuse”, but your “marriage” is still intact and bulletproof. I guess I’m still not sure what your plan is, or what you need to have changed to make you feel like the game is not a gun. How are your social interactions with the opposite sex? Is there any awkwardness of trepidation, when you’re not marrying one of them, but just flirting? Do you flirt? Just trying to get a better understanding of where you’re at, and where you’re trying to go still.

  160. Kevin says:

    I see that a bunch of people have shared their anecdotes with me. However, the data are fairly clear that if you take a few realistic steps your chances of divorce are not as great as people often describe. Certainly not 50-75% and often much closer to 10-25%.

    Their is a lot of data on divorce and what influences divorce. The manosphere gets a lot of things right but they also get one thing consistently wrong that influences decision making – your actual probability of divorce for first time marriages.

    @Ingracious
    Your reasoning is sound. You are correct that all those bad things could happen. If the probability of divorce is not driving it than my comments don’t matter. We simply don’t live in a society in which marriage would be workable for you. That is indeed a tragedy.

  161. Minesweeper says:

    @Kevin says:”I see that a bunch of people have shared their anecdotes with me….
    The manosphere gets a lot of things right but they also get one thing consistently wrong that influences decision making – your actual probability of divorce for first time marriages.”

    well, since we are all wrong it seems, why don’t you share your stats sources with us ? or is your experience of this just anecdotal?

  162. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, in your case of living in the feminist utopia of Oz, it is indeed difficult. you are looking at not living together but in a Godly marriage of sorts. some have done this, people hardly spend anytime together anyway really, if they both work and have separate hobbies, even if they dont, the woman will be on social media for 3 hrs a day anyway. so you have what 1-2 hrs of real time a day ? you can easily compress that into a few nights together and not fall foul of the law.

    maybe God will give us a way out of this insanity, he does tend to allow things to fall apart, as that is when people need him most. At some point in the future, if a too large % of men refuse to marry or cohabit will the feminists finally allow men a decent deal ?

    you’d be surprised how little most married people actually do with each other, many have separate bedrooms (its prob the only way to get a decent nights sleep tbh), separate work, separate hobbies, separate friends, watch different things on TV etc.

    the kind of marriage where both are intertwined in everything and can barely use the toilet without the other is again a female fantasy, until very recently the sexes had separate lives on most things and came together occasionally.

  163. ray says:

    ingracious —

    Of course. You’re welcome. I didn’t take your questions as backhand criticism; they seemed sincere to me.

    Just hang in there, these things are difficult esp for young men, but you’re on the right road and will be fine.

    As added incentive, many of the works herein are being used to construct the relational foundation of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom. Dangerous putting words in His mouth, but I do believe He will refer specifically to works herein, and also to persons herein, and He will do it publicly. Very publicly. His future laws in this area will be similar to what’s discussed in these pages.

    Never again will women be allowed collectivized power; they will be returned to their original charge, as helpmeets and comforters of men, and white-knights will be treated as the enemies of God they truly are. After this rebellion is put down, there will never — as in not ever — be another such treachery that destroys the male-female unit, and children will be required to have either a bio-dad or a male caretaker, with invested authority such that no nation or demonic collusion can take it away.

    So, that’s not so bad of a final result, yes? Worth working for.

  164. Paul says:

    @Dave : “Marital unfaithfulness (fornication/adultery/bestiality/homosexuality) nullifies a marriage”

    I strongly disagree. This whole idea is built upon Luther’s weird reasoning to have adultery break up the marriage bond. His reasoning goes a bit like: adultery was punishable by death in the OT, if the government does not allow death sentence in these cases, the church should consider AS IF the death sentence has been executed and consider the guilty party AS IF he/she were dead. THEREFORE the non guilty party is free to remarry.

    It is nonsense of course.

    Adultery is sin. But sin can be repented of. And a spouse can forgive the other spouse.
    That’s at the core of the Christian message.

    The ONLY NT text that is used to support the idea of sexual immorality breaking up marriage is a specific INTERPRETATION of Mt 19:9. A little know fact is that before Erasmus introduced his “Textus Receptus”, the so-called exception clause might not even have existed.

    The late Dr. Leslie McFall has done some original research on this:
    https://lmf12.wordpress.com/unpublished-articles/
    check page 29 of https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf
    in it is a scan where you can see the work of a corrector adding ‘ei’, changing the meaning of Mt 19:9 towards the above interpretation.

    The whole E-Book is excellent work, and although it still leaves some questions open, in my mind it makes a very strong case, especially against the view that marriage is “broken” by sexual immorality.

  165. Paul says:

    Oh, and BTW, the E-Book of Leslie McFall is a very good critique on the King-James-Onlyism view that places “the” Textus Receptus (there are more than one) on a pedestal, where it does not belong. We know have better and more accurate knowledge of Byzantine text variants. The excellent work of Robinson and Pierpont (https://byzantinetext.com/study/editions/robinson-pierpont/) should really be made into a new English translation!

  166. Paul says:

    And the second chapter of his E-Book is an fine exposition on headship and the role of man and woman.

  167. The question of the original Greek text came up, and since my Greek is quite good, let me take a stab at this. A very literal translation of the Greek text would be this: “But I exhort those having married–not I but the Lord–that the woman is not to be separated from her man–but if even she is separated, let her remain unmarried or let her be reconciled to her man–and that the man is not to divorce his woman.” (1 Cor 7.10-11). So the sense of recommendation or obligation rests on the verb which I translated as “exhort,” which is the Greek verb “parangello.” Doug Wilson interprets Paul here as giving “merely advice.” The standard Greek dictionary “Liddell and Scott,” however, indicates that the verb “parangello” used by Paul can range in meaning from “recommend” to “exhort” to “give orders.” According to the Greek concordance of Moulton and Geden, Paul uses that verb only 12 times in all his letters. The only other use in 1 Corinthians is in 1 Cor. 11.17, where he uses that verb to comment on the things that he has just previously said. Some clearer passages for comparison might be the following (I will continue to translate “parangello” as “exhort” so that you can see what kind of actions are covered by that verb): “but we ask you, brothers, to abound more, and to strive to keep quiet and to mind one’s own business and to work with your hands, as we exhorted you” (1 Thessalonians 4.10-11); “but we exhort you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you are to withdraw yourselves from every brother walking in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition which they received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3.6); “for also when we were with you, we were exhorting you to this, that if someone does not wish to work, nor let him eat” (2 Thessalonians 3.10); “as I asked you to stay in Ephesus, while I was going to Macedonia, in order that you might exhort some people not to teach differently nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which provide questions rather than the stewardship of God in faith” (1 Timothy 1.3-4). In other words, Paul uses the same Greek verb to describe instruction on the following topics: to not leave a spouse, to mind one’s own business, to work with one’s hands and earn one’s own living, to avoid troublemakers, to stick to his teaching and not get distracted with other stuff. So Paul’s instruction not to leave a spouse is as serious as those other instructions, and that’s quite serious, much graver than mere advice. It’s particularly hard to imagine what excuse Paul would accept for someone teaching differently than he did, or for not minding one’s own business. For any who might be curious, the other uses of “parangello” which I did not discuss are in 2 Thessalonians 3.4, 12 and 1 Timothy 1.3, 4.11, 5.7, 6. 13, 17.

  168. ingracious says:

    @Sharkly

    “I thought your synopsis of my advice was accurate and humorous. … I think most of the advice you were given by all sounded solid to me.”

    I thought you’d appreciate it. I appreciated your advice as well as everyone else’s, and I agree that the advice was solid; however, it’s only so if you’re resigned to marrying “within the system”, I guess you could say.

    I hold out hope that there’s a third path outside of celibacy and “government marriage”, which may be naive, but it’s what I’m toying with in my head – and in these comments – at the moment. To accept everyone’s advice would be to give up on that hope.

    To the questions in your second paragraph:

    “Apparently you want to change the rules of the government marriage game, or find a place with better rules, or opt out and use an alternate set of rules. It sounds like mostly the latter.”

    It’s the latter, correct.

    All of the world’s nations could come to share the same horrible marriage laws on their books, but the only thing that would matter to me is which nation – or area of a nation – I could most easily live contrary to such laws in without suffering reprisal (or being noticed).

    “You’d like to draw up your own “fair” nuptial agreement, and avoid the government’s overreaching by imposing their own rules. Am I close?”

    I’d like the basic freedom to negotiate my own terms when getting married without the government deciding what those terms are for me, yes, although I wouldn’t be ‘drawing anything up’ like one would a pre-nuptial agreement if that’s what you’re referencing.

    In all likelihood all I’d want is a biblical marriage:

    I’d say ‘I want a biblical marriage’, she’d say ‘I want a biblical marriage too’, then we’d go and get married in front of our community and God and thereafter share a marriage with terms as outlined by the Bible.

    However, one must acknowledge – especially on this blog – that biblical marriage is in fact outright illegal today. The two spouses treating their bodies as belonging to each other? That’s marital rape. The two spouses being together for life? No-fault divorce is the law of the land, and you’re a spousal abuser if you don’t give your wife the option to abandon the marriage at any time she chooses. There are likely countless other examples of this conflict between God’s law and governmental law.

    I’m not some Scrooge character who wants to write up a byzantine marriage contract that lets me enslave a woman and do as I wish to her, I’m just very intent on wanting the freedom to have a normal marriage – with only the ups and the downs that are naturally inherent to such a thing, not the bullet-to-the-head of negatives that “government marriage” offers and imposes should I ever fail to please my wife to her satisfaction.

    “How can you ever guarantee that your momentary utopia will not suddenly get changed again. You fix all the laws, get married, and then some idiots change the laws to even worse than they were before.”

    My ideal marriage would be outside the purview of the law, so whatever laws happen to come and go in the background wouldn’t have any sway over its terms or enforcement. I have absolutely zero intent of trying to fix the laws (which was what our previous discussion about “gaming women into changing the laws” was about).

    “I guess I’m still not sure what your plan is, or what you need to have changed to make you feel like the game is not a gun.”

    In my eyes, the game of “government marriage” is and will remain a gun; one that is not worth attempting to disarm from women (it will disappear like sand through their fingers soon enough anyway). However, marriage itself is fine with me; that’s a game I’m happy to play.

    Obviously I haven’t settled on anything yet and it’s only theoretical, but the basic plan I have in mind for myself at the moment would be to go out into the world and find a local community I consider to be sufficiently principled, isolated, isolationist and resolutely anti-authoritarian. Then, only once I was in such a defensible position free from governmental oversight and influence, I would work on the idea of marriage, family and so on.

    It’s my view that when a wife uses all of these unjust laws that rest at her fingertips to destroy her family and scupper her husband, that is then a thorough dashing of all of the husband’s efforts up to that point to create something of value in this world with his headship. You may feel that your marriage was worthwhile despite your divorce, but I believe that if such a thing were to happen to me I would consider it nothing more than a squanderance: Large sums of time and effort I’d have spent in good will and intent which would have now been rendered fruitless and wasted, through no fault of my own.

    In my mind, based on how I feel about that, that leaves me two choices:

    I can work and fight to put myself in a position where I am protected from such an evil, unjust, artificial potentiality, or failing that I can just go and do something else of value and importance with my life.

    If I instead just went ahead and got married anyway and twenty years later ended up divorced, I would consider that to be twenty years of largely wasted time. It would’ve been more beneficial to have just not bothered.

    All of that should give you a better idea of my overall views.

    “How are your social interactions with the opposite sex? Is there any awkwardness of trepidation, when you’re not marrying one of them, but just flirting? Do you flirt? Just trying to get a better understanding of where you’re at, and where you’re trying to go still.”

    I’d say I’m a bit of an awkward person in general (which stems from lack of socialising earlier in life), so that does come into play when talking to girls. However, I’m not afraid of them or anything and can talk to girls just fine. I have a very deep, masculine voice which also aids me in that.

    I wouldn’t say I flirt much though, no. Sometimes I’ll have an interaction with a girl that goes quite well with lots of laughter and smiles and it makes it seem like she might like me, but seeing as I feel unable to permit anything (sex or marriage) to come of such an interaction it would not have been my actual intent to push things in that direction.

    I’d say most flirting I do is purely accidental; I mostly just don’t bother going out of my way to talk to girls unless it’s necessary. The point being that I could, but I choose not to.

    —–

    @Kevin

    I respect you for your honest acceptence of my position.

    —–

    @Minesweeper

    I’d prefer in general to live under the same roof rather than apart (mostly for economic and comfort reasons), but seeing as I’d also want to have children I just don’t think there would be any way that I could avoid the Australian government getting involved in my business no matter how I try to “structure my affairs”.

    As well, doing what you suggest would still be to play Russian roulette, you’d just be trying to avoid the bullet in a different way:

    Instead of puffing your chest and trying to be “alpha enough” or cutting off your balls and trying to be “beta enough” IN a government marriage, you’re trying to be married to a woman without ever managing to accidentally cross the government’s threshold/tripwire for what it considers to be a government marriage.

    Since the government’s definitions are abitrary they can always expand them in just such a way that they manage to nab you in retrospect, so you’ll always still be at their mercy regardless.

    —–

    @Ray

    “So, that’s not so bad of a final result, yes? Worth working for.”

    Most definitely. Thank you for your encouraging words; you seem to be making very bold claims, but I certainly agree with the desired vision.

  169. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, good points, you have definitely given this alot of thought. The only other option when sliding under the covers of the (feminist relational government controls) while getting married or co-habituating is reducing her incentive to divorce and alienate you from your kids.

    You either have to drop down your salary to a level that she accepts, doesn’t go looking for higher income and is also has no incentive to divorce you as the financial rewards aren’t worth it.

    The other option is the nuclear one, and one that she knows absolutely you will follow through on which is if she wants out, you cancel the insurance, burn down the house (destroying her capital and incentive), resign and never work again so she can’t screw you over for alimony or child support. She will be completely on her own and starting from nothing.And also swear to cause her as much trouble for the rest of her life as you are able.

    Its definitely a fine line, that optimal situation, where you are providing enough that she will let you live in your own home with your own kids and that kicking you out makes everything so much worse its just not worth it.

    Fu*k the world that its come to this.

  170. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, if the above sounds harsh, its exactly what women do every single day to men in divorce, they destroy their assets – houses\pensions\shares\companies\future earnings, utterly ruin their lives and cause absolutely as much trouble as they can for the rest of that individuals life leading many to suicide. Its just that men have never played this game, but we are learning. When women are empowered to be as dreadful as they can be, for this time at least.

  171. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, its ablit like when companies insert a “poison pill” into their constitution to thwart hostile takeovers. If a hostile company tries it, the company dissolves and this removes the incentive for at least 99% of hostile acts.

    the only thing (speaking from experience) I can really say to marriage nowadays is that considering that they treat in divorce both your incomes as equally weighting (even if you have contributed 10 times as much – as in my case) and you should at least therefore both share equally the financial costs, as in drop your income to meet hers not a penny more. Incredibly the law views you contributing financially x10 or more what she has as 100% equal to her contribution – its completely insane.

    And never marry anyone who cant\wont pay their way. Many wife’s really do expect to be taken care of financially – by that I mean, you lose years of your life to fund her laziness and stupidity.. Female education is mostly wasted in my experience, once a couple of kids appear, the job is history. And all the financial demands for her life are now dumped onto you without any approval from you. The minute she resigns from her job – even without you knowing – which is a thing BTW, you are now responsible for her upkeep and her divorce lawyers bills if is comes to that.

    You can see why women who are bat shit crazy make out like bandits in our current legal system.

  172. OKRickety says:

    Paul,

    “The ONLY NT text that is used to support the idea of sexual immorality breaking up marriage is a specific INTERPRETATION of Mt 19:9.”

    No, Matt. 19:19 is not the “ONLY” NT text with the so-called “exception clause”.

    “… but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for [the] reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” [Matt. 5:32 NASB]

    This belies your claim and thus casts doubts on the credibility of the rest of your argument.

    “Adultery is sin. But sin can be repented of. And a spouse can forgive the other spouse. That’s at the core of the Christian message.”

    In fact, a Christian spouse is commanded to forgive their spouse if they do repent.

    Forgiveness is fundamental to Christianity, but forgiving a husband (of any sin) seems to be repugnant to most churchian wives today. Indeed, I think many instead take the opportunity to justify their own sinful desire for divorce.

  173. ray says:

    ingracioius — “Most definitely. Thank you for your encouraging words; you seem to be making very bold claims, but I certainly agree with the desired vision.”

    Jeshua is God, but He is also my friend. It would be a rare thing for Him to leave my word empty. Seeings how He is the one who insisted I rely upon it. If you think that is an unauthorized claim, or a false claim, I invite you to ask Him about it. Typically He is v prompt concerning such replies, but it might now be the way you expect.

    As to your marriage wishes, I don’t think you’ll be allowed a ‘biblical marriage’ anywhere in America, Britain, Canada, or Australia. I mentioned before that there are places where what you wish is possible, and indeed constitute the cultural standard/default. I’m certainly not going to identify those places on a public site, because I don’t want every bloated Cow of Bashan going there and polluting my oases with their arrogance and predation. Lest unspoiled lands become as your nations.

    Cheers.

  174. Sharkly says:

    @Ingracious
    It’s my view that when a wife uses all of these unjust laws that rest at her fingertips to destroy her family and scupper her husband, that is then a thorough dashing of all of the husband’s efforts up to that point to create something of value in this world with his headship. You may feel that your marriage was worthwhile despite your divorce, but I believe that if such a thing were to happen to me I would consider it nothing more than a squanderance: Large sums of time and effort I’d have spent in good will and intent which would have now been rendered fruitless and wasted, through no fault of my own. … If I instead just went ahead and got married anyway and twenty years later ended up divorced, I would consider that to be twenty years of largely wasted time. It would’ve been more beneficial to have just not bothered.

    That is all from an earthly perspective. You have to see from the eternal perspective, Grasshopper.
    Large sums of time and effort I’d have spent in good will and intent can render great eternal reward, since no reward was received here on earth, and our God is just, and He will be in debt to no one.
    … which would have now been rendered fruitless and wasted, through no fault of my own. If through the providence of God, your works are tried by fire, And all the self-serving momentary pleasures you desire are burned up like chaff, you’ll be happy to have some gold and precious jewels to remain. To have put yourself into harms way, and suffered loss, for what God recommended you do, in His word. To marry, rather than to burn with lust. And to suffer with dignity and grace, while forgiving others, while you yourself are persecuted for wrongs you did not even commit. Those things will find you favor in the eyes of the Lord. Consider it all joy(difficult, I know) if you should be counted worthy to suffer due to your acting out of conscience towards God. If you use your mind to guarantee yourself an indulgent life of ease, and build “lasting” earthly monuments to yourself, and gain the whole world. what profit is that to a dead man? Better a live dog, than a dead lion. Once you’re dead, you’ll wish you’d suffered more for Christ, not less. You’ll wish you could come back and take a bullet for Christ.
    I’m not saying to seek out trouble, or to foolishly blunder into it, like I did, but do your best, trust in God, and if He brings trouble on you, bear it with grace, and cleave unto God, and your eternal reward will not fail.

  175. Sharkly says:

    Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Chapter 2
    1: My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation.
    2: Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble.
    3: Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end.
    4: Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate.
    5: For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.
    6: Believe in him, and he will help thee; order thy way aright, and trust in him.
    7: Ye that fear the Lord, wait for his mercy; and go not aside, lest ye fall.
    8: Ye that fear the Lord, believe him; and your reward shall not fail.
    9: Ye that fear the Lord, hope for good, and for everlasting joy and mercy.

    15: They that fear the Lord will not disobey his Word; and they that love him will keep his ways.
    16: They that fear the Lord will seek that which is well, pleasing unto him; and they that love him shall be filled with the law.
    17: They that fear the Lord will prepare their hearts, and humble their souls in his sight,
    18: Saying, We will fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men: for as his majesty is, so is his mercy.

  176. Paul says:

    @OKRickety : “No, Matt. 19:19 is not the “ONLY” NT text with the so-called “exception clause”. I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for [the] reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery;”

    Well, technically Mt 19:9 is the only one, and indeed, some people include Mt 5:32. However, it is actually speaking of MAKING your wife commit adultery. The exception is telling that in the case of unchastity you are not MAKING her commit adultery. Technically the exception clause does not say a thing about divorce, although I agree some people are eager to read it that way.

  177. Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity. | Dalrock

  178. ingracious says:

    @Minesweeper

    “Its definitely a fine line, that optimal situation, where you are providing enough that she will let you live in your own home with your own kids and that kicking you out makes everything so much worse its just not worth it.”

    My first post here was actually to present an idea that is the theoretical extreme of such a train of thought, which was that one could keep a secret hitman on retainer as a “counter-threatpoint” – a way to cancel-out and completely nullify all of the government’s incentives for a wife to divorce.
    Since cash and prizes are only attainable if you’re alive, this would mean that no matter how grand and lucrative the government were to make the divorce system it would still always be in your wife’s best interest to not divorce you.

    This would then allow you to still live loud-and-proud and in an optimised fashion, without any of these undesirable compromises (intentionally keeping income low, having to threaten to destroy your own house, etc.) – you wouldn’t feel the need to bother with any of it because you’d be “playing for keeps”, basically.

    However, most of the people here did not seem to grasp what I was trying to point out about marriage itself by presenting such an idea; I’m with you in saying ‘Fuck the world that such ideas could even need to be considered now’.

    It may have just been the convoluted nature of the way I write, but I think some people just simply aren’t operating from the same understanding of the world today.

    You and I, we obviously both have the same understanding and the same concept in mind: Women possess nukes in the form of the government’s unfair laws, so for us men to be on equal, safe footing we’d need to have our own nukes – it’s a scorched earth, Mutually Assured Destruction kind of situation.

    I don’t think what you’re saying sounds harsh and other men are certainly free to pursue such ideas to whatever degree they wish, but it’s just not what I desire for myself. I want to live a peaceful, upstanding life, so the constant nuclear arms-race that government marriage would require in order for a man to minimise its mortal dangers is not something I wish to engage in; I do not want my marriage to be a life-long cold war between myself and my wife.

    Thank you for all your input, though, Minesweeper. I think we’re definitely on the same page about this stuff.

    —–

    @Sharkly

    What I’ve written is indeed from an earthly perspective and I appreciate your reminder, but I still feel that even in the light of this world’s unimportance relative to God’s eternal kingdom I would still hold to my stance.

    Contrary to your interpretation, I am not afraid of hardship or adversity. I do not desire earthly monuments to bask in and glorify myself over, in preference to living an honest, principled life without concern for such things.

    I simply consider my life, and my future deeds, to have value, and to /knowingly throw away/ that value on a rigged game is not what I consider righteous.

    You say:

    “I’m not saying to seek out trouble, or to foolishly blunder into it, like I did, but do your best, …”

    But in my eyes, that is exactly what you are saying. To become married within the eyes of the law is – in and of itself – trouble, and also foolish, and yet that is what you would heartily recommend for me.

    I consider it analogous to the generals of the Great War who – instead of accepting that war had changed – insisted on cavalry charge after cavalry charge against the enemy’s barbwire and fully-automatic machine guns.

    Each charge being one more job-lot of worthy, valiant young men being sent off to die; just another line of graves, just another string of text on some plaque. And in service of what? The maintainence of some obstinate general’s ego? Or perhaps as an aimless attempt at fulfilling the wistful desire that things could just go back to being like they used to be if only you could throw enough corpses at the problem?

    What is it that is actually accomplished when a man – upon the recommendation of his elders – walks himself into a hollow, unsatisfying female-domineered marriage and a seemingly inevitable divorce-rape?

    You yourself are a statistical casuality of the “justice system” and its modern role in destroying marriages and men’s lives:

    If, before you had gotten married, you were given the choice of whether you wanted to be at the mercy of those laws which ended up being used against you and could simply have picked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to them, what would have been your decision?

    And would you really consider a man who looks at what happened to you – and countless other real individuals – and wants to pick not to be at the mercy of these laws to be a vain, self-obsessed coward simply because he wishes to avoid the same senseless and predictable fate? For not intentionally welcoming unnecessary suffering into his life so that he can financially benefit all of the lawyers and judges who profiteer from his misery?

    You also say:

    “Better a live dog, than a dead lion.”

    Rather than a dead lion, your suggested course of action is in fact that of a live lion:

    A lion who proudly and knowingly walks itself into a cage, handing itself over to the corrupt carnies who it now lives at the mercy of; surrendering its own power and autonomy, and instead allowing itself to be whipped and taunted by the small lion-tamer who now holds the key to its cell.

    Such a life path is the one of “indulgent ease”. You don’t have to stand up for what you believe in and subject yourself to risk by opposing the corrupt system, you just go along to get along. Instead of rejecting injustice and perhaps gracefully accepting a life without marriage as a consequence, you marry anyway: Better to be a married cuck than a free man of principle.

    It is to live in the land of Sodom, and say “I will live in accordance with and respect your dictates, not God’s”. If you agree that biblical marriage and its prescriptions are illegal today, then to live outside of jail in a legal marriage is to live contrary to the Bible; which is to live in cowardice rather than integrity.

    I would ask:

    How many chambers need to be loaded before accepting the rules of Russian roulette loses all pretense of courageousness and simply becomes intentional suicide? Does it have to be six? What about three chambers (50/50)? Four chambers (greater than 50/50)? Five chambers (anything but death is unlikely)?

    How thick must the barbwire be before giving the command to send young cavalrymen uphill against it makes the commander personally responsible for their deaths?

    And I would say:

    The men who fought for Ireland’s independence in 1916 were all captured and put in front of a firing squad before having their bodies dissolved in pits of lye.

    I would rather die in such a fashion in the service of something I believe in than to live and suffer and piss away my life as a sheep in some government marriage.

    (Of interest would be the Irish national anthem, “A Soldier’s Song”: http://www.sampleireland.com/index/national-anthem-of-ireland/ireland-national-anthem/

    And this song as a bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7S_07E-9CA )

  179. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,
    I see what you’re saying, that attempting a marriage in these conditions is seemingly just poor stewardship of the life and talents God has given you. And that is a reasonable argument. Perhaps you can contain your sexual urges appropriately, and then most assuredly that would spare you trouble in this life.
    1Corinthians 7:28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

    yet that is what you would heartily recommend for me.
    LOL, you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not saying to still be Blue Pill like I was, think with your dick, like I did, and marry a crazy whore from a godless crazy trash Feminist family, like I did. I’m expecting that if you’re more educated about the problems, and go about it smarter than I did, your results will also likely be much better. Now I get your point that the situation is even worse than when I married, and that you’d like to not have any risk, but there will always be some.

    If, before you had gotten married, you were given the choice of whether you wanted to be at the mercy of those laws which ended up being used against you and could simply have picked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to them, what would have been your decision?
    Well obviously I did get married, but I had no anticipation of what my fiancée would turn into upon marriage triggering her “Intimacy Anorexia”. If I had known what would transpire, my younger self would of course be saying; “Hell No!” However, I do love my sons, and have had a lot of good times with them, and even had some good times with my wife in spite of her hatred of intimacy and crappy behavior designed to prevent intimacy. Maybe I’m still stupid, but if my wife died today, I’d seriously try getting remarried. Hopefully knowing what I know now, I’d get better results, and although I’ve got a little less to offer now, I’ve got a lot less to lose now too. LOL I’m not sure if that answers that question, but hopefully it does.

    I don’t thing you’re a “vain, self-obsessed coward“. That is the rest of society, the man-up crowd, telling you that. I just think it would behoove you to not torture yourself over this decision forever, and possibly live with later regrets. You should make it as wisely as you can while you’re fairly young, decide what you’re going to do, and then execute your plan 100% and not look back, with any sort of “buyers remorse” wishing or wondering about having gone in the other direction.

    As far as giving up freedom; That is going to happen with every marriage. You’ll end up giving up the freedom of the single life, for a far more obligated married life. It is “part and parcel” of the deal.

    intentional suicide?
    Unfortunately that can also describe our Christian walk. We must die to self to truly follow Him unreservedly. So, if marriage is intentional suicide, it is right like the rest of a true Christian’s life. That is the part about Christianity that most folks don’t want. They just want a Santa Clause religion, except where Santa gives all the bad girls and boys just as many presents just for the asking, in spite of their intentionally leaving him just crumbs from their eaten up cookie, and a spilled cup of already spoiled milk, and they openly disdain Santa every day of the year but Christmas eve.

    I would rather die in such a fashion in the service of something I believe in than to live and suffer and piss away my life as a sheep in some government marriage.
    Well, then you’ve either already made your decision, or you’re posturing and trying to convince yourself. But I think your looking for a third way down this path, is because you’re not really ready to give up on marriage just yet.
    FWIW I felt no need of women or children, but I was always drawn like a horny moth to a flame by my erotic desire for a woman. If you don’t have that as strong as I did, take advantage of that personal fortitude, and live for God unencumbered.

    I wouldn’t say I flirt much though, no. Sometimes I’ll have an interaction with a girl that goes quite well with lots of laughter and smiles and it makes it seem like she might like me, but seeing as I feel unable to permit anything (sex or marriage) to come of such an interaction it would not have been my actual intent to push things in that direction.
    I’d say most flirting I do is purely accidental; I mostly just don’t bother going out of my way to talk to girls unless it’s necessary. The point being that I could, but I choose not to.

    I don’t know if I should draw a conclusion from that short snapshot, but I think I was far more into girls, and I almost could have stayed single. I might have gotten a bit bitter about being single later on, like a certain lifelong bachelor on this site sometimes seems, but I’d have also lived my single life to the hilt as he seems to endeavor to do. I think because I never had too much trouble flirting with and attracting girls, I would probably tend to be less bitter, knowing it was entirely by my own choice that I had stayed single, if I had. And yes, I was usually finding a way of putting myself into a position where I was entertaining as many girls as possible and being flirtatious even while kicking them to the curb “unable to permit anything (sex or marriage) to come of such an interaction”. BTW, even if you decide to never ever think of getting married, You should make the effort to socialize with females, because it is a sometimes important life skill to be able to negotiate pleasantly on their turf without incurring their ire. Unless you already have sisters to learn that from.
    I hope some of that helps.

  180. Pingback: Modesty standards are sinful. | Dalrock

  181. ingracious says:

    @Sharkly,

    I’m a bit late in coming back and seeing your response here, but I’ll respond anyway just because I still see that there are key misunderstandings between us.

    ‘yet that is what you would heartily recommend for me.’
    “LOL, you’re putting words in my mouth.”

    Not at all. You recommend government marriage, therefore you recommend – ipso facto – that I blunder into trouble.

    The quality of /any woman/ – in the entire world – is of no relevance here, Sharkly. The problem is the marriage contract itself.

    18-years old, virgin, nubile, sane, devout, deferential – all of these words describe a woman who’s just as much of a danger to marry as any other, because the danger doesn’t come from /her/, it comes from /government marriage/.

    I don’t want to make this personal because I still respect you and appreciate your honest willingness to engage with me, but to use your situation with your wife as an example here:

    How did your wife take your sons from you? Did she kick down the door with her puny legs, rip them away from you with her puny arms and then provide for them with the backbreaking labour performed with her puny back?

    Or were you a prideful lion sitting in its gilded cage, and when the carnies came by and pointed a shotgun through the bars at your head and said ‘Hand ’em over’ that’s exactly what you did? And when they told you to dance on the colourful carnival ball so that you could make enough money for them to steal and give over to your ex-wife, well, that’s exactly what you did? And so on with visitation rights and every other dictate they made for you?

    Because what else were you going to do? You put yourself in such a position of weakness and vulnerability, and by doing so you threw away your freedom; you threw away your freedom from such tyranny.

    “Well obviously I did get married, but I had no anticipation of what my fiancée would turn into upon marriage… my younger self would of course be saying; “Hell No!””

    You didn’t understand the question. I’m not asking ‘If you could go back in time and do things again, would you still get married at all?’, my question was:

    “If you could choose to have Marriage A (government marriage with all the unfair child custody laws that were used against you, etc.) or Marriage B (non-government marriage without those laws’ influence), which would you pick?”

    Same woman, different terms for the same marriage.

    “As far as giving up freedom; That is going to happen with every marriage. You’ll end up giving up the freedom of the single life, for a far more obligated married life. It is “part and parcel” of the deal.”

    You just… you don’t get it.

    I don’t want ‘freedom from responsibility’ or ‘freedom from duty and obligation’ at all, I want freedom from tyranny.

    With inspiration from Minesweeper: I want to marry a woman based on a set of terms which I can see and know what they are, terms which I can find acceptence for and terms which are not forever at risk of being unilaterally changed by spineless politicians who serve an “empowered” female voting-majority who only care about fucking men over for their own gain.

    ‘Oh look, honey, the newspaper says the people just voted for Duluth 2.0: All maleness is rape edition! It looks like me smacking you on the ass in the bedroom has now been retroactively made a capital offence and when I die you also get to have all of my stuff! Huh, guess I’m fucked! Good deal for you though, eh.’

    I feel I’ve made it quite clear that I actually /want/ to get married; I actually want to grow up and take on more responsibility rather than staying as a responsibility-free child, but things like the marriage laws (and employment laws) are what stand in the way of that for me. It doesn’t stop me, but they’re all roadblocks I’m forced to try and think up ways around.

    It makes me think of a couple quotes I came across:

    “What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?” – James Madison

    “The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer has over me is far less than that which the smallest functionary who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am allowed to live or to work.” – F. A. Hayek

    ‘intentional suicide?’
    “Unfortunately that can also describe our Christian walk. We must die to self to truly follow Him unreservedly.”

    And I understand that – and if I’m honest, I’m not there yet. That’s why I’ve come here to learn more.

    However, while we are tasked with accepting that which comes our way, is there not a difference between that and seeking out trouble for ourselves? Is there not a difference between someone else shooting you and you choosing to pick up the gun and shoot yourself? Especially when you possess the knowledge to know that it will almost certainly kill you?

    Why don’t we all just walk out of our homes and go find a fiend’s bayonet to thrust ourselves upon if all death and suffering is noble to endure? Why don’t we feed our children to wolves so we can spare them the suffering of life, then do the same with ourselves?

    That was my point: Where does the line get drawn? Do you think a line should be drawn at all?

    There might have been a time in the past where the laws surrounding government marriage weren’t quite so bad and could have been tolerated – and thus perhaps I would’ve been just another slow-boiling frog among many – however, today I consider government marriage completely unacceptable for myself or any other man. I could not in good conscience recommend it, no matter what the man’s circumstances were.

    That stance would perhaps put me at odds with a number of more hopeful/idealistic people who come here, which is why I wish to argue my position and present the relevant dangers as I perceive them; I do not feel that my view is at all baseless or immature.

    ‘I would rather die in such a fashion…’
    “Well, then you’ve either already made your decision, or you’re posturing and trying to convince yourself.”

    No, it’s neither.

    Let’s say the government went full-on authoritarian and started forcing men at gunpoint to marry women whether they wanted to or not, and all the terms of these marriages were to be just as biased in women’s favour as they are today if not even more so.

    Given a choice between government marriage or death, I would pick death.

    That’s what I said, and that’s all I said. I’ve made no claim that dying would come easy for me or that it’s what I necessarily desire for myself, and I am indeed still undecided on whether to pursue non-government marriage or a celibate life.

    “But I think your looking for a third way down this path, is because you’re not really ready to give up on marriage just yet.”

    Exactly, because I haven’t given up on marriage, I’ve given up on government marriage. The distinction between the two needs to be clear in one’s mind for what I’m saying to make sense; it’s the entire point of what I’ve been talking about in this thread.

    If I’ve decided I want a regular chicken sandwich, and the only kind of sandwichs that are legally available are shit sandwiches, then I will either have to find a blackmarket chicken sandwich for myself (which is difficult) or just go hungry. I don’t actually want to go hungry, but I’m not going to just pick up a shit sandwich and start munching away – especially when I can observe the health problems people suffer when they do make that compromise.

    “I don’t know if I should draw a conclusion from that short snapshot, but I think I was far more into girls, and I almost could have stayed single.”

    You’re welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like.

    The relative quantifiable severity of our libidos isn’t really of concern, I don’t think. My impression now of the purpose of your questioning was that it was indeed to establish whether I am “just bitter” – whether I’m just an “incel” who’s mad women don’t like me. Perhaps a bit of a ‘Fox and the Grapes’ situation due to a lack of social skills/game.

    No.

    How much of my behaviour with regards to women is natural and how much is due to my perception of the danger and lack of reward attached to them? Well, I can’t seperate the two at this point, so I honestly don’t know.

    All I know is that I feel I want to have something to do with them, but I feel I can’t have anything to do with them – voluntarily celibate, involuntarily MGTOW.

    That outlook determines what I consider worthwhile to do or pursue.

    And ultimately, whether I choose celibacy or not, I will need to choose what to pursue, yes.

    “And yes, I was usually finding a way of putting myself into a position where I was entertaining as many girls as possible…”

    Then you must not be very introverted. I’ve been in that situation a few times before and I find it to be a draining distraction, and considering I want nothing to do with these girls it would be a malinvestment of limited resources to spend my energy “entertaining” them for free. In small doses? Perhaps, but not for the purpose of constant peacocking to large numbers of girls, especially if there’s something more beneficial I could be spending my time on.

    The incentive structure just isn’t there.

  182. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,
    Thanks for your response. Hopefully I’m closer to understanding your thinking on the matter of marriage. Your thinking is quite novel, at least from my generation’s perspective, although I can’t speak for anyone but myself for certain.

    On your marriage do-over question, I’m going to blame you. I think your first wording of the question was poor, leading to my misunderstanding. Your reworded question seemed quite understandable, and seemingly had a different meaning for me.
    FWIW If the terms of my marriage had been more favorable to me, It would likely still be together. But knowing she could, at government gunpoint, get the kids and get my money, while giving me nothing in return, she took that option. I’m almost certain she would never have left, if penniless and without the kids was her option.

    Sometimes I don’t like to argue with communists, because they religiously want or believe human nature to be good enough for communism to flourish and even be more effective than “evil” capitalism. You’re often wasting your time and logic, because they have a desire to believe in it, that will render all of your proofs and reasoning ineffective at changing their willful faith.

    My wife has Intimacy Anorexia, a subconscious yet intentional behavioral addiction to withholding intimacy, Which she subconsciously has feared since early childhood trauma. She denies she has it, and may in fact not consciously know what is occurring. In her world, she always has every reason to withhold intimacy, and she may even feel that she wants to share it, but it is always my fault for why she is forced to deny me the intimacy that I desire. She was likely told to get married before she hit the wall, by society, she may have thought she would like being married, being unaware of her own condition. But, the only marriage she subconsciously ever really wanted was a purely platonic one, like her parents marriage, where they function more like aloof roommates. However in her conscious mind she imagined that she would get and like a romantic and intimate marriage like the movies she watches.

    There are other forms of intimacy disorders, and other disorders that may affect a man’s dealings with women. Although you have said that you are INTJ, and you seem to be so, I really don’t know what you’re like socially having never met you or observed you. so, I was trying to delve into your motivations, to see if I could find anything that might shed light on our discussion.

    You seem to have some very outside the box marriage ideas, and you seem strongly motivated to stay outside the box. I guess my questions about how you relate to girls were in hopes of possibly determining if some obvious thing might pop out at me from your answers. I’m not a shrink, but I might be able to spot something if it was obvious. I was trying to determine if you are just a genius who likes to think outside the box, and has discovered or believes, due to his genius that the answer he seeks lies outside the box we live in, and wants to find it because of his intellectual pursuit of the ideal. Or whether you might in fact live outside of the box, looking in and be wanting to stay outside the box because that is where you’re comfortable, and you’re quest looking for an outside the box solution, would continue even if solutions in the box were to miraculously be made pleasant and viable. If marriage got fixed, would you still be putting it off looking for some obscure solution that is seemingly always just around the next corner of the box. Like I said, I’m not a shrink, and I have not figured out anything from what you’ve told me, although I’m still pondering it. The reason being, that if there is any subconscious reason for why you’re not interested in marriage, then I’m possibly just wasting my time, like discussing Capitalism with a communist “true believer”, they’ll never be persuaded, because they don’t want to learn, they just want to hold to their belief. So too if you’ve got a layered in motivation to stay outside of the bond of marriage, then nothing anybody comes up with will ever be a good enough kind of marriage for you.

    So I think I get what you’re saying about marriage and I agree. I’m just wondering why you’re saying it. When I was your age I was foolish and thinking with my dick about marriage. However If you asked me to climb way up in a tree to rescue a cat, I was a serious genius about all the drawbacks to climbing that high, and how all cats aren’t worth it, and no doubt I’d be trying to come up with a great alternate solution to get the cat down, perhaps a long pole and a net. Because I have a fear of heights that motivates me to look outside the box when it comes to really tall tree climbing.
    I also have great respect for your intellect, and you as a man, and I want to be able to help you in any way I can, and the best way I can. So that is the only reason why I went there, I was hoping to gain an understanding by which I might help you best to have a better life than myself, by lending what I have learned the hard way. My wife’s issue also makes me aware that there are people out there who will be truly miserable with the normal, and will make somebody else yoked to them miserable too. So for them they need their own different solution, for their own reasons. Being as smart as you are, doesn’t always come with great social or emotional abilities.(and those abilities are useful in marriage, especially if you have a difficult partner) So it is not outside the realm of possibility that you have your own eccentricities, which may need to be accounted for. By the way I was not thinking of you as a “bitter Incel”, I was thinking more possibly of “fearful”.

    Then you must not be very introverted.
    I am introverted. I live alone now, out in the boonies and I don’t ever get lonely. I don’t like crowds, or big cities. I want to help mankind more than deal with most individual people. however, My testing shows that while I am far from having any disorder, I may lean a touch narcissistic, histrionic, and compulsive. Understanding that, it makes perfect sense, that I prefer to be alone. But, when I get around people, suddenly I like to be the center of their attention.

    FWIW I read a study that compared corporate big wigs to prison inmates for 12 personality disorders. The prison inmates were more likely than the tycoons to have all the personality disorders except for Narcissistic, Histrionic, and Compulsive, while the tycoons were more likely to have those three than the inmates. Hopefully that means I’m destined for greatness again. Not prison. LOL

    Also, I have been thinking and working on a web posting, I’d like to gear it toward younger folk like yourself. I thought you might be a good person to have go through it for me and give me your thoughts or edits or rewrite it. I’m a bit sleep deprived right now, and have writers block. Are you interested, and if so, should I just dump the text as a comment onto the contact page of your website? You could then email me back if you wanted to see the graphic I’ve made to go along with the text. If I haven’t already alienated you by probing your personality for disorders, of course.

  183. Minesweeper says:

    @ingracious, I completely connect with your point of view and I find Sharkly’s inability to do so really quite baffling.

    He is holding a blue pill position, while claiming to be an alpha (red pilled), while getting ruined in a divorce. That’s a really strange combo. All the while he is attempting to “cure and diagnose you” of your position.

    The interaction with him on this is fascinatingly strange to watch.

    Sharkly – sure your ex isnt BPD ? If you have NPD your a perfect match.

  184. Sharkly says:

    Minesweeper,
    I think I get what Ingracious is saying. I also hope you guys figure out a good solution, because I’d like to be aware of such a solution, for myself, and for my sons.
    Alpha and Red Pilled are not the same thing. I also have been different ways in different areas of my life. I felt like I did give up my freedom in marriage, and had in fact vowed to put up with mental sickness and “for worse”. Fearing God above all else, I submitted to my wife to try to save my marriage while she intentionally dangled it over the railing threatening to drop it to gain control. A herd of clueless Blue Pilled pastors counseled me to do that even to a greater extent than is even humanly capable.(they wanted me to win her over using supernaturally powerful levels of self degradation) So I did become extremely beta in my marriage, while I am pretty Alpha at work, and in social settings, with others whom I have not vowed anything to. My temperament is Alpha, and has been since I went away to college, but I have only recently begun being “Red Pilled”. I had a lifetime of hearing the Blue Pill preached at me while my actual experience always seemed to point towards the opposite being true. They told me if you want a girl to like you, be nice to her. But I found that when I was nice, the girls were not interested. When I didn’t like a girl I would tease them and make cutting remarks(negging) hoping they would then go away, but I found those girls would then become infatuated and stalk me. Things worked the exact opposite of how I was told they should. I have not tried to “cure” Ingracious, but, I actually am hoping to help if possible. Nor have I diagnosed him, Although I’m trying to get a better understanding.
    I recently, due to my divorce, was just run through 3 complete batteries of psychological testing, psychiatrist interviews, and had my family and friends interviewed, and was researched and Etc. And I was found to be free of any disorders. The three traits/disorders that I listed were just directions that my personality leaned. I was just sharing them to show why I could both be an introvert, yet also be attention seeking. Although one might note Narcissism does share some traits with Alpha, and is one leg of the “dark triad”.
    I ran through the DSM and although my wife, who has not been fully tested, has already been diagnosed with a couple of personality disorders and a thought disorder, nothing really was a match for the things she consistently does that are wrecking our marriage. I looked at Borderline, and Bipolar, and all the rest, and with the exceptions of the ones that she had already been diagnosed with none of them fit quite right. I’m not prone to flippantly misdiagnose her. While my wife has some aspects like BPD it does not fit her She is Compulsive not Impulsive, her mood never changes she does not self harm, or have suicidal thoughts, she is not reckless, but instead has an irrational level of need to be safe. however I did eventually come across an exact match. One day while I was researching on the internet trying to figure her out, I looked to see if there was an explanation for why she never liked me to speak at all or make any sound during sex, when we did have sex. That seemed really odd to me, even though she has been my only sex partner, and I have nobody else to compare her to. It turns out that is a way some people will attempt to reduce the intimacy of having sex, and is a common quirk of Intimacy Anorexia.
    https://www.drdougweiss.com/what-is-intimacy-anorexia/
    My wife is Exactly in every way an Intimacy Anorexic. I bought a book on it and it was uncanny how the author seemed as though he had been following my wife around and reporting every single odd behavior of hers, without reporting a single odd behavior that she did not have. The book goes far more into depth than that webpage does. I had never really put much stock in psychiatry until I discovered that eye opening revelation. Anyhow the good news is that it is a behavioral addiction, and it can be treated. The behavior like any addiction, can be stopped in an instant, if the addict wants to stop. But getting them to want to change and to want to stay changed is just like a sobriety process. Right now my wife is still in denial, and gets angry when confronted about it. She herself admits she meets 10 of 11 of the diagnostic criteria, but she claims it doesn’t count, because that is all my fault. And blaming is one of the symptoms. LOL
    Anyhow, unfortunately we are not a good match in that I want intimacy and some other things, and she is now addicted to withholding those things from me in the way I desire them most. She actually has honed her ability to cause me pain, and if I ever react, she blames my reaction for the reason why she is withholding, and trying actively to provoke me. But on top of that she does also have the three other diagnosed disorders, and they are not as effectively treatable, however they are much easier to just live with, than the disorder that makes her constantly intentionally torment me in the ways she has found to be most effective. Hopefully in the providence of God I’m suffering this for some good reason. It has been the Anabaptist tradition of my forefathers to become willing martyrs, and some of you seem to find that aspect of their faith fascinatingly strange, and really quite baffling. It goes against human logic. A willing martyr in a marriage who claims to have “Red Pill” knowledge and Alpha tendency, yet still dives on the Blue grenade to try to spare his sons some suffering, while also being an example of sacrifice probably just looks like foolishness to you. Now granted I was foolish in getting into the situation. And you men have far more Red Pill knowledge than I had when I blundered into my marriage. So I still have plenty to learn here, and I’m sure there are many things you can teach me, if you care to share.

  185. earl says:

    It occurs when someone in a relationship actively withholds emotional, spiritual and sexual intimacy from their spouse or partner.

    I got another term for it…not marriageable.

  186. BillyS says:

    My ex definitely blamed me for her withdrawing years before our divorce. One review of the book in essence put all the blame on the man, not the “abused woman” (in different words).

    The problem with this stuff is that we have so much psychology, yet we make little progress. Something tells me it is just female rebellion and the curse on Eve rather than all the handwaving.

  187. earl says:

    Something tells me it is just female rebellion and the curse on Eve rather than all the handwaving.

    What is becoming worse though is Eve blamed the serpent for her rebellion…not Adam. Hence they seem to think man is the devil rather than the devil.

  188. Sharkly says:

    Something tells me it is just female rebellion and the curse on Eve rather than all the handwaving.
    Well the “treatment” for Intimacy Anorexia involves, recognizing your condition, Turning from your condition, and establishing new right behaviors. Kind of sounds like REPENTANCE to me. But you can’t get that treatment at a church. I tried many! You’ve got to go to this treatment center and pay big bucks to have somebody explain to your partner that they need to change and how to change, and how best to stay changed. But it would be worth it, if I could get her to go. You’d think every church should be offering the same “therapy” for free. Funny to me that a psychiatric center can make money treating sinners, while the church is too busy blaming their partners and excusing the sin. Sad really.

  189. Minesweeper says:

    @Sharkly, “But on top of that she does also have the three other diagnosed disorders, and they are not as effectively treatable, however they are much easier to just live with, than the disorder that makes her constantly intentionally torment me in the ways she has found to be most effective. ”

    so she has 4 disorders ? phew, that must have been a fun household, care to share what they are? I feel very sorry that you have gone through this I really do. I don’t think your viewpoint is foolish at all. Maybe more confused, its like you’ve grabbed hold one branch (red) while still holding fast to the other (blue).

    ingracious has clarity of thought on whats going and his chances in this culture atm. the only way forward is either not to play the game, or move culture to where they still respect and value men and want them to be their head. women are very easily led, and believe almost anything at times. if neither of those 2 options are appealing, then the other option is to treat them like the mindless fu*k toys that they have turned themselves into which bizarrely enough seems to be turning out to be the only safe option. Or you could pull a rabbit out of a hat like Scotts wife who went through real repentance and submitted herself to him. But thats so rare to be almost a statistical anomaly unfortunately.

    and it saddens me greatly, I have a son too, and the girls he knows are like crazy – threatening suicide and everything, causing lots of problems. we may be reaching peak crazy Im not sure. its hard to stay safe when the law has gone crazy as well (thanks feminist legislators). seems when all the boundaries and controls are removed from people, the women in particular go mad.

    it cant go on, i was speaking to a 62yo the other day and she was baffled about the constant “you go girlisms” in all the adverts and tv progs, but she couldnt understand at all whats going on with boys falling behind. that generation that put the seeds of this in place are literally baffled as to where things are going and they arnt going to fix anything that they set in motion. she has a very successful lawyer daughter going through her 1st divorce as she felt she was “putting more into the marriage” than the guy, now she is 33, I didnt say anything but the chances of her daughter getting married again arn’t great and as thats her only child, her chances of grandkids is not great either.

    so all these women pushing for rights and their reward is no grandkids and the end of their linage and her daughter living the rest of her life alone. bet she never thought that would be what she would reap at the beginning of all this.

  190. Sharkly says:

    I have not previously shared my wife’s other disorders not wanting to shame her for her other disorders, but I guess I will share them in hopes that perhaps someone will be better able to help knowing them. She has also been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, And Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also she had Irritable Bowel Syndrome when I married her, but within a couple months of marrying her and moving her away from her “Jerry Springer” family, the IBS entirely cleared up by itself. Strangely, no matter how insane, contentious, and panicked her family is, she will lie and cover for them, trying to make them seem OK, while she will conversely slander me, and lie and exaggerate just to make me look bad. Also, not as an insult to them, but, her family is for the most part genuinely quite low in generalized intelligence. And that is often an issue as they seemingly lack the metacognition to even realize they are not as functional as others. Fortunately my wife is the smartest of the bunch. However she seems either unable, or unwilling to ever see any dysfunction in her family of origin no matter how atrocious their behavior. I always hated going out in public with them, and wished I could wear a sign, declaring that I in no way approved of their constantly selfish, spoiled, annoying, entitled, panicked, and mentally retarded behavior. I think the times I met them when we were long distance dating, they were on their best behavior, and even then I was disgusted by them. I just foolishly thought my wife was cut from different cloth, because she didn’t act like the rest of them while we were dating. I also thought that since she had just been “saved” a couple of years earlier, that she’d be willing to take my spiritual leadership and learn a more Godly way of life. However a few years ago she moved her salvation back to during her childhood. I had expressed to her that I would not marry anybody who was sexually immoral while claiming to be saved, and apparently she lied to fit what I would accept. Then later she changed her history, saying that she rode the cock carousel while she was saved, but was just a smidge backslidden. She has also tried repeatedly to lower her N count, and tried gaslighting me about her history whenever she changes it. You are right about it not being fun. However, I’m slowly getting better about being able to stay resolved to make the best of my situation for my sons, and living without intimacy, respect, or even common decency in my marriage. Although I don’t want to be divorced, and it would be devastating to our sons, I get nothing, except a bit of household cleaning, grocery shopping, and the handling of some paperwork, out of my marriage. It certainly is not worth what I am required by law to put into the marriage. I deserve somebody who actually wants an intimate relationship, and is willing to enjoy what is theirs, and can honor their vows. I can’t imagine that my sons, growing up observing what I’ve gone through, will have any interest in being married. I don’t think school and church will be able to convince them not to believe their own eyes and ears.

  191. Luke says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 8, 2018 at 5:41 pm
    ” i was speaking to a 62yo the other day and she was baffled about the constant “you go girlisms” in all the adverts and tv progs, but she couldnt understand at all whats going on with boys falling behind. that generation that put the seeds of this in place are literally baffled as to where things are going and they arnt going to fix anything that they set in motion. she has a very successful lawyer daughter going through her 1st divorce as she felt she was “putting more into the marriage” than the guy, now she is 33, I didnt say anything but the chances of her daughter getting married again arn’t great and as thats her only child, her chances of grandkids is not great either.”

    I think you should have told that 62-YO woman about the low odds of her daughter remarrying and bearing children in time (before her ever-rising hypergamy, fast-declining MMV, and meteorically-plummeting fertility combine to end any chance of that in the next <10 years). Sure, it's improbable that she'd have accepted the message, tried to transmit it, would have had it accepted AND ACTED UPON IN TIME, but it might. (Just giving her a copy of Sylvia Anne Hewlett's book "Creating A Life" to pass on to the so-far barren daughter might have worked, had you cared to spend the 4 bucks Scamazon.com charges for a used copy (including postage).

  192. Minesweeper says:

    Sharkly,
    “I recently, due to my divorce, ”
    ” However, I’m slowly getting better about being able to stay resolved to make the best of my situation for my sons, and living without intimacy, respect, or even common decency in my marriage. Although I don’t want to be divorced, and it would be devastating to our sons, I get nothing, except a bit of household cleaning, grocery shopping, and the handling of some paperwork, out of my marriage. It certainly is not worth what I am required by law to put into the marriage.”

    what exactly is your situation ? seems abit confusing.

  193. Sharkly says:

    My wife moved out with my sons in November one night while I was at work. I figured out after doing a lot of research that she has Intimacy Anorexia. I wanted her to go with me to get treatment for it, but she got mad and defiant. I played hardball refusing to support her during her rebellion. She had socked away over $20K of our money, and proceeded to advance 10K more off of my debit card without my permission. I contacted the card company and contested the charges and cut her off financially. I got $5K back off of her card, and they let her keep the other 5K. She wanted me to give her additional monthly money so that she could live in style while defying me and wasting our money paying to keep up two separate residences. I offered her a compromise where I’d pay her $50 for sex, and she could make as much money as she wanted off of me. LOL Anyhow, she filed for divorce and extracted my money by the force of the government. She has refused to go to any type of mediator or counseling. She also accused me of being a Sex/Porn addict, and a danger to my kids. So the courts temporary order will not allow me to be with my kids unless supervised until such time as I can somehow prove that I will never be a danger to my kids. Somehow the burden of proof falls on me to disprove her false allegation. I had a full Psychological Evaluation done, and it states that I have no disorders and am not likely to be a danger to my children. but we had a parenting assessment done and the Rad-Fem conducting it unfortunately went ‘all in’ for my wife, and recommended that the supervision requirement stay in place despite my clean bill of mental health, until I had received treatment for Sex/Porn addiction from a doctor licensed in sex addiction. Anyhow I have been going through the intake process on that, the last few weeks, but I don’t think he is going to be able to “treat” me. He claims, that if he concludes at the end of his intake, that I do not have the condition, he could lose his license if he continues to treat me for a condition I do not have. My lawyer, a lady, seems to have some cognitive dissonance. She seems to be telling me that the court system is stacked against me and that it is very hard to defeat these kinds of false accusations, but then she also seems to think that is totally fair and right that it be that way. She seems to be defending the very system that she admits is stacked against me. Anyhow, my wife likes everybody to think that she is a good Christian and is trying to reconcile with me, while being a complete bitch, and refusing to even sit down with any sort of mediator. She has had me jumping through hoops, and no matter how many hoops I jump through she is still just as bitchy and unworkable as ever. She is a stubborn compulsive ass. She told me before she left, that this next time it was going to be for a year, last time she ran off with the kids, was 9 Months. I believe she is just dragging out the process toying with me, and that she knows she holds all the cards, and that the moment she wants to reconcile all she has to do is stop being an ass and I’ll take her back because of my religious beliefs. However I do think she will be mad when I prove that I was never a Sex/Porn addict, and a danger to the kids. I think she was hoping to claim I got treated and was “cured”, so she could come back and do yet another victory lap on my reputation. Last time I wooed the bitch back like F**ing “fireproof” I fear if I prove her to be a liar who has cheated the kids out of their father due to her own dysfunction, that she will then try to pin some other accusation on me, until something sticks enough, or she runs out of things to accuse me of. So, in review, she has filed for a divorce, which is proceeding very slowly, we both claim to want to reconcile, but she is refusing to do anything that might allow us to reconcile at this point, and continuing to cause me to blow my money on my legal defense against her false charges. According to the book I read about intimacy anorexia, they like to keep their marriages on the edge of falling apart, that gives them the least intimacy, and the most control. Fuckin’ pure evil. She basically is using my Christian beliefs to enslave me, and then she torments me and denigrates me, all the while blaming me for the fact that her marriage is not a Hallmark movie. If she really knew God, she would know that using my obedience to God’s word to make me endure torment and to waste my God granted potential for any other accomplishments or purpose in life will surely be avenged upon her by my Lord.
    Jesus told her to be subject to me as unto Him. She proceeds to cuck me, torment me, steal my sons and finally frivolously divorce me. Somehow she Imagines Jesus is still just waiting in line to marry her type. Jesus would have to be retarded to want a bride like that. I doubt he wants to be an eternal cuck to a rebellious and wicked woman who ignores His word. I don’t think she is on the narrow way. FYI I don’t believe in the bridal mysticism. I don’t think any individual will be the bride of Christ. Christ chose not to marry anyone when he was here on earth before. God doesn’t need a helper I presume. My God is not like some Greek or Roman god with unmet human like needs and issues.

  194. Minesweeper says:

    Sharkly, she sounds like a completely psychotic bitch from hell. I hope you can really work out how to get through this. I doubt she is possible of reconciliation.

  195. ChristianCool says:

    Sharky, I love how you offered to pay her $50 for sex. She is behaving like a whore anyway, might as well monetize it! LOL 😆

    Seriously, now….

    I am NOT a lawyer, only a student, but I attend a law school that teaches “legal realism”, which is looking at the law and judicial decisions practically and not from an abstract/romanticized point of view. And what I have learned in Family Law 101 and 201 tells me the whole “parenting assessment” is basically a scam, and a costly one per hour. How much is that costing you for one of these? $750? $1,500? The results are always the same: the woman is best suited to care for the children, she gets believed, etc etc. This is all for show by Family Court, and it is part of the money-draining scam to keep this whole divorce industry alive and well-financed.

    1) I would NOT use a female lawyer in a divorce if I were a man, because I would guesstimate 90% of them are Feminists in disguise. RUN from that. Find a “man’s rights” law firm, if one is available in your State. Even if it is all marketing, they will actually have male lawyers and even some female ones that have distrust and disgust of this system and will actually put effort to fight it. It sounds like your Fem-lawyer is gonna do what Public Pretenders (Defenders) do, which is to plea guilty and ruin your life, while paying lip service to putting up a defense at all. 😡

    2) Yes, it will be very hard to fend off false accusations by a woman/wife, especially when it comes to child custody and support. I suggest you check the “recording laws” in your State and see if you can coax a confession by your soon-to-be ex-wife, admitting she is making false accusations. It will have to be voluntarily from her… very conversational and then you ask “why are you doing this? you know this is not true”.

    The catch is: your State has to be a one-party State. If it is two-party State, the recording will be ILLEGAL, could be criminal and will be inadmissible in court.

    Find out if your State is one-party (you can record on your own and likely admissible in Court):

    https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf

    3) E-mail your Fem-lawyer’s assistant and ask her for a FULL coipy of your entire case file. Explain you want copies all documents to keep a complete file at home, because you want to follow everything happening in the case. If she is not ALREADY mailing you copies of all filings by both sides, that is a bad sign. You want full file because if you change lawyers (and I strongly suggest you do!), you want to hand complete copy of all documents on case to new lawyer. That will save many billable HOURS of work from new lawyer having to get copies of eveyrthing from past lawyer and from getting all docs from court filing system (now online, but still billable work time!).

    Always keep all docs on a case at home, you just never know!

    4) Ask your Fem-lawyer’s assistant or bookkeeper for an updated breakdown of hourly bills, because if you want to fire her, you want as much of your current legal retainer refunded to you. Verify all charges and question/contest any billable “work” that seem to be a scam AFTER you get a full refund and after you get your complete copy of file.

    If she balks and tries to scam-add work that never happen, mention filing a grievance at the BAR association for improper billing. Such complaints stay on her file 15 years and all ethic grievances get posted on her profile at BAR website. 😉

    5) Stay clam, avoid raising your voice, and make sure any arguments are done indoors with windows closed, and NOT in pat complex, which are known for being “cop traps”, as neighbors call cops for any small noise. This is an unfair and shitty system that is indeed rigged against you as a man. But you CAN fight back and you can win if you have the right lawyer working for you and you are CUNNING, doing things like recording stuff (if legal). No matter what, record (with her knowledge if in two-party State) all interactions with your soon-to-be-ex. If she starts getting crazy, pull out your cell and say while recording “why don’t you repeat what you just told me about hitting me to that nice Judge we have been talking to”. It will clam the bitch down FAST. And if she gets crazier, good for you. Get it on video. 😉

    6) If all else fails and she does not have HER family around you locally, you might want to pull a “500+ mile move” situation. This is a strategy used by men who “call her bluff” and say they will move over 500 miles away and give up all parental rights and drop whole responsibility for kids on ex-bitch. Why? Because that strategy relieves man of having to “take the kids” the moment she has some Alpha cock calling her on the drop of a hat or when she wants to get hammer with her Fem friends. Being over 500 miles away wipes all legal responsibility to kids, except child support, in many States. You focus completely on property and that reduces divorce costs IMMENSELY! Child custody fights is a huge “cash cow” for divorce lawyers.

    That 500 mile move strategy can freak out some ex’s…. but all depends. As long as she sees the kids are a weapon to use against you and hurt you, she will keep doing this. If you say you are moving to say Vegas from Georgia and she can keep kids… she may freak out and come to the table. This is a risk, of course, as she can call your threat to move 500+ miles away and not give in.

    It all depends on age of kids, your level of contact with kids, her perception you want kids, etc.

    I personally know a guy who got cucked by his piece of shit wife for almost 4 years, she had this guy she was dating all along, they had 4 sons together, 5 to 17 years of age. The guy threatened to quit his job, and move 1,200 miles away, and said “let’s split the house and you keep the kids and I will take them for Thanksgiving and Easter only. No fighting. Bitch freaked out, of course, immediately came to the table to negotiate.

    Her 12, 16, and 17 year old boys HATE the mom with fervent passion, of course. The moment dad said he wanted to give up custody and move away so SHE would bear the brunt of raising all 4 boys, she freaked out and she allowed 3 older ones to stay with dad in their current house ❗ and she moved out with 5 year old boy, who is too young to realize his mom is a trashy whore. So it worked out, he pays her $1,000 alimony for 1 year + $850 in child support for 5 year old. This may seem like defeat, but it is a victory in our shithole Fem Court system.

    Bottom line: you can get creative with an expert lawyer who ONLY does divorce law and is a pro-man lawyer. But you need someone ready to FIGHT, because this is war. And in war, MUCH MUST BE RISKED, including losing custody of your boys short term for long term gains.

    Hope this inof helps! Fight back, my friend. I pray for your success, what a hell you are going through.

    Ps. all other men: DO NOT GET MARRIED, for crying out loud!! This is 2018 FemMerica, and Marriage 2.0 is not Christian marriage, so do not get trapped by it! Get that??

  196. Minesweeper says:

    Sharkly, I totally back up what ChristianCool has said about your lawyer, she sounds like crap. You want to find a good lawyer for you – ask around, I was lucky and a friend told me his 2nd try lawyer was good and I got hold of them and they were great. 1st thing they said was “we dont how things ended up like this its bad” and that was 2 top flight female’s. Thats what your looking for, someone who see’s clearly that the entire system has jumped the track, left the rails and is half way down the mountain.

    I’d be very surprised if God would want you attached to this lying psychotic lunatic for life. Its a jail term.

  197. ChristianCool says:

    MineSweeper/Sharky:

    1) A good lawyer is like a good and honest mechanic, they are hard to find, and recommendations from friends and family can help tremendously. If you continue in this case with a crap lawyer, she might actually help your soon-to-be-ex to raid your pockets deeper and hurt you more. Ideology many times trumps common sense and duty for women.

    Remember: men are individuals; women are creatures of the herd. Your lawyer could be “protecting the herd” against you, even in subtle ways. 😮

    At the very minimum, get a lawyer who SPECIALIZES in family law ONLY. Do not use lawyers that do 2+ areas of law, these are not specialized. One way to find one is going to the State’s BAR website and searching for “lawyers who practice in ___ area of law.

    Example: In the Florida BAR website: you can search lawyers that only do family law or immigration or criminal. EVERY STATE has a website like this. Type “State name BAR” and check it out. The specialized lawyers are ones you want.

    https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/ –> search lawyers by “area of practice”.

    You can also use their Legal Referral Service, where a specialist helps you find a specialized lawyer for you: https://www.floridabar.org/public/lrs/

    Family Law is very complex, you have to know the judges where they practice (the Judge in family law = emperor in black robes, what they say IS the law, hard to appeal their rulings, and they are capricious). Your specialized family law attorney will KNOW the local judges, maybe even be part of some charitable groups the judge frequents, etc. It helps a lot!

    2) If wife has cheated and you know this for a fact, it is Christian and lawful under God to divorce.

    “Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.” – Matthew 19:9-10

    If she banged some dude, or even sucked him off, it is game over, brother.

    Do NOT allow your psycho soon-to-be-ex to trick you into submission using your faith against you. God never intended for marriage 2.0, this scam we see today. When we had “fault divorce”, it would require valid reason and at-fault party would lose big during divorce. Now, she can cuck you and steal your kids and stuff, it is a free-for-all. 😡

    This is not Godly marital system. That is why it is better NOT to marry anymore, not until we get the the legal side of this fixed.

    In any case, my .02 cents on the matter. Find yourself a competent lawyer, get complete copy of your file, then all hourly billing records, and better yet, get a “men’s rights divorce lawyer” if one exists in your area and be prepared to risk and fight, or you may regret this bitterly later on.

    Best of luck, man. Surely, will pray for you tonight. 🙂

    No retreat, no surrender.

  198. Pingback: Pastor Wilson doubles down. | Dalrock

  199. Pingback: When italics won't cut it ⋆ Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)

  200. Pingback: Don’t chase the misdirection. | Dalrock

  201. Pingback: And Now a Brief Word for the White Supremacists | Dalrock

  202. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious, Minesweeper,
    FWIW I am slowly coming around to you men’s point of view. I guess I really didn’t want to believe marriage, one of God’s ordinances, had become so untenable just in my own lifetime.

    ChristianCool,
    Thanks for the good advice, and the time you took to spell it out for me.

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 )

Connecting to %s

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