And Now a Brief Word for the White Supremacists

Bnonn writes in his most recent post:

Moreover, unlike Dalrock, I see exactly the analogy Doug draws from runaway slaves (Dt. 23:15), and I agree that its general equity applies here.

The statement I made that Bnonn is referencing is:

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.

I made a deliberate choice not to expand on Wilson’s Deut. 23:15 argument, because while it is weak and used to avoid turning to much more relevant New Testament passages (like 1 Pet 3), it is a bit of a landmine.  The weakness is easy to demonstrate.  Wilson uses Deut. 23:15 to explain how the Apostle Paul would have us respond to an unhappy wife*.  He says that per Deut. 23:15 Paul would not have us return an escaped slave.  As a result, Wilson determines that the Christian course of action is to encourage unhappy wives to leave their husbands.  The problem isn’t just in Wilson’s poor logic.  The problem is also that we know that the Apostle Paul once faced this very question.  The Book of Philemon is in fact Paul’s letter to a slave owner, wherein Paul explains that he is sending Philemon’s escaped slave back to him:

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel.

But Wilson knows this.  He knows his appeal to Deut. 23:15 is incredibly weak in this application, but it is nevertheless useful to him.  If his critics point out his weak logic, they risk seeming like they support slavery.  More specifically, they risk seeming like white supremacists who support American slavery.  At the same time, this distracts from his truly abominable interpretation of 1 Cor 7, and also draws attention away from his inexplicable decision to ignore 1 Pet 3 entirely.

But there is something else that makes Wilson’s poor logic regarding Deut. 23:15 quite shrewd.  He is encouraging all unhappy wives to see themselves as mistreated slaves.  This fits perfectly with the feminist narrative that marriage is slavery for women, something they need to escape from.  This is a supercharged emotional appeal, and Wilson knows this as well.  Long after the dust has settled, the unhappy wives who read his post will remember his invitation to see their marriage as a form of slavery, and themselves as abused slaves.

How do I know that Wilson knows about Paul’s letter to Philemon?  The Bible’s view of slavery is a subject that Wilson has studied in depth.  A little over twenty years ago Wilson coauthored a pamphlet titled Southern Slavery As It Was.  The book is no longer in print, but a blogger appears to have published it in its entirety.

How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially difficult when we consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively Christian culture. We have all heard of the heartlessness — the brutalities, immoralities, and cruelties — that were supposedly inherent in the system of slavery. We have heard how slave families were broken up, of the forcible rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings that were a commonplace, about the horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and back-breaking routine — all of which go together to form our impression of the crushing oppression which was slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this description has seldom been challenged.

The point of this small booklet is to establish that this impression is largely false.

Wilson likened Christian slave holders in pre Civil War America to Philemon from the Bible:

It is obvious that in a fallen world, an institution like slavery will be accompanied by many attendant evils. Such evils existed with ancient Hebrew slavery, ancient Roman slavery, and with American slavery. The issue is not whether sinners will sin, but rather how Christians are commanded to respond to such abuses and evils. And nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Ephesians 6:5–9, Colossians 3:22—4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1–5.

Remember that in ancient Rome the acquisition of slaves was not according to the law of God either. A Christian slave owner in that system, like Philemon, was duty-bound to oppose those features of that society, and at the same time was required to treat his slaves in a gracious and thoughtful manner. He was not required to release his individual slaves because of the general societal disobedience. He was not even required to release his slaves if they came into the Christian faith (1 Tim. 6:1–4). At the same time he should have acknowledged that his believing slaves were now Christ’s freemen, and they should take any opportunity for freedom provided for them (1 Cor. 7:20).

Near the end of the tract Wilson and his coauthor write (emphasis mine):

Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples:

George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: “I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat’s de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t’wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho’ was good to me and all his other niggers.”42 And, with this use of the word nigger, it is important for us to remember the mutable nature of human language. What today constitutes a gross insult did not have the same connotations a century ago.

Clara Davis of Alabama said this:

Dem was de good ole days. How I longs to be back dar wid my ole folks an’ a playin’ wid de chillun down by de creek. ’Taint nothin’ lak it today, nawsuh. . . . Dey tells me dat when a pusson crosses dat ribber, de Lawd gives him whut he wants. I done tol’ de Lawd I don’t want nothin’ much . . . only my home, white folks. I don’t think dats much to ax’ for. I suppose he’ll send me back dar. I been a-waitin’ for him to call.43

 

Adeline Johnson, Winnsboro, South Carolina: “I hope and prays to get to heaven. I’ll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preached about. I want to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them, and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline.”44

I want to stress that by titling this post as I have done, and by quoting Wilson’s inflammatory writing on the subject of American slavery, I by no means wish to poison the well.  I trust my readers will simply ignore such a naked emotional appeal to outrage, and instead remember the logical arguments I made in the rest of the post.

*Wilson has it both ways in his post, describing an unconfirmably mistreated wife, but then taking care to tell us that the actual existence of mistreatment isn’t relevant.

Related:  Wife beaters and the prairie muffins who love them.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Bnonn, Pastor Doug Wilson, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to And Now a Brief Word for the White Supremacists

  1. Pingback: And Now a Brief Word for the White Supremacists | @the_arv

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    Excellent.
    Wilson appealing to “runaway slave” texts from the Old Testament looked to be the shakiest of props in his original posting, but all part of #BelieveWomen conservative feminism. However, digging up that pamphlet is truly excellent work.

    Some men will ask “Why do all this, Dalrock? Why does it matter?” but the answer is plain:

    But there is something else that makes Wilson’s poor logic regarding Deut. 23:15 quite shrewd. He is encouraging all unhappy wives to see themselves as mistreated slaves. This fits perfectly with the feminist narrative that marriage is slavery for women, something they need to escape from. This is a supercharged emotional appeal, and Wilson knows this as well. Long after the dust has settled, the unhappy wives who read his post will remember his invitation to see their marriage as a form of slavery, and themselves as abused slaves.

    Wilson’s attempts to curry favor with the conservative feminists in his own congregation as well as his followers online just happens to fit in well with the larger feminist agenda. His surrender to feminism is another straw on the back of the American male “camel”.

    That’s why this matters.

  3. jazzdrive3 says:

    The book is no longer in print because of issues with the co-author. Pastor Wilson repackaged it and re-released it as “Black and Tan.” Which can still be purchased and is the version he stands by. I’m not sure of the major differences between the two versions, however.

  4. feeriker says:

    The book is no longer in print because of issues with the co-author. Pastor Wilson repackaged it and re-released it as “Black and Tan.”

    Well, that title certainly implies that Dougie isn’t concerned about PC where race is concerned.

  5. Damn Crackers says:

    Trying to find a link or source, but I remember hearing on a Civil War documentary that more wives ran away from their husbands at that time than slaves ran away from their masters.

  6. 9767 says:

    Could you track the runaway wives down with bloodhounds, and beat them bloody? If not, that’s probably your reason.

  7. Gunner Q says:

    “If his critics point out his weak logic, they risk seeming like they support slavery. More specifically, they risk seeming like white supremacists who support American slavery.”

    Should this be of concern to us? The ‘American Slavery’ card is as played out as the racist card. I was whipping the negro slaves on my plantation five years before I was born. Ask any Baby Boomer, they’ll swear it’s true.

    Wilson is fatally out of touch if he thinks younger men fear being called slavers or Nazis. That was his generation and Wilson betrayed Christ Himself to prove how nice he is.

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    Wilson’s denomination had to change the First C in CREC away from “confederate” after the university of Idaho held a conference condemning his affection for the antebellum south.

    Just as a heads up to those who aren’t 100% familiar with Wilson

  9. feministhater says:

    Cool beans Mr Wilson! Yes, marriage is slavery, no women should ever partake in it, are you with me, Mr Wilson? Stop them getting married in the first place!

    Really? What are you, Mr Wilson, a White Supremacist Slave Owner?! Stop supporting slavery and destroy marriage now!

  10. feministhater says:

    Wilson is fatally out of touch if he thinks younger men fear being called slavers or Nazis. That was his generation and Wilson betrayed Christ Himself to prove how nice he is.

    Instead, point out that he is marriage and thus a slave owner. Furthermore, his wife should divorce him immediately, how dare he keep her as his slave!

  11. Wraithburn says:

    Sounds like Wilson owes his wife reparations for all the sammiches she made him over the years.

  12. Cane Caldo says:

    I want to stress that by titling this post as I have done, and by quoting Wilson’s inflammatory writing on the subject of American slavery, I by no means wish to poison the well. I trust my readers will simply ignore such a naked emotional appeal to outrage, and instead remember the logical arguments I made in the rest of the post.

    Haha!

  13. Pingback: And Now a Brief Word for the White Supremacists | Reaction Times

  14. earl says:

    If his critics point out his weak logic, they risk seeming like they support slavery.

    Almost like the same tactics Shelia was using about how men were not supporting Christianity…when they were trying to point out her daughter’s weak logic.

  15. earl says:

    Instead, point out that he is marriage and thus a slave owner. Furthermore, his wife should divorce him immediately, how dare he keep her as his slave!

    And if he retorts…well he did say it’s better for an innocent man to get divorced than to let the woman stay in a bad situation, like being a slave.

  16. Gary Eden says:

    Wilson is equating unhappiness with slavery with abuse with marriage with obedience. He’s not just tearing down marriages, in so characterizing submission he’s promoting rebellion against God.

    Wilson is up to some devilish stuff here.

    And he knows it. Several times in the article he says what pitfall he is engaging in; and then does it anyway with a series of justifications.

  17. honeycomb says:


    Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples:

    George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: “I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat’s de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t’wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho’ was good to me and all his other niggers.”42 And, with this use of the word nigger, it is important for us to remember the mutable nature of human language. What today constitutes a gross insult did not have the same connotations a century ago.

    Clara Davis of Alabama said this:

    Dem was de good ole days. How I longs to be back dar wid my ole folks an’ a playin’ wid de chillun down by de creek. ’Taint nothin’ lak it today, nawsuh. . . . Dey tells me dat when a pusson crosses dat ribber, de Lawd gives him whut he wants. I done tol’ de Lawd I don’t want nothin’ much . . . only my home, white folks. I don’t think dats much to ax’ for. I suppose he’ll send me back dar. I been a-waitin’ for him to call.43

    Adeline Johnson, Winnsboro, South Carolina: “I hope and prays to get to heaven. I’ll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preached about. I want to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them, and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline.”44

    It’s sad .. and a mark against white (so-called educated) wimminz .. that un-educated (by todays standards .. i.e. credentials) black women had better respect and compassion for their (white male) slave owner than these modern white wimminz have when they are as free as a song bird.

    These stories are similiar to the ones I’ve been told from old-timers here in the south. Most of which never owned a slave.

  18. earl says:

    ‘It’s sad .. and a mark against white (so-called educated) wimminz .. that un-educated (by todays standards .. i.e. credentials) black women had better respect and compassion for their (white male) slave owner than these modern white wimminz have when they are as free as a song bird.’

    Let’s not forget about the black women having respect for their husband’s preaching too. Seems the best way to obedience to the Lord is obedience to your lawful superiors…like a husband or parents.

    “I hope and prays to get to heaven. I’ll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preached about.

  19. Oscar says:

    Most of which never owned a slave.

    “Most of which”? How long ago did you hear these stories?

  20. honeycomb says:

    Oscar sez ..
    How long ago did you hear these stories?

    I had great grandparents live well past 100 years old .. both of my grandmothers made 99 and they died in the early 2000’s .. in addition I’ve meet old-timer black men and women when I was a child that were direct children of slaves in the south. Or so I was told.

    I’ve many stories that have been passed on to me. Most of the south is a verbal history in the rural parts. Reading and writing back then was less in books and more in folk songs and stories. As a family we all played musical instruments and got together every friday night to sing and play musical instruments.

    Most stories in the south (App Trail region) get passed on thru story telling and folk songs.

    I guess what I was trying to convey is .. almost all the folks I knew were poor white folks that never owned slaves. My apologies for any confusion.

  21. We don’t want the Irish! From ‘blazing saddles’ 1974 (laguage warning)

  22. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock,
    Off topic, but, I think it is breaking SJW news. Yesterday I heard a story on NPR about “deadnaming” a new sin against the sexually deranged all of society is engaging in.
    https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/638629397/how-deadnaming-factors-into-police-investigations-involving-transgender-women
    Apparently the SJWs at NPR are using our tax dollars to try to get the police to refer to Trannies by their made up names and pronouns. Once law enforcement is forced to do this, it is just a small step to get them to force this on the rest of us. I was shocked how fully formed this plot is suddenly sprung one us. It seems Satanic in origin. Apparently you are a bigot and don’t want crimes solved, if you insist on calling the deceased by their legal name and sex. It seems like a tough plot to beat, but I think we need to get out ahead of it and fight it if possible.

  23. Rick says:

    It’s funny (sad, really) how people mocked those of us who said normalizing homosexuality by allowing gay marriage would open up the floodgates to all manner of perversions way back in the day. Now Trannies are basically normalized ( see the tranny who won the primary in Vermont) and now there is a movement to normalize Pedophilia. I’m sure sjw treatment of bestiality is right around the corner.

    America is living in Romans 1 and we see God’s wrath in these people. How does one fight the Wrath of God?

  24. Oscar says:

    @ honeycomb

    Okay. So… none of that answered my question. How long ago did you hear these stories?

  25. Hmm says:

    Dalrock,

    Sorry, it just won’t do. Wilson is, by his own admission, a believer that the Civil War was not necessary – that slavery would have fallen under its own weight over the next few decades, making the loss of life in war unnecessary. And in the items you quoted, he himself (or his co-author) is quoting real people from the time. It truly was not all “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”.

    Wilson believes that runaway slaves were right in what they did. He says clearly American chattel slavery was a sin, and that any form of racism is a sin. He has written extensively on the subjects on his website. To tar him with the “white supremacist” brush is slander, no matter where you might believe his kind of thinking leads. That kind of thing is what SJWs do instead of arguing the facts.

    Hate on what you see as Wilson’s carrying water for feminists all you want. It’s work that needs to be done. Despite my overall giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think his views on family dynamics (including what you have written about) are deplorable in many areas.

    I don’t read minds – his or yours. But it’s almost as if you’ve decided to give up on dealing with him and have taken steps to make him (to you and us) beneath contempt and therefore better ignored. No doubt in so doing you’d quell many of the criticisms make by some posters here of “why bother with Wilson anyway?”

  26. honeycomb says:

    Oscar .. late 60’s .. beginning of the 70’s. Approximately 9 to 12 years old.

  27. Sharkly says:

    Hmm says: To tar him with the “white supremacist” brush is slander, no matter where you might believe his kind of thinking leads.

    I personally applaud Dalrock for giving this false teacher a dose of his own medicine.
    The shit bag compares marriage to slavery! He engenders disdain for husbands among wives. He preaches the same exact crap that the Feminists preach, in the exact same way they preach it, with some Bible twisting and dodging thrown in to make it churchian. It is exactly the kind of crap that Doug “loves the N-word” Wilson preaches, that has brought us to a point where there is a disgraceful 50% divorce rate amongst “Christians” in America today. My marriage has fallen prey to this exact crap. Even now some son of a bitch churchian is whispering in my wife’s ear that she is an abused slave who needs to escape her marriage, and that they’re all cheering her on as she runs off with my kids, my money, my reputation, Etc. I don’t think it is slander to quote Doug Wilson’s published work. Nothing but your own mental association would infer that the title is referring to our dearly beloved brother Doug Wilson. Get it? If I accused Doug of calling me a bullwhip wielding abuser in my marriage, he would say he never actually intended that, and that the slavery stuff was just an analogy, and that I and every wife who ever read his stuff, was just taking it wrong. So, I too say you took the title wrong if you are trying to make a slander out of it, and you owe Dalrock an apology. Because it is only your own silly weakness of mentality that takes the title and the politically incorrect quotes from Doug Wilson’s past, and somehow makes a connection. That’s just you buddy! LOL Dalrock never actually said that Doug Wilson was a White supremacist, any more than Doug said my wife’s marriage was as cruel as slavery. It is all just unfortunate associations made by their readers, totally beyond their control. Get it Yet?

  28. Barnie says:

    Hmm says: To tar him with the “white supremacist” brush is slander, no matter where you might believe his kind of thinking leads.

    Doug Wilson has called others “white supremacists” on his blog without any regard to what they actually said or wrote. Wordsmithing, I guess. I don’t see why he shouldn’t be judged by his own standard.

  29. Jason says:

    Rick….high court in Canada has indeed approved of “beastiality”

  30. Luke says:

    Sharkly says:
    August 15, 2018 at 6:37 pm
    Dalrock,
    Off topic, but, I think it is breaking SJW news. Yesterday I heard a story on NPR about “deadnaming” a new sin against the sexually deranged all of society is engaging in.
    https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/638629397/how-deadnaming-factors-into-police-investigations-involving-transgender-women
    Apparently the SJWs at NPR are using our tax dollars to try to get the police to refer to Trannies by their made up names and pronouns. Once law enforcement is forced to do this, it is just a small step to get them to force this on the rest of us. I was shocked how fully formed this plot is suddenly sprung one us. It seems Satanic in origin. Apparently you are a bigot and don’t want crimes solved, if you insist on calling the deceased by their legal name and sex. It seems like a tough plot to beat, but I think we need to get out ahead of it and fight it if possible.

    There is a response available to the outrage of legally being required to render (unearnable) respect to the that doesn’t require changing the laws. That is shunning to the absolute maximum extent possible. When you encounter freaks that a sane society would say “kill it by fire”, you avoid them wherever you can, not buying/selling from/renting to or from, speaking to, saying their name, even looking at them. There is a guy at this place I work who is over 500 pounds, with his 10-gallon gut often extruding 18″ from under his shirt. I don’t initiate or prolong conversations with him, and when I am forced by circumstances to interact with him, I consistently and unreservedly look away from him 20 – 45 degrees off to the side so that I don’t have to undergo the nauseation that is seeing him.

    Dilbert did the name thing well:

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-05-28

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-05-27

  31. Cane Caldo says:

    @Hmm

    Sharkly has the right of it.

    You fell for this post just like you and thousands of others have fallen for Wilson’s post all these years.

  32. okrahead says:

    I read the introduction to Wilson’s pamphlet on slavery printed online…. the one of which he is the sole author (Black and Tan). In the introduction, Wilson assures us that he is not a racist because he really, really loves peanut butter, which was invented by a black man. That is quite possibly the most racist thing I have ever read. I am offended and demand a full apology and that Wilson remove all of his teachings from all internet platforms. If he does not do this then he has no intention of repenting of his blatant racism and should be disciplined by his church and then expelled if he persists in his error.
    As a brief side note, from this point forward my preferred pronoun is “Master”.

  33. honeycomb says:

    Oakrahead sez ..
    “As a brief side note, from this point forward my preferred pronoun is “Master”.”

    Master [sic] Oakrahead .. hmmmm .. I’m not not sure if that’s fried, pickled, baked or broiled that I’m supposed to master. Heck .. who am I kiddin’ .. I don’t even like okra.

    😆

  34. Spike says:

    Wilson misunderstands slavery and wifehood, as do all feminists.Once again:
    In slavery, a person is owned by the slave owner. Because he or she is property of the owner, the slave is not free to move, must work at what is assigned by their master.
    In marriage, a wife is not owned by her husband. He owns her sexuality and it’s products, that is children. He owns them because he paid for them when he married his wife. This means she owes him sexual exclusivity, since her sexuality is his and he paid for it.
    The modern world’s new marriage contract has muddied the waters on this issue, but it still holds true. The only thing that has changed is that the husband is cheated out of his due.

  35. feeriker says:

    There is a guy at this place I work who is over 500 pounds, with his 10-gallon gut often extruding 18″ from under his shirt. I don’t initiate or prolong conversations with him, and when I am forced by circumstances to interact with him, I consistently and unreservedly look away from him 20 – 45 degrees off to the side so that I don’t have to undergo the nauseation that is seeing him.

    You probably don’t have much longer to tolerate his disgusting presence. At 500 pounds and morbidly obese, his life is measurable in months rather than years.

  36. Luke says:

    He already reeks of death, feeriker, even when he’s freshly showered. I am not exaggerating. I was once inside an apartment when someone had lain there dead for days before being discovered and removed. He smells just like that place initially did. (There have already been two pieces of otherwise fully-serviceable cloth-covered furniture that were discarded and replaced due to him frequently using them over several weeks.)

  37. ChristianTrader says:

    Here is a link to Matthew Henry’s commentary on the passage in question in Deuteronomy. I posted it on Bnonn’s Wall on Facebook but he has yet to respond.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Deut.23.15-Deut.23.25

  38. Opus says:

    It has for some time been my view that modern Employment (and its law) is Slavery-light and not always preferable to that unhappy state. That modern employment arrived at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century with the Industrial Revolution at which time Slavery (an inefficient system) faded cannot be coincidence.

    On the subject of one particular slave, Sally Hemmings, who receives much attention as she was Thom. Jefferson’s concubine I was surprised to learn that both her Father and Grandfather being English she was perforce three-quarters white. The only photo (so far as I am aware) of any one of her Grandsons (15/16th Caucasian) shows him in his Union officers uniform as indistinguishable from any other European. I don’t think this fits the preferred narrative – and how did Madison (one of her sons, being so named after James Madison and by Mrs Madison) go from being a Surname to a Boys name to a Girls’ name and probably now a Porn-Star name.

    If you rule the waves you will not as we sing around here be slaves: America rules the waves, ergo Americans are not slaves.

  39. Opus says:

    Women doing the jobs that men refuse to do even in 1805.

  40. feministhater says:

    Hmm fell for that hook, line and sinker.

    I trust my readers will simply ignore such a naked emotional appeal to outrage, and instead remember the logical arguments I made in the rest of the post.

    Do you even read, bro?!

  41. honeycomb says:

    Spike sez ..
    In marriage, a wife is not owned by her husband. He owns her sexuality and it’s products, that is children. He owns them because he paid for them when he married his wife. This means she owes him sexual exclusivity, since her sexuality is his and he paid for it.
    The modern world’s new marriage contract has muddied the waters on this issue, but it still holds true. The only thing that has changed is that the husband is cheated out of his due.

    Both parties had prooerty rights .. and just as property rights have been distroyed in marriage for men .. so has our property rights in relation to the government .. think Eminent Domain.

    Marriage and property rights are a shell of its original meaning .. and should thusly be renamed.

  42. Scott says:

    Honeycomb-

    I never really thought much about property rights until I had some assets myself. It’s not really my property if I can’t control it. Or if I have to pay in perpetuity to continue to have the privilege of calling it “mine” (property tax).

  43. Hose_B says:

    OT.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/15/ballooning-hero-airbrushed-history-reunite-eddie-redmayne-felicity/

    A pioneering Victorian balloonist is being unfairly written out of history in a new Eddie Redmayne film in favour of a fictitious female character, the Royal Society has complained.

    The historic academy says Henry Coxwell’s heroic exploits are being brushed over
    The record-breaking flight in 1862 nearly ended in disaster as the balloon ascended uncontrollably and its occupants, Coxwell and early meteorologist James Glaisher, began to pass out.

    Their lives were only saved when, seven miles above sea level and at -29C, Coxwell climbed up into the rigging to release a trapped valve.

    However, despite being on record as saying “authenticity” is crucial to the new film, its producers have preferred to overlook Coxwell’s bravery and replace him entirely with the imagined character Amelia Wren.

    Henry Coxwell’s bravery risks being forgotten

  44. pariah says:

    OT, but for anyone interested, here is a recent video exposing Kris Vallotton of Bethel Church’s twisting of 1 Cor 14:24-28. The dude makes it say the opposite of what St. Paul stated:

  45. Damn Crackers says:

    @Opus – The whole Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings controversy may be false. There is evidence that Sally was the concubine, as you say, of Thomas Jefferson’s younger brother Randolph Jefferson or another Jefferson male (there were at least 20 male Jefferson’s running around Monticello). The biggest argument, if I recall, was that Thomas Jefferson was sick and old during the time of the conceptions of Sally’s children.

    Regardless if Thomas or Randolph or whoever had liaisons with Sally Hemmings, I didn’t know she had so much English blood in her.

  46. Jason says:

    pariah…..and this church has been labeled in California as an “extemist-right-wing-church” (Bethel) up in Redding.

  47. Jason says:

    The AG church I attended in Fresno for their “mens minsitry” just put three women on the Board of Directors…….why?

    “Well, because the men here won’t step up and lead”

    Mind you this is a working class church for the most part. Men have beeen drilled that they must be a provider or they are failing God, their home, and their families…..many of these men are working two part-time jobs….it’s Fresno…..the economy is agriculture based unless you work for the county or are a professional (doctor, engineer).

    Most od these men frankly after moving sixteen tons, striving to be a dad, husband, staying out of jail or clean off the drungs / drink, and being provider are exhausted…..just like the Gospel that is preached there “if you are not going to bed exhausted every night…..you’re doing it wrong”

    Whereas, a woman, or mom has an office job of sorts……has “her time” with church activities. Has her time to volunteer, has time to interface, study and grow…..and the church suddenly sees this, and continues to put men down…….

    If the pastors in this church (and churches like them) had to work for a living, maybe they would see things differently.

    Doubtful. A friend told me this, and he “could not believe” what the men were told. Evidently, the one pastor added “and if you are insulted, or hurt, or offended by my statement…it must be true in your life”

    I told him to “leave”

  48. Opus says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    Madison Hemmings was born in 1805 (same year as Trafalgar) and Jefferson had relinquished his appointment as POTUS in 1804 (aged sixty). He had however according to Madison Hemmings been intimate with his mother since Jefferson went as Ambassador to France accompanied by his two daughters and Sally as Maid following the death of his wife in the seventeen-eighties. Sally was pregnant with child by Jefferson when they returned to Virginia some two years later at which time she having been born in 1773 would have been sixteen or seventeen.

    I suppose that if one were a Hemmings one would want to assert that ones Paternal-line came through the former President rather than one of his relatives.

  49. Luke says:

    “Amelia Wren”?!? I believe I know exactly where they came up with the name.
    Amelia comes from “chick who first got famous for being cargo across the Atlantic and then killed herself in a crash” Earheart.
    Wren was the name of female RAF REMF enlistees during WWII.

  50. Sharkly says:

    Spike Says: In marriage, a wife is not owned by her husband. He owns her sexuality and it’s products, that is children. He owns them because he paid for them when he married his wife. This means she owes him sexual exclusivity, since her sexuality is his and he paid for it.

    I didn’t pay for my wife. Trust me, if I had bought her from her father, I’d be suing that heathen for my money back. They never relinquished control of her, and she was not as promised, nor has she abided by her vows, & Etc.

    Scott says: It’s not really my property if I can’t control it. Or if I have to pay in perpetuity to continue to have the privilege of calling it “mine” (property tax).

    1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
    1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
    1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
    Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    The Bible says Christians are all God’s property first as their creator, and secondly as having been bought back again from sin and Satan, at the price of Jesus shed blood. As such, we are not even our own. All authority in marriage is only what has been delegated to us by our Master, Owner, Redeemer, our God omnipotent. However God has generously delegated us as men, created in God’s image, to have marital headship in everything in His stead, only limited by our authority not being allowed to overrule God Himself by whom we are instructed to rule over our wives and children well.
    So, these are not property rights to us. These are commands from our Master. We as men were created in God’s Image, and I was(just like Jews) circumcised(inscribed) unto God, so render unto Caesar what was minted bearing Caesar’s image, and circumscribed unto Caesar, and render unto God what was created in His image and Circumscribed unto God. Don’t let some hireling tell you that verse means give the church your money. God wants what he created, and paid for again with His only son’s Holy Blood, He is a jealous God and God’s name is Jealous, He will in no wise spare you if you do not render up your body and life unto His Son. Those who give their earthly life for Christ’s sake will find life eternal. If husbands and wives don’t render their bodies willingly unto the marital union that God Himself joined together, and commanded them to observe each other’s need for affection and not to defraud, It seems that, just like refusing to forgive others, can cost you your own forgiveness, refusing to yield your life and body to God, can result in God honoring your desire to not be His, by Him eternally separating Himself from you.

    If church leaders would stress that marital sex if physically possible is a mandatory requirement of a saved person yielding themselves to Christ, and that the selfish and niggardly who refuse to yield themselves to Christ in this way prove themselves in outright rebellion to their Master, choosing instead to serve themselves, and their lust for control. If church leaders would preach that denying your mate sexually is a certain road to Hell and everlasting shame and contempt, our marriages would have far more cohesion. But these hirelings instead heap up condemnation on themselves, being fools devoid of the truth. If wives submitted in everything, there would never be a fight, nothing but holy unity. And what man wouldn’t love and cherish a wife like that, a wife who acted meekly and faithfully as a united part and an extension of himself, ever doing him good and not evil?

    For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s

  51. Pingback: An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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.