A thought experiment.

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

–1 Pet 3:1-6, ESV

Sheila Gregoire explains that in 1 Pet 3:1-6 by referencing Sarah Peter is warning wives that they must not obey their husbands, as doing so would be idolatry:

To Peter, we serve God and God only. We obey God, not men. He was absolutely adamant about this in the way that he lived his life and in the way that he taught the early church. And these two events were pivotal to the early believers. The readers of Peter’s letter, then, would not have taken his words to mean that women should just follow men and do whatever their husbands wanted. That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!

Here is the thought experiment:

  1. Read Sheila’s full post.
  2. Assume you had to either defend or debunk Sheila’s argument using only previously published quotes from Pastor Doug Wilson to found your arguments. That is, assume Wilson’s writing, and not Scripture, was the governing authority. Moreover, as in academic debate competitions the goal isn’t to get it right, but merely to win the debate.

Which side would you want to be on, defending Sheila’s nutty post or disproving it, given the parameters I just noted?

It would be child’s play to defend Sheila’s argument, and a disaster for anyone foolish enough to try to debunk it under the defined parameters.

H/T theDeti

See Also:  Defenseless

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Pastor Doug Wilson, Sheila Gregoire, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to A thought experiment.

  1. David J. says:

    Gregoire is a dedicated contortionist, and arrogant about her contortions. Nothing in the Bible means what it says under her approach (unless she chooses to take a passage at face value), and you (women) need her to interpret the Bible for you because you’ll never arrive at her interpretation from what the Bible actually says. Then you can ignore what it actually says and ignore anyone who speaks plainly about what it says. She’s the poster child for not letting a woman speak in church.

  2. DrTorch says:

    That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!

    I’m tired of reading such nonsense from these liars.

    A soldier follows the orders of his Lieutenant. He doesn’t disobey and then say, “Well I heard the General say something else.” Because there are literally thousands of tasks that need to be done to accomplish the objective of a broad strategy, and the General delegates his authority to other officers.

    God has chosen to do that within the structure of the family, with the husband/father as the leader. It’s His choice, and His explicit order that you follow the husband’s directions. It’s that simple, no matter how hard Gregoire et. al. try to conflate and confound the scriptures.

    And it’s well past time that Christians start running these deceivers out of the Church.

  3. DrTorch says:

    She’s the poster child for not letting a woman speak in church.

    Yup.

  4. Pingback: A thought experiment. | @the_arv

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, it should be trivial to debunk aging feminist Gregoire using the words of Doug Wilson.

    Because he’s a true Patriarch who completely grasps every word of the Bible in his infallible, logical hands with the iron grip of misogyny. Or something. like that. Hey, I read that on the Internet, it must be true…

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sheila Gregoire:
    That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!

    But putting the wife in the place of God? That’s equality!

  7. Ben Mavet Who says:

    Alas I am not sufficiently versed in Wilsonian Theology to attempt this. For that I am grateful.

    This Gregoire woman seems to be crazier than a methed up lab rat.

  8. Lost Patrol says:

    @Dalrock

    The assignment is too difficult since for starters we have to read her entire post. I got this far but admit I am too weak to go on.

    Sheila writes:

    Scripture has to tell one complete story–the same story.

    Yet when someone uses “Drive-by” Bible verses, and I leave a long comment with plenty of Scripture references showing that the issue is far more nuanced than that, they typically ignore all my other Scriptural evidence and just repeat the verse, as if that is an argument.

    This is a very passive aggressive technique–it’s like saying “I’m absolutely right without having to make any argument because THE BIBLE.”

    I am instantly reminded of a recent post wherein Sheila, seeking to silence the men that had comments about her daughter’s video screed; “drove-by” with Ephesians 5:21 (strangely absent any further reference to a complete story) and said this means the middle aged men needed to submit to her 21 year old daughter. Because THE BIBLE.

  9. David J. says:

    @Lost Patrol: Good point. It’s obviously futile to expect any logical consistency from her.

  10. squid_hunt says:

    She’s right. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little.

    Eph. 5:22-24
    Submit to your husband as to the Lord. Husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. As the church is subject to Christ, be subject unto your own husband.

    Hm. Now what does THAT mean?

  11. The comments under her post are just hilarious, from men and women alike.
    There is just zero self-awareness. And in fact it’s worse because they are all bending over backward to revise Scripture such that “oh!….no, no, no, that’s not what Jesus wants! Husbands have no authority to demand submission from their wives!”. They dislike the Scripture quoters because they see it as a form of telling them to “shutup”.

    Yet they can’t argue with Scripture, so they are the ones silencing any dissenters.

    Summary:
    Wives are strong, pious, wise and without sin.
    Husbands are commonly confused, tempted, weak, angry lack confidence and are pretty much overgrown children.
    Where is your gratitude and respect, men?

    I feel sorry for Christian men these days who have to sit through this shit in the pews, and are trying to play by the rules of Scripture. What a soul-crushing experience.
    Christianity is now a fem-centric goddess cult.

    Just look at them congratulate each other over and over in the comments section. Their heads and noses really are in the clouds with a tornado of misinformation and lies in order that they don’t “feel sad”.

  12. Damn Crackers says:

    All I know is if we can reinterpret the letters in the New Testament the way Shelia does, then it’s ok for Shelia’s husband to bang whores without worry or sin.

    I like this game!

  13. David J. says:

    @squid_hunt: Sheila would come up with some anecdote from Paul’s life from which she would extrapolate that all the Christians of his day hearing/reading Ephesians would know that he didn’t mean what he actually said.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    2 Peter:14-16

    These lines could be now said about the writings of Peter himself. Shelia is one giant twister of scripture.

  15. PokeSalad says:

    I honestly cannot fathom why someone with the tiniest bit of self-awareness, marketing acumen, or common sense would use or allow the use of such a horrible photo for their PR, or marketing, or whatever. If the photographer had wanted to sabotage her campaign, he couldn’t have done any better (or worse, depending on your POV).

  16. Also, FWIW she lost the argument already when she willfully misinterprets the meaning of the Scriptures. For a meaningful debate, there has to be some measure of intellectual honesty here.

    All of a Jesus’s words were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German and then English. There is room for error in this game of telephone. Paul’s Ephesians 5: 22-24 is so clear and direct, you’re just not going to get away with a fem-centric reinterpretation. Sorry.

  17. Oscar says:

    @ DrTorch

    A soldier follows the orders of his Lieutenant. He doesn’t disobey and then say, “Well I heard the General say something else.” Because there are literally thousands of tasks that need to be done to accomplish the objective of a broad strategy, and the General delegates his authority to other officers.

    True, but there are lawful orders, and there are unlawful orders.

    Soldiers are required to obey lawful orders. See Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Any person subject to this chapter who—
    (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
    (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
    (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
    shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    When an authority over us requires us to violate God’s law, God requires us to disobey. See, for example, Daniel’s three friends.

    Daniel 3:3 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was [a]sixty cubits and its width six cubits. He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon… 4 Then a herald cried [b]aloud: “To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up; 6 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.”
    ….
    16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

    Should believers obey their king? Yes. (1 Peter 2:17)
    Should believers obey their king when their king orders them to violate God’s law? Absolutely not.

  18. stickdude90 says:

    I hope Sheila didn’t expect her daughters to obey worship her as they were growing up.

  19. stickdude90 says:

    testing

  20. feministhater says:

    Man am I glad I don’t have to deal with this shit.

    It’s a shit sandwich of note with all the premium excremental trimmings added for good measure. Pure A-Grade shit! You have all the responsibility but none of the authority, all of the blame but none of the adulation.

    Her post is nothing more than re-re-reinterpreting the Bible wholesale where what is said is actually not said at all, where the opposite is true. Whatever is good for women stays, whatever is good for men must go and be replaced by condemnation.

    I have no interest trying to fix this filth, this is one shit sandwich fit only for the likes of idiots. Let it burn.

  21. sipcode says:

    The wife DOES worship her husband and thereby NOT DIRECTLY the Lord, for “the woman is the glory of the man” 1 Cor 11:7. The woman glorifies/worships the man and the man “is the image and the glory of God.” Only the man glorifies/worships God directly …”men pray everywhere lifting up holy hands” 1 Tim 2:8. Just another example of women taking Illicit Authority, the Sanctity of Command [from the Lord] of the man, the damnation of the church. The Church is about men, not women. Women speaking [as the ever lovely Sheila Gregoire] reeks of Adam getting chewed out by God for ‘hearkening to the voice of the woman.’

  22. squid_hunt says:

    @constrainedlocust

    Also, FWIW she lost the argument already when she willfully misinterprets the meaning of the Scriptures. For a meaningful debate, there has to be some measure of intellectual honesty here.

    That’s where I’m at. You can’t argue with someone like that. She’s saying what she wants because she’s bitter and angry at God. Otherwise why is she trying to twist his scripture to justify herself?

    @Oscar

    When an authority over us requires us to violate God’s law, God requires us to disobey. See, for example, Daniel’s three friends.

    I don’t exactly agree. There is some nuance to women obeying their husbands. Women’s example is Sarah, who, when her husband handed her off to another man, she obeyed. That would have been sin except God protected her. Because she submitted to her husband in fear of the Lord. So God tells women to submit as Sarah, without amazement, because God will protect them.

    It’s the same in the Old Testament where a woman can swear an oath and her husband can disavow it immediately. OR, if he doesn’t, but forces her to break it later, she’s to obey and the breaking of the oath goes on him.

    God expects absolute obedience out of a wife to her husband, as unto the Lord. The reason is obvious, in practice. A woman can twist anything into pious rebellion. She can claim she’s obeying God by disobeying her husband in just about any situation. This takes any question of right and wrong out of the picture and puts it squarely where it belongs: On the husband.

  23. Oscar says:

    @ squid_hunt

    A woman can twist anything into pious rebellion. She can claim she’s obeying God by disobeying her husband in just about any situation. This takes any question of right and wrong out of the picture and puts it squarely where it belongs: On the husband.

    Rulers and church authorities made the exact same argument in reference to themselves and men for centuries. They were equally valid.

  24. earl says:

    ‘The readers of Peter’s letter, then, would not have taken his words to mean that women should just follow men and do whatever their husbands wanted. That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!’

    Yeah Peter just said that and it was put in Scripture as a test of faith to see if you would follow Jesus or follow the new feminist logic that would come 2000 years later. Thanks for helping more people go blind, Shelia.

  25. earl says:

    She probably came to her conclusion in the middle of the night when a possibly serpent like creature whispered in her ear….’Did Peter, through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, really say that?’

  26. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    Except there’s valid biblical teaching to back up what I just said, not anecdotes. There’s no such thing for church rule. It’s left pretty vague.

  27. SnapperTrx says:

    Boxer and myself just posted something along the same lines on our own blogs! Strange how things come together like that. Women are trained to see their husbands as an extra child and not as their leaders/lords/authority. Shelia is right up there in the list of women propagating this teaching. Husbands are not Good, but they are appointed leaders in the home. I just explained this yesterday on my blog (visit of you want by clicking on my avatar, I think).

  28. Joe says:

    @constrainedlocus said, “I feel sorry for Christian men these days who have to sit through this shit in the pews, and are trying to play by the rules of Scripture. What a soul-crushing experience.
    Christianity is now a fem-centric goddess cult.”

    Many years ago I stopped going to church simply because it was a big waste of time. The pastors, book authors, speakers are all professionals who earn their living by being professional Christians. They operate in an environment which allows them to be a step or two ahead of the congregation with their endless insights, contortions of scripture, ad nauseam. I refuse to subject myself to such nonsense.

  29. Oscar says:

    @ squid_hunt

    Except there’s valid biblical teaching to back up what I just said, not anecdotes. There’s no such thing for church rule. It’s left pretty vague.

    There are women right now preaching in churches with their husbands’ blessing and consent. Are those women right to continue preaching in church because their husbands say so?

  30. SirHamster says:

    Are those women right to continue preaching in church because their husbands say so?

    They are not right to do so, but their husbands have assumed much of the responsibility for their wrongdoing.

  31. Hazelshade says:

    Sheila effectively limits critics to the “drive-by” comments she denounces. Here is Sheila in the comments on the post Dalrock linked, agreeing with another commenter that early disengagement is the solution to the problem of those dastardly drive-by’s:

    “Usually what I do is that I reply to one of the comments with a thought out response (a shortened version of this post; from now on I’ll just put the link to this post), and then they usually reply with something offensive again, and at that point I usually just ban them so they can’t keep commenting, and I suck the air out of the conversation. I may allow 2 comments, and perhaps 3 if I think the conversation would be helpful for others reading, but usually just 2. And then they’re gone.”

    It’s a nice little trap. It would’ve worked better if Sheila hadn’t just pointed it out.

    I also thought the end of Sheila’s comment was funny:

    “Unfortunately, it’s just so common an occurrence that it’s rather disheartening. It does make one start questioning what pastors are teaching. And why aren’t we combatting stuff like this?”

    “Combatting”. Telling diction, there. Weak men screwing feminism up!!1!

  32. Pingback: A thought experiment. | Reaction Times

  33. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster

    They are not right to do so, but their husbands have assumed much of the responsibility for their wrongdoing.

    Agreed, and that’s my point.

    I’m a Major (O-4) in the Army Reserves, and Officer In Charge of an Engineer Detachment. The lowest ranking Soldier in my detachment is a Sergeant (E-5). If I were to give that Sergeant an unlawful order, and he obeyed me, I would bear greater responsibility because of my rank and position, but he would still bear responsibility, and he would be disciplined accordingly.

    Likewise, if a husband allows his wife to preach in church (and I personally know husbands who do this), the greater sin belongs to the husband, but the wife sins as well, because she’s disobeying a higher authority (God).

  34. feministhater says:

    It’s a nice little trap. It would’ve worked better if Sheila hadn’t just pointed it out.

    It’s common boilerplate leftist nonsense quite frankly that masquerades as ‘allowing disagreement’ but doesn’t. No open discussions allowed. Every disagreement is ‘hate speech’ or ‘unChristian’ or whatever other nonsense used to disavow male leadership.

    It’s pathetic but lapped up by those quick to call for your damnation for speaking against Sheila but oh so always on about ‘never judge others’.

    It does make one start questioning what pastors are teaching. And why aren’t we combatting stuff like this?”

    Who’s going to ‘combat’ anything, Shelia? You’ve disallowed real manliness in your Churches, the kind that leads and doesn’t take shit from you. You know, the ‘offensive kind’. Now you have no one to defend you except the ever, loving State. Bow down to your new master.

  35. Naythsayer says:

    “All of a Jesus’s words were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German and then English. There is room for error in this game of telephone.”

    No.

    No no no no.

    We have the original copies of the gospels, from which the English is directly translated. This is well known.

    How can you be so retarded with this information so readily available.

  36. Swanny River says:

    Oscar,
    I was curious where you were headed with your questioning. Yours and Sir Hamsters back and forth was a fruitful one, thanks.
    I am really busy now, but I bet if you I read enough Wilson, then Dalrock’s experiment would be useful, however, I doubt I could get through the first part of the assignment, of reading Sheila.
    Thank you for this post, it’s a worthy stronghold to demolish (Sheila’s bad teaching and influence).

  37. Pingback: Trading Lords for Sons. – Snapper's Domain

  38. DrTorch says:

    Are those women right to continue preaching in church because their husbands say so?

    Are their husbands compelling them to preach, or allowing them to preach?

    You’ve conflated the argument, as usual. Did you get enough of the attention that you were craving?

  39. RichardP says:

    @DrTorch: If the required behavior is to keep women out of the pulpit, what difference does it make whether he compels or allows? He is condemned for failing to keep the woman out of the pulpit. All else is irrelevant.

    Kind of like adultry. One’s condemnation doesn’t depend on whether they do it doggie style or missionary style. One is condemned for failing to stay sexually true to their spouse. All other detail is irrelevant.

  40. earl says:

    If the required behavior is to keep women out of the pulpit, what difference does it make whether he compels or allows?

    Because Oscar made the point the husband is the one compelling the wife to do the preaching. Is this a case where a woman should reject her husband’s authority because it goes against what is stated in Scripture?

  41. earl says:

    How most ‘Christian’ feminists think.

  42. Spike says:

    Thanks for your post Dalrock.
    I would have to say that while Gregoire’s theology is heretical, it is extremely common. Her twist of Scripture was very subtle, but enough to feed outright feminist rebellion.
    It was the same Peter who, in the Book of Acts, told the priests, ”We must obey God, not men” (Acts 5: 27-29). This is in the context of being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel.
    Sheila is using this to rebel against the divine order, thus quoting scripture when it suits her and contorting it when it’s inconvenient.

    It is well-used chick logic.

    At a parish council meeting, we had the issue of a university evangelist insisting she should preach in church on a Sunday. The ”progressives” shrugged and said, ”What harm can come of it? She wants one sermon. Give it to her and move on”. One counter-revolutionary (me) remained silent and watched.
    The ”conservatives” dragged the chain, looked at Scripture, demanded theological approval, and asked her for credentials. Theology degree? Check. Evangelism experience? Check. Marital status? Single at 37. Answer: No.
    Her defence: ”I don’t need the authority of a husband. I’m directly under the authority of Christ”.
    Pastor (conservative) : ”No you aren’t. By the Bible’s view, you are still under your father’s authority”.
    Her: ”My father is abusive and ….and….and…” (tears ensuing)
    Entire board, both progressives and conservatives: ”Okay. She can preach. Show of hands…”
    All but one: Spike.

    Not progressive, not conservative. God needs Counter-revolutionaries to wind back feminist excess.

  43. Sharkly says:

    RichardP says: Kind of like adultery. One’s condemnation doesn’t depend on whether they do it doggie style or missionary style. One is condemned for failing to stay sexually true to their spouse. All other detail is irrelevant.

    I disagree, the details of a sin determine the severity. If a guest of mine throws an extra “cold one” from my fridge in his bag before he leaves, without permission, and steals it, That is not as big of a sin against me as if he had stolen the silverware. And if a wife who only ever allows her husband 10 minutes of starfish sex, with a condom, and no “doggy style” because it would be “demeaning” to let her husband take her that way, and suddenly she is caught having an unprotected 4 hour sex marathon including “doggy style” with some other guy, the sin is worse, because it proves not only her whoring, but her blatant lying and willful withholding of her affection and desire due her husband for all those years. She has added great insult to the injury. And potentially exposed her husband to disease through complete disregard for her own “standards”.

  44. CSI says:

    Are their husbands compelling them to preach, or allowing them to preach?
    You can’t compel someone to do a task like preaching if they don’t want to. The resultant preaching would be so uninspired and unenthusiastic it would achieve nothing.

  45. Oscar says:

    @ Swanny

    I am really busy now, but I bet if you I read enough Wilson, then Dalrock’s experiment would be useful, however, I doubt I could get through the first part of the assignment, of reading Sheila.

    I’m with you there. I’m not reading Sheila. I’ve read a couple of her articles, and that’s too much crazy for me to handle. I’ll leave that to better men.

    Thank you for this post, it’s a worthy stronghold to demolish (Sheila’s bad teaching and influence).

    Thanks, I appreciate that. My point is that, unless a husband actually tells his wife to do something that violates God’s law, she has no moral right to disobey him.

  46. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    Because Oscar made the point the husband is the one compelling the wife to do the preaching.

    No, they’re being encouraged, not compelled, as far as I know. My argument is that their husbands are violating scripture by encouraging their wives to preach, and that – therefore – the women’s preaching is still illegitimate. The husbands’ authority doesn’t legitimize the wives’ preaching. The wives are still sinning.

    So; why didn’t I use an example of a Christian husband actually ordering his wife to sin?

    Because I’ve never seen one. And that brings me to my next point.

    I’ll be 43 this year, I’ve attended church all my life, and I’ve literally never seen a Christian husband order his wife to sin.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that it never happens, but it’s rare enough that I’ve never seen it. And yet, false teachers like Sheila perpetually claim that, if churches preach Biblical headship and submission, then Christian husbands will order their wives to do things like watch porn. I don’t know why, but for some bizarre reason Sheila and her ilk always bring up the watching porn thing.

    By the way, Sheila is a woman whose husband encourages her to preach, isn’t she? Does her husband’s authority legitimize her preaching and absolve her of the sin of violating the Scriptural commandment that women should not preach, and remain silent in church? I say “no”. Maybe others here disagree with me. If so, I hope they’ll explain why.

    The same goes for fathers. If a father encourages his daughter to preach, her preaching is still illegitimate and sinful, even when done under her father’s authority.

    A wife has no moral right to disobey her husband, unless her husband orders her to violate God’s law, but that’s such a rare event, that the fear of a Christian husband ordering his wife to sin is based on hysteria.

  47. Oscar says:

    @ PokeSalad

    Critics said it was bound to happen, and, sure enough, it did.

    A company first sergeant began an affair with one of the first women to graduate from infantry basic training shortly after she reported to his newly integrated unit late last year.

    The fact that critics were proven right, however, will not impede feminist progress!

    “By their actions Usher and [redacted] tarnished the integration of female infantrymen into maneuver battalions,” the investigating officer wrote in the report. “Their actions could be detrimental to the image of female integration into combat arms units.”

    By their actions, they reinforced what we all know about human nature.

    “This behavior does not exemplify the dedicated professionals of the 82nd Airborne Division,” Osorio said, adding that the division is committed to fostering trust and respect as the Army works through gender integration.

    I don’t care how “dedicated” or “professional” they are, if you place young women in close proximity to high testosterone, high status men, sparks will fly. Welcome to reality. Or not.

  48. Daniel says:

    Paul says

    Now I want you to be aware that the Head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the Head of Christ is God.

    but Sheila says

    That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!

    Peter says

    (as Sarah obeys Abraham, calling him “lord,” whose children you became), doing good and not fearing dismay in anything.

    and in the context he is telling wives not to fear the dangerous behavior of their unbelieving husbands. By trusting God even while feeling threatened, they are imitating Jesus, as in 1 Peter 2:23

    Who, being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, threatened not, yet gave it over to Him Who is judging justly

    Sheila’s claim that this refers to Sarai’s departure from Ur is utter nonsense.

  49. craig says:

    “By their actions Usher and [redacted] tarnished the integration of female infantrymen into maneuver battalions,” the investigating officer wrote in the report. “Their actions could be detrimental to the image of female integration into combat arms units.”

    And yet the man is singled out for public dishonor, while the woman’s name is redacted. Says everything, really: the game isn’t over until the p***y pass is played.

  50. ray says:

    DrTorch — “And it’s well past time that Christians start running these deceivers out of the Church.”

    She is the church.

    It is you who will/would be run out. And more, if necessary.

  51. ray says:

    Spike —

    That’s a concise sketch of how it is done. Over and over. A template, really, and of course women know it. The shaming of ‘conservative’ males is first, followed by the feminist demand for their rebellion against God and man to be validated and officially stamped.

    The ‘conservative’ Christians have defenses against theological attack. But just like leftie men, they have no defenses whatsoever against emotional accusations launched by females and male enablers. ‘Abusive male’ plus (tears ensuing) works each and every time. The men quickly fold then, because they are afraid. Quite afraid.

    If you’ll excuse me for couch-quarterbacking your experience with that false church, I don’t understand either your silence, or your remaining association with persons lacking the will or strength to follow God’s simple commands. In ‘church’, no less.

    For me, such an approval of outright rebellion ends any and all associations with such persons, and their apostate ‘church’. It would have ended immediately, loudly, and real uncomfortably for everybody, too.

    Not judging, and not calling you out personally, seeing I have few related facts to hand. Trying to understand. If you’d like to respond I’d like to hear it.

  52. Pingback: Eve Ill Idolaters | Σ Frame

  53. earl says:

    I don’t know why, but for some bizarre reason Sheila and her ilk always bring up the watching porn thing.

    It’s their go-to as far as justification to rebel against their husband.

    By that logic everytime she reads 50 shades…I don’t have to financially support her.

    Engaging in watching/reading porn is a sinful activity…but it’s never stated in Scripture that sinful activities are justification to rebel against your lawful husband or to not love your wife. If that was the case nobody would ever get married.

  54. CSI says:

    If you read Sheila’s blog you get the impression she’s never had any sexual desire for her husband at all, and I bet many of her female readers feel the same about their husbands. Bringing up porn use, even in the past or only suspected, serves as a convenient way to get out of sex. Justifying this they use dubious theories about how any looking at porn at all is an addiction is as bad as hard drug addiction, which can only be dealt with by going cold turkey from all sexual activity for a time.

  55. Sharkly says:

    CSI,
    Bringing up porn use, even in the past or only suspected, serves as a convenient way to get out of sex. Justifying this they use dubious theories about how any looking at porn at all is an addiction is as bad as hard drug addiction, which can only be dealt with by going cold turkey from all sexual activity for a time.

    I had never heard of that before … before it happened to me, that is. My wife, after completely denying me sex, for close to a year at that point, ran out on me and divorced me, and accused me of being a sex/porn addict, and a danger to my sons. All the while claiming that she was doing the “Christian” thing. Apparently that is what is being taught now. If your husband is frustrated sexually, because you’re defrauding him, stop honoring your marriage vow altogether. The churchian whores and hirelings will all back a woman on this new homewrecking scheme.
    FWIW a Licensed Sex Addiction Therapist determined for the courts that I had a perfectly normative sexual development, and am normal in my sexuality, and even sort of speculated in his report that it may have been my having normal sexuality that offended my wife resulting in the pejorative accusations.

    Apparently the church is now so far removed from wisdom, that you now have to turn to the mental health profession to help reign in a sinful wife. That’s what I’ve learned so far. The church won’t insist a woman to turn from her sin no matter how much money you’ve put in their offering, but for $175 an hour a psychiatrist might powerfully tell your wife to turn from her relationship destroying crazy(sin). It is a shame that as a Godfearing, formerly churchgoing, man who always thought of Psychiatry as bullshit, I am now forced to turn to it to try to save my marriage from damage partly induced by foolish hirelings and their flock of worldly Feminist goddess worshippers.

    I may be fully divorced sometime here in the future, so for all you lucky ladies who may be lurking, be advised; I have undergone a full sexual exam from a licensed professional and passed impressively. And my sex drive was described as “Robust“! I paid handsomely to find that out, but I’m generously sharing it with y’all for free. Please form an orderly line, no pushing. And stop all the hollering for me, I prefer the meekest ones.

  56. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    There are women right now preaching in churches with their husbands’ blessing and consent. Are those women right to continue preaching in church because their husbands say so?

    First of all, I didn’t say blessing and consent. I said obedience. As in he’s giving the instruction. I seriously doubt these women are doing this against their better judgment because their husbands told them to do so, in obedience to him.

  57. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    God doesn’t adhere to the UCMJ, so I’m not sure how your Army experience is relevant.

  58. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    I’ll be 43 this year, I’ve attended church all my life, and I’ve literally never seen a Christian husband order his wife to sin.

    The example given in the Bible is literally Abraham commanding his wife to commit adultery. He passed her off to another man and encouraged him to go for it. And women are supposed to obey with Sara in mind, without amazement.

  59. Paul says:

    @squid_hunt

    Never did Abraham command his wife to commit adultery, although he did very little to actively protect her against adultery. We’re not told, but he might have even trusted the Lord would protect her, which is what happened.

  60. squid_hunt says:

    @Paul

    He handed his wife over to another man that found her attractive and she went. Only someone looking to quibble would define that as something else.

  61. BillyS says:

    You are wrong squid. Your position requires more evidence than you show. Abraham was afraid, not commanding sin by his wife.

  62. squid_hunt says:

    Ok, Billy.

    Everyone: “Look how hot Sara is.”

    King’s wingman: “Hey, Abraham, the king thinks your…”

    Abraham: “Sister. She’s my sister.”

    Guy: “Yeah, the king thinks your sister is hot. Can he marry her?”

    Abraham: “Uh…yeah. I don’t see a problem with it.”

    Sara:

    King has a dream.

    King: “Abraham, what are you doing? I took your wife and you didn’t say anything about it. What’s wrong with you? I almost slept with her!

    Abraham: “Sorry, man. I was scared.”

    Sara:

    Paul: Be like Sara!

    Christians: That means UNLESS you believe your husband is wrong. Something, something, unlawful order!

    God:

    I know I said quibble, Billy, but I didn’t realize that was your summoning word.

  63. Paul says:

    @squid_hunt

    There’s a difference between commanding someone to sin, in which case you take full responsibility, or fail to prevent someone else from sinning. The latter is what happened; the sin would have been on the head of the one that took Sara for wife. The story tells before marriage occurred, Sara was sent back together with gifts because God struck the king and his family.

    Yeah, I know, it’s not pretty.

  64. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    Sara would have been involved in that sin. It takes two to commit adultery. At any point she could have spoken up and then it would have been rape by definition of the mosaic law.

  65. squid_hunt says:

    Uh. Paul, not Oscar.

  66. feeriker says:

    And yet the man is singled out for public dishonor, while the woman’s name is redacted. Says everything, really: the game isn’t over until the p***y pass is played.

    The go-to excuse for this from the brass is that people in positions of leadership need to bear the full burden of punishment for abusing their positions. I’d like to see this tested the next time a senior female officer is caught having an affair with a male enlisted subordinate (maybe it’s happened and she’s been “outed,” but I’m unaware of it if it has happened).

  67. Paul says:

    @squid_hunt

    Well, technically the Mosaic Law was not in effect, but it doesn’t matter, as in both (!) cases the kings involved KNEW it was wrong to commit adultery, and they were not intending to. And yes, Sara could have made this known, but before that, God already revealed the truth to the kings.
    We can speculate about the exact details of what happened, but we just don’t know all such details. I’m pretty sure adultery did not actually happen.

  68. squid_hunt says:

    That’s my point. She obeyed her husband and God protected her even when her husband commanded her to sin. That’s the example God provides to women in their obedience.

    I agree adultery didn’t happen. I never said it did. But she went obediently when adultery was the very likely outcome.

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.