Russell Moore: We lost the culture war. Now prepare to welcome the “refugees”!

In June of 2015 Dr. Russell Moore wrote in the Washington Post:   Why the church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage.

As I write this, the Supreme Court has handed down what will be the “Roe v. Wade” of marriage, redefining marriage in all 50 states. This is a sober moment, and I am a conscientious dissenter from this ruling. The Court now has disregarded thousands of years of definition of the most foundational unit of society, and the cultural changes here will be broad and deep. So how should the church respond?

Moore explains that Christians have lost the culture war regarding marriage and asserts that in this regard our new reality bears some resemblance to the early persecuted church:

Moreover, while this decision will, I believe, ultimately hurt many people and families and civilization itself, the gospel doesn’t need “family values” to flourish. In fact, the church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it. That was the case in Ephesus and Philippi and Corinth and Rome, which held to marriage views out of step with the Scriptures.

Moore then acknowledges that conservative Christians have already caved to the culture wars regarding divorce:

…we must embody a gospel marriage culture. We have done a poor job of that in the past. Too many of our marriages have been ravaged by divorce.

Too often we’ve neglected church discipline in the cases of those who have unrepentantly destroyed their marriages. We must repent of our failings and picture to the world what marriage is meant to be, and keep the light lit to the old paths.

In short, Moore describes modern families as being under grave attack and churches as having failed miserably so far to protect them.  So far, Moore and I are in agreement.

But then Moore gets to his main point, which is how we should respond to this dire circumstance.  According to Moore our focus should not be to find ways to better protect Christian families living in a truly hostile culture.  He argues that our focus should be on welcoming what he expects will be a flood of gays and lesbians who may seem hostile but in reality will be eager to become allies and help us strengthen Christian families.  Our biggest fear according to Moore should not be the coordinated assault on our own families, but missing the opportunity to swell our ranks with seemingly hostile gays and lesbians (emphasis mine).

Let’s also recognize that if we’re right about marriage, and I believe we are, many people will be disappointed in getting what they want. Many of our neighbors believe that a redefined concept of marriage will simply expand the institution (and, let’s be honest, many will want it to keep on expanding). This will not do so, because sexual complementarity is not ancillary to marriage. The church must prepare for the refugees from the sexual revolution.

We must prepare for those, like the sexually wayward Woman at the Well of Samaria, who will be thirsting for water of which they don’t even know.

There are two sorts of churches that will not be able to reach the sexual revolution’s refugees. A church that has given up on the truth of the Scriptures, including on marriage and sexuality, and has nothing to say to a fallen world. And a church that screams with outrage at those who disagree will have nothing to say to those who are looking for a new birth.

Moore is just one man, but as the president of the ERLC he is one of the primary leaders in the conservative Christian response to the culture wars.  Moore defined the strategy, and his followers are dutifully executing on the plan.  Tim Keller and  Pastor Sam Allberry launched The Living Out Church Audit focusing on accommodating the SJW mopping up operation in conservative churches.  Allberry is a regular contributor to the ERLC and is an editor at The Gospel Coalition (TGC).  Allberry praises a children’s book* that normalizes gay marriage and teaches children not to have their guards up (emphasis mine).

Homosexuality is presented through a human lens. Archer encounters homosexuality in the same way the vast majority of us encounter it: through people close to him telling him they’re gay. This is welcome. In our own assessment of human sexuality, and especially in our talking through such things with children, we must keep at the forefront the fact we’re talking about real people. For some Christians, this humanizing of homosexuals may be an important corrective. The two gay characters in the book come across as real, not as stereotypes. They’re not activists or pushing an agenda; they’re normal people who happen to be gay. (The only stereotyping is with the student from England, who’s inevitably eccentric and posh.)

Here is Christian gay activist Allberry praising a book by a secular gay activist that indoctrinates children to the belief that gays aren’t activists and aren’t pushing an agenda!

Pastor Matt Chandler reinforces the message that we shouldn’t be on guard for gay activism now that we’ve lost the culture war in an ERLC video (emphasis mine):

All of us are going to have gay friends, family or co-workers. That’s a giant umbrella. And listen I want to push that you should have someone in that umbrella in your life.  If you’ve so withdrawn from these types of relationships then I think honestly when all’s said and done you’re not really helping in the relationship between what appears to be two warring factions although I would argue that we’re really not at war.  There is a war going on, it’s not between us right.

The Family Research Council echoes this message in a pamphlet titled How to Respond to the LGBT Movement** (emphasis mine):

It should also be noted that in the context of the political debates over LGBT issues, social conservatives do not consider people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to be their adversaries. We recognize that most people who identify as LGBT are content to keep their sex lives private rather than demand official government affirmation of their sexual identity or conduct.

Sam Allberry and Rosaria Butterfield (also of the ERLC) take this a step further and insist that Christians now have an obligation to give gays access to our children.  Allberry chides Christians for keeping gays away from our children by raising the drawbridge, and Butterfield says that the best way to protect our children is to overcome our fears and give gays the keys to our front doors.

All of this is madness, but it is precisely the kind of madness modern conservative Christians are most hungry for.  This is exactly how conservative Christians responded to the feminist attack on marriage;  they pretended to courageously fight against the culture while eagerly capitulating.  This is a form of cowardice that feels brave, and that is what conservative Christians (as a group) have been looking for all along.  As Pastor Matt Chandler writes at the ERLC in How the church can respond to a post-Christian culture what conservative Christians need to do is strike a courageous pose:

A Courageous Posture: You may have guessed by now that I will not encourage you to convert, condemn, or consume the culture. I want to give you something else, a fourth option. And I don’t want to offer you a strategy so much as a posture. I want to address the fears that grip our hearts and that drive so much of the Christian response to the age of unbelief.

I’m convinced that if we have a God-sized, God-given courage, then we will be freed up to be the people of God, living out the mission of God, marked by the joy of God. With courage, this season of history can be viewed not with fear and trepidation, but instead with hope and a sense of opportunity. With courage, our perspectives turn, and we can be excited and encouraged about this cultural moment and not intimidated, angered, or paralyzed by it.

Welcome to the age of unbelief. The church can thrive here. All we need is Christian courage. Take heart.

*H/T Shawn

**The FRC pamphlet is written by Peter Sprigg.  Sprigg is on the conservative side of the response to the culture wars, and disagrees with the recent push to capitulate on key areas such as Christian gay identity and the merits of reparative therapy.

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Denial, Doublethink, Dr. Russell Moore, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), Loud and proud complementarians, Marriage, Pastor Matt Chandler, Pastor Sam Allberry, Rebellion, Rosaria Butterfield, Social Justice Warriors, The Gospel Coalition, Tim and Kathy Keller, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

115 Responses to Russell Moore: We lost the culture war. Now prepare to welcome the “refugees”!

  1. The Question says:

    “The church must prepare for the refugees from the sexual revolution. We must prepare for those, like the sexually wayward Woman at the Well of Samaria, who will be thirsting for water of which they don’t even know.”

    As I wrote on Rollo Tomassi’s blog a while ago: https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/30/losing-my-religion/

    “What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.”

  2. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s all a punt fake. Notice how none of these teachers or churches advocate biblical marriage, or a clear sexual ethic for their children.

    They don’t raise daughters who marry and stay at home. There is no basis to believe a word they say. Their actions do not match their words.

    Yet they want us to think that now they know how to handle sexual sin? Lol.

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    I don’t hold much hope. The only males left in churches are a few strong ones and mostly soy boys.

    It’s depressing and frustrating, being a younger unmarried male in the church. I can’t feel more out of place.

  4. Forgotten FuRyan says:

    Is there no end to the moralfagging on either side?! Titus 2:4 is clear in the Greek and Hebrew that it’s blasphemy for women to work outside of the home and no one cares. 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man is worse than an unbeliever and everyone cares. Proverbs 11:15 is against being surety for a stranger, but virtually no one but me mentions that only caucasian men not receiving Affirmative Action university admissions, scholarships and government or privately mandated hiring or how only men are required to register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights……is being surety for a stranger. Oh, my society…..won’t someone please think of the children?! No. The society that has thrown me under the bus, as a single white man, can burn to the ground! At 23% single motherhood is the most popular arrangement, 70% of American men ages 20-34 aren’t married, women lose 90% of their eggs by the age of 30 and the United States Of America has 210 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
    “My rage is derived from eyes so sharp they see through the idiocy being passed off as sophistication. Under the cloak of universal themes and terms such as freedom, change, and acceptance, madness ensues, being readily welcomed by those whose mind’s eye questions nothing.”
    — Justin K. McFarlane Beau

  5. The Question says:

    @ Lexet Blog

    “I don’t hold much hope. The only males left in churches are a few strong ones and mostly soy boys. It’s depressing and frustrating, being a younger unmarried male in the church. I can’t feel more out of place.”

    My advice for individual churches is to break off from any and all denominational affiliation. Don’t be tied to a sinking ship, and none of them appear seaworthy at this point. Further, it’s how SJWs influence so many, by taking over the larger institutions and pushing their will from the top down.

    Any church that wants to worship God and adhere to the Bible is on its own, and if its members can accept that, there is always hope.

  6. Lexet Blog says:

    Agreed. Unfortunately for many in the Protestant/reformed world, they put too much emphasis on seminaries, conferences (T4G, etc.), and para ministries.

    I think these organizations currently fill a void in teaching and discipling. The question is how do we jumpstart churches across America who don’t have solid elders, teaching, or discipleship

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lexet

    It’s all a punt fake. Notice how none of these teachers or churches advocate biblical marriage, or a clear sexual ethic for their children.

    They don’t raise daughters who marry and stay at home. There is no basis to believe a word they say. Their actions do not match their words.

    Yet they want us to think that now they know how to handle sexual sin? Lol.

    Nailed it.

    By the way, on my blog I asked you a question. I’d be grateful if you answered it.

  8. Hose_B says:

    Dalrock,
    In many of the point I agree. I also agree that many of these “pastors” are merely capitulating.
    Where I come to a halt is in the regard of statements like “all Christians should have lgbtq fiends…… while I don’t agree that we all “should” have them as friends, I don’t think we should avoid these people because they are lgtb, or prostitutes, or pagans, etc.Just as Jesus ate with the “sinners”, we are not to avoid these people. We are to be a light for them. Folks who spew hatred at these people are not being Christian. They are just being judgmental.
    How can we be a light to anyone if we are too busy spewing hatred?

  9. Lexet Blog says:

    Sorry, didn’t see it in my notifications. Will do.

  10. The Question says:

    @ Nick Mgtow

    The Boy Scouts is a textbook example of how the left destroys an institution. After failing to successfully sue it in 2000, they realized it was far easier to simply get one of their own appointed to the board and change it within.

    This is a lesson for us all whenever we try to form groups or organizations. Treat these people like cancer and remove them immediately even if it means short-term harm to the entity, because they will grow until they kill the body, anyway.

  11. Anon says:

    I observe more than a little glee from the pastorbators in their announcement that ‘they lost the culture wars’.

    It is like they could not wait to declare defeat.

  12. GW says:

    @Hose_B:

    Your question is false on the surface. How is preaching God’s word hateful?

  13. Joe says:

    Lexet Blog says:
    December 14, 2018 at 1:13 pm
    I don’t hold much hope. The only males left in churches are a few strong ones and mostly soy boys.

    It’s depressing and frustrating, being a younger unmarried male in the church. I can’t feel more out of place.
    ******************************************
    Man, I know how you feel. Even though I’m 58, I feel and look better than I did when I got married, and I was no slouch then. I honestly feel like a 25 year old. And I fit one at that. I feel very out of place.

    I am surrounded by weak effeminate soy boys and fat, soft, estrogen-dominant marshmallow men.

    It is depressing and frustrating. It didn’t use to be this way.

  14. Gunner Q says:

    Lexet Blog @ 1:28 pm:
    “I think these organizations currently fill a void in teaching and discipling. The question is how do we jumpstart churches across America who don’t have solid elders, teaching, or discipleship.”

    With the current persecution, formal churches are not an option. The American Church will be going underground. Every church large enough to defend itself from lawfare is cucked if not Converged.

    Don’t worry about it. God will provide when He’s willing.

    Hose_B @ 1:59 pm:
    “How can we be a light to anyone if we are too busy spewing hatred?”

    By funding and offering psychiatric treatment for homosexuality. Not by declaring Sodomites unconditionally welcome before they even show up.

  15. SirHamster says:

    With the current persecution, formal churches are not an option. The American Church will be going underground. Every church large enough to defend itself from lawfare is cucked if not Converged.

    Don’t pre-emptively surrender battlegrounds. Even with the churchian influences in my church, it can still worship God.

    David didn’t back off from Goliath to find a better hill to die on. He wasn’t a loser trying to manage his losses.

    None of Israel could see how they could win, until the lone man of faith executed the mighty giant they feared.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Hose_B

    How can we be a light to anyone if we are too busy spewing hatred?

    Don’t forget beating our wives.

  17. Novaseeker says:

    The thing is, Christians can say that they don’t consider LGBT, Inc. to be their adversaries, but the reality is that almost all LGBT consider Christianity to be their own adversary — because they are not stupid. They know what the scriptures say.

  18. Sharkly says:

    Another bastion of masculinity falls: Immediately after allowing faggots to lead, and allowing girls to join in a boy’s development program. Go figure!

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Sharkly

    Look at the bright side. At least no one can accuse the BSA of “homophobia”…

    Moving right along…

    There are liberal minded people whom I know who supported the BSA changes, and if I were to engage them in conversation with “Told ya so. Told ya this would happen” the response would be very wordy but reduce to “This isn’t what we intended! We didn’t expect this! We just wanted to help!”. At least a few of them would be sincere, because they are true believers in the Blank Slate, so to them there’s no real difference between a Scoutmaster and a mommy wearing the uniform (except for maybe needing some darts in the jacket, of course. Because “men with boobs”.)

    On reflection, this is pretty much the standard line when some bossy woman tries to “help” a group of men by shoving her way in, then demanding everything be changed to suit her and her sisters, then the group fails to meet goals and even falls apart.

    It isn’t a new conclusion that liberalizers act like women. It does suggest some ways to deal with them on a tactical, low, level.

    Re: OP
    I wonder if some of this is being sold as “welcome the stranger”, “be hospitable to the Other”, “teach them how to live a better (not so promiscuous) life by example” to the credulous, and how much of this is deliberate damage. There’s probably a lot of the former, “If only Bob and Tom were made welcome, they would become celibate friends” sort of wishful emoting. There also has to be some cynical, deliberate, infiltration. Telling one from the other isn’t always going to be easy.

  20. GW says:

    “The thing is, Christians can say that they don’t consider LGBT, Inc. to be their adversaries, but the reality is that almost all LGBT consider Christianity to be their own adversary — because they are not stupid. They know what the scriptures say.”

    Well said. It really is amazing how naive many Christians are.

    Western Christians are captured by the gospel of warm feelings. It’s the message of popular Christian books that have replaced serious study of the scriptures. God’s soft virtues of love, mercy, kindness, etc. are written about extensively by Christian writers (many of whom are women); whereas God’s hard virtues such as righteousness, holiness, and judgment are ignored. A believer steeped in today’s church culture only interacts with the inoffensive side of the gospel. He fails to consider Jesus’ words about not bringing peace but a sword.

  21. Paul says:

    @FF Titus 2:4 is clear in the Greek and Hebrew that it’s blasphemy for women to work outside of the home and no one cares.

    Well, not really. First of all, Titus is written in Greek. Hebrew is totally out of the picture. Second, it is not blasphemy. that is a different kind of sin. Third, “outside the home” might not really be an accurate translation. Fourth, the Greek has two text variants:

    1. οἰκουργούς oikourgous
    2. οἰκουρούς oikourous

    Now the weird thing is, is that many Greek dictionaries do not make a distinction between these two words, often even clumping them together in a single entry.

    The three roots are:
    1. oik- , from oikos, house, home, household, family
    2. ouros: watcher, guardian
    3. ourgos, from ergo: labour, work, task

    This is the only place in the NT this word is used. Outside the NT it is sparingly used.
    Depending on which textual variant is used, translations usually pick either:
    a. keepers of the house
    b. workers at home
    but there is some variation in understanding possible.

  22. John Gritt says:

    The flood of homos to Christians is akin to the flood of mestizos to the Republican Party.

    Russell Moore is retarded, so are all who believe along his lines as well as those who believe mestizos will make the leap from welfare socialism given freely to them by the Democrats to the Republican party.

  23. Spike says:

    “Welcome the refugees from the sexual revolution!”
    I don’t have a problem with that.
    Over the past two millennia, the followers of Jesus Christ have welcomed:
    -the refugees from the Idolatry Revolution
    -the refugees from the Polytheist Revolution
    -the refugees from the Pharisaic Revolution
    -the refugees from the Drunkenness Revolution
    -the refugees from the Satanic Revolution (which are technically, all of the above)

    The defining feature of accepting these refugees was that those refugees left their various ways outside the church of God. It is, after all, His house, His rules. Those rules too aren’t within the scope of his current generation of followers to change, because they are God’s rules, not theirs.
    So, sexual revolution refugees, welcome. God says, Leave behind the following:
    -your fornication
    -your sexual idolatry
    -your drug taking
    -your gay activism
    -your hell-bent determination to change everything to suit you
    -your selfishness.

    And, in the case of my children, “My house, MY rules”, because fatherhood has been given to me by God.

    You don’t get access to my children. Never, and the day after never.

  24. Pingback: Russell Moore: We lost the culture war. Now prepare to welcome the refugees! | Reaction Times

  25. cynthia says:

    @GW

    You are so correct. The LGBT crowd, by and large, hates Christianity. They require compliance with their worldview; anything less than acceptance to them is bigotry and wrong, and this includes traditional Christianity.

    We have a lesbian in the extended family who donates money to the private Catholic high school she attended. However, she is very intent on making sure the school never adopts the diocese’s stance on homosexuality (the diocese directed that none of its schools hire homosexual teachers, nor allow its teachers to make public statements in support of gay marriage, etc). She has told the board that she will stop donating if they ever adopt these policies. They keep taking her money; a lesbian who is “married”.

    She sees no contradictions or issues with her stance. In fact, all she can muster is anger at the diocese for daring to hold its staff to Catholic teaching. It’s disgusting. And she’s one of the ones who would say that she’s not political.

  26. Mr. Random Commentuer says:

    Christians lost marriage long before gay marriage was ruled on by SCOTUS. They lost it when they allowed marriage to be performed by the state. Why nobody sees this as a blatant violation of the 1st amendment is beyond me.

    Along with that they lost the right to free association. The church could have had private privileges for married church members, provided by members – and *only* to members. But Christians missed the lessons of their faith, and gave what was actually *theirs* unto Caesar, instead of keeping it their own.

    Perhaps one day soon, they will read their Bible again, look around and notice who is responsible for this, and take their faith and country back. The corrupters of logos. Those who rule over you. Those who you are not allowed to criticize.

  27. Patriarch Kirill says:

    Imagine being an intelligent conservative Christian man in America, at this late hour, who spends his free time reading blog articles and cultural analysis yet still thinks the Southern Baptist denomination is the actual church that would somehow, at all, be recognizable to Mary Magdalene.

  28. galloper6 says:

    The special status in the church that Sodomy seems to be demanding and getting shows the level of social / political power these people have.
    (They will never admit to having power though.)
    This is a similar situation to when churches tolerated and even welcomed another sin with powerful participants. This sin was slave holding.

  29. SirHamster says:

    Russell Moore is retarded, so are all who believe along his lines as well as those who believe mestizos will make the leap from welfare socialism given freely to them by the Democrats to the Republican party.

    Based on the Soros ties, it would be a mistake to assume stupidity when malice may be present.

  30. feeriker says:

    (Accidentally posted on the wrong thread.)

    Sincere thanks to Will S for pointing out that Russell Moore is a tool of George Soros.

    How many Southern Baptists are aware of this and what it implies?

  31. feeriker says:

    We have a lesbian in the extended family who donates money to the private Catholic high school she attended. However, she is very intent on making sure the school never adopts the diocese’s stance on homosexuality (the diocese directed that none of its schools hire homosexual teachers, nor allow its teachers to make public statements in support of gay marriage, etc). She has told the board that she will stop donating if they ever adopt these policies. They keep taking her money; a lesbian who is “married”.

    Disappointing, but not at all surprising. If it makes you feel any better, this betrayal of Scriptural principles for money is by no means unique to the Catholic church and its institutions. A very large and prominent Protestant school in my home city regularly accepts large corporate donations from Starbucks, a company certainly not known for “Christian principles.” This school also started giving scholarships two years ago to non-Christian (i.e., professing other religions or atheist) students. Coincidence? Methinks not.

  32. Asher says:

    @Hose_B

    “How can we be a light to anyone if we are too busy spewing hatred?”

    What in the world does avoiding people have to do with “spewing hatred”. This is just a blatant lie, on your part. Begone you child of the devil. BTW, your comment doesn’t even make sense. People avoid people for all sorts of reasons, the primary one being nothing in common. Forcing people who have nothing in common to co-mingle is probably the single biggest reason for hatred being spewed – most, here, may not like Roissy but his “diversity+proximity=war” is dead on.

  33. ys says:

    Moore’s comments are phony anyway, but even if they were on point:
    “Be prepared for refugees from the sexual revolution.”

    The Sexual Revolution started long before I, and most on here, were born. Where are the refugees from it? Our gates should have been flooded decades ago. It’s a side-step to let gays in and also weaken the church.

  34. Eidolon says:

    A “courageous pose” — that’s very interesting. Conservatism itself was defined in its original form as an attitude or pose. And we see how incredibly effective that has been at preserving our culture.

    I’m sure it’ll work great in the church. The important thing is to lose with dignity and not soil yourself by fighting back in any meaningful way! It’s better to let our children be taught perversion than to use hurtful language!

  35. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @John Gritt
    The flood of homos to Christians is akin to the flood of mestizos to the Republican Party.

    Correct. This is one reason why Russell Moore’s analogy about the church preparing to receive the “refugees of the sexual revolution” is so laughably bad. If the leaders of his side are already admitting they lost a war, do they really think that anyone on the outside would believe that they were capable of providing them with aid or shelter? Right now, the church is practically boasting that they couldn’t even protect their own people when an outside power wanted to bring them to harm!

  36. cynthia says:

    @feeriker

    If it makes you feel any better, this betrayal of Scriptural principles for money is by no means unique to the Catholic church and its institutions.

    I attribute it to the same thing our priest attributes the sex abuse to: human weakness. Religion offers power and influence, as well as money, and clergy are not immune to such temptations. As long as there are resources to exploit, people will exploit them.

    I also cannot speak to the internal finances of that high school. They may need the money. I still have very little sympathy for it. My Catholic high school had a teacher who routinely demonized Christianity in the classroom. Defacing Bibles, insulting students who still did attend church, and declaring oneself an atheist was a common occurrence with my classmates. It confused me then, and it makes me mad now.

    Even one teacher espousing gay propaganda can have a massive impact on kids that age. They’re looking for an excuse to rebel. Also, they’re very keen to hypocrisy and one whiff of it at that age can set them up for a lifetime of hating God.

    Shame on religious leaders who put money and power ahead of their congregations. It’s very shameful, and a complete betrayal of their roles.

  37. Forgotten FuRyan says:

    By ‘some variation’, you mean: a plain reading reveals that Forgotten FuRyan is correct. Good thing that I didn’t go into the fact that only men are required by law to register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights, but women are the population and voting majority. I get it, gynocentrism indicates that one must translate around holding women accountable. Never mind that those same gynocentric tendencies intensify the curse of Adam and excessively ease the curse of Eve. Oh well…..
    Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said:
    “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children;
    Your desire shall be [e]for your husband,
    And *he shall rule over you.”* …. Genesis 3:
    17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake;
    In toil you shall eat of it
    All the days of your life.
    18 Both thorns and thistles it shall [f]bring forth for you,
    And you shall eat the herb of the field.
    19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread. Till you return to the ground,
    For out of it you were taken;
    For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”
    “My rage is derived from eyes so sharp they see through the idiocy being passed off as sophistication. Under the cloak of universal themes and terms such as freedom, change, and acceptance, madness ensues, being readily welcomed by those whose mind’s eye questions nothing.” — Justin K. McFarlane Beau

  38. BJ says:

    I always hear about how Christians have capitulated on marriage and divorce, therefore we have no right to speak on homosexuality. There are so many problems with this logic that I scarcely know where to begin, but one place has to be the sheer lopsidedness of the gender divide in divorce cases. Women, as most here are all too aware of, are the prime customers in the divorce market. If we are to correct this problem, and bring down the church discipline hammer, the heaviest weight would fall on women.

    Just out of curiosity, what would the likes of Moore be saying if churches in mass started disciplining women out of the church for failing to adhere to 1 Peter 3 and Titus 2?

  39. American says:

    “our focus should be on welcoming what he expects will be a flood of gays and lesbians who may seem hostile but in reality will be eager to become allies and help us strengthen Christian families.”

    ^ It’s delusional to think that “children of the devil” (1 John 3:10) are eager to become allies of orthodox Christians (“children of God”) who will not compromise with the correct exegesis that homosexuality is a grievous sin.

    But even if it were true, it’s a very bad idea to allow people choosing to engage in homosexuality any place in the church other than repentant for a great many reasons Moore appears to be completely ignorant about or in denial of.

    And regarding Church growth, Moore should read “The Churching of America, 1776-1990 : Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy” by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke to learn why he is wrong in his belief that welcoming in armies of people who won’t repent from homosexuality would be good for church growth.

  40. John Branyan says:

    In this particular case, I think Moore is trying to communicate a genuine concern for those lost souls convicted by God to leave their sin. His statement isn’t radically different from the sentiments uttered by countless church leaders throughout the history of western Christianity: “Seek and save the lost!”

    The trouble is that homosexuality has been removed from the list of sins so gay people aren’t actually “refugees”. They haven’t been exiled by their sinful lifestyle. They aren’t seeking sanctuary within the fold of God’s people. They are invaders who want to replace the “outdated” doctrines of the church with the “inclusive” philosophy of the age.

  41. ChristianCool says:

    I also agree that Biblical-Conservative Christians lost the culture war bigly. This is impossible to dispute.

    If you look at a range of Supreme Court decisions and public-opinion shifting (due to media manipulation and educational indoctrination), the Left has won the culture war from gay marriage to abortion to legalization of recreational drugs to single motherhood being prefer method of child-raising to gay ministers in churches to others.

    It is undeniable. We lost the culture war and if polling is correct, we are going to see national legalization of drugs, assisted suicide, and other nasty cultural changes as soon as the Democrats re-take power and start appointing judges again. I read a very telling book on the subject, which offers a number of solutions to rebuild the Church and re-define what it means to be Christian and form a counter-cultural movement that will take generations to flourish. The book was The Benedict Option.

    The Benedict Option book confronts a core problem: being Christian today does NOT mean what it meant say 2,000 or even 1500 years ago. Gay marriage would never ever been a point of discussion even during the downfall of true Christianity in the Western Roman collapse period around 500AD because it is so un-Biblical. But today, it is a being openly pushed by leftist Christians. Can you be a Christian and openly homosexual? I say NO based on Biblical texts from Genesis to the Apostle Paul, but the leftist Christians are working overtime to “re-interpret” such texts, as Dalrock has reported on extensively.

    But what is worse is the societal problem. Simply put, mass immigration + secularization of Western societies = too overwhelming for Biblical Christians to overcome. The numbers of foreign non-Christians moving into America at 3-4 million per year, 22-30 million illegals, and their anchor babies have completely changed America as a country.

    We have become outnumbered because many Christians allowed mass immigration and their lack of desire (or perceived need, for the longest time) to fight back against cultural corruption. As the evil political thinker Saul Alisnky said, “the white middle class Christians are easy to manipulate because their nature is inherently good”. In other words, the Left exploited the good nature of Christians wanting to help “poor migrants” to create a quiet mass invasion of America (and The West) to the point they are now a huge voting block and they will vote for policies that will limit Christian worship, free speech, and policies that align more with these new immigrants values of demands for welfare, gun bans, high taxes on middle class (the Christian base of America) to fund their welfare, and socially leftist policies. Alisnky has been proven right – Christians stupidity allowed America to be invaded by 80 million immigrants and their children since the 1960s. They are a majority when combined with leftist Americans and untold numbers of illegal aliens.

    I read an article by this woman who teaches at a Conservative Christian university in Texas and in her class, the young 18-25 year old Millennials that come to her class shriek to the thought that Christianity is opposed to homosexuality, for instance. These were kids from Christian, middle class backgrounds. These kids grew up in the leftist education indoctrination system that is well in place nationally throughout America and promoted 24/7 on social media, TV, magazines, and entertainment.

    The core problem I have with the main thesis of that excellent Benedict Option book is that not only Christian numbers will dwindle because of secularization of society and mass immigration, but also because our ability to REPRODUCE Christian kids that will grow up to be Christian adults is greatly hindered by a number of reasons.

    One reason being the lack of availability of decent women to marry and procreate with. Another reason is that even when we do reproduce with the rare decent women in our congregations, these kids will likely NOT grow up to be the Biblical Christians of tomorrow.

    The future generation of Christian kids will be poisoned because the media (news, social media), the entire educational system (from K – 12 and worse in higher education), and the culture (movies, music, etc) is so incredibly corrupting and overpowering that parents simply will not be able to counter their influence in a large-scale (if at all). ❗ That is a troubling thought, but it is true. Think of how The Hitler’s Youth poisoned an entire generation of kids through education and parents could do nothing about it, under penalty of arrest.

    Even parents who homeschool today have an uphill climb because the corrupting culture not only comes in through TV, music, and social media, but also comes in through cell phones and everyone has one today. I see kids, Christians and non-Christians as young as 5 with their own SmartPhones doing and looking up God-knows what on these devices. The parents just want a few minutes of peace, so they give them a device. The parents in their desperate quest for peace and quiet have largely abdicated parenting to whatever comes into that phone.

    I am certain many Biblical Christian parents will do whatever it takes to raise future decent Christians. But they will be an incredibly small minority in this Brave New World that the Left has established and we were too “inherently good” to do anything about it.

  42. Opus says:

    I have never forgotten nor am ever likely to a symposium I attended in your country some decades ago where a professional homo-sexualist presumably form Stonewall in what I consider the greatest sophistry sought to persuade the Christians (whose meeting it was) that Homosexuals were just like everyone of them and then had the nerve to propose as was his want in these type of meetings to out as Gay any Xtian in attendance and in my view for the sake as it always is with them of seduction (it then hardly matters whether his guess is right or wrong indeed the wronger the better as Homosexuality can only prosper by conversion of Straight to Gay). Pity the man wrongly guessed now forever suspect for calumny spreads like wild-fire.

    I also recall at that meeting a Xtian man now probably long deceased (presumably taken in by all this) saying, afterwards, that God did not make mistakes – which is frankly as daft as saying that because there are thieves and murderers that God supports Theft and Homicide.

    The trouble with you Americans is that, as visitors always find, you are too kindly and too welcoming. Homosexuals do not have your welfare at heart; they are less about sex (hardly surprising given that they can rack-up and without breaking into a sweat more sexual partners in a day than most normies have in a lifetime) than power and that power is something they now wield with vindictiveness. These days I have zero-tolerance for these people and look admiringly at high-rise buildings.

  43. ChristianCool says:

    @Opus:

    As I stated above, the evil political schemer and theorist Saul Alinksy (who coincidentally was great friends with college-age Hillary Rodham later –> Clinton and was a big influence on Obummer) is that “the white middle class Christians are fundamentally good natures and therefore are easy to exploit”.

    I agree Americans are too accepting of bad behavior. No doubt about it, the militant gays and their Leftist supporters want to destroy their opposition, not try to chnage any minds. America is a hyperpolarized and hyper-tribal country. Very few minds can be changed these days (and I mean very few)!

    Today, it is not about being welcoming or too nice anymore. The Left is using FEAR as a tactic to intimidate dissidents. They will use their control of “tech companies” like Google and FaceBook to find out who says anything against their agenda (be it homosexual agenda, or gay marriage or abortion or opposition to open borders, etc) and will publish the dissidents names and photos if available, and will blacklist them for jobs, college entrance, and “polite society”, as it is called. They rile up mobs on social media (especially on Tweeter) and create boycotts of companies that employ any dissidents.

    Translated: they financially ruin you for any opposition.

    The only way around this is to use the weapons of the enemy against them. For example, if someone say they oppose guns or concealed carry, ask they “so you oppose a female rape victim from carrying a handgun to defend herself? Why do you support rape of women and to make women defenseless?”. –> This is what they do to us.

    Turn this tactic against them. Being nice is not effective anymore. We have to fight to win again. Trump wins by fighting hard, not by being weak. Christians need to take notice and fight back hard.

  44. wodansthane says:

    @Novaseeker

    Spot on. If your enemy says “I am going to fight you in your own house!”, then you will be obliged to fight him in your own house.

  45. feministhater says:

    It fills my heart with absolute joy to hear that the Boy Scouts of America is now not just confirmed to be morally and spiritually bankrupt but financially too. I hope they get sued into the Stone Age. I hope they get royally fucked in the arse, but then again, most new Scout Leaders would enjoy that too much.

    Fuck the lot of them.

  46. feministhater says:

    These days I have zero-tolerance for these people and look admiringly at high-rise buildings.

    I too have a penchant for high-rise buildings and can only marvel at the many uses for such heights of fancy.

  47. info says:

    @BJ
    ”Just out of curiosity, what would the likes of Moore be saying if churches in mass started disciplining women out of the church for failing to adhere to 1 Peter 3 and Titus 2?”

    Intensification of persecution I think. Since the culture hates divine order so much. Its like fighting back. The violence will escalate.

  48. freebird says:

    Christian “charity”
    Money in the plate to buy status with %90 over head costs “ministers”
    No money for the sons. No help,no inheritance.
    Send the money to Ethiopia.Or Ducks Unlimited,Whitetails Unlimited,Salmon hatchery,Lutherans,
    NRA,Ect.
    Just Leave No SEED for the sons to grow with or thrive.
    Fuck them.Because bad penis.
    You think this language is crude?
    No,it’s a distillation of experiences far beyond your ken or caring.
    Just put the money in the plate and enjoy the FeelZ Good.
    Screw that alienated offspring.Screw them with your (lack of) money/resources.

    CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME
    Lack of this is why the white races dies.Send it to anyone else.Fuck it away rather than build the next generation.
    It’s ok to hate the Boomers,They hate you right back.

  49. freebird says:

    Old Testament law supersedes your ConStituition.
    Your local “revenue Officers”
    Jesus said he did not change The Law at all.
    To ignore your backbone is to pull the teeth you needed to survive.
    It’s supposed to be:
    1.God
    2..Country
    3.Tribe
    By detracting from The Word you have created:
    1.Anyone posing as “AuthoritaH
    2.Fictional buffet Personal Jesus
    3.Tolerance for your sworn enemy the Children of The Night.We are Children of The Day.
    No Tribe,replaced with backbiting Passive Aggressive Cunt Syndrome

    Then posit on blog why country has gone to shit

  50. freebird says:

    Spike said:
    “You don’t get access to my children. Never, and the day after never.”

    Dog-shooting door kicking for fun Sheriff 6Six Gun says:
    “Challenge accepted”

    Actually some random c*nt calls CPS (a private corporation “associated” with The Court)
    Then CPS calls trigger boy badge fag to come along on the c*unting you are to receive.
    Several tens of thousands of dollars later in “Mouthpiece fees” you MAY be allowed to see your kids with a c*nt supervising your evil penis ass.

    The source of your grief will be a c*nt close to you now.
    Turn a blind eye to The War at your own peril.
    Thank God I didn’t have kids.
    I’ve been humiliated enough in the c*nt courts as it is simply for co-habitating.

  51. And around and around we go says:

    The evangelical world appears to be suffering. It’s ‘led’ by people who aren’t very competent (Moore), people with the souls of marketing professionals (as in most of the characters you feature every week), people with character and personality defects (Mark Driscoll), institutional custodians who just do not have the energy and inspiration of preceding generations (whoever it is who is running Focus on the Family and the Campus Crusade for Christ these days), and poseurs (half the evangelical faculty you can name).

  52. Name (required) says:

    Why did our ancestors punish sodomites? Look around you.

  53. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Read the Christian writings before Constantine. They rage and scream at the immorality of the culture, and the culture responded with vicious attacks. They routinely describe homosexuality with disgust, Further back you have John the Baptist losing his head for criticizing Herod over a sexual sin. Christ did not compromise His message or tone to the woman at the well. They also rage and scream against those Christians (or who called themselves so) who would compromise one inch to the culture. During that period the Church growth was huge.
    Dalrock is correct, Moore points out that we have lost and why we have lost (lack of Church discipline). I would go further, from the moment women were permitted to sit at Church with uncovered heads, a clear violation of Scripture, the culture war was lost. “Because you listened to the words of your wife, cursed is the ground on your account.” Yes, God has said that women are to put some sort of covering as a public symbol of submission to men in Church (not a hijab or burka, and not at all times necessarily, a simple hat or bow would do). We men cursed our Churches, and thus our entire culture the moment we listened to our wive’s fashion sense; which was dictated to them by Vatican 2.
    There will be refugees, but they will come as current refugees do to Europe and America; not to repent (change their minds) and adopt our ways, but to destroy what semblance of sanity is left.
    I am no Donatist, I believe in forgiveness AFTER true repentance. These refugees come to impose their failed miserable ways, both spiritual (Church) and political (countries) upon us. Moore and Time Keller stands at the door to welcome them. Laodicea rising is a disheartening sight, but even so, the great apostasy must come before He returns as a lion.

  54. ray says:

    Mr. Random Commenteur — “Christians lost marriage long before gay marriage was ruled on by SCOTUS. They lost it when they allowed marriage to be performed by the state.”

    Yoop. I’ve stated this many times here, differently worded. You marry before God. Period. The State has zero to do with it . . . unless you allow them in, between you and God.

    Never gets action tho. They’re teaching me a lesson. :O)

    Now that you’ve said it, perhaps it’ll take.

  55. Sharkly says:

    Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:
    Dalrock is correct, Moore points out that we have lost and why we have lost (lack of Church discipline). I would go further, from the moment women were permitted to sit at Church with uncovered heads, a clear violation of Scripture, the culture war was lost. “Because you listened to the words of your wife, cursed is the ground on your account.” Yes, God has said that women are to put some sort of covering as a public symbol of submission to men in Church (not a hijab or burka, and not at all times necessarily, a simple hat or bow would do). We men cursed our Churches, and thus our entire culture the moment we listened to our wives’ fashion sense …

    Well said! I think about the exact same on that. There is no sin that should be accepted by the church. The lack of discipline in our generation is appalling. It results in weak ineffective people with little self control, and almost no sense of shame. The wicked fruit should tell people that the whole church needs to be uprooted and replaced with a church that will bear fruit unto righteousness.

  56. purge187 says:

    “We recognize that most people who identify as LGBT are content to keep their sex lives private rather than demand official government affirmation of their sexual identity or conduct.”

    Have they been living under a rock for the past few years? My word.

  57. American says:

    “Humans want their religion to be sufficiently potent, vivid, and compelling so that it can offer them rewards of great magnitude… The religious organizations that maximize these aspects of religion, however, also demand the highest price in terms of what the individual must do to qualify for these rewards… As a result, humans are prone to backslide, to get behind on their payments… Thus, other things being equal, people will always be in favor of a modest reduction in their costs.

    In this fashion, humans begin to bargain with their churches for lower tension and fewer sacrifices. They usually succeed, both because it is those with the most influence-the clergy and the leading laity-who most desire to lower the level of sacrifice and because each reduction seems so small and engenders widespread approval.

    No doubt most Methodists were glad to be permitted to go to the circus, just as most Catholics probably welcomed the chance to skip mass from time to time. Thus does the sect-church process ensue.

    There comes a point, however, when a religious body has become so worldly that its rewards are few and lacking in plausibility. When hell is gone, can heaven’s departure be far behind? Here people begin to switch away. Some are recruited by very high tension movements. Others move into the newest and least secularized mainline firms. Still others abandon all religion. These principles hardly constitute a wheel of karma, but they do seem to reveal the primary feature of our religious history: the mainline bodies are always headed for the sideline.”

    -‘Chapter 7: Why Mainline Denominations Decline’ in ‘The Churching of America’ by Finke and Stark.

    The Boy Scouts were slated for decline the moment their compromises accumulated past a line of no return. Likewise, the Catholic Church has been in decline for a long time now and people I respect are predicting a “bottoming out” coming as the compromises of the Catholic Church continue in which many millions will leave it. The final catalyst appears to be the extremely powerful “gay clergy” (a 20th-21st century recent practice of the Catholic Church taking in large numbers of practicing homosexuals and promoting them into positions of great importance), who are also the people most guilty for engaging in the clergy-related child sex abuses, finally pushing the Catholic Church over that line.

  58. Sharkly says:

    After thinking about it a bit more, I feel inclined to also mention that the roots of the rebellion against 1 Corinthians 11:1-10, and other parts of God’s word, started much earlier. It began when some began to elevate women beyond what the Bible indicated, with false doctrine. Early on a few falsely tried to claim that women were also created in the image of God. However it wasn’t until about 1,500 years later that women dared to take that to its logical conclusion and throw off their head coverings and label the Apostle Paul as a deluded misogynist. The “courtly romantic love” crap that Dalrock harps on a lot, is evidence of the false thinking that was already deeply rooted in the dark ages church, and I believe was beat back for a time, by Anabaptists, Puritans, and other devout and self sacrificing folks, willing to suffer, separate, and even die for faithfulness to the word of God, as they directly read and interpreted it. They weren’t out to discredit, excuse, or ignore Paul’s writing, they were out to find the meaning and follow it. Today 1 Corinthians 11:1-10 is almost universally ignored, and we are given ready made excuses for why we don’t need to actually follow it, instead of just being told to fear God and flee from evil by following God’s word as close as possible. At the end of life, your pastorbater’s excuses will not stand up against the all consuming fire of God’s holy judgement. It is better to obey, and leave the vain excuses to the future denizens of Hell.
    When Father God demands, on pain of your damnation, before the whole host of heaven, why you attempted blasphemously to effeminize and emasculate Him by claiming women were also made after His image, will your excuse ,,, (Muh Feminism!) prevail and emasculate Father God, the Son, and their Spirit, and exonerate you of all your blasphemy? Is their really some Mother Goddess in the Bible that we missed, that we should be worshipping? If not, then God is masculine, as He made clear to us. We’d do well to honor Him.(not Her, or It) God is masculine, and He, the Father, created “sons”, “men”, “Adam”, in His own image.
    The phrase “sons of God” appears 11 times in the Bible:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22sons+of+God%22&qs_version=ESV
    The phrase “daughters of God” never appears in the Bible.

    Just some stuff to think about.

  59. Heidi says:

    So, uh, don’t refugees usually come from the losing side of the war? Moore’s analogy makes no sense.

  60. BillyS says:

    The root of the problem is denying God as Creator, believing the modern myth of particles to people Evolution. Read Romans 1. It says that God gave them over to this crud when they stopped acknowledging Him as the Creator.

    How many hear by the modern scam that is Evolution yet oppose this stuff? That is the root of your error. A lack of seeing value in marriage certainly doesn’t help, but the root is denying the Creator.

  61. BillyS says:

    The RCC blew it long before the modern age, but accepting someone like Ted Kennedy shows they don’t hold their principles very well.

  62. Keith says:

    Do you think if they change the tax law and churches had to pay taxes. That this self defeating tone will change ?

  63. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Figures…

  64. Frank K says:

    “So, uh, don’t refugees usually come from the losing side of the war? Moore’s analogy makes no sense.”

    Agreed, winners send occupiers, not refugees. And that is what this wave of homos beating on the church’s front door are: occupiers. They have to come to take over.

  65. ChristianCool says:

    Moore says: “The church must prepare for the refugees from the sexual revolution.
    We must prepare for those, like the sexually wayward Woman at the Well of Samaria, who will be thirsting for water of which they don’t even know.”

    Do you know what is so sickeningly incredible about that statement?

    1) Refugees are the losers in a war, Christians lost the culture war and we are a minority in America now. We are the refugees in our own country’s culture. We are the ones being targeted and outted on social media to see if we can be fired and ostracized from society.

    2) Moore and their ilk want MEN to then go ahead and play Captain Save-A-Hoe and marry one of these “wayward women” and put the man’s life, current and future income, freedom, and sanity in the line to rescue someone who enjoyed living the life of sin in a culture war THEY wanted and they won?! The woman has ZERO risk marrying some poor Christian sucker, whom she can divorce rape on an whim, leave the man penniless and in jail on a dime (pun intended).

    Who is looking out for the Christian men who held firm and even though lost the culture war now has to rescue some hoe and lose everything to the freshly revirginated and holy wayward woman?

    Sheesh! 🙄

  66. ranger says:

    the decisive battle in the cultural wars was never gay marriage. Gay marriage is actually inevitable, and can only be opposed if you really hate gays, once marriage was redefined from “public and permanent mutual consent to acts leading to the generation of children (with some attendant consequences)” to “a full communion of life (with some attendant consequences)

  67. ChristianCool says:

    @ranger says: The decisive battle in the cultural wars was never gay marriage. Gay marriage is actually inevitable, and can only be opposed if you really hate gays.

    True, I personally never thought gay marriage was THE decisive battle. The decisive victory was the Globalists’ almost total decimation of the middle class in concert with the SJW destruction of marriage as a critical social institution through court-enforced divorce rape and cultural corruption.

    That is what did IMHO. The rest was simply the process of Western cultural “death by a thousand cuts”.

    Ps. If we get an amnesty of the 22-30 million illegals already inside the USA, they Democrats of today will have such an ultra-majority across the USA that the Dems of today will seem reasonable and moderate compared to the true Marxists that will get into power, just like what we saw these same immigrants vote into power in places like Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and across Central America. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders seem like wimpy moderates in contrast. 5 million votes to the left is more then enough to change the country…. imagine 22 million more Democrats nationally (that is not the family members they will chain migrate afterwards). Civil war would be a mild solution of an invasion and national political chnage of this caliber.

  68. ChristianCool says:

    There is no more visible sign of the downfall of “Christian America” and the Biblical Christian values that made America great then how our women behave. In this “picture perfect” example below, I will show you what I mean.

    This is Sideshow Bob, the murderous criminal from the TV show, “The Simpsons”. Sideshow Bob has killed a girl in real life.

    Oh wait. That is not Sideshow Bob…. this real-life clown looks like him, but this is actually Aaron Trejo, a real winner! 🙄 This clown is described as a “16 year old BOY”…. who just did a “boyish thing”…. like murdering a pregnant 17-year old cheerleader in a town near South Bend, Indiana. -_-

    Full article link: https://www.foxnews.com/us/indiana-teen-16-arrested-in-killing-of-pregnant-high-school-cheerleader

    Keep in mind this is a very Conservative area, “Church country” as they call it. Middle class homes and families everywhere. You will see what I mean when you see the victim:

    So… American daughters are raised OH SO WELL by dumb and weak SJW-minded parents who do not teach them right from wrong anymore, that this pretty upper-middle-class girl actually hooked up with a real-life cartoon character-looking clown/loser.

    Now this Trejo character stabbed the girl in the heart with a knife because (and I quote, according to his confession) “it would be faster and less painful”. I wonder where he learned that stabbing a young woman in the heart would be “less painful”. 🙄

    Here is years of legal work come in to infer in this case and think of some possible reasons for this mindset:

    1) Based on his appearance and last name (Trejo), this murdering loser is likely from Central America or he is the anchor baby of illegal alien parents from that region. Thanks to both Bushes, Hill and Bill, and Obummer for open borders!

    2) The method of killing was a knife in the heart and killer thought this would be “least painful way”. Think about it – where does a 16 year old “boy” going to a mostly middle-class school in middle America get such an idea?

    Twenty years ago when I was 16 years old, I would NOT have known the “least painful way” to murder someone. My whole focus was getting jacked at the gym, playing video games, installing performance parts in my car, gearing up for college, and trying to meet girls. I never gave a thought to the “least painful way” to kill someone. That was never a consideration for me.

    The murderer here probably learned that nifty murder fact from:

    a) Gang he is a member of or has contacts/connections with (likely Central American);

    b) The method of murder (knife) is a calling card of MS-13 gang from El Salvador, which prefers to hack its victims to death with knives and machetes to inflict more pain on victims;

    c) His instinct was to murder the pregnant girlfriend right away; based on his own account, he decided to murder the girl right away. This seems in line with the Central American gang culture (kill first, ask questions later);

    d) How did he know different types of murder techniques would cause more or less pain? Again, this is consistent with Central American gang knowledge.

    3) He murdered her for one sole reason – she was knocked up and she did not want to be forced to have an abortion, so she waited until long enough until it was illegal for her to have an abortion under State law. Let us think about this. Why would she do that?

    Most likely because she KNEW this guy was violent and unstable (and yet hooked up with him anyway)! 🙄 She knew this guy might take her to an abortion clinic by force or threaten her life to abort. The only way to prevent that would be to wait until State law barred an abortion so Sideshow Bob would have to “grow up and do the right thing! That kid will teach him to grow up!” *sigh* 🙄

    4) Trejo’s US citizen/foreigner status has not been revealed. Why? Because he is a “minor child”, he technically has a “protection” from having his status revealed by DHS (Immigration).
    Given his age and would likely qualify as a “Dreamer” under Obummer’s executive order amnesty (DACA). Media would not want that info out there, especially now with the end of year budget fight between Trump and Chuck & Nancy.

    As fascinating and interesting as this case is, because it is so similar in nature (poor raising and upbringing of daughters) as we saw in the famous “I will bring the movies” murder case ( https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/ ) it is a tragedy in many ways.

    *We get to see how s#itty of a job American parents do raising their daughters to be feral and not taught limits (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/overcivilized-men-uncivilized-women/), to the point that their daughters are willing to hook up with a loser like Sideshow Bob here, who ultimately killed her.

    *We also see our media and culture at work, coupled with leftist school educational system, whereas a teenage girl would be OK dating and getting knocked up (and doing everything she could to keep the bastard!) from a loser like Sideshow Bob out in the open. ❗ A few years back, most girls would be ashamed to be impregnated by a Sideshow Bob-type and her parents would have been outraged, not “accepting” of such a thing.

    *We see a young girl lose her life, and yet I know some will feel relived that there is “one less anchor baby to live off welfare for life”. This is how bad things have gotten.

    *We see the consequences of open borders, even if a generation or two down the line.

    *We see the cultural decline of the “Christian middle class” of America, whereas our young girls are willing to spread it for guys like Sideshow Bob.

    *We see what happens when a society and culture enters such decline that things like this become common and just background noise of daily life.

    Then people wonder why I am hesitant to get married and have a kid(s). Raising a daughter in America today is a nightmare. Even a god Christian girl can end up with a loser like Trejo and be proud and want to keep his baby. 🙄

    Anyone dispute this story from a couple days ago perfectly make my point about the fact we lost the culture war and that future generations of Christian kids raised in our culture are almost doomed to fail or to become CINOs (Christians In Name Only)?

  69. Swanny River says:

    I agree that the only tool complementarians give husbands for exercising authority is pleading. Just think of their reaction if a husband told a Christian counselor or pastor, ” If I want her opinion I will ask for it, and if I don’t ask for it, and she doesn’t agree with my course of action, then I want her to cheerfully help.” No sulking or nagging or dropping out. “It’s what I expect from someone I protect, nourish, and love.”

  70. Novaseeker says:

    once marriage was redefined from “public and permanent mutual consent to acts leading to the generation of children (with some attendant consequences)” to “a full communion of life (with some attendant consequences)

    Or as Dalrock says once romantic love becomes the moral justification for sex and the marriage, instead of marriage being the moral mandate for love and the moral justification for sex.Once it all becomes about mutual romantic love (and not kids, not monogamy, not lifetime, not gender roles, not social duties), eventually when the same sex couples come asking, you won’t have a very strong argument against it socially because same sex couples also share romantic love. The gay movement realized this and formed their movement around this, and won because they built the thrust of their argument around the model of marriage that almost all straight couples have, including almost all Christian couples (de facto, in terms of behavior, regardless of the lip service some Christians may pay to the Bible or other historical Christian ideas about marriage). The one remaining factor was overcoming the “ick” factor, and their strategy for that was also simple: de-emphasize the “Village People” image and get the significant number of gays who were kind of “blended in” to normal society to come out and announce their previously quiet gayness, and hope that most people would not find them weird or icky — and it worked, by and large.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean that *churches* need to accept it. The problem, though, is that since the churches have, de facto at least, basically accepted the way that Christian couples have changed the concept and de facto living out of marriage, and the dramatic (understatement — colossal) difference in attitude towards gays generationally, many more churches than just the mainline will be accepting SSM in the decade or so ahead, de facto. If they don’t they will simply lose almost all of their members who are currently under 40, most of whom are very openly and strongly pro-gay, and are fully expecting the church’s approach to the issue to change once sufficient numbers of oldbies die off like good little oldbies do.

  71. wodansthane says:

    Moore’s problem stems from his feminine orientation, he is being directed by his feelings and, consequently, is concerned with others feelings. He is dealing only with the what is directly before him, apparently unable/unwilling to think abstractly. Everyone should give primacy to feelings, perish Scripture and rational thought.

  72. akell2013 says:

    I urge all of you to find the nearest Orthodox Church and leave all this behind. Without the utter desolation of the Presbyterian Church, I never would have found true Christianity. (Icons and incense but no pope or Mary worship.)

  73. Name (required) says:

    Akell2013, I agree that it’s vital to come out of pozzed churches NOW. Orthodoxy has structures to attack, and I’ve seen some evidence of pozz in the Russian Orthodox church in Alaska, so I don’t see Orthodoxy in general as a sure-fire, long-term haven.

    There are pozz-free churches in some denominations, and a group of ten families who are committed to tithe could start another. For example, there are Baptist denominations that have no problem making room for an unpozzed church with a pastor who preaches it just the way God wrote it. Come out of babylon, and let God guide you from there.

  74. Sharkly says:

    I urge all of you to find the nearest Orthodox Church …(Icons and incense but no pope or Mary worship.)
    Too late! … the Mary worship has begun:
    https://russian-faith.com/explaining-orthodoxy/mary-mother-god-queen-heaven-in-bible-n1570
    The saint and icon idolizing is enough to keep me away. And I’m sorry, because there seems to be some very good aspects there amongst the clutter of “traditions of men”.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Christian Cool

    That would be a great essay for your own blog. As a comment here it is rather long.

    tl;dr, in fact.

  76. Phone rings Sunday afternoon. “Phil” (our protagonist) goes to answer.

    Hello?

    Phil! Pastor Reynolds. How are you doing?

    Fine.

    Haven’t seen you in the pews for a few weeks. Didn’t see you this morning either. Have you been ill? How are things going?

    Things are fine.

    Yes. Well as you know, we do our annual Christmas drive, collecting and donating toys for students in blighted, poverty stricken areas. You usually drive into the inner city and handle transporting toys to that inner city elementary school. We don’t have any volunteers who would be willing to do it, I was wondering if you’d still be interested in making the drive?

    Certainly. I’ll be in the church parking lot Wednesday afternoon with ,my Suburban.

    Excellent. So is there anything else you and I need to discuss Phil? Any thing you need to tell me?

    No.

    So I can expect to see you in church next Sunday?

    No.

    Well why not?

    May I call you John, Pastor Reynolds?

    You may not.

    Okay, well, to me, you are not a pastor anymore, whoever you are. You are teaching that we need to welcome people who believe in homosexual activity into our congregation.

    I don’t think I like where this conversation is going Phil.

    You called me. I didn’t call you. And you asked me why I am not attending y former church. Do you want me to lie to you?

    I think you need to think VERY VERY CAREFULLY about how you choose your next few words to me.

    I don’t think so. I have no respect for you, whoever you are.

    I think it might be best if you didn’t show up Wednesday evening.

    John, that proves that you are NOT Christian. I knew that already, but you would rather those kids NOT get the toys and you can keep your pride than accept my help since I am the only one who is willing to drive those 53 miles.

    The elders will be reaching out to you about dis-inviting you from the church.

    I figured that is where this was headed, that is why I stopped payment on my last tithing check and had the pre-authorized withdrawal from my checking account, stopped.

    Pastor John hangs up the phone.

  77. Ranger says:

    @Novaseeker, it has entered the Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church; contrast these two statements:

    ˜The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. ˜(Code of Canon Law, 1983)

    ˜Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts perpetual and exclusive rights to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable to the generation of children˜ (Code of Canon Law, 1917)

    Sure, you can point out in the 1983 definition that it does mention men and women, and it does mentions the procreation of offspring. But it leaves obvious questions, like ˜why restrict it just to men and women˜, ˜well, if knowingly infertile people can get married when it is known that they cannot procreate, why deny that to homosexuals? Do you mean they are unable to have a partnership of the whole of life? The only possible reason is your homophobia, you bigoted bad Churchman you!˜

    In contrast, the 1917 definition of what Matrimonial consent consists of makes it abundantly clear that it is impossible for homosexuals to marry, while there is no impediment for infertile or older people to do so.

    Yes, it would also mean that wives can’t deny their husbands (or vice-versa), but we can’t have that in our enlightened age, can we? Better to redefine marriage and to accept gay matrimony.

  78. Sharkly says:

    … I stopped payment on my last tithing check and had the pre-authorized withdrawal from my checking account, stopped.

    quitting the dairy?

  79. Spike says:

    ChristianCool says: December 16, 2018 at 4:35 am
    I’m with you on this one. I’ve long burnt out of compassion. I have compassion fatigue.
    I can no longer stand the following:
    -Cute girl meets thug. Cute girl gets hurt. Good people must feel sorry and help her.
    -Migrants travelling across oceans with children. Said children are used as human shields or as bargaining chips against target government
    -Cute girl runs off with ISIS terrorist in Middle East or African country. She becomes terrorists’ sex slave, finds the situation not to her liking and wants government and parents she betrayed to help her escape.
    -Various LGBTIQWERTY deviations. We are going to see an avalanche of mental traumas, court cases and lawsuits over this. I say, ”Break out the popcorn”.

  80. Our churches are (generally) going down the tubes

  81. feeriker says:

    I … had the pre-authorized withdrawal from my checking account, stopped.

    Pre-authorized withdrawals from one’s checking account is a horribly dangerous practice in general, but the LAST organization on earth I’d ever allow to do that would be one of these pseudo-corporate “churches.”

  82. Paul says:

    @ranger : exclusive rights to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable to the generation of children

    Well, this is obvious adding to the words of the bible
    The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

    No mention of any precondition of being it limited to “actions that are of themselves suitable to the generation of children” (i.e. penis-in-vagina contact ONLY).

  83. freebird says:

    The whole idea that women should cover their head in church is NOT to show submissions to the men there.
    It is symbolic of her protecting her mind from seducing spirits. (Sexual promiscuity)
    “The daughters of men were Wholly Seduced by the Fallen Angels.”
    As with Eve, the corruption comes as a good time,women are prone to seduction.
    (Playas!)
    The covering is to remind them not to be so gullible as to fall for vices,sin,whoring.

    Because whoring is so easy for them,just spread those legs and the sniffing dogs come-a-begging- for some of that nasty nasty.

    “Madonna” Showing her crotch on tv for big $$.
    You see, she’s a whore and a virgin.and loves possessions.
    All the shit this “society” is supposed to reject.
    nope,nope,it’s all harmless,get that asshole “abusive” man out of here,There is hundreds of more cocks to be milked for sperm and PROFIT.
    “What does it profit a woman to gain The World but lose her “soul?”
    EVERYTHING THIS WORLD HAS TO OFFER AND WOMEN WANT IT NOW.
    Including the Illusion of Godliness, having no shape,form,or Property thereof.

    The head covering is a sign of her SUBMISSION to God,
    Rejecting her INHERANT sinful nature.
    Got a crotch trophy out of wedlock?
    You already broke the terms of the Contract with God and Man.
    Now GTFO you are corrupting what little is left,not to mention the faggots.
    Yes,those going to the sewer with the reproductive organs.
    Perhaps a SHIT BABY could be the result.
    Or better yet,metaphorical SHIT all over those nice church going clothes.
    Perhaps assless chaps for the faggot priest and nose rings for your c*unt “Priests”

  84. ray says:

    Christian Fool — “Then people wonder why I am hesitant to get married and have a kid(s). Raising a daughter in America today is a nightmare. Even a god Christian girl can end up with a loser like Trejo and be proud and want to keep his baby.”

    Assuming we ignore Freud’s little slip and accept that Christian Fool meant ‘good Christian girl’, why is Christian Fool championing someone who voluntarily had sex with a scumbag and subsequently became pregnant?

    Certainly ‘America’ is complicit with the error of this woman, however, the responsibility for engaging in illegal sex with said scumbag and becoming pregnant rests with this woman — not with ‘America’ and not with the scumbag, either. Now if he’d held a gun on her, that’d be different.

    Excusing the poor — and often dangerous — choices of American females, and shuttling off their responsibility to other agencies, is the core of the problem. Deflections like Christian Fool makes increases, and complicates, that problem.

    I read the FOX article, but could find no info suggesting that this young woman either was ‘Christian’ or ‘good’. I’m wondering why Christian Fool would characterize her this way, given the lack of factual material present? Based on her rather wholesome looks? Or just kneejerk conditioning?

    Sounds like mebbe your local Fool keeps his White-Knight armor carefully stashed away!

  85. Sharkly says:

    Ray,
    I think we need to hold the whores responsible for their behavior, and this particular one already died as a result of her own poor choices, so ‘we’ can’t, effectively, in this case, but I also think we need to hold our culture, our society, and even our “churches” responsible for their part in cheering on and approving of all whoring, because they are clearly a contributing factor to the moral decay they promote. When the culture, society, and churches strongly disapproved of whoring, there was a lot less of it.

  86. Joe2 says:

    @Mr. Random Commentuer

    Christians lost marriage long before gay marriage was ruled on by SCOTUS. They lost it when they allowed marriage to be performed by the state.

    I’m trying to learn exactly when the state began performing marriages. I discovered that from about 1850 to 1880 New York stopped recording marriages. They began recording again after that date, but simply recording a marriage is different from requiring a license to marry and performing a marriage. Does anyone know when states began requiring a license and performing marriages?

  87. Joe2: I just did a quick search and found that each state had its own rules on marriage. The basic was that the church married a couple and then registered with the state or the families created a contract and this was recorded with the state. This was true for most states until the 19th century when most of the southern states and a few northern states set up the licencing to prevent inter-racial marriages: white with a black, Native American, or Asian. Other states had other eas ons for starting to license marriages. A major reason of the licensing of clergy was for taxation issues. A church or a pastor has to file as a non profit in order to avoid some if not all taxes and many clergy also do not get taxed for social security.

    So we see the two biggest reasons for licensing. Taxes and control by the elites, over who can and cannot get married.there are several churches that are not getting registered by the state and there are several pastors who will not marry a couple with a license. And if the couple wants to get a divorce in the future – they have to go through the church which most likely will not give a divorce.

  88. Cane Caldo says:

    Does anyone know whether Russell Moore, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller, or Sam Allberry are competent at handiwork, or any material tasks?

  89. gdgm+ says:

    Related to the OP, from Rod Dreher at “The American Conservative” site, “Psychiatry Goes PC”:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/psychiatry-political-correctness-transgender-benedict-option/

    I’m “meh” on Dreher generally, but there’s some interesting commentary / discussion here.

  90. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ 12:35 pm:
    “Does anyone know whether Russell Moore, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller, or Sam Allberry are competent at handiwork, or any material tasks?”

    Don’t know about Allberry. Chandler was a military brat.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    Related to the OP, from Rod Dreher at “The American Conservative” site, “Psychiatry Goes PC”:

    Goes? Dreher is confusing “PC” with “SJW”. Psychiatry has been PC since the 1970’s. It’s now predictably going SJW.

    Thanks for reminding me why I quit wasting time reading the American Conservative. Maybe the AC can pony up some money and buy the “Weekly Standard” now…

  92. ranger says:

    Well, this is obvious adding to the words of the bible
    The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

    No mention of any precondition of being it limited to “actions that are of themselves suitable to the generation of children” (i.e. penis-in-vagina contact

    Paul, I hope you realize that your position would state that you are required to let your wife shove her fingers into your anus if she so desire, or to require you to spend hours orally pleasing her.

    One thing is what is publically consented to by the spouses, that which one party does not have the right ro refuse the other. Another thing is, apart from what they have publically agreed to, what is licit between them.

    The Canon Law of 1917 makes absolutely no restriction about that, it is left for the couples conscience and their spiritual adviser.

  93. Crude says:

    Churchianity sometimes seems exclusively devoted to non-stop potlock dinners and drinking coffee as we’re forced to make smalltalk with homosexual activists, obnoxious atheists, utterly Monty Python looking transexuals, and whoever else is the pet project of the moment.

    One of the most satisfying things I’ve ever done, spiritually and otherwise, was when I finally told some touchy-feely left-leaning Christian who ‘Wanted to engage in dialog and realize that we are both one in Christ’ that not only did I not consider him a Christian, but would he kindly get bent and buzz off. Even pretending those guys are sincere is draining.

  94. Paul says:

    @ranger

    Well, RCC Canon Law puts all kinds of restrictions on what is allowed between husband and wife. You’re not going to fool me. The exact quote you supplied showed exactly such a restriction.

    The rest of what your telling is obviously based on extra-biblical sources.

    And if you have troubles interpreting 1 Cor 7, don’t blame it on me.

  95. ray says:

    timmschaeffer ==

    “So we see the two biggest reasons for licensing. Taxes and control by the elites, over who can and cannot get married.”

    Those’d be the top two, probly, although there are myriad others.

    There’s nothing I know of in Scripture that requires men and women to obtain State licensing or approval prior to marriage. If somebody knows better, chime in.

    So as I’ve said repeatedly over the past decade here . . . WHY are Christians involving the State in matters that are under God’s authority?

    Yeah that’s rhetorical, I know why, same reason that Christians absolutely demand to hold worship services in fancy buildings with Official pastors and priests. Christians have accepted the world’s (satan’s) version of marriage and worship, not God’s version. They are obsessed with the FORM and TRAPPINGS of worship and marriage, with how it looks to others, not the functional event. Which is work.

    To marry before God, you need a man and woman speaking acceptable vows, to GOD . . . not to anybody else. Wanna know what is generally acceptable? This blog has detailed what God would find acceptable on many occasions. Straight from the Book.

    Two witnesses are advised, not based on direct Scripture, but as the broad Biblical rule in such contexts.

    Like I said, you want to volunteer to put a mass of middle-men and middle-women (not to mention the devil) between you and your spouse, as a way of initiating your marriage . . . after the monetary payments, to be sure . . . well then I guess you deserve what you get. Folks didn’t know this stuff in prior generations, so can’t really be held to blame. But now, there are no excuses.

  96. ranger says:

    dislike of the Catholic Church makes some protestants defend the right of a wife to digitally rape her husband, since she has the rigjts over the husband’s body without regard to the generative capacity.

    Catholic Canon Law makes no such thing that you accuse it of. It defined (not anymore, unfortunately) what exactly was consented by marriage. Some Catholic moral teologians do put restrictions on the behaviour allowed between husbands and wives. Those are not dogmatic and catholic couples are not required to follow them, though there is a general advice for them to follow their spiritual advisor(Im a catholic trying to convert to Orthodoxy, for what it’s worth)

  97. Paul says:

    @ranger Some Catholic moral teologians do put restrictions on the behaviour allowed between husbands and wives. Those are not dogmatic and catholic couples are not required to follow them

    The RCC Catechism thinks otherwise

    RCC Catechism 2366 :
    So the Church, which is “on the side of life, teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life. “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

  98. ranger says:

    this is about contraception and mutual masturbation. There is no dogma about whether a wife can please her husband orally or vice-versa. There is a teaching that everytime a man ejaculates it should be into the woman’s vagina.

    The bible never once shows, approvingly, a man ejaculating outside of his wife’s vagina, and God killed Onan for doing so.

    Whether the Catholic Church is right or not about this issue, my point in this argument is completely different from this subject and I have no further interest in discussing it with you.

    Marital consent, historically, has always been about penis in vagina sex (a husband could be prosecuted for sodomizing his wife against her will, for instance, but marital rape was considered a contradiction in terms). Gay marriage was inevitable once marital rape was invented, since, legally speaking, marital consent had absolutely no relation to sex.

  99. Paul says:

    @ranger

    You claimed the Canon Law of 1917 should be reinstated, which limited marriage to penis-in-vagina sex only. I responded that 1 Cor 7 does not put any restriction on sex between spouses. You claimed the RCC did not put any restriction on sex. I showed it does put a restriction to penis-in-vagina sex only. Now you claim that marital consent “has always been about penis in vagina sex”.

    You keep repeating the same claim, even in light of the evidence I showed you. You even claim you do not want to discuss this with me. Well, that’s fine, I’ll just respond anyways to your silly claims.

    There is no biblical restriction to have ONLY penis-in-vagina sex between husband and wives, but the RCC claims it IS the only allowed form of sex between husband and wives. To me this shows the RCC is wrong on this point.

  100. JRob says:

    Heidi on December 15, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    So, uh, don’t refugees usually come from the losing side of the war? Moore’s analogy makes no sense.

    This thought crossed my mind too…Turns out it’s typical RM doublespeak/posturing/twisting/embellishment. Remember, the word “refugee” is used to garner sympathy and paint the mental picture of the “noble victim.”

    He has a long history of this. He DOES NOT mean well.

  101. Joe2 says:

    @ray

    Two witnesses are advised, not based on direct Scripture, but as the broad Biblical rule in such contexts.

    FWIW, I took a look at marriage certificate from 1858 for a marriage that took place in upstate New York. It was simply a short hand written statement on a piece of plain paper which stated, “This certifies that Mr. (Name) and (Location) and (Name) and (Location) were married by me on (Date) in presence of ”
    Signed by the minister Rev. (Name)
    Signed by member of groom’s family
    Signed by member of bride’s family
    Signed by an individual unrelated to the groom and bride

    The bride kept this note in her bible.

    In this instance there were three witnesses. I don’t know whether that was the norm or possibly a requirement of the church to have an individual unrelated to the families as a witness.

  102. ChristianCool says:

    @ray says: “There’s nothing I know of in Scripture that requires men and women to obtain State licensing or approval prior to marriage. If somebody knows better, chime in.
    So as I’ve said repeatedly over the past decade here . . . WHY are Christians involving the State in matters that are under God’s authority?

    To marry before God, you need a man and woman speaking acceptable vows, to GOD . . . not to anybody else. Wanna know what is generally acceptable? This blog has detailed what God would find acceptable on many occasions. Straight from the Book. Two witnesses are advised, not based on direct Scripture, but as the broad Biblical rule in such contexts.”

    As some of you may know, I often disagree with Ray, but he has said something very true. The ONLY 2 reasons the State is involved in marriage are because:

    1) Legal benefits/welfare – husband dies, legally married wife gets his SS check; married women are much less likely qualified for welfare; etc.

    2) To make sure husbands go to jail with a simple phone call from woman (regardless of actual violence/danger) under “domestic violence”, an upgraded type of crime that punishes men severely for life (with such things as inability to buy firearms ever again, blocks from enlisting in military, etc). This THREAT alone is a powerful tool of intimidation against husbands (since a BF can just leave, often unscathed);
    so that woman can divorce-rape the man senseless during divorce under threat of law;
    so she can get “alimony” for decades, if not for life;
    so she gets legal custody of kids in almost every divorce.

    If I could meet a woman in the USA and we lived in a non-Common Law Marriage State, I would be totally willing to marry her in a Christian ceremony similar to what Ray said. But a legal contract where only one side benefits legally… not for me. A Christian marriage before God, yes.

    How many women think wants this true Christian marriage deal? 🙄 Women want to have that “divorce gun”, loaded and ready to be used to intimidate the husband at all times, with a signed permission slip from the husband to allow her to kill him off on a whim. After all, women pushed and got these Marriage 2.0 system for their own benefits.

    And Ray, YES, you need 2 witnesses for such an event, because “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deut 19:15).

  103. ranger says:

    @Paul

    Canon Law makes no reference to what is allowed between the spouses.

    Canon Law defines what has been permanently and publically consented to by the spouses.

    If you don’t see the difference between these 2 things (or if you think a Husband, when he marries, is consenting to have his anus digitally invaded by his Wife), I will have good reason to doubt your ability to interpret the Bible correctly.

  104. ranger says:

    also, if marital consent has nothing to do with penis in vagina sex, there is no good reason to forbid gays to get married (it is a sin is not a good reason in a country with Separation between the Church and the State)

  105. Paul says:

    @ranger : his anus digitally invaded

    Well, that’s your messed up interpretation, not mine. Just as you seem to have problems to understand the word “ONLY” in my comments.

  106. ranger says:

    That is because the word “only” is an addition that is made that is nowhere to be found in the Code of Canon Law, and does not follow at all from the definition of what is consented in marriage.

    If it is my messed up interpretation, please elaborate on what acts are PUBLICALLY AND PERMANENTLY CONSENTED to (which, my point is, are not necessarily the same ones that the couple may licitly want to do on their own) , what are not, and what is the difference, in natural purpose, between them, so as to draw a legal distinction between them.

  107. Paul says:

    @ranger what acts are PUBLICALLY AND PERMANENTLY CONSENTED

    Again, this is your construct. The bible does nowhere talk about publicly consented acts, it does not even talk about marriage vows.

    And as a matter of fact, even in “modern” marriages that do use marriage vows, I’ve NEVER encountered a public announcement of what kind of sexual acts the spouses were giving consent to. So I don’t know why you keep bringing that up.

  108. Paul says:

    @ranger That is because the word “only” is an addition that is made that is nowhere to be found in the Code of Canon Law, and does not follow at all from the definition of what is consented in marriage.

    I showed you the text of the RCC cathechism that clearly limits permissible sexual acts to penis-in-vagina ONLY. If you want to divert and go on discussing that it is not part of “the Code of Canon Law” somehow, I’m not interested. What counts is my point that in RCC sexual ethics the ONLY permissible sexual act is penis-in-vagina. Which contradicts 1 Cor 7 and hence shows the error of the RCC.

  109. ray says:

    Joe2 —

    Perfectly valid marriage, and I’d speculate the form was typical for the times.

    Now, if you’re a Christian, the only variation required would be the intent and expression of groom and bride (let’s keep them in proper order) to cleave LIFELONG to one another, in vow before God.

    That’s it. He will then recognize the marriage, and hold both partners to their Christian/biblical roles and vows.

    No State needed, no State required, no State wanted.

    Note how this is completely opposite to what modern females — and their State and Church — want, expect, and demand.

  110. Ranger says:

    I keep bringing that up, because, precisely, it was the lack of understanding, even by the churches, of what marriage consent actually consists of, that allowed such contradiction in terms like “gay marriage” and “marital rape”.

    You know, like I mentioned in my FIRST post, and which you might have noticed if you were not so eager to make ill-informed accusations about what the Catholic Church teaches about a different subject than marital consent, which is what I want to talk about, and which is what the Canon Law of 1917 defined in the portion I quoted, and which definition the 1983 code changed.

    But feel free to keep misunderstanding me, I will just point out that both the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are harder to understand than my point (the text you quoted, while you seem to believe that it would forbid, for instance, oral sex, leaves A LOT of room for maneuvering, it basically requires no artificial contraception and no deliberate ejaculation outside the vagina, everything else is permissible under that text), and if you can’t understand my point you can’t be expected to understand them either.

    I will also point out that you did not provide a list of what sexual acts are PUBLICALLY and PERMANENTLY consented to by marriage, so a person could understand why, for instance, a husband has not given public and permanent consent to have his anus invaded.

  111. ChristianCool says:

    @Ranger says: “I keep bringing that up, because, precisely, it was the lack of understanding, even by the churches, of what marriage consent actually consists of, that allowed such contradiction in terms like “gay marriage” and “marital rape”. ”

    Ranger, you are missing out the point of codifying “marital rape” into criminal law, with extremely serious penalties (most States classify it as a 2nd degree felony, which carry a hefty 10 – 30 years of prison term on average; in Florida this type of crime removes any any possibility of early release or parole being a “sex crime”). All States would require the guy to comply with the threat of an additional felony for failure to comply with mandatory lifetime sex offender registration humiliation.

    Picture this: wife comes in crying into court and says husband “force himself” sexually on her on ___ date. She said “no” to him and he pushed her into it anyway. Men says “I did not do it” or “how can I force myself, she is my wife” or something like that. Who do you think jury will believe? They will be shocked and horrified that a man would force his wife, the woman he sword to love and protect, into sex when she did not want to.

    The whole point is to make men afraid of everything relating to women, including fear of being men and fear of being falsely accused and ruined financially for life. That is what goes on college campus and that is why “Yes Means Yes” laws exist in all leftists States, originally from California, of course.

    The point is to enable married women to accuse their husbands of a crime that the men cannot defend himself from such a charge in court. That is what “marital rape” laws are all about dude, not justice, not protecting women, not Christian marriage. It is to further enslave and imprison men.

  112. ranger says:

    ChristianCool, I understand that fully, believe me.

    But it was only possible to create the crime of marital rape after people, including the Church (and, as the teacher, the Church really ought to know better), stopped understanding what marital consent had always consisted of. And the same goes for gay marriage.

    Change the definition of marital consent from the 1917 code of canon law to the 1983 code of canon law (and the reason I am choosing the code of canon law is not some weird catholic agenda, it is because the Church explicitly defined what had always been implied and accepted by society and the State) and both marital rape and gay marriage become inevitable.

Comments are closed.