What if we acknowledged repentance and respected Christian men who married single mothers?

Commenter Bee proposed that Christians should encourage single mothers to adopt their children out at birth, instead of shaming Christian men for having a “vain expectation of marrying a childless virgin”:

Mark Driscoll is another Christian Leader that has encouraged Christian men to marry single moms.

I think a better policy for Churches and Leaders would be to go go back to encouraging single moms to put their kids up for immediate adoption.

This is an interesting proposal.  I can’t imagine modern Christians having that kind of will*.  I’m also not sure it is needed.

Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

We wouldn’t have to be cruel about it, just honest, humble, loving, and sincere. This would be incredibly powerful, and would set the couple (and therefore the children) up for a much greater chance of success. It would also go a long way to reducing any shortage (if there really is one) of Christian men willing to marry Christian single mothers.

This would send the right message all the way around.  Young women would have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others, steering them away from both sin and pain.  Women who today are being discouraged from repenting (cruelty) would be encouraged to repent (kindness).  This repentance would prompt the congregation to respond with Christian love.  And instead of disrespecting Christian men who marry single mothers, we would be treating them with respect.

*I can’t imagine us having the will to do what I’m proposing, either, but in theory it should be easier for us to work our way up to it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Beautiful truth, Disrespecting Respectability, Finding a Spouse. Bookmark the permalink.

250 Responses to What if we acknowledged repentance and respected Christian men who married single mothers?

  1. Charles B says:

    That is a more loving approach, BUT it couldn’t work without a society that constrained the woman on that marriage once bound. She will still have the temporal consequences of her sin affect her, and there won’t be anything giving her husband the authority the reign that in. Whereas adopting out can be more feasibly done inadvertently legal system that disempowered the husband.

  2. Joe2 says:

    There needs to be an explanation of why the mother didn’t marry the father of the child and of the role the biological father will be in the proposed marriage. Simply stating that she made a mistake is not good enough.

  3. Color me skeptical. Weddings are already performance art for most couples, saying things they don’t believe but signal their virtue. Adding to the list would accomplish nothing.

    Instead, let’s make the wedding shorter. Have the music, the processional, and then the new vows:

    “Do you take this woman?”
    “Do you take this man?”
    “Great! Now, let’s start the party.”

  4. BillyS says:

    I would agree with parts of this, but note that the “mother” who engaged in the same behavior but killed all her offspring instead (abortion) is a very similar risk.

    The core problem is that churches no longer encourage any reality or faithfulness to the Scriptures on women, whatever their background. That won’t change anytime soon, unfortunately, but it is slowly destroying modern society and will continue to do so.

    Churches have hidden this light in a storage closet no one can get to since they don’t want to deal with the real issues. Forget confronting the world, they don’t even disagree with the world in these areas, in spite of what is Written.

  5. thedeti says:

    It’s a good idea. But it would require a complete attitude shift in the single mom. It would require her to do what i said in my post in the last thread. She would have to be humble and repentant. She would have to acknowledge she was wrong – wrong in her sin of having premarital sex/not marrying her baby daddy/divorcing her baby daddy. And she would have to do so publicly, before not only her new husband, but to her world: Her family, her husband’s family, her church, her friends, her extended social circles, and her coworkers.

    Most women don’t even think they did anything wrong. Most women think they needn’t be humble. Most women believe they have nothing to repent for.

    “This is what an immoral woman is like: she eats, wipes her mouth, then says ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.'” –Prov. 30:20 (ISV)

  6. Frank K says:

    Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

    Something tells me that churches which required this wouldn’t be very popular with the single mothers.

    But to be honest, what needs to be done is educate the young men on why they shouldn’t marry “reformed” sluts and single mothers, and we can’t count count on Pastor Soyboy to do that.

    Scott asked in another thread if we were given “the talk”. I was when I was coming of age. My parents made it clear to me why I shouldn’t marry a slut (back then the concept of single moms didn’t really exist yet), and that I would have to choose carefully and marry a woman of faith and of good character. Oh, and that I shouldn’t “mess around” either.

    I gave my son the updated version of the talk, explaining how a frivorce could ruin him emotionally and financially and that he should never consider marrying a single mother. As I told him “raising your own children in these insane times will be challenging enough, but raising another man’s children, children over which you will have zero authority even though you are expected to provide for them, will be even more difficult, if not impossible.”

    As others here have said, we are swimming upstream on this issue. Secular society has come to fully accept that “average men” (the bottom 80%) are expected to be content not only with Chad’s sloppy seconds when it comes to finding a wife, but to raise the thug’s children for him. And to make matters worse, many ecclesial communities are embracing this mindset as well, and are accepting the secular notion that “girls will be girls” and not save themselves for marriage.

    This is the “new normal”, and non Chads are supposed to suck it up and accept it:

    https://abstrusegoose.com/50

    We’re supposed to be grateful that we get sloppy seconds.

  7. Frank K says:

    Color me skeptical. Weddings are already performance art for most couples, saying things they don’t believe but signal their virtue. Adding to the list would accomplish nothing.

    I have noticed that in most wedding ceremonies vows of permanence and exclusivity are no longer exchanged. Instead of that, these days “vows” consist mostly of romantic platitudes but zero promises.

  8. Oscar says:

    Honesty about single mothers is not allowed.

  9. 7817 says:

    Either idea is better than what we have now. Possibly more virtuous under the current system to give the kids up for adoption and thus give up the child support. This demonstrates repentance, at least renunciation of child support would appear to.

    Somewhat skeptical that simply signing a paper or notice would have any effect, because what if later she felt like it was a mistake?

  10. Opus says:

    I noticed Bee’s comment which might have been, I supposed, some sort of response to my comment on the problems of adoption but thought that it would be better not to enter into debate on the subject. Adoption was indeed popular in the days when out of wedlock births were shameful and there were other methods – such as pretending that the child who was then looked after by its grandparents was a distant relative. Adoption does not, however, deal with any of the problems which I outlined. Adoption is popular with Her Majesty’s Britannic Government and as one cannot trust that bunch of vipers and viperesses further than one might throw them I have to suspect that adoption is a device to destroy biological families rather than as their litany intones something said to be in the best interests of the children.

  11. The Question says:

    “Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?”

    Does everyone fully appreciate how little a man is asking in that? That if he is going to engage in an extremely risky endeavor at a great loss of personal freedom to take on responsibilities that are not his and could have consequences for his own life, he at least be shown the barest modicum of respect for his choice?

    This is almost not even the bare minimum of what should be demanded, and yet it is already asking too much of people. The contempt displayed toward men is that great.

  12. BillyS says:

    Most women don’t even think they did anything wrong. Most women think they needn’t be humble. Most women believe they have nothing to repent for.

    Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!!!!!

    Were you just talking to my exwife by chance?

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    It’s a good idea. But it would require a complete attitude shift in the single mom. It would require her to do what i said in my post in the last thread. She would have to be humble and repentant. She would have to acknowledge she was wrong – wrong in her sin of having premarital sex/not marrying her baby daddy/divorcing her baby daddy. And she would have to do so publicly, before not only her new husband, but to her world: Her family, her husband’s family, her church, her friends, her extended social circles, and her coworkers.

    Most women don’t even think they did anything wrong. Most women think they needn’t be humble. Most women believe they have nothing to repent for.

    But this is the point. It would be anything but trivial for her to repent in this way. To tie it to the wedding ceremony, her special day, is huge, even if it is understated. It would also pre set the frame if a bit down the road she found her boring loyal dude didn’t make her tingle like Harley McBadboy did. Even better, the humility will make it easier for her to be happy with and appreciate her boring loyal dude.

  14. Gary Eden says:

    Sorry but this sounds like little more than a mere formality, a band-aid, an easy out.

    Real societal changes won’t come without pain and serious counter-culture action.

    As far as I’m concerned single mothers are anathema and wholly unsuitable for marriage. And this isn’t just about single mothers. Until men get some spines and keep their daughters virtuous and enact severe consequences against those who sleep around, nothing will change.

    In the long run, divorce, single motherhood, sleeping around, non-virgin marriage, marital ‘rape’, mother custody, child support, alimony and the like are wholly incompatible with marriage. If you want marriage you can’t have those.

    Bring back the shotgun marriages and severe social/financial consequences for women who divorce.

    We don’t get to have our cake and eat it too. Either we role back women’s rights or our society is finished and those who are willing to control their women will take over; and rightly so.

  15. Derek Ramsey says:

    “Commenter Bee proposed that Christians should encourage single mothers to adopt their children out at birth”

    Adoption creates a lot of extra difficulties (including psychological). All else equal, children do best with biological parents. If two biological parents are not available, then one biological and one non-biological is preferred. Failing that, one biological parent is preferred. Extended family support is a boon as well in these cases. Adoption should be chosen as a last resort only when it is clear that the consequences of the other options are worse than adoption. This must be done on a case-by-case basis because, as a general rule, children do better when they stay with their biological parent(s) and extended family.

    “Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?”

    Forcing a public declaration of repentance violates the procedure Jesus instructed Christians to follow to resolve unrepentant sin in Matthew 18. Repentance is supposed to be a private affair by default. Upon repentance, forgiveness is required. Moreover, highlighting only one sin in particular violates Matthew 7:1-5 and John 8:1-11. Perhaps most importantly, such a declaration implicitly declares that you don’t believe they are truly repentant, or else it wouldn’t be required.

  16. Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

    There is no way this is going to ever happen. No pastor out there would ever allow it.
    Just imagine for one second the horror from the Sisterhood in the congregation.

    Even if the proposal could happen, can we perhaps for once consider the enlightened self-interest of the prospective husband? Let’s face it and be honest. Marrying a single-mother is categorically a bad idea in the majority of situations. He is not her first choice. The children will never be his, and he will never be their father. He will be – at best – fifth in her life priority.
    I don’t think fellas should get married anymore anyway. But if they must, then my God, why would anyone encourage it to a single mother?

    It’s all moot. We already know that no woman today would ever admit, acknowledge or repent of her sin in this case. Women don’t sin.

  17. Fun fact, Prince Charles and Camila Parker-Bowles had a ceremony of public repentance before they got officially married. So, there might be precedent.

  18. thedeti says:

    @Dalrock

    But this is the point. It would be anything but trivial for her to repent in this way.

    It would also probably have to come from some external pressure. Something like this would also require her family, her pastor, her father, someone she truly respects, confronting her and telling her she was wrong, and how she was wrong. It would also require a paradigm shift in our church culture. Being taught in the tradition of Titus 2, and a church full of Yiayias whom the younger women listen to. Young women (used to) respond with humility and respect to a Yiayia. We don’t have either one now and those would also be needed.

  19. Jake says:

    Yeah they accept the girls will be girls because for most people not having premarital sex is impossible. Paul said this very clearly. Even when young people tru to deal with this properly, people discourage them.

    Our taboos are gone. Good is evil and evil is good. There’s not one thing we could do to fix this instead there’s 95. Church and government are supposed to be the two strongest temporal forces holding your marriage together. Government is no longer a terror to the wicked. The marriage license is a tool used to separate your provision from your headship. Don’t get married. Not legally i mean. No such thing as common law marriage anymore. The state says a marriage between two men is just as good as between a man and a woman. Until they take their pants off their head don’t ask them to enforce the bond between you and your wife.

    Denominations are cancer. We treat churches like favored brands. Seeker friendly heresy has led to bloated audiences that we give voting rights to. Stop feeding money to them. Find a small independent, or just start a church yourself. Meet with Like minded people every week. Faith without religion. Like bonhoeffer wrote about.

    Go galt, iow

  20. thedeti says:

    Most churches don’t have Yiayias anymore. Most women in churches now are roughly middle aged to senior citizens. In other words, of my vintage (I’m 50). I went to college with those women 30 years ago. I followed them (not just them, but many in that age group) through their party years, epiphanies, divorces and remarriages, or remaining in their ho hum plodding marriages.

    They’re not Yiayias – they don’t train up girls, they don’t judge, and if they do judge, they keep their mouths shut. Mostly because those women were doing the same things their younger girls were doing, only they were responsible enough to get on the Pill or scraped together money to pay for their abortions.

  21. Gary Eden says:

    No there won’t be any saving the current church. Old wineskins. We have to build anew without the leaven..

  22. JRob says:

    Simply stating that she made a mistake is not good enough
    This. Trying to explain the difference between a mistake and what actually happened, a *bad decision,* to one of these creatures elicits blank stares/crickets/tumbleweeds and “Don’t judge me!”
    Circles back around to acceptance of responsibility. Ain’t gonna happen and churchians will provide the soft landing when they jump from the “It’s actually my fault after all!” ledge.

  23. thedeti says:

    There is no way this is going to ever happen. No pastor out there would ever allow it.

    Just imagine for one second the horror from the Sisterhood in the congregation.

    You’re right, it isn’t ever going to happen, for a lot of reasons.

    –yes, the Sisterhood. Because the blushing bride’s mom did most of the same things her daughter did. In many cases the bride herself is the product of an unplanned pregnancy and a broken home. (Hell, we can’t even say the phrase “broken home” anymore.) Not only did Mom do most of the same things, so did her aunties and older cousins and mom’s friends. Mom is probably divorced, as are about a third of the older women she knows.

    The sisterhood would never stand for anything like this being said at a wedding or put in the announcements or anything else. Because most of that sisterhood did these same things. I know — I went to college with them. I went to law school with them. I partied with them. Not one of them married the first man they had sex with. I worked with them. I go to church with them. I watched them party, sleep around, marry, divorce, and remarry.

    Pastors would never stand for this. Because their concept of “love” does not include “judgment”. The emphasis is on “inclusion” and tolerance and justice, not adherence to Scripture or repentance.

    Fathers would never stand for this. Most of these men raised go-go feminist daughters who are smart enough to run with the big boys and who can stand on their own two feet. Most of these men taught their daughters that young men can never be trusted and want only one thing. They taught their daughters to disdain and disrespect men.

    These are the kinds of fathers who LARP at playing tough guy by brandishing firearms when pimply faced 17 year old boys show up to take their daughters to prom. These are the kinds of guys who joke about how those boys’ bodies will fit nicely in their long bed pickup trucks.

    So no father is ever going to confront his single mom daughter or divorced with kids daughter, because after all, he was right. Her daughter first time around married a good for nothing bum who left her high and dry, or he tricked her into sex and knocked her up. So her predicament is not her fault. She has nothing to repent of; she did nothing wrong. Plus, he’s not gonna do or say anything without checking with “the Boss” first. (“Yes, dear. That’s right, dear.”)

  24. earl says:

    I’d agree with the principle of this.

    However the way society, academia, churchians, and the lot encourages women to be selfish and never repent for their selfishness…you’d probably almost have to find the unicorn of single mothers for this to happen.

  25. Rhetocrates says:

    This is the right approach, Dalrock. Our forefathers didn’t settle for pagandom and neither should we. Yes, the road ahead is hard, even impossible to merely human virtue. But we act not of ourselves, but reliant on the grace of God, so the absurd becomes the real.

    Maybe we can’t capture the levers of cultural power and institute this overnight. But we can raise our daughters in faith.

    The problems of modern Christians losing the culture war are, methinks, not summed up by not being harmless as doves, but rather not being clever as serpents.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @constrainedlocus

    There is no way this is going to ever happen. No pastor out there would ever allow it.
    Just imagine for one second the horror from the Sisterhood in the congregation.

    Right. Plus the white knights. It may sound absurd, but I guarantee you a white knight would show up and claim that publicly acknowledging repentance is sinful.

  27. Mitch says:

    @BillyS

    I would agree with parts of this, but note that the “mother” who engaged in the same behavior but killed all her offspring instead (abortion) is a very similar risk.

    Some of the risks will be gone, of course. Like the risk of the kids hating you. But what do you consider to be the remaining risks? I have some idea, but I am curious as to what you think. What issues does a childless post-abortive bride bring into the marriage? And how would this be handled according to Dalrock’s new wedding formula?

  28. BillyS says:

    You are completely full of it Derek. Christianity demands public repentance. That is one of the main points of baptism, a public identification!

    You take a principle and try to ban true repentance. How cucky of you!

    Note that even the command to not pray in public was not absolute – the newly born church is shown praying publicly many times (not in a closet) and it was a good thing. The point is that things are not done for public accolades, not that no one can ever possibly know. Repentance isn’t true if no one knows.

  29. BillyS says:

    Mitch,

    Any woman who would kill her own child is almost guaranteed to do worse to your life and the lives of others.

  30. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Ann Coulter ( http://www.anncoulter.com/) is a Christian single woman who is very vocal about the destruction that single mothers bring upon society, here’s one site that quotes her: https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/ann-coulters-statistics-on-single-motherhood-and-the-suffering-it-causes/
    One Church I attended was torn asunder due to the insistence of some to honor a single mother with a baby shower as a church promoted event. I personally have a difficult time with this as I see both the need to recover a sense of shame as well as Derek’s point about forgiveness. At least single mothers are not aborting their babies. I have no settled opinion rather personally married as a virgin to a virgin.

  31. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    Read Derek Ramsey’s post above. He beat you to it!

  32. thedeti says:

    @Derek:

    Repentance is by its nature public because the repentant individual walks out her repentance daily and lives it. Her life, her regenerate state, is the evidence of her repentance.

    It is a public acknowledgment of her sin. A renunciation of her previous public “pronouncements” that she “has done nothing wrong” (See Prov. 30:20). Nothing in scripture forbids that.

  33. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    At that point the focus should be on what is best for the baby which would be adoption. A baby needs two parents.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @BillyS

    Read Derek Ramsey’s post above. He beat you to it!

    I have to confess I was poking at him for his absurdity.

    [Edit: Now I’ve done it! I’ve publicly confessed. I shall now privately repent for my sin of public confession.]

  35. Warthog says:

    The bottom line is that as long as the courts/laws reward women for divorce most women will choose that option at some point in their marriage.

    The question I’m interested in is whether any society or civilization that has given political power to women, has ever taken it away again.

    Can the divorce and custody laws be changed back?

    Is the decline of the West reversible?

  36. Warthog says:

    @DerekRamsey “Repentance is supposed to be a private affair by default. Upon repentance, forgiveness is required.”

    You have oversimplified it. Repentance for private sin is private by default. Repentance for public sin must usually be public, as in the case where Nehemiah made the men repent for marrying Samaritan women.

  37. white says:

    I’m sure Derek was just as quick to defend men during the countless times the church was demanding men and fathers publicly acknowledge repentance of their many imaginary “sins”…. right? Right?

  38. Frank K says:

    No such thing as common law marriage anymore.

    I believe that a small number of states still do have common law marriage, like Colorado.

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

    Such a proposal would be met with shock and horror. You’d be accused of “shaming” women, and there promoting misogyny.

    One must never “body shame” a fat woman.

    One must never “slut shame” a promiscuous woman.

    All women are awesome and amazing — just the way they are.

  40. RichardP says:

    I have known several never-married single mothers. I have know of many more. I have known some who were proposed to by the baby’s father and who refused his offer of marriage, preferring to stay single.

    Most of the single mothers I have known, or have known of, never get pregnant again. I have always thought that to be odd. They can operate in such a way that they never get pregnant again, but they couldn’t avoid the first pregnancy? Leads me to think that the pregnancy was intentional. They wanted a child. Someone to love and by loved by. They arranged things to bring that about. And then arranged things so that it never happened again. Why would such women “repent” of something that they think is the best thing that happened to them and that they did on purpose?

    Scripture says that, if you remember that you have something against another, go and rebuke him (tell him what he did that you consider wrong). If he repents, forgive him. Other scripture talks about confronting the target person in person. If they do not repent, bring in another as witness. If the do not repent, take them before the elders of the church, etc. In both instruction sets, rebuke, repentence, and forgiveness starts in private. Should the one rebuked in private repent then and there, the forgiveness also stays private. Does someone know of scripture that backs up the proposition that repentence is not genuine unless it is public repentence?

    Thought experiment: the Bible says that all have sinned. Paul says that he continues to sin when he knows better and doesn’t want to sin. I assume that both of those conditions afflict women as well as men. If true, it raises the question of why some men think they can find a woman anywhere who has not sinned to take to wife. That doesn’t accord with the Bible’s claim that all have sinned and Paul’s claim that he sins even when he knows better and doesn’t want to. I would be curious to see the various lists that guys would come up with of the sins that they would accept in their potential spouse. I would also like to hear the individual reasons why Christian men, who claim to know the Bible, desire a woman for wife who is pure as the driven snow when they meet – when she (and he) will both behave over the course of their life together as Paul describes himself – “I keep doing what I don’t want to do, and don’t do what I know I am supposed to do. The Bible describes the human condition: sin, and more sin. She may be pure when you take her, but why do you think she will stay pure? O – but you exclaim – those in Christ who respond to the Holy Spirit’s call to repentence are washed with the blood of Jesus and appear to God as white as snow (the scripture is there; I won’t cite it). Really?? You really believe that???

    Some of you have not yet taken to heart the question that I ask from time to time: why do any of us expect a wife any better than the one Adam’s father got for him? That was the prototype. Or so we say. But don’t believe.

  41. Frank K says:

    yes, the Sisterhood. Because the blushing bride’s mom did most of the same things her daughter did.

    Which is why this is now the “new normal”. Back when mom did it, there was at least still some disapproval. But now that 90%+ of the “church ladies” had pre-marital sex, who is going to tell the young girls that sleeping around is wrong?

    The attitude is so pervasive now that even women who “behaved” in their youth will now nod approvingly at their sons marrying a single mother.

  42. Regarding this proposal, a verse perhaps at the front of pastors’ minds before they would even consider it:

    Mark 12:40
    “They (religious leaders) devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

    It’s always acceptable to “make a show” of weak men and incompetent and sinful fathers.
    But confronting single mothers with their sin?
    That is just impossible. Not anymore.

    I have agree with the earlier comments. It’s almost as if the church is lost. And you have to start over.

  43. J says:

    The scribes and Pharisees, however, brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before them 4 and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
    In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?” 6 They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger. 7 When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. 8 And again He bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard this, they began to go away one by one, beginning with the older ones, until only Jesus was left, with the woman standing there. 10 Then Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, Lord,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more.

  44. RichardP says:

    Don’t know what’s up with the italics in my previous post.

    [D: I think I have it sorted now.]

  45. Pingback: Judgy Judges Judging - Derek L. Ramsey

  46. ray says:

    Larry Kummer — ‘Color me skeptical. Weddings are already performance art for most couples, saying things they don’t believe but signal their virtue. Adding to the list would accomplish nothing.’

    Ego-fests and predatory big business. Disgusts God.

    Long ago I was best man at one. My bud was cool but bride was a Drama Machine for months beforehand. Praise God, her family was around to absorb the blither and I made myself scarce.

    ‘Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?’

    I’m not in favor of scripted ceremonies, prefer something brief and simple, that’s sincere to God. It’s not about the people there, it’s not about the decor and building, it’s about husband, wife, and God. Seeing how it’s under hope of His blessing the marriage takes place and endures.

    This is the right idea, however. A consequence, and better, a public consequence; those are the ones that ring women’s bells, see ‘Amadeus’.

    What the trad past had that the feminist age doesn’t, is consequences for female sin, rebellion, and destruction. What you propose is a mild consequence, that forces husband, wife, families, and others to acknowledge humility and sorrow on the part of the female for her error, as a promise to the husband, AND to his family/friends, that the wife thenceforth rejects her whoring behaviors.

    In third-world or borderline nations, the locals know well they can’t afford single motherhood, much less glorify it as Americans do. When single mothers from Europe or America come to such places, they aren’t made particularly welcome, and rightfully so. The locals don’t want the example being paraded, such that local females imitate, and the burden gets dumped upon themselves via taxes etc. They want daddies for the kids, and single-motherhood in these rural places is fairly rare. Such places are not sufficiently wealthy and cuckled as to subsidize their own demise.

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I have known some who were proposed to by the baby’s father and who refused his offer of marriage, preferring to stay single.

    That’s a common attitude. I recently saw a mediocre horror film, Dark Exorcism. The film’s heroine is paranormal investigator, a young woman working on her PhD.

    In the film’s beginning, she’s talking to her friend. We learn the heroine is pregnant. Her boyfriend (the baby’s father) has proposed to her. But the heroine is hesitant about marriage, telling her friend, “I’m not sure I’m ready for a commitment.”

    This was not treated as a joke, or satire, or a character flaw. Her statement was treated as a normal point of view for a young woman. Just because she’s having a baby, doesn’t mean she’s ready for marriage. That’s a heavy commitment. She’s still young, in her 20s, still finding out who she is, etc. She still has to work on her education, her career, might want to travel, etc. It’s okay to have a baby now, but marriage is still many years down the road.

    The boyfriend was a real soyboy. Cloying, supportive, reliable, whiny. A good provider. Very Beta. He pleaded for her to marry him, offering rational arguments as to why they’d be good for each other. But she was like, Meh … I don’t know … stop pressuring me.

    This wasn’t what the film was about. This was just background to establish the characters. What I found interesting was that this attitude — ready for a baby, not ready for marriage — was assumed to be normal, and even proper, for a young woman. For the film’s heroine.

  48. Jed Mask says:

    Smh… Only @ Gary Eden (March 15, 2019 at 1:13 pm) is one of the guys here who makes actual sense.

    This old “social disorder” in the Church & the Society must be utterly destroyed and replaced with “fresh”.

    Lord-willing, this is what I hope to work towards with like-minded men and people.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  49. Oscar says:

    @ Derek Ramsey
    on March 15, 2019 at 1:23 pm

    All else equal, children do best with biological parents. If two biological parents are not available, then one biological and one non-biological is preferred. Failing that, one biological parent is preferred.

    You were doing pretty well, until that last claim, which is demonstrably false.

    https://adoption-beyond.org/adoption-statistics/

    Adopted adolescents generally are less depressed than children of single parents and less involved in alcohol abuse, vandalism, group fighting, police trouble, weapon use and theft.
    …..
    On health measures, adopted children and children of intact families share similarly high scores, and both those groups score significantly higher than children raised by single parents.

    There are exceptions, of course, but as a general rule, children adopted by a married couple fare far better than children raised by single mothers.

  50. Frank K says:

    What I found interesting was that this attitude — ready for a baby, not ready for marriage — was assumed to be normal, and even proper, for a young woman.

    It sure is interesting living in bizarro world. I can only imagine what will be considered “normal” in another 5 years. The secular culture is so corrosive that I stopped watching broadcast TV years ago, except to occasionally watch sports ball, and even that is becoming challenging. On the rare occasions I venture onto one of the networks during prime time (I have an indoor HD antenna for sports ball,, no cable) I am usually appalled by what I encounter, which is usually progressive propaganda disguised as entertainment. It’s utterly unwatchable, I can’t believe that anyone watches this rubbish.

    I can’t even begin to fathom what they are showing on the “premium” cable channels. It must be akin to what has been done to Star Wars since Disney bought out the franchise: unwatchable propaganda. It feels like I live in the old Soviet Union.

  51. Pingback: What if we acknowledged repentance and respected Christian men who married single mothers? | Reaction Times

  52. OKRickety says:

    RichardP,

    ‘Some of you have not yet taken to heart the question that I ask from time to time: why do any of us expect a wife any better than the one Adam’s father got for him? That was the prototype. Or so we say. But don’t believe.’

    Unless I’m crazy, I’m certain that Eve was a virgin, not to mention sinless, when she married Adam. I doubt anyone anywhere expects a better wife than that.

    I don’t think that’s what you intend with your question, but that’s where it leads. Now, yes, Eve turned out to be imperfect, but that’s not really the focus of the post or the comments. Would you rather start with the best you can get, or with someone who is worse for wear?

    As someone who is now frivorced after marrying a single Christian mother (she had no live children but had aborted one*), I would tell anyone to choose the best you can get.

    * I think my experience is also very relevant to the question of the level of repentance. It’s extremely difficult for me to believe my ex-wife was truly repentant because she did not tell me about this (or her promiscuity) until we had been married for about ten years. If she was unwilling to tell me this in private before the marriage, I suspect there might be great value in the public repentance Dalrock has suggested, although, practically, I am not certain how this prevents one from hiding the truth as my ex-wife did.

  53. seventiesjason says:

    I’ve seen it happen. Almost ten years ago, I met a woman who was about nine years younger than me. She at that time had been clean off drugs for about three years. Fell into the Sally Army like me, and donned a Uniform.

    She had a special needs daughter about eight at the time (this was 2009). who had profound mental retardation and other health challenges. She was wheelchair bound.

    This woman was actually quite cute, slender. Glasses. She was repentant and very sorry. I witnessed a bawling by her at the Mercy Seat one Sunday. It was really moving….and it wasn’t a show….she had indeed changed. So after watching her, talking here and there for a year….seeing the fruit of this spirit, and changed life. I asked her on a date, with specifics (times, place) and I even included her daughter (I have a special needs older brother, I can relate).

    She said no…I was “sweet” and all that nice stuff…..I asked her again about a month later. She did meetup for ice cream…but I knew by her body language and all that she was doing it to be friendly. That’s it. She did clearly explain to me who she liked in the Corps over ice cream. I held a very poIite and brave fave….and after some prayer……a few weeks later I introduced them. They ended up marrying, this was in 2012. They still are married and have a child together. When I moved up here from Fresno, they invited me to their nice apartment for dinner. We had a wonderful time.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Strong, empowered young woman consumes marijuana, communes with the goddess while naked, and falls down volcano: https://www.rt.com/news/453735-naked-hiker-death-guatemala-volcano/?utm_source=miximedia&utm_medium=miximedia&utm_campaign=Miximedia

    The photos of this young woman are especially telling.

    British backpacker Catherine Shaw is believed to have stripped naked while hiking on a Guatemalan volcano to watch the sunrise before a fatal fall.

    The 23-year-old from Witney, Oxfordshire was reported missing on March 5 after she left Hotel Mayachik, near Lake Atitlan in Guatemala. The search and rescue mission came to an end on Monday after police discovered her body 60ft from the top of the Indian Nose hiking trail. …

    It’s believed that Shaw was traveling to the top of the volcano to view the sunrise, and either fell or passed out while hiking. Catherine’s parents Ann and Tarquin thanked locals who found their daughter and said she “died doing what she loved.” …

    Shaw’s parents described Catherine as a “nature lover” who had been fasting for days leading up to the hike, and added that it was “quite conceivable that she went up the mountain to greet the sunrise, shedding clothing as she went,” and passed out or fell due to not having consumed food or fluids, causing the blows to her body. …

    The owner of the Eco Hotel Mayachik alleged that Shaw may have been under the influence of marijuana-laced cookies at the time of her hike. The owner claimed Shaw was suffering from nightmares and hallucinations as a result of the cookies.

    From one of Miss Shaw’s Instagram posts: https://www.instagram.com/p/BlNVkL2hV7a/?utm_source=ig_embed

    Going offline and off the grid for the next month. Somewhere amongst a tribe in the Polish woodland, I’ll be sending and receiving messages via the moon- I’ll feel you so listen out for those weird and wonderful synchronicities that show we are connected in more ways than Facebook messenger

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    It’s extremely difficult for me to believe my ex-wife was truly repentant because she did not tell me about this (or her promiscuity) until we had been married for about ten years. If she was unwilling to tell me this in private before the marriage,

    Obviously she did not want to reveal potential deal-killers before you had married her. It’s unlikely she waited in some cunning fashion, but rather she became comfortable with you – perhaps at that point you’d gotten betaized. Comfortable enough to believe she had you all figured out, or comfortable enough to be sure you wouldn’t dump her[1]

    The issue of vetting a woman is touched on in Dalrock’s “interviewing a prospective wife” but it really isn’t discussed all that much in some parts of the androsphere. This is not good, because churchgoing men who truly accept their religion are going to have to marry, or remain celibate. MGTOW isn’t an option in the sense that the really virulent involuntary-celibates use it, either.

    So…If a man is going to marry, he needs to go into that relationship with open eyes, fully aware of what he’s signing up for and who he’s tying himself up with. In the modern world that means an exploration of social media for a start, and gettting to know her friends beyond that. The mid-30’s girl who recently moved to town and is now a very good churchgoer involved in all the areas of the church who is sort of pretty and really a great catch might just have a past she is trying to leave behind her. Most girls leave a trail of breadcrumbs on the web, though, not just in social media, either. A bit of Google-FU could reveal things.

    Then it’s on the man to decide what he will and won’t tolerate. A strong mental frame is essential to any man in any relationship, and 10x more so in marriage. I’m pointing to Deep Strength’s blog as one example of the mindset. You can’t know all her secrets, you can’t know what she actually did when she was 22 and spent a year in Ukraine on a mission trip, but you can in time see a pattern of behavior.

    Bear in mind that they are all girls at heart. They live in a tossing sea of emotion. Even after menopause, although it can have smaller waves.

    [1] I know men who would never, ever have anything to do with a woman who had gotten an abortion. That’s why women keep things like that a secret, obviously.

  56. feministhater says:

    But this is the point. It would be anything but trivial for her to repent in this way. To tie it to the wedding ceremony, her special day, is huge, even if it is understated. It would also pre set the frame if a bit down the road she found her boring loyal dude didn’t make her tingle like Harley McBadboy did. Even better, the humility will make it easier for her to be happy with and appreciate her boring loyal dude.

    Lol! Even your very reasoning shows why this is such a shitty idea. Haha! Really.. if he’s her ‘boring loyal dude’… they shouldn’t even be getting married according to your very other ideal of being ‘head, over heels in love’ for marriage to work. This is just trying to butter the man up. The women will lie and state the words you want to hear.

    You cannot have it both ways.

  57. feministhater says:

    Some of you have not yet taken to heart the question that I ask from time to time: why do any of us expect a wife any better than the one Adam’s father got for him? That was the prototype. Or so we say. But don’t believe.

    Your question is shit. It simply is another means of trying to get other men to pick up the slack. This is not some woman who committed a single sin and then repents and lives a good life. It is the sinning of women on a grand scale for many, many years during their most prime years, having rampant sexual exploits, abortions and carrying non curable STDs by the millions.

    Why would you expect any man to marry that? Your attempts at getting men to accept the kitchen scraps are laughable. Truly.

  58. Paul says:

    You can’t repent of the one-flesh union, it’s there to stay. You can’t repent of the biological father of the child, he is there to stay. Best option is to marry the father of the child, period. Any pastor claiming otherwise is downplaying the holiness of sex, and the value of virginity.

    Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

    Which pastors are going to tell their congregation to FLEE sexual immorality? GET THE HELL OUT!

    Having sex with a woman who has already formed one or more one-flesh unions, is very similar to entering adulterous relationships. AVOID!

  59. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Oscar

    “You were doing pretty well, until that last claim, which is demonstrably false”

    A better criticism is that my opinion was vague and unsubstantiated. You could have asked for clarification or an argument. Instead, you attacked. Your response has serious problems:

    “There are exceptions, of course, but as a general rule, children adopted by a married couple fare far better than children raised by single mothers.”

    First, this is a utilitarian ethical argument. Such arguments are based on soundly anti-Christian philosophy and used to support things like abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. The logical conclusion of your argument is that it would be better to take kids from their single parents, for their own good. Your argument fails because you wouldn’t take an infant away from its newly widowed mother. But it gets worse. The data you cited shows that adopted children do better than all children, including those who live with two biological parents. Taking your argument to its rational conclusion, all children should be given up for adoption.

    Second, this is a blatant misuse of statistics, thus leading to an incorrect conclusion. You are not holding “all else equal”, that is, ensuring statistical independence (which I noted is required). People who adopt are specially selected to be ideal parents. This dramatically distorts the statistics.

  60. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Oscar

    Third, a lot of adoptions are by step-parents and extended relatives. If you misuse those statistics, you might falsely conclude that the best family is one made up of a divorced mother and a possibly divorced adoptive step-dad.

    Fourth, your data source is from a likely heavily biased public policy group. It’s not hard to cherry-pick data, for example, a simple google search brings up a competing conclusion.

  61. Warthog says:

    I think it is problematic to suggest that any Christian parent should voluntarily give up their child for adoption. As the parent you have a duty to protect, provide for, discipline, and teach that child. When you put a child up for adoption it is like casting lots. You have no idea whether he will be adopted by a pedophile, a Muslim, or a god-fearing Christian.

  62. Frank K says:

    Which pastors are going to tell their congregation to FLEE sexual immorality? GET THE HELL OUT!

    Our Parochial Vicar does, with great regularity. But he isn’t American, so that might explain it.

  63. Frank K says:

    and carrying non curable STDs by the millions

    Yet another reason to not marry a slut. Imagine having to “protect” yourself every time you have coitus with your “wife”, as if she was a whore. Oh, wait, she is

  64. earl says:

    You can’t repent of the one-flesh union, it’s there to stay. You can’t repent of the biological father of the child, he is there to stay.

    I’d say that you can’t take back the experience and the transformation the one flesh union and the birth of a child…for that is there to stay.

    A person can however repent of fornication through the Sacrament of Reconciliation and receiving God’s mercy and grace. That’s for the soul.

    However your orginial point should be more of the norm…flee sexual immorality. Better to have never done those things than to have done them and suffer the consequences.

  65. ray says:

    Both sides of the Biblical coin describe the same spiritual and material situation in the generations just before Parousia. Both end with apocalyptic images and warnings.

    That’s where we are now. Just before. The instruction given through Malachi (4:6) is a blatant threat from Jehovah, pointedly placed as Genesis bookend of the OT. Unsurprisingly, given that God is Father, the passage demands restoration of the father-led, intact nuclear family, yup right here in Satan Sentral. This is one of those Or Else instructions, and the consequences for disobedience and failure are contained in the Book of Revelation. Yep it’s important and the enemy knows it well.

    A major divergence between the tribulations described in OT and NT is that in Malachi, an ESCAPE CLAUSE is offered to this planet — and specifically to America, the nation leading the global rebellion against Father/fathers. The Malachi passage makes clear that if the national heart remains unturned, and the gynarchy continues, He will strike the WHOLE EARTH with a ‘plague’.

    Concerning America, the King is especially angry because rejection of the father-led family, and adoption instead of a hegemonic matriarchy, insults Father and hurts Father. That is guaranteed to get Jeshua’s attention every time.

    So I’m glad to see the topics of adoption etc. introduced, as part of the general defenses of fathers and fatherhood herein. Such efforts never go to waste; if the nation and the world reject these works and guidances, then they get what they get. Yet even in that worst-case, works on behalf of Father lay foundations for the coming Millennium, and for the eternal state thereafter.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Which pastors are going to tell their congregation to FLEE sexual immorality? GET THE HELL OUT!

    After Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulteress, and forgave her, he told her, “Go, and sin no more. Judging her a sinner, and requiring that she humbly repent and change.

    Presumably, the adulteress did not run off shouting, Glory, glory, I am a daughter of the King. I am as pure and sinless as the Son of God. I can sleep with whoever I want and nobody better dare judge me!”

  67. daveemerson1776 says:

    Keep up the good work Dal. Any way I can donate?

    [D: Thank you! No, but I appreciate the offer.]

  68. Warthog says:

    Jesus only stopped the execution because they did not meet the standard of evidence. In Revelation the entire point of the little scroll is that Jesus would execute judgment on both the adulteress (Judea) and the adulterer (Rome). That Judgment was executed from 24-73 AD.

  69. pathfinderlight says:

    In today’s time of rampant divorce, child support rape, and manhatred, it is folly to expect men to marry single mothers. It’s not about forgiveness, it’s about respect. It is not wise to forgive someone who betrays you. It is evil.

    Single mothers betrayed their future spouse by shacking up with a dude and then cuckolding him before they got hitched. Single mothers’ loyalty to their children often overrides their husband; past betrayal breeding future betrayal. Such people deserve neither respect, nor forgiveness.

  70. Random Angeleno says:

    I heard it said there is nothing new in the sun; one can often find it in the Bible. That verse, Proverbs 30:20, just wow. That writer could have been of our time. Thanks for the reminder, Deti.

    There’s another one nearby, over in Proverbs 29:3 which goes: “He who loves wisdom makes his father glad, but one who keeps company with harlots squanders his substance.” One more, Proverbs 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

    @Larry Kummer: I’m sure you enjoyed the wedding scene in Mel Brooks’ Spaceballs.

  71. Random Angeleno says:

    btw, Rollo’s latest is related to this topic.
    https://therationalmale.com/2019/03/11/womens-existential-fear/

  72. Derek Ramsey says:

    @BillyS

    “You are completely full of it Derek. Christianity demands public repentance. That is one of the main points of baptism, a public identification!”

    When you were baptized, did you or your pastor recite your list of sins? No, because they were forgotten [Isaiah 43:25]. Baptism is a metaphor of Christ’s death and resurrection: being buried and rising to new life. It is a symbol of rebirth and purity, being cleansed of sin. The old life of sin has been replaced by the new life. You are a new creature.

    “Repentance isn’t true if no one knows.”

    God’s forgiveness is not conditional on any man.

    @Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre

    ” I personally have a difficult time with this as I see both the need to recover a sense of shame as well as Derek’s point about forgiveness.”

    Christians should boldly name sins for what they are and acknowledge their consequences. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and bring shame [John 16:8]. The goal is repentance, which brings joy, not guilt or shame [Luke 15:7; 1 John 1:9]. It is only sometimes necessary to name names if the sinner is unrepentant. This should done with utmost care, as dealing with sin privately is preferred [Matthew 18].

    @thedeti

    Nothing in scripture prevents repentance from being external, as well as internal. However, once a person has truly repented, their sins are blotted out and they are forgiven. There is nothing more required, no pronouncements, declarations, nor acknowledgments [Ephesians 2:8-9]. The proposal for repentant single mothers violates this.

  73. Oscar says:

    @ Derek Ramsey
    on March 15, 2019 at 5:56 pm

    A better criticism is that my opinion was vague and unsubstantiated.

    That works, too.

    Instead, you attacked.

    Seriously? You took a direct, factual, sourced refutation of your self-described “vague and unsubstantiated opinion” as an “attack”?

    Good luck with that.

  74. Scott says:

    Since it’s already pretty well agreed that it will never happen, the utility of this thought experiment is as a values clarification

    How far we have drifted from parity in the application of basic principles of the faith (accountability for ones sins and acknowledging the pain they have caused) when simply asking the sinner to assent to the presence of past sin will never happen.

  75. Shame worked. That is why (back in the day) shame was used liberally. Nowadays, we rarely shame anyone. That is why all of Pastor Driscoll’s “screed” at men shaming men (HOW DARE YOU!!!!!) is so odd, an outlier. It’s also worthless because his shame has fallen on deaf ears. No one care what he says. So I’m not so sure shame is the path we need today. I agree with Bee, we need more adoptions.

  76. feeriker says:

    Thedeti says:
    March 15, 2019 at 1:33 pm

    Yes. As I’ve stated here on more than one occasion, the Titus 2 woman is, for all practical purposes, extinct in the Western church. The “wise older woman” demographic today consists in largest part of the oldest segment of the Boomers/tail end of the Silent Generation – women who came of age as Second Wave Feminism was making its ascendancy and almost all of whom imbibed it deeply. The only purpose most of these women serve today in the church is a destructive one – reinforcing the rebellion of the younger women and hastening the spread of the malignant rot that is destroying the church.

  77. feeriker says:

    Thedeti says:
    March 15, 2019 at 1:33 pm

    Yes. As I’ve stated here on more than one occasion, the Titus 2 woman is, for all practical purposes, extinct in the Western church. The “wise older woman” demographic today consists in largest part of the oldest segment of the Boomers/tail end of the Silent Generation – women who came of age as Second Wave Feminism was making its ascendancy and almost all of whom imbibed it deeply. The only purpose most of these women serve today in the church is a destructive one – reinforcing the rebellion of the younger women and hastening the spread of the malignant rot that is destroying the church.

  78. feeriker says:

    I’m not so sure shame is the path we need today

    Shunning is very effective, assuming that the target truly values inclusion.

  79. Shunning is very effective, assuming that the target truly values inclusion.

    Shunning IS what is happening. Low-value males (unattractive men, men with lower IQ and lower earning power) are largely shunned as are unattractive/morbidly obese females. Now men are “shamed” for “shunning” the obese females (for “body shaming” lol) but they are still shunned. Never-married-moms? They are shunned if they are ugly. If they are still super hot (and that is a very tiny percentage of never-married-moms) then no, they will not be shunned.

    Rush Limbaugh said it best back in 1988 with his 35 undeniable truths of life. Truth #24:

    Feminism was established as to give unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

    That phrase was as true then as it is now. It was created in response to those who shunned the ugly. But it has not fixed the problem for ugly women. It just brought everyone else down to their level making everyone else miserable. But that is perfectly okay with ugly women because misery likes company.

  80. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Drag queen storytime reader once charged with child sex assault: https://abc13.com/drag-queen-storytime-reader-once-charged-with-assault/5197176/

    Houston Public Library is apologizing after a man charged for sexually assaulting a child was allowed to entertain children at Drag Queen storytime.

    The library said Friday that a review revealed the volunteer never completed a background check before he was allowed to participate in the program.

    Albert Alfonso Garza, 32, was last seen reading to children at the Montrose Library in September 2018.

    ABC13 Eyewitness News has learned Garza was charged with child sex assault in 2008. According to records, his victim was a child under the age of 14 years old.

  81. freebird says:

    Jesus only stopped the execution because they did not meet the standard of evidence. In Revelation the entire point of the little scroll is that Jesus would execute judgment on both the adulteress (Judea) and the adulterer (Rome). That Judgment was executed from 24-73 AD.

    It’s only adultery By Law if the woman was married.
    Children of married widows are to be cared for by the surviving Brother of the Father.
    Children of un-wed *Whores are Bastards and have no legal right by Bible.
    The Whore Mother has no right to anything except more Whoring.

    It’s sad the lack of Biblical understanding in the Churchians personal Jebus Buffet “churches.”

    It’s time to accept the genocide,the scattered Tribes (((except for one of them)))
    are too Stupid to live in a law-less World.
    Christ did NOT do away with the law he SAID SO. (red letter)
    It was The churches did Away with The Law. (Christ himself,The Spirit)
    Let’s start by stoning the churches publicly.
    Then .Gov must be forced to comply with OUR values.
    The Muzzies have no problem with this,setting up Courts.
    Why is the White man SO WEAK?

  82. freebird says:

    ” Jesus would execute judgment on both the adulteress (Judea) and the adulterer (Rome). ”
    Apologies for glossing past this reference.
    This is Spot On.
    Fix the Church,fix The Law,The People follow what is lead.
    Sadly the Priests tend to sodomy these days,it has become a sick JOKE.

    The Power at The Top will not be touched. (((MONEY))
    F-your “values”

  83. Roger says:

    I’m old enough to remember when it was the commonly accepted practice for children born out of wedlock to be put up for adoption. One of my best friends was born to a teenage mother who “made a mistake” and got pregnant, and he was immediately adopted by a loving family. He is now successful in life, has a stable marriage and four children. I can’t help wondering how he would have turned out if his birth mother had insisted on raising him by herself. He probably would have ended up with all the pathologies that are common in children in fatherless families.
    But I’m also struck by how different it is for children raised by a widowed mother. Of course, the father isn’t physically present in the home, but the children at least know that they weren’t a “mistake.” It’s as if their fathers ARE present psychologically, and they’ll have a much better chance in the world than kids born out of wedlock. Such mothers, unlike “baby mommas,” deserve our respect and support.

  84. Charlotte says:

    I was always close to my dad and he influenced who I grew up to become much more than my mother, who unfortunately fit most negative female stereotypes. She was not a person to emulate. Given that, I strongly believed from a young age that single mothers ought to give their children up for adoption so they could grow up with a father figure in an intact family. The one challenge to this is that so many Christian families break up through divorce these days, which leaves any children they adopt right back in the same predicament. I have watched families I once thought were the perfect candidates to raise the outcomes of single mom hook ups divorce, remarry, and praise their new “blended families” as gifts from God and part of his divine plan. One reason we have so many single mothers these days is that the church no longer shows the world a better option. Our churches are full of the same dysfunction and it must be rooted out first before we have any real hope of dealing with the family breakdown epidemic outside of them. We can and should try anyway, but we won’t get far.

    Your suggestion of announcing that the woman understands how serious it is to ask a man to marry a single mother and raise the children she had with another man reminds me of an advice column I came across a few years ago. A single mom wrote complaining that people would not stop commenting on how “lucky” she was to have found a man willing to marry her and take responsibility for her tween daughter from a previous boyfriend. She said she could brush it off around the time of the wedding, but it was now several years out and hated still being seen as unwanted leftovers her husband took on as a charity case. She did not expect the stigma of single motherhood to follow her for the rest of her life and assumed marriage would have given her the same status as other married mothers. She also resented that marrying her made her husband an object of permanent pity to the rest of his family and social circle. Her case is a cautionary tale for future would-be single mothers and (forgive the language) Captain save-a-hoes.

  85. squid_hunt says:

    @Freebird

    We are not under the law. If nothing else, Galatians makes that very clear in its entirety. It says obedience to the Law is disobedience to the truth. (Gal. 3:1)

  86. Warthog says:

    @squid_hunt “We are not under the law. If nothing else, Galatians makes that very clear in its entirety. It says obedience to the Law is disobedience to the truth. ”

    That is a common error in fundamentalist churches, unfortunately. In Romans 8:2 Paul says, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” You cannot escape law, the choice is between the Law of Christ and the Law of sin and death. Paul is talking about justification.

    The law of Moses covered three bases – moral law, redemptive law, and civil law. The redemptive law was about the temple and sacrifice. When the New Testament refers to the Law being abolished, they are referring to the redemptive laws of circumcision, blood sacrifice, clean and unclean foods.

    The moral law still stands, as the apostles argue from it in the NT. The civil law is also still the guideline for nations, as is seen in 1 Timothy 1.

    “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

    Paul just listed the capital crimes of the old testament as being part of the “glorious gospel of the blessed God”. Gospel was the good news proclamation of a new king. Twenty years prior to Christ being born, the Roman world was heralded with the “Gospel of Caesar Augustus”.

    As the Eternal Emperor, Christ’s Gospel includes His Law, in which are included the death penalty for the capital crimes. America has been a case study of what happens when the state disregards its duty to put to death murderers, adulterers, sodomites, perjurers, child molesters, etc.

  87. Warthog says:

    It’s interesting that the herding and bullying instincts of women actually serve a useful purpose. The problem is that today the herd has adopted a false set of values, which they then bully on the other women.

    When marriage was the norm, the female bully herd ruthlessly picked on and shunned loose women. This protected their turf (their husbands), and also encouraged the young women to walk straight out of fear of being shunned and unmarriagable. “Pride & Prejudice” and “Sense & Sensibility” are both good case studies of how and why it works. @innocentbystanderboston the Christian marriage and modesty paradigm actually was an equalizer for ugly women. By forcing women to cover themselves up in public, and otherwise shaming/shunning women who advertise sex in their dress and actions, that system dulled the advantage of the hottest women.

    With the rise of feminism, this social behavior of women has been reprogrammed to:
    * discourage long hair
    * discourage early marriage
    * encourage college/career
    * discourage submission to husband
    * encourage divorce
    * encourage affairs
    * encourage riding the carousel

    The only way it is going back the other way is if we reprogram the women’s social values. That will require public shaming of women who behave badly. To do that might require the magistrate to burn a few witches and harlots so they get the point.

  88. Name (required) says:

    Artesianal Toad was a bit of a goofball, but I think his “sexual intercourse=marriage” conclusion is not anti-biblical, and is a good starting point for evaluating a potential wife. She’s not a virgin, or at least a virtous widow? She’s not availabe, at least not for marriage. Next!

  89. Trust says:

    This blog may have just saved me from (more) grief in my marriage. A local church is hosting “The Art of Marriage” and if it were not for Dalrock, we may have gone. I can’t imagine how much worse some marriages will be if rebellious wives are told that their use of sex as a weapon is proof that their husband isn’t right with God. That is, if they step away from Twilight and 50 Shades long enough to go.

  90. Cane Caldo says:

    Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

    If the will for such a display existed then the framework is already there in some churches. The Banns of Marriage could be (only slightly) expanded to include a statement of the single parent’s repentance.

    But in any church where such a display would be done it would be unnecessary. They would have dealt with sin and forgiveness already.

  91. Zac says:

    to above comenter “Jake”, (and all of like mind) please accept this mild ribbing in the good Christian humor that it is intended. you may respond how you wish and I will remain silent here after..

    you say…
    “Denominations are cancer. We treat churches like favored brands. Seeker friendly heresy has led to bloated audiences that we give voting rights to. Stop feeding money to them. Find a small independent, or just start a church yourself. …

    so your answer to the plethora of denominations as a breeding ground for heresy is for people to … go create even more denominations…

    ohhh my, that is more than just a little bit hilarious!

    as for the blog topic…

    what is really needed is for the Church (or the various denominations) to stop signing on to civil marriage certificates. Yes there is the problem of commen law marriage that can trap a man that cohabitates with the wrong kind of woman. But ware the Church has gone wrong is to equate the sacrament of Matrimony with the civil and legal state of Marriage. Yes we God instatuted marriage. But in the godless society we live in the Church (or the denominations) shouldn’t be in the business of iether blessing or even witnessing a civil contract. If people want a civil marriage, good on them, let them get it from the court house. But the sacrament of Matrimony should be something that should be specifically separated from the civil marriage contract. Yes few women would want to have a Church wedding without a leagal marriage certificate. but the Church should make the option explicitly available to EVERYONE and not just the old widow who would loose her ex husbands pension if she remarries.

  92. Original Laura says:

    @Dalrock & @Ramsey: In the olden days of the mid 20th century, weddings in white were pretty much reserved for those brides who had at least PRETENDED to play by the rules. If you had a divorce or annulment in your background, much less an out-of-wedlock child, you were expected to have a small, simple wedding and reception, and the bride DID NOT wear a white gown. It was also considered in bad taste to have the children from prior marriages attend the wedding at all as it was thought that the marriage was a sad day for the kiddies as it meant that their original home would never be restored. These days, the children from prior relationships are supporting actors in the wedding drama.

    If pastors would say “no” to overblown extravaganzas for babymommas, they could send a strong message to the younger girls in the congregation that their “special day” will be downscaled if they don’t play by the traditional rules. They should also stop allowing baby showers for illegitimate children. These showers don’t just reward the babymomma, they force the other women in the congregation to pretend that this birth is in no way different from the birth of a child to a married couple.

    I do agree with Ramsey that the sins of the bride and groom should not be publicly enumerated during what should be a time of great joy. Handle the issues before the big day, and if either party to the marriage does not appear to be genuinely repentant, refuse to officiate the wedding. The Catholic Church finally stopped allowing lavish funerals for mobsters, so other churches could exert influence on wedding practices if they had any real principles to start with.

    I remember a Presbyterian pamphlet from the 1970s on handling out-of-wedlock pregnancies that said that the parents of the pregnant girl often wanted to help the girl keep the baby, and failed to consider how the older sister’s flouting of society’s rules would adversely affect the marriage opportunities of the younger girls in the family. The pastor who had written the pamphlet was very much in favor of sending the birth mother off somewhere to have the baby and place it for adoption. Of course, in the 1970s, people still cared a bit about respectability.

    @Warthog: Birth mothers hold all the power these days. In the olden days, the social workers matched Catholic babies with Catholic parents, and Protestant babies with Protestant parents, etc., while occasionally committing serious ethical breaches such as splitting up sets of twins and triplets after promising not to do so. These days, the birth mother selects the adoptive couple herself. The prospective adopters put up a profile of themselves on the internet and the birth mother reads through them until she finds a couple she likes. This is generally followed by phone contact and later an in-person visit. Although there is a chance that the adoptive dad will turn out to be a pedophile, there is a greater chance that an unwed mother who keeps her child and goes through a string of boyfriends, lovers, and brief marriages will end up exposing her child to a pedophile. At least with an adoptive couple, their criminal histories have been scrutinized by the social worker who has completed their home study.

    I am very pro adoption if the parent(s) have voluntarily relinquished the child while being deeply suspicious of the motives and practices behind adoptions facilitated by Child Protective Services.

  93. Opus says:

    I was intrigued by the article linked by Red Pill Latecomer as to the twenty-three year old English woman who allegedly fell into a volcano – there is an opera where the heroine loses her life by doing just that” but I always assumed that that was operatic fiction and thus impossible – and in particular that firstly she came from Witney in Oxfordshire (pronounced dear Americans, Oxfordsher) which being Prime Minister Cameron’s former constituency is just about the whitest and ruralest part of the country and secondly that her father is named Tarquin which leads one to suppose that her parents are very wealthy and perhaps trendily pretentious. No surprise then that their daughter went Vegan and indulged herself in the modern equivalent of finishing school: eat pray love-style.

    ‘She died doing what she loved’ as her parents said of her has got to be one of the most miserably inadequate and pathetic things one can say in such circumstances – almost as if to say her death is a small price to pay for being an overindulged hippy: that cannot be their private feelings. That the Lucy Blackman Trust is involved suggests to me that we are looking less at accident and more at what one might predict from the photos in the linked article. Guatemala or Guyana or wherever she was is not Godalming or Guildford – but hey Misogynist the world is borderless and everyone is the same save for skin colouring and men and women are identical. Right. Lucy Blackman, a very attractive young English woman was murdered whilst living in Japan.

    “Auber’s La Muette de Portici

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    In response to Dalrock’s “what if:….

    I don’t see it making a difference.

    If the church membership was more or less united in rejection of babymommas but was willing to make exceptions for appropriate cases as defined by various men in this comments stream — then including such a thing in the marriage ceremony would be redundant. The message would already have been delivered in multiple ways before getting to the wedding. Delivered by an actual, theologically and culturally conservative church leadership as part of pre-marriage counseling. Delivered by women of the church in many subtle ways during the same time.

    In the US, late 19th century, women who had been prostitutes who went straight and married were called “soiled doves”. I am sure that the social pressure on them from the other women was constant.

    In a more typical church with a mix of people and a theologically mushy leadership that “yes, but” is always ready to be White Knights for women no matter what they do, it would be empty words. Right up there with “love, honor and obey” – which are almost never said now anyway.

    So – no diff either way, because a set of words on one day doesn’t speak nearly as loudly as actions taken over the course of days, weeks, years. This is why any church that accepts babymommas is stepping onto a slippery slope.

    Watch what they do. Never mind what they say.

  95. Frank K says:

    The library said Friday that a review revealed the volunteer never completed a background check before he was allowed to participate in the program.

    So they simply forgot to run a background check, huh? Why can’t I help but think that had he been a straight man that he would have been triple scrutinized and then rejected anyway even though he came up clean “Just to be safe”?

  96. seventiesjason says:

    Idk…..in my holiness tradition, we believe people can be heartfeltly reclaimed for Him, and His kingdom. Prostitutes, addicts, out-of-wedlock births, junkies, thieves, and the assortment of street denziens and urbane outcasts…..”i was….but NOW!”

    Yes, the actions of the spirit must be watched, gently rebuked and there needs to be actual sin talked about….and repented from.

    Do we fail with many? Yes, very much so. Do we succeed with many? We do. From many of the comments here…….once a ho, always a ho. Had premarital sex……she’s a soiled dove and deserves lifelong shame. She repents? Well, tons of women say that and never do!

    What do you want? The rest of a person life proving they changed……..and to be checked by you? By what right and what standard? Yours?

    I mean…..really………no one can be reclaimed or redeemed????? If that was the case, myself and tons of folks would still be where we were (really in a bad way) if this mentality was put into actual practice. Is there any hope? We would have been denied salvation because of our past choices.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    @seventiesjason
    Idk…..in my holiness tradition, we believe people can be heartfeltly reclaimed for Him, and His kingdom. Prostitutes, addicts, out-of-wedlock births, junkies, thieves, and the assortment of street denziens and urbane outcasts…..”i was….but NOW!”

    Do all the effects of their previous life just disappear then? For example, does religious conversion magically heal the liver of an alky? Or are you combining two things, here?

    What do you want? The rest of a person life proving they changed…

    Jason…Is there any quote in the Bible that refers to this?

    …..and to be checked by you? By what right and what standard? Yours?

    Jason…Is there any standard in the Bible that might apply?

    I mean…..really………no one can be reclaimed or redeemed????? I

    No one said that. You have a bad habit of seeking the worst possible interpretation of other people’s words and running with it. I understand how easy that is to do, because I’ve done it myself, but it doesn’t do any good.

    Let’s talk about Dalrock’s OP. Do you think this modification to the marriage ceremony would be a good, constructive addition or not?

  98. Original Laura says:

    Jason, sure people can be redeemed. But people who have lived in sin for years prior to marrying, or who are bringing an illegitimate child into the marriage, or who have been married once already should be encouraged to (a) repent; and then (b) have a small, tasteful wedding and reception. It doesn’t matter so much for the couple involved as for the younger people in the congregation. Having a beautiful wedding and reception with the white dress and multi-tiered cake means a lot to most young girls, and telling them in advance that they only have one chance at that will help to keep some of them on the straight and narrow path.

    In reality, this would only work if MOST of the churches in a given community started saying “no” to various wedding wishes. The Lutherans already disallow Wagner, and lots of churches no longer allow rice or rose petals, which makes some people angry, so rules can be laid down if the will is there to do it.

  99. Mitch says:

    @Trust, re: The Art of Marriage

    I can’t imagine how much worse some marriages will be if rebellious wives are told that their use of sex as a weapon is proof that their husband isn’t right with God.

    This is now available on RightNowMedia.com. I would be curious to know what part of this is actually telling women to use sex as a weapon. It might be useful to listen to the session on it and see what it actually says before jumping to conclusions. I will listen to it while jogging and get back to you.

  100. Joe2 says:

    and lots of churches no longer allow rice or rose petals

    They don’t allow rice or rose petals simply because they want to avoid liability for injury and don’t want to clean up the mess afterwards. They could allow rice or rose petals provided the bride posts a bond of indemnity and pays for professional clean up.

  101. Trust says:

    @Mitch says:
    This is now available on RightNowMedia.com. I would be curious to know what part of this is actually telling women to use sex as a weapon. It might be useful to listen to the session on it and see what it actually says before jumping to conclusions. I will listen to it while jogging and get back to you.
    _________

    Thanks for letting me know it is where to find it, and I look forward to your comment.

    I may not have been clear, but I do not believe it directly says for women to use sex as a weapon. What I said is that it tells couples that a woman’s lack of sexual desire for her husband is due to their husbands not being right with God (and the converse, women are attracted to Godly men).

    My point is that sex as a weapon is generally the modern christian wife’s go to method of controlling and punishing her husband, and if such a woman that her lack of desire for sex is due to her husband’s lack of Godliness, that will reinforce it as a weapon.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize. But I took the part about Art of Marriage saying a wife’s lack of desire is due to a husband’s lack of godliness from Dalrock’s posts and I’ve yet to find him misrepresent someone.

    Best,
    Trust

  102. They Call Me Tom says:

    Vain expectation? Does commenter Bee understand that if that’s a vain expectation, they’re saying women have less self control than men?

  103. Dalrock says:

    Mitch,

    Check out:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-to-tell-if-you-are-a-godly-man/

    There are links to YouTube clips of Art of Marriage along with mp3 audio and transcripts from a related series from Family Life.

  104. Dalrock says:

    @They Call Me Tom

    Vain expectation? Does commenter Bee understand that if that’s a vain expectation, they’re saying women have less self control than men?

    My apologies for the confusion. Bee didn’t write the part about vain expectations. He was responding to my post about an article on a Seminary site that said men who didn’t want to marry single mothers were being vain. See my previous post for details.

  105. BillyS says:

    Laura,

    No one said the sins needed to all be listed, but not repenting over such a life impacting sin in public shows a lack of repentance. Derek is claiming we don’t even need to publicly turn from the sin, just assume it happened because reasons.

    That is foolishness and is part of the reason we are where we are today.

    My exwife saw salvation as a “new adventure” (in her words), not a turning from a past lifestyle. It can certainly be an adventure, but failing to run from past foolishness is what finally caused her to push divorce after so many years and feel self-righteous doing it. She did no wrong! No repentance, just continuing to live life by whatever feels best.

  106. BillyS says:

    So Jason, would you let a past pedophile work in the children’s ministry? What about a past embezzler working with counting the offering?

    Some sins do cut off future activity.

    BTW, if you really want a wife, why aren’t you pursuing these single mothers since you think it is completely wrong to avoid them? You could live with a few hundred pounds extra on her too, right?

  107. BillyS says:

    RightNow Media is horrid Mitch. I recently watched a video on 1 Peter 3:1-7 that spent the first have focusing solely on 1 Peter 3:7 and how bad men were. Not a peep about how women should act properly. It is full of corruption.

  108. Bee says:

    Dalrock,

    Thanks for clarifying that for Tom.

  109. seventiesjason says:

    Men…..I am not seeing the worst in the comments, but some of them are indeed giving a aire of hopelessness for redemption, and even if that person changes……no one is going to ever “forget” or they seem to “lovingly hold it against them” or let me rephrase that “you may have changed, and are striving for change….but us men here won’t let you!”

    I work with pedophile on the street BillyS. They are even ostricized from the rest of the homeless, and let alone none of them are allowed in a church, or would be. Thats a really extreme example. Besides, research shows a family member is more likely to sexually abuse a child….not some random stranger. Sweet ol’ poppa Frank might be loved by all but in some circumstances he’s fondled every girl in his family. Who knows? Extreme example BillyS. Convicted pedophiles can’t be near anything………so we all should just let them rot under an overpass, addicted to black-tar heroin because despite him “paying” for his crime in prison, serving time…..this person will not be allowed back into society.

    Does every church know about everyone’s past (concerning embezzlement)? And there is plenty of graft and corruption in churches concerning “monies” with people with no past convictions of said sin. We have a former Salvation Army Officer in prison just for that right now.

    So single mothers are all overweight? I’ve been to plenty of church services with married women who could probably shed more than a few pounds. Are all you men benching 300 plus pounds with ease? At 50?

    I am *striving* to stay away on this forum about my personal dating life, so for the sake of everyones sanity, I won’t discuss me trying to date single moms. I’ll just say I have tried. Nuff said.

    Laura. In the Salvation Army “frivolous traditions and trappings” are not done. If they are both Soldiers, the wedding ceremony is performed in proper uniform. If not, the ceremony is brief “trappings” of the culture are frowned upon. Hence why the Army performs few weddings. Also, their Corps are not “picturesque” churches.

  110. Mitch says:

    I listened to session 2 with Dave and Ann Wilson but this was in the context of general marital dysfunction and Dalrock’s article also refers to statements they made on their radio show apart from the Art of Marriage. I found a lot of good stuff in Session 2 from other people besides the Wilsons one about marital conflict and unrealistic expectations. I thought it was generally balanced. Session 5 was the one about sex and there was some stuff that was good and a couple of items that I found glaring omissions. Rev. Crawford Lorritts said that God created sex in marriage for three reasons: Procreation, Pleasure, and Oneness before God. He must have overlooked a big one discussed in 1 Corinthians 7 which was Protection against the temptation to sin. This was a significant omission.

    Also a very confusing and bizarre statement by Dr. Paul David Tripp that we should not have sex for our own pleasure or even the pleasure of our spouse because we might do things that are an abomination to God. Rather, we should have sex that seeks the pleasure of God. I thought the marriage bed was undefiled. What would I do sexually for the enjoyment of my wife that God would consider an abomination? This makes no sense. And how does one know the sex we are having is pleasing to God. We are doing it while married. We both are having a good time. But God still isn’t pleased? What am I missing here?

    Much repeated is the statement that sexual problems are mostly caused by issues that must be fixed outside the marriage bed first before the sexual problems can be solved. I guess Michelle Weiner Davis would have a nice debate with that idea but it does seems to be a real boilerplate idea among conservative Christians. Having been through marriage counseling where this is the assumption I can tell you that it ends up meaning that the sexual stuff never gets addressed at all because the couple runs out of money before the counselor ever gets to it.

    There is the usual tendency to over spiritualize sex and the canard about husbands only being into the physical part where wives “know better” and have a more balanced understand of sexuality. Of course, when you have contributors like Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and Dennis Rainey, what do you expect?

    One good thing about this being online now is that I don’t have to sit in a room with a bunch of other people and pretend to take all this as gospel truth. I know that if I were in such a group the pressure to agree with everything would be immense. Knowing my nature, however, I would probably end up alienating the entire room including my wife.

    Thanks to Dalrock’s review of Fireproof and Courageous, I have already ruined one relationship in my church with a man who was incensed that I didn’t think both movies were awesome. We weren’t close to begin with so no big loss.

  111. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS :My exwife saw salvation as a “new adventure” (in her words), not a turning from a past lifestyle.

    Jesus also said that we must bear our cross and follow him. (Luke 14:27). Christianity is at times a difficult and painful path. The servant is not treated better than his master.

    Yet some people think that accepting Christ means they’re entitled to a great life on Earth.

  112. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Actress Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) practices witchcraft: https://www.instagram.com/p/BvEPsW6BfLq/

    Wicca and other pagan cults are widely popular now, especially among women.

    Even the U.S. Army Chaplain’s Manual recognizes Wicca as a legitimate religion: https://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/military.htm

  113. okrahead says:

    Jason,
    As you are well aware, this started out last post as a discussion of the teaching that single mothers, who willingly engaged in non-marital sex, are as “pure as the Son of God” and that they are “better than you deserve.” Your constant attempts at re-frame are an evasion of the topic at hand, which is should fornicators whose sin is publicly evident and known publicly acknowledge and repent of their sin before being received into church fellowship and entering into marriage. Various churches have different doctrines on this matter; but it sees clear from scripture that sinners are expected to acknowledge their sin (confess your faults/sins to one another) and to repent and seek forgiveness. This is the crux of the matter here.
    As for working with pedophiles who live under a bridge and take black tar heroine…. cast not your pearls before dogs and swine, lest they turn and rend you. I have had the unfortunate necessity of dealing with pedophiles in my professional capacity, along with assorted other villainy… and they are not only the most reviled, they are also the most deceptive and self-deceived lot. From your writings I fear you may have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to perceiving such things. No repentant pedophile would ever request or expect to be put in a position around children; any pedophile who requests or expects such is prima facia unrepentant and needs to be dealt with as such.
    Finally, yes, at (around) 50 I can bench 300, although I would not necessarily call it “easy.” I am also a believer striving daily to follow Christ while in submission to the bishops of the church I attend. Does this mean I am as pure as the sinless Son of God? I shudder to even type those words, knowing how false they are. The article in question negated repentance and encouraged pride, which is the downfall of many. That is the issue being addressed.

  114. Mitch says:

    I also believe Ann Wilson still has a disrespectful attitude toward her husband because this is her bio on the Family Life website:

    Mother to three grown sons, CJ, Austin, and Cody and wife to one, occasionally grown-up husband, Dave, Ann balances a home life and professional ministry career building both on the grace and goodness of Jesus Christ.

    Shaunti Feldhahn had a good blog posting about Male bashing at https://shaunti.com/2018/10/male-bashing-its-all-in-good-fun-right/. She was on a cruise and gave a seminar to 500 women and mentioned a radio ad that bashed husbands as being like children. She encouraged the women in the audience not to do that but then the singer got up on stage and said she had three children, “four if you count my husband.” Essentially doing exactly the same thing that Shaunti was criticizing. And then there’s Ann Wilson who disrespects her husband the same way right in her bio for Family Life. Isn’t that special?

    I support Dave and Ann repenting to God for whatever sins they commit against him and against each other. But until Ann repents for the disrespectful attitude that she displays toward her husband, I think their messages ring hollow even when they say things I agree with.

  115. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The next time a woman asks a man for help with heavy lifting, he should reply, “Well, I would help. But I’m just a little boy.”

  116. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    Great if you can find a thin single mother. Wife her up!

    And start a church and put the past pedophiles in charge of the children’s ministry. That will work out great since they have had such an interest in children!

    You whine here so much, yet you have no idea how much the lives of others suck as much or more, yet we don’t whine here. It is getting very hard for me to handle having done all I have to be left with NOTHING now. I can’t even sleep now because of it. And you just complain.

  117. BillyS says:

    Mitch, the husband is just as likely to peddle that tripe, unfortunately.

  118. Longing for Sanity says:

    Spot on, Dalrock. Your site is a much needed oasis in a parched and dry land, where evil is good and good is called evil. The mantra that “women don’t sin” runs so deep in not just society, but the church as well. I was meeting with a woman who had questions about the Bible, faith, etc. She was asking about spiritual things, such as mediums, telling the future, etc. Every time she brought up a question and it was answered with Scripture, she’d say, “I knew you’d have an answer for that.” However, what stopped us meeting together was that she asked about her son born out of wedlock, and I said that it was a sin to have premarital sex. It was never said in a harsh or haughty manner, yet that was the end of it. She would never accept the idea that she had sinned; and to top it off, she was going to a Bible church in the area, and had never heard confronted her with her sin. Par for the course. Hopefully this was on topic, but it illustrates what we are dealing with in the church today.

  119. squid_hunt says:

    @Warthog
    I agree that the law of Christ superseded the mosaic law. What is the law of Christ? It’s not a list of ordinances and commandments, it’s to love one another. The law was temporary, as per Galatians 3:19. The saved apostles couldn’t even keep the law per Acts 15. And the law can’t bring righteousness per 3:21. It was only ever used to condemn. It’s just there to teach us of our need for Christ our hopeless inability to please God. I was specifically responding to Freebird stating we need to stone people. Do you agree?

  120. Warthog says:

    “But that man said that our sins were washed away,” Pete said.

    “We’ve been forgiven of our sins,” Delmar said.

    “You boys may be square with the Lord, but the State of Mississippi is a little more hard-nosed,” Everett explained as he convinced the boys to stay incognito.

    They had been forgiven by God, but not by the State of Mississippi.

    @Jason if you desire to have children and you have the choice between marrying a virgin who has never used drugs, or marrying a repentant prostitute who was shooting heroin for three years, which choice is more likely to help you achieve your goal?

    Nobody said that prostitutes cannot be saved. What was pointed out is that women who have done such things have a track record of blowing up their marriages. It is the Bible that puts a premium on the value of a virgin bride.

  121. JRob says:

    @Mitch

    The Wilsons’ succession of Dennis Rainey on FLT will complete the journey to Full Woke, in full Focus on the Family fashion. FOTF is full SJW/feminist and has been for a good while. Peruse the Boundless site, a FOTF satellite, and see for yourself.

    I used to listen to Rainey for discussion material, not anymore with the Wilsons at the helm. It will henceforth be nonstop overt Beatdown.

    In closing, FLT has Sheila Gregoire on their payroll.

  122. Warthog says:

    @squid_hunt Yes, I agree the magistrate should stone people. The temporary part of the law was blood sacrifice. The ten commandments were never temporary. Jesus summed up the law as love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. The laws are simply expressions of detail of those two commands.

    The segment of Christianity that wants to be freed from the details so they can just love, are thinking like women. Love comes with a concrete set of examples. It is not love to expose the nakedness of your wife’s daughter, and we execute people who do. It is not love to kill your neighbor, and we kill people who do. It is not love to steal your neighbor’s ox. And we punish people who do, but we don’t kill them. And so on, and so on.

  123. squid_hunt says:

    @Warthog

    Show me in the New Testament anyone who followed the law in the manner you are describing. I’ll wait. All those womanly apostles in Acts 15. Paul, the effeminate.

  124. Bee says:

    Mitch, JRob,

    “I also believe Ann Wilson still has a disrespectful attitude toward her husband …. ”

    Shortly before our wedding, my wife to be and I attended the weekend Marriage Seminar put on by Family Life. Each Seminar is co-led by a husband and wife team. The wife leader had such disrespectful attitudes and comments about her husband that my fiance was appalled and thoroughly disgusted.

    The good news for me was that my wife made a conscious effort to speak to me and about me to others with respect and honor. I was fortunate to have a great wife.

    I do not remember the names of couple leading our Seminar.

  125. seventiesjason says:

    “You whine here so much, yet you have no idea how much the lives of others suck as much or more, yet we don’t whine here. It is getting very hard for me to handle having done all I have to be left with NOTHING now. I can’t even sleep now because of it. And you just complain.”

    I am not whining. This self projection that many of you have towards me borders now on the mental.
    What am I complaining about? Many of the comments here are not about “hey, that’s a good idea…if the women just did what Dalrock said in the post…..something to look into”

    No

    “once a ho always a ho / soilded dove / don’t believe them / fatty / murdered her baby / they say one thing but don’t mean it / if churches didn’t allow elaborate weddings this wouldnt happen”

    amoing others………

    I point this out. Now I have a blind spot for pedophiles (untrue), I want to marry a single woman (if she had indeed repented, and indeed turned….whats the problem…especially at my age) Virgins are the only thing that matters (ummmm….yeah….understood….but me as a 50 year old isn’t going to find a virgin to marry….and besides, all you “real men”: here did them all….there are not any left)

    Learn to code Billy so you won’t have nothing. My great job wasn’t handed to me, it was over ten years of starting at the bottom of the food chain. I recently have read a book about Bonhoeffer….really has put things into perspective as a Christian…..dare I say it has helped me.

    I could come on here and say “good morning, in’t a beautiful day” and more than a few of you would accuse me of whining or being negative

  126. feeriker says:

    Also a very confusing and bizarre statement by Dr. Paul David Tripp that we should not have sex for our own pleasure or even the pleasure of our spouse because we might do things that are an abomination to God. Rather, we should have sex that seeks the pleasure of God. I thought the marriage bed was undefiled. What would I do sexually for the enjoyment of my wife that God would consider an abomination? This makes no sense. And how does one know the sex we are having is pleasing to God. We are doing it while married. We both are having a good time. But God still isn’t pleased? What am I missing here?

    It’s breathtaking how many preachers belch out this unbiblical nonsense about marital sex, never ONCE giving specific citation to Scripture to back it up. One thing that I’m determined to do next time I hear this idiocy, even if it’s in the middle of a Sunday sermon, is stand up, interrupt, and demand a Scriptural reference, or accuse pastorbator of heresy, even if it gets me removed and disfellowshiped. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

  127. Trust says:

    One morning probably 10 years ago, I got a text from wife when we had had sex the night before. The jist of it was : “we really should have sex more often, I feel so much closer to you after we do.” We talked about it later, and she commented that she felt more respect after, more of a desire to hold hands and cuddle on the couch in front of a movie after, etc. I commented that I felt more of a desire to rub her shoulders, buy her flowers, and had a better attitude about being Mr. FixIt and DIY at home.

    I believe (and I may be wrong), there is wisdom in sex resulting in closeness more than closeness resulting in sex. Having the closeness stem from something only allowed in marriage keeps the closeness in marriage.

    The converse, the modern view, that closeness results in sex, is perverse when you think about it, since literally anyone can flatter you. For an attractive younger stranger to flatter you is more tempting than hearing it from your spouse. I think this is related to what Dalrock was talking about when he said if love purifies sex then adultery is moral.

    It’s this kind of thinking that creates single mothers to begin with (wanted to tie it back to the original topic). : )

  128. Mich says:

    [i]You whine here so much, yet you have no idea how much the lives of others suck as much or more, yet we don’t whine here. It is getting very hard for me to handle having done all I have to be left with NOTHING now. I can’t even sleep now because of it. And you just complain.[/i]

    I don’t comment often, but I couldn’t let the irony and total lack of self-awareness here go unmentioned.

    BillyS, really all you ever do is bitch and moan about your wife, and occasionally about your church’s failure to make her stay. That’s fine, she done-you-wrong and the ‘sphere is a good place to find support and commiseration. But let’s not pretend you ever really contribute more to the conversation than grievances.

    So telling a man who has turned his life around in such a profound way, and devoted it to helping the poor, the outcasts, the homeless, and the addicts in the name of Christ that he has no idea what real suffering is because he’s never spent years wallowing in self-pity over an ex reveals a lack of perspective and frankly, life experience. I chortled when I read it.

  129. Trust says:

    In regards to adoption: ” have to suspect that adoption is a device to destroy biological families rather than as their litany intones something said to be in the best interests of the children.”

    My wife and I are adoptive parents of twins, as my wife is infertile. Their birth mother got pregnant by a Harley McBadboy. Thank God she didn’t turn to government assistance, child support, and extended family. Are children are homeschooled, well taken care of. We have developed a friendship with their biological relatives, and they will themselves say how much better off the children are not being part of their mess of a world.

    This notion that adoption is a ploy to destroy biological families is complete and utter nonsense. It is the best option for children conceived by an unstable family outside of marriage.

    My wife and I were called to volunteer at a women’s shelter, and we spent a lot of time with homeless single mothers. One month, we met a pregnant woman struggling with what to do. Our children piped up and told them how lucky they were to be adopted. The next month, the woman was still at the shelter, but no longer pregnant with no baby. She, being the product of a single mother herself, told us after seeing how wonderful a two parent christian family was for our children, she found one for her baby. This may have broken this genetic line’s cycle of single parents giving birth to single parents who then give birth to more single parents. At least that child now has a chance, as do his/her future children.

    The ideal is for only married couples to conceive children. But when that doesn’t happen, adoption is beautiful. Please don’t spit on it.

  130. Warthog says:

    @squid_hunt See 1 Timothy 1. Saint Paul upholds the capital crimes laws as worthy of punishment and part of the Gospel.

    No apostles stoned anyone because they were not civil magistrates. But they upheld the righteousness of the law of the civil magistrate as the sword of Gods wrath against evildoers. And in Revelation we see God execute capital punishment on the beast and the adulterous bride, Judea. Buy if your eyes are closed naturally you won’t be able to see that.

  131. Scott says:

    Trust

    The only thing I would want to clarify is that having an ideal does not mean all of the less-than-ideal permutations are being spit on.

    It’s the same kind of thinking that leads to the racial/ethnic strife we have now.

    I love my Serb-Scot-Irish heritage and do everything I can to perpetuate those cultural values to my kids.

    It doesn’t mean I “hate” Hispanics, blacks, native Americans whatever.

    It means I am indifferent to them and feel no particular motivation to celebrate those cultures in my house.

  132. 7817 says:

    It means I am indifferent to them and feel no particular motivation to celebrate those cultures in my house.

    Well said Scott.

  133. feministhater says:

    I point this out. Now I have a blind spot for pedophiles (untrue), I want to marry a single woman (if she had indeed repented, and indeed turned….whats the problem…especially at my age) Virgins are the only thing that matters (ummmm….yeah….understood….but me as a 50 year old isn’t going to find a virgin to marry….and besides, all you “real men”: here did them all….there are not any left)

    You made the comparison with not wanting to marry a single mother, something I support fully, to not allowing a pedophile back in to the fellowship of the Church. Which is simply untrue. No man has to accept a single mother, no man needs support another man’s children. No man need marry her, ever.

    No pedophile should be given access to children. Some things are simple, Jason, and you have zero right to demand men do otherwise.

    What you are doing is complaining that men are not willing to man up and marry single moms because you believe they have repented and that should be enough. For you it might be, for others it is not. There is no problem with you wanting to get married and realizing your only options are the kitchen scraps of other men.

    Now go find and marry your single mom. There are plenty of them out there.

    A man is not required by the Bible to marry a single mom. Her forgiveness is in no way related to her ability to get married.

  134. Warthog says:

    @pathfinderlight “Single mothers betrayed their future spouse by shacking up with a dude and then cuckolding him before they got hitched. Single mothers’ loyalty to their children often overrides their husband; past betrayal breeding future betrayal. Such people deserve neither respect, nor forgiveness.”

    I’ve noticed a variant of this argument in the courtship circles. The idea that a woman dating is defrauding her future husband.

    A woman cannot sin against a covenant that has not been made yet. If she plays the harlot her son is against her father, who she has shamed.

    If, knowing her status honestly, a man chooses to marry her, that is a new covenant. Her past sins were not against him, but they definitely lower her marital market value. If on the other hand, she presents herself as a virgin when she played the harlot, that is a very serious fraud against him.

  135. seventiesjason says:

    Femhater….

    True enough. I never “demanded” pedophiles should be given access to children. There is no sin in marrying a single mother, and if she has repented and the fruit of the spirit is present, her actions…her walk with Christ. Not just her words show that she has changed, and if a man is smitten in the church with this? What’s the problem? There is none. The comments are alluding strongly that “single mothers can’t repent, won’t repent, or if she does…..she really didn’t mean it”

    I never stated a man “must” marry a single mother, nor do I defend that. However, if a man like myself or others in a similar situation……we’re probably not going to find a 45 year old virgin, and are we going to do a “hymen check” to make sure she “really is telling the truth?” Really now. None of the dads in here are going to set up their 18 year-old virginal daughter with a 50 year old Christian man……no matter how “devout” he is. Many men over the age of forty will have a hard enough time in the church trying to find a 20-25 year old Christian woman with a low “n count” who is attracted to him physically…….sure there are exceptions, but its not the rule….and even a man in decent shape and let’s suppose “time” on his looks has been kind to him………..that scenario isn’t really common. Not denying it happens…but not common. Should it be? I don’t live in the world of “shoulds” I live in reality.

    Where is this “grace” thing that we Christians speak about? Where is the love, the joy, the excitement in watching a new believer who has repented and is indeed growing, striving, and changing?

    And btw….I do work with pedophiles……if there is a place where children are present (even a church) by law they are not allowed there……even if this man is monitored, watched and sat next to by a member (I’ve even tried for this in my church. Not allowed). Also……..that term is thrown around in a way that sometimes could be muddled……..one man I know is labeled a pedophile because he was caught when he was 21, getting a BJ from his 16 year old girlfriend who of cousrse had “low self esteem” and her parents pressed charges back in the 1980’s. He went to prison. He got out…..and now, is addicted to heroin, is exiled from anything and anywhere…can’t even get a job…..does he not deserve to hear the Word of God? Does he not deserve to have someone sit with him and dress his wounds, his sores? Did he bring this upon himself? Bad timing? Perhaps so…..but that does not excuse myself to minister, try to help or at least try to behave in a Christlike manner to him.

    I mean, Paul persecuted, and helped orchestrate the torture and murder of people. There was redeption for him? Why do you think Christ found this example in him? To show the future that there is indeed redemption for all.

    Are all pedophiles in this same situation as I mentioned? Of course not….but what do we do with them? Go far away! No, you can’t stay here! Go over there! They should be killed. They should just repent, get a good job and just get on with life! We’ll never let you forget! Kill them! No, they belong in jail for life / we need room in jail for murderers…..throw these guys on the street! Somebody needs to get these people off the street!

    Again….plenty of molestation happens from and by people who never had a record of it.

  136. BillyS says:

    I already know how to code Jason, likely far better than you.

    I can’t even respond to what you wrote since it is so illogical. You claimed to want a relationship really badly, yet gripe at me when I note one you could almost certainly have, in spite of any of your background, as long as you had money.

    I implied that pedophiles should be excluded from children’s ministry and you complained that reformed ones didn’t get any breaks. At least try to be a bit consistent.

    Mich,

    You have not read many of my replies here it seems. I talk about far more than my exwife. She does leak out because it really has impacted my life and I am facing a major crisis now of “why am I even here” that does leak out, but I have replied about many different topics.

    You have your own reading comprehension problems if you think that is all I write about.

    Jason has some good input, but far too many “everyone here doesn’t let me be me” posts that it is quite annoying. He doesn’t get a free pass on acting like a man because he had a really rough background. He posts claiming he is the only one in his situation here, which is why I note mine. He is younger than me by a decade or two (I assume) and has a lot more life left.

    Coming to someplace you believe hates you is rather stupid. What is the point? Are you his sock puppet? Is he really a troll? (Far too possible)

    FH,

    I did bring up the pedophile comparison originally, but then Jason jumped on it as you note. I agree with your points here in general though, just noting I raised it before he ranted on it. I do think the comparison is valid.

  137. BillyS says:

    Bee,

    I was at one of their marriage conferences as well. I can’t remember the speakers now, but it was where my wife had stunned me with saying “I have decided to stay” in the middle of the conference. I wish she had decided to leave at that point instead, since it would have hurt, but left me with more life afterward. I didn’t realize the full implications of things until I finally got hit with divorce a decade or so later.

    I don’t think I saw how women disrespect men or men cut themselves down as clearly at that time. I still regularly listened to FOTF and FLT regularly then. I cannot stomach them now. I read some of Kevin Leman’s books as well, but he has a huge blind spot as has been noted here before.

  138. feministhater says:

    He went to prison. He got out…..and now, is addicted to heroin, is exiled from anything and anywhere…can’t even get a job…..does he not deserve to hear the Word of God? Does he not deserve to have someone sit with him and dress his wounds, his sores? Did he bring this upon himself? Bad timing? Perhaps so…..but that does not excuse myself to minister, try to help or at least try to behave in a Christlike manner to him.

    I actually don’t know Jason. He should be receiving the word. You seem to be confusing redemption with the withdrawal of consequences. Everyone can be forgiven, they can repent. You can minister to them and help them. However, expecting others to place themselves or their children in danger is a problem.

    Grace comes from God, Jason. You can have empathy for another person but you cannot know their heart. I don’t know if one has repented or not. I have no issues with you marrying a repentant single mom. You can go ahead. Once again it’s a preference. You can get past having to raise another man’s child, I can’t. It has nothing to do with the mother’s repentance or her lack thereof.

    Singlemoms have plenty of options of men to choose from. Plenty. Funnily enough they don’t want to marry dead beat men without jobs… funny how that works. Shame them to marry those men first, Jason, or are those men not ‘worth’ getting married to?

    No one deserves anything. That is a truism. That is why I thank the Lord for the good things in my life, even with the bad. I don’t bemoan my lack of wife anymore. I see my surroundings, the current state of my country, and thank God I do not have a wife and children. I thank God!

  139. okrahead says:

    Jason,
    No, none of us “deserve” anything good. That God offers grace is just that, grace. Think about your words before you type them. It’s good to offer the word of God to the lost, but we do not do so because they deserve it. It’s a critical distinction.

    In addition, you wrote, “And btw….I do work with pedophiles……if there is a place where children are present (even a church) by law they are not allowed there……even if this man is monitored, watched and sat next to by a member (I’ve even tried for this in my church. Not allowed). ”

    I’m going to be charitable and work under the assumption that this was nothing other than a colossal lack of judgement on your part. That you tried to have a pedophile brought into the church alongside children, with the promise that you would monitor him, would justify not only removing the pedophile from the assembly but yourself as well. That you are unwilling to understand this does not speak well for you. It also explains why a single mother would not want you around.

  140. seventiesjason says:

    Well Femhater…most of those men you mentioned (deadbeats) are not in church. Dalrock here and others have not made a requirement…but have indeed “stressed” that a man should have decent provision……..we all don’t have to be lile Nelson Rockefellar here…….and oddly enough, with many a single mom I have met who claims Christ is dating that deadbeat who plays in a rock band….but “He’s gonna make it…he’s the best speed-metal guitarist in Warren County!”

    So there you have it.

    I have seen more than a few single mom turn their life around, marry a decent guy and be blessed.

    I will not go into why I have not met one who likes me. I have tried with a few. No spark. What can I do? Anyway…..

  141. seventiesjason says:

    Okra….I didn’t go on the platform and annouce to the congreagation that I was going to bring a pedophile into church.

    I met with my Corps Officer. Posed the idea. We discussed it. He thought about it. We met up a few weeks later and told me “No. Not a good idea, and please don’t bring him here.”

  142. Dalrock says:

    @Mitch

    I listened to session 2 with Dave and Ann Wilson but this was in the context of general marital dysfunction and Dalrock’s article also refers to statements they made on their radio show apart from the Art of Marriage.

    You are looking at this the wrong way. You missed their message when watching the Art of Marriage segment. This is somewhat understandable because they were being furtive. They hinted strongly at it but were coy enough to not say it outright. They knew the women watching would get the message while giving themselves plausible deniability. But then you saw where they taught the same message using the same story, but dropped the pretense. You acknowledge they taught the message openly when telling the same story in the second production, but still insist they were misunderstood when they were said to teach the same message with the same story in Art of Marriage.

    This would be like seeing video footage of an armed robbery, where the suspect has his hand in his jacket pocket in a way that makes it look like he is pointing a gun. You watch the clip and determine it was all a misunderstanding. It was cold out, and to you it looks like he was just warming his right hand. But then you watch a video from a police dashcam immediately after where the same man pulls a gun from that very pocket and points it at police. After watching the second clip you declare the man was guilty of trying to kill police but not robbery, because if you look at the first clip you can’t see his gun. Clearly he was just warming his right hand and the cashier who handed him a bag of money misinterpreted what was happening.

  143. feministhater says:

    and oddly enough, with many a single mom I have met who claims Christ is dating that deadbeat who plays in a rock band….but “He’s gonna make it…he’s the best speed-metal guitarist in Warren County!”

    Now, would this mean they have repented or not? Obviously, if they’re dating a deadbeat drummer and they are not getting married…. and will never marry… the answer is quite clear. Therefore, Jason, many a single mom who claims Christ is loose with the truth.. and therefore, a bad bet for marriage.

  144. seventiesjason says:

    Femhater…..I did say in the avove post….to watch their actions, not just what they say 😉

  145. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    Should a former alcoholic start a bar ministry?

  146. seventiesjason says:

    Actually he should IF he is ready, accountable and strong in his sobriety. Sometimes the best person to speak to the drunks is indeed, the former drunk himself. In the Salvation Army we call this “pub booming”

    It rarely happens now, but I did it a few times with a fellow soldier. You go into a bar with the magazine “The War Cry” and you pass them out or you walk around saying hello…..sometimes the bartender will tell you to “get out of here” and sometimes……sometimes they fold their arms and watch to the spectale that may happen. I can tell you with honesty…IF….if someone came into a bar when I was really at the end and my drinking was beyond oblivion…….perhaps….perhaps I would have left that barstool a little earlier and saved myself heaps of embarassment down the road.

    Funny story. About seven years ago, I was in a dive along Blackstone Avenue in Fresno around 10PM. Myself and another soldier, we’ll call Aaron…….he and I walked in…….about thirty people. All eyes fell on us, and it got really silent. We smiled, and began to walk around. Every head followed us. We chatted up the bartender, asked if anyone was really “wasted” and if he wanted anyone out, we would gladly give a drunk brother a ride home. He actually pointed to a guy on the corner end of the bar. Yeah. That guy was me a decade earlier for sure. Before we got to him, Aaron and I walked by a small table with two guys and a pretty homely woman………anyway, I smiled asked the men if I could join them. They actually said “sure” so I sat. Aaron was just watching me. This homely woman says all drunk and loud…..”Will you kiss me?” Well…before I could of course reply “no” these two guys pulled me on to the table, spilling the drinks, held me….and this homely woman gave me the wettest, sloppiest grossest kiss you ever did see! My first kiss too!

    The whole bar erupted into howls of laughter and applause….pinding on tables, the bar. Whoops and hollers and bellars! I wrestled myself from their grip and this womans kiss……..even feloow soldier Aaron was laughing!

    I stood straightened my uniform…..smiled……and said, “Well, that was at least worth a 10.00 tithe to Salvation Army.” The bartender then yelled, “hey, I got a ten……here you go!” Aaron took the money and I then gave a short prayer to them all, and said “If any of you need help with alcohol, or drug addiction, or just want an encouraging word…..our Corps is on 1854 Fulton Streeet…..we would welcome you, love on you….and our address and phone number is on this magazine!”

    People did raise their hand for one….a few did drop a few bucks donation…..and when we left, Aaron just looked at me and said “I could never have done this alone……ummm brother, you have some lipstick smeared al over your face!”

    I smirked as he wiped it off, “Well…..at least it was that…..back in the Victorian era we Salvationists usually got a pounding, urine thrown on us…or bottles…..this crowd was fun.” I said and smiled.

    -end

  147. Joe2 says:

    Proof – read it for yourself! A woman actually likes @seventiesjason.

  148. Dalrock, something occurred to me about this baby momma issue.

    It would make more sense for unmarried-moms to adopt all their children out instead of raising them, of course, but this really isn’t an issue of the Pastor or the church. The reason why I say that is by the time the Pastor or the church can do anything about it, it is already too late. I contend it is the baby momma who joins the church long AFTER she has her bastard and the bastard has already bonded with said baby momma. The baby momma joins the church specifically to get free help/resources/support that she would be getting if she married a patriarchal male. The church is a substitute for her husband. Try and shame her into adopting the baby out, and she leaves.

    I have rarely (if ever) met many young singles in church. They all just seem to disappear the moment they graduate high school. I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any) young single women who attend church regularly and (whoops) suddenly find themselves pregnant and the Pastor/church has 9 full months of pressure to apply to get her to adopt out said baby. That just doesn’t happen.

  149. Blue Chekist says:

    Wouldn’t it be wise to draw distinctions between three categories of mothers wanting to marry?

    Moms who divorced for biblically sound reasons, or are widows;
    Moms who divorced for biblically unsound reasons; and
    Moms who gave birth out of wedlock.

    The unmarried baby mamas should have the highest hurdle to clear. Giving the illegitimate children up for adoption would be ideal.

    The divorcées who broke up a marriage for unbiblical reasons shouldn’t be allowed to marry a new spouse (1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5, Matthew 19).

    Validly divorced moms and widowed moms should bear no shame at all.

  150. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Of course, traditional Catholic teaching says there are no valid divorces. You can separate for valid reasons (e.g., your life is in danger), but you remain married for life.

    Unfortunately, to get around the “no divorce” rule, the CC has made annulments very easy to obtain.

  151. Scott says:

    Blue Chekist

    The Orthodox Church alreasy has the apparatus and tradition/history to do that theoretically.

    In more conservative circles they stick to it pretty closely.

    Although, like the Catholics we do not have something sanctioned by the church called “divorce.”

    The church recognizes when a divorce has occurred and requires it to be acknowledged in order for a second marriage to occur. (The circumstances of that divorce are supposed to be discovered in that process.) But since marriage is supposed to be for life, the church cannot sanction or condone them.

  152. Mitch says:

    They hinted strongly at it but were coy enough to not say it outright.

    How much of this is intentional and how much is just the product of a particular subconscious mindset? I can’t imagine Ann Wilson actually coming right out and saying she deliberately used the wake up call strategy to whip Dave into submission. But I can definitely agree that they see this as just the way things are done in 21st century conservative Christianity. Oblivious husband needs to be shaken out of his complacency and he needs to be hit where it hurts or else he won’t learn. Ignore 1 Corinthians 7 because Dave uses it as a weapon. Ignore 1 Peter 3 because it won’t work on obtuse guys like Dave. All stick. No carrot.

  153. Derek Ramsey says:

    @BillyS

    “Derek is claiming we don’t even need to publicly turn from the sin, just assume it happened because reasons.”

    As if it wasn’t already perfectly clear, here is a reminder:

    “Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony…that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it…”

    The suggested public note is intended for an already repentant woman. An unrepentant woman should not be marrying.

    What these suggestions do is spit on a man’s authority. You want a woman to publicly shame herself and you want her to do it in front of her new husband for all to see. Not only do you question the honor of the woman, you question the honor of the man and his God-given right to choose his own bride. What a way to start a new marriage by insulting a man’s choice.

  154. Dalrock says:

    Mitch

    They hinted strongly at it but were coy enough to not say it outright.

    How much of this is intentional and how much is just the product of a particular subconscious mindset? I can’t imagine Ann Wilson actually coming right out and saying she deliberately used the wake up call strategy to whip Dave into submission. But I can definitely agree that they see this as just the way things are done in 21st century conservative Christianity. Oblivious husband needs to be shaken out of his complacency and he needs to be hit where it hurts or else he won’t learn. Ignore 1 Corinthians 7 because Dave uses it as a weapon. Ignore 1 Peter 3 because it won’t work on obtuse guys like Dave. All stick. No carrot.

    Right. I call this the wake up call model, and it is endemic.

    [Edit: I see upon rereading that you used the term itself. I’ll leave the link for others who aren’t familiar with it.]

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    @Derek Ramsey

    What these suggestions do is spit on a man’s authority. You want a woman to publicly shame herself and you want her to do it in front of her new husband for all to see. Not only do you question the honor of the woman, you question the honor of the man and his God-given right to choose his own bride.

    Thanks for writing this. Before I had read this evidence that a pig had been cleaned I knew (thanks to Dalrock) that chivalry was the instrument which subverts patriarchy, but I did not understand that it has also been the solvent of honor more generally. Your false statements revealed how misapplication of the term honor causead it to become so meaningless as to be useless, and therefore discarded.

  156. BillyS says:

    How do you know of this repentance Derek? You say she can’t do it or it violates the Scriptures (without clearly noting them). Assuming that repentance is very dangerous.

  157. white says:

    @Cane
    DoW IV this Derek guy already lol

  158. thedeti says:

    If a man is going to marry, he needs to go into that relationship with open eyes, fully aware of what he’s signing up for and who he’s tying himself up with. In the modern world that means an exploration of social media for a start, and gettting to know her friends beyond that.

    And he should use the personal information aggregators. I won’t name names here but they can easily be found. All you need to know is first and last name, approximate age, and city of residence/domicile. You can find out a lot. You can find out past last names, past marriages, whom they were married to, where they used to live, possibly where they went to school, where they work now, where they used to work, and a lot of other info.

    Use this to see if these women are telling the truth about who they are, who they were, what they do now and what they used to do. This isn’t going to give you medical or sexual history. It will, though, reveal some indications of life patterns, and whether they’re being honest about those life patterns.

  159. Novaseeker says:

    Shunning IS what is happening. Low-value males (unattractive men, men with lower IQ and lower earning power) are largely shunned as are unattractive/morbidly obese females. Now men are “shamed” for “shunning” the obese females (for “body shaming” lol) but they are still shunned. Never-married-moms? They are shunned if they are ugly. If they are still super hot (and that is a very tiny percentage of never-married-moms) then no, they will not be shunned.

    This is true. It’s often the easiest explanation as to what is happening in the dating/mating scene — how hot is the person in question? Single mothers not getting married/remarried? Likely not hot, because in my observation the hot babymommas have precisely no problem at all finding someone who wants to marry them who is himself reasonably attractive if she really wants to marry/remarry. The reason why there are so many singles in the church (or quasi-in, and not showing up on Sunday) is that they are not attractive enough — this is men and women alike. Attractive Christians have no problem getting married unless they are pathologically picky (there re some of these, and they can’t be helped really). Unattractive people of both sexes will have problems marrying, whether they are Christian or not, unless they are comfortable marrying another unattractive person — unsurprisingly, quite a few unattractive people prefer to remain single than to marry another unattractive person. Attractiveness is basically everything when people are considering mating and marriage (n.b. — not necessarily “looks”, but attractiveness as measured by the opposite sex).

  160. L.C. says:

    Are we shaming fornication before marriage or just getting “caught” by reaping the consequences and getting pregnant? Does a non-virgin male have to be humble and publicly acknowledge his repentance for having fornicated in the past and that the woman is taking a risk in marrying him should a baby mama show up later and make a claim to the family’s resources that are due the wife and any children born from the marriage?

  161. Derek Ramsey says:

    @BillyS

    “You say she can’t do it or it violates the Scriptures (without clearly noting them).”

    I did note them: Matthew 18, Matthew 7:1-5, John 8:1-11, and Isaiah 43:25. Repentence, forgiveness, mercy, and grace means the sin is gone and the penalties rescinded. Shaming anyone cleansed violates scripture.

    “How do you know of this repentance Derek? … Assuming that repentance is very dangerous.”

    God knows the heart [Psalm 44:20-21; Luke 16:15; Acts 15:7-8]. I don’t know. It is not my responsibility to judge. I was not the one sinned against and I am not in spiritual authority over the couple. It is, instead, the responsibility of the husband, the pastor, and God [Romans 12:19]. I respect a man’s patriarchal right and responsibility to make those determinations for himself and his wife. He is the one she sinned against by fornicating and if he forgives her, there is nothing for me to say or do. The role of the church extends only to ensure the pastor follows scripture. As Original Laura noted, if unrepentant, the pastor must refuse to marry them.

    Do you respect and honor a man’s spiritual authority and patriarchy? Or do you sneer at the idea of honoring a man’s choice to bring honor to a single mom?

  162. Dalrock says:

    @L.C.

    Are we shaming fornication before marriage or just getting “caught” by reaping the consequences and getting pregnant? Does a non-virgin male have to be humble and publicly acknowledge his repentance for having fornicated in the past and that the woman is taking a risk in marrying him should a baby mama show up later and make a claim to the family’s resources that are due the wife and any children born from the marriage?

    The original post was in response to a Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary article shaming Christian men for not marrying single mothers. The article ignored repentance and disrespected the men who marry single mothers. This second post was a thought experiment, doing the opposite. What if instead of ignoring repentance and disrespecting men who marry single mothers, we acknowledged repentance and respected men who marry single mothers?

  163. thedeti says:

    Jason:

    Everyone in Christ gets God’s grace. They still have to walk out earthly consequences. King David sinned with Bathsheba – adultery and murder. He repented and was forgiven and remained king. But… David’s child with Bathsheba died, his son Absalom by Bathsheba made war on David (his own father) and was killed, and he saw his kingdom divided and at perpetual war.

    St. Paul repented and became a Christ-follower, went on to write 2/3 of the New Testament. He had a thorn in his flesh that God would not remove.

    The truly repentant slut gets God’s grace but still has to walk out earthly consequences. Leaving aside single moms, repentant sluts have to deal with:

    –STDs, some of which have long term effects.

    –The mental and emotional baggage, sexual hangups, dysfunctions, and defense mechanisms that come from years of using men and being used by men.

    –The inability/unwillingness to muster up sexual attraction for a man who will accept her (in part because of her taste for alpha; in part because the pool of men who will accept her is comprised primarily of unattractive men)

    –The underlying personality disorders, depression, daddy issues, whatever else, that prompted the promiscuity.

    –Abortion(s) and the long term guilt/shame associated with them.

    Yes, she has God’s grace and mercy. This does not mean all the problems/issues/whatever that caused her promiscuity or that was caused by her promiscuity, just magically disappear the moment she says the Sinner’s Prayer. There they all are, waiting for her considered attention.

    Repentance isn’t a one-time thing. It is something the repentant sinner must do every day. And that involves months and perhaps years of working through, figuring out, resolving, and making peace with, all the childhood issues, the baggage, the hangups, the dysfunctions, the defenses, the emotions, and the problems – things that both she did, and things that were done to her.

    Keep in mind that the man who accepts the repentant slut must very often walk through all her emotions, problems, and issues. He has to deal with and help her unpack and sort through all that baggage. His sex life suffers because of her lack of attraction, sexual refusal, and negative emotions associated with sex. Of course, it doesn’t help that she’s had to settle VERY hard just to find someone willing to marry her. The prime problem is her lack of sexual attraction, which is directly related to the time wasted slutting it up with more attractive men and her inability to be attracted to the men who will have her after she wasted all that time.

  164. Oscar says:

    “Good” news, gents! There is redemption for pedophiles, after all! The only catch is that they have to dress in drag.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/17/registered-child-sex-offender-participates-librarys-drag-queen-program/

    I’m sure you’ve heard of a trend amongst public libraries that have taken off lately – that of drag queen story hours.

    The library didn’t do a background check on Garza. What kind of system is in place to choose the readers in this program? There’s isn’t a school in town, public or private, that would allow a volunteer to work with the children without a criminal background check. That’s the reality of today’s world. Garza was convicted in 2008 of assaulting an eight-year-old boy.

  165. thedeti says:

    So, given all this, i candidly can’t blame men for rejecting single moms and sluts, even those who are truly repentant and truly are doing the work to change. It takes years to deal with the crap both visited on them, and that they brought on themselves. Not only do they have to work through it, if they want a man, they have to find a man who is willing to take all that on.

    They have to find a man who is willing to patiently work through and help them work through all that baggage. And pay for the therapy and treatment associated with it.

    They have to find a man who is willing to accept that recurrent STDs might have rendered these women unable to have sex for periods of time, have rendered them infertile or pregnancy much more difficult, or exposed themselves to higher risks of cancer and other diseases. They then have to accept that ongoing sex lives with these women will expose them to risks. (There’s been an uptick in HPV-related throat cancers in men, resulting mostly from those men performing oral sex on HPV infected women. You won’t read that in most medical news, because it contravenes today’s gynocentric narratives.)

    They have to find a man who’s willing to settle for boring, duty sex, because of her feelings of lack of attraction.

    So, I don’t really blame men for saying “yeah, I’ll pass” when faced with the fact that sluts and baby mamas are his only choices.

    That said — pretty, attractive, not-fat sluts and baby mamas will have no problems finding some man willing to wife them up, because hot. It’s all about hotness now.

  166. 7817 says:

    So, I don’t really blame men for saying “yeah, I’ll pass” when faced with the fact that sluts and baby mamas are his only choices.

    Right on. MGTOW is a valid choice, if it’s actually a lifestyle and not just an excuse to play a victim. What other choice does a man have if he is unable to find a suitable mate?

  167. vfm7916 says:

    Anything other than hard shame will lead right back to where Christianity is now.

    So I’ll just click “Decline.”

  168. OKRickety says:

    Derek Ramsey,

    ‘It is not my responsibility to judge. I was not the one sinned against and I am not in spiritual authority over the couple. It is, instead, the responsibility of the husband, the pastor, and God [Romans 12:19]. I respect a man’s patriarchal right and responsibility to make those determinations for himself and his wife. He is the one she sinned against by fornicating and if he forgives her, there is nothing for me to say or do. The role of the church extends only to ensure the pastor follows scripture.’

    If we change the scenario somewhat, let’s suppose the wife-to-be had sex with someone other than her fiancé and became pregnant. She clearly has sinned against God and against her fiancé. Presuming she is a member of the church, then I believe she has also sinned against the congregation (the evil may well be apparent to the general public) and thus she should confess and repent to the congregation, too. Do you agree? Does it matter if the sex was before or after she became engaged?

    Let’s modify that scenario further to have no pregnancy. Has she sinned against the congregation? If everybody  in town knows she has been promiscuous, has she sinned against the congregation?

    As an aside, I take issue with your delegation of responsibility to the pastor (as the representative of the church?) because I believe this should be the responsibility of the church elders as a group as they are the spiritual overseers of the congregation. Note: Although I think a pastor should be an elder, I do not consider that to be a given. I believe there should be at least one other elder and I think no pastor should ever be considered the head elder.

  169. thedeti says:

    MGTOW is a valid choice, if it’s actually a lifestyle and not just an excuse to play a victim. What other choice does a man have if he is unable to find a suitable mate?

    Well, most of these women (repentant sluts, baby mamas, and women over 35) are marrying because marrying a “meh, so so, guess he’ll do” guy is better than not marrying at all. Marrying a guy she’s really not all that into is better than facing the next 50 years alone. Marrying a “really good friend” and having that “friend” there in a few decades (hopefully) to pay the bills, empty your bedpan and push your wheelchair is better than definitely having no one there at all.

    And, marrying a “meh, so so, guess he’ll do” guy allows her to face The Sisterhood and say “At least I got someone, anyone to marry me. I got a guy to make The Ultimate Commitment to me, even if this marriage crashes and burns at my own hand.”

    That beats facing The Sisterhood with head bowed and having to admit “I could not get anyone to marry me. No one wanted to marry me. No one chose me. Or I made the attempts to choose me so difficult, so costly and so risky that I could not persuade any man to take me on.”

  170. Frank K says:

    I’m sure you’ve heard of a trend amongst public libraries that have taken off lately – that of drag queen story hours.

    What I dobn’t get is why any sane parent would take their child to one of these “story hours”. I would expect the trannie to show up and find an non existent audience. But, it appears, some parents are all on board with this perversion. I suppose that soon we’ll have proud pedophiles demanding to be allowed to read stories to children and libraries and other organizations will cave and allow them in, while proud prog parents cheer and hoot their approval.

  171. Zac says:

    @Frank K
    “What I dobn’t get is why any sane parent would take their child to one of these [drag queen] “story hours”. ”

    The answer is Liberal social pressure and posturing. The moral wellbeing of children takes a back seat to ones social standing within the “progressive” culture. If any parent would decline such an invitation, there liberal peers would shame them as old-fashioned or biggetted. Each “progressive” parent wants to out do (and be seen out doing) their liberal peer group in how much they teach their children to be “open” to others. This is how perversion is normalized.

  172. vfm7916 says:

    @Zac @Frank K : “Virtue signaling”

    @thedeti : That last paragraph of yours would be said by no woman ever. What would be said was “There aren’t any real men out there [worthy of me] anymore.”

  173. thedeti says:

    VFM:

    Of course it wouldn’t be said. But the women it encompasses would know that that last paragraph is the truth. In their heart of hearts, they know.

  174. Derek Ramsey says:

    @OKRickety

    “I believe she has also sinned against the congregation…and thus she should confess and repent to the congregation, too. Do you agree?”

    If someone sins against you, then you have two choices:

    1) You have the unquestionable right to forgive the sin-debt they owe you.
    2) Seek their repentance and restoration in private. Failing that, a group of witnesses. Failing that, the whole church.

    Now, if the sin is so public that the whole congregation bears witness, then the process remains the same: the church sends its representative(s) to confront the sin privately and discretely. The church as a whole should only be involved in direct confrontation if the question is the excommunication of a member upon refusal to repent. An excommunicated member should then be treated like any other non-believer. That is the extent of punishment. Any other punishment is the responsibility of civil authorities and God.

    “If everybody in town knows she has been promiscuous, has she sinned against the congregation?”

    Did she sin against the congregation or did she sin against someone else and the congregation found out about it?

    This is related to the legal concepts of proportionality and standing. The people directly affected (husband/fiance, family, etc.) and those in spiritual authority (pastor/elders) bear the primary responsibility for correction. Others should bring it to the attention of the responsible or mind their own business [1 Timothy 5:13; 2 Corinthians 12:20]. Sometimes it’s also wise to just leave it to God [Ecclesiastes 3:17; Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 2]. All reactions must be balanced against hypocrisy (e.g. selective condemnation).

    “I believe this should be the responsibility of the church elders as a group as they are the spiritual overseers of the congregation”

    In my church the pastor handled marital counseling under the authority of the church elders. This is what I had in mind, but it isn’t the only way to do things.

  175. seventiesjason says:

    Deti….

    So why was this post made? No hope? No changes? No possibilities….well, there are if the man will pick up all her baggage….pay her bills, walk with her, help her et al……..which is what a man does anyway even if she is a virgin, marries young, and is of course *hot*

    Plenty of “good christian girls” from the above situations have blown up marriages too, odds are lower….but it happens.

    Who comes into this world born perfectly without sin, without some baggage by the time they hit 18? A traumatic event, death of a parent at a tender age…witnessing something pretty bad at certain point……..or age……..abuse, growing up ooor, or english as not your native language, narcissistic parent or parents…..coming from a single parent household……the list is endless…..and the trials one faces my be easy for one…but difficult for that person.

    I know very well of the consequences of sin. I live it daily. I am reminded of it daily.

    It’s just getting to the point of men:

    If you didn’t meet your smokin’ hot wife when she was 18-22 and she was a virgin, led some blameless “holy” life in church….you won’t ever have a good marriage. Men, just go MGTOW and listen to men who did find the unicorn “lecture” you about how its hopeless for you.

    People change. If we were all held accountable for every sin of the flesh, lust, or “before we repented” or “found Jesus” there would no hope for anyone ever.

    Perhaps I may be a tad extreme……..but even a man looking at the qualities to “vet” a wife, 99% are going to fail. Even the ones who did marry the unicorn, and well…….please don’t tell me there are never disagreements or challenges….or situations change……a miscarrige, depression, problems with the kids…..loss of a job and lower income….tough times……..a horrible accident that leaves one of the partners really in a bad way……….

    On the one hand, I hear that “men need to be leaders and lead a woman in marriage” and then on the other “she can’t help it, she won’t be led ever you need frame 24 hrs a day or you will be made into a simp”

    Is there such a thing as love, trust and real friendship in marriage? Heck…my parents were not even practicing Christians most of their lives and had a better marriage than the supposed ones who were devout from day one.

  176. Oscar says:

    @ vfm7916 @Zac @Frank K

    It’s more than just “Virtue signaling”. Those children are child sacrifices. Their parents aren’t burning them alive to Molech, but they’re sacrifices nonetheless.

  177. okrahead says:

    God created man in His own image. To fear God and keep his commandments is the whole of man. God created woman from man’s rib to be the man’s helper.

    If a man is not keeping God’s commandments he is a failure and of no value as a man, for that is why he was created.

    If a woman is not helping a man in this work she is a failure and of no value as a woman, for that is why she was created.

    A man who is unrepentant cannot fulfill his purpose, nor can an unrepentant woman fulfill hers.

    Some men’s sins are hidden, and some are evident before all; the same is true of women.

    If I was a thief I must no longer steal, but labor with my hands, providing for myself and giving to those in need. This will be evident before all men.

    If I was an extortioner I must leave my former criminal enterprise, and to the best of my ability restore what I can to those I abused.

    If I was living in adultery I must leave the woman I was with, even if I love her.

    Now, if a woman has lived as a whore, how does she mirror the above actions?

  178. vfm7916 says:

    @oscar

    Virtue signaling is the simultaneous violation of the first, second, and fifth commandments. That encompasses the sacrifices you mention.

  179. shmohawk1 says:

    To add on to what was mentioned above —

    In Eastern Orthodox traditions, a remarriage ceremony following a divorce is a completely different liturgy than a first marriage ceremony, and is centered around the idea of repentance (and follows a long process designed to evidence that repentance) , with a spouse that has been divorced acknowledging his/her failures in the previous marriage. It is not nearly as upbeat as a normal wedding, and makes it clear to all that while what is taking place may be better than singleness, it is far short of the ideal.

    Western traditions could learn much from this.

  180. Spike says:

    In a previous post Dalrock, one of your commentators mentioned the Victorian-era mode of divorce:
    -The husband would have to leave behind all of his property
    -The wife had to leave behind her children.

    In short, both parties had to leave valued assets behind. This then would be a precedent for moden single-mother marriage.
    Want to get married? Put your child up for adoption.
    As it is the mothers fault she is a single mother, then the price she pays is to leave her prized asset behind. The husband is advantaged, since he doesn’t have zero authority over the mother’s child. Nor will “real dad” show up persistently and cause trouble.
    There would be a great deal of merit in the model.

  181. seventiesjason says:

    No help for the child Spike?…..The “orphanages” are brimming full of unwanted / left / disregarded children……many bounced between foster care, group homes, to family, back into care and then at 18???? Kick them into the street! Go live on welfare, be a mature adult, be responsible…those problems you faced of no fault of your own by being dumped into this system? Too bad. Figure it out! Not our problem!

    Many of my Scouts were in situations like this. Let’s not talk of the abuse that happened in foster care in supposed “christian” homes either…..it does.

    Then lets say they come to church, or “try” Christianity. Nope, you’re hopeless. You have no frame. No game. You are a bit scarred from your youth. You’re never gonna be better! You cannot get married. You must be a provider. Have a good job. You had better be a virgin if you are a woman. Not these things?

    Just live with the consequences of your sin. There is no marriage in heaven, and joy? Happiness? Made anew in Christ?

    Just forget about that. You have to be able to speak Greek, be of the elect or raised in our tradition or we won’t accept you!

  182. Spike says:

    seventiesjason March 18, 2019 at 6:18 pm
    Jason,
    You need to get a grip and start thinking with your head, not knee-jerking to emotions.
    The purpose of rules and laws is to modify behaviour. What I’ve proposed above is a law that signals that there is a price to be paid for marriage, just like as of old there was a price to be paid for leaving marriage.
    Should this permeate down into the culture – and its doubtful it would ever get off the ground in the globo-homo-gynocracies in which we live – it has the effect of modifying behaviour. That means less of the problem over time. The alternative is to keep shaming men – men like yourself and me -into marrying sluts and be walking wallets for their bastard Alpha spawns, sanctioned by the State and by a Church that should know better.
    Mine is not the only area in which this thinking is applied. In the 1980s, Saint Bob Geldorf and Saint Bono Vox launched Band Aid and Live Aid to “help 40 million starving Ethiopians”. So they did. Now the world has 100 million starving Ethiopians and a billion starving Africans all living in failed states that will increase to 4 billion by 2100.
    We’re faced with 2 choices: Stop welfare and get the welfare-dependent to fix their lives, or accept a multiplying, snowballing welfare dependency in perpetuity. There are no other options. Choose.

  183. seventiesjason says:

    Spike.

    40 millions starving Eithopians / 1 billion starving Africans was not mentioned in your post. You just said “want to get married? put your child up for adoption”

    And in Dalrocks OP, he mentions an alternative to “shaming men” and that isn’t even good enough for most of the comments here.

    Solutions to some of the issues isn’t going to be “either / or”
    It might have to be “none of the above”

    Speaking of shaming….your reply opened with “thinking with my head and not knee jerking”

    So, what I said isn’t true? We don’t have a problem in this area if women “just gave their kids up for adoption”? The kids will be fine

    Now this is where I perhaps would be knee-jerking……but let’s suppose we do just that. WIfe woman wants to marry? She gives the kid up for adoption, by the “merit of the model” as you claimed it would be……Many of men here would be then telling us “Selfish, she gave up a child so she could be married…….the Bible says……………….”

    What I am discovering is that many here in the comments don’t want things to change. They just don’t like women. At all. Any of them…..and let alone a child in this situation.

    Don’t worry, he’ll get over it

  184. Spike says:

    Jason.
    I said, ”Knee jerking” because you are being emotional not rational.
    It is the single mother whose fault it is that the child is fatherless. It is therefore her responsibility. It isn’t the ”new” father’s, nor is it the church’s. Laws should reflect that.

    If this solution isn’t ”either-or” but rather, ”none of the above” as you say, then what is your proposal?

    And yes, I’m tired of refugees putting their children in front of them on rafts and leaky boats telling us we’re heartless if we don’t pick up child plus parents. Well, we didn’t put them in those situations. Children are parent’s responsibilities, not Westerner’s, Christian’s, the Church’s or new / step father’s.

  185. Anon says:

    70sjason said :

    What I am discovering is that many here in the comments don’t want things to change. They just don’t like women. At all. Any of them

    I thought you said that learning Game is somehow ‘liking women too much’ and ‘going to lengths to increase their happiness’.

    Which is it? Furthermore, how is a virgin qualified to tell non-virgins (who are either happily married men, or have bedded dozens of women, or both) that they ‘hate women’?

  186. seventiesjason says:

    Anon, never said anything that stated “liking women too much” nor did I say “going lenghts to increase their happiness”

    How is a man like you who is convinced I am gentically Beta even concerned about what I state, say or even have an opinion on? As a virgin, you men really have no say on purity and how hard it is to stay that way………espcially as a man.

    My take on Game is doing what they want so they have sex with you….that includes pandering to what they want exactly, saying what they want to hear, and while at the same time claiming they are in charge. No, she’s letting you play the Game…..men who live this bs aere the ones being played.

  187. feministhater says:

    What I am discovering is that many here in the comments don’t want things to change. They just don’t like women. At all. Any of them…..and let alone a child in this situation.

    Haha! Think of the chillens! Would someone please think of the chillens?! Yawn!

    Go marry your singe mom, Jason. Fix the world. Enough of the procrastinating. The single mums await and your resources are required. You won’t get sex, you won’t get respect, you won’t even get a pat on the head but if you don’t do it, Jason, you just don’t like women, any of them.

    Now.. get to it..

  188. seventiesjason says:

    Spike. How does refugees on a boat reflect on Dalrock proposing the idea he set fourth with Bee’s help in the OP?

    So if a man is killed in one of “protecting national interest wars” (oil) and the child is now fatherless, that’s the woman’s fault? A man decides to be a cassinova, gets a woman pregnant….well, she should have had an abortion, should have been on better birth conrol, she should have not had sex. No one told that to the man evidently.

    When the Vietnam War ended……many people who did fight bravely for the RVN after the fall of Saigon were sending their little children to the American bases to “airlifted” out of Vietnam. They knew that they were going to probably be killed by the humane forces of North Vietnam, torrtured, or imprisoned They also knew their children would face a grizzly death. Many got their children out of that country……even in the death camps and work camps of the Nazis……..parents still insisted on school for their kids….even though many knew they were probably going to die. Many a work camp promise made to unrealted people “raise my child for me if I don’t make it” were made.

    Just put them in orphanages…….look, your “make your choice” looks great in a palour forum of sorts like this to solving the problem….but human nature is never calculated into any of this.

    So…..what if a woman refuses to put her child up for adoption? You gonna arrest her? Not let her marry her new husband (so they will just move in together)? Remove the child by force and throw them into an orphanage? Fine the mother? Parade her through the street because she’s a bad mom and won’t give up her child for adoption?

    If man gets involved with a woman like this……and is a Christian….guess what, he gets that too. He doesn’t want that? Then don’t marry a single mom.

  189. seventiesjason says:

    Femhater?

    huh?????????????????

  190. feministhater says:

    When the Vietnam War ended……many people who did fight bravely for the RVN after the fall of Saigon were sending their little children to the American bases to “airlifted” out of Vietnam. They knew that they were going to probably be killed by the humane forces of North Vietnam, torrtured, or imprisoned They also knew their children would face a grizzly death. Many got their children out of that country……even in the death camps and work camps of the Nazis……..parents still insisted on school for their kids….even though many knew they were probably going to die. Many a work camp promise made to unrealted people “raise my child for me if I don’t make it” were made.

    Your comparisons are quite bad. Comparing two scenarios that placed people in unfortunate circumstances against those of a single mother who made herself so by choice and through sin is not fair. You’re playing on emotions.

    Just because the single mom has children does in no way require that she be given more help than a homeless man who lost everything.

    Why are we not shaming single women to marry homeless men? Jason, I’m all ears.

  191. feministhater says:

    What do you find difficult to understand, Jason? Can you be more specific.

  192. feministhater says:

    Single Christian ladies who bemoan their lack of suitable partners should be told to look upon the homeless men who are pure as the sinless Son of God, far more than these women deserve in a husband.. would you not agree, Jason?

  193. feeriker says:

    What I dobn’t get is why any sane parent would take their child to one of these “story hours”.

    Seriously?

    You are apparently under the inexplicable delusion that American parents care about the wellbeing of their children. On what evidence exactly do you base this belief?

  194. seventiesjason says:

    Fem….if you were following the discussion Spike and I were having, he brought up staving aficans, billion people, and refugees on boats…….I countered with what I mentioned.

    You’re missing the point. I am not saying “marry a single mother” but there are situations where she was made single……the comments are making it impossible for a woman who made a mistake at 18, or 19 to pay for it for the rest of her life. That;s it. She blew it. Damaged goods. Soiled dove. Useless.

    What is your solution then? Kill them? Throw them in jail for this? Not let them in church? What are you going to do with them? How about the “unfortunate” situation some were put in? Pressured by a PUA type…..that;s now her faulty right? I mean, women can’t help it anyway……..according to PUA mentality…so why should it be held against them?

    Put their child in an government run orphanage and have that child guaranteed to be abused, raped, drugged and tormented and have zero stability…..we’re doing it for the single moms sake you see…so she can “repent” or be accepted by society again……

    Nowhere did I say you have to marry a single mom, or divorced mom. However, men who can’t find a wife, and who are Christian, and who are probably over 40, and who want to be married are not going to have much of a choice….they are going to really have to see the fruit of the spirit…..it will take work and time…….a fifty year old man is not going to find some 18 year old virgin, and I doubt ANY of the men in here with daughter would let such a man marry their daughter……..even if he was the most devout of men to Christ.

    Myself…..asked a few single moms of worth out. Was told no. Have to deal.

  195. Warthog says:

    @Dalrock we need a “like” button on this puppy. Next thing you know dalrock.com could be the new alt-right social media behemoth.

    [D: Thank you.]

  196. feeriker says:

    Saint Patricks day pretty much rocked around here.

    I wore my proud Protestant Orange to church yesterday.

  197. Spike says:

    seventiesjason says: March 18, 2019 at 8:47 pm
    Spike. How does refugees on a boat reflect on Dalrock proposing the idea he set fourth with Bee’s help in the OP?
    One word, Jason: Responsibility. A single mother who can’t select a man with a marital endurance ethic who has children with said man, wears that responsibility. She has ignored the wishes of her father, her parents family and greater society around her. She wears that.
    I’m not saying she be ostracized, but rather that those of us who do marry and have children within wedlock have that distinction made. If that doesn’t happen the value of marriage declines to non-viability, as it has.

    As for victims of war, that is a separate issue that shouldn’t be conflated here. The examples I have raised, I’ve used to demonstrate how welfare perversely works and we need either to re-think it, or be swallowed by it.
    And for the record, I don’t support and have vigorously campaigned against, US wars of aggression and wars for Israel.

  198. CSI says:

    Single Christian moms are as pure as the sinless Son of God, which is more than you deserve in a wife.

    I first thought Dalrock wrote this statement himself as a parody of Parkisons’ views. But this outrageous nonsense is what Parkison himself wrote, and seems to believe. His attitude reminds me of that of SJWs towards their “allies”. You read feminist articles where they reiterate that as an ally (e.g. white person and/or man) you deserve neither praise nor reward or even recognition for doing the right thing.

    I think the underlying reason is that they find their “allies” odious, and cannot bring themselves to offer them any kind words, even when deserved. I wonder if the same principle applies here – that Parkison’s finds Christian men so contemptible that he cannot bring himself to suggest they deserve praise ever, even for marrying single mothers.

  199. Dave says:

    Imagine if we simply made a public note in the wedding ceremony, and in the run-up to the wedding, that the single mother understood the seriousness of her sin and was repentant of it, and was deeply grateful that her husband-to-be was willing to be so gracious as to marry her despite the extra burden she has placed on their marriage?

    I definitely can imagine this. The only problem is, it simply isn’t true, and making a public note of it wouldn’t solve the underlying problem. While most single mothers tend to understand their sharply declined MMV and SMV (that is why, I believe, they tend to offer sex to their new targets quite easily), they are not really repentant of their behavior. They often look for every excuse imaginable to justify their bad behavior, blaming everyone except themselves for making a series of bad decisions that landed them where they are.

    Another problem with this approach, judging by the predictable female nature, and societal trends, is that it can actually encourage slutty behavior. The teenage girl who witnessed the extreme sluttiness of her older sister, who ended up marrying a great guy, might assume that she too can do anything and end up with the same luck. Moreover, over time, these “public notes” become increasingly acceptable in society, just as sex before marriage did…and divorce did…and countless unacceptable behaviors did.

    Methinks the young men should be publicly warned, loudly and repeatedly from the pulpit, not to get involved with single mothers at all. In fact, they should be publicly advised, in the presence of the women–young and old alike—to look for virgins to marry.

    And the young women should be taught to look for hard working and potentially dependable providers as future husbands as well, especially when young men are present. The high price of promiscuity should be clearly and unmistakably highlighted to these women as well. They should be made to understand that, even if they end up with a great guy as a husband after a life of sluttiness, their marital satisfaction will be lower than their virgin sisters, and their risk of marital disruption is much higher.

    All this can be done in a spirit of love and humility. Failing to warn these young people, both men and women alike, is, in my opinion, great wickedness. It is not love at all.

  200. Opus says:

    No one unless they are Welsh and live in Wales celebrate Saint David’s Day which is the first of March. No one unless they are Scottish and live in Scotland celebrate St Andrews Day and I have no idea when that day might be, and no one (because we English find it too embarrassing to do so) celebrates St George’s Day the 26th April and even though and by good happenstance it is also Shakespeare’s birthday which is surely good enough reason to celebrate, but everyone on the 17th March becomes so it seems an honourary Irishman – though frankly it seems to be a marketing ploy of Guinness. – and one always assumes the day only applies to those in the Republic of Ireland – Catholic – rather than in DUP land, that is to say Ulster – Protestant. Orthodox?

    That Americans indulge in this strikes me as even more strange. Having narrowly avoided being blown up by an Irish bomb and been generally wary of their bombs which seemed to follow me around let me put it this way, The Irish are not exactly my favourite people, not that I have much love – indifference actually – for two of the other three groups of people to whom I referred both of whom hate us though they do not show it with bombs – yet. Had I not won the lottery of life and been born English I would had I been given the choice been Japanese.

  201. Oscar says:

    @ Opus

    Had I not won the lottery of life and been born English I would had I been given the choice been Japanese.

    It’s the tentacle porn, isn’t it?

  202. Opus says:

    @Oscar

    I did not say I claimed to understand the Japanese but they are endlessly fascinating – Sumo, Godzilla, Geisha, Bonzai, Kanji, Chun-Li. Sony, Samurai, Ring.

    Ohayou Gazaimasou

  203. seventiesjason says:

    Lol…St David’s Day…….wore a small daffodill on my lapel at work. I didn’t make potato leek soup because I frankly didn’t have the time and it gets “tired” quickly if you let it set in the fridge if you have leftovers…..

    Did make a cream tea after work and reflected on memories of my mother growing up. Pleasant enough day…..alas

    “i beidio â bod yn Gymraeg yw cael llwy arian, ond cân sy’n curo yn eich calon…..”
    “being Welsh does not mean having a silver spoon, but a song that beats on your heart”

  204. thedeti says:

    Jason:

    The promise of being washed clean when one repents of one’s sins is a spiritual washing, of standing blameless before Christ.

    A single mom can repent, stop having sex, stop partying, and start living right, and she stands blameless before Christ.

    That does NOT mean, however, she gets a clean slate before men. Especially men to whom she presents herself for possible marriage. That does not mean men are required to consider her for marriage. It also does not mean she is relieved of the earthly consequences of her sin. It also does not mean that a man is required to step in and help alleviate those earthly consequences.

    I am not saying “marry a single mother” but there are situations where she was made single……the comments are making it impossible for a woman who made a mistake at 18, or 19 to pay for it for the rest of her life. That;s it. She blew it. Damaged goods. Soiled dove. Useless.

    Almost all the time, those “situations where she was made single” involve her choice of a bad man to father her children, or she kicked that man out of her life.

    And, yes. Sometimes, you make one mistake and you have to pay for it here on earth for the rest of your life. Some dumb kid who commits felony murder at 19? Life, no parole. Or 50 years, out in 30. And a record after that forever. Some women chose the wrong man who gave them AIDS or herpes – the gift that keeps on giving.

    I was a cigarette smoker for 15 years. I quit almost 15 years ago. I have the beginnings of COPD. I will pay for the rest of my life for my decisions to smoke cigarettes. I will pay for it with reduced lung capacity, which i can feel. I live with it every day. Because of my choices. Have I done better? Yes. I stopped smoking. It was very, very hard, but I quit. Do i still have to live with the consequences of my choice? Yes, I do, for as long as I live in this body.

    So it is with single mothers. Can they do better? Yes. Do many of them do better? Yes. And it was very hard, emotionally, financially, physically, socially. Do they still have to live with the consequences? Yes, they do. They have to live with lower relationship market value. They have to live with the fact that higher value men will not consider them at all for anything other than pump and dumps. They have to live with the fact that if they really do want marriage, they will have to settle very deeply, especially on sexual attractiveness and status.

    Their decisions to bear a child out of wedlock, or to pick crappy men to father their children, or to kick good men out of their lives, or to reject good men, say a lot about them and their character.

    So it is here on planet Earth. God saves us spiritually, but makes us walk out our earthly consequences. The two robbers crucified with Christ? One repented on the cross and was forgiven. Even though he repented, the criminal sentence against him was still carried out. He still hung on that cross until he was dead. He had to walk out his earthly consequence. He recognized that when he said in essence “I’m getting what I deserve”.

    In today’s modern church there is way too much “God forgave me, therefore, I should not have to bear the temporal consequences of my sins and decisions”. But God never, ever made us such promises.

  205. seventiesjason says:

    Deti, I am not disagreeing with anything you have said, or have stated……however, many do remarry, many have repented, understood their sin, and consequences thereof and have gone on to marry and have had decent marriages. Do many not? Do many view their past choices as “well, I was forgiven…..therefore I deserve a top tier man” Yes, many do think and believe this way. Seen it firsthand

    The tone of this comment section belies that this “cannot happen” and if it does “the man is simp, gimp, dullard, a fool and loser for making such a choice” or “these women are not even worthy of forgiveness”

  206. Joe2 says:

    @CSI

    I wonder if the same principle applies here – that Parkison’s finds Christian men so contemptible that he cannot bring himself to suggest they deserve praise ever, even for marrying single mothers.

    Pr Parkison at the end of his article mentions that what he wrote applies to women seeking a husband as well. He addressed it to men because there are more single mothers with children than single men with children. The principles he mentioned apply equally to both groups. I accept his statement as prima facie evidence he doesn’t find Christian men contemptible.

  207. Charles B says:

    @CSI, I think you’re correct. His distaste for them seems almost exactly like that of the modern harpy for all men, most especially anyone polite and civil who attempts to reason with them.

  208. Charles B says:

    @ Joe2, but that assertion at the end doesn’t jibe with his first point. Which is that single Christian moms are so pure and holy that a man who has accepted Christ doesn’t deserve her. Because if this does cut both ways, then his statement in point 1 is nonsensical. If it doesn’t, then point 1 stands but has no merit Biblically or empirically.

    And all of this comes back around to the better question. Why isn’t he telling those women to follow Biblical advice? If they want to marry these Christian men, they could just follow Biblical models. But he doesn’t call for them to do that, instead he excoriates men, AGAIN. It follows the man-hater pattern too well for his post script to carry much weight.

  209. BillyS says:

    The exceptions prove the rule, as the saying goes, Jason. No one said some don’t escape bad ends and you even agreed with that when Deti noted it again.

    The core problem is that so many do not want a few to suffer today to help fewer suffer in the future. So we cannot emphasize how much a single mother messed up even though doing so would help keep some other potential single mothers from going that route.

    It is not compassionate to spread a message that ends up sending others into sin, however good it may feel for the one being comforted by that same message.

  210. seventiesjason says:

    So again BillyS…like every topic on Dalrock….what are you men doing about in your own churches?
    You calling out single mothers? You calling out women who divorced for un-Biblical reasons? You telling them “you can repent, but once a ho, always a ho” or “soiled dove”

    None of you are doing nothing of the sort; yet talking all tough about what a churchianity pastor “should” be doing…….how many of you standing up to your Bishops? Deacons? PriestsPastors, and other “leaders” (the gossipy wife, the praise team leader……who usually has nailed every hot girl in the church).

    Are you “leaving” your churches because they don’t make a stand on this and let the whole church know that this “single mom” is unworthy of marriage and she “knew what she was doing” and she needs to be told!

    None of yo are doing nothing of the sort….but again…..expecting a limp noodle of a pastor to “step up and do something about this! quit shaming men!!!”

    Do you realize how illogical this sounds, and how much of a passing-the-buck it comes off as? “We’re mighty men of God! We stand for truth, the Word, we’re bold! We ‘know the law’ but……that soyboy pastor needs to step up and lead!”

    As if. Many of you are more than qualified to lead a church, why don’t you try to?

  211. DR Smith says:

    @ Dalrock

    Instead, maybe we point these virtuous single christian mothers to this wonderfully helpful article on how to live your best life single without a partner: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-art-of-being-single-11553005457?mod=hp_lead_pos11.

  212. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    So again BillyS…like every topic on Dalrock….what are you men doing about in your own churches?
    You calling out single mothers?

    Yes.

    You calling out women who divorced for un-Biblical reasons?

    Yes.

    None of you are doing nothing of the sort; yet talking all tough about what a churchianity pastor “should” be doing…….how many of you standing up to your Bishops? Deacons? PriestsPastors, and other “leaders”

    Right here.

    Are you “leaving” your churches because they don’t make a stand on this

    Yes.

    Additionally, I’m bringing up nine children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4) We read the entire Bible, verse by verse, and I specifically, and intentionally cover every scripture on marriage, family, etc., without equivocation or watering any of it down. I also point out to them how everything the Bible teaches us on these subjects is anathema to the World. Which is the best thing a father could do.

    Now, back to you, Jason. What are you doing about it?

  213. Joe2 says:

    @ Charles B

    I understood Pr Parkison’s comment to mean he would have written to the single women in the church looking to get married, “Single Christian dads are so pure and holy that a woman who has accepted Christ doesn’t deserve him” if single Christian dads were available. (And I would add that single Christian dads with two or more children from different mothers might even be given bonus points.)

    His point may have no merit biblically, but at least it seems he is an equal opportunity employer in this regard.

  214. Oscar says:

    @ Joe2

    His point may have no merit biblically, but at least it seems he is an equal opportunity employer in this regard.

    You’re giving him far too much credit, Joe.

    If Pastor Parkison wanted to be fair, he would have emphasized repentance, sweetness, submission, and gratitude to the single moms. He would have also explained to the men in the audience the risks of marrying a single mom. He would’ve explained how to tell if she’s actually repentant, or only looking for a mark. He would’ve explained the struggles and burdens inherent to raising another man’s child(ren). Finally, he would’ve explained that the men of the church are under no obligation to marry single moms, but if they choose to do so, the church would enforce both spouses’ marriage vows through church discipline.

    That would’ve been fair, but Pastor Parkison did none of that. Why not? Because he had no intention to be fair.

  215. seventiesjason says:

    Oscar. I took off my Salvation Army uniform, informed them when they wanted to be a holiness movement that called for the repentance of sin, fighting for the “worst of society to reclaim them for the Kingdom and rebuild them for service in this world” and stated “when you are ready to have urine, rotten eggs and bricks thrown at you again….I’ll be in front leading the Corps to battle”

    My actions in the Army demonstrated this over and over again in my eight years of humbly wearing a uniform for the call

    I am churchless now, and have been for almost two years. I do attend “sally army” Holiness Meetings here and there. I still know some upstanding people I know in the Army.

    I have suffered for it, and it times I wonder if I was a bit too rash……but I wanted a city turned on its head from sin, and I wanted a Corps that marched. More concerned with trivial matters instead what God raised us up for.

    I still do street ministry in my new city, and I venture into areas where the big shots would dare never set foot….they’re too good and self-righteous for that. A very Homer Simpson, sloppy evangelism of “let someone else do it”

    I am currently trying to befriend a pack of skater-gutter rats and ratteess at an abandoned apt complex not too far away from me. I repaired two of their skateboards (former excellent dekker and boarder here) and I brought food one night…….so am gaining some trust……my goal is to heal, repair and rebuild in His name.

    I don’t have the gift of intelligence, or diagnostics of “what Jesus *really* meant, not do I have the arrogance to just say I am better than anyone.

    This is not a peeing standing up contest, but I left a church……and I am very lonely

  216. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    How do you know what I am doing?

    I have raised some very sensitive topics and gotten more than a bit shunned for it in many churches. That is not for you to question however. I am very tempted to leave my current church over things like this, though I don’t see any others as being much better, so I don’t see the point in that for a principled stand. I am alone enough as it is, being even more alone is not a good direction and even my peanut brain can see that. Good thing you are so much smarter than me!

    Your past can influence your future. You argue for and against it at the same time. Would you like some more hypocrisy with your coffee/tea/water?

    I tend to believe I am not qualified to lead a church due to my divorce, even if it was outside my control. Though while I definitely have a prophetic bent, I am not a pastor by any stretch of the imagination. I would fail spectacularly at that.

    Oscar,

    Now, back to you, Jason. What are you doing about it?

    He is aiding those Dalrocks mentions – he is focusing on how bad we are, even if he has to make it up! And he AMOGs a bit, to tell us how much he is doing!

    Jason,

    This is not a peeing standing up contest, but I left a church……and I am very lonely

    You are making it that Jason. You are not the only lonely one here. You at least still have some family (you mentioned a brother). Some of us don’t even have that much.

    You could do much better, but you keep refusing to open your eyes and admit you are not the only one in a rough spot.

  217. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Roger

    “I’m old enough to remember when it was the commonly accepted practice for children born out of wedlock to be put up for adoption…he was immediately adopted by a loving family”

    The law of supply and demand would eventually render this policy inadequate. The existing surplus of potential loving, middle- to upper-class parents would dry up, deteriorating the positive statistics. Artificially increasing supply harms those who need families now. Many children are available to foster and adopt (100,000+), but most couples only want a perfect infant. Encourage adoption for need (special needs) not want (normal infants) [James 1:27]. To increase infants available for adoption, decrease abortions.

  218. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Charlotte

    “She did not expect the stigma of single motherhood to follow her for the rest of her life and assumed marriage would have given her the same status as other married mothers. She also resented that marrying her made her husband an object of permanent pity to the rest of his family and social circle.”

    In an anti-Christian culture, there is no forgiveness of sins, even after repentance. She is made to feel guilt for her sin. In an anti-patriarchal society, there is no respect for the authority and right of a man to “make an honest woman out of her.” He is pitied and his judgement questioned.

    Jason correctly noted…

    “The comments are alluding strongly that “single mothers can’t repent, won’t repent, or if she does…..she really didn’t mean it””

    …and…

    “Where is this “grace” thing that we Christians speak about? Where is the love, the joy, the excitement in watching a new believer who has repented and is indeed growing, striving, and changing?”

    When a single-mother repents, it should be cause for joy and support, not shame.

  219. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Derek Ramsey

    How many single mothers have you interacted with? In the last 5 years? Not casually at the store, but actually in conversation?

  220. Anon says:

    And he AMOGs a bit, to tell us how much he is doing!

    I think you mean OMOG. ‘A’ stands for ‘Alpha’, and Jason is anything but. He is an Omega, hence ‘Omog’.

  221. seventiesjason says:

    coming from a guy who “banged” a few Polish girls……..surly he is on the level of Trump, well known CEO’s / CFO’s, exceptional published writers, leaders in science, academia and Christ Himself….who called Himself “the alpha and omega”

    So even if your silly classification were true Anon………and me being some omega…….the Savior makes it clear he is that and all in between. I’ll take his definition and encompassment over yours

  222. Scott says:

    As a follow up to my comment WAY upthread.

    Sometimes I think about all the popular music from my time and even today (alot of it by country singers in their forties who were in high school in the eighties) and I feel that the bridge back to holiness is a bridge too far. That is, I know there are a lot of men around here who have been obeying scripture and resisted having sex, or they are incel, or they have only ever been with their wives.

    For example, I know this song is actually a metaphor for america’s innocence lost in the wake of the WWII generation growing up and facing the cold war craziness off mutally assured desctruction, but listening to it on its face, is calming to me.

    Just lay your head back on the ground
    let your hair fall around me
    offer up your best defense
    this is the end of the innocence

    or this one…

    I go back to the feel of the fifty yard line
    a blanket, a girl, some raspberry wine

    High school was like that for me. And it seemed totally normal, even “healthy.” It is impossible for me to have become “me” without that life, as sinful as I understand it to be now. I know the “I didn’t have guidance and guard rails” argument will not save me on judgement day. I get that. I know “we were stupid kids” won’t work either.

    And it continued right up to 2007 when I married my wife. I was living with the girlfriend I had right before Mychael for the first two year of graduate school.

    It is what makes me feel so hypocritical when I tell my own kids to do not as I did, but as I say. If I had the chance to go back and erase all of it? Who would I be now? I am not sure. Its complicated, in other words.

  223. Scott says:

    Whoops

    That was supposed to be in the hospitality thread

  224. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott, it works in either thread.

    “Do as I say, not as I did” is surely common for a lot of people now, and is bound to cause some difficult moments of the “Yeah, I know, but ….” sort. Does not change what is right, though.

    Hey, what are we doing up this late?

  225. CSI says:

    Actually I may have been using the wrong term when I said Parkison despised Christian men. It would seem to be more accurate to say he assumes men are morally inferior to women. Like naughty children or military recruits, then need to be bought into line by some tough love – telling them what to do and only offering the faintest praise.

    My personal views, for example, are considered by most to be very strict, so the single moms I have in mind for this post are those who became single moms by virtue of unwedded pregnancies or the death of their husbands, and not by divorce.
    This implies he believes most divorced women are divorced because they have been discarded by their husbands. Of course in most cases now its the wife who instigates the divorce.

    Many single Christian men in our churches bemoan the fact that they desire to be married, but can’t seem to find a wife. Perhaps the problem is that their “market” is too narrowly defined.
    So the majority of single Christian men are “red pilled” now and are arbitrary rejecting single mothers? Or is it the case that the single mothers are doing most of the rejecting because the single Christian men in their circles are not wealthy or attractive enough for their tastes?

  226. Oscar says:

    @ Jason

    This statement…

    … not do I have the arrogance to just say I am better than anyone.

    … is 100% at odds with these statements.

    None of you are doing nothing of the sort..
    ……….
    None of yo are doing nothing of the sort…
    ……….
    I still do street ministry in my new city, and I venture into areas where the big shots would dare never set foot….they’re too good and self-righteous for that. A very Homer Simpson, sloppy evangelism of “let someone else do it”

    You falsely accuse other of not doing anything, knowing nothing about what they do outside this blog, then you set yourself up as the one who’s willing to do what others won’t do, then you – oh so humbly – claim that you lack “the arrogance to just say” you are “better than anyone”.

  227. squid_hunt says:

    I, even I only remain…

    Pretty typical attitude of a lot of street preachers I’ve seen. Not that I’m opposed to the practice, just the attitude.

  228. Warthog says:

    In other news, leftist cat ladies are on the rise.

  229. Gaius Gracchus says:

    Dalrock, this whole post was a trick question: women almost universally avoid taking responsibility for the actions, especially with regards to sex and relationships. Sure, some men are bad at this too, but more often men take blame for the actions of others, especially their women.

    As I tell my children, taking responsibilty is a show of power and strength. Avoiding responsibility is a sign of weakness. True repentance requires taking responsibility. And Satan works hard to get people to avoid taking responsibility.

  230. seventiesjason says:

    Because Oscar, you asked me “what am I doing” and I told you. Now I am arrogant?
    And you picked from two different replies to make myself look bad……Democrats are famous for this.

  231. Anon says:

    Jason said :

    and me being some omega…….

    By your own admission, you are an Omega. You said that you have never kissed a girl, despite ample advantages that might enable a man to do so. You *are* an Omega.

  232. seventiesjason says:

    “Rational Male” most of this material is lifted straight from Nathaniel Bradshaw from his lectures, writings and essays from the 1950’s / early 1960’s with “Objectivism” (He was a Ayn Rand protege)

    He renounced most of it by the 1990’s because it set one up for impossible standards that society could not stand by on all levels, at all times

  233. seventiesjason says:

    Great Anon. I’m an omega…….women don’t care, most men don’t care, society at large doesn’t care, the church doesn’t care…..but only men like you care…….great……..you threw a label on me that means nothing to 99% of the planet.

  234. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    Because Oscar, you asked me “what am I doing” and I told you. Now I am arrogant?

    I never stated that you’re arrogant. I stated that your statements contradict each other. Because they contradict each other, they can’t all be true simultaneously. I don’t know which is true, or if all are false, but I do know that they can’t all be true simultaneously.

    And you picked from two different replies to make myself look bad……Democrats are famous for this.

    You know what else Democrats are famous for? Getting upset when one quotes them accurately.

    They’re your words. You chose them. No one forced you to type them. Do you stand behind your words, or don’t you? If your words, quoted accurately, make you look bad, then why did you type them?

  235. seventiesjason says:

    And you picked from two different replies to make myself look bad……Democrats are famous for this

    Oscar…..get a grip. I chose these words, you didn’t like them………I stated what I did when was asked. No, I am not married, and no me speaking up in church concerning the issues of marriage, or the trials of one I probably have no business speaking on…..but I speak what I know, and what I do. I don’t like boasting……and I expect zero reward, recognition or gold stars, or a check on my list for being a good Christian.

    Please get a grip. You’re really becoming a bore over this incessant hairsplitting. God read a credit card application if you want to hairsplit, or a lease in my building

  236. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    And you picked from two different replies to make myself look bad……Democrats are famous for this

    No. I quoted you exactly. Your statements contradict each other. Which is true? Are any of them true?

    Oscar…..get a grip. I chose these words, you didn’t like them…

    I never stated that I “don’t like” your statements. “Like” is irrelevant. I stated that your statements contradict each other, and therefore they can’t all be true simultaneously. So, which are true, Jason? Are any of them true? Does truth matter?

    ……I stated what I did when was asked. No, I am not married, and no me speaking up in church concerning the issues of marriage, or the trials of one I probably have no business speaking on…..

    But you do speak on the trials of others. For example, you wrote the following…

    So again BillyS…like every topic on Dalrock….what are you men doing about in your own churches?
    You calling out single mothers?

    That’s you speaking on the trials Billy went through with his church and his marriage. So, if you, by your own words, “probably have no business speaking on” another man’s trials, or “the issues of marriage”, then why did you write that?

    “…but I speak what I know…”

    Like when you wrote this?

    None of you are doing nothing of the sort; yet talking all tough about what a churchianity pastor “should” be doing…….how many of you standing up to your Bishops? Deacons? PriestsPastors, and other “leaders”

    How do you know what any of us do outside this blog? By the way, you’re wrong. I’ve done exactly that, and so have others on this blog. So, why are you speaking what you don’t know?

    I don’t like boasting……and I expect zero reward, recognition or gold stars, or a check on my list for being a good Christian.

    And yet, here’s you again…

    I still do street ministry in my new city, and I venture into areas where the big shots would dare never set foot….they’re too good and self-righteous for that. A very Homer Simpson, sloppy evangelism of “let someone else do it”

    …. referring to other men as “big shots”, “too good and self-righteous”, “Homer Simpson”, and “sloppy”, who won’t do what you do.

    Please get a grip. You’re really becoming a bore over this incessant hairsplitting.

    If you don’t want me to point out the obvious contradictions in what you write, you could try not contradicting yourself. Alternately, you could point out why those statements don’t contradict each other. But of course, you can’t do that, because they’re obvious contradictions. And because they’re obvious contradictions, they can’t all be true. So, which are true, Jason? Are any of them true? Does truth matter?

  237. seventiesjason says:

    Again, you are splicing the comments in a way from two different replies, and again are hellbent to prove how right you are. Okay Osacr. You are right.

    Very good. You called out a “hypocrite” and I am sure your mansion in heaven will be a bit bigger than mine. Very good. You did your daily deed for protecting the church and Christianity for all men out there.

    Very good. Now get over yourself.

  238. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    Again, you are splicing the comments in a way from two different replies

    So, you say one thing to one person, and just minutes later, you say something to a different person that contradicts what you said earlier, and you think that’s okay?

    If one person asked me if my wife was pregnant, and I said “yes”, then, minutes later, another person asked me if my wife was pregnant, and I said “no”, would you think I was telling the truth?

    Of course you wouldn’t, because “yes” and “no” contradict each other, and it doesn’t matter if I contradicted myself in two different replies, as you did. It’s still a contradiction, and therefore, the two statements can’t both be true simultaneously.

    So, which of your statements is true, Jason? Are any of them true? Does truth matter?

  239. seventiesjason says:

    Have a great day Oscar!

  240. Hank Flanders says:

    seventiesjason

    I still do street ministry in my new city,

    This is respectable and fair enough, as it’s not boastful and is just a statement of fact.

    and I venture into areas where the big shots would dare never set foot….they’re too good and self-righteous for that. A very Homer Simpson, sloppy evangelism of “let someone else do it”

    Even if you in fact are the stronger brother, I think you’d be pretty hard-pressed to argue that this attitude is one we’re supposed to have in light of Romans 14. While we certainly can and should judge behavior, as it’s something that is visible to us, we cannot see people’s motives, and nor do we know what specific ministries God has called them to, either (1 Cor 12).

  241. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    Have a great day Oscar!

    I am, thanks. You do so as well.

  242. They Call Me Tom says:

    Thanks for the clarification Dalrock. Sorry for my misunderstanding Bee.

  243. They Call Me Tom says:

    To the question posed… I don’t think the vows could change the perceived risks of marrying a single mother. But humility could. I’m not sure Solomon ever asked, ‘A humble woman who can find?’ But if he lived in these days, he probably would. If women as a rule were more humble, they would find men, as a rule, to be more forgiving. (As a rule meaning more likely than not, to the point that the aberrations were the rare exception).

  244. feministhater says:

    When a single-mother repents, it should be cause for joy and support, not shame.

    When a murderer repents, it should be a cause for joy and support, not shame.
    When a pedophile repents, it should be a cause for joy and support, not shame.
    When a corrupt official repents, it should be a cause for joy and support, not shame.
    When a rapist repents, it should be a cause for joy and support, not shame.

    Whilst what you said sounds nice and all, it really doesn’t mean what you mean it to me. Whilst it is good that a sinner repents, there are still consequences. A single mother no more deserves support than a rapist, murdering pedophile does. She doesn’t deserve marriage, she does deserve shame though, for her sin. As all sinners do.

  245. Bee says:

    TCM Tom,

    No problem. Have a good day, and a good weekend.

  246. The Interpreter says:

    The Dutch Reformed already do this, both in the Netherlands and in their diaspora (including in the U.S.). The minister’s eye-to-eye address to the couple, when he dismounts the pulpit after the wedding sermon or the infant baptism sermon, will invariably include a remark on the sin of premarital or out-of-wedlock sex if that has happened, and will acknowledge publicly that it has been repented of.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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